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

Saturday, March 5, 2011

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:
where you will find a listing of all the members , their email addresses and phone numbers.

Here's the bill:

and where you can find it online to track it:

AB 1342 (Dickinson)
Public contracts: roof projects.


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

(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.