To foam or not to foam? That's the ongoing question when it comes to Hafford School's roof.
One way or another, says Brian Bossaer, facilities manager for Living Sky School Division, the roof is going to get done in 2015 – even if it turns out to be by conventional methods.
It's not just the Living Sky School Division Board of Education waiting on the results of a tender that will probably close early in the new year. Contractors, other school divisions and even the provincial education ministry are waiting and watching.
The results of the tender could mean more cost-effective ways of addressing roof replacement for Saskatchewan school divisions whose needs are outpacing money coming in from the government.
It's been a watched pot that hasn't yet boiled, set on the burner by Bossaer this past May when he brought the board of education a sample of a spray foam product with high hopes of saving significant dollars.
After a meeting with contractors, manufacturers and Living Sky's roof consultant firm about setting appropriate standards of application, the first tender in September for Hafford's roof was a bust.
Disappointingly, only one bid came in and it was for $1.7 million, almost three times the cost Bossaer had hoped.
The present call to tender, however, is not limited to spray foam application, which is why Bossaer is hopeful the results will be much close to the estimated range of $690,000.
Another reason he is hopeful is the interest the call to tender generated.
He said Dec. 4 was the day of a site view by contractors and attendance was extraordinary.
“Because we did a lot of shoulder tapping and the story’s getting out there more about this whole trial of spray foam, 12 contractors showed up on site to do a review,” Bossaer told the Living Sky School Division Board of Education recently. “I’ve never seen that in my life, including back when I was a contractor out to look for a job, back in the eighties when we were starving.”
The current call to tender is open to spray foam applicators and suppliers, general contractors and roofers or any combination thereof to replace the roof in whatever way works for them, including conventional construction.
“It will be interesting to see what combinations and mixes they want to create and come up with themselves,” said Bossaer. “Given such a wide variety, I would hope to see a good price.”
The “good price” is imperative to Living Sky keeping its roof inventory up to snuff.
Their roof consultants say they need to spend $1.6 million annually just on roofs, but the government gave them only $870,000 this year to cover all preventative maintenance and renewal (PMR) costs, not just roofing projects.
“That certainly says we have to do something, or change how we do business,” said Bossaer, “and that was part of our approach to Hafford.”
Living Sky isn’t the only school division facing a funding issue when it comes to roofing. In fact, according to Bossaer, most other school divisions are in worse straits.
He credited the board with looking ahead.
“That’s dedication over the years,” he said. “The board put money into the facilities, but there will come a time when it’s not enough because it’s not in your control anymore.”
Bossaer was referring to the fact that school divisions can no longer set their own local taxes according to local needs, and are now working within the parameters of a funding model administered by the provincial government
“We’ve always maintained that we’re in pretty good shape,” he said. “We’ve been saying we have to prepare for what’s coming down the pipe, and I think that’s what you can see from the summarization, that our funding is going to fall behind and we won’t be able to keep up the roofing.”
In discussion with the division’s chief financial officer, Lonny Darroch, Bossaer indicated they will have to put a priority on roofing; five of the division’s 31 Schools have sections of roof rated as having zero years of remaining, while 19 have sections rated at one to four years of life remaining. Throughout the division there are 300 sections of roof, or approximately one million square feet.
“With the pot of money through PMR and given where we sit with roofs and everything else, we’ve agreed we have to take $500,000 of that pot, regardless, and put it into roofs every year.”
From the remainder they will have to work on whatever else needs to be done across the division, he said.
“There’s a balance line there somewhere.”
The results of the Hafford tender may improve the picture.
“If we do see a combination, if we get some improvements, better pricing, partnerships and new forms of doing business, it could really could change the scope,” said Bossaer. “Roofing, in comparison to general construction prices, is dramatically increased ... so if we can get roofing in line, or keep it at bay even, it’s only going to help us.”
Bossaer said the tender was designed carefully and is open for either conventional or spray foam methods so, no matter the result, they shouldn’t have to go back to yet another tender. The tender specs also include alternatives, as in doing some or all of the roof, depending on price.
“The reason why we did a dual tender is because of timing,” he said.
They don’t want to have to re-tender, because May 1 is the planned start date.
“At least we can pick one,” he said. “We know we’re going to spend the money and it will get done.”
Bossaer said the timing of the division looking for new roofing concepts may also be in their favour; with oil prices falling, contractors will be looking for work more competitively.
Looking for ways to innovate the division’s roofing projects has been a lot of work, says Bossaer, but it’s also proved to be fun. He’s had inquiries from many people interested in the progress of the foam spray trail, including the Ministry of Education.
He sits on the ministry’s infrastructure capital planning committee.
“They are certainly waiting for updates every time,” he said, “because they want to see the end result.”
