Dedicated to improving responsiveness and performance of Montgomery County Public Schools
Pages
▼
Tuesday, July 17, 2018
Richard Montgomery HS gets Replacement Plastic Grass from MCPS Operating Budget, No Outside Sponsor
Turf replacement has officially started!!! It was a great 10 years with lots of amazing games and memories, look forward to another great 10 years with our new turf pic.twitter.com/GFEH98gPeE
Nice. Some thoughts on new turf at BCC and Wheaton HS, whose athletic complexes are both being completely rebuilt from scratch. I don't know how far along the county is in procuring those turf fields, but with the need to also get a running track and tennis courts with each site, as much as I don't like Fieldturf/Tarkett, it's probably the right choice to go with them and get massive economies of scale by getting their Fieldturf+track+tennis court option at both schools with a single contract. Maybe Astroturf can offer something similar, but I don't know about it. I wonder if their Green DT turf can come with the new Trionic fibers.
On the Fieldturf side, there's a new and really interesting infill option, best suited for all-new installs (and perhaps Purefill replacement fields, when the time comes), called Pureselect. Pureselect has three layers of infill, just like Coolplay, but the middle infill layer uses a mixture of sand and finely granulated olive cores. No crumb rubber is used anywhere in the system. A cushioning shockpad is placed immediately under the infill. More info on Pureselect: https://fieldturf.com/en/articles/detail/pureselect-olive-infill/
Nice as in you are happy that money set aside for NEW artificial turf fields is being diverted to pay for a REPLACEMENT field? You do know that THE PLAN was for artificial turf fields to be SELF-FUNDING. Now that the plan has failed, money is being diverted from classrooms to pay for these exhorbitantly expensive playgrounds.
FieldTurf has already been ditched by the Board of Education. They did not honor their warranty on this field and now classroom dollars are being used to replace the field prematurely.
As for the interesting infill options, that's all they are, interesting. Organic infill is organic (yes!) which means it deteriorates as it decomposes. It has to be replaced frequently. It also freezes in the winter and the field can not be used. So the Board of Education will not be using any organic infill, they instead are using kitty litter.
However, the Board of Education has forgotten to warn athletes to not inhale the kitty litter. It's not good for the lungs per the Material Data Safety Sheet for kitty litter/zeolite.
Last, a "cushioning shockpad" is only of any use if the GMAX levels are tested EVER. Because if one part of the field fails a student dies when they hit their head on concrete. So padding is no protection to students when there is no monitoring of the field.
A few pieces of note: First off, whether grass or artificial turf is used, it's not a great solution. Grass requires a lot of watering and fertilizer, some of which would run off into the Bay. The grass needs to be cut, which costs money to fuel a mower. It can't hold up playing in rainy conditions anywhere near as good as artificial turf. Drainage is far superior on artificial turf. The costs to maintain a grass surface, and re-sod areas that are worn out, would probably cost more over the ten-year timeframe than artificial turf would be to buy and maintain. The county has not been very good at renting out the fields for outside use, which is far more possible with turf than grass, but either way as it stands, money is being diverted from classrooms to pay for a surface. Artificial turf is almost certainly the better choice of surface, and multiple studies on player safety with the two surfaces prove that out.
Is there any evidence that MCPS even attempted to put in a warranty claim on the RMHS field? MCPS has always had the policy of replacing an artificial field once every ten years, so this replacement is occurring on schedule by MCPS's standards. Yes, the initial Fieldturf fibers were junk. Even the Gaithersburg HS field, if you look on Google Maps's satellite view, is failing prematurely; this field uses first-generation Revolution fibers (the RMHS field used Duraspine fibers). I would suspect a warranty claim will need to be made in the next year or two, and Fieldturf should honor the warranty. Their more recent Core and Revolution 360 fibers are more durable, but the GMAX on fresh Fieldturf fields isn't quite as grass-like as the Astroturf Green DT and 3D systems. However, their 3D-based organic system requires an irrigation system and regular watering, which negates a key advantage of artificial turf, so I don't recommend it. Astroturf claims their zeolite-based infill on the Green DT series will not splash at all, and will be held in place by an undercoat of nylon fibers. Whether this will bear out on the Whitman HS field remains to be seen.
Unlike typical organic infill, zeolite infill provides no concern of undue hardening effects in freezing temperatures versus typical artificial turf -- or natural grass, for that matter. Even professional matches on grass have been cancelled in sub-freezing conditions, including at least one occasion on the grass surface of the Stade de France, which doesn't have an underlaid surface heating system.
Fieldturf claims the Pureselect olive cores do not need annual replenishment, unlike Purefill, or organic infill from competitors. Whether this claim will bear out is to be seen by whoever uses it.
Yes, the Whitman HS field will not use Fieldturf, but don't assume MCPS will never again use Fieldturf, especially since their "SmartBuy" process cuts through a lot of red tape that MCPS had to go through to buy the Whitman field through Astroturf. Do you know who is supplying the RMHS replacement field? If there were no public hearings on a replacement field, it's highly possible that Fieldturf was used to procure the RMHS replacement field.
What is the documented failure rate of underpadding on artificial fields? If the underpad fails, that's one thing, but these pads have had decades of R&D, and are designed to hold up under far more load than what MCPS fields demand.
You aren't familiar with grass fields that do stand up to use and have excellent drainage? They do exist.
Unfortunately the County has NOT been excellent at renting out these fields. The income from the rentals is pennies, not the hundreds of thousands that was promised. The cost to rent the fields is expensive and prices out a lot of groups. No, the cost of grass does not equal the cost of artificial turf over a 10 year time frame. The cost analysis that FieldTurf told the County Council to use was for 20 YEARS, not 10. These fields were to have lasted 20 YEARS.
Did MCPS put in a warranty claim? Please ask them. The Board of Education won't talk about this and the County Council has failed to exert any oversight over these failed fields. Where on earth do you get that MCPS has "always" had a policy of replacing these fields at 10 years??? These fields were supposed to last for 20 years and this is the first one MCPS is replacing. They are replacing it because it failed years ago. It didn't even make it to 10 years.
When you say "SmartBuy" you mean NO BID, correct? Because MCPS never, ever put out bids for the FieldTurf purchases. Those were back room, no bid, NO contract deals. Let's be clear about what went on. It is not "smart" for a public body to spend $1 mil. without an open procurement process.
For the RMHS replacement, we know who is replacing the field and FieldTurf has not been listed as the vendor.
Decades of R&D? Crumb rubber was being used in the past and the crumb rubber was to absorb shock. If a pad was used underneath the crumb rubber that is an entirely different system that will be used now.
It's pretty stunning to hear that you think the 6 year old Gaithersburg High School artificial turf field is failing. Does MCPS know it is failing?
I remember reading on some random corner of the MCPS site that the fields were meant to last ten years. Another commenter described the situation better than I could, but the idea of replacing the carpet at year 8 and 16, and apparently only using the third carpet for the next four years after that, doesn't make financial sense to me.
Yes, "SmartBuy" is no-bid, which is why I put the term in quotation marks, because there's no way you can be sure you're getting the best deal when you're going no-bid. The problem is, for a public school or university to acquire artificial turf through a bid process requires a very complex process of drawing up schematics and presenting them at public hearings, and this can be expensive and time-consuming on its own merits. "SmartBuy" somehow allows school districts to legally cut through the red tape. More info: https://fieldturf.com/en/why-fieldturf/purchase-experience/
To my knowledge, no pad was used on the initial Fieldturf fields. There was no need for them; the crumb rubber was all that was needed to provide cushioning. Natural infill, whether zeolite, olive cores, cork, or whatever else, is not as cushioning, so it does require a newly-installed shock pad.
As for whether MCPS knows about the condition of Gaithersburg HS's field: If they read these comments, they do, now! https://www.google.com/maps/@39.1356037,-77.1978355,146m/data=!3m1!1e3
Well welcome to Montgomery County! That was THE PLAN. The County Council doesn't care if the Plan did not make financial sense, they loved it! All the details are in the infamous back room "report" written with FieldTurf help.
The Final Plan is at the bottom link on the blog post below. We obtained the audio of the Council meeting where it was discussed because Councilmember Roger Berliner shut off the video feed right before the meeting and all the call in lines were busy. It seems Mr. Berliner did not want the public watching this meeting.
Sorry, your understanding of how bids are handled here in Montgomery County Public Schools is not correct. There is no law that legally allowed MCPS to skip the public procurement process. There is also no oversight so they can do what they want because no one is going to stop them. There is lot about that on this blog.
The link you point to on the FieldTurf website does not relate to anything done in MCPS. MCPS doesn't even belong to the buying services they reference. MCPS only pretends to use those services to base the price they get "off" those services. We have done public information act requests for all of the procurement documents and the response is nothing. They don't use these services. They just shop and buy what they want.
You see, if MCPS was actually using any of these buying services there would be documents supporting those transactions. No documents were produced.
Just a important clarification.Synturf fields are getting hazardously hard before their warranted 8 years. No vendor or MCPS has claimed synthetic turf fields would last 20 years and there is no need to say they did to prove the problems with synturf. The 2011 analysis the county did for cost was over 20 years *with the assumption that replacement would need to be done at 10 years*. And in that analysis needed to use a "fudge factor" to make the synthetic turf seem cost effective: assumed a high demand for rental at high rental fees of the synturf fields. This has never panned out. In addition Synthetic turf requires substantial maintenance and frequent testing for hardness to be even marginally safe for athletes even within the warranted 8 years. Skimping on maintenance and testing as MCPS has done harms the students. Parks replaced the Blair HS synturf field at 7 years. MCPS choose to draw out replacement of RMHS and WJHS and allow regular play although deemed unsafe for regular play.
In fact, MCPS and FieldTurf did claim that the infill and sand would be REUSED during the 20 years. Only the "carpet" would be replaced. So yes, two out of three major components of the top of the field were to last for 20 years.
Each field holds 120 tons of crumb rubber and an unknown amount of sand.
In the case of the Richard Montgomery High School artificial turf field, all 3 components of the field are on their way to the incinerator or are washing away in to local streams. All 3 components are being replaced.
To clarify: The MCPS plan was to replace the CARPET ONLY at years 8 and 16 in the 20 year cost analysis.
There never was an expectation that the carpet would last 10 years.
The crumb rubber and the sand were to be reused in the 20 year analysis. That means the crumb rubber and sand would be used on 3 different carpets, the original, the 8 year and the 16 year carpet.
This week we are watching the Richard Montgomery HS carpet, crumb rubber and sand all being destroyed in year 10.
The RM field is being removed at year 10, not at year 8 as was the "plan."
The entire RM field is being thrown out, not just the carpet, again this was not part of the 20 year plan.
All cost calculations made in 2011 in the infamous County Council "report" are now going to the incinerator along with the RM artificial turf carpet, crumb rubber and sand.
The parents want this more than books, supplies, and teachers for their children. This is what the parents want.
ReplyDeleteNice. Some thoughts on new turf at BCC and Wheaton HS, whose athletic complexes are both being completely rebuilt from scratch. I don't know how far along the county is in procuring those turf fields, but with the need to also get a running track and tennis courts with each site, as much as I don't like Fieldturf/Tarkett, it's probably the right choice to go with them and get massive economies of scale by getting their Fieldturf+track+tennis court option at both schools with a single contract. Maybe Astroturf can offer something similar, but I don't know about it. I wonder if their Green DT turf can come with the new Trionic fibers.
ReplyDeleteOn the Fieldturf side, there's a new and really interesting infill option, best suited for all-new installs (and perhaps Purefill replacement fields, when the time comes), called Pureselect. Pureselect has three layers of infill, just like Coolplay, but the middle infill layer uses a mixture of sand and finely granulated olive cores. No crumb rubber is used anywhere in the system. A cushioning shockpad is placed immediately under the infill. More info on Pureselect: https://fieldturf.com/en/articles/detail/pureselect-olive-infill/
Nice as in you are happy that money set aside for NEW artificial turf fields is being diverted to pay for a REPLACEMENT field? You do know that THE PLAN was for artificial turf fields to be SELF-FUNDING. Now that the plan has failed, money is being diverted from classrooms to pay for these exhorbitantly expensive playgrounds.
ReplyDeleteFieldTurf has already been ditched by the Board of Education. They did not honor their warranty on this field and now classroom dollars are being used to replace the field prematurely.
As for the interesting infill options, that's all they are, interesting. Organic infill is organic (yes!) which means it deteriorates as it decomposes. It has to be replaced frequently. It also freezes in the winter and the field can not be used. So the Board of Education will not be using any organic infill, they instead are using kitty litter.
However, the Board of Education has forgotten to warn athletes to not inhale the kitty litter. It's not good for the lungs per the Material Data Safety Sheet for kitty litter/zeolite.
Last, a "cushioning shockpad" is only of any use if the GMAX levels are tested EVER. Because if one part of the field fails a student dies when they hit their head on concrete. So padding is no protection to students when there is no monitoring of the field.
A few pieces of note: First off, whether grass or artificial turf is used, it's not a great solution. Grass requires a lot of watering and fertilizer, some of which would run off into the Bay. The grass needs to be cut, which costs money to fuel a mower. It can't hold up playing in rainy conditions anywhere near as good as artificial turf. Drainage is far superior on artificial turf. The costs to maintain a grass surface, and re-sod areas that are worn out, would probably cost more over the ten-year timeframe than artificial turf would be to buy and maintain. The county has not been very good at renting out the fields for outside use, which is far more possible with turf than grass, but either way as it stands, money is being diverted from classrooms to pay for a surface. Artificial turf is almost certainly the better choice of surface, and multiple studies on player safety with the two surfaces prove that out.
DeleteIs there any evidence that MCPS even attempted to put in a warranty claim on the RMHS field? MCPS has always had the policy of replacing an artificial field once every ten years, so this replacement is occurring on schedule by MCPS's standards. Yes, the initial Fieldturf fibers were junk. Even the Gaithersburg HS field, if you look on Google Maps's satellite view, is failing prematurely; this field uses first-generation Revolution fibers (the RMHS field used Duraspine fibers). I would suspect a warranty claim will need to be made in the next year or two, and Fieldturf should honor the warranty. Their more recent Core and Revolution 360 fibers are more durable, but the GMAX on fresh Fieldturf fields isn't quite as grass-like as the Astroturf Green DT and 3D systems. However, their 3D-based organic system requires an irrigation system and regular watering, which negates a key advantage of artificial turf, so I don't recommend it. Astroturf claims their zeolite-based infill on the Green DT series will not splash at all, and will be held in place by an undercoat of nylon fibers. Whether this will bear out on the Whitman HS field remains to be seen.
Unlike typical organic infill, zeolite infill provides no concern of undue hardening effects in freezing temperatures versus typical artificial turf -- or natural grass, for that matter. Even professional matches on grass have been cancelled in sub-freezing conditions, including at least one occasion on the grass surface of the Stade de France, which doesn't have an underlaid surface heating system.
Fieldturf claims the Pureselect olive cores do not need annual replenishment, unlike Purefill, or organic infill from competitors. Whether this claim will bear out is to be seen by whoever uses it.
Yes, the Whitman HS field will not use Fieldturf, but don't assume MCPS will never again use Fieldturf, especially since their "SmartBuy" process cuts through a lot of red tape that MCPS had to go through to buy the Whitman field through Astroturf. Do you know who is supplying the RMHS replacement field? If there were no public hearings on a replacement field, it's highly possible that Fieldturf was used to procure the RMHS replacement field.
What is the documented failure rate of underpadding on artificial fields? If the underpad fails, that's one thing, but these pads have had decades of R&D, and are designed to hold up under far more load than what MCPS fields demand.
You aren't familiar with grass fields that do stand up to use and have excellent drainage? They do exist.
DeleteUnfortunately the County has NOT been excellent at renting out these fields. The income from the rentals is pennies, not the hundreds of thousands that was promised. The cost to rent the fields is expensive and prices out a lot of groups. No, the cost of grass does not equal the cost of artificial turf over a 10 year time frame. The cost analysis that FieldTurf told the County Council to use was for 20 YEARS, not 10. These fields were to have lasted 20 YEARS.
Did MCPS put in a warranty claim? Please ask them. The Board of Education won't talk about this and the County Council has failed to exert any oversight over these failed fields. Where on earth do you get that MCPS has "always" had a policy of replacing these fields at 10 years??? These fields were supposed to last for 20 years and this is the first one MCPS is replacing. They are replacing it because it failed years ago. It didn't even make it to 10 years.
When you say "SmartBuy" you mean NO BID, correct? Because MCPS never, ever put out bids for the FieldTurf purchases. Those were back room, no bid, NO contract deals. Let's be clear about what went on. It is not "smart" for a public body to spend $1 mil. without an open procurement process.
For the RMHS replacement, we know who is replacing the field and FieldTurf has not been listed as the vendor.
Decades of R&D? Crumb rubber was being used in the past and the crumb rubber was to absorb shock. If a pad was used underneath the crumb rubber that is an entirely different system that will be used now.
It's pretty stunning to hear that you think the 6 year old Gaithersburg High School artificial turf field is failing. Does MCPS know it is failing?
I remember reading on some random corner of the MCPS site that the fields were meant to last ten years. Another commenter described the situation better than I could, but the idea of replacing the carpet at year 8 and 16, and apparently only using the third carpet for the next four years after that, doesn't make financial sense to me.
DeleteYes, "SmartBuy" is no-bid, which is why I put the term in quotation marks, because there's no way you can be sure you're getting the best deal when you're going no-bid. The problem is, for a public school or university to acquire artificial turf through a bid process requires a very complex process of drawing up schematics and presenting them at public hearings, and this can be expensive and time-consuming on its own merits. "SmartBuy" somehow allows school districts to legally cut through the red tape. More info: https://fieldturf.com/en/why-fieldturf/purchase-experience/
To my knowledge, no pad was used on the initial Fieldturf fields. There was no need for them; the crumb rubber was all that was needed to provide cushioning. Natural infill, whether zeolite, olive cores, cork, or whatever else, is not as cushioning, so it does require a newly-installed shock pad.
As for whether MCPS knows about the condition of Gaithersburg HS's field: If they read these comments, they do, now! https://www.google.com/maps/@39.1356037,-77.1978355,146m/data=!3m1!1e3
Well welcome to Montgomery County! That was THE PLAN. The County Council doesn't care if the Plan did not make financial sense, they loved it!
DeleteAll the details are in the infamous back room "report" written with FieldTurf help.
The Final Plan is at the bottom link on the blog post below. We obtained the audio of the Council meeting where it was discussed because Councilmember Roger Berliner shut off the video feed right before the meeting and all the call in lines were busy. It seems Mr. Berliner did not want the public watching this meeting.
http://parentscoalitionmc.blogspot.com/2011/06/audio-leventhal-id-like-to-feel-we-are.html
Sorry, your understanding of how bids are handled here in Montgomery County Public Schools is not correct. There is no law that legally allowed MCPS to skip the public procurement process. There is also no oversight so they can do what they want because no one is going to stop them. There is lot about that on this blog.
The link you point to on the FieldTurf website does not relate to anything done in MCPS.
MCPS doesn't even belong to the buying services they reference. MCPS only pretends to
use those services to base the price they get "off" those services. We have done public
information act requests for all of the procurement documents and the response is nothing. They don't use these services. They just shop and buy what they want.
You see, if MCPS was actually using any of these buying services there would be documents supporting those transactions. No documents were produced.
Just a important clarification.Synturf fields are getting hazardously hard before their warranted 8 years. No vendor or MCPS has claimed synthetic turf fields would last 20 years and there is no need to say they did to prove the problems with synturf. The 2011 analysis the county did for cost was over 20 years *with the assumption that replacement would need to be done at 10 years*. And in that analysis needed to use a "fudge factor" to make the synthetic turf seem cost effective: assumed a high demand for rental at high rental fees of the synturf fields. This has never panned out. In addition Synthetic turf requires substantial maintenance and frequent testing for hardness to be even marginally safe for athletes even within the warranted 8 years. Skimping on maintenance and testing as MCPS has done harms the students. Parks replaced the Blair HS synturf field at 7 years. MCPS choose to draw out replacement of RMHS and WJHS and allow regular play although deemed unsafe for regular play.
ReplyDeleteIn fact, MCPS and FieldTurf did claim that the infill and sand would be REUSED during the 20 years. Only the "carpet" would be replaced. So yes, two out of three major components of the top of the field were to last for 20 years.
DeleteEach field holds 120 tons of crumb rubber and an unknown amount of sand.
In the case of the Richard Montgomery High School artificial turf field, all 3 components of the field are on their way to the incinerator or are washing away in to local streams. All 3 components are being replaced.
DeleteTo clarify: The MCPS plan was to replace the CARPET ONLY at years 8 and 16 in the 20 year cost analysis.
ReplyDeleteThere never was an expectation that the carpet would last 10 years.
The crumb rubber and the sand were to be reused in the 20 year analysis. That means the crumb rubber and sand would be used on 3 different carpets, the original, the 8 year and the 16 year carpet.
This week we are watching the Richard Montgomery HS carpet, crumb rubber and sand all being destroyed in year 10.
The RM field is being removed at year 10, not at year 8 as was the "plan."
The entire RM field is being thrown out, not just the carpet, again this was not part of the 20 year plan.
All cost calculations made in 2011 in the infamous County Council "report" are now going to the incinerator along with the RM artificial turf carpet, crumb rubber and sand.