A major portion of the meeting was dedicated to the evaluation of roofing options for the school project. The committee examined the benefits and costs associated with different materials, particularly the fluid-applied roofing systems versus traditional recovery methods. The fluid-applied system, which creates a seamless and monolithic surface, was advocated for its durability and minimal risk of leaks compared to the recovery option that maintains existing membranes. It was highlighted that this system is already in use on several municipal buildings within the town.

The cost estimates for the roofing options presented a significant topic of discussion. While one estimate suggested a potential savings of over $500,000 with the fluid-applied system, another estimated a saving of over $1 million, prompting committee members to scrutinize the large discrepancy between the two figures. The committee invited an expert, Mike Velgi, to elaborate on the roofing options. He underscored the importance of a performance-based specification to ensure quality and prevent the use of inferior products. Velgi emphasized that the fluid-applied system’s manufacturer would oversee the project, reducing the likelihood of accountability disputes among contractors and designers.

The committee’s discussion also touched on the possibility of legal issues if manufacturers failed to meet specifications. A performance specification was being developed to avoid substandard products, focusing on criteria instead of listing specific manufacturers. The Massachusetts School Building Authority (MSBA) was noted to assist in funding roof projects that are 25 to 30 years old, leading to questions about whether the proposed options would reset the eligibility clock for MSBA funding.

In addition to roofing, the meeting addressed the HVAC systems, confirming that all units would be replaced. However, discussions ensued about the potential cost savings of using adapters for new rooftop units instead of replacing curbs entirely. Concerns were also raised about mold treatment during the removal of wet foam panels, which was not included in the contractor’s contract but could be covered by the project’s contingency fund.

The committee emphasized the importance of timely approvals to keep the project on track, particularly since bids were expected soon. A meeting was scheduled for November 6th, immediately following the receipt of general contractor bids, to ensure prompt review and decision-making. Despite the tight timeline, the committee expressed readiness to adjust the schedule if unforeseen questions arose from contractors.

The meeting concluded with a discussion on bid specifications for roofing materials, focusing on the challenge of adopting new technologies within the public sector while complying with Massachusetts bidding laws. The need to specify ideal product characteristics without creating a proprietary specification was emphasized. The committee agreed to refine the language of the specifications through discussions with manufacturers.