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

Sunday, June 28, 2009

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, 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 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.