District receives competitive turf bids; CHA and administration recommend awarding with coated rubber and 10‑year warranty options

Consultant CHA presented bid results for a stadium and practice turf project and recommended proceeding with the apparent low bidder, the LandTech Group, after reviewing five bids received on Oct. 9.

Mike Spadafore (CHA) reviewed the bid tabulation and alternates. The base bid returned at approximately $3.23 million. CHA recommended acceptance of alternate items to address expected site conditions and extend product protection: alternate 1 (unclassified/rock excavation allowance), alternate 2b (coated crumb rubber infill), alternate 3 (upgrade from an eight‑year to a ten‑year turf system warranty, which includes annual GMAX testing) and alternate 4 (field logo). CHA and Jamie Lynch said LandTech is an experienced regional contractor and that competitive bidding produced a tight spread across responsive bidders.

CHA detailed schedule and budget context: the original planning estimate included escalation and soft costs; the consultants reported approximately $1.6 million in soft costs (design, permitting and other fees) already in progress. Using the recommended alternates for both fields produced a construction bid example of about $3,387,700; adding the soft‑cost estimate places the combined project near $4.99 million. CHA told the board that fall bidding for next‑summer construction likely produced favorable pricing and that contractors were available to start procurement and shop drawings in November, with a planned March start for the practice field and May work on the stadium field; substantial completion for the active field was projected for September.

Board members asked safety and maintenance questions (hours of use, draining and grooming equipment) and raised site concerns: the coated rubber option was described as industry standard in eastern Pennsylvania and noted to provide a cooler surface in warm weather; the organic “BrockFill” infill was described as newer and less proven, with possible performance and drainage issues in rain and freeze‑thaw conditions. A board member raised concerns about an unrelated stadium retaining wall; consultants said the wall was not in the contract scope and needs separate structural evaluation.

Administration confirmed the district intends to fund the project from capital reserves and noted that approximately $300,000–$400,000 of the $1.6 million soft‑cost estimate has already been spent on design and permitting. Consultants said that grooming equipment and annual testing are part of standard warranty practice and that turf fields effectively permit high hours of use compared with natural turf.

Following discussion, the board signaled support by show of hands to bring an award recommendation to the next legislative meeting for formal consideration. Commissioners and consultants recommended including alternates 1, 2b, 3 and 4 if both fields are approved; the board will consider a formal award at the next legislative meeting.