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