Tuesday, February 12, 2008

Facilities Concerns

This was posted today on a thread from April of 2007. I am moving it here because it is relevant to today's issues.

"At a past board meeting you had questioned the relationship between Sodexho and some of their suppliers, namely Tremco Roofing. Will more people are starting to question those types of relationships and the impact on our taxpayers. Unfortunately, the OASD learned an expensive lesson with this relationship and more needs to be done to stop it throughout our state. Efforts are currently underway to investigate the Waste and Misuse of Taxpayers Moneys on School District Roofing Projects in other states.

http://diana-vice.blogspot.com/

http://schoolroofingscam.blogspot.com/

Tue Feb 12, 01:13:00 PM "

As a matter of fact, I was contacted by a gentlemen from another school district looking for information on SODEXHO several months ago. A couple of years ago, when a question came up about SODEXHO and the roofs, I did a little internet digging on my own and found several complaints and lawsuits by school districts around the country. The biggest was by the State of New Jersey's Department of Public Instruction. Apparently many school districts had used SODEXHO and Tremco and were bilked for millions.

Talking to people within our district about SODEXHO and Tremco, I found out that when SODEXHO bids a job, in our case roofs, the bidding is arranged so that only a company that deals with Tremco products has a chance to get a complete bid in. Smaller contracting companies have to get information that takes several days to weeks to compile and end up missing the bid deadlines. SODEXHO and Tremco basically chase local companies away like Walmart does with bringing in their own contractors and not using local labor.

In addition, when bids are made and lists of materials submitted and approved, because of hazardous materials regulations, certain materials cannot be kept by the school district. If you have a job done on your house and pay for the materials, you keep what you pay for or argue for a refund of that material. Sodexo/Tremco can find that they have excess materials and regulations say that we can't keep certain things, so they take the extra with them when they leave the job. I was told that the extra was resold by Tremco for a profit. While someone could argue that is a rumor, several complaints and lawsuits say otherwise.

As this person points out, we need to be very careful how we spend tax dollars and take credible information citizens bring to us a little more seriously so that we do not have another SODEXHO disaster. We also have to keep in closer contact with our buildings, whether it is annual tours by district administration and/or BOE, or periodic reports by the maintenance and custodial staff as to the conditions of the buildings.

If this isn't already being done, I would strongly urge a comprehensive preventative maintenance program overseen by the district's maintenance and custodial departments, particularly those who are assigned to specific buildings as they know best what is going on in their buildings. This program should also include some kind of accountability plan to ensure maintenance is done in a reasonable time and not let maintenance orders get lost in an out-of-state computer network like SODEXHO used with us.

There are good models out there as simple as what we used in the Army with lists of what needed to be done at what intervals and a computer system that put regular maintenance on a calendar for each building (in my case it was transport vehicles). Inspections would include checking a furnace, HVAC, or a roof once/twice per year or checking flooring equipment once per quarter/month/week. Some of this seems too basic to bother with, but we have a large district with numerous buildings, and the plan in place to this point hasn't worked out so well.

Of course the actual plan should be worked out with those who know our buildings best, I am only offering a suggestion that could save time and money. I welcome any input from those in our maintenance and custodial departments to weigh in.

5 comments:

Apples of Gold said...

You have my endorsement. I wish I could vote for you. Keep up the good work!

Michelle A. Monte said...

Thank you Mrs. Vice. It has been some time since I looked up Tremco. I thought it was concerning when I saw the magnitude of what happened in New Jersey. What has come out since then is absolutely astounding. I hope school districts are aware of this or at least giving more careful consideration of where they spend tax dollars. I suspect that if Tremco was not attached to global corporation Sodexo, they would not have been able to break into public contracts as far reaching as they have.

School Boards, as stewards of taxpayer dollars, need to be very careful of the companies they do business with and the contractors those companies do business with. For OASD, working with local companies would have been a much better option. At the very least, we know where to find them should anything go awry.

Anonymous said...

http://youtube.com/watch?v=12YdYjVD7F4
Is anybody else worried about The SAGE planning committee and their recomendation?

Anonymous said...

Good job last night. You have certainly displayed the courage to stand up to the administration and that is a quality we need on the BOE.

SF Architect said...

Michelle:

I am the architect who caught on to the scam from 1991-1996 at the University of California, San Francisco. I was trained by the man that started the International Roofing and Waterproofing Association (now part of the Roof Consultant's Institute - the RCI) and who taught me all kinds of systems over a two-year period. He wrote the "bible" for roofing detailing that the RCI now has....

But my comment has to do concern over statements I see above - that the maintenance personnel in the local School Districts should handle maintenance of roofs.

Unfortunately, that could work right into the hands of the scammers, in the OTHER way they control bidding and contracts.

In the design and construction world, we have had set up since the 1880's in law the roles all are to play - even in maintenance. These roles protect the public.

So here's the problem: When you have maintenance personnel handling the maintenance of roofs, the roofs with REAL warranties will lose their warrantable status. Maintenance personnel should never repair roofs.

Further: NO one in government should be specifying fire-rated products and or purchasing them without the proper building permits obtained, including the use of duly licensed third party design consultants. Those consultants, if any good, typically use third-party, independent Registered Roof Observers to inspect conditions and installation, and Registered Roof Consultants to recommend type of roofing system to use, or as regards maintenance detailing...

Further, no party should have any financial or other conflict of interest with any party that supplies or installs the products.

Also, and most of all, the really good, usually much better-priced product manufacturers do give real warranties, which means that you don't have maintenance fees, because the products and their installation last 20-30 years.

If there is a problem, the initial installing contractor and the manufacturer's rep should be involved, so that any repairs meet the warranty conditions and the warranty continues.

Typically, repairs under warranties have costs that tend to be in the hundreds to low thousands of dollars, not a $50,000 fee every 5 years to be paid to the high-markup priced guys...

So if you want to save money and have a long lasting-roof, with monies spent on programs for the students instead, not on redone roofs that if installed properly would not cost 6-8 times the normal prices over the same life of the roof - then one would need to follow the recommendations listed above.

Thank you, Janet Campbell
www.schoolroofingscam.blogspot.com
and soon to come, many articles at:
www.roofingscam.blogspot.com