Long-term insurance for the high school building, recommended by outside consultants, is unnecessary, the building’s architect and general contractor have told the Scarborough school department.

Harriman Associates and Pizzagalli Construction made the claim in their response to a report by C and C Consulting of Boston, which conducted a review of 10 areas of the high school and identified some structural problems, which the company felt could reduce the building’s useful life.

C and C recommended the town, Pizzagalli and Harriman, consider obtaining a long-term insurance policy that would cover any repairs that may be required in the future on the building, which is costing local taxpayers $27 million.

Both Pizzagalli and Harriman disputed C and C’s findings and stated that corrective action is unnecessary.

“In conclusion Harriman Associates feels that all of the ten concerns expressed by C & C have been addressed and resolved, and we do not recommend that the School Board, or the Town of Scarborough consider obtaining a long term insurance policy relating to the issues contained in the C & C report,” Harriman’s response concludes.

Pizzagalli Construction also disagreed that any type of corrective action needs to be undertaken or insurance purchased.

“All ten concerns have been previously addressed and have achieved closure,” Pizzagalli’s report reads. “Six of the items were dealt with previously through the answers to the (Town Councilor Jeffrey) Messer Inquiries. (Pizzagalli) is in compliance with the Contract Documents and the contract with the Scarborough School Department.”

The town hired C and C after the Code Enforcement Officer Carroll Shepard determined his department’s staff did not have the necessary expertise to review some specific areas.

Of the 10 areas reviewed by C and C, no problems were found with three of them. Four of the areas – including cracks in a foundation wall – could not be fully explored because there was not enough information. Three areas were found to be not up to standards required by the building contract or standard building codes.

The seven “active concerns” – those that were below standards or could not be fully investigated – will not lead to any type of structural deficiency, but could lead “to potential damage or reduced performance of the building,” according to C and C’s report.

Superintendent Bill Michaud said the district has investigated purchasing the additional insurance with its agent Clark Associates. However, Michaud was told that in order to get something insured it must be identified and the district was not really sure what should be covered.

Michaud added that it would be difficult to determine the cost of coverage if the areas in question were not accessible, such as portions of the building’s foundation that have been covered as part of the construction. Michaud has not explored the issue with other insurance companies.

“We’ll see what the board wants to do and go from there,” he said.

The high school construction project fell under heavy scrutiny last spring after Town Councilors Jeffrey Messer and Robert Patch presented a list of various concerns to the school and requested the town hire an independent engineer to review the project. The school board choose not to hire the engineer and the Town Council took no action on the issue. The independent review was conducted only after Shepard, a town employee, requested it.

The district also has received a report from Northeast Test Consultants regarding its latest round of air quality testing that was conducted between Sept. 20 and Sept. 26. The testing was done on the first and second floors, in a total area of 40,000 square feet. No problems were identified.

Moisture probes were used randomly throughout the area to identify potential areas of water infiltration. Readings from the tests were within normal range, according to Northeast’s report.

The second floor ceiling space also was inspected and no ongoing water intrusion issues were seen. There also was no evidence of black-colored growth that would warrant further investigation into the presence of mold, the report said.

Several penetrations were made into the walls on the first and second floor, in which no visible evidence of water staining or black-colored areas was observed.

“Based on site observation, recorded data and analysis results, the indoor environment is within current acceptable guidelines for those parameters examined,” the report said.

Finally, the district also received a report from G and E Roofing regarding a moisture scan on the roof that found the roof is dry “in all respects.”