Sunday, August 5, 2018

Search "Public Roofing Oversight".

Friends:

The purpose of this site is to increase public awareness of "Predatory Sales Models" and "Exclusion" of  fair competition in public works.

Everything I say here is backed by  public record, and subsequent documentation.  If I say something that is factually incorrect, I will retract it.  Constructive criticism is encouraged, and welcomed.

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

Architects, Public Administrators, Contractors, Consultants, Manufacturers, and Distributors, are all affected by "Proprietary Specifications".  A sales trick to eliminate all competition for taxpayer money.

In the upper left search box, please type keywords:  School Roofing Scam, Purchasing Cooperative, Taxpayer abuse, Tremco, Garland, sole source, etc.

Approximately 150 posts all told. 

FACT:  Garland, and Tremco do not make half the products they sell, and are not found in any local roofing supply house. It must be trucked in from Ohio.  You are essentially exporting 70% of your local tax dollar to other economies. 

FACT:  Garland, nor Tremco will "Compete" for anything.  Don't believe me?  Tell your Garland, or Tremco Representative that you want to include other manufacturers to the bid list .  Watch their faces, and I GUARANTEE they will run away.

But Ron, the purchasing cooperative says they won by "competitive" means.  This an outright lie.  The Cooperative lies to increase their commissions.  U.S. Communities listed 55 pages of BLANK line items from Garland.

YOU, and all  taxpayers should be concerned that we are paying upwards of 50% MORE for roofing and duped into thinking you've received a value.  The opposite is true.  

If you are working with a Purchasing Cooperative, your district is taking a beating that is 100% avoidable.  Certainly, I've illustrated the scam that is undeniable. 

I know all the manufacturers, and have installed millions of sq. ft. of any subset of roofing.  Steep slope, single ply (EPDM, TPO, PVC), built up, modified, etc.  I've successfully completed over 100 public schools, and know what I'm talking about.

If I don't know the answer, Roof Consultant's Institute (RCI) will.  RCI is the standard for roofing excellence, and an honorable organization with top level consultants.

Many are Architects, Consultants, Engineers, Contractors, Manufacturers, etc. ,ALL are credentialed, and will have someone near you.

I do not belong to any organization.  A lot of my work is very sensitive, and may cause discomfort through association.  They are not allowed to speak freely, while I can tell the truth without fear of reprisal.

Please understand that I have no beef with individuals trying to make an honest living.  It's the "Predatory Sales Model" I despise.  I do not want to "Exclude" those mentioned, and welcome them to any public bid list.  Repeat, I do not want Tremco or Garland "Excluded" from anything.  They should get the same opportunity like everyone else.

IF YOU ARE NOT COMPETITIVE IN THE PRIVATE MARKET, YOU ARE NOT COMPETITIVE IN THE PUBLIC MARKET.

Doesn't that make sense?

Instead of "Favoritism", we seek fair competition for our own tax dollars.  

Roofers will decide all things roofing, and not elite sectors who are without credential, experience, or the exhaustive safety training it takes.  

"My name is Ron, and I'm a roofer.........For some reason, feel like I should be at an AA meeting."

Just so I don't come off like a 'Lone Wolf", will share what the National Roofing Contractors Association (NRCA), and Roof Consultant's Institute (RCI) have to say:


Reference:

From Roof Consultant's Institute:

http://rci-online.org/news-and-advocacy/policy-statements/

June 21, 2012 RCI’s Position Statement applies to all publicly bid work, including federal, state (provincial/ territorial), municipal, and local government projects or otherwise taxpayer-funded projects in which RCI, Inc. members may participate.

Projects not under the procurement requirements of government agencies or that do not utilize taxpayer funds should also employ similar fair and impartial procurement practices. It is the position of RCI, Inc. that all public work and taxpayer-funded projects clearly adhere to all applicable procurement regulations, maintain the highest levels of transparency and value, and comply with the following principles.

In addition to the owner, projects should involve three distinct entities: the design professional, the manufacturer (or supplier), and the qualified contractor (contractor).

1.) . The design professional should be selected by the owner based on qualifications, experience and past performance. The design professional should prepare contract documents to be in compliance with all applicable code requirements (including but not limited to fire, wind, drainage, thermal resistance or performance, warranty and environmental requirements).

Contract documents should not be proprietary or exclusive to a manufacturer, a supplier or a qualified contractor. A product or system that may be able to be produced, supplied or installed by other competitors but is not, is considered a proprietary product/system. Procurement regulations have specific procedures that are required if proprietary materials or systems are to be considered. Design professionals are discouraged from utilizing proprietary specifications.

All projects should utilize a minimum of three manufacturers or utilize materials commonly available from three manufacturers. Systems should be selected to meet specific performance criteria or standards. The design professional must adhere to all state (provincial/territorial) licensing requirements and carry the appropriate errors and omissions insurance.

2.)  The manufacturer and its suppliers should provide the materials and systems adhering to the contract documents. A manufacturer should not act as the design professional unless qualified to do so, and should state in writing and publicly its financial interest in the specifications/requirements provided. Contractual obligations or agreements should not exist between owners and manufacturers. Proprietary and/or exclusionary specifications intended to limit competition among manufacturers, suppliers and/or qualified contractors are strongly discouraged.

Manufacturers are encouraged to provide data, RCI, Inc. Position Statement on Procurement – Support Document information, or other assistance to qualified contractors to determine the best use and application of their materials and systems. Manufacturers should not control material specifications.

3.)  The contractor should be contracted directly to the owner. At no time should any contractual or financial obligation or agreement exist between the design professional and manufacturer, or the design professional and the qualified contractor, or the manufacturer and the qualified contractor. At no time should the manufacturer act as either the design professional or qualified contractor. At no time should the design professional act as the manufacturer or contractor.

4.)  Design-build delivery methods are acceptable under the following conditions: (a) The principles noted above, are met. (b) Design build delivery maintains a competitive bidding/tender environment among all parties: designer, contractor, and manufacturer. (c) A design-build contract is used to ensure that a clear line of responsibility for the design and compliance with code is established. It is the position of RCI, Inc. that the use of "buy boards,” group-purchasing agencies, and all similar purchasing models in any type of building construction, remediation, or rehabilitation are not transparent, do not ensure compliance with the minimum requirements of the codes, do not provide a competitive bid situation, and should not be utilized.

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

This is what the NRCA has to say:  Click to enlarge.




Please help stop this assault on taxpayers, and school maintenance budgets across all of North America.  The "Scam" is impossible for them to argue, so they take the position of  subterranean termites, and hide.


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".

It is humbling that anyone cares one bit about what I have to say, and please know I am thankful for your time.

Respect.


Robert R. "Ron" Solomon
Public Procurement Analyst
State Certification  CCC 1325620
Licensed Consultant
Tampa, Florida
RobertRSolomon@aol.com

Sunday, July 8, 2018

Garland's lobbyist, promoting the school roofing scam.

Friends:

VERY TYPICAL OF GARLAND'S "PROPRIETARY SALES MODEL'  


They do this across North America, and the United Kingdom. 

By now, the over payment must be well in excess of a billion dollars.  I calculate this from their annual sales numbers.

I am being kind here, because Tremco does around $4 Billion, and Garland might be around 1 Billion dollars including their IMETCO metal roof brand.


We will not discuss "Premium" roof systems because it's impossible.  EVERYONE makes "Premium Systems", and the specifier just needs to know what they're doing.  Call Roof Consultant's Institute, and they will be happy to assist.


RCI, Inc. | 1500 Sunday Drive, Suite 204 | Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
Phone: 919.859.0742 or 800.828.1902
Fax: 919.859.1328 E-mail: rci@rci-online.org


All I know is that Garland nor Tremco make half the products they sell, while mainstream manufacturers (private market) often make every component of the roof system. Fasteners, insulation, roll goods, metal flashings, etc. for a period of up to 30 years.  Labor and material warranty included.

Virtually all specifications call for a 'Roof System Warranty", and I don't know how Garland, and Tremco "Warrant" products made by others.  Looks like some 'finger pointing" is just around the corner, and we know what that means.


Here's Garland at work: 


Full Article,  


https://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Schools-paying-millions-too-much-for-new-roofs-3258031.php


Much respect to Robert Dzubian.


Here we go:



Garland's lobbyist

With the Legislature bearing down on the practice, one company allegedly participating in proprietary bidding, the Garland Co. Inc., hired a prominent Sacramento lobbying firm a week ago, according to a filing in the secretary of state's office.
Company officials did not return calls for comment.
For years, San Francisco schools used Garland, which manufactures a top-of-the-line roofing system. Like many other districts, San Francisco included an "or equal" clause when it sought bids, but incorporated product specifications that were so precise that only Garland could compete.
District architects finally questioned the practice and a more open bidding practice was put into place. That cut the cost of one new roof nearly in half.
This summer, a $135,150 Garland roof at Claire Lilienthal's Divisadero campus, a holdover from the noncompetitive bidding process, is costing the district $15 for each of the 9,014 square feet. Under the open bidding system, Independent High School is getting a $142,696 roof at $8 for each of the 17,837 square feet.
"We always thought that we got great service from Garland," said Chief Facilities Officer David Goldin.
He said Garland was chosen by a previous administration, but as time went by and staff turned over, no one could remember why the firm was chosen in the first place.
"You reach a point when you one day realize it's time to rethink the decisions," Goldin said.

Several factors

State officials don't believe kickbacks or other misconduct are part of the problem. The noncompetitive bidding is more a result of taking the path of least resistance.
Sales representatives with whom districts have a prior business relationship often volunteer to write bid specifications, thus saving time and money for district officials who would otherwise have to hire an architect to do it.
"That convenience is costing them money," De La Torre said. "In light of the budget situation we're in, we're talking about waste."
Local school officials said they hoped the Legislature would be thoughtful as it moves forward with potential legislation, allowing flexibility and local control.
In West Contra Costa Unified, for example, a recent roofing project at Richmond High School went out to bid specifically requiring Garland roofing projects.
It appeared to be a clear case of proprietary bidding.
Yet district officials said the re-roofing was part of a project for new heating and ventilation, requiring workers to cut through the existing Garland roof. Another manufacturer's products would have invalidated the warranty.
"We look at the best business decision," said Bill Fay, associate superintendent of operations at West Contra Costa Unified. "There is no upside for me to cut into a roofing system and not have a service warranty contract in case that system fails."
In San Francisco, Goldin said there needs to be a balancing act between cost efficiency and competitive bidding. For example, he said, districts don't want a variety of toilet paper holders in schools, depending on what's on sale one week to the next.
"You can't stock 53 brands of toilet paper to fit in multiple holders," he said. "When it comes to roofing, we've decided one size doesn't fit all."

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

Think about this the next time your children are asked to bring  basic supplies to school because the school doesn't have any money.

Paying double for a roof based upon "Exclusion of Competition" doesn't make sense to anyone.  Instead of using the Purchasing Cooperative, just line up three manufacturers who will line up several of their applicators.  The bidding pool gets stronger, and the contractors work with manufacturers they are familiar with.

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

Here are some suggestions for your bid list, and I've worked with all of them installing millions ofg sq. ft. in roofing materials (at least 100 local schools, countless Wal Marts, Target, Dick's Sporting Goods, BJ's, etc.).

Roof Consultant's Institute, Advocacy:  Contact:  Brian Gardiner

Director of Industry Affairs
Brian Gardiner, FRCI, RRC, CCS
brian.bmgent@gmail.com

GAF:  World's largest roof material manufacturer.


Johns Manville:  A Berkshire Hathaway Company.




Firestone:  Backed by billions in Bridgestone assets.

                            


Carlisle Syntec:  Largest single ply manufacturer.


Sika Sarnafil:  Known worldwide as a premium PVC roof system manufacturer.


If they don't make it, you don't need it.  GREAT Manufacturer warranties, and Firestone even offers their PWH warranty covering puncture, wind (100 mph), and hail).  Some manufacturers vary, but 2" hail is generally the standard.

Forgive me, but space does not allow me to describe them all, but the following manufacturers demand great caution.  Many investigative reports are available online, and YouTube:  Just type "School Roofing Scam", and they will appear.  None of the manufacturers I've suggested are listed among them.

Garland

Tremco

Simon

IMETCO

I have zero problem including Garland,, Tremco, or Simon on any "bid list".  They will run away when they hear:  "Competition" .  Absolutely Guaranteed. What does that tell you?

Thank you for spending time with me here, and it's humbling  that anyone cares one bit about what I have to say.  

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

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

Please note that I no longer respond to Attorneys.  I've been "used" by too many of them, and the only one I respect is Mr. Trent Cotney (Tampa).  

Mr. Cotney, myself, and Mr. Jeff Anderson of "ServiceWorks".  Jeff is a very capable contractor, and all around nice guy.  They are located in Tampa., and I enjoy helping the "Good Guys".






Respect.

Robert R. "Ron" Solomon
Public Procurement Analyst
State Certified Roofing (Florida)
CCC1325620
Licensed Roofing Consultant
RobertRSolomon@aol.com


Wednesday, June 27, 2018

Friends;

I don't make this stuff up.  If you are thinking about using Tremco, it might be a good idea to read this:



RPM International says SEC allegations of fraud about its fiscal 2013 financial reports 'have no merit'
Updated Sep 13, 2016; Posted Sep 12, 2016
ProductGrouping_DSC_1545.jpg
RPM International Inc., which makes the products pictured here, says that an SEC action of accounting fraud in connection with some of its fiscal 2013 financial reports "have no merit" and stem from "prosecutorial overreach."(RPM International Inc.)
Comment
0shares
CLEVELAND, Ohio -- RPM International Inc. said that accusations by the Securities and Exchange Commission that the company and its general counsel did not adequately inform investors about its fiscal 2013 financial reports "have absolutely no merit and are the product of prosecutorial overreach."
The SEC enforcement action, filed on Sept. 9 in U.S. District Court in the District of Columbia, raises concerns about when RPM disclosed information about its restatements of its financial results for the first, second, and third quarters of its fiscal 2013 year ended May 31, 2013.
The 28-page complaint against RPM and Edward W. Moore, RPM's general counsel and chief compliance officer, questions RPM's timing in disclosing a Department of Justice investigation of RPM's Tremco roofing subsidiary. 
The Justice Department said that Tremco Inc., a Beachwood-based manufacturer and supplier of roofing and waterproofing products and services, "failed to provide the government with price discounts provided to non-federal government customers," and that it allegedly marketed expensive materials to government purchasers without disclosing that the same materials were available at a lower cost.

RPM settled the DOJ investigation and litigation for $65.1 million in 2013, and the DOJ said at the time that "the claims settled by this agreement are allegations only, and there has been no determination of liability."
The SEC now says that "A public company facing a loss contingency, such as a lawsuit or a government investigation, is required under accounting principles and the securities laws to (1.) disclose the loss contingency if a material loss is reasonably possible, and (2.) record an accrual for the loss contingency if a material loss is probable and reasonably estimable," according the complaint.
The SEC said RPM faced the possibility of a material loss related to the investigation, but failed to disclose the loss contingency or record an accrual on its books when it was required to do so.
The SEC said Moore, who oversaw RPM's response to the DOJ investigation, knew but did not disclose to RPM's CEO, chief financial officer, audit committee and outside auditors "material facts about the investigation."
"As a result of Moore's misstatements and his failure to disclose key facts regarding the DOJ investigation," RPM submitted several "false and misleading filings" to the SEC from October 2012 to December 2013. "These filings also did not disclose any material weakness in RPM's internal controls over financial reporting or its disclosure controls when in fact such weakness existed," according to the complaint.
Consequently, according the SEC, investors were not informed in a timely manner that material loss related to the DOJ investigation was "reasonably possible or probable."
"In August 2014, RPM restated its financial results for three quarters that occurred during the DOJ investigation and filed amended SEC filings for those quarters," the SEC said, including its "best estimates of probable losses related to the investigation."
The SEC says "RPM violated antifraud, reporting, books and records, and internal controls provisions of the securities laws" and that "Moore violated antifraud, books and records, and misleading accountant or auditor provisions of the securities laws."
RPM Chairman and Chief Executive Frank C. Sullivan said in a written statement that the restatements had no impact on the audited results for the fiscal year and that the company's audit committee concluded that there was no intentional misconduct on the part of any of its officers.
"We intend to vigorously defend ourselves and expect our position to be vindicated in court," he said.


All the games Tremco and Garland play are coming back to haunt them.  Like I said, I don't make this stuff up, and only share public record.  You are the Judge.

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

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

Respect.

Robert R. "Ron" Solomon
Public Procurement Analyst
Licensed Roofing Consultant
Certified State Contractor 
CCC 1325620  Florida 

Thursday, June 21, 2018

Another School Roof Complaint from Pennsylvanuia

Friends: 

Another victim  of the school roofing scam.  They are all the same, and always have a Purchasing Cooperative, Tremco, and Garland.  Without each other rigging the bid, would never get work due to their average material, and exorbitant cost.

I do not want Tremco, or Garland to be removed from any bid list.  They have a right to "compete" with the rest of us, but they must "compete".  Unlike  Tremco, and Garland who are "shoe in's", with the outcome predetermined through Purchasing Cooperatives offer only ONE roofing manufacturer to choose from.

The numbers Mr. Bossert discusses,  are real, and consistent with my findings.


Link to article:

http://www.dailyitem.com/opinion/letter-to-the-editor-we-have-a-right-to-know/article_8d9719e3-2981-551b-bb8f-1967b27be08b.html

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

LETTER TO THE EDITOR: We have a right to know

By Max Bossert | Letter to the Editor

For the last few months we have read in the newspaper about the costs for Kelly Elementary, costs to provide safety for the students, added costs in the budget and the vote for a budget increase.
A year ago there was numerous discussions about the Linntown Elementary roofing project and how Tremco of Ohio through the CSIU was awarded the contract to install a corrugated steel roof over approximately 14,000 square feet of pitched roof for a cost of $745,000 at the Linntown Elementary that is currently covered by shingles.
This was all done without bids from any other bidders, no transparency from the school board, Superintendent Steve Skalka and John Fairchild, business manager.
At that time, I complained and urged the school board to rescind the contract of $745,000. Thankfully they did. Then last fall Tremco reduced its bid to $440,000 for the same project. A month later they increased their costs to $488,000 for the same contract. The roof is still scheduled to be done when school is out, but for what price?
These problems are caused when our school officials refuse to use the fair bidding practice in Pennsylvania which automatically control this type of situation. Fair bidding saves tax dollars and provides the best work. The Linntown School roof work can easily be done for $160,000, saving the taxpayers and the school district half a million dollars.
The school board is an elected body. The school board has the power. They have chosen not to use local contractors or businesses, architects or attorneys. They hired Tremco of Ohio to be the architect then subbed out the work to an out of area contractor. This takes the opportunity away from local laborers who could keep the $66.37 an hour in Pennsylvania Prevailing Wage for this project in the district instead of sending it out of the area.
I urge the Lewisburg Area School Board not to vote for a tax increase because it would not have been needed if they would be responsible and save the half million dollars that the school board has misappropriated this far.
I have been in the roofing business for 44 years and a taxpayer in the Lewisburg Area School District for longer than that. I cannot believe that the taxpayers in the district approve of this tremendous waste. Contact your school board, tell them to stop mishandling your money.
Max Bossert,
West Milton
--------------------------------------------------------
Respect to Mr. Bossert.
I am confident that if I show enough of these complaints, against the same people, you will catch on.  Here, we expose the scam, and offer copious data to support claims.  When you see government waste, CALL or WRITE your School Superintendent, School Board Members, etc., and let them know.  Feel free to use anything on this site with a simple credit.  I write it to help you.
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. Solomon
Public Procurement Analyst
Licensed Roofing Consultant
Florida Certified Roofing Contractor License
CCC 1325620
Tampa, Florida
RobertRSolomon@aol.com

Monday, June 18, 2018

Buying a roof from a Purchasing Cooperative? The cost of "ease".

Friends:

This is for Architects, Roofing Contractors, and Consultants.

Thank you to Interface Magazine, and my friend Mr. Brian Gardiner.

Full article:   

http://rci-online.org/publicly-funded-construction-procurement/


Cooperative Purchasing




Figure 6 – Unit price book is often used as a bid.



  • Cooperative purchasing of construction is most often bid on a unit-price basis statewide or nationwide, well in advance of a construction project. Vendors are not aware of what, where, or when projects will be awarded; therefore, unit prices must be priced accordingly.
  • No bidding documents are available for review in local construction plan rooms by local contractors, subcontractors, and suppliers.
  • Usually there is no public notice posted in local news media. Cooperative vendors may or may not seek pricing from local subcontractors or suppliers on a private basis.
  • Audits indicate there is a lack of an objective, independent third party on most cooperative construction projects to evaluate applicable unit prices, quantities, and various price modifications that may or may not apply to one project (Figure 6).
  • A cooperative may have only one vendor listed for a work item, such as roofing. If more than one vendor is listed nationwide, there may be some listed that have a limited market area.
  • The cooperative often charges a fee based on the total cost of the project to the vendor, usually between 1 to 4 percent.
  • Audits have consistently discovered a significantly higher cost to procure construction projects through a cooperative.

Purchasing Cooperatives offer zero value to those in the roofing discipline.   Roofing is the costliest item of any school maintenance budget.  You can thank Purchasing Cooperatives, Tremco, and Garland for that.  You will spend an average of 40% more, and I've proven that many times here.

School Board Members rarely think of value, and instead seek "ease".  The cost of that "ease" is staggering.  If you are remotely confused, please contact Roof Consultant's Institute, and they will guide you accordingly.  Feel free to mention my name.

School Board Members:  Wake Up!

RCI (Roof Consultant's Institute) is the most respected roof consulting organization in the world, and its members well certified.  

If you want the truth, instead of a salesman's bullet points, please contact them:

RCI, Inc.
1500 Sunday Drive, Suite 204
Raleigh, NC 27607-515
800-828-1902 | http://www.rci-online.org/

Contact them before you do something very stupid.  

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

Thank you for spending valuable time with me here, and I will help anyone who asks for help.

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

Respect.

Robert R. Solomon
Public Procurement Analyst
Licensed Roofing Consultant
State Certification Roofing
CCC 1325620


Write:  RobertRSolomon@aol.com

Friday, June 8, 2018

Pennsylvania School Roofing SCAM .

Friends:  

for the next few weeks, I will furnish published reports on school districts that have rejected Tremco, Garland, and the Purchasing Cooperative Roofing SCAM.  

The story is always the same:  "Exclusion" vs. "Fair Competition".

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

We'll start off with this one, and continue as a "Series'.  It happens in all 50 states, and hopefully will include a district near you.

I'll try not to ramble on, and just provide the reports without much commentary.




You will find the link before each report so you can verify, and read in it's entirety.  I've only furnished a portion of the report, but provided direct links to the publisher.

Respect to Ms. Diane Petryk of The Daily Item.

Here we go:



State could punish district
·         By Diane Petryk
The Daily Item

·         May 7, 2010
MIFFLINBURG — A state Department of Education spokeswoman said there could be consequences if the Mifflinburg School District employs a roofer without an open bidding process first.
"Open," Leah Harris added, "at the time of the project."
In February, the Mifflinburg school board went along with a CSIU-picked roofer that had bid for unspecified projects — back in 2008.
Consequences for improper bidding, said Harris, in the DOE's Harrisburg office, include fines or disciplinary actions against reimbursed projects — whether the project involved is reimbursable or not.
The chosen roofer, Tremco subsidiary Weatherproofing Technologies Inc., of Cleveland, passed a generic bidding-to-qualify process conducted by the Association of Education Purchasing Agencies, a multi-state bidding program. The Central Susquehanna Intermediate Unit, based in Montandon, participates in the program.
The Mifflinburg board decided on the one-stop shopping for 30,000 square feet of new roofing on its elementary school and roughly 7,000 square feet of repairs on two other school roof sections "because of the size of the job," school board President Jill Shambach said in a phone call in April. Shambach did not return phone calls Thursday.
Charles Peterson Jr., CSIU's cooperative business services director, told the Mifflinburg board that Weatherproofing Technologies was picked from a pool of one.
Valley roofer Max Bossert said that form of pre-job bidding for future work, especially with only one firm likely to be able to meet the specifications, circumvents the state's legally established fair-bidding practices.
Cost double what's needed
The process also results in a roof twice as expensive as need be, Bossert, a former Union County commissioner, asserts.
Based on discussions at school board meetings, the work is expected to cost roughly $600,000, he said. That's about $16 a square foot, when the average price is about $8 a square foot. Bossert's company, Boss Insulation & Roofing Inc., in West Milton, completed the high school roof for slightly less than $8 a square foot last year, he said.
Engineer Jim Hague, a roofing specialist with Foreman Architects Engineers of University Park, said that without the involvement of an independent architect or engineer, it is difficult to assess what roofing needs really are.
The bidding specifications, bid responses and contract for the Mifflinburg roofing work have not been made public, despite The Daily Item's requests for them, initiated April 21, under the Freedom of Information Act. The CSIU has requested 30 days to respond.
Bossert said he requested the specifications for bidding from the school district and was told there were none.
Ads in big-city papers only
The CSIU figured the price by square foot and previous Tremco information. The 2008 call for bids was advertised only in large-city newspapers outside the local area, Peterson said.
Mifflinburg school board members Tom Hosterman and John Bohn voted in March to rescind the contract decision and open the job up to fair bidding practices, but they were defeated, 7-2.
Hosterman said in an April interview that information presented was confusing and there were questions unanswered.
Prices bid years ago can't be reflecting the current market, Bohn said.
"I'm not sure this is the best we could do," Bohn said.
Shambach, the school board president, said CSIU's brokering the deal was attractive "because they provide service from start to finish."
CSIU also gets a 1.5 percent fee for their assistance.
The turn-key service Shambach likes means Tremco will arrange its own architectural service and inspections, but that's problematical, too.
The state Department of Education rejected a Tremco contract at Riverside High School in Beaver County in 2008, stating that architectural services for a project must be obtained by the district, not through Tremco or a purchasing agency like the CSIU.
CSIU's attorney confirmed that five years ago.
Law: Districts must comply
In a 2005 letter to then-CSIU purchasing services manager Jeffrey Kimball, CSIU's attorney, Ellen Enters, of Fox & Rothschild, in Lansdale, said: "Pennsylvania public school districts must continue to independently comply with section 751.1 of the Public School Code … regarding engagement of an architect. ... (They) should not utilize the services of the successful vendors architect or engineer ... (but rather) engage its own independent architect or engineer."
Hague, the University Park roofing specialist, said his firm's experience is that school districts are paying a premium to employ that purchasing agent service, even as it violates bidding ethics and education department requirements.
It's practicing engineering and architecture without a license, he said,...................
-------------------------------------------------
I will thank Mr. Michael Ducharme of Carlisle Syntec for his tireless effort on behalf of taxpayers.  An honorable man, and an honorable company.  Steadfast is GAF's Ms. Helene Pierce protecting contractors, and taxpayers nationwide.  Both do great work, and believe me, it  is very difficult and time consuming.  The roofing world should salute them.
Again, please click the link below for the entire story.  
As a courtesy:
My best advice:  NEVER buy a taxpayer funded roof through a Purchasing Cooperative.  It is a SCAM, and you will pay approximately 40% MORE for an average roof, and worthless warranty.
Choose competition between multiple roofing material manufacturers like: GAF, Carlisle, Firestone, Johns Manville, Barrett, etc.   They are honorable, and do not scam our schools.  NOBODY in the private sector uses Tremco, or Garland.  What does that tell you?
Reject negativity in all forms, and always remember to keep looking "UP".
NOTE: Retired 2003, do not solicit nor accept compensation or personal advancement of any kind.
Respect.
Robert R. Solomon
Public Procurement Analyst
Licensed Roofing Consultant
Florida State Certified
CCC 1325620
RobertRSolomon@aol.com






Search "Public Roofing Oversight".

Friends: The purpose of this site is to increase public awareness of "Predatory Sales Models" and "Exclusion" of  fair...