In two previous posts, the Stillwater Area School District in Minnesota were discussed regarding their use of Garland Roofing.
Those posts are here:
Shortly after the last post, there was another news story, located here:
Entitled "School officials hope roof rants are over: While District 834 stresses long-term value, critics say school roof prices are too steep"
And the next month, on May 21, 2009, the Minnesota State Auditor put out a report on the use of Garland Roofing in those specs.
The four points that they hit upon were:
1. The lack of an architect's certification or signature in the specifications
2. The failure of the warranty to meet the specifications
3. The likelihood of proprietary specifications restricting the pool of contractors
4. The lack of review and comment by the Minnesota Department of Education
For more information on the Garland Warranty, see here:
For more information on the Garland Business Model, stated in an in-house document, see here:
For how Garland sells their products through Purchasing Agents and School Business Officers, who have the products installed on warrantied roofs, destroying good, warrantied roofs:
and the actual consent order, at:http://roofingscam.blogspot.com/2009_04_19_archive.html#7929549341180344241
The Minnesota State Auditor's Report is posted below.