Finance committee questions Providence Public Building Authority procurement, asks for review of special‑counsel retainer

Providence City’s Committee on Finance opened a discussion about a contract award connected to the Providence Public Building Authority and a separate retainer agreement for outside counsel, raising questions about procurement authority and possible conflicts of interest.

The committee considered a resolution authorizing approval of a contract award listed as Odyssey Construction Incorporated (contract reference in materials: 1309300 and 704 dollars, item labeled “public property”). Committee members noted that the Building Authority has, in practice, procured outside contractors separately from the city’s Board of Contract and Supply and that the arrangement prompted audit inquiries.

Committee members said the solicitor’s office and staff had reviewed the authority’s power to execute procurements. The record included a legal opinion provided by Mr. Salvador; committee members said Jeff Dana and Megan DeSanto also reviewed the matter in the solicitor’s office. Committee members said that, under current state law, the Building Authority’s procurement authority is created by statute and that changing that authority would require modification of the general law.

Committee members also discussed a retainer agreement for outside counsel tied to the building authority and how payment and selection for that counsel were handled. A committee member said the solicitor’s office does not control retention of that outside counsel and that payments had gone through city channels tied to the building authority’s accounts; the committee requested further clarification from the Providence Public Building Authority on how the special counsel is retained and paid.

Several members raised ethics and oversight concerns after learning that the authority’s special counsel had also represented bidders in the procurement. Members discussed asking the building authority to consider changes to bylaws or a code of conduct to prevent potential conflicts going forward and suggested a targeted follow‑up to review the building authority’s structure and procurement process.

The committee formally marked submitted documents into the record and held a motion to approve the contract award listed as item 1 on the agenda. The motion to mark and the motion to approve were moved and seconded; committee votes were recorded on the motions as "Aye." The committee did not adopt any ordinance or statutory change during the meeting; members said any alteration to the building authority’s statutory procurement authority would need to occur at the state level.

Members directed staff to follow up with the Providence Public Building Authority to clarify (1) the process for retaining and paying outside counsel, (2) whether and how the authority routes procurements through the Board of Contract and Supply, and (3) whether the authority will consider internal rules to reduce the risk of conflict where counsel represents both the authority and private bidders. The committee did not take additional legal action at the meeting.