Pennsylvania Schools pay $100,000,000.00 MORE on Sole Source" Roofs through Purchasing Cooperative.

Friends:

Today, I have something very special for you.

An "Honorable" Politician in Pennsylvania, and my "Honorable" friend, Ms. Janial Mack.

The "Coalition for Procurement Reform" (CPR), a group of good people, and companies doing the right thing for our industry, the taxpayers, our schools, and our children.  

This shows just how much money School Boards are blowing on the deranged "Purchasing Cooperative Roofing "SCAM".  Only ONE manufacturer is listed, and that manufacturer is Tremco/WTI.  The same Tremco that was fined $61,000,000.00 by the DOJ for abusing GSA contracts.

Tremco, and their Attorney are currently being sued by the SEC for lying, and the SEC wants a jury trial.  Does that sound like a firm you'd bet your reputation on?  Regularly, I am contacted by Attorneys looking for School District "enablers" of the well known scam.

Let's look at this wonderful development:

https://www.delcotimes.com/news/state/lawmaker-state-overspent-for-school-construction-costs-in-excess-of/article_7bf6b39d-67d8-5eae-9e4b-da2450d88bea.html

I also appear in the "comments" section below the story. Much, much, appreciation to Mr. Dave Lemery/Watchdog.Org

Lawmaker: State 'overspent for school construction costs in excess of $100 million'

By Dave Lemery | Watchdog.org

One of the facets of school costs that can drive up property tax bills is large-scale infrastructure projects. Many school buildings across Pennsylvania are many decades old and require costly maintenance or replacement.

The traditional way that such a project gets completed is by putting out a notice to builders that they can bid on the contract, and then the lowest bid that meets the contract’s stipulations wins the job. But another method that has seen some popularity in Pennsylvania and across the country largely circumvents the public bid process, drawing accusations that it has left taxpayers on the hook for inappropriately inflated expenses.

The Pennsylvania House State Government Committee held an informational hearing Thursday to look at the topic in relation to legislation proposed by Rep. Jesse Topper, R-Bedford. His bill would end the practice of using cooperative purchasing agreements to arrange for school infrastructure projects.

“We certainly live and operate in a time when school districts are looking for any opportunity to save money,” Topper told committee members. “We also know that a huge cost to school districts is any kind of a construction project, whether it be a roofing project, an expansion, renovation.

“And so we're just looking to make sure that this system that we have currently in place that offers not only competitive bidding but also this cooperative purchasing for construction is actually working,” he continued. “I think there have been cases across the state where it has not been working.”

Cooperative purchasing is a practice used in both the public and private sector whereby different entities – businesses, school districts, etc. – combine forces to overcome their relatively small stature and negotiate for better terms in the purchase of supplies or equipment.

“Cooperative purchasing is useful,” said Janiel Mack, who was testifying on behalf of the Coalition for Procurement Reform, an industry advocacy group. “It's a useful tool if used for the intended purpose of commodities, such as papers and pencils and chairs. This practice however, has morphed into non-commodity construction items, costing the taxpayers and state of Pennsylvania millions of dollars unnecessarily.”

According to Mack, the co-op process has made it easy for school administrators to more or less outsource the competitive bid process and not have to wrangle with all the arcane details. The downside, she said, is that the school district doesn’t get the best possible price.

“Through independent studies and FOIA requests, it's estimated that the state of Pennsylvania has overspent for school construction costs in excess of $100 million over a five-year period,” she said.

Mack provided a number of specific examples where districts had established pricing through the co-op process but then turned to the traditional open bid process because of taxpayer pressure.

“Big Spring School District [had a] 180,000 square foot roof,” she said in one example. “Through the co-op, the price was $2.4 million. The competitively bid price was $1.4 million for the same roof. That's a million dollar savings on one roof.”

Rep. Pam DeLissio, D-Philadelphia, seemed to suggest that if school districts were failing to get the best possible deal with taxpayer funds, it would be up to voters to replace the school board members rather than state government getting involved.

“School boards are elected bodies,” she said. “They’re elected by their communities. School boards are held accountable when they run for office every four years. So what this sounds like we're saying is that school boards are not acting in an accountable manner, nor those personnel who are running the school districts.”

But to Mark Sobeck, president of Mark J. Sobeck Roof Consulting, individual citizens have had limited success fighting the practice on a district-by-district basis.

“People go to the school board meetings and throw fits about it, and they write letters to the editor and they're in the papers,” he said. “We see them all the time. We get copies of them all the time. But it doesn't faze the school board. When their mind is made up, they are getting this system, and we don't know why. We'll call them, we’ll contact them, we’ll explain that they're paying two to three times as much. And it falls on deaf ears.”

John Brenchley, Chief Innovation Officer with Central Susquehanna Intermediate Unit, an association of school districts that oversees one of the most-used co-op programs in the state, argued that school districts that rely on standard public bidding for infrastructure projects are left in the lurch if the work is not up to snuff. He told the committee that in a past job as a business manager for a school district, he’d had bad experiences with public bid contracts leading to leaking roofs that had to be re-bid for repairs, but with cooperative purchasing, the vendor has to provide fixes at no extra cost.

“Individually, when we have the schools work with contractors, we really have no power, because once the job's done, it's done,” he said. “The comment [from the contractor] is, ‘well, go and sue me.’ When you go through cooperative purchasing, you have the power of the cooperative purchasing behind you.”

Upon questioning by Rep. Matthew Bradford, D-Norristown, Brenchley revealed that Central Susquehanna Intermediate Unit makes about $2 million annually by administering cooperative purchasing agreements. Since CSIU established the co-op program for school infrastructure 17 years ago, the only company to have won that contract is Weatherproofing Technologies Inc., which in turn hires local contractors to do the actual work – vendors that could be hired directly by the district through traditional open bidding.

Rep. Frank Ryan, R-Palmyra, a frequent voice on the committee on accounting best practices and fraud prevention due to his career as a CPA, seemed to have a problem not so much with the co-op program itself, but with the fact that in many cases it entirely supplants the open bid process.

“I'm reluctant to constrain the school district, but at the same time I'm reluctant to have the taxpayer foot a bill that something that's unnecessary,” he said.

Dave Lemery is a regional news editor at Watchdog.org. He welcomes your comments. Contact Dave at dlemery@watchdog.org.

This article originally ran on watchdog.org.

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

 Rep. Topper, and Ms. Mack are nicer, far more civilized, and professional than I will ever be.  I'm not allowed in courtrooms because I carry a WWII  flamethrower, and the scanner machine will 'beep" every time.

If you care to see my comments regarding the above, you may find them here:

https://www.delcotimes.com/news/state/lawmaker-state-overspent-for-school-construction-costs-in-excess-of/article_7bf6b39d-67d8-5eae-9e4b-da2450d88bea.html

We do not want qualified manufacturers excluded from a bid list, and that includes Tremco.  They are welcome to compete with the rest of us.

All we're asking is the opportunity to compete for our own tax dollars.

Does that sound fair?

Does that sound reasonable?

Of course it does.

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

Respect.

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