Finance committee continues review of $1.3M PBPA shoring contract after procurement, transparency questions

The Providence City Committee on Finance on Jan. 23 considered a Providence Public Buildings Authority (PBPA) contract award for structural shoring and temporary work at the city’s Department of Public Works complex and voted to continue the item after extensive questioning about procurement and payments.

PBPA representatives said the work addressed a life-safety concern: an engineer’s inspection identified a failing wall and a need to remove vehicle operations from beneath a roof. The PBPA presentation described a rapid timeline to shore or otherwise protect the facility before winter, said the authority had run a procurement process directed to a set list of vendors and that the recommended bidder was Agostini (listed in packet as “Agustin/Agostini”) with a contract amount reported in the packet at approximately $1,309,374.

Ron Crosson, who identified himself as chair of the PBPA in the meeting, said the authority oversees capital financing and assets and that the PBA’s powers derive from state enabling legislation. “We oversee over a hundred million dollars worth of bond money for the city of Providence,” Crosson said. PBPA staff described two options they considered — a temporary sprung structure or shoring the existing wall — and said timing required acting before the architect and longer procurement processes could conclude.

Committee members, the city auditor and the city treasurer raised concerns about transparency. The auditor said she first saw a $41,000 payment and later discovered a total near $1.3 million and asked why invoices and vendor selection had not been processed through the Board of Contract and Supply’s public bidding process. “The first time the city submits a bill is for $41,000 and then all of a sudden it’s $1,300,000,” the auditor said, calling for clearer documentation of invoices and the decision chain.

Members also asked about a potential conflict of interest: the PBPA’s special counsel was listed as legal counsel to one of the bidders in state filings, and members asked whether an ethics opinion or firewall had been obtained. PBPA representatives acknowledged there had been a close working relationship between PBPA counsel and project bidders and said they would supply engagement letters and related documents. The PBPA urged that the emergency conditions and the December deadline justified a direct procurement, while committee members said they wanted a legal memo from the city solicitor outlining whether PBPA had authority to use direct procurement in these circumstances.

Given the outstanding questions on procurement authority, invoice history and counsel relationships, the committee voted to continue the item and requested that PBPA and city staff provide: detailed invoice and payment records (money.com entries and supporting spreadsheets), the PBPA’s procurement and engagement documents, engagement letters for outside counsel, and a legal memo from the city solicitor about procurement authority and any required approvals.

Ending Committee members praised the PBPA’s effort to address the facility’s safety issues but said transparency and adherence to public procurement rules required follow-up. The committee continued the item and asked city legal and finance staff to provide the requested documents and a legal opinion before any final committee action.