For background, see Hyperlink Corrections, April 10, 2007 You Get What You Pay For, April 10, 2007 and Peel & Stick, April 8, 2007.

Finally, it is all coming together. Here is what happened as best I can piece together. City of Richmond staff invited a sales representative of a roofing materials manufacturer, W.B. Hickman, Inc., to inspect seven roofs, make recommendations for re-roofing and repairs, and prepare specifications for $531,000 of work. The W.B. Hickman, Inc., sales representative, John Bennett, did all this at no cost to the City. Or did he?

Are we surprised that the specifications prepared by Bennett were cleverly drafted to limit the roofing materials to only W.B. Hickman, Inc. roofing products? Apparently that is the case. That is how W,B, Hickman, Inc., works to market its products in a way that limits competition. That may be okay for the private sector, but it is either illegal or certainly contrary to the spirit of the law for a public agency where bidding is supposed to be actually competitive. Our staff was either naïve and just got sucked in, or they were too lazy to find a way to have an independent consultant perform the investigation and prepare competitive generic specifications.

In this case, the contractor that will install the roofing products was competitively selected. I have worked with Best Contracting Services, Inc., previously on repairs at Hercules Middle/High School, and they did a good job on a challenging project. But the roofing materials for Richmond’s seven buildings will be provided by W.B. Hickman. The way Bennett wrote the specs, Best Contracting Services, Inc., had no choice but to base their price on and use W.B. Hickman products.

At the pre-bid conference, the issue of the sole-source for roofing products was raised, and bidders were told that due to the time crunch, only W.B. Hickman products would be allowed.

In 2000, the State Of New Jersey Commission of Investigation produced a report, Waste And Abuse: Public School Roofing Projects, in which they found the following:

During the 1995-98 period, Roof Spec/Design Inc. prepared plans and specifications for multiple public-school roofing jobs, including the Edison project, that called exclusively for the purchase and use of products supplied by Hickman. The Commission’s investigation revealed that roofing products bearing the Hickman name are priced exorbitantly compared with those of comparable quality labeled by other suppliers or manufacturers. Further, Hickman’s sales representatives typically receive commissions equal to 25 percent of material sales, more than three times the industry average of 7 percent

Some have asked me if the City should reconsider this contract award. At this point, I don’t believe so. However, the City should retain a qualified independent roof consultant to review the project and inspect the work. The best thing the City can do is learn a lesson from this and put in place procedures that will not allow this to happen again.