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

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

You can find their position here:

RCI Position Statement on Procurement:   

http://www.rci-online.org/downloads/Resources/PS-2012-06-RCI-procurement.pdf

RCI Supporting Document on Procurement:

http://www.rci-online.org/downloads/Resources/PS-2012-06-RCI-procurement-support-document.pdf

They are republished below, in downloadable form and text.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Congratulations!!!

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

________________________________________________

Text of the Position Statement:

RCI, Inc. Position Statement on Procurement 
(06-21-12-01)

The following Policy Statement was issued on June 2012.

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

Actual page:

________________________________________________

Text of the Supporting Document:

RCI, Inc. Position Statement on Procurement – 

Support Document

June 21, 2012

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Actual pages:

 
 ________________________________________________

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

How the Bid Process Should Work

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

 

How Manufacturers Control Bidding Processes

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

 

How Manufacturers Circumvent Bidding Through Purchasing Agencies

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

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

Real Need for Roof(s)?  Not known.

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

Proper Installation Done?  No one knows.

Click here for the post on the chart.
 

Long Beach Unified School District Paying Out the Nose for Roofing

Long Beach Unified School District in Long Beach, California is paying over $1,000 a square for roofing materials alone from Garland, in a series of 19 Purchase Orders going on now, and on only one High School.

The totals?

• $3,567,002.90 in roofing materials
• 3,451 squares of roofing
• $1,033.61 per square for the materials alone.  Double that for labor.

The Sales Commissions, at 25%?      $891,750.73

That's about $2,000 per square when all is said and done - anywhere from 4-10 times normal installed prices.


Here's what Long Beach USD should have been charged in their market had they competitively bid the roofs - for materials and labor :

10-year Warranted Roof:       $ 150 per square

15-Year Warranted Roof:      $ 225-$300 per square

30-Year Warranted Roof:      $ 450 per square


What Purchase Order System did Long Beach USD use?

U.S. Communities.

To quote the Long Beach USD Purchase Orders:
"The following materials shall be purchased from the US Communities Schedule Reference Sealed Bid # 09-5408 issued by the Cobb County Board of Commissioners."

Cobb County is in Northwest Atlanta, not far from Garland's supplier of Metal Roofing materials, IMETCO, in Tucker, Georgia - Northeast Atlanta. 

Garland, you are getting non-licensed, political boards to illegally specify fire-rated roofing products over the heads of our children, with no thought as to their safety, all the while pricing the products at enormous, bloated overruns, gouging where it hurts. 

How many teachers have lost their jobs due to "lack of funds", while Rome is burning at your hands, so to speak?

I think we all know why you do it, and how, too.  Just look at the sales commissions at 25% of this 3.5 million dollar sale.

What so-called "qualifications" were used in that "bid" with the Cobb County Board of Commissioners?  More of the infamously "funny" test listings, perhaps?

See the list of Purchase Orders here:

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

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

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

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 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!

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

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!"