Roofing Nightmare: Tremco and San Diego State University.

The University bears responsibility for circumventing the competitive bid process.   

Below, you will read that the Manufacturer (Tremco) acted as the salesman, consultant, and manufacturer.  This is patently illegal in Public Works Projects.

I guarantee you SDSU fell for the "we handle it all" sales line.  ONE MANUFACTURER with absolutely no reason to compete.  SDSU didn't do 10 minutes of homework to find out about Tremco.  Tremco does not, and will not, "compete" for anything, period.

California is very bad about this "Exclusionary" theme, and it shows up as red ink.

Type "Tremco school roofing scam" into your browser, and do the same on YouTube.  There are no shortage of projects similar to SDSU.  Tremco was also fined $61,000,000.00 by the DOJ, and is now being sued by the SEC.  SDSU would have known all this but didn't bother.

In this case,  everyone got what they deserved.  Everyone but the taxpayers of course.

NEVER BUY A ROOF THROUGH A PURCHASING COOPERATIVE!!

GOT THAT?

The story:

https://www.constructiondive.com/news/an-inside-look-at-a-failed-roofing-repair/560955/


Tremco, which was acting as a consultant on the project and recommended the use of Tremfix; and subcontractor Sylvester Roofing of Escondido, California, for releasing coal tar pitch volatiles into the structure.

Dive Brief:

• San Diego State University, inewsource reported, mishandled a $2 million renovation of its College of Professional Studies and Fine Arts building to the point that a former OSHA official called the project, which ended up shutting down the building because of released toxins in the air.  The renovation was supposed to start last summer, but SDSU failed to secure the proper permits in time, so the schedule was changed so that work would begin in early 2019 when students were on break. After heavy rains, crews used Tremfix to seal the many roof leaks, but an aging and malfunctioning HVAC system failed to clear the building of vapors from the chemicals, which entered through nearby fresh air ducts on the roof. Testing revealed that the level of coal tar pitch volatiles was just under OSHA’s safe limit and above the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health's limits, even though crews tried various methods — some disruptive — to remove the fumes.
• After many complaints about the air quality, the university moved staff and faculty to another building. As it turns out, the financial deadline that was driving SDSU's decision to push forward with construction while it was occupied is in 2020, not this year, as officials believed. ​

Dive Insight:

The Safety Data Sheet for Tremfix, a Tremco U.S. Roofing product, states that certain levels of exposure to the product could cause allergic skin reactions, genetic defects and cancer, as well as potentially affect fertility or the health of unborn children. As with similar roofing products from other manufacturers, one of the many precautionary statements around the use of Tremfix advises those exposed to its dust, fumes, gas, mist, vapors or spray to wear the appropriate personal protective equipment. 

Health complaints related to the fumes in the building included vomiting, nosebleeds and migraines. The San Diego County Air Pollution Control District cited SDSU; Tremco, which was acting as a consultant on the project and recommended the use of Tremfix; and subcontractor Sylvester Roofing of Escondido, California, for releasing coal tar pitch volatiles into the structure.

The university is planning another $12 million in renovations, including a new $2.5 million roof. The building reopened in May but is mostly vacant and likely won't be fully occupied until the next round of construction work is finished in 2021. 

On a positive note, SDSU is making progress on its proposed $3 billion Mission Valley mixed-use development, which will include a football stadium, residential, retail, office buildings, two hotels and 90 acres of parks and plazas. This month, the university announced it had completed the project's Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR), which will be open to comments through Oct. 3. Pertinent comments will be addressed in the Final EIR. ​

Recommended Reading:

•  INEWSOURCEBungled multimillion-dollar roofing project at SDSU a ‘case study’ on what not to do

Thank you for spending time with me here.

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

Respect.

Ron

"Public Roofing Oversight

Friends:

The purpose of this site is to increase public awareness of "Predatory Sales Models" and "Exclusion" of  fair competition in public works.

I write it to help:  

Architects, Public Administrators, Contractors, Consultants, Manufacturers, and Distributors, who are all affected by "Proprietary Specifications".  

A sales trick to eliminate all competition for taxpayer money.  A complete SCAM,  NEVER buy a roof through a Purchasing Cooperative unless you want to pay a 50% PREMIUM for common roofing materials.

Everything I say here is backed by  public record, and subsequent documentation.  If I say something that is factually incorrect, I will retract it.  Constructive criticism is encouraged, and welcomed.

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

*Revised November 16, 2019.


In the upper left search box, please type keywords:  School Roofing Scam, Purchasing Cooperative, Taxpayer abuse, Tremco, Garland, sole source, RCI, NRCA, Honor, Fairness, Competition, Public Procurement,etc.

Approximately 162 posts all told. 

Highly recommended is Roof Consultant's Institute who provide necessary data, and support.  

"Self Advocacy Tools"

Please NOTE:  IIBEC 

http://rci-online.org/news-and-advocacy/self-advocacy-tools/

FACT:  Garland, and Tremco do not make half the products they sell, and are not found in any local roofing supply house. It must be trucked in from Ohio.  You are essentially exporting 70% of your local tax dollar to other economies. 

FACT:  Garland, nor Tremco will "Compete" for anything.  Don't believe me?  Tell your Garland, or Tremco Representative that you want to include other manufacturers to the bid list .  Watch their faces, and I GUARANTEE they will run away.

But Ron, the purchasing cooperative says they won by "competitive" means.  This an outright lie.  The Cooperative lies to increase their commissions.  U.S. Communities listed 55 pages of BLANK line items from Garland.

Since I noticed the blank documents, they have come up with this convoluted mess:

https://www.garlandco.com/us-communities

The "Response Package"

https://www.garlandco.com/uploads/misc/14-5903_RESPONSE_PKG_FOR_WEB.pdf


YOU, and all  taxpayers should be concerned that we are paying upwards of 50% MORE for roofing and duped into thinking you've received a value.  The opposite is true.
  
If you are working with a Purchasing Cooperative, your district is taking a beating that is 100% avoidable.  Certainly, I've illustrated the scam that is undeniable. 

I know all the manufacturers, and have installed millions of sq. ft. of any subset of roofing.  Steep slope, single ply (EPDM, TPO, PVC), built up, modified, etc.  I've successfully completed over 100 public schools, and know what I'm talking about.

If I don't know the answer, Roof Consultant's Institute (RCI) will.  RCI is the standard for roofing excellence, and an honorable organization with top level consultants.

Many are Architects, Consultants, Engineers, Contractors, Manufacturers, etc. ,ALL are credentialed, and will have someone near you.

I do not belong to any organization.  A lot of my work is very sensitive, and may cause discomfort through association.  They are not allowed to speak freely, while I can tell the truth without fear of reprisal.

Please understand that I have no beef with individuals trying to make an honest living.  It's the "Predatory Sales Model" I despise.  I do not want to "Exclude" those mentioned, and welcome them to any public bid list.  Repeat, I do not want Tremco or Garland "Excluded" from anything.  They should get the same opportunity like everyone else.

IF YOU ARE NOT COMPETITIVE IN THE PRIVATE MARKET, YOU ARE NOT COMPETITIVE IN THE PUBLIC MARKET.

Doesn't that make sense?

Instead of "Favoritism", we seek fair competition for our own tax dollars.  

Roofers will decide all things roofing, and not elite sectors who are without credential, experience, or the exhaustive safety training it takes.  

"My name is Ron, and I'm a roofer.........For some reason, feel like I should be at an AA meeting."

Just so I don't come off like a 'Lone Wolf", will share what the National Roofing Contractors Association (NRCA), and Roof Consultant's Institute (RCI) have to say:

Reference:

From Roof Consultant's Institute:


http://rci-online.org/news-and-advocacy/policy-statements/

June 21, 2012 RCI’s Position Statement applies to all publicly bid work, including federal, state (provincial/ territorial), municipal, and local government projects or otherwise taxpayer-funded projects in which RCI, Inc. members may participate.

Projects not under the procurement requirements of government agencies or that do not utilize taxpayer funds should also employ similar fair and impartial procurement practices. It is the position of RCI, Inc. that all public work and taxpayer-funded projects clearly adhere to all applicable procurement regulations, maintain the highest levels of transparency and value, and comply with the following principles.

In addition to the owner, projects should involve three distinct entities: the design professional, the manufacturer (or supplier), and the qualified contractor (contractor).

1.) . The design professional should be selected by the owner based on qualifications, experience and past performance. The design professional should prepare contract documents to be in compliance with all applicable code requirements (including but not limited to fire, wind, drainage, thermal resistance or performance, warranty and environmental requirements).

Contract documents should not be proprietary or exclusive to a manufacturer, a supplier or a qualified contractor. A product or system that may be able to be produced, supplied or installed by other competitors but is not, is considered a proprietary product/system. Procurement regulations have specific procedures that are required if proprietary materials or systems are to be considered. Design professionals are discouraged from utilizing proprietary specifications.

All projects should utilize a minimum of three manufacturers or utilize materials commonly available from three manufacturers. Systems should be selected to meet specific performance criteria or standards. The design professional must adhere to all state (provincial/territorial) licensing requirements and carry the appropriate errors and omissions insurance.

2.)  The manufacturer and its suppliers should provide the materials and systems adhering to the contract documents. A manufacturer should not act as the design professional unless qualified to do so, and should state in writing and publicly its financial interest in the specifications/requirements provided. Contractual obligations or agreements should not exist between owners and manufacturers. Proprietary and/or exclusionary specifications intended to limit competition among manufacturers, suppliers and/or qualified contractors are strongly discouraged.

Manufacturers are encouraged to provide data, RCI, Inc. Position Statement on Procurement – Support Document information, or other assistance to qualified contractors to determine the best use and application of their materials and systems. Manufacturers should not control material specifications.

3.)  The contractor should be contracted directly to the owner. At no time should any contractual or financial obligation or agreement exist between the design professional and manufacturer, or the design professional and the qualified contractor, or the manufacturer and the qualified contractor. At no time should the manufacturer act as either the design professional or qualified contractor. At no time should the design professional act as the manufacturer or contractor.

4.)  Design-build delivery methods are acceptable under the following conditions: (a) The principles noted above, are met. (b) Design build delivery maintains a competitive bidding/tender environment among all parties: designer, contractor, and manufacturer. (c) A design-build contract is used to ensure that a clear line of responsibility for the design and compliance with code is established. It is the position of RCI, Inc. that the use of "buy boards,” group-purchasing agencies, and all similar purchasing models in any type of building construction, remediation, or rehabilitation are not transparent, do not ensure compliance with the minimum requirements of the codes, do not provide a competitive bid situation, and should not be utilized.

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

This is what the NRCA has to say:  Click to enlarge.




There you have it.  The largest roofing organization (NRCA), and the premier Consultant's organization: RCI (Roof Consultant's Institute) have spoken, and any reasonable person will agree.



Please help stop this assault on taxpayers, and school maintenance budgets across all of North America.  The "Scam" is impossible for them to argue, so they take the position of  subterranean termites, and hide.


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".

It is humbling that anyone cares one bit about what I have to say, and please know I am thankful for your time.

Respect.

Robert R. "Ron" Solomon

Public Procurement Analyst
State Certification  CCC 1325620
Licensed Consultant
Tampa, Florida  33647

RobertRSolomon@aol.com

Friends:

The lowest life forms always seem to find each other.

https://www.constructiondive.com/news/contractor-facing-federal-kickback-charges/559404/

It is my hope that someday "Ration" overcomes "Greed".  Foolish as it is to dream.

Rampant "Greed", and "Bid Rigging" are rampant, but will keep chasing those who steal from taxpayers.

Anyway, check out today's story:

Contractor facing federal kickback charges

(Credit: Fotolia )

AUTHORKim Slowey

@kimslowey 
Dive BRIEF:

• Federal prosecutors have brought criminal charges against a Tennessee construction company executive whose company performed work at two Georgia Army base construction projects — one at Fort Benning in Columbus and the other at Fort Gordon in Augusta — with a combined value of approximately $37 million. 
• The charges center around David Kennedy's relationship with a subcontractor, Southern Atlantic Construction LLC (SAC), and its owner, Gary Hamby, in 2015. Prosecutors said Kennedy gave work to SAC in return for cash payments, gifts and wire transfers and approved fake invoices submitted by SAC. The proceeds from the alleged criminal behavior were directed toward a shell company bank account opened by Hamby. 
• Hamby pleaded guilty in 2017 to violating federal anti-kickback laws, according to TuscaloosaNews.com and has agreed to cooperate with investigators. Kennedy is out on bail awaiting trial.

Dive Insight:

On most construction projects, public or private, there is opportunity for this kind of malfeasance, particularly when individuals work together, as prosecutors allege Kennedy and Hamby did. 

Earlier this year, the U.S. Department of Justice filed a lawsuit against a contractor and subcontractor for allegedly conspiring to submit $65 million of false subcontractor invoices to the National Nuclear Security Administration under their contracts for a MOX fuel fabrication facility in Aiken, South Carolina. 

In return for processing the fake invoices, general contractor CB&I AREVA MOX Services LLC (MOX Services) allegedly received cash, sporting event tickets, firearms and other gifts as bribes. 

In May, the owner of an Illinois construction company, Tower Contracting, was charged in federal court for nine counts of wire fraud and one count of federal program bribery for paying the former mayor of Markham, Illinois, approximately $100,000 in bribes in exchange for city construction contracts. The mayor ended up pleading guilty to accepting approximately $300,000 in bribes, and the owner of Tower Contracting, Michael Jarigese, faces up to 10 years in prison for bribery and 20 years for wire fraud.

Also in May, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Connecticut announced that Michael Flynn, an insulation contractor based in Ridgefield, Connecticut, had pleaded guilty to his role in a $45 million bid-rigging and fraud scheme involving himself and other contractors. 

Prosecutors said that Flynn and other contractors inflated their prices by 10% for work they performed on projects in Connecticut, New York and Massachusetts between October 2011 and March 2018. The participants, according to authorities, tried to hide their illegal actions by using burner phones and an encrypted disappearing message app.​

Follow Kim Slowey on Twitter

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

So, beware of people who smile too much.

If anyone ever says "We handle it all", RUN.  You might just end up in the cell next to them, and for a very long time.

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

Respect.

Ron

Tremco to be sold?

RPM eliminates its 'poison pill' provision

https://www.rubbernews.com/article/20180828/NEWS/180829940/rpm-international-eliminates-its-poison-pill-provision

Dan Shingler
Crain's Cleveland Business

Comments

 Email Print 

MEDINA, Ohio—The idea of RPM International being bought might have become easier to swallow for those who once believed such a situation was unthinkable—or for any potential acquirer.

Already under the influence of activist Elliott Management, the specialty coatings and sealants company has thrown out its "poison pill" takeover defense, and its stock has hit an all-time high. A potential acquisition of the company has added a premium to RPM's share price, longtime observers say.

"If every major private equity group in the nation has not had them on their watch list by now, this will cinch it," said Bill Ridenour, president of investment banking firm Polymer Transaction Advisors and a longtime adviser to northeast Ohio companies. "I look for the company to be sold within a year after the cost-cutting measures are completed."

A poison pill is a corporate strategy to ward off acquisitions, particularly by would-be hostile acquirers. They typically work by allowing existing shareholders to buy more shares, usually at a discount, once a potential acquirer buys a large amount of stock. That has the effect of diluting the shares for all shareholders, making it more difficult and expensive for a hostile takeover to be executed.

Medina-based RPM told the Securities Exchange Commission on Aug. 17 that it had terminated its rights agreement, which was already due to expire in May 2019. A company spokeswoman confirmed that the filing signified the end of the company's "poison pill" provision, though she did not elaborate beyond that.

"Our board elected to terminate the rights agreement (poison pill), which was scheduled to expire early next year, in response to changing corporate governance practices and investor input. Few companies continue to maintain rights agreements, like our former rights agreement, that have not been approved by stockholders," said Kathie Rogers, RPM manager of investor relations, in an email correspondence.

But RPM is not in the situation of most companies. It has activist shareholder Elliott Management—by invitation or not; RPM has not said—helping guide the company. And neither RPM nor Elliott may have any incentive to tamp down speculation of a sale, because it drives up the price of the company's stock.

RPM said in June that it had reached an agreement with the $34 billion hedge fund—without disclosing Elliott's stake in the company—to review the Medina company's business practices and install two new members to its board of directors. That review has resulted in the cost-cutting program referred to by Ridenour, which is ongoing. Also, since Elliott came on the scene, RPM has undertaken a limited streamlining of its senior management, which included the early retirement of Chief Operating Officer Ron Rice, news that was released on July 6.

The appearance by Elliott already had the markets thinking RPM could be a potential acquisition target. RPM's share price shot up almost 25 percent per share in the month after the Elliott announcement and has continued to rise.

Since RPM's SEC filing was reported Aug. 20, RPM's stock price has risen another $1 per share to about $66 at the close of trading Aug. 23. It was trading at fewer than $53 per share two days before the company announced it was working with Elliott Management.

"RPM actually has set new, all-time highs," noted analyst Elliott Schlang of Cleveland-based Great Lakes Review, who has followed and owned shares of RPM for decades.

"Institutional accounts we work with love a stock with a catalyst. RPM always had a good reputation, but suddenly people think there's a timing issue with a catalyst involved with Elliott and the acceptance of (eliminating) the poison pill," Schlang said.

Like many who have admired RPM under the Sullivan Family—current CEO Frank Sullivan is the third generation of his founding family to run the company—Schlang said he's surprised by the company's apparently willing embrace of Elliott. And he sees recent developments as part of a new scenario for the company created by the arrival of the activist investor group, which has usurped several CEOs at other companies and often triggers significant corporate changes at its target businesses.

"Because of the news of Elliott's involvement, the stock has been on a steady uptrend and that's been emphasized further by the poison pill," Schlang said.

While the poison pill SEC filing alone doesn't mean an acquisition is going to happen, Ridenour said, he's convinced it's likely after decades of thinking such a scenario was all but impossible.

"My view is colored by my knowledge of the Sullivan family and their strong entrepreneurial spirit. In that respect, I am surprised. However, they no longer had a controlling interest in the company, and (stuff) happens when you go public and expose yourself to the open stock market and the denizens that prowl it. They were performing somewhat sluggishly and a Gordon Gecko type surfaced to 'HELP' them," Ridenour said via email.

He also said he thinks the early retirement of the poison pill provision has meaning in the case of RPM.

"The fact is that someone on the board had to raise the topic, move that it be removed, there was a discussion and the board voted to remove it," Ridenour wrote to Crain's Cleveland Business. "In this instance, it is another indicator that RPM will be sold after the leading shareholder upgrades its profitability."

Schlang agrees that RPM likely didn't take the action on a whim, but instead for some purpose. He also was surprised, though he's not in favor of poison pills. He said they tend to protect poor managers, and he doesn't think RPM ever needed to do that.

"I never would have guessed that, given the culture of the Sullivans, they would be removing the poison pill, as much as I think they should be removed," Schlang said.

Schlang won't go as far as to predict a sale anytime soon. He likes the stock for more fundamental reasons. But he said he now also thinks an acquisition of RPM is "conceivable" for the first time. As an investor, he's happy for the premium the stock gets from thoughts of a takeout, he said.

"The (elimination of) the poison pill is just another positive," Schlang said.

If a sale happens, Ridenour predicts it will be done all at once, because he thinks RPM is worth more as a single company than it would be if it were broken into pieces—pieces the Sullivan family took decades to assemble.

Unlike A. Schulman, which Ridenour said recently sold itself from a position of relative weakness with at least one underperforming business unit, RPM is a healthy company that only needs to trim some costs. Ridenour thinks it will not have to do much house cleaning if it decides to sell.

RPM has built itself up over the decades by being the acquiring company, and that's left it with a mix of subsidiaries and brands. Rustoleum paints, DAP caulks and sealants, Tremco roofing and Carboline corrosion-prevention coatings are among the hundreds of brand-name products the company sells to residential, industrial and specialty markets.

It's plastics holdings include industrial flooring and roofing makers, polyurethane foam and industrial floor cleaning system suppliers.

"I know of no business unit within RPM that is an ugly, underperforming, slow stepchild of the parent company. But there may be one hidden below their line of financial reporting. … In contrast to the Schulman sale, their value-added content is higher and their exposure to resin price fluctuations is less because they are truly a small collection of independent businesses that have a variety of business risks and variables associated with them," Ridenour said.

This is the same company that was fined $61,000,000.00 by the DOJ for abusing GSA contracts, and is now being sued by the SEC for Lying.

Frankly, hope RPM gets exactly what they deserve.  We must protect school maintenance budgets from the "Predatory Sales Models" of RPM/Tremco.

Respect.

Ron

Cobb County Procurement Decision is Win for Industry! Taxpayers rejoice. Much Respect to IIBEC Members.

Friends:

Today, I will rejoice.

Utmost respect to the entire IIBEC Team.  

Mr. Brian Gardner, a warrior,  has contributed many years to the discipline, and this particular objective.  

Here, I will thank him from the bottom of my heart, for a tireless spirit, and in service to others.  First hand, know the anguish, pressure, disappointment, and heartbreak he's endured.  Brian has "Determination", and an uncommon will to achieve.

Mr. Scott Hinesley, a true Professional in every way.  I admire Scott as a wonderful family man, and is glorious in his pursuit of all things noble.  If Scott tells you he knows a three legged raccoon that can tap dance, play a tambourine, and whistle "Dixie", believe it.

That's for you WH, my dear, and Honorable friend.  All Praise, and Glory to "Brother Jake" for his selfless contributions in service to his country.  'Never Forget".  AAOOAAHH!

Mr. Tom Gernetzke, Past President of RCI, hard working, caring, and has the full respect of our entire industry.  A finer person, you will not meet.  A great inspiration to me personally.

Each of them known to me, and all "Honorable" Men.  I stake my reputation of 45 years on each one.  I'd gladly confess to a homicide for any one of them.

They stood by me, when few would.  At times, can be a bit too "energetic" for my own good. 

I've spent ten years writing about "Public Roofing Oversight", and trying desperately to get through to anyone who would listen.

My Honorable Colleagues have freed me from great burden.

Every School Board Member in North America should thank them for rescuing school maintenance budgets from "Purchasing Cooperatives".

Roofing is the costliest item in public maintenance. 

Instead of "Exclusionary Practices" promoted by Purchasing Cooperatives, will follow a fair, competitive, open, and inclusive, bidding process.  Can you hear me fellow taxpayers?

Thank you to Cobb County Commission for listening, and doing the right thing.  

The fair, reasonable, rational, and Honorable thing.

By doing this, suspect taxpayers will be saving approximately 40%-50% on Roofing, and Roofing Services.

You will also retain approximately 70% of your local tax dollar since most manufacturers are locally distributed, represented, and installed.

https://rci-online.org/iibec-members-meet-with-cobb-county-officials-to-discuss-construction-procurement/

Cobb County Procurement Decision is Win for Industry

May 22, 2019 By IIBEC Communications 4 Comments

By Director of Industry Affairs Brian Gardner

IIBEC Georgia Chapter members from Cobb County, GA (Past Presidents Pat Downey and Arthur “Chip” Ward), IIBEC First Vice President Scott Hinesley, and Director of Industry Affairs Brian Gardner met in April with Cobb County purchasing administrators to discuss the county’s procurement of construction via cooperative purchasing.

On May 14, Cobb County (Georgia’s third-most populous county), which had previously utilized cooperative purchasing to procure roofing projects, decided to no longer use cooperatives in such a manner. This decision will have national repercussions, as Cobb County served as an administrator for a nationwide cooperative roofing program.

“Our team was very impressed with Cobb County officials, as they professionally considered all of our arguments and did their own due diligence. We are very pleased these dedicated professionals decided to procure roofing via design-bid-build with the assistance of independent design professionals,” remarked Pat Downey.

“Cobb County administrators engaged with us in a highly professional and substantive manner. I, as a county taxpayer, especially appreciate their interaction with our team. I believe this is how government and industry should work together to provide sound, smart, and efficient public policy,” stated Chip Ward.

“This is terrific news for taxpayers and IIBEC members. The fact that Cobb County has now made this important decision is the result of a job well done,” commented Mike Clark, past president of IIBEC and a Georgia Chapter member.

“I applaud Cobb County’s decision and thank them for providing us an opportunity to present our case for responsible procurement,” remarked First Vice President Scott Hinesley.

“We congratulate IIBEC Georgia Chapter for its superlative efforts in promoting responsible construction procurement,” EVP/CEO Lionel van der Walt added.

“This is an excellent example of an effective grassroots “boots-on-the-ground” effort by IIBEC chapters to promote responsible construction procurement in their local area,” stated Advocacy Committee Chairman Tom Gernetzke.

Filed Under: Featured Posts 3, General Interest, Industry NewsTagged With: advocacy, procurement.
Comments