This Letter to the Editor from my best buddy, Darren Gill, VP of Global Marketing for FieldTurf, showed up in a Westfield, NJ newspaper yesterday.
FieldTurf Objects to Westfield's Choice for Sid Fay and Houlihan Fields
I found this to be fascinating:
- Fieldturf has had hundreds of fields fail prematurely (all very easily verified) while still under warranty yet Gill calls out Desso for having 2 fields replaced while still under warranty
- Gill singles out Desso as a "European based company." Fieldturf is wholly owned by Tarkett -a European company. http://www.tarkett.com/en/history
- Gill writes, "- In fact, as proof to the contrary, Penn State University’s Sports Surface Research Center conducted their own independent testing on 13 different monofilament fibers and found the 40 ounce FieldTurf product to be the most durable of all tested. The 60 ounce systems from Astroturf and 45 ounce system from Mondo were significantly less durable."
If FieldTurf does not get the job, will we be seeing a similar letter, such as "FieldTurf Objects to Mt. Lebanon's Choice for Middle and Wildcat Fields?"
Update June 19, 2014 10:36 AM I am not familiar with the bidding process, but how can contractors' bids be submitted in a sealed envelope before the 11:00 opening when this mandatory addendum, sent at 3:30 PM yesterday, is to be included with any bid submissions?
Update June 19, 2014 9:42 PM Mt. Lebanon officials studying 4 artificial turf bids for fields
Update June 19, 2014 10:36 AM I am not familiar with the bidding process, but how can contractors' bids be submitted in a sealed envelope before the 11:00 opening when this mandatory addendum, sent at 3:30 PM yesterday, is to be included with any bid submissions?
Update June 19, 2014 9:42 PM Mt. Lebanon officials studying 4 artificial turf bids for fields
 |
Justin Merriman | Tribune-Review
A sign in a yard along Cedar Boulevard in Mt. Lebanon on Thursday, June 19, 2014, protests the controversial proposal of putting artificial turf on two baseball fields.
Update June 20, 2014 10:45 AM Comparing the 11.06.13 Bendel presentation and the Turf Project Task Force presentation with what occurred yesterday, sheds a little more light to this disaster waiting to happen.
On page 13 of Bendel's presentation, the Opinion of Cost provided by Gateway Engineers was:
Scope of Work Opinion of Cost*
Base – grading, gravel base, drainage $354,400
Turf and organic fill $490,000
Contingency/Soft costs $89,070
Maintenance equipment, bleachers, fencing, landscaping $66,300
Total initial project costs $999,770
*Provided by Gateway Engineers
On page 12 of the 02.11.14 Turf Project Task Force Recommendations lists the five vendors who were interested in the project and interviewed. The second bullet explains FieldTurf's role. "Turf vendors in general supply the turf and infill and work with qualified site contractors acting as the General Contractor." Hellas was extremely interested, but couldn't compete with the final specifications. Speaking of final specifications, the Turf Project Task Force Recommendations included these specs, "To address the multi-purpose, heavy use planned for the field, the specification recommended for the turf will be a slit film with monofilament blend." We're already being set up for a revision in the final specs. According to the TPTF specs, we should be accepting the $859,000 product, not the $827,000 product.
Massillon, Ohio-based Vasco appeared to be the lowest bidder for two options that would use artificial turf with a sand and crumb-rubber infill. The company bid $827,000 to install a “monofilm” surface, with artificial grass blades that are rounded and slightly stiffer, and $859,000 for a blend of monofilm and slit-film blades, which Recreation Director David Donnellan said look like the flat-bladed artificial grass used in Easter baskets.
|
Elaine,
ReplyDeleteI am wondering if in the spec it says that the filaments should be 40 ounces.
This would guarantee that Fieldturf is the only one that meets the spec.
This is an unfortunately common practice. In the real world you might get the spec to say, "The artificial fibers must adhere to a 40oz weight requirement or have provable equivalent characteristics."
I would be interested to know if that qualifier was eliminated from the RFP in order to guarantee Fieldturf.
Reading that FieldTurf Objection letter, if I were running the Mt. Lebanon 'zoo' I'd reject FieldTurf just on principle.
ReplyDeleteThis is a marketing guru?
10:22 AM, if this is the case, I hope the other bidders sue Gateway, JT Sauer, David Donnellan, the SAB, including Dave Franklin, Steve Feller, and the Commission. Yes, I realize our tax dollars will be used to defend these clowns, but at this point, I really don't care.
ReplyDeleteElaine
They can make the changes to their bid by either staying late or just pricing it the same price. Not that hard actually.
ReplyDeleteWhat time will the bank's Letter of Guaranty be made public? I'd be wary to bid if I were a contractor knowing that the project will fail to proceed should the $250k not be in the bank. What is the point of wasting time completing a bid knowing that about $100k is still due and owing- a contingency upon which the future of the entire project depends.
ReplyDelete-Papa Turf
11:31, not that hard especially for firms that have the inside track- right?!
ReplyDeleteMr. Gill sure hasn't read the book "How to win friends and influence people".
ReplyDeleteI agree with 10:22. When something goes wrong with the turf, is this the kind of response Mt. Lebanon would get?
Well 12:09, we've been told that FieldTurf Global Marketing had no problem letting MTL foot the bill to bring in an 'unbiased' (OK you can stop laughing) expert.
ReplyDelete12:09 I have read countless proposals for synthetic turf throughout this country. The conscientious approach to this process is quite different from what we are seeing in Mt Lebanon. In fact, many communities state explicitly that they will not accept bids for turf products from companies that are currently being sued for defective products. Seems like common sense, doesn't it? What does this say about Mt Lebanon and its capability to provide residents with sound investments that also meet prevailing public safety and health standards?
ReplyDeleteI still believe there is a connection between a turf company and the super secret list of corporate donors. I have never heard of a corporate donor not wanting the recognition of their generosity.
ReplyDeleteElaine
12:28 We have a corporate donor that won't reveal it's identity? Maybe it's Fieldturf.
ReplyDeleteAccording to Dave Franklin's comments at the last commission meeting at the 01:10:50 time stamp on the municipal video, 17 or 18 corporations donated. We only know of Gateway and Dick's Sporting Goods, which I got from the RTK. Why won't they share that information? I ask for it constantly.
ReplyDeleteElaine
Bids were submitted by Vasco, Astro Turf, Frontier Sports and Palombo Landscaping. Lowest bidder is Vasco for the tire crumb and lowest bidder for organic is Frontier. Hellas, who was anxious to do business with Mt. Lebanon in my RTK, did not submit bids. Neither did FieldTurf, but don't get excited. I understand that Vasco uses FieldTurf.
ReplyDeleteVasco came in at $827,000 for one type of turf and $859,000 for a different option. Organic infill lowest bid came in at $1.3 million. These are for the base bids only. That doesn't include the plaza, monument, additional fencing and landscaping, the AquaFiltration System, back stops, and Chip's pitcher's mound. All this should be discussed at Monday's Commission meeting.
It has been confirmed that Dr. Phil Johnson will be attending Monday's Discussion Session. He is the expert who John Bendel walked out on at the April 30 presentation. Steve Silverman will be on vacation.
Elaine
Be aware that the bids are for contract awards and represent construction costs only, not total project costs. The cost buildup beyond construction costs include, or should include, permit costs (building, excavation, NPDES, etc.), plus insurance and owners contingency, which all together with construction costs are called the "hard costs". To this is added, or should be added, what are called the project "soft costs", which include the architects fee, engineering, project management, legal.
ReplyDeleteThe sum of "hard" & "soft costs" constitute the total project cost.
Who can provide the documentation of what the Muni has stated the $1.0 million turf project to represent over the past year or so: construction cost only or total project cost ?
The $450,000 cost premium for the organic infill option is not attributable to the organic infill costing that much more than crumb rubber infill by a long shot. It is due to the fact that the Sauer-
ReplyDeleteGateway specs included a requirement for an elaborate and expensive irrigation system for the organic infill to keep it moist.
6:25 With the current leadership, one will never know the real cost of anything. We live in a town that is waiting for someone to offer them free recycling bins, instead of purchasing the bins themselves, but can dig up a crown jewel historic open recreational space in a flood prone area and then pay for it with excess taxpayer money. History will not be kind to Bendel, Brumfield and Linfante.
ReplyDelete10:22AM and 6:25PM, it seems as if the specifications were intentionally written (filament specs, unneeded requirement for an elaborate and expensive irrigation system for the organic infill) to ensure that GeoTurf/Hellas wouldn't be able to become a competitive bidder.
ReplyDelete--Pam Scott
Is anyone talking about cancelling the project, and returning the $750K to the taxpayers to offset the increasingly excessive tax bills - in large part due to the school district tax bill? How about just ONE YEAR of STABLE TAXES next year? Perhaps I am asking too much...
ReplyDeleteHi Elaine,
ReplyDeleteAnyone who has worked in DC and participated in writing a proposal for a government contract has learned that often the Request for Propsal's [RFP's] are written with a bias towards preferential vendors. That doesn't mean that others don't bid; but there are many criteria to judge a proposal and the ultimate determination of the most qualified party goes beyond the price. In fact, the selection criteria may be written to favor one vendor over another. Please understand that I am not saying that anyone is doing anything wrong; I am simply commenting on how business is conducted.
When you think about it, if a vendor can help the customer to craft the RFP then that vendor has the advantage of articulating exactly what the customer wants, has intimate knowledge of the customer's assets and organization, and can respond with a more targeted and detailed proposal much faster than other bidders.
All of this being said, I haven't followed this bidding process at all; but I am curious if anyone has thought about the structure of the bidding process for this particular project? Who designed the bidding process? Who wrote the request for proposals? Once you've answered these questions, does anyone know if any of these people had a preferred vendor?
Considering the thoughts that I have shared, does anyone see any patterns or anything interesting that they may want to share with the rest of us?
- I also want to add that regardless or whether or not Mt Lebanon proceeds with this project for any reason or no reason, all of you should be commented for standing up for what you believe in and fighting for what you felt was right.
ReplyDeleteGod Bless you all.
Scoring criteria itself can be quite ambiguous. In fact, the bias in how we all make decisions is a matter of great study and debate.
ReplyDeleteCredible academic work in the Decision Sciences addresses methods for making better decisions - and some people have spent their entire careers trying to develop better methods for making decisions.
I would be very surprised if anyone involved with this project has thought about the process itself, how criteria are established and scored, bias and consistency in judgements and methods to mitigate these risks as a part of the decision making process.
So, what I am saying is that there very well may be a very interesting story that underlies the outcome or the announcement that will come from the municipality.
Who knows...? Maybe there's a Pulitizer Prize winning article waiting to be written either talking about how well or how poorly this who matter was handled?
OOPS! ...this WHOLE matter ...
ReplyDelete(The subject is so exciting I forgot to spell check it)
Good night,...
11:08 I have something to add about this bid process.
ReplyDeleteIf you listened carefully to McNitt during the recent forum, he referred to an arrangement that he now has with the commission to address Mt Lebanon's recreational needs for youth.
The statement suggested that this would be an ongoing relationship.
Given McNitt's relationship with Fieldturf, I expect their product will be chosen by the commissioners to be installed.
That is, IF synthetic turf is ever installed in our historic, flood-prone, extremely limited open space district by our commissioners who aim to promote green, sustainable solutions to our impaired waterways, storm water problems, busy streets, and rising temperatures.
Given that Vasco doesn't manufacture turf itself, would it be too much to assume they have a working relationship with FieldTurf?
ReplyDeleteA little Googling shows they both pimp the Indiana State turfed baseball field as one of their projects.
Elaine, regarding your Update June 20, 2014 at 10.45:AM. Everyone should take careful note that the Gateway Engr. opinion of cost in the 11/06/2013 Bendel presentation was for an organic fill turf system at $844,400 compared to the actual low bid for organic fill at $1,300,000 ! How wrong can an estimate be ?
ReplyDeleteThe Contingency/Soft costs were estimated to be only a very precise $89,070, or 9.5% of the turf cost estimate, but increased to some $101,000 several months later.
The Gateway cost estimate included FFE items like maintenance equipment, bleachers, fencing and landscaping for a precise $66,300. However, I believe all of these items are now considered add-alternates not included in the base bids.
What has been promoted as the $1,000,000 turf project actually represents the total project cost, not the final bid results which represent only the construction costs. This is confirmed by the November, 2013 presentation which projected total project cost at a very precise and convenient $999,770. The Muni connivers may try to con us into believing otherwise by the time all the add-alternate selections are added to the base bid and the construction cost alone reaches/exceeds $1,000,000 !!
12:36 PM, the SAB never wanted organic infill. I have shared the RTK email stating that. They want tire crumbs with lead. Yesterday's bid opening is why the original promise from the SAB was a 25% contribution, which morphed into a $250,000 share only.
ReplyDeleteElaine
John David Kendrick points out that RFPs are often written with a customer's bias towards preferential vendors. But in THIS case, the RFP ignored the preference for organic infill by Commissioners Linfante, Silverman, and Fraasch (a majority vote) and was instead written to favor the preferences of J.T. Sauer and apparently the SAB. The CUSTOMER was ignored in favor of the CONSULTANT and other special interests who helped construct the specifications so as to rule out GeoTurf/Hellas.
ReplyDelete--Pam Scott
Pam, I have an email from Kristen Linfante dated 1/17/14 where she is answering my question about the vendors presenting Eco-Friendly products. Kristen writes,
ReplyDelete"Ms. Gillen,
I am going to refer your questions to Mr. Bendel who is more directly involved in this project. However, I can tell you that I have suggested to the commission this week that a member of the Environmental Sustainability Board be included in the vetting process as we move towards choosing products, vendors, etc.
Regards,
Kristen Linfante"
Has this occurred, Pam?
I found the series of emails between Dave Franklin and John Bendel, where Franklin feels that there is too much emphasis on organic infill. I will scan and post it again here. We can thank Dave Franklin.
Elaine
No, Elaine. This never occurred. I heard that it was stated from the stage at the June 12 promotion for crumb-rubber infilled artificial turf that the ESB was consulted, but that is not true. At all. Does it appear that Commissioners Linfante, Silverman, and Fraasch are being told tall tales?
ReplyDelete--Pam Scott
To be absolutely clear: I very much believe that Commissioner Linfante suggested to the Commission and Municipality that the ESB be included in the vetting process of products, vendors, etc. But that suggestion has been absolutely ignored by those she (and others) made it to.
ReplyDelete--Pam Scott
I hope that Commissioners Linfante, Fraasch, and Silverman reclaim their reins.
ReplyDelete--Pam Scott