See the TV News Reports at the top of the Sidebar below to the right, just below this links section....and click on the photos!


  • John Fox & Clemon Williams vs. Kern High School District, Whistleblowing to the FBI Re: Garland Purchase Orders, Bakersfield, California, 2013
  • GSA vs. Tremco, Qui Tam Suit, 2013
  • Los Angeles vs. Garland, Re: Bid Collusion, Racketeering, etc., Los Angeles, California, About 1997
  • Quality Tile Roofing vs. Tremco Roofing, Re: False Fraud Charges leveled at Tremco Certified Contractor for not bidding Tremco products at Mountain Home Air Force Base, Boise, Idaho, About 1997

Monday, June 8, 2009

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 if they do mean something.

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