Roofing Nightmare: Tremco and San Diego State University.

The University bears responsibility for circumventing the competitive bid process.   

Below, you will read that the Manufacturer (Tremco) acted as the salesman, consultant, and manufacturer.  This is patently illegal in Public Works Projects.

I guarantee you SDSU fell for the "we handle it all" sales line.  ONE MANUFACTURER with absolutely no reason to compete.  SDSU didn't do 10 minutes of homework to find out about Tremco.  Tremco does not, and will not, "compete" for anything, period.

California is very bad about this "Exclusionary" theme, and it shows up as red ink.

Type "Tremco school roofing scam" into your browser, and do the same on YouTube.  There are no shortage of projects similar to SDSU.  Tremco was also fined $61,000,000.00 by the DOJ, and is now being sued by the SEC.  SDSU would have known all this but didn't bother.

In this case,  everyone got what they deserved.  Everyone but the taxpayers of course.

NEVER BUY A ROOF THROUGH A PURCHASING COOPERATIVE!!

GOT THAT?

The story:

https://www.constructiondive.com/news/an-inside-look-at-a-failed-roofing-repair/560955/


Tremco, which was acting as a consultant on the project and recommended the use of Tremfix; and subcontractor Sylvester Roofing of Escondido, California, for releasing coal tar pitch volatiles into the structure.

Dive Brief:

• San Diego State University, inewsource reported, mishandled a $2 million renovation of its College of Professional Studies and Fine Arts building to the point that a former OSHA official called the project, which ended up shutting down the building because of released toxins in the air.  The renovation was supposed to start last summer, but SDSU failed to secure the proper permits in time, so the schedule was changed so that work would begin in early 2019 when students were on break. After heavy rains, crews used Tremfix to seal the many roof leaks, but an aging and malfunctioning HVAC system failed to clear the building of vapors from the chemicals, which entered through nearby fresh air ducts on the roof. Testing revealed that the level of coal tar pitch volatiles was just under OSHA’s safe limit and above the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health's limits, even though crews tried various methods — some disruptive — to remove the fumes.
• After many complaints about the air quality, the university moved staff and faculty to another building. As it turns out, the financial deadline that was driving SDSU's decision to push forward with construction while it was occupied is in 2020, not this year, as officials believed. ​

Dive Insight:

The Safety Data Sheet for Tremfix, a Tremco U.S. Roofing product, states that certain levels of exposure to the product could cause allergic skin reactions, genetic defects and cancer, as well as potentially affect fertility or the health of unborn children. As with similar roofing products from other manufacturers, one of the many precautionary statements around the use of Tremfix advises those exposed to its dust, fumes, gas, mist, vapors or spray to wear the appropriate personal protective equipment. 

Health complaints related to the fumes in the building included vomiting, nosebleeds and migraines. The San Diego County Air Pollution Control District cited SDSU; Tremco, which was acting as a consultant on the project and recommended the use of Tremfix; and subcontractor Sylvester Roofing of Escondido, California, for releasing coal tar pitch volatiles into the structure.

The university is planning another $12 million in renovations, including a new $2.5 million roof. The building reopened in May but is mostly vacant and likely won't be fully occupied until the next round of construction work is finished in 2021. 

On a positive note, SDSU is making progress on its proposed $3 billion Mission Valley mixed-use development, which will include a football stadium, residential, retail, office buildings, two hotels and 90 acres of parks and plazas. This month, the university announced it had completed the project's Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR), which will be open to comments through Oct. 3. Pertinent comments will be addressed in the Final EIR. ​

Recommended Reading:

•  INEWSOURCEBungled multimillion-dollar roofing project at SDSU a ‘case study’ on what not to do

Thank you for spending time with me here.

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

Respect.

Ron

Cobb County Procurement Decision is Win for Industry! Taxpayers rejoice. Much Respect to IIBEC Members.

Friends:

Today, I will rejoice.

Utmost respect to the entire IIBEC Team.  

Mr. Brian Gardner, a warrior,  has contributed many years to the discipline, and this particular objective.  

Here, I will thank him from the bottom of my heart, for a tireless spirit, and in service to others.  First hand, know the anguish, pressure, disappointment, and heartbreak he's endured.  Brian has "Determination", and an uncommon will to achieve.

Mr. Scott Hinesley, a true Professional in every way.  I admire Scott as a wonderful family man, and is glorious in his pursuit of all things noble.  If Scott tells you he knows a three legged raccoon that can tap dance, play a tambourine, and whistle "Dixie", believe it.

That's for you WH, my dear, and Honorable friend.  All Praise, and Glory to "Brother Jake" for his selfless contributions in service to his country.  'Never Forget".  AAOOAAHH!

Mr. Tom Gernetzke, Past President of RCI, hard working, caring, and has the full respect of our entire industry.  A finer person, you will not meet.  A great inspiration to me personally.

Each of them known to me, and all "Honorable" Men.  I stake my reputation of 45 years on each one.  I'd gladly confess to a homicide for any one of them.

They stood by me, when few would.  At times, can be a bit too "energetic" for my own good. 

I've spent ten years writing about "Public Roofing Oversight", and trying desperately to get through to anyone who would listen.

My Honorable Colleagues have freed me from great burden.

Every School Board Member in North America should thank them for rescuing school maintenance budgets from "Purchasing Cooperatives".

Roofing is the costliest item in public maintenance. 

Instead of "Exclusionary Practices" promoted by Purchasing Cooperatives, will follow a fair, competitive, open, and inclusive, bidding process.  Can you hear me fellow taxpayers?

Thank you to Cobb County Commission for listening, and doing the right thing.  

The fair, reasonable, rational, and Honorable thing.

By doing this, suspect taxpayers will be saving approximately 40%-50% on Roofing, and Roofing Services.

You will also retain approximately 70% of your local tax dollar since most manufacturers are locally distributed, represented, and installed.

https://rci-online.org/iibec-members-meet-with-cobb-county-officials-to-discuss-construction-procurement/

Cobb County Procurement Decision is Win for Industry

May 22, 2019 By IIBEC Communications 4 Comments

By Director of Industry Affairs Brian Gardner

IIBEC Georgia Chapter members from Cobb County, GA (Past Presidents Pat Downey and Arthur “Chip” Ward), IIBEC First Vice President Scott Hinesley, and Director of Industry Affairs Brian Gardner met in April with Cobb County purchasing administrators to discuss the county’s procurement of construction via cooperative purchasing.

On May 14, Cobb County (Georgia’s third-most populous county), which had previously utilized cooperative purchasing to procure roofing projects, decided to no longer use cooperatives in such a manner. This decision will have national repercussions, as Cobb County served as an administrator for a nationwide cooperative roofing program.

“Our team was very impressed with Cobb County officials, as they professionally considered all of our arguments and did their own due diligence. We are very pleased these dedicated professionals decided to procure roofing via design-bid-build with the assistance of independent design professionals,” remarked Pat Downey.

“Cobb County administrators engaged with us in a highly professional and substantive manner. I, as a county taxpayer, especially appreciate their interaction with our team. I believe this is how government and industry should work together to provide sound, smart, and efficient public policy,” stated Chip Ward.

“This is terrific news for taxpayers and IIBEC members. The fact that Cobb County has now made this important decision is the result of a job well done,” commented Mike Clark, past president of IIBEC and a Georgia Chapter member.

“I applaud Cobb County’s decision and thank them for providing us an opportunity to present our case for responsible procurement,” remarked First Vice President Scott Hinesley.

“We congratulate IIBEC Georgia Chapter for its superlative efforts in promoting responsible construction procurement,” EVP/CEO Lionel van der Walt added.

“This is an excellent example of an effective grassroots “boots-on-the-ground” effort by IIBEC chapters to promote responsible construction procurement in their local area,” stated Advocacy Committee Chairman Tom Gernetzke.

Filed Under: Featured Posts 3, General Interest, Industry NewsTagged With: advocacy, procurement.
Comments

Administrators are not State Certified Contractors, or Consultants, so stop the horrible roofing decisions like you are an expert in the field. WE are experts, not you.

Friends;

"Do Tremco, and Garland roofs last twice as long"?  

Of course not.  Every major manufacturer I've listed (below) offer warranted 20 and 30 year roof systems (labor and material).  I know Firestone offers a 30 year puncture, hail, and wind resistance warranty because I've purchased them.

I'm sure the other "Majors" do too.  A FRACTION of what the Tremco, Garland, Simon, "Warranties" would cost.  A dramatic illustration is shown below.

ANY SCHOOL that purchases a roof through a Purchasing Cooperative, is paying approximately 40% too much.  It is a stone cold scam.

NO roofing contractor on earth will go into a competitive bid process with Tremco, Garland, or Simon.  Never gonna happen.

Why?  Because the contractor isn't ignorant, and neither is the owner.  People who own buildings are not (generally speaking) stupid.  Are you with me?

Why doesn't WalMart, Target, ProLogis (largest owners of retail space in the world), major Grocery chains, use them if they're so competitive? 

I wrote a piece called "Are you smarter than WalMart" if you'd like to use the search box.

I've roofed many properties for these people, and they are well informed..  Not so in the public sector who run it through a committee, board, or some other non-credentialed  group. 

Frankly, am offended by their arrogance.

Wild claims of material  superiority is a sales ploy, and nothing more.  I know a company that preys upon retirees here in Florida (mobile homes).  Selling them the lowest grade material, for a super premium price.  

That is not a joke, and have witnessed it.  I'll spare the perpetrators for a moment, unless someone wants me to fully expose the scam.  Savaging the elderly exposes deep character flaws like you are imagining right now.

Back to the "Our roofs last twice as long":

According to whom?  According to what parameters?  What side by side comparison? Show us.  I know one manufacturer who actually owns the testing laboratory that certifies their own material.  What?  They do a lot of public work by the way.

 Simply put, the claim is false, and they know it.  Garland actually refers to Tremco as a "Bad Apple".  Funny, Garland doesn't even make half the material they sell, and neither does Tremco.  All claims of "Superior Product" are false, like most blanket claims are.

 I'm surprised another manufacture hasn't sued them for such preposterous, unsubstantiated, claims.  All I want to see is the data, and will post it here.  Don't hold your breath.   

Stand by while I eat my delicious sandwich with iced tea (unsweetened).  Okay, break time is over, and feel nourished. Back to the incessant rambling.  

It's time to put on your thinking caps.

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

Question:  If Tremco, and Garland are putting 10 yr. roofs on schools, does that mean a competitors roof only lasts 5 yrs.?  

Any school District I've ever seen insisted on a 20 yr. warranty, and I wouldn't put a ten year roof on a dog house.  Think of all the money saved when a district can leave it in the bank for another 10 years, drawing interest.

Trying desperately, as I appeal to common sense.  Here, I not only say it, but PROVE it in all 162 posts.  Public record folks, and I do not share "opinions".

A 20 year roof does not cost twice that of  a 10 year roof.  The upcharge is minimal, and the roof system much, much, better.  The warranty also includes sheet metal flashings!!!  Can you believe it?  

The game is to purchase from another manufacturer (Cooley, largest private labeler) affix the new label, mark it up 300%, and POWER SELL it to an uninformed administrator.   

Sort of like installing a Rolls Royce hood ornament on a $300.00 car.

It has nothing to do with material quality, but everything to do with a predatory sales model.

Decision makers who don't think:

We'll excuse Spanky, because he's a baby, and doesn't know better. Administrators, not so much.

Does anyone want me to believe that Tremco and Garland are Superior to:

I've installed millions of sq. ft., and millions of dollars spent on the manufacturers listed.  They are HONORABLE MANUFACTURERS, and honorable people.

Tremco, nor Garland, can COMPETE.  Their sales model won't allow it.  This is vicious stuff folks.  Greasy too. 

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

These are the largest, most available (Locally), most dependable, and most COMPETITIVE Manufacturers on earth.  Garland, and Tremco ship from Ohio, so good luck with that.  I sure hope your material order isn't short, or facing liquidated damages.

Why do you think the schools went with a "sole source" manufacturer?  What real "Benefit" did they receive by eliminating all competition? What did they get for that 25% commission to the salesman?

If the manufacturers above don't make it, you don't need it.

Please understand I NEVER want Tremco, Garland, Simon, or anyone else to be excluded.  They cannot, and will not compete.  I'll bet you a whole box of Krispy Kreme doughnuts if proven wrong.   You can even look at me while I'm there.

The moment you suggest "competition". they will panic, and seek fertile ground elsewhere.  It's even in their manual.  Believe it, or not!   "Sell by Fear" (below). 

You will note these mainstream manufacturers back their warranties with billions in assets, bonding, etc. (Berkshire Hathaway, Bridgestone Tire).  GAF is the largest roofing material manufacturer in North America.

And you get stuck with Tremco, Garland, Simon, and a Purchasing Cooperative?  I know these sales pitches forward, and backword, and it's really quite easy to disassemble their claims.  I DARE someone to contradict me.  "Constructive criticism"may be a better term.

One of the districts decided not to purchase a warranty, and got stung.  In 40 years, have roofed hundreds of schools, and never once did I fail to secure a 20 year no dollar limit (labor and material) warranty.  Under no circumstance should you ever expect less.  Manufacturers above offer the warranty for much less than Tremco, and Garland.  Example:

A 25,000 sq. ft.  roof will set you back $26,250.00 for a 10 or 15 year roof?  I won't trouble you with infinite detail, and we'll save that for another time. You're welcome.

Tremco says so right here:

Tremco specifying 10, and 15 year roofs on public structures is absurd.   You aren't buying a "Warranty", but rather a "Service Agreement".  If the roof leaks, you are going to pay through the nose.  The "Service Agreement" is the holy grail for commissioned salesmen. 

A Fair, competitive bid with major material manufacturers above will be around: $4,000.00 (maximum).  They will warrant the roof system to be watertight for the term of warranty.  Repairs are at NO COST to the owner (taxpayer).

Did they check the manufacturer record, or just sit there and fall for a "sales pitch"?  Administrators may not give even the slightest hint of favoritism.  They are trying to insert administrator "ease", and wipe out fair competition.  

10 minutes of research will tell you all about Tremco, but somehow it's too much trouble before coughing up millions of taxpayer dollars. Decimating school maintenance budgets, and local economies.

Manufacturers must COMPETE, and their approved applicators must COMPETE. This is the ONLY way to furnish a truly competitive, hard bid number.  We bid to a "Standard", not a manufacturer.  

Tremco is famous for being fined $61,000,000.00 by the DOJ for abusing GSA contracts and now the SEC is suing them for lying.  The schools they defrauded got NOTHING.

Brace yourself:

https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/rpm-international-inc-and-tremco-inc-pay-nearly-61-million-failing-provide-government

Did that sting?

Competition must exist between 3-4 manufacturers, and their approved applicators may bid accordingly.  You increase the bidding pool by at least 75%.  Make sense?

Forever hearing "well, the FM guy wants it that way".  Each time I say, the FM guy has absolutely no authority to sole source anything.  Against the law in all 50 states.

I am not an administrator any more than they are State Certified Roofing Contractors, or Consultants.  they simply are not credentialed, trained, or experienced in Thermal and Moisture Protection, 

Division 7 in your spec book.   Makes sense doesn't it?

Anyway, I'll present the following carnage for your review.  The naivete is astounding to any normal human.

Too many Chiefs, and not enough Indians.  

This "Sell by fear" memorandum may illustrate both the depravity, and theme of Garland Ind..  Prepare yourself:

Click to enlarge.

Let's move on:

https://www.bizjournals.com/kansascity/stories/2001/11/19/story4.html

The competitive picture

Local roofing contractors said that two factors account for the difference in price between the Ohio companies' systems and other roofing systems: limited competition and features of the roofs.

L.B. Morris, president of Kansas City-based Sellers & Marquis Roofing Co. and former president of the Midwest Roofing Contractors Association, said only a handful of local contractors apply a certain type of roofing system. Prices tend to go up when only one manufacturer is mandated because there is no competition to keep the price of the materials down.

Some districts have more contractor options because they use more than one of the Ohio systems. The Kansas City School District uses all three of the Ohio manufacturers.

Robert Young, director of purchasing for Kansas City, Kan., public schools, said the district just completed a five- to six-year roofing cycle using mostly the Tremco system.

                                                         

"We have bid those roofing projects out and awarded the jobs to multiple contractors," Young said. "We have used Tremco pretty extensively and used Hickman on some others."

High quality or overkill?

Bill Carrison, president of RTI Consultants Inc. -- an independent roofing consultant that does work for the Olathe School District -- said the biggest problem is that school districts are paying for bells and whistles they simply don't need when installing the higher-priced roofs sold by the Ohio manufacturers.

 From a technical standpoint, these companies put added ingredients in to make their product look better," Carrison said. "But if you go back one step and ask what the building needs, you figure out you are using an eight-cylinder engine where a six-cylinder will do. My point is, you don't need it. 

"Do (Tremco, Garland and Hickman) have a better product? Probably. Do you need it? No."

Tremco spokesman Carl Zeitz disagreed.

"There are no bells and whistles on a good roof," Zeitz said. "Our roofs last. We insist on high-quality details, and quality has a cost.

"They don't cost more; they last longer. A roof that lasts twice as long as the average, or typical, roof is less expensive, not more expensive. Our customers also know they are going to get financial responsibility, integrity, efficiency, industry experience and prompt service from Tremco because they always have."

Soukup said the expected life of the roofs used on Blue Valley schools is 25 to 30 years. That's as much as can reasonably be expected.

"If they say a roof is going to last longer than 30 years, well ... that's just kind of silly," Soukup said.

Raising the roof

Grandview Superintendent Martin has had his fill of dealing with roofing issues.

Howls about the district's use of Tremco systems grew louder when the district retained a roofing consultant from Tremco.

In addition, the district recently postponed taking bids on a roofing package. Martin said the district had erred in grouping too many roofing jobs together, thus making the work a construction project rather than roofing repair and maintenance.

Missouri law requires districts to advertise the process in the local paper, as well as different roofing trade publications, to make everyone aware of the project. Grandview did not do that.

"Roofs are the bane of the education experience," Martin said. "They are supposed to be an incidental part of my job, but instead, they're becoming all-consuming."

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

I'm trying as hard as I can to inform you before a reporter shows up at your office.  Then comes the State Auditor, and they aren't known for handing out "Trophies".

Don't believe me?  Here I am in Oklahoma:

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

I've offered $10,000.00 of my own money for a public, televised, debate with Tremco, or Garland.  No takers in 10 years.  Little old me versus a multi-billion dollar firm.

I do not dislike Tremco/Garland/Simon employees.  The "Predatory Sales Model" is to blame, not the employees. It's a hard life, and I feel sorry for them.  

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

Thank you for putting up with this tedium, but a lot of people are stealing a lot of money from our schools, and I want it to stop now.

I will help anyone who needs help.  Just write:

RobertRSolomon@aol.com

If I can't help you, I know people who can.  Very special thanks to Ms. Janet Campbell, and her wonderful site:

"School Roofing Scam"

 http://schoolroofingscam.blogspot.com/
Fantastic, and plenty of record.  It takes a lot of time, and effort to put together these posts my friends.  
Reject negativity in all forms, and always remember to  keep looking "UP".

Much Respect.

Robert R. "Ron" Solomon
Public Procurement Analyst
Licensed Contractor
State Certification CCC 1325620

Licensed Consultant

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

Friends:

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.

https://www.pennlive.com/opinion/2017/04/this_is_why_the_cost_of_school.html   

 

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

Robert Dziuban

Updated Apr 6, 2017; Posted Apr 6, 20177

By Guest Editorial

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.

West Shore School District reveals final two options for revamping aging school buildings

What will it take to bring the aging West Shore School District's buildings up to date and its classrooms into the 21st century learning style? Anywhere from $212 million to $247 million, and about 10 years.

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.

Harrisburg school district questions millions given to Harrisburg University

A convoluted series of deals that ended up being folded into the purchase of the Sci Tech high school building downtown are getting new scrutiny by the school board.

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.

RobertRSolomon@aol.com

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".

Respect.

Robert R. Solomon
Public Procurement Analyst
State Certified CCC1325620
Licensed Consultant
Tampa, Florida