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 bedrafted 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 theaward 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.....

New Hampshire Judges acting like Colombian Druglords - over the Roofing Scam!!!!

Tea Party People in New Hampshire and across the Country: Listen up.

The issue with the roofing scam and brewing scandal is worse than the Teapot Dome Scandal.

So many people are involved, and it doesn't matter how righteous and good they appear - if involved, to quote investigators, they are as "dirty as sin."

And New Hampshire appears to be rotten to the core.

The letter I am reprinting below is new, and the actions are very recent.

This former roof manufacturer/contractor asked "WHY?" to school officials illegally sole-sourcing Garland Products....and look what crazy stuff they are doing in that state to him, being done by Judges and Officials - all covering up who got what and where the money really went.

That's right, a real Banana Republic, within our borders.

Have they gone completely nuts? They have!!!!

It's worse than the Chicago MOB!

Here's the letter, and believe me, every bit of it is true. You should have seen what went down and is going down in California with folks covering up - hard to do anymore.....

We have a lot of Marie Antoinnettes in this country, nose in the air, that need to be put on their own island, duking it out with each other - and leave the rest of us alone to rebuild our good and stable society, no matter what they try to do.... and completely without interference and their treasonous acts.

I don't care if they are some kind of Judge involved, which is happening in New Hampshire, or whatever. I saw the "best" freeloading off the taxpayer.....getting away with it out here....and I don't think Georgie Washington would be too happy with them. At all. What a disgrace!!!!!

Anyone involved isn't welcome here, and needs to get out of this country immediately - to stop making it third world. That's what the Tea Party is about, ridding ourselves of crooks acting high and mighty, getting themselves into positions of power. They ought not to be there.

So read up, it's a very sad state of affairs in New Hampshire! And DO something!!!!!

Write your senators, congressmen, the papers in New Hampshire, the legislators in New Hampshire, put the pressure on!!!!

Just so you know, Gerard ran for Congress to bring light to the subject and stop their attacks. The first psychiatrist they ordered him to see did not agree with the courts, he found Gerard sane (of course!) and then the psychiatrist dies in a "boating accident". Right. Unnnhhh, Hunnnhhh - mmm, mmm!

Do you believe that? I don't - knowing what has been done to Gerard for taping officials threatening him, some with cutting him up in pieces and taking him out to sea. Just like the School Board President that dropped dead young (that they admitted they killed , and how - on tape. E-v-e-r-y bit of this happened...)

 Yes, yes, yes, he caught all that on tape and more, and then the insane asylum party started with the Judges, each one bowing out till now when they realized how dirty this was.... These creeps no know boundaries, and some of them appear to be in Judges' robes, helping that MOB of thieves in New Hampshire.....thieving the taxpayer dollar out of schools with roofing...... for heavens' sake!!!!!!

Can I say, "THE JACKASSES?!?!?!?"

I just did.

And we need to do a lot more than that.

Do the right thing, New Hampshire - stop persecuting the messenger, and get the mess cleaned up and out!
___________________________

 Dear Representative ______,

Thank you for taking the time to meet with me this afternoon (March 22, 2011).

You hit upon the key as we were parting. It’s the courts.

I don’t have evidence that the courts have the backs of politicians connected to organized crime. I have the proof. They are bragging about it on these tapes. and the courts actions verify their claims. What sane judge would ORDER that a defendant be psychiatrically evaluated for competence to stand trial when she knew he was undefeated in the courts in 19 court cases.

These are multimillion dollar fights against the top law firms in the State of NH, (Shaheen & Gordon and Devine Millimet) the top prosecutors from the US Attorneys Office, the top attorneys from the Merrimack County Attorneys Office and the Hillsborough County Attorneys Office?

This psych eval was ORDERED not long after the Special Prosecutor from the US Attorneys Office assigned to my case told the judge this and right after the same Special Prosecutor said this. Judge Groff saw that the Special Prosecutor was getting wobbly knees so he ORDERED that I be psychiatrically evaluated for competency to stand trial.

Judge Groff then retired and passed his baton of nonsense to Judge Diane Nicolosi. Judge Nicolosi ran with it and took it a step further by ignoring the Special Prosecutor Perkes multiple Defaults and ORDERING that the psych eval be held in secret, with no witnesses allowed, and the video of the evaluation put under court ORDERED seal indefinitely.

Instead of me getting a 19th win, Judge Nicolosi robbed me of that win and installed a politically motivated cloud of mental illness over my head while running for the US Congress. A political gift to Charlie Bass.

And now, because I refused to knuckle under to this clearly illegal ORDER on a court case that I had won 3 times by default in as many months the courts want to revoke my bail and send me to jail until my trial.

This will force me to get another public pretender lawyer that will do nothing while they send me away. I think a special meeting before the judiciary committee and a letter from committee expressing their concerns would go a long way to alleviating these travails of mine.

Thanks again for allowing me to bend your ear. I hope you can fully appreciate the seriousness of what is going on here. I’m not just fighting for my rights here.

I’m fighting for the rights of all NH and American citizens who are being threatened simply for asking the simple question. “Where did the money go?”

If they are allowed to silence me without any repercussions simply for asking that simple question then we have lost control of our government and our other freedoms and way of life in this country will be permanently abrogated.

 http://gbforcongress2012.com/2011-01-30%20-%20LETTERS%20ENDORSEMENT.pdf Gerard Beloin For Congress 2012.com

The California Legislature Introduces a Bill to Level the Playing Field: AB 1342, Affecting Public Contract Code 3400

The Committee on Accountability and Administrative Review at the California Legislature has introduced a bill to revise the next law that has been allowing the scams to continue.

The Bill, AB 1342, requires competitive bidding standards finally brought up to the standards required in most state and federal work.

It requires that three manufacturer's products and the term "or equal" be used in bid specs, with regards to roofing contracts.

And it goes beyond any other state or federal laws. It includes provisions that:

1. Force those private labeling and marking up products to not bid

2. If performance specs are used, three manufacturers have to submit that they can meet those specifications prior to bid, and 3. Any special warranty cannot cost more than 10% above the others.

What was the Public Contract Code (No. 3400) here in California?

When I first encountered the problem in the 1990's, the Public Contract Code required the listing of two manufacturer's products and the term "or equal". It was very strange, as national and most state standards have always been to list three manufacturer's products and the term "or equal". And none of these laws allow massively restrictive proprietary performance specs (with fraudulent test listings and values) that you see today.

In the early 2000's, during my case, the California Legislature through the asphalt lobby thinly disguised as an "Engineering Contractor's Association" of road paving contractors and Pacific Gas & Electric, changed the California Public Contract Code No. 3400 to read that you could list one manufacturer and IF you knew of another, you could list it.

Who were they kidding?

So - the Committee introduced Assembly Bill AB 1342 on February 18, 2011. It is beginning its journey through the California Legislature.

For those of you interested in backing the bill, and those interested in asking that the required spec language be applied to all other products, not just roofing , please contact your local California State Senators and Assembly persons, and the Committee members.

And please get all your family and friends to do the same. We all need your help to do the right thing for Californians - and get Education dollars back into educating the young.

We already know that the manufacturer most involved in the scam in school roofing in California has already revved up their lobbyists.

You can contact the Committee on Accountability and Administrative Review at: http://www.assembly.ca.gov/acs/newcomframeset.asp?committee=423
where you will find a listing of all the members , their email addresses and phone numbers.

Here's the bill:
http://www.aroundthecapitol.com/billtrack/text.html?bvid=20110AB134299INT

and where you can find it online to track it: http://www.aroundthecapitol.com/Bills/AB_1342/20112012/#

AB 1342 (Dickinson)

Public contracts: roof projects.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. Section 3004 of the Public Contract Code is amended to read:

3004.
(a) Specifications for any roof project shall be designed to promote competition. These specifications shall do at least one of the following:

(1) Name a minimum of three separate manufacturers that share no financial, partnership, or subsidiary relationships, or interests, or shared product lines.

(2) Require performance standards that at least three manufacturers have indicated, in writing, in advance of the bidding period, the ability to comply with.

(b) Specifications requiring proprietary products or a proprietary warranty shall not be included in specifications for a roof project if these items would cost more than 10 percent more than for similar projects utilizing open competitive bidding without a requirement for proprietary products or a proprietary warranty.