Pennsylvania bill would open door to competitive school construction bids.

Friends, I think we're getting closer in our quest for "Fair Competition" in public schools.  I'll be in touch with Rep. Topper, and furnish both thought, and documentation.

https://www.constructiondive.com/news/pennsylvania-bill-would-open-door-to-competitive-school-construction-bids/541536/

Pennsylvania bill would open door to competitive school construction bids.

Credit: Flickr; Montgomery County Planning Commission

AUTHOR

Laurie Cowin@lauriethewriter

PUBLISHED

Nov. 7, 20

·  "     Pennsylvania state representative Jesse Topper has introduced a bill that would open major construction projects to competitive bidding, reported The Inquirer of Philadelphia. 

   The bill, which is with the State Government Committee, was precipitated by a study from research firm Ducker Worldwide that found from 2005 to 2010, schools across the state wasted more than $100 million in taxpayer money on roofing by using cooperative purchasing rather than competitive bidding.

·         The proposed bill would outlaw cooperative purchases for construction projects, which the bill's backers say will save money, especially for public schools having financial troubles. One school district received a roofing bid from a cooperative for $2.4 million, whereas an open bid for the same project totaled $1.4 million.

·         Still, many Pennsylvania school officials say cooperative purchasing agreements have merit, offering quality assurance, consistency and reduced maintenance, reported The Inquirer. They also say that open bids, unlike cooperatives, don’t take design costs or project monitoring into account.

Dive Insight:

Pennsylvania joins other states, including Virginia and Indiana, as well as Baltimore County (Maryland) Public Schools, in challenging whether cooperative purchasing agreements are the best choice for public school construction projects. 

A 2015 audit in the Baltimore County Public Schools revealed that it had overpaid by $11 million for roofing projects since 2006. The report also said that Texas estimated its taxpayers paid an excess $1.3 million per year related to roofing, while Indiana, Massachusetts, Virginia and other states found fraud and abuse in these arrangements.

An investigation of waste and abuse in public school roofing projects in New Jersey dating back to 2000 concluded there was “evidence of widespread cost-gouging, unscrupulous bidding practices, contract manipulation, questionable design, installation and inspection procedures and other abuses.”

Public school building represents just a fraction of construction projects that taxpayer dollars finance. Projects supported by state DOTs are funded by taxpayers, for example, but these dollars can show up in other types of construction projects as well. 

In Nevada, the Clark County Commission opted to help finance the NFL’s $2 billion Las Vegas Raiders stadium with a $750 million taxpayer-supported bond deal. The bonds, which will be repaid with proceeds from a new county hotel tax, will finance the public share of the project. Taxpayer protections, which require the team to pay off the bonds if it should move before 30 years, are included in the bond ordinance."

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

If your school district is buying roofs through a Purchasing Coloperative, ple3ase know they are rigged to favor a single vendor.   The opposite of what we have in the private market.

If you're not competitive in the Private market, you are no0t competitive in the Public market.   Just that simple.


If a Manufacturer's Representative tells you they'll be on the job EVERY day,  is not lying.  The problem is that you have to pay $750.00 per day.

Purchasing Cooperatives decimate our school maintenance budgets, and do it with ZERO competition.

NO PRIVATE OWNER IS THAT STUPID.

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

Respect.

Robert R. Solomon
Public Procurement Analyst
State Certification  CCC 1325620
RobertRSolomon@aol.com

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

• 
  

Collusion: Garland, U.S.Communities, and Cobb County, Georgia.

This one will be harsh.

Reason:  The Cobb County "Pricing" does not exist, and U.S. Communities (prior to today's date) cannot prove that it does.  On U.S. Communities website, they show 54 pages of BLANK "Line Items".  No construction project can be "competitive" with Garland, and all of them know it.  Yet, they keep deceiving the public (throughout all of North America).

So, we round up a few politicians to "go along" with the scam, and guess who pays for it?  I've grown tired of people who lie, cheat, and steal.  Further incensed over personal greed, at the expense of our schools.

In a fair, transparent, and 'open" bid scenario, Garland will lose 100 out of 100 times.  They know it, and everyone else knows it.

I've requested pricing from U.S. Communities (David Kidd) five times without benefit of reply.  This is an outfit purporting to save money, but the opposite is true.  U.S. Communities is paid a 2% "Commission", and the Garland Representative gets paid 25%.  Your tax dollar immediately turns into 73 cents, and nothing to show for the stupidity.

Click to enlarge:

If you ever see Garland, or U.S. Communities involved in your school district, you are getting soaked, and your children denied services.  My best suggestion is to insist upon 4 major manufacturers, locally distributed, and locally represented.  Here are a few:

Johns Manville: A Berkshire Hathaway Company.
Firestone: Backed by billions of dollars in Bridgestone assets.
GAF:  Largest roofing material manufacturer on earth.

We have a number of qualified manufacturers like Carlisle Syntec, Barrett, Sika Sarnafil, etc.

ANYTHING but Garland, or Tremco (just fined $61,000,000.00 by the DOJ for abusing GSA contracts.  The schools they defrauded got NOTHING.  Purchasing Cooperatives STILL use them as if nothing happened.  The arrogance is offensive, and shameful to any rational person.

I do not want to "Exclude" Garland, or Tremco, but add them to a bid list with mainstream manufacturers, and let them have an opportunity to "Compete".

Does that seem fair?  Does that seem reasonable? Does that seem rational to clear thinking people?  Of course it does.

It is against the law for any administrator to show even the slightest hint of favoritism.  That is called "Collusion".  It is happening at an alarming rate, and you are paying for it.  YOU are putting that 25% "Sales Commission" directly into one person's pocket.  YOU are paying U.S. Communities 2% 'Commission' for the privilege of being cheated, and paying approximately 40% MORE for a school roof.

By the way, "Roofing" is the only construction trade U.S. Communities lists.  Why is that Ron?  It's because roofing is the costliest item in any school maintenance budget.  Administrators are normally "soft targets' for the sales pitch "We handle it all".  A grotesque dereliction of responsibility may not be countered with the argument of "Ease" over "Cost".

All publicly funded structures are subject to oversight, and evaluated by "measurable units".  Not a new "made up" system that invites deceit, collusion, and corruption.  That is the Garland/U.S. Communities way however, and if they focus on public work, must "Compete" just like everyone else.

I don't want Garland "Excluded", but "Included".  Garland will not openly bid, and will quickly run away if asked to compete.

Cobb County, Georgia is responsible for conducting fake pricing scams to suit U.S. Communities, and Garland.  Period.  

Friends, I am thankful for the time you spend with me here.  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

Profile:  https://www.linkedin.com/in/robertrsolomon