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

Sunday, December 8, 2013

Oklahoma Representative Jason Murphey, "Taxpayer Hero"

Oklahoma Representative Jason Murphey is a hero to the taxpayers.


We in construction trades do not want preferential treatment, but fair competition.

The only thing stopping it is "Purchasing Cooperatives", and administrators who are either uninformed, or corrupt.

MUCH RESPECT to Rep. Murphey for standing up for us, and taxpayers across this country.

Jason Murphey

Jason Murphey's Blog.


An Example of Legalized Corruption

By: | Sunday, December 8th, 2013 05:10:04 PM |
Almost one year ago, Senator Clark Jolley asked me to assist him in bringing an end to what appeared to be a practice of legalized corruption. Having worked with Jolley on numerous modernization and efficiency measures, I have learned to pay close attention to his concerns. He frequently proposes cost saving and efficiency reforms, and his proposals are taken very seriously by the Legislature. Jolley had received reports from whistleblowers who exposed extremely disturbing abuses and he wanted to work on legislation to stop the practice.

Jolley's request started an intense one-year saga to remedy one of the worst abuses of the taxpayer dollar that I have seen. That saga continues to this day.

Let me tell you about this horrific abuse known as sole-source specing.

Voters within a school district or municipality approve a massive bond issue calling for the construction of new buildings without realizing they have just contributed to legalized corruption. Flush with cash, the benefiting governing board hires design professionals to specify which materials are to be used in the new project.

The designers present the governing board with grandiose plans that highlight the inclusion of expensive features. It's all too easy for gullible board members to approve these plans because they are after all spending other peoples' money. These designers then draw the specifications so tightly that only one supplier can provide the expensive features. In this way, competition is eliminated and the supplier can charge exponentially more than would otherwise be paid because the competitive bidding process has been eliminated. In some cases, the project designer may actually allow the sales engineer for a product manufacturer to write the specification so that only that one product qualifies.

Sole-source specing has long-term implications.

More:  http://www.hd31.org/blog.php?title=An-Example-of-Legalized-Corruption

Friday, November 22, 2013

Garland Roofing Materials: "Sell by FEAR"

I will take a brief respite from TCPN and their unusually rabid support of Tremco in public works.  They know what they're doing is wrong, and so do I.  The Pechacek name permeates TCPN, and will stun you with how it's all "connected".

So, it's time for more TCPN/Tremco research, and will share the results at a later date. 

In the interim, Garland Co. can "tag out" with them :

Garland Roofing Materials:  "Sell by FEAR"

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

The following information was graciously provided by:


If you want to see the damage being done to our schools through "predatory sales models", Ms. Campbell's site is the reference standard.  Once again, I will acknowledge her very long difficult journey to bring truth into light.

There is a HUGE difference between the Private Market versus Public Market.  Procurement laws are in place to PROTECT taxpayers in the Public Market.  The government doesn't own anything. The taxpayers (we the people) own buildings and their contents.  Therefore, great consideration must be given to competition for our taxpayer dollars.  Subject to all local, state, and federal LAW.

All participants in any transaction appear in public record.  They are therefore susceptible to inquiry.

A Private owner is free of such oversight.  They earned that money and right to spend it without oversight.  

Again, thank you to Ms. Campbell.

Garland's view:  (click to enlarge)


That's about as "Point Blank" as it gets folks.  "Sell by Fear" damn the taxpayers.

Please note that in 2011, Garland's top salesman (New Jersey) "Sold" $5,400,000.00, and received 25% commission on that number.

If that doesn't grab you, nothing will. 

I know, let's see how a Garland Representative describes his job:

This is directly from an application I received (05-10-2013)
“The Garland Company"

"As a consultant for The Garland Company, I developed relationships with high-end, governmental, educational, and municipal clients to assist them in managing their roof assets.

The Garland Company is a premium roofing manufacturer that values the relationship-based sales approach.

After a three week immersive training program, I was charged with completing inspections and forensic roof evaluations for companies and clients like: Lockheed Martin, The Dallas County Community College District, The City of Dallas, The City of Mesquite, Raytheon, Texas Instruments, Dell, Air Liquide and others of similar merit.

As part of my duties I worked closely with architects, designers, and specifiers to ensure that The Garland Company’s line of products was the only roofing manufacturer named in the specification or offered to the client.

Upon completing the design phase, I would solicit bids from qualified, local roofing contractors to perform the work under my consult and supervision.

Design Build Solutions - The Garland Company

Design Build Solutions is The Garland Company's design and construction arm. Prior to 2006, it was a vastly underused entity created to control specifications through the bid process. However, once awarded The US Communities Buying Co-Operative Contract in 2006, I saw a massive opportunity to do much more than control specifications.

I began marketing and actively soliciting projects to be designed and built by DBS all over Texas.

Working mostly on military contracts, I marketed our design capabilities to The Office of The Surgeon General, The Army Core of Engineers, and The Office of Veterans' Affairs.

Most of our projects were small, multi-family base housing and medical center upgrades. As DBS was not "completely" set up to handle large, multi-disciplinary bids, I solicited bids, evaluated sub-contractors, and engaged in buy-out and VE process with subs and owners.

Soon, it became necessary to create budgetary checks and balances. I implemented a customized version of a project management software created for me by Podio and created and managed construction budgets using Quickbooks Contractor Suite.

A change in Garland's Scope of WOrk under The US Communities Contract lead them to steer me away from Design-Build projects. As I had created valuable relationships in the industry, I chose to start XXXXXXXX  with a group of like-minded construction professionals to continue pursuing larger contracts and to branch further into the private sector”.

THAT is what Garland thinks of you as taxpayers.  SELL AT ALL COST.

I wonder how much "benefit" the taxpayers, and school districts of New Jersey received to justify paying one man well over $1,000,000.00 in one year?  Keep in mind that Garland also marked up materials, therefore making their profits on top of the $5,400,000.00.

In the roofing discipline, it is rare to mention Garland, where Tremco isn't immediately followed.  The sales models funnel money to purchasing cooperatives and in return they are claimed "competitive".  THEY AREN'T.

My concern is for school districts and administrators, who are being unnecessarily exposed to suit by following promises of a "salesman".  

Please avoid "Exclusionary" or "Preferred Vendor" situations. They are clearly against the law, which may unknowingly include YOU when the topic arises.

"Pre-Compete" is a LIE.  You may "Pre-Compete" on Post-It notes, but not complex construction projects with many variables like "hidden damages".  NO roofer on earth will disagree with that comment.

If one were to include (in my humble opinion) an HONORABLE manufacturer such as GAF, Carlisle Syntec, Johns Manville, or Firestone, you will be assured of a true "Competitive" number.  I stake my reputation on that.

Garland and Tremco despise competition.  If you throw in one of the manufacturers listed above, they will immediately move on to another unsuspecting "target".  I guarantee that GAF, Carlisle Syntec, Johns Manville and Firestone will beat the pants off Garland or Tremco every single time on a competitively bid project. 

Why should the Public (especially schools) suffer as purchasing cooperatives manipulate, interpret, and rearrange local, state, and federal procurement law?

My best suggestion is to write purchase orders to manufacturers who fight hard, but fight FAIR.  For goodness' sake, at least include them on a bid list.  Garland will not compete.  They can't, and even say so on their own website.  Garland says Administrators 'have a right to choose", and that's absurd.

Administrators may not give even the slightest hint of favoritism.

Respect to:

Garland, nor Tremco can compete, nor will compete against mainstream manufacturers and that's a fact.  Don't believe me?  Tell your Garland (or Tremco) Rep you'd like to get a quote from them as well as one of the above.  Sheer panic will set in, and if they can't change your mind, they will walk away from the project.

Remember: they are battling the idea of losing a 25% commission, and to them are in the middle of a nightmare.

Our schools are suffering at the hands of purchasing cooperatives with false claims.

Thank you for spending valuable time with me here . I am humbled that you care.

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.


Robert R. "Ron" Solomon
Public Procurement Analyst
Director, Roof Consultant's Alliance
(5,000 Members Worldwide)
CCC 1325620 (Florida)


Friday, November 8, 2013

TCPN says "Avoid Bid Process"


Part of a Power Point Presentation by TCPN.  I may share the whole presentation in  another post, but this is the mentality.

Your Presenter and Response Team

Presenter: Tom VanHootegem
Response Team:
Pam Gonzalez, our TCPN Contract Holder
Scott Wynne, TCPN Program Manager

The TCPN Difference

Single lead government agency for all TCPN contracts
Region 4 Education Service Center, Houston, TX
Highest level of consistency & compliance
ISO 9001 Certified solicitation process
Supports education nationwide
Curriculum development
Teacher certification
Braille production center
3rd party audits of vendor contracts


TCPN Member Benefits
Legal contract vehicle (competitive solicitation)
One contract for multiple commodities
Avoid bid process
Highest level of contract compliance
Meet buy local commitment
TriMega Dealer Benefits
One contract for all public sector accounts
Competitive advantage vs. competition
Avoid bid process
Competitive national pricing at local level
TCPN program manager support

 I will break down each point, and illustrate most of them to be absolutely false.  Stay tuned.
Anyone who deals with schools, administration, facilities management, public roofing purchasing should read this.  I've already illustrated how TCPN is intertwined in their Tremco relationship, the players involve, and how TCPN pushes a "Locked Specification" with them.
How can any governmental agency, or government purchasing cooperative, continue such a dangerous, illegal, and "exclusionary" tactic (paid for by the taxpayers)?
The  "Exposure" to roofing scams has already been established by the DOJ. 
Department of Justice
Office of Public Affairs

Wednesday, August 28, 2013

RPM International Inc. and Tremco Inc. Pay Nearly $61 Million for Failing to Provide Government Discounts Provided to Others

Companies Allegedly Submitted False Claims Under Defectively-priced Roofing Contracts

Ohio-based RPM International Inc. and its subsidiary, Tremco Inc., have paid $60.9 million to resolve allegations that Tremco filed false claims in connection with two multiple award schedule (MAS) contracts with the General Services Administration (GSA) for roofing supplies and services, the Justice Department announced today.  Tremco failed to provide the government with price discounts provided to non-federal government customers.   Tremco also allegedly marketed expensive materials to government purchasers without disclosing the availability of the same materials at lower cost that were manufactured and sold by the company.   Tremco is a manufacturer of construction products and services and is a subsidiary of the RPM Building Solutions Group.  

“Companies that knowingly skirt the rules for securing government business undermine the integrity of the procurement process and create an unfair advantage against companies that are playing by the rules,” said Stuart F. Delery, Assistant Attorney General for the Justice Department’s Civil Division.   “We are committed to ensuring a level playing field and protecting taxpayer dollars.”
Allegedly, from January 2002 to March 2011, Tremco knowingly violated its contractual obligations to provide GSA with current, accurate and complete information about its commercial sales practices, to report changes in discounts to comparable commercial customers and to pass those discounts on to government customers.  As a result, the government allegedly paid more than it should have for Tremco’s services and products.   In addition, Tremco allegedly improperly marketed generic products as a superior line of the same product and used a defective adhesive formula in its roofing systems.
The GSA MAS program provides government purchasers with a streamlined process for procurement of commonly used commercial goods and services.  To be awarded a MAS contract, and thereby gain access to the broad government marketplace and ease of administration that comes from selling to hundreds of government purchasers under one contract, contractors must agree to disclose commercial pricing policies and practices.

GSA Inspector General Brian Miller said, “GSA OIG auditors and investigators worked diligently to make sure the taxpayers got the benefit of required price reductions, and received a fair price for the products and services purchased with taxpayer funds.”  

“These companies are paying the price for trying to cheat the American taxpayer out of a fair deal,” said Ronald C. Machen Jr., U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia.   “We thank this whistleblower for coming forward to reveal this wrongdoing.   Other contractors who are considering bilking the government should take heed:  false and fraudulent claims on the U.S. Treasury will not be tolerated.”
The settlement resolves a qui tam, or whistleblower, lawsuit filed on behalf of the government by former Tremco vice president Gregory Rudolph, who will receive more than $10.9 million as his share of the recovery in the case.  Under the whistleblower provisions of the False Claims Act, private citizens can bring lawsuits on behalf of the government and share in any recovery.   Rudolph’s lawsuit also includes allegations on behalf of several states under their false claims statutes.   The settlement with the federal government does not resolve the state actions.

This settlement was the result of a coordinated effort by the Commercial Litigation Branch of the Justice Department’s Civil Division, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia and GSA’s Office of Inspector General to investigate the allegations and resolve the case.   The claims settled by this agreement are allegations only, and there has been no determination of liability.
The case is captioned United States, the States of California, Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Virginia and the City of Chicago, ex rel. Gregory Rudolph v. Tremco Inc. and RPM International Inc. , Case No. 1:10-cv-01192 (D.DC) .

Civil Division
If they got fined 60+ million dollars, imagine how much they got away with?
TCPN and Tremco are a ticking time bomb, and I will suggest anyone who reads this to step clear of the heartbreak.
I will break down each and every person involved, what they do, the companies they do it for, and you will be astonished.  I have so much documentation and will take time to "connect the dots" for you in a very comprehensive way.
You have a CHOICE, and must reject any "mandate" to buy from a "preferred vendor".  Next time they get caught, you may find yourself tangled around the axle of the bus they threw you under.

 Friends, I only provide the data, and it is you who are the judge.

Thank you for spending precious time with me here, and am humbled you care what I have to say.

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


Robert R. 'Ron" Solomon
Director, Roof Consultant's Alliance
CCC 1325620 (Florida)

Friday, November 1, 2013

"TCPN, Tremco, and Taxpayers"



To: Jason Wickel

From: Deborah Bushnell
Re: Determination for RFP

Date: August 31, 2011

Request for Proposal (RFP) for Cooperative Job Order Contracting Services (TX) RFP #11-14

TCPN has determined that the use of a Request for Proposal (RFP) for Cooperative Job Order Contracting Services (TX) is more beneficial and advantageous to our members than the use of a Request for Bid.
TCPN contracts are used by public and private schools, colleges and universities, cities, counties, non-profits, and all governmental entities throughout the country
. The use of an RFP will allow vendors to decrease submitted pricing if needed based on quantity and size of projects, as well as the ability to negotiate supplemental agreements. Each purchase made through this contract will be customized to the needs of the purchasing agency. In addition, competitive sealed bidding does not allow the ability to compare offers and determine the best value for our wide range of members.

Therefore, it is our opinion that a Request for Proposal, rather than a Request for Bid, is more advantageous to our members.



Posted: 11:30 p.m. Saturday, Dec. 29, 2012

Investigator: Lack of bidding cost Miami County taxpayers

By Andrew J. Tobias

Staff writer
Miami County sheriff’s investigators estimate county commissioners wasted about $500,000 by awarding no-bid contracts to a vendor from the Cleveland area while ignoring a local company that offered to do the work for less than half the price.
This new allegation came to light during an investigation into Miami County’s government. It was contained within investigative records compiled by the Miami County Sheriff’s Office and reviewed by the Dayton Daily News.
County commissioners have awarded that preferred vendor, Cleveland-based Tremco, about $2 million in roofing jobs since 2008.
For many of those jobs, then-county maintenance director Jarrod Harrah contacted a local company, Don Hubbard Jr. Roofing, to ask for informal quotes. Overall, Hubbard’s quotes were $509,000 less than those offered by Tremco, according to a report from Miami County Sheriff’s Lt. Steve Lord.
But Hubbard was never allowed to officially compete for any projects because the county awarded the roofing contracts through a purchasing cooperative organization instead of soliciting competitive bids.
For one project — roof repair jobs at the Miami County Job and Family Services and Community Action Council buildings — Hubbard offered to do the work for about $130,000.
But county commissioners instead hired Tremco to do the work for $380,000 more, awarding a no-bid contract through the State Term Schedule, a cooperative purchasing network run by the State of Ohio.
Hubbard’s quote was lower because it didn’t include the cost of removing the roof and replacing it, which Tremco offered to do. But company owner Don Hubbard, Jr. told the Daily News that commissioners never asked about replacing the roof or how much that would cost.
“I asked for a spec (specification) for the roofing project, and they said there was no spec,” Hubbard told the Daily News. “I had 1,000 questions and no one wanted to answer them.”
Hubbard and his wife, Angie Hubbard, who works for the Miami County court system, brought their concerns to county commissioners and county prosecutor Gary Nasal, investigative records show.
“I just couldn’t understand the amount of money they were spending,” Hubbard said. “I didn’t see how it was justified.”
Commissioners disputed the $509,000 figure tabulated by Lord in a written response to a list of questions submitted by the Daily News.
“The roofing contracts were purchased through a legally constituted pre-bid purchasing cooperative. The price differential that the Sheriff cites is not for comparable project specifications and thus the figures regarding cost savings are not accurate. The prices were for two distinctly separate scopes of work,” the statement reads.
Lord began investigating the Tremco contracts after receiving a call from Carol Morgan, the former director of Miami County Job and Family Services and Don Hubbard Jr.’s mother-in-law.
A MCJFS financial monitor had flagged the roof contract awarded to Tremco, saying that the federal government requires complex construction projects to be competitively bid.
County commissioners decided instead to award the contract through The Cooperative Purchasing Network, or TCPN, a different purchasing cooperative operated by a regional school district in Texas.
Commissioner John “Bud” O’Brien told Lord he didn’t even know Hubbard had offered a quote.
Commissioner Evans told Lord he knew of the lower quote, but thought Tremco was better suited to handle the contract.
Tremco also received a $1.2 million contract through TCPN to replace the roof on the Miami County Hobart Center for County Government.
In his investigative report, Lord was critical of the county’s use of purchasing networks to award no-bid contracts to Tremco, saying government entities should fully bid out construction work.
“Group purchasing agencies do not provide transparency, do not ensure that the lowest amount of money will be spent, and do not provide a competitive bid situation,” Lord wrote.


Oh Man, that is BRUTAL!

I have the full pdf file available for you here:


I will save you a lot of time, and suggest you start reading on Page 103.

Believe me, this case is not unique, and MANY EXAMPLES of grotesque overspending on purchasing cooperatives, and Tremco exist.  I will continue to furnish those examples, to illustrate the scope, and dereliction of "Competitive Bid" responsibility to the taxpayers.

Here is a purchasing cooperative that does not accept "Bids" on individual, and unique projects.  Tremco WROTE the specifications, acted as the consultant, and specified ONLY their materials.  This is illegal in all 50 states, all territories, and provinces of Canada.

Instead, to use their "Preferred Vendor" Tremco.  TCPN's deceptive method is based solely upon a "Line Item" method to eliminate all competition.

With TCPN, they simply "choose" based upon favoritism, and greed.


YOU pay for it.  YOU pay the much higher cost of Tremco, and then pay TCPN an additional 4% for handling the contract.

It seems imbecilic to me.



It may seem rather harsh of me to categorize Ms. Bushnell's message in that way, but her direction is against all known procurement law.

"Fair, Open, Transparent, and COMPETITIVE" is the LAW of this land, and no amount of jibberish, or "wishful thinking" will change it.

TCPN comes from a fundamentally flawed position which is to me, astonishing in it's arrogance.

I am in discussion with TCPN to bring fairness to the taxpayers, and not illegally push a culture of "favoritism" to preferred vendors, WITHOUT BIDDING.

GSA says this about TCPN:

"Mr. Solomon,

Thank you for your e-mail.  I am the supervisor for the 03FAC Schedule.  Tremco's GSA Schedule 03FAC Contract GS-06F-0047R was cancelled effective May 19, 2013. 

The link provided in the e-mail was to Tremco's GSA Advantage PDF price list file for the cancelled contract, which is no longer active or accessible through GSA eLibrary or GSA Advantage.  We researched several Tremco commercial websites and found no reference to GSA or Ms. Cheryl Sharp.  If you could provide the link to the Tremco website where you saw that information it would be helpful for us.

Thank you,
Janet M. Haynes
Supervisory Contracting Officer (Schedule 03FAC)
Facilities Maintenance & Hardware Acquisition Center (FMHAC)
General Services Administration

First, I am VERY THANKFUL to Ms. Haynes who acted promptly, and professionally.

I furnished that link to her, and it can be found here:


That should be abundantly clear to everyone, so I will change direction for a moment.  You will notice I am using HUD as the most difficult challenge of all, and sharing public record.

Please let me share with you what HUD themselves say:

I will suggest you look to HUD as ONE reference: (Section 8, to save time)

"Special Attention of: Transmittal for Handbook No: 7460.8 REV 2

Public Housing Agencies; Issued: March 2, 2007
Public Housing HUB Office Directors;
Public Housing Program Center Coordinators;
Regional Directors;
Field Office Directors; and
Resident Management Corporations


3. Brand Name or Equal Specifications (24 CFR 85.36(c)(1)(vi)). Under
this form of specification, clear and accurate product descriptions are
developed. These descriptions shall not contain features that unduly
restrict competition.

It may be necessary to describe technical requirements for materials and equipment by referencing brand name products in order to define performance or other salient requirements.

References to brand names shall be followed by the words “or equal” and a description of the item’s essential characteristics so that competition is not restricted.

Specific brand names may be used only for establishing design and quality standards and only if there is no other reasonable method of designating the required quality of the item desired. When brand names or catalog numbers are used, inform the offerors that such references establish only design or quality standard; in fact, any other products that clearly and demonstrably meet the standard are also acceptable.

D. Avoiding Manufacturers Specifications. PHAs should avoid incorporating a particular manufacturer’s specification as the project specification. This may give the appearance of restricting competition and suggest that other manufacturers’ products are at a disadvantage and may not be accepted.

If the PHA specifies a brand name cabinet, the essential key elements or
features of the product should be stated. For example, if specifying kitchen
cabinets with the key features of solid wood doors and plywood frames.

E. Contractor-Developed Specifications (24 CFR 85.36(c)(1)(iv)). In order to ensure objective contractor performance and eliminate unfair competitive advantage, contractors funded to develop or draft specifications, requirements, statements of work, invitations for bid, or requests for proposals shall be excluded from competing in the procurement.

The only exception to this rule is if, prior to the solicitation, all respondents to solicitations are provided with materials and information made available to the contractor involved in matters pertinent to the solicitation."


This is in DIRECT CONFLICT to what Ms. Bushnell suggests to her client, and in DIRECT CONFLICT" to the law, and the spirit of the law.  I am in hopes they will cease in defrauding the taxpayers, but then again, I'm an optimist.

My next post will be Nov. 09, 2013.  I will announce TCPN's position (if any) at that time.

The taxpayers are NOT TCPN's "Piggybank".

The site will become more about "Public Roofing Procurement", as I feel it the best use of my skill set, time, and benefit to administrators, and taxpayers.

Image from washingtontechnology.com

Corrections of fact are welcome, and encouraged.

Friends, I will once again suggest you reject negativity in all forms (it can be done), and always remember to keep looking "UP".

Thank you so much for spending valuable time with me here, and am humbled you care one bit about what I have to say.


Robert R. "Ron" Solomon
Director, Roof Consultant's Alliance
CCC 1325620 (Florida)


Thursday, October 24, 2013

"TCPN favors Tremco "Associates" and abuses taxpayers"

TCPN as Tremco Roofing Exclusive Sales Team:

I will prove to you that TCPN has a very unhealthy financial interest in Tremco/WTI.  I would like to tell you that is unique, but it isn't.  The purchasing cooperative does not get paid to SAVE money, they get a COMMI$$ION of 4%.   Where is the incentive?

The more it costs, the more they make.  Period.

Would a rational person (taxpayer) approve of this method?  Of course not.  But, they are unaware, because they "Trust" others to care about our schools, and tax dollars.  The opposite is true, and permeates the very core of all government purchasing ciooperatives.

This example illustrates the nepotism, esoteric companies formed only to funnel money away from you.  I will make an attempt to bring them to you, and also continue to fight for fair bidding practices that do not excludee competition as TCPN does.

Let us begin.

The messages were sent to:  tmoses@tcpn.org 

First message:

"Dear Sir:

Roof Consultant's Institute, and my group Roof Consultant's Alliance
(5,000+ members combined) take great exception to roofing services  contracted
through government purchasing cooperatives.

"TCPN will receive 4% of the total revenue from each PO executed  under
this contract. This fee will be included in the contractor's pricing  proposal and will not be
issued as a separate line item in any job proposals  issued to client members.

This contract management fee will be required to be  paid within thirty days of the completion of any work order".

TCPN is essentially a commissioned salesperson, and the more roofing
services cost, the more TCPN makes.  All incentive to achieve a lower price  is
immediately vacated.  Shameful.

We are fed up with terms like:

Proprietary Specifications
Sole Source Agreement
Preferred Vendor
Line Item Contract
Job Order Contract

They are designed only to circumvent fair, open, and transparent, competitive bid laws of every state in this country.

I see one of your preferred vendors is WTI/Tremco.  Are you aware they
were just handed a federal fine of $61,000,000.00 for abusing GSA "Line Item"


WHO is "Weatherproofing Technologies'?


Let's check TCPN's website for roofing contracts:


Job Order Contracting (JOC) Services (AZ) Weatherproofing Technologies 3/31/2015R5155
Job Order Contracting (JOC) Services (LA) Weatherproofing Technologies 2/28/2015R5229
Job Order Contracting (JOC) Services (MI) Weatherproofing Technologies 3/31/2015R5121
Job Order Contracting (JOC) Services (MI) (Federally Funded Projects) Weatherproofing Technologies 3/31/2015R5122
Job Order Contracting (JOC) Services (TX) Weatherproofing Technologies 10/31/2014R5101
Roofing, Roof Repairs, Roof Maintenance Progressive Roofing 10/31/2014MO928

Who is Progressive Roofing?  A "Division" of Progressive Services.

Here is the "appointment" by TCPN to make Progressive Roofing a "partner", as they all like to say.


That document will show you that Progressive Roofing submits some convuleted mess of numbers to TCPN for contract award.  NOT to a municipality, or any public works.  ALL COMPETITION has been effectively eliminated by the Vendor, and TCPN, although they keep saying "Competitively Bid", they are not.

TCPN is getting 4% (minimum) for jacking up roofing prices.  It really is that simple.  Tremco and Progressive Roofing are more than happy to oblige them.

Now, attorneys across the nation are seeking additional retribution, and
the cases include defective materials, and even the roofing applicators
themselves?  The data is very easy to furnish if that is your  pleasure.

We normally see either Tremco, or Garland as the only ones represented in
government purchasing cooperatives, and that is not by accident.  It's by

Source:  http://schoolroofingscam.blogspot.com/

I've shown these individually before, as they are public record.  But Ms. Campbell (please visit her site for so much more information) has them organized for you.

On YouTube:







Print media:




















How about some RPM/Tremco stock selloff by Corporate?

(Note: items in red were not included in my original message to TCPN) 


RPM Insider Trading Transactions for RPM International Inc.

Folks, you MUST read this link, and see the massive sell off.  This is the SAME company that TCPN is using exclusively.  A lot of money is flowing folks, and none of it reaching our schools.

They've  appointed a past Attorney General and official of DOJ (specialty in bid  rigging) to
the Tremco board as well.  Does that sound above board to  you?

I could go on, but the pattern does not change, and think I've proven my

Tremco, and Garland "Salesmen/women" are paid exorbitant commissions
(25%).  That means for every tax dollar designated for roof replacement, or
repairs, only 75% actually gets there.  A vicious taxpayer assault in my  view,
and that of any rational person.

You are causing great hardship to taxpayers in this country, and to my
Brothers and Sisters within the roofing discipline who seek a fair opportunity
to bid for their own taxpayer dollars.

The path is well worn by Tremco, and Garland.

You, as a government purchasing cooperative facilitate this heinous assault
 on taxpayers, and the roofing world is vehemently opposed to it.

Don't believe me?  I've attached the words of a Garland Salesman, and
proudly listed in his profile.

AEPA, NJPA, US Communities, and TCPN are all variations on the same theme
since in the past - Tremco mostly won. In some cases, the copy cats like
Garland  and Hickman were successful.

The line item bid process is far from a true bid process where the low
company gets the work. Individual line items receive an estimate that is then
arbitrarily weighted. Whoever wins the most line items wins that portion of
the  bid.

In some cases, manufacturers are forced to bid on line items that they are
legally precluded from like the provision of design services. In the case
of  AEPA, the contract has more points riding on masonry restoration than on
roofing  services. At the end of the day, the line item portion is only a
fraction of the  rating system used to select a vendor since other subjective
measures come into  the picture that are not clearly defined to those of us
on the outside trying to  figure out their scoring system.

In the recent CV Schools lawsuit, found the AEPA process was flawed in that
 no due diligence was ever done to ensure that the schools got market compet
itive  numbers. When pressed they claimed that they never promised to
provide a more  competitive price.

If you read their marketing materials, you will find that this is not
accurate since most school districts are left with the impression that they are
getting a competitive number and the contract has been  "pre-competed".

In addition to their recent board addition, I also saw that they had added
an attorney with an extensive background at the DOJ with experience (12+
years)  with bid rigging.

At the moment, it is going on with a current RFP, and we will vigorously
protest if not withdrawn.

TCPN (see attachment)


Due  Oct 28

RFP states: "TCPN (The  Cooperative Purchasing Network) intends to enter into Roofing Products and  Services Contract(s) for the construction, maintenance, repair and  alteration services related to roofing systems. These contracts will be  available for use by all public entities such as ESC's, ISD/USD's,  universities, city and county governments, community colleges, state and  federal agencies in these United States and other jurisdictions."

I would appreciate acknowledgement of receipt by all copied, and will await
 your response.

The purpose of this writing is to advise you of certain misconduct, and
make you aware.  I am praying you see the copious data as illustrative,
informative, and helpful.  Everything I write is for public consumption,  and you
are free to share it with anyone you wish.  Particularly Tremco,  and the
school district.

How shall we proceed?




Without benefit of reply, sent a second message to each member:

"Dear Sir:

Again: Roofing must be completely removed from your list of services, and a letter signed by the BOD to enforce it.  This is my minimum requirement.  

TCPN is a "Front" for Tremco, and that much is known, and certain.

Taxpayers cannot afford the unnecessary exposure to liability that TCPN, R4,Tremco/WTI/RPM brings.  Lawyers are now seeking testimony from Tremco "Approved Applicators", and have no reason to believe they will stop there. 

If you impose your will upon the taxpayers, the burden will fall to you.  Consider this friendly advice, and a certainty.  RPM's 61 million dollar federal fine is real, and explaining why you SPECIFICALLY choose them as a "Preferred Vendor", using "Line Item" contracting (the same thing they were guilty of with the GSA) might be a tough sell. 

Ignoring a reasonable concern will not make it go away.  I will expand my complaint now to include Directors of R4 Enterprises, LLC.  I have also become interested in your "non-profit" status, as I believe it to be overreaching, and unlawful.

It is a simple matter of "connecting the dots", and I will connect them.  That is a given.  Doing pretty good so far don't you think?

TCPN (all), "Pechacek" (all), Tremco (all), and R4 Enterprises, LLC (all), seem to be heavily dependent upon the favor of each other.  The "sleight of hand" is exceptionally clumsy, compared to most bid rigging themes.

Are the taxpayers served?  Of course not.

I am presenting you with fact.

If you want the protest on an "Official" form, please send it to me for completion.  But THIS is my official protest form.


"As a Principal Roofing Consultant at Tremco, I have over 22 years of relevant experience within the municipal, county, state and federal governmental markets; in addition to K thru 12 and Higher Education. I am disciplined in the inspection, analysis, expert reporting, document development, project management and programming for all building envelope components including roofing, waterproofing and dam proofing assemblies. My success in this industry has been built upon relationships of trust with my clients. I believe in long-term roofing solutions and am available, as ‘The Reliable Resource’ for my client’s roof management needs".


Robert A. Pechacek

Email To Friend

Robert A. Pechacek's Biography

Type Of Business:

Government company

Marketing Area:



Governmental marketing

Major Product/SVS:

Professional development and technical assistance for school districts



Education Degrees:

MBA, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (2012); Bachelor's Degree in Accounting, Oral Roberts University (1987)

Affiliations Awards:

Texas Association of School Business Officials; Government Finance Officers Association of Texas; Association of Educational Service Agencies; Association of School Business Officials International


Volunteer, Local Church

Number Of Years In Profession:


Number Of Years In Current Position:


What Does He/She Attribute Success To:

He attributes his success to his background in auditing, the customer service skills he learned from his father and the support he received from his mentors.

Why did you become involved in your profession or industry?:

He became involved in his profession after gaining experience working as a financial auditor.

Position Responsibilities and Duties:

Heading the companies

Where Will You Be In 5 Years:

In five years, Mr. Pechacek plans to continue to expand and start new businesses
"Texas Association of School Business Officials; Government Finance Officers Association of Texas; Association of Educational Service Agencies; Association of School Business Officials International
Public testimony".


Andy  Pechacek, the CEO of R4 Enterprises LLC

Andy Pechacek

Entrepreneur and Management Consultant
President/CEO at R4 Enterprises, LLC

Representative Profile
David Naber - Houston, TX
Southeast Texas and Louisiana
Telephone: (281) 358-4957
E-Mail: dnaber@tremcoinc.com

If you care to offer a reasonable conclusion, I am happy to hear it. 

If not, I will piece it all together into presentation form, and take our chances.  Please do not make me invest a huge amount of time into "Bid Rigging", although that's exactly what this is.

Note:  Not one of great sensitivity, am insulted that you, nor one person copied had the decency (much less courtesy) to reply. 

I am dedicated to a civil, fact based, discussion.  If you are amenable to such a theme, I would appreciate it.

Soon, I will have to report my progress to the taxpayers, and the lawmakers sworn to protect them.

Ms. Bushnell seems to be an important component in this "process" as well.  As Counsel, she should know better than to expose TCPN to such a vulnerable position.  I welcome her input.

What's your pleasure?




Finally, received this reply from:  tmoses@tcpn.org

"Mr. Solomon,

We are in receipt of your correspondence dated October 16, 2013 and October 20, 2013.  We are in a quiet period for this solicitation until the deadline when the proposals are due. We will not comment on any solicitations currently being advertised.


Tray Moses
Director of Operations/Business Development
11280 West Road
Houston, TX 77065
Direct Line 713.554.0557
TCPN Main 713.554.0437
Cell 979.877.8583

Sorry to interrupt "Quiet Time".

My position is not based upon a SINGLE project, but their methods of jamming Tremco down the throats of our schools, and of you the taxpayer.  This is how Tremco shuts out competiition, and people like TCPN are more than happy to go along.

This is proven by their association with R4 Enterprises, LLC.

Alternate Names:

  • The Cooperative Purchasing Network - Assumed
  • Tcpn - Assumed
  • R4 Enterprises LLC - Legal
You will note that R4 Enterprises, LLC is comprised of at least one Tremco employee.

Key People & Organizations for R4 Enterprises LLC

Overview of R4 Enterprises LLC in Houston, TX

R4 Enterprises LLC filed as a Foreign Limited Liability Company (LLC) in the State of Texas on Wednesday, July 20, 2011 and is approximately two years old, according to public records filed with Texas Secretary of State. The filing is currently active as of the last data refresh which occured on Monday, October 21, 2013. A corporate filing is called a foreign filing when an existing corporate entity files in a state other than the state they originally filed in. This does not necessarily mean that they are from outside the United States.

Key People

Angela Bishop serves as the Director and has interests in other corporate entities including H-Ram Holdings, LLC, Kinetic Group LLC .

Robert Pechacek is the Director of R4 Enterprises LLC. Robert's additional corporate interests include Kinetic Group LLC .

  Jason Wickel The Director of R4 Enterprises LLC . Jason has other corporate interests including Kinetic Group LLC located in .

Angela G. Bishop is also the registered agent for the company. Also known as a statutory or resident agent, the registered agent is responsible for receiving legal notifications regarding court summons, lawsuits, and other legal actions involving the corporate entity.
We'll soon work on "The Kinetic Group, and reveal what we find here.

D&B Company Report
  • 3 Active Members Found

Key roles for R4 Enterprises LLC

Director, Member Governing Person

Director, Member Governing Person

Director, Member

Corporate Records

Texas Secretary of State
Filing Type: Foreign Limited Liability Company (LLC)
Status: Active
State: Texas
State ID: 801455253
Date Filed: Wednesday, July 20, 2011
Registered Agent Angela G. Bishop

Alternate Names:

  • The Cooperative Purchasing Network - Assumed
  • Tcpn - Assumed
  • R4 Enterprises LLC - Legal

That Friends, is OBSCENE by any stretch of the imagination.

I will report back on this development if TCPN, Tremco, and R4 Enterprises, LLC., admit to this obvious wrongdoing, and ceases.

If there is no such admission (although supported by public record), I will take you along for the ride.


I will no longer participate in any activities not directly related to "Roof Consultant's Alliance" or "Public Roofing Procurement".  You will see no mention of  manufacturers, distributors, consultant's, or contractors, who are not either the problem, or not committed to solving the problem.

If I am to protect taxpayers everywhere, may not be dependent upon the ambitions of others.  

I will try harder to condense these posts for you, but every turn I take reveals more.  Collecting this material is time consuming, and I'll try harder to bring it to you in a more "Professional" format.  For now however, you're stuck with facts, and a few illustrative photos.

Soon, I hope to do some audio "break downs" for you, as I present documents, and share the meanings with you. 

Please note that I alone am responsible for every word I say here.  I encourage constructive criticism, or factual corrections.

Thank you for visiting with me today.  Please reject negativity in all forms, and always remember to keep looking "UP".


Robert R. "Ron" Solomon
Director, Roof Consultant's Alliance
CCC 1325620 (Florida)

Note:  If you want to find out anything about me, just type my name in your browser.  It's all there, and my Linkedin full profile is quite complete. 

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...