So what you think about the Dealership/Franchise/Exclusive Territory Model?

How many of you are part of a dealership for a specific product line? Likes and dislikes?

I guess I was referring more to products/programs like Conklin, GutterHelmet or StealthBond. I don't know much about how they work? You agree to push their products, you buy direct, they provide leads? It sounds like every program is different?

MikeH - That's unfortunate the school districts in your area don't require PW. HTH do they circumvent that? It's "public $".

Yes -I agree that not just "anybody" or simple merits of salesmanship/cronyism, should be allowed to bid public work - Hence why I feel state licensing is necessary for true/fair competition. However, the licensing needs to be authentic so-to-speak.

We've always competed in "lowest responsible bid" basis.....It's also how I subcontractors on GC work. Anything else is irresponsible. The key element being lowest RESPONSIBLE bid.

However-To be honest; Lest I forget the angst w/gov't work. Yes - The shenanigans....We would have the lowest responsible bid & they would give it to some clown with a ridiculous low #, only to catch him not paying PW's &/or grossly violating OSHA, etc... Too many time to count.....Incompetence w/gooberment......But now I digress even further off-topic

I have yet to see a system that's not open to some sort of shananigans, or open to an awful result. Ohio used to be a low-bid state and it was so stringent that "contractors" with no business getting a job did awful work and cost the taxpayers millions of dollars in fixing poor work.

Then you had outfits like Garland, Tremco, Hickman and other writing tightly controlled closed specs, using products that were private labelled from commodity manufacturer's. I have always refused to do this work, even though I was constantly being recruited for it. A contracting friend of mine actually took this to a lawsuit and it dragged on for years.

Ohio has tried multiple ways of fixing the problems with low bid, and most of them have not been favorable to companies like mine, but if it stops the installation of low quality, ie: more expensive in the long run, roof systems, I'm for it. Because I'm a non-union company, with nearly union wages and benefits, I'm locked out of being competitive on prevailing wage work, and our public schools no longer require prevailing wage, so I can't compete with the typical non-union company. My opportunity for getting school work is few and far between. It either needs to be too rural to attract bigger capability contractors, and too big or complex for the average rural guy, or it needs to be a specific spec for a Fibertite, Derbigum or other unique product where the school board has decided on the technical merits of the product that they want only that product....... to do that with a commodity TPO manufacturer is wrong.

But to imply that any and all people should be allowed to bid public work, is just as negligent with taxpayer dollars as is an unjustified closed spec. I think most, if not all, people on this site are too intelligent and seen to much poor workmanship to imply such a thing,..... so I'll assume it's lack of detail that makes the posts appear as such.

Roofguy - I feel for ya. I now what it's like. It's typically fricken joke & wast of time/$. Here in Colorado some 20 + yrs ago I sat on a state licensing committee. I quickly realized it was fruitless. What a waste of time. No one had a clue and where to thick-skulled to even have a logical conversation, Instead they've managed to pass various lame "bills" over the years which have little to no effect on cleaning up the industry so-to-speak.

To this day there's still no licensing and never will be, IMHO. The good ol' boy network is too powerful as well as too much $/opposition from big residential developers. Not to mention the lawyers - Colorado is a very litigious state. They want to keep their cash-cow.

The established larger roofing companies are happy where they sit & the home builders/residential hail-chasing type roofing, (or now it's "Exterior renovation"), contractors are happy having free-rein with gullible/naive homeowners.

Roofguy Said:If you are talking about a mfr protecting their interests by limiting the number of dealers/contractors in a given area, then Im all for it.

I am 100% opposed to this when a publicly tax-funded entity takes roofing bids with a spec that requires the use of a manufacturer that only allows their few hand-picked contractors in. Theyll write a GAF TPO spec, but the local GAF rep has his few favored contractors and they take turns sharing these contracts.

Not right at all! Its unfair to others contractors and to the taxpayers.

As a former school board member (and son of one too), I can only agree with this as it applies to a class of materials. It's totally wrong to limit a TPO spec to just GAF, unless they can specifically demonstrate a superior installation history or superior material construction vs other TPO products in the market area. I haven't seen any such proof from any of the TPO market players. So I think the spec should be open to Firestone, Carlisle, Manville... as well.

But while any school district with a highly qualified roofing contractor on the board would be fortunate to have their free experience (the member would be barred from bidding any such work), most school districts do not have said luxury. They are all to often victims of the sales game, and they have little option but to put their trust into the hands of an architect or other designer... who just might be a material rep... and hope for the best, and hope that they did enough homework to guarantee that a total schmuck doesn't get the job.

I highly doubt that Kold King sold product to anyone that wanted it, and I highly doubt that you think a manufacturer should be required to sell their material to anyone wishing to bid a project. It might not be ideal, but sometimes we all fall outside the bid spec. If I was you and I was really PO'd about it, I'd get my hands on one of the other TPO products and bid the job with that at a lowball number just to open some eyes, cause a ruckus, and have something to go crying to thee newspaper about.

It would be one thing if it was a closed spec for a Fibertite, Sarnafil, Derbigum, Siplast or any other proprietary product for which a distinct design/construction/compounding technical distinction from all other products can legitimately be made, but to limit it to one specific mfr of TPO.... yeah, that sucks, even if it doesn't really apply to the question Vicky was asking.

While I can understand & appreciate both; I tend to both agree & disagree with both previous assumptions/opinions.

I agree w/MikeH in that I will not pay a manufacture to promote their product.

I also agree with Roofguy that the practice of specifying a particular manufacture should not be tolerated on public work.

My perspective; My roots are with fed/state/local municipalities - gov't/public work in California.

Upon relocating to Colorado in 92' I was confronted with the fact I was basically ostracized from bidding a lot of commercial & gov't work due to the respective manufacture approval game. They had their good ol' boys network so-to-speak & it was next to impossible to become "an approved applicator" or the like.

At the time I surmised this is what happens in a state that lacks contractor licensing. It was simply the industry's way of correcting itself. Sort of self-regulating. It's quite understandable, because w/o any licensing, any Tom, Dick or Harry could hang-out a shingle, (and they do!). So naturally, the manufactures needs to "protect" their reputation(s), etc.....

The problem is that this does limit competition. While the building owners & GC's realize some solace in that the contractors' bidding their work are at least of some minimal standard of competence, they're cheated a bit though less than potential efficiency that would otherwise be enjoyed through a more open market.

I recently spent 2yrs back in California as an estimator for a former employee. Colorado lags waaaayyy behind in labor efficiency, just as it did a couple decades ago.

FWIW- as a side-note: Back in the mid-90's when we had 80+ employees - 90% we brought in from the west and re-trained for Colorado's climate applications/methods. The local labor pool was full of non-English speaking illegals & old dogs who couldn't be retrained effectively.

State licensing - A forever proponent!

Completely depends on how you define the "model".

If you're talking about something that you have to buy, I hate it, and don't participate in it.

If you are talking about a mfr protecting their interests by limiting the number of dealers/contractors in a given area, then I'm all for it.

Business to me is about relationships. I don't buy my relationships, but if I'm going to promote a product on a daily basis, it's not going to a product that gives it to everyone. I like to find a product that is technically superior, then sell the merits of that product along side the merits of my company. That can make a very good sales presentation. If a manufacturer won't/don't see the benefits of that combination and isn't willing to provide me with a bare minimum of protection (having some high-bar criteria for their contractor base) then there's not benefit to me selling their product. I am not afraid of competition, and realize that they need to have enough contractors in a given area to cover all their leads and bidding opportunities when everyone is busy, but it can't be the guy I compete with everyday in my back yard, and it better be people of similar capabilities if I'm being asked to bid their leads.

Just don't knock on my door, tell me how great you are, then ask me for money to have the exclusive right to sell your garbage. If you're that good, you should be paying me to promote it.