Investing in a Synthetic Athletic Field

Have you found yourself on a decision-making committee that’s responsible for delivering the best possible synthetic athletic field for your school or community? If so, a bit of anxiety is par for the course. The easy part of the decision is recognizing the superiority of synthetics versus natural. Synthetic grass fields can be used virtually 24/7 with minimal, low-cost maintenance, while the use of natural grass fields must be monitored and limited. To keep a natural grass field in excellent condition, the maintenance costs are substantial. Synthetic grass fields are known for their outstanding playability even in the most extreme weather conditions, while even the best-cared-for natural grass surfaces can be ruined by just one bad weather pattern at the wrong time. Any reasonable analysis considers the impressive utility of synthetic fields; there are documented cases of a single field getting more than 500 uses annually. By spreading the initial investment over the expected life of a synthetic surfacing system – often projected as 10 -12 years – the rationale for the investment becomes crystal clear. When we combine the consistent playability of synthetics over time with the number of uses the school or community enjoys, and the long expected life of the investment, it’s easy to see why so many fields are being converted from natural to man-made. At every level of competition, for virtually every sport, more and more games and practices are being played on synthetic turf. Many of us have heard the saying, “the devil is in the details”. This concept really applies to the evaluation process of the products and the companies that compete in the synthetic athletic field industry. This is where the anxiety comes into play. There’s a common misconception that all these new generation infilled grass systems are alike. Not true. Even more daunting can be the task of differentiating companies, which is arguably even more important than the differentiating characteristics of the surfacing systems themselves. The details – about product components and the company that builds them into a finished field – are really critically important. How Familiar Are You with the Product? The typical individual who sits on such an evaluation committee is bright and accomplished. Upper echelon school personnel and community leaders are the prototypical types of people who find this decision on their long list of pressing issues. While there is nothing in and of itself that’s difficult to understand about evaluating product components and finished systems – nor company performances – the challenge in this business is lack of familiarity with the product. There is an unusually high number of factors to consider, and there is only one emerging central source of information that’s unbiased – The Synthetic Turf Council. Those competing for the project, where there is a natural bias, deliver most of what’s learned about varying product attributes and company capabilities. When we shop for a vehicle, much of what we know and like is based on first-hand-experience. We drive, we ride as passengers, and we look at other vehicles as we go about our day. The result is a reservoir of information to rely on and help us as the decision becomes refined. This contrasts sharply with “shopping” for a synthetic athletic field. The typical decision maker, while likely very capable, knows very little about the companies that present to them, or the legitimacy of what they say. Even if you, or someone on your committee, is a former athlete who competed on a synthetic field, the odds are great that this generation of synthetic fields wasn’t around in the same era of those playing days. The original installations were done in the late 1990s. This leaves us with bright, dedicated people who have a decision to make on a surfacing system where personal evaluation through use of the product is unrealistic, and the source of information – the industry participants – all too often delivers conflicting information. One company says rubber infill is better while another says a rubber and sand mix is superior. One company pushes a monofilament fiber type while their competitor says slit film fiber is best. Some say a resilient underpad that delivers stability and shock absorption is a tremendous choice, while others say a resilient underpad adds to the cost of the project and slows the athlete. Glued seams versus sewn. A dense matrix of fibers with less infill weight or more space between fibers and therefore more infill weight. A four-part carpet backing versus a one-part, three-component backing. And on and on the discussion goes. Who is the Company Behind the Surface? An athletic field is a major financial investment. In addition, it’s a high-profile investment. The amount of interest in any new field is huge. From the wet-behind-the-ears athlete to the senior committee member, that field is noticed, talked about, read about in the local papers, and walked and played on. When things go well with the project, there is a great sense of community pride, and when they don’t, there is frustration and often embarrassment that really puts a damper on what should be an exciting culmination of much effort invested and money spent. Whether a project goes well or not is very much a function of the company behind the product components. Field building is specialized construction. Anyone who has been around the construction world – from additions to your home to high-rise construction projects – realizes what a demanding process it can be. Schedules. Cooperation with other trades. Delivering what’s ordered. Quality craftsmanship. Communicating throughout the process. Challenges will arise on every project. It’s a matter of how those challenges are dealt with that matters most. The field building industry has a history of some of the companies not remaining viable in the industry and therefore the warranties outliving the company. This concern should be heavily weighed when evaluating which company you want to partner with on your project. And partner is the right word. A field that lasts 10-plus years requires a partner, not just a supplier. What Steps Can Be Taken to Ensure That a Sound Decision is Made?

• Hire a solid, experienced firm (architectural, engineering, and/or consultants depending on details of the project) that has worked on a number of synthetic field projects that had a similar scope of work to yours. Try to find a firm that has worked on projects where several different synthetic turf builders have been used so they have a basis for comparison.
• In conjunction with the firm, emphasize the importance of sound base construction through the specification and experience requirements of those who will eventually build the base. Crushed stone is almost always specified these days – be sure planarity, porosity and compaction are addressed. The final product will only be as good as the base on which it is constructed.
• When evaluating turf builders that will present to the committee, allow ample time for presentation questions and answers. All too often 30, 45 or 60 minutes is scheduled per company. This is not enough. Two hours per company will save time in the long run.
  • Provide a list of questions/topics in advance for each company to come prepared to address.
  • Allow questions and answers after this portion.
  • Allow the presenting company to then bring up whatever factors might not have been addressed in the submitted questions/topics.
  • Excuse the presenting company from the room and talk among the committee to address what needs clarification. Be prepared to formulate tough questions and concerns.
  • Invite the presenting company back in and address what the committee came up with.
  • Be sure there is a central note taker in the group. Have the note taker be someone who is not responsible for the decision but just for getting the facts on paper expediently.
  • Meet as just a committee the next day when these presentations are fresh in the minds of all.
  • Two thorough days spent evaluating companies will, in the long run, save time on the project and ensure the right company and system are specified and the best match is ultimately chosen.
• Have those who are oriented toward the administration and accounting duties scrutinize the long-term viability and strength of the company. Audited financials, insurance certificates and policies, tax compliance, and the like are excellent tools for evaluation. You have the right to do your own analysis and create an opinion of the long-term viability of the company you are considering partnering with.
• Follow up by calling or writing to a number of clients on the company’s reference list. Ask them to point out projects that presented major challenges and explain how they were handled. (If they say they don’t have any such clients, run the other way as fast as you can!)
• Apply common sense throughout the process. Consider some of the things you might hear that just don’t seem to make sense and further explore the subject in some resourceful way. It will not only reveal the correct answer, but it might expose a way of doing business that’s not in the best interest of the school or community.
• Lastly, “don’t be penny wise and pound foolish”. You probably don’t drive the least expensive vehicle on the market or live in the lowest priced home or neighborhood. Smart buying is all about value – getting the most for your dollar. In the private market, there is always latitude to choose on more than just price, and in the public market there is as well. Establish your position up front by systematically educating yourself by following these points above and writing a strong specification, and demand that those who bid are held to it.

Remember, long after the installation crew has departed and the articles in the local newspaper are all but forgotten, what remain are the components that make up the surface and the company that stands behind it. That’s what the athletes play on and the administrators have invested in. Take the time to choose your synthetic field partner wisely.