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

Thursday, June 28, 2012

The Roof Consultants' Institute Takes a Stand Against the Use of Purchasing Agencies to Circumvent Laws

The Roof Consultants' Institute in Raleigh, North Carolina has just taken a major stand against the use of  Purchasing Agencies to facilitate the roofing scams in a Press Release June 26, 2012.

You can find their position here:

RCI Position Statement on Procurement:   

RCI Supporting Document on Procurement:

They are republished below, in downloadable form and text.

For those who don't know, the AEPA held a rigged bid to one manufacturer, the instigator of the scam, Tremco. 

US Communities out of Walnut Creek in the San Francisco Bay Area, California did the same with Garland, the flooring firm taken over in the 1970's by ex-Tremco executives, performing the same scams on the public.

Many have alerted this blogger to the new RCI Position Paper, and many thanks to them! 

Thanks go to Tom Butt, FAIA and his firm, the only architects to stand with me in California to stop the scam here.  He sent me the link yesterday, and I got permission to post the information.

Tom is also a Richmond, California City Councilman, a Democrat,  while I have been on the San Francisco GOP - Republican Party Central Committee. That should tell you a lot about how professionals view the danger to the public health, safety and welfare - we agree right down the line about how dangerous the scam is and that good sense, over 100-year old construction practices and the laws must be followed.  

Purchasing Agents should NEVER be involved with specifying and purchasing roofs, and frankly, could be fined or prosecuted for doing so.

For those who don't know, only licensed architects and engineers are allowed to design and specify commercial structures, which include institutional buildings such as schools and all government structures.

Those laws are in place to protect the Health, Safety and Welfare of the Public.

Further, every piece of real estate is unique, and roofs are no different.  

No one but a roof consultant working for architects or engineers, or themselves so licensed, should actually be specifying what system(s) and details should be used on roofs.  

Please see the  graphic chart links below the Position Paper for what should be happening, but is not, in both bidding practices and Purchasing Agency buy-bid schemes where the manufacturer controls the whole process.

In my experience, most architects and engineers and especially in California do not know what they are doing when it comes to roofs or waterproofing.  Some of the so-called and larger "Roof Consulting" firms in Northern California and San Francisco are known to freely specify the scammers, without any understanding of the fraud in the tests listed or their results, or knowledge of the practice of "shorting" the asphalt between plies in order to perpetuate the scam, reducing the lives of the roofs to 6-8 years.

There needs to be education and qualifications included in licensing for architects and engineers to know roofing and waterproofing or to be able to do so, but in the long run, it is best for the owners and their design professionals to always hire a good, independent roof consultant so registered with the RCI and not involved with any manufacturer.

The Roof Consultant's Institute is doing the right thing and clearly standing up against Purchasing Agencies - and trying to stop the bleeding of education funds into thin air.


Please use their link above, or the text of those links copies below, for stopping the scam in your area!


Text of the Position Statement:

RCI, Inc. Position Statement on Procurement 

The following Policy Statement was issued on June 2012.

RCI, Inc. supports public policies, requirements, and administrative procedures in public procurement processes that mandate the open selection of goods, services, and construction contracts on the basis of qualifications and opposes such procurement on the sole basis of fees, costs, and/or proprietary specifications. Competitive, qualifications-based selection is essential to fostering fair and impartial purchasing that serves public health and safety in the built environment. Preserving the health, safety and welfare of the public is a moral, ethical, and legal requirement for a procurement agency as well as the provider. RCI, Inc. maintains that the public is best served by a procurement process which meets the unique and specific requirements inherent in each individual project and contract.

Actual page:


Text of the Supporting Document:

RCI, Inc. Position Statement on Procurement – 

June 21, 2012

RCI’s Position Statement applies to all publicly bid work, including federal, state (provincial/ territorial), municipal, and local government projects or otherwise taxpayer-funded projects in which RCI, Inc. members may participate. Projects not under the procurement requirements of government agencies or that do not utilize taxpayer funds should also employ similar fair and impartial procurement practices.

It is the position of RCI, Inc. that all public work and taxpayer-funded projects clearly adhere to all applicable procurement regulations, maintain the highest levels of transparency and value, and comply with the following principles.

 In addition to the owner, projects should involve three distinct entities: the design professional, the manufacturer (or supplier), and the qualified contractor (contractor).

1. The design professional should be selected by the owner based on qualifications, experience and past performance. The design professional should prepare contract documents to be in compliance with all applicable code requirements (including but not limited to fire, wind, drainage, thermal resistance or performance, warranty and environmental requirements).

Contract documents should not be proprietary or exclusive to a manufacturer, a supplier or a qualified contractor. A product or system that may be able to be produced, supplied or installed by other competitors but is not, is considered a proprietary product/system. Procurement regulations have specific procedures that are required if proprietary materials or systems are to be considered.

Design professionals are discouraged from utilizing proprietary specifications. All projects should utilize a minimum of three manufacturers or utilize materials commonly available from three manufacturers. Systems should be selected to meet specific performance criteria or standards.

The design professional must adhere to all state (provincial/territorial) licensing requirements and carry the appropriate errors and omissions insurance.

2. The manufacturer and its suppliers should provide the materials and systems adhering to the contract documents. A manufacturer should not act as the design professional unless qualified to do so, and should state in writing and publicly its financial interest in the specifications/requirements provided.

Contractual obligations or agreements should not exist between owners and manufacturers. 

Proprietary and/or exclusionary specifications intended to limit competition among manufacturers, suppliers and/or qualified contractors are strongly discouraged. Manufacturers are encouraged to provide data, information, or other assistance to qualified contractors to determine the best use and application of their materials and systems. Manufacturers should not control material specifications. (My emphasis).

3. The contractor should be contracted directly to the owner. At no time should any contractual or financial obligation or agreement exist between the design professional and manufacturer, or the design professional and the qualified contractor, or the manufacturer and the qualified contractor. At no time should the manufacturer act as either the design professional or qualified contractor. At no time should the design professional act as the manufacturer or contractor.

4. Design-build delivery methods are acceptable under the following conditions:
(a) The principles noted above, are met.
(b) Design build delivery maintains a competitive bidding/tender environment among all parties: designer, contractor, and manufacturer.
(c) A design-build contract is used to ensure that a clear line of responsibility for the design and compliance with code is established.

It is the position of RCI, Inc. that the use of "buy boards,” group-purchasing agencies, and all similar purchasing models in any type of building construction, remediation, or rehabilitation are not transparent, do not ensure compliance with the minimum requirements of the codes, do not provide a competitive bid situation, and should not be utilized.  (My emphasis).

Actual pages:


These charts illustrate what should be happening, is not, and why the RCI had to come out with a Position Paper on the matter.

How the Bid Process Should Work
The Roof Consultant is an arm of the Architect or Engineer, shown in the upper right oval above the Architect.  The Architect or Engineer represents the Owner, is responsible for the design and administers the contract for construction.  Click here for the post on the chart.

How Manufacturers Control Bidding Processes
The manufacturer goes to the fund-setting boards and Facilities Administrators, gets their agreement to spend monies without any check or balance on the need, cost or validity of their pitch.  Architects and Engineers are told what to do by the Client's involved elected officials or administrators, and Roof Consultants are not involved.  The Manufacturer has usurped the necessary role of legal authorities. All checks and balances are lost, and the public is exposed to great risks.
Click here for the post on the chart.

How Manufacturers Circumvent Bidding Through Purchasing Agencies
Two manufacturers have gotten themselves locked into "bids" held by Purchasing Agencies (AEPA and US COmmunities) so that  no competitive bids are held for specific roofs.

 In such cases, Purchasing Agents are practicing Architecture and Engineering without a license.  Building Permits are not obtained.  No one other than the manufacturer is checking the construction.  Roofs that don't need replacing and only repair under existing warranties are either replace or repaired, destroying existing, real warranties.  And we have heard of manufacturer's reps controlling that "bid" process.

Real Need for Roof(s)?  Not known.

Costs of products?  Four to ten times that of normally competitively bid products, some of which are private labeled and resold at those enormous prices as "manufactured" by the scammer in question. 

Proper Installation Done?  No one knows.

Click here for the post on the chart.