Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Procurement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council confronts $197,000 in change orders for police warehouse; members press for accountability
Summary
Councilors questioned why 14 change orders totaling a $197,000 contingency were omitted from initial spending authority for a police warehouse project and debated whether the omissions reflected oversight or acceptable ad alternates; staff said funds are ARPA/backed grant dollars that must be spent or returned.
Councilors on July 6 pressed police and city staff over 14 change orders on the Warwick Police Department (WPD) warehouse project that led to a requested increase in spending authority to capture a $197,000 contingency. The police department said the project had grant funding available and the contingency was budgeted but left off the original spending-authority request.
Major Robert Hart said the work is complete and the department needs to finalize bills; he described the request as correcting the original spending authority to include the missing contingency. Chief of Staff Bill Vicente explained that some of the funds are from a pass-through grant (described in the record as an "opera" grant) with spending restrictions; if the city does not appropriate and spend the remaining grant funds for authorized purposes, the money could be lost.
Several council members described the change orders as a process failure. Council members noted items such as a $98,000 repaving, camera work and apparently routine items that they said should have been included in the original contract or identified earlier. One council member said the pattern of post-hoc change orders erodes public trust and asked whether designers and contractors had errors-and-omissions coverage that might apply; staff said they had no indication the items rose to that level and that some items were ad alternates or added to spend grant money.
Legal and procurement staff described change orders as supplemental to AIA payment requisitions and said payments are processed on certified requisitions tied to contractor/architect certification. The council asked whether unsigned change-order documents in the packet meant contracts were unenforceable; staff said the AIA pay requisition and contractor-certified payment requisition are the operative payment documents and that accepted change-order pricing was being honored.
The finance committee assigned the request tracking number PCR 77-26; the full council later voted on the matter and approved the spending authority change in the council session after committee review. Several council members said they would support payment to close the project but urged a city-wide review of change-order governance, improved monitoring of spending authority thresholds and better documentation in future contract files.
Sources: Finance committee discussion and the full council roll-call votes recorded at the July 6 meeting.
