Wednesday, September 19, 2018

Pennsylvania Schools pay $100,000,000.00 MORE on Sole Source" Roofs through Purchasing Cooperative.

Friends:

Today, I have something very special for you.

An "Honorable" Politician in Pennsylvania, and my "Honorable" friend, Ms. Janial Mack.

The "Coalition for Procurement Reform" (CPR), a group of good people, and companies doing the right thing for our industry, the taxpayers, our schools, and our children.

This shows just how much money School Boards are blowing on the deranged "Purchasing Cooperative Roofing "SCAM". Only ONE manufacturer is listed, and that manufacturer is Tremco/WTI. The same Tremco that was fined $61,000,000.00 by the DOJ for abusing GSA contracts.

Tremco, and their Attorney are currently being sued by the SEC for lying, and the SEC wants a jury trial. Does that sound like a firm you'd bet your reputation on? Regularly, I am contacted by Attorneys looking for School District "enablers" of the well known scam.

Let's look at this wonderful development:

https://www.delcotimes.com/news/state/lawmaker-state-overspent-for-school-construction-costs-in-excess-of/article_7bf6b39d-67d8-5eae-9e4b-da2450d88bea.html

I also appear in the "comments" section below the story. Much, much, appreciation to Mr. Dave Lemery/Watchdog.Org

Lawmaker: State 'overspent for school construction costs in excess of $100 million'

By Dave Lemery | Watchdog.org

One of the facets of school costs that can drive up property tax bills is large-scale infrastructure projects. Many school buildings across Pennsylvania are many decades old and require costly maintenance or replacement.

The traditional way that such a project gets completed is by putting out a notice to builders that they can bid on the contract, and then the lowest bid that meets the contract’s stipulations wins the job. But another method that has seen some popularity in Pennsylvania and across the country largely circumvents the public bid process, drawing accusations that it has left taxpayers on the hook for inappropriately inflated expenses.

The Pennsylvania House State Government Committee held an informational hearing Thursday to look at the topic in relation to legislation proposed by Rep. Jesse Topper, R-Bedford. His bill would end the practice of using cooperative purchasing agreements to arrange for school infrastructure projects.

“We certainly live and operate in a time when school districts are looking for any opportunity to save money,” Topper told committee members. “We also know that a huge cost to school districts is any kind of a construction project, whether it be a roofing project, an expansion, renovation.

“And so we're just looking to make sure that this system that we have currently in place that offers not only competitive bidding but also this cooperative purchasing for construction is actually working,” he continued. “I think there have been cases across the state where it has not been working.”

Cooperative purchasing is a practice used in both the public and private sector whereby different entities – businesses, school districts, etc. – combine forces to overcome their relatively small stature and negotiate for better terms in the purchase of supplies or equipment.

“Cooperative purchasing is useful,” said Janiel Mack, who was testifying on behalf of the Coalition for Procurement Reform, an industry advocacy group. “It's a useful tool if used for the intended purpose of commodities, such as papers and pencils and chairs. This practice however, has morphed into non-commodity construction items, costing the taxpayers and state of Pennsylvania millions of dollars unnecessarily.”

According to Mack, the co-op process has made it easy for school administrators to more or less outsource the competitive bid process and not have to wrangle with all the arcane details. The downside, she said, is that the school district doesn’t get the best possible price.

“Through independent studies and FOIA requests, it's estimated that the state of Pennsylvania has overspent for school construction costs in excess of $100 million over a five-year period,” she said.

Mack provided a number of specific examples where districts had established pricing through the co-op process but then turned to the traditional open bid process because of taxpayer pressure.

“Big Spring School District [had a] 180,000 square foot roof,” she said in one example. “Through the co-op, the price was $2.4 million. The competitively bid price was $1.4 million for the same roof. That's a million dollar savings on one roof.”

Rep. Pam DeLissio, D-Philadelphia, seemed to suggest that if school districts were failing to get the best possible deal with taxpayer funds, it would be up to voters to replace the school board members rather than state government getting involved.

“School boards are elected bodies,” she said. “They’re elected by their communities. School boards are held accountable when they run for office every four years. So what this sounds like we're saying is that school boards are not acting in an accountable manner, nor those personnel who are running the school districts.”

But to Mark Sobeck, president of Mark J. Sobeck Roof Consulting, individual citizens have had limited success fighting the practice on a district-by-district basis.

“People go to the school board meetings and throw fits about it, and they write letters to the editor and they're in the papers,” he said. “We see them all the time. We get copies of them all the time. But it doesn't faze the school board. When their mind is made up, they are getting this system, and we don't know why. We'll call them, we’ll contact them, we’ll explain that they're paying two to three times as much. And it falls on deaf ears.”

John Brenchley, Chief Innovation Officer with Central Susquehanna Intermediate Unit, an association of school districts that oversees one of the most-used co-op programs in the state, argued that school districts that rely on standard public bidding for infrastructure projects are left in the lurch if the work is not up to snuff. He told the committee that in a past job as a business manager for a school district, he’d had bad experiences with public bid contracts leading to leaking roofs that had to be re-bid for repairs, but with cooperative purchasing, the vendor has to provide fixes at no extra cost.

“Individually, when we have the schools work with contractors, we really have no power, because once the job's done, it's done,” he said. “The comment [from the contractor] is, ‘well, go and sue me.’ When you go through cooperative purchasing, you have the power of the cooperative purchasing behind you.”

Upon questioning by Rep. Matthew Bradford, D-Norristown, Brenchley revealed that Central Susquehanna Intermediate Unit makes about $2 million annually by administering cooperative purchasing agreements. Since CSIU established the co-op program for school infrastructure 17 years ago, the only company to have won that contract is Weatherproofing Technologies Inc., which in turn hires local contractors to do the actual work – vendors that could be hired directly by the district through traditional open bidding.

Rep. Frank Ryan, R-Palmyra, a frequent voice on the committee on accounting best practices and fraud prevention due to his career as a CPA, seemed to have a problem not so much with the co-op program itself, but with the fact that in many cases it entirely supplants the open bid process.

“I'm reluctant to constrain the school district, but at the same time I'm reluctant to have the taxpayer foot a bill that something that's unnecessary,” he said.

Dave Lemery is a regional news editor at Watchdog.org. He welcomes your comments. Contact Dave at dlemery@watchdog.org.

This article originally ran on watchdog.org.

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

Rep. Topper, and Ms. Mack are nicer, far more civilized, and professional than I will ever be. I'm not allowed in courtrooms because I carry a WWII flamethrower, and the scanner machine will 'beep" every time.

If you care to see my comments regarding the above, you may find them here:

https://www.delcotimes.com/news/state/lawmaker-state-overspent-for-school-construction-costs-in-excess-of/article_7bf6b39d-67d8-5eae-9e4b-da2450d88bea.html

We do not want qualified manufacturers excluded from a bid list, and that includes Tremco. They are welcome to compete with the rest of us.

All we're asking is the opportunity to compete for our own tax dollars.

Does that sound fair?

Does that sound reasonable?

Of course it does.

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

Respect.

Robert R. "Ron" Solomon
Public Procurement Analyst
State Certification CCC 1325620
Licensed Consultant
Tampa, Florida
RobertRSolomon@aol.com

Wednesday, September 12, 2018

Search "Public Roofing Oversight" (Revised)

Friends:

The purpose of this site is to increase public awareness of "Predatory Sales Models" and "Exclusion" of fair competition in public works.

Everything I say here is backed by public record, and subsequent documentation. If I say something that is factually incorrect, I will retract it. Constructive criticism is encouraged, and welcomed.

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

*Revised 01,21,2019

Architects, Public Administrators, Contractors, Consultants, Manufacturers, and Distributors, are all affected by "Proprietary Specifications". A sales trick to eliminate all competition for taxpayer money.

In the upper left search box, please type keywords: School Roofing Scam, Purchasing Cooperative, Taxpayer abuse, Tremco, Garland, sole source, RCI, NRCA, Honor, Fairness, Competition, Public Procurement,etc.

Approximately 162 posts all told.

Highly recommended is Roof Consultant's Institute who provide necessary data, and support.

"Self Advocacy Tools"

http://rci-online.org/news-and-advocacy/self-advocacy-tools/

FACT: Garland, and Tremco do not make half the products they sell, and are not found in any local roofing supply house. It must be trucked in from Ohio. You are essentially exporting 70% of your local tax dollar to other economies.

FACT: Garland, nor Tremco will "Compete" for anything. Don't believe me? Tell your Garland, or Tremco Representative that you want to include other manufacturers to the bid list . Watch their faces, and I GUARANTEE they will run away.

But Ron, the purchasing cooperative says they won by "competitive" means. This an outright lie. The Cooperative lies to increase their commissions. U.S. Communities listed 55 pages of BLANK line items from Garland.

YOU, and all taxpayers should be concerned that we are paying upwards of 50% MORE for roofing and duped into thinking you've received a value. The opposite is true.

If you are working with a Purchasing Cooperative, your district is taking a beating that is 100% avoidable. Certainly, I've illustrated the scam that is undeniable.

I know all the manufacturers, and have installed millions of sq. ft. of any subset of roofing. Steep slope, single ply (EPDM, TPO, PVC), built up, modified, etc. I've successfully completed over 100 public schools, and know what I'm talking about.

If I don't know the answer, Roof Consultant's Institute (RCI) will. RCI is the standard for roofing excellence, and an honorable organization with top level consultants.

Many are Architects, Consultants, Engineers, Contractors, Manufacturers, etc. ,ALL are credentialed, and will have someone near you.

I do not belong to any organization. A lot of my work is very sensitive, and may cause discomfort through association. They are not allowed to speak freely, while I can tell the truth without fear of reprisal.

Please understand that I have no beef with individuals trying to make an honest living. It's the "Predatory Sales Model" I despise. I do not want to "Exclude" those mentioned, and welcome them to any public bid list. Repeat, I do not want Tremco or Garland "Excluded" from anything. They should get the same opportunity like everyone else.

IF YOU ARE NOT COMPETITIVE IN THE PRIVATE MARKET, YOU ARE NOT COMPETITIVE IN THE PUBLIC MARKET.

Doesn't that make sense?

Instead of "Favoritism", we seek fair competition for our own tax dollars.

Roofers will decide all things roofing, and not elite sectors who are without credential, experience, or the exhaustive safety training it takes.

"My name is Ron, and I'm a roofer.........For some reason, feel like I should be at an AA meeting."

Just so I don't come off like a 'Lone Wolf", will share what the National Roofing Contractors Association (NRCA), and Roof Consultant's Institute (RCI) have to say:

Reference:

From Roof Consultant's Institute:

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.

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

This is what the NRCA has to say: Click to enlarge.

There you have it. The largest roofing organization (NRCA), and the premier Consultant's organization: RCI (Roof Consultant's Institute) have spoken, and any reasonable person will agree.

Please help stop this assault on taxpayers, and school maintenance budgets across all of North America. The "Scam" is impossible for them to argue, so they take the position of subterranean termites, and hide.

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".

It is humbling that anyone cares one bit about what I have to say, and please know I am thankful for your time.

Respect.

Robert R. "Ron" Solomon
Public Procurement Analyst
State Certification CCC 1325620
Licensed Consultant
Tampa, Florida

RobertRSolomon@aol.com

Monday, August 27, 2018

RCI leadership team leveling the playing field for ALL roofing professionals.

Friends:

I am proud of what RCI's leadership team has accomplished on behalf of taxpayers, and all roofing professionals. Hoping this will be applied to the VA, and save millions of dollars that can be used to help our veterans.

I'd like those in the article to know how thankful I am. Three of these gentlemen are personally known to me, and I'd like to dish out some well deserved gratitude. They've EARNED it.

All have been wonderful, but owe my sanity to Mr. Tom Gernetzke, Mr. Brian Gardiner, and Mr. Scott Hinesley. I'm here to tell you this is the most important development of our discipline in many years.

You've seen me write articles on Mr. Gernetzke, and Mr. Gardiner in the past, and these guys have broken their backs to help us. This is not a casual statement, but one developed over a decade. They have suffered so you didn't have to.

I've been on this for approximately ten years, and have been stretched to the outer limits of my mental and physical ability. On August 19, celebrated my fifteenth year of surviving a hemorrhagic stroke, and don't think I could have made it without an "Ideal", a "Mission" , or these honorable men. All of them stood by me when hope was forlorn, and I am eternally grateful.

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

Their position is reasonable, rational, and fair. Especially to school districts in the U.S., Canada, and United Kingdom who have been "soft targets" for predatory sales models. Many times I've said that "If you aren't competitive in the private market, you are not competitive in the public market".

NOBODY in the private market (Wal Mart, Target, BJ's, huge malls and so many other retailers) use purchasing cooperatives. You may want to read "Are you smarter than Wal Mart"? on this site.

Today is about RCI, and "Honor". Their responsibility to taxpayers, and reversing the decimation of school maintenance budgets through "Exclusion of competition". We've NEVER asked for preferential treatment, but rather the opportunity to compete for our own tax dollars. It's what we do in the private market, and what we want to do for the public market, and always have.

Roofing is a noble discipline, and these men can hold their heads high.

http://rci-online.org/rci-works-towards-responsible-purchasing/

If you are remotely involved in the roofing discipline, you will want to read this, join them, and may, through the link provided above.

Here's their story:

RCI, Inc. Works With U.S. Congress to Pass Responsible Construction Procurement Language

August 1, 2018 By RCI Publications

Congratulates U.S. Rep. David Price for supporting best practices in the procurement of publicly funded construction renovation projects.

Michael Williams, Lionel van der Walt, and Brian Gardiner in front of the General Services Administration Building in Washington, D.C.

As our members are likely aware, RCI, Inc. has been working to improve the current laws regarding cooperative purchasing in construction, especially as they pertain to large government entities. RCI’s Director of Industry Affairs Brian Gardiner, Chair of the Advocacy Committee Tom Gernetzke, Second Vice President Scott Hinesley, CEO Lionel van der Walt, and Past President Mike Williams have made trips to Washington DC to meet with legislators to that end. And now it is paying off. RCI, Inc., today announced that the U.S. House of Representatives has passed legislative language that addresses the ill-advised proliferation of cooperative purchasing and the misuse of multiple award schedules for procuring construction renovation projects that involve Federal funds.

The language is within the report that accompanies the U.S. House Appropriations Financial Services and General Government bill. (Page 51: https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CRPT-115hrpt792/pdf/CRPT-115hrpt792.pdf

“Cooperative Purchasing and Multiple Award Schedule (MAS) Agreements. —The Committee is aware that federal agencies and state and local governments are increasingly utilizing cooperative purchasing and MAS agreements to procure goods and services, including services rendered for construction and renovation projects that involve federal funds. The Committee supports efforts to ensure proper transparency and oversight of such construction projects, which are often complex and site-specific. The Committee directs GSA to enforce any existing federal regulations that require independent design professionals be consulted on new construction and renovation projects. The Committee encourages GSA to work with state and local governments so that cooperative purchasing and MAS agreements that involve federal funding is [sic] in the best interest of the government.“

“Cooperative procurement often results in local companies and small businesses not being given the opportunity to bid on publicly funded construction renovation projects. Cooperative vendors frequently control the entire construction process, including design. This practice commonly excludes local suppliers, manufacturers and independent design professionals that would normally be given an opportunity to provide materials and services. The lack of an independent design professional can result in a questionable quality of work. Furthermore, cooperative purchasing of construction often results in abuse of taxpayer dollars, as reported by numerous government auditors across the United States,” remarked RCI, Inc. CEO Lionel van der Walt.

RCI, Inc. wants to especially thank U.S. Rep. David Price (D-NC), who serves on the U.S. House Committee on Appropriations, for taking the lead on passing this critical language through Congress.

RCI on Capitol Hill from L to R: Past President Michael Williams, CEO Lionel van der Walt, Jeff Taylor of USGRI, and Director of Industry Affairs Brian Gardiner.

“RCI, Inc. met with Congressman Price’s office early in 2018 to discuss the increasing drawbacks of using cooperatives in publicly funded construction renovation projects. His staff was highly professional, asked the key questions to get a full understanding of the problem, and created report language that brings increased scrutiny to the problem. Using his leadership, Congressman Price worked with the House Appropriations Committee to move forward effective language. The congressman and his staff performed at the high level we expect and appreciate of all elected officials,” remarked van der Walt.

“RCI has fought against unfair and costly cooperative purchasing arrangements for years,” said RCI Director of Industry Affairs Brian Gardiner. “This is an exciting victory for fair bidding practices for building envelope consultants.”

Sunday, August 5, 2018

Search "Public Roofing Oversight".

Friends:

The purpose of this site is to increase public awareness of "Predatory Sales Models" and "Exclusion" of fair competition in public works.

Everything I say here is backed by public record, and subsequent documentation. If I say something that is factually incorrect, I will retract it. Constructive criticism is encouraged, and welcomed.

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

Architects, Public Administrators, Contractors, Consultants, Manufacturers, and Distributors, are all affected by "Proprietary Specifications". A sales trick to eliminate all competition for taxpayer money.

In the upper left search box, please type keywords: School Roofing Scam, Purchasing Cooperative, Taxpayer abuse, Tremco, Garland, sole source, etc.

Approximately 165 posts all told.

Highly recommended is Roof Consultant's Institute who provide necessary data, and support.

"Self Advocacy Tools"

http://rci-online.org/news-and-advocacy/self-advocacy-tools/

FACT: Garland, and Tremco do not make half the products they sell, and are not found in any local roofing supply house. It must be trucked in from Ohio. You are essentially exporting 70% of your local tax dollar to other economies.

FACT: Garland, nor Tremco will "Compete" for anything. Don't believe me? Tell your Garland, or Tremco Representative that you want to include other manufacturers to the bid list . Watch their faces, and I GUARANTEE they will run away.

But Ron, the purchasing cooperative says they won by "competitive" means. This an outright lie. The Cooperative lies to increase their commissions. U.S. Communities listed 55 pages of BLANK line items from Garland.

YOU, and all taxpayers should be concerned that we are paying upwards of 50% MORE for roofing and duped into thinking you've received a value. The opposite is true.

If you are working with a Purchasing Cooperative, your district is taking a beating that is 100% avoidable. Certainly, I've illustrated the scam that is undeniable.

I know all the manufacturers, and have installed millions of sq. ft. of any subset of roofing. Steep slope, single ply (EPDM, TPO, PVC), built up, modified, etc. I've successfully completed over 100 public schools, and know what I'm talking about.

If I don't know the answer, Roof Consultant's Institute (RCI) will. RCI is the standard for roofing excellence, and an honorable organization with top level consultants.

Many are Architects, Consultants, Engineers, Contractors, Manufacturers, etc. ,ALL are credentialed, and will have someone near you.

I do not belong to any organization. A lot of my work is very sensitive, and may cause discomfort through association. They are not allowed to speak freely, while I can tell the truth without fear of reprisal.

Please understand that I have no beef with individuals trying to make an honest living. It's the "Predatory Sales Model" I despise. I do not want to "Exclude" those mentioned, and welcome them to any public bid list. Repeat, I do not want Tremco or Garland "Excluded" from anything. They should get the same opportunity like everyone else.

IF YOU ARE NOT COMPETITIVE IN THE PRIVATE MARKET, YOU ARE NOT COMPETITIVE IN THE PUBLIC MARKET.

Doesn't that make sense?

Instead of "Favoritism", we seek fair competition for our own tax dollars.

Roofers will decide all things roofing, and not elite sectors who are without credential, experience, or the exhaustive safety training it takes.

"My name is Ron, and I'm a roofer.........For some reason, feel like I should be at an AA meeting."

Just so I don't come off like a 'Lone Wolf", will share what the National Roofing Contractors Association (NRCA), and Roof Consultant's Institute (RCI) have to say:

Reference:

From Roof Consultant's Institute:

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.

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

This is what the NRCA has to say: Click to enlarge.

Please help stop this assault on taxpayers, and school maintenance budgets across all of North America. The "Scam" is impossible for them to argue, so they take the position of subterranean termites, and hide.

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".

It is humbling that anyone cares one bit about what I have to say, and please know I am thankful for your time.

Respect.

Robert R. "Ron" Solomon
Public Procurement Analyst
State Certification CCC 1325620
Licensed Consultant
Tampa, Florida
RobertRSolomon@aol.com

Sunday, July 8, 2018

Garland's lobbyist, promoting the school roofing scam.

Friends:

VERY TYPICAL OF GARLAND'S "PROPRIETARY SALES MODEL'

They do this across North America, and the United Kingdom.
By now, the over payment must be well in excess of a billion dollars. I calculate this from their annual sales numbers.

I am being kind here, because Tremco does around $4 Billion, and Garland might be around 1 Billion dollars including their IMETCO metal roof brand.

We will not discuss "Premium" roof systems because it's impossible. EVERYONE makes "Premium Systems", and the specifier just needs to know what they're doing. Call Roof Consultant's Institute, and they will be happy to assist.

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

All I know is that Garland nor Tremco make half the products they sell, while mainstream manufacturers (private market) often make every component of the roof system. Fasteners, insulation, roll goods, metal flashings, etc. for a period of up to 30 years. Labor and material warranty included.

Virtually all specifications call for a 'Roof System Warranty", and I don't know how Garland, and Tremco "Warrant" products made by others. Looks like some 'finger pointing" is just around the corner, and we know what that means.

Here's Garland at work:

Full Article,

https://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Schools-paying-millions-too-much-for-new-roofs-3258031.php

Much respect to Robert Dzubian.

Here we go:

Garland's lobbyist

With the Legislature bearing down on the practice, one company allegedly participating in proprietary bidding, the Garland Co. Inc., hired a prominent Sacramento lobbying firm a week ago, according to a filing in the secretary of state's office.

Company officials did not return calls for comment.

For years, San Francisco schools used Garland, which manufactures a top-of-the-line roofing system. Like many other districts, San Francisco included an "or equal" clause when it sought bids, but incorporated product specifications that were so precise that only Garland could compete.

District architects finally questioned the practice and a more open bidding practice was put into place. That cut the cost of one new roof nearly in half.

This summer, a $135,150 Garland roof at Claire Lilienthal's Divisadero campus, a holdover from the noncompetitive bidding process, is costing the district $15 for each of the 9,014 square feet. Under the open bidding system, Independent High School is getting a $142,696 roof at $8 for each of the 17,837 square feet.

"We always thought that we got great service from Garland," said Chief Facilities Officer David Goldin.

He said Garland was chosen by a previous administration, but as time went by and staff turned over, no one could remember why the firm was chosen in the first place.

"You reach a point when you one day realize it's time to rethink the decisions," Goldin said.

Several factors

State officials don't believe kickbacks or other misconduct are part of the problem. The noncompetitive bidding is more a result of taking the path of least resistance.

Sales representatives with whom districts have a prior business relationship often volunteer to write bid specifications, thus saving time and money for district officials who would otherwise have to hire an architect to do it.

"That convenience is costing them money," De La Torre said. "In light of the budget situation we're in, we're talking about waste."

Local school officials said they hoped the Legislature would be thoughtful as it moves forward with potential legislation, allowing flexibility and local control.

In West Contra Costa Unified, for example, a recent roofing project at Richmond High School went out to bid specifically requiring Garland roofing projects.

It appeared to be a clear case of proprietary bidding.

Yet district officials said the re-roofing was part of a project for new heating and ventilation, requiring workers to cut through the existing Garland roof. Another manufacturer's products would have invalidated the warranty.

"We look at the best business decision," said Bill Fay, associate superintendent of operations at West Contra Costa Unified. "There is no upside for me to cut into a roofing system and not have a service warranty contract in case that system fails."

In San Francisco, Goldin said there needs to be a balancing act between cost efficiency and competitive bidding. For example, he said, districts don't want a variety of toilet paper holders in schools, depending on what's on sale one week to the next.

"You can't stock 53 brands of toilet paper to fit in multiple holders," he said. "When it comes to roofing, we've decided one size doesn't fit all."

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

Think about this the next time your children are asked to bring basic supplies to school because the school doesn't have any money.

Paying double for a roof based upon "Exclusion of Competition" doesn't make sense to anyone. Instead of using the Purchasing Cooperative, just line up three manufacturers who will line up several of their applicators. The bidding pool gets stronger, and the contractors work with manufacturers they are familiar with.

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

Here are some suggestions for your bid list, and I've worked with all of them installing millions ofg sq. ft. in roofing materials (at least 100 local schools, countless Wal Marts, Target, Dick's Sporting Goods, BJ's, etc.).

Roof Consultant's Institute, Advocacy: Contact: Brian Gardiner

Director of Industry Affairs
Brian Gardiner, FRCI, RRC, CCS
brian.bmgent@gmail.com

GAF: World's largest roof material manufacturer.

Johns Manville: A Berkshire Hathaway Company.

Firestone: Backed by billions in Bridgestone assets.

Carlisle Syntec: Largest single ply manufacturer.

Sika Sarnafil: Known worldwide as a premium PVC roof system manufacturer.

If they don't make it, you don't need it. GREAT Manufacturer warranties, and Firestone even offers their PWH warranty covering puncture, wind (100 mph), and hail). Some manufacturers vary, but 2" hail is generally the standard.

Forgive me, but space does not allow me to describe them all, but the following manufacturers demand great caution. Many investigative reports are available online, and YouTube: Just type "School Roofing Scam", and they will appear. None of the manufacturers I've suggested are listed among them.

Garland

Tremco

Simon

IMETCO

I have zero problem including Garland,, Tremco, or Simon on any "bid list". They will run away when they hear: "Competition" . Absolutely Guaranteed. What does that tell you?

Thank you for spending time with me here, and it's humbling that anyone cares one bit about what I have to say.

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

Please note that I no longer respond to Attorneys. I've been "used" by too many of them, and the only one I respect is Mr. Trent Cotney (Tampa).

Mr. Cotney, myself, and Mr. Jeff Anderson of "ServiceWorks". Jeff is a very capable contractor, and all around nice guy. They are located in Tampa., and I enjoy helping the "Good Guys".

Respect.

Robert R. "Ron" Solomon

Public Procurement Analyst

State Certified Roofing (Florida)

CCC1325620

Licensed Roofing Consultant

RobertRSolomon@aol.com