The Warwick finance committee debated a request from Public Works to approve bid package 2026295 — three related bid tracks for replacement automotive parts that share a cumulative cap of $836,600 for the contract period beginning Feb. 18. Christy Moretti, public works, told the committee the cap covers multiple budget lines and that vendors are required to hold their stated discount firm while list prices may fluctuate.

Council members, the director and several residents focused the discussion on how the city evaluates vendor pricing. Chairing the meeting, a council member emphasized that list price matters when comparing discounts because two vendors can offer similar percentage discounts on identical part numbers but different list prices, producing materially different net costs. The chair objected to including one supplier, Lawson, in the package because Lawson’s submission listed only discounts without a supporting list price.

Moretti said listed prices in the bid package are a snapshot on the day vendors filled out paperwork and that the bid language requires a firm discount but not a fixed list price. She said purchasing maintains a stockroom and repair orders and will roll out an electronic inventory system (beginning with police) but that a citywide inventory program is not yet in place. On ordering practice, purchasing staff said they seek the lowest available vendor and factor urgency and vehicle priority when choosing where to buy.

Members sought historical context and budget detail. Moretti provided year-to-date and prior fiscal-year spending figures for the relevant line item (e.g., $604,419.13 spent in FY25 on one mechanical code) and reiterated that the $836,600 cap is cumulative across the three related bid tracks, not an individual cap per vendor track.

Public commenters asked for greater transparency. Rob Cody (Ward 7) and Robert Cushman urged the city to publish an itemized spreadsheet showing each line item and vendor totals; they said the current PDF packet makes it difficult for the public to verify bidders’ totals. Multiple speakers suggested an electronic spreadsheet or portal for bids so totals and cross-vendor comparisons are immediately visible and auditable. One attendee recommended standardizing municipal fleet types or outsourcing fleet management to reduce administrative burden.

The committee moved the consent package to the full council without recommendation, with the chair noting two individual items had been pulled for separate consideration. No award of a contract was finalized at the finance meeting; items were advanced to the council floor for final action.

What happens next: The bid tracks (2026295 and associated 2026301a and 2026301b) will be considered by the full council; procurement staff said they can provide the underlying catalog pages and the budget-code list on the city website. Council members pressed staff to accelerate electronic inventory rollout and to make clearer line-item documentation available before final votes so the public can verify comparative pricing.