COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE COUNCIL COMMITTEE ON PARKS, RECREATION, AND CULTURAL AFFAIRS - - - Room 400, City Hall Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Tuesday, 12/18/01 3:02 p.m. - - - Continued hearing regarding: RES. NO. 010533 - Re NeXturf procurement COUNCILMEMBERS PRESENT: Blondell Reynolds Brown, Chair Frank Rizzo Michael A. Nutter - - - VINCENT VARALLO ASSOCIATES, INC. Registered Professional Reporters Eleven Penn Center, Suite 600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215) 561-2220 12/18/01 PARKS & REC. COMMITTEE - RES. 010533 INDEX Tony Radwanski, Deputy City Controller....... Louis Applebaum, Procurement Commissioner.... James Griffith, Esquire...................... 45 Counsel for Southwest Recreational Industries Reed James Seaton, President................. 45 Southwest Recreational Industries Bruce Cheskin, SprinTurf..................... 87 David Fineman, Esquire....................... 92 Counsel for FieldTurf John Gilman, CEO, FieldTurf.................. 94 Web Cook, Vice President, Hummer Turfgrass... 99 Pradeep Patel, Ewing Cole....................119 Reeder Fox, Esquire, Counsel to Ewing Cole... 58 Christopher McCabe, Deputy Chief Solicitor...160 3 12/18/01 PARKS & REC. COMMITTEE - RES. 010533
Good afternoon, good afternoon. Welcome. This is the meeting of the Committee on Parks, Recreation and Cultural Affairs of the Philadelphia City Council, and we are here to have a continuation of a hearing on Resolution No. 010533, and we are going to try to honor your clock and proceed immediately to the first panel. It goes without saying that this resolution was introduced by my colleague Councilman-at-large Frank Rizzo, and we're going to ask that the following individuals please come forward, and please -- if I butcher your last name, my apologies. Anthony Radwanski, Deputy Controller, please come forward. Michael Egan, Auditor Administrator, please come forward. Ashfaq Ahmad, Staff Engineer, please come forward. (Witnesses come forward.)
Welcome, gentlemen. We want to ask that you please state your full name for the record, the position and the 4 12/18/01 PARKS & REC. COMMITTEE - RES. 010533 office you represent, and proceed with your testimony.
Good afternoon, Madam Chairperson and members of the Committee. I am Tony Radwanski, Deputy City Controller. With me is Michael Egan, Audit Administrator from the Controller's Office, as you said; and also Ashfaq Ahmad, our staff engineer. We're here at the direction of City Controller Saidel to discuss the installation and procurement of the playing field at Veterans Stadium. As you recall, the new playing fields manufactured by Southwest Recreational Industries Incorporated of Leander, Texas. " The turf that had existed at Veterans Stadium prior to this year was known as "Astroturf8," which was also manufactured by the same company. It had been installed in 1995 and was in the fifth year of an eight-year life. It also had come under intense criticism by the athletes who played on it as well as from commentators and others in the sports community; some considered it the worst playing field in professional sports. NeXturf was installed at the stadium 5 12/18/01 PARKS & REC. COMMITTEE - RES. 010533 starting in January of this year, and the City signed a certificate of substantial completion on April 5th, one day before the Phillies home opener. A controversy arose when a televised pre-season football game between the Eagles and Baltimore Ravens was forced to be cancelled on the night of August 13th due to bad field conditions -- chiefly spongy turf around the baseball cutouts following rain. The day after this cancellation, Controller Saidel directed we begin an inquiry to attempt to determine whether the use of the sole-source bid process was justified in the procurement of NeXturf, whether the product installed at Veterans Stadium met the specifications set forth in the installation contract, and whether or not the cost of correcting the conditions giving rise to the August 13th game cancellation should be borne by the taxpayers or billed to the product manufacturer. We immediately began work monitoring the events at the Vet where representatives of the City, Ewing Cole Cherry Brott, the City's architectural firm, Southwest Recreational Industries, and the 6 12/18/01 PARKS & REC. COMMITTEE - RES. 010533 sports teams were trying to devise a solution to the problem. After our first attempt was found unsuccessful, the City attempted to fill the cutouts in with asphalt, a procedure that stadium staff perform at the end of each baseball season. The parties agreed, and the City, at its own expense, installed and removed the asphalt for the next three games, when a baseball-to-football conversion had to be made. Unfortunately, the Phillies never made it to the playoffs so the other conversions were found to be unnecessary. I'd like to provide the committee with a brief summary -- as brief as possible -- of the six major findings and eleven recommendations in our report. The Recreation Department, which has responsibility for Veterans Stadium, had previously retained the architectural firm of Ewing Cole Cherry Brott to do an assessment of the stadium's capital needs, including the playing surface. When the decision was made to move ahead with the surface replacement, Ewing Cole was asked to do product evaluations, prepare bid documents, and oversee the surface installation. It was at this point that the 7 12/18/01 PARKS & REC. COMMITTEE - RES. 010533 Mayor's Office requested that the City's Capital Program Office assume administration for the turf project and the contracts pertaining to it. From mid-August to mid-October, a period of only two months, Ewing Cole investigated various turf products, natural as well as artificial. They made field visits, met with product representatives, and solicited feedback from the Eagles and the Phillies. In mid-October, Ewing Cole issued a report on their product's short list.
In four subsequent letters to the City -- November 7 and 10, 2000 to the Capital Program Office on the subject of Sprinturf; November 15, 2000 to Procurement on the subject of products not short-listed; and December 21, 2000 to Capital Programs concerning the FieldTurf -- they provided additional information on their product evaluations. On October 17, 2000, representatives of Capital Programs, the Office of the Director of Finance, the Procurement Department, and the Recreation Department met with Ewing Cole to discuss this short list. It was at this meeting that it was decided that the City would issue a sole-source bid for the purchase of Southwest NeXturf. After this, 8 12/18/01 PARKS & REC. COMMITTEE - RES. 010533 a number of competitors protested the decision to the City Administration and to City Council. The bid opening took place on November 6, 2000, and the contract was awarded to Southwest on November 13, 2000. Work started in January and finished in April. Our first finding is that we believe too little time was allowed for the planning of a project of this size. The decision to replace the turf wasn't made until August of 2000, which left only three months to research products, perform field visits, solicit opinions from sports teams and their respective leagues, draft bid documents, conduct the bid process, evaluate proposals, and make an award. Then the City had only five months to design and construct the project before the Phillies home opener on April 6, 2001, eight months from conception to completion. To put this into perspective, normally capital programs of this nature are identified a full six years in advance in order to ensure adequate funding and planning. Several forces were at work in this instance, however, that compelled the City to act quickly, if it were to act at all. 9 12/18/01 PARKS & REC. COMMITTEE - RES. 010533 Because of the impending demise of Veterans Stadium, once the City decided to replace the turf, time was of the essence. Our second finding was that the City's architectural consulting firm was possibly not the best choice to render a truly objective evaluation of the various turf products, most of which were newly on the market and not even in existence at the time of the last turf replacement at the Vet in 1995. The people at Ewing Cole had done business with the City and Veterans Stadium ever since it was built 30 years ago, had enjoyed a long-term relationship with the Phillies, and had participated in the installation of every playing field since the construction of the stadium. This being the case, they were the logical choice and probably best qualified to act as the City's consultant to oversee the installation of the new turf and all potential technical problems associated with it. However, we feel that Ewing Cole's history with the entity that eventually became the sole bidder, Southwest Recreational Industries, also suggested they were possibly not the best choice to do an objective 10 12/18/01 PARKS & REC. COMMITTEE - RES. 010533 product evaluation. As product evaluator, Ewing Cole was the City's procurement gatekeeper. No manufacturer could, for all intents and purposes, participate in the process without passing Ewing Cole's muster. Even those permitted to plead their case had their message passed through Ewing Cole's evaluative filter. The perception created was that one firm, Southwest, had a leg up on all the rest. Because in the transaction of public business, perception is often reality, we feel it is probably -- we feel it was probably not a wise decision to appoint as judge of a competitive process an entity with an extensive history with one of the competitors. Our third finding is that the product presentations provided the City by Ewing Cole could have been more balanced. A contributing factor, again, could have been the unreasonable two-month timetable for product evaluation and review of such a large amount of technical and physical data.
We are concerned about whether the City and sports teams received a balanced presentation of competing products, most of which are relatively new to the 11 12/18/01 PARKS & REC. COMMITTEE - RES. 010533 marketplace in. In carefully reviewing Ewing Cole's report in subsequent letters and in conducting interviews with unsuccessful competing firms, we can understand how an aggrieved party might find shortcomings in Ewing Cole's presentation of his or her product. However, we want to make it clear in criticizing representations by Ewing Cole to the City that we are not implying malicious intent. Many instances are cited in our report where we feel Ewing Cole leveled criticisms at rejected products that could just have well have been leveled against the successful product, NeXturf, but we're not. At other times, Ewing Cole appears to assume facts not in evidence, invalidating their point. I refer you to Appendix B of our report where we cite separate instances in which we feel 20 Ewing Cole presented questionable or inaccurate 21 information, putting NeXtutg in best its light while 22 showing competing products in an unflattering way. We also believe that elements of the City's oversight of the project were inadequate. For example, the City had warnings far in advance 12 12/18/01 PARKS & REC. COMMITTEE - RES. 010533 about drainage problems, particularly at the infield cutouts. As far as back as November 3, 2000, minutes of a pre-bid meeting reflect that Southwest knew that there may be non-draining areas of porous asphalt around the dirt cutouts due to contamination by clay infill. The City told them at that time that a change order in the contract would be issued if such areas were found. We also cite three other times where this same concern was repeated. Although Southwest drilled some additional holes in the asphalt surrounding the cutouts, the most important remedial measure, power-washing the asphalt to free any clogged dirt, was not performed before the August 13th game. But whether the actual power-washing task was the responsibility of Southwest, the City, or Phillies ground crews, Southwest had the final responsibility to see that it was documented in the maintenance regimen. Even though the Southwest installation contract calls for them to instruct City workers in the maintenance of NeXturf, using maintenance manuals prepared for that purpose, the contract does not require these manuals until the end of the first 13 12/18/01 PARKS & REC. COMMITTEE - RES. 010533 $354,000 maintenance year. It should be noted that the agreement included an option to extend Southwest's maintenance of the product for two additional one-year terms. Southwest did provide a set of conversion procedures in its bid proposal. These describe a process that employs over 100 people for a period of hours. 9 After the August 13th debacle, Southwest provided a 10 longer series of directions that say nothing about 11 power-washing porous asphalt around the base cutouts 12 at all. 13 A mock conversion, called for in the 14 installation contract, was held in dry weather over 15 five days. That was on July 9th through the 13th. 16 It turned out to be only a partial conversion, and it could not be satisfactorily completed in five days' time. The real thing had to be done in 24 hours. In the weeks following the August 13th cancellation, there was a flurry of correspondence among the turf project's principal players -- the City's Capital Program Office, Ewing Cole, and Southwest -- concerning issues, remedial measures, and responsibility. The CPO severely castigated 14 12/18/01 PARKS & REC. COMMITTEE - RES. 010533 both Southwest and Ewing Cole for defects noted during post-cancellation inspections. We feel that although the questions asked by the City after the incident were justified, a more proactive monitoring by the City months before might well have avoided the problem altogether.
In answer to the City's questions about percolation tests conducted by Southwest to determine how well the field would drain, Southwest submitted a sketchy report three months after the test was performed and two months after the City signed a certificate of substantial completion, paying Southwest $822,000, which was 45 percent of the contract amount. We feel that Southwest and Ewing Cole were primarily responsible for the successful completion of the turf installation. The City did have a responsibility to monitor them, to ask questions, and to aggressively advocate for the project's success, but this should not mitigate the primary responsibility of these two vendors. The Controller strongly believers that Southwest Recreational Industries should be held responsible for all remedial costs associated with 15 12/18/01 PARKS & REC. COMMITTEE - RES. 010533 this project. " Our understanding of this passage is that Southwest is responsible for ensuring that the condition of the turf is such that it can be used for its intended purpose. Because on August 13th the turf was not in a playable condition, we believe Southwest was responsible for this defect and should be held fully accountable. To date, the City Administration has not billed Southwest for these costs, and we urge them to do so. Controller Saidel has indicated that he will not approve payments concerning this project until the matter is resolved. At the very least, we feel that we are owed $36,000 in added remedial costs assumed by the City. Finally, concerning the issue of sole-sourcing the playing surface bid, Section 8-200 of the Home Rule Charter provides that "except in 16 12/18/01 PARKS & REC. COMMITTEE - RES. " The Procurement Commissioner is the responsible officer of the government to make this determination. In this instance, Procurement Commissioner Applebaum told us that he relied on the advice of Ewing Cole, which was paid by the City to exercise its expertise. He had no special independent method of making such a technical judgment. With the stadium turf replacement, the City's case for sole-sourcing rests on two arguments: 1. That only one firm had the right product and sufficient experience to accomplish a baseball-to-football conversion within the required time frame; and 2. That only one product was thin enough to fit under the Vet's telescopic bleachers without causing serious damage to the bleacher assembly. With the exception of Hummer Grasstiles, no company excluded from the bidding was given enough information and time to adequately understand 17 12/18/01 PARKS & REC. COMMITTEE - RES. 010533 the Vet's conversion process, and even they were not afforded an opportunity to respond to what the City believed to be shortcomings in the conversion process. If a manufacturer asserts that he can accomplish a conversion within a stipulated timeframe and he is willing to back it up with a written guarantee, then the risk is entirely his. The manufacturer is obligated to get the job done, whatever it takes and whatever it costs. FieldTurf told the City it was willing to make such a guarantee; Hummer told the Controller's Office it was willing to make such a guarantees. We noted in our report that the justification for accepting NeXturf, an untried and unproven product, was the manufacturer's willingness to guarantees its performance. Veterans Stadium has telescopic bleachers around two-thirds of the field which are pulled out for football, they're pulled out manually. We went down there and observed the process takes place; it's an extremely labor-intensive process. Ewing Cole and the bleacher manufacturer take the position that deploying the bleachers over 18 12/18/01 PARKS & REC. COMMITTEE - RES. 010533 any product thicker than NeXturf, about 20 feet over the artificial turf, could cause severe damage to the bleacher assembly and possibly unsafe conditions. Under this theory, the City could not install a product thicker than one and a half inches.
Although it appears to be a rock-solid justification for sole-source bidding, we have several questions: 1. If a physical impediment as critical as bleacher accommodation existed, why was Ewing Cole paid $30,000 of its $200,000 contract to evaluate products, when this could have been reduced to asking a single question, Is your product thicker than one and a half inches? 2. If this physical impediment existed, why is it not mentioned in Ewing Cole's October 2000 report, and why did the impediment not surface in print until November 10, 2000 in a letter to the City's Capital Program Office. 3. If this physical impediment existed, why was there no correspondence with the bleacher manufacturer concerning it until September 2001, two weeks after the Controller's Office raised the 19 12/18/01 PARKS & REC. COMMITTEE - RES. 010533 issue? And why didn't the manufacturer tell the Controller's Office it had not discussed the issue with Ewing Cole before the turf replacement contract was awarded? Our fourth point is if the bleachers have an accommodation limit, why is it that this limit coincides exactly with the thickness of NeXturf? And so the City's case for sole-source bidding rests on two arguments: Conversion time and bleacher accommodation. The first is easily answered with the manufacturer's guarantee; the second raises an endless series of questions. There now are many manufacturers in the playing turf field. We feel that they should have been given a fair opportunity to present their wares. The City should not have drafted bid specifications so narrowly that they excluded all but one product, and should instead have added the words, quote, or equal, end quote, allowing additional competition to emerge. Our report contains 11 recommendations to be considered by the City Administration and by City Council. These, we believe, will strengthen checks and balances concerning sole-source bidding and help 20 12/18/01 PARKS & REC. COMMITTEE - RES. 010533 ensure that capital projects are carefully planned and better monitored. We appreciate the chance to present this report to you today and look forward to any questions you have.
That was quite comprehensive. Colleague Councilman Rizzo.
Other than the Controller's Office, as you know, there's been a lot of hesitancy to discuss the problem that occurred on game day. Could you just focus -- you did focus on it, but I just want to make sure for the record that it's very clear on your opinion what occurred on game day when the game was cancelled.
I think it's rather simple: That there were problems at the base cutouts the where product was not draining properly, the City and the contractor knew well in advance that those problems existed, and proper measures were not taken to ensure that this would not occur.
And, again, who should have the responsibility for any expenses associated with the response that the City was required to 21 12/18/01 PARKS & REC. COMMITTEE - RES. 010533 perform?
In the opinion of the Controller's Office, the responsibility for any problems that occurred at that time were soley the responsibility of the contractor, Southwest.
Thank you. And, therefore, they should bear the cost?
What do you believe is the lesson learned from where your office sits as it relates to not having to cross this bridge again?
I think that one of the lessons that we've learned is that additional time is needed to do a project of this nature -- this is not something that should come in -- a lot of forethought should be exercised before a product of this nature is undertaken. Another lesson I think we learned is that City contracts, including the contract that the City entered in with its engineering firm, Ewing Cole, should be better monitored to make sure that they're doing what they're supposed to do within the text of 22 12/18/01 PARKS & REC. COMMITTEE - RES. 010533 the contract. And a third lesson I think would be that...uh, I'm trying to think what the third lesson is.
You say "better monitored." Define what you mean by that because better monitored from the Controller's Office may be entirely different from what's viewed in the Procurement Office.
I think that better monitoring means that if product evaluations are supposed to be conducted, that somebody from the City take a look to see if the products were properly evaluated, were they not, what measures did they take to evaluate the products, and so forth
Is there any latitude for the City Controller's Office to share with any City agency recommendations like the one you've just given, period, with hopes that it would be strongly considered?
Yeah, this is kind of a theme of many of our audits. There's plenty of room 24 for that recommendation to be accepted in all areas of City government, in my opinion. 23 12/18/01 PARKS & REC. COMMITTEE - RES. 010533
Councilman, anything else? Thank you, members of the panel from the City's Controller's Office.
You're very, very welcome. Next up, the procurement policy of the City of Philadelphia and the procurement of NeXturf for Veterans Stadium. We would like to invite up Commissioner Louis Applebaum of the Procurement Department; Veterans Stadium Director Greg Grillone with the Recreation Department; and City Solicitor Paul McCarthy, Divisional Deputy City Solicitor; as well as Christopher McCabe, Deputy City Solicitor. (Witnesses come forward.)
Good afternoon, gentlemen. Welcome and proceed. COMMISSIONER APPLEBAUM: Good afternoon. Councilwoman and members. I am Louis Applebaum, Procurement Commissioner of the City of Philadelphia, and I am here to testify on a resolution covering the NeXturf procurement for Veterans Stadium and reviewing and evaluating the 24 12/18/01 PARKS & REC. COMMITTEE - RES. 010533 City's sole-source process and policy. I have previously submitted to your offices this printed testimony, along with two binders of information concerning the above subjects -- the two binders are here if you don't have them, if you need them. Binder No. 1 is the NeXturf procurement and Binder No. 2 is the sole-source bids, fiscal years '99, '00 and '01. This is a summary of the procurement process as it relates to the public works contract awarded to Southwest Recreational Industries. " Around the middle of the year 2000, a determination was made to acquire a new playing field for Veterans Stadium. The Capital Program Office retained through a professional services contract Ewing Cole Cherry Brott, Architects and Engineers, headquartered in Philadelphia. They were assigned the duty of evaluating all of the available products and alternative to replace the Astroturf at 25 12/18/01 PARKS & REC. COMMITTEE - RES. 010533 Veterans Stadium. They were charged with preparing a complete survey and an analysis of all products available at the time and making a final recommendation to the City of Philadelphia for the product we should procure. " This report was dated October 2000 and detailed a short list of potential products. The report is included in the binders. On October 17, 2000, the Procurement Department, the Capital Programs Office, Finance Department, and the Recreation Department met with representatives of Ewing Cole to review the report. Questions were presented to Ewing Cole and discussions were held. I personally requested that Ewing Cole provide, in addition to the report, the reasons that certain products were not short-listed in their report. Mr. Rick Tustin requested Ewing Cole to summarize their original review of the SprinTurf product, which was not included in the Ewing Cole original short list. 12/18/01 PARKS & REC. COMMITTEE - RES. 010533 A letter dated November the 10th was received from Ewing Cole detailing the requested information. On November the 15th, Ewing Cole presented a letter responding to my request from October 17th. This letter identified all of the products that were evaluated and specified why certain products not short-listed. At the conclusion of the City's meeting with Ewing Cole on October 17th and after the City's complete evaluation of the reports, a recommendation was made by the Capital Program Office. The Capital Program Office recommended that the City of Philadelphia issue a sole-source bid for the procurement of the NeXturf product. All in attendance at the meeting concurred with the recommendation. A subsequent meeting was held with Ewing Cole, City Representative, Philadelphia Eagles and Philadelphia Phillies at which time the teams were informed of the product selection. The Philadelphia Home Rule Charter, Chapter 8-2000, "Contracts," states that unique articles and other articles which cannot be obtained in the open market are not subject to the 27 12/18/01 PARKS & REC. COMMITTEE - RES. 010533 requirements of competitive bidding. The product NeXturf was considered to be unique to the needs of Veterans Stadium due to the conversion requirements and the multipurpose use of the stadium. The NeXturf product is only manufactured by Southwest Industries and has many attributes that are proprietary to that company; therefore, the decision was made to consider this a sole-source bid. The Procurement Department, in conjunction with the Capital Programs Office, issued the project manual and related sole-source bid documents to Southwest, with a bid opening date of November the 6th.
89 million, plus additional funds for maintenance. On November the 13th, the Procurement Department issued an official award letter to Southwest Industries for this procurement. Installation of the product commenced the beginning of calendar year 2001 and completed prior to the start of the baseball season in April of that year. I have enclosed for your review Binder No. 25 1, entitled "NeXturf Procurement," which includes 28 12/18/01 PARKS & REC. COMMITTEE - RES. 010533 all of the previously-mentioned documents, bids, and contracts. On the subject of sole-source bids, I repeat that the Philadelphia Home Rule Charter states that unique articles and other articles which cannot be obtained in the open market are not subject to the requirements of competitive bidding. Enclosed in Binder No. 2 -- that's the blue binder -- is a report of the last three fiscal years of all sole-source bids awarded by the Procurement Department. 94 percent in the years '99, 2000 mand 2001. Each time an operating department requests a sole-source bid to meet their requirements, the policy and procedure of the Procurement Department is for the requesting department to submit a sole-source request justification memo to be approved by the Procurement Department prior to the issuance of any sole-source bids. The policy of the Procurement Department is to have a deputy procurement commissioner review these justification 29 12/18/01 PARKS & REC. COMMITTEE - RES. 010533 memos and to approve or reject, as the case may be. Included in Binder 2 are all of the sole-source recommendation memos that were received on all approved sole-source bid requests for those years. In every case, you will see the reason and the justification for each request. You will also note that each one has been approved by the Deputy Commissioner. This concludes my testimony. I will be glad to answer any questions the Council may have regarding my testimony this afternoon.
Thank you, thank you, Madam Chair. Commissioner, you described the sole-source procurement process, so let me confirm it. Each time an operating department requests a sole-source bid to meet their requirements, the policy and procedures of the Procurement Department is for the requesting department to submit a sole-source request justification memo to be approved by the Procurement Department prior -- I repeat, prior -- to the issuance of any sole-source 30 12/18/01 PARKS & REC. COMMITTEE - RES. 010533 bids. COMMISSIONER APPLEBAUM: That is correct.
Does the blue binder contain all of the sole-source Procurement Department approvals for fiscal year '99, '00, and '01? COMMISSIONER APPLEBAUM: That is correct. Every sole-source request that was approved is in the binder. It's the memo, the original memo that was issued by the operating departments, all of their reasons and justifications. Some have our notes on them and a final stamp of approval with a date. And based on that, a sole-source bid was authorized.
For example, the approval for the replacement of seat parts for Veterans Stadium was such a prior approval, and it's obviously in the blue binder. COMMISSIONER APPLEBAUM: I assume so, yes.
The next document in the blue binder is NeXturf sole-source procurement. The NeXturf sole-source procurement was made November the 13th. COMMISSIONER APPLEBAUM: Correct. 31 12/18/01 PARKS & REC. COMMITTEE - RES. 010533
Okay. What was the date of the approval? COMMISSIONER APPLEBAUM: I don't have that. Do you have it there or do you want to direct me to where --
Yeah. Well, I think -- COMMISSIONER APPLEBAUM: Councilman, let me explain on that particular --
Yeah, please answer the question, let's get the answer to the question. The NeXturf sole-source procurement was made on November the 13th? COMMISSIONER APPLEBAUM: Correct.
We need you to answer the question, please: What is the date of the approval since prior-to is required according to the policy that you just described? COMMISSIONER APPLEBAUM: Can you direct me to the -- is it in this book?
Yeah, it's in here. 32 12/18/01 PARKS & REC. COMMITTEE - RES. 010533 And to help you with that, the approval is dated September 21, 2001. Let me have the binder brought over to you. I know it's difficult to locate that. COMMISSIONER APPLEBAUM: Okay.
Let me have the binder brought over to you. (Staff person delivers blue binder to Commissioner Applebaum.) COMMISSIONER APPLEBAUM: Okay.
I know it's difficult to locate that. COMMISSIONER APPLEBAUM: This one is the replacement parts for Vets Stadium.
The next page. COMMISSIONER APPLEBAUM: The next page is dated September 21st. It was a memo directed to me by Harry Hillock, the Deputy Procurement Commissioner. And the decision to award a sole-source contract for Veterans Stadium playing surface was made as a result of an engineering study conducted by Ewing Cole on October 17th. A meeting was held with the Capital Program, Recreation Department. At that time, discussions were held on 33 12/18/01 PARKS & REC. COMMITTEE - RES. 010533 the engineering report, and it was concluded that the only viable option for the playing field was the NeXturf process. Based on that, the Capital Programs Office prepared a sole-source bid to purchase the playing surface from Southwest Recreation Industries. That happens to be dated September the 21st, that's correct.
What year, sir? What year? COMMISSIONER APPLEBAUM: 2001.
And the NeXturf sole-source procurement was made when? November 13th, the year 2000. So obviously, this violates your policy. COMMISSIONER APPLEBAUM: Correct.
Could you explain? COMMISSIONER APPLEBAUM: Sure. The acquisition of the sole-source procurement of NeXturf was one that the Procurement Department and the Procurement Commissioner was intimately involved in in making that decision. As stated in my testimony, I met with the department on October 17th, I met with Ewing Cole. I asked 34 12/18/01 PARKS & REC. COMMITTEE - RES. 010533 questions, I received additional information. That was sort of -- much different than our normal sole-source bid where the Procurement Commissioner or the Procurement Department are not intimately involved in it. I was intimately involved totally in that process and concurred with the recommendation of the Capital Programs Office. Therefore, at that point in time, there was not a document created. When I was putting this program together, I noted that we didn't issue a request document at that time. The request document was actually me personally being there to make sure the process was going. I suggested to Mr. Hillock, the deputy procurement commissioner, that to complete the record, we should put a document in this book referring to the sole source for NeXturf on why we did it. I didn't have him back-date the document, so I wouldn't do that, and we dated the document when we actually talked about it.
So because of your personal involvement, there was either an intentional oversight or just an oversight to not follow the procurement process to the letter. 35 12/18/01 PARKS & REC. COMMITTEE - RES. 010533 COMMISSIONER APPLEBAUM: That's correct.
So a mistake was made? COMMISSIONER APPLEBAUM: No, it was not a mistake. It was because, as you stated, I was personally involved in that decision. I worked with Capital Programs Office and our consultant to concur with their finding and, therefore, did not issue a request, a written sole-source request to myself. That's what it would have amounted to.
But doesn't that document come from the operating department also making the request? COMMISSIONER APPLEBAUM: That is correct.
So It wouldn't have been coming from you alone. COMMISSIONER APPLEBAUM: Well, they made their request verbally at the meeting. At that meeting, October the 17th, when all people there, we all concurred in the direction that we were going to go. So there was not a written document; there was a meeting of the minds, a meeting held at that time, and we came up with that decision to go with the sole-source bid. 36 12/18/01 PARKS & REC. COMMITTEE - RES. 010533
Thank you. COMMISSIONER APPLEBAUM: And later, in order to complete the package, I suggested that we write up a memo and include it in this book.
Just a minute, Commissioner. Commissioner, obviously, you have a paper trail for a reason, for accountability. In this case, there is not at least an appropriate -- and again, you know, you're telling me because of your personal involvement, that that didn't necessitate -- the procedure on almost every other sole-source item, you're telling me that in your years as commissioner, this is the first time you were ever totally involved in a procurement, a sole-source procurement? COMMISSIONER APPLEBAUM: I would believe that in the last three years covered by these documents, this is the first one of such a major significance that I was personally involved in the decision-making process.
But, again, to end this conversation on this particular point, the policy was not followed, you realized it wasn't, and you 37 12/18/01 PARKS & REC. COMMITTEE - RES. 010533 had a document prepared, dated in the next calendar year to make the file complete. COMMISSIONER APPLEBAUM: The date that I came to the conclusion that it should have been done, I did not back-date it; I did it based on what had happened at that particular time. We were putting to book together, I said, Hey, we don't have a memo in here, let's put one in. And it was prepared, dated September of 2001.
September 21st of 2001. COMMISSIONER APPLEBAUM: Correct.
And the purchase, again, was made November 13th of the year 2000. COMMISSIONER APPLEBAUM: Correct.
Certainly, Councilman. One follow-up question. On next to the last paragraph of your testimony, you quote the Philadelphia Home Rule Charter Chapter 8-200, and the bottom line is that you move to a sole source when you cannot find the products on the open market. What would be your response to those who believe that certain products -- that like-products 38 12/18/01 PARKS & REC. COMMITTEE - RES. 010533 could be found on the open market? And more specifically, what factors drove you to the decision that the department had to sole-source? COMMISSIONER APPLEBAUM: In this particular case, our professional consultants that we hired to help us come to this conclusion as to what we should buy indicated to us that this product was the only product, the sole product, that had the attributes and was engineered to be able to be used in a stadium, a multi-use stadium -- baseball-football conversions, and be able to safely handle the temporary stands that sit out in the outfield or around the stadium. And we were concerned, and their concern was that those temporary stands would ride safely over the surface and not destroy the stands and not destroy the surface. One other thing I'd like to comment on. We heard earlier today that if the company guaranteed us and gave us a guarantee that the conversion would work, we had nothing to worry about, but in reality, if we were converting the stadium at a particular time on a day before a baseball game and it didn't work, the guarantee 39 12/18/01 PARKS & REC. COMMITTEE - RES. 010533 would not really help us get the baseball or football game going, so where a guarantees is somewhat useful, in this particular case, at a Vets Stadium where you have an event day in and day out, a guarantee would not let the baseball team play.
Yes. Commissioner, first of all, I want to thank you for your service to the City of Philadelphia. And even though this issue has been very embarrassing to the City of Philadelphia, and I know that we've had some other negative issues surface, but I want to congratulate you because I understand that the stadium has been very successful in some other areas -- in the area of the food services and -- but I'd just like you to take -- even though it's digressing for the moment, I'd like you to have the opportunity -- and for the folks, when I thank the Commissioner for his service to the City, he'll be leaving sometime -- the 11th of January. COMMISSIONER APPLEBAUM: January, right.
And, again, I thank you 40 12/18/01 PARKS & REC. COMMITTEE - RES. 010533 for that, but I want you to maybe take the opportunity just to talk about some of the successes that you've had there, and we all ought to thank Greg Grillone because he makes it all work down there. COMMISSIONER APPLEBAUM: Right, thank you, thank you very much, Councilman. As part of the Vets Stadium package, we're proud of what occurred last year during the Phillies baseball season and also the Eagles football season. To date, we've had seven home games with the Eagles, we had a whole baseball season, and this is the first time that I can remember in history that we have not had an unfavorable article in the newspaper, the Inquirer or the Daily News, particularly by Joe Six-pack, of a problem at the stadium such as short beers or dirty food or unclean. We have not had an article. Unfortunately, we have not had a positive article, but newspapers would rather write negatives and not positives. But in this particular baseball season, based on the contract that we signed with Aramark before the season started, our sales -- and the 41 12/18/01 PARKS & REC. COMMITTEE - RES. 010533 change in the contract with a different configuration. Our sales increased $3.9 million, or 35 percent, over the previous year. The commission income, where the City of Philadelphia benefits, increased by $1.6 million, or a 38 percent increase. The attendance was up percent because 9 they had a better season. 10 One of the key numbers is the 11 sales-per-capita -- that's the amount of money taken 12 in per each individual -- increased from $8.53 to 13 $9.14, or a 7.2 percent increase. 14 So all in all, the Aramark services with 15 the cooperation of Vets Stadium and Greg Grillone 16 and his folks did a wonderful job, and we're very 17 pleased that a contract that was issued to Aramark 18 that was somewhat contentious, as you recall, ended 19 up being very successful, and they did a real good 20 job. 21 And we hadn't really had a good year 22 there, and now the Phillies also had a good year 23 playing on NeXturf. They had a good season; they 24 had one problem. 25 And I don't have to mention that the 42 12/18/01 PARKS & REC. COMMITTEE - RES. 010533 Eagles are 9 and 4 this year, and they played many games on NeXturf. After August 13th, there hasn't been one specific problem that has arose. But thank you very much, Councilman, for allowing me to talk about that.
Surely. One final question, Mr. Applebaum. I'm just trying to recall testimony from the last hearing. I believe it was indicated that the City of Philadelphia paid over $13 a square foot for the NeXturf products, approximately? COMMISSIONER APPLEBAUM: I -- I believe that is correct. I don't have that figure here.
Okay. Well, there is the fact that another user of NeXturf, Wissahickon High School, played approximately $8 per square foot. Help us understand why there would be that kind of discrepancy. COMMISSIONER APPLEBAUM: I am not aware of those facts. I don't know what the other school paid, but I believe -- I believe that later today, NeXturf is going to testify. I would ask them the 43 12/18/01 PARKS & REC. COMMITTEE - RES. 010533 question, and I'll be very anxious to hear their question. It could be because of the multi-use stadium, I don't know, but why don't we kind of pass to NeXturf. I'd like you to ask that question.
For sure, we will do that. As a matter of procedure, when your office reviews bids, do you look to see what their history, track-record pricing is and other like-areas? COMMISSIONER APPLEBAUM: Yes. We always look for a track record and success. We look for financial strength of the company, we look for their references. And that's pretty much the way we evaluate all of the vendors that we do business with.
Okay then. What is the Department's policy with regards to sole-sourcing and allowing the minority MBE/WBE community of the City to participate? COMMISSIONER APPLEBAUM: The MBEC Minority Business Enterprise Council headed up by Mr. Jim Roundtree, Deputy Finance Commissioner, and Procurement work very close together. A decision 44 12/18/01 PARKS & REC. COMMITTEE - RES. 010533 was made a few years ago that due to the small amount of sole-source bids and the fact that the bids are going to companies who are manufacturing a product specifically, MBEC came to the conclusion that there was not a potential for them in this particular arena, and they have elected not to receive from Procurement sole-source bids for range-setting. And that has been our policy. And to date, we have not presented to MBEC sole-source bids for range-settings, and that was based on their request.
Very well. Okay, then, Commissioner. Any other members of the panel have anything they care to share? (No response.)
All right then. Thank you very much, gentlemen. COMMISSIONER APPLEBAUM: Thank you very much.
You're welcome. We want to welcome Southwest Recreational 45 12/18/01 PARKS & REC. COMMITTEE - RES. 010533 Industries, Inc. to the podium: Reed Seaton, President; and Jim Griffith, Attorney. (Witnesses come forward.)
Please state your full names for the record and proceed with your testimony.
My name is James Griffith, Esquire, and I'm an attorney representing Southwest Recreational Industries.
I'm Reed James Seaton, President of Southwest Recreational Industries.
Madam Chair, we have no 20 prepared remarks today, but we would like to make a couple points at the beginning prior to any questions that you may have. The first thing is we note that my clients did travel here voluntarily twice from Texas, and we would like that to be noted by the Council. 46 12/18/01 PARKS & REC. COMMITTEE - RES. 010533 Second of all, as Councilman Rizzo has noted before, there are some sensitive issues that have arisen in prior meetings of this Council, and we'd prefer not to get into those issues again; namely, the conversion and August and any other 7 issues that may arise in any potential litigation. 8 So we will defer any questions in that regard. 9 Third, we would like to reserve about five 10 minutes of our time at the end to respond to any 11 comments that our competitors may make about our 12 product, and we will be brief in those remarks and 13 we would hope that you would accommodate that request.
The sponsor of the bill -- I certainly have no problem with that as Chair, but I'll leave that, however, to the sponsor of the bill. Councilman?
Thank you very much. I appreciate that. A few comments on the auditor's report first. We note that the City Controller does have a stamp on the actual contract that was awarded that 47 12/18/01 PARKS & REC. COMMITTEE - RES. 010533 does say "verified one bid," so we're a little puzzled as to why the controller at this point is suddenly raising the issue of no knowledge of one bid, but I guess that can be addressed at another time. We also note that the contract did go through the Law Department and its procedures there. The third thing we'd like to note about the auditor's report is that you did not get the complete report -- at least it does not appear that way from the testimony of the auditor. We are aware that there has been a subsequent testing done of our product that shows that it did conform to all of the specifications that were required, and we would just like that noted for the record. And at this time, if you have any questions, again, subject to my earlier caution, we'd be happy to try and address them.
Could you explain why your product was the -- what is different about your product, in your own words, your description of your product, versus anything else that's on this table?
I'll let Mr. Seaton address 48 12/18/01 PARKS & REC. COMMITTEE - RES. 010533 that in a moment. I would like to note that we were not asked to make any determination as to uniqueness as to our product or why it might be a sole-source bid, but I'm happy to allow Mr. Seaton to talk about NeXturf in general.
The significant difference is the product is designed to be convertible, it's designed to be able to play multiple sports on. And if you wish to take pieces of it up and roll it up and put it away and bring back at a later day in a relatively short period of time, you can do that without damaging the product. And if you allow me to approach, I might be able to make a comparison.
So when you look at the other products that are here today and if you were to -- which I won't, but if I was to tip this upside (inaudible, off-mic).
As an example, if you were to take this field and to try to move it, pieces of it -- so if I turned this upside down, which I won't do, 'cause then someone will have to sweep the 49 12/18/01 PARKS & REC. COMMITTEE - RES. 010533 floor, every piece of rubber particulate and sand will fall out. And you might feel how heavy it is.
So when 30-some-odd percent of the field has to be moved, it's a monumental task. And that characteristic is the same with all field systems. And likewise, we sell a tall-pile fill artificial carpet also.
Could you -- I'll wait till you return to the table. After the first game was played -- we'll get away from the day that the problem developed. All of the controversy with the athletes about the surface being slippery -- I think that they probably spent more money on shoes on that particular game day. There was all of this controversy about the slipperiness of the playing surface. Did that have anything to do with NeXturf or was that a different issue?
Councilman, are there specific players that you're referring to? I mean, it would help us answer the question if you could identify them.
The entire -- in our 50 12/18/01 PARKS & REC. COMMITTEE - RES. 010533 immediate year on every sports show was a different athlete from the Eagles and the visiting team complaining about the slipperiness of the surface, and that problem seemed to go away. What exactly -- are you aware of the complaints about the slipperiness of the playing surface and why those -- do you have any information on why those accusations were made? Did it have anything to do, in your opinion, with NeXturf; or was there another issue associated with that complaint?
I'm sorry, Councilman, I think there's a number of different questions there. Maybe if you could help us focus on the one you want us to answer.
What happened -- why were there complaints about your product being too slippery to play on and they were concerned that there could be a career-ending injury associated with NeXturf?
I think you would have to ask the player's opinion as to why.
Well, apparently there was a response from Southwest when that question was asked. 51 12/18/01 PARKS & REC. COMMITTEE - RES. 010533
Are you aware of the controversy about the slipperiness of the surface?
The NeXturf is specifically designed to replicate a tightly mowed natural-grass field, and we believe that we've accomplished that significantly. And the fact is that we haven't had any playing season-ending injuries on the field, and that's what is most important to the players. And I believe that as the players got used to the field, as we look at the games that have been played very successfully, and I think we could go back and look at the Dallas Cowboys game where it rained almost 23 hours consecutively and they played the game in the 52 12/18/01 PARKS & REC. COMMITTEE - RES. 010533 rain and actually, there was very little, if any, slippage related to the artificial grass NeXturf. So we, quite frankly, are quite proud that the field is playing basically up to our standards, which means it's playing up to the specifications, which is what we promised to the City and to the players, and that we've had a great season and we haven't had any bad injuries. And that is what's unique about NeXturf is that it allows you to play like natural grass but it's artificial and it's convertible. And more importantly, it's suitable not only for football but it's also suitable for baseball. And you have a dual-purpose stadium. We certainly feel quite proud of the NeXturf installation in Vets Stadium and that it has performed exceedingly to our desires in this environment.
Could you please comment on that. This environment, this application, is this the first type -- is this the first time NeXturf was installed in a dual-purpose facility and in this environment? Could you explain the uniqueness of this installation of this product 53 12/18/01 PARKS & REC. COMMITTEE - RES. 010533 at this stadium?
Again, Councilman, there were two questions there, and I'm not sure which one you want him to answer.
Your product, could you describe the uniqueness of this particular installation in this environment at this facility. Has this type of installation ever occurred before it came to Philadelphia?
College football. 54 12/18/01 PARKS & REC. COMMITTEE - RES. 010533
College football. Any difference from college football?
The average NFL player, I believe, is years old; and in college, they're 6 22. So about two years. 7
So you equate that as 8 being a similar environment, a similar installation? 9
That and the fact that the 12 Atlanta Falcons have a full-size 95,000 square foot 13 indoor practice facility that they're utilizing. 14
Indoor, big difference. 15 I mean, there's a big difference between being 16 outside and outside, you'd agree, right? 17
The question is that 20 there's a difference. You talked about the day of 21 the Dallas game when it rained, the results would 22 have been a lot different inside versus outside. 23
Exactly, you got it. 55 12/18/01 PARKS & REC. COMMITTEE - RES. 010533 That's exactly the question. Madam Chair?
Yes. I do need to follow up with the question that was proposed to the procurement commissioner. Our records or homework reflects that the City of Philadelphia paid over $13 a square foot for the NeXturf products here; however, at the Wissahickon High School, who also purchased a football field, NeXturf. Southwest information says that they paid $8 a square foot. Help us understand the discrepancy.
Well, A, I'm not sure that they paid $8, but I can give you some significant differences. Your field was a complete removal and replacement. The job was done in the winter. I believe we paid $70.72 per hour per labor dollar that we paid inside the stadium. We had to build the entire stadium, it's a custom fit. It also has a running track, you know, which is the warning track, and there are additional pieces. So the 56 12/18/01 PARKS & REC. COMMITTEE - RES. 010533 field is significantly larger, maybe almost twice as big. So you -- I mean, I'm not sure what square footage basis you're using for the calculation. We moved snow every single day, I believe, in the first 45 days of the job to work, so we had a snow piling contract to move the snow off the worksite. And at the Wissahickon facility, it is a rectangular, 32 panels, American football, and it's a very standard installation.
I would be happy to show you the payroll records, which, I believe, are close to $800,000 for this installation.
What was the warranty associated with Astroturf8 I believe it's referred to, the original Astroturf that you ripped out. What credit did we get because it was only in its fifth year, and I believe there was a warranty or -- what credit did you give the City or what credit did 57 12/18/01 PARKS & REC. COMMITTEE - RES. 010533 the City receive as a result of the short life of the system that was in there?
How much money did the City receive credit for the system that was only in its fifth year of service when I believe it had a few more years left to its life and possibly even a warranty associated with it?
Perhaps the Councilman could explain the basis for the statement that there were a few years left in the life of the carpet, and then perhaps we can address the question.
Well, you're representing that there was additional life left in the carpet, and we're trying to find the basis for the statement.
All right, the question is -- again, I'll ask it this way: I understand that the initial surface had some problems with the seams. How much did you charge the City of Philadelphia to repair the existing Astroturf that 58 12/18/01 PARKS & REC. COMMITTEE - RES. 010533 was there? What was the charges -- explain the business arrangement that you had with the Recreation Department, the City, in repairing the old surface so it could be used until the new surface was installed? And since the existing surface had, I believe, from my notes here, that it still had a warranty period associated with it. Did the City benefit, did the City get a credit for any of the unused life of the existing surface?
And given the circumstances as have been described by my colleague, the City did not ask for a credit. Do you believe the City deserves a credit?
I do not. I think we're mixing -- you know, use and warranty are different 59 12/18/01 PARKS & REC. COMMITTEE - RES. 010533 issues. I mean, I'm not sure if you've ever actually stayed the night and watched a conversion process. I mean, have you ever spent the night out there and watched the 100 people work hours? 6
Well, unfortunately, I've -- 9 or fortunately, I've had that opportunity numerous 10 times this year. And I think in order to shed light 11 on the field and maybe historical comments about the 12 Vet playing field, you would find that a lot of 13 those basically are based on the conversion process. 14 Forklifts and trucks and bleachers and buggies, and 15 a tremendous amount -- you know, up to maybe 30, 40 16 large vehicles driving all over the field and 17 dragging out huge bleacher sections and parking them 18 on the field. 19 And so I think that what you find is that 20 we build a field that would last eight years, but 21 you tend to put more use on the field and you 22 prematurely basically age the field. It's not that 23 the field is not playable; you basically are 24 damaging it at a more accelerated rate.
Is that 60 12/18/01 PARKS & REC. COMMITTEE - RES. 010533 factor or provision put in the language of the contract, that if you use it more than --
It's not use, Madam, it's basically damage, it's destruction of the product basically, I think, would be a more appropriate terminology.
Let's go back to the original playing surface. I understand that you came and made some repairs -- the company came and made some repairs to the original playing surface. Now, I'm going back there because you're telling me that the field was damaged, and I understand that after the seams, the Velcro seams were repaired, that playing surface, the Astroturf, met the terms and conditions, and we have a matter of record. The stadium manager said the field at that time met the terms and conditions of the lease agreement that we had with both of these franchises. So I'm a little confused that you're telling me that because of the way we treated the surface that it was damaged but it met the terms and conditions of the lease.
Councilman, I don't think 61 12/18/01 PARKS & REC. COMMITTEE - RES. 010533 that's his testimony; I think that's another gentleman's testimony.
But I'm asking you. At the time you made -- when you made the repairs to -- and this is to you, this question. When you made the repairs to the existing Astroturf, when you left there, was that playing surface in good repair?
Was it damaged when you left the stadium, after you made the repairs that you made? And I believe that there was a purchase order associated with those repairs. All I'm asking you is when you finished those repairs before you came back with your crew to rip out that existing playing surface, what was the condition of it and was it in good repair when you left there?
Again, I'm having trouble with "in good repair." I mean, you're asking, did they make repairs?
Your client made a statement that the field was damaged. After the repairs were made, was it still damaged?
I actually think, Councilmember, what I said is that due to the 62 12/18/01 PARKS & REC. COMMITTEE - RES. 010533 uniqueness of the stadium, you tend to destroy the product at a more accelerated rate than other stadiums due to the conversionability of the facility. Now, because you and I spoke on the telephone, as you probably recall, I wasn't aware of the repairs, so are we speaking of this $25,000 repair job?
Yeah, or somewhere around there, that the repairs would be approximately between approximately and $30,000. 17
Yeah. Well, actually I'm a 18 little lost still because I gained that information 19 from you, and I guess from our conversation sort of 20 my take-away was that we didn't bill you. If you 21 wish for us to bill you for that, I'd be happy to 22 send you an invoice. 23
If we deserve a bill, 24 you please do that. If you performed a service for 25 us and you didn't get paid, I think you should; the 63 12/18/01 PARKS & REC. COMMITTEE - RES. 010533 same way if the City Controller's Office says that you have responsibility for what occurred on game day and you're saying you don't. If we owe you money, sir, send them the bill.
Two final questions. The square footage on the half field at Jack Russell Stadium in Florida is approximately 27,000 square feet. There the arrangement, the approximate per-square-foot cost is $3.70. You provided an explanation on why the -- "discrepancy" may be an inappropriate word -- why the difference between per square foot $13 in Philadelphia and $8 per square foot at Wissahickon High School. Provide an explanation on why $13 square a square foot in Philadelphia for NeXturf and $3.70 per square foot in Florida for the same product.
So is that a factor in determining the bottom-line figure?
Yeah. It's, you know, the delta, the field times, you know, multiplied by the 64 12/18/01 PARKS & REC. COMMITTEE - RES. 010533 value. And you have to take into consideration inside the contract values, both yours, Wissahickon, and the Jack Russell Stadium that there's also other kinds of ancillary work that goes on -- excavation concrete, track work -- so you have to have a full breakdown. I don't know how big it is.
Are you submitting a bid for consideration for the new stadiums in the City of Philadelphia?
Yes, ma'am, I certainly hope that we will because we also built the new NovaCare Center for the practice field for the Eagles, the natural grass, which has worked out tremendously well for them. And I actually just came from New York City where we're completing the Yankees' baseball field today.
Thank you very much. I have no further questions. Councilman?
Thank you very much, gentleman. (Councilman Nutter enters Council chamber.) 65 12/18/01 PARKS & REC. COMMITTEE - RES. 010533
Oh, Councilman Nutter has joined us. Please forgive me. (Messrs. Seaton and Griffith leave witness table.)
Please forgive me, gentlemen. I failed to recognize my colleague Councilman Michael Nutter, who has joined us for these proceedings. Welcome.
Thank you, thank you, Madam Chair. Good afternoon, gentlemen. I'm sorry I missed some of your opening statements. Could you just tell me who you are.
Reed James Seaton, President, Southwest Recreational Industries, Inc.
I'm sorry. I didn't catch your name. 66 12/18/01 PARKS & REC. COMMITTEE - RES. 010533
Okay, great. When I came in, you were answering a question, I think, from Councilman Rizzo with regard to conversions of the field, and I heard you talking about damage. What kind of damage was created at Veterans Stadium or damage to the surface?
I'm talking to you about 67 12/18/01 PARKS & REC. COMMITTEE - RES. 010533 damage to the field. At what point in time are you talking about with respect to that field?
I'm not sure. I came in while Mr. Seaton was talking, so it was about 6 minutes or so ago when you were responding to some 7 questions from Councilman Rizzo, and you were 8 talking about heavy equipment, maybe tractors, some 9 other stuff being on the fields, and that there was 10 damage. That's not so much that the field wore out but that it had been damaged. Do you remember that testimony?