Garland Consent Decree in Bid Rigging Case

Los Angeles, California
1997

GARLAND 30-YEAR WARRANTY

Attached:
(See Article on the 30-year Warranty below this post)

MONTEREY COUNTY, CALIFORNIA, HERALD ARTICLE ON THE SCAM IN THEIR SCHOOLS, June 29, 2003

On June 29, 2003, the Monterey County Herald printed an extensive article entitled
"Repair Costs Hit the Roof"

In the article reprinted below, the reporter uncovered the fact that Garland had been sole-sourced in Monterey Peninsula Unified School district - some if not more of their 18 schools being reroofed in 2003.

Prices were at double that of other competitive suppliers with warranties that "work" rather than need "keeping up" at enormous costs.

Here is that article:

CALIFORNIA DEPT. OF GENERAL SERVICES' SAMPLE LIST OF THE INVOLVED MANUFACTURER'S WORK IN CALIFORNIA FROM 2000 - 2005:

A TOTAL OF 5 PROJECTS!

How many of you working in California saw only 5 such projects going on in schools and public works projects during 2000-2005???

ABSOLUTELY Preposterous!

So here's their list - and compare the Monterey Schools on pages 4-5 with the Monterey County Herald's article shown in the post above from June 29, 2003!

CALIFORNIA STATE ALLOCATION BOARD AND DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL SERVICE'S LETTERS,
Denying Involvement with the three manufacturers listed in the New Jersey Report, in California Schools:

At the request of the Governor's Offices, from the State Allocation Board, November, 2005:

From the Department of General Services, January, 2006:

From the Department of General Services, February, 2006:
(Note: I had asked for copies of the specifications that they had said that they had reviewed, in the two letters above, which would have been the roofing portions of each of the specifications for each of the school district projects in their list....and for the warranties.)

Taxpayers United for Fairness Press Release
November 21, 2005

Shown below is the TUFF Press Release as was received in December, 2005.

Affidavit of Janet C. Campbell for Diana Vice in Tremco vs. Diana Vice

March, 2008

New Hampshire Privacy Code - Paragraph V

Much like other states, the New Hampshire Privacy Code states that public and private entities in the course and scope of employment and supported by articulable suspicion, are not limited from the "attempt to capture any type of visual image, sound recording or other physical impression of a person during an investigation, surveillance, or monitoring of conduct to obtain evidence of suspected illegal activity...or any other suspected fraudulent conduct or activity involving a violation of law, or pattern of business activities adversely affecting the public health or safety."

Despite that code, Gerard Beloin in New Hampshire was civilly sued, prosecuted criminally and is now jailed for taping those threatening him.


Also, the New Hampshire Criminal Code allows for the use of non-deadly force if they or their property is in danger. See the following:
627:1, 627:4(I), 627:7, 627:8 of TITLE LXII CRIMINAL CODE CHAPTER 627

JUSTIFICATION
627:1 General Rule. – Conduct which is justifiable under this chapter constitutes a defense to
any offense. The fact that such conduct is justifiable shall constitute a complete defense to any
civil action based on such conduct.

627:4 (I) Physical Force in Defense of a Person. – A person is justified in using non-deadly force upon another person in order to defend himself or a third person from what he reasonably believes to be the imminent use of unlawful, non-deadly force by such other person, and he may use a degree of such force which he reasonably believes to be necessary for such purpose.

627:7 Use of Force in Defense of Premises. – A person in possession or control of premises or a person who is licensed or privileged to be thereon is justified in using non-deadly force upon
another when and to the extent that he reasonably believes it necessary to prevent or terminate the commission of a criminal trespass by such other in or upon such premises, but he may use deadly force under such circumstances only in defense of a person as prescribed in RSA 627:4 or when he reasonably believes it necessary to prevent an attempt by the trespasser to commit
arson.

627:8 Use of Force in Property Offenses. – A person is justified in using force upon another when and to the extent that he reasonably believes it necessary to prevent what is or reasonably appears to be an unlawful taking of his property, or criminal mischief, or to retake his property immediately following its taking; but he may use deadly force under such circumstances only in defense of a person as prescribed in RSA 627:4.

A MODEL FOR FIGHTING THE SCAM WITH YOUR SCHOOL BOARD, CITY COUNCIL AND FACILITIES PERSONNEL:

Here is the Power Point Presentation done by the School Board Member in Ellwood City, PA's Riverside School District so successfully (A Model to be reused for others - particularly those fighting Garland, Hickman and other companies who would use the same marketing tactics to corner the market!):

Riverside School District
Roofing Contract Concerns

Clever Marketing Tactics
We were presented the Avonworth School District’s roofing project as the most similar to our own. However Avonworth installed a build-up roof not the EPDM rubber membrane system we are looking into.
(Their price was still better $13.24 vs. $13.62 sf.)

Built-up vs. Rubber Roofs
Built-up Roof consists of:
Foam insulation
Cover Board
Multiple layers of an asphalt based waterproof material, the layers are bonded by heat or an adhesive

EPDM Rubber Roof consists of:
Foam insulation
A single layer of 60mm rubber membrane, it is attached to the insulation by an adhesive

Lack of Asbestos Testing
It was common for asbestos to be used in roofing materials during the time that the school was
constructed (late 1950’s)
This allowed roofing material manufacturers to assign a fire resistant rating to their products.
This may also explain why our existing EPDM rubber roof was installed over the original roof.
If asbestos is found after we have refinanced our bond, we would be forced to take out an additional bond to pay for the abatement.
That would result in a tax hike.

AEPA Process vs. Bidding
We were never presented actual bid prices for EPDM rubber roofs.
The bid prices presented to us (New Brighton) were for built-up roofs.

Comparison of Rubber Roofing Prices
All of the following prices are for EPDM rubber roof systems.
Each installation bid includes removal of an existing roof and a 15 or 20 year warranty.
Anywhere the bid varies will be noted.

All of this data is public record and was obtained through the Pittsburgh Builders Exchange (www.pbe.org)

Comparison of Rubber Roofing Prices
Riverside Quote
AEPA Pricing (WTI / Tremco)
145,900 sf.
$13.62 sf.
Date of Quote (3/2008)

Comparison of Rubber Roofing Prices
East Allegheny High School
Competitive bidding process
165,000 sf.
$8.23 sf.
Date of Bid (5/2007)

40% lower than our price

Comparison of Rubber Roofing Prices
Renovo Elementary School
Competitive bidding process
45,129 sf.
$7.57 sf.
Date of Bid (8/2007)

44.5% lower than our price

Comparison of Rubber Roofing Prices
Chartiers – Houston High School
Competitive bidding process
85,000 sf.
$11.75 sf.
Date of Bid (1/2008)
14% lower than our price

Price also includes 30,000 sf. of replacement decking
It should be noted Chartiers chose to go with a built-up roof, not the EPDM rubber bid referenced above.
That price was $13.25 sf. (still 3% lower than our price)

Comparison of Rubber Roofing Prices
North Clarion County High School
Competitive bidding process
78,000 sf.
$8.69 sf.
Date of Bid (2/2008)
36.2% lower than our price

This quote also includes removal of two roofing systems (existing rubber roof system and original built-up roof) and also includes proper handling of a material known to contain asbestos included in the cost

Comparison of Rubber Roofing Prices
Average Bid pricing ($9.06 sf.)
This average price does not break out the additional services and materials included in those bids.
(AEPA Quote) $13.62 sf. X 145,900 = $1,987,158
(Average Bid) $9.06 sf. X 145,900 = $1,321,854
A difference of $665,304

Additionally our AEPA quoted price does not include any decking replacement or any potential asbestos abatement costs. The total cost of this roof could quickly grow, yet we haven’t completed any testing.

Business Reputation
Although certain information was presented to a few
people that concerned litigation against Tremco.

That information was never presented to the entire
board and would definitely have influenced discussion
if not the vote to approve.

Business Reputation
The following is a quote from the National Roofing Contractors Association (www.nrca.net)
“ Tremco Roofing Company is being investigated by the attorney generals in several states citing allegations of price gouging, illegal bidding practices, and possibly other illegal and unethical activities regarding public sector construction practices.” (http://www.nrca.net/rp/technical/search/librarydetails.aspx?IDNumber=146277)

Tremco is a member of this organization.

Business Reputation
There are a large number of lawsuits both pending
and settled concerning business practices of Tremco.

Conclusion
We need to vote immediately to suspend signing
this contract until the proper research and investigation
has been completed.

We owe it to the taxpayers in our district to be prudent
with our decisions on how we spend their tax money.

Articles about the Ellwood City, PA School Board Rescinding their Vote to Approve Tremco for a new School Roof, March, 2008 and continuing articles:

http://www.zwire.com/site/index.cfm?newsid=19403875&BRD=2724&PAG=461&dept_id=563781&rfi=8

http://www.zwire.com/site/index.cfm?newsid=19419956&BRD=2724&PAG=461&dept_id=563781&rfi=8

http://www.zwire.com/site/index.cfm?newsid=19431938&BRD=2724&PAG=461&dept_id=563781&rfi=8

Through the Roof:

Are taxpayers getting their money's worth on public construction projects?

by Maureen Turner and published in The Valley Advocate

(Massachusetts)

December 12, 2002

located at:

http://old.valleyadvocate.com/articles/throughtheroof.html

"Examining the 30-Year Warranty"

by L. B. Morris and published in the Midwest Roofer January 10, 1997

"Letter to the Editor: Exclusionary Specifications Update"

by Janet Campbell, Architect, printed in the Midwest Roofer, 2003
(answer to the Editorial printed in the Midwest Roofer in 2001 by the President of Tremco regarding her whistleblowing case)

"Letters We Get Letters"

Letters by Donald D. Parrish, Richard A. Farnsworth (Tremco), Ray Johnson and L.B. Morris, printed in the Midwest Roofer, approximately 1998

"Help Wanted: A Level Playing Field For All"

by L.B. Morris, printed in the Midwest Roofer, approximately 1997

"Cloak and Dagger Roofing"

by John Stephenson, printed in the Midwest Roofer, 2001

"A Celebration of Free Speech"

by L.B. Morris, printed in the Midwest Roofer, approximately 1997

"MRCA and Industry Stand Behind T&R Committee Efforts"

by L.B. Morris, printed in the Midwest Roofer, approximately 1997

"No Sacred Cows Allowed - Just Straight Talk"

by L.B. Morris, printed in the Midwest Roofer, approximately 1997