Council rejects aquatic center reroof bids after contractor questions specifications; staff directed to rebid

The City Council voted to reject all bids for the aquatic center reroof project and directed staff to revise the specifications and rebid, after a contractor told the council his firm’s alternative 20-year, spray-applied roofing system and lower price were not captured by the current solicitation.

Tyler, a contractor who identified himself during the meeting and said his company is based in Wyoming, told the council his bid proposed a 60-mil, monolithic, spray-applied system that would salvage the sound portions of the existing roof and that his price was “a hundred thousand less than Capital Roofing” while including biannual inspections and a 20-year system. “No seams, no problems,” Tyler said of his firm’s approach.

City staff and several council members responded that the solicitation had been written to spec a full tear-off and replacement using a TPO membrane (thermoplastic polyolefin). Staff said the written specification called for a total replacement consistent with the existing material type, and one council member noted that other firms may not have bid because the specs required a TPO system.

After a prolonged exchange in which council members asked about warranty, tie-in capability, timing and whether rebidding would delay work, one councilmember said, “I guess I sort of feel like for the amount of money we're looking at, I think it's okay to hit the pause button, reject these bids, do a little research, and come back with the second bid.” The council then voted to reject all bids and directed staff to prepare revised specifications and readvertise the project.

Meeting materials presented by staff showed the budget for the roof at $200,000; staff also reported that the lowest qualified bid (as described in the meeting) was from Capital Roof Inc., out of Cheyenne, Wyoming, quoted in the transcript as “A Hundred And 70 9 Thousand 8 Hundred” (the transcript spelling and figures are garbled and should be confirmed in the official bid documents). After the council’s motion to reject all bids, the motion carried by voice vote.

The council discussion included timeline consideration: staff noted a target completion date in the original bid of “by middle of June,” and members discussed the effects a rebid would have on that date. Council members asked staff to include alternative system types and to ensure the revised solicitation gives all prospective bidders a fair opportunity to respond.

The council approved a motion to reject all bids, to have staff rewrite the specifications and to re-advertise the project; mover and seconder were recorded in the meeting as council members but not named in the transcript. The meeting record shows the council voted in favor and carried the motion.