The Midwest Roofing Contractors' Association's printed an article on those same Tremco In-House Training Documents was "Tremco: Strategies & Methods" by L.B. "Huck" Morris of the
esteemed Midwest Roofing Contractor's Association (MRCA) and printed in 1997 in
their magazine, Midwest Roofer.
Amy Lester, Oklahoma Impact
Team
OKLAHOMA CITY -- Every building has to have one,
but some school districts may not follow the law when they put on a new roof.
That's the accusation at the center of a special audit state auditor Gary Jones
is conducting right now.
"We are the watchdog. We want to do everything
that we can to ensure that the proper procedures have been followed," said State
Auditor Gary Jones.
Attorney General Scott Pruitt called for the
audit, instructing Jones to audit the books and records of school districts in
Mid Del, Edmond, Enid, Newcastle, Piedmont, Stillwater, Yukon and Guthrie. That
information will help Pruitt determine if the districts are "unfairly
restricting the specifications in bid notices" so only certain manufacturers can
qualify. At issue: possible collusion or kickbacks, all at taxpayer expense.
We talked with several contractors and roofing
experts who say unfair bidding processes happen in some school districts, far
too often.
"It's very frustrating for me because I see these
school districts are having to lay off teachers, they're having to cut programs,
they're trying to tighten their budgets and they're wasting literally millions
of dollars of Oklahoma taxpayer money," said Denver Green, president of
operations for Saratoga Roofing and Construction.
Green is currently putting roofs on schools in
Oklahoma and other states. He and others in the industry say Tulsa public
schools has specific manufacturer requirements in its bidding information for
roofing projects. He claims that limits competition and leads to higher prices.
We looked through years of documents and found, when it's not a metal roof,
Tulsa only uses the manufacturer Tremco. Green says this is because contractors
like him, who are qualified and certified by other well known manufacturers,
cannot meet the district's strict requirements. Even though the bid requirements
say "or approved equal", Green believes other manufacturers won't or can't
qualify. Other roofing experts agree that the bid information limits who can
bid. They say this is costing all of us.
We showed the bid information from four projects
to Green and an architect who works on school projects. Depending on the
project, Denver's estimates, by using a different manufacturer, he could do the
jobs for between about 40%-65% lower than what Tulsa actually paid. The
architect's estimates were 30%-40% lower. And if you apply their same math to
district projects since 2008, Tulsa may have been able to save between 2.8 and
5.6 million dollars.
"I was actually shocked. I found that we could do
the projects for half of the cost and still make a significant profit," said
Green.
Green's not the only one questioning Tulsa and
other Oklahoma school districts. Ron Solomon, a roofing expert from Florida, is
concerned as well. He is a state certified roofing contractor who worked in the
commercial discipline for 37 years. He now dedicates his life to stopping the
use of proprietary specifications in public roofing projects. He recently wrote
several emails to members of the Tulsa school board and architect to point out
problems he sees in their bid information.
"I wanted to make sure that I notified the school
district of the potential problem with them in terms of lawsuits and overpayment
of services," said Solomon. "No public entity should give the perception that
they are favoring one manufacturer over another. This is absolutely the case in
Oklahoma, in Tulsa."
Solomon says that he has not heard back from his
emails. His fight against this issue is far from over.
So, how does Tulsa defend this? We talked with the
schools' Director of Bond Projects, Bob LaBass.
"The Tremco roofing system has been one of the
most successful programs that we've implemented," said LaBass. "Part of their
program is they do full inspections during the installation process. Then, they
inspect for 10 years afterwards so, it prolongs the life of the roof."
LaBass says they essentially pay extra to
outsource maintenance and save on personnel costs. They spend tens of thousands
of dollars, per roof, for a 10 year maintenance program offered by Tremco. It
includes regular inspections, repairs and preventative maintenance. The district
also purchases a 10 year warranty, in addition to the maintenance agreement.
"If it's a problem with a Tremco product, they
repair it. If it's a leak, we get instantaneous response, nearly. They'll be out
within two hours," said LaBass. "We're getting more than just a roof, we realize
that, and we're paying more and we're also getting a lot more service and we're
getting a lot better, a lot longer roof."
In a statement, Tremco says, "In each of the projects on
which Tremco roofing systems have been installed on Tulsa Schools, we have
supplied our products to local Oklahoma roofing contractors that have competed
successfully in public bid environments for the opportunity to deliver
cost-effective, long-term roofing solutions." It goes on to say, "Roofing costs
on particular projects reflect the unique conditions which each building
presents. But in each instance these costs should also cover the delivery of
products and services that achieve long-term roof performance, regular
maintenance and durability. If a low-cost roof system fails early, is improperly
installed, is inadequately maintained, or requires costly repairs throughout its
life cycle, the seemingly low cost option can quickly become the most expensive
in the long-term."
Read Tremco's full statement
Other manufacturers provide less expensive 20 year
warranties, instead of maintenance agreements. Other districts tell us the
warranties satisfy their needs and their roofs last for decades. While LaBass
says this allowed the district to cut maintenance workers, Tulsa still has 53
more maintenance people than Oklahoma City schools.
We took what we found about Tulsa Public Schools
to the state auditor. Based on what we provided it's possible his special audit
could be expanded to include other schools.
"All the time, we should never waste tax dollars.
It's a greater emphasis right now when school teachers are being laid off and we
don't have enough money to perform the basic functions in government," said
State Auditor Gary Jones.
Jones' audit will take several months to finish.
We'll be watching and will let you know what happens.
___________________________________
Comments with Recommendations made on that site:
As
an Architect, I was the first to report this same roofing manufacturer
scamming school dollars in facilities, to the FBI, ever in the now
80-year history of the scam, while a Senior Architect at the University
of California, San Francisco.
This was in 1997.
The term "scam" and "criminal activities" are out of the mouths of
California Supreme Court Justices in 2004, in my oral hearing (I was
fired for whistleblowing to the FBI.)
The FBI "strongly recommended prosecutions" of my bosses in my case -
but the Federal Attorney General, Robert Mueller, "couldn't track
federal funds at UC" (but we could....).
Only the California State Auditor did anything - and California, whose
State Auditor is not allowed to investigate K-12 (Dept. of Education,
40% of California's budget) - can't do anything else.
You MUST keep after these guys, you have no idea how huge this scam is.
Comment Two:
This is that pesky Architect from San Francisco speaking again. Your
roofers are absolutely right when speaking about the scam and the
enormous overcharges versus the non-conflict of interest procedures that
get your schools the best roofs for the best prices. I was taught in
Atlanta by the former head of the International Roofing &
Waterproofing Consultants' Association (Matt Hitlin) for over 2 years
how to roof and waterproof in the early 1980's....the Roof Consultants'
Institute says he wrote the "Bible" of roofing. And he told me that he
was trying to fight this scam back then, when I contacted him after
going to the FBI about this horrible mess in the late 90's. As to the
issue of overcharges: You can bet your bottom dollar they overcharge.
(con't)....
Comment Three:
The Overcharges are HUGE.....the materials prices are about 6-8 times
normal, and here in California, and New Jersey, the scam manufacturers
ensure that the roofs get reroofed every 6-10 years by "shorting" the
asphalts between the plies. Former sales reps, roofing contractor
estimators involved with Tremco and Tremco Field Inspectors, angry at
the practice, told me about it....as did some of the other former scam
manufacturers' reps...and recently. You have at least double the total
roofing cost done every 6-10 years, instead of every 20-30 years. Tell
me that doesn't cost more!!!!! The head of Johns Manville's Product
Sales Division a few years back called me up and admitted to me that
they openly "private-labeled" their products for Tremco. So does a
smaller, "boutique" manufacturer in the Central Valley in California,
whose President told me the same. (con't...)
Comment Four:
J-M products sell for what, $30-$35 a roll (square of roofing?), and
these guys will mark them up to $200 or more for the same roll??? Have
you any idea how many bids and their pricing I have been sent from
industry insiders all over the US and now Canada for the past 14
years??? It's absolutely way overpriced! Let me give you an example
out of the horses' own mouths: a former Tremco manager told me in just
the past couple of years that someone else "set the bond price for the
roofs" and they went for the bond, say $700,000, then when the bond was
ready, the architect putting out the Tremco-supplied spec, the Tremco
sales rep had to "make up the quantities and what types of products to
use, to meet the materials "price" set by others in Tremco with that
School District. And they don't take back unused product.....What a
racket!
