Duro-Last roofing

Log Out | Topics | Search Moderators | Register | Edit Profile

Author Message Sheldon Wolfe Senior Member Username: sheldon_wolfe Post Number: 612 Registered: 01-2003 Posted on Wednesday, February 06, 2013 - 10:06 am:    What experience have you had with Duro-Last? ken hercenberg Senior Member Username: khercenberg Post Number: 424 Registered: 12-2006 Posted on Wednesday, February 06, 2013 - 10:23 am:    I've never specified it or gotten it on a project that I know of. Typically I limit my PVC selection to Sarnafil with an alternative for FiberTite (KEE). J. Peter Jordan Senior Member Username: jpjordan Post Number: 529 Registered: 05-2004 Posted on Wednesday, February 06, 2013 - 10:26 am:    They have done quite a bit of work in our area, and I have specified them on a few projects. Their marketing is primarily to owners and facility managers although I have seen them around a bit more in the last few years. Richard L Matteo, AIA, CSI, CCS Senior Member Username: rlmat Post Number: 562 Registered: 10-2003 Posted on Wednesday, February 06, 2013 - 11:09 am:    I'm with Ken. However, I did have the rep visit me at my former firm, but they weren't included in my spec at that time. Nathan Woods, CSI, CCCA, LEED AP Senior Member Username: nwoods Post Number: 505 Registered: 08-2005 Posted on Wednesday, February 06, 2013 - 11:26 am:    They have a good presence in northern California, when I was working on school's. Their product seems to be pretty good, and the contractors I worked with seemed to be okay with it also, but I don't have any length of time with it. Though I have to admit, it is very hard to veer away from Sarnafil, which has never ever failed me. Robert E. Woodburn Senior Member Username: bob_woodburn Post Number: 32 Registered: 11-2010 Posted on Wednesday, February 06, 2013 - 11:44 am:    Peter, you say their marketing is primarily to owners and facility managers, which reminds me of the approach taken by Garland, Hickman and Tremco (for roofing, not sealants). Would you put Duro-Last in the same category as those firms? Was Duro-Last ever specified or included at the owner's request? Would you care to characterize your experience with Duro-Last? Thanks. Russ Hinkle, AIA, CDT, LEED BD+C Senior Member Username: rhinkle Post Number: 110 Registered: 02-2006 Posted on Wednesday, February 06, 2013 - 01:42 pm:    I used Durolast once on a school project here in Michigan. The school system insisted, as they want to try them out on the small addition. At the time (15 years ago?), Durlast was not thought of as a higher quality roof. Typically, their membrane thicknesses were less than everyone else - or so I was told by the older mentors in the office. Maybe they have changed, but I have not run across them in any of the other firms I have been with in Michigan as being equal to the typical membrane roofs. Russ Hinkle Nathan Woods, CSI, CCCA, LEED AP Senior Member Username: nwoods Post Number: 506 Registered: 08-2005 Posted on Wednesday, February 06, 2013 - 02:43 pm:    Its true, they don't compare well in terms of absolute numbers. but they had some other compelling quantitative info. I'm no longer with the same firm and don't have access to my old notes and emails, so I cannot elaborate, but I can confirm that they are thinner than the G410 Sarnafil materials anon (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Wednesday, February 06, 2013 - 06:18 pm:    Nathan, I believe that you are mistaken. We have a long-term client that has insisted on Durolast systems for every project we have done for them. I have found the Durolast system to be every bit as good as Sarnafil and Fibertite (which I also specify frequently) component by component as well as overall durability. This client has Durolast systems down that have been in service for more than 15 years, without issue. Tech service from the local rep in my area (West Coast) is top notch. Nathan Woods, CSI, CCCA, LEED AP Senior Member Username: nwoods Post Number: 509 Registered: 08-2005 Posted on Wednesday, February 06, 2013 - 08:53 pm:    How does that conflict with anything I've stated? Are you rebuking the concept that their mil thickness is different than Sarnafil? The product rep that I worked with a few years ago was adamant that Dura-Last 50 mil was superior to Sarnafil 60mil G410 felt backed. Using my calculator, it would appear that 59 is thinner than 60, this, they don't compare will in absolute numbers. But keep going, I can play semantics games all day long. Peggy White, CCS, CCCA, LEED AP BD+C Senior Member Username: peggy Post Number: 51 Registered: 07-2007 Posted on Wednesday, February 06, 2013 - 11:12 pm:    @Robert - yes, but it's more like they would like to be in the same category as other roofing companies you mentioned. @Nathan - I recently did a project where Duro-Last threatened to challange the spec for a public project, insisting that their 60mil was equal to the preferred product's 80mil membrane. And I quote from the letter that DL sent: "The decision not to except our membrane is being made without understanding by your client of materials. Again, our Duro-Last membrane is constructed with superior reinforcement and balance of membrane to provide in service performance to meet required warranty requirements. We produce a superior membrane, thicker does not equate to better. Better engineered makes a superior membrane." So, I ended up having to include it as an 'approved equal' in the specs, much to my annoyance. Sheldon Wolfe Senior Member Username: sheldon_wolfe Post Number: 613 Registered: 01-2003 Posted on Wednesday, February 06, 2013 - 11:51 pm:    Fortunately, no real horror stories. About all I knew about Duro-Last was that they deal directly with owners, which brought to mind a couple of other companies that have been mentioned in this thread. Thanks for the feedback. Looks like another case of faith-based specifications. :-) Nathan Woods, CSI, CCCA, LEED AP Senior Member Username: nwoods Post Number: 510 Registered: 08-2005 Posted on Thursday, February 07, 2013 - 01:42 am:    LOL, I had a few typos in my response that I would love to attribute to my occasionally smartphone. "50" is less than 60, THUS, they don't compare WITH absolute numbers. My thumbs need to catch up with my zest for a good discussion! Peggy, my experience was very similar. ken hercenberg Senior Member Username: khercenberg Post Number: 425 Registered: 12-2006 Posted on Thursday, February 07, 2013 - 08:48 am:    Wow Peggy. Sounds like an experience I had with a certain fiber based sprayed-on fireproofing material. The firm I was with had an internal memo, not for public consumption, that one of our denser architects sent to the product rep for comment. This, of course, resulted in a very nasty letter from a certain chief counsel to our CEO. I used to spec their equivalent wet mix products, never the dry mix. Now, for non-public work, I don't spec them at all. A shame really; some of their reps are good people and some of their products are pretty good as well. Sounds like there may be other companies out there that need to learn how to play nice. I hate bullies. scott piper (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Wednesday, February 06, 2013 - 10:55 pm:    In my area (midwest) they also tend to concentrate their sales on the Owner and not the designers, or the installers for that matter. They have tended to stay away from the suburban and city markets where there is an architect more often involved. In outlying areas they sell directly to schools without any outside interference from designers. They have even provided a "public bid" turn-key approach for some schools by specifying the system, putting out the bid packets, collecting the bids and then selling their product to the low bidder. They also appear to be doing a hard sell on the virtues of a white roof for energy savings but in our area the majority of the old schools that this product goes on are not air conditioned and are not occupied in the summer anyway. In a slightly off tangent subject the Jan/Feb issue of Commerical Building Products magazine (page 20) there is reference to a Stanford University study that concluded that on average,white roofs increased winter heating demand more than they decreaed summer AC loads. As always the key factor is location,location location. ken hercenberg Senior Member Username: khercenberg Post Number: 426 Registered: 12-2006 Posted on Thursday, February 07, 2013 - 09:48 am:    But what about the all-important LEED point for reflective roof surfaces? Are you saying that USGBC, the President and Al Gore might not know what they're talking about? What about needing white roofs EVERYWHERE? I'm aghast! Next you'll be saying that white roofs only should be used in southern locations where A/C days exceed heating days. What heresy! Our government has made it clear that white roofs should be put on every building everywhere, no matter what. Better watch out, someone might turn you in to the Green Police. Peggy White, CCS, CCCA, LEED AP BD+C Senior Member Username: peggy Post Number: 52 Registered: 07-2007 Posted on Thursday, February 07, 2013 - 09:53 am:    @Ken - yes, there are definitely others operating in the same mode, much like what Piper just described. I remember the first time I ran into it during the 90s on the east coast on a community college project - the company name starts with a 'T' - our roofing consultant wanted to use another roofing system but the lunches and golfing outings provided by the T people overruled the better product. I also remember this lurid episode in SF: http://schoolroofingscam.blogspot.com/ She's quite inflammatory but facts are facts. I don't agree with her reasoning that this is a leftist plot. To me, its simply a greed issue It's discouraging. Peggy White, CCS, CCCA, LEED AP BD+C Senior Member Username: peggy Post Number: 53 Registered: 07-2007 Posted on Thursday, February 07, 2013 - 10:24 am:    Re the white roofing/northern climate side issue: The sustainable community has been aware of this issue for many years - it's called the 'winter penalty'. It's the same for solar. http://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/pdfs/cool_roof_fact_sheet.pdf California has a warm climate, we have done the math and now Title 24 requires a cool roof. Germany is going gangbusters with green roofing, because that works for their climate. LEED is a menu of potential strategies, and not all strategies can be used on all projects. Tony Wolf, AIA, CCS, LEED-AP Senior Member Username: tony_wolf Post Number: 44 Registered: 11-2007 Posted on Thursday, February 07, 2013 - 10:54 am:    Maybe us northerners should use black roofs and apply for innovation credits? o ~ < \_/ I think the LEED points make good [if not perfect] sense, because it's not just degree days. Cooling takes more energy than heating. And for most commercial buildings, internal loads often require cooling even on cool, clear days, when a black roof could just be adding to the load. Lastly, if DuroLast claims 'better' than another product, it needs to prove with test reports. Maybe it is. Claiming quality and proving it are 2 different things. I had a municipal client [in a previous life, a generation ago] that insisted on DL, no equals; since it was the only one factory-fabricated, we could do this. Frankly, I was glad to avoid [most of] any leaking follow-up. scott piper (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Thursday, February 07, 2013 - 11:45 am:    @Peggy: I mentioned the Stanford study not because I had just become aware of the issues with 'winter penalty'. I was just happy to see something written that echoes what our office has been preaching (without documentation to back it up) for several years. @Tony: in general cooling does take more energy than heating. However if you are installing a roof on a school that is not occupied in the summer, is north of the mason/dixon line and is not air conditioned then the arguement for a white roof diminishes significantly IMO. Also a black roof would not add much to the cooling load if the roof is well insulated with minimal thermal bridges (there will always be some around penetrations). Of course it could be argued that in an urban setting a black roof could contribute to the urban heat index. However the Stanford study (and some other studies as well) suggests that greater reflectivity of the roof membrane increased the solar absorption of airborne particles thus increasing atmospheric heating. Of course many of these studies are performed or encouraged by black membrane folks so nothing is definitive but the "white roof" star does not shine as brightly as some would like to proclaim. Robert E. Woodburn Senior Member Username: bob_woodburn Post Number: 33 Registered: 11-2010 Posted on Thursday, February 07, 2013 - 12:46 pm:    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. Peggy White, CCS, CCCA, LEED AP BD+C Senior Member Username: peggy Post Number: 54 Registered: 07-2007 Posted on Thursday, February 07, 2013 - 01:37 pm:    Good for you Robert - your persistance paid off! Literally - you did the right thing and the Owner saved some money. J. Peter Jordan Senior Member Username: jpjordan Post Number: 530 Registered: 05-2004 Posted on Friday, February 08, 2013 - 10:42 am:    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. Sheldon Wolfe Senior Member Username: sheldon_wolfe Post Number: 614 Registered: 01-2003 Posted on Friday, February 08, 2013 - 04:08 pm:    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. ken hercenberg Senior Member Username: khercenberg Post Number: 427 Registered: 12-2006 Posted on Friday, February 08, 2013 - 05:00 pm:    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. Sheldon Wolfe Senior Member Username: sheldon_wolfe Post Number: 615 Registered: 01-2003 Posted on Friday, February 08, 2013 - 05:12 pm:    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! Tony Wolf, AIA, CCS, LEED-AP Senior Member Username: tony_wolf Post Number: 45 Registered: 11-2007 Posted on Friday, February 08, 2013 - 05:14 pm:    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. ken hercenberg Senior Member Username: khercenberg Post Number: 428 Registered: 12-2006 Posted on Friday, February 08, 2013 - 05:17 pm:    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. Peggy White, CCS, CCCA, LEED AP BD+C Senior Member Username: peggy Post Number: 55 Registered: 07-2007 Posted on Friday, February 08, 2013 - 05:21 pm:    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. ken hercenberg Senior Member Username: khercenberg Post Number: 429 Registered: 12-2006 Posted on Friday, February 08, 2013 - 05:41 pm:    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. Robert E. Woodburn Senior Member Username: bob_woodburn Post Number: 34 Registered: 11-2010 Posted on Friday, February 08, 2013 - 06:26 pm:    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...) Janet Campbell (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Saturday, February 16, 2013 - 04:05 am:    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) J. Peter Jordan Senior Member Username: jpjordan Post Number: 533 Registered: 05-2004 Posted on Sunday, February 17, 2013 - 11:41 am:    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. spiper (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Sunday, February 17, 2013 - 01:19 pm:    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. Mark Gilligan SE, Senior Member Username: mark_gilligan Post Number: 533 Registered: 10-2007 Posted on Sunday, February 17, 2013 - 06:10 pm:    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. J. Peter Jordan Senior Member Username: jpjordan Post Number: 534 Registered: 05-2004 Posted on Monday, February 18, 2013 - 10:20 am:    What types of structural products are you referring to? Ed Storer Junior Member Username: ed_storer Post Number: 2 Registered: 05-2009 Posted on Monday, February 18, 2013 - 01:24 pm:    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. Robert R. Solomon (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Saturday, August 03, 2013 - 01:56 pm:    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/ David J. Wyatt, CDT Senior Member Username: david_j_wyatt_cdt Post Number: 10 Registered: 03-2011 Posted on Tuesday, August 06, 2013 - 01:54 pm:    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 don’t 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 purchaser’s 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! Peggy White, CCS, CCCA, LEED AP BD+C Senior Member Username: peggy Post Number: 62 Registered: 07-2007 Posted on Tuesday, August 06, 2013 - 02:14 pm:    @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) Richard L Matteo, AIA, CSI, CCS Senior Member Username: rlmat Post Number: 599 Registered: 10-2003 Posted on Tuesday, August 06, 2013 - 02:21 pm:    I once had a PM in one of the firms I worked for tell me that "nothing made him happier than when an Owner told us what roofing system to use" The caveat to this is to make sure you write the CYA letter that you are specifiying the product at the request of the Owner in lieu of the system you had proposed. ken hercenberg Senior Member Username: khercenberg Post Number: 577 Registered: 12-2006 Posted on Tuesday, August 06, 2013 - 03:57 pm:    It's unfortunate that the presumed high quality, eco-friendly products available in Europe (European TPOs) for use in PRMA assemblies are not available in the US. As such, we are forced to use PVC or petroleum based products to get the longevity that is needed. This is a trade-off in sustainability, as longevity is a critical factor in keeping products out of our landfills. The hard part is convincing developers and building owners that it's worthwhile putting down a roofing system that will last 60 years instead of a roofing membrane that will last 10, especially if the project is for a speculative investor. Of course as long as we find that 'conventional roofing' systems are cheaper than PRMA and vegetated alternatives, roofing membranes will continue to short-lived. As to who to depend on for information, I'm in favor of relying on those people who have built trust. If you find you can trust an installer or supplier more than your rep, you need to go with it. Some of us lucky people have found that handful of 'golden reps' who will walk away from a project if their product just isn't right. The ones who bug me are those who tell me to change our design to suit their product. (Yep, just had that conversation again a little while ago). I still call people who rep products outside of my territory when I have questions because I know I can trust them to give me accurate information. I also rely on Installers, vendors, consultants, and this forum. Anne Whitacre, FCSI CCS Senior Member Username: awhitacre Post Number: 1366 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Tuesday, August 06, 2013 - 09:17 pm:    multiple things here.. 1) I have gotten a LEED innovation credit for a black roof in Montana. Carlisle has the data to show that in some climates the black roof is more effective, and the climate line runs about at the California/Oregon border, across to New York City. In those area, you really need to do the calculations. 2) As for a long-lived roof: every membrane after about 10 years is dependent on good maintenance more than a good membrane. You want a 200 year roof? Use Lead. See Elsia.org.uk for lead marketing information. In most public work I've done, the owner can specify what roof membrane they want and hold the spec based on the "maintenance capabilities of their staff". Never had a problem, and I've never had Durolast try to break the spec (or Garland, for that matter). Of course if you have a weenie for an owner, doesn't matter what the spec says... Ellis C. Whitby, PE, CSI, AIA, LEED® AP Senior Member Username: ecwhitby Post Number: 201 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Wednesday, August 07, 2013 - 07:56 am:    "weenie".. is that a technical term? J. Peter Jordan Senior Member Username: jpjordan Post Number: 598 Registered: 05-2004 Posted on Wednesday, August 07, 2013 - 11:54 am:    At Rice University, "weenie" is (or was) student slang for (v) studying very intensely, "He weenies for every exam."; and (n) a person who studies (one who "weenies"), "That weenie breaks the curve on every exam." Steven Bruneel, AIA, CSI-CDT, LEED-AP, EDAC Senior Member Username: redseca2 Post Number: 402 Registered: 12-2006 Posted on Wednesday, August 07, 2013 - 12:24 pm:    Well are they being "weenatious" or "weenitious"? Anne Whitacre, FCSI CCS Senior Member Username: awhitacre Post Number: 1367 Registered: 07-2002 Posted on Wednesday, August 07, 2013 - 08:01 pm:    in the Pacific Northwest, a "weenie" is someone who folds under pressure....no matter how slight the pressure. should have consulted the US slang dictionary, I guess -- weenies are never "atious" or "itious" about anything. Ellis C. Whitby, PE, CSI, AIA, LEED® AP Senior Member Username: ecwhitby Post Number: 203 Registered: 03-2003 Posted on Thursday, August 08, 2013 - 09:15 am:    Anne; In the middle atlantic a "weenie" is also someone who folds easily (or doesn't even standup). There are other definitions. I was jsut having fun asking about the "technical term." Janet Campbell (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Friday, August 09, 2013 - 08:26 pm:    Hi, I have seen folks coming onto my blogs off here and just wanted to reiterate what I have posted on www.schoolroofingscam.blogspot.com is the case. So many people have sent me documentation since 1997, the sixth year into watching my bosses in bed with Tremco and finding out they were taking kickbacks for all kinds of illegally-sole sourced contracts at the Univ. of California San Francisco Facilities Dept.....that I kept getting calls for help from at least 24 states and over 200 people in 1999 when I was fired for going to the FBI that I had to post them to stop paying for mailing and faxing!!!! There is a whole lot more to be posted and I will get to them after a particular event in August, 2013. There is a LOT happening..... Let me say this to the specifiers and architects here: I am an architect trained by Matt Hitlin, former head of the IRWCA (International Roofing and Waterproofing Consultants' Association), now part of the RCI. I was told by a recent President of the RCI that "Matt wrote the Bible of Roofing." I don't think Matt is still alive, he taught me in the early 1980's for two years as a roof consultant for a couple of years on an extremely complex 5 acre plan size, 11 stories at one end two buildings around an acre atrium corporate headquarters building that I was in charge of 1/4 of (the more difficult detailing and design areas). It was built into a hillside for a southern mother company of all the power companies in the southeast. I was a young kid, recently out of architecture school at Georgia Tech. Matt told me in the very early 2000's I think it was that he started the IRWCA to fight Tremco, Garland and Hickman.... Essentially, the scam companies reuse other's products with or without their permission, mark the products up 6-8 times, and in some cases, "short" the asphalt between the plies so that the roofs get done before year 10. This happens usually schools, unwatched funding where they can easily dupe or pay off school boards along with duplicitous business officers and facilities directors and staff....but also happened at an IBM Chip-Making Plant in the Silicone Valley where the Roof Consultant called in later couldn't believe what he saw. The Tremco roof had been shorted, water got in and got into the clean rooms. Tremco came back and redid the roof, repaired it...and the same thing happened again. About $162 million later in losses and two new clean rooms, the facilities guys threw the Tremco reps off the roof and used the roof consultant (duh!) and got a roof that worked. Contractors in the San Francisco Bay Area and Tremco Sales Reps ordered the shorting. You should have heard former estimators and Tremco field reps, angry, telling me about it... Architects in general in California and across the US and Canada are C-L-U-E-L-E-S-S and are going along to get along. But these were ruled "criminal acts" in my case and so yelled at the UCSF attorneys by the California Supreme Court Justices in my case at an oral hearing in 2004 - the sole-sourcing was ruled criminal!!!!! - with the UCSF specs I turned into the FBI in 1997 (Tremco, although Garland or Hickman would have been as well)....and nothing got done because of dirty well-known California politicians threatening me, one my life, and another as recent as the Fall of 2012...a prominent State Senator & former San Francisco School Board President. So you have to understand - any architect or engineer doing so is aiding and abetting criminal activities. Got it? It won't be long until those involved may be charged with it, and I would not want to be in their shores. Forewarned is forearmed. Anytime you see one of these specs, and if someone is trying to force you to use them, call me, will you? Email me at campbellarchitec@aol.com and I will give you my number. There is a good way to help you....and everyone in California, every state and province too (yes, I get calls from Canada and lots of hits from the UK and many other countries looking up "Garland Scam" etc....)....word is out. There's a lot more to say.... Janet Campbell (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Friday, August 09, 2013 - 08:32 pm:    And postings from Canada - usually from Ontario and Nova Scotia, but this time, British Columbia! XXXXXXXXX Media (74.121.32.162) [Label IP Address] 3 returning visits Canada FlagVancouver, British Columbia, Canada (No referring link) 6 Aug 09:28:31 Roofing Scam Targeting Schools and Public Work schoolroofingscam.blogspot.ca/ 6 Aug 09:31:16 Roofing Scam Targeting Schools and Public Work: What a Shame! 6 Aug 09:31:28 www.kitsapsun.com/news/2013/jul/12/north-kitsap-school-board-approves-roofing/#ixzz2ZGxAOd1M (Exit Link) Janet Campbell (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Friday, August 09, 2013 - 08:30 pm:    I wanted to add something. Here is a typical listing of what I see coming onto my blogs from the UK - many other countries, too...just so you can see how widespread the scam is...usually it's Garland, but this time, it's Tremco and Hickman and look at the search terms they use on Google! I have taken out who it was but left on the country and date and time.... XXXXXXX Technologies Ltd (87.115.47.143) [Label IP Address] 2 returning visits United Kingdom FlagUnited Kingdom www.google.co.uk — tremco roofing litigation #1 1 Aug 20:10:14 Roofing Scam Targeting Schools and Public Work www.google.co.uk — tremco litigation #2 5 Aug 09:17:24 Roofing Scam Targeting Schools and Public Work 5 Aug 09:17:47 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nGPNJxK1ZRQ&list=UUWUx5f1-40oR0y7QBNcbqmw&index=8&feature=plcp (Exit Link) www.google.co.uk — hickman roofing litigation #2 5 Aug 09:33:33 Roofing Scam Targeting Schools and Public Work: W. P. Hickman Goes Belly-Up - as of October 2, 2008 5 Aug 09:36:37 www.roofingscam.blogspot.com/ (Exit Link) www.google.co.uk — hickman roofing litigation #2 5 Aug 09:37:46 Roofing Scam Targeting Schools and Public Work: W. P. Hickman Goes Belly-Up - as of October 2, 2008 5 Aug 09:38:00 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gEKVSrPui08&list=UUWUx5f1-40oR0y7QBNcbqmw&index=10&feature=plcp (Exit Link) www.google.co.uk — tremco litigation #2 6 Aug 15:50:51 Roofing Scam Targeting Schools and Public Work Ronald J. Ray, RA, CCS, CCCA Senior Member Username: rjray Post Number: 123 Registered: 04-2004 Posted on Monday, September 16, 2013 - 02:51 pm:    Since Janet Campbell shared information regarding Tremco, below is the latest from NRCA: http://www.nrca.net/RoofingNews/rpm-international-and-tremco-pay-millions-to-resolve-allegations-regarding-false-claims.9-6-2013.3146/Details/Story Robert Solomon (Unregistered Guest) Unregistered guest Posted on Friday, April 18, 2014 - 04:48 pm:    Friends: No pubnlic administration has the right to "Exclude" competition in favor of a "Preferred Vendor". That is law in all 50 states, territories, provinces, of Canada. You may not spend public money as private money, or for your "convenience". The Tremco, Garland Scam is widely known. You've already mentioned Ms. Campbell's very informative website, backed by public record. You may not write an unnecessarily restrictive specification favoring only ONE manufacturer as they have you believe. Our schools are paying Garland, and Tremco reps a 25% Commission, and a purchasing cooperative around 4%. IMMEDIATELY, your tax dollar just turned into 71 cents, with nothing to show for it. You will notice that honorable manufacturers like Firestone, GAF, Carlisle Syntec, and Barrett, are NEVER mentioned in investigative reports. that's because they compete for business, not buy it. Note: Retired 2003 I do not solicit, nor accept compensation or personal advancement of any kind. I use my time to inform taxpayers. Roof Consultant's Institute has a very firm stance against purchasing cooperatives, as I do. The 'which roof is better" argument is meaningless to me, as all major manufacturers offer top flight systems at FAIR pricing. All public purchases must provide both "Servicability", and "Value" to the taxpayers. The predatory sales model of Tremco and Garland claim they can buy anything they WANT. False. By that reasoning, all school board members could drive Mercedes 600's because they "Want" them. The "Maintenance Agreement" scam goes along with all this. The salesman gets 50% if you can believe that. We passed SB 630 in Oklahoma which calls for fair competition of all trades. I research and present copious amounts data here, as Ms. Campbell does. She is a taxpayer champion in my view, and you should be grateful that someone cares. If you actually want to learn about public roofing procurement, visit me here: http://wikiroof.blogspot.com/ I can defend this position against anyone because the premise is not debatable. Taxpayers, Schools, and our Children matter, not "Sole Source" contracts that are designed only to siphon off your tax dollars. I spent almost 40 years of my life in the commercial roofing discipline at the highest level. Now paralyzed by a severe neurological trauma (hemorrhagic stroke), I share this knowledge with you as a civic responsibility. Say NO to Tremco, Garland, and all Purchasing Cooperatives. Insist upon 4 major manufacturers with the assets to back up their warranties. Your tax dollars do not belong in the pocket of a "Salesman", but much reach their intended purpose. "In this world everything changes except good deeds and bad deeds; they follow you as the shadow follows the body" (unknown) Perhaps this is the day I've helped someone. Respect. Robert R. 'Ron" Solomon Director, Roof Consultant's Alliance (3,600) Public Procurement Analyst CCC 1325620 RobertRSolomon@aol.com