Home Asides MTA IG uncovers chain-link fence fraud

MTA IG uncovers chain-link fence fraud

by Benjamin Kabak

Did you hear the one about the chain-link fence company submitting bogus work claims? That’s the focus of Pete Donohue’s column today, and the story is an odd one. Apparently, the MTA contracted with Long Island-based the American Chain Link & Construction company in the “early 2000s” to provide fencing around various transit properties. The company submitted invoice “devoid of any backup documentation to explain what expenses the company had incurred for such things as materials, equipment rentals and labor, according to the inspector general’s office” and got paid anyway.

At some point, the MTA Inspector General got wind of the fraud and began investigating. Only 14 of 100 invoices had enough detail to allow the IG to examine the work, and all but one of those were deemed fraudulent. Suffolk County authorities claim the lack of documentation meant they could pinpoint only $31,000 in fraudulent charges while the case settled for a guilty plea and the forfeiture of $60,000 the MTA still owes American. Donohue even mentions that “bus managers in the same transit agency, meanwhile, routinely challenged American’s bills and paid less than what the company initially sought.” What a strange story.

You may also like

3 comments

Scott E June 13, 2011 - 5:21 pm

I’ve heard of cases where companies submit invoices to businesses (usually office-supply companies) which are of a small enough amount that they get paid without any scruitiny – or checks to see if a purchase was even made. This sounds quite similar. It also shows the problem with operating each division in its own silo; if purchasing were handled by one group MTA-wide, you wouldn’t see this disparity between bus and subway divisions.

One other thing that I find quite peculiar: the article makes several references to the Suffolk County DA’s office. However, the subways exist only in four of the five boroughs, and the fence company (according to the article) is located in Massapequa, Nassau County.

Reply
pete June 14, 2011 - 9:23 am

Having 1 AP dept means it will be even harder to get anything approved, and when it is approved, it is more likely to be only through special connections. Keeping the APs local means they will be more responsive.

Reply
JP June 13, 2011 - 6:44 pm

Corruption, scandal and fraud? In our fair city? say it ain’t so!

Reply

Leave a Comment