What Garland Thinks About the SF Chronicle Piece on Them

Here are the Garland Training Documents - that show clearly their "Business Model":



See top of page 1 - "The strongest sale will always be Garland materials and performance specficiations and no "or equals".



and then: 

"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 how to mix up the manufacturers listed, 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...) , and then he describes 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....

Here's some of that massive "restrictive proprietary performance specs" guidlelines being taught to Garland sales reps, to "lock-spec" their product in public and school work:

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

And that if you have to go "or equal" "depending upon the intestinal fortitude of the guy you are selling"....then how you can lock in the Garland product...with specific lock-spec language, on this last page:

_________________________________________________________

So just what was the local and national Garland personnel's reaction to the San Francisco Chronicle article, whitewashing what is going in two School Districts in the San Francisco Bay Area?

They were ecstatic.

Statement from the Local Rep yesterday, Jay Mulligan, regarding the SF Chronicle "report":

"Bunch of BS these people are spreading by attacking our business model as well as Tremco's. I think these cheap bastards who do not watch their jobs, spec cheap roofs, and do not offer customer service like we do should shut their mouths. Fact of the matter is that we as well as Tremco offer a service based offering to our clients. From cradle to grave and at the end of the day look out for the client first. These cheap manufacturers only look out for the contractor who purchases the most materials from them each year."

[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 how they are more concerned about locking out competition -to get their admitted, higher-priced products in to schools.]

************ 



From Garland Rep Rich Jones:

"Already saw it. I like that they compare my project: 9,000 sq. ft. mechanical well with 3000 sq. ft of wall repair and coating, tapered insulation, aluminum coping coping and counterflashing to a single ply on a roof with almost no penetrations, 1/2" insulation, no sheet metal (existing copper being reused).Spec listed Garland, Tremco and Manville or approved equal. Stressply Plus which all three can make. Tremco rep was at the job walk. Keep in mind that the state review of the contract code is being pushed by GAF, Firestone and Carlisle."

________________________________________________________

So, Mr. Jones and Mssrs. Mulligan:

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.

6. When is the responsible SanFrancisco Bay Area Garland Rep going to give the Federal Government back all those overcharges for the Johns Manville (UPDATE 2013:  or Simon Roofing or other manufacturer who doesn't know you are private labeling their) 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????



UPDATE 2013:  We know you were using another company you set up to buy Carlisle Syntec Roofing Products, private label them, offer a "30-year 'warranty' " on them when even Carlisle does not - and then refused to allow them to compete against their own product!?!?!?!?



How outrageous are you?  



SCAMMERS usually are!!!!!

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



And School Superintendents, and Business Officers, and Facilities Directors and Managers, what, $30,000 to $40,000 a roof????

8. 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.

9. 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.



DUH!  



So you must not meet any tests - because if you are private labeling, you aren't paying for those tests and don't have copies of them, do you?!

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



And it's rampant everywhere.

_____________________________________________

Tremco - whose "business model" you also defended - is redoing the same hospital roofs at UCSF right now, 12 years later, with the same sole-sourced specs labeled "criminal activity" by the California Supreme Court Justices in my case, standing up and screaming such at the UC Attorney for 10 minutes that same phrase about the specs?

Or did you know, Mr. Mulligan, that the Federal Attorney General here and the State Auditor both ruled them illegal specs? 



You know, the kind you use to lock-spec out real competition with real warranties?

Perhaps Mr. Mulligan also has no knowledge of the Quality Tile Roofing Case in Boise, Idaho that proved Tremco had provided bad product to the contractors to install from their Vernon, California plant - and had asked the Federal Attorney General there that QTR be charged with mixing their product to make it bad - when QTR refused to bid their product on a project the Tremco rep brought them in on, and instead, bid a Malarkey product with a real warranty - as opposed to Tremco's?

We all know that QTR could not have mixed anything into the bitumen - only the Tremco plant had that highly-specialized, mixer made in Austria.

So gentlemen: Have any truthful answers - other than you are scamming for dollars?

__________________________________________

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:

Dr. Keith Richman, Former Minority House Leader of the California Assembly, Passes Away

Dr. Keith Richman, former California Assembly Minority Leader that wrote a letter to the Joint Legislative Audit Committee to ask for a major statewide audit in school roofing projects in 2005, has passed away this past weekend.



 Here is the news report on him:

http://hometownstation.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=21227:richman-ucla-assembly-clarita-2010-07-31-07-37&catid=26:local-news&Itemid=97



 You can read about it here - and see who stopped this state from losing even many more hundreds of millions in the scam over the past 5 years.

http://schoolroofingscam.blogspot.com/2008/02/request-for-major-statewide-audit-in-ca.html



 In that effort in 2005, two letters were used from roofing industry personnel to verify the information I gave him - and which he found very credible.



 One of those persons who wrote a letter (and shown in that post) was Jim Miner, now in his 80's and a roof consultant in the Sacramento area.



Jim was very instrumental in getting this second effort done June 30th, with the hearing at the Statehouse. 



However, the other person who wrote a letter (also shown in that post), Steve Camblin and a former head of the Roofing Contractor's Association in California, passed away in the Fall of 2008.



You can read about him, here: http://www.rcacal.com/news/details.aspx?id=18



 Both men did much to help California as has Jim, and to all three, we owe a huge debt of gratitude.



What a loss for California!

Garland Warranty

A Roof Warranty should not require repairs to keep up that Warranty.



 But here we are - Garland does. And so does Tremco. 



Tremco executives left and formed Garland from an old flooring company, using the same tactics. See the next post....about the Tremco Warranty Don't be fooled.

_________________________________



See the actual Garland warranty from a 2001 document reprinted here below this text. See also the MRCA Article on the Garland "30-year warranty" reprinted below. You can also see it at: http://roofingscam.blogspot.com/2008_03_02_archive.html#733669647137747897 _________________________________

Note in the next to the last paragraph of the second page of the Garland Warranty shown below the following "verbage" for the "30-year warranty":

"Inspection Requirements

Owner must request in writing an inspection of the roof at any time between the sixth and tenth month of each fifth-year starting with year 15 (15, 20, 25) of this warranty's duration. Upon receipt of such request, Garland will provide an inspection of the roofing system by a Garland representative to determine whether any repairs are required to make the system eligible for the continuation of this warranty, submitting a detailed inspection report to owner outlining the nature and extent of such required repairs such as repairs to physical damage, debris removal, drainage clearance, pitch box, coping metal edge and reglet seals and flashing reflectivity."

Did you get that? 



 It's not a warranty past 15 years if you don't pay for the expense of any "repairs" the manufacturer determines need to be done.



With the use of non-involved third-party Roof consultants from the RCI, you have a much better chance of getting only needed repairs done at any point, and with a real warranty, you don't have to repair to continue the warranty.



 And certainly not in the tens of thousands every 5 years.....as Garland does. IF the facility "remembers" to pay that payment.....on time. It's a tricky set of requirements.....

____________________________________



The Garland "Warranty" The Midwest Roofing Contractor's Association Article First article to expose the Garland "Warranty" as nothing more than a highly-priced every 5-year "Maintenance Agreement" from the Midwest Roofer in the 1990's:

An Architect Reverses Course - and makes a Roofing Spec Competitive

Finally!!! The word must be getting out!!!!



Now let's see if the California Legislature stops listening to the bamboozling of the lobbies hard at work for Garland - we hear - right now....blubbering as we speak up at the California State Capitol in Sacramento about having a 30-year "Warranty" - which we all know they don't have.....  



So who has caught on?





Perkins & Will - a worldwide architecture and engineering firm out of Chicago. As some of you know, they do a lot of large projects.



This time, they had put out bid specs on a school job....San Jose State University Student Union - Expansion & Renovation, Project 201 - and have reversed the sole-sourced roofing spec to make it competitive - in Addendum 01.  



Who was sole-sourced?



 Tremco - their "Tri Polymer Alloy Thermoplastic Membrane Roofing" Materials  



Who is being listed in the Specifications now?



 Four competitive products - using the nationwide standard spec language of listing at least three products and the term "or equal". [That standard spec language for every other state and federal work is no longer required by California's Public Contract Code No. 3400, which only requires one manufacturer to be listed, and the term "or equal" is not mentioned.]



1. Carlisle-Syntec Incorporated's "Sure-Weld TPO"



2. Firestone Building Products Company's "Ultraply TPO"



3. GAF Materials Corporation's "EverGuard TPO"



4. GenFlex Roofing Systems' "GenFlex TPO HY"



5. Or Equal.



Have actual tests to meet been submitted in a shortened product properties listing?



Yes, it appears so.



Are the properties to be met overly constrictive?



It appears not to be.



 Is the "Or Equal" language consistent throughout the Addendum?



 It appears so.



We will only know if a truly competitive bid and award is achieved.



And is there a real warranty specified?



It appears so.



For those in the roofing industry - you be the judge!



From what I can tell, it appears the specification as changed in Addendum 01 is a competitive bid spec.  



And if so, good going, Perkins & Will!  



Great Job!!!

_________________________________________



Here are the revised specs (appropriate portion):

Why Did Garland Roofing Spend $250,000 to Stop a Bill that would Stop the Scam?

Good Question.  



Follow the Money - if we heard right about what Garland is spending to stop California from plugging the massive leak of taxpayer dollars....  



What did the Bill do?  



Require Architects, Engineers to sign a form under threat of perjury/felony that they had not financial interest in the companies involved and Manufacturers to do the same with regards to the governmental agencies/personnel involved.



And so a manufacturer involved in "Lock Specs" is spending $250,000 to stop such a bill??? With the parties forcing the specs on the architects and engineers in the fight to stop the bill?



The Bill that was proposed and is dead was spoken against by the following organizations:  



CASH - California's Coalition for Adequate School Housing  



 Strange thing: Guess who the head of CASH is?



 The person inside West Contra Costa Unified School District that was adamantly insisting on using Garland again because they would destroy Garlands' "Warranty".



The SF Chronicle reported that fact re: no competitive spec on July 23, 2010, also denying the scam and kickbacks were going on in the two districts when no one had alleged either issue in both districts.....



 As many in the industry do know, and have written about - Garland does not have a Warranty but they do have a very costly, renewable Maintenance Agreement that masquerades as a Warranty.



Not so well known is that Garland insists on no equals to their products, not allowing alternates to be bid to "their" projects - while Carlisle products are used as Garland roofing products...



This became a problem at the Windsor School District north of the San Francisco Bay Area recently when Garland insisted that the very same Carlisle product being submitted as an equal was not....and a lawyer for the architect producing illegally sole-sourced specs "indignantly" denied reality....



Worse, Garland insisted that they "warrantied" the product for 30 years- but Carlisle, the manufacturer of the product, will not.



So it's too tempting not to ask: Is "CASH" a Freudian slip???? Hmmmmm.........  



CASBO - California Association of School Business Officials Involved in the Kern High School District (the largest in the state) - their Business Officials and Facilities personnel going regularly to CASBO and reportedly seen wining and dining with manufacturers at CASBO functions.....so how many School Business Officials in California are involved?  



CSA - Council of School Supervisors & Administrators



Why do School Administrators think it's OK to practice architecture and engineering without a license, and want to be able to order what products are used on a roof?



They have no idea what they are doing - such as what the substrate is, how the roofs should be installed to prevent failure of the roof and the structure below, what is best in the climate and existing conditions and uses on each roof....and more.



Garland Roofing - Garland has locked up many of the schools and state work in California, along with Tremco, in similar practices.



On May 30 of this year, I was able to download about 800 projects in schools and state work between them off a national database. And that was just about a months' worth.  



LAUSD - Los Angeles Unified School District - which was just written up in the LA Times for having built an outrageously expensive school - a "Palace"! - for $587 million while laying off 3,000 teachers - see it here: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100822/ap_on_re_us/us_taj_mahal_schools



They even made The Drudgereport for their outrageous excesses!



I hear that the LAUSD also built School "Palaces" in the $200 to $300 million or more range.....



 The CSU System - California State University System Cal State at various campuses are known for using the Lock Specs from the scammers....  



The American Institute of Architects Now that IS strange....I was on the Board of Directors of the AIA in Georgia for three years, but I never saw the kinds of things going on here there...but this is a different time and place, for sure.



Now why would a professional group not want its members to sign a document asserting with each project that they had no financial interests with the manufacturers in question? It's unethical - or was - and illegal to have such an interest in public works. It only seems practical - given what has been going on. It would be an asset to a n architect who wanted to do the right thing - it's a way to force involved governmental officials to stop the practice of forcing product specs on designers.....



The State Design Services Group Ditto as to the AIA.......  



AECA - Is this the Agricultural Energy Consumers Association or the Engineering Contractors Association (ECA)?



The latter got Public Contract Code No. 3400 changed so that competitive bidding is not required in specifications, in 2003.

_____________________________________________  



The common thread? - that raises the question that's sitting like a bull in the middle of a room?



  School Administrators, specifiers, and a manufacturer are trying to and have stopped the bill .....so one has to ask:  

If the $250,000 was spent by Garland Roofing to stop the legislature from passing a bill to save the taxpayers hundreds of millions every year, why are these organizations so concerned?  



Is it because the repeated reports of financial interests between the parties is true?  



It's a very, very good question. 



It's not an accident that one would see within a minute or two of each other the following types of personnel look at my blog from a major University - because it was the same I observed at the University of California Facilities Dept. were involved:

A Facilities Director

A Building Manager

A Design Professional (staff or otherwise)



There's a bull sitting in the middle of the room, with everyone playing "the King is walking naked but we are afraid of what we might see........"  



Why fight disclosures of financial interests and divesting yourself of them in doing public work?

California Passes an Emergency Bill to Stop the Scam

Over 13 years after my first reports to Law Enforcement regarding a confusing series of illegally sole-sourced roofing bid specs put out at the University of California, to whom I had gone after a Manager finally gave the reason as "payola" for all the various sole-sourced bid specs (not just roofing)....... and in only four months after my reports to the new California Legislative Committee on Accountability and Administrative Review, a new bill has been passed and signed into law by the state's "Governator", Sept. 17, 2010. 



It was done on emergency basis, passed in two months instead of the normal two years, and in Committees only two hours, not the normal two weeks, each. It's a very, very good start. 



Many thanks to very hard-working Committee Members and Staff who actually read a great deal of documentation and verified reports with so many who came forward. Their ability to digest complex information is a real boon for California. 



Many thanks to the very many behind the scenes, from all over the country as well, verifying data and fact after fact. It has made a huge, huge difference for us all. 



And many thanks to the brave who testified - including a first: Manufacturers fighting the scam, coming forward for the first time ever to testify in such hearings. It has made a huge, huge difference. Thank you so much for flying in and testifying - and for taking the burden off this one lone architect's shoulders! Your willingness to help us all, not just yourselves, is what corporate America should be about. 



And most of all, many thanks to the only State Agency that really does protect whistleblowers - and do their job (when politicians do not interfere) - the California State Auditor. The Legal Counsel for the State Auditor in their June 30th Hearing described my case in detail - which sent the Legislators over the proverbial edge. 



 If you watch the hearing, you'll see Legislators who previously stated "why are we looking into this?" standing up and yelling, "Why aren't these people in jail!" 



Why not? It's a very, very good question. 



Here is a history of the Bill: http://www.aroundthecapitol.com/Bills/AB_635 



Voting against the bill was one lone State Senator, Leland Yee. (Later picked up by the FBI and charged with bribery, etc. in the Spring of 2014).



He is a former member of the San Francisco School Board.......and made a former President of the San Francisco School Board the Legislature's "Woman of the Year". It was the same person that had just admitted to me their involvement in kickbacks - "Everybody does it!" and then threatened my life in the next breath. There is no doubt that that group of persons (and it is larger) were involved in covering up and stopping anyone from doing the right thing all these years - until I found Hector de la Torre's staff and committee. 



Thank you, thank you, thank you! The California Assembly, however, saw reason, understood the budgetary consequences - and very wisely passed the bill, 77-0.  



Congratulations!!!!! 

_________________________________  





Here is the bill, which can be located with its' history at: http://www.aroundthecapitol.com/billtrack/text.html?bvid=20090AB63595ENR

 

california political news opinion



  Read. Create. Discuss. california legislation > AB 635

 

Italicized text includes proposed additions to law or the previous version of the bill. Struck text includes proposed deletions to law or the previous version of the bill. (pdf version) 



PASSED THE SENATE AUGUST 27, 2010 PASSED THE ASSEMBLY AUGUST 30, 2010 



AMENDED IN SENATE AUGUST 20, 2010 AMENDED IN SENATE AUGUST 5, 2010 



An act to add Article 1 (commencing with Section 3000) to Chapter 3 of Part 1 of Division 2 of the Public Contract Code, relating to public contracts, and declaring the urgency thereof, to take effect immediately. LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST AB 635, Committee on Accountability and Administrative Review. Public contracts: roof projects. 



Existing law prohibits a state agency, political subdivision, municipal corporation, or district from drafting specifications for bids, in connection with the construction, alteration, or repair of public works, calling for a designated material, product, thing, or service by specific brand or trade name unless the specification is followed by the words "or equal" so that bidders may furnish any equal material, product, thing, or service. 



This bill would provide that, for a project for the repair or replacement of a roof of a public school or community college, a material, product, thing, or service shall be considered equal if it meets specified requirements. 



The bill would require an architect, engineer, roofing consultant, and other specified persons or entities to complete and sign a certification related to financial relationships in connection with such a roof project and provide the certification to the school district or community college district. The bill would make related changes. This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute.  





THE PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DO ENACT AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Article 1 (commencing with Section 3000) is added to Chapter 3 of Part 1 of Division 2 of the Public Contract Code, to read: Article 1. Roofing Projects 3000. 



For purposes of this article, the following terms have the following meanings: 



(a) "Architect" means an architect who has a current license issued by the state. 



(b) "District" means a school district with an average daily attendance greater than 2,500 or a community college district. 



(c) "Engineer" means an engineer who has a current license issued by the state. 



(d) "Public facility" means a public school or community college. 



(e) "Roofing consultant" means a consultant who is registered by RCI (formerly Roof Consultants Institute). 



(f) "Roof project" means a project for the replacement or repair of a roof of a public facility, except that "roof project" does not include a project for the repair of 25 percent or less of the roof or a repair project that has a total cost of twenty-one thousand dollars ($21,000) or less. 



(g) "Substitute" or "substitution" means a material, product, thing, or service proposed by a bidder to be an adequate substitute material, product, thing, or service that is equal to an item designated in specifications, pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 3400 and subdivision (a) of Section 10129. 3002. 



 (a) For purposes of subdivision (b) of Section 3400 and subdivision (a) of Section 10129, for any roof project, a material, product, thing, or service shall be considered equal if it meets all of the following requirements: 



(1) The item is at least equal in quality, durability, design, and appearance but not necessarily of an identical color. 



(2) The item will perform the intended function at least equally well. 



(3) The item conforms substantially, even with deviations, to the detailed requirements contained in the specifications. 



(b) A substitute may be unequal if the resulting roof system would be substantially different than other equal or better systems in terms of performance and durability, but not merely different by virtue of the inclusion of proprietary products or a proprietary warranty. 3004. Specifications for any roof project shall be designed to promote competition. 



3006. (a) 



(1) An architect, engineer, or roofing consultant who provides professional services related to a roof project shall disclose any financial relationships by completing and signing the certification set forth in subdivision (b) prior to the time professional services are engaged. A materials manufacturer, contractor, or vendor involved in a bid or proposal for a roof project shall disclose any financial relationships by completing and signing the certification set forth in subdivision (b) when the award is made. The architect, engineer, roofing consultant, materials manufacturer, contractor, or vendor shall provide the certification to the district. 



(2) An architect, engineer, roofing consultant, materials manufacturer, contractor, or vendor shall not disclose a financial relationship in which that person or entity is a stockholder of a corporation the stock of which is listed for sale to the general public on a national securities exchange and registered with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission, if the person or entity holds less than 10 percent of the outstanding stock entitled to vote at the annual meeting of the corporation. 



(3) An architect, contractor, engineer, materials manufacturer, roofing consultant, or vendor who knowingly provides false information or fails to disclose a financial relationship pursuant to this section shall be liable to the district for any costs to the district that are reasonably attributable to excess or unnecessary costs, when compared to competing bids, incurred by the district as a result of the undisclosed financial relationship. 





(b) I, ____ Name , ________________ Name of Employer , certify that I have not offered, given, or agreed to give, received, accepted, or agreed to accept, any gift, contribution, or any financial incentive whatsoever to or from any person in connection with the roof project contract. As used in this certification, "person" means any natural person, business, partnership, corporation, union, committee, club, or other organization, entity, or group of individuals. 



Furthermore, I, ____ Name , ________________ Name of Employer , certify that I do not have, and throughout the duration of the contract, I will not have, any financial relationship in connection with the performance of this contract with any architect, engineer, roofing consultant, materials manufacturer, distributor, or vendor that is not disclosed below. 



I, ____ Name , ________________ Name of Employer , have the following financial relationships with an architect, engineer, roofing consultant, materials manufacturer, distributor, or vendor, or other person in connection with the following roof project contract: 



______________________________________________________ 

Name and Address of Building, Contract Date and Number 



 I certify that to the best of my knowledge, the contents of this disclosure are true, or are believed to be true. 

 _________

Signature 

____ 

 Date

 __________

Print Name 

_______________________ 

Print Name of Employer 



(c) Any person who knowingly provides false information or fails to disclose a financial relationship in the disclosure set forth in subdivision (b) shall be subject to a civil penalty in an amount up to one thousand dollars ($1,000), in addition to any other available remedies. 



An action for a civil penalty under this provision may be brought by any public prosecutor in the name of the people of the State of California. 3008. 



(a) To report bid rigging involving local government agencies and employees, including, but not limited to, county, city, and school district employees and officials, an interested person may contact the Antitrust Law Section of the Office of the Attorney General, 300 S. Spring St., Ste. 1702, Los Angeles, CA 90013, (800) 952-5225, or fill out the online complaint form on the Internet Web site of the Office of the Attorney General (Consumer Complaint Against a Business/Company) at ag.ca.gov/contact/complaint_form.php?cmplt=CL. 



(b) To file a complaint regarding improper bidding involving state funding, an interested person may contact the Bureau of State Audits Whistleblower Hotline for any state agency or institution, at 800-952-5665, or by mail at 555 Capitol Mall, Suite 300, Sacramento, CA 95814. 3010. 



This article shall not apply to a school district operating in accordance with Section 20113 or a community college district operating in accordance with Section 20654. SEC. 2. 



This act is an urgency statute necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety within the meaning of Article IV of the Constitution and shall go into immediate effect. 



The facts constituting the necessity are: In order to control expenditures for the repair or replacement of roofs on public schools and community colleges, it is necessary that this act take effect immediately. _______________________________________  



Votes Against the Bill: http://www.aroundthecapitol.com/billtrack/vote.html?bill=200920100AB635&vdt=2010-08-10+00%3A00%3A00&vds=1004

california political news & opinion

  Read. Create. Discuss. california legislation > AB 635

Votes by date | Votes by member

Measure: AB 635 (Committee on Accountability and Administrative Review): Public contracts: roof projects. Location: Sen Governmental Organization Date: 08/10/10 Motion: Do pass, but re-refer to the Committee on Appropriations. Result: 6-2 (PASS)

Ayes - 6

Florez, Harman, Negrete McLeod, Padilla, Price, Wyland

Noes - 2

Wright, Yee

Absent, Abstention or Not Voting - 3

Calderon, Denham, Oropeza ______________________________________________ http://www.aroundthecapitol.com/billtrack/vote.html?bill=200920100AB635&vdt=2009-05-06+00%3A00%3A00&vds=1002

california political news & opinion Read. Create. Discuss. california legislation > AB 635

Votes by date | Votes by member

Measure: AB 635 (Committee on Accountability and Administrative Review): Public contracts: roof projects. Location: Asm Governmental Organization Date: 05/06/09 Motion: Do pass. Result: 16-0 (PASS)

Ayes - 16

Anderson, Cook, Coto, De Leon, Galgiani, Hall, Hill, Jeffries, Lieu, Nestande, Portantino, Price, Silva, Torres, Torrico, Tran

Noes - 0

Absent, Abstention or Not Voting - 3

Chesbro, Evans, Mendoza _______________________________________________ California Assembly Vote:

california political news & opinion Read. Create. Discuss. california legislation > AB 635

Votes by date | Votes by member

Measure: AB 635 (Committee on Accountability and Administrative Review): Public contracts: roof projects. Location: Assembly Floor Date: 05/14/09 Motion: AB 635 PEREZ, V.M. Assembly Third Reading Result: 73-0 (PASS)

Ayes - 73

Adams, Anderson, Arambula, Audra Strickland, Bass, Beall, Bill Berryhill, Blakeslee, Block, Blumenfield, Bonnie Lowenthal, Brownley, Buchanan, Caballero, Carter, Charles Calderon, Chesbro, Conway, Cook, Coto, Davis, De La Torre, De Leon, DeVore, Emmerson, Eng, Evans, Feuer, Fletcher, Fong, Fuller, Furutani, Galgiani, Garrick, Gilmore, Hagman, Hall, Harkey, Hayashi, Hernandez, Hill, Huber, Huffman, Jeffries, John A. Perez, Jones, Knight, Krekorian, Lieu, Logue, Ma, Mendoza, Miller, Monning, Nava, Nestande, Niello, Portantino, Price, Ruskin, Salas, Silva, Skinner, Solorio, Swanson, Tom Berryhill, Torlakson, Torres, Torrico, Tran, V. Manuel Perez, Villines, Yamada

Noes - 0

Absent, Abstention or Not Voting - 7

Ammiano, Duvall, Fuentes, Gaines, Nielsen, Saldana, Smyth

_______________________________________________

http://www.aroundthecapitol.com/billtrack/vote.html?bill=200920100AB635&vdt=2010-08-30+20%3A05%3A00&vds=1062

---

help wanted - php/mysql geek with interest in politics

california political news & opinion Read. Create. Discuss. california legislation > AB 635

Votes by date | Votes by member

Measure: AB 635 (Committee on Accountability and Administrative Review): Public contracts: roof projects. Location: Assembly Floor Date: 08/30/10 Motion: AB 635 Accountability and Admini Concurrence- Urgency Added By DE LA TORRE Result: 77-0 (PASS)

Ayes - 77

Adams, Ammiano, Anderson, Arambula, Audra Strickland, Bass, Beall, Bill Berryhill, Block, Blumenfield, Bonnie Lowenthal, Bradford, Brownley, Buchanan, Caballero, Carter, Charles Calderon, Chesbro, Conway, Cook, Coto, Davis, De La Torre, De Leon, DeVore, Eng, Evans, Feuer, Fletcher, Fong, Fuentes, Fuller, Furutani, Gaines, Galgiani, Garrick, Gatto, Gilmore, Hagman, Hall, Harkey, Hayashi, Hernandez, Hill, Huber, Huffman, Jeffries, John A. Perez, Jones, Knight, Lieu, Logue, Ma, Mendoza, Miller, Monning, Nava, Nestande, Niello, Nielsen, Portantino, Ruskin, Salas, Saldana, Silva, Skinner, Smyth, Solorio, Swanson, Tom Berryhill, Torlakson, Torres, Torrico, Tran, V. Manuel Perez, Villines, Yamada

Noes - 0

Absent, Abstention or Not Voting - 1

Norby