Public Roofing Procurement:
When securing roofing or roofing services for a public entity, you shouldl be seeking both serviceability and value. You can not have one without the other. I'll explain that as we go.
EVERY state in the Republic has "Competitive Bidding Laws". All territories and provinces of Canada follow suit.
You must be careful to follow these simple rules to avoid possible litigation brought on by "Preferred Vendors", because it is illegal. No public entity has the authority nor the right to spend taxpayer dollars as if a private owner without competition.
Roofing material manufacturers may not serve as a consultant, bid processor, and supplier. In other words, the "We handle it all" mantra is factually incorrect. Many of them espouse a "Relation Based" approach to public work in this you must be careful, to avoid such exposure.
I realize many of you are novice when it comes to thermal and moisture protection (Division 7). That is perfectly reasonable, as you are paid for administrative skill, not the minutae of all construction trades.
Let's walk through this in layman's terms to address a basic outline for you to safely follow. Your district will be served also you will be satisfied that you've served the taxpayers by spending money wisely.
Fair?
I will not discuss the many subsets of roofing (single ply, modified, BUR, etc.), as that is not our purpose here. Only the procurement method.
1.) Do not let a "need" become an "emergency".
2.) Hire an "Independent" RCI Roof Consultant to understand your need and develop an approach to suit that need. DO NOT hire a roofing material manufacturer as your consultant for reasons explained.
http://www.rci-online.org/
3.) DO NOT buy roofing or roofing services through a "Purchasing Cooperative". I cannot emphasize this enough. Contrary to their claims, you will not save money. You will end up paying much, much, more.
4.) Projects over $50,000.00 must be advertised for bid in the local newspaper (your RCI consultant will help you with this).
5.) Conduct a "Pre-Bid" meeting with responsive contractors, your agency and your roofing consultant.
6.) Open received bids in a public forum with multiple witnesses. This is critical.
7.) "Performance and Payment Bond" : If your project is substantial, I always insist upon this process. The roofing contractor will furnish the "P&P Bond" that is secured by assets held by their bonding company. This will guarantee taxpayers are not "out of pocket" if the contractor fails to complete the work in a satisfactory manner. The bonding company will work with you to make sure the work is complete to your satisfaction.
Bonding rates are dependent upon financial strength of the roofing contractor. Typically, you will see bond rates at approximately 1%, or 2%. Please understand rates vary, that my estimation is only that: an estimate.
P&P Bond will eliminate all taxpayer exposure. It is very low cost insurance, all things considered.
8.) *DO NOT buy anything from Tremco, Garland, HyLoad, or Armko. They have exhibited predatory sales models to the point where Tremco was fined over $60,000,000.00 by the DOJ for misusing "Line Item' contracting with the GSA. I encourage you to do your own research by following this method:
a.) Type "School Roofing Scam" into your browser.
b.) Type "School Roofing Scam" into YouTube.
You will see my advice to you is correct, supported by habitual offenses.
Once you've gotten your Independent RCI consultant on board, you are strongly advised to insist upon mainstream manufacturers (GAF, Carlisle Syntec, Firestone) that are locally distributed and represented. This will keep approximately 70% of tax dollars spent within your local economy. Good?
Avoid the following terms like the plague:
"Proprietary Specifications"
"Preferred Vender"
"Sole Source"
"Line Item Contract"
"Job Order Contract"
These are all methods to avoid "fair competition", and can land you in a world of trouble, through scrutiny.
Mainstream manufacturers offer very inexpensive "No Dollar Limit" warranties that guarantee labor and material for the term of warranty. DO NOT accept anything LESS than a 20 year system, as it is in your best interest.
RCI (Roof Consultant's Institute) has proven themselves as taxpayer friendly and know your situation. They also know the "predatory" schemes I'm discussing with you now. They will lead you to success.
http://www.rci-online.org/
NOTE: Some members of RCI are also sales representatives for the manufacturers I've mentioned. ELIMINATE them for consideration IMMEDIATELY.
I am more than happy to furnish the names of respected consultants in your area or you may contact them directly. They will provide members in good standing.
Please do your own research. Please confirm what I've said here.
I furnish the data. You must judge for yourself.
*This comment is based upon research, and public record. I do not share "Opinions:", nor am I enriched by any decisions regarding manufacturers, consultants, distributors, or contractors.
Hopefully, you will find my general descriptions useful in getting started, and conclude your project achieving the "serviceability and value" you are seeking.
I thank each and every one of you who take time from your busy schedules to visit with me here. Humbled that anyone cares one bit about what I have to say.
My friends, I will suggest you reject negativity in all forms, and always remember to keep looking "UP".
Constructive criticism based upon public record is encouraged.
Respect,
Robert R. "Ron" Solomon
Director, Roof Consultant's Alliance
CCC 1325620
Central email address : RobertRSolomon@aol.com
Thursday, January 9, 2014
Sunday, December 8, 2013
Oklahoma Representative Jason Murphey, "Taxpayer Hero"
Oklahoma Representative Jason Murphey is a hero to the taxpayers.
http://www.hd31.org/blog.php?title=An-Example-of-Legalized-Corruption
We in construction trades do not want preferential treatment, but fair competition.
The only thing stopping it is "Purchasing Cooperatives", and administrators who are either uninformed, or corrupt.
MUCH RESPECT to Rep. Murphey for standing up for us, and taxpayers across this country.
http://www.hd31.org/blog.php?title=An-Example-of-Legalized-Corruption
We in construction trades do not want preferential treatment, but fair competition.
The only thing stopping it is "Purchasing Cooperatives", and administrators who are either uninformed, or corrupt.
MUCH RESPECT to Rep. Murphey for standing up for us, and taxpayers across this country.
Jason Murphey's Blog.
POSTS FROM REPRESENTATIVE MURPHEY's BLOG
An Example of Legalized Corruption
Almost one year ago, Senator Clark Jolley asked me to assist him in bringing
an end to what appeared to be a practice of legalized corruption. Having worked
with Jolley on numerous modernization and efficiency measures, I have learned to
pay close attention to his concerns. He frequently proposes cost saving and
efficiency reforms, and his proposals are taken very seriously by the
Legislature. Jolley had received reports from whistleblowers who exposed
extremely disturbing abuses and he wanted to work on legislation to stop the
practice.
Jolley's request started an intense one-year saga to remedy one of the worst abuses of the taxpayer dollar that I have seen. That saga continues to this day.
Let me tell you about this horrific abuse known as sole-source specing.
Voters within a school district or municipality approve a massive bond issue calling for the construction of new buildings without realizing they have just contributed to legalized corruption. Flush with cash, the benefiting governing board hires design professionals to specify which materials are to be used in the new project.
The designers present the governing board with grandiose plans that highlight the inclusion of expensive features. It's all too easy for gullible board members to approve these plans because they are after all spending other peoples' money. These designers then draw the specifications so tightly that only one supplier can provide the expensive features. In this way, competition is eliminated and the supplier can charge exponentially more than would otherwise be paid because the competitive bidding process has been eliminated. In some cases, the project designer may actually allow the sales engineer for a product manufacturer to write the specification so that only that one product qualifies.
Sole-source specing has long-term implications.
More: http://www.hd31.org/blog.php?title=An-Example-of-Legalized-Corruption
Jolley's request started an intense one-year saga to remedy one of the worst abuses of the taxpayer dollar that I have seen. That saga continues to this day.
Let me tell you about this horrific abuse known as sole-source specing.
Voters within a school district or municipality approve a massive bond issue calling for the construction of new buildings without realizing they have just contributed to legalized corruption. Flush with cash, the benefiting governing board hires design professionals to specify which materials are to be used in the new project.
The designers present the governing board with grandiose plans that highlight the inclusion of expensive features. It's all too easy for gullible board members to approve these plans because they are after all spending other peoples' money. These designers then draw the specifications so tightly that only one supplier can provide the expensive features. In this way, competition is eliminated and the supplier can charge exponentially more than would otherwise be paid because the competitive bidding process has been eliminated. In some cases, the project designer may actually allow the sales engineer for a product manufacturer to write the specification so that only that one product qualifies.
Sole-source specing has long-term implications.
More: http://www.hd31.org/blog.php?title=An-Example-of-Legalized-Corruption
Friday, November 22, 2013
Garland Roofing Materials: "Sell by FEAR"
I will take a brief respite from TCPN and their unusually rabid support of Tremco in public works. They know what they're doing is wrong, and so do I. The Pechacek name permeates TCPN, and will stun you with how it's all "connected".
So, it's time for more TCPN/Tremco research, and will share the results at a later date.
In the interim, Garland Co. can "tag out" with them :
Garland Roofing Materials: "Sell by FEAR"
NOTE: Retired 2003, do not solicit nor accept compensation, or personal advancement of any kind.
The following information was graciously provided by:
http://schoolroofingscam.blogspot.com/
If you want to see the damage being done to our schools through "predatory sales models", Ms. Campbell's site is the reference standard. Once again, I will acknowledge her very long difficult journey to bring truth into light.
There is a HUGE difference between the Private Market versus Public Market. Procurement laws are in place to PROTECT taxpayers in the Public Market. The government doesn't own anything. The taxpayers (we the people) own buildings and their contents. Therefore, great consideration must be given to competition for our taxpayer dollars. Subject to all local, state, and federal LAW.
All participants in any transaction appear in public record. They are therefore susceptible to inquiry.
A Private owner is free of such oversight. They earned that money and right to spend it without oversight.
Again, thank you to Ms. Campbell.
Garland's view: (click to enlarge)
So, it's time for more TCPN/Tremco research, and will share the results at a later date.
In the interim, Garland Co. can "tag out" with them :
Garland Roofing Materials: "Sell by FEAR"
NOTE: Retired 2003, do not solicit nor accept compensation, or personal advancement of any kind.
The following information was graciously provided by:
http://schoolroofingscam.blogspot.com/
If you want to see the damage being done to our schools through "predatory sales models", Ms. Campbell's site is the reference standard. Once again, I will acknowledge her very long difficult journey to bring truth into light.
There is a HUGE difference between the Private Market versus Public Market. Procurement laws are in place to PROTECT taxpayers in the Public Market. The government doesn't own anything. The taxpayers (we the people) own buildings and their contents. Therefore, great consideration must be given to competition for our taxpayer dollars. Subject to all local, state, and federal LAW.
All participants in any transaction appear in public record. They are therefore susceptible to inquiry.
A Private owner is free of such oversight. They earned that money and right to spend it without oversight.
Again, thank you to Ms. Campbell.
Garland's view: (click to enlarge)
That's about as "Point Blank" as it gets folks. "Sell by Fear" damn the taxpayers.
Please note that in 2011, Garland's top salesman (New Jersey) "Sold" $5,400,000.00, and received 25% commission on that number.
.
If that doesn't grab you, nothing will.
I know, let's see how a Garland Representative describes his job:
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.
OUTRAGEOUS!
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 awarded 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 steer 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 as taxpayers. SELL AT ALL COST.
I wonder how much "benefit" the taxpayers, and school districts of New Jersey received to justify paying one man well over $1,000,000.00 in one year? Keep in mind that Garland also marked up materials, therefore making their profits on top of the $5,400,000.00.
In the roofing discipline, it is rare to mention Garland, where Tremco isn't immediately followed. The sales models funnel money to purchasing cooperatives and in return they are claimed "competitive". THEY AREN'T.
My concern is for school districts and administrators, who are being unnecessarily exposed to suit by following promises of a "salesman".
Please avoid "Exclusionary" or "Preferred Vendor" situations. They are clearly against the law, which may unknowingly include YOU when the topic arises.
"Pre-Compete" is a LIE. You may "Pre-Compete" on Post-It notes, but not complex construction projects with many variables like "hidden damages". NO roofer on earth will disagree with that comment.
If one were to include (in my humble opinion) an HONORABLE manufacturer such as GAF, Carlisle Syntec, Johns Manville, or Firestone, you will be assured of a true "Competitive" number. I stake my reputation on that.
Garland and Tremco despise competition. If you throw in one of the manufacturers listed above, they will immediately move on to another unsuspecting "target". I guarantee that GAF, Carlisle Syntec, Johns Manville and Firestone will beat the pants off Garland or Tremco every single time on a competitively bid project.
Why should the Public (especially schools) suffer as purchasing cooperatives manipulate, interpret, and rearrange local, state, and federal procurement law?
My best suggestion is to write purchase orders to manufacturers who fight hard, but fight FAIR. For goodness' sake, at least include them on a bid list. Garland will not compete. They can't, and even say so on their own website. Garland says Administrators 'have a right to choose", and that's absurd.
Administrators may not give even the slightest hint of favoritism.
Respect to:
Garland, nor Tremco can compete, nor will compete against mainstream manufacturers and that's a fact. Don't believe me? Tell your Garland (or Tremco) Rep you'd like to get a quote from them as well as one of the above. Sheer panic will set in, and if they can't change your mind, they will walk away from the project.
Remember: they are battling the idea of losing a 25% commission, and to them are in the middle of a nightmare.
Our schools are suffering at the hands of purchasing cooperatives with false claims.
Thank you for spending valuable time with me here . I am humbled that you care.
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
Director, Roof Consultant's Alliance
(5,000 Members Worldwide)
CCC 1325620 (Florida)
Friday, November 8, 2013
TCPN says "Avoid Bid Process"
Friends:
Part of a Power Point Presentation by TCPN. I may share the whole presentation in another post, but this is the mentality.
Ohio-based RPM International Inc. and its subsidiary, Tremco Inc., have paid $60.9 million to resolve allegations that Tremco filed false claims in connection with two multiple award schedule (MAS) contracts with the General Services Administration (GSA) for roofing supplies and services, the Justice Department announced today. Tremco failed to provide the government with price discounts provided to non-federal government customers. Tremco also allegedly marketed expensive materials to government purchasers without disclosing the availability of the same materials at lower cost that were manufactured and sold by the company. Tremco is a manufacturer of construction products and services and is a subsidiary of the RPM Building Solutions Group.
“Companies that knowingly skirt the rules for securing government business undermine the integrity of the procurement process and create an unfair advantage against companies that are playing by the rules,” said Stuart F. Delery, Assistant Attorney General for the Justice Department’s Civil Division. “We are committed to ensuring a level playing field and protecting taxpayer dollars.”
GSA Inspector General Brian Miller said, “GSA OIG auditors and investigators worked diligently to make sure the taxpayers got the benefit of required price reductions, and received a fair price for the products and services purchased with taxpayer funds.”
“These companies are paying the price for trying to cheat the American taxpayer out of a fair deal,” said Ronald C. Machen Jr., U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia. “We thank this whistleblower for coming forward to reveal this wrongdoing. Other contractors who are considering bilking the government should take heed: false and fraudulent claims on the U.S. Treasury will not be tolerated.”
Part of a Power Point Presentation by TCPN. I may share the whole presentation in another post, but this is the mentality.
Your Presenter and Response Team
Presenter: Tom VanHootegem
Response Team:
•Pam Gonzalez, our TCPN Contract Holder
•Scott Wynne, TCPN Program Manager
The TCPN Difference
•Single lead government agency for all TCPN contracts
–Region 4 Education Service Center, Houston, TX
•Highest level of consistency & compliance
•ISO 9001 Certified solicitation process
–Supports education nationwide
•Curriculum development
•Teacher certification
•Braille production center
–3rd party audits of vendor contracts
Benefits
•TCPN Member Benefits
–Legal contract vehicle (competitive solicitation)
–One contract for multiple commodities
–Avoid bid process
–Highest level of contract compliance
–Meet buy local commitment
–Save TIME & MONEY
•TriMega Dealer Benefits
–One contract for all public sector accounts
–Competitive advantage vs. competition
–Avoid bid process
–Competitive national pricing at local level
–TCPN program manager support
Anyone who deals with schools, administration, facilities management, public roofing purchasing should read this. I've already illustrated how TCPN is intertwined in their Tremco relationship, the players involve, and how TCPN pushes a "Locked Specification" with them.
How can any governmental agency, or government purchasing cooperative, continue such a dangerous, illegal, and "exclusionary" tactic (paid for by the taxpayers)?
The "Exposure" to roofing scams has already been established by the DOJ.
Department of Justice
Office of Public Affairs
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Wednesday, August 28, 2013
RPM International Inc. and Tremco Inc. Pay Nearly $61 Million for Failing to Provide Government Discounts Provided to Others
Companies Allegedly Submitted False Claims Under Defectively-priced Roofing Contracts
Ohio-based RPM International Inc. and its subsidiary, Tremco Inc., have paid $60.9 million to resolve allegations that Tremco filed false claims in connection with two multiple award schedule (MAS) contracts with the General Services Administration (GSA) for roofing supplies and services, the Justice Department announced today. Tremco failed to provide the government with price discounts provided to non-federal government customers. Tremco also allegedly marketed expensive materials to government purchasers without disclosing the availability of the same materials at lower cost that were manufactured and sold by the company. Tremco is a manufacturer of construction products and services and is a subsidiary of the RPM Building Solutions Group.
“Companies that knowingly skirt the rules for securing government business undermine the integrity of the procurement process and create an unfair advantage against companies that are playing by the rules,” said Stuart F. Delery, Assistant Attorney General for the Justice Department’s Civil Division. “We are committed to ensuring a level playing field and protecting taxpayer dollars.”
Allegedly, from January 2002 to March 2011, Tremco knowingly violated its contractual obligations to provide GSA with current, accurate and complete information about its commercial sales practices, to report changes in discounts to comparable commercial customers and to pass those discounts on to government customers. As a result, the government allegedly paid more than it should have for Tremco’s services and products. In addition, Tremco allegedly improperly marketed generic products as a superior line of the same product and used a defective adhesive formula in its roofing systems.
The GSA MAS program provides government purchasers with a streamlined process for procurement of commonly used commercial goods and services. To be awarded a MAS contract, and thereby gain access to the broad government marketplace and ease of administration that comes from selling to hundreds of government purchasers under one contract, contractors must agree to disclose commercial pricing policies and practices.
GSA Inspector General Brian Miller said, “GSA OIG auditors and investigators worked diligently to make sure the taxpayers got the benefit of required price reductions, and received a fair price for the products and services purchased with taxpayer funds.”
“These companies are paying the price for trying to cheat the American taxpayer out of a fair deal,” said Ronald C. Machen Jr., U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia. “We thank this whistleblower for coming forward to reveal this wrongdoing. Other contractors who are considering bilking the government should take heed: false and fraudulent claims on the U.S. Treasury will not be tolerated.”
The settlement resolves a qui tam, or whistleblower, lawsuit filed on behalf of the government by former Tremco vice president Gregory Rudolph, who will receive more than $10.9 million as his share of the recovery in the case. Under the whistleblower provisions of the False Claims Act, private citizens can bring lawsuits on behalf of the government and share in any recovery. Rudolph’s lawsuit also includes allegations on behalf of several states under their false claims statutes. The settlement with the federal government does not resolve the state actions.
This settlement was the result of a coordinated effort by the Commercial Litigation Branch of the Justice Department’s Civil Division, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia and GSA’s Office of Inspector General to investigate the allegations and resolve the case. The claims settled by this agreement are allegations only, and there has been no determination of liability.
The case is captioned United States, the States of California, Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Indiana, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Virginia and the City of Chicago, ex rel. Gregory Rudolph v. Tremco Inc. and RPM International Inc. , Case No. 1:10-cv-01192 (D.DC) .
13-968
Civil Division
If they got fined 60+ million dollars, imagine how much they got away with?
TCPN and Tremco are a ticking time bomb, and I will suggest anyone who reads this to step clear of the heartbreak.
I will break down each and every person involved, what they do, the companies they do it for, and you will be astonished. I have so much documentation and will take time to "connect the dots" for you in a very comprehensive way.
You have a CHOICE, and must reject any "mandate" to buy from a "preferred vendor". Next time they get caught, you may find yourself tangled around the axle of the bus they threw you under.
Friends, I only provide the data, and it is you who are the judge.
Thank you for spending precious time with me here, and am humbled you care what I have to say.
Please reject negativity in all forms, and always remember to keep looking "UP".
Respect,
Robert R. 'Ron" Solomon
Director, Roof Consultant's Alliance
CCC 1325620 (Florida)
Thank you for spending precious time with me here, and am humbled you care what I have to say.
Please reject negativity in all forms, and always remember to keep looking "UP".
Respect,
Robert R. 'Ron" Solomon
Director, Roof Consultant's Alliance
CCC 1325620 (Florida)
Friday, November 1, 2013
"TCPN, Tremco, and Taxpayers"
To: Jason Wickel
From: Deborah Bushnell
Re: Determination for RFP
Date: August 31, 2011
Request for Proposal (RFP) for Cooperative Job Order Contracting Services (TX) RFP #11-14
TCPN has determined that the use of a Request for Proposal (RFP) for Cooperative Job Order Contracting Services (TX) is more beneficial and advantageous to our members than the use of a Request for Bid.
TCPN contracts are used by public and private schools, colleges and universities, cities, counties, non-profits, and all governmental entities throughout the country. The use of an RFP will allow vendors to decrease submitted pricing if needed based on quantity and size of projects, as well as the ability to negotiate supplemental agreements. Each purchase made through this contract will be customized to the needs of the purchasing agency. In addition, competitive sealed bidding does not allow the ability to compare offers and determine the best value for our wide range of members.
Therefore, it is our opinion that a Request for Proposal, rather than a Request for Bid, is more advantageous to our members.
**********
http://www.daytondailynews.com/news/news/local-govt-politics/investigator-lack-of-bidding-cost-miami-county-tax/nTgdy/
Posted: 11:30 p.m. Saturday, Dec. 29, 2012
Investigator: Lack of bidding cost Miami County taxpayers
By Andrew J. Tobias
Staff writer
**********
Oh Man, that is BRUTAL!
I have the full pdf file available for you here:
http://media.cmgdigital.com/shared/news/documents/2012/12/28/HarrahCaseFile.pdf
I will save you a lot of time, and suggest you start reading on Page 103.
Believe me, this case is not unique, and MANY EXAMPLES of grotesque overspending on purchasing cooperatives, and Tremco exist. I will continue to furnish those examples, to illustrate the scope, and dereliction of "Competitive Bid" responsibility to the taxpayers.
Here is a purchasing cooperative that does not accept "Bids" on individual, and unique projects. Tremco WROTE the specifications, acted as the consultant, and specified ONLY their materials. This is illegal in all 50 states, all territories, and provinces of Canada.
Instead, to use their "Preferred Vendor" Tremco. TCPN's deceptive method is based solely upon a "Line Item" method to eliminate all competition.
With TCPN, they simply "choose" based upon favoritism, and greed.
THIS IS PUBLIC WORK, AND PUBLIC MONEY!
YOU pay for it. YOU pay the much higher cost of Tremco, and then pay TCPN an additional 4% for handling the contract.
It seems imbecilic to me.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/imbecilic
**********
It may seem rather harsh of me to categorize Ms. Bushnell's message in that way, but her direction is against all known procurement law.
"Fair, Open, Transparent, and COMPETITIVE" is the LAW of this land, and no amount of jibberish, or "wishful thinking" will change it.
TCPN comes from a fundamentally flawed position which is to me, astonishing in it's arrogance.
I am in discussion with TCPN to bring fairness to the taxpayers, and not illegally push a culture of "favoritism" to preferred vendors, WITHOUT BIDDING.
GSA says this about TCPN:
"Mr. Solomon,
Thank you for your e-mail. I am the supervisor for the 03FAC Schedule.
Tremco's GSA Schedule 03FAC Contract GS-06F-0047R was cancelled effective May
19, 2013.
The link provided in the e-mail was to Tremco's GSA Advantage PDF price
list file for the cancelled contract, which is no longer active or accessible
through GSA eLibrary or GSA Advantage. We researched several Tremco commercial
websites and found no reference to GSA or Ms. Cheryl Sharp. If you could
provide the link to the Tremco website where you saw that information it would
be helpful for us.
Thank you,
Janet M. Haynes
Supervisory Contracting Officer (Schedule 03FAC)
Facilities Maintenance & Hardware Acquisition Center
(FMHAC)
General Services Administration
816-823-1297
First, I am VERY THANKFUL to Ms. Haynes who acted promptly, and professionally.
I furnished that link to her, and it can be found here:
https://www.gsaadvantage.gov/ref_text/GS06F0047R/0K1DDQ.2DCQFU_GS-06F-0047R_CATALOG0047REV10272011.PDF
That should be abundantly clear to everyone, so I will change direction for a moment. You will notice I am using HUD as the most difficult challenge of all, and sharing public record.
Please let me share with you what HUD themselves say:
I will suggest you look to HUD as ONE reference: (Section 8, to
save time)
"Special Attention of: Transmittal for Handbook No: 7460.8 REV 2
Public Housing Agencies; Issued:
March 2, 2007
Public Housing HUB Office Directors;
Public Housing Program Center Coordinators;
Regional Directors;
Field Office Directors; and
Resident Management Corporations
Public Housing HUB Office Directors;
Public Housing Program Center Coordinators;
Regional Directors;
Field Office Directors; and
Resident Management Corporations
3. Brand Name or Equal Specifications (24 CFR 85.36(c)(1)(vi)).
Under
this form of specification, clear and accurate product descriptions are
developed. These descriptions shall not contain features that unduly
restrict competition.
It may be necessary to describe technical requirements for materials and equipment by referencing brand name products in order to define performance or other salient requirements.
References to brand names shall be followed by the words “or equal” and a description of the item’s essential characteristics so that competition is not restricted.
this form of specification, clear and accurate product descriptions are
developed. These descriptions shall not contain features that unduly
restrict competition.
It may be necessary to describe technical requirements for materials and equipment by referencing brand name products in order to define performance or other salient requirements.
References to brand names shall be followed by the words “or equal” and a description of the item’s essential characteristics so that competition is not restricted.
Specific brand names may be used only for establishing design
and quality standards and only if there is no other reasonable method
of designating the required quality of the item desired. When brand
names or catalog numbers are used, inform the offerors that such
references establish only design or quality standard; in fact, any other
products that clearly and demonstrably meet the standard are also
acceptable.
D. Avoiding Manufacturers
Specifications. PHAs should avoid incorporating a particular manufacturer’s
specification as the project specification. This may give the appearance of
restricting competition and suggest that other manufacturers’ products are at
a disadvantage and may not be accepted.
If the PHA specifies a brand name cabinet, the essential key elements or
features of the product should be stated. For example, if specifying kitchen
cabinets with the key features of solid wood doors and plywood frames.
If the PHA specifies a brand name cabinet, the essential key elements or
features of the product should be stated. For example, if specifying kitchen
cabinets with the key features of solid wood doors and plywood frames.
E. Contractor-Developed
Specifications (24 CFR 85.36(c)(1)(iv)). In order to ensure objective
contractor performance and eliminate unfair competitive advantage,
contractors funded to develop or draft specifications, requirements,
statements of work, invitations for bid, or requests for proposals shall be
excluded from competing in the procurement.
The only exception to this rule is if, prior to the solicitation, all respondents to solicitations are provided with materials and information made available to the contractor involved in matters pertinent to the solicitation."
**********
The only exception to this rule is if, prior to the solicitation, all respondents to solicitations are provided with materials and information made available to the contractor involved in matters pertinent to the solicitation."
**********
This is in DIRECT CONFLICT to what Ms. Bushnell suggests to her client, and in DIRECT CONFLICT" to the law, and the spirit of the law. I am in hopes they will cease in defrauding the taxpayers, but then again, I'm an optimist.
My next post will be Nov. 09, 2013. I will announce TCPN's position (if any) at that time.
The taxpayers are NOT TCPN's "Piggybank".
The site will become more about "Public Roofing Procurement", as I feel it the best use of my skill set, time, and benefit to administrators, and taxpayers.
Image from washingtontechnology.com
Corrections of fact are welcome, and encouraged.
Friends, I will once again suggest you reject negativity in all forms (it can be done), and always remember to keep looking "UP".
Thank you so much for spending valuable time with me here, and am humbled you care one bit about what I have to say.
Respect,
Robert R. "Ron" Solomon
Director, Roof Consultant's Alliance
CCC 1325620 (Florida)
RobertRSolomon@aol.com
Thursday, October 24, 2013
"TCPN favors Tremco "Associates" and abuses taxpayers"
I will prove to you that TCPN has a very unhealthy financial interest in Tremco/WTI. I would like to tell you that is unique, but it isn't. The purchasing cooperative does not get paid to SAVE money, they get a COMMI$$ION of 4%. Where is the incentive?
The more it costs, the more they make. Period.
Would a rational person (taxpayer) approve of this method? Of course not. But, they are unaware, because they "Trust" others to care about our schools, and tax dollars. The opposite is true, and permeates the very core of all government purchasing ciooperatives.
This example illustrates the nepotism, esoteric companies formed only to funnel money away from you. I will make an attempt to bring them to you, and also continue to fight for fair bidding practices that do not excludee competition as TCPN does.
Let us begin.
The messages were sent to: tmoses@tcpn.org
| Copied: |
First message:
"Dear Sir:
Roof Consultant's Institute, and my group Roof Consultant's Alliance
(5,000+ members combined) take great exception to roofing services contracted
through government purchasing cooperatives.
"TCPN will receive 4% of the total revenue from each PO executed under
this contract. This fee will be included in the contractor's pricing proposal and will not be
issued as a separate line item in any job proposals issued to client members.
This contract management fee will be required to be paid within thirty days of the completion of any work order".
TCPN is essentially a commissioned salesperson, and the more roofing
services cost, the more TCPN makes. All incentive to achieve a lower price is
immediately vacated. Shameful.
We are fed up with terms like:
Proprietary Specifications
Sole Source Agreement
Preferred Vendor
Line Item Contract
Job Order Contract
They are designed only to circumvent fair, open, and transparent, competitive bid laws of every state in this country.
I see one of your preferred vendors is WTI/Tremco. Are you aware they
were just handed a federal fine of $61,000,000.00 for abusing GSA "Line Item"
contracts?
http://www.tcpn.org/Vendors/Pages/WeatherproofingTechnologies.aspx
WHO is "Weatherproofing Technologies'?
TREMCO
Let's check TCPN's website for roofing contracts:
http://www.tcpn.org/Pages/All-Current-Contracts.aspx
| Job Order Contracting (JOC) Services (AZ) | Weatherproofing Technologies | 3/31/2015 | R5155 |
| Job Order Contracting (JOC) Services (LA) | Weatherproofing Technologies | 2/28/2015 | R5229 |
| Job Order Contracting (JOC) Services (MI) | Weatherproofing Technologies | 3/31/2015 | R5121 |
| Job Order Contracting (JOC) Services (MI) (Federally Funded Projects) | Weatherproofing Technologies | 3/31/2015 | R5122 |
| Job Order Contracting (JOC) Services (TX) | Weatherproofing Technologies | 10/31/2014 | R5101 |
| Roofing, Roof Repairs, Roof Maintenance | Progressive Roofing | 10/31/2014 | MO928 |
Who is Progressive Roofing? A "Division" of Progressive Services.
Here is the "appointment" by TCPN to make Progressive Roofing a "partner", as they all like to say.
http://www.tcpn.org/Contracts/MO928/Progressive%20Roofing%20Award%20Letter%2012-2-09%20(Scan).pdf
That document will show you that Progressive Roofing submits some convuleted mess of numbers to TCPN for contract award. NOT to a municipality, or any public works. ALL COMPETITION has been effectively eliminated by the Vendor, and TCPN, although they keep saying "Competitively Bid", they are not.
TCPN is getting 4% (minimum) for jacking up roofing prices. It really is that simple. Tremco and Progressive Roofing are more than happy to oblige them.
Now, attorneys across the nation are seeking additional retribution, and
the cases include defective materials, and even the roofing applicators
themselves? The data is very easy to furnish if that is your pleasure.
We normally see either Tremco, or Garland as the only ones represented in
government purchasing cooperatives, and that is not by accident. It's by
DESIGN!
Source: http://schoolroofingscam.blogspot.com/
I've shown these individually before, as they are public record. But Ms. Campbell (please visit her site for so much more information) has them organized for you.
On YouTube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nGPNJxK1ZRQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tWwb3UNn0V0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gEKVSrPui08
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2SPGTLMKT60
http://www.wbaltv.com/I-Team-Is-School-Construction-Costing-Taxpayers/-/9380084/9127454/-/uaj6je/-/index.html
http://www.news9.com/category/116601/video-page?clipId=8604183&autostart=true
Print media:
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/former-tremco-employees-whistleblowing-leads-to-61m-settlement-of-qui-tam-case-221391811.html
http://www.nysun.com/national/legislators-mayors-arrested-in-new-jersey-bribery/62077/
http://www.roofingcontractor.com/articles/shut-out-new-jersey-strikes-down-suspicious-bidding
http://www.professionalroofing.net/article.aspx?id=147
http://www.kitsapsun.com/news/2013/jul/12/north-kitsap-school-board-approves-roofing/#ixzz2ZGxAOd1M
http://www.bakersfieldcalifornian.com/archive/x333424294
http://dailyitem.com/0100_news/x1522095368/State-could-punish-district
http://cumberlink.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/cv-school-district-settles-lawsuit-with-carlisle-syntec-systems-employees/article_4e09a08c-9e18-11e1-9085-001a4bcf887a.html
http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Schools-paying-millions-too-much-for-new-roofs-3258031.php
http://www.daytondailynews.com/news/news/local-govt-politics/investigator-lack-of-bidding-cost-miami-county-tax/nTgdy/
http://www.metrowestdailynews.com/state/x1361725249/Framingham-company-probed-in-fatal-lift-accident
http://www.abqjournal.com/news/metro/288320metro01-14-05.htm
http://www.orovillemr.com/news/bayarea/ci_5667765
http://www.stopthewarmachine.org/events/jan18pdf.pdf
http://www.sfweekly.com/2003-02-26/news/the-fix-is-in/
http://www.state.nj.us/sci/school.shtm
http://www.bsa.ca.gov/pdfs/reports/I2003-2.pdf
http://aaar.assembly.ca.gov/20102011hearings
http://www.house.state.tx.us/video-audio/committee-broadcasts/committee-ar
How about some RPM/Tremco stock selloff by Corporate?
(Note: items in red were not included in my original message to TCPN)
http://www.secform4.com/insider-trading/110621-1.htm
Folks, you MUST read this link, and see the massive sell off. This is the SAME company that TCPN is using exclusively. A lot of money is flowing folks, and none of it reaching our schools.
They've appointed a past Attorney General and official of DOJ (specialty in bid rigging) to
the Tremco board as well. Does that sound above board to you?
I could go on, but the pattern does not change, and think I've proven my
point.
Tremco, and Garland "Salesmen/women" are paid exorbitant commissions
(25%). That means for every tax dollar designated for roof replacement, or
repairs, only 75% actually gets there. A vicious taxpayer assault in my view,
and that of any rational person.
You are causing great hardship to taxpayers in this country, and to my
Brothers and Sisters within the roofing discipline who seek a fair opportunity
to bid for their own taxpayer dollars.
The path is well worn by Tremco, and Garland.
You, as a government purchasing cooperative facilitate this heinous assault
on taxpayers, and the roofing world is vehemently opposed to it.
Don't believe me? I've attached the words of a Garland Salesman, and
proudly listed in his profile.
AEPA, NJPA, US Communities, and TCPN are all variations on the same theme
since in the past - Tremco mostly won. In some cases, the copy cats like
Garland and Hickman were successful.
The line item bid process is far from a true bid process where the low
company gets the work. Individual line items receive an estimate that is then
arbitrarily weighted. Whoever wins the most line items wins that portion of
the bid.
In some cases, manufacturers are forced to bid on line items that they are
legally precluded from like the provision of design services. In the case
of AEPA, the contract has more points riding on masonry restoration than on
roofing services. At the end of the day, the line item portion is only a
fraction of the rating system used to select a vendor since other subjective
measures come into the picture that are not clearly defined to those of us
on the outside trying to figure out their scoring system.
In the recent CV Schools lawsuit, found the AEPA process was flawed in that
no due diligence was ever done to ensure that the schools got market compet
itive numbers. When pressed they claimed that they never promised to
provide a more competitive price.
If you read their marketing materials, you will find that this is not
accurate since most school districts are left with the impression that they are
getting a competitive number and the contract has been "pre-competed".
In addition to their recent board addition, I also saw that they had added
an attorney with an extensive background at the DOJ with experience (12+
years) with bid rigging.
At the moment, it is going on with a current RFP, and we will vigorously
protest if not withdrawn.
TCPN (see attachment)
http://www.tcpn.org/Pages/RFP-Webpart-Page.aspx
Due Oct 28
RFP states: "TCPN (The Cooperative Purchasing Network) intends to enter into Roofing Products and Services Contract(s) for the construction, maintenance, repair and alteration services related to roofing systems. These contracts will be available for use by all public entities such as ESC's, ISD/USD's, universities, city and county governments, community colleges, state and federal agencies in these United States and other jurisdictions."
I would appreciate acknowledgement of receipt by all copied, and will await
your response.
The purpose of this writing is to advise you of certain misconduct, and
make you aware. I am praying you see the copious data as illustrative,
informative, and helpful. Everything I write is for public consumption, and you
are free to share it with anyone you wish. Particularly Tremco, and the
school district.
How shall we proceed?
Respect,
Ron"
**************************
Without benefit of reply, sent a second message to each member:
"Dear Sir:
Again: Roofing must be completely removed from your list of services, and a
letter signed by the BOD to enforce it. This is my minimum requirement.
TCPN is a "Front" for Tremco, and that much is known, and certain.
Taxpayers cannot afford the unnecessary exposure to liability that TCPN,
R4,Tremco/WTI/RPM brings. Lawyers are now seeking testimony from Tremco
"Approved Applicators", and have no reason to believe they will stop
there.
If you impose your will upon the taxpayers, the burden will fall to you.
Consider this friendly advice, and a certainty. RPM's 61 million dollar federal
fine is real, and explaining why you SPECIFICALLY choose them as a "Preferred
Vendor", using "Line Item" contracting (the same thing they were guilty of with
the GSA) might be a tough sell.
Ignoring a reasonable concern will not make it go away. I will expand my
complaint now to include Directors of R4 Enterprises, LLC. I have also become
interested in your "non-profit" status, as I believe it to be overreaching,
and unlawful.
It is a simple matter of "connecting the dots", and I will connect them.
That is a given. Doing pretty good so far don't you think?
TCPN (all), "Pechacek" (all), Tremco (all), and R4 Enterprises, LLC (all),
seem to be heavily dependent upon the favor of each other. The "sleight of
hand" is exceptionally clumsy, compared to most bid rigging themes.
Are the taxpayers served? Of course not.
I am presenting you with fact.
If you want the protest on an "Official"
form, please send it to me for completion. But THIS is my
official protest form.
Involved:
Involved:
David
Naber of Tremco:
http://www.linkedin.com/in/davenaber?_mSplash=1
http://www.linkedin.com/in/davenaber?_mSplash=1
"As
a Principal Roofing Consultant at Tremco, I have over 22 years of relevant
experience within the municipal, county,
state and federal governmental markets; in addition to K thru 12 and Higher
Education. I am disciplined in the inspection, analysis, expert
reporting, document development, project management and programming for all
building envelope components including roofing, waterproofing and dam proofing
assemblies. My success in this industry has been built upon relationships of trust with my
clients. I believe in long-term roofing solutions and am available, as ‘The
Reliable Resource’ for my client’s roof management needs".
Robert A. Pechacek
|
Robert A. Pechacek's Biography
Type Of Business:
Government company
Marketing Area:
National
Expertise:
Governmental marketing
Major Product/SVS:
Professional development
and technical assistance for school districts
Hobbies/Sports:
Sports
Education Degrees:
MBA, Massachusetts
Institute of Technology (2012); Bachelor's Degree in Accounting, Oral Roberts
University (1987)
Affiliations Awards:
Texas Association of
School Business Officials; Government Finance Officers Association of Texas;
Association of Educational Service Agencies; Association of School Business
Officials International
Charity:
Volunteer, Local Church
Number Of Years In
Profession:
15
Number Of Years In
Current Position:
3
What Does He/She
Attribute Success To:
He attributes his
success to his background in auditing, the customer service skills he learned
from his father and the support he received from his mentors.
Why did you become
involved in your profession or industry?:
He became involved in
his profession after gaining experience working as a financial auditor.
Position
Responsibilities and Duties:
Heading the companies
Where Will You Be In 5
Years:
In five years, Mr.
Pechacek plans to continue to expand and start new businesses
"Texas Association of School Business Officials; Government Finance
Officers Association of Texas; Association of Educational Service Agencies;
Association of School Business Officials International
Public testimony".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Andy Pechacek, the CEO of R4 Enterprises LLC
Public testimony".
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Andy Pechacek, the CEO of R4 Enterprises LLC
Andy Pechacek
Entrepreneur and
Management Consultant
- Current
- President/CEO at R4 Enterprises, LLC
- Location
- Houston, Texas
- Industry
- Government Administration
| Edit experience Current | |
|---|---|
| Edit experience Previous | |
Surprise:
Representative Profile
|
David Naber - Houston, TX Southeast Texas and Louisiana Telephone: (281) 358-4957 E-Mail: dnaber@tremcoinc.com |
If not, I will piece it all together into presentation form, and take our chances. Please do not make me invest a huge amount of time into "Bid Rigging", although that's exactly what this is.
Note: Not one of great sensitivity, am insulted that you, nor one person
copied had the decency (much less courtesy) to reply.
I am dedicated to a civil, fact based, discussion. If you are amenable to such a theme, I would appreciate it.
Soon, I will have to report my progress to the taxpayers, and the lawmakers sworn to protect them.
Ms. Bushnell seems to be an important component in this "process" as well.
As Counsel, she should know better than to expose TCPN to such a vulnerable
position. I welcome her input.
What's your pleasure?
Respect,
Ron"
*********************************************************
Finally, received this reply from: tmoses@tcpn.org
Ron"
*********************************************************
Finally, received this reply from: tmoses@tcpn.org
"Mr. Solomon,
We are in receipt of your correspondence dated October 16,
2013 and October 20, 2013. We are in a quiet period for this solicitation until
the deadline when the proposals are due. We will not comment on
any solicitations currently being advertised.
Tray
Moses
Director of
Operations/Business Development
11280 West
Road
Houston, TX
77065
Direct Line
713.554.0557
TCPN Main
713.554.0437
Cell
979.877.8583
********************************************************
Sorry to interrupt "Quiet Time".
Sorry to interrupt "Quiet Time".
My position is not based upon a SINGLE project, but their methods of jamming Tremco down the throats of our schools, and of you the taxpayer. This is how Tremco shuts out competiition, and people like TCPN are more than happy to go along.
This is proven by their association with R4 Enterprises, LLC.
This is proven by their association with R4 Enterprises, LLC.
Alternate Names:
- The Cooperative Purchasing Network - Assumed
- Tcpn - Assumed
- R4 Enterprises LLC - Legal
Key People & Organizations for R4 Enterprises LLC
R4 Enterprises LLC
Overview of R4 Enterprises LLC in Houston, TX
R4 Enterprises LLC filed as a Foreign Limited Liability Company (LLC) in the State of Texas on Wednesday, July 20, 2011 and is approximately two years old, according to public records filed with Texas Secretary of State. The filing is currently active as of the last data refresh which occured on Monday, October 21, 2013. A corporate filing is called a foreign filing when an existing corporate entity files in a state other than the state they originally filed in. This does not necessarily mean that they are from outside the United States.
Key People
Angela Bishop serves as the Director and has interests in other corporate entities including H-Ram Holdings, LLC, Kinetic Group LLC .
Robert Pechacek is the Director of R4 Enterprises LLC. Robert's additional corporate interests include Kinetic Group LLC .
Jason Wickel. The Director of R4 Enterprises LLC . Jason has other corporate interests including Kinetic Group LLC located in .
Angela G. Bishop is also the registered agent for the company. Also known as a statutory or resident agent, the registered agent is responsible for receiving legal notifications regarding court summons, lawsuits, and other legal actions involving the corporate entity.
We'll soon work on "The Kinetic Group, and reveal what we find here.
ActiveD&B Company Report
- 3 Active Members Found
Key roles for R4 Enterprises LLC | |
| Angela G. Bishop
Director, Member Governing Person
| Active |
| Robert A. Pechacek
Director, Member Governing Person
| Active |
| Jason Wickel
Director, Member
| Active |
Corporate Records
Texas Secretary of State
| Filing Type: | Foreign Limited Liability Company (LLC) |
|---|---|
| Status: | Active |
| State: | Texas |
| State ID: | 801455253 |
| Date Filed: | Wednesday, July 20, 2011 |
| Registered Agent | Angela G. Bishop |
Locations
Alternate Names:
- The Cooperative Purchasing Network - Assumed
- Tcpn - Assumed
- R4 Enterprises LLC - Legal
That Friends, is OBSCENE by any stretch of the imagination.
I will report back on this development if TCPN, Tremco, and R4 Enterprises, LLC., admit to this obvious wrongdoing, and ceases.
If there is no such admission (although supported by public record), I will take you along for the ride.
NOTE:
I will no longer participate in any activities not directly related to "Roof Consultant's Alliance" or "Public Roofing Procurement". You will see no mention of manufacturers, distributors, consultant's, or contractors, who are not either the problem, or not committed to solving the problem.
If I am to protect taxpayers everywhere, may not be dependent upon the ambitions of others.
I will try harder to condense these posts for you, but every turn I take reveals more. Collecting this material is time consuming, and I'll try harder to bring it to you in a more "Professional" format. For now however, you're stuck with facts, and a few illustrative photos.
Soon, I hope to do some audio "break downs" for you, as I present documents, and share the meanings with you.
Please note that I alone am responsible for every word I say here. I encourage constructive criticism, or factual corrections.
Thank you for visiting with me today. Please reject negativity in all forms, and always remember to keep looking "UP".
Respect,
Robert R. "Ron" Solomon
Director, Roof Consultant's Alliance
CCC 1325620 (Florida)
Note: If you want to find out anything about me, just type my name in your browser. It's all there, and my Linkedin full profile is quite complete.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)