Roofing Industry Backlash Against "Purchasing Cooperatives"

Friends:

It is always my intent to provide  the truth, with supporting documentation (public record), and without influence of any kind.  I do not pass judgement, and leave that to your study, and evaluation.

Simply put:  Roofing Industry Leaders, and Roofing Industry Organizations,  DO NOT want to participate in Purchasing Cooperative "Schemes' that bring dishonor to our discipline.  We DO NOT want anything to do with defrauding taxpayers, schools, or any public entity.

We seek FAIR COMPETITION for our own tax dollars.  We promote bidding laws already in place in all 50 states, all territories, and Provinces of Canada.  Our friends and colleagues in Europe suffer as well.

Today, I will feature the wonderful people at VARP (Virginia Association of Roofing Professionals).  

www.varoofingprofessionals.org  

Before reading their "Official Position Paper", I will thank Ms Heather Greenwell, Director of Membership Services for VARP.   This is the "Unity of Message" I often talk about, and illustrates the opposition to "Predatory Sales Models".

ANYONE who diverts money intended for our schools, and our children,  are without "Honor", and may not circulate among us. 

VARP is fighting for fairness, transparency, and a right to "compete' for our own tax dollars.  I admire them, and I admire Hunter Merrill of Mountain Roofing. 

Men like Mr. Merrill LEAD our industry, as the "World's Largest Roofers" sit on their hands, and do NOTHING.  Mr. Merrill promotes honor, and fairness, and I highly recommend him to anyone seeking those traits in a contractor.

Respect to Mr. Merrill, and his honorable firm:



  
"Hi Robert,

You have VARP’s permission to use or post our position paper on cooperative procurement.  Here is the updated link dated February 2014 that we used at our Lobby Day:

 http://www.varoofingprofessionals.org/Resources/Documents/2014%20Lobby%20Day%20Position%20Paper%20-%20Cooperative%20Procurement%202.17.14.pdf.

As you know, VARP is active on cooperative procurement in Virginia.  As a quick update for you, the Virginia General Assembly has appointed a “Special Subcommittee” to study the Virginia Public Procurement Act in its entirety.  VARP is monitoring this subcommittee closely and our Government Affairs Committee Chair, Hunter Merrill of Mountain Roofing, has been appointed to the subcommittee’s construction work group.  

Here is a link to more information about the procurement subcommittee:  http://dls.virginia.gov/interim_studies_procurement.html.

Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions related to VARP’s efforts around the use of procurement in Virginia.  Keep up the great work!"

Heather

Heather Greenwell, Director of Member Services

Virginia Association of Roofing Professionals

2415 Westwood Avenue, Suite B, Richmond, VA 23230

----------

804-497-5917 (office)

804-288-3551 (fax)

www.varoofingprofessionals.org 

www.varoofingprofessionals.org 

 February 2014

The Virginia Association of Roofing Professionals (VARP) has developed the following position on theuse of cooperative procurement in construction:

While VARP believes that procurement can offer competitive purchasing of commodities, it

strongly advocates that procurement does not work for construction projects. No two

construction projects are the same. There needs to be a free, open and competitive bidding

system for any capital project or new construction.

VARP believes that the use of procurement for construction projects can often lead to some or all of the following unintended consequences:

• A lack of transparency in the bidding process.

• Improper influence from those that have a contract through a cooperative.

• Proprietary specifications excluding all but one manufacturer of building materials.

• Limited ability to challenge bid awards from excluded bidders.

• Exclusion of third-party consultants to evaluate projects.

• Non-compliance to local building codes.

• Overpriced projects that are passed along to the tax payers.

As an example of the flaw in using procurement for a capital project, a December 8, 2008 Roanoke Times article reported that the Roanoke City School District overpaid for the re-roofs of three schools, costing taxpayers at least $575,000 on a $2.3 million job.

As a direct result of what occurred in Roanoke, VARP lobbied successfully in 2010 to have 2.0-4304 Cooperative Procurement restrictions in place that limits the use of “piggybacking.” That code reads in part:

A public body may purchase from another public body’s contract even if it did not participate in the request for proposal or invitation to bid, if the request for proposal or invitation to bid

specified that the procurement was being conducted on behalf of other public bodies, except for:

1. Contracts for architectural or engineering services; or

2. Construction in excess of $200,000 by a local public body from the contract of another local

public body that is more than a straight distance of 75 miles from the territorial limits of the local public body procuring the construction. 

The installation of artificial turf or other athletic surfaces shall not be subject to the limitations prescribed in this subdivision. Nothing in this subdivision shall be construed to prohibit sole source or emergency procurements awarded pursuant to subsections E and F of § 2.2-4303.

In instances where any authority, department, agency, or institution of the Commonwealth desires to purchase information technology and telecommunications goods and services from another public body’s contract and the procurement was conducted on behalf of other public bodies, such purchase shall be permitted if approved by the Chief Information Officer of the Commonwealth.

Any public body that enters into a cooperative procurement agreement with a county, city, or

town whose governing body has adopted alternative policies and procedures pursuant to

subdivisions A 9 and A 10 of § 2.2-4343 shall comply with the alternative policies and procedures adopted by the governing body of such county, city, or town.

The $200,000 and 75 mile distance restriction in the current code greatly reduces the Commonwealth’s exposure to misuse of the procurement system, but still leaves Virginia open for abuse.

At a minimum, however, VARP’s position is one that the code not be changed."

THANK YOU to all members of VARP!

I encourage all roofing organizations with honorable intentions to follow suit.

VARP members should be proud of this initiative, and knowing you are protecting taxpayers, our schools, and most of all, our children.

I, and the 3,600 members of Roof Consultant's Alliance stand with you.

Friends, I know how laborious all of this seems, but the premise is not debatable.  Public structures must be competitively bid, and NOT influenced by Purchasing Cooperatives, "Preferred Vendors", "Sole Source", "No Bid", "Proprietary", SCAMS.

Public administrators may not give the slightest hint of "Favoritism".

 Public administrators have no authority to circumvent public purchasing law through the alleged "Pre-Compete" mantra of Purchasing Cooperatives.

These are but a few examples of Purchasing Cooperatives eliminating competition for their preferred vendor, and costing (routinely) 50% MORE.

Note this is a Seattle City purchasing department link that references a Cobb County, Georgia bid document.

http://www.seattle.gov/purchasing/bids2009/ITB095408USCommunities.pdf

Florida project

http://pompanobeachfl.gov/assets/pdfs/commission_backup/2014/2.11.14/3_items/11.pdf


David Kidd - Lobbyist and USC Program Director

http://www.floridaleagueofcities.com/Assets/Files/TarponSprings_USCSeminarFlier_2013_Final.pdf

And:

http://www.dadeschools.net/schoolboard/lobbyist.asp

And:

https://www.uscommunities.org/contact-us/

And:


https://www.uscommunities.org/news-events/customer-appreciation/

And:

https://www.uscommunities.org/fileadmin/hb/usc/Suppliers/Garland/Garland-Price-Increase-Approval-Letters_12_12_12.pdf

And:

http://mm1.co.fulton.ga.us/cache/00010/313/2013-0486.PDF


All you have to do is type "School Roofing Scam' into your browser, or on YouTube.  You will see the two manufacturers (Garland and Tremco) in every investigative report.

Tremco was just fined 61 Million dollars by the DOJ for abusing GSA Contracts.

Garland's top salesman in 2011 made 5.5 million dollars in commissions.  THAT'S where your tax dollars are going!

Purchasing Cooperatives must drop roofing, and roofing services from their offering immediately!

Note:  Retired 2003, do not solicit, nor accept compensation, or personal advancement of any kind.  That includes manufacturers, distributors, consultants, or contractors.

I know your time is precious, and am thankful for every moment you spend with me here.  If I've said anything that is factually wrong, please share thought with me here:

RobertRSolomon@aol.com

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
CCC 1325620

Tampa, Florida

"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 RCI:  http://www.rci-online.org/about.html

 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:

http://www.linkedin.com/groups/Roof-Consultants-Alliance-2781278

"Courage, and Carlisle-Syntec's stand against Co-Op Purchasing"

Anyone who's read a single word here, knows how much I despise "No Compete", "Proprietary Specifications", and "Sole Source" arrangements in Public Works.

They serve no purpose except to cheat you (the taxpayer) out of billions of dollars.  They do this through "Cozy" arrangements with Purchasing Agencies that eliminate, or severely restrict competition to favor only one material manufacturer.

In other words, there is absolutely no incentive to compete for your hard earned taxpayer dollars.

There are only a handful of people in North America who fight hard against "The Machine" for you. 

Often wondering why major roofing material manufacturers do not stand up to blatant abuse of the law, I'd now like to use Carlisle-Syntec as an example of how it CAN BE DONE! I finally see someone with the courage and spine to fight.  And, WIN!

In previous posts here, I've described GAF, Firestone, and Carlisle-Syntec as HONEST roofing material manufacturers.  Today I would like to congratulate, and acknowledge, Carlisle-Syntec's stand against taxpayer abuse.  I happen to know the people at Carlisle-Syntec to be honorable.

Please see source, and full content here (highlighted areas are by me):

http://cumberlink.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/cv-school-district-settles-lawsuit-with-carlisle-syntec-systems-employees/article_4e09a08c-9e18-11e1-9085-001a4bcf887a.html

CV school district settles lawsuit with Carlisle SynTec Systems employees:

Cumberland Valley School District recently settled a lawsuit in which it agreed to stop using cooperative purchasing programs for roofing projects.

Nicholas Shears and Michael DuCharme, both employees of Carlisle SynTec Systems, filed the lawsuit in June 2009, which contends the district’s use of a purchasing cooperative skirts state competitive bidding laws, resulting in higher costs for taxpayers.

While the district admits no wrongdoing, it has agreed to comply with state competitive bidding laws and cease the use of purchasing cooperatives, SynTec spokesman Brandon Peach said in a press release issued Monday.

"We’re glad the school district understands it can save taxpayer money by competitively bidding projects requiring roof work to ensure that the most qualified option is selected," said DuCharme, director of product marketing for the company.

"Unfortunately, the well-intended cooperative purchasing method has resulted in inflated costs due to the inherent complexity of construction work," DuCharme added.

Still bid co-op

While the district has agreed to cease the use of co-op programs for roofing projects, it reserves the right to use competitively bid co-op programs for many of its other business functions, district spokeswoman Tracy Panzer said.

"The district continues to maintain the contract in question was awarded through a competitively-bid cooperative purchasing program administered by the Central Susquehanna Intermediate Unit (CSIU), which is permitted by the Commonwealth Procurement Code," Panzer said.

The Cumberland Valley School Board in February 2009 awarded a $1.5 million contract to Tremco/Weatherproofing Technologies Incorporated for repair work at Monroe and Silver Spring elementary schools and at the Eagle View Middle School.

The lawsuit challenged the board’s authority to choose Tremco through a co-op agreement run by the Association of Educational Purchasing Agencies, which consists of educational consortiums from across the country.

In February 2009, SynTec spokesman Tony Matter said the company was not seeking a monetary award from the suit, but was instead seeking a ruling from the courts that the district was incorrect in using such a program.

Matter added SynTec brought the suit not because it was displeased the repair work went to another contractor, but because of its belief that use of the program undermines the spirit of the state law that requires competitive bidding.

Debating the costs

In May 2009, DuCharme said his company could have done the repair work for far less than Tremco, especially because the roof at Eagle View was still under warranty at that time as a Carlisle SynTec product.

The cooperative purchasing program allows school districts the option to use recommendations by a third party. In this case, CSIU receives quotes from a wide array of contractors, both in-state and out-of-state, through the AEPA and selects one as a default for work done in that area of expertise.

In its press release Monday, SynTec mentioned how cooperative purchasing methods have come under fire across the country for subverting the competitive bidding process.

"Independent surveys have demonstrated that roofing work procured through a cooperative can cost two to three times the average market value," Peach said. "While the competitive bidding model requires a design professional to approve any structural alterations, cooperatives often do not, resulting in a dangerous lack of construction oversight."

Peach added legislation has been implemented in Virginia and California to prevent such practices, with ongoing policy discussions taking place in Pennsylvania, Maryland, Virginia, Indiana, Texas and California.

---

Posted earlier on Cumberlink:
Cumberland Valley School District recently settled a lawsuit in which it agreed to stop using cooperative purchasing programs for roofing projects.

Nicholas Shears and Michael DuCharme, both employees of Carlisle SynTec Systems, filed the lawsuit in June 2009 which contends the district’s use of a purchasing cooperative skirts state competitive bidding laws, resulting in higher costs for taxpayers.

While the district admits no wrongdoing, it has agreed to comply with state competitive bidding laws and cease the use of purchasing cooperatives, SynTec spokesman Brandon Peach said in a press release issued Monday.

“We’re glad the school district understands it can save taxpayer money by competitively bidding projects requiring roof work to ensure that the most qualified option is selected,” said DuCharme, director of product marketing for the company.

“Unfortunately, the well-intended cooperative purchasing method has resulted in inflated costs due to the inherent complexity of construction work,” DuCharme added.

Check Cumberlink and Tuesday's print edition of The Sentinel for more on this story.

Meet the Reporter

Joseph Cress

Sentinel Reporter

Twitter:

@Cumberlink

Facebook:

The Sentinel Newspaper

Google+:

The Sentinel Newspaper

Email:

jcress@cumberlink.com

Covers:

Education, Military 

Friends, we have a very long way to go, but if only a few more manufacturers take a stand as Carlisle-Syntec has,  the end of corruption, and taxpayer waste, is in sight.

THANK YOU CARLISLE for thinking outside a "Typical", passive, comfort zone, and WINNING.  We stand shoulder to shoulder with you, and celebrate your victory as our own.

I will encourage contractors to reward them with your P.O. book. 

THE "GOOD GUYS" WIN!

Dear friends, please reject negativity in all forms, and remember to always keep looking "UP".

Much Respect,

Robert R. "Ron" Solomon

Manager, Roof Consultant's Alliance

CCC1325620

RobertRSolomon@aol.com
Tampa, Florida - USA