Roofing Scam targeting Schools and Public Work

All San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit System (BART) Waterproofing Lock-Spec'd to a Foreign Manufacturer - at Four Times the Price of US Manufacturers

2012-02-05T22:42:00.000-08:00

If you think that the closed specs, "Lock Specs" are just going on in roofing, try again.

This time, it's waterproofing. And on a huge transit system in the San Francisco Bay Area - BART (Bay Area Rapid Transit System).

BART has Lock-Spec'd all their Waterproofing to one system, made in Seoul, South Korea, at four times the price of US-manufactured waterproofing systems.

That's right.

With all the great systems made in the US, why use the taxpayer dollar in this manner?

Those trying to compete say that this product - Turbo Seal - did not meet the specification criteria for proven use over 5 years in the USA (all references are in Asia), and the cost is 4 times over "or equal" products.

And they also tell me that the distributor in the San Francisco Bay Area paid a million dollars to rep the product. To the manufacturer.

Wow! So the taxpayers get to pay for that, too?

They also tell me that the general contractor for the first phase (Warm Springs Extension) said they have spent millions due to various causes, and the GC had "more change orders than any other sub contractors" on this project.

For the spec below, BART's sole-sourced system was actually allowed to be substituted with an American- made system, at four times less the cost than the foreign system specified. The Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) engineers saw to it they allowed an American-made product at far less cost be installed.

But BART on the rest of their system won't let competition happen, and uses this foreign-made system exclusively.

BART's typical spec is below, along with a Note Legend that describes what is happening inside their typical specification to cause Turbo Seal to be sole-sourced on BART below-grade, blind-side wall waterproofing applications.

Here is an overall summary of what is happening in these oh-so-familiar Restrictive Proprietary Performance Specs, designed to run off competition:

Sole-sourcing by naming the product and Manufacturer
Unusual sole-sourcing by naming the Distributor
Sole-sourcing by listing extensive lists of properties of products to be met
Unusual immediate and repeated references to named product in the specification, to warn off competition
Unusual statement that this is the only system BART approves for blind-side of wall applications
Means and Methods of Construction are listed in the spec, specific to the sole-sourced system. Means and Methods of Construction should never be listed in a specification, that is the responsibility of the Contractor, not the Owner nor their Design Professionals.
The Spec is written to allow the Manufacturer control of the approvals of the installation. They do it, but not for the Owner. They do it to ensure the Warranty. The Owner should have their own separate Registered Roof/Waterproofing Observer (RRO) submitting reports to the Owner, or the Owner's Rep (a licensed architect or engineer). The specification does not address what the Owner's Rep and RRO will be doing, and should. Actions between the Manufacturer and Sub are between them and not to be addressed in the bid spec. The Warranty has to be achieved, how they do it is up to them.
Restrictive Qualifications
The "Warranty" appears not to be - limited by age as to amount that would be paid in case of failure. The initial amount may not reflect actual value.

Here are the specifications marked up with restrictive aspects, keyed to the Notes Legend at the top.

NOTES LEGEND:

SPECIFICATION ANALYSIS:

Minnesota State Auditor Report - Garland in Stillwater Schools

2012-01-15T22:31:00.000-08:00

In two previous posts, the Stillwater Area School District in Minnesota were discussed regarding their use of Garland Roofing.

Those posts are here:

http://schoolroofingscam.blogspot.com/2008/03/wall-of-shame_24.html

and

http://schoolroofingscam.blogspot.com/2009/03/minnesota-state-auditor-report-request.html

Shortly after the last post, there was another news story, located here:
http://www.stillwatergazette.com/articles/2009/04/28/news/news510.txt
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:
http://schoolroofingscam.blogspot.com/2010/08/garland-warranty.html

For more information on the Garland Business Model, stated in an in-house document, see here:
http://schoolroofingscam.blogspot.com/2010/07/garland-roofing-business-model.html

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:
http://schoolroofingscam.blogspot.com/2010/07/garland-roofing-products-bought.html

For more information on the Consent Order Garland entered into with Gil Garcetti, the Los Angeles District Attorney, see here:
http://schoolroofingscam.blogspot.com/2009/04/garland-roofing-caught-bid-rigging-in.html

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.

California's Kern High School District's Fired Whistleblowers Given a "Retirement" Party

2011-12-07T00:34:00.000-08:00

Kern High School District, reported on previously, held a Retirement Party for 19 employees - and ironically included the three men forced into early retirement for whistleblowing about Garland products being illegally sole-sourced, bought by the Business Administrators at the rate of $200,000 in materials for many years, and installed by only one installer.

Both KGET Television and the local paper, The Californian, carried the story.

The television reporter told a person who was in attendance that when the Superintendent first started talking to her he was smiling and friendly, but when she then asked the question about the irony of honoring those they fired for supposed incompetence such as John Fox, his hands started to immediately shake, and he stared at her with an angry look, and then made the statement on the video about honoring all of those who have retired. She asked if he had any other comments he would like to make about the lawsuit and he just continued to stare at her with that angry look on his face. She then extended her hand to thank him, and he reluctantly reached out, shook her hand, and then threw her hand back at her, turned and walked away in disgust.

The reporters "get" what is going on.

Here is the link to the TV Story at KGET in Bakersfield, California, with Garland featured as the culprit:
http://www.kget.com/news/local/story/Retirees-suing-KHSD-are-honored-by-trustees/PX4rHjOe502Ffc533Nwp3w.cspx

And here is the print story at The Californian regarding the same:
http://www.bakersfield.com/news/local/x1337479310/Education-roundup-Kern-High-recognizes-retirees-including-lawsuit-filers?utm_source=widget_56&utm_medium=photo_entries_teaser_widget&utm_campaign=synapse

The Californian notes their previous stories on their firing for whistleblowing, noting:

"The three former veteran maintenance and operations workers filed lawsuits against the district alleging they were wrongfully terminated for whistleblowing on corrupt practices, breach of contract, and age and race discrimination, among other reasons, court documents show."

They also state "John Fox and Clem Williams argue in court documents that they spoke out against "needless wasteful" spending in their department, as well as "kickbacks, bribes and improper gifts" being given to KHSD employees from construction companies."

No one really minds someone profiting from their labors, but not scamming schools to get it!

2011-12-05T08:45:00.000-08:00

I get news clippings from all over the US and beyond, and like reading what is happening.

This one was a bit disturbing.

I have seen the commissions reports for the reps and managers for some of the scammers, some approaching or over $1 million or more a year.

That alone is reprehensible, given who's suffering as a result - tax dollars stolen from the use of school kids for their programs and lack of supplies, teachers buying them out of their tiny salaries, and teachers laid off.

Psychopathic behavior, one and all, involved, is it not? Greed at the very least.

But this takes the cake.

I used to like RPM products - until they bought Tremco in the 1990's. It was confounding as to why a company with such great products would buy a company that involved themselves in such notorious business practices - unless the ends (profits) justified the means (scamming).

So I received a copy of this article, and thought I would pass it along to you all.
http://www.cleveland.com/business/index.ssf/2011/09/rpm_international_chairman_and.html

RPM's International Chairman of the Board and CEO, who looks like a decent guy in the article's picture, is making a great deal off the school scams. You know Tremco has to have helped the bottom line with its' monopolistic practices, to put it nicely.

So Mr. Sullivan, this question is for you: How much longer are you going to either allow these practices to continue, or rid yourself of the growing scandal?

Teachers being driven out of jobs, teachers with not enough to pay basic bills paying for supplies, and programs cut across the board in schools while school bond funds, etc. are raised for unnecessary roofing.

Kids' futures hurt, with unnecessary construction and non-competitive bidding monopolies.

Just how much money do you "need"?

Do you even care about the future of this country, and that of your children?

You are a smart man. You had to have had chemistry in school....and you must remember the basics.

To every action there is an opposite and equal reaction, for the universe to stay in balance.

You can be a leader, or not.

You can take the bull by the horns and admit the practices, stop them, and be a good citizen - or do like Warren Buffet, who has repeatedly ignored such cries re: Johns-Manville openly going along to get along - private labeling for Tremco.

Everything about this scam stinks, top to bottom.

You can change it.

On ABC Radio in San Francisco....the Short Story Re: the Scam

2011-12-02T15:30:00.000-08:00

For those who would like to see more done to stop the bleeding of taxpayer dollars into the coffers of politicians who are benefiting, and not the schoolkids, you can hear this blogger speaking with Brian Sussman at KSFO Radio in San Francisco, California, this past Wednesday morning, on "Whistleblower Wednesdays".

KSFO is part of the major ABC Television/Radio Stations conglomerate in the City of San Francisco, and features Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Mark Levin, for whom Brian Sussman subbed Thanksgiving week this year. Brian and I have known each other for about 8 years now.

It is located here:
http://www.ksfo560.com/Article.asp?id=534876
Hit "Wednesday" at the top and then the hour "8-9am"

It can only be heard through Tuesday evening, Dec. 6th.

When the little window comes up - scroll the bar to 6:15 minutes, and I start talking at 6:35 minutes and it goes to 15:02.

You can hear me explaining how the scam works, Brian's questions and he gets to the major point of asking me what is helping it stay in place out here - and some of what happened.

One of the reasons we hear nothing is being done is that too many School Board Members, City Council Members and more are involved - and there is fear of what will happen when known - but more so, they are afraid of being caught.

If you speak up - it has to stop. You can bet there will be action if the pressure is kept up - and they hate exposure out here in California more than anything.....please call in and help!

As you know, what happens here travels across the US, and with good anchors in various states doing good work, it won't be long...
.

For those of you in the industry, please call in and "pile on" next Wednesday morning at (415) 808-5600 to get on air....that's his weekly whistleblowing program, from 5-9 am West Coast time. Get all your buddies to help - please!

They will ask if you want to use another name and have your voice disguised, and they do a great job!

And don't hesitate to call from Canada or the UK or anywhere else - yes, I know you are using the blogs and so glad to see it!

Remember, billions across the country have been lost in this one scam in schools - since the 1930's....

You can also write Brian at: briansussman2@yahoo.com

If only I could say "West Contra Costa County!"

Oklahoma's Next Big Earthquake

2011-11-08T23:13:00.000-08:00

Oklahoma City, Oklahoma's Channel 9 has the next TV Story out, entitled:

"Oklahoma School Districts Accused Of Wasting Tax Dollars"

You can see the KWTV News 9 Report here, and with their permission, at the end of this post:

http://www.news9.com/story/15953631/school-districts-accused-of-wasting-tax-dollars

Summary:

Attorney General Scott Pruitt called for the Oklahoma State Auditor Gary Jones to do an audit. The Auditor says that they are watching to see if the law has been followed when letting school roofing contracts to bid.

Well, we all know what is going on...that is for sure. And it's not legal nor is it good for anyone but those purporting the scams.

Least of all the kids.

Included in Tulsa's School specs are fraudulent test listings, typically seen language of the Tremco "Lock-Spec", as one of their former long-term Managers said Tremco called them in-house, and the use of insurmountable restrictive - and totally useless - "Qualifications".

See the Tremco In-House Specs, first reported on by the head of the Midwest Roofing Contractor's Association's Technical Committee L. B. "Huck" Morris in a series of expose articles in their Magazine, The Midwest Roofer, in 1997.

You can see those in-house training documents here:, which state on the top of page 6 of 9, "CONTROLLING THE SCHOOL AND PUBLIC WORK" and detail what you see in the Tulsa School Specs:

http://schoolroofingscam.blogspot.com/2008/02/tremco-in-house-training-documents.html

I remember a time in the 90's when two men were unfairly accused of criminal wrongdoing by one of the scam roofing manufacturers with Attorney Generals.

The same one being looked into by the Oklahoma State Attorney General now.

A Missouri School District Facilities Manager was falsely accused by that scam roofing manufacturer to the Missouri State Attorney General to have allowed a substitution whose test was not equal to their product.

He was able to produce an in-house document that showed that that manufacturer considered the two tests to be equal.

The other accused by the same manufacturer was a roofing contractor (and President of the Western States Roofing Contractor's Association) in Boise, Idaho. He had installed their products on two projects, then he refused to bid their product on the third of three projects at Mountain Home Air Force Base.

So they accused him of "putting down product he had diluted" on two roofs with the Federal Attorney General. Turned out he hadn't done one of those roofs and he hadn't diluted anything.

As usual, that manufacturer had way oversold nonreturnable product to him on the other projects, with about 1,000 cartons of unopened product left on his yard. So he sent ten of those unopened cartons to Dick Baxter at CRS Monroe in Monroe, NC, had him test the product and sure enough, they were all bad.

And shipped to him bad, out of that manufacturer's plant in Vernon, CA. Where there was the only extremely expensive, high-speed Austrian mixer to mix products in the first place...roofing contractors don't have them!

Karma is really something, isn't it!

You "Go!" Oklahoma State Attorney General and State Auditor - as the young say....and don't let up one iota like the Los Angeles District Attorney Gil Garcetti did with the "son" firm to this manufacturer in the late 90's - de facto helping all of the roofing scammers.

Here is the Oklahoma State Attorney General's Request for a Audit in Oklahoma - in 26 School Projects:

Here is a List of the Projects of concern:

For reference, you can find the California Bureau of State Audits' report re: Tremco Specs in four large Hospital Specs at the University of California, San Francisco at:

http://schoolroofingscam.blogspot.com/2008/02/california-state-auditor-report-re.html

That same report is located at:

http://www.bsa.ca.gov/pdfs/reports/I2003-2.pdf

in Chapter 5.

Tremco In-House Training Documents are at:
http://schoolroofingscam.blogspot.com/2008/02/tremco-in-house-training-documents.html

The Midwest Roofing Contractors' Association's printed an article on those same Tremco In-House Training Documents was "Tremco: Strategies & Methods" by L.B. "Huck" Morris of the esteemed Midwest Roofing Contractor's Association (MRCA) and printed in 1997 in their magazine, Midwest Roofer.

And here are their Spec Concerns - very familiar....for the following two specs:

Tulsa School District - Fulton Spec:

http://ftpcontent.worldnow.com/kwtv/documentcloud/documentcloud_fulton.html

Tulsa School District - MacArthur Library Spec:

http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/263506/macarthur-specs.pdf

What are those concerns?

1. Insurmountable, Restrictive Qualifications:

Manufacturer had to inspect their roof and when - and no outside inspectors to do so, paid by the Owner.

Contractor had to do the same system and size on projects within 50 miles of the School District

Contractor has to have installed at least 100,000 sf of the same product within a 50 mile radius of the School District

2. Extremely Expensive Maintenance Agreement, not a Warranty, required.

Normal Process for Repairs under a Warranty are that a manufacturer and their contractor would ensure it was repaired properly, and without tens of thousands of dollars for a "maintenance agreement". Repairs should average a few hundred dollars to less than $2,000 per incident, and usually very infrequently - as in many years apart.

Tremcare Maintenance Agreement:

Normal Warranty Sample:

3. Callout of the manufacturer to be sole-sourced.

Normal standards are to list three separate manufacturer's products and the term "or equal".

These specifications name Tremco outright, with the term "or approved equal" shown.

4. Restrictive Proprietary Performance Specs - "Lock-Spec'cing" out substitutions

Restrictive Proprietary Performance Specifications are included in the specs, by naming a lot of tests any substitution would have to meet.

Trouble is, those call-outs are inaccurate in many cases.

The most glaring?

The use of "ASTM D5147" associated with Test values for specific attributes.

"ASTM D5147" is the general test method (i.e. Take "X" amount of material to use for the actual tests that are used to find the values of attributes - i.e. "Tensile Strength")

Another issue is the use of old, out-of-date or superceded tests,making it impossible to submit a substitution. Or listing incorrect values, such as a number picked out of a range when it is only the range that matters.

The listing of old tests that do not test the newer, post-2000 standards that reflect the fact that a combination of strengths are necessary to a roofing system is most disturbing.

Tremco's Response?

They stated that the dollars used for roofing did not come out of education dollars.

However, all education dollars come from a limited pool of taxpayer funds - and have put us into debt for many years with their overcharges.

___________________________________________

Oklahoma City, Oklahoma's Channel 9 Story:

http://www.news9.com/story/15953631/school-districts-accused-of-wasting-tax-dollars

Amy Lester, Oklahoma Impact Team

OKLAHOMA CITY -- Every building has to have one, but some school districts may not follow the law when they put on a new roof. That's the accusation at the center of a special audit state auditor Gary Jones is conducting right now.

"We are the watchdog. We want to do everything that we can to ensure that the proper procedures have been followed," said State Auditor Gary Jones.

Attorney General Scott Pruitt called for the audit, instructing Jones to audit the books and records of school districts in Mid Del, Edmond, Enid, Newcastle, Piedmont, Stillwater, Yukon and Guthrie. That information will help Pruitt determine if the districts are "unfairly restricting the specifications in bid notices" so only certain manufacturers can qualify. At issue: possible collusion or kickbacks, all at taxpayer expense.

Read Letter From Attorney General

We talked with several contractors and roofing experts who say unfair bidding processes happen in some school districts, far too often.

"It's very frustrating for me because I see these school districts are having to lay off teachers, they're having to cut programs, they're trying to tighten their budgets and they're wasting literally millions of dollars of Oklahoma taxpayer money," said Denver Green, president of operations for Saratoga Roofing and Construction.

Green is currently putting roofs on schools in Oklahoma and other states. He and others in the industry say Tulsa public schools has specific manufacturer requirements in its bidding information for roofing projects. He claims that limits competition and leads to higher prices. We looked through years of documents and found, when it's not a metal roof, Tulsa only uses the manufacturer Tremco. Green says this is because contractors like him, who are qualified and certified by other well known manufacturers, cannot meet the district's strict requirements. Even though the bid requirements say "or approved equal", Green believes other manufacturers won't or can't qualify. Other roofing experts agree that the bid information limits who can bid. They say this is costing all of us.

Tulsa Schools Spreadsheet

We showed the bid information from four projects to Green and an architect who works on school projects. Depending on the project, Denver's estimates, by using a different manufacturer, he could do the jobs for between about 40%-65% lower than what Tulsa actually paid. The architect's estimates were 30%-40% lower. And if you apply their same math to district projects since 2008, Tulsa may have been able to save between 2.8 and 5.6 million dollars.

"I was actually shocked. I found that we could do the projects for half of the cost and still make a significant profit," said Green.

Green's not the only one questioning Tulsa and other Oklahoma school districts. Ron Solomon, a roofing expert from Florida, is concerned as well. He is a state certified roofing contractor who worked in the commercial discipline for 37 years. He now dedicates his life to stopping the use of proprietary specifications in public roofing projects. He recently wrote several emails to members of the Tulsa school board and architect to point out problems he sees in their bid information.

"I wanted to make sure that I notified the school district of the potential problem with them in terms of lawsuits and overpayment of services," said Solomon. "No public entity should give the perception that they are favoring one manufacturer over another. This is absolutely the case in Oklahoma, in Tulsa."

Solomon says that he has not heard back from his emails. His fight against this issue is far from over.

Read bid specifications for a Tulsa school

So, how does Tulsa defend this? We talked with the schools' Director of Bond Projects, Bob LaBass.

"The Tremco roofing system has been one of the most successful programs that we've implemented," said LaBass. "Part of their program is they do full inspections during the installation process. Then, they inspect for 10 years afterwards so, it prolongs the life of the roof."

LaBass says they essentially pay extra to outsource maintenance and save on personnel costs. They spend tens of thousands of dollars, per roof, for a 10 year maintenance program offered by Tremco. It includes regular inspections, repairs and preventative maintenance. The district also purchases a 10 year warranty, in addition to the maintenance agreement.

"If it's a problem with a Tremco product, they repair it. If it's a leak, we get instantaneous response, nearly. They'll be out within two hours," said LaBass. "We're getting more than just a roof, we realize that, and we're paying more and we're also getting a lot more service and we're getting a lot better, a lot longer roof."

Read Tremco maintenance agreement

Read Tremco warranty

In a statement, Tremco says, "In each of the projects on which Tremco roofing systems have been installed on Tulsa Schools, we have supplied our products to local Oklahoma roofing contractors that have competed successfully in public bid environments for the opportunity to deliver cost-effective, long-term roofing solutions." It goes on to say, "Roofing costs on particular projects reflect the unique conditions which each building presents. But in each instance these costs should also cover the delivery of products and services that achieve long-term roof performance, regular maintenance and durability. If a low-cost roof system fails early, is improperly installed, is inadequately maintained, or requires costly repairs throughout its life cycle, the seemingly low cost option can quickly become the most expensive in the long-term."

Read Tremco's full statement

Other manufacturers provide less expensive 20 year warranties, instead of maintenance agreements. Other districts tell us the warranties satisfy their needs and their roofs last for decades. While LaBass says this allowed the district to cut maintenance workers, Tulsa still has 53 more maintenance people than Oklahoma City schools.

Read sample warranty from another manufacturer

We took what we found about Tulsa Public Schools to the state auditor. Based on what we provided it's possible his special audit could be expanded to include other schools.

"All the time, we should never waste tax dollars. It's a greater emphasis right now when school teachers are being laid off and we don't have enough money to perform the basic functions in government," said State Auditor Gary Jones.

Jones' audit will take several months to finish. We'll be watching and will let you know what happens.
___________________________________

Comments with Recommendations made on that site:

Comment One:

As an Architect, I was the first to report this same roofing manufacturer scamming school dollars in facilities, to the FBI, ever in the now 80-year history of the scam, while a Senior Architect at the University of California, San Francisco. This was in 1997. The term "scam" and "criminal activities" are out of the mouths of California Supreme Court Justices in 2004, in my oral hearing (I was fired for whistleblowing to the FBI.) The FBI "strongly recommended prosecutions" of my bosses in my case - but the Federal Attorney General, Robert Mueller, "couldn't track federal funds at UC" (but we could....). Only the California State Auditor did anything - and California, whose State Auditor is not allowed to investigate K-12 (Dept. of Education, 40% of California's budget) - can't do anything else. You MUST keep after these guys, you have no idea how huge this scam is.

Comment Two:

This is that pesky Architect from San Francisco speaking again. Your roofers are absolutely right when speaking about the scam and the enormous overcharges versus the non-conflict of interest procedures that get your schools the best roofs for the best prices. I was taught in Atlanta by the former head of the International Roofing & Waterproofing Consultants' Association (Matt Hitlin) for over 2 years how to roof and waterproof in the early 1980's....the Roof Consultants' Institute says he wrote the "Bible" of roofing. And he told me that he was trying to fight this scam back then, when I contacted him after going to the FBI about this horrible mess in the late 90's. As to the issue of overcharges: You can bet your bottom dollar they overcharge. (con't)....

Comment Three:

The Overcharges are HUGE.....the materials prices are about 6-8 times normal, and here in California, and New Jersey, the scam manufacturers ensure that the roofs get reroofed every 6-10 years by "shorting" the asphalts between the plies. Former sales reps, roofing contractor estimators involved with Tremco and Tremco Field Inspectors, angry at the practice, told me about it....as did some of the other former scam manufacturers' reps...and recently. You have at least double the total roofing cost done every 6-10 years, instead of every 20-30 years. Tell me that doesn't cost more!!!!! The head of Johns Manville's Product Sales Division a few years back called me up and admitted to me that they openly "private-labeled" their products for Tremco. So does a smaller, "boutique" manufacturer in the Central Valley in California, whose President told me the same. (con't...)

Comment Four:

J-M products sell for what, $30-$35 a roll (square of roofing?), and these guys will mark them up to $200 or more for the same roll??? Have you any idea how many bids and their pricing I have been sent from industry insiders all over the US and now Canada for the past 14 years??? It's absolutely way overpriced! Let me give you an example out of the horses' own mouths: a former Tremco manager told me in just the past couple of years that someone else "set the bond price for the roofs" and they went for the bond, say $700,000, then when the bond was ready, the architect putting out the Tremco-supplied spec, the Tremco sales rep had to "make up the quantities and what types of products to use, to meet the materials "price" set by others in Tremco with that School District. And they don't take back unused product.....What a racket!

Comment Five:

This is unbelievable - so utterly wasteful, with us paying the bonds for years out (who owns them now, the Chinese???) and the wool pulled over the eyes with "service" - what you get from those who really work for the Owner with no conflicts of interest involved - as in the properly licensed persons to specify fire-rated roofs in this country and the responsible contractors and manufacturers that do exist - in spades. Honestly, you all need your State Auditor and State Attorney General to go through the specs and tear them up as the California State Auditor did in my case - and that report is still online and seen on my blogs. You have to stop this. Hooray for your contractors for throwing down the gauntlet!

Comment Six:

There was one other "little" thing going on....in my case, the University of California, San Francisco's four hospitals' reroofing spec written solely to Tremco? The guy who did the infrared study for the roofs - a fifth generation San Francisco roofer - told me a few years after my report to the FBI, that he had found the roofs needed repairs, at a modest cost, not the total reroofs that were done. You all need to get your State Auditor to get all your roofs tested right now, to see how well Tremco allowed them to be put down, using an Independent Lab (SRI in Madison WI or CRS Monroe in Monroe, NC would be best) and the roof consultant, Thomas L. Smith (Chicago), that did the New Jersey SCI Report "Waste and Abuse in School Roofing Projects" (2000) and the Investigative Report in my case for the California State Auditor. You'll get the truth then!

California Figures Out How to Catch the Kickbacks for Contracts Scheme

2011-11-03T02:09:00.000-07:00

As previously reported here, an Engineer was caught in New Jersey taking kickbacks for public work - and schools.

Now California has had a federal probe of an Engineering Firm (AAE) that has served as the City Engineer for several cities and has done work in dozens of cities across Southern California. Bribery has been found.

To quote the article, "...The Times quoted a former Maywood official as saying he twice received envelopes containing thousands of dollars in cash from an AAE executive. The executive provided the money in hopes of making it easier for the firm to get new contracts and receive quick payment for existing ones, the former official said. Federal sources confirmed that account and that the official had worked undercover for the FBI."

They also state: "...Federal authorities are also probing reports that AAE provided gifts to former Montebello city officials at golfing events, according to the sources, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the ongoing case."

The charges?
"...AAE awarded all the work to itself and then approved its own invoices and oversaw its own compliance...".

Here is the story:
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-aae-20111102,0,3835276.story

California audit targets Montebello's engineering firm

State Controller John Chiang's office says the firm AAE, at the center of a federal probe, awarded about $2 million in contracts to itself, approved its own invoices and oversaw its own compliance.

By Jessica Garrison, Sam Allen and Richard Winton, Los Angeles Times

November 2, 2011

New Jersey Figures Out How to Catch the Kickbacks for Contracts Scheme

2011-10-25T12:15:00.000-07:00

As previously reported here, an Engineer was caught in New Jersey taking kickbacks for public work - and schools.

According to a source in New Jersey, that same Engineer was known to sole-source Tremco roofing products on public works projects. Here is the story:
http://tomsriver.patch.com/articles/law-enforcement-surrounds-home-of-former-school-district-engineer

Now we have a story that has come out, where another engineer is involved in a group "mishandling" public funds has been caught. This time, windows and doors.....in three school districts.

And this time, they are prosecuting those involved.

Here is the story:
http://www.mycentraljersey.com/article/20111024/NJNEWS14/310240032/Suspended-Westfield-schools-business-administrator-admits-involvement-kickbacks-scheme?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|FRONTPAGE

Title Reprinted herein:

By Mark Spivey

Suspended Westfield schools business administrator admits to involvement in kickbacks scheme

Berman, of South Plainfield, to be barred for life from NJ public employment

Iowa's Anamosa New Middle School Metal Roof: Sole-Sourced to Garland

2011-10-25T11:09:00.000-07:00

Iowa's Anamosa Community School District in Anamosa, Iowa has chosen a Garland Metal Roof for their new facility.

Their bid specification is clearly a Restrictive Proprietary Performance Spec.

Not only is Garland listed as the basis for design without listing at least two other manufacturer's products and the term "or equal", it limits competition through its' very restrictive "performance" specification listings.

Here is a summary of what is contained in this specification:

1. Pages of very detailed manufacturer's installation instructions and business activities with their approved roofing contractor. These items have no place being in a specification that details what a general contractor will bid with their subs, and what work they will perform. What a manufacturer does with a roofing subcontractor to achieve a real warranty is between each other, not the Owner.

2. This Owner chose not to demand a real warranty - a No Dollar Limit Warranty. Now they have a real problem on their hands....instructions for installation in the spec, which puts the responsibility for any of the roofing work on the Owner and his specifiers (architects/engineers). In other words, the Owner has bought the roof without any assurance it will truly be installed so that it will perform... which then allows for the possibility of a leaking roof that could negatively affect the structure - weakening it in snow country.....causing great expense to the owner if they caught the problem in time to save lives - the worst possible outcome.

3. A requirement for an ISO 9000 Certification. Such certification is not only expensive, it is pointless to obtaining a good roof actually made by the manufacturer (not private-labeled) with a real, No-Dollar limit (NDL) Warranty.

4. Requirements for manufacturer's certifications. They are not ascertainable.

5. Who can bid, based upon where they have done projects (so many miles within the project bid), how many projects with their products, how happy the clients have been, etc. With certain manufacturers, a tight, round-robin "pool" of three or so contractors show up at the manufacturer's jobs....and in the San Francisco Bay Area, have been known to collude as to who would get the job.

6. The number of contractors certified to install their products vary widely by manufacturer. If they have more certified, the better for the owner.

7. The fact that the manufacturer must own and not lease manufacturing facilities. etc. (if required). Some of the larger manufacturers who do not engage in such practices have discovered scammers buying their products through "shell" companies, relabeling product, and offering "warranties" on product far longer than the true manufacturer does. We are aware that a Georgia manufacturer of metal roofs may be the product actually submitted, under the "Garland" label. Where are the requirements to disclose whose system has been private labeled and submitted as the manufacturer's "product"?

8. A list of tests to be met, and without values to meet. Beware. Start checking every test, call the Testing Agency in question if you don't understand the tests. Ask about applicability, the latest test to use, the values to use to meet, and what if any tests supplant the tests listed.

9. Details should not be called out in the specification. Rather, they should be drawn, done specifically to the project, and they should cover all conditions. Avoid all double notations and possible conflicts in the bidding documents by doing so.

10. Owner carrying insurance on the roofs is not the purvue of the manufacturer nor should that information be contained in the bid spec.

11. Any requirements for the manufacturer to have staff overseeing or inspecting the installation is not in the Owner's best interest. How the manufacturer achieves their No Dollar Limit Warranty is up to them.

12. In the Owner's best interest, include provision for the roofing contractor to accommodate the Owner's own consulting Registered Roof Observer and Testing Agency personnel. You can find Registered Roof Consultants and Registered Roof Observers at: http://www.rci-online.org/ and at: http://members.rci-online.org/wcm/RCIWeb/Directory/RCIWeb/Member_Listing.aspx?hkey=8c84a154-d359-4549-9a2e-a1b57c9a220d

13. And last but not least: All specification "Products" sections should list three manufacturer's products and ther term "or equal." Not "or approved equal", or any other verbage.

In Summary: The basic, good, competitive bid spec should be written by the Owner's rep to the advantage of the Owner, not the manufacturer. There are more issues, but these cover the highlights.

Feel free to use the analysis below with the next bid on a "Lock-Spec", call your lawyer, and start the letters to your School Board, local newspapers, etc. And feel free to call me if you need help - please. I will be glad to dissect your problem specification. Or give this post to your attorney. It will help them.

The Anamosa New Middle School Flat Seam Metal Roofing specification is copied in below, with notations:

Another TV News Report on the Scam - in Bakersfield, California

2011-10-04T01:22:00.000-07:00

KBAK, the CBS Television Station in Bakersfield, California, reported that the two men fired for going to the FBI about the sole-sourcing of roofing and kickbacks have filed a Whistleblowing lawsuit against the Kern High School District.

It is the second Whistleblowing Lawsuit of its' kind in the long-term roofing scam of the school dollar.

And it is in the largest High School District in California.

The report names Garland as the roofing manufacturer involved in the complaint, which details how the products were bought, the fact that at least one of the two men fired had complained to superiors about the practices and kickbacks, and the fact that 82 contracts for construction going to only one contractor were saved out of active shredding of those documents by his managers.

You can see it here: http://www.bakersfieldnow.com/news/local/131019373.html#IDCThread

Justice Begins: And it starts in Bakersfield.....another Whistleblowing Lawsuit for being fired for reporting the scam to the FBI

2011-09-21T21:55:00.000-07:00

Who ever knew that to expose the massive scam going on in schools in it would take two very brave men, John Fox, a 25-year manager and Clem Williams, a 30-year on the job manager, both in the Maintenance and Operations Division of a California Central Valley School District - the largest in California - to stand up and do the right thing?

Simply put, to California Legislators ducking and running, or who should be (especially former School Board members and we all know who you are....), and to the San Francisco Chronicle and its' reporter who told me last year that "I didn't know what was going on in School Districts" (oh, really!) read this report - and weep:
http://www.bakersfield.com/news/local/x616173360/Education-roundup-Private-high-school-replaces-leader

Previously reported upon here:
http://www.bakersfield.com/news/local/x43955892/KHSD-workers-allege-being-fired-for-whistleblowing

With those sole-sourced, broken apart contracts listed here, all sole-sourced to Commercial Roofing Management and Garland products bought every year at the $200,000 level over that time period - destroying existing roofs' real warranties:
http://schoolroofingscam.blogspot.com/2010/07/garland-roofing-products-bought.html

It's the very tiny tip of an iceberg.....

The good people of Bakersfield and Kern County won't be snookered, if the good reporters there keep doing their jobs .

A number of us across the US and Canada are standing up and saying it - stop destroying all of us for your greed.

Stand with us. Contact the Bakersfield press and tell them the truth about what is going on in the scam - and don't let up.

Congratulations to the press in Bakersfield. You appear to be smart and really doing your jobs!

You are rare! Don't stop, there is a lot more to come!

Many thanks and kudos from the Roofing Industry should go to John Fox and Clem Williams. You need to be there to support them in every way you can - if you are as tired of the scammers as I keep hearing.....don't run and leave them in the cold.

Somebody else can't do it, it has to be all of us concerned or upset over what has been going on for a very long time.

More to come.....
________________________

Here is that report, copied in, written by Jorge Barrientos for The Californian:

"Two former veteran Kern High School District maintenance and operations workers have filed a lawsuit against the district alleging they were wrongfully terminated for whistleblowing on corrupt practices, breach of contract, and age and race discrimination, court documents show.

The Californian in June highlighted the allegations and their arguments that they exposed practices involving improper awarding and administration of roofing job contracts. When they blew the whistle, they argue, they were forced out of their jobs.

John Fox and Clem Williams argue in new court documents that they spoke out against "needless wasteful" spending in their department, as well as "kickbacks, bribes and improper gifts" being given to KHSD employees from construction companies.

Workers, they say, were invited to yacht parties by contractors and were given extravagant meals and trips. KHSD supervisors, they argue, did nothing to stop the practices, and instead tried to force the two out when they spoke out.

They also argue, new court documents show, that they were forced out of their jobs based on their age -- Fox is 53 and Williams 63. And in Williams' case, he claims he was discriminated against based on his race.

Employees at North High and Frontier High, where Williams worked, regularly called black students and staff racial slurs, he said.

Reports obtained by The Californian showed the KHSD sought Williams' and Fox's dismissal for being incompetent, dishonest and falsifying information on the job. KHSD and construction officials have denied wrongdoing.

A KHSD spokesman on Tuesday would not comment on the anticipated litigation as officials had not received lawsuit documentation.

A third former worker featured in the June Californian article, David Rich, is in negotiations with KHSD, his attorney said. Williams and Fox are asking for several millions of dollars for lost wages, retirement benefits and emotional distress."

Contact: Jorge Barrientos, Californian staff

http://www.bakersfield.com/news/local/x616173360/Education-roundup-Private-high-school-replaces-leader

Their June Report is at:
http://www.bakersfield.com/news/local/x43955892/KHSD-workers-allege-being-fired-for-whistleblowing

Another TV News Report on the Scam - this time Tremco and the AEPA - in Baltimore

2011-08-10T23:47:00.000-07:00

Baltimore County Schools in Maryland Engaged in Multiple Conflicts of Interest .....and lost $30 million in 5 years with the use of an AEPA subsidiary

Another TV News Report has come out on the scam, and the use of Purchasing Agencies to steal millions in school roofing projects...

Baltimore County Schools in Maryland has had overcharges over the past 5 years of about $30 million dollars in roofing/reroofing projects, since they began using a susidiary of the AEPA, the Pennsylvania Education Joint Purchaising Council.

GAF, a manufacturer of products that is not engaged in "lock-spec'cing" their products in public and school work - is suing the involved Purchasing Agency.

GAF's Helen Pierce draws the comparison of costs well in the report, as does Mike Ducharme, Products Manager at Carlisle Syntec.

Using a Purchasing Agency violates Licensing Laws, Building Codes, and others regarding fraudulent advertising (manufacturer purporting to be such, while private labeling products from others), and more......

It also violates good common sense - using a Purchasing Agency involves multiple Conflicts of Interests.

What Conflicts of Interest are involved?

Roofing done through a purchasing agency is performed without:
1. Benefit of competitive bidding without possible and known bid rigging activities involved;
2. Required independent, licensed architects or engineers making recommendations and writing real, competitive bid specifications;
3. Independent, Registered Roof Consultants involved with testing and specifications;
and
4. Independent, Registered Field Observers involved with ensuring the construction is done properly.

Each of the licensed or Registered professionals has a fiduciary and ethical duty to the schools, not the manufacturer, involved.

You can see the TV Report here:

http://www.wbaltv.com/video/28678491/detail.html

Carlisle Syntec's Press Release on the News Report is as follows:

Carlisle Featured in Story Highlighting Waste of Taxpayer Funds in School Construction Work

(Carlisle, PA) – Carlisle Construction Materials, a leading supplier of commercial roofing materials nationwide, recently voiced grave concerns with the way many school districts across the country procure roofing work in a WBAL-TV news feature highlighting the issue. The feature focused on Maryland-area schools whose roofing projects are alleged to have cost taxpayers tens of millions more than necessary due to a cooperative procurement model that circumvents the competitive bidding process. To view the WBAL story, please visit http://goo.gl/hibTu.

This story comes on the heels of Pennsylvania Senator Pat Vance’s July 7 bill that aims to eliminate loopholes in the procurement code for roofing contracts in PA. The legislation would require all publicly funded projects over $10,000 to be competitively bid, and would require specifications to be prepared by an independent design professional. Senator Vance’s plan can be viewed at http://goo.gl/5UFr4. [Also copied in below}

“It’s just mind-boggling to me that you’d have individual school districts that would be willing to pay that degree of a premium,” said Mike DuCharme, Director of Product Marketing for Carlisle. DuCharme provided reporters with a market study that found school districts that use the same cooperative procurement model in the state of Pennsylvania pay, on average, double the cost per square foot of roofing material than what is available on the open market. “The costs for Pennsylvania are [the same as] the costs for Maryland,” DuCharme said in the interview.

Carlisle is concerned that the cooperative purchasing model used in Pennsylvania, Maryland and 22other states is unfairly restrictive. For more than a decade only one company, Tremco, has been able to participate in the proprietary qualification process. This bidding model results in inflated prices for both materials and labor.

Senator Vance's Letter:

Canada Plagued by the Scam - and a Recommendation on How to Stop It

2011-07-31T00:24:00.000-07:00

For those who think this scam is just going on in the United States, think again.

We have exported the so-called "civilized" form of corruption.

How was I tipped off to it going on in Canada?

To begin with, I was aware that Tremco was a Canadian company many years ago. Then I heard of a California Tremco Rep that had taken the scam into Latin America.

Sure enough, you can google the companies involved and find their specs in various countries online.

Let's start with Canada, since they ae so close and so much alike the US (sorry about that to our good Canadian neighbors! We do share a very long border!)

Canada does something unique - they require specifications be posted online. A good service to the taxpayer, in fact - and could help keep the scammers run out if used properly by those "in the know" and the press.

I hear there are a lot of good, real roofing consultants in Canada using these blogs to fight the scams there - good for them! These blogs were designed to give the facts, and as much evidence as possible, to fight the scams anywhere. They are most welcome to send us information to post or to follow up on.

Here's a recent spec to Garland in Canada, in an article in their press - over the controversy now heating up.

Briefly, in the Muskoka-Parry Sound area, a new building constructed in 2002-3 for about $3.8 million had to have a 6,600 square foot area of the roof repaired last year at $30,340.

The new roof "consultant", Garland Canada, has recommended total roof replacement at year 8 and their system, which they have assured the town lasts at least 30 years and is expected to last 45 years.

Reports are that the roof is 28,000 square feet, or 280 squares. And the total initial - not including those outrageously cost is $454,000, $16.21 per square foot or $1,621.42 per roofing square.

Just how many hundreds of feet in the air is this roof (not!)???

Wow, so this community is willing to put down "gold" roofs???? I sure hope they are getting gold for that price!

You can see the story here:
http://www.cottagecountrynow.ca/community/southmuskoka/article/1042197

Another good community has gotten taken once on a roof, and have now fallen for the masters of the conflict of interest con game - again.

Canada could show up the American system by doing the following:
1. Publish a national standard which could be available to everybody for what ever roofing system someone wanted.

This could be easily done and it would eliminate the waste in one swoop

For example, the national standard could state that all high performance modified roofs must meet ASTM D6162 type 111 with and a base ply being ASTM D6163 type 111.

And you don't have, for instance, additional "tensile strengths" properties added to form a "Lock-Spec" - which are not part of the comprehensive, existing ASTM D6162 testing standard for SBS modified roofs.

The same goes for warranty standards. For instance, the NRCA or RCI could publish a standard manufacturers' warranty.

Clarity prevents corruption - Keep it simple!

2. The NRCA should publish performance standards based upon astm standards as well as consulting standards. The problem could become that they would be restrictive and proprietary.

3. RCI should refuse to allow RRO (Registered Roof Observers) designation of roof consultants if they work for a manufacturer

4. Architects should also be required to possess an RRO or RCI (Roof Consultants' Institute) standing if they are going to spec a roof

Rule of Thumb: If there is a Conflict of Interest involved, look for the Scam

2011-07-22T08:39:00.000-07:00

A Facilities Master Plan for the West Sonoma County Union High School District in Sebastopol, California, dated June 22, 2011, lists as its' "Roofing Consultant" the following:
"The Garland Co., Inc., Novato, CA.
Consultant: Sean Mulligan"

The Roof Consultants' Institute (RCI) reads in their Code of Ethics, in part:

"Obligations to the Client
Members and registrants shall conduct themselves in a fashion which brings credit to themselves, their employers and their profession. In addition to upholding the behavioral standards described above, a member or registrant:

I. Shall preserve the confidence of his/her client or employer and serve each in a professional and competent manner.

II. Shall exercise unprejudiced and unbiased judgment and conduct when performing all professional services;

III. Shall practice only in his/her area of competence;

IV. Shall decline any activity or employment, avoid any significant financial or other interest, and decline any contribution if it would reasonably appear that such activity, employment, interest, or contribution could compromise his or her professional judgment or conduct, or prevent him/her from serving the best interest of his/her client or employer, without making full disclosure to the client and obtaining the client's consent thereto;

V. Shall neither offer nor make any payment or gift to any public official, private client or industry representative with the intent of influencing that person's judgment or decision in connection with an existing or prospective project in which the member/registrant is interested;"

and

"The standards contained in this Code of Ethics are statements of ethical principles having broad applicability to members and registrants of RCI. However, the enumeration of particular duties and the proscription of certain conduct do not negate the existence of other obligations logically flowing from such principles. Conduct deemed unethical may be construed to include lesser offenses, such as aiding and abetting."

The link to the RCI's Code of Ethics is here:

http://www.rci-online.org/ethics.html

So let's just compare what the Roof Consultants' Institute's standards are versus what is happening right now in the West Sonoma County Union High School District:

"
II. Shall exercise unprejudiced and unbiased judgment and conduct when performing all professional services;"
   The "Roof Consultant is an employee of one "manufacturing" company, and therefore cannot be unprejudiced or unbiased.

     Question: Is Mr. Sean Mulligan a "Registered Roof Consultant (RRC)" or "Registered Roof Observer" by the RCI?

IV. Shall decline any activity or employment, avoid any significant financial or other interest, and decline any contribution if it would reasonably appear that such activity, employment, interest, or contribution could compromise his or her professional judgment or conduct, or prevent him/her from serving the best interest of his/her client or employer, without making full disclosure to the client and obtaining the client's consent thereto;

Is the Client truly informed as to the fact that the "Roof Consultant" is not an independent professional?
Is the extent of the problems known with Garland internationally with the client?
Did they consent to being charged with huge prices for relabeled products, reinstalled way too soon ("Churned")?
Is the local Teacher's Union there aware that huge prices will be paid for services ongoing for years, not needed? How do they feel about it?
How do the taxpayers feel about it?

V. Shall neither offer nor make any payment or gift to any public official, private client or industry representative with the intent of influencing that person's judgment or decision in connection with an existing or prospective project in which the member/registrant is interested"

Well, the question is: Are there any payments being made? It's the elephant in the room....

We do know of this issue:
According to Garland, they "indemnify" architects up to $50,000, the Errors and Omissions Insurance Policy deductible on many an architects' policy....is that not an "inducement" of and by itself alone?

Just why would an architect NOT use a real Roof Consultant, registered by the RCI?

All these questions are important, and the taxpayers there need to know before just signing off on what this architect is apparently "recommending".

Conflicts of Interest, pure and simple, allow scams to occur....and that is precisely what West Sonoma County Unified High School District has gotten itself into.

It is known that another architect has complained in writing to that Superintendent about such - and no answer was received.

See below the appropriate first two pages of that Facilities Master Plan, and specifically on page 2, for the listing of Garland and one specific Sales Rep, Sean Mulligan, as the "Roofing Consultant::

The FBI Criminal Investigations' Division goes after the CEO of an Engineering Firm in New Jersey - that does Tremco Specs......

2011-07-16T12:24:00.000-07:00

Well, well, well....here we go again.....

A New Jersey Engineer involved in specifying Tremco roofing - heavily - is getting "probed" by the FBI Criminal Investigations' Division out of Newark - in an insurance probe. It's not the first time in New Jersey that the roofing scams and insurance scams have been uncovered in the same probe...we just don't know yet if the FBI in Newark is on to the engineer being known for heavily specifying Tremco as well.....

Little wonder, given what I have seen in the San Francisco Bay Area, where, according to the former Hickman Roofing Regional Manager, "EVERY" Architect in the San Francisco Bay Area "was involved."

How exactly remains to be determined, but involved de facto or outright - they are. Even the international firms.....

Let me explain a little, to give you some background, and then read what is happening in New Jersey. It will make sense to you then....

Trying to find work in San Francisco after reporting a manager at UCSF had said they were getting kickbacks for (illegally) sole-sourcing roofing products in bid specs is like prying open the jaws of death.

San Francisco is a small town worse than anything I ever saw in Georgia, never did see it really....and it's like this statewide in California...so many people are involved......

In fact, "Everybody!" was involved according to a former Contracts Manager at UCSF and a former San Francisco School Board President...both laughing in my face as they said it -one who lied to FBI Agents in my case, the other laughing that she had said it to a Grand Jury looking into the millions of dollars stolen by her former head of Facilities at the San Francisco Unified School District.

The State of California and it's budget aren't laughing now.

Neither are the credit ratings bureaus......

Too many people are stealing.....for power, money, and more votes for the same...a truly vicious cycle here in California.

Eventually, here in this teeny tiny town of San Francisco, I did find a job at one point - saving an architect from his staff's admittedly uncoordinated drawings and bid specs - on a 29-unit, 8 story affordable housing project half a block from the Federal Building in San Francisco (421 Turk Street).

So they hired me and I did save them and the building owner, Asian, Inc., the estimated $800,000 in change orders anticipated by the contractor on an $8 million job, and we did get the tax credits under a horrific schedule - one of only two out of 12 to make it that year. The architect only had $56,000 in Errors and Omissions - on the roof!

All other change orders were due to staff at the San Francisco Mayor's Office of Disability - about $396,000 - because said Mayor's Office staff could not read plans (notorious for it) and approved them, then changed everything in the field.....

What was so interesting about this firm that needed my help - and a bit frightening later on when discovered - was that the woman who hired me (a "marketing" person, not an architect or engineer) not only knew that I had been in the San Francisco Weekly about what I caught onto, but my story.

It turned out that she was caught stealing hundreds of thousands of dollars from the (mostly) absent architect....and right before that, I learned who she was.

And learned who she was after she had insistently determined to get me on a boat to the Farallon Islands, which I refused to go on.....the Farallons are about 50 miles straight out from the Golden Gate Bridge.......

You see, this woman had done something that alerted me to who she was - she had refused to tell me who her husband worked for - until about a year later, about the time she was caught stealing, she accidentally forwarded an email from him....and I recognized the firm.

As it turned out, her husband was in charge of the Mechanical Engineering Firm that was caught by John Karamanos in similar scams to the one I caught onto at UCSF and in his case, also at UC Davis. (University of California campuses).

John Karamanos owned a sheet metal firm, doing mechanical ductwork, including air control valves. The Mechanical Engineering Firm run by the husband of the woman that hired me was up to their neck in the "bundling of mechanical equipment" contracts - all going to the same source - in UC jobs. It included charges at ten times normal for Air Control Valves, leaking 30% instead of no leakage at ten times less the price - and placed in San Francisco Bay Area Hospitals.....

John Karamanos had caught gratuities involved to the Facilities personnel at UC Davis and UCSF. To read the story, click on the link at the top of the column to the right - with the picture of the San Francisco Weekly cover, "The Fix Is In."

Similarly, now in New Jersey, an Engineering Firm is involved with heavily specifying Tremco, and is somehow involved with sole sourcing and a large insurance scam targeting taxpayer dollars.....and in New Jersey, it seems that the FBI might be catching them.

In the roofing scam, the payoffs work like this: The Reps pay off City Council members, School Board Members, Business Managers, Facilities Managers and Maintenance Personnel....who then force architects to spec certain products. In some cases, not all by a long shot!, the architects and engineers get paid off - we hear in $10,000 payments here in the San Francisco Bay Area - to specify certain manufacturers.

But the roofing scam primarily works in targeting the budgetary decision makers, not the specifiers. FYI....

In other product scams related to engineering, it appears that the Engineering Firms getting a lot of the work are being paid off to do so.

And in other cases, separate from the scams, design professionals have had to make payoffs to public officials to get the work, as just reported in the Los Angeles Times last week, here:
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-community-college-cruz-20110703,0,3808085.story

A Long Beach Architect was found to have served time in Texas for paying off officials for work...but was allowed to help "...manage major construction programs at community colleges in Southern California". In his case, apparently he paid off officials to get work, not paid off to illegally sole-source. Interesting.....

But what that architect did is different from the scams and their payoff systems, and so must not be "mixed up" into one kettle of fish...if the investigative agencies are to clearly define and stop what is going on.

So the engineering connection with the scams by one well-used engineer in Toms River, New Jersey public work is what the FBI Criminal Investigations' Division may have just caught onto in New Jersey.

We have again in New Jersey the Insurance Scams tied into the products scams - targeting the taxpayer dollar.

In a Sept. 6, 2007 FBI roofing scam and insurance scam sting, the FBI caught 2 Mayors, 5 City Council Members and 4 School Board Members across the state (NJ) - all Democrats - taking payoffs, by starting with one lone school board member, who pointed to someone else to go pay off and that person did the same - all over the state.

Are you all getting the picture, here, folks? Dirty politicians and bureaucrats all over, who know of each other, getting paid off......and all in one party in New Jersey.

Now there is one engineering firm in New Jersey suspected of some kind of similar issues - allegedly.

Wow!

This is getting extremely interesting, folks....could these scams using one engineer or architect in various areas to facilitate them - everywhere across the US and Canada, possibly England now?

See the report from New Jersey, at:
http://www.app.com/article/20110714/NJNEWS/307140073/IRS-FBI-show-up-home-Toms-River-Regional-s-former-engineer?

And see reports from the Sept. 6, 2007 arrests in the Roofing & Insurance Scam , where Eleven Public Officials are caught taking bribes for roofing contracts in Public Works Contracts:

http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?section=nj&id=5640158

http://www.nysun.com/national/legislators-mayors-arrested-in-new-jersey-bribery/62077/

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/09/06/clinton-supporter-arrested-in-nj-corruption-sting/

Update:
For those in other Countries looking at this blog, specifically Canada and England, and any others: Please contact us to report kickbacks in your country.
The FBI and Justice Department in this country can go after the manufacturers involved, from here, with laws we have. It is very important that you do so.

Restrictive Proprietary Performance Specs : What They Are - and how the Scams are facilitated by them

2011-07-09T03:38:00.000-07:00

Questions come up from time to time about Restrictive Proprietary Performance Specs - and what they are.

Even more questions come up about how such specs facilitate the scams.

Restrictive Proprietary Performance Specs are exactly what they say - specifications that may or may not say the name of the manufacturer being specified, to the exclusion of others, in the performance qualities specified. They restrict the products being allowed to bid upon to one.

So for those who have questions and need clarification, here's the explanation in the Letter to the Editor from myself regarding how Restrictive Proprietary Performance Specs allow one manufacturer "in" as the only product to be bid upon.   It was printed in the Midwest Roofer Magazine, Spring of 2003 by the Midwest Roofing Contractor's Association (MRCA), and is reprinted below.

I heard the President of Tremco flew in to the MRCA headquarters in the midwest to complain.....but owners of huge roofing concerns were "so glad to know me!"

Feel free to use the Letter with confused facilities managers and complicit architects & specifiers, liberally!
_____________________________________

Letter to the Editor

Response to Letter to the Editor from President of Tremco, printed in the Midwest Roofer, Summer, 2001

Midwest Roofer, March, 2003

Exclusionary Specifications Update

It is long past time that what some roofing industry insiders call “a billion-dollar taxpayer scam” be exposed.

I recognize that your publication, the Midwest Roofer, broke ground on the subject of “Exclusionary Specifications” back in 1997 with what resulted in a series of articles written by members and manufacturers that stated opinions on both sides of the issue. Thank you for dealing candidly with the issue, as other industry publications have not included several articles critical of the practices involved. I would like to update the industry regarding recent events on this subject.

As an architect, I was laid off at the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF) in response to my reporting to the FBI about long-term violations of the California Public Contract Code in restrictive proprietary roofing specifications.

The roofing specifications were provided by a local Tremco Field Representative to in-house UCSF architects, project managers, building managers and consulting architects, who incorporated them into their contract documents for bidding at the University of California, San Francisco over the past 20 years.

In the summer of 1997, the FBI found those same restrictive proprietary roofing specifications to clearly violate the California Public Contract Code. According to the FBI Agent involved in his deposition in my on-going case, when they brought it to the Federal District Attorney’s Offices here in San Francisco, they turned down prosecution and wouldn’t tell him why. This same FBI Agent again stated, under oath, that the specifications were in clear violation of the California Public Contract Code.

For one set of specifications alone, UCSF records show a payment of $25,000 made to the Tremco Field Representative for “Roof Consulting.” Further, the Tremco representative was paid for inspections of their roofs, also according to UCSF records.

These practices pose a question: Are Tremco representatives certified by the Roofing Consultant’s Institute (RCI) as Roof Consultants? If so, are they at the same time acting as a Tremco manufacturer's rep? It is our understanding that Tremco attempted to have a number of their representatives receive certification by flying them in for a seminar put on by the RCI. When the RCI was asked to give them designation as roof consultants for the seminar, the RCI declined. It was against RCI’s By-Laws - Article 16, Section 1: "Conflict of Interest," to have a manufacturer’s representative be certified as an independent roofing consultant.

Documents pertinent to this point and many more that raise other concerns have been produced during depositions. One of those documents includes a Tremco in-house training document that headlines, on page six of the document, “CONTROLLING THE SCHOOL AND PUBLIC WORK”.

This methodology was described in-depth in a Midwest Roofer article written by L.B. Morris titled “Tremco: Strategies and Methods” in 1997.

Here is a brief summary of instructions provided in those documents, and how they were applied at UCSF:

Control the setting of budgets one year or more prior to the bidding process.

At UCSF, Tremco representatives produced a TRIM report, according to one of their former Inspectors, recommending new roofs where the Inspector said that new roofs were not needed.

Convince the maintenance and School District personnel that they should purchase a maintenance agreement from the manufacturer, without addressing warranty issues.

Aren’t roofing contractors alone the best parties to provide the maintenance service, not through manufacturers? And how can other major manufacturers give 20 or 30 year roofing warranties, without requiring an expensive maintenance agreement?

Have pre-bid mandatory meetings at which those who wish to bid must attend in person.

At UCSF, several repeat roofing contractors showed up along with the Tremco representative. In other cases in the south San Francisco Bay Area, dates for the meetings were not advertised until after the date of the meeting, or until it was too late to participate in the process as required by law.

The representative controls the specifications, delivers the bid submission documents package to each of their "approved" contractors, and who gets what pricing. This according to former personnel at the largest roofing contractor in the US, now out of business - also formerly an approved Tremco applicator.

All of which occurred when I was working at UCSF.

I am sure almost every roofing contractor, roofing products supplier, roofing manufacturer, roofing consultant, and errors and omissions insurance carrier is aware of these practices. However, most importantly, the customers - architects, purchasing agents and school district board members - are not aware of these carefully planned and executed "CONTROLLING THE SCHOOL AND PUBLIC WORK" practices.

Industry professionals who have compared estimates when these practices occurred on UCSF and other jobs over the past 13 years demonstrate a large disparity in pricing. Further, the restrictive tests required in the UCSF-Tremco restrictive proprietary roofing specs were either:

     Out of date, according to the testing agencies, when newer
     specifications should have been cited and met;

     Nonexistent, in some cases, according to the testing agencies; or

     Numbers were picked out of range when the
    range was the applicable and only data that should have
     been used, according to the testing agencies.

Through legal research, we know of at least two cases when Tremco restrictive proprietary roofing specifications were brought up in criminal proceedings.

Had it gone to trial, one case may well have proved that the product being produced here in California was not consistent with test data and in conflict with the certifications being produced at that time in UCSF specifications. That case resulted in an out-of-court settlement of a slander suit against Tremco for their accusations against a contractor. Apparently, a Tremco-approved applicator decided to bid another and equal product as allowed by law. Tremco then accused this roofing contractor of diluting their product and applying it to buildings belonging to the government. In order to win that suit, the applicator had to be prepared to go to court to prove that they had not done so. One of the ways to prove they had not done so was to prove that as an applicator, they simply had no knowledge or way of diluting the product. In order to mix anything into the product, a high-speed mixer is required. The only known way of successfully diluting the product would have been at the manufacturer’s plant, as such equipment was not nor is known to have been owned by any applicator.

The other case involved a School Administrator who was accused of allowing a substitution for a Tremco product by using a test that was not equal to the one that Tremco had supplied in the specification. The School Administrator was able to produce an in-house Tremco document that described how the two tests were equal.

We have also seen numerous cases of former Tremco representatives being sued for non-compete and other issues arising from continued employment in the roofing industry.

Serious questions arise from such practices and cases:

     How can we rely on a manufacturer who engages in these
     activities to certify that they have no problems with their
     own materials?

     How can we rely on a manufacturer to be a roofing consultant?

     How can we rely on a manufacturer to inspect its own roofs?

     How can we rely on a manufacturer that does not go out on
     the open market with its pricing?

     How can we have a fair bidding process for a good product
     at a reasonable price on public buildings, when one manufacturer
     infiltrates and manipulates the process to exclude competition
     for public bids?

The final question is one of professional ethics, private conscience and public interest. How can we as taxpayers sit idly by when the same manufacturer, who fixed the process so only its high-priced product can meet the specification, also arranges for the application of a product that is not even in compliance with its own specification?

These conflicts of interest result in a deliberate undermining of the educational system, the taxpayer dollar, and public health.

Architects are licensed to protect the health, safety and welfare of the general public. It was my professional duty to advise the proper authorities when I observed these practices. UCSF officials kept turning a blind eye when others and I protested similar practices, over a long period of time.

Not one person at the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF) has been known to stop these practices. If you have read Steve Bennish's article in the Dayton Daily News, reprinted in 2002 in the Midwest Roofer, he reported what one of UC's employees, Chris Patti, told him. He said that they "let Tremco write specifications for them."

It is true. Ongoing UCSF projects, some of them quite large in San Francisco and in other cities, include restrictive proprietary roofing specifications written by UCSF's favorite roofing manufacturer - and inserted by the design firms into project specifications documents.

When I looked into local professional organizations for help, I found that their "roofing and waterproofing experts" were not only defensive of these practices; some of them also attempted to involve others, including protesting, unwilling governmental clients, into using restrictive proprietary specs in roofing.

Proprietary specifications may be acceptable in some situations, but ones that are written to exclude legitimate competition on public bids are not. As states across the country struggle with massive budget deficits, and are making large cuts in educational services, it is our common duty as taxpayers to expose and end waste of taxpayer dollars.

If you are involved in similar practices, it would be advisable to permanently distance yourself from them as quickly as possible. In order to stop this massive and very costly scam, it is going to take concerted action on the part of everyone affected or previously involved.

We all need to speak out, and where it counts.

Janet C. Campbell, is an Architect in San Francisco, California, and an Associate Member of the MRCA. Any and all opinions expressed in the Midwest Roofer are those of the author(s), and not necessarily those of MRCA by fact of publication.

Garland PO's in California's Largest High School District in the News

2011-06-12T14:38:00.000-07:00

Kern High School District's has had Managers involving the District in the Purchasing side of the "scam" - and now their local press in Bakersfield has caught on.

What were they doing?

Managers allowed purchase orders from 2002 on to one manufacturer, using broken-up installation contracts solely to another company.

What prompted the newspaper report yesterday?

Three managers protesting the activities were fired late last October, after detailing to authorities the alleged corruption.

They have now filed whistleblowing charges, for being fired for going to the FBI.

The first newspaper report is at:
http://www.bakersfield.com/news/local/x43955892/KHSD-workers-allege-being-fired-for-whistleblowing?utm_source=widget_56&utm_medium=photo_entries_teaser_widget&utm_campaign=synapse

Three weeks prior to their firing, one of the managers named by these gentlemen as being involved in allowing Garland products wrote to me off this blog, and denied the allegations.

The only way he could have gotten the information that he had been so named was a leak from the California Legislative Committee on Accountability and Administrative Review.

The post from last year detailing the years of $200,000 a year purchase orders to Garland from Kern High School District are at:
http://schoolroofingscam.blogspot.com/2010/07/garland-roofing-products-bought.html

And you may ask:
Is this kind of "Purchasing" of fire-rated roofing products in schools an aberration, or are there more such problems in California?

So far, we hear of $500,000 Purchase Orders to one of the known companies involved, in Burlingame, CA, right across the freeway from the San Francisco Airport.....

More to come, will post here.

California: Hell-Bent on Suicide

2011-06-08T14:26:00.000-07:00

Congratulations to yet another Committee at the State of California Legislature.

You have now committed suicide for Californians with regards to public construction dollars, the state's rating, future and overall health, safety and welfare of the public.

Or maybe you are so unqualified to understand that it completely escaped your minds.....

What school of economics did you go to? Or has the spicket of public works dollars feathering private nests gone on so long you have absolutely no conscience left?

For those who don't know, witnesses described what happened when AB 1342 tried to go through the "Budget and Finance" Committee. The Chairperson came into the meeting, declaring they weren't going to vote for the national standard for competitive bidding practices, and the meeting became a total joke.

How much did that cost you, Garland?
You really have lost your minds, California. This is below dumb and/or ignorant - it's truly, truly stupid - and makes you look it to thousands in the roofing industry and associated professions that "get it".

Congratulations on sealing the deal of becoming a third-world country.

You can see the history of the bill here:
http://www.aroundthecapitol.com/Bills/AB_1342/20112012/

California Legislative Committee Holds Another Hearing on the Roofing Scam in Schools

2011-04-15T18:54:00.000-07:00

On April 6, 2011, the California Legislative Committee for Accountability and Administrative Review held another hearing into the scam.

Speaking were three of the original speakers, including the Legal Counsel for the California Bureau of State Audits, and new speakers, including Roof Consultants.

The Hearing can be heard here, and the Agenda and Background Paper seen, here:
http://www.assembly.ca.gov/acs/newcomframeset.asp?committee=423
Look at the April 6, 2011 Hearing Date under "Cutting Costs in Public Roofing Projects".

The previous Hearing's Agenda, Background, Recommendations and Exhibits are under the June 30, 2010 Hearing Date.

San Francisco State University Sole-Sources Sarnafil - Against California's Present Public Contract Code 3400

2011-03-26T23:06:00.000-07:00

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.....

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

2011-03-05T13:12:00.001-08:00

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.

Tremco and Garland Roof Failures at Cincinnati's Little Miami Treatment Plant

2011-02-25T23:21:00.000-08:00

A 2010 Report by the Cincinnati Metropolitan Sewer District details the condition of 15 roofs at the Little Miami Treatment Plant. Of the 15 roofs, 11 were in poor condition and between 9 to 12 years old. Of the 11 in poor condition, one was identified as a Garland Roof, 6 were Tremco and the remaining 4 were unidentified. All roofs were recommended to be either replaced or repaired with paid warranty extensions.

Cost?

For Construction & Inspections: $427,700 for 564 squares of Built-up roofing, which is $758.33/square

For Design, Project Administration, some Constuction, Field Inspection, Interest and etc., added to Construction & Inspections costs above:

Total cost for the 4 roof replacements and 11 roofs' repair /"warranty" extensions totals $574,100, which is $1,017.91/square.

For Future 15 Roof Replacements: $3,208,900, which is $5,412.23/square. The costs of other manufacturers and their true No-Dollar Limit (NDL) Warranties is markedly lower.

See pages from the report, below:

Marin Community College District Caught up in the Scam: College of Marin Performing Arts Modernization

2011-01-23T16:33:00.000-08:00

The College of Marin in Kentfield, Marin County, California, put out a roofing bid spec to one manufacturer late in 2010. This time, it was sole-sourced to Tremco.

Yes, I just heard the collective "groan" from contractors and reps fighting the scam, or having to go along to have a business. That spec is copied in below, with markups for those that get that there is something wrong - but can't quite put their finger on it. And can't fight it.

Feel free to use the analysis below with the next bid on a "Lock-Spec", call your lawyer, and start the letters to your School Board, local newspapers, etc. And feel free to call me if you need help - please. I will be glad to dissect the specification for your attorney. Or give this post to your attorney. It will help them.

A Summary is next, and useful to those fighting the scam in their area.

To Marin Community College District Business Administrators not involved in the scam: You most likely have been HAD. And so has bankrupt California - you've just made it worse for California taxpayers and college students.

________________________________________

For those interested in knowing how to spot a "Lock-Spec", how to dissect scam specs, and force competition or the exposure of denial of such when required - here's a thorough dissection of the latest type we see coming in - and in the Marin Community College District's College of Marin Performing Arts Modernization Spec, below.

What's wrong?

You first have to understand what makes a competitive spec and what best practices really are - so here are most important principles in writing competitive specs:

1. If an owner hands you a spec and orders you to insert it, don't. There is a high probability they are on the take. Call your E & O carrier's lawyer, then the State Auditor - less political.....find out what they got, and then call the FBI. If it's over $5,000 and in the past five years, their ears should perk up....handsomely. Usually - at least in California - School Board Members, Facilities Directors, Managers, Design Personnel and Architects/Engineers are known for getting $10,000 apiece for such "Lock-Specs". In cash, coupons, trips, parts and additions to homes, leased cars...... If you are the one on the take, you don't belong here, on this blog.

2. If it's confusing, it isn't a competitive bid spec.

3. Never require manufacturer's "certifications." They are not ascertainable.

4. Tight requirements are not competitive - and have nothing to do with a real roofs, such as:

      a. ISO Certifications relating to business operations.

      b. Who actually manufactures the products used.

      c. Who can bid, based upon where they have done projects
          (so many miles within the project bid), how many projects
          with their products, etc.

      d. The number of contractors certified to install their products
          vary widely by manufacturer. If they have more certified,
          the better for the owner.

      e. The fact that they own and not lease manufacturing facilities.
          etc. Some of the larger manufacturers who do not engage in
          such practices have discovered scammers buying their
          products through "shell" companies, relabeling product, and
          offering "warranties" on product far longer than the true
          manufacturer does. Tight restrictions having to do with
          business operations mean nothing.

5. If there is a long list of tests to be met, beware. Start checking every test, call the Testing Agency in question if you don't understand the tests. Repeatedly seen are:

       a. ASTM D5147 called out to test specific attributes.
           That standard is a general standard for all the real
           attribute tests following it in the ASTM Standards
           for Roofing Tests. It's a fraudulent listing. ASTM D5147
           tells the testing company how much material to take to
           do the tests, not how to conduct the test for the specific
           attribute. If you see ASTM D5147 listed by an specific
           attribute test to be done, such as "elongation" of the
           material, and in specs we have seen, differing attributes
           all listing ASTM D5147, you know immediately it's a
                                       "Lock-Spec"
           designed to make it impossible for anyone to compete
           with it.

       b. Old tests are listed that no longer apply.

       c. Out-of-date tests are listed, that do apply in the newer
           version.

      d. The test value to be met is a number picked out of a
          range, while only the range applies. According to one
          major testing agency, a number picked out of the range
          set in their standard means nothing.

      e. Listing for Tensile Strength and none for Compressive
         Strength. In 2000, the ASTM Roofing Committee
         recognized that manufacturer claims that Tensile Strength
         was the most important factor in the strength of the roof
         was false. If the glass in the system was destroyed, the
         strength of the system would be gone. They recognized
         and put in place Compressive tests to be met as well as
         Tensile Strength tests for each system, due to the fact that
         the system needed both Tensile Strength and Compressive
         Strength in order to withstand all kinds of stresses.

6. The testing company that certified the test data for the manufacturer's materials may have "fudged" the test or data. We are aware that one major testing agency performed a test wrong, and gave one-hour certifications to a particular type of roofing system...when they did not meet the test as laid out by the major testing agency. They changed the test - because millions of squares of roofing would no longer meet the one-hour Building Code requirements across the US.

A manufacturer has had a former executive open their own testing agency, and certify that manufacturer's products meet tests. It's much better to use well-known roof consultants/testing agencies. Talk to your local Registered Roof Consultants and Registered Roof Observers.....you can find them at: www.rci-online.org Normally, they should not have any links to any one manufacturer - but check them out, first. at: http://members.rci-online.org/wcm/RCIWeb/Directory/RCIWeb/Member_Listing.aspx?hkey=8c84a154-d359-4549-9a2e-a1b57c9a220d

7. Never agree to renewable maintenance agreements in the specifications. Renewable Maintenance Agreements lets the manufacturer and contractor off the hook for a warranty - a real one - and has allowed for the "shorting of the asphalts" between the plies...providing kickback funding out of contracts, according to former personnel of the involved companies....while creating leaks into structures, shortening the lives of roof structures - over children's heads....got the picture?

If a facility wishes to have maintenance agreements apart from the warranty, they should contract direct with the roofing contractor, not the Manufacturer's Rep. Reps are there to sell product, not maintain, roofs.

8. Never accept anything less than a "No Dollar Limit" Warranty on roofs. 9. Installation "means and methods" should never be called out in specifications. They are solely the responsibility of the contractor. If called out, they become the responsibility of the specifying party (architect, engineer) and ultimately, the Owner.

10. Details should not be called out in the specification. Rather, they should be drawn, done specifically to the project, and they should cover all conditions.

11. Owner carrying insurance on the roofs is not the purvue of the manufacturer nor should that information be contained in the bid spec. It is not only extraneous, but to avoid a conflict of interest and the owner being taken, the manufacturer's rep should not be involved in the choices or administrative policies of any agency.

12. Any requirements for the manufacturer to have staff overseeing or inspecting the installation is not in the Owner's best interest. How the manufacturer achieves their No Dollar Limit Warranty is up to them. In the Owner's best interest, include provision for tthe roofing contractor to accommodate the Owner's own consulting Registered Roof Observer and Testing Agency personnel.

13. And last but not least: all specification "Products" sections should list three manufacturer's products and the term "or equal". Not "or approved equal", and not listing small manufacturers like Geoflex who can't compete with the scammer, or one of the other scammers, who appears to "back off" and allow the territory staked out to be to the one manufacturer that is the "basis of design".

In California, the Public Contract Codes are different. Public Contract Code 3400 states that the specifier may "if aware of an equal product manufactured in this state, name that product in the specification" and does not require it. It also does require the term "or equal" to be used, which is not, in the specification below. (See also the pertinent section reprinted below the specification.)

The specification below is clearly written to "lock out" competition, and is illegal.

In Summary: The basic, good, competitive bid spec should be written by the Owner's rep to the advantage of the Owner, not the manufacturer. There are more issues, but these cover the highlights.

You will see many of the issues listed above in the late 2010 specifications "Lock-Spec'd" to Tremco, below, for the College of Marin's Performing Arts Modernization.
Pertinent portion of California Public Contract Code 3400 referred to in Item No. 12, above: "...(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 be drafted 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 the award of the contract. "

California - Listen Up: It's been 14 Years and Counting Since This Blogger Reported the Scam to the FBI....and It's Cost You Over $1 Billion

2011-01-23T15:15:00.001-08:00

An Open Letter to Governor Jerry Brown, California State Senators and Assemblymen and women:

Fourteen years ago this week, I found myself forced to go to the FBI and report illegally sole-sourced construction products in higher education - because no one would do the right thing in six years at my job.

A woman architect 20 years my senior and a colleague at the job had killed herself in utter frustration of the lack of adherence to public contract codes at the University of California - where we worked.

Run out of the job in early retirement for arguing with bosses over continuing and wholesale illegal construction specifications put out in bids, she had begged me between gulping sobs, on the phone from her home in Mill Valley, "Janet, you just have to do something about all those illegal contracts going on at UC- how do they keep getting away with it?!?!" over and over....and the next day......

And so I have - don't even think I'm going away, either, until this is done.

Eight years ago, the State Auditor was finally allowed by the Legislators controlling them to do an Investigative Report on the same specs of one of 20 years' worth of similar specifications on an over 110-building campus. SIX YEARS after my initial report.....

Last year, finally, the Legislature heard about the depth and breadth of the scam statewide, and the State Auditor's report. They passed an emergency law that was gutted of the key provisions to stop the scam (AB 635). THIRTEEN AND A HALF YEARS after my initial report....

It has cost California over $1 billion dollars since my first report.

In contrast, the largest land mass state east of the Mississippi smelled a rat with similar specs from the same manufacturers in December, 2010, and stopped the scam in two and a half weeks - statewide.

Just how much longer is California going to fiddle while its' credit and economy burns to the ground?

Gov. Brown, if you truly want to stop the bleeding, you'll give me a call. I can easily give you a short list of what needs to be changed - to assure continuing massive fraud and waste of the taxpayer dollar stops - and especially in K-12 and College/University funding.

It's so simple....but you haven't "got it" - yet.

Sincerely, Janet Campbell, Architect
Formerly on the Georgia Board of the American Institute of Architects, elected from the 1200-member Atlanta Chapter three years in a row, 97% of the vote each time......

Las Positas Community College Roofs, Livermore, California

2011-01-04T23:32:00.000-08:00

It's the old game of "if they can get away with it so can we." And "Hang the overruns, we will do whatever we want because no one will prosecute them!"

This time, it's Sarnafil.

Here's how they "cooked" the bid process and specs for the Las Positas Community College, New Science Building and general alterations to another, in Livermore, California.

1. Use of incorrect spec data. That is, the wrong ASTM numbers were used, in a long list of "tests" to be met.

For instance: Use of ASTM D5147 as the test for specific attributes, when it is only a basis for all the actual tests to be done on the roofs. That is, take so much of a product to use for the succeeding, actual specific attribute tests in the ASTM Test Listings. Specific tests are other numbers, and not called out for in the following product attributes: Breaking Strength, Ultimate Elongation, Cold Bending and Water Absorption.

The real tests are not listed - hence you can't compete with an incorrect specification. The listing is incomplete at best and fraudulent, leading the consumer to believe a valid number was used and is a competitive bid spec. The specification is a restrictive proprietary performance spec, non competitive and illegal by Public Contract Codes.

Anyone know how much in Federal Funds this college gets?

For instance: The University of California mixes all their fund sources together, so it makes all construction contracts liable to Federal Law....and I'll bet it's the same for this California College. It's the method College and University Administrators use to skirt the law - but it makes them also more liable....if the Federal Attorney General's Offices decide to protect the taxpayers and prosecute.

2. Use of restrictive specs. That is, too many product tests were listed, some which mean nothing to the overall good of a competitive system. Also used or missing were:

     a. VOC content maximum numbers for a listing of 12
         specific products associated with the single-sourced
         product.

     b. Missing Strength Data (Compressive). Note: The
         ASTM Roofing Committee added Compressive Strength
         as a necessary component to roofing systems to their
         testing procedures in the early 2000's, as there are
         companies claiming erroneously that only Tensile Strength
         was important.

      c. Only one specific value for various materials are
          listed, instead of minimums or maximums, the
          competitive way to bid products.
          For instance: The Thickness is called out as one
          specific mil, not a minimum.
          Also: Initial Reflectivity, Initial Emissivity, and Solar
          Reflective Index do not state minimum or maxium
          to the value listed.

3. A rep attempting to submit a listed alternate was told by the staff in charge of the contract that the College was " standardizing" on Sarnafil and would not be accepting any equals - and walked off. Despite what was listed as an acceptable alternate in the bid specification. Let's just hope previous roofs at Las Positas Community College were actually competitively bid - because if they were, they are probably still under a real warranty....which should not be ignored to "redo" roofs under this new "standardized" system of illegally sole-sourcing roofing products.

Question: At what point do prosecutors "get" the huge overruns from such practices affecting California's budget, and decide to take on the problem? Are they really that "clueless" - or covering up?

Below are some of the pages of the specifications, noted with the issues seen.

OK, OK, Tremco, we know it's not just you all and Garland.....

2011-01-03T20:24:00.000-08:00

Don't you worry your pretty little heads now - we "got it" , Tremco.

You're upset that Simon Roofing is taking Hickman's place in the "big 3" of the scammers. I saw that.....you know what I am talking about. I got your message.

We've been aware of them since Day One. Really!

So why don't you send some of your emissaries to tell me about the specs they see coming from them? I'll put them up, too, fair IS fair, after all! Everybody else does it, for crying out loud! (Alright, you ex-Hickman guys laughing.....) So the rest of you - Ya'll all laughing now out there now?

Just look at the next few posts....there will be more of the same fraudulent specs from other players....put succintly, and if you need to take anyone to task - there's the formula!

It's simple, really. It's fraud.

There is something the Legislative Aides involved in the hearing that was held June 30th at the California State Capitol told me this Fall should frost those of us that truly love this country: A South African delegation was observing their work, and of course their information on the roofing scam, and told the aides, "Why would we want to be like you, a democracy, when you are so corrupt?"

That's your legacy, Tremco and Garland. And those playing copycat.

How many of us like looking like the scammers - all of us painted with their stripes?

However, 2010 was a banner year, in many ways. Some of you know that I went to the FBI with illegally-written roofing specs in January 1997, after the head of all of the Building Managers at the University of California, San Francisco told me (a Senior Architect on staff) that they were taking "payola" and that was why I was not being allowed to do normal competitive bid specs.

It has taken 14 years to the month now, and still the California Legislature cannot pass a law that holds government officials and educators/administrators to a felony for taking kickbacks in all kinds of roofing projects. Nor have they stopped the scams - which you will see in the next few posts.

Many other states and now entities in other countries are very interested in what is going on....and one contacted me in December. Their staff accurately "smelled a rat" with illegally sole-sourced specs in public work. This state ordered the architect to start over, told those putting out the specs in the public agency the same....and within 2 and a half weeks, have quietly shut down the scam in their whole state.

That's right.

California's taxpayers have been losing since notified - for 14 years.

The other state, a win for their taxpayers since they discovered the scam - in 2 and 1/2 weeks, start to finish.

You can do it too, folks here in California and other states battling budget woes!

The New Jersey Scam Fighter Goes After School Funding Issues with Gov. Christie

2010-10-20T20:25:00.001-07:00

For those who don't know, Doug Wicks was working as a roof consultant in the early 1990's and saw the roofing scam firsthand - while trying to get prison roofs done.

Eventually, he got the New Jersey State Commission of Investigation to look into the School Roofing Scam, in their Report of 1999 put out in Sept., 2000, "Waste and Abuse in School Roofing Projects", seen here: http://www.state.nj.us/sci/school.shtm

Nothing has happened to stop the scam in the ten years since the report came out.

However, WP Hickman, the second Tremco "derivative" firm, has gone bankrupt - and they have a bunch of 3-year failing school roofs - leaking badly - from shorting the asphalts between the plies - and all under "warranty".

One former WP Hickman rep told me of being told how to pull out kickbacks in the year prior to the bankruptcy (the example he was given by another employee was $40,000) from their contracts - short the asphalt.....

So Doug is now going after School Funding.

Why fund all these unecessary - and badly installed - roofs at such a huge premium?

Let's hope Governor Christie listens to Doug!

Here's a link to what Doug is up to - and it's good stuff! In the Star Ledger, by Paul Mulshine: "Doug Wicks weighs in on how Christie should fight the court to regain control of school funding"
located at: http://blog.nj.com/njv_paul_mulshine/2010/10/doug_wicks_weighs_in_on_how_ch.html

A New Florida Blog on the Roofing Scam - by a Roofing Contractor!

2010-10-20T19:54:00.001-07:00

Well, well, well!

Are we having fun yet????

Now we have a fifth blog going after the School Roofing Scam! And the second, in Florida.

I want to introduce you all to Robert R. "Ron" Solomon, a recently retired (after 37 years) State Certified Roofing Contractor, and Licensed Consultant in Florida - and his avid, rabid writings...no, just kidding! Ron is paralyzed by a hemorrhagic stroke - but you would never know it....an incredible writer, he has found a mission...and he's doing it very, very well! We have been in touch for some time, and his writing is delightful. You will enjoy reading his posts - and he deals with all kinds of issues surrounding roofing, not just the scam - but he's definitely informing many people of it.

These are the kind of Americans America needs! Enjoy reading Ron - for all the roofing contractors out there feeling stuck by having to do these roofs when they don't want to....and for all the manufacturers who thought a roofing contractor would never speak up like this! Ron speaks on behalf of taxpayers, and approaches all topics based upon scientific principle, and public record, never offering "opinion".

We now have a number of people going after the issue across the country, openly....and it's very, very good for all! Ron joining the party is great - he will be the Life of the Party - trust me!

Here's his blog: Florida Roofing Resource Web at: http://wikiroof.blogspot.com/

And here's his latest letter to me - reprinted with his permission - you'll get the drift of just how funny and determined this guy is - a real delight!
" Janet: Forgive me, but what an ass kicking middle name: Coral. I just asked Christy for a divorce, and can you pick me up at the Greyhound station there in San Francisco? Janet, you know I'm the perpetual teenager, and really love to enjoy freedom of expression. I refuse to grow up. Sadly, I can't seem to stay awake 24 hours each day to pursue the savages in the roofing industry alone, as I find lying, cheating, and stealing running rampant at every turn. By now, I think you know I've worn out 7 sets of brass knuckles (and have eaten a few) on proprietary setups. When I first started researching legal actions in roofing, I ran across your blog and flipped out. You were living out the character I wanted to be. You and I share the common trait of passion for what's right. Like I said before, I would be right there at the courthouse with you. I will link your blog tomorrow as a badge of courage. I have drawn energy from your effort, when I couldn't possibly generate one molecule on my own. You know how exhaustive our work is, but we have to stay vigilant, and expose these thieves for what they are. You're my absolute favorite, number one, hillbilly pal. Ron "The Hit Man" Solomon [P.S. I told him to stay with his wife....I am too ass-kicking as it is!...Comes from the super smart and determined West Virginia side of the family - once you mess with one of them, heaven help you! I also told Ron where the name Coral came from - an Italian great aunt.....but it's also the most poisonous snake on the North American Continent......]

A Horrified School Board Member Discovers the Scam - and puts it up on her blog

2010-10-20T19:29:00.000-07:00

A horrified - and angry - School Board Member in Florida has "got it" - in Florida.

Her name is Jackie Porter - and she's a School Board Member on Florida's Marion County School Board, District 2.

She's also now the fourth blogger on the subject of the school roofing scam, in the US.

It's going on in other countries, if you didn't know it...you ought to see who comes on this blog! Whoa!

So all of the School Board Members feeling embarrassed - don't be. Get angry, and do what you need to do to protect your kids and education. (Unless you got kickbacks...oh boy!)

Here are her posts:
"Shocking News about Roofing Vendors Being Used by our Public Schools" at: http://www.jackieporter.com/Shocking_News_about_MCPS_Roof_Vendor.html
and
"Actual Images of Roof Documents Shown Here" at:
http://www.jackieporter.com/See_the_Roof_Docs__for_Yourself.html

Company in question? Garland.

Congratulations, Jackie - good going!

The Governor's Remarks to the California Legislative Committee re: Assembly Bill AB 635

2010-10-02T14:17:00.001-07:00

The governor signed the bill - and sent back a rare note to the Committee on Accountability and Administrative Review.

Governor Schwarzenegger told them in no uncertain terms to "do more".

He's absolutely, unequivocally right. Good for Governor Schwarzenegger!!!

As the bill stands now, it requires those not on the take forced to certify they are not, and to the very ones who are. With nowhere safe to go to report the scam for design professionals or industry personnel.

The California State Auditor is the only safe place to go to in the state, we proved over the past 13 year-effort. What a beautiful, continuing scam of the taxpayer!

California was given a golden opportunity to stop this massive scam with one penstroke. They didn't do it.

The State Legislature needs to stop those in government and on School Boards and in facilities including the Directors on down taking kickbacks and/or forcing sole-sourced "Cradle to Grave" overpriced contracts - and get those taking kickbacks appropriately charged and exposed.

And the state needs to stop those not licensed to practice architecture and engineering from doing so - making these kind of "purchasing" decisions.

California also needs to protect whistleblowers and stop playing "it's not our duty to protect those who are acting as per the Qui Tam Laws" -in the place of the King, doing in professionals' cases their duties - while using the information - like here - to act like they are doing something when they are acting in a way that effectuates nothing.

You can do a lot better, Legislature, if you wanted and want to.

Also: There are enough retired architects with real detailing experience.....and engineers of the same higher caliber (trained elsewhere) ..... to fill these boards and positions, not trained musicians or housewives running Facilites, Contracts and Purchasing (as was true in my case at UCSF).

And one other thing - Don't believe me about who is involved with the kickbacks - the Key Decision Makers (who shouldn't be making such decisions in the first place)? Try hearing for years from involved Facilities Managers in Education and a former School Board President gloating and laughing over everyone getting payola, or reports of $20,000 boats, leased Mercedes, and $10,000 in cash and coupons to school board members and officials - IN CALIFORNIA. And hearing it from those who gave or got the kickbacks.

So for the disbelievers - look at the Sept. 6th roundup of officals on the take in New Jersey in this scam - and weep.... These are ABC and AP reports, and CNN actually carried the story as well as WABC TV in New York City. Members of one party in New Jersey told those running a roofing contracting sting who to go to next across the state to pay off and get more roofing contracts...that's right, they all knew who else could be paid off.......they caught 2 Mayors, 5 City Councilmembers, and 4 School Board Members, one a President of his School Board, and more: Hmmmm.......

NEW YORK CITY & NEW JERSEY MEDIA REPORTS - Eleven Public Officials caught taking bribes for roofing contracts in Public Works Contracts - See: http://www.nysun.com/national/legislators-mayors-arrested-in-new-jersey-bribery/62077/ http://blog.nj.com/ledgerupdates/2007/09/11_nj_officials_arrested_on_br.html http://abclocal.go.com/wabc/story?section=nj&id=5640158 http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2007/10/steele_in_court_today_on_corru.html http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2007/11/former_pleasantville_school_bo.html

From the New York Sun: Legislators, Mayors Arrested in New Jersey Bribery Sting By TOM HESTER Jr., Associated Press September 6, 2007 TRENTON - FBI agents arrested 11 public officials in towns across New Jersey today on charges of taking bribes in exchange for influencing the awarding of public contracts, the U.S. Attorney's Office said. Two of those arrested are state lawmakers, two are mayors, three are city councilmen, and several served on the school board in Pleasantville, where the scandal began. All 11, plus a private individual, are accused of taking cash payments of $1,500 to $17,500 to influence who received public contracts, according to criminal complaints. "Today we witnessed another example of the disease that affects the state of New Jersey; the disease of public corruption that spread like wildfire from south to north," the U.S. Attorney for New Jersey, Christopher Christie, said."

From ABClocal.go.com: "Among those arrested this morning: The three-term mayor of Orange, New Jersey and State Assemblyman Mims Hackett, Jr. The mayor of Passaic, New Jersey, Samuel Rivera. Assemblyman Alfred E. Steele of Patterson, who is also a Passaic County under-sheriff and a Baptist minister. Keith Reid the Chief of Staff to the Newark City Council president. As well as, a current and former city councilman from Passaic. The 18 month investigation was a government sting operation. This allegations include bribery. These officials all allegedly, accepted the corrupt payments from companies that offered insurance brokerage or roofing services to school districts and municipalities, according to the criminal complaint. The defendants alleged demanded and accepted payments ranging from $1,500 to $17,500, at any one time. "

From NJ. com: "Former Pleasantville school board member admits accepting bribes Published: Thursday, November 01, 2007, 2:01 PM Updated: Thursday, November 01, 2007, 2:08 PM The Associated Press A former Pleasantville school board member today pleaded guilty to attempted extortion after being arrested in September as part of a federal investigation involving nearly a dozen public officials in North and South Jersey. Maurice "Pete" Callaway, 53, admitted in federal court in Camden to accepting $13,000 in bribes to help a cooperating roofing business and an undercover insurance brokerage company get public contracts. He faces between three years and nearly four years in prison when he's sentenced in February. Pleasantville's former school board president pleaded guilty to the same charge last month."

And from NJ.com: "11 NJ officials arrested on bribery charges Published: Thursday, September 06, 2007, 8:20 PM Updated: Thursday, September 06, 2007, 9:28 PM Jeff S. Whelan Tony Kurdzuk/The Star-Ledger With a tear in his eye and surrounded by reporters, Passaic Mayor Samuel Rivera leaves the federal courthouse in Trenton after his first appearance on bribery charges this afternoon. FBI agents this morning rounded up 11 New Jersey public officials on bribery charges related to roofing and insurance contracts following an 18-month operation that swept the state from south to north, authorities said. The investigation probed nearly every layer of government, beginning with the Pleasantville school board in Atlantic County, and gradually widening to include state assemblymen, mayors and current and former councilmen from Passaic and Essex counties, according U.S. Attorney Christopher Christie.

"I thought I could no longer be surprised by a combination of brazenness, arrogance and stupidity, but the people elected in this state continue to defy description," Christie said at a late-afternoon news conference, warning other politicians: "We will continue to gather you in corrupt bunches and send you to jail.""

Wonder what the now Governor Christie would say about this situation here!

The California Legislature passes Landmark Legislation - AB 635: A Beginning to the End

2010-09-18T21:13:00.000-07:00

In a move to surprise many, the California Legislature's Committee on Accountability and Administrative Review got a bill through the Legislature in less than a month - not the usual two years - to begin measures to stop the scam.

Update Sept. 29, 2010: Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed the Bill!

It has taken 13 years to get someone to listen at the State Level other than the excellent California State Auditor's Offices, since I began reporting something didn't seem right and a Manager at UCSF told me that they were getting kickbacks as the reason why they weren't putting out competitive bid specs.......

A Budget crisis in California and legislators facing corruption in their cities finally brought about a new legislative committee that would look into such activities.

Many, many thanks have to go to Hector de la Torres' Committee on Accountability and Administrative Review and each of its' members, and his staff.

His staff listened, researched the issue very well - and used great wisdom in getting the bill through. They are a great asset along with the State Auditor to California.

And many, many thanks have to go to literally hundreds of folks in the roofing industry, media and investigators across California and the US who have helped over all these years and now.

And especially to the four manufacturers who have been stymied by the scam, who finally came forward for the first time to openly speak about what we are all dealing with, in a hearing that specifically did not name names.

To the brave souls in the roofing contracting business, roof consulting and independent roofing rep business in California: What you have done is to open the door to Californians to take back their state, and make it whole. Many, many congratulations!

Californians should thank you every one of you - and they particularly need - right now - for you to contact the Governor's Offices with your support, asking him to sign the bill that went to his desk Sept. 16, 2010 for signature - AB 635. And it needs to be done the week of Sept. 20, 2010.

Californians need the help of everyone across the US, concerned about the scam, to contact the California Governor's Offices and support this bill - and ask them to do more.

Please also urge the Governor to push for:
1) Requiring Government Officials, elected or employee/consultant status, to sign the same forms this bill requires, with the same penalties .
2) Revise existing Statutes back to their original language and to the long-known "best practices" in competitive bidding, whistleblowing and in procedures that allow effective State Auditing - all that will help dramatically with the overruns in the state budget. ____________________________________

For those who don't know, California's laws have been changed over the past 30 years, destroying accountability in many areas. No doubt it has created their massive deficit.

Please understand: This bill is a start, not the complete picture.

So you ask: Specifically - What else needs to be done?

First: Because the scam revolves around paying off officials, who then force consultants to (illegally) sole-source ("or else" is implied), elected and appointed government officials, and employees and consultants acting as employees must also have to sign the same financial disclosure forms with the same penalties as manufacturers' reps and design professionals.

Other items that need to be addressed to stop the scams include process issues allowed by California Laws, such as:

Public Contract Code (No. 3400) should state that a minimum of three products and the term "or equal" should be listed in competitive bidding specs. That is the law as it has been for decades in other states and federal contracting procedures. As it stands now, the California Public Contract Code states that "If" the designer "Happened to know of an equal.", they should list it. Part of the due diligence required of an architect or engineer is to determine what equals do exist, to list in specifications.
The lack of one clear, written, comprehensive and openly published whistleblowing process for all governmental agencies, employees, consultants and with an impartial "jury" not at all involved in any way with that agency or persons in that agency.
The lack of Futility Issues in Whistleblowing recognized by the Courts. The California Supreme Court ignored practicality and allow a State Agency they have deemed does not have to obey any laws able to "investigate" the claims of employees and contractors with respect to wrongdoing at the taxpayers' expense. It is, in fact, not possible -and was not in every whistleblowing case known of for the past at least 20 years at that Agency. How much has it cost the California taxpayers during the protracted case (since 1997)? Well over a billion dollars.
The lack of the Courts recognizing stated intent of the Legislature as to whistleblowing (and other laws) in the Legislature's debate. Calfornia courts don't recognize Legislative intent even if only stated once and even if only at the beginnning of the legislative debate - as done in my case. Which helped in covering up the scam, and costing taxpayers hundreds of millions over the past 5 years.
The lack of a "Safe Haven" (non-political) for whistleblowers to go to when attempting to help the state balance its' budget. The State Attorney General's Offices should never be contacted by a whistleblower, only the State Auditor's Offices should, as they do not disclose nor do they allow politics to enter the issue. Only after the State Auditor has done an audit should the State Attorney General be contacted - by the State Auditor's offices. But California Whistleblowing Laws have been changed recently to require whistleblowers to expose themselves to the very politicians with such conflicts of interest - the State Attorney General's Offices. In my case, the State Attorney General, contacted in 1997 and 2000-1, was in the Roofer's Union....and nothing happened other than gathering who talked to me and what they said.
The ability to stop a public airing of a False Claims/Qui Tam issue in court. Right now, the State Attorney General can dismiss any False Claims Act case before it is unsealed - a new twist on a 500-year old, historical law. Given the nature of such cases, when one is brought, its' serious enough to move forward. No other Qui Tam Act has been known to be written to allow a person, not a court, to dismiss the case during the first 60-90 days while sealed - forever silencing high crimes and misdemeanors.
The system of using internal "investigations" within organizations to make "findings". That procedure has cost California over a billion dollars over 13 years since my first reports, in this one scam alone - and needs to be thrown out. Fraught with Conflicts of Interest, it's one of the reasons Risk Managers at the University of California got away with what they did in my case - covering up for UC and forgetting the overall State's and taxpayer's interests.
The State Auditor is not allowed to audit or investigate the Department of Education, 40% of California's Budget, nor are they allowed to investigate without permission Cal State and the University of California system. This should not be happening.
Politicians control what the State Auditor can look into through "political consultants" at the Joint Legislative Audit Committee. It's like a City Council telling the cops what investigations and arrests they can make. This should not be happening.
The University of California, the state agency claiming immunity from laws in their Administrative/Business Operations, is operating outside of its' Land Grant Charter and needs to be forced to operate under that Charter. Their Charter is the Organic Act of 1854, and that act requires that the governance of the University be such: That the Administrators are under the rule of the Academic Senate, which Academic Senate held the Academic Freedoms to study what was needed. The University of California pulled out in an "Office of the President" in the late 1960's on an opinion letter of a State Attorney General - who had no case law to back up the action. The Office of the President has since claimed and taken the freedoms of Academia with them into their Business Operations. Did you hear that? I hear Administrators in other states are now trying to mimic these "operations" - which have gotten Californians stuck with massive tabs wasted on Administrators hiding behind claims that are untrue - that they are not accountable. Do you want that where you are? If not, please help us demand an end to unaccountability, waste and fraud of the taxpayer dollar here, in this scam.

Yes, my case upturned a lot of operational issues that clearly describe why California is in the fix it is in -and won't get out of - till they correct all of the operational issues affected now by laws changed that have allowed the present-day budgetary nightmares California has.

And it is all coming or is already in at your town and state.

You will learn a lot about how to protect your state and cities from it, and how to stop it in your state if already launched into such acts - from listening and helping here.

You can read the final bill, what was done and needs to be done, below.

Your support is absolutely critical to getting not only this bill through, but more done.

Please help by calling and/or writing the Governor's Offices in California!

And thank you so much for doing so!!!

I know I'll be doing the same for you, when you decide to help your own states!

WHERE TO WRITE AND CALL: Please write the Governor's Offices and copy the Committee on Accountability and Administrative Review with your support letters. Here is the contact information you will need to do so:

CONTACT THE GOVERNOR Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger State Capitol Building Sacramento, CA 95814 Phone: 916-445-2841 Fax: 916-558-3160 email: http://gov.ca.gov/interact

CONTACT THE COMMITTEE ON ACCOUNTABILITY AND ADMINISTRATIVE REVIEW Committee Phone: 916-319-3600 Committee Fax: 916-319-3650 WEBSITE: http://www.assembly.ca.gov/acs/newcomframeset.asp?committee=423 ____________________________________________

AB 635: A Recap

Here's what was done, to recap:

1. A California Legislative Hearing on the issue was held June 30th, 2010.
Many persons helped behind the scenes from all walks in the roofing industry, in California and beyond and should be credited with exposing the scam.

You can see the hearing here:
https://www.calchannel.com/channel/viewVideo/1571

You can see who spoke here:
http://www.assembly.ca.gov/acs/committee/c423/Agenda63010.pdf

Testifying were:

a. The Little Hoover Commission , a State Agency involved in exposing scams, previously contacted by this blogger but did not act (Carole D'Elia);

b. The Legal Counsel for the State Auditor, Steven Russo, who read out their audit in my case. You can read that four-page synopsis here: http://www.bsa.ca.gov/pdfs/reports/I2003-2.pdf and see Chapter 5. Their testimony about my case brought realization and anger - and the need for urgency to stop the scam - from Committee Members.

c. Four roofing products manufacturers. They were:
1) GAF Materials Corporation, from New Jersey (Helene Hardy Pierce, Vice President of Technical Services, Codes & Industry Relations);
2) Firestone Business Products, from Indianapolis, Indiana (Carter Slusher, Senior Systems Engineer);
3) Carlisle SynTec, Roofing Materials, from Carlisle, Pennsylvania (Mike Ducharme, Director of Product Marketing);
4) Malarkey Roofing Products, out of Portland, Oregon (Greg Malarkey, Senior Vice President and New Product Development)

d. Roofing contractors. They were, in order of appearance:
1) Western States Roofing Systems, Gary Reeves, from Northridge, CA. (Los Angeles area)
2) Waterproofing Experts, Inc., Steve Shipley from the Canoga Park, CA. (Los Angeles area)

e. A roofing consultant from Skyline Engineering, Inc. who is a mechanical engineer and a former Tremco Rep, Bryan Schalesky, from the Peninsula just south of San Francisco.

f. An independent roofing rep with Don Lambrecht& Associates, Inc. , Don Lambrecht, who also owns http://www.roofing.com/ and is from the Sacramento, CA area.

2. The Committee was so upset with what was going on and the costs to the state, that they demanded an Emergency Bill to stop the scams be enacted. They used a bill sitting on the shelf and amended it. You can see that here: http://www.aroundthecapitol.com/billtrack/text.html?bvid=20090AB63596AMD

3. Subsequent hearings were held. Testifying against the bill was the President of Garland Roofing. We heard they had paid a lobbyist $250,000 to stop the bill.

4. Voting against the Original Bill in Committees were 2 on the Senate Governmental Organization Committee:
a) State Senator Leland Yee from the 12th District (San Francisco). He was formerly on the San Francisco School Board for eight years from 1988 t0 1996, part of the time as its' President, and had seen to it that everyone but the governmental officials and School Board Members had to sign financial disclosure statements when doing business with the SFUSD. The San Francisco Unified School District and Board is widely known for approving Garland Roofing Products for many years in their School roofing projects.
b) State Senator Rod Wright from the 25th District (Los Angeles to Long Beach). He was indicted in an 8-count felony charge by a Grand Jury on Sept. 16, 2010, for allegedly misfiling statements regarding his residence location in order to run for office from the district.

5. With no votes against the bill, it cleared the other Committees, Senate Appropriations, Assembly Business and Professions, and Assembly Business, Professions and Consumer Protection.

6. With no votes against the bill, it cleared the California Assembly, 77-0.

7. With one vote against the bill, it cleared the California Senate, 33-1. The person voting against the bill was: State Senator Robert Dutton from Rancho Cucamonga, State Senate District 31, where he previously sat on the City Council in Ranco Cucamonga. His district includes parts of San Bernardino and Riverside Counties.

8. A Bill was introduced at the State Legislature August 5, 2010 and passed by the full legislature on August 30, 2010 on an "urgency basis".

9. The Bill was sent to the Governor's Offices on Sept. 16, 2010, and awaits signing. Normal times for bills to go through the Legislature,? Two years. An old bill sitting on the shelf was "dusted off", revised and pulled through in less than a month. The History of the Bill is here: http://www.aroundthecapitol.com/Bills/AB_635/ The enrolled Bill (final version) is here: http://www.aroundthecapitol.com/billtrack/text.html?bvid=20090AB63595ENR
______________________________________________
Here's AB 635, enrolled (final) version, copied in below:
PASSED THE SENATE AUGUST 27, 2010 (33-1)
PASSED THE ASSEMBLY AUGUST 30, 2010 (77-0)
AMENDED IN SENATE AUGUST 20, 2010
AMENDED IN SENATE AUGUST 5, 2010
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY APRIL 2, 2009
INTRODUCED BY Committee on Accountability and Administrative Review (De La Torre (Chair), Arambula, Block, Caballero, Bonnie Lowenthal, V. Manuel Perez, and Audra Strickland) FEBRUARY 25, 2009 [Note: An old bill from 2009 was taken and revised]
An act to add Article 1 (commencing with Section 3000) to Chapter 3 of Part 1 of Division 2 of the Public Contract Code, relating to public contracts, and declaring the urgency thereof, to take effect immediately.
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST AB 635, Committee on Accountability and Administrative Review. Public contracts: roof projects.
Existing law prohibits a state agency, political subdivision, municipal corporation, or district from drafting specifications for bids, in connection with the construction, alteration, or repair of public works, 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.
This bill would provide that, for a project for the repair or replacement of a roof of a public school or community college, a material, product, thing, or service shall be considered equal if it meets specified requirements. The bill would require an architect, engineer, roofing consultant, and other specified persons or entities to complete and sign a certification related to financial relationships in connection with such a roof project and provide the certification to the school district or community college district.
The bill would make related changes.
This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.

THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Article 1 (commencing with Section 3000) is added to Chapter 3 of Part 1 of Division 2 of the Public Contract Code, to read:
Article 1. Roofing Projects
3000. For purposes of this article, the following terms have the following meanings:
(a) "Architect" means an architect who has a current license issued by the state.
(b) "District" means a school district with an average daily attendance greater than 2,500 or a community college district.
(c) "Engineer" means an engineer who has a current license issued by the state.
(d) "Public facility" means a public school or community college.
(e) "Roofing consultant" means a consultant who is registered by RCI (formerly Roof Consultants Institute).
(f) "Roof project" means a project for the replacement or repair of a roof of a public facility, except that "roof project" does not include a project for the repair of 25 percent or less of the roof or a repair project that has a total cost of twenty-one thousand dollars ($21,000) or less.
(g) "Substitute" or "substitution" means a material, product, thing, or service proposed by a bidder to be an adequate substitute material, product, thing, or service that is equal to an item designated in specifications, pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 3400 and subdivision (a) of Section 10129.
3002. (a) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 3400 and subdivision (a) of Section 10129, for any roof project, a material, product, thing, or service shall be considered equal if it meets all of the following requirements:
(1) The item is at least equal in quality, durability, design, and appearance but not necessarily of an identical color.
(2) The item will perform the intended function at least equally well.
(3) The item conforms substantially, even with deviations, to the detailed requirements contained in the specifications.
(b) A substitute may be unequal if the resulting roof system would be substantially different than other equal or better systems in terms of performance and durability, but not merely different by virtue of the inclusion of proprietary products or a proprietary warranty.
3004. Specifications for any roof project shall be designed to promote competition.
3006. (a) (1) An architect, engineer, or roofing consultant who provides professional services related to a roof project shall disclose any financial relationships by completing and signing the certification set forth in subdivision (b) prior to the time professional services are engaged. A materials manufacturer, contractor, or vendor involved in a bid or proposal for a roof project shall disclose any financial relationships by completing and signing the certification set forth in subdivision (b) when the award is made. The architect, engineer, roofing consultant, materials manufacturer, contractor, or vendor shall provide the certification to the district.
(2) An architect, engineer, roofing consultant, materials manufacturer, contractor, or vendor shall not disclose a financial relationship in which that person or entity is a stockholder of a corporation the stock of which is listed for sale to the general public on a national securities exchange and registered with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission, if the person or entity holds less than 10 percent of the outstanding stock entitled to vote at the annual meeting of the corporation.
(3) An architect, contractor, engineer, materials manufacturer, roofing consultant, or vendor who knowingly provides false information or fails to disclose a financial relationship pursuant to this section shall be liable to the district for any costs to the district that are reasonably attributable to excess or unnecessary costs, when compared to competing bids, incurred by the district as a result of the undisclosed financial relationship.
(b) I, ____ Name , ________________Name of Employer, certify that I have not offered, given, or agreed to give, received, accepted, or agreed to accept, any gift, contribution, or any financial incentive whatsoever to or from any person in connection with the roof project contract. As used in this certification, "person" means any natural person, business, partnership, corporation, union, committee, club, or other organization, entity, or group of individuals. Furthermore, I, ____ Name , ________________ Name of Employer , certify that I do not have, and throughout the duration of the contract, I will not have, any financial relationship in connection with the performance of this contract with any architect, engineer, roofing consultant, materials manufacturer, distributor, or vendor that is not disclosed below. I, ____ Name , ________________ Name of Employer , have the following financial relationships with an architect, engineer, roofing consultant, materials manufacturer, distributor, or vendor, or other person in connection with the following roof project contract: ______________________________________________________ Name and Address of Building, Contract Date and Number I certify that to the best of my knowledge, the contents of this disclosure are true, or are believed to be true. _________Signature ____ Date __________Print Name _______________________ Print Name of Employer
(c) Any person who knowingly provides false information or fails to disclose a financial relationship in the disclosure set forth in subdivision (b) shall be subject to a civil penalty in an amount up to one thousand dollars ($1,000), in addition to any other available remedies. An action for a civil penalty under this provision may be brought by any public prosecutor in the name of the people of the State of California.
3008. (a) To report bid rigging involving local government agencies and employees, including, but not limited to, county, city, and school district employees and officials, an interested person may contact the Antitrust Law Section of the Office of the Attorney General, 300 S. Spring St., Ste. 1702, Los Angeles, CA 90013, (800) 952-5225, or fill out the online complaint form on the Internet Web site of the Office of the Attorney General (Consumer Complaint Against a Business/Company) at ag.ca.gov/contact/complaint_form.php?cmplt=CL.
(b) To file a complaint regarding improper bidding involving state funding, an interested person may contact the Bureau of State Audits Whistleblower Hotline for any state agency or institution, at 800-952-5665, or by mail at 555 Capitol Mall, Suite 300, Sacramento, CA 95814.
3010. This article shall not apply to a school district operating in accordance with Section 20113 or a community college district operating in accordance with Section 20654.
SEC. 2. This act is an urgency statute necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety within the meaning of Article IV of the Constitution and shall go into immediate effect. The facts constituting the necessity are: In order to control expenditures for the repair or replacement of roofs on public schools and community colleges, it is necessary that this act take effect immediately.
__________________________________
NOTES:
1. A School District operating in accordance with Section 20113 is using the emergency clause. We should be vigilant and report any abuses.
Here is that section:
California Public Contract Code Section 20113 (a) In an emergency when any repairs, alterations, work, or improvement is necessary to any facility of public schools to permit the continuance of existing school classes, or to avoid danger to life or property, the board may, by unanimous vote, with the approval of the county superintendent of schools, do either of the following: (1) Make a contract in writing or otherwise on behalf of the district for the performance of labor and furnishing of materials or supplies for the purpose without advertising for or inviting bids. (2) Notwithstanding Section 20114, authorize the use of day labor or force account for the purpose. (b) Nothing in this section shall eliminate the need for any bonds or security otherwise required by law. 2. A Community College District operating in accordance with Section 20654 is using the emergency clause. We should be vigilant and report any abuses.

Here is that section:
California Code Section 20654 (a)In an emergency when any repairs, alterations, work, or improvement is necessary to any facility of the college, or to permit the continuance of existing college classes, or to avoid danger to life or property, the board may by unanimous vote, with the approval of the county superintendent of schools, do either of the following: (1)Make a contract in writing or otherwise on behalf of the district for the performance of labor and furnishing of materials or supplies for the purpose without advertising for or inviting bids. (2)Notwithstanding Section 20655, authorize the use of day labor or force account for the purpose. (b)Nothing in this section shall eliminate the need for any bonds or security otherwise required by law.

The Unions are taking note - in California......

2010-09-15T09:53:00.000-07:00

It's always interesting to see "The Scam" from others' viewpoints. Recently, a Sheet Metal Union person called and wanted to talk about the scam, for both my take on it and to see if anything affected his members. It certainly does have an effect on his members. "The Scam" manufacturer's employees lock down the work, using a very limited number of "trusted" persons to ensure that the work goes to them. Part of that process entails a limited pool of roofing contractors, sometimes known for bidding in a "round robin" fashion. The limited pool of roofing contractors allowed into the inner sanctum has their own tight circle of limited subs, such as Sheet Metal subs, which may be required to be "certified" by the manufacturer in question. When that happens, apparently the scam manufacturers have been known to deny some well-trained subs not to be certified. Apparently, they must have qualifications beyond that of being competent. When you can't get the work, your financial stability is affected - and effectively, you have been blackballed - for being honest and good. And all because governmental officials and employees are somehow and for some reason forcing illegal, sole-sourced specs. Sound like the "American Dream"? Unfortunately, unaccountable Administrators and elected officials in schools and state and federal work, are ignoring the laws, forcing sole-sourced specs - and hurting everyone except the participants. Yes, it's pretty lousy. So to the Union guys concerned for the welfare of the many good craftsmen and women that can't get work due to the scam - you would be doing all your members a great favor - and bring the American Dream alive - to help stop the Scam. Let's hope you will! _____________________________________________ Below: The Charts describing how Public Bidding should happen versus what is in the two forms of the scam operating now - and how it affects the subs working for Roofing Contractors. 1. "How the Public Bidding Process Should Work" 2. "How Roofing Manufacturers Control Public Bidding Processes"

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

An Architect Reverses Course - and makes a Roofing Spec Competitive

2010-08-04T21:59:00.000-07:00

Finally!!! The word must be getting out!!!! Now let's see if the California Legislature stops listening to the bamboozling of the lobbies hard at work for Garland - we hear - right now....blubbering as we speak up at the California State Capitol in Sacramento about having a 30-year "Warranty" - which we all know they don't have..... So who has caught on? Perkins & Will - a worldwide architecture and engineering firm out of Chicago. As some of you know, they do a lot of large projects. This time, they had put out bid specs on a school job....San Jose State University Student Union - Expansion & Renovation, Project 201 - and have reversed the sole-sourced roofing spec to make it competitive - in Addendum 01. Who was sole-sourced? Tremco - their "Tri Polymer Alloy Thermoplastic Membrane Roofing" Materials Who is being listed in the Specifications now? Four competitive products - using the nationwide standard spec language of listing at least three products and the term "or equal". [That standard spec language for every other state and federal work is no longer required by California's Public Contract Code No. 3400, which only requires one manufacturer to be listed, and the term "or equal" is not mentioned.] 1. Carlisle-Syntec Incorporated's "Sure-Weld TPO" 2. Firestone Building Products Company's "Ultraply TPO" 3. GAF Materials Corporation's "EverGuard TPO" 4. GenFlex Roofing Systems' "GenFlex TPO HY" 5. Or Equal. Have actual tests to meet been submitted in a shortened product properties listing? Yes, it appears so. Are the properties to be met overly constrictive? It appears not to be. Is the "Or Equal" language consistent throughout the Addendum? It appears so. We will only know if a truly competitive bid and award is achieved. And is there a real warranty specified? It appears so. For those in the roofing industry - you be the judge! From what I can tell, it appears the specification as changed in Addendum 01 is a competitive bid spec. And if so, good going, Perkins & Will! Great Job!!! _________________________________________ Here are the revised specs (appropriate portion):

Garland Warranty

2010-08-02T11:30:00.000-07:00

A Roof Warranty should not require repairs to keep up that Warranty. But here we are - Garland does. And so does Tremco. Tremco executives left and formed Garland from an old flooring company, using the same tactics. See the next post....about the Tremco Warranty Don't be fooled. _________________________________ See the actual Garland warranty from a 2001 document reprinted here below this text. See also the MRCA Article on the Garland "30-year warranty" reprinted below. You can also see it at: http://roofingscam.blogspot.com/2008_03_02_archive.html#733669647137747897 _________________________________

Note in the next to the last paragraph of the second page of the Garland Warranty shown below the following "verbage" for the "30-year warranty":

"Inspection Requirements

Owner must request in writing an inspection of the roof at any time between the sixth and tenth month of each fifth-year starting with year 15 (15, 20, 25) of this warranty's duration. Upon receipt of such request, Garland will provide an inspection of the roofing system by a Garland representative to determine whether any repairs are required to make the system eligible for the continuation of this warranty, submitting a detailed inspection report to owner outlining the nature and extent of such required repairs such as repairs to physical damage, debris removal, drainage clearance, pitch box, coping metal edge and reglet seals and flashing reflectivity."

Did you get that? It's not a warranty past 15 years if you don't pay for the expense of any "repairs" the manufacturer determines need to be done. With the use of non-involved third-party Roof consultants from the RCI, you have a much better chance of getting only needed repairs done at any point, and with a real warranty, you don't have to repair to continue the warranty. And certainly not in the tens of thousands every 5 years.....as Garland does. IF the facility "remembers" to pay that payment.....on time. It's a tricky set of requirements..... ____________________________________ The Garland "Warranty" The Midwest Roofing Contractor's Association Article First article to expose the Garland "Warranty" as nothing more than a highly-priced every 5-year "Maintenance Agreement" from the Midwest Roofer in the 1990's:

Dr. Keith Richman, Former Minority House Leader of the California Assembly, Passes Away

2010-08-01T22:22:00.000-07:00

Dr. Keith Richman, former California Assembly Minority Leader that wrote a letter to the Joint Legislative Audit Committee to ask for a major statewide audit in school roofing projects in 2005, has passed away this past weekend. Here is the news report on him: http://hometownstation.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=21227:richman-ucla-assembly-clarita-2010-07-31-07-37&catid=26:local-news&Itemid=97 You can read about it here - and see who stopped this state from losing even many more hundreds of millions in the scam over the past 5 years. http://schoolroofingscam.blogspot.com/2008/02/request-for-major-statewide-audit-in-ca.html In that effort in 2005, two letters were used from roofing industry personnel to verify the information I gave him - and which he found very credible. One of those persons who wrote a letter (and shown in that post) was Jim Miner, now in his 80's and a roof consultant in the Sacramento area. Jim was very instrumental in getting this second effort done June 30th, with the hearing at the Statehouse. However, the other person who wrote a letter (also shown in that post), Steve Camblin and a former head of the Roofing Contractor's Association in California, passed away in the Fall of 2008. You can read about him, here: http://www.rcacal.com/news/details.aspx?id=18 Both men did much to help California as has Jim, and to all three, we owe a huge debt of gratitude. What a loss for California!

The Curious Case of the San Francisco Unified School District - and the Roofing Scam

2010-08-01T15:28:00.000-07:00

It's time to simply put forward the facts re: San Francisco Unified School District Reroofing Specs. In Summary: SFUSD Reroofing specifications shown below limit competition to Garland Roofing by not listing the actual tests used in testing the inordinately large number of properties described - only the general test method by which the test was run. See: http://schoolroofingscam.blogspot.com/2009/07/whoops-its-another-spec-blooper.html These are your classic "Restrictive Proprietary Performance Specifications" Such specifications employ insufficient information in an overly-massive listing of data - frightening off competitors. _______________________________________ Balboa Hich School, School of the Arts San Francisco Unified School District 2008 Reroofing Package done recently It is an approximately 50 page specification (inordinately large, with at least three roof types) Please see under 30.2 A, this page below: 1. Acceptable Manufacturers listed as "Garland, Johns Manville and Tremco". We do not believe that Johns Manville or Tremco attempted to bid. 2. Test Methods are generally listed throughout the spec, but not the actual Test. The predominant Test Method is ASTM D5147, which tells the testing agency how much of the product to use in the actual Test, for instance, and which seems to be listed on most of the properties described for each material. What Test was actually used for each product and every property is not listed. For Modified Bitumens, it should be in the ASTM D6000's. So what tests were used for the properties listed (labeled "Test"), what version, etc.? And how does an alternate submitted by a bidder be evaluated when the actual test is not listed? If one knew what the actual test was, then whether or not the values listed meant anything could be evaluated. For instance, numbers could be picked within a range to be met - but it means nothing, because the range was the value to be met. These are the "tricks" if you will to stop any potential competitor dead in their tracks - because they know they can't fight such a huge listing - and may most likely not know these details. In this Balboa Spec, the section "37.3 Flexible Flashings" on the page below have the same issues found in the previous section - limiting competition with a lack of listing the actual tests - a whole lot of missing tests, if you will - is this considered fraud in legal terms? In this part of the large Balboa Spec, the section "27.2 Standing Seam Metal Roofing Materials" on the page below have the same issues found in the previous section. It limits competition by naming again the manufacturer whose extremely limiting spec language is used throughout this "bid" package. It is known in the industry that another metal roofing manufacturer private labels their product for Garland: Thurgood Marshall High School San Francisco Unified School District 2008 Reroofing Package done recently Please see under 2.2 A, B and C, these two pages, below: 1. Acceptable Manufacturers listed as "Garland, Johns Manville and Tremco". We do not believe that Johns Manville or Tremco attempted to bid. 2. Test Methods are generally listed throughout the spec, but not the actual Test. The Test Method listed is ASTM D5147, while no actual tests are listed for each of the properties. ASTM D5147 is not a test for each of the properties it is listed by - so the values stated that the "test" meets have no relevance. ASTM D5147 tells the testing agency how much of the product to use in the actual Test, for instance. What tests did each of these properties get tested by? We don't know, because the spec doesn't say. So no one can compete, actually - unless they do the same kind of "spec". Please see the comments above - much the same as herein. Here are the Multi-Ply Hot Asphalt Roofing Materials listed for the project: And here are the same problems for the Flexible Flashing Materials listed, on these two pages: Dr. Martin Luther King Middle School San Francisco Unified School District 2006 Measure "A" Bond Modernization March, 2010 Specifications bid out in the past two to three months Please see under 2.02 A, B and C, on these three pages, below: 1. Acceptable Manufacturers listed as "Siplast". This is a higher-priced product than most competitive roofing products, but not at the much higher price of Garland and Tremco. 2. Test Methods are generally listed throughout the spec, but not the actual Test. The predominant Test Method is ASTM D5147, which tells the testing agency how much of the product to use in the actual Test, for instance, and which seems to be listed on most of the properties described for each material. And please see the comments above - much the same as herein. For the first known product other than Garland getting all the work at the SFUSD - this spec is also limiting the competition in the same was as the two specs above. See below:

Garland Roofing Products Bought Directly by Purchasing Agents, Destroying Existing Roof Warranties on California School Roofs

2010-07-29T17:19:00.000-07:00

In the San Francisco "article" about the West Contra Costa Unified School District Official defending his use of Garland Roofing products on an existing roof, that official said their application of another material would void the Garland "Warranty".

If you read the Midwest Roofing Contractor's Association's article on that so-called "Warranty" under: http://schoolroofingscam.blogspot.com/2010/07/author-of-mrca-articles-exposing.html you would see that the so-called Garland "Warranty" was not a "Warranty", but a very expensive, 5-Year "Maintenance Agreement".

Let us be clear: There was no "Warranty" to be destroyed.

Further:

1. Since Garland has been known to substitute Johns Manville plies in their systems, with or without the client's knowledge, it would seem that such a "warranty" was far more flexible than presented. See their "Business Model", described herein: http://schoolroofingscam.blogspot.com/2010/07/garland-roofing-business-model.html

2. California school district officials have been known for rejecting less-expensive alternates submitted, with a real warranty - when that very product is private-labeled for Garland and is truly an equal.

3. The California Department of Education apparently has no central place for Warranties to be tracked, in order to safeguard the public's money.

4. How often and how much is spent on the usually tens of thousands of dollars for a 5-year Maintenance Agreement -much less roof replacements way too soon - is not known because there is no central place where roof expenditures are tracked.

5. The State Auditor is not allowed to track or investigate the Department of Education or schools...40% or more of the State Budget. The Bureau of State Audits should be the ones to keep the warranties, determine if the bids are truly competitive, and allow or not alternates - as well as allowed to investigate all of the expenditures of schools, colleges and Universities - and the Department of Education - for the taxpayers. No legislator should ever be allowed to stop any investigations....as they are now. _______________________________________________

In other words - West Contra Costa Unified (Richmond Schools) - have been "had".

Garland "warranties" could not be destroyed - because they have 5-year, renewable with large payments, "Maintenance Agreements" instead of true "Warranties".

However, quite the opposite as described in the San Francisco Chronicle article has been happening.

Garland has had their products installed into real, warrantied roofs - destroying those warranties. ________________________________________________

Take the case of the largest High School District in California:
Kern High School District in Bakersfield, CA - with 18 high schools.

The Maintenance and Operations Department had had for years architects evaluate the roofs, and put out competitive bid specs, when necessary. Warranties of the systems that were installed did get the few hundred dollars' worth of repairs when needed.

Then in or around 2002, a curious thing happened. A few men from different school districts (like the Beverly Hills High School District) and who seemed to know each other descended upon this huge district out where no one might not be watching, and took over the Business Operations in a way never before seen there.

All of a sudden, the Purchasing Agent started ordering up $200,000 worth of Garland materials every year, until this year (due to a stockpile left to be used up).

No local contractor could get the work, it was all for one guy: Commercial Roofing Systems.

Funny how that is the name of the Garland Construction Arm.........

Total roofing supplies known to be bought since approximately 2002? $1,400,000

Total construction cost known? $ 514,072

How much of that was competitively bid? $0

Also widely observed: The new "administrators" went to Las Vegas, using District funds, causing a local scandal. Then they were seen party-hardying, going off together with the Garland, Commercial Roofing and Tandus reps (Carpets)....boating, at CMAST (California Purchasing Agents for Schools) conventions, dinners etc......

In essence, the Kern High School District:

1. Allowed Purchasing Agents to engage in practicing architecture and engineering without a license by allowing them to specify, approve and purchase roofing products for installation; and that was one roofing manufacturer's products - Garland;

2. Had Garland products applied to other, truly warrantied systems - and destroyed those warranties;

3. "Broke up" contracts in order not to competitively bid them;

4. Had no independent, roofing consultant with an independent lab, uninvolved with Tremco, Garland or Hickman, look at the roofs to ascertain what did and did not need work done;

5. Threatened in-house personnel who objected - with their jobs.

Worse, they were known for similar infractions with other areas such as Carpets and Metals Recycling - literally taking thousands of dollars from metals recycling and redistributing it - to employees in the form of cash in envelopes, telling them it was from Metals Recycling, etc.

Not to mention middle-level managers somehow driving around a Hummer and an Eldorado SUV, a boat, etc. all at the same time, and then mysteriously, possibly at the end of a paid-for by somebody lease?, those item(s) disappearing?
________________________________________

Overspending for unnecessary roofing and unnecessarily expensive roofing systems in schools has to cease.

The only way to stop that?

NOT Allow Local School Districts to set standards - but direct the State Auditor's Offices to do so, instead.

The State Auditor's Offices, despite the interference of the Joint Legislative Audit Committee into what they can look into, is the only department or agency that has and can protect whistleblowers, that "gets it" when it comes to scams, and can prevent it by going to national sources for information and reviews - as they did in the audit in my case. _______________________________________

A List of Commercial Roofing Systems' known roofing contracts in the Kern High School District: ___________________________________

Garland Roofing Business Model

2010-07-29T16:07:00.000-07:00

Here are the Garland Training Documents - that show clearly their "Business Model": See top of page 2: "The strongest sale will always be Garland materials and performance specficiations and no "or equals". And then they state: "Public contracts can be very lucrative, but they require a very dedicated, sophisticated sale; one which anticipates the things that your competitors are going to do prior to the bid opening. If you are not willing to do all of these things, don't do business with schools." And then they describe some of what we know they do......

Top of page 3:

'I suggest you start your presentation by selling "fear." '

Towards the bottom of page 3:

"I suggest you emphasize that you are recommending a solution that is not proprietary."

Then he tells the Garland sales reps:

1. How to mix up the manufacturers listed - to look "competitive"; 2. How to demand that the substitution won't hurt the "system" (although known for substituting J-M plies for their own under their top cap sheet - and not returning the difference...);

3. How to "lock-spec" - by using extreme test listings, not verifiable to a school district guy that it might or might not be accurate...see the next posting to come up in the next couple of days....

But he doesn't tell his sales reps they private label from their competitors - who produce products that the sales reps have been known to decry as not competitive with their own products, and get "disallowed" by school district personnel in so-called "bids."

Here's some of the "restrictive proprietary performance specs" guidelines being taught to Garland sales reps, to "lock-spec" their product in public and school work.

They state that "under no circumstances, are loosely-laid or single-ply systems acceptable."

And they state that 'if you have to go "or equal" "depending upon the intestinal fortitude of the guy you are selling"' to, either "aim for a chance at getting the job - or eliminating as much of the competition as possible."'

Then he describes how you can lock in the Garland product...with specific lock-spec language, on this last page: ______________________________________________

So, Garland - would you like to explain to the public:

1. The conflicts of interest of a manufacturer having their reps certify without any independent, owner-supplied reps that the roofs were installed correctly.

2. Why you would call a true Maintenance Agreement a "Warranty".

3. How many of those Maintenance Agreements actually got paid for on time and actually got extended, with his public works projects.

4. How many times they redid roofs on all your jobs - you know, the true life of the roofs? Was it 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, or every 12 years?

5. Who private labels their products for you, and which ones? We all know there are only four major US roofing manufacturers. We believe that you have Carlisle private label some of your products, as does Johns Manville for Tremco.

6. When in a so-called "bid" situation when an equal is produced, how many times have you had disqualified products that are the same as yours, only yours are private-labeled?

7. When is the responsible San Francisco Bay Area Garland Rep going to give the Federal Government back all those overcharges for the Johns Manville plies used under their top cap sheet....and charged for as if they were Garland plies, about 3 times or more the price of the J-M plies? Let's see, why don't we start with the US Postal Distribution Service Center just south of the Cow Palace in San Francisco County....and how many schools shall we go pull cores on to find out what you did where?

8. How much did you pay architects to insert your specs into the project bid specs? $10,000 or more? Which architects, for which jobs?

9. How many architects and engineers specifying your products get your $50,000 indemnification for potential problems with the jobs? All of them? It certainly covers most of their deductibles on E&O Insurance Policies - giving them a financial incentive to specify you.

10. And are you aware how bogus it is to list "ASTM D5147" in the actual tests you list in your illegal, restrictive, proprietary specs?

It's a test method - not a test.

ASTM Roofing Committee Members informed me of this particular bogus spec practice - seen in San Francisco Unified School District Specs. _____________________________________________

[Editor's Note: Read Garland's training documents above, and Tremco's training documents, here: http://schoolroofingscam.blogspot.com/2008/02/tremco-in-house-training-documents.html which show both "Business Models" - "Sales Models" - are more concerned about locking out competition -to get their admitted, higher-priced products in to schools.]

Tremco's "business model"predates Garlands', for those who don't know. Tremco executives left to take over a flooring company (Garland) in the early 1970's, to compete with that same business model with Tremco.....

_____________________________________________

The Author of the MRCA Articles - Exposing the Garland so-called "Warranty" - Speaks

2010-07-26T22:36:00.000-07:00

To those in the roofing industry, the Midwest Roofing Contractor's Association (MRCA) has for years set the standards for roofing products - by testing them. They have also led the way in exposing roofing scams, and giving architects good information about products that help them specify and detail roofs correctly - all for the public's good. L. B. "Huck" Morris was the head of the Technical Research Committee at the MRCA and helped to have many tests performed on roofing products. He then began exposing some of the more aggredious, major scams targeting schools in a series of articles printed in the Midwest Roofer, the magazine of the MRCA, in the last half of the 1990's. One of the articles Huck wrote and published is a classic. He exposed Garland's so-called "Warranty" as nothing more than a 5-year renewable "Maintenance Agreement", predicated on huge fees being paid every 5 years to continue that "Warranty". You decide.....read the article below his statement - and then the copy of the Garland "Warranty". It's a major, major point the San Francisco Chronicle "missed" - by denigrating others to use as an excuse not to investigate. Are they going to now denigrate Mr. Morris - who did the largest roofs in the world recently, the 25-acre Sprint Campus with the company he owned in Kansas City, Sellers & Marquis? ___________________________________________ From L. B. "Huck" Morris, July 26, 2010: 'Janet, I received a copy of that article [The San Francisco Chronicle article July 23, 2010 excusing the use of overpriced products in two school districts] and had many of the same thoughts as you have provided herein. Especially about that simple minded, ridiculous Garland "Warranty" for one of the Bozo Administrators to use as a defense for his lazy incompetence (or worse). First they totally screw the client w/the outrageous overpricing of their materials, then comes the "warranty" which gives Garland a license to grossly overcharge on repair work and cover up bad specs! All at the expense of the School Districts!' ______________________________________________ The Article printed in the Midwest Roofer, 1997, authored by L.B. "Huck" Morris: ____________________________________________ A Copy of the "Garland Warranty": ___________________________________________

A Well-Deserved Letter to the Editor of the San Francisco "Chronicle"

2010-07-26T10:25:00.000-07:00

This is, boiled down, the issues about the "Hit Piece" Garland had done for them at the San Francisco Chronicle Friday. Here's the piece: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/07/23/MN7I1EGO2E.DTL Pray tell, Garland? How much did you pay them off for this - or one of the politicians who threatened me known to be "living" in their "news" room? The reporter slandered me to my face, saying I was "not credible" and I had not won my case. She didn't bother to ask what the facts were - move the goalposts, hide them, during my case so I "lose". She also must not have known that the California Supreme Court Justices had to move my oral hearings out of public view, took them to San Diego and a private University at Christmastime, had locked the doors, and turned the TV's off. Since she doesn't know - here's a courtroom witness account: The youngest male justice stand up, leaned over the bench, pointed his long wagging finger at and screamed at the UC attorney for 10 minutes, and I quote, "You tell your clients these were criminal acts!!! You tell your clients these were criminal acts!!!!! over and over again.... And she also must not have known that the Federal Attorney General's Offices ruled the same specs were illegal - being used to redo the same roofs only 12 years later - as we speak, right now - with the same products on the same UCSF Hospitals. Nor must she have seen the still on-line, blistering about the illegalities, report on the same specs from the State Auditor (BSA), who was finally "allowed" to do so - in their Investigative Report of Sept. 17, 2003, Chapter 5 -still online. Nor did she apparently know that the investigator they hired to do that BSA report was the same roof consultant from Chicago that worked on the New Jersey State Commission of Investigation Report, "Waste and Abuse in School Roofing Projects" of Sept. 2000. And she also must not have known that her paper refused repeatedly from Oct. 22, 2000 for over 17 months to reprint the first national link of the roofing scam in schools - linking my case at UCSF with that of the New Jersey Report. The reporter involved, Steve Bennish, called Chuck Finney and Lance Williams - reporters at the SF Chronicle, repeatedly, over the story...and was totally confounded at their blowing-off of the story. There's a fact for you! Oh, what a great coverup of the facts, and the truth, San Francisco Chronicle. Thank you so much for proving that you do coverup, in writing, Friday! ________________________________________________________ Dear Chronicle: I find it disturbing when you put out an unresearched, wildly stated so-called "report" Friday - with no state or federal investigatory backup - that no kickbacks were involved in the illegal, sole-sourced non-compete "bid" specs in the poorest school district and San Franciscos' - with no reference to who said it, what investigation they held - and then gave excuses for two districts' illegal roofing specs. No allegations about those two districts' widely-known involvement were made - so why the preemptive defense? You undermined the public trust in your "newspaper", your own reputation, and tried to undermine potential investigations of what apparently someone you are apparently working for fears the most - investigations of those two specific districts. Not one media outlet anywhere across the US who has done stories on the massive school roofing scam would ever believe you now, because they do their research. Garland has no warranty, for instance, while you declare without investigation in your "hit piece" Friday that the reason it's OK Richmond has this kind of roof going down (again and long-term - which you also did not bring out) is because they had to "repair" an "existing roof" because of Garland's "warranty." Had you done your homework, you would have found the trade articles laying out the fact that Garland has a very tricky 5-year "renewable Maintenance Agreement" - not a real "Warranty". And you would have also found out that Garland regularly destroys real warrantied roofs allllll over California schools - starting with the largest High School District in the state to the poorest - by having purchasing agents by hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of their materials every year for no good reason and then have their materials inserted into real, warrantied roofs. No one in the roofing industry locally finds it even believable that the man whose door they have been trying to get through at the SFUSD for years "doesn't know why they are doing only Garland". But you didn't ask, did you? Which means only one thing: You are certainly working for someone - but not the public's best interest. Thank you for proving in writing what I have had to explain to confounded men and women in the media and the roofing industry nationwide for 10 years now - that you coverup...as did the "Justice" system here. There's a lot more that will come out.

Is 30% more to pay for roofs too much?

2010-07-07T15:51:00.000-07:00

Yes it is....and here is the link to the story: http://dailyitem.com/0100_news/x1385497648/Is-roof-price-30-too-high It is one of the four manufacturer's speaking, who showed up to the California Legislative Hearing June 30th, 2010 (linked to in the post below this one). The four manufacturers described in that hearing that common overruns on roofing costs were 50 to 100% - to the anger of legislators.....

Incredible News!!!!!!!!!!

2010-07-01T16:48:00.000-07:00

The California State Assembly held an over two-hour Hearing on the Roofing Scam in State and School Buildings, June 30th, 2010 at 9 am in the California State Capitol Building. It took 13 years to get it done - and only got done because of the wonderful Assemblyman Hector de la Torres from South Gate, CA (LA area). Google his name....you won't believe what he did there to overturn corruption! So here is one of the news stories on the hearings: http://cbs13.com/onthemoney/On.The.Money.2.1781953.html And you can see the hearing here: https://www.calchannel.com/channel/viewVideo/1571 The Legal Counsel for the State Auditor at the very beginning describes what they found in my case - and protesting Assemblymen defending the School Districts earlier in the hearing were then demanding to know why these people doing such were not in jail..... Then Firestone, GAF, Carlisle-Syntec and Malarkey Roofing spoke - specifically about the technical aspects of how the "Lock-Specs" are done, to the tune of 50-100% overruns above the lowest responsible bidders. At that point, California roofing contractors from a number of areas came forward and spoke about recent projects - and that about "70-80% of the jobs are closed specs." Independent Roofing Reps and Roof Consultants in California attested to the same.... Many came forward in the two-month exercise to do so after my initial contact with the Committee. We can't thank you enough! More to come!!!! FYI: I was able to download off a database and give the Committee at the end of May over 800 or more ongoing at that moment state and school district buildings with these "Lock-Specs". Many more federal jobs were seen and compiled. That did not include all the "Annualized Purchase Orders" such as the $200,000 per year Kern High School District's over 6-year annualized purchasing order scheme to Garland Roofing, with Commercial Roofing System Contractors doing all the work...the subsidiary arm to Garland. Kern High School District is the largest high school district in California, with 18 high schools, out of the Bakersfield, California area. Further, we hear another manufacturer has locked in a $500,000 roofing purchase order in a much smaller school district in Burlingame, California - right at the San Francisco International Airport area. The issues involved in California include: 1. Persons who are not licensed design professionals can be doing these bid specs in California by law - any local jurisdiction may overturn the licensing laws to do so. Licensing Laws mean nothing.

2. No teeth to or enforcement of Public Contract Codes.

3. Lack of information in the public view.

etc.

And yes, it was this blogger/architect that found the State Assemblyman and his Committee...late at night, while working....I noticed that a former Chairman of the San Francisco GOP, which I am on, was testifying as to his late night removal before the next day State Authority Board meeting in which the new persons on the board were going to sell off state buildings.... At the end of that hearing, Hector de la Torres - who had stood up to huge corruption in his hometown of South Gate, CA. - demanded that a state agency employee come back and explain "why some of these operations and maintenance budgets are so high on some of these state buildings!" and I said to myself, "Bingo!" Boy was it ever a "Bingo!" - this is a new Committee for the state - and a first for the exposure of such in the state! Many thanks to so many that came forward to help....and to the Committee Staff......there is a lot more to come.....

Mifflinburg, PA School Board uses the AEPA Roofing Manufacturer - and could be punished by the State

2010-05-09T23:15:00.000-07:00

In middle Pennsylvania, the fight against the decades-old roofing scam targeting schools has erupted again. This time, the State of Pennsylvania has a purchasing organization for the schools, the CSIU - using the AEPA "bid" process (for those not in the know, the AEPA had a restrictive proprietary spec - closed - so no real bid was had) - where:

it's head reputedly makes more than the Governor of Pennsylvania.
it buys (specifies de facto) roofing as if it was a an independent licensed architect or engineer.
Bids for the construction portion are held in major city papers, not local.

And this time, the reporter got it and so did others in State Government. Finally! Great Article! See the Daily Item, May 7, 2010 article by Diane Petryk, "State could punish district: State: Hiring roofer without fair bid carries punishment" reprinted with permission below. Those involved at the district level refuse to listen to the truly competitive products and contractors - now where have we all heard that before???? Over and over and over and oaver again, blatantly ignoring competitive bidding and licensing laws..... So let's hope that the State of Pennsylvania stops the scam of their hard-earned taxpayer dollars, and uses real, independent architects and engineers that "get it" - and have truly competitive bids! And get the CSIU and the AEPA out of the roofing business, for heaven's - and the kids' safety's - sake! ________________________________ Note that one of those commenting is involved in a fight against Tremco in bidding projects - the normal way of doing construction and roofing - in two previous reports on this blog, located here: http://schoolroofingscam.blogspot.com/2009/05/carlisle-vs-tremco-in-carlisles.html and http://schoolroofingscam.blogspot.com/2010/01/update-on-carlisle-syntec-vs-tremco-in.html ________________________________ The Article: at: http://dailyitem.com/0100_news/x1522095368/State-could-punish-district State could punish district » The Daily Item, Sunbury, PA

The Daily Item, Sunbury, PA

May 7, 2010

State could punish district

State: Hiring roofer without fair bid carries punishment

By Diane Petryk The Daily Item

---- — MIFFLINBURG — A state Department of Education spokeswoman said there could be consequences if the Mifflinburg School District employs a roofer without an open bidding process first. "Open," Leah Harris added, "at the time of the project." In February, the Mifflinburg school board went along with a CSIU-picked roofer that had bid for unspecified projects — back in 2008. Consequences for improper bidding, said Harris, in the DOE's Harrisburg office, include fines or disciplinary actions against reimbursed projects — whether the project involved is reimbursable or not. The chosen roofer, Tremco subsidiary Weatherproofing Technologies Inc., of Cleveland, passed a generic bidding-to-qualify process conducted by the Association of Education Purchasing Agencies, a multi-state bidding program. The Central Susquehanna Intermediate Unit, based in Montandon, participates in the program. The Mifflinburg board decided on the one-stop shopping for 30,000 square feet of new roofing on its elementary school and roughly 7,000 square feet of repairs on two other school roof sections "because of the size of the job," school board President Jill Shambach said in a phone call in April. Shambach did not return phone calls Thursday. Charles Peterson Jr., CSIU's cooperative business services director, told the Mifflinburg board that Weatherproofing Technologies was picked from a pool of one. Valley roofer Max Bossert said that form of pre-job bidding for future work, especially with only one firm likely to be able to meet the specifications, circumvents the state's legally established fair-bidding practices.

Cost double what's needed

The process also results in a roof twice as expensive as need be, Bossert, a former Union County commissioner, asserts. Based on discussions at school board meetings, the work is expected to cost roughly $600,000, he said. That's about $16 a square foot, when the average price is about $8 a square foot. Bossert's company, Boss Insulation & Roofing Inc., in West Milton, completed the high school roof for slightly less than $8 a square foot last year, he said. Engineer Jim Hague, a roofing specialist with Foreman Architects Engineers of University Park, said that without the involvement of an independent architect or engineer, it is difficult to assess what roofing needs really are. The bidding specifications, bid responses and contract for the Mifflinburg roofing work have not been made public, despite The Daily Item's requests for them, initiated April 21, under the Freedom of Information Act. The CSIU has requested 30 days to respond. Bossert said he requested the specifications for bidding from the school district and was told there were none.

Ads in big-city papers only

The CSIU figured the price by square foot and previous Tremco information. The 2008 call for bids was advertised only in large-city newspapers outside the local area, Peterson said. Mifflinburg school board members Tom Hosterman and John Bohn voted in March to rescind the contract decision and open the job up to fair bidding practices, but they were defeated, 7-2. Hosterman said in an April interview that information presented was confusing and there were questions unanswered. Prices bid years ago can't be reflecting the current market, Bohn said. "I'm not sure this is the best we could do," Bohn said. Shambach, the school board president, said CSIU's brokering the deal was attractive "because they provide service from start to finish." CSIU also gets a 1.5 percent fee for their assistance. The turn-key service Shambach likes means Tremco will arrange its own architectural service and inspections, but that's problematical, too. The state Department of Education rejected a Tremco contract at Riverside High School in Beaver County in 2008, stating that architectural services for a project must be obtained by the district, not through Tremco or a purchasing agency like the CSIU. CSIU's attorney confirmed that five years ago.

Law: Districts must comply

In a 2005 letter to then-CSIU purchasing services manager Jeffrey Kimball, CSIU's attorney, Ellen Enters, of Fox & Rothschild, in Lansdale, said: "Pennsylvania public school districts must continue to independently comply with section 751.1 of the Public School Code … regarding engagement of an architect. ... (They) should not utilize the services of the successful vendors architect or engineer ... (but rather) engage its own independent architect or engineer." Hague, the University Park roofing specialist, said his firm's experience is that school districts are paying a premium to employ that purchasing agent service, even as it violates bidding ethics and education department requirements. It's practicing engineering and architecture without a license, he said, Riverside High School's board voted to rescind its Tremco contract in April 2008 after a special meeting called by a board minority. Two members of Riverside's board told the Ellwood City Ledger that they would have voted differently in the first go-round if they had known about pending lawsuits against Tremco or been presented with a cost comparison with other roofing contractors.

Roofer: No talks with chief

Bossert said he has been trying to get that information to Mifflinburg school board members, but they cut short his time to comment in open meetings. He met with the district's new superintendent, Daniel Lichtel, on Monday. "Lichtel told me to take the papers away and leave," he said. "He said he already knew it all." Lichtel refused to comment Thursday on any aspect of this story. A spokesman for Pennsylvania roofing manufacturer Carlisle, said the CSIU call for bids leads to just one manufacturer. If a $1 million performance bond is standard, they'll ask for $50 million. "A local contractor can't provide that," said Mike Ducharme, Carlisle's director of product marketing. Bossert said they'll ask for capability with items a roofing specialist usually does not provide, like concrete work. "It's complex games they play," Ducharme said. "They're only successful in public works. You rarely see Tremco used on warehouses or retail facilities. They've carved out their niche" where public money is spent. "Considering the financial state of most school districts these days," he added, "it's amazing they're so ready to spend 100 percent more than the going rate for projects and not willing to even have a dialog on it." Carlisle sued the Cumberland Valley School District for not following standard state bidding requirements to make a point, Ducharme said. The district contends the contracting was legally bid through the CSIU, according to a report in The Patriot-News. This is roofing, Ducharme said, but similar bidding goes on with athletic field turf, stadiums, and bus fleets through purchasing agents like the CSIU or Association of Educational Purchasing Agencies. "It's just mind-boggling the amount of money they channel," Ducharme said. There isn't a major roofing manufacturer — Carlisle or Firestone or Johns Mandville or GAF — that's afraid of the competitive bidding process, he said. "We're all comfortable taking our shot at work in an open and transparent process," he said.

E-mail comments to dianepetryk@dailyitem.com

The Backstory

2010-05-07T22:03:00.000-07:00

For the Backstory to how I caught on to the scams, and what has ensued since, see: http://thebackstoryschoolroofingscam.blogspot.com/2010/05/backstory.html

Who's Responsible for the Scam?

2010-02-23T10:42:00.000-08:00

You hear this party and that is responsible for the scam. Let's go over reality. Who needs to make extra money by purporting the scam? Manufacturers Who colludes to do so? Contractors Who forces the specs in bidding? Government Officials Who forces certain products are bought - through "purchasing" mechanisms? Government Officials, bosses in government jobs who are not licensed architects and engineer acting independently of influence. Who is supposed to independently make recommendations and independently write the specs for roofing? Licensed architects and engineers Why? These are fire-rated products involved on structures larger than two dwellings on one lot - which require that a licensed architect or engineer independently design and specify such, devoid of any influence. Are Building Permits required? Yes. Which helps enforce licensing laws, and that codes are met....and public safety is retained. You would think that would be important especially when dealing with schools. Where do we see such building permits and total skirting of licensing laws taking place? AEPA purchased materials from Tremco or "annual purchase contracts" broken up with smaller construction contracts from Garland. Also, with bidding specs forced by:

School Board Members
School District Managers
In-house Design Engineers
Facilities/Administrative Staff
City Council Members
and more.

You see it in

Colleges
Universities
Department of Educations
Maintenance Departments
City Councils
City Administrative Staff
and more.

The architects are hit up with the demand mid-contract and told the architect has to do it or else, that the government officials "have the right" to demand such, and with nowhere to go, what can the architect do - for those who blame them? Where do they go, to not destroy their firms and reputations? For those who don't know the whole story, or are obfuscating reality, get into reality. The scam has to be stopped at the source. And it's not the architects and engineers who can do anything about it - they have no power. They are just tools beaten up to be used by crooks, it appears. Why are government officials forcing the specs, beyond ignorance? There are various ways, but we keep hearing that $30,000 to $40,000 minimum out of a $300,000 contract is siphoned off through not applying all of the asphalt between the layers, for instance. This is with already way-overpriced materials. The contractor hands back $ to the reps, then the reps or others involved with their companies "spread the wealth around". Got it? What happens to the buildings and the public's safety? Badly compromised. Leaks are occurring at even three years now, according to some reports. On steel decks, in snow country. Got the picture? For those who refuse to understand what really happens in these scams, what remedies does an architect have? NONE that is good.

One was suicide, for one of my colleagues.
Another is the FBI - but hey, the architect is not in on the payoffs, so the FBI can't help.
Another are State Auditors - who have no teeth to reports. Nothing gets done in response.
Another are State Attorney Generals - who in my case, were involved in the Roofer's Union and union guys called to warn me off him.
Another are Qui Tam lawyers - who find it too difficult to prosecute.
Another are Legislators. If Democrats, you will be shut down.
If you pursue any kind of legal remedies, your life will be threatened - and by politicians.
If you continue to ask for investigations and continue your legal remedies, those politicians will see to it that you are blackballed - not to mention your former employer caught on tape by professionals doing so.
If you go to the Press, they take 2 years to "vet" the story, or as happens in San Francisco, that same threatening Mayor, yes, now former Mayor, "owns" one newspaper's reporters/news room and their reports, while one of the major TV Stations demands all kinds of extraneous and absurd information to report the basic and massive overcharges - thereby facilitating the massive local school roofing scams for years (ABC TV - reported to them more than once over 9 years now). All while self-righteously reporting how school kids are hurt in their education with the lack of "enough" school funding.
Oh, and lest I forget: if you complain about your employers' dastardly deeds through channels that may or may not be published in your job (they were not in mine, and complaints separated against previous rulings by the California Supreme Court) - as even non-professionals in facilities environments are discovering - the ball will be moved around so that you may not complain and make your point. My case is a classic example, the University of California having themselves declared a fourth branch of government that does not have to obey any laws - against their own Charter. That's right, administrators with noses in the air, declaring themselves "gods" with our money. Why else was my case read into the Los Alamos Hearings into the US Congressional record in March 2003 as a "prime example of the lack of accountability of the University of California"? A whole self-appointed "ruling class "devouring the rest of us, eh? Sure acts like it.....

Got the picture? Architects have no power under corrupt schemes that involve so many - and so many passing the buck who should be doing something. Worse, they can't even alert their colleagues to the scams without huge repercussions - a specific set of steps has to be followed, for legal reasons. Ask yourself, for those who don't get it: Where can the architect, engineer or the taxpayer go, to stop the forcing of "Lock-Specs", with so many parties involved?

Perversion of Justice by Judge William J. Groff, Supervisory Justice of the Hillsborough County Superior Court - Southern District, New Hampshire

2010-01-26T12:38:00.000-08:00

NEWS FLASH A Justice in New Hampshire deems that death threats caught on tape are not admissable in court because the subject of the harassment by local officials is not dead yet. In other words, the roofing manufacturer/contractor who reported Garland's activities to local authorities has to be Exhibit "A" - dead - in order to prove that the taped death threats are real. Imagine! UPDATE....February 21, 2010..... Three Justices involved in the case have resigned in the past month, young and early - one of them stating, "mixed feelings in the sense that I truly enjoyed serving as a judge". Those retiring early? Justices Kathleen McGuire, Justice Philip Mangones, and Justice James Barry, Jr. You can see the Press Releases from the Court here: http://www.courts.state.nh.us/press/McGuire.htm and http://www.courts.state.nh.us/press/barry-mangones-retirements.htm Coincidence? On February 18, 2010, every single one of Gerard Beloin's motions to continue in all of his cases and the expedited scheduling of all of his pending motions to dismiss filed since December 10, 2009 was made by the Court. ______________________________________________________________ The story: I guess the New Hampshire authorities will go to any length to protect their own - as (Freemason) Mayor Willie Brown of San Francisco and the others involved on the California Supreme Court level, and at the University of California, did in my case. Wow! It's not too hard to guess why this Judge is not interested in hearing the truth. He knows it, he's covering up. Bottom line. And we all know why now. Not too hard to guess....bad men helping each other, using whatever affiliations and connections they can, screwing the you know what out of the taxpayers in the process. Like we are their owned slaves - put up or shut up. Oh, I forgot, is this Russia or the USA? Somebody please tell me! Here's the latest note from the manufacturer - and it's chilling: Dear All,

I want all of you to listen to my latest release. It is of Judge William J. Groff, Supervisory Justice of the Hillsborough County Superior Court - Southern District, telling me that my allegations have no merit because I am still alive!!! Imagine that!! Following are the transcripts. Keep in mind that he is the SUPERVISORY Justice. He is the one that sets the tone for all of the other lesser judges.

2009-06-22 - TRANSCRIPTS OF HEARING ON MOTION TO REDUCE BAIL

HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT - SOUTHERN DISTRICT

JUSTICE WILLIAM J. GROFF PRESIDING

DOCKET # 09-S-0851-0852-0853

GB: Gerard Beloin

JWG: Justice William Groff

GB: What do you do your Honor. What do you do your honor when ah, it's members of organized crime, that's what the recordings are all about, and they even say so. If you want, if you want to humor just for a few seconds. (to play the recordings)

JWG: I don't want to humor you.

GB: Alright. Well. That's what they are saying. They are saying that they are going to send the Italians up through NJ to get rid of people like me. That's what they are saying. And they are bragging about how they killed my partner, Dr. Hieber, who is dead. They go into detail as to how they killed him. They go precisely what kind of poisons they used to kill him. And he died "unexpectedly and mysteriously". And now they are saying that they are going to do the same thing to me. So..........

JWG: If these people they are all powerful They could have done it to you whether you were in prison or not in prison. Whether you were in jail or not in jail. Wherever you are they would have had you signed, sealed and delivered by now.

GB: So what you are saying your Honor that unless I bring my dead body in as EXHIBIT A that you're not going to believe me??? I'm not willing to comply with that.

So What's Wrong with the AEPA "Model"?

2010-01-10T23:18:00.000-08:00

Hmmmmmm.....So what's wrong with the AEPA "Model"? A lot - everything, in fact. Basically, those who specify and design anything with regard to buildings over a certain size - usually two residential units - have to be INDEPENDENT licensed architects and/or engineers. And the architects and engineers are not allowed to "stamp off on", "review" or "approve" others' specifications. The work has to be done under the direction of the architect and engineer. Period, end of story. Why are these laws in place, and how do they affect those who are encouraged by manufacturers to overstep their bounds to buy those products? These laws are in place to help ensure the safety of the public. Safety of the wise use of the public's money and the public's physical safety. It's absolutely no laughing matter. Imagine, for instance, the following (and it's all too often happening): A manufacturer "convinces" a School Board or a Purchasing Agency that it's OK to sole-source their product. The product is applied: 1. Without anyone checking the tests listed, to see if they really meet what they say they do; 2. Without anyone checking to see if the roof replacement is needed in the first place (independent testing); 3. Without anyone (independent) checking to see if it is applied properly; 4. Without building permits; 5. Without a full set of drawings that allows for independent and fair bidding; 6. Without a warranty collection and enforcement system in place; and 7. Without any knowledge of standard roofing bidding, contracting, application and warranty terms. So what happens next? We have repeatedly heard of roofs failing when Conflicts of Interest are involved, within 6-8 years, and some now within 3 years. Worse, the affect on the structures below are not generally addressed - metals and wood are particularly affected, concrete more longer term, but still affected. Under torrential rains, hail, snow and ice, such roofs become deadly quickly. Overall costs are outrageous. Only certain contractors will get all the work. Costs are higher from the monopoly created and collusion. So it means, clearly, that only independent, licensed architects and engineers should design and make materials specifications for buildings, and no one else should influence those decisions, including but not limited to: 1. Purchasing Agents 2. Facilities Managers, Architects and Engineers 3. School Board Members 4. City Council Members 5. Manufacturers 6. Etc. Why not allow unlicensed persons acting as architects and engineers to be involved, possibly with Conflicts of Interest involved? It allows for graft and corruption, and it allows for the untrained to put the safety of the public at risk. ____________________________________________ Outlined in the article below are some of the points. The first five points are taken from the article in the previous post, reposted at the end of this post - which we find not comprehensive enough. 1. "Open bidding laws exist to provide fairness and transparency and are designed to prevent the loss of fair competition." Note: In California, Conflicts of Interest have been used to destroy the standards that have worked for many years in most states and federal work. For example, in 2003, the Asphalt Lobby through a group of road paving contractors and Pacific Gas & Electric, as well as suppliers of peripheral roadway equipment, had the California Public Contract Code changed to read that design professionals did not have to list any equals in product listings, or even one product, unless they "happened" to know of one! The law should have read to list three products and the words "or equal." 2. "The school districts have no insight into the actual bidding process conducted by the AEPA." Note: The AEPA involved itself in Conflicts of Interest Schemes by the "winning" "bidder" - Tremco - by having one of their personnel "picking" the "winning" "bidder." They go on to say: "For example, AEPA's process requires any roof service to be bid on a per-square-foot-basis, which consistently produces significantly higher estimates than the standard process of an independent contractor who would estimate labor and materials using a more practical application." Note: What in the world are Purchasing Agents doing taking over bidding processes for fire-rated materials in public construction projects out of the hands of licensed architects and engineers? They aren't licensed for the health, safety welfare of the public and have no licensed fiduciary duties to the public! 3. "This model uses [restrictive] proprietary specifications, favoring one manufacturer [Tremco], which most states prohibit. The AEPA Model selects one vendor and precludes others for a three-year peiod." Note: Again, this whole issue would be a moot point if the licensing laws were followed, and purchasing agents and others stopped practicing architecture and engineering without a license. Not all roofing products are equal or applicable to all conditions. 4. "AEPA solicits bids for blanket pricing with no regard for geograhic wage scale variatios. It is only reasonable to conclude that the highest pay-scales are factored in regardless of regional cost of living." Note: Again, this whole issue would be a moot point if the licensing laws were followed, and purchasing agents and others stopped practicing architecture and engineering without a license. 5. "Most state bidding laws require licensed architect review and approve school construction specifications." Wrong! A-b-s-o-l-u-t-e-l-y N-o-t! This point is critical! Architects and Engineers are NEVER allowed to "Review and Approve" other's work or recommendations without them being under contract with the Architect and Engineer and under the direction of the Architect or Engineer. That is, the School Board, the City Council, the Facilities Engineer or Manager, etc. may not make any demands of the architect or engineer. They are not independent, without Conflict of Interest issues - whether or not they are licensed architects or engineers. The basic problem with the AEPA Model? CONFLICTS OF INTEREST allowed through the unlicensed, independent practice of architecture and engineering by purchasing agents. It seemed to have been developed by Tremco after it got too hot here in California getting the School Board, the City Council, the Facilities Engineer or Manager to force architects who wanted work to "specify" their "favorite" "manufacturer." To Define again - What is the "AEPA Model"? Run to the Purchasing Agents to circumvent the normal processes, set up to stop Conflicts of Interest that endanger public safety - whether financial or physical. So if Tremco nailed down this end-run-around safety procedures to steal work and the taxpayer dollar, in a never-ending desperate pattern of selling products at exorbitantly high prices with low replacement times, what did the other mimicking manufacturers do? The same thing. "Copycatting"... direct with Purchasing Agents. Just wait for the next post - you are not going to believe it - unless you are in the industry and have seen this over and over and over for many years, without anyone doing anything about it. __________________________________________________________ If you as a School District or School Board Member, City Council Member, Architect or Engineer is involved with such specifications, know that you are literally playing with fire. And the fire should be under you. __________________________________________________________ Here is a copy of that article outlining some of the issues:

Update on Carlisle-Syntec vs. Tremco - in Carlisle, PA

2010-01-10T20:38:00.000-08:00

So what's happened in the previously-reported Carlisle-Syntec vs. Tremco saga - in Carlisle, PA? Located here: http://schoolroofingscam.blogspot.com/2009/05/carlisle-vs-tremco-in-carlisles.html A lot. Mr. Nick Shears, Vice President, Sales and Marketing for Carlisle Construction Materials, wrote a letter to Mr. Jack Wagner, Pennsylvania's Auditor General, in response to Mr. Wagner's "As I See It" column in "The Patriot News" entitled "Competition lacking in state contracts". Mr. Wagner, the Pennsylvania Auditor General, had stated: "Innovation is the growth engine of capitalism, and it's why the United States has one of the highest standards of living in the world." then: "Innovation, in turn, leads to new jobs and new industries." "Innovation and competition also lead to lower prices." "Competition is the American way." "A competitive and open bidding process must ensure that all interested companies are afforded the opportunity to bid for state contracts." and finally: "Competition is good. It spurs innovation, creates more jobs and saves state taxpayer dollars." And this author's note: Competition adds more dollars back into the kitty for actually educating - and spurring on more innovation as a result. Mr. Wagner has "got it". If competition is "perverted" in any way, the entities and those who help them do so have helped to destroy our present and our future. And right now, that is dear - in this economy. So to those who play with "Lock-specs" - you are destroying capitalism - and all our futures. Editorial is reprinted below and at: http://schoolroofingscam.blogspot.com/2009/05/carlisle-vs-tremco-in-carlisles.html (A recent Wall Street Journal article showing extreme cuts in education - and our futures as a result - is also shown below.) Mr. Shears, the Carlisle Construction Materials Vice President, Sales and Marketing, responded to Mr. Jack Wagner's Op-Ed as follows, in part - emphasis this author's (see his letter reprinted below): "I was greatly interested in your article because the Association of Educational Purchasing Agents (AEPA) operates a purchasing program for the selection and sale of roofing materials that circumvents established state procurement codes and awards all roofing contracts to one, predetermined manufacturer." [Note: Only licensed architects and engineers should be specifying fire-rated materials and any materials in public buildings - not purchasing agents.] He continues by saying that: "The AEPA operates in 23 states, including Pennsylvania. It was originally intended to improve school districts' purchasing power and lower pricing on commodity products such as toilet paper and cleaning supplies. It has since grown to include larger ticket items such as computer networks, athletic equipment and facilities as well as roofing products. The non-competitive AEPA model leads to higher prices on products, which sell in the open market for far less every day. ....Unfortunately, taxpayers bear the burden of these costs through incremental and repetitive tax increases; and because there is no accountability at the school board or decision-making level, the problem continues. It is especially bad in Pennsylvania, where school districts spent $30 million on roofing products through the AEPA in 2008, the highest amount in the country. The AEPA program is extremely secretive, so it is difficult to estimate how much of the $30 million could have been saved if the projects were openly and competitively bid." And then Mr. Shears goes on to explain by a horrific example, and one we see all the time. In Carlisle, the local school board decided to buy Tremco products for their roofs (not hiring a licensed architect and engineer to make proper recommendations for competitive products, as required by licensing laws and building codes). The Tremco rep convinced them that instead of making any repairs necessary under their present warranty, they should replace the roof -for $600,000. However, for a ten-year warranty, the cost by the existing manufacturer were $60,000, which the manufacturer of those products were forced to make strenuous objections to the replacement in order to keep the School Board from spending the extra $540,000. On two other roofs in the School District, the huge expenditures were inexplicably made. Mr. Shears concluded, in part: "I am urging you [the Pennsylvania Auditor General, Mr. Jack Wagner] to look more closely at the AEPA purchasing program. Not only does it result in higher prices and taxes, but it also stifles the economic growth of companies like Carlisle Syntec that adhere to state bidding requirements and seek to provide its customers with proven products at fair market prices." [Note: We are aware that Tremco had an employee on the AEPA that ensured their selection as the "roofing product" to purchase.] Good for Carlisle Syntec! For more information on what happened, and more clearly defined issues with the AEPA "Model", please see this article - "Taxpayers Angered Over School District's Failure to Competitively Bid Roofing Projects", located directly below: Mr. Jack Wagner, Pennsylvania Auditor General's, Op-Ed piece: Mr. Nick Shears, Vice President, Sales and Marketing, Carlisle Construction Materials, response to Mr. Jack Wagner's Op-Ed piece: Wall Street Journal article on School activity funding decreases from Oct. 28, 2009: Link is http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703574604574499283752291324.html For Further Reading, please see: Midwest Roofing Contractor's Association (MRCA) Article of , entitled "Carlisle SynTec employees sue CV over roofing contracts ", at: http://www.mrca.org/i4a/headlines/headlinedetails.cfm?id=1008 and in The Sentinel Online, June 19, 2009, entitled "Carlisle SynTec employees sue CV over roofing contracts", at: http://www.cumberlink.com/articles/2009/06/20/news/local/doc4a3c2c6722332841382376.txt

Well, well, well.....a UC Administrator in Design and Construction caught demanding a bribe.....

2009-10-25T00:06:00.000-07:00

Why does this not surprise me? Or you? For those who don't know, "UC" in California is shorthand for the "University of California" (Riverside campus in this case - they have 10 campuses). And as some of you know, I caught on to the roofing and other scams at UC (San Francisco). Here's the story:

UC Riverside official is indicted in bribery case

January 25, 2007

A UC Riverside administrator was indicted Wednesday on federal charges of soliciting and receiving several bribes from the contractor in charge of constructing the university's psychology building.

Theodore Chiu, 53, an associate director of the Office of Design and Construction, solicited a $50,000 bribe from Irvine contractor FTR International Inc. on Oct. 31, according to the U.S. attorney's office in Los Angeles.

From: http://articles.latimes.com/2007/jan/25/local/me-iebriefs25.2

And some ask, why do you say you are not surprised - just that the guy got caught? I worked in an over 800 employees Facilities Dept. at UCSF. A retired Contracts Manager told me in May, 2001 "Janet, EVERYBODY was involved!" with regards to kickbacks - and laughing at me and describing who got what....just a tiny portion of it. She had lied to FBI Agents in the summer of 1997 - causing unutterable hell for myself and others. Or the head of the Building Managers at UCSF telling me they were getting "payola" - twice - in December 1996, and that was why I was not being allowed to do normal contract specifications (three or equal products listed.) Which sent me to the FBI - with doctors on campus urging me to do so..... Or maybe why a certain manager at my job showing up with a 4-door Mercedes Sedan fully loaded after a new fire alarm system went into the hospitals on campus....with many a gawker at the window looking down into the parking lot asking him if it was his. When I walked up, I asked him the same, said it was nice, and he looked upset that I had noticed.....and I never saw the car again.....draw your own conclusions. Or maybe why the HVAC subcontractor, John Karamanos with HVAC Sales out of San Jose, CA in theSF Weekly article with myself, was able to prove that UC Davis and UC San Francisco guys were receiving gratuities - including golfing gratuities - for the sole-sourcing of overpriced bundling of mechanical equipment in specs. In fact, John Karamanos has sued Norman S. Wright (Chinese-owned) sub out of Brisbane (San Francisco County), CA, for over $100 million in overcharges in ten years for doing so in schools & hospitals & public work all over the San Francisco Bay Area. The part that is even worse than the expenditures was the illegal sole-sourcing of Phoenix Air Controls, which air valves were proved by a Texas manufacturer/mechanical engineer, Swiki Anderson, to be leaking 30% - and installed in hospitals in the San Francisco Bay Area (and all over the US). Wonder how that affects infection & death rates from infections in hospitals? We were told that the Phoenix Air Control Valves(tested leaking 30%) were being charged out at $10,000 apiece, while the better products (100% effective), were $1,000 apiece. Got the picture? It's not uncommon to see a head of a dept., the intermediate manager and the design engineer or architect involved....just look around you - and never trust.