A government conference room table holds contract papers and travel receipts beside a map connecting Sacramento and Denver.The rail authority board voted to require advance attorney approval for contract decisions within the CEO’s $25 million delegated authority.The rail authority board voted to require advance attorney approval for contract decisions within the CEO’s $25 million delegated authority.

The California High-Speed Rail Authority board voted 7-2 to require advance approval from authority attorneys for contract decisions within CEO Ian Choudri’s $25 million delegated authority. The action followed an inspector general review and records showing out-of-state consultant travel despite a contract commitment to base key staff in Sacramento. The inspector general found more than $76,000 in travel costs for key personnel between 2024 and 2026, while records raised questions about one consultant’s attendance and billing rate without establishing improper charges. The authority cited the governor’s return-to-office order, and the contract itself required key staff to work in Sacramento. The board must address remaining oversight concerns; the excerpt identifies no further deadline or completed resolution.

TLDR: The rail authority board has added attorney approval to contract decisions within the CEO’s $25 million delegated authority. Records show consultant travel and billing questions, but do not establish that the charges were unauthorized.

California’s High-Speed Rail Authority board has tightened oversight of contract decisions after questions arose about consultant travel and spending. The board voted 7-2 to require advance approval from authority attorneys for decisions within CEO Ian Choudri’s delegated contracting authority of up to $25 million. The vote followed an inspector general investigation and reporting on travel expenses charged to the rail project.

The authority defended flying consultants to its Sacramento office by citing Gov. Gavin Newsom’s return-to-office order for state workers. The contract also required key personnel to work in Sacramento. Those stated reasons set out the policy context, but records show that three of six key positions were held by consultants who did not relocate.

The firm, the SYSTRA|TYPSA Joint Venture, holds a $131.2 million contract to design track and overhead electrical systems. Its proposal said key personnel were “100% committed to relocating to Sacramento.” Yet travel records and other materials reviewed by CBS California show repeated trips from Denver and Texas, including travel by the current digital manager and design engineering manager. Both replaced employees named in the contract, and records indicate neither the original employees nor their replacements moved to Sacramento.

Robert Kennah, the firm’s principal-in-charge, also signed an April 2024 commitment to work full time in Sacramento. Records show he instead flew in from Denver two to five times a month. CBS California identified 25 trips or travel claims from July 2024 through May 2025, with airfare, hotels and ground transportation billed to taxpayers. After a contract manager reminded the firm of its Sacramento staffing requirements in December 2024, the trips fell to about once a month, but travel costs continued through May 2025.

The inspector general found that the authority paid more than $76,000 for key personnel to travel from out of state between 2024 and 2026. Investigators heard that a senior consultant needed to work with a Denver-based team. The watchdog questioned why taxpayers should cover travel costs arising from the firm’s staffing arrangements. The authority did not answer CBS California’s specific questions about the travel and billing.

Office photographs supplied by whistleblowers show a whiteboard tracking who was expected in the Sacramento office. Across about nine months of photographs, Kennah’s initials indicate a consistent three-day-per-week in-office pattern. The board is not a verified attendance record, and it does not establish where he worked or whether he billed improperly. It does raise questions about how the authority checked the staffing commitment and applied the contract’s rates.

The billing records add another point for review. Kennah’s hourly rate rose nearly 23% to $505.91 shortly after Choudri became CEO. The contract’s calculation allows eligible consultants to receive a higher rate when working from a home office rather than the Sacramento headquarters, while the contract lists Sacramento as Kennah’s office and specifies the lower rate. Records indicate that he billed the higher rate consistently after Choudri took over, including when records placed him in Sacramento. The authority did not answer questions about who approved the rate or whether Kennah qualified. The records do not establish that an invoice contained an unauthorized charge.

The broader project figures make the review consequential. California has spent more than $15 billion over nearly three decades, yet has not laid a mile of high-speed rail track. The project recently lost $4 billion in federal funding and could run out of money by the end of 2027. Meanwhile, the authority paid four consulting contractors more than $250 million over two fiscal years, and all four were examined in an inspector general investigation into travel expenses. Whistleblowers also said that absent decision-makers made it harder for state employees to get answers, hold meetings and move the project forward.

The board’s vote changes how contract decisions are handled: decisions within Choudri’s $25 million delegated authority now require advance approval from authority attorneys. The practical costs identified in the records include airfare, hotel stays and ground transportation, including travel that continued after the December 2024 reminder. The excerpt does not specify new forms, a compliance deadline, or a finding that the questioned billing was improper. The board will have to address the outstanding oversight questions, and the required approvals are a necessary step in monitoring compliance. The records provide no basis for assuming that the review has resolved every concern.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *