FACTS about Public Roofing Procurement, and Oversight. Copyright 2010 by Robert R. Solomon

Sunday, December 4, 2011

"Corrections" & Reply to Post"

Dear Friends:

Anytime I'm featured in a television news investigation, or article on "Proprietary Specifications", and the waste of taxpayer dollars, I receive condemnation by those who participate in it.  This "anonymous" writer is welcomed here.  It is important you hear all positions, and make your own decisions.

Everyone must understand that NO ROOFER should adopt my ideals, and refuse work based upon them. I've refused a $250,000.00 contract on principle, but have never left employees without an address to work, as that would be both cruel, and plain wrong..  Your valiant, and noble assignment is to feed your families, and nourish your employees the best way you can.  You must install the roofing systems you are comfortable with, and trained for.  Your equipment investment is your business, and I respect that.

I am not always right.  I simply try my best to provide lucid answers to the many sciences related to all roof systems, and their interface with energy, clean water, safety, and taxpayer value.  The "Taxpayer Value" portion seems to escape those who participate in it.  This is well documented.  Anyone can simply type "School Roofing Scams" on either Google, or YouTube, and you will find both court record, and many investigative news reports.  This is one I recently appeared in:

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

I am not a scientist.  I do not know everything.  My goal is to illustrate common principles through analogy, and not get too esoteric.  But today will respond to this informed comment.  I normally wouldn't reply to an "anonymous" comment, but feel merit in some clarification, and will offer thought:

Anonymous said...


For the future you may want to quote LEED correctly, since you're an expert and all. LEED v2.2 has been replaced now for 3 years and LEED 2009 is about to be replaced in 2012. I quote from LEED V2.2, because that is the version I own.  I do not have the money USGBC requests for each and every version, and they are very expensive.  I cancelled my membership with USGBC, as I couldn't justify the cost of materials and cocktail parties (I don't drink).  I am not a LEED AP, but the Governor of Florida values my skill set, and has awarded 5 Judgeships to me for his "Sustainable Schools", and "Sustainable Florida" initiatives.  An example of the nominees would include retailers like Wal-Mart, huge golfing communities, water agencies, all school districts, classes, and teachers.


I spend a great deal of time in many areas other than roofing, but the discipline has been very good to me, and I want to return the favor out of respect for my mentors, and educators.


And it's Solar Reflective Index not Reflectance. Also, SRI is a whole number not a decimal. I stand corrected.You're confusing SRI with reflectivity. Reflectivity is a percentage of UV rays reflected, SRI is a formula that takes reflectivity and emissivity into consideration. Thank you for the clarification.  That would explain why some materials have indexes above 100.

I've been working with mod bit, single plys, and coatings for 5 years, primarily for LEED projects. To group all mod bits in the category you described above is irresponsible. Perhaps my responsibility does not meet your standard, and you are well within your right to view me as you wish. Yes, some mod bits are torched down still but most use cold applied adhesives now.  Regardless of adhesive (NRCA advises against adhesives in tropical climates).  Florida, where I live may be an example.  I am more than happy to furnish the article upon request, and may post it here very soon.  The fact remains that huge quantities of petroleum are consumed in the manufacture of modified bitumen, and the product itself is heavily laden with petroleum, or "Bitumen" as I illustrated. Almost all modifieds out there have a high reflective option which you can see if you search on the CRRC's website. In fact there are 33 different sheets out there that meet LEED's SRI standard of 78.   You forgot to mention these modifieds, or "options" as you refer to them are "Coated".  So you are essentially building a product of oil, and then masking a design flaw.  You do not mention the short time on the market, or the coating maintenance.  "Coated Oil" is actually what your "option" is about, and is a response I get quite a bit from those who sell it.  I see no mention of "VALUE".
I don't know if you've been out of the game for too long and aren't doing your due diligence to keep up with the times or you have some kind of personal vendetta against someone. In any case most of this "article" is just false by today’s standards.  I always ask that responses point to "factual" errors as the first part of your comment does.  You are welcome to view me as you wish, but I work very hard to furnish documentation to support every word I say.  I do not "Sell" anything, nor do I receive compensation from anyone, for anything I do.  Your argument is based entirely upon a P.O. Book, and personal advancement, where I have no interest in such things.


Your comments, and very short career, appear to be concentrated upon "Public" projects.  But I cannot know that to be 100% correct as I was not given the opportunity for discovery.  I suspect your "sales model" to be one of aggression, self promotion, and deceit, rather than best interest of the owners, or taxpayer. 

“The trouble with internet articles is that you never know if they are true” – Abraham Lincoln



No comments:

Post a Comment

Giving the facts on energy efficiency and how to help.

  Welcome Good People; Today's topic is rather basic, but extraordinarily important. Clients getting BAD INFORMATION regarding Solar. Po...