VOLUME I COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON PARKS, RECREATION & CULTURAL AFFAIRS - - - Room 400, City Hall Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Wednesday, October 17, 2001 10:15 a.m. - - - RESOLUTION 010533 - Authorizing Committee on Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Affairs to hold hearings on the NeXturf procurement for Veterans Stadium. - - - PRESENT: COUNCILWOMAN BLONDELL REYNOLDS BROWN, Chair COUNCILMAN RICHARD T. MARIANO, Vice Chair COUNCILMAN JAMES F. KENNEY COUNCILMAN FRANK RIZZO COUNCILWOMAN MARIAN B. TASCO COUNCILMAN MICHAEL A. NUTTER COUNCIL PRESIDENT ANNA C. VERNA COUNCILMAN ANGEL L. ORTIZ COUNCILWOMAN JANNIE L. BLACKWELL - - - VINCENT VARALLO ASSOCIATES, INC. Registered Professional Reporters Eleven Penn Center Plaza, Suite 600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215) 561-2220 2 I N D E X RESOLUTION 010533 Greg Grillone, Director, Veteran's Stadium------ Richard Tustin, Director, Capital Programs 6 Office--------------------------------------- 6 Christopher McCabe, Esq., Representative, Law Department----------------------------------- 44 Ruben Amaro, Assistant General Manager, Baseball Operations, Phillies------------------------- 65 Reeder Fox, Esq., Counsel for Ewing, Cole------- 83 Pradeep Patel, Senior Vice-President, Ewing Cole------------------------------------ 90 - - - 3 RESOLUTION 010533 - 10/17/01
Good morning. The City Council Committee on Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Affairs is now in a Public Hearing to hear testimony on Resolution 010533. Joining us at this Committee hearing are City Council Members Frank Rizzo, Councilman Mariano, Madam President Verna, myself Councilwoman Blondell Reynolds Brown, Councilman Angel Ortiz, Councilman Jim Kenney, and Councilwoman Jannie Blackwell. We want to ask the clerk to read the Resolution 010533. The clerk will now read the title of the Resolution.
Resolution 010533, a resolution authorizing the City Council Committee on Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Affairs to hold hearings on the NeXturf procurement Veteran's Stadium, as to whether the procurement of a new playing surface was needed, whether the procurement process by which the decision was made was appropriate, and whether the NeXturf problems have been adequately addressed, as well as reviewing and evaluating the City's sole-source bidding process and policy.
This is an opportunity for 4 RESOLUTION 010533 - 10/17/01 us to gain some insight, better understanding, into the procurement process, particularly as it relates to sole-sourcing. And so that's the broad question we will be looking to and we move through these proceedings. We want to can the sponsor of this resolution, Councilman Frank Rizzo, to provide us with opening remarks.
Thank you, Madam Chair. President Verna, thank you for joining us this morning here. Again, I would like to welcome everyone here this morning. And my objective is to walk through this entire process from the very beginning. And we are going to ask the Recreation Department to come to the witness table. And we would just like to go through the entire process on how we got where we are today on the actual decision to replace the existing playing surface prior to the product that we are -- that we have in Philadelphia Veteran's Stadium right now. So that obviously is very important to talk about, the process that was utilized to make the decision to replace the playing surface. 5 RESOLUTION 010533 - 10/17/01 And then we are going to talk briefly about some of the problems associated with it. And the city controller's office is here today. And the city controller, or the City Solicitor, has asked us to try our best to avoid, because there is the potential of a lawsuit involving the problems associated with the change-over and the cancellation of the preseason game. So we will stick pretty much to the information that the controller has already developed and identified. So, Madam Chairman, if we could bring the first group to the table, it would be appreciated.
Please allow me to acknowledge, joining us is City Councilwoman Marian Tasco, also a member of this committee. Please come forward Recreation Department; Veteran's Stadium Director, Greg Grillone. First panel will also include capital Programs Office, Richard Tustin, Director; and John Starkey, Project Manager. Also joining this panel will be a representative, the Senior Vice-President for Ewing, 6 RESOLUTION 010533 - 10/17/01 Cole, Cherry & Brott, Mr. Patel. And finally on this panel will be Phillies representative Ruben Amaro. We will need each one of you, before you speak, to state your full name, for the record, the department you represent or agency you represent, and then proceed with your testimony. GREG GRILLONE: My name is Greg Grillone, G-R-I-L-L-O-N-E. I am with the Recreation Department and I am the stadium director. THE CHAIRWOMAN: Please proceed with your testimony, sir.
I don't have any prepared testimony. THE CHAIRWOMAN: Any of those names I called have testimony, before we proceed to questions? Please. RICHARD TUSTIN: My name is Richard Tustin, and I am the Director of the city's Capital Program Office. Good morning, members of City Council, Committee on Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Affairs. In July of 2000, the Capital Program 7 RESOLUTION 010533 - 10/17/01 Office was asked to oversee a contract with Ewing, Cole, Cherry, Brott to assess the physical conditions of Veteran's Stadium. Under a lease agreement with the Phillies and the Eagles, the city is required to keep the stadium in a, quote, good and suitable state and condition for use intended and to be made the same, making all such repairs to, restoration and replacement of the structures, other improvements and equipment thereof and therein, and that may be required from time to time. The assessment report would allow us to evaluate and prioritize items that required repair or replacement. The field turf was last replaced in March of 1995 and its condition was a major concern for both teams. A G-max test, which is a measure of the shock absorbancy of the turf itself were performed on the turf in 14 locations and yielded readings from 95 to 242. In order to put these numbers into perspective, natural grass has a G-max or a shock absorbancy of 70. That's plus or minus, it is 65 to 8 RESOLUTION 010533 - 10/17/01 75. Ratings of 130 to 150 result in a noticeable decrease to the shock absorbancy of the field by the players. And G-max ratings of over 150 indicate a very hard surface which would be found to be objectionable by almost any sports player. 9 of the 14 test areas, or 64 percent, taken at the stadium fell within the 130 to 150 range, and one rating was as high as 242. The firm of Ewing, Cole, Cherry, Brott had been used by the Department of Recreation for stadium projects.
Excuse me. Talk into the mike. I am having a problem hearing.
The firm of Ewing, Cole, Cherry, Brott had been used by the Department of Recreation for stadium projects over the last ten years. The project director, Mr. Pradeep Patel, worked on the original Vet Stadium turf installation while working for the firm of McCormick, Taylor, and the replacement fields both in 1987 and 1995 while working with the firm of Ewing, Cole, Cherry, Brott. 9 RESOLUTION 010533 - 10/17/01 Because of his and his firm's past experience on these type of projects, their history with the Department of Recreation and the sports teams, the Capital Program Office requested a proposal from them to research, evaluate, design, and oversee the construction of the new field surface. In October of 2000, Ewing, Cole, Cherry, Brott submitted their field turf evaluation report, which was reviewed at a meeting on October with 12 representatives of the city's Finance Department, 13 the Department of Recreation, the Law Department, 14 and Procurement. 15 On October 19, the Capital Program 16 Office, Ewing, Cole, Cherry, Brott, the Phillies, 17 and the Eagles met to review the report. As a result of these review meetings and responses to followup questions --
Excuse me. Will you repeat that. Capital Program Office --
The Capital Program Office, the firm of Ewing, Cole, Cherry, Brott, the Phillies, and the Eagles met on October 19 to review the report, which was two days after we reviewed it 10 RESOLUTION 010533 - 10/17/01 internally with various city departments.
Correct. As a result of these review meetings and responses to some followup questions by the teams, all agreed that only the NeXturf product met the unique characteristics of the stadium. The design documentation was completed by Ewing, Cole, Cherry, Brott, and the project was bid as a sole-source in November of 2000. The contract was given a Notice to Proceed on November 21, 2000, and the installation was completed in time for the Phillies' home opener on April 6, 2001. Thank you for allowing me to provide this testimony, and I will be happy to answer any questions at this time.
Mr. Grillone? Councilman Rizzo, you want to speak with whom? 11 RESOLUTION 010533 - 10/17/01
The question I would like to ask, the statement also I would like to make, is that the turf that was described of being in the media as the worst playing surface in the league, was that a Southwest product that was there?
At some point there was maintenance on that Southwest product required to meet the terms and conditions of the lease. I understand that there was approximately between 30 and 50 thousand dollars, and apparently there was a communication, to Southwest to make certain repairs. And it was submitted that the repairs would cost between 30 and 50 thousand dollars; is that correct?
That was on the high end. But there were some repairs that were needed to, my 12 RESOLUTION 010533 - 10/17/01 recollection is, involving some of the zippers that hold some of the pieces in the enzone together, as well as some tears that needed to be addressed.
Well, if that was on the high end, can you tell me how much -- I believe that there was a letter or a request through the procurement department to make those repairs. How much were the repairs going to cost the City of Philadelphia to make the playing surface conform to the terms and conditions of the lease?
My recollection was that the purchase order was a not-to-exceed number, I believe, of $25,000.
Yes. What happened was, when we finally reached a number, which I think was 13 RESOLUTION 010533 - 10/17/01 a not-to-exceed of 25,000, they sent us a communication that said, you know, they would make the repairs, and we would schedule when that would need to be done. And that if in fact subsequently we chose a Southwest product to replace the field, that they would not charge us for those repairs.
The product was a Southwest product, was five years into a warranty period of seven, eight years? How many years was the product warrantied?
The warranty was eight years, Councilman. And we actually had six full playing years on that particular field. And that was not unusual, you know, to make a decision to replace a field before the actual warranty period had reached its full term. We had done that in the past.
The deficiencies or 14 RESOLUTION 010533 - 10/17/01 the repairs that were required, I understand that they were not part of the warranty that was associated with the playing surface, that's why they indicated that there would be a potential, on the up side, $25,000 to make the repairs? Why weren't those repairs under the warranty?
They were conditions that were related more to wear and tear, and not necessarily, you know, defect of the product. So it wasn't covered under the warranty. Things such as zippers are things that -- the turf people can talk more about it. But I think it is known that there is a certain useful life of those particular components, which is much less than the warranty for the fabric or the turf itself and its pad system.
Was Southwest the only company that could have made repairs to this surface? Would other companies have the ability to make those repairs and have the opportunity to say, We are not going to charge you if we get the deal. But if we don't charge you, you are going to 15 RESOLUTION 010533 - 10/17/01 get a bill -- if we don't get the deal, you are going to get a bill?" Could somebody else have had that same opportunity?
I don't know, Councilman. All I will say is that I have been at the stadium since 1984. And every time there was a need for repairs, we have always contacted and had the actual manufacturer of the product make the repairs. In this case, throughout the life of the stadium, it has always been a Southwest or one of their, you know, preceding companies, either Monsanto or AstroTurf.
The statement was made that the performance of the playing surface left a little bit to be desired, whatever the word you used, about the amount of cushioning in the product. If this product, in your opinion, you had problems with this after the six playing seasons, were you satisfied with the performance of Southwest product that was there? Were you pleased with the product that was there, when it was in its sixth year? 16 RESOLUTION 010533 - 10/17/01
I thought the product was okay. But obviously we had -- I don't want to say, "we." I mean, the city had embarked upon an evaluation of the stadium as a facility and what things would need to be repaired or replaced in the succeeding years throughout the life of the building. And I felt with the advent of the new turf systems and with the complaints that we had gotten -- a lot of which I will admit I believe is perception, but nevertheless, we continued to get complaints about it -- and the threats of lawsuits and whatnot, I felt that the turf system should be an item that should be replaced.
My final question, at least in this go-around, after the repairs were made to the existing surface prior to this product being put in, this newer Southwest product being put in, after the repairs were made, did the playing surface meet the terms and conditions of the lease? If you are a landlord and your tenant comes and says, "I don't like the color of the carpeting in the hallway. Would you change it," I 17 RESOLUTION 010533 - 10/17/01 don't think too many people that are landlords would do that. As a landlord to the Phillies and Eagles, after you have spent, which you really didn't spend -- and I think I am going to have some additional questions about the appropriateness of that transaction, where a vendor can come and say, "We won't charge you, if we get the deal. But if we don't, we will." I have a little problem with that. My question to you, after you made the repairs, did the playing surface meet the terms and conditions of the lease?
Councilman, you know, I am not a lawyer and I am not going to answer a legal question. But in my mind, in terms of the functionability of the surface, I mean, I thought it met -- it was a playable field. But that didn't mean that, as I said earlier, with the advent of the new systems and with the discussion about a blueprint in terms of what components of the stadium could or should be replaced in the succeeding years, I truly felt that the turf system should be one of those items. 18 RESOLUTION 010533 - 10/17/01
I can understand that. But, again, my question is -- you don't need to be a lawyer; you are the director of the stadium -- after you made the repairs to the playing surface, you said it was a playable surface. I need you to answer the question. Was the playing surface repaired? And after those repairs, did your tenants have the ability to challenge you and say that this repair, this playing surface, is not acceptable, that it doesn't meet the terms and conditions of the lease? Yes or no. 15
No. I think it met the terms and conditions of the lease. Yes.
Thank you. We spent millions of dollars, millions and millions of dollars, trying to project an image of Philadelphia as a come-to destination. And over the last eight years we tried to project an image of competence. Of, in essence, trying to get away from that W.C. Fields image of 19 RESOLUTION 010533 - 10/17/01 many decades. On August of this year, that millions 4 of dollars were really fritted away on national TV, 5 on all the morning programs, in every sector of the 6 country, newspapers and so on. 7 Millions of dollars that the city spent 8 on trying to rebuild this image really went down the 9 tubes. And we still have not received an adequate 10 explanation for it. 11 You said that Capital Program, Ewing, 12 Phillies, and Eagles met to review a report produced 13 by Ewing. And out of that you decided to sole-source the bidding process, or to shortcut the bidding process and sole-source it out to -- what is it called? -- Southwest. Right?
Councilman, we were not trying to short-circuit any standard city process. What we were trying to do is --
I asked whether out of that meeting with Ewing, and out of that report, you guys decided, the city decided, to sole-source the process?
I don't know if the meetings we had with both city departments and agencies and the followup meeting with the teams, where we reviewed the report and the products available --
Hold on just a second. I am waiting for the fire alarms to go. Go ahead.
Again, out of the meetings we had both internally with the different departments, procurement being one of them, and also the meetings we had with both teams, and the fact that we reviewed the reports, we reviewed the products that were given to us as possible replacements, and also knowing the unique construction of that stadium and how it is used, it was the decision of all of us, jointly, that the NeXturf product seemed to be the only product that met the requirements for a new field. That decision or recommendation was 21 RESOLUTION 010533 - 10/17/01 stated at a meeting on October the 17th, at which point in time the Procurement Commissioner, who was present, also agreed that the correct method of proceeding would be through a sole-source bid.
So on October 17, relying on the report by Ewing, you decided to recommend to the Procurement Commissioner that he go with Southwest and make Southwest the only company to bid for this project?
No, Councilman, that's not what I said. What I said was, on October the 17th, we reviewed the report that was provided to us by our professional consultant, who was paid to go out and evaluate several products and to come back to us with their recommendation of a product or more than one product that could meet our specific needs.
Yes, they did. In fact, if you would like, I would like to read an excerpt from an article that was in the --
Just a question, that's all. We are trying to find out certain things here. I just want to know how the process got to the point in which we went with only one company bidding for this project. So you had the meeting. The Phillies and the Eagles were involved in the decisionmaking --
I wrote a letter of justification, why we recommended that the product be -- why the project proceed as a sole-source bid, which is standard.
Do you have a copy of that letter? 23 RESOLUTION 010533 - 10/17/01
Could you make a copy of that letter available to this committee?
Could you state the reasons that you stated in the letter to Mr. Applebaum?
I can try to summarize what I said. Because I don't have the letter, and it was written a while ago.
I will. I believe the justification was that, due to the nature of the stadium, the fact that it was a multi-purpose stadium; the fact that it was used by more than just the sports teams, for other events as well; the fact that we had a substrate under the new turf or under a turf that we were not about to change because that would have involved ripping up everything, all the way down to the stone and the drainage system below; due to the fact that we were told that our bleacher system, the seating 24 RESOLUTION 010533 - 10/17/01 system, had certain restraints on what it could be pulled out over -- and the thickness of the product seemed to be a major issue in all of these -- that it was our recommendation that the NeXturf product was the best product and the only product to use for this particular project.
Did the Phillies at any moment divulge that they had a relationship with Southwest at that time?
Did they say that their practice field was, how you call it, the surface of the practice field in Florida, was done free of charge by Southwest?
But they were part of the decision-making process of this bid?
So then Mr. Applebaum received your letter and you made a decision? 25 RESOLUTION 010533 - 10/17/01
After. You relied totally on that report, and you made no further inquiries?
The basis of the decision was the report and the testing that was done of the field. Were there any companies that came in to Mr. Applebaum after our justification letter? I believe there were. I believe A field Turf product came in.
You didn't have a business relationship with Southwest?
Do we know whether Ewing had a business relationship with Southwest?
It goes to whether they are going to a company they already have business with.
I understand that. The Capital Program office had no 8 knowledge of it. To my knowledge, no other city department or agency had any knowledge of any relationship between Ewing, Cole, Cherry, Brott and Southwest Recreation.
Allow me first to acknowledge and say thank you to Councilman Michael Nutter for joining these proceedings. Point of order, Councilman Rizzo?
Point of order. For the record, I have two memos. I would like to point out two memos to Mr. Tustin that I was prepared to discuss with the Procurement Commissioner. There is a memo dated December 7, 2000, where the City Solicitor's office asked the procurement department about this document that you 27 RESOLUTION 010533 - 10/17/01 just referred to. And I won't read the entire memo, but I will read, the traditional sole-source justification memo was not prepared for this project. Then on September 21, September 21, 2001, again a letter from the Deputy Procurement Commissioner, to the Procurement Commissioner, explaining the rationale behind the sole-source. And I will read this quickly. "The decision to award a sole-source contract for Veteran's Stadium playing surface was made as a result of an engineering study conducted by Ewing, Cole. On October 17, 2000, a meeting was held with the Capital Programs office, Recreation Department, Finance Department, Procurement Department, and representatives from Ewing, Cole. At that time discussions were held on the engineering report and it was concluded that the only viable option for the playing field was the NeXturf product." "Viable," again, I'm not sure. I don't know too many engineering studies that come to a conclusion and use the word "viable." But, okay. "Of the playing field was the NeXturf product. Based on that, the capital programs office 28 RESOLUTION 010533 - 10/17/01 prepared a sole-source bid to purchase the playing surface from Southwest Recreational Industries." And this, again, this memo is dated September 21, 2001. And when the City Solicitor was trying to gain information for obviously preparing for some issue, this particular memo from the Deputy Procurement Commissioner indicates that there was no 9 traditional sole-source justification memo for this project. Are you aware of that?
I am not aware of either one of those memos, Councilman Rizzo.
No, I am not aware of that. Traditionally what happens in our office is that, when we do make a request for sole-source -- which is a rarity, I must say, we don't do it very often -- we have a standard form memo that we use. Part of that form memo that goes to the Commissioner, the first part of it, is justification. The justification is filled out, which identifies why -- what our reasoning is for 29 RESOLUTION 010533 - 10/17/01 requesting a sole-source bid. And that memo is usually sent, signed by me, and forwarded to the Procurement Commissioner. I understand the Procurement Commissioner hands that to his Deputy Commissioner to review and also confirm. But I will let the Procurement Commissioner decide or tell you what is done in his office.
Good morning. Thank you. What other cities have used this NeXturf? Are there other stadiums in this country that used the NeXturf?
I believe there is. I believe I have some information right here. The NeXturf installation is right now at the Atlanta Falcons football club in Atlanta Georgia; Jack Russell Stadium, which is the training facility in Philadelphia; the Addison Stadium, which is at University of Oregon; PGE Park, which is the City of Portland, Oregon; Waldo Stadium, University 30 RESOLUTION 010533 - 10/17/01 of Western Michigan; Glass Bowl, University of Toledo; Owasso High School baseball infield in Owasso, Oklahoma, I guess that is; Wissahickon School District Stadium field in Ambler, Pennsylvania; the Rainier Beach High School baseball and softball infield, Seattle, Washington; Soccer Loft, indoor soccer, Grand Rapids, Michigan; and Sports Town Indoor Soccer in Macon, Georgia.
But no other professional stadiums, except the one you named.
Did you know this information prior to the bid being awarded to this company? And did you all check to see if those high schools or colleges had problems with the material?
As part of the evaluation process, there were actually site visits to look at the different products. There was a group that went to Atlanta Falcons' football club in Georgia. That group consisted of members of the Eagles and the Phillies, 31 RESOLUTION 010533 - 10/17/01 as well as our consultant, Ewing, Cole. And Mr. Grillone, who was the stadium manager, also went to that site visit. Not only do I they believe they talked to representatives of the Atlanta Falcons, but I also believe that the Phillies had several members of their team perform some normal exercise, including batting and running, on the field surface, so that they were comfortable with the product.
Did the Atlanta Falcons report that there had been any problems with the NeXturf?
To my knowledge, no. But I was not at the site visit. Greg, do you have any answer to that?
Quite the contrary. They were quite pleased with the product and the results that they had experienced so far. It was a relatively new installation. But, to that point, they were more than satisfied and thoroughly pleased.
Indoor. It is an indoor 32 RESOLUTION 010533 - 10/17/01 practice facility.
It is an indoor practice facility. But it is not a playing field, outdoor playing field, where there is a lot of wear and tear?
It is a practice, football practice, facility, right. The Falcons play in the Georgia Dome.
So we don't have any professional stadium in the United States that uses this NeXturf?
Not at that time, no. 19 There were none at that particular time.
Given the history and the problems we have had with our stadium, and the reputation of our stadium, did you think to take the opportunity to investigate all kinds, different kinds, of turf, so that we could be on the cutting edge or provide the best product for our stadiums? 33 RESOLUTION 010533 - 10/17/01
That was what the consultant did. And, for me, it is a real personal issue. And obviously it is my building and I care about it. And I put a lot of blood, sweat, and tears into the place. And that was exactly the feelings that I had, that that's why I wanted the turf replaced, quite frankly.
Mr. Tustin, I know this is a sole-source contract, but what role did MBEC play in this? Did they have a role or were they required to have a role? Are they supposed to have a role in the selection process?
On most of our projects that we do -- well, you are asking specifically about this project. Because this was a sole-source, one manufacturer would make the product and that same manufacturer installs the product, it is not done through an outside contractor. It is a manufacturer manufactured and installed product. I don't believe MBEC did play a role in this particular project. 34 RESOLUTION 010533 - 10/17/01
Does your office take a proactive role, or a proactive stance, to see that MBEC plays a role in the selection process?
Yes, Councilwoman, we do. In fact, every year when we put together our projects that will get submitted to the city Planning Commissioner for capital funding, we meet with representatives of the Minority and Business Enterprise Council, we review every one of our projects that we anticipate putting out for professional service, we discuss which projects are best suited for minorities, women, disabled. Several of our projects we put out as 100 percent minority MBEC, as opposed to portioning off portions of it. To summarize, we play a very active role with MBEC in all the projects we do. And I think our department probably has one of the highest percentages of most of the city agencies that do professional services contracts.
Is there any time that you have discussed with MBEC the need not to have minority participation in a project?
Yes, Councilwoman, there 35 RESOLUTION 010533 - 10/17/01 are. On occasion, if in fact we feel there is a project that's somewhat unique and we discuss with them the fact that it is unique, whether it be -- I will use an example, a building automation system that may only be manufactured by three or four companies in the country. We will talk about that issue with the Minority and Business Enterprise Council and tell them of what our concerns are and what we think the limitations are. And we don't do anything without them concurring, agreeing with us, or not agreeing with us. Most of the times they agree with us.
What special skills or special qualities did this company have that you selected for this --
Well, as I said in my opening testimony, when the Capital Program office was first brought into the project -- in the past, the Department of Recreation would have handled these projects. But we were brought into the project in July to oversee it I think because it was such a large project. The firm of Ewing, Cole, Cherry, Brott had already done work for the stadium and the Department of Recreation over the last ten years. So they were very familiar with the stadium itself not only as a firm, but their individual project people were very familiar with the stadium and the unique characteristics of the stadium. We also know that that particular firm has done sports facilities around the country and, in fact, I believe oversees, as well. And the Capital Program office, I should say, has used that company in the past on other projects for other city departments and agencies. So we were familiar with their qualifications and the fact that they were already on board to do the assessment report, that the Department of Recreation had already used them for 37 RESOLUTION 010533 - 10/17/01 the last ten years, on all sports-related projects, including replacement turfs, in the past, it was our opinion that they were a very good choice to do the design of the field turf project.
But if you used the same company for ten years, and you don't go out and seek bids from other companies, how did you know you were getting the best price for your dollar? I mean, it is nice to develop relationships and have people do the work. But how do we know what we are paying for? What price comparisons do you use to make that selection? THE CHAIRWOMAN: My followup would be, at what juncture do you review a sole-source bid? I have heard three times, because I wrote it down, over the last ten years. So what juncture is that sole-source bid reviewed to point to the issues raised by Councilwoman Tasco?
Because the other issue around that is, once the relationship is developed, it doesn't give other companies an opportunity to come in and bid on the work; it doesn't give other companies the opportunity -- we don't know what other companies are out there, you 38 RESOLUTION 010533 - 10/17/01 don't know what other companies are out there. We don't know if the other companies have a better track record in terms of their minority requirements, and we don't know what kind of employees they have.
Correct. Let me try to explain that by explaining a little bit how the Capital Program Office normally does a selection of a design professional for any project we do. Not necessarily the stadium turf project, but for any project in general. We do project management for 14 different city departments and agencies at this 15 time. We have a database of over 200 design and engineering and related firms that we keep in our computer. We meet regularly with firms that either solicit us directly to do projects for the city or firms that have gone to Minority and Business Enterprise, and they have sent over a letter to us saying, "We have a new firm. " And we meet with those firms on a regular basis. 39 RESOLUTION 010533 - 10/17/01 Every time we do a project, any kind of a capital project, it is our policy to go out and solicit Requests for Proposals, RFPs. We usually go out to, at minimum, five firms, on every project we do, asking for them to give us a proposal to do the work for us. The Requests for Proposal we send out gives a brief synopsis of the type of work that's involved, the agency who the work will be being done for, the scope of the work, and also what we think the project budget of the job will be. Those five firms will then solicit or submit to us proposals. Those proposal are evaluated by not only people from our office, but also representatives of the department we are doing the project for, whether that be the Police Department, the Fire Department, the Health Department. We also have on our evaluating committee a member of Minority and Business Enterprise Council. They sit on the evaluation committee, as well. We require that the firm's proposal include in a separate envelope, sealed envelope, 40 RESOLUTION 010533 - 10/17/01 their fee, their proposal fee, to do the job. We do not open that letter with their fee proposal until after the review has been done of the technical qualifications of the firms that are submitting proposals. That evaluation is done by at least a five-member committee. And a recommendation, based on their technical capabilities, is then -- we create a rating system and we put who we think is the best technically qualified to do the job, down to the lowest technically rated. Only after that do we open the letter that tells us what the fee is for that particular project. Now, when we develop a budget, project budget, for any project, we have to include in there what we believe the construction costs will be; any special testing that may be required; the costs of any special testing that may be required to put a proposal or design together; as well as an estimate of what we think the design fee should be, what we think a fair price would be, for any firm to do that job. If it is a small project, like a roof 41 RESOLUTION 010533 - 10/17/01 replacement or a low-cost project, we estimate that a fair fee for that could be in the neighborhood of percent of what the construction value would be. 5 On larger projects, that percentage goes 6 down. So it is not a fixed number. 7 So we have, based on a project by 8 project, an idea as to what we think the design fee 9 should be, what we think a fair price would be to do 10 that work. So that at the end of the review of the technical portion and we open those letters, we look at those fees. We then put the fees next to the firms and how those firms have been rated. A professional service contract is not a low-bid contract. We have the right to select a firm that may not give us the lowest possible fee. But what we do do is, we look at the fee and compare that against what we feel the fair fee should be. And if in fact the design firm's fee is higher, we will go back and negotiate with that firm to have them reduce their fee down to what we believe is a fair price to do that work for us. So our first and primary concern is 42 RESOLUTION 010533 - 10/17/01 getting a company that is most technically qualified to do the particular type of work that we look for.
Let's just go back. And thank you for all that information, but how do you come to five companies? What if you had companies? You only 8 select five of those companies? Why don't you 9 request all 20 companies to submit the proposal? 10
Because the five 12 limits the amount of people that can participate and 13 it limits your ability to see what more companies 14 can offer. 15
It is a minimum of five 16 companies. 17 Depending on the projects and the review 18 of our database and the information provided to us 19 in their office portfolios of the type of work they 20 have done in the past, we will select more than five. The five is a minimum that we usually go to. We have had as many as 10 and 12 and 13 firms submit proposals. We do try to look at our database and identify all the firms that have the capability to 43 RESOLUTION 010533 - 10/17/01 do a project before we decide how many firms to solicit and send RFPs out to. So it is not just five. It really does depend on the type of project we are doing. And I must also say that when we do send information to MBEC, and we tell them the firms that we have looked at and that we want to invite to the project, there are many, many occasions where they will send us a letter back saying, "We would also like you to include some other firms." And we, as a policy, always include those firms.
Let's go back to the stadium. Were the finances of the company investigated to determine what would happen if there had been a default in the contract?
The contractor? 44 RESOLUTION 010533 - 10/17/01 The contractors are required to put up bonds to cover their work. In other words, if for any reason they cannot perform the work, they must have a bond that would cover the value of that work. So that if they were to go out and be bankrupt, the bonding company would be required to come in and hire another firm or find a way of completing that project at their cost, at no 11 additional cost to the city.
I am going to ask this question because I am not going to be able to stay. Who will reimburse the City of Philadelphia for the losses suffered as a result of the cancellation of the preseason football game between the Baltimore Ravens and the Philadelphia Eagles and the losses suffered by the Eagles, the Ravens, the NFL, and the advertisers on TV and radio? THE CHAIRWOMAN: Please state your full name, sir. CHRISTOPHER McCABE, ESQ.: Christopher McCabe. I am with the Law Department. 45 RESOLUTION 010533 - 10/17/01 And the concern of the law department is, that question touches upon the liability concerns that the law department has. And for that reason we would prefer that that question not be asked or answered by Mr. Tustin.
Who is going to answer it? MR. McCABE: Because of the potential litigation.
Could I have a followup? If it is being litigated, it assumes that we have taken a position, the city. MR. McCABE: We haven't taken a position one way or the other. We don't know what the litigation is going to be and who is going to bring it.
Excuse me? MR. McCABE: We don't know what the litigation will be or who will bring a litigation.
It is not being litigated, then? 46 RESOLUTION 010533 - 10/17/01 MR. McCABE: As of now I am not aware of any lawsuit, but there is a potential for litigation.
There is a potential. But I assume that the city has developed a position. I mean, are we not seeking restitution? MR. McCABE: I don't know. I can't answer that question. I don't know what position has been taken by the city or various departments.
We have not taken a position that some sort of restitution should be coming to us? Forget about the bad publicity that we got nationwide and all of the money that was wasted in building, you know, Philadelphia Loves You Back, and so on, except you can't play football. Right? We have not taken a position that we should be compensated for the losses that the city experienced during that period of time? MR. McCABE: Councilman, I don't know whether we have or not.
Who does? Who knows? MR. McCABE: I don't know who would 47 RESOLUTION 010533 - 10/17/01 know. Perhaps the Solicitor.
Who is going to pay for the city employees' overtime? Who pays for that? Who pays for the costs? Who pays for the employees to reengineer the conversion from football to baseball, and who will pay the city's cost?
Overtime. MR. McCABE: Councilwoman, I don't have an answer to that question.
Has anybody in the Administration looked at that? MR. McCABE: I don't know.
How did the employees get paid? Where will it be accounted for in the budget? MR. McCABE: I can't answer that question.
Is there anybody from the Administration who can answer that question? MR. McCABE: I can find out. 48 RESOLUTION 010533 - 10/17/01
Have we thought about it, the question, it is going to cost us, and how do we recoup our cost? THE CHAIRWOMAN: Would those kinds of provisions be discussed in the lease, as a contingency? Hello. Can anyone help us with that answer?
I cannot answer the question concerning litigation. I do know that the cost --
I have been advised by the City Solicitor's office not to make an opinion on that until --
Did we ask Southwest to bear all of the costs, part of the costs, a little bit of the costs for the fiasco that we endured that day? 49 RESOLUTION 010533 - 10/17/01
Councilman, I have been asked by the Managing Director's Office and the City Solicitor's Office not to pursue anything at this point because --
I am not saying that we are litigating. I am saying, have we asked them, have we written them, as to what responsibility they should bear for that day? Have we written them at all? Have we inquired of them? Is there a contractual basis? THE CHAIRWOMAN: Let's refer to Councilwoman Tasco.
In addition to that, you know, we read and understand that each department is going to have to cut back their budget costs. Now, with this cost overrun and overtime -- I imagine these employees are in the Recreation Department; right?
All departments. What impact would that have on the proposed budgets of those departments in providing services for other things in this city, where we had 50 RESOLUTION 010533 - 10/17/01 used the money to pay for the overtime?
Councilwoman, I can't comment on that. I don't know the answer to that question.
Madam Chair, I think we have to get someone in here who can answer those questions. THE CHAIRWOMAN: I would ask the Veteran's Stadium director, can you help us with the answer to that question?
Can you repeat the question? I am not sure what you are really asking. I mean, in terms of who paid the city employees that worked overtime, I mean, at this point the city paid them.
But who is going to recoup that cost? It is not our responsibility to do that. The company put in a product, the product doesn't work. Our employees have to change it from one game to the next, and that cost us overtime. That money comes out of our pocket that can be used for services someplace else. 51 RESOLUTION 010533 - 10/17/01
I don't think that's been decided yet. And I certainly don't have the answer to that. And in addition, just so everyone understand, to the extra costs that the city has borne in terms of --
Where is that going to go? Does it depend on what department you work in? If you worked in Recreation, it goes to the Recreation? If you work in Fleet Management, it goes into Fleet Management? Who is ultimately responsible in the city for that? Councilman Rizzo and I and Councilwoman Tasco were working there for our individual department. We get our pay every two weeks. You add the overtime, we get the pay. Who will eventually be responsible? Will your department cover your employees? Will any other employees from other departments that may have been called out cover that? I think what we are trying to get here on that, not if Ewing, Cole is responsible, not if 52 RESOLUTION 010533 - 10/17/01 Southwest is responsible, but this question is, who is actually responsible? Do you just shift that around? Is it interdepartmental shift for budgets? Because your budget might be high because you have a lot of guys working on it.
From a practical standpoint, at this point, I think each individual agency that has offered resources to the problem, I think at this point, they are responsible for that. I don't think that an ultimate decision has been made. I don't think that the Managing Director's Office has reviewed it. I don't think that the Law Department has ultimately reviewed it. And what I started to say before is, in addition to all the additional costs that city agencies may have borne to this point, there has been a significant amount of costs borne by Southwest Recreational. And I am sure they will talk a little bit about that. And they certainly have not, as far as I know, come back to the city and sought any type of reimbursement for those costs. And I wouldn't expect that they would. 53 RESOLUTION 010533 - 10/17/01 And, you know, I am not a lawyer.
We are not concerned about Southwest. That's their problem. We are concerned about the city, and the costs to the city, and who is going to reimburse the city for its costs that it incurred to straighten out this fiasco.
I understand that. And I think the honest answer at this point is, I don't think anybody really knows yet or has, you know, investigated that question.
But if the city does, and it eventually comes down from the Managing Director's Office at a cabinet meeting, is that what we are looking for? Is that how that happens?
If somebody was called and may have had some expertise that wasn't with the Recreation Department, and he had a lot of overtime, I think that's the question my colleagues are asking, eventually you either wash that or work that out between the departments.
Firing all these 54 RESOLUTION 010533 - 10/17/01 questions off, we are not going to get the answer, but we will fire the questions off. Do we know how much it cost? Have we calculated the total cost of what it cost the city?
I know -- THE CHAIRWOMAN: I am going to put a comma there with Councilwoman Tasco's question and allow Council Jim Kenney, who has been waiting, to get his questions on the record.
Let me piggyback on all the piggybacking that's going on. Just before I start my questions on the NeXturf and the stadium issue, I would like to ask Mr. Tustin, in his explanation as to the professional service contract, the process, you had mentioned in your answer to one of the Council members' questions that once you select that individual firm, you try to negotiate the price down. Did I hear you accurately?
Yes, Councilman. What we try to do is, if the fee that they are submitting is higher than what we budgeted 55 RESOLUTION 010533 - 10/17/01 or what we think is a fair fee to perform the work, we do go back to that firm and we do suggest to the firm that they may have more work within the project than what we anticipated, they may have other costs and fees in there that we don't think are appropriate. And then we ask them if they would consider reviewing their fee and submitting a revised fee.
Were you involved in the selection of Hill International for the Neighborhood Transformation Initiative Project? Was the Capital Budget Office in any way involved in that process?
The Capital Program Office has one person on our staff that works directly with the director of NTI.
And the process was engaged in to ask Hill International to look and reduce and negotiate their price downward? It seems that they were perhaps the highest bidder of all and were selected. And I didn't see any reduction in their cost. And I guess part of what relates to all 56 RESOLUTION 010533 - 10/17/01 this issue is the veritable lack of oversight and coordination between the Administration and their decisions on providing professional services and other contracts sole-source and otherwise, without any legislative oversight from Council, without very little, if any, legislative oversight or executive oversight from the City Controller's Office. And I think one of the reasons why we are sitting here today, in addition to the August 11 problem, is that veritable lack of oversight. 12 I mean, and I don't want to dwell on, we 13 have NTI hearing this afternoon. But when you sit here and tell me that part of what the Capital Budget process is is to negotiate with a selected professional service vendor downward, it certainly didn't happen in the Neighborhood Transformation Initiative award to Hill International, did it?
Councilman, I wasn't personally involved in that one, so I don't have an answer.
We had a representative from our office as part of the committee that reviewed those. Yes, we did. 57 RESOLUTION 010533 - 10/17/01
So you selected the highest bidder as a result of that process, substantially the highest bidder?
Again, Councilman, I don't know the details to that question.
It may be for this afternoon. Let me just go a minute to August 13. I would argue that if August 13, the week prior or the days prior to August 13, we hadn't had rain, we might not be sitting here today. And that doesn't come to the issue of why we do sole-source projects like this. But part of my upsetment with the way in which the city was treated nationally as a result of what happened the 13th was as a result of problems with the field, with the cut-outs in the infield of baseball, no 18 doubt about it. The attempt to delay the game and have those cut-outs repaired, which I believe the effort was made on behalf of city employees and others to try to fix that situation. As a matter of fact, while sitting watching the game at home, I remember Ron Jaworski, who played on that field for a long, long time, and 58 RESOLUTION 010533 - 10/17/01 basically gave his body to science as a result of his playing on that field, on the old AstroTurf, said very clearly he thought the game was extremely playable. And that I would argue that if it weren't for some maybe inner-union, NFL politics, the fact that the NFL added a fourth game to the preseason, which drives the players crazy because they don't like playing preseason games anyway, and as a result of the fact that this was not a regular-season game -- if it were a regular-season game, I would argue that that game would have been played, and perhaps we wouldn't be sitting here now. However, all that being said, all that happened and we are sitting here now. And the result of this hearing I hope is not a discussion of August 13 and the cancellation of a preseason game. But why do we sole-source at all? Let me just ask the question. How many experiences are you aware of, Mr. Tustin, where we have sole-sourced a procurement project?
Since I have been the director of the Capital Program Office, this is the only project that comes to my mind where we have 59 RESOLUTION 010533 - 10/17/01 requested a sole-sourcing.
What are the criteria for establishing a sole-source situation? What is the list that we go down to say, well, you know, we can't -- it is timing, it is price? What are the issues that are involved in making a determination that this should be a sole-source contract, or any contract should be sole-source?
Councilman, I believe the Commissioner of Procurement may be better to answer that question. I don't want to try to answer for him.
Councilman Rizzo -- and I thank him for it -- has given me some information relative to 1999, 2000, and 2001. Out of total number awards of 1412 in '99, 49 were sole-source contracts; 1056 in 2000, 64 were sole-source contracts; and of the 1061 in 2001, 84. Seemed to be a trend in sole-sourcing here. And I don't know whether that's a Procurement issue or Capital Projects issue. But I would ask this question for the Procurement 60 RESOLUTION 010533 - 10/17/01 Commissioner, also. And maybe from your perspective, and I will ask the Commissioner when he is here, what are the criteria for determining that we can't get this product anywhere else, from one vendor, in a timely fashion, without having some type of RFP or bid process?
For myself, it has nothing to do with the price. It has to do with there is a product, and only one product, that will fit a particular application. And that's what we base our recommendation on.
How much did we pay Ewing, Cole for their services in this particular project?
It was actually broken down into two phase of work. The first phase was the evaluation phase, where they went out and did the research, they did site visits, they provided us the report, and they made a recommendation. And that was 30,000 of the, roughly 30,000, of the 200,000.
Nothing against Ewing, Cole. They are a very reputable firm, very well known. Why do we need them? From my perspective, we have a lot of experience at the table. We have a person that's run our stadium for quite a long time, been through a number of different surfaces. We have professional ball teams, baseball and football, who knows what their players want and need. And why don't we bring in, for apparently four other companies, or three other companies decides Southwest, that had an interest to bid on this, had them make a presentation, see what it is we were looking for, let us make an internal committee decision, and then start negotiating with somebody that we think is providing the product that 62 RESOLUTION 010533 - 10/17/01 we are looking for? And if it turns out to be Southwest and NeXturf, we probably wouldn't be sitting here, either. Because it wouldn't have been sole-sourced there would have been a process that was followed. The people that represent Soft Sport and AstroTurf 12, and whoever else would have come in. There would have been a record of that process. The committee would have made a decision. I certainly as a Council member wouldn't have had any reason to question what Mr. Amaro with the Phillies or what the Eagles or what Greg Grillone decided was good for the stadium. We would have had a process. We wouldn't have had a hearing. We would have gone on, got the best price and the best product. We still may have had August 13, but this would have been a different issue. Do you understand? And I want Commissioner Applebaum to understand. The part of all this problem is the way we do business in the city. It is the way we do professional service contracts, it is the way we do legal work, it is the way we do accounting work, it 63 RESOLUTION 010533 - 10/17/01 is the way we do consulting work. We just seem to pick whoever we want to pick. Not us. But it seems on the second floor of this Administration and the last, seem to pick whoever it is they want for whatever reason they want, and then justify it later. That's a big problem for us. We have, as the Board of Directors of this $3 billion company, fiduciary responsibilities to make sure that the taxpayers' money is spent appropriately. And if you guys, you guys in general, had followed a process that made some sense, not simply hiring a consultant to recommend one firm, if there was at the stadium somewhere a process where everybody toted in their little pieces of turf and talked about what they were going to do and how they were going to install it and what they were going to maintain and all those other things, we would have had a process that came out with a selection that made sense. Sole-sourcing in something that has four different potential competitors in the arena to compete for makes no sense. And it throws up a red 64 RESOLUTION 010533 - 10/17/01 flag that says, "Wait a minute. What's this all about? Why is this the only company that can provide this? What are the relationships between Ewing, Cole" -- and I am not saying there is -- "but between Ewing, Cole and Southwest? What are the relationships between the Phillies and Southwest? " We wouldn't have any of this stuff. Competitive bidding, RFP process, government spending should be done in the open, in front of the public. And we are the representatives of that public. And unless and until we begin to change, this project aside, how we do that kind of work, you are going to continually have this cloud over all these things. Whether it is the selection of voting machines, whether it is the selection of NeXturf, whether it is the selection of who runs the bike program. You can go down the whole line of things. Whether it is the selection of who maintains the terminals at the airport. I will give you a list of 12 different things that have happened in the past five, six, seven years that have been questionable in their 65 RESOLUTION 010533 - 10/17/01 process.
And the only thing I would urge is -- and I know you are not in charge of setting the policy; you have to carry it out -- is that we need to do something to change the way we conduct government business in our procurement and contracting. And until we do it, there is going to continually be a cloud like this over everything we do. And that's a shame, and I think the public deserves better. RUBEN AMARO: If I may interject. Ruben Amaro, Jr. I am with the Philadelphia Phillies. I am the Assistant GM of Baseball Operations. There was a statement made earlier by the Councilman. I apologize for the name.
That the Phillies received the product NeXturf in Clearwater, Florida, gratus. That is absolutely incorrect. We did pay for it. I did the contract myself. As far as your statement, Councilman, 66 RESOLUTION 010533 - 10/17/01 with regard to whether or not we brought other systems in to review them, I was sitting in the meetings when we did see several of these that are in front of you right now. And we did review them, as a group, from the city, from the Eagles, from the Phillies, et cetera. So they were reviewed and they were brought in, had an opportunity to show their wares.
But if we followed an RFP process, as opposed to a sole-source process, we probably wouldn't be sitting here because there would have been a process. There is a lot of subjectivity in an RFP process, also. I mean, you go to a straight bid, which is basically an objective process, with some subjective issues in there, to an RFP process, which is more subjective than what I previously described. If we had just brought them in, did an RFP, negotiated the deal, knew which product we wanted, we wouldn't have had this sole-source issue. Councilman Rizzo wouldn't be reading memos that you are not aware of, letters that got back-dated or dated later that set up the sole-source criteria. None of this would be 67 RESOLUTION 010533 - 10/17/01 happening. And it really does sometimes stink. And it makes people question, maybe unfairly, why things happen the way they do in this city, as opposed to in the state government and opposed to in other states and cities throughout this country. We have a big problem in the way we procure and in the way we contract. And I think overall we need to fix it. Because I think the public has less taste, less and less taste, for this, for the way we do this kind of stuff. So those are my comments. Thank you. THE CHAIRWOMAN: Thank you, Councilman Jim Kenney. We need to allow Councilman Michael Nutter an opportunity to put his questions on the record.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Good morning, Mr. Tustin, Mr. Grillone, and everyone else. First I need to clear up one item that's been lingering for a little while. I need to get 68 RESOLUTION 010533 - 10/17/01 some clarification on the record. There was a story in the Inquirer back in the aftermath of the event with the cancellation of the game. And I am going to read you a quote from the Wednesday, August 15, Inquirer, story by Phil Sheridan. There is a quote here, "'We do a survey every year. And it consistently rates as the worst field in the league,' Richard Berkelson, General Counsel of the NFL Players Association, said of the Vet's surface. 'When they decided to do a new installation, we lobbied the city for natural grass. We had players go in and talk to them. But when they got behind closed doors, the City Council there decided to go with artificial turf again.'" Mr. Tustin or Mr. Grillone, can you tell us what, if any, involvement, responsibility, or decision-making was made with regard to the current new surface from City Council? And comment specifically on Mr. Berkelson's statement.
Councilman, I didn't read that article. And, quite frankly, I don't know if City Council had any involvement in the process. 69 RESOLUTION 010533 - 10/17/01
Did City Council decide whether they were getting artificial turf , Sprint Turf, FieldTurf, NeXturf, anybody else's turf?
No, I am not aware of any City Council involvement in that process. Moreover, I think it is been established throughout the years that certainly the players would all prefer to play on grass and dirt. However, with the way our stadium is designed and the way we have, you know, two teams that have tremendously different playing surfaces in terms of how they are configured, the conclusion was reached that, obviously, we could not do grass and dirt in our stadium. And that, in fairness to everyone who participated in that process, we did go into it with the idea that we would revisit grass and dirt, and 70 RESOLUTION 010533 - 10/17/01 we would look at the systems. But after analyzing it, and looking at it, and looking at our conversion process, and looking at the stands that we have to pull in and pull out, and the timing constraints that we are under in terms of making these conversions sometimes in less than hours, it became apparent that even 9 with all the technology that was out there and all 10 the improvements in all these grass and dirt 11 systems, that it would not work for our particular 12 application. 13
I understand that. 14 And you can go into those details shortly. 15 What I am going to ask Mr. Tustin to do 16 -- and you can work with whomever you need to work 17 with; I will be glad to give you a copy of the 18 article -- what I would like you to do is to send a 19 letter to Mr. Berkelson at the NFL Players' 20 Association, inform him of his incorrect statement, 21 and clear that record as it relates to what our role 22 is and what our role is not. 23 I think our primary role was in 24 approving the $2.3 million in the Capital Budget. And then you go and do what you do, as is your role. 71 RESOLUTION 010533 - 10/17/01 But we don't sit around making turf decisions.
What I would like you to do is send a copy of that letter to the Chair of the committee, and she can get it to the rest of us.
Thank you. Let me try to understand a couple of the fundamentals and some of the discussion here and the decision-making process. What I didn't particularly understand at the time that this happened -- and I certainly participated in many of the discussions at Capital Budget time and also at practice facility time and stadium time -- with regard to the current Veteran's Stadium and all of the complaints generally about the facility, some unfair, some very accurate, and specifically about what the condition of the turf, which has been an ongoing issue for many, many years, complaints by the players and other users, what I did not understand was, why would we seek to use a relatively new product that was untested, 72 RESOLUTION 010533 - 10/17/01 based on the earlier testimony and everything I have read, in any National Football League stadium in which players play games on a Sunday, Monday, or a Thursday, in a facility that was virtually guaranteed to be torn down in three to four years? Why would we do that?
I mean, from my perspective, I wanted to get the best available product that was out there. And from what I had seen and what I had read, it appeared as though some of the characteristics of these new turf systems were very much improved over the traditional AstroTurf surface.
Mr. Grillone, let me talk about that. When you talk about the best available product out there, that assumes that there has been some amount of testing and experience in use of that product in order for someone to make a determination that it is the best. Usually the first year that the cars roll off the assembly line is usually not when the automakers or the auto magazines determine that 73 RESOLUTION 010533 - 10/17/01 that's the best vehicle out there, is it? They usually wait a couple of years to figure out whether the thing is actually going to work; right?
I mean, I don't know anything about auto manufacturing, but I understand --
Let's talk about what you know about field turf. How would you determine that the brand-new product off the assembly line is the best in comparison to other products that have been out there? I am not an expert on field turf, either.
There must have been some criteria. So who determined that it was the best?
I think ultimately the consultants analyzed all the products that were out there, and that was the conclusion, the recommendation, that NeXturf was the best. From my perspective again -- I am just a 74 RESOLUTION 010533 - 10/17/01 dumb city employee. Okay?
I would dispute that. You have an excellent reputation. You know, you might want to try that one with someone else. I know a little better. I can appreciate your sense of frustration. There have been a couple of occasions, as I have mentioned, that the stadium has been under the spotlight, accusations have been made about its condition, about our care for it. Some have been totally ungrounded, and you have suffered as a result of that. We are not in a bad exchange here. I don't have any issue with you personally. We have known each other for too long to get into that. But I do want to get a better understanding of the thinking and the thought process that went behind this. You have a stadium that is clearly on its way out the door. It will be a pile of rubble in another few years. Why don't we take a look at all the other products that are out there -- or let me ask this question: Was a survey done of all of the NFL 75 RESOLUTION 010533 - 10/17/01 and MLB multi-use facilities and what's on their ground? Or did we talk to the NFL Players' Association, since they seem to love running their mouths so much, and see what was the best rated field surface out there in a multi-use facility? Because that's the only thing that compares apples to apples. And even the look see at the indoor practice facility for the Atlanta Falcons, where they never play a game, which apparently is also never converted from one sports use to another, I don't believe is a fair comparison. So you have got to go apples to apples, multi-use facility to multi-use facility, converse to conversion, and who is playing on it and what do they say about it. Because ultimately I think that the people who use it are the folks who should have the most to say about it. And we already know we get a lot of gripes and complaints from the users down there and the tenants and all the comments that have gone on back and forth. 76 RESOLUTION 010533 - 10/17/01 What was their role in all of this? And what did we ask of them in terms of making the decision, notwithstanding the consultant? Did the teams have consultants in this process?
Can I just touch on a couple aspects of your comment and your question? First of all, in terms of the multi-purpose stadiums, there are, as I am sure you know --
-- very, very few. And most of them are in dome situations, and most of them play on either AstroTurf or something like AstroTurf. And I think it has been documented that there are problems and there are complaints. So, again, we were trying to make an improvement. The other few multi-purpose stadiums are in southern climates, and they have grass and dirt. The two that come to my mind are Joe Riley Stadium in Miami and Qualcom -- I think they still call it Qualcom Stadium -- in San Diego. So on that point, again, there are very 77 RESOLUTION 010533 - 10/17/01 few of us out there now. And, as you know, the trend is going to single-tenant stadiums. But, again, from my perspective, I didn't make the final decision. It was based on the consultants. But intuitively there were characteristics of some of these systems that were improvements. Mr. Tustin talked about the G-max and the softness and the shock absorbency. These infield systems, with the rubber granules, again, in theory, conceptually, gave it the ability to retain some of that characteristic throughout a longer period of time. So that made sense to me.
They all seem to have their various pluses and minuses and various characteristics. But at the end of the day they are all artificial surfaces on which people play a variety of sports. Which goes back to a question that many of my colleagues have asked. And it seems that there were great reliance on Section 8-200 of the Philadelphia Home Rule Charter that talks about what 78 RESOLUTION 010533 - 10/17/01 gets you to a sole-source bid and the unique articles or other articles which cannot be obtained in the open market or not subject to the requirements of competitive bidding. Now, what I am trying to understand is, I think I know what the word "unique" means. What I don't understand is, we have five things up on the table there that all seem to be the same thing. Now, someone may have a unique process, they may have a patent on their item. But you have five different AstroTurfs up there. Why didn't we test all five of them, under their various circumstances and conditions? Why didn't we have everyone come into this process, as opposed to the sole-source bid? You cannot say that one of those is so uniquely different than the other that it is something else. Aren't they all an artificial surface or an AstroTurf-like surface?
But they all have different characteristics. 79 RESOLUTION 010533 - 10/17/01
For example, just as an example, one of them was a tray system, 4 by 8, by 5 9, whatever.
No. I believe one of these systems. I don't remember which one. Since I have been at the stadium since 1984, the whole issue of seams has been a problem; how we address them, how we maintain them, what applications, velcro, zippers, or whatever. All right? With a roll system, which is what we have now, I have got 13 pieces of turf that I put in the enzone and I have X amount of linear feet of seams. If I am going to put a tray system in there, which are now 4 by 8 squares, I have now exponentially increased the linear feet of seams. So why would I want to do that? Again, that is just me. I am the user of the facility, I am the guy that tries to run it. Intuitively that doesn't make sense to me. 80 RESOLUTION 010533 - 10/17/01 But, again, I was the know the final call. Again, we let the consultants, again, review all the products. And my understanding was they did in fact review all the products that were out there. And I will let them talk about that.
I can't speak much for anyone else, except that we have had players --
I haven't had the opportunity or pleasure to meet you.
I apologize. Ruben Amaro, Jr. I am the Assistant GM of Baseball Operations with the Phillies. Nice to meet you.
We had the opportunity to, and we took some of our players down to the Atlanta Falcons' facility. We had our players actually three times go down and work out on that facility. And we had some excellent feedback from our players. I was actually down there for two of those, and then we had a scout sent down to work out with some other players to do it again. So we did 81 RESOLUTION 010533 - 10/17/01 go down there three times to check the facility. As far as some of the others are concerned, FieldTurf is a product that is being used right now in Tampa Bay. It is in a domed situation there. It is Tropicana Field. And I did get various different types of feedback on their product from different players that I had played with and know throughout the league. As far as AstroTurf 12, et cetera, et cetera, we knew that there was another product that AstroTurf did have. We felt that, as a baseball facility, as a baseball surface, we felt very comfortable with what NeXturf provided for us. And as a result --
I can appreciate that. But with every respect, you understand you are not the only user of the facility.
Absolutely. I am just speaking for the Phillies alone, and what our feeling was on and what our research was, and our recommendation, based on what we did with our players and the information that we had.
The Phillies 82 RESOLUTION 010533 - 10/17/01 recommendation was what?
Well, we felt that NeXturf would be an excellent product for us.
Councilman Nutter, can I jump in here one minute? Point of information. Mr. Amaro, I had to leave the room. And there was a statement before that I knew you rebutted. Councilman Ortiz said you guys got a free field. Would you repeat that for me.
We did not get a free field. It is a practice facility, a half field --
We came into a contract, which I wrote up with Southwest rep, and was signed off. So there was payment, and it was not a free field by any stretch.
Thank you. I want to ask another few questions. I had to leave 15 83 RESOLUTION 010533 - 10/17/01 minutes ago. I want to ask the representative from Cole;right? Mr. Patel, you are the guy I am looking at. All right. Here is my concern: An article in the Inquirer, September 6 -- by the way, this is certainly a unique body, isn't it? Very unique. We had just information to be dangerous and not enough knowledge to be helpful. Let me just tell you. It says, "In fact, Southwest's contract does appear to hold the company responsible for drainage issues." This is a letter that somebody in your firm sent to, I guess to, Southwest, saying that they are responsible for drainage. This is all about drainage; correct? Councilman Kenney went through this thing and said, if this wasn't a preseason game and there were some inner-NFL politics involved here. But the bottom line, there was a drainage problem here, and your company addressed it with Southwest? Can anyone answer for them? REEDER FOX, ESQ.: Reeder Fox, counsel for Ewing, Cole. 84 RESOLUTION 010533 - 10/17/01 There is a threat of potential litigation. We are not going to get into the question of who is responsible for the August 13.
Somebody said it in a letter. It is in the Inquirer. And you have to believe everything in the Inquirer.
Absolutely. But we are not going to get into that and the answer to that and everything else.
I am not asking you who is responsible. One of your employees gave a statement in the paper. I just want to know what that was about. It is all about drainage, can anybody answer that? This is drainage? Is there a drainage problem? Why do we have these hearings, if nobody can answer anything? This is a total waste of time. Do you know what, I am not wasting my time. I am not wasting the city's time anymore. I have more important things to do. You guys might as well just go home. The only one here that is cooperative is Mr. Amaro. 85 RESOLUTION 010533 - 10/17/01 You are wasting our time, you are wasting the city's time, and you are wasting city tax dollars. Thank you.
Could I follow up, Councilwoman? Is there any communication that you could provide the Chair between your company and the Capital Programs Office addressing the issue? If there is litigation, that's fine. There is no litigation at this moment. But this committee, this Council member, this member of this committee, is asking, is there any communication that you can provide the Chair that addresses the issue that occurred when the game was cancelled, preseason game was cancelled?
We will certainly take that under advisement. I am not sure there is or isn't.
Well, Councilman Mariano just mentioned that apparently there has been a communication that basically came from Ewing, Cole that addresses the issue. It is a very clear opinion that Ewing, Cole made in reference to this particular issue. Is that a fact? 86 RESOLUTION 010533 - 10/17/01
We will review the document and get back to you, Councilman. We are not going to get drawn into the whole issue of who is responsible.
Well, you got paid by the City of Philadelphia. Your client got paid well by the City of Philadelphia. You have provided documents from the very beginning, the evaluation of this, making certain recommendations. And you also got paid, from what I understand, during the change-over process. This company has been paid. And I think the City of Philadelphia, when they make a request, either it is a verbal opinion or it is a document that you have provided as a result of your evaluation of the situation or your survey of the situation, I think that's a very appropriate request. So if you are using the fact of litigation to hide, I don't particularly like that, either.
Councilman, I am trying to draw the distinction. 87 RESOLUTION 010533 - 10/17/01 We were hired by the city to evaluate products.
When the issue of the drainage problem developed, were you involved in that at all?
We were out there working, but we were not asked by the city to evaluate anything about that incident, as to who was responsible. So that's why I am saying, we are not going to get into it. Because the Ewing, Cole people were not under contract to evaluate it and were not given all the facts.
Why were you there? If you weren't getting paid or you weren't under contract, were you just curious?
No, sir. It was the first conversion for the stadium, and under our contract we had to be out there.
Were you paid for that, being there? Wasn't that a separate deal? Wasn't that 250, 300 thousand dollar payment to Ewing, Cole to be part of that change-over?
I believe so. To see that the 88 RESOLUTION 010533 - 10/17/01 conversion happened.
When the problem developed, didn't you have some input there, suggestions, recommendations? First of all, I hate to talk to the lawyer. The Ewing, Cole representative is here. Is this necessary, that I have to speak with you?
Do you have a report or have verbal communication in reference to the reasons the game at the preseason game was cancelled, the drainage problems? And I just want to comment for a second. I think one of the problems we have with this entire issue of how much money was involved -- as a matter of fact, I saw on television, maybe we need to get those tapes, if we pursue this -- I saw more employees of the City of Philadelphia from the Streets Department, to the Water Department, to Fleet Management, I saw more people working on the 89 RESOLUTION 010533 - 10/17/01 playing surface at Veteran's Stadium. Broad Street could have caved in, and there wouldn't have been that many people there. I think one of the problems that we have, we don't know how much money we spent. Because I have a feeling buttons were pushed, Fleet Management responded, maybe even PGW. I don't know that. But I am telling you, I don't think we even know how much money we dumped, that we squandered in trying to rescue that situation down there, and then eventually make the fix. I think that many of that, much of that response, was probably just buried in other work that those departments were doing. I have a feeling -- when I hear a number -- and the City Controller's Office is next -- when I hear the number that was spent down there, and I looked at the number of people that were in the pictures on all of our television stations, I said, "This is impossible, this number." And then doing my homework, I found out that many of those people that responded to that issue, that there was never even an accounting for 90 RESOLUTION 010533 - 10/17/01 their time and the equipment that was used. But my question is, do you have a document, a memo or a verbal communication, addressing the causes for the flooding or the poor drainage after the installation of -- at the change-over time from baseball to football? Which I understand -- maybe you can comment on this, too -- that there was a mock rehearsal. It took five days, five days, from what I understand -- please correct me if I am wrong, counsel -- five days to do the change-over, when we were supposed to accomplish it in hours. 15 Can you comment about the five days 16 during your mock trial to change it over from baseball to football? PRADEEP PATEL: Well, the mock conversion took somewhere around 9th of July. THE CHAIRWOMAN: Please state your full name, for the record, and please speak into the mike.
The mock conversion -- THE CHAIRWOMAN: We need to hear your full name. 91 RESOLUTION 010533 - 10/17/01
Pradeep Patel, from Ewing, Cole, Cherry, Brott, representative of the firm and project manager for the project. THE CHAIRWOMAN: Thank you.
Pull the microphone closer to you, sir. The conversion took place around that time. And several components of the conversion were addressed, as reported in the site visit report and a job meeting. The baseball cut-outs were installed. And there were issues related to the turf over the clay, and how difficult it was. The standard operating procedure was identified, and there was a procedure determined from that point on what kind of equipment will be needed. Like that, Councilman, so many other issues that were identified in the mock conversion. It was just not a streamline effort of, like, the real conversion. But the time was used to identify the issues, understand them, and how to make them 92 RESOLUTION 010533 - 10/17/01 better. One of the major items which was discussed were the painting of the field. And I don't see an Eagles representative here. But Mr. --
But they was there, and Eagles representative. And they paid a lot of attention on painting, and how the field should be painted. And there were a lot of issues related there that had to be ironed out. What kind of paint should be used, whether the paint markings should come off or not. So mock conversion was used very effectively, Councilman.
So it did take more than 16 hours to do the conversion. The 16 hours was the anticipated time that was necessary, or that was the window, 16 hours. But it took, from what I understand, five days. And what you are telling me is that during that mock change-over, you needed that length 93 RESOLUTION 010533 - 10/17/01 of time to iron out some of the kinks that developed at that mock change-over?
Well, I am sure Mr. Grillone will comment on some of the issues which were --
But you were paid to oversee. Wasn't your company paid to oversee the change-over?
Yes, Councilman. We were there to look at the components of the mock conversion. And we did go there, and we observed what elements of the conversions were accomplished, and what difficulty they had or how to make them better.
When the flooding occurred, what was Ewing, Cole's official role, or unofficial role, the day -- I can see the lawyer grabbing the microphone.
I was not there, Councilman, on August 13, so I do not know the circumstances what everybody talked about at that particular time.
Even though you weren't there, you are the project manager. The next day, I am asking you what was your role, your company's role, the day of the 94 RESOLUTION 010533 - 10/17/01 flooding and the cancellation of the game? What did your company do? Did they prepare a report? Was there a verbal report? And who was the verbal report to?
Councilman, we are going to respectfully decline to answer for the reasons I previously gave.
Fine. Thank you, Madam Chair. THE CHAIRWOMAN: Thank you, Council Members. Councilman Nutter, Councilman Ortiz is saying that he has one small question.
Mr. Amaro, how much did you pay for the installation of the turf in Florida? How much did the Phillies pay?
Could you get me that information? 95 RESOLUTION 010533 - 10/17/01
Okay. Sir, how much was the square footage in the -- how much did it cost us in square footage? I know the total cost. How does that break down in terms of the Vet's Stadium per square footage turf?
There is a total of 125,000 square feet of surface that was returfed, if you will.
What is the cost per square foot? $12 dollars? $15 dollars?
It was roughly $1.8 million for the 120,000 square feet. I have not done the math in my head. I have to get a calculator out.
It was 125,000 square feet, and it was roughly $1.8 million for the total project cost, not including maintenance agreement.
Would that be $14 a 96 RESOLUTION 010533 - 10/17/01 square foot?
And the installation in Florida, was that different from the installation here? Do you have any knowledge of that?
As far as I know, yes, it is. In Florida there is no conversion issues to deal with. It was a surface that was just laid over a half field that we utilized for our infielders.
The under aspects, the matting that goes under the carpet on top, is there any difference between the installation in Florida to the installation here at the Vet's Stadium? In terms of underneath carpet and so on.
If you can, if you would get an answer, and if you would get it to us.
Thank you. Thank 97 RESOLUTION 010533 - 10/17/01 you, Madam Chair. One of the other interesting aspects of -- you have been left there by yourself. Are you the gentleman from Ewing, Cole?
You notice everyone has abandoned you. It is a lonely place up at that table. Who was the guy with the duct tape on the night of the incident? Who was the guy running around with the duct tape trying to smooth everything out? Right before it was clear that nothing was going to happen that night. Who was doing that? What was that about?
Councilman, I don't know. I arrived at the stadium after the game had been called off and after any kind of on-the-spot remedial action was trying to be taken. So I don't know who that was.
Okay. Did anyone ever anticipate that that was going to be a part of a real game plan or fix? I mean, $2.3 million, consultants, five 98 RESOLUTION 010533 - 10/17/01 different sets of turf out there, and that at the end of a bad night, we were trying to put it together with duct tape? Was that ever in the game plan?
Although I wasn't there, I am sure the use of duct tape was never in the game plan as a permanent solution to putting down a new turf at the stadium.
Okay. I just thought that was interesting. I mean, again, I think you indicate that you were not the person who ultimately decided on the sole-source aspect of this. But for a variety of other purchases that are made down at the Vet, I mean, don't you usually solicit a variety of bids from a variety of sources? I can't imagine that it would have been just a complete exercise in futility to have a variety of vendors try to kind of put up their best show in terms of what could go at the Vet. And so I am still slightly perplexed as to why we just didn't take that next step, since there are a variety of vendors out there. And ultimately if they don't serve our 99 RESOLUTION 010533 - 10/17/01 purpose, that is really the risk to the vendor. We don't really lose anything from getting more information, do we?
The first part of your question, Councilman, is, every other project that we do down there, at least to my knowledge, since July, since we have been involved with projects at Vet's Stadium, have included going out to multiple vendors to get proposals to do work. If I can go back again to the turf issue in particular. The whole purpose for the evaluation is that we believe that there were a lot of new products on the market from 1995, which was the last time that we had installed, or the city had installed, the AstroTurf product down there.
I don't know, Councilman. That project was handled through the Department of Recreation at the present time. We weren't involved.
In 1995, I believe we 100 RESOLUTION 010533 - 10/17/01 sole-sourced it at that time, too, to pick a -- I don't remember if they were called Southwest at the time, but it was the same company. And my recollection is, we also did it back in 1987, when we made a dramatic change to the system itself, in that we went to a vertical drain system from what was previously not a drain-through system, whereby we used zamboni machines to remove water from the surface.
And so the '95 surface was a sole-source. And did we look around at other systems, or did we have a consultant at that time to advise us as to what to do for the '95 turf?
Councilman, I don't remember all the details. But some of the stuff that I do recall is that there were at least one or two competitors out there. And we did take a look at those products, as well. One of them, I recall we made a visit down to, I believe it was, the University of Maryland. There was a company called Martin Surfacing that in the past had been primarily a 101 RESOLUTION 010533 - 10/17/01 company which manufactured running tracks and warning tracks, but now was going into the turf side and had a product that was installed at the University of Maryland. And, again, my recollection was there were some representatives along with myself that went down and took a look at it at the time.
I don't remember specifically. But the way the process works is, you know, the requesting department has to write a justification for a sole-source. So it had to have come from the Recreation Department.
Okay. Was the Ewing, Cole company involved in that process, as well?
Okay. Either for you or Mr. Tustin. If at least by the players of the various leagues, as well as others who have knowledge and information about this, if the last surface we had by a particular company was rated as 102 RESOLUTION 010533 - 10/17/01 the worst in the league, would you be more inclined, less inclined, or would it make no difference to you to end up with the same company doing your next surface?
Councilman, if the situation occurred where a new product was installed, and directly after that product was installed the National Football League came out and said, "This is the worst product we have ever seen," we naturally would not want to repeat that mistake. My understanding is --
Hold on for a second. Based on that, did you have any recommendation for the National Football League about the current surface, given the fact that it is not being used by any of their teams to play games on?
The Capital Program Office did not have any conversation with the National Football League concerning the NeXturf, the selection of the NeXturf, prior to us making the recommendation. We depended upon our consultant, who is 103 RESOLUTION 010533 - 10/17/01 a specialist in stadiums, to provide us the latest and greatest, the most detail on what the best surface should be for our stadium, with the unique construction and characteristics of our stadium.
Let me ask you this question: Based on what you know now, do you still maintain the position that there is no other product that could serve our needs? Given the unique aspects of Veteran's Stadium and all the other factors that go into this, do you still believe that this is the only product that could serve our needs?
Based on all the information provided to our office, whether it be through the reports that we received through Ewing, Cole, the information that we have gotten through the Eagles and the Phillies, I still believe it was the best product for our installation down there.
When I am finished. 104 RESOLUTION 010533 - 10/17/01 And that no other product could provide equal-to standards without the type of situation that we saw either on August 13, or I think we continue to get complaints, at least from various Eagles players -- Phillies seen is over -- that the surface is slick and other issues? There is still no other product out there that could serve our needs, given the limited life of this particular facility? And I have heard what you said. I don't completely understand, although I know there is conversion issues with regard to stands and rolling them and all of that. And I guess one product is too thick? Is that the position you are taking?
I just wanted to. THE CHAIRWOMAN: State your name again, for the record, please.
Ruben Amaro, Jr., with the Phillies. I just wanted to make a comment about 105 RESOLUTION 010533 - 10/17/01 the evaluation that we have, the Phillies have, and our players, with regard to the surface that is in play today at Veteran's Stadium. We have enjoyed a tremendous improvement, according to our players, on the surface. We have had virtually no injuries related to the turf. We have had no complaints related to the turf. We have enjoyed the best fielding percentage in the history of the Phillies. And whether or not it is because of the ability of the players or the performance of the turf, I would like to make that statement, as well.
I appreciate that. I am sure when the players go to negotiate their contract, they won't be talking about the great qualities of the turf; they will be talking about their fantastic athletic abilities.
No question about it. I just wanted to make mention that it was important, because of the reputation that I guess that the stadium had in the past, that there were virtually no injury issues or performance issues that we had as an organization with the turf 106 RESOLUTION 010533 - 10/17/01 that is there now.
All right. I appreciate that. You seem very deeply invested, committed to this particular product and the process that occurred. And I guess since, I mean, you didn't have a conversion problem one day from football to baseball, that may influence your particular position.
We don't necessarily hear the Eagles running in here to say the same thing. You had some conversion problems, also?
We did have not necessarily conversion problems, but we were involved in a conversion back from football to baseball, and things were adequately taken care of.
Good. Good for you. Mr. Tustin, what was the Eagles' role in all of this?
I am sorry, Councilman. I didn't hear. 107 RESOLUTION 010533 - 10/17/01
What was the Philadelphia Eagles' role in all of this in terms of making the recommendation? Or, again, I will ask the previous question. Did the teams have their own consultants advising them about surfaces? Was input solicited from the Philadelphia Eagles as a football team --
-- about what kind of surface? And what did they say about the surface?
Absolutely. We had several meetings with both the Phillies and the Eagles. And we communicated with them every step of the way. They were involved in doing the site visits to go look at the different products. They were involved in any of the discussions concerning the different products. Even the final report that we got, we sat down and reviewed it with them to see if they had any concerns or comments. And we were very interested in, since they were the end user, both the Eagles and the Phillies, their opinion, and whether this was the 108 RESOLUTION 010533 - 10/17/01 right product or not. And I know no one from the Eagles is here, but I would really like to just read one paragraph from a newspaper article concerning the Eagles' opinion of the turf, if you would allow me to.
I would be glad for you to do that. But let me ask this question: When I flipped through the little binder, here, amongst all the letters that were in here, I was kind of looking for I guess a final memo or sign-off letter by the various teams saying, "We have been through the process. We are satisfied. We think this will be wonderful." And I guess I am struck by, I could not find one. Now, maybe there is one in here, and I missed it. But when we got to the 13th and the aftermath, the outside observer would be left with the impression that the first time these guys experienced this particular turf was maybe the afternoon of the 13th. And, I mean, you know, what kind of shoes will we wear, and it is slippery, and it is 109 RESOLUTION 010533 - 10/17/01 this, and it is that, and who ordered this stuff, and everybody is sitting around looking at it like they had never seen it before. So there seemed to be a slight disconnect between whatever the process was, and however involved people were, to the night that they saw it, and you would have thought we were at a different stadium. So maybe you can fill that gap either with that or your personal recollection.
My personal recollection is the fact that the Eagles were involved in the review of every -- on every step of the process of the field turf issue. It was not August the 13th, when they walked out on the field was the first time they had looked at it. In fact, back in November of 2000, there was an article in the Daily News. Basically, I am going to read just a paragraph.
November of 2000. Which basically says, "according to Jim Sema, Eagles Director, of new stadium development, 110 RESOLUTION 010533 - 10/17/01 'NeXturf was a unanimous selection of the Eagles, the Phillies and the city. We had evaluated a number of new surfaces, four synthetic, and one natural, and NeXturf was the surface that met all the requirements regarding safety and traction, all the things we would be interested in,' Sema said." Further it says, "'And it shows us the ability to make a conversion in a very time-sensitive manner. They were the only products that were able to show us that.'" That's a quote from Mr. Sema from the Eagles on the product six months prior -- actually eight months prior to the August 13 problem.
Also prior to the actual installation, I assume; right?
Let me finish up with this. So when you kind of put it all together, who was at fault here?
I have been advised by the 111 RESOLUTION 010533 - 10/17/01 City Solicitor's Office that --
Councilman, if I may make a statement, Michael DeMusio is Stadium Operations Director for the Phillies. And he has advised me, and when what was happening during I guess the August process, we 10 were advised, and he was advised in some small 11 meeting -- I guess there were several meetings going 12 on at that time -- that the officials for the game 13 and the official -- Andy Reid, the head coach of the Eagles, the officials had informed Andy Reid that this is a very playable surface and that we should go on. At some point after that -- this was at 7:28 p.m. At some point after that, I don't know who it was, he did not know if the game was cancelled --
I didn't ask a playability question. I didn't ask you about the playability of the field.
You did ask who was at fault, though; correct? 112 RESOLUTION 010533 - 10/17/01
I did ask who was at fault. And if I need to further define my question, I will. The field was in the process of being converted. I understand there was a rain storm that may have been unique to 30 years of conversion at the Vet. In any event, there was a rain storm, there was a problem with some clay. We can go back and have more discussions about wood boards and duct tape and all that, sponginess of the field, uneven surfaces, and the like. I want to know, who was at fault as relates to that?
I have been advised by the City Solicitor's Office not to comment on the issues concerning the August 13 game because of potential litigation.
Okay. Do you want to add to that, Mr. McCabe? 113 RESOLUTION 010533 - 10/17/01 MR. McCABE: Ultimately the Law Department has a concern regarding -- concern is with potential litigation. And we would prefer that these matters not be inquired into at this time.
I can appreciate that. Why don't you tell me this: What are the liability provisions of our lease with the various teams with regard to, I believe the term in the lease is, tenantability, and that the facility is in usable condition? Would you talk to me a little bit about that? MR. McCABE: I am not familiar with the terms of the lease. I couldn't answer that question. THE CHAIRWOMAN: Who would be? MR. McCABE: I suppose some real estate lawyers in the Law Department would be familiar with the lease terms.
Let me ask this question, then: How did you draw the short straw to be over here today with us? What is your primary purpose? 114 RESOLUTION 010533 - 10/17/01 MR. McCABE: I am in the Litigation Department, and I am familiar with procurement issues.
But you never read the lease between the city and either of its two major tenants? MR. McCABE: I never have, no. 9
All right. Well, I have. So is there anyone who can talk to us about that? MR. McCABE: I suppose someone in the Real Estate Division of the Law Department could.
Okay. One last question. As it relates to the consultant, can you tell me a little bit about your background as it relates to turf?
My name is Pradeep Patel, representing Ewing, Cole, Cherry, Brott. My background is structural engineer. Councilman, I received my education from Stanford University, California. I have a Master's degree in structural engineering in 1962, and I have practiced 115 RESOLUTION 010533 - 10/17/01 engineering since then.
Sir, I don't mean to interrupt you -- and I know you may actually give testimony in more formal or legal settings -- I am not asking for your professional background or qualifications. I am not even in a position to qualify you as an expert. All I asked you about is your expertise as it relates to turf. I am sure you went to the finest universities available. I am not questioning your technical knowledge. What I am asking you about is, what is your background and experience in the context of making a recommendation regarding turf?
Thank you, Councilman. I will answer that. I have been involved with the Veteran's Stadium project since the design phase. I have been involved in the original installation of the turf product at Veteran's Stadium when it was built.
I have been with Ewing, Cole, Cherry, Brott since 1970. And I have worked on all sports facility project nationally, locally, and internationally for the firm. My specific experience with the turf product at the Veteran's Stadium and the condition is since 1980, where our firm have been providing professional service to the City of Philadelphia, the Recreation Department, and other departments, as well as we were the Phillies consultant on various projects during '80s and '90s. I had direct experience with the Veteran's Stadium condition and installation, prior to that documentation for the turf product in '95.
So you were involved in the decision with regard to the turf in 1995?
Let me then ask you, with regard to your perspective on the statements that have been made over the years with regard to the condition of the playing surface from the player perspective, and these various surveys that have been made at least by the NFL -- I don't know about Major League Baseball -- rating the Veteran's 117 RESOLUTION 010533 - 10/17/01 Stadium surface as the worst in the league, give me your perspective on that.
We had looked at the condition in '95, at that time. And we have seen a couple of the characteristics of the surface, were very apparent.
The hardness, which is called shock absorbancy or resiliency. And that aspect was almost reaching to a point after six-plus years of installation, which was done in '87. We found very much parallel condition in -- preceding this replacement, and we reported to the City of Philadelphia, where we were conducting assessment report for the facility. The G-max --
Let me interrupt you for one second. What was the warranty on the '95 installation? And when would you have thought that it might reach, if ever, the condition that you found it in '91? I'm sorry, in 2000.
Councilman, '95 warranty, to my recollection, was seven years. I think we were 118 RESOLUTION 010533 - 10/17/01 reaching sixth year. And the condition which I found when we examined the turf in last summer, summer of 2000, was very much parallel to condition we had examined in '94, just for the same time period in the previous installation, which is the shock absorbency. There were readings taken, and they confirm our view. In relation to some of the aspects of the turf, which is called regular surface; the abrasion characteristics, which means if your players have skin burn, and it is hard on players' feet and injury to their body.
Have you ever made a NeXturf recommendation previous to the Veteran's Stadium recommendation?
NeXturf, I had not made the NeXturf recommendation previous to Veteran's Stadium.
Had you ever evaluated NeXturf prior to recommending it for Veteran's Stadium?
Councilman, I did not 119 RESOLUTION 010533 - 10/17/01 quite -- are you asking, Councilman, that --
Had you ever made a recommendation to a client for the installation of NeXturf prior to the recommendation to have NeXturf at Philadelphia Veteran's Stadium?
Had you come in contact with NeXturf prior to your engagement for the city for the 2001 installation, where you made the recommendation for NeXturf?
NeXturf manufacturer, where the manufacturer of AstroTurf 8, which is the product in the previous installation, in that capacity, I had knowledge about the product.
So what we had, what we just converted from, was AstroTurf 8; is that what you are saying?
And this is a new-generation product from that same company? 120 RESOLUTION 010533 - 10/17/01
Councilman, when we started our evaluation, AstroTurf was their new version 4 of the product on the market, along with the other 5 one I see on the board here. 6 And we started looking at all the 7 product, and the NeXturf was the next generation of 8 that AstroTurf 12. 9
Have you ever made a 10 recommendation of any of the other products that are 11 at the committee table in front of you? 12
We looked at Soft Turf, which is Hummer Grass. And, in our evaluation report, we --
I'm sorry. I wasn't clear in my question. Have you ever made in your professional capacity for any other client a recommendation to install any of the other turf products that are at the committee table right now?
Prior to your NeXturf recommendation, what was the last turf that you recommended someone to install?
The turf at the Veteran's 121 RESOLUTION 010533 - 10/17/01 Stadium. And we do other sports facility project, and we have been looking at natural grass, which have been a trend in the industry.
I understand that. I know that's the trend, and that's the direction we are pursuing today. Of the nonnatural grass products on the market, what was the last one that you recommended to a client for installation?
Last one we had recommended was back for Veteran's Stadium, which was the artificial product, which was AstroTurf 8.
In the intervening years, no other recommendations, no other clients, no other products?
No, we have not. And let me just explain, if I may. The products which we see here have been on market in, I would say, much more in an apparent way, I would say, until mid '90s. Prior to that, the multi-purpose, open-air football/baseball stadium, which had been 122 RESOLUTION 010533 - 10/17/01 using products for synthetic turf, had been the AstroTurf product going back from Astrodome days. And that's why there had been not even our firm or many other firm in the country have had a long understanding, a long-standing understanding, of that particular product. Because there were no other comparable product until that time in a national league, football league or baseball, operation for this kind of facility, which has been installed until that time. And that is the reason we had not recommended any of the specific product until that time or even after.
Last question. Does the firm still provide any supervisory services -- well, I guess, did you continue to provide any supervisory services with regard to conversions during the time that the Eagles and the Phillies were simultaneously using Veteran's Stadium? Obviously they are not simultaneously using it now. But after the August 13 incident.
We have site operation. We 123 RESOLUTION 010533 - 10/17/01 have an on-site periodic observation until the project is substantially completed. And we, Ewing, Cole did provide any assistance the City of Philadelphia needed to bring all the completion to an end.
Okay. Give me, lastly, your professional evaluation of the products in front of us. THE CHAIRWOMAN: Mr. Patel, that question is directed to you.
I would like to get your professional evaluation of, I think there are five products in front of us. I would like to know what, given your expertise and background in the topic, I would like to know what you think of these various products up here.
Councilman, if I understand, are you asking me that -- how did we go about evaluating these products?
No. That's probably in your report. I would just like to get your 124 RESOLUTION 010533 - 10/17/01 professional opinion about the various qualities. I mean, I could read the tome over here, or I can ask you the direct question. You have five products in front of you. I would be intrigued as to your professional opinion about those five products.
Excuse me, Councilman, you are asking his professional opinion as to their qualifications?
I am sorry, sir. I haven't had the pleasure of meeting you.
I am asking a clarification. You are asking his opinion as to their suitability for Veteran's Stadium use, or their suitability just in general as products for single conversion? Or what is your question?
It would be the latter, sir. I would like his professional opinion -- I will restate the question for the third time. I 125 RESOLUTION 010533 - 10/17/01 would like his professional opinion about the five products in front of us, based on what they were manufactured for and their suitability for people to play sports on. It is a very simple question.
Councilman, I would say we had looked at all the product with equal care. And each product has application in single-purpose facility, if they do not have the restraint of existing conditions of Veteran's Stadium. Let me go one by one. Soft Sport, which is, I looked at that as Hummer Grass. In my evaluation report, we did recommend that that was one of the product of choice based on the existing restraint of Veteran's Stadium, because it was next to natural grass. For other reasons why, that product could not be appropriate, because of the time constraint and conversion logistics. The FieldTurf. FieldTurf for single purpose, it is a good product. And as a product itself, if there is a baseball-only facility or football-only facility, and environment which is different than Veteran's Stadium, it is totally 126 RESOLUTION 010533 - 10/17/01 appropriate product.
I want to make sure I have a question earlier about an apples-to-apples comparison. It doesn't do me very much good to know about a product in a single-use application because I don't have a single-use facility. I have a multi-use facility. I am never going to have a single-use facility that's probably going to have any of those products in it because this Veteran's Stadium is going to go away, the new stadiums I am assuming are going to have grass. So I need to understand it in the context of what it is that we are talking about. And I want to know about these products for the potential use that we need them here in Philadelphia and have your professional opinion about their use as a playing surface in a multi-use facility. That's the only thing that would mean anything to me.
In Philadelphia, in the multi-purpose facility, because of the constraints of the substrate condition, because of the requirement of these product to have substrate 127 RESOLUTION 010533 - 10/17/01 constructed in certain way, and the restraint of the football stands pulling out on a surface which cannot be tolerating any higher, thicker product --
I didn't hear the last part. Higher than what? You said something about cannot be higher than --
Cannot be of a higher elevation than the current field elevation for this kind of product to be installed. And that is the reason why these product did not qualify, in our professional judgment, for specific application on multi-purpose, outdoor facility like Veteran's Stadium.
Okay. So upon the further clarification of the question, I think what I heard you say is that none of them qualify for the unique use at Veteran's Stadium, other than the one that's been presently installed; is that what you are telling me?
If the intent of the project was to do the installation from January to March in time for opening of the baseball season, if the intent of the product was not to change the subbase of this stadium surface, which has elaborate 128 RESOLUTION 010533 - 10/17/01 underground drainage system, because the stadium field is feet under water, we would not want to 4 have a product which we can't modify the subsurface 5 condition and a system which has been installed 6 since the -- since 1970 and has been in 1987. 7 And if the football stands has to be 8 operable in the outfield, which are metal stands 9 which has to be pulled out, then those conditions 10 are the restraint where these product use will not 11 be applicable. 12
Okay. All right. So lastly, before I cut you off earlier, in terms of single use, all of these products can be used in a variety of applications, if it is a single-use facility. People can play on them, they all have their various pluses and minuses. And, I mean, would you feel, without the unique constraints to Veteran's Stadium, would you feel comfortable, depending on what the client's need was, in recommending any one of those five surfaces up there?
If restraints of the Veteran's Stadium conditions were not there, they 129 RESOLUTION 010533 - 10/17/01 are all applicable products.
Could I have a followup on that? THE CHAIRWOMAN: Councilman Ortiz has a followup.
Your firm is very well represented and your record is exemplary. But the Controller's report raises some serious questions in terms of the ability to be totally objective in your representation with others, based on a history with NeXturf that you didn't have with the other companies that were in the bidding process. And at the Controller's report actually says, "Product presentations could have been more balanced," so bringing into question the ability to be able. What has been your relationship with NeXturf? And could you detail for us what the relationship has been and for how many years?
Well, let me answer this way, Councilman. We are a professional organization, of very high reputation. And we hold 130 RESOLUTION 010533 - 10/17/01 very high ethical and professional standards. Our relationship is very simple. Our professional service contract is to our client, which is City of Philadelphia. That's who I work for. That's who I serve.
I am going by the report of the Controller. And I am trying to ask the questions that the Controller asked for our benefit and our record.
I cannot comment on that. Except that I can, Councilman, I can state that how we practice our profession.
Let me read you the one paragraph that the Controller puts here as an example. "Ewing, Cole levels criticisms and rejected products that could just as well have been leveled against the successful product, NeXturf, but were not. For example, Ewing, Cole says of Sprint Turf, 'There was no evidence of this product being currently in place at a professional major league, multi-use stadium with conversions similar to the 131 RESOLUTION 010533 - 10/17/01 conditions that will be encountered at the Vet.'" At the time the replacement contract was awarded to Southwest, the NeXturf system plan for the Vet had never been installed anywhere. So you could have made that same criticism about NeXturf, but you didn't.
When we write evaluation report, anybody can take one single thing out of context. I am saying that our whole report should stand on its own, entire report.
But answer me that. I am going by the Controller's report.
And then another paragraph of the controller's report, the Controller says, "At other times Ewing, Cole appears to assume facts not in evidence. For example, with regard to field turf, another company, Ewing, Cole says the following: 'Due to the high volume of infield material, we believe a high maintenance regimen will be required. There is a concern regarding the fine material from the infield finding its way into the drainage system, particularly under the telescopic 132 RESOLUTION 010533 - 10/17/01 stands. Although the documents provided to the Controller's Office by the City Administration, there is no indication that the maintenance staff at any FieldTurf installation had reported difficulties with product maintenance or complications with a field drainage system.'" "As an example, another example, we believe, of an unbalanced business, again the opinion of the Controller, of what we believe is unbalanced presentation, we referred to the reader," and then it is the way you present the different Field turfs in their presentation. So, you know, answer these statements by the Controller. Give me a situation about FieldTurf, about Sprint Turf.
We evaluated all the products based on its characteristics and on equal basis. We did not have any intention to say anything about any product which would not be, in our professional opinion, not proper.
How do you get that conclusion about the FieldTurf? How do you come to that conclusion about the FieldTurf, without 133 RESOLUTION 010533 - 10/17/01 consulting and talking to the people that installed those systems in other places?
Based on composition of the product. FieldTurf product has a sand base and granule base material, which is about pounds a 7 square foot, which is substantial amount of 8 material. 9 And on the football stand, which is a 10 concrete, impervious surface, that the football stand pull out, our concern is that with so much material there, and based on a lot of understanding of how the material gets segregated doing conversion and otherwise, that that could be potential for a lot of that material going in this drainage system, which is again a --
But there could be potential on many things. But had there been any report of that happening? I mean, who could have foreseen the potential of August the 13th happening? The thing that concerns me in terms of the Controller's report is the lack of information of other products, data, confirmed data, that was available to the city for the city to be able to 134 RESOLUTION 010533 - 10/17/01 make a decision on a sole-source contract. And it seemed like there was no data presented to the city. If it is potential, "potential" can mean many things. It is not data of things that have happened. THE CHAIRWOMAN: And it also begs to question, in all the materials that I have read, that there was an investigation. And one of the questions I did not get a chance to ask anyone yet is, define "investigation." And our research shows us that FieldTurf has replaced and removed all over the country. So define "investigation."
The FieldTurf installation, similar to Veteran's Stadium, which requires a lot of more traffic, more of stands, pulling out stands, and a lot of conversion process, to my knowledge, there is not a field where similar Veteran's Stadium conversion is taking place. THE CHAIRWOMAN: Forgive me. I did not hear the latter part of your sentence. To your knowledge --
To my knowledge, the FieldTurf installation today did not have the 135 RESOLUTION 010533 - 10/17/01 components of conversion like football stadium, like concrete pad, like underground drainage system protection, and any of the present installation. I know they have Tampa Bay, which is indoor facility. They do not need to deal with rain or segregation of material, which should be a factor here, major factor, in our opinion, at Veteran's Stadium. And that has been our concern, based on the knowledge of existing Veteran's Stadium condition, which is at 30 year age, and next couple of years to go. There was no desire on anybody's part to install a system which would require major repair or to the point that it could have different kind of problem in the facility, like pumping out the underground water. So we were trying to avoid the product which could have the potential. But that was not the only reason. There were other reasons for FieldTurf, which are thickness which could not be tolerated for the football stands. It cannot be pulled out on it without damaging them or making them inoperational. Those are the additional factors which 136 RESOLUTION 010533 - 10/17/01 should be all considered in the total context of our report. And that was my intent. It was not intent to say anything negative about any product. THE CHAIRWOMAN: Councilman Rizzo.
Just to finish with this panel. If it hadn't rained, if it hadn't this, if it hadn't that, if we would have fixed, I believe, the generation AstroTurf 8 to the terms and conditions of the lease, which the stadium director said that those repairs met, especially a stadium that we were about to tear down, we just wasted a tremendous amount of taxpayers' money, we wouldn't be here today, either, if we did the $30,000 of repair, paid Southwest for the repairs. We have changed that field over hundreds of times with no 19 problems. That's my statement. We also had an experience with the product that was supposed to give us an expectancy of seven, eight years. It amazes me -- and you indicated that Southwest's name was something else in '95? What was it in '95? 137 RESOLUTION 010533 - 10/17/01 Well, whatever it was. Whatever it was. It amazes me that the Capital Programs Office, twice we have used AstroTurf before NeXturf -- am I correct? Twice, when it was originally built --
The correction I would like to make to the statement, Councilman, is, the Capital Program Office has never been involved in any of the projects at Vet's Stadium prior to this last July.
All right. But we have used this company, this product for the life of the stadium.
After the product did not perform to, I would think, our expectation, why would you buy it again? 138 RESOLUTION 010533 - 10/17/01
The product that you ripped out, that got bagged as the worst playing surface in the National Football League, you then decide that you are going to correct that situation, and you go to the same manufacturer that didn't perform for the expectancy of eight years, seven years. You ripped that out, and you put the same manufacturer's product. What's the rationale to that?
Did we get any credit for that, for the other years that we didn't --
We did get a credit for the final year of the warranty. But let me just say, Councilman, I would disagree with the statement it didn't perform. I would like to anecdotally say this for the record, that there was a survey that was taken in 1994, and it says it was the worse field in the NFL. And then when we replaced it and put a grand new field in, and they did the survey the 139 RESOLUTION 010533 - 10/17/01 following year, and they still said it was the worst field. So I don't put a whole lot of stock in what the NFL Players' Association, their evaluation of what field was in there and whether they liked it or didn't. They have got a natural bias, which I talked about earlier. About, if it is not grass and dirt, they don't like it. And no matter what we do, in my opinion, now, they are never going to be totally satisfied. So, you know, I would dispute the statement that it didn't perform. I think it did perform. And I think, again, in an effort to try to, you know, for the remaining life of the stadium, similar to what we did with the other components of the stadium, that being the structural components, the HVAC components, the electrical components, in that we wanted to, you know, make it the best that we could for the remaining time that we were there, I felt that the field system fit in that category and it should be replaced.
Well, just to end 140 RESOLUTION 010533 - 10/17/01 this, you claim that that portrayal of it being the worst playing surface in the league may not have been true. But all along, when the decision was made to rip this field out, that I think could have got us by for a couple of years, personally, that that was basically the pressure or helped make the decision because of the commentators on Monday Night Football or on a Sunday afternoon referring to the playing surface. So you can't have it both ways. You can't say that that isn't true, and then the rationale to change this surface was the reputation that it was -- the situation that was causing not just in the media, but now we are hearing maybe it is a perception. So my point is that we wouldn't be here today, we would have saved the taxpayers this money, all of this controversy, if we just would have just left well enough alone. Thank you. THE CHAIRWOMAN: Thank you, Councilman Rizzo. I should mention that first we need to 141 RESOLUTION 010533 - 10/17/01 extend an apology to those who traveled far for today's hearings. A Committee of the Whole hearing is scheduled for 1 o'clock. So this committee will be recessed. I should mention that we have gotten through one of six panels. There is still five additional panels that we need to hear from at the next-scheduled hearing. So let me thank you to the initial panel, the Pre-Procurement and the Need to Change Vet Turf, those of you who were before us for the last two and a half hours. And Councilman Frank Rizzo will inform Panel 1, if we want it hear from you again, when this hearing is rescheduled. So at this hour, this Committee on Parks, Recreation, and Cultural Affairs is recessed until another meeting has been called by the Chair. Thank you very much. (Hearing adjourned at 12:55 p.m.) - - - C E R T I F I C A T I O N 142 I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing proceedings of the Council of the City of Philadelphia of Tuesday, October 17, 2001, were reported fully and accurately by me, and that this is a correct transcript of same. RE: COMMITTEE ON PARKS, RECREATION, AND CULTURAL AFFAIRS _____________________________________ DEBRA A. WHITEHEAD