Marblehead school roof subcommittee sets bid schedule, flags HVAC lead times ahead of Nov. recommendation

The Marblehead Public Schools roof subcommittee on a virtual meeting reviewed an accelerated procurement timeline and warned that long lead times for large rooftop HVAC units could affect when equipment will be on site.

Lina Long, project manager with Left Field, presented the timeline and said, “So this is a timeline that we have, shown a few times at a few different public meetings,” and noted the design team has been working with the district since May 2024 and that RDA joined the project a few months later. Bidding documents are scheduled to be posted on Oct. 15, with contractor walkthroughs and filed subcontractor bids for roofing, plumbing, mechanical and electrical due in late October, and general prime bids due Nov. 5; the subcommittee plans to make a recommendation to the full school committee on Nov. 6.

“Just a little clarification,” said Mike Differling, assistant superintendent of finance and operations for Marblehead Public Schools. “On November 6, this committee will make a recommendation that will be presented to the full school committee that evening.” Differling added that the award cannot be finalized until the full school committee and the town’s select board approve the contract.

The committee discussed equipment lead times as the principal scheduling risk. Long-time project consultant Molly Paris of RDA and others said the largest rooftop units can have multi-month delivery windows; project participants noted recent estimates of about 24 weeks for the large RTUs. As Long put it, “We’ve heard it’s about 24 weeks,” meaning equipment ordered in November would likely arrive in late spring or early summer.

Because the project is being procured under Massachusetts public-construction procurement rules, the filed subcontract bids must be incorporated by the selected general contractor rather than awarded separately. Long said, “You cannot [award HVAC] because we’re procuring this via chapter 149,” and the team explained that chapter 149A procurement rules and the requirement that generals include filed sub bids affect the schedule and which firms must be on the winning prime contractor’s team.

RDA and Left Field told the committee the base bid is for a full new membrane (described in materials as “recover”), with an alternate bid item for a liquid-applied restoration (“restore”). The subcommittee’s primary near-term decision is whether to recommend the recover base bid or accept the restoration alternate when bids are received; the group expects fuller discussion and a presentation of pros and cons at the next meeting in October, including an invited presentation from a proponent of the liquid-applied option.

Consultant Ralph Wallace said the prequalification effort drew adequate interest: “As I mentioned, they prequalified, 8, general contractors, of which I'm familiar with a number of them,” and the team also prequalified a slate of plumbing, electrical, roofing and HVAC subcontractors. Wallace and others described the current market as more favorable for school projects than earlier in the year.

The subcommittee agreed to schedule a site walk on the roof for committee members and staff before the next meeting to inspect conditions and rooftop equipment; because of the school calendar, members agreed nothing will be done on the roof before graduation. The design team will circulate a Doodle-style availability survey and can provide photos for members unable to attend in person.

The meeting closed with a formal motion to adjourn. Committee chair Henry Guasta moved to adjourn and Mike Differling seconded; voting members present—Mike Differling, Sam Altruder, Karima Maloney, Ralph Wallace, Brian Sarafin and Henry Guasta—voted yes. The subcommittee adjourned at 12:37 p.m.

Clarifying details and next steps from the meeting include distribution of the Oct. 15 bid package, the committee’s Nov. 6 recommendation to the full school committee, coordination with the select board for final contract approval, and a focused October meeting to weigh the pros and cons of the membrane (recover) versus liquid-applied restoration (restore) options.