A former executive of a Florida commercial roofing company has pleaded guilty to participating in a bid-rigging conspiracy that illegally manipulated the bidding process for roofing projects across the state.
Gregg Wallick, of Fort Lauderdale, Florida, the former president and chief executive officer of a commercial roofing company, pleaded guilty in federal court to conspiring to rig bids for commercial roofing contracts. The charge falls under Section 1 of the Sherman Act, the primary federal law prohibiting anticompetitive business practices.
According to documents filed in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, Wallick and several co-conspirators coordinated their bids before submitting proposals for commercial roofing projects.
Rather than competing against one another as required in a legitimate bidding process, the conspirators allegedly agreed in advance on pricing and which company would win specific contracts.
In many cases, one participant would intentionally submit a high or “cover” bid to create the appearance of competition while ensuring another conspirator secured the job.
This type of arrangement, commonly referred to as “comp” or “cover bidding,” is a well-known antitrust violation designed to eliminate true competition in procurement processes.
Federal prosecutors say the scheme operated from at least September 2020 through February 2022 and affected numerous commercial roofing projects across Florida.
Authorities estimate the conspiracy resulted in Wallick’s company obtaining more than $3.5 million in revenue through improperly awarded contracts.
Officials with the U.S. Department of Justice emphasized the seriousness of bid manipulation in industries where competitive pricing is intended to protect customers.
“Bid rigging is cheating, plain and simple,” said Daniel W. Glad, Acting Deputy Assistant Attorney General of the Justice Department’s Antitrust Division.
Glad stated that the scheme exploited customers seeking roofing services in hurricane-prone areas, where building owners often face urgent repair or replacement needs.
“The defendant’s bid-rigging scheme was an unfair, illegal cheat code used against vulnerable customers who needed roofing services in a hurricane-prone area,” Glad said. “The Antitrust Division’s commitment to finding and prosecuting these schemes is unbreakable.”
The FBI’s Miami Field Office, which investigated the case alongside the Justice Department, said the conspiracy undermined the purpose of the competitive bidding system.
“Wallick’s actions illegally drove up the costs of commercial roofing projects by turning the multiple bid process on its head,” said Brett Skiles, Special Agent in Charge of the FBI Miami Field Office.
“Instead of providing truly competitive bids on roofing projects to prospective customers, he and his co-conspirators presented intentionally higher bids in a scheme to line their pockets with ill-gotten gains.”
Skiles added that such practices harm customers and distort the marketplace.
“This anti-competitive conduct is unacceptable and illegal,” he said. “We encourage people who may be victims of such schemes to report this information to the FBI immediately.”
Wallick pleaded guilty to one felony count of restraining trade by conspiring to rig bids, a violation of federal antitrust law.
Under the Sherman Act, individuals convicted of such offenses face:
-
Up to 10 years in federal prison
-
A maximum $1 million criminal fine
A sentencing hearing has not yet been scheduled. A federal district court judge will determine the final sentence after reviewing the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines and other statutory factors.
The case is being prosecuted by Trial Attorneys Ronald P. Fiorillo II and Lara E.V. Trager of the Justice Department’s Antitrust Division Criminal Section in Washington.
Federal authorities have increasingly targeted bid-rigging schemes across industries where competitive bidding is common, including construction, government contracting, and infrastructure projects.
Investigators say such cases often involve secret agreements between companies to manipulate the bidding process — conduct that can significantly inflate costs for property owners, businesses, and taxpayers.
