OKLAHOMA CITY (OBV) — State Auditor Cindy Byrd’s investigative report on the Oklahoma Turnpike Authority found no “egregious wrongdoing” and no significant statutory noncompliance, concluding the agency is operating within its extensive legal authority to plan projects, issue bonds and acquire land for ACCESS Oklahoma, which is the largest infrastructure reinvestment program in turnpike history.
The audit also recaps core mechanics that underpin the system. Auditors reported no noncompliance in bond documentation, including OTA’s multi‑step validation and rating pathway, and no statutory issues with land acquisition. They also found the Gilcrease Turnpike financing structure to be in line with law, noting its $120.1 million TIFIA loan and that Gilcrease revenues are not cross‑pledged with the broader system.
The report’s recommendations focus on documentation and oversight and include: recording how consultant fees are negotiated to meet the “barest minimum” cost standard, reinforcing independence when firms hold multiple roles, monitoring subconsultants and improving verification around Highway Patrol billing.
OTA issued a written response committing to specific “next steps,” including standardizing consultant‑selection and fee‑negotiation files under Title 61 and 69 O.S. §708.2, explicitly referencing that statute in future board items for on‑demand contracts, refining invoice review and subconsultant tracking, maintaining stricter separation between program management and design teams, modernizing its DPS/OHP agreement for clearer billing and patrol verification, and updating surplus‑property policy with post‑auction reporting to the board.
Poe & Associates, the ACCESS Oklahoma program manager and one of OTA’s 12 prime engineering consultants cast the audit as confirmation that the user‑fee model and OTA’s oversight framework are functioning as intended.
David Streb, president of Poe, said: “First and foremost, the OTA follows the Qualifications Based Selection (QBS) law found in title 61 which has also been in place nationally since 1972. Firms are selected based on their qualifications and experience to provide the engineering work. Upon selection a scope of work is then agreed upon and then fairly negotiated. If the negotiation fails then the client can go to the number two firm on the qualifications list and begin with scope and fee with that firm.”
For context, the American Council of Engineering Companies (ACEC) of Oklahoma says QBS is the established best practice for procuring engineering services under state law, and a 2022 national study tied QBS to lower cost growth (3% vs. 6%), less schedule growth (7% vs. 10%), and higher owner satisfaction.
Gene Wyckoff, a Poe vice president who leads the ACCESS program management team, described the broader test the agency has just come through.
“Between last year’s LOFT report and this year’s publishing of the multi‑year investigative audit, the OTA has been thoroughly tested and found to be sound.”
He added: “The State of Oklahoma maintains the nation’s 4th lowest gas tax (the tax revenue stream that funds the ODOT transportation system) and the 9th lowest toll rate in the nation supporting the 17th largest roadway network. That contrast is possible, in part, due to the laws that support the existence and operation of the OTA’s ability to fund, build, and maintain new major necessary transportation routes in our state. The OTA removes the burden of major new transportation investments from the state‑funded ODOT system allowing the tax burden of Oklahoman’s to remain low. Not to mention that 50 percent of the OTA’s annual toll revenues are from out-of-state motorists further lessening the burden on Oklahoma’s taxpayers for infrastructure”
Auditors also urged clearer separation of duties when firms hold multiple roles on ACCESS.
In response to a question about how those lines are kept intact, Wyckoff said: “At Poe, we pride ourselves at being among the best‑in‑industry in multiple different discipline areas including program management, engineering design, right‑of‑way acquisition, utility relocation, and construction management. We have the ability to be very intentional on our internal staffing for each project to ensure proper separation exists and inappropriate overlap doesn’t occur. In addition to our efforts, the OTA has dedicated staff assigned to oversight of the ACCESS Program. We work hand‑in‑hand with that staff every day and they are another layer of accountability to intentional staffing assignments.”
On fees, Wyckoff said the fundamentals mirror standard public‑sector practice across infrastructure markets.
“A very important point to make is that fee proposals and negotiations for design consultants in transportation projects are not unique. The basics are no different than other professional service fee proposals across all infrastructure markets. Most negotiations with an owner focus on ensuring that the time required to complete the project is in line with expectations and the cost of the people is appropriate for the level of expertise required. Both consultants and owners can typically rely on information from similar past projects as a basis. The negotiations that OTA has with its consultants are very similar to the ones our industry has with other agencies and municipalities. For OTA on the ACCESS Program, in Poe’s role as program managers, we provide an administrative review of each proposal for accuracy, but we are not involved in the actual fee negotiations between OTA and the consultant.”
Wyckoff said the written report differed from some statements at the press conference and in media coverage, and he characterized the recommendations as fine‑tuning a process that already works. He added that large organizations with many moving parts can benefit from outside perspectives to identify improvements, and he said the audit will help the Authority continue its best practices. OTA has already stated that it’s open to a future performance audit.
