Continued from page 1

In addition to concluding that Mr. Gandhi’s office “materially changed” the lottery award after its approval to include iGaming, the inspector general in his report found that Mr. Bailey’s company misrepresented its business activities during its bid for the lottery contract, as reported by The Washington Times in 2010.

Mr. Wells and Mr. Evans reserved specific comment on Mr. Bailey and his 51 percent take in the lottery contract, though Mr. Evans expressed reservations about the award and the approval process.

“It really comes out in the inspector general’s report that decisions were not the wisest,” Mr. Evans said. “The report found no illegality, but the process could have been better. It’s the largest contract in the District, and it hasn’t come up for review in how many years? There’s a lot of money at stake, and politicians and people were jockeying for position. We ended up with something not squeaky clean and full of political machinations.

“It doesn’t give the public confidence. If a bill were introduced that brought further review of the lottery contract, I’d support that and further review of qualifications in light of issues the inspector general raised.”

The lottery contract attracted media attention when a firm whose founder had ties to former Mayor Adrian M. Fenty, a Democrat, partnered with Intralot and won the award in 2008. However, after then-council Chairman Vincent C. Gray and his colleagues — including Mr. Evans — scuttled the award, a second round of bidding went largely unexamined.

But after a contract officer fired by Mr. Gandhi sued the city claiming retaliation for resisting political pressure during the procurement process, The Times examined the process in a series of articles in 2010 that showed irregularities, along with Mr. Gray playing a key role in moving aside one local vendor in favor of another.

When Peter J. Nickles, then the city’s attorney general, and David P. Gragan, then the chief procurement officer, asked the inspector general to investigate the lottery contract, Mr. Willoughby said his office would act.

More than a year later, after news reports showed that Mr. Brown failed to disclose his ties to a firm that works in the gambling industry and after a small but vocal grass-roots movement objected to iGaming, The Times found that key witnesses still had not been interviewed, and it reported that the lottery investigation had never gotten off the ground, prompting Mr. Evans to contact Mr. Willoughby.

“It was only after I asked him to do it that he moved it forward, and by then iGaming became the focus,” Mr. Evans said, noting that the report is the product of a delayed investigation that went far enough to signal the need for further council review.

Mr. Gray’s office last week insisted the inspector general’s report exonerates him of misconduct. Yet Mr. Gray, a Democrat who is now mayor, also has said the inspector general never interviewed him.

“I’m disappointed the report was not more expansive,” Mr. Evans said. “I wish [the inspector general] had gone further in his investigation of the lottery contract, but there’s no reason he could not still do it.”