Saturday, June 3, 2017

Garland and U. S. Communities busted AGAIN in school roofing scam.

Friends:

This is a follow up to the original Minnesota State Auditor's report.  

Garland AGAIN!!  





http://procurement-reform.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/MN-State-Auditor-Letter-to-St-Cloud-Schools.pdf

Copy and paste link above for full report (suggested)


Continued, see link above.  Click to enlarge.



When I tell you about people who put you in danger, for a 25% commission check, , I am dead serious.  You will notice in the latest story (below).  If YOU stole $403,000.00 dollars from a school district, the punishment would be severe.  Garland and U.S. Communities don't care, and will take you with them on the way down.

I deal in reality, not "wishful thinking'.  Many times I've broken down how these school roofing scams work, and the ones who perpetrate it.  

Each and every time,  provided public record, because I don't feature "opinions".  I don't feature my own "opinion" to tell you the truth.  I live in a world of "measurable units", and not emotion.  What I care about the words of "Salesmen', you can put in a thimble.

I'll get you started on the above referenced article, and you can finish it for yourself.

Further to a case I've previously reported.

NOTE: Retired 2003, do not solicit nor accept compensation or personal advancement of any kind.

Thank you to Ms. Jenny Berg for an accurate accounting of the scam.


Roofing project change orders to save district $403,000




http://www.sctimes.com/story/news/local/2017/05/26/roof-change-orders/347331001/ 

-----------------------


St. Cloud school board approved Thursday change orders on three upcoming roofing projects to save the district more than $403,000. 
The projects are for sections of roofs at Talahi Community School and Clearview Elementary School, as well as the new roof atQuarryview Education Center. Construction is underway at Quarryview.
The school board awarded bids to McDowall Company for the Talahi and Clearview projects on Feb. 23; it awarded bids to McDowall Company for the Quarryview project March 23. 
The change orders come after years of discussion about the district's roof bidding process; board Chair Al Dahlgren has raised questions for years about the chance of reducing costs through increased competition. For many years, the district contracted for roofing needs through the state-approved cooperative purchasing system U.S. Communities.
The Garland Co., an Ohio-based manufacturer that won a bidding process to be U.S. Communities' approved roofing supplier, subsequently worked with its certified installers and the district on almost $12 million in roofing projects from 2012-2015.
A review of school district bidding practices by the state's auditor's office in 2015 found the process may have violated two statutes, including one that calls for competitive bidding.
Amy Skaalerud, interim executive director of business services, said during the district's research into roofing systems and contracts, it hired Roof Spec Inc. as a consultant. 
"The board wanted to make sure that whatever specs were released weren't proprietary in nature, meaning that only one company could bid on it, or that only one manufacturer would be able to provide the product for that," she said. 
Roof Spec organized the specifications for the district roofing projects and managed the bidding process, Skaalerud said. 
"In putting those specs together, at some point ... (Roof Spec was) asked by district staff to include an alternate that essentially was the equivalent to the Garland system that we had previously put on, which is a proprietary system," she said. "The board didn't have any knowledge that that bid contained an alternate. ... Their understanding was the specs had been put together to not include anything proprietary in nature."  
Cont...... 
That should get you started, but again, the full article may be found here:
http://www.sctimes.com/story/news/local/2017/05/26/roof-change-orders/347331001/ 
Follow Jenny Berg at www.facebook.com/sctimesjenny and on Twitter @bergjenny
Ms. Berg does a wonderful job with the article, and I encourage you to see how $403,000.00 ALMOST got away to a roofing scam.  Anytime you use U. S. Communities, and Garland, you may expect similar outcomes. 
Say "NO" to U. S. Communities, and Garland.  Taxpayers will thank you.
If you require other examples, just type "Garland", or "Roofing Scam" into the upper left search box.
NOTE: Retired 2003, do not solicit or accept compensation or personal advancement of any kind.
Reject negativity in all forms and always remember to keep looking "UP"

Respect.
Robert R. "Ron" Solomon
Public Procurement Analyst
Florida Certification  CCC 1325620





Saturday, May 27, 2017

Oklahoma State Auditor, and School Roofing Report

Friends:

Original investigative report:

http://www.news9.com/story/15953631/school-districts-accused-of-wasting-tax-dollars

That's me in the yellow blazer.

State Auditor's Report:

https://www.sai.ok.gov/Search%20Reports/database/School%20Roofing%20web%20final.pdf

A magnificent effort by the Oklahoma State Auditor, Mr. Gary Jones.  I would also like to thank Mr. Mick Dodson,of the SA's office for putting up with me, and not making me feel like an "Intruder".   

I cannot properly emote my heartfelt appreciation of such FAIR, and HONORABLE, Public Servants.   

I had the unusual experience of interacting with Oklahoma Lawmakers, and I've written about Congressman Jason Murphey several times.  Another clear eyed Public Servant who does his job, and cares about the people he serves.  Senator Jolly's effort may not go without recognition.

The fine people of Oklahoma are well served by their Honorable State Auditor, and you should be proud.  It took three years of my life, but learned a lot about myself, and the process in general.   

NOTE: Retired 2003, do not solicit nor accept compensation or personal advancement of any kind.

I live in Florida, and  will never meet the hard working people of Oklahoma  who were served by this action.  Estimates are that SB630 will save Oklahoma taxpayers approximately $100,000,000.00 per year.  Think about that for a moment, and find the beauty of perseverance.  A brand new High School costs around $50,000,000.00 for comparison, and you can think of it that way.

Factually, you are receiving BETTER services, for LESS money once the "Predatory Sales Models" were exposed.

I don't discuss politics here, but people.  Republicans, Democrats, and Independents ALL PAY TAXES.  You WORK for that money, and it's REAL.  I dig people who work, but despise people who lie, cheat, and steal.  That's as straight up as I can say it.

Forgive me if it seems like I'm 'gushing" a bit, but in my line of work. HONORABLE Public Servants are a rarity.  You stand a better chance of having lunch with the "abominable snowman" than finding one.

It was the experience of a lifetime, and revealed a threshold that was previously unimaginable.  I am paralyzed from a hemorrhagic stroke, but it doesn't mean I have to quit on life, and wallow in sorrow. 

My civic pride will not allow it, and all I wanted to do was return to society as a productive citizen.  

I've been extraordinarily fortunate to have people who genuinely care about me, and my campaign.  If I can attribute it to anything, I would say it is the 'consistency" of my message.
   
A Colonel out of West Point influenced my life by believing in me.  That may not seem like such a big deal to some, but it is when you're trying to "rebuild" yourself in a positive image.

I have a very long way to go, but have the greatest role model you could imagine.  I'm just a broken down roofer from "Six Mile Creek", and do not deserve such grace.

Forgive me, but without him, would not know courage in the face of adversity.  With head lowered, thank my God for Col. RS.  Through him, my destiny was revealed.

General Douglas MacArthur:

“Duty,” “Honor,” “Country” — those three hallowed words reverently dictate what you want to be, what you can be, what you will be. They are your rallying point to build courage when courage seems to fail, to regain faith when there seems to be little cause for faith, to create hope when hope becomes forlorn. Unhappily, I possess neither that eloquence of diction, that poetry of imagination, nor that brilliance of metaphor to tell you all that they mean.

Another thing I learned about Oklahoma is that you don't say the word "Texas", lest you be accused of blasphemy. 

I want ALL Oklahomans to know you have a friend in Florida who cares about you, and your schools. 

NOTE: Retired 2003, do not solicit nor accept compensation or personal advancement of any kind.  

You working people don't have the time, or hunger, for copious reading, long hours, and certain heartbreak that comes with it.

That's just my game, and have an aptitude for it.

I will help anyone who asks for help.

That's how I ended up in Oklahoma in the first place.

Reject negativity in all forms and always  remember to keep looking "UP".

Much Respect.

Robert R. "Ron" Solomon
Public Procurement Analyst
Florida Certified  CCC 1325620












Friday, May 26, 2017

School District Attorney : BEWARE - Tremco Roofing Lawsuit

ALL School District Attorneys should know this, and advise your district accordingly.

I will apologize to my readers in advance, because this is extraordinarily tedious.  I think I became officially blind reading it myself.

NOTE; Retired 2003, do not solicit nor accept compensation or personal advancement of any kind.

RPM International is Tremco, the "We handle it all" people, and Boy, do they.

Below, you will find the complaint, but since it's so lengthy, can be accessed by interested parties by copy and pasting the following link:


http://www.howardsmithlaw.com/Complaints/RPM_Complaint.pdf

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
Plaintiff, Individually and On Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiff,
v.
RPM INTERNATIONAL INC.,
, and ,
Defendants.
Case No.: DRAFT
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR
VIOLATIONS OF THE FEDERAL
SECURITIES LAWS
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED


CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
Plaintiff, Individually and On Behalf of All
Others Similarly Situated,
Plaintiff,
v.
RPM INTERNATIONAL INC.,
, and ,
Defendants.
Case No.: DRAFT
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR
VIOLATIONS OF THE FEDERAL
SECURITIES LAWS
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
1
Plaintiff (“Plaintiff”), by and through his attorneys, alleges the following upon
information and belief, except as to those allegations concerning Plaintiff, which are alleged
upon personal knowledge. Plaintiff’s information and belief is based upon, among other things,
his counsel’s investigation, which includes without limitation: (a) review and analysis of
regulatory filings made by RPM INTERNATIONAL INC. (“RPM” or the “Company”), with the
United States (“U.S.”) Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”); (b) review and analysis of
press releases and media reports issued by and disseminated by RPM; and (c) review of other
publicly available information concerning RPM.


NATURE OF THE ACTION AND OVERVIEW
1. This is a class action on behalf of persons and entities that acquired RPM
securities between July 26, 2012, and September 8, 2016, inclusive (the “Class Period”), seeking
to pursue remedies under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (the “Exchange Act”).

2. RPM, through its subsidiaries, markets and sells specialty coatings, sealants,
building materials and related services across three segments. RPM’s industrial products include
roofing systems, sealants, corrosion control coatings, flooring coatings and other construction
chemicals. RPM’s consumer products are used by professionals and do-it-yourselfers for home
maintenance and improvement and by hobbyists. RPM’s specialty products include industrial
cleaners, colorants, exterior finishes, specialty OEM coatings, edible coatings, restoration
services equipment and specialty glazes for the pharmaceutical and food industries.

3. One of RPM’s wholly-owned subsidiaries is Tremco, a company that provides
roofing materials and services.

4. In July 2010, a former Tremco employee filed a qui tam complaint under the FCA
(the “FCA complaint”) in federal court against RPM and Tremco. The FCA complaint alleged
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT that Tremco overcharged the government under certain government contracts by, among otherthings, failing to provide required price discounts. The FCA complaint was filed under seal and provided to the U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) so that DOJ could investigate the allegations and decide whether to intervene in the lawsuit (the “DOJ investigation”).....................................................................


I would suggest any School District Attorney involved in the Public Procurement of Roofing, save it as reference.  You may also type "Tremco" in the upper Left search box, for additional data.

Please refer to the link, and full document as I don't want to cherry pick, or be accused of it.

Again:

http://www.howardsmithlaw.com/Complaints/RPM_Complaint.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Every School District Attorney Should know this.  I will help any Attorney who asks for help.

RobertRSolomon@aol.com

There are many ways to receive both "Serviceability, and Value"for your district, but a Purchasing Cooperative, Tremco, and Garland, are NOT among them.

I know this post has been BRUTAL on my readers, but perhaps you School District Attorneys are more suitable to "decode"?

The roofing discipline, and taxpayers deserve better than me, but I'm what you have until someone wants to take my place.

I approach my work as a civic responsibility, and without malice.  "People" don't stress me, but "Predatory Sales Models' do.  

Honor, and respect to my friend RS, and those like him, on Memorial Day.  I will also lower my head in both humility, and deep respect for "Brother Jake".  May God bless you all.

NOTE; Retired 2003, do not solicit nor accept compensation or personal advancement of any kind.

Reject negativity in all forms, and always remember to keep looking "UP" (for CA).




Much Respect.

Ron

Robert R. "Ron" Solomon
Public Procurement Analyst
Florida Certification 
CCC 1325620





Sunday, May 21, 2017

Baltimore Public Schools Competitive Bid Report

Friends:

http://procurement-reform.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/MD-BCPS-Audit-July-2015.pdf

Financial Management Practices Audit Report
Baltimore County Public Schools
July 2015
OFFICE

OFFICE OF LEGISLATIVE AUDITS
DEPARTMENT OF LEGISLATIVE SERVICES
MARYLAND GENERAL ASSEMBLY

For further information concerning this report contact:
Department of Legislative Services
Office of Legislative Audits
301 West Preston Street, Room 1202
Baltimore, Maryland 21201
Phone: 410-946-5900 · 301-970-5900
Toll Free in Maryland: 1-877-486-9964
Maryland Relay: 711
TTY: 410-946-5401 · 301-970-5401
E-mail: OLAWebmaster@ola.state.md.us
Website: www.ola.state.md.us


The following excerpts are from that report, but you can access the full report with the link I've provided above.

Thomas J. Barnickel ill, CPA
Legislative Auditor

"Ladies and Gentlemen:

We conducted an audit of the financial management practices of the Baltimore County Public Schools (BCPS) in accordance with the requirements of the State Government Article, Section 2-1220(e) of the Annotated Code of Maryland. 

The objectives of this audit were to evaluate whether BCPS
procedures and controls were effective in accounting for and safeguarding its assets and whether its policies provided for the efficient use of financial resources. 

Our audit disclosed that BCPS needs to improve certain procurement practices to ensure it obtains goods at services in a cost-effective manner.

For example, BCPS appeared to be paying more than necessary for roof replacements obtained through a purchasing consortium. BCPS paid approximately $31.4 million for roofing services during the period from July 1, 2010 through December 10, 2013. In addition, BCPS procurement policy did not require that a competitive procurement process be used for certain service contracts.

Cont.....

"An executive summary of our findings can be found on page 5 of this report.

The BCPS response to this audit is included as an appendix to this report. We wish to acknowledge the cooperation extended to us during our audit by BCPS.

Respectfully submitted,

Legislative Auditor"

-----------------------------

School Districts should be the FIRST to demand "a competitive procurement process".

In the next few days, and weeks, I will run through a series of reports, similar to Baltimore.  

It is insane to give ANY MANUFACTURER Carte Blanche, and that's EXACTLY what Purchasing Cooperatives do.  The urge to steal is too great.

If your school district buys roofing through a Purchasing Cooperative, you are paying around 50% too much.  Since Garland, and Tremco perpetuate this scheme (all over the internet), would suggest you not fall into their trap.

They can leave.  You must stay behind and be the focus of great public scrutiny, and ridicule.   Or worse.

It must be a horrible way to live (without conscience).

Each day we teach our children not to lie, cheat, or steal.  We then go out and do those very things.  Think about what I've said the next time you look in a mirror.

This is what makes "Honorable" manufacturers like GAF, Carlisle, Firestone, Johns Manville, Barrett, etc. so attractive.

NO PRIVATE OWNERS buy from a Purchasing Cooperative, and NO PRIVATE OWNERS use Garland or Tremco.  So why are they the "Darlings" of Purchasing Cooperatives? 

Purchasing Cooperatives get paid a "Commission" and haven't the slightest inclination to compete.  Instead, they do it through cronyism, manipulation, corrupt politicians, and the like.

NEVER BUY A ROOF THROUGH A PURCHASING COOPERATIVE 

YOU'LL BE SORRY.  

NOTE: Retired 2003, do not solicit nor accept compensation or personal advancement of any kind.

I am humbled by the 120,000+ viewers of this page.  Thank You.  I will help anyone who asks for help, because YOUR schools are important to me.

Reject negativity in all forms, and always remember to keep looking "UP".

Respect.

Robert R. "Ron" Solomon
Public Procurement Analyst
CCC 1325620  Florida
RobertRSolomon@aol.com

Profile:  https://www.linkedin.com/in/robertrsolomon














Friday, May 12, 2017

Coalition for Procurement Reform Honorable Fight Against School Roofing Scams.

Friends:

I have a number of new developments on the roofing "Fair Competition" front.  Please be encouraged by the good news as it is available to me. 

"Public Roofing Oversight" would like to endorse them. 

"Honorable" is the highest praise I can give.

I know many of them personally, and find them of the highest moral character.  Like me, they neither subscribe to, or perpetuate, the stereotypical roofer image.

If you ask them a question, they will give you a truthful answer. 

First to CPR:

http://procurement-reform.org/

Details


PLEASE visit their site, and join if possible. Fascinating stuff, and very well done.  It should be required reading for every school board member, FM Manager, Consultant, Architect, and Engineer.  

If you are in charge of a buying a publicly funded roof, please be aware that all public projects are subject to oversight by law.  It is foolish to expose the district, and yourself, to unnecessary suit.  I'm working on that post, because your protection, and livelihood, are important to me.  

I'll show you how to buy a school roof, and not end up in jail, or the front page.  

 http://procurement-reform.org/home-box/solutions-to/audits-and-studies/

Click the links below for actual documents, and reports.

"Audits and Studies

Below is a list of audits and studies relating to cooperative procurement.  (Click on the title to download the document.)

Pennsylvania: Ducker-Carlisle Reports –  Open-Bid vs AEPA-Tremco Costs in PA Roofs – Independent study of average open-bid roofing costs in PA vs. costs from AEPA-Tremco projects in PA.

This is a great report, showing actual cost of roofs purchased through the Purchasing Cooperative fraud scheme.  Pay attention to pages 7 and 8.

Maryland: Legislative Audit Agency Report on Open-Bid vs. Cooperative Procurement – Maryland Legislative Audit Agency’s report on Baltimore County’s use of cooperative procurement program for school roofing projects; cites an excess expenditure of $11 MM over the comparable cost of open-bid procurement, on projects in nine schools over three years.

Maryland: EXCERPT FROM – Legislative Audit Agency Report on Open-Bid vs. Cooperative Procurement – Excerpt of the key findings of the Maryland Legislative Audit Agency’s report on Baltimore County’s use of cooperative procurement program for school roofing projects; cites an excess expenditure of $11 MM over the comparable cost of open-bid procurement, on projects in nine schools over three years.

Indiana: State Attorney General’s Official Opinion about Schools and Cooperative Procurement Groups – Concludes “that school corporations are covered by the public work statute and are subject to the procedures for bids and quotes whenever they contract for public work even when the public work is contracted through an educational service center.” The educational service center cited is AEPA, which is one of the major cooperative procurement providers for school districts in more than 20 states. This is the Indiana Attorney General’s opinion that AEPA cannot circumvent the state’s competitive bidding laws by claiming the work is repair or maintenance.

Indiana: State Auditor General’s Report – Detailed analysis of the operation of cooperative purchasing by the State’s Educational Service Centers in conjunction with AEPA; highlights the instances where the Center’s application of AEPA requirements is not in compliance with State public purchasing law and with the State public work law.

Minnesota: State Auditor’s Letter to St. Cloud Schools – Office of the State Auditor review and recommendations regarding the bidding procedure used by the St. Cloud Area School District for roofing repair projects.

New Jersey: Waste And Abuse: Public School Roofing Projects – Details the results of a comprehensive, statewide inquiry into  the repair and replacement of roof systems.  Investigation revealed evidence of widespread cost-gouging; unscrupulous bidding practices; contract manipulation; questionable design, installation and inspection procedures and other abuses.

Texas: Interim Report to the 83rd Legislature by House Committee on Government Efficiency & Reform – Project to examine and make recommendations on purchasing cooperatives created under Chapter 791 of the Texas Government Code, including the bid process and the role of inter-local contracts. Clarify for consistency the following terms: purchasing cooperatives, inter-local contracts, and inter-local agreements."
------------------------------------------- 

I would enthusiastically encourage you to read:

Pennsylvania: Ducker-Carlisle Reports –  Open-Bid vs AEPA-Tremco Costs in PA Roofs – Independent study of average open-bid roofing costs in PA vs. costs from AEPA-Tremco projects in PA.

Watch this video, and you will see a ton of school roofing investigative reports.  Thank you to CPR.

http://procurement-reform.org/home-box/in-the-news/news-videos-about-cp/video/

------------------------------

If you are an RCI Member you should definitely read this:

http://rci-online.org/foundation-supports-procurement-reform-education/
This data is coming at me fast, and that's good news.  I'm trying to get it to you at top speed, but the reading assignment is very demanding.


Thank you to CPR, and I have some good news about NRCA coming soon.

Fight hard, but fight fair.  

NO MORE BID RIGGING THROUGH PURCHASING COOPERATIVES..

I want to close by saying this site is blowing up, and surpassing 300 views per day.  You can see the page view counter at the top of this page.

That's pretty exciting for a guy who doesn't buy, nor sell things.

All I do is educate, and tell the truth.  I think that is my mission, and hope you see it that way too.

NOTE: Retired 2003, do not solicit nor accept compensation or personal advancement of any kind.

Reject negativity in all forms, and always remember to keep looking "UP".

Respect.

Robert R. "Ron' Solomon

Public Profile:   LinkedIn Profile: https://www.linkedin.com/in/robertrsolomon


Sunday, May 7, 2017

NATIONAL ROOFING SCAM: Cobb County Georgia, U.S. Communities, and Garland . BID RIGGING, and how it works.

Cobb County Commission is guilty of "Bid Rigging" with the help of U.S. Communities (Purchasing Cooperative), and Garland, Ind. (Roofing Material Manufacturer).  

It could NEVER happen to me:



These guys are lightweights compared to Garland, Cobb County, and U.S. Communities.

So Ron, why should I care about Cobb County, Georgia?  The reason you should care is because this "setup" only ORIGINATES in Georgia, and then used for every city, county, and state in the country as the "Standard".  Laughable.




NOTE:  Retired 2003, do not solicit nor accept compensation or personal advancement of any kind.

The SCAM extends into all territories, and provinces, of Canada as well.  So this little "scheme" in effect excludes all manufacturers (except Garland of course) steals hundreds of millions of dollars annually  from taxpayers.




Joe Tommie is the point man for Cobb County, and knows EXACTLY what he's doing, but you may not.  Cobb County Commission doesn't care who they hurt, as long as they keep getting their 5% "Commission" for lying on Garland's behalf.

That's impossible Ron, they'd be run out of town on a rail.  Well, it's not impossible, and actually more common than you'd think.  Don't take my word for it, and read articles of the contract:

“5.1 Administrative Fees. Supplier shall pay to U.S. Communities a monthly administrative fee based upon the total sales price of all purchases shipped and billed pursuant to the Master Agreement, excluding taxes, in the amount of two percent (2%) of aggregate purchases made during each calendar month (individually and collectively, “Administrative Fees”). 




IS THAT CLEAR?


"Supplier’s annual sales shall be measured on a calendar year basis. All Administrative Fees shall be payable in U.S. Dollars and shall be made by wire to U.S. Communities, or its designee or trustee as may be directed in writing by U.S. Communities. Administrative Fees shall be due and payable within thirty (30) days of the end of each calendar month for purchases shipped and billed during such calendar month"

U.S. Communities agrees to pay to Lead Public Agency five percent (5%) of all Administrative Fees received from Supplier to help offset Lead Public Agency’s costs incurred in connection with managing the Master Agreement nationally.”


IS THAT CLEAR?

There are also provisions in the vendor agreement that appear to be more applicable to an organization that is trying to maximize sales vs. a cooperative that is trying to save its users money, such as:


“(d) Sales Commitment. Supplier shall market the Master Agreement through Supplier’s sales force or dealer network that is properly trained, engaged and committed to offering the Master Agreement as Supplier’s primary offering to Public Agencies. Supplier’s sales force compensation and incentives shall be greater than or equal to the compensation and incentives earned under other contracts to Public Agencies.”

IS THAT CLEAR?

But Ron, why haven't they been caught, and taking up permanent residency under the jail?  They think no one is watching them, but I GUARANTEE that many people much smarter than me, and with far more resources, are on top of it.  

When the whip comes down, it will show no mercy.   

I ASSUME that most of you care about your tax dollars being wasted, and lining the pockets of lying politicians, and lying "Salesmen".   I'm showing you how they do it, and who they are.  Perhaps your own civic responsibility will speak to you, where I cannot?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

If you are a manufacturer, consultant, contractor, or distributor, you have a RIGHT to compete for your own tax dollars.  In fact, you have an OBLIGATION to your client base if you are a manufacturer, or distributor.  

ALWAYS SUBMIT A VOLUNTARY ALTERNATE!

Taxpayers are paying twice as much for an average roof, and a grotesquely fraudulent warranty.  It's actually a "Maintenance Agreement", and you will pay TOP DOLLAR for repairs (real or imagined).  

------------------------------------------------------------------------

When the DOJ catches up to Garland, I suspect their fate will eclipse even Tremco.  It was kind of funny how Garland refers to Tremco as "One Bad Apple".   That's like a Witch calling the Devil a "Bad Apple".  Hilarious.

If not for Purchasing Cooperatives lying for them, nobody would even know they exist.  So, evaluate your reputation, and career, before stealing some of that "easy' money.   I'm looking at you Architects, and Engineers, who "sign off" on the scam for exorbitant fees.  More on that later.....




Friends, you are really coming through for me.  I'm very thankful, and genuinely humbled by the amazing increase in viewers.   Approximately 7,000 visits per month, and I rarely use PICTURES!  In roofing world, that's quite a feat.

On the "Interesting Scale" reading this material has all the charm, and drama of watching a car rust, but for many of you, it's how you feed your families.   I know that.

Reject negativity in all forms, and always remember to keep looking "UP". 

Respect.

Robert R. "Ron" Solomon
Public Procurement Analyst
Florida Certification
CCC 1325620  

NOTE:  Retired 2003, do not solicit nor accept compensation or personal advancement of any kind.

   














Sunday, April 23, 2017

Public Procurement: What HUD says might surprise you.

"So Ron, why on earth did you choose HUD as an example of fair, open, transparent, bidding?  I thought they'd be the last government agency to be held up as the reference standard."  

That's why I chose them.  

At any rate, this is what HUD says about procurement, and I've added a few comments to help translate the tortuous language of government.  About halfway through, throw a glass of ice water in your face, and continue reading. 

This guy reads a lot of my stuff;




Here we go:

-----

https://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/documents/huddoc?id=cdbgchapter14.pdf  

CHAPTER 14: PROCUREMENT
CHAPTER PURPOSE & CONTENTS
This chapter provides an overview of the federal procurement requirements. It covers the basics of Part 85.

SECTION TOPIC

14.1 Overview of Procurement Requirements

When a grantee elects to hire a contractor, whether to administer a program, complete a task or do construction, those contractors must be procured competitively. This section highlights the procurement rules.

Key Topics in This Section: Procurement requirements and methods

Regulatory/Statutory Citations: 570.502, 570.610, 85.36
Other Reference Materials on This Topic: CPD Notice 96-05, Executive Order 12549

Both grantees and subrecipients must follow federal procurement rules when purchasing services, supplies, materials, or equipment. The applicable federal regulations are contained in:

State and local governments and Indian tribes – 24 CFR Part 85. A copy of Part 85 is included in the attachments to this chapter;

Nonprofits, institutions of higher education and hospitals – OMB Circular A-110, as implemented through 24 CFR Part 84.

In addition to federal regulations, most states and many local governments have laws and regulations regarding procurement. Each entity receiving CDBG funds should be aware of state and/or local laws that may affect procurement policies.

Grantees should adopt procurement policies that describe how the grantee or subrecipient will procure supplies, materials, services, and equipment. The policy should assure that all purchases are handled fairly and in a manner that encourages full and open competition. Grantees should follow the procedures established in the policy, and document how all procurements were handled.
The “essence of good procurement” can be summarized as follows:

Identify and clearly specify standards for the goods or services the grantee or subrecipient wants to obtain;
Seek competitive offers to obtain the best possible quality at the best possible price;

Use a written agreement that clearly states the responsibilities of each party;
Keep good records; and
Have a quality assurance system that helps the grantee or subrecipient get what it pays for.  

RRS: This may also be accomplished with a "Performance and Payment" Bond.  Very cheap insurance for the taxpayer (typically 1%), and guarantees the project will be finished properly, or the bonding company steps in, and hires someone else (at no expense to taxpayers).

Believe me, no roofing contractor on earth wants their bonding company to take over.  They will forfeit all assets the bonding company required to issue the bond in the first place.  BRUTAL.

Basically CDBG (November 2007) 14-1
HUD, Office of Block Grant Assistance
Chapter 14: Procurement
There are four methods of procurement that are identified in the federal regulations:
Small purchase procedures;
Sealed bids;
Competitive proposals; and
Non-competitive proposals.

Please note that the following training manual text is an abbreviated summary of the procurement rules and grantees are encouraged to read Part 85.36 in its entirety (attached) as well as any applicable state or local procurement laws.

14.1.1 Small Purchase Procedures
The small purchase procedures allow recipients to acquire goods and services totaling no more than $100,000, without publishing a formal request for proposals or invitation for bids.
This method of procurement is typically used to purchase commodities such as equipment or other materials.
In the event that a grantee is purchasing materials that will exceed $100,000, they must use the sealed bid process.
The small purchases method can also be used to acquire eligible types of services, such as professional consulting, environmental review, or planning. This method cannot be used if the services contract will exceed $100,000 in value. If the services contract will exceed $100,000, the grantee must issue an RFP under the competitive proposals approach (see below).

In general, the small purchases procedures also should not be used to acquire construction contractors. It is recommended that these acquisitions occur under the sealed bid approach outlined below.

Under the small purchases method, grantees send a request for quotes to potential vendors with a detailed description of the goods or services needed. In return, they receive competitive written quotations from an adequate number of qualified sources.

Each quote should include pricing information that allows the grantee to compare costs across bidders and ensure cost reasonableness.

Documentation of the quotes shall be maintained in the grantee’s files.

The award should be made to the lowest responsive and responsible source.

RRS: Is that clear? LOWEST and RESPONSIBLE.  

14.1.2 Sealed Bids (Formal Advertising)
Sealed bids (Formal Advertising) should be used for all construction contracts or for goods costing more than $100,000.

Competitive sealed bidding requires publicly solicited sealed bids and a firm-fixed-price lump sum or unit price contract is awarded to the responsible bidder whose bid, conforming with all the material terms and conditions of the invitation for bids, is lowest in price.
In order for formal advertising to be feasible, the following minimum conditions must be present:
A complete, adequate and realistic specification or purchase description is available.
Basically CDBG (November 2007) 14-2
HUD, Office of Block Grant Assistance
Chapter 14: Procurement
Two or more responsible suppliers are willing and able to compete effectively for a grantee's business.

The procurement lends itself to a firm fixed-price contract, and the selection of the successful bidder can appropriately be made principally on the basis of price.

When the competitive sealed bid (formal advertising) process is used, the following requirements apply:

Publication Period: The invitation for bids must be publicly advertised and bids solicited from an adequate number of suppliers.  RRS:  Note, they say "suppliers", as in plural.  "Competition" is not ONE manufacturer, and 4 of their vendors.  What incentive would the manufacturer have to compete?

The publication should be published at least once in a newspaper of general circulation, providing sufficient time prior to bid opening. If the publication period is not of sufficient time to attract adequate competition, the bid may have to be re-advertised.

Clear Definition: The invitation for bids, including specifications and pertinent attachments, must clearly define the items or services needed in order for bidders to properly respond to the invitation.  

Public Opening: All bids must be opened publicly at the time and place stated in the invitation for bids. The public is allowed at that time to review the bids.

RRS: Think about that for a minute.  "The public is allowed at that time to review the bids".


Selection and Contracting: A firm-fixed-price contract award must be made by written notice to the responsible bidder whose bid, conforming to the invitation for bids, is lowest. Where specified in the bidding documents, factors such as discounts, transportation costs and life cycle costs must be considered in determining which bid is lowest.

Rejection of all Bids: All bids may be rejected when sound documented reasons exist. Such documentation shall be made a part of the files.

14.1.3 Competitive Proposals
Competitive proposals are used to purchase professional services where the total cost will exceed $100,000. Under this procurement method, the grantee must publish a written request for submissions and then review these submissions based on established selection criteria.

The grantee must solicit proposals from an adequate number of qualified sources.


To learn more about excluded parties, go to: http://www.epls.gov/
Basically CDBG (November 2007) 14-4

HUD, Office of Block Grant Assistance  

-----

I provided the link earlier if you care to read additional attachments.

ALL public procurement agencies (local, state, and federal) have published laws, and ALL devote large sections specifically to "Fair Competition" on  ALL publicly funded projects.  

The word "Competition" is twisted, and manipulated by those who cannot accept measurable units.  It's easy for an Administrator to get sucked into the vortex of a "Predatory Sales Model".  

I cannot reasonably expect an Administrator to have intimate knowledge of all construction trades, and sub trades.  



*****




Friends, I know this is like watching paint dry, but the people who are stealing your tax dollars are frauds, and depend upon you to get bored, or simply quit.  I've been at this for 10 years now, and am neither bored, nor have the slightest desire to "quit".  

I derive ZERO pleasure when people lose their jobs, careers, families, and sometimes "Freedom".   Just this one, and then we'll move on:


http://wikiroof.blogspot.com/2014/05/va-official-admits-to-64-counts-of.html

The work is tedious, time consuming, and at times, heartbreaking.
----- 


NOTE: Retired 2003, do not solicit nor accept compensation or personal advancement of any kind.

You, my respected readers, depend upon me to tell only the truth.

I know that.  




Reject negativity in all forms and always remember to keep looking "UP".

Respect.

Robert R. "Ron" Solomon
Public Procurement Analyst
Florida State Certified 
CCC 1325620

Garland and U. S. Communities busted AGAIN in school roofing scam.

Friends: This is a follow up to the original Minnesota State Auditor's report.   Garland AGAIN!!   http://procurement-refor...