Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Procurement Turf topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Patron alleges lowest turf bid rejected over Gmax paperwork; offers documentation
Summary
A local vendor told the Rockwood school board that Sprint Turf submitted the lowest bid for a synthetic-field replacement but was listed noncompliant because its initial paperwork referenced a field without the district's required shock pad; the vendor said he later provided warranty and test information showing compliance with the Gmax 125 specification and pointed to a $342,000 price gap with a competing bid.
Tom Feler, representing Sprint Turf, told the Rockwood Board of Education during the patron comment period that Sprint Turf’s proposal for the district’s synthetic turf replacement was the lowest by roughly $342,000 but was recorded as not meeting specifications in the district bid review.
Feler said the discrepancy stemmed from a Gmax (impact attenuation) figure reported on the original bid form. He explained that his firm originally submitted documents for a turf system without a shock pad, while Rockwood’s specification anticipates an installation that includes a Brock shock pad; he said Gmax test results differ substantially when a shock pad is present. Feler said he subsequently provided additional documentation, including a warranty and a letter from Sprint Turf vice president Mark Bellamini, indicating the company could meet the district’s stated Gmax 125 requirement when the shock pad was included.
Feler urged the board to review materials placed in the meeting packet and said Sprint Turf has prior installations in nearby districts, inviting trustees to contact those districts about performance and durability. He asked the district to reconsider the vendor’s bid status, emphasizing the reported $342,000 difference versus a competing firm (ATG) shown in his submission folder.
The board did not take formal action on the procurement during the meeting. The district’s procurement review and any written evaluation criteria that led to a vendor being declared noncompliant were discussed only as part of the public comment; no district staff statement changing the bid determination was recorded in the meeting transcript.
What happened next: The comment was part of the public record; the board’s formal agenda did not include a vote or motion to reopen the turf procurement item. If the board or administration chooses to revisit the procurement, standard next steps would include staff review of documentation, legal/procurement counsel input, and possible return of the item to a future board meeting for action.
Sources and provenance: Public comment by Tom Feler during patron comments (SEG 075–SEG 174).
