Council probes roofing procurements after questions about manufacturer specification and certification

City staff and councilors engaged in an extended Sept. 8 discussion about procurement procedures after two roofing solicitations drew questions about manufacturer references and installer certification. The two projects under review are a resolution to award roofing work at the wastewater treatment facility and an ordinance to fund and award a roof retrofit at the Pueblo Ice Arena.

Andrew Hayes, public works director, explained the procurement process for public improvements and said roofing projects are typically run as invitations for bid (IFBs) with advertised pre‑bid meetings, responsiveness and responsibility reviews, and a bidding period of about 21–30 days. Hayes described roofing specifics—long warranty expectations, ASTM performance standards, and that many manufacturers require certified installers for certain warranties.

Hayes said the solicitation materials used a Garland product as the basis of design but included an "approved equal" and substitution process for other manufacturers. "We are not doing things that aren't consistent with our regulations internally," Hayes said, adding that the specification lists a basis of design and allows equals if vendors formally propose them during the solicitation process.

Several council members said repeated references to a Garland product and the presence of a Garland representative at a walk‑through gave the appearance of an uneven playing field for local roofers who are not Garland‑certified. Councilor Flores said she was concerned that certified contractors had an easier path and that the certification process' timing could effectively exclude alternates from competing. "It just doesn't seem right to me that ... representative that gets a commission off of the sale of the material ... is up there kind of selling" the product, Flores said, describing an appearance problem; staff disputed the characterization of the walk‑through as vendor‑run.

Staff and purchasing said manufacturers commonly offer turnkey services—design, inspections and inspections oversight—that previously required the city to pay third‑party consultants separately; including those services in a manufacturer offering can reduce the city’s out‑of‑pocket consultant costs. Purchasing staff said alternates may be proposed and when a materially different product is suggested the city issues an addendum and, if needed, schedules another walk‑through so all bidders have the same information.

Council members also discussed local preference rules. Staff and legal counsel noted that local preference is generally limited by reciprocity laws and that the city evaluates bids by responsiveness and lowest conforming price for public‑works contracts.

The discussion included concerns about a contractor on pre‑bid attendance lists who was identified in comments as the domestic partner of a council member; that line of concern was raised as an appearance issue rather than a formal conflict finding. Staff committed to providing the solicitation documents, pre‑bid attendance lists and the bid tabulations to the council for further review as part of the record.

Council acknowledged objections and public commenters argued both that manufacturer baseline specifications and onsite manufacturer representatives are common practice and that bids incorporate material costs, with the city required to accept the lowest responsive bidder for public‑works projects. The work session concluded with council asking staff for additional documentation ahead of council action on the two roofing awards.