Pennsylvania S.B. 813 (Senator Pat Vance) for "FAIR COMPETITION" in Public Roofing Procurement.

Friends:

Again welcome, and I am overjoyed to bring you such positive news.

A number of roofing material manufacturer leaders (especially Carlisle Syntec's Michael Ducharme) have defeated "Exclusion" practiced by purchasing cooperatives in Pennsylvania.

The premise is simple:  Fair competition for taxpayer dollars, and not the predatory sales models of Tremco, and Garland.

Do not be confused.  We encourage Tremco and Garland to "Compete" for our taxpayer dollars, but eliminate false pricing scams prevalent in purchasing cooperatives.  By now, you know that purchasing cooperatives are a horrid way to secure costly roof systems, and services.

THIS is the LAW:

http://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/legis/PN/Public/btCheck.cfm?txtType=PDF&sessYr=2013&sessInd=0&billBody=S&billTyp=B&billNbr=0813&pn=0852

This is of course public record, and availailble to all.

Much respect to Senator Pat Vance of Pennsylvania:



A little of the text:

"(a) General rule.--Notwithstanding any other provision of

law, specifications for roofing projects shall be based upon

generally accepted standards in the commercial roofing industry

and shall be written to encourage open and competitive bidding

and to prevent corruption and favoritism in order to achieve the

best work and materials at the lowest reasonable cost.

(b) Preparation of specifications.--The plans and

specifications for a roofing project shall be prepared by a

design professional and shall bear the stamp or seal of the

design professional who prepared the plans or specifications.

The contracting officer shall require that every design

professional preparing plans and specifications submit

verification to the contracting local government unit that the

design professional holds a valid Pennsylvania license or

registration and a certification required by section 4705

(relating to disclosure of financial interest).

(c) Brand name specifications.--

(1) A local government unit may specify materials by

brand name in order to signify the kind or quality of

materials sought. Specifications calling for materials by

brand name shall be construed as requesting materials of the

general style, type, character and quality of the materials

identified by brand name.

(2) In response to any specification calling for a brand

name, a bidder may furnish the brand name or a brand name

 

equivalent.

(d) Specification features.--None of the following features,

if present in the specifications for a roofing project, may be

used to reject materials substituted for a brand name:

(1) Requirements applicable to substitute materials or

bidders proposing the use of substitute materials that differ

substantially from the requirements to be met by the

materials named in the specifications.

(2) Provisions conferring authority to accept or reject

substitute materials upon persons other than the contract

officer acting upon the recommendation of the design

professional who prepared the specifications.

(3) Testing requirements that may be met by only one

manufacturer's materials. However, specifications may require

materials to meet standards issued by independent testing

organizations. In any case in which a material is required to

meet a certain standard set forth in the specifications, the

material shall be deemed to do so if it meets or exceeds that

standard.

(4) Testing requirements that are exclusionary due to

time or expense for compliance.

(5) Provisions setting a standard for, or placing a

restriction on, the use of substitute materials that are not

related to the purpose, function or activity for which the

contract is awarded.

§ 4704. Prohibited acts.

(a) Separate contracts.--A local government unit,

contracting officer or design professional may not divide a

roofing project into smaller projects to avoid the application

of this chapter."

That is a representation ONLY, and I urge you to read the full bill, and it's affect upon you.

Again, thank you to Senator Vance, and the many who participated. 

An earlier post here showed how Lower Dauphin Schools (Pa.) spent 2.2 million dollars without competition.  I worked very hard to bring this to Superintendent Smith's attention, but she was having no part of the "Fair Competition" I was pleading for her to consider.

But, the persistence of honorable people removes the "stigma", and "darkness" associated with school roofs purchased through purchasing cooperatives.  Remember, the cooperative gets (on average) 4% of the total contract, so all incentive to save, is immediately extinguished.

A refresher:

All anyone has to do is type "School Roofing Scam" into your browser, or "YouTube", and there is no shortage of Tremco and Garland participation in it. I'm even in one here:

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

And:

http://southtownstar.suntimes.com/news/16683132-418/oak-lawn-may-rebid-roofing-contract.html

And:

http://www.cvschools.org/news.cfm?story=592

And:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gEKVSrPui08

And:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ev0Yd2SGNes

And on it goes.

I believe this came from Ms. Janet Campbell's excellent "School Roofing Scam" blogsite, but will correct that if necessary.  Regardless, Ms. Campbell is quite the authority on these things, and you should visit her at:  .

 "SCHOOL ROOFING SCAM:

A GENERIC GUIDE IN SIX STEPS

The following is a composite scenario that illustrates the types of abuses
uncovered by the State Commission of Investigation during its investigation of public
school roofing projects in New Jersey.

STEP I
School District X determines that several failing roofs on school
buildings require repair and/or replacement.

STEP II
When plans for the project are announced, District X officials are
contacted by the sales representative of Company Y, a leading seller of
roofing materials.

The sales representative refers the district to a roofing
consultant/architect who has a secret arrangement under which he
receives compensation from Company Y.

Knowing that he will be paid by the company, the consultant is
able to under-bid all other potential architects to obtain the project
design contract.

STEP III
The consultant writes “proprietary” project specifications
explicitly built around Company Y’s products.

The specifications also contain an array of special requirements,
or “hurdles,” designed to block the substitution of materials from any
other manufacturer, even though they may be less expensive and of
identical quality".

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

 Once you've taken that "Easy Money", you will forever bear the stain. The roofing community knows how it works, and what you are. Souls seem to be going cheaply nowadays.

Hundreds of you have written letters to me describing the abuse in your own communities. NRCA must understand this, and stop facilitating such horrible, predatory models upon the taxpayers of North America. It is extremely bad in Canada as well.

Tremco and Garland are so great, they specify 10 and 15 year roofs for our schools. Then they charge an exhorbitant sum for an ADDITIONAL warranty.

SCAM, SCAM, SCAM. ALL of it perpetrated upon the PUBLIC sector! No private owner is illiterate enough to fall for such an obvious rip off.

 

With Pennsylvania S.B. 813, the law will be enforced, and the stealing by "exclusion" vastly reduced.

 

Recent example of savings first hand:

 

This came to me from an honorable consultant who felt inspired to help his school district.

 

"Brother Ron,
The bid was just awarded for the roofing at the middle school.
Together we saved the taxpayer over 410 k!! Once Garland/ Tremco were exposed,with your great effort,the project award was 719k ,as opposed to 1.29 mil. Just wanted to give you an update. Be well Brother Ron".
 

To all PARENTS:  It is people like this who fight to insure your tax dollars are spent with oversight.  The exact opposite of what purchasing cooperatives represent.

I will translate $410K into visual terms for you, and then it becomes 4 brand new school buses.  Simply because someone cared enough to try, and I am humbled by the civic pride in this fine person.

You should be too, but there is a shortage of "Courage", and an abundance of "Greed".  Chalk one up for the "Courage" team on this one.

Friends, I am very thankful for your time spent here.  Sometime the subject matter may be tough to read, but I have confidence in your desire for "Truth".

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

Respect.

Ron

Robert R. "Ron" Solomon
Director, Roof Consultant's Alliance
Public Procurement Analyst
CCC 1325620

Radical, Self Serving Administrator, Accuses firm of having too many Hispanics, and not enough African-Americans"???

Friends;

This is the kind of thing that affects your lives.

Watch this video, and decide for yourselves:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ry2H32Ve5gw

Try this on:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QIiyW4l3JRQ

How'd that taste?

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

http://www.memphisdailynews.com/news/2014/may/14/roof-contract-sparks-minority-hiring-debate/

Her premise, and foul mouth are outrageous.

Forever, I am telling you how administrators should not make roofing decisions, as they are without credential to do so.  Roofing people should decide all things roofing.

http://www.memphisdailynews.com/news/2014/may/14/roof-contract-sparks-minority-hiring-debate/

Great job by Mr. Dries, and full credit due.

Roof Contract Sparks Minority-Hiring Debate

By Bill Dries

Print | Front Page | Email this story | Email reporter | Comments (4)

For weeks, a new roof at a county government building at Shelby Farms Park has been the setting for a debate among Shelby County Commissioners about minority hiring by companies that do business with the county.

The commission delayed a vote on the $1.7 million contract with B Four Plied Inc. to put a new roof on the building at 1075 Mullins Station Roadbecause the company employs minorities, but the vast majority of its employees are Hispanic and not African-American.

The commission approved the contract Monday, May 12, but not before the ongoing discussion about minorities and race reached a boiling point.

Pablo Pereyra, a real estate broker at the meeting on another item and a member of the local Hispanic Alliance, questioned who on the commission, which has no Hispanic commissioners, was representing Hispanic citizens.

“I know what it’s like to be a minority. I grew up in Memphis. I can tell you being a Hispanic in Memphis is definitely a minority of the minorities,” he said. “Am I any less American? Am I any less a minority? I challenge you to think clearly of the message that you are sending. We are living in a global economy.”

BROOKS

Commissioner Henri Brooks rejected the comparison.

“You asked to come here. We did not,” she said of African-American citizens. “And when we got here our condition was so ugly and so barbaric – don’t ever let that come out of your mouth again because you know what, that only hurts your case.”

Brooks made the same argument in 2009 during the commission’s debate on a nondiscrimination ordinance to include gay, lesbian and transgender citizens when some citizens compared the effort to protect their rights to the civil rights movement of the 1960s.

Brooks said Monday that her questions about the contract were not an attempt to exclude Hispanics.

“It’s about giving blacks living in Shelby County who are trying to get employment in Shelby County, who pay taxes – not to say that you don’t – but who have a history, where there is a pattern on intentional discrimination against black folks – to get or participate in government awards or what have you,” she said.

Commissioner Walter Bailey said he had a “suspicion” that the company may be discriminating against black applicants in hiring “since the roofing industry is replete with blacks.”

Commissioner Terry Roland said that amounted to a position of “you’re not considered a minority unless you are an African-American.”

“Are you going to tell me you’re going to vote against this when they have 76 percent minorities?” Roland asked. “If you vote against this, you need to be sued.”

But Bailey, an attorney, said federal civil rights statutes don’t permit an employer to prefer one minority group over another.

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

I suggest you watch City Council, County Commission, State, and Federal decision makers at all times.  Educate yourselves, and understand reality vs. agenda.

I share the data.

You are the judge.

Respect.

Robert R. "Ron" Solomon
Director, Roof Consultant's Alliance
Public Procurement Analyst
CCC 1325620

Return

Friends:

You may notice I've taken a brief respite from posting.  It was a courtesy, and in good faith for a colleague..

I've had several critical meetings, and time sensitive projects to complete, that are relevant to our discussions here..

At the moment, I am only trying to sort the order of things before presenting new material to you.

Forgive me, but I really had no choice in the matter, and believe you will understand.

When I come back to you next week, I think we'll take a look at what's happening in the Texas Congress, as it pertains to purchasing cooperatives.  Doesn't that sound fun?

Respect.

Ron

"Competitive Bidding: Public Roofing, and Roofing Services"

"Competitive Bidding:  Public Roofing, and Roofing Services"

By: Robert R. Solomon

"Roof Consultant's Alliance" 

RobertRSolomon@aol.com

 May 24, 2014

Friends:

The roofing discipline as a whole, has a steadfast position against "Exclusion" of fair competition in public works .

We do not seek, nor support, "Exclusion" often found in purchasing cooperatives through "Line Item", "Sole Source", "Proprietary Specifications" (unnecessarily restrictive), and "Preferred Vendors".  

The discipline believes we should have an opportunity to bid on public projects funded by our own tax dollars.

"Fair Competition" is circumvented by purchasing cooperatives, and their operatives.  They are not competitive in the private market, and therefore not competitive in the public market.  

We abhor the "Predatory Sales Models" that advertise "We handle it all", or "Partnering" with government agencies.  The outcomes are predetermined by naming only ONE manufacturer.

No government agency may give even the slightest hint of favoritism, and it exposes our schools to unnecessary suit.   

Many examples of this exist, and all one has to do is type "School Roofing Scam" into your browser, and the same on YouTube.  You will find no shortage of investigative reports there.

Please notice the reports feature  two manufacturers: Tremco (aka WTI), and Garland.  It is not our desire to "Exclude" these manufacturers, but add fair competition in the form of major, financially sound, competitive, manufacturers.

Firestone, GAF, and Carlisle Syntec are a few, but we have many fine examples of "Honorable" manufacturers.  All backed by billions of dollars in assets, and strong underwriting capability.

It is the taxpayer, our schools, and our children, we fight for.  In the absence of fair competition, schools are paying a "Premium", upwards of 50% (or more), and receiving no additional benefit.  

The bulk of that money (25%) goes straight into a "Salesman's" pocket, and then an average of 4% to the purchasing cooperative.  By this arrangement, the taxpayer dollar is immediately reduced to 71 cents, and nothing to show for it.  

Frankly, even if removing, or adjusting, the sales "Commissions", you would still overpay by a large sum.

We do not wish to disrupt commerce, but to make sure the money reaches its intended purpose.  Please note that when I refer to "Bidders", I mean "Responsible Bidders" who meet a standard of criteria:

 Financial requirements, and in most cases, protecting the taxpayers with a "Performance and Payment Bond".  This, of course, protects the taxpayer from default, or expenditure of additional monies.

 

We know that all projects must provide "Serviceability", and "Value".  "Cheap" does not equal "Value" by the way.  This may be remedied through independent consultants (RCI), and specifications that are "Inclusive" .  

Public Record:  

Last year, the DOJ fined Tremco $65,100,000.00 for the abuse of GSA contracts:

http://www.cleveland.com/business/index.ssf/2013/08/rpm_and_its_tremco_subsidiary_reach_651_million_settlement_with_justice_department_over_roofing_contracts.html

Eloquently described by the State of New Jersey, here:

http://www.state.nj.us/sci/pdf/Roofing_Report.pdf

for a very comprehensive list, please see reference material (attached):

Simply put, claims of "We buy in bulk, so you save money", and "our vast negotiating power assures you the best price", are not applicable to roofing, and roofing services.  

You may not award multi-million, multi-year, contracts based upon a single "line item", cherry picked to "reward" members of the cooperative.   As "commissioned salesmen", the purchasing cooperative has absolutely no incentive to "compete", and the bigger the contract, the bigger their commission.  Make sense?

I do not speak for my honorable colleagues of Roof Consultant's Institute, or any manufacturer.  Roof Consultant's Alliance (3,700 Members) enthusiastically support their position however.

RCI's official position paper on independent third party oversight:  

http://www.rci-online.org/downloads/Resources/PS-2012-06-RCI-procurement.pdf

Again, we do not wish to "Exclude" anyone, and will fight just as hard for Garland, or Tremco, should they find themselves in a similar position.  We ask for FAIR competition, and should hope our message of concern is well received.

We are spending real money, and know that someone worked hard for it. Someone just like you.  

Respectfully, I would like you to consider the position of honorable people, willing to fight for the taxpayers, our schools, and subsequently, our children.

Say "NO" to the purchase of roofing and roofing services, manipulated by false comparisons through purchasing cooperatives.

NOTE: Retired 2003, I do not solicit, nor accept, compensation, or personal advancement of any kind.  Everything I say is supported by public record, and can produce it quite readily.

Respect,

Robert R. "Ron" Solomon

Director, Roof Consultant's Alliance

Public Procurement Analyst

CCC 1325620

http://wikiroof.blogspot.com/

For those of you who are being excluded, or if you care one bit about our schools, you are free to use this letter as a "Template".  Please verify for yourself, and draw your own conclusions.  

Reference:

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



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


Close:

When taking the money away from an argument, all that's left is the truth.  That remains in the forefront of my mind, do my very best to bring only documented TRUTH. Nothing else will do.

If anyone ever has an issue (factually) with anything here, please be kind enough to bring it to my attention.  I will retract, or modify the statement.  Please understand that here, I do not offer 'Opinion".  I will respectfully request you furnish public record to support any discord.

My Friends across the globe, I am so thankful, and appreciative for your valuable time spent with me here.

I pray that you reject negativity in all forms, and always remember to keep looking "UP".

Respect,

Robert R. "Ron" Solomon

Director, Roof Consultant's Alliance

Public Procurement Analyst

CCC 1325620

http://wikiroof.blogspot.com/

"VA Official admits to 64 Counts of Construction Bribery"



Friends:

An obscene bribery scandal added to the VA's recent "secret list" affair.  It is not getting any play to the best of my knowledge, so thought I'd show you what we're facing in public procurement bribery.

The problem is in fact systemic, and why I fight so hard against "Exclusion" in competitive bid scenarios.  People like this don't give a second thought to stealing your money, and using it for a lifestyle of conspicuous consumption.

http://www.durabilityanddesign.com/news/?fuseaction=view&id=11089&nl_versionid=3894

Thank you to the fine people of "Durability And Design"

VA Hospital Exec Admits Contract Fraud Tuesday, March 11, 2014

 

A former director of two Veterans Affairs hospitals has admitted taking nearly $400,000 in bribes and kickbacks to steer contracts to a nationwide design-build firm—apparently, just the beginning of what the firm saw as a long and lucrative relationship.

William D. Montague, 61, of Brecksville, OH, former director of the Cleveland and Dayton VA Medical Center, pleaded guilty Feb. 20 to 64 federal criminal counts related to trading confidential construction information with the as-yet-unidentified firm in exchange for cash and gifts.

A former director of two Veterans Affairs hospitals has admitted taking nearly $400,000 in bribes and kickbacks to steer contracts to a nationwide design-build firm—apparently, just the beginning of what the firm saw as a long and lucrative relationship.

William D. Montague, 61, of Brecksville, OH, former director of the Cleveland and Dayton VA Medical Center, pleaded guilty Feb. 20 to 64 federal criminal counts related to trading confidential construction information with the as-yet-unidentified firm in exchange for cash and gifts.

 As Acting Medical Center Director of the Dayton VA Medical Center, Montague had "extraordinary access" to project information that would benefit bidders, said one of those firms.

The firm had been bidding on a series of fixed-price services contracts (known as Indefinite Delivery, Indefinite Quantity, or IDIQ, contracts) with the VA. Among other things, Montague "solicited money and a consulting contract" from the firm "in exchange for information related to VA contracts and projects."

'Business 75'

The FBI has so far identified the firm only as Business 75, "an integrated design firm with offices throughout the United States, including New York, Illinois, Virginia, Missouri, and California."

The company performed work for the VA directly and through joint ventures and other teaming agreements, according to the indictment.

Montague pleaded guilty Feb. 20 to conspiracy to commit honest services mail fraud, violating the Hobbs Act, money laundering, multiple counts of wire fraud, mail fraud, disclosing public contract information, and a host of other charges, the FBI announced.

Montague served as director of the Cleveland VA Medical Center from 1995 until Feb. 3, 2010. On March 11, 2011, he began working as director of the Dayton VA Medical Center, a position he held through Dec. 17, 2011, according to the indictment.

Email Trail

The superseding indictment details interactions between Montague and Business 75, including internal emails by both parties, the FBI said.

In one email in March 2011, a Business 75 executive noted one $15 million contract that would include $12 million in sales, leaving a $3 million fee for the firm "on the table... ."

"[O]ne of MONTAGUE’s jobs will be to fill up the bucket by directing task orders toward our contract, Going forward, we have two $15M buckets to fill (Central and Eastern regions). That’s a lot of shoveling to get to $30M…BILL has the relationships to help us maximize the contracts…"



William Montague was director of the new Louis Stokes VA Medical Center in Cleveland in 2010 when Rear Adm. Julius S. Caesar (right) toured the facility.

The same email noted that five additional VA hospital projects totaling more than $1.2 billion were in the pipeline, adding: "Montague told us about these before they were advertised, which has allowed us to get an early start in developing the team. If we bring him on board, he can help us pull in one or two of these large projects."

House of Montague

Montague used a financial-services firm he created, called House of Montague, to facilitate the scheme, according to the FBI.

For example, on March 1, 2011, Business 75 issued a $20,000 check to Montague, which he deposited into the House of Montague’s account.

Ten days later, the FBI said, Business 75’s principal emailed employees with Montague’s consulting agreement, explaining: “His job is to help us bring in more work from the VA, in part by helping us access key decision makers,” according to the indictment.

The indictment also spells out double-dipping by Montague.

On May 26, 2011, it says, Montague traveled to Washington, D.C., on VA business. Several weeks later, he submitted a government expense report for $1,204 for the trip. Even before he submitted that report, however, he also invoiced Business 75 for $2,741 for “consulting services” related to the same trip, including the hotel bill for which he also later billed the government.

Montague also deceived other VA employees into providing him with documents and information later shared with Business 75, the indictment said.

'The Motherlode'

On another occasion, the indictment says, Montague boasted by email to another firm (identified as Business 74) that he had "obtained the priority scored list of all scored projects for next fiscal year. It is unpublished and unavailable elsewhere."

Did that sting?

Our Federal Procurement Laws allow people like Montague to game the system.  Beautifully illustrated by Montague's greed, and organized scheme.

The VA buys from Purchasing Cooperatives who eliminate fair competition for "Preferred Vendors".

 "Exclusion" creates a sucking vortex for taxpayer dollars.  It is ALL by "Design" folks, and I see it every day.

Anytime you see a firm bragging about how much public work they get, ask yourself why.  In many cases, there is a "Montague" facilitating the lopsided "Capture Ratio".

Humbled by those of you who make time to read what I have to say, and much appreciation to my gentle friends across the globe.

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

Respect,

Robert R. "Ron" Solomon

Director, Roof Consultant's Alliance (3,700 Members)

Public Procurement Analyst

CCC 1325620