Table of Contents
Major projects move quickly after committee votes. To get updates on spending, timelines, and construction milestones, sign up for our free newsletter.
The Marblehead High School roof and HVAC replacement project came in $2.1 million under budget, with the Roof Subcommittee voting unanimously Tuesday to recommend awarding an $8.9 million construction contract to low bidder Homer Contracting.
The general contractor budget allocated $11.09 million, but Homer Contracting’s $8.97 million bid emerged as the lowest among six contractors. With current cost projections, the overall project is now anticipated to cost around $12 million against the $14 million authorization, representing $2 million in total savings.
“We got great bid coverage, with six bidders bidding this,” said Leena Long of LeftField, the project management firm.
The project addresses a 25-year-old roof that has experienced significant leaks for several years, resulting in water damage to classrooms, equipment damage, mold growth and falling ceiling tiles. The associated HVAC units have reached the end of their operational lifespan and rely on refrigerant no longer in production.
Marblehead voters approved $5.3 million for roof replacement at the 2022 Town Meeting, though the project did not proceed. In May, voters authorized an additional $8.6 million through a debt exclusion to expand the scope to include HVAC replacement, bringing total approved borrowing to approximately $14 million. The debt exclusion is structured over 30 years and is projected to increase the median property tax bill by $57 annually, based on a median single-family home value of $965,000.
Liquid-applied option proves costly
All six general contractors chose Capeway Roofing to perform the roofing work. Specialized subcontractors included Robert Irvine for plumbing, E. Amanti for HVAC and Systems for electrical work.
The committee recommended the standard roof replacement without accepting an optional liquid-applied roofing system that would have added approximately $2 million to the project cost. Earlier discussions had anticipated the liquid-applied technology might cost less than traditional roof replacement.
Five roofing contractors submitted bids, but only three qualified under state requirements for projects exceeding $10 million. Of the three qualified bidders, only Gibson Roofing offered the liquid-applied option at a lower price, proposing to reduce costs by $157,000. The other two qualified roofers, Capeway and Greenwood, priced the liquid-applied system substantially higher than traditional replacement.
Gene Raymond, representing Raymond Design Associates, explained the bid results challenged earlier expectations about the liquid-applied technology.
“The expectation was that the liquid-applied coating was going to be materially less expensive than the recover,” Raymond said. “Two of the roofing subcontractors did not view the job that way.”
Raymond noted that even accepting the liquid-applied option would keep the project only $50,000 under budget, making the $2 million premium difficult to justify.
Committee member Ralph Wallace questioned the unexpected cost premium for liquid-applied roofing.
“You got to look at the gap between the membrane and liquid applied though, and say we must have done something wrong, because I don’t believe the market price of that product really is a significant premium over the membrane,” Wallace said.
School Committee member Henry Gwazda, who. chairs the group, asked committee members whether anyone saw value in adding $2 million to use liquid-applied roofing, and members indicated they did not. Michael Pfifferling noted that state law requires accepting the low bidder, and all six contractors were pre-qualified.
Brian Dakin explained that favorable bidding conditions contributed to the below-budget results.
“We’re seeing an incredibly competitive bidding market, and an incredibly competitive bidding market usually creates these scenarios where projects beat their estimates,” Dakin said.
Raymond attributed most of the variance to the roofing scope, noting that estimators aim to be conservative rather than predict the lowest bid. He also praised the quality of contractors who submitted bids.
“The HVAC subcontractor that we got is a local contractor, and they do a lot of work on school projects, and they’re well regarded within the industry,” Raymond said. “By and large, this was a successful bid.”
Long noted that estimators intentionally aim higher than the expected low bid to avoid complications for municipalities.
“The estimators are not trying to estimate the low bid,” Long said. “They’re trying to make sure that they’re capturing maybe not the middle of the pack, but they want to be higher because being lower really turns into a huge headache for a municipality or a town.”
Oversight and future maintenance plans
Planning Board memebr Marc Liebman volunteered to conduct weekly or twice-weekly site visits during construction to ensure work proceeds according to specifications.
“I’d like to do either a weekly or twice a week site visit and actually make sure that things are going the way they’re supposed to be, and flashing details are being done correctly,” Liebman said.
Liebman and committee member Karima Maloney suggested applying liquid-applied coating in 15 to 16 years as a maintenance strategy to extend the roof’s life without full replacement.
“I think the move here would be to do the PVC membrane and then come up with an obsolescence schedule so that at a certain point before it gets to the point where it’s leaking and insulation is compromised, at that point, you do the liquid applied,” Liebman said.
Maloney supported the long-term maintenance approach, noting that if the roof comes with a 20-year warranty, officials should begin discussing liquid-applied coating around year 15 or 16.
The recommendation will go before the full School Committee on Nov. 20 for approval, followed by Select Board authorization. The contractor award is targeted for Dec. 1. Construction is scheduled to begin immediately after graduation in June 2026 and conclude by September 2026, with no on-roof work permitted during the school year.
BEFORE YOU GO: A quick note on supporting this work
Tuesday’s vote is only one step in a multi-year construction process that will continue through design finalization, contract execution and on-site oversight. We’ll be covering every phase — the approvals, cost changes, contractor performance and the updates that matter to families, teachers and homeowners. Member support allows us to attend the meetings, read the documents and provide clear summaries of what’s happening and why. Consider a monthly contribution: tr.ee/nNP6bVlS10
