Council presses public‑works staff on roofing RFPs, Garland manufacturer and procurement transparency

Pueblo City Council members pressed public‑works and purchasing staff on Monday about the administration of two roofing solicitations — the Pueblo Ice Arena roof retrofit and multiple roofs at the wastewater reclamation facility — focusing on specification language that used a manufacturer’s product (Garland) as the baseline, the presence of a manufacturer representative at pre‑bid walkthroughs and whether the procurement process provided a level playing field for local contractors.

Public‑works Director Andrew Hayes told council the solicitations were issued as invitations for bid (IFBs) and that the city uses a “basis of design” approach that names a manufacturer’s product as the performance baseline while allowing “approved equals” if a bidder demonstrates comparable quality, design and performance. Hayes said the packages included instructions for submitting alternatives and that purchasing reviews bids for responsiveness and responsibility before making awards.

Hayes also said ovens: the city commonly asks for longroof warranties — “We are asking for 20‑year warranties on a roof or a 30‑year warranty in some cases,” — and that manufacturers typically require installers be certified to preserve material warranties. He said the city has accepted bids from both local and out‑of‑town contractors in the past and that the intent is to maximize competition and value for taxpayers.

Council members, however, expressed concern about three issues: whether naming a manufacturer’s product as the baseline effectively gives that manufacturer or certified installers an advantage; whether manufacturer representatives who attended walk‑throughs acted as de facto advisors to bidders; and whether certification or turnkey offerings from a manufacturer reduce competition by imposing extra steps local contractors may not have time to complete within the IFB window.

Councilor Flores said he heard contractors say a Garland representative “ran the meeting” at a pre‑bid walkthrough and that some contractors left because of the presentation; he asked why Garland was referenced so often in staff presentations. Hayes and purchasing staff said Garland was used as a baseline example of a product that meets the city’s performance specifications and that Garland — like other manufacturers — can offer design assistance, inspections and other services; those services, Hayes said, sometimes were included to replace outside consultant expenses the city previously paid.

Councilor Maestri said the practice creates an appearance problem and noted that some contractors told him they could not get Garland’s material estimates or that the certification process takes longer than the IFB window, which he said effectively excluded them from bidding. Naomi Hedden, director of purchasing, and Hayes said vendors may propose alternative manufacturers but that doing so requires submission of technical substitution documentation and may prompt an addendum and extended bid period so all bidders can respond to the new information.

Hayes said attendee lists and pre‑bid materials are included in the solicitation packets and that the city received multiple bids on the two projects (one project drew five to six bids, the other four). He said one bidder for the projects was a local firm. Councilors questioned whether packaging inspection and consulting services into a turnkey offering from a manufacturer gives that manufacturer a commercial advantage and whether the city should rely on arm’s‑length third‑party engineering oversight.

Several council members urged that staff provide pre‑bid attendance sheets, bid tabulations and the addendum history for the projects. Mayor Heather Graham and other councilors also raised the issue of local preference; staff said Colorado procurement reciprocity and state practices limit the ability to apply local‑preference rules and that the city’s purchasing policies aim to secure best value through open competition.

No formal awards were made at the work session; staff indicated the council will see resolutions and ordinances to authorize awards at a later meeting. Councilors said they wanted more documentation of the solicitation process and asked staff to ensure prospective bidders had a practical opportunity to propose alternative products or obtain certifications during the bid window.

Direct quotes from the meeting: Hayes said, “We are asking for 20‑year warranties on a roof or a 30‑year warranty in some cases.” Councilor Flores said, “It seems to me that we should not have, anyone that has a conflict on the roof describing this and that,” and later that the manufacturer’s representative “was there telling, he was talking, as I understand, like he was an employee of the city of Pueblo.”

What happens next: Staff said they will provide council the pre‑bid attendance lists and solicitation materials included in the packet, and the council will consider the award items during the regular meeting cycle after staff completes responsiveness and responsibility reviews and forwards recommended awards for council action.