See it here: http://www.lakeelmoleader.com/articles/index.cfm?id=9531§ion=opinion
This scam of the taxpayer dollar has earned a place on our "Wall of Shame", here:
http://schoolroofingscam.blogspot.com/2008/03/wall-of-shame_24.html
What caused the request?
- Huge overcharges due to [restrictive] proprietary roofing specifications, as stated:
"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."
- Improperly produced "Bid" Documents, as follows:
"1. Lack of review and comment by the Minnesota Department of Education.
2. Lack of a Certification Signature within the bidding specifications.
3. Proprietary specification that restricted the pool of contractors who produce high-quality 30-year, warranted roofs to that of a single manufacturer.
4. A warranty that does not meet the specifications in the bidding documents."
How many times, how many ways, do we see this across the country and probably well beyond?
Taxpayers nailed for non-compete products that do not perform better.
And here's what the author of that letter said:
"Since May 15, 2008, when I was first aware of the fact that the Rutherford roof was still under warranty, I’ve been troubled by the additional costs to the taxpayer and the possibility of continued excessive costs on other roofs."
And he goes on to show how the next overly-costly roof is hidden by calling it an "Envelopes Improvement Contract", as follows (and we have seen this time and again...imprinted alllllll over the California Department of Education's [mis]labeling of Projects):
"But it is about to happen again unless the School Board, or Superintendent [Keith] Ryskoski take corrective action now, or there is legal intervention. Under Legal Publications, in the March 12, 2009 Gazette, three (3) Advertisement for Bids, appear in bold print with the details on the project and with BWBR Architects as a contact.
The fourth in the upper left corner, page 10 without any caption for Bids, a $1 million project described as “Building Envelope Improvements.” That is your Stillwater Area High School Roof – A Building Envelope Improvement Project. It is without Architect contact, contrary to all the other advertisements. It is the most costly project, but yet it is hidden by lack of bold title, by lack of description, and by lack of Architect Contact.
Last year’s March 6, and March 13, Stillwater Gazette listed two [roofing] contracts. One was fully described, had bold caption, and an Architect contact listed. The other, without labeling it as an Advertisement for Bid, and without an Architect contact included the Rutherford roof and two other lesser projects described as “Building Envelope Improvements.” An $895,000 budgeted contract, the larger of the two contracts. Obscure.
Why was this hidden like this? It obviously worked last year. Are we willing to let it happen again? Last year’s lesson if learned should save us at least $200,000 this year. This year we cannot claim that we were unwittingly drawn in. We know better. Let’s act."
Manufacturer involved?
Recognize the "30-year warranty"?
Garland.
Congratulations to Mr. Roland Buchman for his tough stand.
You have people in other states watching, and supporting you...I was contacted by them.
Your board will be put on the "Wall of Shame" on this blog for last year's contracts....and we suggest that the resulting maelstrom if you should encounter it is a direct result of personal interests involved in getting such contracts through.
Questions arise, such as why the Board approved such deceptive documents.
Who benefited from doing so?
Why the architect was not used should be taken up with the State Licensing Board, the Board passing it without a licensed architect or engineer actually doing all of the work and approving it by stamping it...along with complete details?
Don't stop pushing on any of the fronts! Your silence and fear is what is counted on to keep these scams in place!
