Friends;
This is going to be a long one, but I think you can see, or figure out, the scam between U.S. Communities, and Garland. It's a full blown scam, and the proof is contained in this post.
From fake claims of being "competitive", the 5% kickback for County Commission of Cobb County, Georgia, and my favorite: Public administrators have a "Right" to buy anything they want. You can't help but wonder why they don't all drive Mercedes 600's.
Public Procurement in this country is out of control. When I speak to an administrator, district, and contractors who participate in the scam seem to come at me like locusts. The only reason I do this research, and publish my findings, is for those of you who are "Excluded" from competition. No competition is decimating school maintenance budgets throughout all of North America, and the United Kingdom.
Normally, The scam is a Purchasing Cooperative, Tremco or Garland, a willing administrator (who is neither credentialed, experienced, or know a single thing about modern roofing technique). Subsequently, they are responsible for creating a scam that overcharges by 50% (some higher, some a bit lower).
NOTHING ABOUT THE PURCHASE IS "COMPETITIVE". Garland was awarded the U.S. Communities contract by submitting 55 pages of blank line items.
I can't grasp the hundreds of millions of dollars wasted on absolutely nothing, but a salesman's pocket (25%). There is nothing Garland or Tremco make, that all mainstream manufacturers can't equal, or exceed.
Sorry for the copious reading, and lack of white space.
By: Robert R.
Solomon,
Education Resources
U.S. Communities purchasing cooperative has a long history of
working with thousands of K-12 public and private schools, community colleges
and higher education institutions to save time and money. The U.S. Communities Advisory Board includes several school districts and
university representatives. Moreover, U.S. Communities is the only cooperative
purchasing program founded by the Association of School Business Officials
International, the National Association of Counties, the National Institute of
Governmental Purchasing, the National League of Cities and the United States
Conference of Mayors.
All U.S. Communities contracts are competitively solicited by a lead public
agency in accordance with its public purchasing rules and regulations. Each
solicitation contains language allowing public and private schools and
institutes of higher education to piggyback on the contracts.
Save money
Education
organizations are qualified to utilize U.S. Communities’ contracts to save
significant time and costs while realizing bid competitive pricing.
Furthermore, the prices your institution will receive through U.S. Communities
are the lowest that will be offered by participating suppliers to government
entities nationwide. With no cost to participate and no minimum order
requirements, education organizations of any size have the ability to purchase
the products, services and solutions they need at volume discount prices that
would be nearly impossible to attain individually.
Save Time
Although each school may have different procedures to follow for
private or public education procurement, applying these competitive principles
satisfies the competitive solicitation requirements of most agencies and
organizations. By using U.S. Communities suppliers, there is no need to
comparison shop. You can buy with confidence knowing you are getting the lowest
overall government pricing. You'll be able to leverage our cooperative purchasing
standards and supplier commitmentsto
deliver v
Today, we will read Garland’s own words, and I’ll tell
you what they actually mean.
My favorite is “Our customers in the
public sector not only have the right to choose the roofing system that best fits their needs, but an
obligation to ……” .
They are wrong.
Taxpayers have “Rights”, and public sector administrators have
responsibility as stewards of taxpayer money.
They are charged with achieving two goals when purchasing a publicly
funded structure: “Serviceability, and
Value”. Neither goal may be achieved
when buying through a purchasing cooperative.
Put mildly, it’s stupid. Okay,
let’s get to Garland’s “Claims”, in their words.
Alleged Garland Roofing Scams: What You
Should Know About Competitive Bidding in Public Projects
For
over 100 years, the Garland Company has focused on building our business around
quality products, services and people. Our representatives boast a record for
knowledge, service and integrity that speaks for itself. From the ground up, we are owned by our employees,
so there is additional incentive by everyone at every level to deliver the best
products and services.
Every successful company has its
critics and ours claim that Garland scams its roofing customers by engaging in
deceitful practices. These claims could not be further from the truth. As part of
our company policy of transparency, we would like to set the record straight as
these claims about Garland roofing scams have no merit.
By ‘Critics”, they mean “taxpayers”. They absolutely deceive people, and
are therefore “deceitful’.
Garland
Roofing Complaints: Over-Built and Over-Charged
Because
of our commitment to offering clients the best product possible, Garland roofing materials may initially cost more than the
average roofing solution. All of our roofs are designed to provide
long-lasting protection, which has resulted in a high demand for our products
from customers who need long-term performance the most: public schools and hospitals. Our customers
understand the long-term value they get when they choose Garland and know that
an investment in our systems and services will result in roofs that last on average 10 years longer than
lower priced options. After choosing Garland materials, our customers
can rest easy knowing we will be there to support them for the life of their
buildings.
Our
customers in the public sector not only have the right to choose the
roofing system that best fits their needs, but an obligation to community
members to choose the system that lasts long and performs well. It is no
surprise that when given a choice, they frequently choose a Garland roofing
system and we're happy to provide local hospitals and schools with exceptional
products and services that last.
Garland ADMITS they are higher priced, and comments regarding
other manufacturers are incorrect, and unsubstantiated.
Public administrators DO NOT HAVE A RIGHT
to choose anything they want. Government
doesn’t own anything, and it’s the taxpayer who has a “right” to know.
ALL public projects are subject to
oversight. Notice “Performance Based”. WHO has determined “Performance”, WHAT
credential allows them to address it, and WHICH mainstream manufacturer (GAF,
Firestone, Johns Manville, Carlisle Syntec, etc.) were they “compared to”?
Garland
Roofing Complaints: Performance Specifications and Spec Writing
Some Garland roofing complaints include
accusations that our sales representatives write specifications that require
the use of Garland products. We promote performance-based
specifications because they ensure a level playing field for competitive
bidding. Proprietary specifications are seldom permitted in the public market
and are generally discouraged. Our seasoned sales representatives make recommendations
based on their years of experience. When followed, these recommendations create
long-term performance outcomes.
100% FALSE.
Garland representatives INSIST upon it.
See it on Video:
Actual words published by a Garland representative:
“This is
directly from an application I received (05-10-2013)
“The Garland Company"
As a consultant for The Garland Company, I developed relationships with high-end,
governmental, educational, and municipal clients to assist them in managing their roof assets.
The Garland Company is a premium roofing manufacturer that
values the relationship-based sales approach.
After a three week immersive
training program,
I was charged with completing inspections and forensic roof evaluations for
companies and clients like: Lockheed Martin, The Dallas County Community College District,
The City of Dallas, The City of Mesquite, Raytheon, Texas Instruments, Dell, Air Liquide and others of
similar merit.
As part of my duties I worked closely with
architects, designers, and specifiers to ensure that The Garland Company’s line of
products was the only roofing manufacturer named in the specification or offered to the
client.
Upon completing the design phase, I would solicit bids from qualified, local roofing contractors to perform
the work under my consult and supervision.
Design Build Solutions - The Garland Company
Design Build Solutions is The Garland
Company's design and construction arm. Prior to 2006, it was a vastly underused
entity created to control specifications through the bid process. However, once
arwarded The US Communities Buying Co-Operative Contract in 2006, I saw a
massive opportunity to do much more than control specifications.
I began marketing and actively soliciting
projects to be designed and built by DBS all over Texas.
Working mostly on military
contracts, I marketed our design capabilities to The Office of The Surgeon
General, The Army Core of Engineers, and The Office of Veterans' Affairs.
Most of our projects were small, multi-family
base housing and medical center upgrades. As DBS was not "completely" set up
to handle large, multi-disciplinary bids, I solicited bids, evaluated
sub-contractors, and engaged in buy-out and VE process with subs and owners.
Soon, it became necessary to create budgetary
checks and balances. I implemented a customized version of a project management
software created for me by Podio and created and managed construction budgets
using Quickbooks Contractor Suite.
A change in Garland's Scope of WOrk under The US Communities Contract
lead them to stear me away from Design-Build projects. As I had created
valuable relationships in the industry, I chose to start XXXXXXXX with a group of like-minded
construction professionals to continue pursuing larger contracts and to branch
further into the private sector”.
Garland
Roofing Complaints: Cooperative Purchasing
Some
Garland roofing complaints involve cooperative purchasing, claiming purchasing
co-ops restrict competitive bidding and cost tax payers more. This is simply not the case. Public
procurement administrators use cooperative purchasing vehicles to expedite
project delivery, simplify contract administration and reduce associated costs.
All cooperative purchasing contracts used to purchase Garland materials have
been publicly bid on at a national or state basis in full compliance with
existing federal and state laws. The popularity of this purchasing option
suggests that the public entities who use cooperative purchasing agreements
find them beneficial to the communities they serve.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Tommie:
Type “School Roofing Scam” into your
browser, and then do the same on YouTube.
You will find no shortage of investigative reports on Garland there.
USC gets very bad press in “Ripoff Report”:
http://www.ripoffreport.com/r/US-Communities-Government-Purchasing-Alliance/nationwide/Cooperative-Government-Purchasing-US-Communities-the-truth-behind-a-national-scam-All-478352
It is strange that so many
intertwined enterprises are located in the same office suite and are run by
Stephen (Steve) Hamill and Jerry Burke.
More concerning is the fact the U.S. Communities
has a $700 million dollar a year contract with Office Depot for office and
classroom supplies.
Office Depot has provided over $20 million in
kickbacks to U.S. Communities (read Stephen Hamill and his partner Jerry
Burke).
------------------------------------------------
WOW!!
For now, I’ll leave you with:
State of New Jersey
Commission of Investigation
I’m sure you’ve read this report, but I am not defending
“singular” items, but a fact pattern.
Garland came out with their “we’re not guilty” tour after
Tremco took that $61,000,000.00 hit.
After I reported on the videos, Garland took them down. All
that “Honesty”.
I’m paraphrasing, but can provide links to the deleted
videos. Perhaps you have an access code
that nobody else has?
Regardless, here is more public record that is easily
available:
US Communities
News and Events- note sponsorship of events and production of webinars:
US Communities
complimentary “Strategic Sourcing Summits”
Cobb County
Purchasing Department is listed as “Lead Agency” for roofing on US Communities
website and appears to solicit the nationwide roofing contract
US Communities
website states “No User Fees – no costs or fees to participate”, but reading
the Cobb County/US Communities agreement please note on page 56 of the pdf item
5.1 under Administration Agreement in this contract and share 5% of their fee
with Cobb County Purchasing:
“5.1 Administrative Fees. Supplier shall pay to U.S. Communities a monthly
administrative fee based upon the total sales price of all purchases shipped
and billed pursuant to the Master Agreement, excluding taxes, in the amount of
two percent (2%) of aggregate purchases made during each calendar month
(individually and collectively, “Administrative Fees”). Supplier’s annual sales
shall be measured on a calendar year basis. All Administrative Fees shall be
payable in U.S. Dollars and shall be made by wire to U.S. Communities, or its
designee or trustee as may be directed in writing by U.S. Communities.
Administrative Fees shall be due and payable within thirty (30) days of the end
of each calendar month for purchases shipped and billed during such calendar
month. U.S. Communities
agrees to pay to Lead Public Agency five percent (5%) of all Administrative
Fees received from Supplier to help offset Lead Public Agency’s costs
incurred in connection with managing the Master Agreement nationally.”
There are also
provisions in the vendor agreement that appear to be more applicable to an
organization that is trying to maximize sales vs. a cooperative that is trying
to save its users money, such as:
“(d) Sales Commitment. Supplier shall market the Master
Agreement through Supplier’s sales force or dealer network that is properly
trained, engaged and committed to offering the Master Agreement as Supplier’s
primary offering to Public Agencies. Supplier’s sales force compensation and incentives shall be greater
than or equal to the compensation and incentives earned under other contracts
to Public Agencies.”
Cobb County is listed on US Communities Advisory Board:
Imagine that.
Another whistleblower case involving procurement through
cooperative:
Interesting article about an association that has come
out against sole-source contracting due to the above case:
You might want to
ask your friends in Cobb County what to do about Garland, now that I’ve
notified you of such an obvious problem.
This is not “isolated” stuff, and CLEARLY outlines your deceptive “for
profit” scheme to defraud taxpayers.
This is ONE example of
mail I get all the time, and from all across the country:
“Brother Ron,
The bid was just awarded for the roofing at the middle school.
Together we saved the taxpayer over 410 k!! Once Garland/ Tremco were
exposed,with your great effort,the project award was 719k ,as opposed to 1.29
mil. Just wanted to give you an update. Be well Brother Ron.
All the best”
I’m not asking you to believe a single word I say. You must believe what I can PROVE.
Eight years of research, and I’m ready to go. All USC has to say is “give it your best shot”,
and I will accommodate you. If you do
not make the call, I’ll make it for you.
I’ve NEVER asked that Garland be removed from a bid list,
but they be made to fairly “compete” against MAJOR mainstream
manufacturers. Please don’t give me
bullet points of salesmen, as they are committed to memory.
I am concerned about “Measurable Units”, and not hypothesis.
Ron
Thank you sir. I will email you some
specifics. It does not have anything to do with Bluefin. It had to do with
Garland cloning their RAMP program and having management level individuals
within A/E firms implement he software. The A/E firms even pay for the program,
which us genius really. MiRoof is the program I know is a clone. The
"owner" Ryan Shultz works for Garland currently. Funny you mention
Bluefin. He worked for them as well when it was RoofExpress. There are other
clues to a connection there as well. We will probably connect some dots once we
share our stories. I will follow this up with an email that includes more info.
Have to run right now. Talk soon!
*****This paper remains
unfinished, and unedited.
I have a standing offer of
$10,000.00 of my own money for Garland, or Tremco, if they agree to a televised public
debate, and prove me wrong. Money goes
to a school of my choice. 8 years, no takers.
Tremco and their attorney
are now being sued by the SEC. The SEC
is insisting on a jury trial, and it will not end well. I thought I’d share that with you.
I can help you with RCI,
and anything, you might need.
I do not have an “angle”
so please don’t try to figure it out.
You can also check out my
friend Janet Campbell, an Architect in San Francisco. Her blog is “School
Roofing Scam” http://schoolroofingscam.blogspot.com/
Public Record is
overwhelming, so nobody has to give a meaningless “Opinion”. This should keep
you busy for a couple of centuries, but it also took a long time to create.
NOTE; This paper remains generally unedited, and will glasdly accept constructive criticism.
Reject negativity in all forms, and always remember to keep looking "UP".
Respect.
Robert R. Solomon
Public Procurement Analyst
Florida Roofing Certification
CCC 1325620
Every School Board Member in North America should thank them for rescuing school maintenance budgets from "Purchasing Cooperatives".
Public Procurement Analyst
Fla. Certified CCC1325620
Tampa, Fla.
https://wikiroof.blogspot.com/