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, September 16, 2010

San Francisco State University Sole-Sources Sarnafil - Against California's Present Public Contract Code 3400

This time, the illegal part of the specifications is simple - but effective in limiting competition. 

The wording in the specifications list Sarnifil - one manufacturer - and then state: "or University-approved equal". 

And not just once, TWELVE times in a number of listings throughout the specifications' "Part 2 Products" 

What does the present California Public Contract Code No. 3400 say should be stated in the specification? 

"3400. (a) The Legislature finds and declares that it is the intent of this section to encourage contractors and manufacturers to develop and implement new and ingenious materials, products, and services that function as well, in all essential respects, as materials, products, and services that are required by a contract, but at a lower cost to taxpayers. (b) No agency of the state, nor any political subdivision, municipal corporation, or district, nor any public officer or person charged with the letting of contracts for the construction, alteration, or repair of public works, shall draft or cause to be drafted specifications for bids, in connection with the construction, alteration, or repair of public works, (1) in a manner that limits the bidding, directly or indirectly, to any one specific concern, or (2) calling for a designated material, product, thing, or service by specific brand or trade name unless the specification is followed by the words "or equal" so that bidders may furnish any equal material, product, thing, or service. In applying this section, the specifying agency shall, if aware of an equal product manufactured in this state, name that product in the specification. Specifications shall provide a period of time prior to or after, or prior to and after,the award of the contract for submission of data substantiating a request for a substitution of "an equal" item. If no time period is specified, data may be submitted any time within 35 days after the award of the contract." 

Ok, so what's illegal about the San Francisco State spec, in part shown below? 

The listing "or University-approved equal." 

The new law AB 1342 provides even better and frankly standard competitive bid language held in laws across the country. 

AB 1342 would help California achieve much better pricing in construction bids, and also give Californians real warranties, not maintenance agreements, for their dollar. 

And most likely, the roofs would be installed correctly under the No Dollar Limit (NDL) warranty programs - and have a much better chance of lasting normal lifetimes. 

AB 1342 requires the listing of three products and the term "or equal". Simple, timeless, and effective. 

The more some manufacturers fight against the standard exemplified by AB 1342, and as used across the country for decades, the more this state has to lose, not just now, but also its' future. 

AND: The Law should apply to all products - not just roofing.....