Garland Roofing Business Model

Here are the Garland Training Documents - that show clearly their "Business Model":
See top of page 2:


"The strongest sale will always be Garland materials and performance specficiations and no "or equals".


And then they state:


"Public contracts can be very lucrative, but they require a very dedicated, sophisticated sale; one which anticipates the things that your competitors are going to do prior to the bid opening. If you are not willing to do all of these things, don't do business with schools."


And then they describe some of what we know they do......

Top of page 3:

'I suggest you start your presentation by selling "fear." '

Towards the bottom of page 3:

"I suggest you emphasize that you are recommending a solution that is not proprietary."

Then he tells the Garland sales reps:

1. How to mix up the manufacturers listed - to look "competitive";

2. How to demand that the substitution won't hurt the "system" (although known for substituting J-M plies for their own under their top cap sheet - and not returning the difference...);

3. How to "lock-spec" - by using extreme test listings, not verifiable to a school district guy that it might or might not be accurate...see the next posting to come up in the next couple of days....

But he doesn't tell his sales reps they private label from their competitors - who produce products that the sales reps have been known to decry as not competitive with their own products, and get "disallowed" by school district personnel in so-called "bids."

Here's some of the "restrictive proprietary performance specs" guidelines being taught to Garland sales reps, to "lock-spec" their product in public and school work.

They state that "under no circumstances, are loosely-laid or single-ply systems acceptable."

And they state that 'if you have to go "or equal" "depending upon the intestinal fortitude of the guy you are selling"' to, either "aim for a chance at getting the job - or eliminating as much of the competition as possible."'

Then he describes how you can lock in the Garland product...with specific lock-spec language, on this last page:
______________________________________________

So, Garland - would you like to explain to the public:

1. The conflicts of interest of a manufacturer having their reps certify without any independent, owner-supplied reps that the roofs were installed correctly.

2. Why you would call a true Maintenance Agreement a "Warranty".

3. How many of those Maintenance Agreements actually got paid for on time and actually got extended, with his public works projects.

4. How many times they redid roofs on all your jobs - you know, the true life of the roofs? Was it 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, or every 12 years?

5. Who private labels their products for you, and which ones? We all know there are only four major US roofing manufacturers. We believe that you have Carlisle private label some of your products, as does Johns Manville for Tremco.

6. When in a so-called "bid" situation when an equal is produced, how many times have you had disqualified products that are the same as yours, only yours are private-labeled?

7. When is the responsible San Francisco Bay Area Garland Rep going to give the Federal Government back all those overcharges for the Johns Manville plies used under their top cap sheet....and charged for as if they were Garland plies, about 3 times or more the price of the J-M plies? Let's see, why don't we start with the US Postal Distribution Service Center just south of the Cow Palace in San Francisco County....and how many schools shall we go pull cores on to find out what you did where?

8. How much did you pay architects to insert your specs into the project bid specs? $10,000 or more? Which architects, for which jobs?

9. How many architects and engineers specifying your products get your $50,000 indemnification for potential problems with the jobs? All of them? It certainly covers most of their deductibles on E&O Insurance Policies - giving them a financial incentive to specify you.

10. And are you aware how bogus it is to list "ASTM D5147" in the actual tests you list in your illegal, restrictive, proprietary specs?

It's a test method - not a test.

ASTM Roofing Committee Members informed me of this particular bogus spec practice - seen in San Francisco Unified School District Specs.
_____________________________________________

[Editor's Note: Read Garland's training documents above, and Tremco's training documents, here: http://schoolroofingscam.blogspot.com/2008/02/tremco-in-house-training-documents.html which show both "Business Models" - "Sales Models" - are more concerned about locking out competition -to get their admitted, higher-priced products in to schools.]

Tremco's "business model"predates Garlands', for those who don't know. Tremco executives left to take over a flooring company (Garland) in the early 1970's, to compete with that same business model with Tremco.....

_____________________________________________

W. P. Hickmans' Former CEO Prosecuted by the Federal Attorney General's Office for Mail Fraud and Filing False Income Tax Returns

It was announced in December, 2008 that the former President, CEO and Chairman of the Board of Directors of W. P. Hickman of Ohio, David D'Anza, was indicted for mail fraud and three counts of filing false income tax returns.

For accuracy, the report is reposted herein, along with the link.

Recent updates will be posted after this paragraph as they are announced.


From the US DOJ Website:
http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/ohn/news/03December2008.html

"News
Release

For Release: December 3, 2008
U.S. Department of Justice

United States Attorney
Northern District of Ohio

William J. Edwards
United States Attorney

John D. Sammon
Assistant U.S. Attorney
216-622-3829



William J. Edwards, United States Attorney for the Northern District of Ohio, announced today that federal Grand Jury in Cleveland, Ohio returned an indictment charging David N. D’Anza with one count of mail fraud and three counts of filing false income tax returns. According to court records, David N. D’Anza resides in Hudson, Ohio.

The indictment alleges that D’Anza was the President, Chief Executive Officer, and Chairman of the Board of Directors of W.P. Hickman Systems, Inc. in Solon, Ohio. Hickman sold and distributed flat roofing products throughout the United States. The indictment further alleges that, from November 2002 through July 2007, D’Anza fraudulently obtained money from Hickman through three methods. First, the indictment alleges that D’Anza executed a fictitious consulting agreement with Aurgo Consultants, purportedly on behalf of Hickman. Under the terms of this agreement, Aurgo was to provide various consulting services to Hickman for $13,000 a month. The indictment alleges that the defendant knew this consulting agreement was fictitious and the $13,000 monthly payments were actually repayments on a $2 million personal loan D’Anza had received from his mother-in-law. As a result, from December 2002 through July 2007, the indictment charges that D’Anza fraudulently caused Hickman to make unauthorized payments to Aurgo Consultants totaling $734,500.

Second, the indictment alleges that D’Anza created a false and fraudulent commission agent’s agreement with Person #1, again purportedly on behalf of Hickman, whereby Person #1 was to receive $1,080 per week as a Hickman sales representative in Panama. The indictment alleges that the defendant knew full well that Person #1 was never a sales representative for Hickman in Panama or anywhere else. The indictment charges that D’Anza caused Hickman to pay Person #1 $78,840 from August 2004 through December 2005 for extensive renovations to the defendant’s personal residence in Hudson. The third means by which the defendant fraudulently obtained money from Hickman is that the defendant allegedly caused Person #1, dba T&M Builders, to submit five false invoices to Hickman for repairs purportedly done to Hickman’s warehouse and parking lot. The indictment charges that these invoices, totaling $66,070, were actually for services rendered at D’Anza’s personal residence.

The indictment charges that, as a result of D’Anza’s fraudulent conduct, Hickman sustained losses totaling $879,410.

The indictment also alleges that D’Anza filed false income tax returns for the years 2004, 2005, and 2006 in that he failed to report on those tax returns the monies he fraudulently obtained from Hickman. The indictment states that D’Anza reported total adjusted income of $1,562,141 on his tax returns for the years 2004 through 2006. The indictment alleges that D’Anza failed to report additional income for those years totaling $554,410 on which there was additional taxes due and owing of $186,865.

If convicted, the defendant’s sentence will be determined by the Court after review of factors unique to this case, including the defendant’s prior criminal record, if any, the defendant’s role in the offense and the characteristics of the violation. In all cases the sentence will not exceed the statutory maximum and in most cases it will be less than the maximum.

This case is being prosecuted by Assistant United States Attorney John D. Sammon, following a joint investigation by the Cleveland Office of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Akron Office of the Internal Revenue Service, Criminal Investigation Division.

An indictment is only a charge and is not evidence of guilt. A defendant is entitled to a fair trial in which it will be the government’s burden to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt."