Purchasing Cooperative School Roofing Scam.

Friends:

Today we will be learning English, and  how to translate the words of "Salesmen/women".  It's all so grandiose and shiny, but is a simple disguise of the truth.  COST and "Measurable Units" matter, you can't get around it.

Right away, I will tell you our public facilities who buy through cooperatives are foolish, and don't do their homework.  It is not about  "Ease" being the determining factor.  "Ease" should not cost a school district in Minnesota, Connecticut, New Jersey, California or all points in between 40% MORE money.

Roofing is the costliest item of any school maintenance budget, and lying cooperatives must come to heel.  I will debate U.S. Communities, Garland, or Tremco, anytime, anywhere.

All the school district has to do, is conduct competitive bidding with multiple manufacturers listed in the specifications.  This essentially increases your bid pool by 400% .   Competition that provides both serviceability and value.

I will refer you to the Ducker-Carlisle Report.

All the Jazz about "We handle it all" is ignorant, expensive, stupid, and horribly unfair to Contractors, Manufacturers,Consultants, and Distributors,  who are not allowed to bid on projects that are publicly funded.  Can't compete for their own tax dollars?

An administrator may not show even the slightest hint of favoritism, nor should they be able to choose a "Single Source" product.

Speaking of product, Tremco, as well as Garland, don't make half the material they sell.  They outsource it to Cooley.  Cooley is for another time.  No educated person would choose them, other than a retiree in a trailer park.  We have lots of them here in Florida,  the way they "get over" on the elderly is sickening.  I've seen this first hand .

Okay, now to our "English Lesson".  It will save your district millions of dollars if you listen to me.  It is simple, common sense, and out of the hands of politicians.  When you buy Tremco or Garland, you are essentially exporting 70% of your local tax dollars to other municipalities.  Money that could be used for future roofing, or repairs..........GONE.

You know I back up every word I say with public record. You can't beat an "opinion" out of me with a stick.

Here comes the pain:  My comments are obviously in Blue.

https://www.uscommunities.org/suppliers/garlanddbs-inc

Garland/DBS, Inc.

Roofing Supplies and Support Services

Leading manufacturer and distributor of high-performance solutions for the commercial building envelope. "High performance compared to what?"

REQUEST INFORMATION

·         Website: Garland/DBS, Inc.

·         Email: uscommunities@garlandind.com

·         Contract: View Documents ->

·         Phone: 800-321-9336

·         Fax: 216-883-2055

Overview

Garland/DBS, Inc. is a leading manufacturer and distributor of high-performance solutions for the commercial building envelope. Founded in 1895, the Garland organization is 100 percent employee owned, ensuring that every Garland employee is vested in the long-term performance outcomes of your roofing projects.  Their employees  are essentially commissioned salesmen,  They can be fired on the spot at any time.  That's your "Employee owned" translation. So much for We offer public agencies and non-profits a comprehensive selection of roofing material solutions and support services, including:

"Public Agencies and non-profits"?  That's their main target, because nobody in the private sector is stupid enough to use them.  They know government is soft, and it maximizes their predatory sales model.

You are paying for the graft.

·         Sustainable systems, such as vegetative roofs, rooftop photovoltaic systems, and energy-reducing reflective coatings

·         Environmentally responsible, low-odor/low-VOC restoration, maintenance, and repair materials

·         High-tensile modified and built-up waterproofing systems

·         Architectural and structural standing seam metal roof and wall systems

    Garland's metal roof division is called IMETCO, and runs the same game·         Fluid-applied urethane and acrylic systems

·         Online roof asset management database services

·         Comprehensive engineering services, including wind uplift computations and shop drawings  Most major manufacturers offer these services at no charge.  Garland will cost you two arms, and two legs, before they finally eat the rest of you. You'll look like a carcass in the Mojave Desert when it's over.

·         Turnkey construction management services  "Turnkey" means full control, isolation of all competition, sign you up, and you're hooked for years . That breeze you just felt is your soul leaving the body.

Walk Your Roofs with Garland - FREE Preventive Maintenance Training

Are you getting the expected, warranted service life out of your roofs? Find out how to receive a FREE roof preventive maintenance training conducted on-site at your facility by a knowledgeable, locally based Garland representative.

This is a joke to anyone in the roofing discipline.  We ALL know that major manufacturers offer far better "No Dollar Limit" warranties up to 30 years.  If your roof leaks, they will repair or replace it for free, during the term of warranty.

I know this because I've performed warranty repairs many times. It's a simple procedure.  I fixed the roof, billed the manufacturer, got paid, and the owner was happy.  That's how it should be. 

Not only that, but the "Majors" make their own material instead of outsourcing it.  

Please don't take my word for it. Take the time to type 'School Roofing Scam" into your browser, or do the same on YouTube. After reading or watching, all that damning evidence, the picture should come into focus.

You will notice Tremco, and Garland dominate the scam business.

Garland even states on their own website that their material costs more, and that public administrators have a "right" to buy anything they want. 

Not even HUD says that.

Friends, do YOU believe a public official of any kind has the 'right" to buy anything they want, thereby excluding  all competition?

If you said "Yes', I will assume you're in San Francisco. 

ALL public projects are subject to independent, third party oversight.  Garland and Tremco want to skirt that oversight. They act as the manufacturer (which they are not) salesman, consultant, and in doing so removes privy to the owner in one step.

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

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 CCC 1325620

RobertRSolomon@aol.com

Tampa, Florida

Garland/DB

Public Procurement: What HUD says might surprise you.

"So Ron, why on earth did you choose HUD as an example of fair, open, transparent, bidding?  I thought they'd be the last government agency to be held up as the reference standard."  

That's why I chose them.  

At any rate, this is what HUD says about procurement, and I've added a few comments to help translate the tortuous language of government.  About halfway through, throw a glass of ice water in your face, and continue reading. 

This guy reads a lot of my stuff;

Here we go:

-----

https://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/documents/huddoc?id=cdbgchapter14.pdf  

CHAPTER 14: PROCUREMENT
CHAPTER PURPOSE & CONTENTS
This chapter provides an overview of the federal procurement requirements. It covers the basics of Part 85.

SECTION TOPIC

14.1 Overview of Procurement Requirements

When a grantee elects to hire a contractor, whether to administer a program, complete a task or do construction, those contractors must be procured competitively. This section highlights the procurement rules.

Key Topics in This Section: Procurement requirements and methods

Regulatory/Statutory Citations: 570.502, 570.610, 85.36
Other Reference Materials on This Topic: CPD Notice 96-05, Executive Order 12549

Both grantees and subrecipients must follow federal procurement rules when purchasing services, supplies, materials, or equipment. The applicable federal regulations are contained in:

State and local governments and Indian tribes – 24 CFR Part 85. A copy of Part 85 is included in the attachments to this chapter;

Nonprofits, institutions of higher education and hospitals – OMB Circular A-110, as implemented through 24 CFR Part 84.

In addition to federal regulations, most states and many local governments have laws and regulations regarding procurement. Each entity receiving CDBG funds should be aware of state and/or local laws that may affect procurement policies.

Grantees should adopt procurement policies that describe how the grantee or subrecipient will procure supplies, materials, services, and equipment. The policy should assure that all purchases are handled fairly and in a manner that encourages full and open competition. Grantees should follow the procedures established in the policy, and document how all procurements were handled.
The “essence of good procurement” can be summarized as follows:

Identify and clearly specify standards for the goods or services the grantee or subrecipient wants to obtain;
Seek competitive offers to obtain the best possible quality at the best possible price;

Use a written agreement that clearly states the responsibilities of each party;
Keep good records; and
Have a quality assurance system that helps the grantee or subrecipient get what it pays for.  

RRS: This may also be accomplished with a "Performance and Payment" Bond.  Very cheap insurance for the taxpayer (typically 1%), and guarantees the project will be finished properly, or the bonding company steps in, and hires someone else (at no expense to taxpayers).

Believe me, no roofing contractor on earth wants their bonding company to take over.  They will forfeit all assets the bonding company required to issue the bond in the first place.  BRUTAL.

Basically CDBG (November 2007) 14-1
HUD, Office of Block Grant Assistance
Chapter 14: Procurement
There are four methods of procurement that are identified in the federal regulations:
Small purchase procedures;
Sealed bids;
Competitive proposals; and
Non-competitive proposals.

Please note that the following training manual text is an abbreviated summary of the procurement rules and grantees are encouraged to read Part 85.36 in its entirety (attached) as well as any applicable state or local procurement laws.

14.1.1 Small Purchase Procedures
The small purchase procedures allow recipients to acquire goods and services totaling no more than $100,000, without publishing a formal request for proposals or invitation for bids.
This method of procurement is typically used to purchase commodities such as equipment or other materials.
In the event that a grantee is purchasing materials that will exceed $100,000, they must use the sealed bid process.
The small purchases method can also be used to acquire eligible types of services, such as professional consulting, environmental review, or planning. This method cannot be used if the services contract will exceed $100,000 in value. If the services contract will exceed $100,000, the grantee must issue an RFP under the competitive proposals approach (see below).

In general, the small purchases procedures also should not be used to acquire construction contractors. It is recommended that these acquisitions occur under the sealed bid approach outlined below.

Under the small purchases method, grantees send a request for quotes to potential vendors with a detailed description of the goods or services needed. In return, they receive competitive written quotations from an adequate number of qualified sources.

Each quote should include pricing information that allows the grantee to compare costs across bidders and ensure cost reasonableness.

Documentation of the quotes shall be maintained in the grantee’s files.

The award should be made to the lowest responsive and responsible source.

RRS: Is that clear? LOWEST and RESPONSIBLE.  

14.1.2 Sealed Bids (Formal Advertising)
Sealed bids (Formal Advertising) should be used for all construction contracts or for goods costing more than $100,000.

Competitive sealed bidding requires publicly solicited sealed bids and a firm-fixed-price lump sum or unit price contract is awarded to the responsible bidder whose bid, conforming with all the material terms and conditions of the invitation for bids, is lowest in price.
In order for formal advertising to be feasible, the following minimum conditions must be present:
A complete, adequate and realistic specification or purchase description is available.
Basically CDBG (November 2007) 14-2
HUD, Office of Block Grant Assistance
Chapter 14: Procurement
Two or more responsible suppliers are willing and able to compete effectively for a grantee's business.

The procurement lends itself to a firm fixed-price contract, and the selection of the successful bidder can appropriately be made principally on the basis of price.

When the competitive sealed bid (formal advertising) process is used, the following requirements apply:

Publication Period: The invitation for bids must be publicly advertised and bids solicited from an adequate number of suppliers.  RRS:  Note, they say "suppliers", as in plural.  "Competition" is not ONE manufacturer, and 4 of their vendors.  What incentive would the manufacturer have to compete?

The publication should be published at least once in a newspaper of general circulation, providing sufficient time prior to bid opening. If the publication period is not of sufficient time to attract adequate competition, the bid may have to be re-advertised.

Clear Definition: The invitation for bids, including specifications and pertinent attachments, must clearly define the items or services needed in order for bidders to properly respond to the invitation.  

Public Opening: All bids must be opened publicly at the time and place stated in the invitation for bids. The public is allowed at that time to review the bids.

RRS: Think about that for a minute.  "The public is allowed at that time to review the bids".


Selection and Contracting: A firm-fixed-price contract award must be made by written notice to the responsible bidder whose bid, conforming to the invitation for bids, is lowest. Where specified in the bidding documents, factors such as discounts, transportation costs and life cycle costs must be considered in determining which bid is lowest.

Rejection of all Bids: All bids may be rejected when sound documented reasons exist. Such documentation shall be made a part of the files.

14.1.3 Competitive Proposals
Competitive proposals are used to purchase professional services where the total cost will exceed $100,000. Under this procurement method, the grantee must publish a written request for submissions and then review these submissions based on established selection criteria.

The grantee must solicit proposals from an adequate number of qualified sources.


To learn more about excluded parties, go to: http://www.epls.gov/
Basically CDBG (November 2007) 14-4

HUD, Office of Block Grant Assistance  

-----

I provided the link earlier if you care to read additional attachments.

ALL public procurement agencies (local, state, and federal) have published laws, and ALL devote large sections specifically to "Fair Competition" on  ALL publicly funded projects.  

The word "Competition" is twisted, and manipulated by those who cannot accept measurable units.  It's easy for an Administrator to get sucked into the vortex of a "Predatory Sales Model".  

I cannot reasonably expect an Administrator to have intimate knowledge of all construction trades, and sub trades.  

*****

Friends, I know this is like watching paint dry, but the people who are stealing your tax dollars are frauds, and depend upon you to get bored, or simply quit.  I've been at this for 10 years now, and am neither bored, nor have the slightest desire to "quit".  

I derive ZERO pleasure when people lose their jobs, careers, families, and sometimes "Freedom".   Just this one, and then we'll move on:


http://wikiroof.blogspot.com/2014/05/va-official-admits-to-64-counts-of.html

The work is tedious, time consuming, and at times, heartbreaking.
----- 


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

You, my respected readers, depend upon me to tell only the truth.

I know that.  

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

Respect.

Robert R. "Ron" Solomon
Public Procurement Analyst
Florida State Certified 
CCC 1325620

"TCPN, Tremco, and Taxpayers"



http://www.tcpn.org/Contracts/R5101/Determination%20for%20RFP.pdf

 



 

 

To: Jason Wickel


From: Deborah Bushnell
Re: Determination for RFP

Date: August 31, 2011

Request for Proposal (RFP) for Cooperative Job Order Contracting Services (TX) RFP #11-14

TCPN has determined that the use of a Request for Proposal (RFP) for Cooperative Job Order Contracting Services (TX) is more beneficial and advantageous to our members than the use of a Request for Bid.
TCPN contracts are used by public and private schools, colleges and universities, cities, counties, non-profits, and all governmental entities throughout the country. The use of an RFP will allow vendors to decrease submitted pricing if needed based on quantity and size of projects, as well as the ability to negotiate supplemental agreements. Each purchase made through this contract will be customized to the needs of the purchasing agency. In addition, competitive sealed bidding does not allow the ability to compare offers and determine the best value for our wide range of members.

Therefore, it is our opinion that a Request for Proposal, rather than a Request for Bid, is more advantageous to our members.

**********

http://www.daytondailynews.com/news/news/local-govt-politics/investigator-lack-of-bidding-cost-miami-county-tax/nTgdy/

 

Sponsored By:

Posted: 11:30 p.m. Saturday, Dec. 29, 2012

Investigator: Lack of bidding cost Miami County taxpayers

By Andrew J. Tobias

Staff writer

 

Miami County sheriff’s investigators estimate county commissioners wasted about $500,000 by awarding no-bid contracts to a vendor from the Cleveland area while ignoring a local company that offered to do the work for less than half the price.

 

This new allegation came to light during an investigation into Miami County’s government. It was contained within investigative records compiled by the Miami County Sheriff’s Office and reviewed by the Dayton Daily News.

 

County commissioners have awarded that preferred vendor, Cleveland-based Tremco, about $2 million in roofing jobs since 2008.

 

For many of those jobs, then-county maintenance director Jarrod Harrah contacted a local company, Don Hubbard Jr. Roofing, to ask for informal quotes. Overall, Hubbard’s quotes were $509,000 less than those offered by Tremco, according to a report from Miami County Sheriff’s Lt. Steve Lord.

 

But Hubbard was never allowed to officially compete for any projects because the county awarded the roofing contracts through a purchasing cooperative organization instead of soliciting competitive bids.

 

For one project — roof repair jobs at the Miami County Job and Family Services and Community Action Council buildings — Hubbard offered to do the work for about $130,000.

 

But county commissioners instead hired Tremco to do the work for $380,000 more, awarding a no-bid contract through the State Term Schedule, a cooperative purchasing network run by the State of Ohio.

 

Hubbard’s quote was lower because it didn’t include the cost of removing the roof and replacing it, which Tremco offered to do. But company owner Don Hubbard, Jr. told the Daily News that commissioners never asked about replacing the roof or how much that would cost.

 

“I asked for a spec (specification) for the roofing project, and they said there was no spec,” Hubbard told the Daily News. “I had 1,000 questions and no one wanted to answer them.”

 

Hubbard and his wife, Angie Hubbard, who works for the Miami County court system, brought their concerns to county commissioners and county prosecutor Gary Nasal, investigative records show.

“I just couldn’t understand the amount of money they were spending,” Hubbard said. “I didn’t see how it was justified.”

 

Commissioners disputed the $509,000 figure tabulated by Lord in a written response to a list of questions submitted by the Daily News.

 

“The roofing contracts were purchased through a legally constituted pre-bid purchasing cooperative. The price differential that the Sheriff cites is not for comparable project specifications and thus the figures regarding cost savings are not accurate. The prices were for two distinctly separate scopes of work,” the statement reads.

 

Lord began investigating the Tremco contracts after receiving a call from Carol Morgan, the former director of Miami County Job and Family Services and Don Hubbard Jr.’s mother-in-law.

A MCJFS financial monitor had flagged the roof contract awarded to Tremco, saying that the federal government requires complex construction projects to be competitively bid.

 

County commissioners decided instead to award the contract through The Cooperative Purchasing Network, or TCPN, a different purchasing cooperative operated by a regional school district in Texas.

 

 

Commissioner John “Bud” O’Brien told Lord he didn’t even know Hubbard had offered a quote.

 

Commissioner Evans told Lord he knew of the lower quote, but thought Tremco was better suited to handle the contract.

 

Tremco also received a $1.2 million contract through TCPN to replace the roof on the Miami County Hobart Center for County Government.

 

In his investigative report, Lord was critical of the county’s use of purchasing networks to award no-bid contracts to Tremco, saying government entities should fully bid out construction work.

“Group purchasing agencies do not provide transparency, do not ensure that the lowest amount of money will be spent, and do not provide a competitive bid situation,” Lord wrote.

**********

Oh Man, that is BRUTAL!

I have the full pdf file available for you here:

http://media.cmgdigital.com/shared/news/documents/2012/12/28/HarrahCaseFile.pdf

I will save you a lot of time, and suggest you start reading on Page 103.

Believe me, this case is not unique, and MANY EXAMPLES of grotesque overspending on purchasing cooperatives, and Tremco exist.  I will continue to furnish those examples, to illustrate the scope, and dereliction of "Competitive Bid" responsibility to the taxpayers.

Here is a purchasing cooperative that does not accept "Bids" on individual, and unique projects.  Tremco WROTE the specifications, acted as the consultant, and specified ONLY their materials.  This is illegal in all 50 states, all territories, and provinces of Canada.

Instead, to use their "Preferred Vendor" Tremco.  TCPN's deceptive method is based solely upon a "Line Item" method to eliminate all competition.

With TCPN, they simply "choose" based upon favoritism, and greed.

THIS IS PUBLIC WORK, AND PUBLIC MONEY!

YOU pay for it.  YOU pay the much higher cost of Tremco, and then pay TCPN an additional 4% for handling the contract.

It seems imbecilic to me.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/imbecilic

**********

It may seem rather harsh of me to categorize Ms. Bushnell's message in that way, but her direction is against all known procurement law.

"Fair, Open, Transparent, and COMPETITIVE" is the LAW of this land, and no amount of jibberish, or "wishful thinking" will change it.

TCPN comes from a fundamentally flawed position which is to me, astonishing in it's arrogance.

I am in discussion with TCPN to bring fairness to the taxpayers, and not illegally push a culture of "favoritism" to preferred vendors, WITHOUT BIDDING.

GSA says this about TCPN:

"Mr. Solomon,

Thank you for your e-mail.  I am the supervisor for the 03FAC Schedule.  Tremco's GSA Schedule 03FAC Contract GS-06F-0047R was cancelled effective May 19, 2013. 

The link provided in the e-mail was to Tremco's GSA Advantage PDF price list file for the cancelled contract, which is no longer active or accessible through GSA eLibrary or GSA Advantage.  We researched several Tremco commercial websites and found no reference to GSA or Ms. Cheryl Sharp.  If you could provide the link to the Tremco website where you saw that information it would be helpful for us.

Thank you,

Janet M. Haynes

Supervisory Contracting Officer (Schedule 03FAC)

Facilities Maintenance & Hardware Acquisition Center (FMHAC)

General Services Administration

816-823-1297

www.gsa.gov/fmhac

First, I am VERY THANKFUL to Ms. Haynes who acted promptly, and professionally.

I furnished that link to her, and it can be found here:

https://www.gsaadvantage.gov/ref_text/GS06F0047R/0K1DDQ.2DCQFU_GS-06F-0047R_CATALOG0047REV10272011.PDF


That should be abundantly clear to everyone, so I will change direction for a moment.  You will notice I am using HUD as the most difficult challenge of all, and sharing public record.

Please let me share with you what HUD themselves say:

I will suggest you look to HUD as ONE reference: (Section 8, to save time)

http://search.aol.com/aol/search?q=hud%20handbook%20competitive%20bidding&s_it=keyword_rollover&ie=UTF-8&VR=3430

"Special Attention of: Transmittal for Handbook No: 7460.8 REV 2

Public Housing Agencies; Issued: March 2, 2007
Public Housing HUB Office Directors;
Public Housing Program Center Coordinators;
Regional Directors;
Field Office Directors; and
Resident Management Corporations

 

3. Brand Name or Equal Specifications (24 CFR 85.36(c)(1)(vi)). Under
this form of specification, clear and accurate product descriptions are
developed. These descriptions shall not contain features that unduly
restrict competition.

It may be necessary to describe technical requirements for materials and equipment by referencing brand name products in order to define performance or other salient requirements.

References to brand names shall be followed by the words “or equal” and a description of the item’s essential characteristics so that competition is not restricted.

 

Specific brand names may be used only for establishing design and quality standards and only if there is no other reasonable method of designating the required quality of the item desired. When brand names or catalog numbers are used, inform the offerors that such references establish only design or quality standard; in fact, any other products that clearly and demonstrably meet the standard are also acceptable.

D. Avoiding Manufacturers Specifications. PHAs should avoid incorporating a particular manufacturer’s specification as the project specification. This may give the appearance of restricting competition and suggest that other manufacturers’ products are at a disadvantage and may not be accepted.

If the PHA specifies a brand name cabinet, the essential key elements or
features of the product should be stated. For example, if specifying kitchen
cabinets with the key features of solid wood doors and plywood frames.

E. Contractor-Developed Specifications (24 CFR 85.36(c)(1)(iv)). In order to ensure objective contractor performance and eliminate unfair competitive advantage, contractors funded to develop or draft specifications, requirements, statements of work, invitations for bid, or requests for proposals shall be excluded from competing in the procurement.

The only exception to this rule is if, prior to the solicitation, all respondents to solicitations are provided with materials and information made available to the contractor involved in matters pertinent to the solicitation."

**********

This is in DIRECT CONFLICT to what Ms. Bushnell suggests to her client, and in DIRECT CONFLICT" to the law, and the spirit of the law.  I am in hopes they will cease in defrauding the taxpayers, but then again, I'm an optimist.

My next post will be Nov. 09, 2013.  I will announce TCPN's position (if any) at that time.

The taxpayers are NOT TCPN's "Piggybank".

The site will become more about "Public Roofing Procurement", as I feel it the best use of my skill set, time, and benefit to administrators, and taxpayers.

Image from washingtontechnology.com

Corrections of fact are welcome, and encouraged.

Friends, I will once again suggest you reject negativity in all forms (it can be done), and always remember to keep looking "UP".

Thank you so much for spending valuable time with me here, and am humbled you care one bit about what I have to say.


Respect,

Robert R. "Ron" Solomon
Director, Roof Consultant's Alliance
CCC 1325620 (Florida)
RobertRSolomon@aol.com