Audit committee obtains 1,882‑row contractor list; CFO to supply construction‑only view

The New Bedford Committee on Audit on Tuesday evening heard a formal request from Councilor Gomes for a citywide list of contractors going back eight years, and the city's chief financial officer provided an updated 1,882‑row spreadsheet and agreed to produce filtered views focusing on construction and engineering firms.

Councilor Gomes, councilor at large, said she wanted the records "to get a record of who has received contracts for the past 8 years" to check for possible favoritism and to focus on larger engineering and construction contracts rather than routine purchases. "I would even like to see it amended to, present time," she said during public discussion.

Why it matters: the committee on audit has subpoena power and oversight responsibilities for municipal contracting. Councilors said they want a clearer, sortable dataset that separates vendor IDs and department IDs and that isolates large capital and construction contracts so the council can analyze spending trends and vendors receiving the city's largest awards.

What the CFO provided and explained Bob Wechsrom, the city's chief financial officer, told the committee he had emailed the committee an updated file shortly before the meeting and described the contents in detail. "It's 1,882 records, every contract since 2014 till until today," Wechsrom said. He said the file contains 14 data elements, including contract number, vendor, department and dates, and is presented in Excel so members can sort and filter.

Wechsrom outlined three contract types captured in the file and how each affects budgeting and review: an "encumbering" contract (funds are appropriated at the time the contract is let), a "non‑encumbering" contract (the city generally encumbers only the first year and subsequent years are subject to appropriation), and a "rate contract" (the vendor provides unit prices but the city is not required to purchase a given amount). He said these fields should help councilors identify the large, multi‑year capital and construction contracts they seek.

Requested follow‑ups and data changes Councilors asked for specific refinements. Gomes asked for a separate sheet that isolates road and building contractors, engineers and architects and other large construction vendors ("that would include plumbers, electricians, anything that pertains to," she said). Councilor Morad requested that the vendor ID and department ID be moved into separate fields to make alphabetic sorting usable.

Wechsrom agreed to reissue the file after parsing vendor number and name into separate columns and said his office can filter or produce new sheets by request. "I can separate those into 2 different columns," he said, and offered to redistribute the revised file to the full council.

Budget and oversight context discussed The meeting also included a longer review of current budget monitoring and projections. Wechsrom said the finance office and city auditor are preparing more polished quarterly financial statements and expected to post a six‑month report covering the fiscal year through December. "We hope to release the 6 month quarterly through December next week," he told the committee.

Committee members pressed on high‑value contracts and current pressure points in the budget. Wechsrom identified the city's solid waste contract as one of the largest single municipal expenses (citing capital/solid waste contracts in the multi‑million‑dollar range) and said a straight‑line projection based on current activity would produce a $529,000 deficit in the city's trash hauling account. "If that happens, I'm gonna have a $529,000 deficit," he said, and he warned the committee that the account could require transfers if revenues and expenses do not change.

He and councilors also discussed encumbrances in facilities and fleet (DFFM) and enterprise funds: Wechsrom said DFFM had about $3.1 million encumbered for utilities and that year‑to‑date spending figures can be misleading until encumbrances and projections are annualized. He identified wastewater contracts with Veolia and Synagro as large ongoing obligations and said wastewater showed a projected deficit (Jamie, wastewater management, had projected about $247,000). He said some deficits can be managed by liquidating purchase orders, internal reallocation or, where legally permissible, transfers from retained earnings certified by the Department of Revenue.

Checks on vendor integrity and procurement process Councilor Abraham asked whether the city performs vendor due‑diligence checks (for example, on wage‑theft records) before contracting. Wechsrom described multiple review steps: departmental review, outside counsel for legal contracts when needed, rating panels for certain procurements, and review by the city auditor to confirm availability of funds. The committee also referenced a local wage‑theft ordinance passed in February 2018 that prohibits the city from contracting with vendors convicted of wage‑theft violations.

Next steps and committee action After discussing the dataset and the requested refinements, committee members voted to table further action on the item and return with the revised files and projections at a later meeting. The chair said the committee would convene again in April (date to be set) and asked the CFO to provide the revised contractor lists and the upcoming quarterly financial projection in advance of that session so councilors could review the data.

Votes at a glance - Motion to receive and place on file: letter from Councilor Lopes (absent). Mover: Councilor Abreu; second: Councilor Morad. Outcome: approved (voice vote). - Motion to remove item from the table (contractor list). Mover: Councilor Oliver; second: Councilor Abreu. Outcome: approved (voice vote). - Motion to receive and place on file: Gomes written motion/request for contractor list. Mover: Councilor Oliver; second: Councilor Abreu. Outcome: approved (voice vote). - Motion to table (defer further action until refined materials are provided). Mover: Councilor Abreu; second: Councilor Oliver. Outcome: approved (voice vote). - Motion to adjourn. Mover: Councilor Oliver; second: Councilor Abreu. Outcome: approved (voice vote).

The committee left the record with two clear directions: the CFO will refine and reissue the contractor spreadsheet (separating vendor and department fields and producing construction/engineering‑only views on request) and the audit committee will revisit the item alongside the next quarterly financial projections.