Lewisburg School District continues to ignore the public. LETTER TO THE EDITOR. Max Bossert

Friends:

As distasteful as it was to report on a lying Florida Senator, the cases just keep on coming.  Why Ron?  Because it's a system rigged to favor one manufacturer, and increase commissions.

Why do they only want one manufacturer?  Because Purchasing Cooperatives are essentially "Commissioned Salesmen", and get 2%-4% of the contract amount.  They do not get paid to seek competitive pricing because that would mean less money for them.  Understood?  It's a SCAM., AND NOTHING MORE.

Type "School Roofing Scam" on YouTube, and you'll see what I mean.

U.S. Communities is one of the worst.  Lying about Garland being competitive is hilarious, once you know the facts.  Garland got their contract with U. S. Communities with 55 pages of BLANK DOCUMENTS.  What on earth did they compare $0.00 to?

Here is a very recent case of schools getting ripped off by the scheme.  "Predatory Sales Model" as I refer to them.   On average, these Purchasing Cooperative "sole source" contracts cost the taxpayer approximately 50% MORE than competitive, open, and fair, bidding scenarios.

Very special thanks to those who had enough, and did something about it.

http://www.dailyitem.com/opinion/we-the-people-are-being-robbed/article_dcf39cc8-0feb-501b-8fbd-8cce1295060c.html

LETTER TO THE EDITOR: We, The People are being robbed

By Max Bossert | Letter to the Editor

The Lewisburg School District continues to ignore the public.

A recent letter from Stacy Gasteiger (Dec. 22) about cronyism at the local level could not be more true.

The superintendent, the school board president, business manager will stop at nothing to be able to deal with the CSIU, KPN and Tremco of Ohio (who just used their other name of Weatherproofing Technologies) to mislead the voting public to get their project approved for the Linntown Elementary School roofing project.

To explain everything, the Lewisburg School District does not purchase anything from local business. The business manager has presented the roofing project four times since early spring. The original cost was $740,000. We requested they reconsider and they did stop the contract. Since then the price has fluctuated from $740,000 to $489,726 for the same project.

This is a project that could be done by any local tax paying contractor for less than $200,000.

I know this because we and other roofers are certified to do this type of work and we have been roofing since 1974 as well as roofing at the Linntown Elementary School some 30 years ago.

A copy of the bidding process required by the state was hand carried to the superintendent, the board president and business manager yet they continue to skirt the fair bidding practice set by the State of Pennsylvania and have awarded the contract to Waterproofing Technologies for $489,726.40. This cost, I believe, is $289,000 more than any other certified local roofer would charge for the same project if they had bothered to get more than one bid.

It certainly makes you wonder who is getting the extra $289,000.  

NOTE:  Tremco, and Garland Salesmen get paid 25% commission, where mainstream manufacturers pay salary.  That's a lot of money (the 25% Commission) that doesn't actually go into the job itself.

My personal opinion is that we need to get a new board president, new business manager and new local superintendent.

Remember citizens, it’s our responsibility to say something if you see something. I see people who are stealing money from our school district.

Please check out Tremco and Waterproofing Technologies at www.procurement-reform.org to see that we are not just blowing smoke.

Max Bossert,

West Milton

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

Very well done, and I am proud of those who stand up to the scam.  Those of us who scream for fairness, are typically at the hands of intellectual elitists who have no concept of modern roofing technique, material, or competitive bidding processes.  A complete fool can see how the "Roofing Scam" works.

They aren't spending their money, they're spending YOUR MONEY!  Republican, Democrat, and Independent, doesn't matter. They are supposed to be responsible stewards of our money, but instead, act as gravy sucking pigs at the trough.  Sorry to paint with such a broad brush, but the exceptions are few. 

Say NO to Purchasing Cooperatives, and the two vendors they prop up:  Tremco, and Garland.  

If you don't, you may find yourself in the news, and not the way you dreamed it.

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

Constructive criticism is welcomed, and encouraged.

Respect.

Robert R. Solomon

Public Procurement Analyst

Florida Certification

CCC 1325620

Tampa, Florida

Florida Senator, Keith Perry,. A man who chooses "Dishonor", over fairness to "Honorable" Veterans.

Friends:

Not long ago, I spoke to Florida Senator Keith Perry about "Predatory Sales Models", and exclusion of competition.  

Keith was under contract to install a Tremco roof on a VA facility, and was not genuine, real, or truthful with me.  Instead, he lied  to me, and went into hiding.  Typical of most politicians who chase the money, and could care less who they hurt.

Completely ashamed for the people he represents in District 8.  Keith is part of the problem, and the American people despise those who steal from Veterans.  He knows what he's doing as a Florida State Certified Roofing Contractor, and certified Tremco applicator.

It is heartbreaking when you're "Up Close" and dependent upon people to tell the truth.  Especially a public servant that's supposed to help us.

The good Senator brags about creating jobs, when he is actually practicing "Exclusion".

This is the original post, and outcome:

Honorable Florida Lawmaker To Help Stop "No Compete" Roofing in Public Works..

Friends:

A Florida State Senator called my home, and we spoke for almost an hour. 

The topic:  "Preferred Vendors", "Exclusion of Competition". "Line Item Bidding Scams", etc.  Regardless of the outcome, must respect the fact he was honorable enough to hear my concerns.  99% of public officials do not, and prefer to hide instead of work.

I am preparing a report for the Senator, and could use some help.  If anyone faces exclusion through a Purchasing Cooperative, Garland, Tremco, or Simon, please share it with me.  

I will get it to the Senator, and he's agreed to stop any project in which state funds were used without competition.  I don't want to be terribly specific at this time since it's been less than 48 hours since we spoke.

His word means nothing to me.  He asked that I send all email through his assistant, and after 9 unanswered email (data), never heard from him again.  I will forward all those emails to his Florida Senate account, and create a record of my communication.  That went a long way when the entire school board in Tuulsa refused to answer my inquiry three times.  That was their undoing..
Here, I will praise his work as an honorable politician if he lives up to his word.  I will go into this believing in him.  If he's not a man of his word, I'll report that too, and in great detail.   He did not keep his word, and I do not praise people who lie.  I gave him every opportunity to be the "Hero" but the lure of money was too great, so he chose the money, KNOWING the astonishing overcharges of Tremco products.  Tremco, the firm that was fined $61,000,000.00 by the DOJ, and is now being sued by the SEC for lying.  Type "Tremco DOJ" into the search box , and you will see how they operate.

Better yet, type 'School Roofing Scam" on YouTube, and you will see exactly how they work.  NOBODY in the private market would ever consider them.  They have the VA locked up, and somehow, I'm going to change that.

When I spoke to him, he said "The Guy" at the VA insisted on Tremco.  I told him "the Guy" at the VA has no authority to exclude competition in public works, and he doesn't.  This is what's wrong with government procurement, purchasing cooperatives, and roofers like Mr. Perry can't control their overactive salivary glands, and start slobbering over the money.

I said this was a VA facility.  A place of honor, and honorable people.  Do you think this thought ever crossed  Keith Perry's mind?  He's supposed to help taxpayers, but instead harms them.  I am ashamed that he chose to behave dishonorably.  As a Florida State Certified Roofing Contractor license holder myself, understand the philosophy of sales, but falling in with the "Roofing Scam", was a major disappointment.  MAJOR.

Even worse, he Chairs the "Ethics Committee" which I find hilarious.  Fox in the Hen House style.  I think the University of Florida should take a hard look at this guy before issuing more contracts to him.  Do business with him at your own peril.  I've warned you, and shared my personal experience.  All of it true, and there will be no forthcoming denial from him.  If he posts a comment on this site, I will be sure to post it for you to see.

I am in the "Fairness Business".

I may be on the cusp of success, and if I am, it's only because of my commitment to you.  I don't typically ask anyone for help, but if you'd like to contribute, you can do that with data.  Please share any school districts, or other public works in which only ONE manufacturer is listed, or accepted.

I suspect that will also apply to any Tremco, Garland, or Simon projects here in Florida, since they are the main culprits behind the "Predatory Sales Model", 

Needless to say, I am excessively grateful for your encouragement, and support.  Now, let's go get em'.  All information is held in strict confidence.

RobertRSolomon@aol.com

If you can see yourself clear to help me in my finest hour, I will protect you, and fight for you..  I do not turn down requests for help.

A Florida Senator, Keith Perry is a liar.  Period.  I do not appreciate his perpetuation of the stereotypical roofer image, as I fight to restore dignity to a noble discipline.

NOW, he'll get mad, take this personally, blame me, but I am not guilty of abusing Veterans.  He is.  The Tremco roof he installed is approximately 50% more than a competitively bid project, with major manufacturers.

                               

Some of you may know him as a nice person, and I think that's great.  I'm only reporting  MY experience, and exactly what happened.   Soon, I will post all 9 of those emails, including time stamp.  Everyone knows I back up every word I say. People like Keith Perry are responsible for perpetuating the scam, and I am ashamed that a grown man lied to me for absolutely no reason.  My Mother used to say: "He'd rather climb a tree and tell a lie, than stand on the ground and tell the truth".

I feel like an idiot for trusting this guy.

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

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

Much Respect.

Robert R. Solomon

Public Procurement Analyst

CCC 1325620

State Certified

Incredible school savings through competition.

Friends:

I've been involved in many school districts across the country, and this story is fairly representative of the savings.  If you are a school board member, FM Manager, Architect, Purchasing Director, etc., please do yourself a favor and read this through.  It is not the exception, but the rule.

Roofing is the costliest item of any school maintenance budget, and why a Purchasing Cooperative finds it lucrative. 

Much respect to Mr. Stephen J. Pytak for the wonderful article, and research.

http://republicanherald.com/news/stc-hires-construction-manager-for-roof-project-1.2264835

BY STEPHEN J. PYTAK / PUBLISHED: NOVEMBER 7, 201  

MAR LIN — The Schuylkill County Area Vocational Technical School board on Monday 

hired a construction manager to replace the roofs at the Schuylkill Technology Centers

in Mar Lin and Frackville.

In a unanimous vote at the meeting at the Maple Avenue Campus, the STC board hired Performance Construction Services Inc., Pottsville, an affiliate of Quandel, Minersville,

for the job.

The total project cost should come to $1,710,000, about $800,000 less than anticipated, according to Brian A. Manning, business manager for STC and Schuylkill Intermediate

 Unit 29.

A few months ago, the board was planning to hire The Garland Co., a roofing 

manufacturer it had worked with numerous times, to do the project for $2.519 million, 

Manning said.

But in September, the board decided to consider other options.

“You may recall that I asked the board to create a roof committee to investigate

alternatives to the no-bid Garland deal. Well, my gut was right and the savings are 

estimated at $800,000,” a member of the board, David Frew of Pine Grove Area, said

 in an email to the newspaper Nov. 2.

In September, Frew suggested the STC board form a committee to research options. 

It included Frew and STC board members Jay Hanley of Mahanoy Area, Michael 

Holobetz of Saint Clair Area and Larry A. Wittig of Tamaqua Area.

Frew said a few firms were considered for the job.

At the meeting, the board entered into an agreement with Performance Construction

Services Inc. for the design-phase, the pre-construction phase and the construction

 phase of the roof replacement projects.

In its report to the board on “preliminary budget data,” Performance Construction 

estimated the replacement of the 65,000-square-foot roof at the North building in 

Frackville would cost $975,000, and the replacement of the 25,000-square-foot roof at 

the South building in Mar Lin would cost $375,000.

The soft costs should come to $360,000, according to the report.

They include: the architect, engineer, roofing consultant observation fees, $100,000; the construction management supervision fees, $150,000; the legal and print advertising

 and the bid document reproduction, $20,000; the building permits, $30,000; and a

4.5 percent construction contingency allowance, $60,000.

“The savings to the member school districts is expected to be almost $800,000. 

The Garland project was going to be done through a U.S. Communities deal and it 

wouldn’t have had to be bid in the literal sense of having to go out on the open market.

So their contract number was a not-to-exceed number,” Frew said at Monday’s meeting.

That was $2.519 million, Manning said.

“So they were both the manufacturer and the installer and the designer, and it was 

specified just for their product, they have a much better control on what the cost’s 

going to be. So it was expected that they would come in a few percentage points lower

than that,” Frew said.

“The deal with Quandel, or Performance Construction Services, is different. We hired them to represent us as our design professional. They put a budget number together and said, ‘this is what we reasonably expect the cost of the project to be’ based on all the parameters they’ve established,” Frew said.

“It is our understanding that the owner has obtained budget pricing for the roof

 replacement project under a state contract Master Intergovernmental Cooperative

 Purchasing Agreement arrangement that exceeds $2.5 million. The state contract

procurement, while convenient, may not offer the most competitive approach to this 

type of work. Our experience with other school districts is that better pricing can be 

obtained from the marketplace via competitive bids vs. the state contract. We have seen this with roof replacement projects, athletic field projects, fixture/furniture packages,

 Performance Construction said in its proposal to the board.

Performance Construction suggested the STC roofs be replaced with an EPDM synthetic rubber roofing membrane, “a rubber roof,” Frew said.

“Our objective is to provide a watertight roof on the buildings that has a 30-year 

warranty with a no-dollar limit. So if it fails in year 29, there’s no cost to the member 

districts,” Frew said.

The board anticipates the roof project will be complete sometime in summer 2018, he 
said. They agreed to have the roof substantially complete one week before the start of
 school,” Frew said.

Also present at Monday’s meeting were: Scott Jacoby of Schuylkill Haven Area, 
Hanley,

Gretchen Ulmer of Minersville Area, Mary Jo Moss of Blue Mountain, Charles “Chaz”

 Hepler of North Schuylkill, Helene Creasy of Shenandoah Valley and John Mika of 

Williams Valley.

Absent were: Scott Thomas of Pottsville Area, Holobetz, Roger Heidlebaugh of 

Tri-Valley and Larry A. Wittig of Tamaqua Area.

In other matters, the Schuylkill Intermediate Unit 29 Board of Directors also held its 

November meeting at the Maple Avenue Campus on Monday.

Continued: http://republicanherald.com/news/stc-hires-construction-manager-for-roof-project-1.2264835

Contact the writer: spytak@republicanherald.com; 570-628-6011

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

U.S. Communities, and Garland use a "Predatory Sales Model", and I can easily refute their claims.  It is NEVER OKAY to get roofing quotes from only 1 manufacturer, and

 especially when a Purchasing Cooperative is involved.  The Purchasing Cooperative gets paid approximately 2%, and therefor have no incentive to seek fair pricing.  It's a scam, and nothing more.

I hope this information helps your schools.  That is the sole puurpose of this site.

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

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

I am happy to hwlp anyone who needs me.

Respect.

Robert R. Solomon

Public Procurement Analyst

State Certified Roofing Contractor (retired)

CCC 1325620

. 

The DOJ, SEC, and Tremco: Don't let their scam (Tremco) , become your problem.

Friends:

If you want to crawl in bed with Tremco, by all means, do.  It will be crowded however, because you'll have to share the bed with the DOJ, and SEC.  

The purpose of my work is simple:  Expose public roofing scams, protect taxpayers, and educate Administrators.  My job is compounded by Administrators who see me as the "bad guy" as I dare to comment on my chosen discipline. 

Private owners (the people who earned their money) are no trouble at all, and welcome the "heads up".  Public Administrators seem omnipotent, and literally hate anyone who offers an alternative.  You are the enemy, and believe me, will throw every resource they have (actually the public has) to destroy you.

The topic of conversation is meaningless to them, and follow their typical knee jerk philosophy.  People who have ZERO credential, ZERO experience, and ZERO money.

Volunteering, and investing thousands of hours in research, are meaningless.  The fact that I have not accepted a dime from anyone for 14 years is also insignificant.  I stopped accepting money because it would be used against me, and I would be punished.  

By refusing money, and personal advancement, I'd effectively removed the club from hands that wish me harm. I've found that once you remove money from the conversation, all that's left is the truth.

The very FEW Administrators that think clearly, and do not have an industrial fog machine in their heads, are a delight.  They are so rare however, that I keep a digital camera on me to PROVE that I've seen one.  Sort of like people who photograph flying saucers, and Loch Ness Monsters.

My point?  I do not want to see you in jail, and I don't want people who lie, cheat, and steal, anywhere near our schools.  That comment is a 2 for 1 deal, because you can't have one without the other.  Sad as it is.

Okay, let's see how much fun everyone is having with that stolen money.  I've said what I need to say, so now you can see what the law says:

http://www.debevoise.com/~/media/files/insights/publications/2016/09/20160923a_sec_complaint_serves_as_reminder_to_carefully_consider_disclosure_obligations_relating_to_government_investigations.pdf

NEW YORK 
Matthew E. Kaplan mekaplan@debevoise.com 
Alan H. Paley ahpaley@debevoise.com 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 
Jonathan R. Tuttle jrtuttle@debevoise.com
Ada Fernandez Johnson afjohnson@debevoise.com 
Jil Simon jsimon@debevoise.com

Client Update SEC Complaint Serves as Reminder to Carefully Consider Disclosure Obligations Relating to Government Investigations Registrants, particularly those involved in highly regulated industries, frequently must determine whether and when a government investigation and related pending or threatened litigation must be disclosed in its periodic reports filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”).

On September 9, 2016, the SEC filed a complaint against a company and its general counsel that should serve as a reminder for any registrant subject to a government investigation to ensure that it has robust procedures in place to review disclosure requirements in connection with government investigations in light of the facts uncovered by any internal investigation and the course of settlement discussions with the government.

The SEC complaint alleges violations of the federal securities laws due to the company’s failure timely to disclose a loss contingency, or record an accrual for, a U.S. Department of Justice (“DOJ”) investigation into an alleged violation of the False Claims Act. In SEC v. RPM International Inc. and Edward W. Moore, filed in the District Court for the District of Columbia against RPM International Inc. (“RPM”) and its general counsel and chief compliance officer, Edward W. Moore, the SEC alleges that RPM and Moore violated the antifraud, books and records, and internal control provisions of the federal securities laws.

The gravamen of the complaint is that, in light of its own review of the facts underlying the DOJ’s investigation and negotiations with the DOJ about a settlement, RPM knew that it faced, but failed to account for and disclose, a material loss that was probable and reasonably estimable and accordingly required both accrual and disclosure under the relevant accounting and financial reporting rules.

NEW YORK Matthew E. Kaplan mekaplan@debevoise.com Alan H. Paley ahpaley@debevoise.com WASHINGTON, D.C. Jonathan R. Tuttle jrtuttle@debevoise.com Ada Fernandez Johnson afjohnson@debevoise.com Jil Simon jsimon@debevoise.com Client Update September 23, 2016 2 www.debevoise.com

SEC COMPLAINT’S FACTUAL ASSERTIONS One of RPM’s wholly owned subsidiaries, Tremco, Inc. (“Tremco”), provided roofing materials and services under a contract with the federal government. In 2011, the DOJ began an investigation after a qui tam complaint was filed under the False Claims Act against RPM and Tremco.

The qui tam complaint alleged that Tremco overcharged the government under certain contracts by, in part, failing to provide required price discounts. RPM became aware of the DOJ investigation in March 2011 when Tremco received a subpoena from the government. Mr. Moore, as RPM’s general counsel and chief compliance officer, was responsible for overseeing RPM’s response to the DOJ investigation. In September 2012, RPM’s outside counsel met with the DOJ to discuss the investigation.

During the meeting, RPM’s counsel informed the DOJ that, based on an analysis by a consultant, Tremco had overcharged the government by at least $11 million. In early October, RPM issued its earnings release and filed its 10-Q for the first quarter ended August 31, 2012. Neither the earnings release nor the 10-Q disclosed the existence of the DOJ investigation or reflected an accrual for the potential liability. In December 2012,

RPM and its outside counsel discussed a settlement offer that RPM planned to submit to the DOJ. The settlement offer totaled between $27 and $28 million, which reflected the amount RPM then believed it had overcharged the government. In early January 2013, RPM issued its earnings release and filed its 10-Q for the second quarter ended November 30, 2012 without any reference to the DOJ investigation.

Less than a week later, RPM submitted a settlement proposal to the DOJ offering to settle the False Claims Act violation for $28.3 million. On March 29, 2013, the DOJ countered RPM’s settlement offer with $71 million. Six days later, RPM issued its earnings release and filed its 10-Q for the third quarter ended February 28, 2013, which for the first time disclosed the existence of the DOJ investigation and recorded an accrual of $68.8 million for the potential liability with respect to the violation of the False Claims Act. RPM’s annual report on Form 10-K for the year ended May 31, 2014, filed in July 2013, discussed the DOJ investigation and the related accrual that RPM had recorded in the third quarter.

However, the 10-K indicated that the disclosure of the investigation and the recording of the accrual had been made in a timely Client Update September 23, 2016 3 www.debevoise.com manner and failed to disclose any material weakness in RPM’s internal control over financial reporting at any point during the prior fiscal year.

On August 28, 2013, the DOJ announced its settlement with RPM for $61 million. The SEC complaint alleges that, in light of the DOJ’s investigation and RPM’s own review of the facts, RPM faced a material loss that was, at the time RPM issued its earnings release and filed its quarterly reports for the quarters ended August 31, 2012, November 30, 2012 and February 28, 2013, probable and reasonably estimable, which triggered a requirement that RPM disclose the loss contingency and record an accrual on its books.

The SEC complaint further alleges that RPM’s 10-K was misleading because the disclosure of the DOJ investigation and the recording of the related accruals were not in fact timely and there had been a material weakness in internal control over financial reporting throughout the year.

In addition to RPM, the SEC names Moore as a defendant. The SEC complaint asserts that Moore oversaw RPM’s response to the DOJ investigation, but failed to disclose material facts about the investigation to fellow RPM officers, the audit committee, and the independent auditors.

Specifically, Moore allegedly knew—but failed to timely inform RPM officers, the audit committee, and the independent auditors—that RPM was in settlement discussions with the DOJ or that RPM determined that Tremco had overcharged the government between $27-28 million. The complaint also asserts that Moore made material misrepresentations to the independent auditors about the investigation, including falsely telling the independent auditors that no claims had been asserted, even though the DOJ had sent him a copy of the qui tam complaint.

According to the SEC’s complaint, these misrepresentations caused RPM to submit materially false and misleading filings to the SEC from October 2012 to December 2013. IMPLICATIONS The SEC takes the position that by acknowledging to the DOJ in September and October 2012 that Tremco had overcharged the government by at least $11.4 million, RPM was required under Accounting Standards Codification 450 (“ASC 450”) to disclose the loss contingency and to record an accrual of at least that amount.

Furthermore, because that amount was material to RPM’s first quarter net income, the MD&A included in the 10-Q for the first quarter ended August 31, 2012 should have disclosed the existence of the investigation and that it would have a materially unfavorable impact on RPM’s net income.

Client Update September 23, 2016 4 www.debevoise.com By the time of the filing of RPM’s next 10-Q, the company’s internal analysis of the overcharges to the government reached between $27 and $28 million and it was planning to submit a settlement proposal for that amount.

Although this analysis and proposed settlement had not been shared yet with the government at the time RPM filed its second quarter 10-Q, the SEC complaint charges that the failure to record an accrual of at least this amount was a further violation of ASC 450 and the failure to disclose the impact of the investigation in the MD&A was a violation of applicable disclosure requirements.

The obligation to disclose a government investigation and to record an accrual is a highly fact specific analysis.

As in this case, the facts uncovered by any internal investigation and the discussions and settlement negotiations with the government can be some of the most critical pieces of the determination.

CONCLUSION The SEC’s complaint against RPM serves as a reminder about the importance of transparency in the process around evaluating disclosures, particularly around areas of judgment such as accrual decisions. It also underscores the importance for internal transparency among general counsel, c-suite employees, and the audit committee when dealing with situations as dynamic and unpredictable as government investigations and settlement negotiations.

Companies should keep in mind that decisions around recording accruals and disclosures of loss contingencies should be made in consultation with independent auditors as well as, in many cases, outside counsel. Finally, the RPM case is a reminder to those individuals—such as attorneys and compliance officers—who sit in “gatekeeper” roles at companies that the SEC will carefully scrutinize their conduct. 

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

Tremco, and Purchasing Cooperatives, are the biggest scam going today.  Believe me, when they come for Tremco, they'll come for you too.  You ARE the one who signed off on a single "Preferred" vendor after all.  They may want to know why there is no competition for public money.  I hope you have a good answer, because I don't.

I know all this reading is brutal, but if I can keep you out of a horrifying situation,  will feel like I've succeeded.

Thank you for the time you spend with me here.  I am humbled that you care one bit about what I have to say. 

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

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


Much Respect.

Robert R. "Ron" Solomon
Public Procurement Analyst
State Certification  CCC 1325620
RobertRSolomon@aol.com

BUYING A TAXPAYER FUNDED ROOF. WHAT YOU MUST KNOW.

BUYING A TAXPAYER FUNDED ROOF.  WHAT YOU MUST KNOW.

A Private owner may do anything they like (following code, and safety requirements).  It’s their money, and can spend it without question, or oversight.

Publicly funded projects are just the opposite.  The taxpayers are the “Owner”, and all aspects of the project are subject to scrutiny.  Administrators do not possess either the credential, or experience, to make such complicated decisions. 

NO Administrator has the right to “exclude’ fair competition in favor of a “single “Preferred Vendor”.  That is called “Collusion’, and in some cases “Bid Rigging”.  An Administrator’s job is to provide “Serviceability, and Value” to the public, and not play favorites.

 

You might find yourself in a position to “explain” your actions to those you serve, and I suggest you be excessively prepared, or be made a spectacle.  “Ignorance’ isn’t going to cut it in court, I promise.

What can a Public Administrator do to achieve “Serviceability, and Value”, without exposing your district to suit?  I see this quite a bit, and one roofing manufacturer was recently fined $65,000,000.00 for abusing GSA contracts.

I happen to think they deserve it for strangling Administrators with a “Predatory Sales Model”.  If you ever hear the phrase “We handle it all”, RUN.  Anyone with knowledge can sue your district in a ‘Qui Tam” (Lincoln Law) suit, and probably win.   So, at that point, you’ve been ridiculed in court, lost your job, and your school district is on the hook for huge sums of money. 

Please do not take my word for this, and contact your School District Attorney.   They will confirm what I’ve said as true, and will advise the same, I’m sure. 

So Ron, how do we navigate this maze, and buy a roof without the problems you’ve described?

1.)      NEVER buy a roof through a “Purchasing Cooperative”.  The Purchasing Cooperative is nothing but a commissioned salesman, makes money on commission, and therefore have no incentive to compete.  Quite the opposite is true.  STAY AWAY from this obvious scam.  You CANNOT buy roofing material in “Bulk” for less money than I can.   Then, there’s the issue of storage, and triple handling.

2.)      Manufacturers offered by Purchasing Cooperatives (normally Tremco, or Garland) will typically charge 40-60% MORE, and they don’t even make many products they sell.  They have it made by someone else, and then “Private Label” it.  The only difference is that it’s marked up 300-400%.

3.)      Contact Roof Consultant’s Institute, and ask their ethics board how to move forward from there.  RCI is highly respected, and I know many of them personallty.  Factually, I was trained by the first, and only two time President of RCI, the late Mr. Bob Lyons.

https://wikiroof.blogspot.com/search?q=RCI  

RCI, Inc.
        1500 Sunday Drive, Suite 204
Raleigh, NC 27607-515
800-828-1902

        http://www.rci-online.org/

4.)      They will help you establish a “Standard” that best suits your needs, and will serve as an “apples to apples” type comparison.  This is normally included with the names of 4 manufacturers who will competitively bid the project.

These are names you know, like GAF (world’s largest roofing material manufacturer).  Firestone (backed by billions in Bridgestone assets)., Johns Manville (A Berkshire Hathaway Company), and Carlisle Syntec, leaders in fairness, and quality roof systems.

5.)      RCI will share the names of several respected roofing consultants in your area to draw up bid documents, roof plan, details, warranty term, etc.

NEVER allow one person to read sealed bids in privacy.  The best method is in an auditorium, where bids are opened, and read aloud to the public.  Any protests can be done with everyone present.

Playing with taxpayer money can ruin your life if not careful.  The Garland, and Tremco, Sales Representatives get a 25% “Commission” for getting you to sign up (unlike GAF, Firestone, Johns Manville, and Carlisle).   

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

Type ‘School Roofing Scam” into your browser, and then do the same on YouTube.  The only two manufacturers listed are Garland, and Tremco.  What does that tell you Mr. Administrator, who is preparing to replace a $2,000,000.00 roof?

Roll the dice if you must, but will strongly suggest not gambling with your future, and freedom.  NO amount of money is worth that.

“The “Sole Source” argument is a foolish one, and a “come on” to certain heartbreak.  I’ve seen enough of it to last 4 lifetimes, and still, feel sorry for them each time.  Many of them are actually featured on this blogsite.

Friends, I do not share opinions, but hard data.   If you need assistance, or have a question, feel free to write to my central address:

RobertRSolomon@aol.com

I help all people who ask for help.  It is my privilege to serve you.  I DO NOT ACCEPT MONEY for any reason, so you can compare that to the Salesman’s 25% “Commission”, and make a literate, logical, informed, decision based upon public record..

Our schools are wasting literally billions of dollars listening to slick sales representatives, holding slick paperwork.  Not one bit of that matters if there is no true “Competition” among manufacturers. 

The manufacturers compete, and each manufacturer notifies their applicators to bid the final installed roof.

Manufacturers do not submit “Final” bids, their applicators do. 

My best advice:  Stay away from Tremco, Garland, and Simon.  99% of your problems lie with them.  And it gets worse when I start comparing manufacturer warranties.  Much worse. 

I am very thankful you care one bit about what I have to say, and very appreciative of the time you spend with me here.

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

Respect.

Robert R. “Ron” Solomon

Public Procurement Analyst

Florida State Certification

CCC 1325620

Tampa, Florida  33647

RobertRSolomon@aol.com