Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Infrastructure Roofing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee recommends full roof replacement at Central Middle School; base bid under budget
Summary
ICS reported four qualified bids for Central Middle School roofing. The recommended option is full roof replacement (US Roofing low base bid $2,605,000). Combined capital scopes 1–4 total about $5.354 million, roughly $250,000 under budget; the committee moved the base bid forward to the full board for approval.
The Facilities Committee heard a capital-planning and bid summary from ICS representatives John Young and Ryan Murphy on the Central Middle School roofing project.
Murphy said four qualified contractors returned bids that split the work into a base bid (full tear-off and replacement) plus alternates (a re-roof-over option, coatings with varying warranties, and separate edging/drain replacements). He said the low bidder for the base, US Roofing, submitted $2,605,000; MUN Roofing provided the low price for alternates 3, 4 and 5 (a 30-year coating plus drain/edging work) at $2,154,000. Murphy recommended a full roof replacement, noting it doubles insulation (R-value), provides comprehensive warranty coverage for substrate and components, and reduces long-term risk of uncovered failures in the underlying roof.
On capital accounting, ICS presented an overall capital figure: if the district selects the base roof replacement and proceeds with scopes 1–4, the combined total is about $5,354,000, roughly $250,000 below the district's $5,596,000 capital allocation for these projects. Murphy said scopes 1, 2 and 4 already are moving to contract; scope 3 (the roof) would be brought to the full school board later this month for a formal vote and contract authorization. Most work is planned to occur after the school year ends, with substantial completion targeted before the next school year.
Board members asked technical questions about the roofing system (a hot fluid-applied membrane), manufacturers (Garland was the common manufacturer in bidders' proposals; Tremco was offered as an option), warranties and the tradeoff between an immediate $500,000 savings under the resurfacing alternate versus the long-term coverage and energy benefits of a full replacement. ICS and contractor representatives told the committee that a coating warranty typically covers the coating and visible components but not pre-existing substrate failures; several board members said hidden substrate damage and frequent drain-area leaks make full replacement the more conservative option. One committee member stated they would move the base bid forward to the full board for decision.
The committee did not take a final procurement vote; it moved the base-bid recommendation to the full school board to decide whether to approve the contract.
