Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Vendor Comparison topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee to get independent roofing inspection after vendors disagree on leak cause
Summary
Two vendors presented differing diagnoses for leaks at the elementary school: Performance Services recommended tuckpointing and coping replacement alongside window work; GRP's architect said the problem appears to be roofing/flash issues. Staff will schedule a roofing inspection to determine the root cause before committing to extensive masonry work.
Staff presented two vendor assessments of the elementary-school leaks and told the committee that the firms disagree on the primary cause. Performance Services recommended comprehensive masonry and coping repairs in addition to window replacement; GRP's package C focuses on roofing/flash repairs.
A staff member summarized GRP's view: GRP's architect and a roofer have examined some areas and GRP believes the issue "is more of a roofing issue" and that flashing/roof repairs (package C) could address water intrusion. Performance Services, by contrast, emphasized tuckpointing to stop water from migrating through the brick.
Committee members said different trades will naturally emphasize their own specialties and agreed it is prudent to have a third-party roofer (Total Roofing or equivalent) do a targeted inspection. Staff said they have reached out to Total Roofing and will bring a roofing report to the next facilities meeting to resolve whether roofing or tuckpointing is the primary driver of the leaks.
The committee did not instruct staff to proceed with large tuckpointing work until the roofing assessment is complete.
