Marblehead panel weighs fluid-applied roof restoration, recovery and replacement for high school project

Members of a Marblehead Public Schools ad hoc subcommittee discussed roofing options, bidding timing and related construction scope during an online meeting on Oct. 9.

The meeting centered on whether to pursue a full roof replacement, a roof recover, or a fluid-applied roof restoration as an alternate for the high school project. Lina, a Left Field consultant leading the presentation, said “our construction control budget within the project is, just over $11,000,000,” and that two independent estimators returned numbers that generally trended under that control budget. She cautioned the committee that “we really won't have real numbers until the bids come in.”

The nut of the committee’s discussion was the fluid-applied restoration alternate. Mike Veil, owner of Building and Closure Associates, described the fluid-applied option as a “complete monolithic system” without seams and said the product manufacturers commonly offer on-site inspections and repairs during the warranty period. “You get 20 years,” Veil said of the typical warranty offered with the fluid-applied systems. He recommended a performance-based specification to avoid inferior products being proposed as equals.

Consultants reported a notable disparity between two third-party estimates for the fluid-applied alternate: one estimator (RLB) showed roughly a $500,000 saving for the restoration alternate while the other (PM&C) estimated a savings of about $1.1 million. “I was a little bit surprised that there's a half a million dollar difference between two cost estimators,” Veil said; consultants agreed to investigate the line-item differences before bidding.

Committee members and consultants discussed procurement and contracting constraints under Massachusetts public-bidding laws (including Chapter 30B) and the need to avoid proprietary specifications while still ensuring a high-quality product. Brian Dakin (Left Field) and Molly Paris (RDA) said they are preparing a performance specification and are consulting product representatives from Tremco and Garland to set minimum performance criteria (for example, thickness and tensile strength) rather than naming a single manufacturer. Dakin said the team would involve technical reviewers during evaluation of any proposed “equals.”

Members raised practical concerns that could affect bids and construction: whether the Massachusetts School Building Authority (MSBA) would treat a restoration (rather than a full replacement) as a reset of MSBA’s funding “clock”; whether adequate contingency exists for mold remediation when wet insulation is removed; how penetrations and rooftop curbs associated with new HVAC equipment will be flashed and detailed under the chosen roofing approach; and whether an adapter for existing curbs could reduce roof penetrations. Consultants said MSBA typically accepts these coating systems as viable options but agreed to try to obtain a definitive MSBA position on the funding-eligibility question.

On schedule, consultants reported that bidding documents would be made available to prequalified bidders in mid-October, with a contractor walkthrough scheduled for later in the month and general-contractor bids due roughly two weeks after document release. Consultants warned those dates were “subject to change” if a significant number of RFIs or addenda are required; they said they would notify the committee if the schedule must be adjusted. Committee members asked the consultant team to be prepared to convene the subcommittee quickly when bids are received so approvals can proceed to the full school committee and the select board without delaying project milestones.

No formal procurement decision was made during the meeting. The subcommittee agreed to recommend a roofing approach to the full school committee but left final approval to the full committee (and then the select board where required). The meeting adjourned by unanimous roll call at 12:59 p.m.