Hmmmmmm.....So what's wrong with the AEPA "Model"?
A lot - everything, in fact.
Basically, those who specify and design anything with regard to buildings over a certain size - usually two residential units - have to be INDEPENDENT licensed architects and/or engineers. And the architects and engineers are not allowed to "stamp off on", "review" or "approve" others' specifications. The work has to be done under the direction of the architect and engineer. Period, end of story.
Why are these laws in place, and how do they affect those who are encouraged by manufacturers to overstep their bounds to buy those products?
These laws are in place to help ensure the safety of the public. Safety of the wise use of the public's money and the public's physical safety. It's absolutely no laughing matter.
Imagine, for instance, the following (and it's all too often happening):
A manufacturer "convinces" a School Board or a Purchasing Agency that it's OK to sole-source their product. The product is applied:
1. Without anyone checking the tests listed, to see if they really meet what they say they do;
2. Without anyone checking to see if the roof replacement is needed in the first place (independent testing);
3. Without anyone (independent) checking to see if it is applied properly;
4. Without building permits;
5. Without a full set of drawings that allows for independent and fair bidding;
6. Without a warranty collection and enforcement system in place; and
7. Without any knowledge of standard roofing bidding, contracting, application and warranty terms.
So what happens next? We have repeatedly heard of roofs failing when Conflicts of Interest are involved, within 6-8 years, and some now within 3 years. Worse, the affect on the structures below are not generally addressed - metals and wood are particularly affected, concrete more longer term, but still affected. Under torrential rains, hail, snow and ice, such roofs become deadly quickly.
Overall costs are outrageous.
Only certain contractors will get all the work.
Costs are higher from the monopoly created and collusion.
So it means, clearly, that only independent, licensed architects and engineers should design and make materials specifications for buildings, and no one else should influence those decisions, including but not limited to:
1. Purchasing Agents
2. Facilities Managers, Architects and Engineers
3. School Board Members
4. City Council Members
5. Manufacturers
6. Etc.
Why not allow unlicensed persons acting as architects and engineers to be involved, possibly with Conflicts of Interest involved?
It allows for graft and corruption, and it allows for the untrained to put the safety of the public at risk. ____________________________________________
Outlined in the article below are some of the points. The first five points are taken from the article in the previous post, reposted at the end of this post - which we find not comprehensive enough.
1. "Open bidding laws exist to provide fairness and transparency and are designed to prevent the loss of fair competition."
Note: In California, Conflicts of Interest have been used to destroy the standards that have worked for many years in most states and federal work. For example, in 2003, the Asphalt Lobby through a group of road paving contractors and Pacific Gas & Electric, as well as suppliers of peripheral roadway equipment, had the California Public Contract Code changed to read that design professionals did not have to list any equals in product listings, or even one product, unless they "happened" to know of one! The law should have read to list three products and the words "or equal."
2. "The school districts have no insight into the actual bidding process conducted by the AEPA."
Note: The AEPA involved itself in Conflicts of Interest Schemes by the "winning" "bidder" - Tremco - by having one of their personnel "picking" the "winning" "bidder."
They go on to say: "For example, AEPA's process requires any roof service to be bid on a per-square-foot-basis, which consistently produces significantly higher estimates than the standard process of an independent contractor who would estimate labor and materials using a more practical application."
Note: What in the world are Purchasing Agents doing taking over bidding processes for fire-rated materials in public construction projects out of the hands of licensed architects and engineers? They aren't licensed for the health, safety welfare of the public and have no licensed fiduciary duties to the public!
3. "This model uses [restrictive] proprietary specifications, favoring one manufacturer [Tremco], which most states prohibit. The AEPA Model selects one vendor and precludes others for a three-year peiod."
Note: Again, this whole issue would be a moot point if the licensing laws were followed, and purchasing agents and others stopped practicing architecture and engineering without a license.
Not all roofing products are equal or applicable to all conditions.
4. "AEPA solicits bids for blanket pricing with no regard for geograhic wage scale variatios. It is only reasonable to conclude that the highest pay-scales are factored in regardless of regional cost of living."
Note: Again, this whole issue would be a moot point if the licensing laws were followed, and purchasing agents and others stopped practicing architecture and engineering without a license.
5. "Most state bidding laws require licensed architect review and approve school construction specifications."
Wrong! A-b-s-o-l-u-t-e-l-y N-o-t!
This point is critical! Architects and Engineers are NEVER allowed to "Review and Approve" other's work or recommendations without them being under contract with the Architect and Engineer and under the direction of the Architect or Engineer. That is, the School Board, the City Council, the Facilities Engineer or Manager, etc. may not make any demands of the architect or engineer. They are not independent, without Conflict of Interest issues - whether or not they are licensed architects or engineers.
The basic problem with the AEPA Model?
CONFLICTS OF INTEREST allowed through the unlicensed, independent practice of architecture and engineering by purchasing agents.
It seemed to have been developed by Tremco after it got too hot here in California getting the School Board, the City Council, the Facilities Engineer or Manager to force architects who wanted work to "specify" their "favorite" "manufacturer."
To Define again - What is the "AEPA Model"?
A Manufacturer running to the Purchasing Agents to circumvent the normal processes, set up to stop Conflicts of Interest that endanger public safety - whether financial or physical.
So if Tremco nailed down this end-run-around safety procedures to steal work and the taxpayer dollar, in a never-ending desperate pattern of selling products at exorbitantly high prices with low replacement times, what did the other mimicking manufacturers do?
The same thing.
"Copycatting"... direct with Purchasing Agents.
Just wait for the next post - you are not going to believe it - unless you are in the industry and have seen this over and over and over for many years, without anyone doing anything about it. __________________________________________________________
If you as a School District or School Board Member, City Council Member, Architect or Engineer is involved with such specifications, know that you are literally playing with fire. And the fire should be under you.
__________________________________________________________
Here is a copy of that article outlining some of the issues:
A lot - everything, in fact.
Basically, those who specify and design anything with regard to buildings over a certain size - usually two residential units - have to be INDEPENDENT licensed architects and/or engineers. And the architects and engineers are not allowed to "stamp off on", "review" or "approve" others' specifications. The work has to be done under the direction of the architect and engineer. Period, end of story.
Why are these laws in place, and how do they affect those who are encouraged by manufacturers to overstep their bounds to buy those products?
These laws are in place to help ensure the safety of the public. Safety of the wise use of the public's money and the public's physical safety. It's absolutely no laughing matter.
Imagine, for instance, the following (and it's all too often happening):
A manufacturer "convinces" a School Board or a Purchasing Agency that it's OK to sole-source their product. The product is applied:
1. Without anyone checking the tests listed, to see if they really meet what they say they do;
2. Without anyone checking to see if the roof replacement is needed in the first place (independent testing);
3. Without anyone (independent) checking to see if it is applied properly;
4. Without building permits;
5. Without a full set of drawings that allows for independent and fair bidding;
6. Without a warranty collection and enforcement system in place; and
7. Without any knowledge of standard roofing bidding, contracting, application and warranty terms.
So what happens next? We have repeatedly heard of roofs failing when Conflicts of Interest are involved, within 6-8 years, and some now within 3 years. Worse, the affect on the structures below are not generally addressed - metals and wood are particularly affected, concrete more longer term, but still affected. Under torrential rains, hail, snow and ice, such roofs become deadly quickly.
Overall costs are outrageous.
Only certain contractors will get all the work.
Costs are higher from the monopoly created and collusion.
So it means, clearly, that only independent, licensed architects and engineers should design and make materials specifications for buildings, and no one else should influence those decisions, including but not limited to:
1. Purchasing Agents
2. Facilities Managers, Architects and Engineers
3. School Board Members
4. City Council Members
5. Manufacturers
6. Etc.
Why not allow unlicensed persons acting as architects and engineers to be involved, possibly with Conflicts of Interest involved?
It allows for graft and corruption, and it allows for the untrained to put the safety of the public at risk. ____________________________________________
Outlined in the article below are some of the points. The first five points are taken from the article in the previous post, reposted at the end of this post - which we find not comprehensive enough.
1. "Open bidding laws exist to provide fairness and transparency and are designed to prevent the loss of fair competition."
Note: In California, Conflicts of Interest have been used to destroy the standards that have worked for many years in most states and federal work. For example, in 2003, the Asphalt Lobby through a group of road paving contractors and Pacific Gas & Electric, as well as suppliers of peripheral roadway equipment, had the California Public Contract Code changed to read that design professionals did not have to list any equals in product listings, or even one product, unless they "happened" to know of one! The law should have read to list three products and the words "or equal."
2. "The school districts have no insight into the actual bidding process conducted by the AEPA."
Note: The AEPA involved itself in Conflicts of Interest Schemes by the "winning" "bidder" - Tremco - by having one of their personnel "picking" the "winning" "bidder."
They go on to say: "For example, AEPA's process requires any roof service to be bid on a per-square-foot-basis, which consistently produces significantly higher estimates than the standard process of an independent contractor who would estimate labor and materials using a more practical application."
Note: What in the world are Purchasing Agents doing taking over bidding processes for fire-rated materials in public construction projects out of the hands of licensed architects and engineers? They aren't licensed for the health, safety welfare of the public and have no licensed fiduciary duties to the public!
3. "This model uses [restrictive] proprietary specifications, favoring one manufacturer [Tremco], which most states prohibit. The AEPA Model selects one vendor and precludes others for a three-year peiod."
Note: Again, this whole issue would be a moot point if the licensing laws were followed, and purchasing agents and others stopped practicing architecture and engineering without a license.
Not all roofing products are equal or applicable to all conditions.
4. "AEPA solicits bids for blanket pricing with no regard for geograhic wage scale variatios. It is only reasonable to conclude that the highest pay-scales are factored in regardless of regional cost of living."
Note: Again, this whole issue would be a moot point if the licensing laws were followed, and purchasing agents and others stopped practicing architecture and engineering without a license.
5. "Most state bidding laws require licensed architect review and approve school construction specifications."
Wrong! A-b-s-o-l-u-t-e-l-y N-o-t!
This point is critical! Architects and Engineers are NEVER allowed to "Review and Approve" other's work or recommendations without them being under contract with the Architect and Engineer and under the direction of the Architect or Engineer. That is, the School Board, the City Council, the Facilities Engineer or Manager, etc. may not make any demands of the architect or engineer. They are not independent, without Conflict of Interest issues - whether or not they are licensed architects or engineers.
The basic problem with the AEPA Model?
CONFLICTS OF INTEREST allowed through the unlicensed, independent practice of architecture and engineering by purchasing agents.
It seemed to have been developed by Tremco after it got too hot here in California getting the School Board, the City Council, the Facilities Engineer or Manager to force architects who wanted work to "specify" their "favorite" "manufacturer."
To Define again - What is the "AEPA Model"?
A Manufacturer running to the Purchasing Agents to circumvent the normal processes, set up to stop Conflicts of Interest that endanger public safety - whether financial or physical.
So if Tremco nailed down this end-run-around safety procedures to steal work and the taxpayer dollar, in a never-ending desperate pattern of selling products at exorbitantly high prices with low replacement times, what did the other mimicking manufacturers do?
The same thing.
"Copycatting"... direct with Purchasing Agents.
Just wait for the next post - you are not going to believe it - unless you are in the industry and have seen this over and over and over for many years, without anyone doing anything about it. __________________________________________________________
If you as a School District or School Board Member, City Council Member, Architect or Engineer is involved with such specifications, know that you are literally playing with fire. And the fire should be under you.
__________________________________________________________
Here is a copy of that article outlining some of the issues:
