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.