"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

"ROOFING and ROOFING SERVICES ABUSED by PURCHASING COOPERATIVES"

Friends:

I do this because it affects YOUR schools, YOUR courthouses, YOUR fire departments, YOUR police stations, and YOUR hospitals and subsequentially, YOUR children.

I do not derive 1 cent of income from this site, from the 3,700 members of Roof Consultant's Alliance, or anywhere else.  It is easy enough for me to produce record confirming my statements.

It's been proven time and again that Purchasing Cooperatives have no business in construction services.  They are non-credentialed, non-supported, without authority to exclude competition as they do.

PURPOSEFULLY, they exclude fair competition, and replace it with a perverted "line item" structure that is contrary to the public's interest.  Most people I believe, would choose the acceptable, "fair competition" theme.  This requires "Invitation to Bid" in the local newspaper, a roofing consultant to determine best method as well as write specifications that are inclusive of at least 4 manufacturers.  That done,  contractors may choose from the manufacturers base then submit their responsible bid.

Fair competition bids are read from a sealed envelope aloud in a public forum, where even YOU are welcome to attend.  Doesn't that seem forthright and transparent?

Does the purchasing cooperative get paid their 4% commission to "Save" money?  Construction money is big, and that 4% can be further increased by choosing "Preferred Vendors" with inflated pricing.  No different than a car salesman (apologies).

The "end around" game is costing taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars in the roofing discipline.  I won't render an estimate of the overall damage as it pertains to other trades.

IT IS A SCAM. They will even teach you how to get around that nasty "Competition" thing.  The one thing standing in their way, that prohibits them from being more outrageous than they already are?   YOU! 

No matter how hard anyone tries, it will always come down to that, so they must create a "Diversion" which is their "Interpretation" of what FAIR competition means.

The LAW is clear. The spirit of the law is clear.

I may be rambling again but I am also offering support data to back it up, as I always do.

"Miami Today"

http://www.miamitodaynews.com/2014/03/19/taxpayers-businesses-losers-bid-preference-legislation/

"Texas Insider" :

http://www.texasinsider.org/%E2%80%9Cbuyboard%E2%80%9D-official-admits-tasb-administered-agency-allowed-vendors-to-write-own-bid-specs/

"News Channel 4 - Oklahoma City"

http://kfor.com/2013/03/13/allegations-leveled-against-state-roofing-program/

"The GSA needs a top to bottom Gutting".

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/gsa-top-to-bottom-gutting-article-1.1062586

I think you will find this informative piece by the FBI interesting.  In it, they list their "Priorities".

http://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/2010/march/corruption_032610

Public Corruption
Why It’s Our #1 Criminal Priority

03/26/10

Public corruption is a breach of trust by federal, state, or local officials—often with the help of private sector accomplices. It’s also the FBI’s top criminal investigative priority. To explain why the Bureau takes public corruption so seriously and how we investigate, we talked with Special Agent Patrick Bohrer, assistant section chief of our Public Corruption/Civil Rights program at FBI Headquarters.

Question: Why is public corruption so high on the FBI’s list of investigative priorities? 
Answer: Because of its impact. Corrupt public officials undermine our country’s national security, our overall safety, the public trust, and confidence in the U.S. government, wasting billions of dollars along the way. This corruption can tarnish virtually every aspect of society. For example, a border official might take a bribe, knowingly or unknowingly letting in a truck containing weapons of mass destruction. Or corrupt state legislators could cast deciding votes on a bill providing funding or other benefits to a company for the wrong reasons. Or at the local level, a building inspector might be paid to overlook some bad wiring, which could cause a deadly fire down the road.

Read the full article:  http://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/2010/march/corruption_032610

I am going to break down individual purchasing cooperatives, using their own words, on my next post.  It will include common offenders AEPA, Keystone, TCPN, U.S. Communities, and others.

As you watch the news tonight, you will observe the damage visited upon you by  "closed door" meetings, "no bid" contract awards, and the astonishing waste of your money in other ways.  You will see it as a "culture", rather than a service, or true function on your behalf.

I advise all public administrators, FM departments, schools, fire, police, courthouse, and hospital to conduct a "Fair and Open Bid".  Do not accept an 'interpretation" of a purchasing cooperative. It is against the law, and you are the ones "signing off" on it .  You are betting your career.

Like the person who pretended to be a civilized director of two VA hospitals in the Cleveland area.  WARNING:  If you are having a good day, don't read it.  It is almost too vicious for me to imagine, but here he is:

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

Already confessed to more than 20 counts of bribery.

I'll bet that $500,000.00 in kickbacks doesn't seem so appetizing now.  I will work hard to find out who "Business 75" is, and report back.

If anyone wishes to share an experience, you may write to my central address:

RobertRSolomon@aol.com

The sad part is, I can go on with this for days.

Working on a couple of new concepts for this blog, to include audio/video, so I can expose the criminals on "YouTube".

I  bring the data.  You be the judge.

I am overwhelmed with emotion as I see over 40,000 views from across the globe.  Humbled that you care one bit about what I have to say. I am thankful many times over.

Friends, 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

Public Procurement Analyst

CCC 1325620

Roofing Industry Backlash Against "Purchasing Cooperatives"

Friends:

It is always my intent to provide  the truth, with supporting documentation (public record), and without influence of any kind.  I do not pass judgement, and leave that to your study, and evaluation.

Simply put:  Roofing Industry Leaders, and Roofing Industry Organizations,  DO NOT want to participate in Purchasing Cooperative "Schemes' that bring dishonor to our discipline.  We DO NOT want anything to do with defrauding taxpayers, schools, or any public entity.

We seek FAIR COMPETITION for our own tax dollars.  We promote bidding laws already in place in all 50 states, all territories, and Provinces of Canada.  Our friends and colleagues in Europe suffer as well.

Today, I will feature the wonderful people at VARP (Virginia Association of Roofing Professionals).  

www.varoofingprofessionals.org  

Before reading their "Official Position Paper", I will thank Ms Heather Greenwell, Director of Membership Services for VARP.   This is the "Unity of Message" I often talk about, and illustrates the opposition to "Predatory Sales Models".

ANYONE who diverts money intended for our schools, and our children,  are without "Honor", and may not circulate among us. 

VARP is fighting for fairness, transparency, and a right to "compete' for our own tax dollars.  I admire them, and I admire Hunter Merrill of Mountain Roofing. 

Men like Mr. Merrill LEAD our industry, as the "World's Largest Roofers" sit on their hands, and do NOTHING.  Mr. Merrill promotes honor, and fairness, and I highly recommend him to anyone seeking those traits in a contractor.

Respect to Mr. Merrill, and his honorable firm:



  
"Hi Robert,

You have VARP’s permission to use or post our position paper on cooperative procurement.  Here is the updated link dated February 2014 that we used at our Lobby Day:

 http://www.varoofingprofessionals.org/Resources/Documents/2014%20Lobby%20Day%20Position%20Paper%20-%20Cooperative%20Procurement%202.17.14.pdf.

As you know, VARP is active on cooperative procurement in Virginia.  As a quick update for you, the Virginia General Assembly has appointed a “Special Subcommittee” to study the Virginia Public Procurement Act in its entirety.  VARP is monitoring this subcommittee closely and our Government Affairs Committee Chair, Hunter Merrill of Mountain Roofing, has been appointed to the subcommittee’s construction work group.  

Here is a link to more information about the procurement subcommittee:  http://dls.virginia.gov/interim_studies_procurement.html.

Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions related to VARP’s efforts around the use of procurement in Virginia.  Keep up the great work!"

Heather

Heather Greenwell, Director of Member Services

Virginia Association of Roofing Professionals

2415 Westwood Avenue, Suite B, Richmond, VA 23230

----------

804-497-5917 (office)

804-288-3551 (fax)

www.varoofingprofessionals.org 

www.varoofingprofessionals.org 

 February 2014

The Virginia Association of Roofing Professionals (VARP) has developed the following position on theuse of cooperative procurement in construction:

While VARP believes that procurement can offer competitive purchasing of commodities, it

strongly advocates that procurement does not work for construction projects. No two

construction projects are the same. There needs to be a free, open and competitive bidding

system for any capital project or new construction.

VARP believes that the use of procurement for construction projects can often lead to some or all of the following unintended consequences:

• A lack of transparency in the bidding process.

• Improper influence from those that have a contract through a cooperative.

• Proprietary specifications excluding all but one manufacturer of building materials.

• Limited ability to challenge bid awards from excluded bidders.

• Exclusion of third-party consultants to evaluate projects.

• Non-compliance to local building codes.

• Overpriced projects that are passed along to the tax payers.

As an example of the flaw in using procurement for a capital project, a December 8, 2008 Roanoke Times article reported that the Roanoke City School District overpaid for the re-roofs of three schools, costing taxpayers at least $575,000 on a $2.3 million job.

As a direct result of what occurred in Roanoke, VARP lobbied successfully in 2010 to have 2.0-4304 Cooperative Procurement restrictions in place that limits the use of “piggybacking.” That code reads in part:

A public body may purchase from another public body’s contract even if it did not participate in the request for proposal or invitation to bid, if the request for proposal or invitation to bid

specified that the procurement was being conducted on behalf of other public bodies, except for:

1. Contracts for architectural or engineering services; or

2. Construction in excess of $200,000 by a local public body from the contract of another local

public body that is more than a straight distance of 75 miles from the territorial limits of the local public body procuring the construction. 

The installation of artificial turf or other athletic surfaces shall not be subject to the limitations prescribed in this subdivision. Nothing in this subdivision shall be construed to prohibit sole source or emergency procurements awarded pursuant to subsections E and F of § 2.2-4303.

In instances where any authority, department, agency, or institution of the Commonwealth desires to purchase information technology and telecommunications goods and services from another public body’s contract and the procurement was conducted on behalf of other public bodies, such purchase shall be permitted if approved by the Chief Information Officer of the Commonwealth.

Any public body that enters into a cooperative procurement agreement with a county, city, or

town whose governing body has adopted alternative policies and procedures pursuant to

subdivisions A 9 and A 10 of § 2.2-4343 shall comply with the alternative policies and procedures adopted by the governing body of such county, city, or town.

The $200,000 and 75 mile distance restriction in the current code greatly reduces the Commonwealth’s exposure to misuse of the procurement system, but still leaves Virginia open for abuse.

At a minimum, however, VARP’s position is one that the code not be changed."

THANK YOU to all members of VARP!

I encourage all roofing organizations with honorable intentions to follow suit.

VARP members should be proud of this initiative, and knowing you are protecting taxpayers, our schools, and most of all, our children.

I, and the 3,600 members of Roof Consultant's Alliance stand with you.

Friends, I know how laborious all of this seems, but the premise is not debatable.  Public structures must be competitively bid, and NOT influenced by Purchasing Cooperatives, "Preferred Vendors", "Sole Source", "No Bid", "Proprietary", SCAMS.

Public administrators may not give the slightest hint of "Favoritism".

 Public administrators have no authority to circumvent public purchasing law through the alleged "Pre-Compete" mantra of Purchasing Cooperatives.

These are but a few examples of Purchasing Cooperatives eliminating competition for their preferred vendor, and costing (routinely) 50% MORE.

Note this is a Seattle City purchasing department link that references a Cobb County, Georgia bid document.

http://www.seattle.gov/purchasing/bids2009/ITB095408USCommunities.pdf

Florida project

http://pompanobeachfl.gov/assets/pdfs/commission_backup/2014/2.11.14/3_items/11.pdf


David Kidd - Lobbyist and USC Program Director

http://www.floridaleagueofcities.com/Assets/Files/TarponSprings_USCSeminarFlier_2013_Final.pdf

And:

http://www.dadeschools.net/schoolboard/lobbyist.asp

And:

https://www.uscommunities.org/contact-us/

And:


https://www.uscommunities.org/news-events/customer-appreciation/

And:

https://www.uscommunities.org/fileadmin/hb/usc/Suppliers/Garland/Garland-Price-Increase-Approval-Letters_12_12_12.pdf

And:

http://mm1.co.fulton.ga.us/cache/00010/313/2013-0486.PDF


All you have to do is type "School Roofing Scam' into your browser, or on YouTube.  You will see the two manufacturers (Garland and Tremco) in every investigative report.

Tremco was just fined 61 Million dollars by the DOJ for abusing GSA Contracts.

Garland's top salesman in 2011 made 5.5 million dollars in commissions.  THAT'S where your tax dollars are going!

Purchasing Cooperatives must drop roofing, and roofing services from their offering immediately!

Note:  Retired 2003, do not solicit, nor accept compensation, or personal advancement of any kind.  That includes manufacturers, distributors, consultants, or contractors.

I know your time is precious, and am thankful for every moment you spend with me here.  If I've said anything that is factually wrong, please share thought with me here:

RobertRSolomon@aol.com

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

Tampa, Florida