"GARLAND & U.S. COMMUNITIES RIP OFF"

Friends, I don't want to give the slightest impression that I make any of this up.  Every word I say is from science, or public record.

Note: This is verbatim, and I have not corrected spelling errors.

So, let's see what GARLAND says about GARLAND, and U.S. COMMUNITIES:

This is directly from an application I received (05-10-2013)

“The Garland Company

As a consultant for The Garland Company, I developed relationships with high-end, governmental, educational, and municipal clients to assist them in managing their roof assets.

The Garland Company is a premium roofing manufacturer that values the relationship-based sales approach.

After a three week immersive training program, I was charged with completing inspections and forensic roof evaluations for companies and clients like: Lockheed Martin, The Dallas County Community College District, The City of Dallas, The City of Mesquite, Raytheon, Texas Instruments, Dell, Air Liquide and others of similar merit.

As part of my duties I worked closely with architects, designers, and specifiers to ensure that The Garland Company’s line of products was the only roofing manufacturer named in the specification or offered to the client.

Upon completing the design phase, I would solicit bids from qualified, local roofing contractors to perform the work under my consult and supervision.

Design Build Solutions - The Garland Company

Design Build Solutions is The Garland Company's design and construction arm. Prior to 2006, it was a vastly underused entity created to control specifications through the bid process. However, once arwarded The US Communities Buying Co-Operative Contract in 2006, I saw a massive opportunity to do much more than control specifications.

I began marketing and actively soliciting projects to be designed and built by DBS all over Texas.

Working mostly on military contracts, I marketed our design capabilities to The Office of The Surgeon General, The Army Core of Engineers, and The Office of Veterans' Affairs.

Most of our projects were small, multi-family base housing and medical center upgrades. As DBS was not "completely" set up to handle large, multi-disciplinary bids, I solicited bids, evaluated sub-contractors, and engaged in buy-out and VE process with subs and owners.

Soon, it became necessary to create budgetary checks and balances. I implemented a customized version of a project management software created for me by Podio and created and managed construction budgets using Quickbooks Contractor Suite.

A change in Garland's Scope of WOrk under The US Communities Contract lead them to stear me away from Design-Build projects. As I had created valuable relationships in the industry, I chose to start XXXXXXXX  with a group of like-minded construction professionals to continue pursuing larger contracts and to branch further into the private sector”.

 THAT is what Garland thinks of you.  SELL AT ALL COST, and damn the taxpayer.

I don't know if I can make this statement more simple than it is.

"Competitive Bidding & FAIRNESS in Oklahoma"

Some of you may know I've been consumed by a long running quest to bring fair, open, and competitive, bidding to the State of Oklahoma.

If not, here is the original Oklahoma News 9 investigative report:

http://www.news9.com/story/15953631/school-districts-accused-of-wasting-tax-dollars

I became involved in that cause when a good man, Mr. Denver Green of Saratoga Roofing, contacted me (Aug. of 2011, I believe).  Saratoga Roofing is a member of Roof Consultant's Alliance, and at RCA, we help each other.

NOBODY likes "Proprietary Specifications" that are "Exclusionary", limit competition (if not obliterate it), and against every published law in North America.  You may thank your "Government Purchasing Co-Op's" for that, and they positively hate "competition" because their commissions (that almighty dollar) are less.  Who thinks government purchasing should be paid a commission for goods and services SOLD, rather than money SAVED?

Many others have been instrumental in this (Janet Campbell, Mark Nestler, Brian Gardiner, Tom Gernetzke (RCI President), Oklahoma SA's Office, Oklahoma AG, Citizens Procurement Reform, and those who may prefer anonymity).  Certainly I've missed many of you, so please forgive me.

If you would like to help put us over the top, perhaps 5 minutes of your time can be very well spent (and very much appreciated):


This bill has passed the Oklahoma legislature -- http://webserver1.lsb.state.ok.us/cf_pdf/2013-14%20ENR/SB/SB630%20ENR.PDF

There is question as to whether the governor will sign it.  How many Oklahoma email can you generate???

We need to have as many people as possible send an email to the Governor:

1.  To email the Governor go to this link -- https://www.ok.gov/triton/modules/formbuilder/form.php?form_id=2ab143b4bba6b0e9da3235121bf3a7ef73719541e049cc5bcddf8ed1564dac13

2.  Fill out the contact information

3.  In the subject line write -- Please Sign SB630

4.  Here is an example for the message box:

Dear Governor Fallin:

I write you today and ask that you sign SB630.  SB630 passed the Senate 43-0 and the House 85-1.

SB630 puts a stop to the sole source abuse that has been occurring in public construction.  Such abuse has cost the taxpayers of the state millions of dollars in excess construction costs.  SB630 will guarantee Oklahoma taxpayers that there is competition in public construction in the state ensuring the best construction product for the lowest cost.  Failure to sign SB630 means Oklahoma taxpayers will continue to be robbed of millions of dollars by a few cheating the state and the taxpayer by prohibiting free and open public competition in the public construction marketplace.

It is vital to the continued economic growth of Oklahoma that you sign SB630.  I thank you in advance for you signature on the bill.

Respectfully,

5.  Select Yes on the request for a reply.

 

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

The bill itself:

An Act

ENROLLED SENATE



BILL NO. 630 By: Jolley of the Senate

and

Murphey of the House

An Act relating to sole source purchase contracts; amending 74 O.S. 2011, Section 85.22, which relates to competitive bidding; modifying certification requirements; authorizing substitution of certain products; prohibiting purchasing restrictions to certain geographical areas; authorizing promulgation of rules to implement act; providing for codification; providing for noncodification; and declaring an emergency.

SUBJECT: Competitive bidding procedures

BE IT ENACTED BY THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA:

SECTION 1. AMENDATORY 74 O.S. 2011, Section 85.22, is amended to read as follows:

Section 85.22. Any competitive bid submitted to the State of Oklahoma or contract executed by the state for goods or services in excess of Five Thousand Dollars ($5,000.00) shall contain a certification, which shall be in substantially the following form:

A. For purposes of competitive bids, I certify:

1. I am the duly authorized agent of _____________, the bidder submitting the competitive bid which is attached to this statement, for the purpose of certifying the facts pertaining to the existence ENR. S. B. NO. 630 Page 2
 


of collusion among bidders and between bidders and state officials or employees, as well as facts pertaining to the giving or offering of things of value to government personnel in return for special consideration in the letting of any contract pursuant to the bid to which this statement is attached;

2. I am fully aware of the facts and circumstances surrounding the making of the bid to which this statement is attached and have been personally and directly involved in the proceedings leading to the submission of such bid; and

3. Neither the bidder nor anyone subject to the bidder's direction or control has been a party:

a. to any collusion among bidders in restraint of freedom of competition by agreement to bid at a fixed price or to refrain from bidding,

b. to any collusion with any state official or employee as to quantity, quality or price in the prospective contract, or as to any other terms of such prospective contract, nor

c. in any discussions between bidders and any state official concerning exchange of money or other thing of value for special consideration in the letting of a contract, nor

d. to any efforts or offers with state agency or political subdivision officials or others to create a sole brand acquisition or a sole source acquisition in contradiction to Section 2 of this act.

B. I certify, if awarded the contract, whether competitively bid or not, neither the contractor nor anyone subject to the contractor’s direction or control has paid, given or donated or agreed to pay, give or donate to any officer or employee of the State of Oklahoma any money or other thing of value, either directly or indirectly, in procuring the contract to which this statement is attached.

Certified this _______ day of_________________ 20__. ENR. S. B. NO. 630 Page 3
 


SECTION 2. NEW LAW A new section of law to be codified in the Oklahoma Statutes as Section 85.45j.1 of Title 74, unless there is created a duplication in numbering, reads as follows:

A. Notwithstanding any other provision of law or agency rule to the contrary, any bid submissions received by a state agency or any political subdivision pursuant to authorized sole source bidding procedures established by the provisions of Section 85.45j of Title 74 of the Oklahoma Statutes, which substitute an item with one that is alike in quality and design or which meets the required specifications of the bid shall be considered and shall not be prohibited. In terms of public construction contracts, with exception of specific products submitted and approved prior to release for bidding by the Oklahoma Attorney General for matching preexisting materials, at least three equivalent items from more than one manufacturer and more than one supplier or representative shall be included in the required specifications.

B. In addition, no sole source bid proposal shall require any limitation that materials must be supplied from a vendor within any specific geographical area. Geographic preference for vendors inside the geographical boundaries may be given, but only when the cost is the same or less.

SECTION 3. NEW LAW A new section of law not to be codified in the Oklahoma Statutes reads as follows:

The Office of Management and Enterprise Services is authorized to promulgate rules as necessary to implement the provisions of this act.

SECTION 4. It being immediately necessary for the preservation of the public peace, health and safety, an emergency is hereby declared to exist, by reason whereof this act shall take effect and be in full force from and after its passage and approval." ENR. S. B. NO. 630 Page 4
 


Passed the Senate the 30th day of April, 2013.

Presiding Officer of the Senate

Passed the House of Representatives the 17th day of April, 2013.

Presiding Officer of the House

of Representatives

OFFICE OF THE GOVERNOR

Received by the Office of the Governor this ____________________ day of ___________________, 20_______, at _______ o'clock _______ M.

By: _________________________________

Approved by the Governor of the State of Oklahoma this _________ day of ___________________, 20_______, at _______ o'clock _______ M.

_________________________________

Governor of the State of Oklahoma

OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF STATE

Received by the Office of the Secretary of State this __________ day of __________________, 20 _______, at _______ o'clock _______ M.

By: _________________________________   

 

We are beginning to take back our roofing discipline from government administrators who know nothing about us, yet dictate who can, and can't participate.

 

YOU HAVE A RIGHT TO COMPETE FOR YOUR OWN TAXPAYER DOLLARS!

 

Please keep in mind that Private work is self policing, where in Public work, the sole manufacturer "Preferred Vendor" is MANDATED.  This is absurd, and no public official can rationally explain how 'Exclusion", and "No Compete" scenarios benefit YOU, the taxpayer.

 

In Oklahoma, "No Bid" contracting was up 124 million dollars over the previous year.  Is that the direction we should be following, or shall we choose "Fair Competition"?

 

The Governor of Oklahoma has this on her desk, and I will keep you informed.

 

If you can spare 5 minutes to write her, the entire roofing discipline will be in your debt.

 

Time for taxpayers, manufacturers, distributors, consultants, and contractors EVERYWHERE to stand up.

 

My plans are to address the same problem in Texas, and then clean up my own state (Florida).

 

While this work requires a great deal of time, and effort, am proud to do it for my Brothers and Sisters within the roofing discipline.  I am humbled by the encouragement and support so many of you have shown to me, and to this cause. 

 

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

 

Respect.

 

Robert R. "Ron" Solomon

Director, Roof Consultant's Alliance

CCC1325620

RobertRSiolomon@aol.com

Tampa, Florida   

"Roofing & the "Coalition for Procurement Reform"

Please allow me to start this off by thanking the leadership of Roof Consultant's Institute that bring honor to our discipline.  These men and women are unpaid for their service, and still work very hard at their "Day Jobs".

Considered by me as the "Reference Standard" of all things roofing.  When roofing, or reroofing a structure, be sure to have a qualified roof consultant who is an RCI member as part of your team.

By now, I don't think it's a secret that our government (all governments really) cannot efficiently spend money.  Each day, I receive examples of "No Compete" bids, or contracts in public works.  Today, I received two for example, and they are both schools shutting out everyone but their "Preferred Vendor".

There is a real groundswell forming in opposition to "Purchasing Co-Op's", and predatory sales models based entirely upon "Exclusion" of all competition.  "Line Item" bids aren't bids at all, and no "Competition" has occurred.  "Competition" that is required in all 50 States, all Territories and Provinces of Canada.

"Coalition for Procurement Reform" is a friend to roofers, and ALL TAXPAYERS!

Please look them up, and see what you can do:

Website:    www.procurement-reform.org

 

Coalition for Procurement Reform

2415 Westwood Avenue

Richmond, Virginia 23230

(804) 288-2950 phone

 

Kristy Joplin

Executive Director

 

kristy@procurement-reform.org email

www.procurement-reform.org website

 

 

I am writing about them today because they are "right".  SOMEONE has to stand up against all this waste and preferential treatment, and CPR is doing a fine job of it.

 

Here's their latest press release:

 

 

CONTACT:

Coalition for Procurement Reform, cpr@procurement-reform.org, (804) 288-2950

 

PRESS RELEASE

 

RPM International Posts Big 3^rd Quarter Loss in Anticipation of Settlement

 

Medina, Ohio – April 4, 2013- Ohio-based RPM International Inc. (NYSE: RPM) has posted a net loss of $42.36 million for the three months ending February 28, ahead of an expected $68.8 million settlement with the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the U.S. General Services Administration (GSA).  The anticipated settlement is the result of an investigation into past roofing contracts between RPM’s Building Solutions Group (which includes Tremco) and the GSA; specifically, the compliance with pricing terms and conditions of GSA contracts under which Tremco sold goods and services to the federal government.

Kristy Joplin, Executive Director of the Coalition for Procurement Reform, states, “As a member of CPR, I am pleased to see the Federal Government investigate the value they are getting from this purchasing program at GSA. We are confident that the Department of Justice investigation will ultimately result in a more transparent, open, and fair bid process.”

RPM International, which also makes coatings, sealants, and paints, stated that its Building Solutions Group is cooperating fully in an effort to resolve the investigation, and is in settlement talks with the DOJ and GSA.  RPM has taken an adjustment for the anticipated $68.8 million settlement; however, the actual total of RPM’s loss remains subject to approval by the DOJ. 

Frank C. Sullivan, Chairman and CEO of RPM, stated that the company is hopeful that a final settlement would be reached prior to May 31.

The Coalition for Procurement Reform’s mission is to reform the current use of procurement processes.  Our proposed reform solutions would increase healthy competition, increase transparency in the system and ultimately save taxpayer dollars.

 

As you know, I'm only in the "Fairness" business.  A $68.8 million dollar penalty represents only a small percentile of the money YOU paid them for school roofs.  To me, that is shameful, irresponsible, and damaging to us as a society.

 

There's the information, and it can mean as much, or little, as you like.

 

I lower my head in respect to those of you who spend time with me here.  You will please reject negativity in all forms, and always remember to keep looking "UP".

 

Respect,

 

Robert R. "Ron" Solomon

Director, Roof Consultant's Alliance 

CCC1325620

RobertRSolomon@aol.com 

 

 

 

"The Dark Side of Roofing, and Government Purchasing Co-Op's"

“Government Purchasing Co-Op’s Destroying Schools”

Purchasing agencies try to justify their existence by telling us sheep that:

1.)     We buy in bulk, and pass the savings to you.

2.)    Our bargaining power saves money.

3.)    You don’t have to worry about “Competition”, because we’ve already done that for you.

Now that kind of sounds like Wal Mart doesn’t it?  The problem for Co-Op’s is that Wal Mart actually does save you money, they’ve cut the costs, and they have a fleet of professionals always whittling away at vendors for best pricing.

Government Purchasing Co-Op’s are a bunch of administrators who get paid a COMMISSION based upon a PERCENTAGE of all goods or services.  Not very “Real Life” is it?  They get paid MORE when the goods and services cost MORE!

These “Machines” are so intertwined, so infinitely vague, and filled with chaff, that a person is unable to understand what they’re actually trying to emote.  That is intentional by the way, because they have to skirt state and federal procurement laws already in place.

I’m going to offer the verbiage of people who intentionally try to limit competition for roofing services.  I am sure all other trades, disciplines, and individuals are handled in the same exclusionary way.  But here, I talk about roofing, so we will refine our search to that .  The examples are not meant to “Single Out” anyone, but to illustrate a pattern.

GSA, and purchasing agencies are so far out of control, that they are eliminating fair competition for roofing services intentionally.  Tremco, and Garland (as examples) are the most expensive (and without additional benefit) roof systems you will find.  Coupled with an amazingly expensive “Maintenance Program” that is stealing our schools blind.

It’s interesting to me that nobody seems to know much “reality”, but that doesn’t seem to concern a purchasing agent.   Most of the time, between 30% and 50% of your roofing taxpayer dollar goes STRAIGHT into a commissioned salesman’s pocket.  How’d that feel?

All LAW is designed to protect the taxpayer’s best interest, and that their money is spent efficiently.

HERE is where the Purchasing Co-Op people have their biggest obstacle.  Since they can’t rationally argue why it’s okay to spend taxpayer dollars without competition, they “interpret” the law, or create a “committee” to “interpret” it for them.  The spirit of the law means nothing to selfish, greedy people.  A frailness of humans, I’m afraid.

Frail, or not, they are stealing your taxpayer dollars through “Relationships” which could also be described as “Collusion”.

Let’s look at a few people who claim to save you money:

http://www.prweb.com/releases/2011/7/prweb8651374.htm

E&I Cooperative Purchasing Awards Roofing and Related Services Contract to Tremco Roofing and Building Maintenance, WTI

Tremco Roofing and Building Maintenance together with WTI (Weatherproofing Technologies, Inc.), a subsidiary of Tremco Incorporated, announced today that they have been awarded a contract for Roofing and Related Services through Educational and Institutional (E&I) Cooperative Purchasing.

Share on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on LinkedInEmail a friend.

Beachwood, OH (PRWEB) July 20, 2011

 

Tremco Roofing and Building Maintenance together with WTI (Weatherproofing Technologies, Inc.), a subsidiary of Tremco Incorporated, announced today that they have been awarded a contract for Roofing and Related Services through Educational and Institutional (E&I) Cooperative Purchasing. This contract provides Tremco Roofing and WTI with a distinct product offering in the higher education marketplace.

 

Based in Jericho, New York, E&I is a member-owned, not for profit buying cooperative established by members of the National Association of Educational Procurement (NAEP) in 1934 to provide lower costs for higher education. Current annual E&I Cooperative purchases exceed $1.5 billion, and membership is comprised of over 2,000 institutions.

 

Brian Burden, Tremco Roofing’s Market Development Manager for U.S. Education says, “The E&I contract provides Tremco Roofing and WTI with an opportunity to further expand our relationship-based sales approach into a key growth market. More importantly, it enables prospective higher education clients to work with best-in-class facilities and procurement professionals, as well as highly skilled construction contractors. When colleges and universities elect to partner with E&I and their awarded vendors, they know that proper due diligence has been done. Quality is expected and realized in both the procurement process and in the construction deliverable.”

 

The Roofing and Related Services contract will allow E&I members to access pre-competed, line-item contracts to address roofing and building envelope needs. The contract is based upon a nationally solicited request for proposal (RFP) and multiple bid responses. Ultimately, Tremco Roofing and WTI were chosen as the sole national provider for this five-year agreement.

 

About Tremco Roofing and Building Maintenance

Headquartered in Beachwood, Ohio, Tremco Roofing and Building Maintenance helps manage life cycles for customers in education, healthcare, government, manufacturing and many other industries. In business since 1928, Tremco Roofing and Building Maintenance is a division of Tremco Incorporated, which is itself part of the RPM Building Solutions Group, an international leader in the construction, maintenance and repair markets. Tremco Roofing works closely with Tremco Incorporated subsidiary WTI, which provides general contracting and roofing services. Both Tremco Roofing and WTI are ISO 9001:2000 certified. To learn more about us, visit http://www.tremcoroofing.com or call toll free at 800-562-2728.

Isn’t that positively delightful?

They aren’t bidding on a specific school, but filled out a “line item” form, and now has a 5 YEAR CONTRACT!  The “line item” method is designed to circumvent the law.  No “Competition”, or attempt to provide “Competition” ever existed.  It can’t, because each school, and structure are different.  They are not “bidding” on anything, because no specification, drawings, or measurements exist on a “hypothetical”.

Let’s refresh your memory of how nice the Tremco (RPM)people are, and EXACTLY what they’re doing to your taxpayer dollar.

http://www.crainscleveland.com/article/20130404/FREE/130409882/0/SEARCH

RPM posts big loss as it accounts for potential settlement of fed investigation

 

By MARK DODOSH

 8:51 am, April 4, 2013

RPM International Inc. (NYSE: RPM) has reported a big third-quarter loss as the company accounted for the potential cost of an anticipated settlement with the federal government related to an investigation of past roofing contracts with the General Services Administration.

 

The Medina-based maker of coatings and sealants said the loss in the quarter that ended Feb. 28 totaled $42.4 million, or 33 cents a share. RPM said the loss mainly was due to an estimated loss contingency of $68.8 million associated with an investigation of roofing contracts between the company's Building Solutions Group and the GSA.

 

RPM said the Building Solutions Group is in ongoing settlement discussions with the Department of Justice and the GSA aimed at resolving the investigation. The company said it is cooperating with the investigation, which involves compliance with certain pricing terms and conditions of GSA contracts under which the Building Solutions Group's roofing division sold products and services to the federal government.

 

RPM said the “substantial majority” of the contingency relates to the sale of products and services from 2002 to 2008. The company said the actual amount of the loss, which remains subject to approval by the Justice Department, may vary from the amount of the contingency.

In the third quarter of fiscal 2012, RPM earned $6.6 million, or five cents a share.

Sales at RPM rose 9%, to $843.7 million from $773.6 million.

“With the exception of our roofing division, most of our North American industrial businesses benefited from the gradual economic recovery in the U.S., especially our businesses serving commercial construction markets," RPM chairman and CEO Frank C. Sullivan said in a statement.

Reader Comments

By  at 9:40 am April 8, 2013   

The state of Ohio requires schools and State agencies to purchase Tremco thru State Term purchasing. Why isn't anyone reporting the correption involved with the State Term purchasing process. Only three companies are allowed to participate in State term purchasing of roofs on state buildings. Tremco, Garland and Durolast. These companies are not the mainstream providers of commercial roofing in the industry. The State will notlist any other company because they say their bidders list is closed to competition. The State and tax payers are not receiving competitive bids.

The reader is correct.

If you are a taxpayer wondering how the “Dark Side” of commercial roofing is robbing your schools, I will attempt to make it clear how they are doing it.

Friends we are talking about hundreds of millions of dollars diverted to a few.  It is DESIGNED to work that way, and they spend millions to make sure it LOOKS legal.  It is obvious sleight of hand, and I hope to one day testify in a Federal Court to expose them, and set further precedent.

STOP PURCHASING CO-OP’S

Roofers:  Write P.O.’s to manufacturers who do not steal: GAF, Firestone, Carlisle-Syntec, or Johns Manville.

Taxpayer:  If you see the name Tremco, or Garland, you are being ripped off.

Administrator:   If you see the name Tremco, or Garland, you are being ripped off.

Unions:   Tremco and Garland are bringing your union roofers nothing but shame.

Virtually EVERY roofing consultant on earth avoids them like the plague, and Roof Consultant’s Institute has condemned purchasing Co-Op’s.

I will suggest you all stay clear of them, and avoid the spotlight.  When you get caught, you will be all alone.

Happily, we are making great progress in the elimination of the hardships these people create for you, and our schools.

 

Please type "School Roofing Scam" into your browser, or YouTube, and there will be no shortage of public record to support my comments.  You will note the two primary players Tremco and Garland.

SHAME.  SHAME.  SHAME.

Let me humbly thank each of you for caring about what I have to say, and for spending time with me here.

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

Respect.

Robert R. “Ron” Solomon

Director, Roof Consultant’s Alliance

CCC1325620

 

 

 

 

 

"Roofing Contractor Profile - Access Roofing & Restoration, LLC"

As you know, I RARELY feature a product or service.

But I came across this down to earth (and truthful) description by the newest member of Roof Consultant's Alliance.  After reading the full website of 2,500 members, I felt this "REAL WORLD" description helpful to the layman, and advanced residential contractors.

"Access Roofing & Restoration, LLC"

1411 Linwood Blvd. in Oklahoma City.

www.accessroof.com 

405-537-6000

Ask for Mr. Jeff Breeding


I came across this application to "Roof Consultant's Alliance" that was more "informative" to an owner than just saying "we do it all", which is a cliche'.  NOBODY "Does It All", and if you think about it, how could they "Specialize" in ALL roofing subsets?

At any rate, I do not know anyone at Access Roofing & Restoration, and am just making an observation:

This presentation is very useful to you, the end user.

The Roofing Wall of Shame

The photos were taken in Oklahoma and Colorado in 2009 and 2010. This is the best way to illustrate the disparity between our organization and the 'competition'. While the photos seem rather extreme, the truth is that greed and ignorance in our industry make this type of 'Shame' commonplace.

 

This absolute abandonment of safety practices and manufacturer specifications is much more prevalent in Oklahoma and Texas than Colorado because roofing permits and contractor licensing are not required. The end result is roofs have NO manufacturer's warranty of any kind, are apt to leak or blow off with the next thunderstorm, and severely diminish the heating and cooling efficiency of the homes they are intended to protect.

 

The foremost reason for this problem is that consumers have been battered into accepting the idea that their roof is simply an inconvenient maintenance cost rather than a valuable aesthetic and structural feature of their home. Who can blame them? When a hailstorm hits, the typical homeowner may receive a hundred or more flyers on their doorstep and experience incessant telemarketing calls from 'contractors' wanting to make a quick buck on the roof & gutters.

 

The widespread notion that a roof is not worthy of conventional consideration (as a kitchen or bathroom would be) has been established by the idea that another hailstorm is just around the corner and the roof, as a commodity, is simply not worth the trouble. 'Roofing Contractors' milling about by the thousands trying to distinguish themselves by offering the 'cheapest fix' and 'best deal' drive this mentality home. The truth is, a relatively small percentage of property owners in storm-prone markets experience hail or wind damage that warrants a roof replacement more than once every 10 years. Many homeowners in Oklahoma City, for example, have a roof that is 15 years old or older. The pressure to 'save money' and get a 'great deal' has reached critical mass. It is raping home equity and property values from entire communities.

 

 

 

These roofers in Oklahoma City were moving at a frantic pace. Their rapid progress seemed to impress the neighbor across the street but a closer look at what they are doing in impressive in another way.

 

 

These landscapers/roofers are trying to earn a buck but clearly do not have any formal training in proper roofing techniques, do not understand building code and didn't bother to read the shingle wrapper to follow basic manufacturer specifications.

 

The rusted flashing are clearly going to be re-used. When the skylight leaks, the roofing materials around the skylight will need to be removed and the flashing replaced. The roofing shingles removed for the repair may need to be re-used after the repair because matching shingles may no longer be available on the market. The interior damages will generally NOT be covered by a workmanship warranty IF the company doing the work is even still in town to respond to the homeowner's call.

 

Also, these multiple layers of roofing felt have created a vapor barrier rather than a vapor retarder; compounding the problem of this structure lacking proper ventilation. The next roof replacement (if the old felt is actually removed) will reveal decking that is orange, swelled, and possibly rotted due to condensation buildup. At that time, the homeowner will most likely incur the cost of replacing bad decking out-of-pocket, simply because the 'roofers' were too lazy to remove the old felt.

 

Also notice that the old shingle nails have been pounded down rather than removed. This is bad because the nails will work themselves loose as they start to rust (from condensation) which will cut holes in the new felt and start wearing the shingles from the underside.

 

 

 

 

Which is old, which is new? The shingles that you see are new. At the hip, they are cut off and the wood decking is bare at the gap where the decking meets on the hip framing member. The roofers will be relying on new hip shingles 'caps' to keep the roof water-tight rather than properly wrapping the felt over the hip. There is a good chance that wind-driven rain will cause this roof to leak until the hip caps fully seal over the next few days, weeks, or months.

 

That moisture will evaporate from the attic or become a petri dish for mold and mildew. Also notice that the new felt is installed diagonally over the old because it seemed convenient for the roofers. By the time the homeowner returns from work, new shingles will be installed and the shortcut will be a secret. However, if roofing materials are not installed according to the manufacturer's specifications, there is no warranty.

 

Unfortunately, if this batch of shingles happens to be a defective one, the manufacturer will decline to act because the warranty was voided by this improper felt installation among other things.

 

 

 



This is exactly what you want to avoid. The installer did not wrap the hip with felt means that the hip cap shingle is the only thing between your home and a leak. Notice that on the lower cap, the nails are high so that the sealant from the cap above never made proper contact. It was probably a matter of days or weeks before this hip cap shingle blew off, exposing the framing and attic below. We estimate that this homeowner's roof had been leaking for EIGHT YEARS. Roofing shortcuts may save money in the short term but NEVER pay off in the long run.

 

 

 

This 'roofing' company DID send Ice & Water Shield for the 'roofers' to install in the valleys in an attempt to meet manufacturer and code specifications. Unfortunately, this crew doesn't know the first thing about roofing or proper installation. Allow us to point out a few things: Firstly, the gas vent flue; notice how it is canted to the right? This is because the roofers pulled on it when removing the old roofing and accidentally disconnected it from the gas water heater or fireplace. Now, the gas exhaust and associated fumes will leak into the house or attic. Secondly, the ladder.

 

Ladders (according to OSHA) should extend to three rungs above the fulcrum (eave/gutter line), be tied off/secured, and be tilted so that the feet are back from the wall approximately 1/4 of the height of the fulcrum. If and when a member of the roofing crew falls off this ladder and is hurt, who will pay?

 

The roofing company may carry liability insurance but clearly subcontracted this job to an illegal crew. They may have a general liability insurance policy for the damage that their work causes to the property but most assuredly not damage to a worker. It is highly unlikely that they carry workers' compensation either.

 

Medical bills and lost wages will require the crew member to file suit and the homeowner (or if properly insured, the homeowner's insurance company) will have to pick up the tab. Thirdly, notice the mess. It is apparent that tarps were sent by the roofing company to protect the property during the re-roof but are being uses as little more than a decoration.

 

Wayward debris is allowed to blow in the wind and accumulate in the homeowner's landscaping. This homeowner should not be too surprised when he or she steps on a nail or a lawnmower throws a nail at someone or something they care about.

 

 

 

 





Here you can see HOW the Ice & Water Shield and felt were installed. Unfortunately for this homeowner, Ice & Water Shield MUST be installed directly to the wood decking to properly bond. Also, roofing felt must be installed in lateral courses starting at the eave progressing course by course up the roof - not vertically. Felt must also overlap the Ice and Water shield by at least 6 inches to property direct any moisture that overcomes the shingles into the valley. Based on this installation, the Ice & Water Shield will not seal and any water that ever penetrates the shingles will run down the felt, under the Ice & Water Shield and into the home.

 

 

 

Unfortunately for this homeowner they decided to battle their insurance company on their own and clearly came up on the losing end. The result is patchwork that contributes to a look that is cheap and reduces the 'curb appeal' of their home, invariably devaluing it.

 

Property Casualty insurance is called indemnity coverage because it does not pay a set benefit. It is supposed to pay as much as the policyholder needs (up to the policy limit) to "restore and insured to the SAME financial position after the loss that he or she was in prior to the loss". In the language of insurance, to indemnify someone means to make them whole again.

 

This means that they should not be paid less or more than what it takes to properly restore the home. In this instance, the homeowner bought into the idea that a roof is simply a water-shedding device and completely discounted the financial impact that a reduced 'curb appeal' would have.

 

They accepted less than what would indemnify their property and allowed the insurance company to save money at the expense of their home equity.

 

 

 

The weather was fair in Denver, yet these materials sat on the roof for three weeks before the fellow you see pictured and his partner showed up to start 'working'. More details below.

 

 

 

Based on the age of this home, 'dimes to dollars' the old roof deck is plywood. Yet the installer has chosen to place these cheap wood chip and glue Oriented Strand Boards (OSB) on the roof instead. (In the way the OSB is placed, we could substitute "Wind Missile" for the term OSB). An inordinate amount of materials are stacked on the garage risking permanent damage to this home's framing members.

 

 

 

A hand truck on the roof..

 

Really? Does that sound safe? Clearly this homeowner wanted to cut costs but this extreme is unacceptable. Hiring a roofing company with proper crews that are strong enough to handle the materials in a safe manner should not be a luxury".

 

Okay, that's how the people at Access Roofing feel about their discipline, and the owner's best interest.  I happen to agree with them, and the roofing trade has too many fly by night "jack of all trades" gypsies.

 

If you need a quality, conscientious, roofer in their area, you may want to consider them.

 

Again:


"Access Roofing & Restoration, LLC"

1411 Linwood Blvd. in Oklahoma City.

www.accessroof.com 

405-537-6000

Ask for Mr. Jeff Breeding

 

 

I want to thank Mr. Jeff Breeding for allowing me to bring this information to you.  I'm thinking of bringing a series of consultants, manufacturers, distributors, and contractors of character to you.  We just don't want anything to be an "advertisement" for anyone, because we are beholding to no one.

Fair?

 

I am very thankful for each of you, and the time you spend here with me.  I encourage you to reject negativity in all forms, and always remember to keep looking "UP".

 

Respect.

 

Robert R. "Ron" Solomon

Director, Roof Consultant's Alliance

CCC1325620

RobertRSolomon@aol.com
 

 

 

 

 





"RPM's TREMCO Nailed by the Feds"

This is an example of how Purchasing Co-Op's operate, and the gluttonous behavior of vendors they support.

In this case, it happens to be RPM, the owner of Tremco (roofing material manufacturer), who sells almost exclusively to government.  In other words, they target schools, an area we can least afford.  RPM (Tremco specifically) is facing almost 70M in fines and restitution.

If they were fined 70M, can you imagine what they actually got away with in overall public contracts?

I could be wrong, but please read the news article, and as always, judge for yourself.

http://www.crainscleveland.com/article/20130404/FREE/130409882/0/SEARCH

 

8:51 am, April 4, 2013

RPM International Inc. (NYSE: RPM) has reported a big third-quarter loss as the company accounted for the potential cost of an anticipated settlement with the federal government related to an investigation of past roofing contracts with the General Services Administration.

 

 

The Medina-based maker of coatings and sealants said the loss in the quarter that ended Feb. 28 totaled $42.4 million, or 33 cents a share. RPM said the loss mainly was due to an estimated loss contingency of $68.8 million associated with an investigation of roofing contracts between the company's Building Solutions Group and the GSA.

 

RPM said the Building Solutions Group is in ongoing settlement discussions with the Department of Justice and the GSA aimed at resolving the investigation. The company said it is cooperating with the investigation, which involves compliance with certain pricing terms and conditions of GSA contracts under which the Building Solutions Group's roofing division sold products and services to the federal government.

RPM said the ³substantial majority² of the contingency relates to the sale of products and services from 2002 to 2008. The company said the actual amount of the loss, which remains subject to approval by the Justice Department, may vary from the amount of the contingency.

In the third quarter of fiscal 2012, RPM earned $6.6 million, or five cents a share.

Sales at RPM rose 9%, to $843.7 million from $773.6 million.

³With the exception of our roofing division, most of our North American industrial businesses benefited from the gradual economic recovery in the U.S., especially our businesses serving commercial construction markets,"

RPM chairman and CEO Frank C. Sullivan said in a statement.

 

Sullivan is hilarious with his "Nothing to see here folks, just keep moving" act.

 

This is ONLY 2002 through 2008, so I'm wondering about 2009 to Present?  GSA is taking no responsibility, nor do they say Tremco will be removed from their approved vendor list.

All Government Purchasing Co-Op's do this, and their claims of "we save taxpayer money because we buy in bulk', or "you don't have to worry about state "competition laws" because we've handled that for you.

They've handled it alright.  Handled it straight into their own pockets as "commissioned salesmen" who actually make more money from the "No Compete" schemes.  Just imagine.

 

In Oklahoma, "No-Compete Bids INCREASED by 126 MILLION DOLLARS!!  It should have DECREASED, and have no idea how a politician could stand up in a public forum to defend this debauchery.

OKLAHOMA INCREASED NO BID SPENDING BY $126,000,000.00!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

 

src="http://www.tulsaworld.com/images/icn-pointer.gif" /> Search a database of contracts issued by state agencies on a sole source or no-bid basis issued between fiscal years 2007 and 2011.

 

---

State agencies are spending more money for goods and services without seeking bids, leading some to wonder if the state is getting the best bang for its buck on some contracts.

Spending by state agencies on no-bid contracts increased by 24 percent, to $126 million, in fiscal 2011 compared to the previous year, records supplied by the Office of State Finance show. 

 

In all, some 74 state agencies issued 1,376 no-bid contracts over the course of the year

Contracts were issued without bids for items ranging from $48,000 for photocopiers to $2 million for out-of-state schooling for special education students, a Tulsa World analysis of state reports shows.

In some cases, justification letters required to request the purchase were woefully lacking in detail as required by state purchasing guidelines.

In all of the instances the items or services were lawfully purchased without seeking bids, under the state's "sole source" or "sole brand" acquisition provisions.

State law provides for state agencies to purchase goods and services without seeking bids if the acquisition meets certain guidelines.

A review of sole-source contract reports since 2008 indicates the amount spent by state agencies on no-bid contracts peaked in fiscal year 2009 at $142.6 million.

The total amount spent declined to $101 million in fiscal year 2010 before increasing again in fiscal 2011, which ended June 30.

One state legislator said sole-source contracts should be used sparingly by agencies.  

 

Really, Do Ya Think?

"The only reason that I see that we should do a sole-source contract is when the agency knows there is going to be only one vendor that meets this need," said Rep. Mike Reynolds, R-Oklahoma City.

That is absolutely not the case with roof contracting services.  There are plenty of HONEST MANUFACTURERS, HONEST CONSULTANTS, and HONEST CONTRACTORS that are local, and provide every need.

 

Roofing is not a "SPECIALTY ITEM" any more than concrete, steel, landscaping, or paint.

Reynolds said sole-source designations also may be necessary in an emergency.

"Past that, no, it's just convenient for the agencies not to have to do the paperwork and that's what they are hired to do," Reynolds said.

Another legislator said the issue of sole-source exemptions has not come up recently among lawmakers.

When told about the World's findings, House Rep. Jason Murphey, R-Guthrie, said he intends to press the Office of State Finance for more information on the issue. Murphey has championed ending higher education exemptions from state central purchasing laws.

"There may be a great reason for it and it all makes sense, but I'd like to know that, too," Murphey said, referring to the increase in no-bid contract amounts.

Preston Doerflinger, who is the Office of State Finance director and state Secretary of Finance, said the state purchasing process is being evaluated since the Department of Central Services and three other agencies were consolidated earlier this year.

"I am a big believer in competitive bidding, while recognizing that a sole-source contract may be more cost-effective in some circumstances," Doerflinger said.

"I understand parameters for sole-source contracts are set in legislation. In general, the goal of the OSF will be to ensure taxpayers are receiving the best possible value in the purchase of goods and services by the state."

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

They all TALK about it, but when the lawyers get it to court, have no support from Congress or Senate.

 

There is SO MUCH MONEY BEING WASTED on "No Compete", "Sole Source" contracting or services, that every person in North America should be outraged.

 

Where are our Canadian friends on this?  It is permeating the fabric of your government as well.  ln most cases, 25% of every roofing taxpayer dollar (think schools) is going STRAIGHT into a "Salesman's Pocket".

 

Did that sting?

 

Think about me the next time your children are asked to bring school supplies from home because the school has no money.  Think about me when teachers are laid off, and services cut.

 

The people at RPM "Tremco" may not care about you, but I do.

 

Many industry leaders have reached out to me, and I am working at full throttle to assist them.  Many Consultants, Distributors, and Contractors want to clean up this stain upon the discipline, and we will.

 

I am not hard to find for anyone who wishes to know more about me.  Just type my full Christian name "Robert R. "Ron" Solomon" followed by the words "Sustainability", or "Roofing", and you will see I'm an open book.

 

Here, I am free to tell only the truth.  If anyone ever wishes to correct me, I encourage you to do so.  Please be kind enough to limit your comments based upon science, or public record, as I don't give opinions, nor do I feature them.

 

I am humbled to bring this message to you, and I am on your side.

 

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

 

Respect,

 

Robert R. "Ron" Solomon

Director, Roof Consultant's Alliance

CCC1325620

RobertRSolomon@aol.com