Council rejects aquatic center roof bids, directs staff to rewrite specs and rebid

The City Council voted to reject all bids for the community aquatic center roof and directed staff to rewrite the project specifications and re-advertise the solicitation.

Council members said the low qualified bid matched the advertised TPO re-roof specification, while a local contractor proposed an alternative spray-on, 60-mil system that the contractor said would cost about $100,000 less and include a 20-year, all-inclusive warranty with biannual inspections. The council concluded the difference in approach and price required broader solicitation under a revised specification.

The city's budget for the roof was $200,000; staff reported the apparent low qualified bidder that met the original specification was Capital Roof Inc. of Cheyenne, Wyoming, at "A Hundred And 70 9 Thousand 8 Hundred" according to the transcript (reported by staff during the meeting). A local bidder identified only as Tyler told the council, "Our bid was a hundred thousand less than Capital Roofing for a 20 year system, and that is all inclusive 20 year system. That means we do biannual inspections." Council members asked whether the contractor's spray-on approach matched the written bid specifications, which were for a thermoplastic (TPO) complete replacement.

Council discussion focused on procurement rules and fairness to bidders. 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." Staff and councilors noted a mid-June completion date in the original schedule and acknowledged rebidding would likely push that timeline.

A motion to reject all bids and direct staff to prepare revised specifications and re-advertise carried; councilors moved and seconded the motion and voted in favor.

Clarifying details discussed at the meeting included that the original specification called for a TPO re-roof (a thermoplastic membrane) and that the alternative offered by the local company was a monolithic, spray-applied 60-mil siliconized system that, according to the contractor, can be applied over sound portions of the existing roof after removing only wet or damaged insulation. Council asked staff whether accepting the alternative without rebidding would be allowed; staff advised either accepting the lowest responsible bidder under the existing spec or rejecting and rebidding with revised specifications.

The council did not authorize a contract award; it authorized rejection of current bids and preparation of new specifications for rebidding.