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

Tuesday, January 4, 2011

Las Positas Community College Roofs, Livermore, California

It's the old game of "if they can get away with it so can we." And "Hang the overruns, we will do whatever we want because no one will prosecute them!"  

This time, it's Sarnafil.

Here's how they "cooked" the bid process and specs for the Las Positas Community College, New Science Building and general alterations to another, in Livermore, California.

1. Use of incorrect spec data. That is, the wrong ASTM numbers were used, in a long list of "tests" to be met.

For instance: Use of ASTM D5147 as the test for specific attributes, when it is only a basis for all the actual tests to be done on the roofs. That is, take so much of a product to use for the succeeding, actual specific attribute tests in the ASTM Test Listings. Specific tests are other numbers, and not called out for in the following product attributes: Breaking Strength, Ultimate Elongation, Cold Bending and Water Absorption.

The real tests are not listed - hence you can't compete with an incorrect specification. The listing is incomplete at best and fraudulent, leading the consumer to believe a valid number was used and is a competitive bid spec. The specification is a restrictive proprietary performance spec, non competitive and illegal by Public Contract Codes.

Anyone know how much in Federal Funds this college gets?

For instance: The University of California mixes all their fund sources together, so it makes all construction contracts liable to Federal Law....and I'll bet it's the same for this California College. It's the method College and University Administrators use to skirt the law - but it makes them also more liable....if the Federal Attorney General's Offices decide to protect the taxpayers and prosecute.

2. Use of restrictive specs. That is, too many product tests were listed, some which mean nothing to the overall good of a competitive system. Also used or missing were:  

     a. VOC content maximum numbers for a listing of 12
         specific products associated with the single-sourced

     b. Missing Strength Data (Compressive). Note: The
         ASTM Roofing Committee added Compressive Strength
         as a necessary component to roofing systems to their
         testing procedures in the early 2000's, as there are
         companies claiming erroneously that only Tensile Strength
         was important.

      c. Only one specific value for various materials are 
          listed, instead of minimums or maximums, the 
          competitive way to bid products.  
          For instance: The Thickness is called out as one
          specific mil, not a minimum.  
          Also: Initial Reflectivity, Initial Emissivity, and Solar
          Reflective Index do not state minimum or maxium
          to the value listed.  

3. A rep attempting to submit a listed alternate was told by the staff in charge of the contract that the College was " standardizing" on Sarnafil and would not be accepting any equals - and walked off. Despite what was listed as an acceptable alternate in the bid specification. Let's just hope previous roofs at Las Positas Community College were actually competitively bid - because if they were, they are probably still under a real warranty....which should not be ignored to "redo" roofs under this new "standardized" system of illegally sole-sourcing roofing products.  

Question: At what point do prosecutors "get" the huge overruns from such practices affecting California's budget, and decide to take on the problem? Are they really that "clueless" - or covering up?

Below are some of the pages of the specifications, noted with the issues seen.