Browse the full Resources Index
Selecting a contractor to repair storm damage to common elements is one of the more consequential decisions a homeowners association board makes, and most governing documents require some form of competitive process before a contract of significant size is signed. Bylaws frequently specify a threshold above which multiple bids are required, and some declarations call for membership notice or even a vote before the board can commit association funds to a major repair or replacement project.
Verifying licensing and insurance is a baseline step regardless of how the association structures its bidding process. Minnesota requires residential roofing and remodeling contractors to hold state licensure through the Department of Labor and Industry, and boards typically confirm that a prospective contractor carries adequate general liability coverage and workers’ compensation before signing an agreement. Checking references from other multi-building or association projects, rather than single-family jobs alone, helps the board gauge whether a contractor has actually managed the logistics that a large common-element project involves.
After a widespread storm, associations sometimes receive unsolicited proposals from contractors who arrived in the area specifically because of the weather event and who may have no history of past work locally. This is a normal feature of the post-storm construction market in the Midwest, and it does not by itself indicate a problem with the work, but boards generally apply the same vetting standards to every bidder regardless of how the contact originated, including confirming a permanent business address and a track record that predates the storm.
Cost comparison across bids requires attention to scope, not just the bottom-line number. One bid might include full tear-off and code-required underlayment upgrades while another assumes an overlay or omits certain flashing details, and a board comparing figures without normalizing scope can end up choosing based on an incomplete picture. Many associations ask each bidder to itemize scope items separately, such as ice and water shield coverage, ventilation modifications, and gutter or downspout replacement, so the comparison reflects like-for-like work. Payment schedules and warranty terms also deserve comparison alongside price, since a lower bid tied to a shorter workmanship warranty or an unusual upfront deposit requirement changes the overall value of the proposal in ways the headline number does not show.
The relationship between the selected contractor and the insurance claim itself is worth keeping distinct. The contractor’s estimate may inform the association’s position on the value of the loss, and in some cases the contractor participates in providing documentation used during appraisal, but the contractor does not represent the association in the appraisal process itself; that role belongs to the appraiser the association selects under the policy’s appraisal clause. Keeping these functions separate, contractor selection for the physical repair and appraiser selection for the valuation dispute, helps the board manage each decision on its own merits. Boards that document their selection process, including the bids received, the criteria applied, and the reasons for the final choice, create a record that is useful both for membership transparency and for any later questions about how repair decisions were made, particularly when a claim spans many months and board composition changes before the project concludes.
This article is general education about how the appraisal process commonly works. It is not legal advice, and specific procedures can vary by state and policy.
Russ Lis is a working property insurance appraiser and umpire based in Minnesota, serving clients nationwide. Contact Appraisal Resolution.