Maryland Lottery Contract Withdrawn from Intralot

Intralot, the multinational lottery and gaming solutions provider, is considering legal action after the Maryland Lottery and Gaming Control Commission (MLGCC) rescinded a $260 million contract awarded to its U.S. subsidiary. The withdrawal comes just weeks after the company had publicly announced it was the recommended bidder for the decade-long project.

The reversal marks a significant development in Maryland’s ongoing effort to modernize its lottery infrastructure. According to Intralot, the MLGCC cited an alleged failure to meet the minimum required subcontracting percentage for local businesses as the primary reason for the contract’s rejection. Intralot disputes the claim, arguing it exceeded the requirement and provided extensive documentation during the bidding process.

 

• Maryland Lottery withdrew Intralot’s $260 million contract citing alleged failure to meet local subcontracting requirements.

• Intralot claims it exceeded subcontracting thresholds and provided full transparency, calling the withdrawal “a great surprise.”

• The company is considering all legal options to protect shareholder interests and challenges the decision as financially disadvantageous for Maryland.

A Reversal After Recommendation

On July 17, Intralot announced that the MLGCC had formally approved awarding the Lottery Central Monitoring and Control System contract to its U.S. arm. The deal would have included the manufacturing of terminals and vending machines for roughly 4,300 Maryland Lottery retailers, alongside the development and maintenance of the system’s software infrastructure.

The contract was slated to run for ten years, with a potential five-year extension, and carried a total estimated value of $260,393,946. Intralot emphasized that its proposal was not only technically robust but also offered the most financially favorable terms compared to competing bids.

 

Subcontracting Requirement at Issue

The MLGCC has not issued a detailed public explanation for the contract's rejection, beyond citing an alleged shortfall in local subcontractor involvement. Intralot, however, contends that it exceeded the local subcontracting threshold outlined in the Request for Proposals (RFP) and had provided the Commission with full transparency regarding its subcontractors’ roles.

“This decision comes as a great surprise,” the company said in a statement, noting that “the Commission initially ruled that all participants in the bidding process complied with the requirements of the relevant RFP.” The company asserts that the MLGCC was not only aware of its subcontractor structure but had also acknowledged its compliance during earlier stages of the procurement process.

Intralot said it is currently reviewing its legal options and is prepared to pursue “every legal remedy available” to safeguard shareholder interests. “The bid submitted by Intralot, Inc is technically sound and by far the most financially advantageous,” the company stated. “Should it not be accepted, the State of Maryland stands to lose a substantial financial benefit.”

The company did not provide a timeline for any potential legal action.

 

This decision comes as a great surprise, especially considering that Intralot, Inc had allocated a significantly higher percentage of the project to local subcontractors than the minimum required.

 

Broader Implications

The dispute underscores the challenges state agencies face in balancing competitive procurement with regulatory compliance, particularly when it comes to local economic participation requirements. It also raises questions about transparency and consistency in contract evaluation—especially in high-stakes, high-value public contracts.

Neither the MLGCC nor Maryland state officials have publicly commented on the specifics of the contract rejection. As of now, it is unclear whether a new bidder will be selected or whether the contract will be rebid.

For Intralot, the fallout comes at a critical time as it seeks to expand its footprint in the U.S. gaming market. The outcome of any legal challenge could set a precedent for how subcontracting requirements are interpreted and enforced in state-level procurements going forward.