NATIONAL ROOFING SCAM: Cobb County Georgia, U.S. Communities, and Garland . BID RIGGING, and how it works.

Cobb County Commission is guilty of "Bid Rigging" with the help of U.S. Communities (Purchasing Cooperative), and Garland, Ind. (Roofing Material Manufacturer).  

It could NEVER happen to me:

These guys are lightweights compared to Garland, Cobb County, and U.S. Communities.

So Ron, why should I care about Cobb County, Georgia?  The reason you should care is because this "setup" only ORIGINATES in Georgia, and then used for every city, county, and state in the country as the "Standard".  Laughable.

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

The SCAM extends into all territories, and provinces, of Canada as well.  So this little "scheme" in effect excludes all manufacturers (except Garland of course) steals hundreds of millions of dollars annually  from taxpayers.

Joe Tommie is the point man for Cobb County, and knows EXACTLY what he's doing, but you may not.  Cobb County Commission doesn't care who they hurt, as long as they keep getting their 5% "Commission" for lying on Garland's behalf.

That's impossible Ron, they'd be run out of town on a rail.  Well, it's not impossible, and actually more common than you'd think.  Don't take my word for it, and read articles of the contract:

“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”). 

IS THAT CLEAR?

"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.”

IS THAT CLEAR?

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.”

IS THAT CLEAR?

But Ron, why haven't they been caught, and taking up permanent residency under the jail?  They think no one is watching them, but I GUARANTEE that many people much smarter than me, and with far more resources, are on top of it.  

When the whip comes down, it will show no mercy.   

I ASSUME that most of you care about your tax dollars being wasted, and lining the pockets of lying politicians, and lying "Salesmen".   I'm showing you how they do it, and who they are.  Perhaps your own civic responsibility will speak to you, where I cannot?

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

If you are a manufacturer, consultant, contractor, or distributor, you have a RIGHT to compete for your own tax dollars.  In fact, you have an OBLIGATION to your client base if you are a manufacturer, or distributor.  

ALWAYS SUBMIT A VOLUNTARY ALTERNATE!

Taxpayers are paying twice as much for an average roof, and a grotesquely fraudulent warranty.  It's actually a "Maintenance Agreement", and you will pay TOP DOLLAR for repairs (real or imagined).  

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

When the DOJ catches up to Garland, I suspect their fate will eclipse even Tremco.  It was kind of funny how Garland refers to Tremco as "One Bad Apple".   That's like a Witch calling the Devil a "Bad Apple".  Hilarious.

If not for Purchasing Cooperatives lying for them, nobody would even know they exist.  So, evaluate your reputation, and career, before stealing some of that "easy' money.   I'm looking at you Architects, and Engineers, who "sign off" on the scam for exorbitant fees.  More on that later.....

Friends, you are really coming through for me.  I'm very thankful, and genuinely humbled by the amazing increase in viewers.   Approximately 7,000 visits per month, and I rarely use PICTURES!  In roofing world, that's quite a feat.

On the "Interesting Scale" reading this material has all the charm, and drama of watching a car rust, but for many of you, it's how you feed your families.   I know that.

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

Respect.

Robert R. "Ron" Solomon

Public Procurement Analyst

Florida Certification

CCC 1325620  

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

   

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

Tremco and the SEC - Buyer Beware

Friends, this is the reality of Tremco.  

The SEC is suing Tremco, AND their Attorney.  The DOJ has already fined Tremco $61,000,000.00, and now the SEC has them for lying.  

That sounds like a lot of money right?  You may be interested to know the public facilities who got scammed, received NOTHING.  To put it in context, a brand new high school costs approximately $50,000,000.00.  

Unless you like to play "blindfolded, high stakes poker", I'd stay as far away from Tremco as humanly possible.  You administrators should do your homework, or be pulled down with them.  The WORSE decision you could possibly make is buying Tremco through a Purchasing Cooperative.

There is no such thing as "Pre-Compete" in roofing.  EACH project is wildly variant, and a "parts list" is worthless.  I challenge any roofing estimator to prove they can. 

I challenge Tremco to prove they can, and will stake $10,000.00 of my own money proving they can't.  Money goes to a school of my choice.  

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

Not ONE person in this country can successfully argue Tremco's "Exclusive Vendor" status in public works.  All under the guise:  "We buy in bulk", "We Pre-Compete for you", "Our vast negotiating power.....blah, blah, blah.

IT IS A LIE that defrauds our schools (you pay for it).

I'm looking forward to the day when Tremco is finally debarred from the GSA.  Take Garland too, and we will have eliminated the "Predatory Sales Models" in roofing by 99%.  

https://probesreporter.com/news/analysis-rpm-international-finally-gets-around-disclosing-its-sec-probe 

"Analysis: RPM International Finally Gets Around to Disclosing its SEC Probe"

Submitted by Probes Reporter on Mon, 2014-08-04 08:00

RPM

"Last week RPM International (RPM) disclosed it is under investigation by the SEC.  This was not news to us.  We have been tracking undisclosed SEC investigative activity on the company dating back to Aug-2012.  We review the pertinent facts, our research history, and give our take on why a disclosure now could be more dangerous than investors may realize. 

Facts of Interest or Concern:

In an earnings press release last week(link is external), RPM International said in part,

“RPM was notified by the Securities and Exchange Commission on June 24, 2014, that it is the subject of a formal investigation pertaining to the timing of its disclosure and accrual of loss reserves with respect to the previously disclosed fiscal 2013 GSA and Department of Justice investigation into compliance issues relating to Tremco roofing division's GSA contracts.”

Though the company says it was notified on 24-Jun-2014, our research history suggests this SEC investigation has a long tail to it, dating back potentially as far as 2012. 

Since Aug-2012, the SEC has been blocking our access to records on RPM over concern their release could interfere with law enforcement proceedings.  We received the same denial in Jul-2013 and again in Jan-2014. As a matter of law, the SEC was acknowledging some sort of investigative activity.

In May-2014 we published a research note indicating the SEC had confirmed an active-and-ongoing investigation involving RPM.  At that time our research showed no signs of disclosure of SEC investigative activity for the prior two years.  

Our Take:

With the shares up 2.4% on the day of the earnings release (versus an S&P 500 that was essentially flat), it appears investors are ignoring the SEC aspect of earnings release.  We think that is misplaced.  Here’s why --

• Don’t get distracted by the company saying it was notified by the SEC on 24-Jun that it was subject of a formal investigation. That doesn’t mean it started then.  Again, the results of our works suggests RPM sat on this SEC investigation for at least the past two years, perhaps longer.  In our experience, it's bad when a company waits a long time to disclose an SEC probe.  It begs the critical question, “What changed to prompt the disclosure?”
   
• Public companies are generally not required to disclose the existence of SEC probes.  They are only required to disclose matters deemed material.  That management now disclosed means they likely now view it as material.  Why?  We say ignore the implications of this at your own peril.
   
• That the investigation is now formal could signal an escalation and/or that the company is not quite cooperating the way the SEC would like. 
   
• In formal SEC investigations, subpoenas are frequently involved.  Good questions to ask the company is were they subpoenaed, to whom they were sent, and what the subpoenas sought."   

Note:   New SEC investigative activity could theoretically begin or end after the date covered by this latest information which would not be reflected here.

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

This is not "gossip" friends, but public record.  

Tremco Stock:  

http://www.secform4.com/insider-trading/110621-2.htm

Friends, I have in excess of 100,000 views here, and  humbled.   NONE of this benefits me in any way, other than the personal satisfaction that comes from exposing scams perpetrated upon schools, and taxpayers.  

You notice that Tremco isn't trying to steal any of Wal-Mart's money.  You won't either because they'd have to compete for it.  Tremco will NEVER compete.  Just ask them.  I dare you.

I am thankful for your interest, and time spent with me here.  I realize what a precious commodity time is, and my appreciation grows each day.

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

Respect.

Robert R. "Ron" Solomon

Public Procurement Analyst

Director, Roof Consultant's Alliance

CCC 1325620

RobertRSolomon@aol.com

Tampa, Florida

Tremco, the "Darlings" of Purchasing Cooperatives. .

Any school administrator should know this before it's too late. The schools, and other public works that Tremco defrauded got NOTHING!

https://www.sec.gov/litigation/litreleases/2016/lr23639.htm  

U.S. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Litigation Release No. 23639 / September 9, 2016

Securities and Exchange Commission v. RPM International Inc., et al., Case No. 16-cv-01803 (D.D.C. filed Sept. 9, 2016)

SEC Charges RPM International Inc. and its General Counsel for Disclosure and Accounting Failures

The Securities and Exchange Commission today charged Ohio-based chemical company RPM International Inc. and its General Counsel, Edward W. Moore, with failing to disclose a material loss contingency, or record an accrual for, a government investigation when required to do so under governing accounting principles and securities laws.

The SEC alleges that, from 2011 through 2013, RPM and one of its subsidiaries were under investigation by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) for overcharging the government on certain contracts. 

Moore, RPM's General Counsel and Chief Compliance Officer, oversaw RPM's response to the DOJ investigation. According to the SEC's complaint, however, Moore did not inform RPM's CEO, CFO, Audit Committee, and independent auditors, of material facts about the investigation. 

For example, Moore knew but failed to inform them that: RPM sent DOJ estimates showing RPM's subsidiary overcharged the government on the contracts under investigation by a material amount; RPM agreed to submit a settlement offer by a specific date to resolve the DOJ investigation; and, prior to submitting the settlement offer to DOJ, RPM's overcharge estimates increased substantially to at least $28 million.

NOTE:  The DOJ already fined Tremco $61,000,000.00 for overbilling.  Again, the ones who were defrauded (primarily schools) got NOTHING.  

As a result of Moore's conduct, the SEC alleges that RPM filed multiple false and misleading documents with the SEC. For example, among other things, RPM failed to disclose in its filings with the SEC any loss contingency related to the DOJ investigation, or to record an accrual on its books, when required to do so by governing accounting principles and the securities laws. RPM also failed to disclose in its SEC filings a material weakness in its internal control over financial reporting and its disclosure controls when in fact such weakness existed. 

Consequently, RPM did not provide investors with accurate information about RPM's financial condition. In August 2014, RPM restated its financial results for three quarters that occurred during the DOJ investigation and filed amended SEC filings for those quarters, disclosing the DOJ investigation and related accruals. 

In the restated filings, RPM also disclosed errors relating to the timing of its disclosure and accrual for the DOJ investigation.

The SEC's complaint charges RPM with violating antifraud provisions of the federal securities laws, Sections 17(a)(2) and (a)(3) of the Securities Act of 1933; the reporting provisions of the federal securities laws, Section 13(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rules 12b-20, 13a-1, 13a-11, and 13a-13 thereunder; and the books and records and internal controls provisions of the federal securities laws, Sections 13(b)(2)(A) and 13(b)(2)(B) of the Exchange Act. The complaint also charges Moore with violating Sections 17(a)(2) and (a)(3) of the Securities Act and Rules 13b2-1 and 13b2-2 under the Exchange Act. The complaint seeks permanent injunctions, disgorgement of ill-gotten gains plus interest, and penalties.
The SEC's investigation was conducted by Timothy K. Halloran and Michael J. Hoess. The SEC's litigation will be conducted by H. Michael Semler, Gregory R. Bockin, Mr. Halloran, and Mr. Hoess.
 SEC Complaint

http://www.sec.gov/litigation/litreleases/2016/lr23639.htm

---

Friends, I know how confusing this sounds, but to put it in a nutshell, DO NOT buy a roof through a Purchasing Cooperative (typically 40% higher), Garland, or Tremco.  It's a SCAM. It isn't necessary that you take my word for it.  All you have to do is type "School Roofing Scam" into your browser, and then do the same on YouTube. Will you find other roofing material manufacturers there?  NO.  You will find Tremco, and Garland, because that's what they do. Tremco, nor Garland could ever get any work if it were not for Purchasing Cooperatives lying for them. I have a problem with people who steal, but stealing from our own children is sinful.  Think of me the next time your child is asked to bring basic supplies to school.  They don't have any money because Tremco, Garland, and their Purchasing Cooperative enablers stole it. Tremco, nor Garland will ever "compete" for anything.  If it's not "rigged" in their favor, they will simply leave. Ron, how can I prevent this in my district? You don't have to remove Garland or Tremco from a bid list as that would be unfair.  Simply add three more material manufacturers like GAF, Firestone, Johns Manville, Carlisle Syntec, Sika Sarnafil, etc. and you will receive a fair, competitive bid. If you need help with this, you may write to me at:  RobertRSolomon@aol.com  Or, contact Roof Consultant's Institute (RCI), and they will be happy to assist you.  Do your homework, and save a ton of money, with no reduction in services.  Association Staff RCI, Inc. | 1500 Sunday Drive, Suite 204 | Raleigh, North Carolina 27607 Phone: 919.859.0742 or 800.828.1902 Fax: 919.859.1328 E-mail: rci@rci-online.org Administration Executive Vice President and CEO James R. Birdsong jbirdsong@rci-online.org |  Extension 100 I am very grateful for the time you spend with me here, and am always willing to help anyone who needs me.   NOTE: Retired 2003, do not solicit nor accept compensation or personal advancement of any kind. Reject negativity in all forms, and always remember to keep looking "UP". Respect. Robert R. "Ron" Solomon Public Procurement Analyst Florida State Certification   CCC 1325620

Another Angry Jurisdiction after Tremco's latest Overbilling Scam..

Friends:

Before the story, let me share basics to avoid such heartbreak.  If you can avoid three things, will have a much better chance of success with your project.

1.)  NEVER BUY A ROOF FROM A PURCHASING COOPERATIVE.  Purchasing Cooperatives are not competitiv in any way.

2.)  Buy Mainstream manufacturers like GAF, Firestone, Johns Manville, Carlisle.  They are also locally stocked by roofing material supply houses.  The supply house can also recommend quality roofing contractors.  The Supplier knows who pays their bills, and who doesn't.

3.)  Research before you buy.   Type "School Roofing Scam" into your browser, and do the same thing on YouTube.  You will find three players:  Purchasing Cooperative, Tremco, Garland.

It's your career, and your responsibility, so I hope this helps.

Now to the story (I have other examples like this):  

 http://www.mydaytondailynews.com/news/miami-county-left-out-roofing-company-payback-for-over-billing/wBxo5luYtlWL84jVwIySaN/

 Miami County left out of roofing company’s payback for over-billing

LOCAL

By Josh Sweigart - Staff Writer

   0

The Miami County Sheriff’s Office in 2012 questioned the amount paid to Tremco to replace the roof on the Miami County Job and Family Services Building, shown here. Staff Photo by Amanda Seitz

Posted: 10:23 a.m. Wednesday, March 01, 2017

---

"An Ohio-based roofing company that the I-Team reported in 2014 was likely over-billing governments across the state quietly reimbursed some, but not all, of the agencies it was suspected of over-billing.

Tremco, based in Beachwood, voluntarily repaid 11 state agencies a total of $214,308 last year after it was discovered the company was not giving taxpayers the same discounts they were giving private companies.

“The money was paid in 2016 following discussions with the vendor after the action with the federal government,” said Ohio Department of Administrative Services spokesman Marty Berkowitz. “Ohio was not included in any formal settlement agreement. Tremco voluntarily paid the amounts as listed.”

The I-Team reported in 2014 that state and local governments had paid Tremco $23.4 million under those state contracts from 2006 to 2014.

Contacted this year, state officials said they don’t know which local governments were reimbursed. Tremco officials were asked the same question and responded with a statement that did not name which governments they reimbursed.

ORIGINAL REPORT: Roofer may have bilked state, local governments

Miami County officials, contacted this month by the I-Team, said they didn’t get any reimbursement from Tremco, though a local law enforcement investigation in 2012 called into question the company’s pricing and said county taxpayers overpaid hundreds of thousands of dollars.

In 2013, a federal lawsuit came to light, in which a former Tremco vice president alleged the company used misleading business practices in federal contracts. This included installing defective roofs, giving larger discounts to private customers than government customers and re-labeling generic material as high-end at a marked-up price.

Ohio officials based their blanket contract with Tremco, used by state and local governments, on those federal contracts.

Tremco officials said in their statement that they notified DAS “when Tremco discovered errors in its administration of these contracts.”

“The company also subsequently followed through on a process with the DAS to account for and correct those errors through reimbursements to affected state agencies and local entities that utilized the (state contract),” said a statement from the company.

I-TEAM: Follow us on Facebook

Tremco settled the federal lawsuit for $61 million, with a large portion going to the whistleblower because the suit was filed under the False Claims Act. The False Claims Act is a law the federal government and several states have encouraging whistle-blowers in government contracting fraud by allowing damages three times the amount of damages and giving whistleblowers a share.

Ohio has no false claims act, though Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine and Auditor Dave Yost have both called for them in the past.

A spokeswoman for DeWine’s office declined to comment on the Tremco issue because the Ohio Department of Administrative Services negotiated the reimbursements with Tremco.

“We get involved when our clients seek our assistance or representation, but in many cases, state agencies resolve matters on their own,” said AG’s office spokeswoman Kate Hanson in an email.

Tremco’s statement says their over-billing of entities in Ohio wasn’t intentional.

“The errors that led to some customers not receiving full discounts on purchases through the (state contract) was not due to a business practice, but rather to unintentional errors in the administration of Tremco’s federal … contracts, the terms of which also impacted purchases under the (state contract),” the statement says. "

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

Avoid the grief, exposure, and pain by just saying "NO" to Purchasing Cooperatives, Tremco, and Garland.  You will be happier for it.  

Thank you for spending time with me here.  I know it gets boring, but I want to help you before the sharks circle with their "Predatory Sales Models".

I have over 105,000 views here, and I am thrilled that anyone cares.  

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

Roofing Scam Link:

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

State Certification CCC 1325620