The Curious Case of the San Francisco Unified School District - and the Roofing Scam

It's time to simply put forward the facts re: San Francisco Unified School District Reroofing Specs.



 In Summary: 



SFUSD Reroofing specifications shown below limit competition to Garland Roofing by not listing the actual tests used in testing the inordinately large number of properties described - only the general test method by which the test was run. 



See: http://schoolroofingscam.blogspot.com/2009/07/whoops-its-another-spec-blooper.html 



These are your classic "Restrictive Proprietary Performance Specifications" 



Such specifications employ insufficient information in an overly-massive listing of data - frightening off competitors. _______________________________________ 



Balboa Hich School, School of the Arts

San Francisco Unified School District 2008 Reroofing Package done recently



It is an approximately 50 page specification (inordinately large, with at least three roof types)



Please see under 30.2 A, this page below:



 1. Acceptable Manufacturers listed as "Garland, Johns Manville and Tremco".

We do not believe that Johns Manville or Tremco attempted to bid.



2. Test Methods are generally listed throughout the spec, but not the actual Test. 

The predominant Test Method is ASTM D5147, which tells the testing agency how much of the product to use in the actual Test, for instance, and which seems to be listed on most of the properties described for each material.



What Test was actually used for each product and every property is not listed. Which means that the products must not meet ANY Tests.



For Modified Bitumens, the tests that should be met are in the ASTM D6000's.



So what tests were used for the properties listed (labeled "Test"), what version, etc.?



And how does an alternate submitted by a bidder be evaluated when the actual test is not listed?



Or if there were none performed and none the products meet?



The latter is the most likely.



If one knew what the actual test was, then whether or not the values listed meant anything could be evaluated.



For instance, numbers could be picked within a range to be met - but it means nothing, because the range was the value to be met.



These are the "tricks" if you will to stop any potential competitor dead in their tracks - because they know they can't fight such a huge listing - and may most likely not know these details - especially that there are no tests being listed, only test methods, and it is not obvious that the products don't meet any tests!



In this Balboa Spec, the section "37.3 Flexible Flashings" on the page below have the same issues found in the previous section - limiting competition with a lack of listing the actual tests - a whole lot of missing tests, if you will - is this considered fraud in legal terms? In this part of the large Balboa Spec, the section "27.2 Standing Seam Metal Roofing Materials" on the page below have the same issues found in the previous section.



It limits competition by naming again the manufacturer whose extremely limiting spec language is used throughout this "bid" package.



 It is known in the industry that another metal roofing manufacturer private labels their product for Garland:



Update in 2013:  Imetco, the manufacturer that was private labeling metal roofs for Garland, is now owned by them, and has a plant in Tucker, Georgia.  A new plant has been built in the Albuquerque, New Mexico area.



Thurgood Marshall High School

San Francisco Unified School District 2008 Reroofing Package done recently



Please see under 2.2 A, B and C, these two pages, below:



1. Acceptable Manufacturers listed as "Garland, Johns Manville and Tremco".

We do not believe that Johns Manville or Tremco attempted to bid.



 2. Test Methods are generally listed throughout the spec, but not the actual Test. The Test Method listed is ASTM D5147, while no actual tests are listed for each of the properties.



ASTM D5147 is not a test for each of the properties it is listed by - so the values stated that the "test" meets have no relevance.



ASTM D5147 tells the testing agency how much of the product to use in the actual Test, for instance.



What tests IF ANY did each of these properties get tested by?



We don't know, because the spec doesn't say.



So no one can compete, actually - unless they do the same kind of "spec".



 Please see the comments above - much the same as herein.



Here are the Multi-Ply Hot Asphalt Roofing Materials listed for the project: And here are the same problems for the Flexible Flashing Materials listed, on these two pages: Dr. Martin Luther King Middle School

San Francisco Unified School District 2006 Measure "A" Bond Modernization March, 2010 Specifications bid out in the past two to three months 



Please see under 2.02 A, B and C, on these three pages, below:



1. Acceptable Manufacturers listed as "Siplast".

 This is a higher-priced product than most competitive roofing products, but not at the much higher price of Garland and Tremco. 



2. Test Methods are generally listed throughout the spec, but not the actual Test.



The predominant Test Method is ASTM D5147, which tells the testing agency how much of the product to use in the actual Test, for instance, and which seems to be listed on most of the properties described for each material.



And please see the comments above - much the same as herein.



For the first known product other than Garland getting all the work at the SFUSD - this spec is also limiting the competition in the same was as the two specs above.



See below: