“When asked why the firm should be paid additional money when the original work it oversaw was found to be seriously flawed, Mr. Sheikholeslami said that, with projects of this nature, ‘you can't always catch every little thing’ as the work progresses.”

So, Mr. Sheikholeslami believes improper drainage detail installation, the use of incorrect base soil underneath the synthetic field, and improper grading and leveling of the field's subbase are LITTLE things?

“District Superintendent Maurice Ghysels told the Almanac that the contractor will be responsible for the repair costs.” (July 1)

“The school board in June approved an additional $50,000 payment to the firm overseeing the project, Concord-based RGM & Associates, which will continue its oversight.”

Ghysels chose to not inform the Almanac that it would cost the district to re-do the field. Does he think $50,000 is a “little thing?” Does he think not being transparent is a “little thing?”

There is a lot of fingerpointing, and threats of lawsuits. Given that, it's best for the public comments to remain as neutral as possible. I am not a Ghysels fan, but I can understand why he's trying to downplay the problem.

I don't think that the District's comments suggest in any way that anyone is minimizing this. I really appreciate the fact that the District is taking steps to ensure that the field performs up to specifications and that the contractor and its subs bear appropriate financial responsibility.

TypicL incompetence. Fire the people resposible

Due to repeated violations of our Terms of Use, comments from this poster are automatically removed. Why?