Well, well, well.....a UC Administrator in Design and Construction caught demanding a bribe.....

Why does this not surprise me? Or you?  

For those who don't know, "UC" in California is shorthand for the "University of California" (Riverside campus in this case - they have 10 campuses). And as some of you know, I caught on to the roofing and other scams at UC (San Francisco). Here's the story:

UC Riverside official is indicted in bribery case

January 25, 2007

A UC Riverside administrator was indicted Wednesday on federal charges of soliciting and receiving several bribes from the contractor in charge of constructing the university's psychology building.

 

Theodore Chiu, 53, an associate director of the Office of Design and Construction, solicited a $50,000 bribe from Irvine contractor FTR International Inc. on Oct. 31, according to the U.S. attorney's office in Los Angeles.

From: http://articles.latimes.com/2007/jan/25/local/me-iebriefs25.2

And some ask, why do you say you are not surprised - just that the guy got caught?

 I worked in an over 800 employees Facilities Dept. at UCSF. A retired Contracts Manager told me in May, 2001 "Janet, EVERYBODY was involved!" with regards to kickbacks - and laughing at me and describing who got what....just a tiny portion of it. She had lied to FBI Agents in the summer of 1997 - causing unutterable hell for myself and others.  

Or the head of the Building Managers at UCSF telling me they were getting "payola" - twice - in December 1996, and that was why I was not being allowed to do normal contract specifications (three or equal products listed.) Which sent me to the FBI - with doctors on campus urging me to do so.....  

Or maybe why a certain manager at my job showing up with a 4-door Mercedes Sedan fully loaded after a new fire alarm system went into the hospitals on campus....with many a gawker at the window looking down into the parking lot asking him if it was his. When I walked up, I asked him the same, said it was nice, and he looked upset that I had noticed.....and I never saw the car again.....draw your own conclusions.

 Or maybe why the HVAC subcontractor, John Karamanos with HVAC Sales out of San Jose, CA in theSF Weekly article with myself, was able to prove that UC Davis and UC San Francisco guys were receiving gratuities - including golfing gratuities - for the sole-sourcing of overpriced bundling of mechanical equipment in specs. In fact, John Karamanos has sued Norman S. Wright (Chinese-owned) sub out of Brisbane (San Francisco County), CA, for over $100 million in overcharges in ten years for doing so in schools & hospitals and  public work all over the San Francisco Bay Area. 

 The part that is even worse than the expenditures was the illegal sole-sourcing of Phoenix Air Controls, which air valves were proved by a Texas manufacturer/mechanical engineer, Swiki Anderson, to be leaking 30% - and installed in hospitals in the San Francisco Bay Area (and all over the US). Wonder how that affects infection & death rates from infections in hospitals? We were told that the Phoenix Air Control Valves(tested leaking 30%) were being charged out at $10,000 apiece, while the better products (100% effective), were $1,000 apiece.

 Got the picture?

 It's not uncommon to see a head of a dept., the intermediate manager and the design engineer or architect involved....just look around you - and never trust.

Out-RAGE-ous Pricing!

In the San Ramon Valley Schools, Contra Costa County, San Francisco Bay Area, California

At a time when educational budgets - and government budgets - are collapsing all over the US, and with one town in the county in question declaring bankruptcy, the smile-in-your-face-while-we-steal-from-you-blind guys have reached a new high. 

Or should I say, low.

 Just take a look at the pricing given by a widely-known set of relatives working for Garland Roofing in the San Francisco Bay Area, to the local school district for San Ramon Valley Schools (east bay suburbs, east over the mountains from Fremont/Hayward area).

 The Garland Ply Sheets? 43 times the cost of the comparable Johns-Manville product (for example).  

 The Garland Cap Sheets? 21 times the cost of the comparable Johns-Manville product (for example). Click on the picture below to see the pricing. Now that you have seen it, you make your own conclusions.  

For a recap of the Johns Manville costs for the same BUR products (note that the J-M products are sometimes used in lieu of the Garland products on roofs in the SF Bay Area, without lowering the prices and giving the taxpayer the break on their dollar, as in the huge US Postal Service's Distribution Center, for one....):  

J-M Base Sheet: $ 27 for 3 squares  

J-M Ply Sheets: $ 35.63 for 5 squares  

J-M Cap Sheet: $ 21 for 1 square  

Pea Gravel: $10/bag, at 4 bags/1 square  

Trumbull Type 3 Asphalt: $35 for a 100 pound carton

 To recap the letter above, Garland's products compare as follows:  

Garland Ply Sheets: $314 for 1 square  
To compare, for 1 square of J-M, it is $35.63 for 5 squares, or $7.13 per square. Just think if the J-M product is installed instead - a profit of 4,304%.  

Garland Cap Sheet: $332 - that's right - for 3/4 square  
To compare, for 1 square, $442.67, which is 21 times the price of J-M at $21 per 1 square. Just think of that price for a J-M product installed instead - a profit of 2,000%.  

Question: How soon since the last roofing job is this one being redone?

Question: How soon will this roof "need" to be redone?

Question: Was an independent, Registered Roof Consultant and independent testing lab used to test the existing roof?  

Question: Will the Garland roof last 43 times as long as the J-M roof?

Question: Why the Engineering Services fee?  

And last question but not all: Did the Architect or Engineer receive errors and omissions indemnification for specifying Garland?

Whoops! It's another Spec Blooper!

Who's Fooling Who here?

 If any of you have noticed, some manufacturers and in particular Garland list "tight" or "restrictive"proprietary performance specifications.  

Here's the latest "boo-boo" noted:  
When the base ply or other ply lists a test these manufacturers meet, check to make sure whether or not the test they say they meet is a test that lists values to be met, or the test methodology on which the actual tests should be based.  

Did you get that? It's tricky.

 Here's the example. 
Often seen in Garland Specs is the following tests listed for the values they say their Base Ply meets:

 "A. Base Ply: Fiberglass Scrim with the following minimum performance requirements according to ASTM D5147. Properties (Finished Membrane):  
1. Tensile Strength (ASTM D5147) a. 2 in/min. @ 73.4 +/- 3.6 degrees F MD 225 lbf/in CMD 225 lbf/in b. 50 mm/min. @ 23 +/- 3 degrees C MD 39.0 kN/m CMD 39.0 kN/m  
2. Tear Strength (ASTM D5147) a. 2 in/min. @ 73.4 +/- 3.6 degrees F MD 300 lbf/in CMD 300 lbf/in b. 50 mm/min. @ 23 +/- 3 degrees C MD 1335 N CMD 1335 N  
3. Elongation at Maximum Tensile (ASTM D5147) a. 2 in/min. @ 73.4 +/- 3.6 degrees F MD 4.7% CMD 5.0% b. 50 mm/min. @ 23 +/- 3 degrees C MD 4.7% CMD 5.0%
4. Low Temperature Flexibility (ASTM D5147); Passes -30 degrees F (-34 degrees C)"  

So let's go over that one more time. What's wrong with listing "ASTM D5147"?  

ASTM D5147 describes the test methodology to be used by various tests that lists values to meet. 

 For SBS modifieds, those test numbers start with ASTM D6162. 

 For the product above, glass-reinforced SBS Modifieds should be tested with ASTM D6163. ASTM D6163 is based upon the methodology listed in ASTM D5147. And ASTM D6163 is the apparently the only test that describes the values to be met for the product described.

 So the proper ASTM Test Number to be used is ASTM D6163 in the specifications.  

What does that mean during the bidding process?  

Since Garland does not list the tests upon which the values are based, ensure your specs do - and point that out to those letting the contracts. 

Get a copy of the ASTM Roofing Tests and show the difference to them.  

You can take it from there, consultants, reps, auditors, contractors - everyone involved attempting to teach the facilities managers what they are really looking at. Use it well - and good luck!

Update Dec. 15, 2013:
I also break apart specs and use this analysis as part of it - contact me to do so for you!  It's been successful for one whole state already!

Excuses, Excuses: Legal "Rationale" Tremco Uses to Annihilate the Competition

The most blatant statement yet regarding Tremco's intent to annihilate competition is clearly laid out in a memo that concludes how to use "...solicitation provisions so restrictive as to result in a de facto sole source procurement." 

It is certainly the attitude seen and shown in their In-house training documents in 1991. Never ending.... But this memo is from 2004 - and we hear even today that Tremco tells people that they no longer use the same tactics as outlined in their 1991 document. 

Really!!!!! 

The memo defines how to use a Patent in combination with "...Government minimum needs" which allows the desired sole-sourcing to take place. 

Let's see, the patent is for what? (pending at the time of the memo) Was that for a Tremco Performance Warranty that does what?

Let's hear that again.

Patenting an idea that is basically a scam (defined as such by the New Jersey State Commission of Investigation)? Wow! 

 And then it seems that they try to circumvent the law even further by patenting a "Facilities Performance Warranty"? 

 Who's kidding who??? 

 So here is the Memo - this is legal beauty based on a scam!:

Using Fear to Sell - Roofs: Garland In-House Training Documents

And you thought the Obama Administration was the only one who used fear to sell something....nooooo....... 

Here's a good rule of thumb: Anytime fear is used to sell something, look out! It's usually not to your benefit. It's to theirs. 

These documents describe:

• How their strongest sale will have no competition in the specs - true for anyone.
• Sell the architect on how the performance specs are protection for them..today, Garland indemnifies the architects for the usual deductible on Errors and Omissions Policies - $50,000. Is this not a clear Conflict of Interest?
• Qualify and prepare the customer for the onslaught of nonsense from competitors. As an architect, one wonders what great systems that other companies have with real warranties think of that idea - that real products with real warranties are "nonsense."
• Reinforce to the architect that they have the right to pick the materials - that few materials are alike. In roofing, however, that's not the case, there are many products not only alike, they could be private labeled - as Johns Manville does for Tremco.
• If the architect allows any "or equal", he's not doing his job....essentially. However, it is the opposite. Performance specs should not be so tight that someone cannot prove that the product is the same.
• Mix up the point to the client - tell them that you are recommending a solution that is not proprietary, that "You have a multitude of manufacturers recommended in your specification: an insulation supplier, a fastener supplier, base sheet and membrane suppliers." If you know anything about roofing, most of each of the products mentioned are supplied by one supplier in the US....and worse, the point is that each need to be listed in most states and federal work as three products "or equal". Except California and wherever the lobbies for these guys get in and change the laws, such as Texas, which has none, and in California, an "Engineering Contractors Association" backed by the same Asphalt Manufacturer's Association that lobbied for no competitive bid specs in Texas (and won) changed the California Public Contract Code from requiring bid specs to read "2 products 'or equal'" to listing one and no equals, unless the writer of the spec "happened" to know of an equal.

Outright, the Garland Executive says "If you have to go 'or equal', aim for two things: a) a chance of getting the job, and b) eliminating as much of the competition as possible." 

In the San Francisco Bay Area today, I have been told in the past month that EVERY Architect is using the specs from Garland, inserting them into bid specs, and then stamping off on them.

No wonder every school district seems to have these hugely priced, oft-redone roofs.....now there is a $1.2 million "annualized purchase order" we hear done in the Hayward Schools......for what??? Not bid out, not specified by a real architect that really knows what they are doing.... And it goes on and on. 

 But the real kicker is that he suggests "that you start your presentation by selling 'fear'."
Let's see: the US is now draining its resources in spending paper we don't have, due to such a "presentation" this year. Is that a good thing? NO. 

Is fear-mongering ever based on fact, or rather to help who gets the funds to have a chance at pilfering? 

Here are those documents, below.

It's the same old story, once again: The "spec wool" is being pulled over the eyes of the beholders, this time in a Kentucky Middle School

Here's another specification and School District that has earned a place on the "Wall of Shame."

The New Turkey Foot Middle School ( oh, yes, that's the name of the school!) Phase II Project has specifications that clearly sole-source one built-up roofing product and one "Extensive Vegetated Roofing System".

 The all-too familiar and typical "look-alike" competitive bid spec phrase is used, once again, and followed again with restrictive proprietary performance tests and attributes to "meet".  

As we all know, this is going to cost the taxpayer what again????  

Question: Who on that School Board is forcing the spec, and why?

Sniff around folks, and don't be surprised at what you find. But don't stop there..... Look under the post two down called "Corruption Matters" as to where to report what you find.

If you need to know the kinds of things to look for, go to the end of an "Anatomy of a Billion Dollar Scam" I had to write for the California State Attorney General in 2001 for a list of what many, many folks in the industry told me they had seen given or knew their former companies were involved in giving.

The link is at the right side of this website. And further: Who's looking into the validity of that "competitive" specification?

What do I mean?

Somebody needs to be checking into whether or not the tests listed to be met for each product are:
1. Up to date.
2. Old.
3. Values to be met picked out of range required by the test - when that means nothing - just the range itself. The latter is a beauty all unto itself in the world of "puffy" specifications.....
4. Whether the tests exist.
5. Or even if the tests apply to the product listed under.

On the UCSF specs I reported to the FBI, roofing testing experts were able to point out all of the above in just the listings for one page of the spec - and 3-4 products within the overall roofing system.

Here's what we are talking about, seen time and again:
The specification comes out with one named product, stating: "Provide the named product or a comparable product that meets or exceeds the materials and/or performance requirements listed in this specification." and goes on to list specific tests and values.

So what's wrong with that?

One, in most states and federal work, and in the spirit of true competitive bidding, you would not:
1. List just one product - should be three
2. List long or restrictive tests that must be met in an equal;
3. Require certifications, how many projects have been done in a tight geographical area, and ad infinitum that don't mean anything and can't be checked...as if they do mean something.

Here's a copy of the latest "competitive" bid spec promulgated onto the taxpayer - this time in Kentucky.

Carlisle vs. Tremco - in Carlisle's hometown School District

Usually in this blog, we try to submit the facts along with the evidence - and leave out references to the manufacturers who play it straight - when we can. In this case, we can't.  

We finally have one of the manufacturers NOT KNOWN for engaging in the scam finally standing up to one of those so named in the SCI Report. When we reference "the scam", we are referencing "the scam" - their term - as outlined in the New Jersey State Commission of Investigation (SCI) Report "Waste and Abuse in School Roofing Projects", as outlined in numerous press and trade reports, or as outlined in Tremco's own in-house training documents.  

And this time, the scammer came to the hometown of one of the roofing manufacturers not involved in the scams.....with their Purchasing Agency side of the scam.  

Brass Balls, hands down.  

Hey - when you can get away with scamming since the 1930's according to documents found - why not flaunt it in the face of those who won't do it?  

Makes you wonder who beyond Tremco is benefiting from this non-competitive program. Just what kind of benefits are gotten for these kind of contracts anyway, to fly in the face of licensing laws, common and practical sense - all to spend money not needing to be spent?  

Folks at the School Board are yet again turning a deaf ear, just determined to do it at any cost....who's benefitting and where does it lead? Start crossing people, and you'll find out when people you never imagined threaten you, too. Watch what happens here in Carlisle. But this time, the scammers might just have stirred up a hornet's nest. Africanized bees crossed with hornets, if that can be done......and a coral snake or two thrown in to boot! Starting the chase of the early part of the century not to be missed!  

Good show, guys and gals at Carlisle SynTec!

 Tremco - oh yes, it was Tremco - decided to muscle in on the local market in Carlisle, PA, and Carlisle SynTec took them on. 

For those who don't know it and are coming in blind on this report, Carlisle SynTec, largely known as one of the four major roofing manufacturers in the US, is headquartered in Carlisle, PA. And now we have a real donnybrook..... So what happened? 

It's the relatively new Purchasing Agency Scam - where licensed architects and engineers don't do the specifying, purchasing agents do - against state licensing laws and building codes. Acting as architects and engineers. And that's not all.  

What laws are potentially being violated?

• Antitrust
• Bid Rigging
• Public Contracting Codes
• Racketeering
• Licensing Laws
• Building Codes
• Et. al.

And this is all despite a recent letter from the Pennsylvania Dept. of Education in a similar case, stating that a School District has to obtain their own roofing, not through a manufacturer and the purchasing agencies organization. See: http://www.zwire.com/site/index.cfm?newsid=19431938&BRD=2724&PAG=461&dept_id=563781&rfi=8  

Manufacturer Involved? 

Tremco - the one and the same in selling their wares at the Cumberland Valley School District Board.  

Essentially, here's what happened:  

1. Cumberland Valley School District is preparing to spend $1.5 million on EPDM roof restorations - stripping seams and coatings. 
 

2. One of the schools - Eagle View Middle School was to be contracted at $632,000.
 

3. Carlisle conducted a full survey with a building envelope expert. He came up with an estimated $600 in needed repairs to maintain watertightness. The roof was still under warranty so the school did not need to spend a cent if it did not want to. 
 

4. If an EPDM restoration was conducted with seam overlays (through a legal bid process), Carlisle SynTec - whose system is presently on the roof - said that they could not see how the costs would exceed even $100,000 and that would be eligible for a 10 year warranty extension.
 

5. Tremco/WTI recommended coatings which serve no purpose in the Northeast and would result in higher energy costs based on the Department of Energy's Cool Roof Calculator. 

6. The Cumberland Valley School district is currently weighing if they will go with the AEPA contract in spite of the disparity. 

I say "Hooray!!!" that Carlisle Syntec has stood up to the unnecessary cost expenditures So should the taxpayers, being duped once again to put money out where money doesn't need to go...in sole-sourced construction products, and other areas like fixtures, furnishings and equipment (FF&E).

For those who don't know, the usual Purchasing Agent's scope of work is FF&E - not life, safety, health and welfare issues' products, which is what construction products are.  

And I repeat:  

Purchasing Agents and Cooperatives involved with such specifications are practicing engineering and architecture without a license.  

You just can't apply anything anywhere, as roofs exist in differing climates, conditions, have varying substrates and uses. Purchasing Agents just aren't qualified to specify anything anywhere with regards to fire-rated roofing products. They are out of their league. And so is Tremco, doing such.  

The story is located here: http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2009/05/carlisle_syn_tec_demanding_cum.html and reprinted below. _______________________________________

"Carlisle Syn Tec demanding Cumberland Valley School Board revoke roofing contract

by ELIZABETH GIBSON, Of The Patriot-News

Saturday May 23, 2009, 3:00 PM

Carlisle Syn Tec officials are demanding that Cumberland Valley School Board revoke its approval of a roofing contract with a rival company, saying their company can do some of the work cheaper. 

Especially adamant are Carlisle Syn Tec employees who are district residents. 

Michael J. DuCharme, a product marketing manager, conducted his own inspection of the Eagle View Middle School roof without district authorization. He said Thursday that he did it 'to better understand what the condition was.' 

Carlisle Syn Tec produced the 15-year-old roof, which was installed by another contractor, and can repair a leak for free because the roof is still under warranty, DuCharme said. 

It would cost Syn Tec $600, as opposed to the $632,037 being charged by Tremco Inc. of Beechwood, Ohio, DuCharme said. 

Another resident, Alison Diegel, a public relations specialist for Carlisle Syn Tec, on Wednesday issued a release stating that taxpayers are being scammed through the district's contract with Tremco. 

District officials dispute that. 

"We believe (Eagle View) is not a $600 repair," said Mike Willis, district finance chief. 

Tremco is restoring the roof and supplying ongoing maintenance with a 10-year warranty, he said.

"It was a competitive bid contract that meets state statues. Tremco competed through a bid process," said Jeffrey Kimball, Central Susquehanna's director of cooperative purchasing. 

Tremco spokesman Carl Zeitz said the company stands behind its bid. 

"We are not aware of any dissatisfied schools, on the contrary we received many positive comments from schools" Kimball said."

See also "Wall of Shame" here on this blog.

Garland Roofing Caught Bid Rigging in Los Angeles Schools

It may be "Old News", but history is important. For those of you who don't know it, a Garland rep who was a former Tremco rep, according to the Garland Regional Sales Manager, got caught along with the company, a contractor and two individuals in a Los Angeles area school roofing bid and had an Injunction placed against them for: Bid Rigging Vertical Price Fixing Horizontal Price Fixing Unlawful, Unfair or Fraudulent Business Practices Unfair, Deceptive, Untrue or Misleading Advertising Commercial Bribery 

Garland was forced to other measures, including but not limited to opening up the approved contractor's list. 

Some of the other measures included training their employees for five years not to unfairly compete. 

Garland was also ordered to pay $67,600, of which $30,000 was for civil penalties for unfair competition at $2,500 per violation (according to present-day Code Section), $27,600 for legal and investigative costs, and $10,000 in cy pres restitution. 

Defendant Prime Commercial was ordered to pay $11,500 for unfair competition. Defendant Henry Marsh was ordered to pay $11,500 for unfair competition. Defendant Robert Maiers was ordered to pay $10,000 for unfair competition. 

Essentially, the LA DA's offices let them off with a slap on the wrist....and the investigator told me that they wished they had done more after hearing the whole story.... 

So - did you ever hear about it? Here's the actual consent order: 

See: http://roofingscam.blogspot.com/2009_04_19_archive.html#7929549341180344241 and look at the first post, 

"Garland Consent Decree in Bid Rigging Case" 

For more on Garland, look here: 

30-year warranty discussed by the Midwest Roofing Contractor's Association former Testing Director: http://roofingscam.blogspot.com/2008_03_02_archive.html 

Look at the second post down, "Examining the 30-Year Warranty" Actual 30-year warranty: http://roofingscam.blogspot.com/2009_04_19_archive.html 

Look at the second post down, "GARLAND 30-YEAR WARRANTY" 

Overcharges: http://schoolroofingscam.blogspot.com/2008/02/comparable-costs-between-manufacturers.html "Comparable Costs Between Manufacturers in Oakland, CA School, 2005" 

Update on the Overcharges, May 9, 2009: A recent report from a roofing contractor shows that the overcharges have reached this range: "I almost passed out when they sent me the material price quotes for the Garland built up roof system……$245.00 PER ROLL for a 1 square SBS Modified membrane. In our market, Performance/Derbigum is considered the “high end” material at a price of $90.00. Manville and TAMKO are competitive at $65.00." 

Note that the price he was quoted is about 3-4 times normal cost for the initial installation of a good roof with a warranty that usually only requires hundreds, not many thousands of dollars, in repairs when they occur versus a five-year payment to "keep up the warranty". And that cost does not include when the roofs will be redone.... 

A manufacturer is now in jail for reporting Garland to local officials: http://schoolroofingscam.blogspot.com/2009/04/new-hampshire-officials-declare-war-on.html "New Hampshire Officials Declare War on a Manufacturer Standing up to the Scam"

Attempt to stop Garland sole-sourced in Albuquerque Public Schools by a Task Force: http://ww2.aps.edu/cgi/displaypress2.cgi?136 and in the Albuquerque Journal at: http://www.stopthewarmachine.org/events/jan18pdf.pdf (front page only) or go to www.abqjournal.com and search for the story - paid subscription or per piece, "APS Roofing Costs Sky High", January 19, 2003. It was also reported on KOBTV in Albuquerque in May, 2001. 

Garland was named in the New Jersey State Commission of Investigation Report of 1999/2000, "Waste and Abuse in School Roofing Projects" as one of three roofing manufacturing firms overcharging and more. See: http://schoolroofingscam.blogspot.com/2008/02/new-jersey-report-link.html 
"The New Jersey Report -- The Link" 

Garland is now heard to be "annualizing" Purchase Orders in the 6-figure range in California, where labor is done separately and the contracts are "broken out". The appropriate licensed persons did not review conditions, design or draw up the proper competitive and detailed bidding documents necessary to ensure the public health, safety and welfare. Ohio is having the same problem, we hear.

Update:  See www.thebakersdfieldboys.blogspot.com for Kern High School District purchase orders....