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

Sunday, February 3, 2008

Roles & Responsibilities of Facility Owners, Architects/Engineers & Manufacturers

In the design and construction world, there is one tried and true method for fair dealings for all.

The following graphic charts are developed from past American Institute of Architect documents, in their explanation in Owner-Contractor Agreements as to how the roles and responsibilities of each party are divided and how the licensed design professional, while working for the Owner, is to keep the parties at arms' length.

In addition, Architect and Engineer Licensing laws traditionally require the duly licensed design professionals to protect the health, safety and welfare of the general public. 

At Georgia Tech and in large architecture firms in Atlanta, we were taught that such included fiduciary duties to the public. 

 We were not allowed to sole-source anything without one particular man in State Government reviewing those specifications to make sure that there were no other such products available - and not much was so. In the roofing world, there are many equals and in fact better similar products and real warranties available, sometimes from the very companies relabeling their products for those hard-marketing products to schools.

State Laws enact both Building Codes and the extent of unlicensed design activity - including the purchasing of fire-rated materials, to be designed and specified only by licensed architects and engineers. 

 The idea that roofs could be reroofed without independent tests taken of the existing roofs (independent of any interested parties - particularly manufacturers) or designed with complete and site-specific details, so located on complete drawings, and along with a full set of specs, and then with local Building Dept. and any Fire Dept. Approvals required - is absurd. 

 And it could be dangerous - particularly if the substrate had been weakened through previous water penetration issues, for instance - necessitating structural replacement which would not be addressed through using purchasing agents to buy roofing products to be applied by roofing contractors in most likely broken-apart contracts - under the limit required to be bid out.

It is extremely important to the public for both safety and finanacial issues that the Roles & 
 Responsibilities of each party be kept as shown in the first chart, "How Public Bidding Should be done". It is a win-win situation for all concerned.

The other two charts show how manufacturers turn the processes upside down - to everyone except their disadvantage - in a one-party win situation - a monopoly.

Write for better copies of the charts below, in .pdf form, if you desire them.

How The Public Bidding Process Should Work

How Roofing Manufacturers Control Public Bidding Processes

How a Roofing Manufacturer Controlled and Subverted an Educational Purchasing Agents' Association Bid Process