Duro-Last roofing

Archive of Older Topics Archive - Product Discussions #5
21

Thanks, Peggy. That link (http://schoolroofingscam.blogspot.com/) lays it all out in detail, with extensive documentation.

I learned of this roofing scam several years ago from a roof manufacturer’s rep, who tipped me off about Garland and Tremco (both of which are mentioned extensively by name at that website), which reportedly played the same game as his own company. Garland had been providing free “consulting” services directly to a city department for a warehouse re-roofing project, before the owner realized it ought to get an architect (my client) involved. (The owner handed the project off to the architect saying she could use Garland’s “consulting” services, or not–her choice.)

It’s a long story–too long to tell here–but in the end, after several addenda and roof spec revisons, and a frank meeting with three rather glum Garland, Tremco and Hickman reps and our roofing consultant (who was hired to consult only on detailing, not specs), and after the bids were in, I was told that our revised and (finally) non-proprietary spec probably saved the owner about $50,000.

22

Good for you Robert - your persistance paid off! Literally - you did the right thing and the Owner saved some money.

23

I have seen this happen a couple of times. I believe both Garland and Tremco offer good products; however, while their marketing approach permits competitive bidding at the roofer level, it does lock in one manufacturer’s products. This proprietary approach permits them to charge a premium for the sole-source products, and can lead to over specifying. Their justification is that their “consulting services” are “free.” What many owners don’t understand is that the costs for “consulting services” are embedded in the cost of their products. From the Owner’s perspective, they are getting a single point of responsibility for a critical component of the building envelope.

24

I have seen the rants about these companies, but I can see both sides of the issue. As Peter said, from the owner’s perspective, they have a single point of responsibility, which can be seen as a great improvement to an owner who has had to fight with a contractor, a roofer, and sometimes an architect.

I have talked about this with a couple of facility managers. They’re not ignorant; they know the installed cost is higher than it would be for an open, competitive bid, but they believe that is offset by extra services that usually are not included with a typical roofing contract. These services include annual visits to evaluate all the roofs in their facility, and planning for future repair and replacement.

Without those services, the owner would have to either have staff with training and experience to do their own inspections, or hire an independent roofing consultant. Add the instant response these owners have received, and it seems possible that the total cost could be about the same for a competitive bid, and for the ongoing service contracts offered by these companies.

I don’t know how the numbers work out, and I’m not going to try to figure it out as there are too many variables and unknowns. I’m not saying it’s a good deal or a bad deal, but the people I talked with were satisfied with the quality of the roofing, repairs, and service they have been getting. Even if the total service concept does cost more, sometimes it’s worth paying a little more for peace of mind. A roofing warranty also offers that peace if mind, even though it is little more than an insurance policy that adds to the cost but does nothing to change the roofing itself.

It’s good to remember that companies don’t sell warranties to lose money. If they weren’t making a profit on them, they wouldn’t be there, yet I haven’t seen anyone complaining about owners wasting money on warranties.

25

I’ve worked on projects where Tremco roofing was the campus standard. On more than one project, the system required was far from the best option for the application (at least in my opinion) but it was the campus standard. The pricing was substantially greater than what we usually saw for comparable systems on comparable projects, certainly more than what it would cost to have full-time compliance inspection from a reputable consultant. The facility manager understood the costs and that the designer did not advocate the product selection and took responsibility, though we still had to properly detail and specify the system. When it failed, Tremco was very good about replacing it. The client is happy and that is the bottom line.

The issue about these systems wasn’t whether they were good deals. If a campus wants to have one manufacturer as the sole source of the roofing systems, that’s for them to decide. The issue was that people were paid off to exclude competition on a whole bunch of publicly bid projects all over the place. I wouldn’t want my name associated with that type of practice; I already upset enough people as it is.

26

I’m not sure how to specify a bribe, so I’ll stay away from that. As to upsetting people, that’s part of your job as a specifier!

27

Sheldon, there is much wisdom in what you say. Are they scoundrels or knowledgeable professionals earning an honest buck? The truth probably lies in the middle. Specifiers and educated consumers need to look with a jaudiced eye when there’s no competition, and it certainly offers the potential for corruption. But it would be good to get a big-picture analysis of all that the owners get for their money, and also find out if they’re paying for perks received by their staff.

28

Sheldon, under my “Don’t feed the Curmudgeon” sign, someone (I know who) put a post-it saying “It’s okay to bludgeon the curmudgeon”. I didn’t know that structural engineers knew how to spell, or rhyme! I feel like I belong.

29

I agree with Ken - undermining the public bid process, especially when coupled with blatant kickbacks is disturbing. Even taking public facilities folks to lunch is often verboten, nevermind the ‘gifts.’

Even if the product is not substandard and the client is satisfied with their service and the end cost, it is inappropriate and often illegal to operate in this manner.

Its creepy to have to particpate in it as a specifier.

30

Just to clarify, to my knowledge Tremco Roofing did nothing underhanded in regards to the campus where I specified their product. I am also not aware of any improper actions by Duro-Last.

I was referring to the content of the article that Bob posted. I was aware of several of the cases east of the Mississippi and managed to avoid being involved in a couple of them thanks to the advice of some very honest roofing consultants.

31

The article Ken refers to above is (I believe) a link originally posted by Peggy, which I only repeated. There, Architect Janet C. Campbell, blogging as “SF Architect,” has assembled an impressive collection of investigative journalism on this subject (both print and TV), including her own first-person accounts. Which reminds me: a few months after the experience I recounted above, I was asked if I would consent to be interviewed on camera by local ABC Eyewitness News investigative reporter Wayne Dolcefino regarding an apparently similar scam in the re-roofing of Houston’s still relatively new G. R. Brown convention center. (I declined the opportunity…)

32

Hello Robert,

Thank you for the information you gave about the blogs I have up re: the 16 years’ worth of info I have gotten from many roofing industry insiders - particularly those that ran the Testing Committee for the Midwest Roofing Contractor’s Association, ASTM, Roofing Contractor Association heads in various states and regions, Roof Consultant’s Institute members but not least of all - former reps involved in the scams, some of which have admitted to huge kickbacks for the sole-sourced contracts.

If anyone wants more info, please feel free to contact me. I am at campbellarchitec@aol.com . Please understand - I put up just a minute portion of what I get in and cannot talk about a lot of it. But I can give hard evidence to those who contact me, and break down these cooked-up specs claiming to be all and end all for investigators, Dept. of Educations, etc.

One state’s Dept. of Education called me after they were alerted and stopped the bidding side of the scam in their state in 2-1/2 weeks. It’s been 16 years and counting in California - too many politicians involved. Thanks again, Janet Coral Campbell, Architect and former three-time member of the Georgia Board of the American Institute of Architects (my home state)

33

Too often, project managers for public entities are unaware of the rules and regulations governing public procurement much less the policy considerations behind those rules. The rules and regulations may be complex (sometimes unnecessarily so), change relatively often, and may only really be accessible to procurement officers. Project managers are sometimes eager to waive the “red tape” to get the job done. Their architects may not be fully aware of the procurement requirements are very often willing to assume that the project manager knows what they are doing. Every one wants to focus on solving a problem with the minimum amount of paperwork.

Especially at the small city and school district level, reps may be trying, in good faith, to help people out without being aware that any laws are being broken. I suspect that, in other cases, there is a marketing strategy that is set in place at a regional or national level that is misguided or misinformed on issues related to public procurement.

34

I would agree that at the small city and school district level there are a lot of reps who are attempting to help out the public entity in good faith. The point I would make is that too often the lack of understanding of the rules and regs works to limit the public entities options when it comes to assembling a set of bid documents.

There are instances where allowing multiple product options to the bidders is in the owner’s best interest. However in my experience there are too many project managers, procurement officers and architects who handcuff the public entity by requiring multiple options/products for each and every situation. There is justification for single sourcing products or systems within an institution at times and I know of several architects who insist that you can not allow this practice. (It may actually be illegal in some states or locations outside of my practice area) A school district should have the right (as an expample) to have the same LCN 4040 closer on every door in the district if that is deemed to be in their best interest.

The establishment of “institutional standards” can have a very positive long term advantage to the owner (and thus the taxpayers) in some situations. This practice will get abused at times and I don’t have an answer for that. However we should be careful to not outlaw a practice that may have benefits merely because someone might abuse it.

35

Irregardless of purchasing rules it is common practice to sole source many structural products on school projects in California. This is because the regulators (DSA) requires specificity in the construction documents that you cannot realistically provide unless you sole source the products. Creating variations on the design to allow multiple products is not a viable option and would be totally inconsistent with the fees paid.

36

What types of structural products are you referring to?

37

Back to Duro-Last:

I worked on a number of projects for a hospital just south of Seattle. The Owner (a county agency) informed us that Duro-Last was the “standard” roof for the facility and that a sole source specification was all they would accept.

At the time, the membrane was 45 mils - probably still is. The big selling point was that they would survey the roof deck and do a lot of prefabrication.

Apparently this owner was sufficiently happy with the performance to insist that all new roofs would be Duro-Last.

38

Predatory sales models perpetrated by manufacturers such as Tremco, and Garland are a liability to anyone who specifies them.

NO public entity has the right to “Exclude” competition for a “Preferred Vendor”. That is what Tremco and Garland want you to do however.

Just type “School Roofing Scam” into your browser, or YouTube, and there will be no shortage of investigative reports on them.

Major manufacturers like GAF, Firestone, Carlisle Syntec, and Johns Manville do not participate in such “Isolation” games.

Tremco, nor Garland can compete in the private market, so how can they compete in a public market? They can’t, they know it, and so does everyone else.

Recently, we’ve passed Oklahoma SB 630, and Texas HB 1050, insuring fair competition for all trades, not just roofing.

RPM (owner of Tremco) received a 68.8 million dollar fine from the feds for abusing “Line Item” contracting with GSA.

Bankrupt RPM units are also facing 1.18 billion dollar liability for asbestos claims.

I do not give opinions, and everything I say is from public record. Type my full name Robert R. Solomon, followed by the word Tremco, or Garland.

I am retired (Aug. 19, 2003). I do not solicit, nor accept compensation, or personal advancement of any kind since that date.

I do not work for anyone, and this includes manufacturers, distributors, consultants, and contractors.

In this way, I am without influence, and free to provide truly “Independent” thought. Once you take money out of the discussion, all that’s left is the truth.

Roof Consultant’s Institute, and Roof Consultant’s Alliance, are against “Line Item”, “Proprietary”, or “Job Order” contracting in public works.

Only government purchasing cooperatives (commissioned salesmen) do that.

I only provide the data, and you are the judge.

Respect.

Robert R. “Ron” Solomon
Director, Roof Consultant’s Alliance
CCC 1325620 (Florida Certification)
RobertRSolomon@aol.com
http://wikiroof.blogspot.com/

39

It is difficult to get balanced information from the manufacturers, especially manufacturers who produce only one or a very limited number of roofing systems and whose line is they dont have any worthy competition. For example, the manufacturers of high-priced modifieds tend to harp on the weakness of single-ply membranes that they are thin, that the seams are a problem and that their warranties contain myriad exclusions and are easily voided. I sat in on a presentation by one of the above-mentioned manufacturers who said that a 60-mil single-ply membrane is only as thick as three trash bags. Even the heavy bags used for cleaning up construction sites are only 3 mils thick. When I brought this up, the rep quickly changed the subject. The sound of tap-dancing was so loud, it triggered acute tinnitus in both of my ears.
My best current sources of roofing information are roofing contractors and roofing distributors. These two types of participants work with/deal with all roofing types in the course of a year. They can even-handedly explain the strengths and weaknesses of each type of roofing system in terms I can understand.
I do not work with roofing consultants very often, mainly because they cost more than my design budget will bear. I don’t begrudge anyone a decent living, but I don’t like to pay someone far more money than I make to specify exactly what I would specify.
Reps for the companies listed in the above posts usually work on a straight commission basis and, to provide for their companies and their families, they seek out those most likely to respond positively to their marketing pitches. To me, it is hard to blame the opportunistic seller for the complacent purchasers lack of critical thinking. But I will take every chance I can to call out false marketing claims, as with the trash bag example.
To Peggy White: It must have been difficult having to accept Dur-O-Last, a PVC product, in light of your concerns about that material as expressed in other discussion threads. I am interested to know what the material composition of the 80-mil membrane you originally proposed was. If it was PVC, William Pegues is not going to let you live it down!

40

@David - the PVC option was predetermined by the client, a public entity. I don’t know if they have a ‘relationship’ with GAF, but they were adamant. They had selected GAF 80 mil, and Duro-Last complained and threatened to challenge the bid unless we accepted their 60-mil product as an equal. The GAF product was installed.

Roofing membranes currently come down to what is ‘less bad’ - there are not any truly green choices. Yes, I do my best to find viable options that provide equal performance when clients suggest PVC products. And then I hold my nose if I have to specify PVC. Change is coming slowly, but its coming… ;o)