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

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 over 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

Who's Responsible for the Scam?

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

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 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.  

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.

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

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. 

All these Lock-Specs do is ensure bond financiers and Wall Street Financiers of continuing to siphon off profits built on quick-sand.  Such as Goldman Sachs et. al.

Do we want to be financing a lot of nothing for a lot of fatcats who don't know how to work, destroying families and careers of those who have ethics and care about their neighbors and their kids' futures - you know, those who keep demonstrating how little they could care about any of us?

Companies like Tremco and Garland service the monopolists at all our expense.

They have made war on us.

And I am not a leftist at all, saying this - far from it.

I see reality - and the rest of us need to as well, because we have been done in by these massive thieves.....

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

e 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 hav he 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

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

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"? 

A Manufacturer running 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:

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

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 and  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.

Out-RAGE-ous Pricing!

In the San Ramon Valley Schools, Contra Costa County, San Francisco Bay Area, California

At a time when educational budgets - and government budgets - are collapsing all over the US, and with one town in the county in question declaring bankruptcy, the smile-in-your-face-while-we-steal-from-you-blind guys have reached a new high. 

Or should I say, low.

 Just take a look at the pricing given by a widely-known set of relatives working for Garland Roofing in the San Francisco Bay Area, to the local school district for San Ramon Valley Schools (east bay suburbs, east over the mountains from Fremont/Hayward area).

 The Garland Ply Sheets? 43 times the cost of the comparable Johns-Manville product (for example).  

 The Garland Cap Sheets? 21 times the cost of the comparable Johns-Manville product (for example). Click on the picture below to see the pricing. Now that you have seen it, you make your own conclusions.  

For a recap of the Johns Manville costs for the same BUR products (note that the J-M products are sometimes used in lieu of the Garland products on roofs in the SF Bay Area, without lowering the prices and giving the taxpayer the break on their dollar, as in the huge US Postal Service's Distribution Center, for one....):  

J-M Base Sheet: $ 27 for 3 squares  

J-M Ply Sheets: $ 35.63 for 5 squares  

J-M Cap Sheet: $ 21 for 1 square  

Pea Gravel: $10/bag, at 4 bags/1 square  

Trumbull Type 3 Asphalt: $35 for a 100 pound carton

 To recap the letter above, Garland's products compare as follows:  

Garland Ply Sheets: $314 for 1 square  
To compare, for 1 square of J-M, it is $35.63 for 5 squares, or $7.13 per square. Just think if the J-M product is installed instead - a profit of 4,304%.  

Garland Cap Sheet: $332 - that's right - for 3/4 square  
To compare, for 1 square, $442.67, which is 21 times the price of J-M at $21 per 1 square. Just think of that price for a J-M product installed instead - a profit of 2,000%.  

Question: How soon since the last roofing job is this one being redone?

Question: How soon will this roof "need" to be redone?

Question: Was an independent, Registered Roof Consultant and independent testing lab used to test the existing roof?  

Question: Will the Garland roof last 43 times as long as the J-M roof?

Question: Why the Engineering Services fee?  

And last question but not all: Did the Architect or Engineer receive errors and omissions indemnification for specifying Garland?