Councilor Julia Mejia, chair of the Boston City Council Committee on Post Audit, Government Accountability, Transparency, and Accessibility, opened a July 24 hearing on the city’s procurement processes by listing three focal matters: the White Stadium project, the civilian flagger contract and travel and tourism funding. "Each of these cases have raised concerns about rush timelines, selective public notice, limited access for small and BIPOC owned businesses," Mejia said.

Community representatives, including Ed Burley of the NAACP Boston chapter and other neighborhood advocates, urged the city to pause or re-evaluate the White Stadium procurement and to compare the awarded bid with a community-backed, lower-cost alternative. "I think you'd like to have more than one bid because what having more than one bid does is it gives the city leverage to advocate for the public interest," Ed Burley told the committee.

City procurement and supplier-diversity staff described steps taken to broaden participation in large projects. Chief Shivan Itau (Chief of Economic Opportunity and Inclusion) and procurement staff noted new tools and outreach: a vendor support team, project‑level supplier‑diversity tracking for White Stadium and a public dashboard. Chief Itau cited milestones—"for the fiscal year 2024 ... we spent more than $100,000,000 with businesses owned by people of color"—as evidence of progress on inclusion while acknowledging community concerns about specific procurement processes.

Committee members and speakers pressed for answers on three recurring issues: whether community engagement occurred before the White Stadium RFP was drafted, why few bidders responded to the RFP, and whether the city had fully analyzed lower-cost alternatives put forward by community groups. Administration staff said they could not confirm the timing of all community meetings prior to the RFP’s issuance and acknowledged that some projects historically have limited competition because of capacity constraints among local firms. Procurement staff said departments now notify procurement earlier on large contracts and must route contracts above certain dollar thresholds through centralized procurement teams, which has increased opportunities for targeted outreach.

Several public commenters and council members argued the project remains unsettled on two technical points: the traffic mitigation plan and the overall cost estimate. Community leaders warned the traffic plan had not yet been resolved and said that uncertainty increases the need for a transparent comparison between the awarded proposal and smaller, public-only alternatives. Administration officials said some pre‑award costs have been spent: roughly $7.5 million on White Stadium to date, with about $3.7 million going to women‑ and minority‑owned firms, and that additional contracts remain to be awarded for later phases.

No formal council action or vote on White Stadium procurement was taken at the hearing. Councilors and community leaders asked the administration to report back with clarifications — including precise timelines of community engagement, an accounting of contract awards and a description of remaining decision points — and several speakers sought a formal reevaluation or a pause while alternatives are examined.

The hearing record shows continuing tension between the city's supplier‑diversity aims and community expectations about public process and cost oversight. Administration witnesses said they would follow up with additional detail; councilors and community groups signaled they will press for further review and for options that maximize local, minority and women‑owned business participation.

Ending

Councilor Mejia closed the session by saying the committee would expect follow‑up information and that the hearing had surfaced questions the city should answer to restore public confidence in selection and outreach for high-profile, publicly funded projects.