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

Thursday, July 29, 2010

What Garland Thinks About the SF Chronicle Piece on Them

Here are the Garland Training Documents - that show clearly their "Business Model":

See top of page 1 - "The strongest sale will always be Garland materials and performance specficiations and no "or equals".

and then: 
"Public contracts can be very lucrative, but they require a very dedicated, sophisticated sale; one which anticipates the things that your competitors are going to do prior to the bid opening. If you are not willing to do all of these things, don't do business with schools."

And then they describe some of what we know they do....
Top of page 3 - 'I suggest you start your presentation by selling "fear." '

Towards the bottom of page 3 - "I suggest you emphasize that you are recommending a solution that is not proprietary."

Then he tells the Garland sales reps how to mix up the manufacturers listed, how to demand that the substitution won't hurt the "system" (although known for substituting J-M plies for their own under their top cap sheet - and not returning the difference...) , and then he describes how to "lock-spec" - by using extreme test listings, not verifiable to a school district guy that it might or might not be accurate...see the next posting to come up in the next couple of days....
Here's some of that massive "restrictive proprietary performance specs" guidlelines being taught to Garland sales reps, to "lock-spec" their product in public and school work:
They also state that "under no circumstances, are loosely-laid or single-ply systems acceptable."

And that if you have to go "or equal" "depending upon the intestinal fortitude of the guy you are selling"....then how you can lock in the Garland product...with specific lock-spec language, on this last page:

So just what was the local and national Garland personnel's reaction to the San Francisco Chronicle article, whitewashing what is going in two School Districts in the San Francisco Bay Area?

They were ecstatic.

Statement from the Local Rep yesterday, Jay Mulligan, regarding the SF Chronicle "report":

"Bunch of BS these people are spreading by attacking our business model as well as Tremco's. I think these cheap bastards who do not watch their jobs, spec cheap roofs, and do not offer customer service like we do should shut their mouths. Fact of the matter is that we as well as Tremco offer a service based offering to our clients. From cradle to grave and at the end of the day look out for the client first. These cheap manufacturers only look out for the contractor who purchases the most materials from them each year."

[Editor's Note:
Read Garland's training documents above, and Tremco's training documents, here:
which show how they are more concerned about locking out competition -to get their admitted, higher-priced products in to schools.]


From Garland Rep Rich Jones:

"Already saw it. I like that they compare my project: 9,000 sq. ft. mechanical well with 3000 sq. ft of wall repair and coating, tapered insulation, aluminum coping coping and counterflashing to a single ply on a roof with almost no penetrations, 1/2" insulation, no sheet metal (existing copper being reused).Spec listed Garland, Tremco and Manville or approved equal. Stressply Plus which all three can make. Tremco rep was at the job walk. Keep in mind that the state review of the contract code is being pushed by GAF, Firestone and Carlisle."

So, Mr. Jones and Mssrs. Mulligan:

Would you like to explain to the public:

1. The conflicts of interest of a manufacturer having their reps certify without any independent, owner-supplied reps that the roofs were installed correctly.

2. Why you would call a true Maintenance Agreement a "Warranty".

3. How many of those Maintenance Agreements actually got paid for on time and actually got extended, with his public works projects.

4. How many times they redid roofs on all your jobs - you know, the true life of the roofs? Was it 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, or every 12 years?

5. Who private labels their products for you, and which ones? We all know there are only four major US roofing manufacturers.

6. When is the responsible SanFrancisco Bay Area Garland Rep going to give the Federal Government back all those overcharges for the Johns Manville (UPDATE 2013:  or Simon Roofing or other manufacturer who doesn't know you are private labeling their) plies used under their top cap sheet....and charged for as if they were Garland plies, about 3 times or more the price of the J-M plies? 

Let's see, why don't we start with the US Postal Distribution Service Center just south of the cow Palace in San Francisco County....and how many schools shall we go pull cores on to find out what you did where????

UPDATE 2013:  We know you were using another company you set up to buy Carlisle Syntec Roofing Products, private label them, offer a "30-year 'warranty' " on them when even Carlisle does not - and then refused to allow them to compete against their own product!?!?!?!?

How outrageous are you?  

SCAMMERS usually are!!!!!

7. How much did you pay architects to insert your specs into the project bid specs? $10,000 or more? Which architects, for which jobs?  

And School Superintendents, and Business Officers, and Facilities Directors and Managers, what, $30,000 to $40,000 a roof????

8. How many architects and engineers specifying your products get your $50,000 indemnification for potential problems with the jobs? All of them? 

It certainly covers most of their deductibles on E&O Insurance Policies - giving them a financial incentive to specify you.

9. And are you aware how bogus it is to list "ASTM D5147" in the actual tests you list in your illegal, restrictive, proprietary specs?

It's a test method - not a test.


So you must not meet any tests - because if you are private labeling, you aren't paying for those tests and don't have copies of them, do you?!

ASTM Roofing Committee Members informed me of this particular bogus spec practice - seen in San Francisco Unified School District Specs.

And it's rampant everywhere.

Tremco - whose "business model" you also defended - is redoing the same hospital roofs at UCSF right now, 12 years later, with the same sole-sourced specs labeled "criminal activity" by the California Supreme Court Justices in my case, standing up and screaming such at the UC Attorney for 10 minutes that same phrase about the specs?

Or did you know, Mr. Mulligan, that the Federal Attorney General here and the State Auditor both ruled them illegal specs? 

You know, the kind you use to lock-spec out real competition with real warranties?

Perhaps Mr. Mulligan also has no knowledge of the Quality Tile Roofing Case in Boise, Idaho that proved Tremco had provided bad product to the contractors to install from their Vernon, California plant - and had asked the Federal Attorney General there that QTR be charged with mixing their product to make it bad - when QTR refused to bid their product on a project the Tremco rep brought them in on, and instead, bid a Malarkey product with a real warranty - as opposed to Tremco's?

We all know that QTR could not have mixed anything into the bitumen - only the Tremco plant had that highly-specialized, mixer made in Austria.

So gentlemen: Have any truthful answers - other than you are scamming for dollars?