Committee approves payment to street-sweeping vendor, seeks vendor-management fixes

The Providence City Committee on Finance voted Sept. 25 to approve a resolution authorizing payment to ABLE Industrial Solutions for previously rendered street-sweeping services and to examine procurement and vendor-management practices following lapse of an earlier contract.

Staff told the committee that a contract for nighttime street sweeping had expired in July and that, while a new contract had not yet been fully in place, the vendor continued to perform sweeping services. The director (name not specified in the transcript) said she ordered staff to stop the service once she realized there was no active contract but that ABLE Industrial Solutions had already performed work for which the company is owed compensation.

The resolution was for $64,305.50, read into the record as the amount for the contract award. Committee members pressed staff on why work continued after the contract expiration, whether the new contract retroactively covered the work period, and whether ABLE’s billing rate or scope differed from the prior agreement. Staff said they would provide the committee with the new contract and the dates when payments to the vendor began.

Several members expressed concern about oversight and the need for a vendor-management system. One committee member described the lapse as “a hiccup” and said the city had an obligation to pay for services performed, while others said they were dissatisfied with the contracting lapse and requested follow-up documentation and corrective steps. The solicitor confirmed that the matter before the committee was payment for services already performed rather than the merits of awarding future contracts.

Councilwoman Grace moved approval; Councilman Madoff seconded. The committee approved the payment by voice vote; ayes were recorded and no opposition was announced. Members asked staff to return with: the new contract, the exact start date of the new contract and payments, and recommendations for a vendor-management system to prevent similar lapses across departments.

ABLE Industrial Solutions (vendor) was identified in the record as the recipient. The committee did not discuss any litigation or other legal challenge related to this payment, though the solicitor noted that a prior vendor protest had been handled by the solicitor’s office.

The committee also asked staff to supply documentation showing whether the vendor’s hourly rate or total price differed from the previous contract and to include contract dates in the follow-up distribution to council members.