2008 Projects Reported:
FEDERAL PROJECTS:
1. Through the GSA:
a. Tremco and Garland are listed, as are several others.
b. Tremco lists their Federal projects, as shown on this page from a 2001 document:
STATE PROJECTS:
KANSAS:
1. Providence Health Care (Hospital) Kansas City, KS
Derbigum was $150,000 low with DerbiBrite on bid.
Contract was awarded instead to Tremco, who was +$150,000,
because job came "within budget."
MINNESOTA:
1. Lake Elmo - Rutherford High School:
Restrictive Proprietary Specifications used, not done by a
licensed architect or engineer.
Contract was awarded to Garland .
2. Lake Elmo - Stillwater Area High School:
Restrictive Proprietary Specifications used, not done by a
licensed architect or engineer.
To quote a local Letter to the Editor, from Roland Buchman at:
http://www.lakeelmoleader.com/articles/index.cfm?id=9531§ion=opinion
"One of the problems cited in that letter could well appear within the re-roofing process for the Stillwater Area High School: Proprietary Bidding specifications. The budgeted cost for the first year of the six-year re-roofing project is $1 million dollars. The first years work covers 72,000 square feet that yields a building cost nearing $14 per square foot.
This is well above the “open market” costs of $10 to $11 a square foot associated with built-up, high-quality, 30-year, no-dollar limit warranted roofs.
Even a savings of $3 per square foot, gained by using the open market will save the district over $200,000 in the first year’s work.
That will be a major step in replenishing the $500,000 shifted by the school board, to the General fund in 2008."
OHIO:
1. Great Oaks Institute of Technology & Career, 3254 East Kemper Road, Schools, Cincinnati, Ohio - May, 2008.
In previous projects, competitive product specs were apparently produced for bid. However,
on this project, Garland has been dole-sourced, we hear.....
2. Monroe School District, Primary Schools, Ohio - April, 2008
UPDATE 05/28/08:
According to the Western Star, story dated 05/21/08:
"The district's board during a recent meeting tabled a decision to approve a resolution declaring an urgent necessity to authorize district treasurer Kelley Thorpe to enter into an agreement for the purchase and installation of roof renovations at the Primary School with Kelley & Carpenter for an amount not to exceed $202,867 Monroe Schools Superintendent Elizabeth Lolli said instead of Garland Roofing Company running the bid process and working with specific contractors approved to use its materials to repair the roof, the board also would like to see a comparative bid process from people using different materials to determine if the district is getting the best deal."The board wants to make sure that we have the very best pricing and the very best materials and the very best warranty since we're going to be investing at least $250,000 in this roof," she said.
Plans call for Quandel Construction, the district's facilities consultant, to contact companies to seek bids for the project. Othercompanies also interested in bidding on the project may call Lolli at(513) 539-2536, and hit prompts 1 and 3."
We have to see if there really will be a competitive bid that happens, with architecturally prepared drawings, approved by the local building permit department.
_____________________________________________
Here's what has happened so far:
A reporter talks about a bid coming in through one manufacturer, Garland, for three contractors:
"Monroe Schools Superintendent Elizabeth Lolli told the district's Board of Education during its meeting Monday night, April 14, that Garland Roofing would bring back three of the lowest bids to the district next week so that the board can decide soon who to contract with to do the work."
If one knew anything about legal bidding processes, having one roofing manufacturer bring in three bids from roofing contractors' prices is and was called "bid rigging" and "collusion" in their Consent Order with Gil Garcetti's offices in the late 1990's (DA for Los Angeles). That Consent Decree will be put up on our sister site, www.roofingscam.blogspot.com as time permits. As you can imagine, it's quite long.What happened? Garland's local rep in Los Angeles, a former Tremco rep, faxed in all three contractor's bids for a project from his fax number....
Worse, one manufacturer's involvement as being the only product specified is illegal - you have to list three products "or equal" in specifications in order to have a competitve bid.
Competitive Bidding is NOT about competing roof contractors bidding one product, it's about listing THREE truly equal Products. And we aren't talking about the three widely-known manufacturers hard-marketing products being listed (many of their products are relabeled from reputable manufacturers, not manufactured by the three, and at 6-8 times normal prices).
Got the Point?
See the article written here:
http://www.western-star.com/n/content/oh/story/news/local/2008/04/16/mon041708primaryroof.html
3. University of Cincinnati - CAS Science Buiding Roof Replacement
UPDATE 06/19/08:
According to Plan Room Documents:
Manufacturer sole-sourced: Tremco, Inc.Product sole-sourced: Cold-Process Built-Up Roofing
(Section 2.1 Manufacturers A.1.a.)
Product sole-sourced: Fascia - Tremco Tremlock Fascia or
"Owner approved equal providing they are covered by the 20 year
roof system manufacturer watertight warranty:" How restrictive is that?
Restrictive Spec Sections (sample):
Section 1.11 A. Warranty: Required to have semi-annual "service visits". Usual warranties do not require semi-annual "service visits" in order to maintain the warranty. You can liken it to the extra "service" warranty appliance salesmen try to sell you. If the product is good in the first place,why do you need semi-annual "service visits"? And at what cost?
Most owners know to call the original roofing contractor if there is tear-off needed for a new duct, for instance, or other issue going on. Worse, the actual Warranty form inserted into the bid spec - unusually so - has interminable blanks in it, without the 20-year time limit shown.
Conflict of Interest portion of specs:
Section 1.7 C Assurance/Control Submittals 1. Certificates -
Manufacturer to certify their components "...as a system meet or exceed specified standards an complies with referenced standards." No mention is made of independent labs not involved(former employees/executives involved) in their certifications.
Section 1.7 C. Assurance/Control Submittals 2.a. Manufacturer supplies their own field inspection, but there is no mention of the Owner supplying their own .
Normal competitive bid specs written by Owners, not Manufacturers, would state that the Owner's own Independent Registered Roof Observers should be making observations, to which the manufacturer would need to make corrections. In SBS modified bitumen roofing, this would include core tests to ascertain that the asphalt was not shorted nor was the asphalt provided to the roofing contractor in a mix that did not meet their own specifications.
Pre Bid Meeting held June 18, 2008
Wonder how much the public is getting hit up over and above normal roofing systems and warranties for this roof? Anybody know?
Anyone know what the competitive bidding laws in Ohio are - and what your State Auditors enforce as competitive? Or has all that been "gotten to" as well?
Please send in your information! Let's get a real "Wall of Remembrance" going here! the larger the list, the better!
Email to: roofreports@gmail.com
(No one will be identified who doesn't want to be!)
