Campbell Backs Springfield Project Tied to Pressley’s Husband Amid Conflict Claims

By Sam Drysdale

Attorney General Andrea Campbell is backing the state’s controversial Springfield courthouse procurement, calling a legal complaint from losing bidders “nothing more than a fever dream of imagined malfeasance.” 

Campbell’s office filed her legal filing late on Wednesday in a case that rejected developers Jeb Balise and Dinesh Patel brought against the Division of Capital Assets Management and Maintenance (DCAMM) and Liberty Junction, the winning company owned in part by interim Massachusetts Convention Center Authority director John Barros and Conan Harris, U.S. Congresswoman Ayanna Pressley’s husband. 

Barros and Harris’s involvement have raised concerns about conflict of interest, fueling the lawsuit and public outcries, and Barros divested from the project last week. 

Campbell forcefully rejected the conflict-of-interest argument in her brief.

“Plaintiffs’ Complaint is nothing more than a fever dream of imagined malfeasance in aid of Plaintiffs’ attempt to elevate their own financial interests over the public’s interest in a newly constructed judicial center that will serve the public for decades and would save the taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars. Plaintiff’s disappointment and furious speculation, however, cannot stand up against the facts: DCAMM’s procurement was proper,” she wrote. 

The attorney general has drawn criticism for office’s work in defending DCAMM. 

The Massachusetts Fiscal Alliance argued Campbell is improperly using state resources to defend political allies.

“Taxpayers deserve confidence that major public construction projects are awarded fairly, transparently, and in full compliance with the law,” Executive Director Paul Craney said. “Instead of supporting efforts to ensure accountability, the Attorney General has chosen to defend the state’s ability to proceed with a contract that remains under judicial scrutiny and public outcry.” 

Craney questioned Campbell’s involvement given contributions to her campaign from individuals associated with companies involved in the project and her political relationship with Pressley, with whom she served on the Boston City Council. 

“The prudent course is to pause until the legal issues have been resolved,” he said. “State government should be held to the same standard before committing billions of taxpayer dollars to another major capital project.” 

In its filing, the attorney general’s office argued the plaintiffs cannot satisfy the legal standard necessary to halt the procurement while the lawsuit proceeds. 

“Plaintiffs have not met, and cannot meet, their burden to show a likelihood of success on the merits of irreparable harm,” it says, adding that “the public will suffer harm if the procurement process is enjoined while Plaintiffs pursue through litigation what they could not achieve through a competitive public procurement process.”

The filing repeatedly argues that the unsuccessful bidders are attempting to relitigate a procurement they lost on fair grounds, rather than identify legal defects within the state’s evaluation process. 

“The right to submit a proposal does not create a right to be selected, and Plaintiffs cannot dispute that their proposals were received and considered by the selection committee,” she wrote. 

The attorney general also defended the state’s decision that Liberty Junction offered the strongest overall proposal, including “better light, better layout, and better access to public transportation,” and that it would provide court users “easier and more convenient access to the Court, and thus, access to justice.” 

Campbell points to cost differences among the competing proposals, noting that Patel’s Springfield Tower proposal “was not even selected as one of the final four” while Balise’s USPB proposal, though shortlisted, “would cost the taxpayers approximately $420 million more than Liberty Junction’s proposal.” 

DCAMM last month publicly released the complete procurement record following weeks of criticism over the selection process. 

According to the agency, Liberty Junction’s proposal was projected to save taxpayers $296 million over the initial 40-year lease compared to the finalist with the next lowest bid. The records showed 10 proposals were submitted before four finalists were selected for interviews.

The lawsuit alleges the procurement was tainted by conflicts of interest tied to Harris and Barros, who became interim head of the MCCA while DCAMM was evaluating proposals, and challenges whether the winning team satisfied all bid requirements. 

On Thursday, Balise and Patel formally asked Inspector General Jeffrey Shapiro to investigate the procurement. 

“These allegations warrant an immediate and independent investigation before taxpayers commit to a nearly $2 billion, 40-year project,,” Balise said in a statement announcing the request. “We are asking the Inspector General to review this procurement with the urgency and diligence the public deserves so that everyone can have confidence in the process and the result..” 

Their attorneys argued the procurement raises questions involving “conflict-of-interest, site-control, and procurement issues,” alleging Barros failed to promptly disclose his financial interest after assuming his state position and contending DCAMM inconsistently applied its own conflict-of-interest policies. 

Barros contends in an affidavit filed in Hampden Superior Court that he informed the State Ethics Commission before officially accepting the MCCA job and stayed out of the procurement process moving forward. 

The plaintiff’s attorneys also argue the winning proposal failed to satisfy the request for proposals’ site-control requirements. 

Hampden Superior Court is scheduled to hear arguments Tuesday on the developers’ request for a preliminary injunction that would temporarily halt the procurement while the case proceeds. The judge’s decision could determine whether DCAMM can move forward with final lease negotiations for what would become the new Springfield Regional Justice Center, intended to replace the Roderick L. Ireland Courthouse and consolidate court operations that spread across multiple downtown buildings.