08/20/2026
Little Compton's Emergency After Nearly Two Years?
LITTLE COMPTON — Yesterday, we looked at two Little Compton contracts that were awarded without ordinary competitive bidding. One of them deserves a closer look. The Town approved a $11,453 fire alarm contract for 32 Commons using Rhode Island's emergency procurement provisions, even though Little Compton's own records show it had been dealing with the underlying fire safety problems for nearly two years before the contract was approved.
The timeline begins no later than July 23, 2024, when the Little Compton Fire Marshal inspected 32 Commons. A supplemental inspection followed on September 18. The Town appealed the findings, leading to a November hearing before the Rhode Island Fire Safety Code Board of Appeal and Review. In December 2024, the Board issued a decision identifying deficiencies in the building's fire alarm system, setting correction deadlines for several violations and prohibiting use of the second floor until outstanding deficiencies were corrected.
Those issues remained unresolved into 2025. Little Compton sought reconsideration, resulting in another Fire Safety Board hearing on June 3, 2025. The Board granted additional time for some outstanding deficiencies, but it also imposed a specific alarm-related requirement. The Town was ordered to provide fire alarm emergency forces notification through a radio master box within 60 days, while the restriction on second-floor use remained in place.
Nearly a year later, on June 4, 2026, the Town Council considered the $11,453 proposal from Crescent Alarms for work at 32 Commons. The proposal included a new fire alarm control panel, smoke detectors, heat detectors, pull stations, strobes and related equipment. Rather than going through the Town's ordinary competitive procurement process, the Council approved the work under Rhode Island's provisions allowing noncompetitive procurement in certain circumstances.
Rhode Island law does allow municipalities to bypass ordinary bidding during an emergency, but the exception is not simply permission to choose a contractor without explanation. The law calls for as much competition as practicable under the circumstances and requires a written determination explaining the basis for the emergency and the selection of the contractor.
The condition at 32 Commons was not discovered shortly before the June 2026 vote. The Town had an inspection in July 2024, another in September, a Fire Safety Board decision in December, another Board proceeding in June 2025 and an explicit alarm-related requirement that was supposed to be addressed within 60 days. By the time the contract was approved, almost 23 months had passed since the original inspection.
There is no question that a deficient fire alarm system can create a legitimate safety concern requiring prompt action. The problem is explaining why a condition known to the Town for nearly two years had reached the point where normal competitive procurement could no longer be used. If the urgency existed because the work had remained unresolved through repeated inspections, hearings, extensions and deadlines, then the timeline raises a different concern: whether delays by the Town ultimately created the circumstances later used to justify an emergency procurement.
The fire safety records establish that work at 32 Commons was needed. They also establish that Little Compton had extensive advance notice. What remains unclear is why, after nearly two years of awareness and multiple opportunities to address the deficiencies, the Town finally treated the work as an emergency when it awarded the contract without ordinary competition.
