Linn R-2 board members by a 4-3 vote last Tuesday awarded the high school roof restoration bid to Watkins Roofing, Inc., of Columbia, for a base cost of $120,837, and a total bid of $123,037, which includes a bid bond of $2,200.  

President Dennis Gravedoni, Tye Decramer, Dr. Shawn Strong, and Lori Greer voted in favor of the proposal while Hannah Swann and Mark Baker cast a nay vote, and  Naomi Klouzek abstained.

Navigate Building Solutions Project Director Cory Bextermueller told the board that a pre-bid meeting was held at the site on Aug. 4 to review the bid requirements and visit the site. The walkthrough allowed the prospective bidders the opportunity to view the current site. 

Three contractors, Missouri Builders, Rudy’s Roofing, and Lakeside Roofing, showed up to the pre-bid meeting. Watkins Roofing performed a site walkthrough at a later date.

Four sealed bids were received on Aug. 11 and opened publicly. Navigate performed a preliminary evaluation of the bids and a review of proposals with the two apparent low bidders after the bid opening. In addition to Watkins’s winning bid, also bidding were Missouri Builders for $140,882, including a bond of $1,505, and Lakeside Roofing of Collinsville, Ill., at a cost of $268,123, with a bond of $5,257. Rudy’s Roofing of Linn submitted a base bid for $215,000 but did not offer other information.

Baker asked what differences were present regarding the warranty or the lifespan of each contractor’s product.

Bextermueller noted that Missouri Builders, Lakeside Roofing, and Watkins Roofing each bid per the school’s specs with a 30-year warranty, and Rudy’s Roofing had a warranty of 20 years.

Rudy Yutzy asked if he could explain his bid but was initially denied by Gravedoni.

“The problem with Rudy’s roofing system is one, they didn’t bid for removing the insulation and the stuff that’s wet underneath,” said Gravedoni. “Their system is a topcoat over everything that’s existing.”

“One concern I have is the product offered by Rudy’s was not put out there for the owners to evaluate or for other people to bid,” said Bextermueller. “When they do an alternate product it needs to be submitted to the owner and reviewed.”

Other contractors would then have an opportunity to bid or it becomes an issue with procurement, Bextermueller added.

“Did you offer an alternate bid?” Yutzy asked. “The way I understood it was you only offered Garland and you had to be with them for five years.”

Bextermueller said the bid process was as inclusive as possible.

Matt Yutzy clarified that Rudy’s Roofing’s bid included all labor and materials.

Dr. Strong asked what was being put down on the roof.

A fluid-applied membrane would go over the top of the roof.

Board members later agreed to hear about Rudy’s product.

Matt Yutzy said the company has been installing liquid-applied fabric-reinforced systems for more than 25 years, adding the Conklin brand material is very similar to that offered by Garland. A monolithic coating would also be applied, embedded in the mesh. Rudy’s has applied its roofing system to Fatima R-3 and Chamois R-1, along with several other area businesses, including Diamond Pet Foods, the Osage County Library, Casper’s 66, and Mid America Bank.

“We’ve been around a long time, we’re taxpayers, and we’re local and we’ll be here for a long time,” said Matt Yutzy, adding the warranty of 20 years includes labor and materials. “If you would have a leak in the next 20 years, we wouldn’t charge you a dollar to come fix it.”

Garland, meanwhile, has been in business for 125 years and offers the same assurances over 20 years, with a $1 million limit on a manufacturer’s warranty. The school would have the option to renew the warranty after 10 years.

Matt Yutzy said the manufacturer’s warranty through Conklin is good for 18 years, and Rudy’s Roofing provides two years independently on top of that.

“We don’t do any cost overruns,” he added. “You pay us $215,000 and that’s it.”

“Your bid doesn’t address the wet insulation underneath,” Gravedoni reiterated.

However, Matt Yutzy alluded to the company’s bid, which states that Rudy’s will abide by all recommendations for removing and replacing wet insulation, etc.

Klouzek asked if Rudy’s Roofing provided a bond and was told the company had not.

Bextermueller added that he did not believe the district could legally accept Rudy’s bid that night because of the way it was presented. In response to a question from Dr. Strong, he said that Rudy’s Roofing did not submit a substitution request.

Had that been submitted before bids were received, Bextermueller explained the request would have been shared with the school, at which time it would have been accepted or denied.

“If you accept the substitution, we send that product information to everybody who bid the job so you get a bid from everybody on the same product,” Bextermueller said.

“I talked to our manufacturer,” Matt Yutzy said. “We’ve been customers for 25 years and they’ll stand by their work.”

DeCramer made a motion to accept Watkins Roofing’s bid.

Swann and Baker questioned the overall cost of the project, as Bextermueller said earlier that the total would be at the planned expense of about $400,000 between the winning bid and what the school will provide in materials for the project.

“I don’t feel like I have apples to apples here because I don’t have the full story,” Baker added. “I don’t know the total cost.”

The existing roof is a 32-mil thickness and the proposed roof will be 80 to 96-mil.

“There is a significant difference, causing a significant price difference,” Bextermueller said, adding the tensile strength of the product on specification is about 2,500 pounds per square inch (psi), while the alternate product offered by Rudy’s Roofing is about 400 psi.

Matt Yutzy said his roofing system is rubber, which doesn’t crack as easily as other systems.

“My point is they’re not the same products,” said Bextermueller. “That makes a big difference in cost.”

“But for $200,000, our warranty … we’re two miles away and the rest of them are an hour away,” Matt Yutzy said.

“I wish Rudy’s would have done a substitute request,” said Dr. Strong. “That would have been the right thing to do. That’s the only thing I’m struggling with. Otherwise, I’d say rebid it but there is a process.

Superintendent Dena Smith expressed concern that every time it rains, the roof leaks, and it would be problematic if the project is rebid.

Gravedoni said another factor to consider is the additional cost for having Navigate handle the rebid process.

“We’re talking about $200,000 here though,” said Baker. “I don’t feel like I have enough information to make a decision because I don’t have the material cost.”

“The only difference is that Rudy’s is putting on a different product than the other three,” said DeCramer.

“And they’re including material,” Dr. Strong added.

DeCramer agreed, adding, “It’s a different material.”

“Their material doesn’t meet the same standards,” said Gravedoni of Rudy’s Roofing.

“That’s what we’re getting at, right?” DeCramer asked. “It’s not specced out to the same as the other three, is that correct?”

“Yes,” Bextermueller replied. 

“The bid we asked for, asked for a specific material, correct?” DeCramer continued.

“Yes,” Bextermueller said.

“And these three provided the material we asked for, correct?” DeCramer asked.

After a third confirmation, DeCramer acknowledged that while Rudy’s material is cheaper, it is not what the board requested.

Matt Yutzy assured the board that Rudy’s system will last 20 years.

“The only thing I’m struggling with is whether someone is going to walk up to me next week and say you spent an extra $200,000 on a roof,” said Dr. Strong, noting he thought the material was included in the other three bids. “I should have figured that out but I didn’t. That wasn’t clear to me. I suspect at the end of the day I’d still go with Watkins but I don’t want to be accused of misspending $200,000 of taxpayer money either.”

“I get that, but I’d rather have a product that lasts,” DeCramer said.

Matt Yutzy said even if Rudy’s were to go out of business, Conklin would stand behind its warranty.

“My question is if you can provide a manufacturer’s warranty, why wasn’t it submitted with your bid?” Gravedoni asked.

“For one thing it’s more money, and I don’t think you’ll get a better warranty from the guys that are doing the job,” said Rudy Yutzy. “I’ve seen a lot of people come and go in this business over the last 25 years. I’ve got schools in Iowa and in the state of Missouri that I spec for, and I always leave it. When I do specs, I make it more equal. I’m not afraid of competition, and I don’t get them all. I win some, I lose some; that’s how this business works, but if I can save you $200,000 and you were paying it out of your pocket, I guarantee you’d do it. If it was your money.”

Matt Yutzy reiterated that he and his family are local taxpayers and plan to continue paying taxes for many years. He reminded the school board that any and all bids could be rejected.

“Even if we reject all the bids and start over, you have to bid what’s specified,” said Klouzek. “You have to meet the specifications.”

She asked if rebidding were to happen, whether Rudy’s Roofing would provide a bid bond and go through the bid like everyone else.

“We can provide a bid bond but what we usually do is don’t require any money down, and you pay us when we’re done,” Matt Yutzy replied.

“But that’s not how it works,” Klouzek replied. 

“We can get a bid bond,” Matt Yutzy said. “We have insurance companies that will work with us. We’ve done it often but if we can save you guys a little money.”

Klouzek noted that the other bidders provided a bond as part of the bid.

Matt Yutzy said he would provide a bid bond at no extra cost to the school.

Bextermueller explained that a bid bond is 5% of the bid, is submitted with the bid as security, and returned upon completion of the job.

“There’s a procurement policy we have to follow, and certain items we have to submit, so tonight, I think we have two options,” said Bextermueller. “Either we accept one of the three — Missouri Builders, Lakeside Roofing, or Watkins — or we throw everything out and start over.”

Smith added that other items were missing from the bid packet, including a work authorization affidavit and a signed agreement not to do business with those who boycott Israel.

“Most of those are required by statute and we have to have them,” said Smith. “It’s a very incomplete bid packet.”

Matt Yutzy assured the superintendent that the missing items can be delivered.

“I understand you can get them to us,” she replied. “The question is why didn’t you put them in your bid packet when that’s what we requested.”

Matt Yutzy assured the board that the items in question would be provided if the school signed a contract with Rudy’s Roofing.

“I’m really not trying to be contrary but everybody else did that,” Smith said. “We had a bid deadline and all of that was supposed to be submitted.”

Gravedoni seconded the motion and the vote ensued after further discussion.

Dr. Strong noted again that while this is a lot of money, the bid was not properly submitted. 

Baker said he had a hard time spending $185,000 more when Rudy’s Roofing’s building can be seen from the school. “There’s some value to me in having someone who is nearby,” he added. “Was this handled correctly? It doesn’t appear so. I don’t know if maybe throwing out is the right thing to do but that’s a lot of money to be spending.”

Gravedoni said rebidding the project will take time, and the cost will likely go up.

Baker asked if the cost would go up by $185,000.

Bextermueller confirmed that with a decision to proceed, Garland was set up to issue a purchase order for production.

According to Bextermueller, with a notice to proceed as of Aug. 19, and delivery of materials by the district on Oct. 11, the project would be substantially completed by Nov. 1. Watkins did not indicate any difficulty with meeting that timeline, Bextermueller noted.

In other business, the board unanimously approved to set the tax levy for the 21-22 school year at $2.75 for the general fund and $1.05 for the debt service fund, a total of $3.80 per $100 assessed valuation, which is less than the 2020 tax levy of $3.8689.

Linn R-2 has an estimated assessed valuation of $73,308,969, up from last year’s total of $68,574,007.

Note: Remaining business from this meeting will be presented next week.