Friends;

I don't make this stuff up.  If you are thinking about using Tremco, it might be a good idea to read this:

RPM International says SEC allegations of fraud about its fiscal 2013 financial reports 'have no merit'

Updated Sep 13, 2016; Posted Sep 12, 2016

ProductGrouping_DSC_1545.jpg

RPM International Inc., which makes the products pictured here, says that an SEC action of accounting fraud in connection with some of its fiscal 2013 financial reports "have no merit" and stem from "prosecutorial overreach."(RPM International Inc.)

Comment

0shares

By Janet H. Cho, The Plain Dealer

jcho@plaind.com

CLEVELAND, Ohio -- RPM International Inc. said that accusations by the Securities and Exchange Commission that the company and its general counsel did not adequately inform investors about its fiscal 2013 financial reports "have absolutely no merit and are the product of prosecutorial overreach."

The SEC enforcement action, filed on Sept. 9 in U.S. District Court in the District of Columbia, raises concerns about when RPM disclosed information about its restatements of its financial results for the first, second, and third quarters of its fiscal 2013 year ended May 31, 2013.

The 28-page complaint against RPM and Edward W. Moore, RPM's general counsel and chief compliance officer, questions RPM's timing in disclosing a Department of Justice investigation of RPM's Tremco roofing subsidiary. 

The Justice Department said that Tremco Inc., a Beachwood-based manufacturer and supplier of roofing and waterproofing products and services, "failed to provide the government with price discounts provided to non-federal government customers," and that it allegedly marketed expensive materials to government purchasers without disclosing that the same materials were available at a lower cost.

RPM settled the DOJ investigation and litigation for $65.1 million in 2013, and the DOJ said at the time that "the claims settled by this agreement are allegations only, and there has been no determination of liability."

The SEC now says that "A public company facing a loss contingency, such as a lawsuit or a government investigation, is required under accounting principles and the securities laws to (1.) disclose the loss contingency if a material loss is reasonably possible, and (2.) record an accrual for the loss contingency if a material loss is probable and reasonably estimable," according the complaint.

The SEC said RPM faced the possibility of a material loss related to the investigation, but failed to disclose the loss contingency or record an accrual on its books when it was required to do so.

The SEC said Moore, who oversaw RPM's response to the DOJ investigation, knew but did not disclose to RPM's CEO, chief financial officer, audit committee and outside auditors "material facts about the investigation."

"As a result of Moore's misstatements and his failure to disclose key facts regarding the DOJ investigation," RPM submitted several "false and misleading filings" to the SEC from October 2012 to December 2013. "These filings also did not disclose any material weakness in RPM's internal controls over financial reporting or its disclosure controls when in fact such weakness existed," according to the complaint.

Consequently, according the SEC, investors were not informed in a timely manner that material loss related to the DOJ investigation was "reasonably possible or probable."

"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," the SEC said, including its "best estimates of probable losses related to the investigation."

The SEC says "RPM violated antifraud, reporting, books and records, and internal controls provisions of the securities laws" and that "Moore violated antifraud, books and records, and misleading accountant or auditor provisions of the securities laws."

RPM Chairman and Chief Executive Frank C. Sullivan said in a written statement that the restatements had no impact on the audited results for the fiscal year and that the company's audit committee concluded that there was no intentional misconduct on the part of any of its officers.

"We intend to vigorously defend ourselves and expect our position to be vindicated in court," he said.

All the games Tremco and Garland play are coming back to haunt them.  Like I said, I don't make this stuff up, and only share public record.  You are the Judge.

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. "Ron" Solomon
Public Procurement Analyst
Licensed Roofing Consultant
Certified State Contractor 
CCC 1325620  Florida 

Another School Roof Complaint from Pennsylvanuia

Friends: 

Another victim  of the school roofing scam.  They are all the same, and always have a Purchasing Cooperative, Tremco, and Garland.  Without each other rigging the bid, would never get work due to their average material, and exorbitant cost.

I do not want Tremco, or Garland to be removed from any bid list.  They have a right to "compete" with the rest of us, but they must "compete".  Unlike  Tremco, and Garland who are "shoe in's", with the outcome predetermined through Purchasing Cooperatives offer only ONE roofing manufacturer to choose from.

The numbers Mr. Bossert discusses,  are real, and consistent with my findings.


Link to article:

http://www.dailyitem.com/opinion/letter-to-the-editor-we-have-a-right-to-know/article_8d9719e3-2981-551b-bb8f-1967b27be08b.html

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

LETTER TO THE EDITOR: We have a right to know

By Max Bossert | Letter to the Editor

For the last few months we have read in the newspaper about the costs for Kelly Elementary, costs to provide safety for the students, added costs in the budget and the vote for a budget increase.

A year ago there was numerous discussions about the Linntown Elementary roofing project and how Tremco of Ohio through the CSIU was awarded the contract to install a corrugated steel roof over approximately 14,000 square feet of pitched roof for a cost of $745,000 at the Linntown Elementary that is currently covered by shingles.

This was all done without bids from any other bidders, no transparency from the school board, Superintendent Steve Skalka and John Fairchild, business manager.

At that time, I complained and urged the school board to rescind the contract of $745,000. Thankfully they did. Then last fall Tremco reduced its bid to $440,000 for the same project. A month later they increased their costs to $488,000 for the same contract. The roof is still scheduled to be done when school is out, but for what price?

These problems are caused when our school officials refuse to use the fair bidding practice in Pennsylvania which automatically control this type of situation. Fair bidding saves tax dollars and provides the best work. The Linntown School roof work can easily be done for $160,000, saving the taxpayers and the school district half a million dollars.

The school board is an elected body. The school board has the power. They have chosen not to use local contractors or businesses, architects or attorneys. They hired Tremco of Ohio to be the architect then subbed out the work to an out of area contractor. This takes the opportunity away from local laborers who could keep the $66.37 an hour in Pennsylvania Prevailing Wage for this project in the district instead of sending it out of the area.

I urge the Lewisburg Area School Board not to vote for a tax increase because it would not have been needed if they would be responsible and save the half million dollars that the school board has misappropriated this far.

I have been in the roofing business for 44 years and a taxpayer in the Lewisburg Area School District for longer than that. I cannot believe that the taxpayers in the district approve of this tremendous waste. Contact your school board, tell them to stop mishandling your money.

Max Bossert,

West Milton

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

Respect to Mr. Bossert.

I am confident that if I show enough of these complaints, against the same people, you will catch on.  Here, we expose the scam, and offer copious data to support claims.  When you see government waste, CALL or WRITE your School Superintendent, School Board Members, etc., and let them know.  Feel free to use anything on this site with a simple credit.  I write it to help you.

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. Solomon

Public Procurement Analyst

Licensed Roofing Consultant

Florida Certified Roofing Contractor License

CCC 1325620

Tampa, Florida

RobertRSolomon@aol.com

Buying a roof from a Purchasing Cooperative? The cost of "ease".

Friends:

This is for Architects, Roofing Contractors, and Consultants.

Thank you to Interface Magazine, and my friend Mr. Brian Gardiner.

Full article:   

http://rci-online.org/publicly-funded-construction-procurement/

Cooperative Purchasing

Figure 6 – Unit price book is often used as a bid.

• Cooperative purchasing of construction is most often bid on a unit-price basis statewide or nationwide, well in advance of a construction project. Vendors are not aware of what, where, or when projects will be awarded; therefore, unit prices must be priced accordingly.
• No bidding documents are available for review in local construction plan rooms by local contractors, subcontractors, and suppliers.
• Usually there is no public notice posted in local news media. Cooperative vendors may or may not seek pricing from local subcontractors or suppliers on a private basis.
• Audits indicate there is a lack of an objective, independent third party on most cooperative construction projects to evaluate applicable unit prices, quantities, and various price modifications that may or may not apply to one project (Figure 6).
• A cooperative may have only one vendor listed for a work item, such as roofing. If more than one vendor is listed nationwide, there may be some listed that have a limited market area.
• The cooperative often charges a fee based on the total cost of the project to the vendor, usually between 1 to 4 percent.
• Audits have consistently discovered a significantly higher cost to procure construction projects through a cooperative.

Purchasing Cooperatives offer zero value to those in the roofing discipline.   Roofing is the costliest item of any school maintenance budget.  You can thank Purchasing Cooperatives, Tremco, and Garland for that.  You will spend an average of 40% more, and I've proven that many times here.

School Board Members rarely think of value, and instead seek "ease".  The cost of that "ease" is staggering.  If you are remotely confused, please contact Roof Consultant's Institute, and they will guide you accordingly.  Feel free to mention my name.

School Board Members:  Wake Up!

RCI (Roof Consultant's Institute) is the most respected roof consulting organization in the world, and its members well certified.  

If you want the truth, instead of a salesman's bullet points, please contact them:

RCI, Inc.
1500 Sunday Drive, Suite 204
Raleigh, NC 27607-515
800-828-1902 | http://www.rci-online.org/

Contact them before you do something very stupid.  

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

Thank you for spending valuable time with me here, and I will help anyone who asks for help.

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

Respect.

Robert R. Solomon

Public Procurement Analyst

Licensed Roofing Consultant

State Certification Roofing

CCC 1325620

Write:  RobertRSolomon@aol.com

Pennsylvania School Roofing SCAM .

Friends:  

for the next few weeks, I will furnish published reports on school districts that have rejected Tremco, Garland, and the Purchasing Cooperative Roofing SCAM.  

The story is always the same:  "Exclusion" vs. "Fair Competition".

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

We'll start off with this one, and continue as a "Series'.  It happens in all 50 states, and hopefully will include a district near you.

I'll try not to ramble on, and just provide the reports without much commentary.

You will find the link before each report so you can verify, and read in it's entirety.  I've only furnished a portion of the report, but provided direct links to the publisher.

Respect to Ms. Diane Petryk of The Daily Item.

Here we go:

http://www.dailyitem.com/news/state-could-punish-district/article_bcbb1c19-a4e5-5707-8ab8-97d647a0e690.html

State could punish district

·         By Diane Petryk
The Daily Item

·         May 7, 2010

     

MIFFLINBURG — A state Department of Education spokeswoman said there could be consequences if the Mifflinburg School District employs a roofer without an open bidding process first.

"Open," Leah Harris added, "at the time of the project."

In February, the Mifflinburg school board went along with a CSIU-picked roofer that had bid for unspecified projects — back in 2008.

Consequences for improper bidding, said Harris, in the DOE's Harrisburg office, include fines or disciplinary actions against reimbursed projects — whether the project involved is reimbursable or not.

The chosen roofer, Tremco subsidiary Weatherproofing Technologies Inc., of Cleveland, passed a generic bidding-to-qualify process conducted by the Association of Education Purchasing Agencies, a multi-state bidding program. The Central Susquehanna Intermediate Unit, based in Montandon, participates in the program.

The Mifflinburg board decided on the one-stop shopping for 30,000 square feet of new roofing on its elementary school and roughly 7,000 square feet of repairs on two other school roof sections "because of the size of the job," school board President Jill Shambach said in a phone call in April. Shambach did not return phone calls Thursday.

Charles Peterson Jr., CSIU's cooperative business services director, told the Mifflinburg board that Weatherproofing Technologies was picked from a pool of one.

Valley roofer Max Bossert said that form of pre-job bidding for future work, especially with only one firm likely to be able to meet the specifications, circumvents the state's legally established fair-bidding practices.

Cost double what's needed

The process also results in a roof twice as expensive as need be, Bossert, a former Union County commissioner, asserts.

Based on discussions at school board meetings, the work is expected to cost roughly $600,000, he said. That's about $16 a square foot, when the average price is about $8 a square foot. Bossert's company, Boss Insulation & Roofing Inc., in West Milton, completed the high school roof for slightly less than $8 a square foot last year, he said.

Engineer Jim Hague, a roofing specialist with Foreman Architects Engineers of University Park, said that without the involvement of an independent architect or engineer, it is difficult to assess what roofing needs really are.

The bidding specifications, bid responses and contract for the Mifflinburg roofing work have not been made public, despite The Daily Item's requests for them, initiated April 21, under the Freedom of Information Act. The CSIU has requested 30 days to respond.

Bossert said he requested the specifications for bidding from the school district and was told there were none.

Ads in big-city papers only

The CSIU figured the price by square foot and previous Tremco information. The 2008 call for bids was advertised only in large-city newspapers outside the local area, Peterson said.

Mifflinburg school board members Tom Hosterman and John Bohn voted in March to rescind the contract decision and open the job up to fair bidding practices, but they were defeated, 7-2.

Hosterman said in an April interview that information presented was confusing and there were questions unanswered.

Prices bid years ago can't be reflecting the current market, Bohn said.

"I'm not sure this is the best we could do," Bohn said.

Shambach, the school board president, said CSIU's brokering the deal was attractive "because they provide service from start to finish."

CSIU also gets a 1.5 percent fee for their assistance.

The turn-key service Shambach likes means Tremco will arrange its own architectural service and inspections, but that's problematical, too.

The state Department of Education rejected a Tremco contract at Riverside High School in Beaver County in 2008, stating that architectural services for a project must be obtained by the district, not through Tremco or a purchasing agency like the CSIU.

CSIU's attorney confirmed that five years ago.

Law: Districts must comply

In a 2005 letter to then-CSIU purchasing services manager Jeffrey Kimball, CSIU's attorney, Ellen Enters, of Fox & Rothschild, in Lansdale, said: "Pennsylvania public school districts must continue to independently comply with section 751.1 of the Public School Code … regarding engagement of an architect. ... (They) should not utilize the services of the successful vendors architect or engineer ... (but rather) engage its own independent architect or engineer."

Hague, the University Park roofing specialist, said his firm's experience is that school districts are paying a premium to employ that purchasing agent service, even as it violates bidding ethics and education department requirements.

It's practicing engineering and architecture without a license, he said,...................

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

I will thank Mr. Michael Ducharme of Carlisle Syntec for his tireless effort on behalf of taxpayers.  An honorable man, and an honorable company.  Steadfast is GAF's Ms. Helene Pierce protecting contractors, and taxpayers nationwide.  Both do great work, and believe me, it  is very difficult and time consuming.  The roofing world should salute them.

Again, please click the link below for the entire story.  

As a courtesy:

http://www.dailyitem.com/news/state-could-punish-district/article_bcbb1c19-a4e5-5707-8ab8-97d647a0e690.html

My best advice:  NEVER buy a taxpayer funded roof through a Purchasing Cooperative.  It is a SCAM, and you will pay approximately 40% MORE for an average roof, and worthless warranty.

Choose competition between multiple roofing material manufacturers like: GAF, Carlisle, Firestone, Johns Manville, Barrett, etc.   They are honorable, and do not scam our schools.  NOBODY in the private sector uses Tremco, or Garland.  What does that tell you?

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

Licensed Roofing Consultant

Florida State Certified

CCC 1325620

RobertRSolomon@aol.com

"Shut Out" by the "Purchasing Cooperative Scam"?

Friends:

I know many of you are trying to make a living, and are honorable people.  We must however shun the black sheep among us.

The scourge of our discipline is "Purchasing Cooperatives" that scheme, and scam the public away from "Fair Competition".  I've written many articles on the topic, using public record as backup to every word I say.  Links to statements of fact are always provided.

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

Why I do this?  Many reasons, but primarily because I can, and know you don't have the time, or data.  I am a friend to Roof Consultants Institute, NRCA, major manufacturers, distributors, and contractors, across all of North America.

I have no interest in private owners, and concerned with  taxpayer funded projects ONLY.  A private owner can roof their building in seal fur for all I care.  It's THEIR MONEY, and none of my business.

Schools are paying around 40% MORE through Purchasing Cooperatives (rotten to the core) using ONLY Garland, or Tremco, as they isolate, and exclude everyone else.  We are talking about competing for your own tax dollars, and livelihood.  

A magnificent effort by the Ducker Carlisle report, and you can see it here:

http://procurement-reform.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/Ducker-Carlisle-Reports-PA-vs-AEPA-Tremco-costs.pdf

How'd that taste?

:


I DARE any Purchasing Cooperative, Tremco, or Garland to PROVE they are competitive.  It will be pretty difficult since they say they aren't competitive on their own websites.  Tremco has been fined $61,000,000.00 by the DOJ for abusing GSA contracts, and currently being sued by the SEC for lying.  SEC is insisting on a jury trial.  Neither Garland, or Tremco make half the products they sell.  Insanely expensive warranties that are actually "Service Agreements", and you will pay dearly for nothing.

Many of you feel the pressure of "Exclusion" if you speak up.  I am not restrained by such measures, and may speak freely without fear of reprisal.  It is my "Duty" to protect you, and I take it personally.

Roofing is the costliest item of any school maintenance budget, and being decimated by organized scams.  In the search box (upper left corner), type keywords like Fair Competition, Purchasing Cooperatives, Tremco, or Garland.  That will get you started, but I am always here to help you.

My central address:

RobertRSolomon@aol.com

I answer all mail, and never turn down a request for help.  Failure is possible, but certain if we don't try.   The discipline deserves better than me, but I'm what you have until someone else comes along.  The reading is tortuous, and the confrontations ugly.

No need to take my word for it, and you can type "School Roofing Scam" into your browser, and do the same on YouTube.  Only Garland, and Tremco are mentioned in the investigative reports, and there are many.  Rotten to the core, and everyone knows it.

By helping you, I am helping schools, and taxpayers at the same time.  The next time your children are asked to purchase basic school supplies, think of me.  The money just doesn't reach it's intended purpose because the heinous "middle man" steals it.

Breakdown:

Purchasing Cooperative gets 2%.
Tremco, or Garland Sales Representative gets 25%.

Your tax dollar just became 73 cents, with  nothing to show for it.  

I have these commissions posted, and you may want to check our Garland Sales Commissions in the search box.

I support honorable mainstream manufacturers like:  GAF, Johns Manville, Firestone, Carlisle, Barrett, and others who do not participate in such thievery. If you want to help iout, you can start by writing PO's to them.   

Thank you for spending time with me here, and know my words are sincere.  I've lived your life, and know the daily grind, and obstacles.  It's funny because I describe roofing as the "Glamour Profession".  It is summer, and nothing between us, and the sun.  If anything can go wrong, it will.

Please make sure your workmen are well hydrated, have salt tablets available, and watch out for each other. Especially for workmen using open flame, or hot asphalt.  A roll of modified bitumen weighs approximately 100 lbs., and you can imagine throwing  those around all day.

Please forgive my rambling, and use any information I've provided.  I write it for YOU.

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

Respect.

Robert R. Solomon
Public Procurement Analyst
Licensed Consultant
Licensed Contractor
Florida State Certified
CCC 1325620

Mr. Brian Gardiner on Publicly Funded Construction Projects, a must read.

Friends:

It seems like I'm always writing about the "Bad Guys" who bring shame to our discipline,and harm taxpayers;  but today will be quite the opposite, and far more rewarding.  Certainly for me, and hopefully, for you too.

I'd like to share an exceptional article written by my friend, Mr. Brian Gardiner.  Brian is well known to members of RCI, He's worked tirelessly on their behalf, and fair minded people everywhere.  

Brian's article is accurate, reasonable, and fair  (typical of Brian).  My fondness for him is genuine, and well earned.  Brian stood by me, when I had no one.  Another admission is that we are a bit different in temperament.  Brian being the more educated, accredited, and experienced, while I struggle with aggressiveness, and a somewhat mercurial temper.  A character flaw I'm working on.

Please read "Interface'" RCI's publication.  It is imperative for anyone who considers themselves a "Professional".

Every school board in this country should read it, print it, and tape it to the wall.

The full article may be found here.  

http://rci-online.org/publicly-funded-construction-procurement/

I'll share a little of it below, but to get the full effect, PLEASE read the article in full. 

Editor’s note: This white paper was prepared for RCI and will be disseminated to news media throughout North America in support of RCI’s stance on publicly funded construction procurement.

EVALUATING TWO METHODS OF CONSTRUCTION PROCUREMENT

Public procurement of construction projects has evolved into various methods. Not all methods are allowed in all states. This article will examine two options: design-bid-build (open bid) and cooperative (interlocal) purchasing.

Design-Bid-Build

The design-bid-build project delivery method is available in all states (Figure 1).

• The owner contracts directly with a designer of record—typically an architect, engineer, or consultant (AEC)—to provide project-specific sealed documents that are advertised and bid by general contractors, subcontractors, and suppliers.
• The AEC has no financial interest in the products specified.
• There is usually a public bid opening by the owner, where bids are read aloud and recorded.
• The AEC typically participates in helping the owner determine bid awards and provides construction administration services.

Cooperative Purchasing

Cooperative purchasing of publicly funded construction is not allowed in all states. Additionally, some states previously allowed cooperative purchasing for construction, but now prohibit its use. Cooperative purchasing bidding and other practices can vary significantly from one cooperative to another.

• The cooperative, using its own criteria, determines who is the lowest responsible bidder and awards a multi-year contract, with possible one-year renewals.
• The primary entity providing construction services, or vendor, may be a contractor, manufacturer, or another type of business. These entities have an inherent financial conflict of interest when performing as the designer of record.
• There might not be a formal written construction agreement between the owner and the vendor. The owner may only issue a purchase order based on the unit price book created by the cooperative and priced out by the vendor (Figure 2).
• Bidders in cooperatives are often evaluated for items not included in a design-bid-build project, such as level of financial and sales force commitment to market the cooperative to prospective owners.

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

Brian Gardiner has practiced consulting for over 30 years. He is a past director of both RCI, Inc. Region IV (1995-1998) and the Building Envelope Institute, Inc. (2005-2006). Brian has been awarded the RCI, Inc. “Outstanding Educator Award” for presenting at numerous seminars. He is past chair of RCI’s Advocacy Committee and currently assists RCI with procurement issues affecting its Consultant members.

The article goes on to describe proper competitive bidding in all public projects.  If you don't like to read, he's got a number of graphs you can keep busy with.

If you are a public administrator, Brian's article just might spare you a world of hurt.  It can also make an administrator look like a "Super Hero" to the taxpayers in their district.

Staking my reputation, will tell you that if Brian Gardiner says it, it's true.  Truly, one of the most honorable, and capable men I know.  It is impossible for me to give higher praise.  The discipline needs him, and about 1,000 more like him.  If not 1,000, I'll settle for just one.


I wish I could list the names of everyone who's helped me, and the discipline, but I can't, lest they be ostracized.  We are free people, but cannot bid on projects using our own tax dollars.

If anyone wants to correct me, by all means, do.  Every word I say is backed by public record, so please make your comment fact based. as I cannot debate emotion.

Thank you kindly for spending valuable time with me here, and know how desperately I appreciate it.  

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".

Much Respect.

Robert R. Solomon
Public Procurement Anaslyst'
State Certified CCC 1325620
Licensed Consultant.

Note:  I do not contract, or work for anyone.  I maintain my credentials as reference only.

Roof Consultant Institute Honorable Position Statement AGAINST Purchasing Cooperatives.

Friends:

Roof Consultant's Institute (RCI) is the premier roof consulting organization on earth, with members in many countries.

Our mailing address is:

RCI, Inc.

1500 Sunday Drive

Suite 204

Raleigh, NC 27607

Add us to your address book

I had the distinct honor of working for, and being trained by, the first and only two time President of RCI, the late Mr. Bob Lyons.  His photo is on the right margin, and I display it with pride.


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

This brings me to today's topic:  RCI's Official Position Paper regarding Purchasing Cooperatives.

Reference:

http://rci-online.org/news-and-advocacy/policy-statements/

June 21, 2012 RCI’s Position Statement applies to all publicly bid work, including federal, state (provincial/ territorial), municipal, and local government projects or otherwise taxpayer-funded projects in which RCI, Inc. members may participate.

Projects not under the procurement requirements of government agencies or that do not utilize taxpayer funds should also employ similar fair and impartial procurement practices. It is the position of RCI, Inc. that all public work and taxpayer-funded projects clearly adhere to all applicable procurement regulations, maintain the highest levels of transparency and value, and comply with the following principles.

In addition to the owner, projects should involve three distinct entities: the design professional, the manufacturer (or supplier), and the qualified contractor (contractor).

1.) . The design professional should be selected by the owner based on qualifications, experience and past performance. The design professional should prepare contract documents to be in compliance with all applicable code requirements (including but not limited to fire, wind, drainage, thermal resistance or performance, warranty and environmental requirements).

Contract documents should not be proprietary or exclusive to a manufacturer, a supplier or a qualified contractor. A product or system that may be able to be produced, supplied or installed by other competitors but is not, is considered a proprietary product/system. Procurement regulations have specific procedures that are required if proprietary materials or systems are to be considered. Design professionals are discouraged from utilizing proprietary specifications.

All projects should utilize a minimum of three manufacturers or utilize materials commonly available from three manufacturers. Systems should be selected to meet specific performance criteria or standards. The design professional must adhere to all state (provincial/territorial) licensing requirements and carry the appropriate errors and omissions insurance.

2.)  The manufacturer and its suppliers should provide the materials and systems adhering to the contract documents. A manufacturer should not act as the design professional unless qualified to do so, and should state in writing and publicly its financial interest in the specifications/requirements provided. Contractual obligations or agreements should not exist between owners and manufacturers. Proprietary and/or exclusionary specifications intended to limit competition among manufacturers, suppliers and/or qualified contractors are strongly discouraged.

Manufacturers are encouraged to provide data, RCI, Inc. Position Statement on Procurement – Support Document information, or other assistance to qualified contractors to determine the best use and application of their materials and systems. Manufacturers should not control material specifications.

3.)  The contractor should be contracted directly to the owner. At no time should any contractual or financial obligation or agreement exist between the design professional and manufacturer, or the design professional and the qualified contractor, or the manufacturer and the qualified contractor. At no time should the manufacturer act as either the design professional or qualified contractor. At no time should the design professional act as the manufacturer or contractor.

4.)  Design-build delivery methods are acceptable under the following conditions: (a) The principles noted above, are met. (b) Design build delivery maintains a competitive bidding/tender environment among all parties: designer, contractor, and manufacturer. (c) A design-build contract is used to ensure that a clear line of responsibility for the design and compliance with code is established. It is the position of RCI, Inc. that the use of "buy boards,” group-purchasing agencies, and all similar purchasing models in any type of building construction, remediation, or rehabilitation are not transparent, do not ensure compliance with the minimum requirements of the codes, do not provide a competitive bid situation, and should not be utilized.



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

Got That?

ROOFING is NOT a specialty item, and major manufacturers are stocked at local supply houses.  Purchasing Cooperative materials (Tremco, and Garland) are NOT. 





At any rate, I thank RCI for their fair, and common sense approach.  NO MANUFACTURER  may act as the specifier.   NO MANUFACTURER  may act as the consultant.  

FACT: 

NO Purchasing Cooperative can PROVE that competition ever existed.  Purchasing Cooperatives are essentially commissioned salesmen, with the Purchasing Cooperative getting 2%-4% for handling paperwork.  The "Salesman" gets a 25% commission.


The MORE the roof costs, the MORE commission they make.

I have a 15 year history of interaction with them, and have never seen such "Organized Corruption".   They will not defend their position, because it is indefensible.  COWARDS, and rotten to the core.  A strong statement, but one I can prove in a public debate.

You can buy Ticonderoga No. 2 pencils through a Purchasing Cooperative if you like, but Roofing is out of the question.  It's all a SCAM, and everyone knows it.  The excess spending on "Proprietary Specifications" is in the billions of dollars, and NOTHING to show for it.



Schools don't have money because too many people are stealing it before reaching it's intended purpose.   

RESPECT  to RCI on their honorable position.

SHAME on Purchasing Cooperatives who steal from our schools.

For the moment, I'll leave it there.

As always, I am humbled that anyone cares one bit about what I have to say, and I am very thankful for spending time with me here.

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
Licensed Roofing Consultant
Licensed Roofing Contractor  CCC 1325620

Note:  I am retired, and keep my credentials as reference only.  I do not consult, contract, or work for anyone since 2003.  I do this because I can, and because I'm right.