Showing posts with label Public Roofing Scam. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Public Roofing Scam. Show all posts

Friday, July 31, 2020

RoofConnect, and Mr. David Workman. An "Honorable" Roofing Service Provider

As many of you know, I write about roofing scams in public works.

Everything I say is backed by public record, with supporting    links.

The people I protect are Taxpayers, Public Schools, and all projects that involve public money.

I expose "Predatory Sales Models", and outright lying to public administrators.  Most of these lies are perpetrated by Purchasing Cooperatives manipulating numbers for a "Preferred Vendor".  Against the law in all 50 states.

I have a great example of "Bid Rigging" that I will share soon.

Several people with "clout" in the roofing discipline have assaulted me, and are trying to silence me.  I know who they are, and will reveal them in a rather unflattering way.

Enough, let's get to the happy stuff:  

RoofConnect CEO Mr. David Workman and I had several meaningful, and productive conversations.  I believe he is an "Honorable", and decent person.  A TRUE Roofing Professional.


RoofConnect

Mr. Workman writes:



Please excuse the quality of this image, but will try to offer a much cleaner view when the original document arrives.

Perhaps other roofing service providers can get the message, and choose "Honor" over scheming to defraud taxpayers and decimateing school roofing maintenance budgets.

RoofConnect is the ONLY national provider of roofing, and roofing services, that I endorse.  FINALLY, I've found a man, and and firm with integrity.

To reward his honesty, will suggest you contact RoofConnect if you have either one, or many properties in your portfolio.

Praying that others will follow his lead, and do what's right for public works ehtities, and taxpayers across this country.

Today, I can rejoice, but must immediately get back to work, chasing Purchasing Cooperatives, Garland, and Tremco who lie, cheat, and steal through "Bid Summaries" and predetermined outcomes.  

Soon, you will see if Mr. Steve Little, CEO of National Roofing Partners, gets the message, and turns away from his "Preferred Vendor":  Tremco.

I've invested many months researching them, and will present all public record pertaining to them, and you can decide.  I've tried to negotiate fairness with Mr. Little, a number of times, but to no avail.

Thank you again Mr. Workman for being a man of your word, and for not "going along" with people who force us to either participate in taxpayer abuse, or go hungry.. 

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

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

Much Respect.

Robert R. Solomon
Public Procurement Analyst
State Certified CCC1325620
Licensed Roofing Consultant
RobertRSolomon@aol.com










Saturday, March 31, 2018

NRCA takes "Honorable Position" against Purchasing Cooperatives .

Friends:

The National Roofing Contractors Association takes a stand against the "One Size Fits All" philosophy of roofing and roofing services.  Purchasing Cooperatives may help with common items, but have no business (accreditation, or experience) inserting themselves in Construction Services of any kind.

Please let me thank the members of  "Coalition for Procurement Reform" for their noble, and continuous effort promoting "Fairness" . I am privileged to know many of them very well, and know their hearts are in the right place.  They do not ask special treatment from anyone.

They are working hard to protect the taxpayers from obvious scams, and "Predatory Sales Models".

It is not an exaggeration to say they are trying to save taxpayers several BILLION dollars lost to publicly funded roofing scams. No exaggeration at all.

The overreach is phenomenal in it's "Exclusion of Competition", false statements of "Competition", and are unqualified to address the Construction Industry.  Nobody in the Private Market uses the Purchasing Cooperatives for construction services.

General Contractors, and the minimum 20 Subtrades, need to wake up.  They're already trying to exclude you and deprive you of a living. You too will be under their thumb.  HVAC, Plumbing, Electrical, and right down the line.

SAY NO TO PURCHASING COOPERATIVES, 

This topic was originally addressed by Mr. Tom Gernetzke, Past President of Roof Consultant's Institute (RCI) in the form of "Operation Moonshot".  Unfortunately, Mr. Gernetzke's valiant effort was for naught, as succeeding RCI Presidents' simply dropped the ball, and ignored the hard work , and depth of courage necessary . I hold him in the highest regard.

It is my understanding the new NRCA President, and RCI Presidents, have stiffened their backbones, and taking this head on.  I am thankful to them for acknowledging the damage done to taxpayers , schools, and all publicly funded projects,  through "Sole Source", "Proprietary" Contracting Methods.and  "Predatory Sales Models" as I call them.

NO purchasing cooperative on earth can prove they chose a roofing material vendor through "competitive bidding".  It is impossible to do.  Mr. Ribble describes if much better than I can.

I could spend all day thanking the many good people of both organizations who've reached out to me for help.  Unfortunately, cannot mention their names as they fear certain reprisal  They will be shut out  by hateful, vindictive, administrators, who have no authority to exclude anyone.  

Like Mr. Ribble says in the following document, we do not wish to exclude the current "Sole Source" vendors of  Purchasing Cooperatives. They are more than welcome to be included on any bid list.  NRCA, and RCI do not practice "exclusion".  It is imperative you understand these two organizations are the largest of their kind with thousands of members worldwide.

Much Respect to Mr. Ribble, NRCA, RCI, and their members. 

Click to enlarge. 



My only "job"is to educate administrators, and protest wasteful spending when I see it.

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

I welcome requests for help, and answer all email.

RobertRSolomon@aol.com

I am currently working with the VA regarding their "Sole Source" roofing vendor.  It would sicken you.  Honorable Men and Women are not receiving necessary services.  Their roofing vendor is stealing six ways to Sunday, and incapable of shame.  NO COMPETITION brings out the very worst in people.

I know that reading this material is like putting together a 20,000 piece snow storm puzzle, so the Visene's on me.

Thank you again for spending time with me here, and know my appreciation is genuine.  

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
State Certified 
CCC1325620

Thursday, April 6, 2017

Tremco and the SEC - Buyer Beware

Friends, this is the reality of Tremco.  

The SEC is suing Tremco, AND their Attorney.  The DOJ has already fined Tremco $61,000,000.00, and now the SEC has them for lying.  


That sounds like a lot of money right?  You may be interested to know the public facilities who got scammed, received NOTHING.  To put it in context, a brand new high school costs approximately $50,000,000.00.  


Unless you like to play "blindfolded, high stakes poker", I'd stay as far away from Tremco as humanly possible.  You administrators should do your homework, or be pulled down with them.  The WORSE decision you could possibly make is buying Tremco through a Purchasing Cooperative.


There is no such thing as "Pre-Compete" in roofing.  EACH project is wildly variant, and a "parts list" is worthless.  I challenge any roofing estimator to prove they can. 


I challenge Tremco to prove they can, and will stake $10,000.00 of my own money proving they can't.  Money goes to a school of my choice.  


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


Not ONE person in this country can successfully argue Tremco's "Exclusive Vendor" status in public works.  All under the guise:  "We buy in bulk", "We Pre-Compete for you", "Our vast negotiating power.....blah, blah, blah.


IT IS A LIE that defrauds our schools (you pay for it).


I'm looking forward to the day when Tremco is finally debarred from the GSA.  Take Garland too, and we will have eliminated the "Predatory Sales Models" in roofing by 99%.
 


https://probesreporter.com/news/analysis-rpm-international-finally-gets-around-disclosing-its-sec-probe 


"Analysis: RPM International Finally Gets Around to Disclosing its SEC Probe"


RPM
"Last week RPM International (RPM) disclosed it is under investigation by the SEC.  This was not news to us.  We have been tracking undisclosed SEC investigative activity on the company dating back to Aug-2012.  We review the pertinent facts, our research history, and give our take on why a disclosure now could be more dangerous than investors may realize. 
Facts of Interest or Concern:
In an earnings press release last week(link is external), RPM International said in part,
“RPM was notified by the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 24, 2014, that it is the subject of a formal investigation pertaining to the timing of its disclosure and accrual of loss reserves with respect to the previously disclosed fiscal 2013 GSA and Department of Justice investigation into compliance issues relating to Tremco roofing division's GSA contracts.”
Though the company says it was notified on 24-Jun-2014, our research history suggests this SEC investigation has a long tail to it, dating back potentially as far as 2012. 
Since Aug-2012, the SEC has been blocking our access to records on RPM over concern their release could interfere with law enforcement proceedings.  We received the same denial in Jul-2013 and again in Jan-2014. As a matter of law, the SEC was acknowledging some sort of investigative activity.
In May-2014 we published a research note indicating the SEC had confirmed an active-and-ongoing investigation involving RPM.  At that time our research showed no signs of disclosure of SEC investigative activity for the prior two years.  
Our Take:
With the shares up 2.4% on the day of the earnings release (versus an S&P 500 that was essentially flat), it appears investors are ignoring the SEC aspect of earnings release.  We think that is misplaced.  Here’s why --
  • Don’t get distracted by the company saying it was notified by the SEC on 24-Jun that it was subject of a formal investigation. That doesn’t mean it started then.  Again, the results of our works suggests RPM sat on this SEC investigation for at least the past two years, perhaps longer.  In our experience, it's bad when a company waits a long time to disclose an SEC probe.  It begs the critical question, “What changed to prompt the disclosure?”
     
  • Public companies are generally not required to disclose the existence of SEC probes.  They are only required to disclose matters deemed material.  That management now disclosed means they likely now view it as material.  Why?  We say ignore the implications of this at your own peril.
     
  • That the investigation is now formal could signal an escalation and/or that the company is not quite cooperating the way the SEC would like. 
     
  • In formal SEC investigations, subpoenas are frequently involved.  Good questions to ask the company is were they subpoenaed, to whom they were sent, and what the subpoenas sought."   
Note:   New SEC investigative activity could theoretically begin or end after the date covered by this latest information which would not be reflected here.
---------------------------------------------------------
This is not "gossip" friends, but public record.  
Tremco Stock:  
http://www.secform4.com/insider-trading/110621-2.htm
Friends, I have in excess of 100,000 views here, and  humbled.   NONE of this benefits me in any way, other than the personal satisfaction that comes from exposing scams perpetrated upon schools, and taxpayers.  
You notice that Tremco isn't trying to steal any of Wal-Mart's money.  You won't either because they'd have to compete for it.  Tremco will NEVER compete.  Just ask them.  I dare you.
I am thankful for your interest, and time spent with me here.  I realize what a precious commodity time is, and my appreciation grows each day.
Reject negativity in all forms, and always remember to keep looking "UP".
Respect.
Robert R. "Ron" Solomon
Public Procurement Analyst
Director, Roof Consultant's Alliance
CCC 1325620
RobertRSolomon@aol.com
Tampa, Florida




Thursday, March 9, 2017

Another Angry Jurisdiction after Tremco's latest Overbilling Scam..

Friends:

Before the story, let me share basics to avoid such heartbreak.  If you can avoid three things, will have a much better chance of success with your project.

1.)  NEVER BUY A ROOF FROM A PURCHASING COOPERATIVE.  Purchasing Cooperatives are not competitiv in any way.

2.)  Buy Mainstream manufacturers like GAF, Firestone, Johns Manville, Carlisle.  They are also locally stocked by roofing material supply houses.  The supply house can also recommend quality roofing contractors.  The Supplier knows who pays their bills, and who doesn't.

3.)  Research before you buy.   Type "School Roofing Scam" into your browser, and do the same thing on YouTube.  You will find three players:  Purchasing Cooperative, Tremco, Garland.

It's your career, and your responsibility, so I hope this helps.

Now to the story (I have other examples like this):  

 http://www.mydaytondailynews.com/news/miami-county-left-out-roofing-company-payback-for-over-billing/wBxo5luYtlWL84jVwIySaN/

 Miami County left out of roofing company’s payback for over-billing


   

Posted: 10:23 a.m. Wednesday, March 01, 2017


"An Ohio-based roofing company that the I-Team reported in 2014 was likely over-billing governments across the state quietly reimbursed some, but not all, of the agencies it was suspected of over-billing.
Tremco, based in Beachwood, voluntarily repaid 11 state agencies a total of $214,308 last year after it was discovered the company was not giving taxpayers the same discounts they were giving private companies.
“The money was paid in 2016 following discussions with the vendor after the action with the federal government,” said Ohio Department of Administrative Services spokesman Marty Berkowitz. “Ohio was not included in any formal settlement agreement. Tremco voluntarily paid the amounts as listed.”
The I-Team reported in 2014 that state and local governments had paid Tremco $23.4 million under those state contracts from 2006 to 2014.
Contacted this year, state officials said they don’t know which local governments were reimbursed. Tremco officials were asked the same question and responded with a statement that did not name which governments they reimbursed.
Miami County officials, contacted this month by the I-Team, said they didn’t get any reimbursement from Tremco, though a local law enforcement investigation in 2012 called into question the company’s pricing and said county taxpayers overpaid hundreds of thousands of dollars.
In 2013, a federal lawsuit came to light, in which a former Tremco vice president alleged the company used misleading business practices in federal contracts. This included installing defective roofs, giving larger discounts to private customers than government customers and re-labeling generic material as high-end at a marked-up price.
Ohio officials based their blanket contract with Tremco, used by state and local governments, on those federal contracts.
Tremco officials said in their statement that they notified DAS “when Tremco discovered errors in its administration of these contracts.”
“The company also subsequently followed through on a process with the DAS to account for and correct those errors through reimbursements to affected state agencies and local entities that utilized the (state contract),” said a statement from the company.
Tremco settled the federal lawsuit for $61 million, with a large portion going to the whistleblower because the suit was filed under the False Claims Act. The False Claims Act is a law the federal government and several states have encouraging whistle-blowers in government contracting fraud by allowing damages three times the amount of damages and giving whistleblowers a share.
Ohio has no false claims act, though Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine and Auditor Dave Yost have both called for them in the past.
A spokeswoman for DeWine’s office declined to comment on the Tremco issue because the Ohio Department of Administrative Services negotiated the reimbursements with Tremco.
“We get involved when our clients seek our assistance or representation, but in many cases, state agencies resolve matters on their own,” said AG’s office spokeswoman Kate Hanson in an email.
Tremco’s statement says their over-billing of entities in Ohio wasn’t intentional.
“The errors that led to some customers not receiving full discounts on purchases through the (state contract) was not due to a business practice, but rather to unintentional errors in the administration of Tremco’s federal … contracts, the terms of which also impacted purchases under the (state contract),” the statement says. "

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

Avoid the grief, exposure, and pain by just saying "NO" to Purchasing Cooperatives, Tremco, and Garland.  You will be happier for it.  

Thank you for spending time with me here.  I know it gets boring, but I want to help you before the sharks circle with their "Predatory Sales Models".

I have over 105,000 views here, and I am thrilled that anyone cares.  

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. "Ron" Solomon
Director, Roof Consultant's Alliance
Public Procurement Analyst
State Certification CCC 1325620


Sunday, March 24, 2013

"Roof Consultant's Institute Protects Taxpayers, and Members"

Needless to say, I am thrilled to see the premier, and undisputed authority on "all things roofing" come out so strongly on the topic of "Exclusion".

These men and women are taking a bold stand to protect taxpayers from predatory business models designed to eliminate all competition for taxpayer dollars.

Purchasing Co-Op's facilitate this horrible deception upon our school districts, and is contrary to all  published state laws.  I can prove this in all 50 states, and every territory, and province of Canada.

Canada too is infested by "Exclusion", resulting in abominable, abusive, taxpayer waste.  Do you wonder why our children are asked to bring writing materials from home?

Based upon all documentation I've seen, investigations, and public record, I will estimate that 40% of every roofing taxpayer dollar is pure waste.  The commissioned salesman puts 30% straight into their pocket!

Canadian taxpayers paying $800.00 for a 5 Gal. bucket of roof coating?

Does that sting?

I guarantee you this topic will not go away, but quickly gain strength. 

Why Ron? 

Because RCI is RIGHT!

Okay, let me turn it over to the Pro's:
 About the Author:

Thomas M. Gernetzke, RRC, RWC, REWC, RRO, RBEC
President, RCI

 

I am pleased to announce Operation Moonshot was officially rolled out at the RCI convention in Orlando. Please see the following excerpt:




"We are facing the single biggest obstacle to our success, and I firmly believe that we will meet this obstacle and turn it to achieve a successful outcome.
Government sector tax-payer funded cooperative procurement and proprietary specifications that exclude our members hurt all of us.
Even if you don’t do government sector work, the waste, fraud, and abuse that frequently result from these procurement methods impacts your taxes and your bottom line.

“We choose to go to the moon.” On May 25, 1961, President John F. Kennedy announced, before a special joint session of Congress, the dramatic and ambitious goal of sending an American safely to the moon before the end of the decade.
At the time, only the construction of the Panama Canal in peacetime, and the Manhattan project in war, was comparable in scope. Many politicians and scientists doubted that this goal could be achieved.

However, on July 20, 1969, Apollo 11 Commander Neil Armstrong stepped off the lunar module ladder and onto the moon’s surface.

Although paling in comparison on every conceivable level, we have a similar challenge:
We choose to establish a goal to involve an RCI professional member on every public school re-roofing project in North America.” With this challenge, I offer Operation Moonshot.

The primary challenge and objective for Moonshot is clear. Significant milestones include:

- Encourage public school decision makers to retain independent third-party consultants and quality assurance observors in the re-roofing process rather than utilizing procurement methods detrimental to our membership.

- Demonstrate the benefits of using third-party consultants for the roofing installation process. These benefits include longer lasting roofs, better designed roofs, code-compliance, validated manufacturer warranties, greater selection of materials, greater energy efficiency and sustainability – all of which mean greater value and benefit for taxpayers.

- Demonstrate that, of third-party consultants, RCI professional members and in particular those with RCI designated registration titles offer the greatest assurances to school districts and tax payers.
- Promote roof maintenance and roof asset management programs.

Clearly this will not be easy. Moonshot will begin with a comprehensive blend of internationally distributed public relations pieces supplemented with direct mailing campaigns targeting school decision makers.

Moonshot will also develop materials, such as direct mail pieces and .pdf documents that individual RCI members can utilize to promote the merits of building envelope consultants for schools and consumers in general".
***                                              ***                                                 ***
I have nothing but praise and admiration of Mr. Gernetzke, and the fine organization Roof Consultant's Institute.

RCI's involvement has been a Godsend to my personal crusade to stop "No Compete Contracts", "Proprietary Specifications", and "Sole Source Agreements" in public works.

Magnificent in scale, and a blessing for taxpayers.

Much respect to Mr. Gernetzke.

As always, I ask you to reject negativity in all forms, and always remember to keep looking "UP".

Respect,

Robert R. "Ron" Solomon                                                                                    
Director, Roof Consultant's Alliance
CCC1325620

Respect to Mr. Jason Fenstermaker.

Please visit us here:



Tuesday, September 6, 2011

"Proprietary & Exclusionary Roofing Practices in Public Works"

This is a widespread practice in many public sectors, and our schools suffer for it.  I am proud to say that my district happens to be run by honorable people, whom I respect.  A rarity I'm afraid.

Many people tell me to walk softly around this issue, but I would rather be ground to dust, than be perceived as a coward.  So, I will share this data to with only after I've confirmed it to satisfaction.

The standard operating procedure of these scams are invented by, and perpetrated on, the public by a select group of roofing material manufacturers who would rather adopt a very aggressive sales model, than to compete fairly on the open market.

By "sales model", I mean "Proprietary Specifications".  They work to eliminate any competition, and create great hardship for my colleagues in the roofing discipline.  They also cause great harm to YOU, as taxpayers, as you end up paying exorbitant sums of money for absolutely no additional benefit.

I have NEVER seen this one time within the private sector, as that's a hard sell to someone who actually has to write the check.  For government, that "Real Money", is actually only numbers in boxes, because it's not coming out of their pockets.  In this way, the few are enriched, while the many suffer.   Frankly, I've grown tired of it, and am emboldened by my colleagues across the United States, who ask me to help.

I've made a very difficult, very dangerous, and very time consuming commitment to stand up for them.

You must understand the only real purpose of any contractor is to educate their staff, keep them safe, and provide a good working environment.  As a result, projects are secured, and workmen are able to earn a living, to nourish their families.

In the face of this monumental effort stands corruption, greed, and of course the money ALWAYS associated with it.  Apparently, souls may be purchased, and sold rather easily.

Below, you will find a very informative article written by my friend, Mr. Trent Cotney, Esq.  The first installment in this series so you can understand the premise of proper bidding procedure.  The article is being presented in it's entirety, and as it appeared in the West Coast Roofing Contractors Association's most recent issue:

PUBLIC PROJECTS AND BID PROTESTS
Part I of II

A significant amount of roofing work in Florida involves work with state or
local government entities. These public entities use (or are supposed to use)
competitive bid procedures to procure the lowest bid for projects. If the bid
letting is not conducted in a competitive manner, then the bid letting may be
protested in accordance with published procedures. Generally, these procedures are governed by Florida Statutes and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).

Chapter 120, Florida Statutes. This month’s article will focus on who may
commence a bid protest and under what circumstances. Next month’s article
will discuss the procedures involved with filing a bid protest.

Section 255.20, Florida Statutes, and Florida common law provide that
public contracts must be awarded under the rules of competitive bidding.
Section 255.20 generally applies to most public entities; however, there are
certain entities which are exempt from §255.20 and not every public entity is
subject to the bid protest procedures set forth in the APA.

By definition, in order for the bidding to be competitive, all bids must be
based on the same requirements and must be evaluated on the basis of the same
criteria. In other words, the bids must be capable of an “apples to apples”
comparison, and all of the criteria by which the bids will be judged must be
known to the bidders in advance.

Public competitive bidding must be done in a manner that is not arbitrary
or capricious, which can only be accomplished if the bids are compared
according to the same criteria set forth in the instructions to the bidders.
Moreover, because public monies are being spent, public competitive bidding
must be conducted in a manner to avoid even the appearance of collusion or
favoritism.

If a bid fails to comply with the instructions to bidders in some material
aspect, then the bid must be rejected as being non-responsive, because a nonresponsive bid cannot be compared “apples to apples” with bids that have
strictly followed the instructions to bidders.

If the contract is awarded to a bidder whose bid fails to comply with the instructions to bidders, then the award is made based on criteria other than the published criteria. In such a case, the award, by definition, is arbitrary or capricious because the letting authority has arbitrarily awarded the contract based on criteria that was not published and made known to all bidders. Awarding a public contract on the basis of criteria that was not made known to all bidders opens the door to favoritism and
collusion.


Case law holds that a minor deviation from the instructions to bidders can
be ignored, but only if the deviation is not material, i.e., the deviation did not
result in an unfair economic advantage. See C.H. Barco Contracting Co. v. State
of Florida, Department of Transportation, 483 So2.d 796 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986).

The test for measuring whether a deviation is sufficiently material to destroy the
competitive nature of the bid process is “whether the variation affects the
amount of the bid by giving the bidder an advantage or benefit not enjoyed by
the other bidders.” See Harry Pepper & Associates, Inc. v. City of Cape Coral,
352 So.2d 1190, 1193 (Fla. 2nd DCA 1977).

In Harry Pepper, the apparent low bidder, Gulf Contracting (“Gulf”), sought to modify its bid after the other bids had been opened in order to bring its bid into conformity with the instructions to bidders. Gulf had based its bid on less expensive pumps rather than the pumps specified in the instructions to bidders.

The court held that Gulf’s bid deviation was deemed material and non-waiveable because Gulf had the ability to examine the other opened bids and decide whether or not it wanted to modify its bid and incur the additional expense of supplying conforming pumps to obtain the contract, or stand on its less expensive non-conforming pumps and not receive the award.

Gulf had the opportunity to decide whether it wanted the contract after all of the other bids had been disclosed. Gulf’s actions gave it an unfair advantage in the bidding process, which was not enjoyed by the other bidders in the process.

Similarly, in E.M. Watkins & Co. v. Board of Regents, 414 So.2d 583
(Fla. 1st DCA 1982), the apparent low bidder on a project submitted a
required list of subcontractors a few hours after the deadline for bid
submittals.

The court deemed the bidder’s failure to timely submit the list to
be material and non-waiveable because the late submission facilitated
undesirable subcontractor bid shopping. The court came to this conclusion
even though there was no evidence that the bidder actually had received an
unfair advantage or benefit by submitting the subcontractor list after the bid
submittal deadline.

Generally, only bidders who could receive the award if their protest is
successful are allowed, i.e. have standing, to protest a bid. As such, courts
have held that potential bidders who fail to submit bids do not have standing
to contest the bid results. See Westinghouse Elec. Corp. v. Jacksonville
Transp. Auth., 491 So.2d 1238 (Fla. 1st DCA 1986).


A protestor must also demonstrate that it has a substantial interest in the outcome of the bid process, by showing that if the defects in the bid are remedied, then there is
a reasonable likelihood of the bidder winning the contract. See Preston
Carroll Co., Inc. v. Florida Keys Aqueduct Auth., 400 So.2d 524 (Fla. 3rd DCA
1981).

Author’s note: The information contained in this article is for general
educational information only. This information does not constitute legal advice, is
not intended to constitute legal advice, nor should it be relied upon as legal advice
for your specific factual pattern or situation.

Trenton Cotney, a shareholder attorney at Glenn Rasmussen Fogarty & Hooker, P.A., in
Tampa, Florida prepared this article. Trent is Florida Bar Certified in Construction Law, a
Florida Supreme Court Certified Circuit Mediator, Qualified Florida Court-Appointed
Arbitrator, General Counsel and a director of the Florida Roofing Sheet Metal and Air-
Conditioning Contractors Association (FRSA), a director of the West Coast Roofing
Contractors Association (WCRCA) and a member of Associated Builders and Contractors
(ABC). For more information, contact the author at 813-229-3333 or
tcotney@glennrasmussen.com.
I am deeply appreciative of Trent's unselfish work, and will highly recommend him to any roofing contractor as the very best within our discipline.  If you are unsure of something, or need help, Trent is the guy.  Period.
I thank each of you from the bottom of my heart for caring about what I have to say, and for taking time from your day to visit with me here.  YOU are the only reason I am here, and I am deeply grateful to my many visitors from around God's beautiful earth.

We will return to less complex issues soon, but I must do my best to protect the public interest.
Never despair, reject negativity in all forms, and for goodness' sakes, keep looking "UP".
Respectfully,
Robert R. "Ron" Solomon
CCC1325620