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

Friday, December 28, 2018

Roofing Manufacturer facing legal action in Ohio.


I blame this nightmare on School Administrators who don’t do their homework.  It is against the law for Administrators to exclude all competition in favor of only ONE Manufacturer.  Actually, they shouldn’t be getting their information from a salesman/woman with glossy fliers in the first place.

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

Get the proper information from Roof Consultant’s Institute.  I’m very familiar with them, and overjoyed with responses on your behalf.  They are Honorable, Certified, Experienced, and know what to do.

Before I go further, please let me list the complete position (with permission graciously provided by RCI):

 RCI, Inc.
1500 Sunday Drive, Suite 204
Raleigh, NC 27607-515


Tell them I sent you.

If your school district is using a Purchasing Cooperative, you are paying 40% too much.  I’ll refer you to the Ducker-Carlisle Report which can be found using the search feature in the upper left hand corner of this page.

Respect to Matt Dutton
Manufacturer responsible for G-P roof mistake facing legal action in Ohio
By Matt Dutton Herald-Whig
Posted: Nov. 21, 2016 8:20 pm Updated: Nov. 22, 2016 8:14 am
GRIGGSVILLE, Ill. -- The same company responsible for the installation of the wrong roof at Griggsville-Perry Elementary School has an ongoing case against it in Ohio for selling subpar roofing material.
Assistant Ohio Attorney General Jerry Kasai confirmed a case has been opened against Tremco, a Cleveland-based roofing manufacturer. The joint complaint was filed by the Waverly (Ohio) School District Board of Education, Ohio School Facilities Commission and the state of Ohio. The complaint stems from a 2002 contract between Waverly School District and Tremco and various other construction companies.
"Tremco by and through its employees, agents and representatives conceived and executed a scheme to substitute sub-standard roofing materials in the roofing system designed and installed in the Waverly Project," the complaint against Tremco said. "Such scheme included ... the use of inspectors who were not truly independent and failed to report the use of sub-standard materials that failed to meet the Project's specifications."
The result, according to the complaint, was a defective roof that was not watertight. The complaint also expands upon the scheme by noting sales representative Kevin Kobbeman "intentionally hid the fact from the Plaintiffs that the material Defendent Tremco was supplying to the project was not what was contained within the Contract Specifications."
The lower-grade roof also took the school out of the required building code, as it was not rated high enough on fire resistance and wind uplift.
In hiring an inspector to survey the completed project, the complaint said, Tremco "utilized the services of employees of its wholly owned subsidiary, Weatherproofing Technologies Inc. to perform the required independent inspections. ... Such inspectors of Tremco failed to report the deficiencies."
For the Waverly School District case, the complaint said the financial impact was approximately an additional $3 million above original estimates.
In 2013, Tremco settled a similar lawsuit for almost $61 million. A press release from the Department of Justice regarding the lawsuit said, "Tremco allegedly improperly marketed generic products as a superior line of the same product and used a defective adhesive formula in its roofing systems." That case was brought to light by a former Tremco vice president who became a whistleblower.
The issue in Ohio, Griggsville-Perry Superintendent Janet Gladu said, revolved around the misrepresentation of inferior materials as meeting school code. The roof installed at Griggsville-Perry was a different roof with a shorter warranty than was ordered by the school.
"It's two different issues, same manufacturer," Gladu said.
The project has cost the district $101,391. Henson-Robinson President Dan Hoselton told The Herald-Whig's news-gathering partners at WGEM that the company plans on replacing the incorrect roofing product with no additional cost to the district and tax payers.
Gladu had previously told The Herald-Whig she hopes the replacement will be completed before winter weather sets in.
"Last time it took three weeks, but it should go faster this time. It should be about two weeks if we don't run into any rain," Gladu said. "I'm ready for it to be done. But we are making it correct."

Earlier this year, the Securities and Exchange Commission filed an enforcement action against Tremco for failing to "timely disclose a loss contingency, or record accrual for, an investigation by the U.S. Department of Justice." The action claims Tremco failed to record a loss following the Department of Justice's 2011 investigation and the subsequent settlement in 2013.

This is happening across the country every single day, and school maintenance budgets destroyed as a result.  Schools get plenty of money, but have too many people siphoning it off on ridiculous procurement "Influence', and "ignorance".

NOBODY in the Private sector uses Tremco, for a number of reasons.  Type "Tremco" in the search box, and prepare yourself to be stunned.  

Thank you for spending time with me here, and know how much I appreciate it.

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. Solomon
Public Procurement Analyst
State Certification CCC 1325620
Licensed Consultant

Friday, December 14, 2018

School Roofing: We have a right to compete for our own tax dollars.


If you are a roofing specifier (Architect, Consultant, and others), you may want to read this.  It can save you a lot of heartburn, and grief.

Mr. Dziuban does a very nice job with his presentation, and I am thankful for CPR, and their leadership.

If you think Purchasing Cooperatives, and "sole source" roofing are out of hand, just wait.  They are trying very hard to control ALL ASPECTS of construction.  They are even suggesting a Purchasing Cooperative add General Contracting to their offering.  Absurd, this fosters price gouging, and great opportunity for payoffs, bid rigging, etc.

I don't think General Contractors will stand for it anymore than we do in Roofing.  Roofing is one of about 20 trades involved in a project, so that's a lot of sub-trades getting shut out.

It's a very common SCAM folks, and we need to tell Administrators we're not going to break the law.  All we want is a fair opportunity to bid on Public work, and compete for our own tax dollars.

This problem is nationwide, and decimates school maintenance budgets.  Roofing is the costliest item in any school maintenance budget which is why the SCAM is focused on Administrators who don't know any better.  or get paid to "go along".  We're talking many millions of dollars overspent, 25% to a salesman's pocket, 2% for the Cooperative, and the taxpayers dollar, just turned into .73 and nothing to show for it.

"Competition" occurs when a minimum of 4 Roofing Material Manufacturers (GAF, Johns MLanville, Firestone, Carlisle, and more) quote pricing for any of their approved applicators.  

From there, we use the pricing to prepare a hard bid, and the project is awarded to the lowest responsible bidder.  If you're worried about "low bidding scenarios, a Performance and Payment Bond will assuage your fears.

All school images are stock photos, and are not related to the article.  They are added by me to break up the monotony.


This is why the cost of school building projects are literally going through the roof: 

Robert Dziuban

By Robert Dziuban 
In the past decade, there has been a massive, secretive theft of hundreds of millions of dollars in taxpayer money in Pennsylvania and across the nation.
School districts across the country are paying twice as much as they should for roofing projects. And in Pennsylvania, the problem is most severe.
It's time to stop this widespread larceny, and the path is straightforward--enact legislation that restores open, competitive bidding on all roofing projects.
A survey of state roofing projects by Ducker Worldwide found that Pennsylvania schools that purchased roofs through the Association of Educational Purchasing Agencies spent $100 million more on the projects from 2005 to 2010 than they would have through public competitive bidding. Here is the survey, as well as studies in other states.  
With $100 million, Pennsylvania could have purchased 33 million school lunches for low-income students, or nearly 100,000 computers for its schools.
You would think numbers like these would spur action in Harrisburg, but a study of contracts awarded from 2011 to 2015 shows the process of overcharging continues. 
In virtually every state in which investigations into public school roofing projects have been conducted, anti-competitive, wasteful practices have been uncovered.

A 2015 audit found that Baltimore Public County Schools, using the Pa. cooperative purchasing program, estimated that since 2006, they had overpaid $11 million for roofing projects.
New Jersey uncovered widespread circumvention of competitive bidding on roofing projects. 
California found millions of taxpayer dollars being wasted and revised procurement laws, and Texas estimated taxpayers were being overbilled an estimated $1.3 million per year.
Similar investigations have uncovered fraud and abuse in Indiana, Massachusetts, Virginia and other states.
Pennsylvania is one of 23 states that come under the cooperative roofing umbrella of AEPA, which funnels roofing projects through Tremco, a national roofing contractor.
Tremco's parent company, RPM International Inc., recently settled a lawsuit for $65 million. 
The suit charged that RPM  defrauded the General Services Administration and other government entities by overcharging on roofing contracts as far back as 2002. 
Slippery Rock School District brought a defective materials suit against Weather Technologies, a Tremco company that sold material to the district through AEPA co-operative purchasing company.   Dozens of school districts in the state have bought roofs through Tremco.

The Commonwealth's procurement code allows for cooperative group purchasing. Like codes in other states, this is great for the purchase of pencils or computers. But construction projects are not commodities.
Cooperative purchasing permits for roofing have been exposed around the U.S. as end-runs around the competitive bidding process that hand business directly to favored vendors.
There is no logic in a process in which the manufacturer acts as the designer, general contractor, and installer. Cooperative purchasing of roofing services circumvents accountability for quality workmanship and snubs its nose at best practices. In many states, the process also violates the requirement of having third-party design professionals review projects.
We need a system of checks and balances for school roof projects in Pennsylvania.
Fortunately, a bill will be submitted to fix this  expensive overspending problem soon. State Rep. Kerry Benninghoff, R-Centre, is currently seeking co-sponsors for his proposal.

I call on taxpayers, school administrators and elected officials in the Commonwealth to support this bill, so we can put an end to a gross and unnecessary waste of taxpayer money. 
Robert Dziuban is executive director at Coalition for Procurement Reform, Reston, Va. 

We are on the right side of this argument, and know the Purchasing Cooperative "darlings" (Tremco, Garland, Simon) cannot offer a rebuttal.  Can't do it, and I've got $10,000.00 of my own money that says so.  All they have to do is meet me in a televised public debate.  Ten years, no takers.  Why would a multi-billion dollar firm be afraid to shut me up?  Money goes to a school of my choice by the way.

I have nothing but contempt for the ones who use their 'Predatory Sales Model" to steal taxpayer money.  Think of me the next time your children are asked to purchase basic school supplies because the school has no money.

Friends, PLEASE offer a voluntary alternate before walking away.The number will be about 40% less than the cooperative and ONE manufacturer.  This will illustrate how the bid pool substantially increases, and the material will be purchased through any LOCAL roofing distributor.  In this way, the district retains approximately 70% of local tax dollars.  Money that could be used for additional roofing, or maintenance.

I will help anyone who needs help.


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

Thank you for spending precious time with me here, and know how appreciative I am.

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


Robert R. Solomon

Public Procurement Analyst
State Certified CCC1325620
Licensed Consultant
Tampa, Florida

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...