After reviewing three bids on the Palo Pinto County Courthouse roof repair or replacement, the commissioners court rejected those so the county could rebid for replacement only.
Longhorn Commercial Roofing submitted a bid of $58,815 for repairing the roof with an additional $3,500 for a 20-year warranty. Vinmark Roofing submitted a bid of $112,701 for replacement of the roof and Arrow Air Conditioning submitted a bid of $50,701 for repairing the roof with a 10-year warranty and 20-year workmanship warranty included.
“Unless you have a reason why Arrow can’t do this, then you have to pick the lowest bid,” Precinct 4 Commissioner Jeff Fryer said.
But Palo Pinto County Judge Shane Long said it was hard to compare when one bidder is submitting to replace the roof.
“The hard part about this is the top bid and the bottom bid are apples-to-apples, but the middle bid is a complete tear-off,” he said. “If they were all just spray overs, then that makes it much easier to look at it and just decide who has the best value. But when you’re talking about apples and oranges, then it’s not as easy to just say who is the cheapest because you’re talking about a different process.”
Precinct 1 Commissioner Gary Glover said it was his opinion that the courthouse roof needs to be torn off and replaced.
“It’s been there 18 years and with the leaks in the treasurer’s office I just feel like there’s moisture underneath and if we put something on top of it, it’s just going to be trapped in there,” Glover said.
The bid specifications did include either repairing or replacing the roof; however, Long said the court needs to give a clear direction as to what they want to do.
“I think when you’re talking about a project of this size on this building then we want it right — regardless of what we thought we wanted or what we thought we were going to do. We want to make sure we get what we want,” he said. “I would love to take the $50,000, that’s the cheapest, but I’ve tried to cover up bad spots on roofs before and it doesn’t work.”
Fryer recommended that the court reject the bids and rebid the project as replacement of the roof.
“I certainly don’t have a problem with taking Commissioner Fryer’s recommendation of rejecting these bids today, but if we do that, we need to decide as a commissioners court and give clear instructions to the bidders in the future of what we want,” Long said. “I’m totally OK with rebidding for any reason if we’re not comfortable with what we’ve got. I just feel much more comfortable with the tear-off. If that’s going to be the requirement, then we need to give these other companies an opportunity with that understanding and I don’t have a problem with that.”
County Auditor Phyllis Banks said excessive funds in capital improvements should cover the cost of replacing the courthouse roof.
The commissioners court approved to rebid the project.