CFP RESEARCH REPORT ON THE

MISSOURI SOUTHERN STATE UNIVERSITY OUTDOOR TRACK PROJECT:

RESURFACING AND REPLACING THE RESILIENT TRACK SURFACE

To
Dr. Joey Brown
Director of Grants and Proposals
Brown Research and Technology
Kuhn Hall 237
3950 E. Newman Rd
Joplin, MO 64801

From
JP Rutledge
Head Architect
Abbott and Hewitt Architects
jprutledge@aha.com
(417) 741-1471

May 13, 2021

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Abbott & Hewitt Architects (AHA), a division of Brown Research and Technology (BRT), is a
company that provides services in architectural design, engineering and construction
administration, landscape design, and design process. AHA is under contract to design and
oversee the improvement of the running track on the campus of Missouri Southern State
University (MSSU). The current track is outdated and can no longer meet the needs of the MSSU
track and field teams.

AHA discovered that the current track surface has formed excessive bubbles of air. Additionally,
the edge of lane eight has begun to break. The overall surface of the track is worn-out from
weather and excessive use. Although the track was originally built with approval from the
National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA), the current condition of the track surface does
not meet the modern NCAA standards. No track and field meets can be held on the campus of
MSSU until the current track surface is either improved or replaced.

BRT, on behalf of AHA, will contract an entity to improve or replace the current surface of the
MSSU track with a NCAA approved surface. The track surface must be standard for collegiate
competition. The track must be able to endure great ranges in temperatures, as well as high
humidity. Bidding entities must be certified by the American Sports Builders Association’s
(ASBA) Certified Track Builder Program and have ASBA Certified Track Builder-Striper (CTB-
S) certification. Additional strategies to improve the longevity and competitiveness of the MSSU
track facility are allowed and encouraged.

Areas of work possible include, but are not limited to, resurfacing, repair work, inspecting,
demolition, repairing the base, laying a new surface, striping, monitoring construction, and all
included and additional personnel.

Based on current research (see Works Cited), subsequent proposals are most likely to suggest
that the resilient layer of the track be resurfaced or replaced with a solid polyurethane surface.
Solid polyurethane meets the standards laid out by the NCAA for collegiate track surfaces.

BRT, on behalf of AHA, disavows specific knowledge of the conditions of the asphalt base or
the track’s overall structural stability. Entities are expected to do an on-site review of the track
before placing their bid.

Proposals will suggest a project work schedule that falls between the summer months of June
and August. Nighttime temperatures must be above 45°F for construction to start. Key Personnel
will include ASBA Certified Track Builders and Stripers. Depending on the chosen method,
bringing the MSSU track up to date with NCAA standards will cost $141,750-$254,300.

1
TECHNICAL PROPOSAL

Abbott & Hewitt Architects (AHA), a division of Brown Research and Technology (BRT), is a
company that provides services in architectural design, engineering and construction
administration, landscape design, and design process. AHA is under contract to design and
oversee the improvement of the running track on the campus of Missouri Southern State
University (MSSU). The current track is outdated and can no longer meet the needs of the MSSU
track and field teams.

AHA discovered that the current track surface has formed excessive bubbles of air. Additionally,
the edge of lane eight has begun to break. The overall surface of the track is worn-out from
weather and excessive use. Although the track was originally built with approval from the
National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA), the current condition of the track surface does
not meet the modern NCAA standards. No track and field meets can be held on the campus of
MSSU until the current track surface is either improved or replaced.

The TECHNICAL PROPOSAL section of this report contains descriptions of two common
methods for bringing the current track surface up to date with NCAA standards. The minimum
improvements necessary to bring the track up to date with NCAA standards include basic repair
and resurface work while the maximum improvements include repair work to the asphalt base
and replacement of the current track surface. Both methods will bring the track into compliance
with NCAA standards, although repair work to the asphalt base will ensure the track stays within
compliance for a longer period. Finalist Proposals are expected to specify how methodology
meets NCAA standards while providing MSSU with the most cost-efficient option both in the
present and in the future.

Contracted entities will be under the management of AHA/BRT during the duration of the
project. Once project is complete, MSSU will have full rights and ownership to the track to be
used in any compacity that the university sees fit.

Contracted entities will be liable for any and all errors made on behalf of the contracted entity.
Contracted entities will not be liable for any errors made before the start date of the project.
AHA will be liable for any design errors made by the architects at AHA. MSSU will not be held
liable for errors made on behalf of AHA or the contracted entities and will receive appropriate
compensation for such errors.

Contracted entities are responsible for obtaining proper licensing from the American Sports
Builders Association (ASBA) and are expected to obtain such licensing for Proposals to be
considered.

Method 1: Resurfacing and Repairing

A common method for extending the life of a track’s current surface is repairing cracks and
bubbles and applying at least two layers of synthetic surfacing spray to the surface. Resurfacing
and repairing the track is the most inexpensive method for bringing the track up to date with

2
current NCAA standards. The primary benefit of Method 1 is that the method requires the least
amount of personnel, as well as the least number of resources.

Method 1 will begin with repair work to the track. All Offerors of Method 1 will first investigate
the track for cracks or bubbles. Bubbles that have formed under patches will be replaced with
new patches made of polyurethane that matches the red of the current track. Cracks that are too
big to be patched will be filled in with a polyurethane mixture so that the track surface is level.
Cracks on the outside of lane eight, if significantly hindering the width of the lane, will be filled
in with a polyurethane mixture.

A mixer with a spray-style mix head is used to mix the polyurethane until the material is ready to
be sprayed. Some Offerors of Method 1 will use a large tank for transporting the polyurethane to
the job site. The tank can mix the polyurethane as well. The polyurethane will be poured from
the mixer into 55 gallon janitorial trash cans. The polyurethane will then be poured from the
trash cans into a spraying machine.

After the polyurethane has been mixed and poured into a spraying machine, the polyurethane
will be sprayed side to side over the entire surface of the track. Offerors of Method 1 will be
careful not to let the polyurethane be sprayed off the track. Rubber brooms will be used to
distribute the polyurethane evenly across the track. Once the first layer of spray has dried, a
second layer will be applied using the same process.

Once the second layer of spray is dry, ASBA Certified Stripers will use a combination of striping
machines, number templates, and white polyurethane or latex paint to apply the markings to the
track. Stripers will follow the regulations set forth by the NCAA and World Athletics to apply all
necessary lines and graphics, at the correct placements, across the track surface. Lines
designating eight lanes around the track will be painted first using the striping machine, followed
by additional start and finish lines. Other graphics will be painted by hand using paintbrushes,
spray paint, and number or graphic templates.

Method 1, repairing and resurfacing the track surface, will save the most money over the short
term. Repairing and resurfacing the track surface will extend the life of the current track by three
to five years. Even a brand new track requires resurfacing after at most seven years, so this
method may be the best option for the track if no substantial repairs to the asphalt base are
needed. Another benefit of Method 1 is the timeline. Resurfacing can take as little as one month,
meaning the football and soccer teams are not prevented from using the infield for an extended
period during the summer. Additionally, the track and cross country teams will not be affected
during the competition seasons since the track can be resurfaced in the summer as soon as the
track season ends.

A major drawback of Method 1 is that resurfacing is only a temporary fix. Resurfacing does not
address potentially greater problems occurring to the asphalt base. Resurfacing will also not
restore the edges of lane eight to the original shape. Ultimately, MSSU will still be required to
replace the resilient surface of the track in the future. Resurfacing only delays this replacement
another three to five years.

3
Method 2: Replacing the Resilient Surface

A common method for extending the life of a track’s current surface is replacing the resilient
surface of the track. The primary benefit of Method 2 is that the method brings the track up to
date with current NCAA standards while addressing and fixing damages to the asphalt base,
thereby increasing the lifespan of the track.

Method 2 will begin with the removal of the current resilient track surface. Offerors of Method 2
will carefully remove the entire track surface by scraping off small, one to three square foot
sections. Careful attention will be given to not damage the existing asphalt base. Scraped off
sections of track will be loaded onto trucks and disposed of.

Once the current resilient track surface has been removed and disposed of, the asphalt base will
be cleaned and swept of debris. An inspection will then be made by the subcontracted entity with
an AHA architect and representative of MSSU present. Suggestions will be made based on the
condition of the asphalt. If repairs are necessary, asphalt will be brought in. Any cracks will be
filled in, and, if necessary, the entire asphalt base may be repaved.

Once the asphalt base is repaired, the base will be coated in primer. Barrels of primer will be
brought onto the track. Paint rollers are used to apply the primer to the base. The primer will then
be smoothed and leveled using a machine roller.

A mixer with a spray-style mix head will be used to mix the polyurethane and rubber to be used
as the base mat. Once the polyurethane and rubber has been mixed, the material will be poured
over the top of the primed asphalt base. A machine roller will pave the material until the base
mat measures 13 millimeters.

Once the base mat is dry, the layer will be cleaned. A seal will be applied over the surface of the
base mat and smoothed by hand using rubber brooms or rubber floats. Once the seal is dry, a
hand-push floor grinder will be pushed over the entire surface of the track to grind the seal down
until the whole seal layer is smooth, even, and level. Once the grinding is over, the seal layer will
be cleaned and swept.

A mixer with a spray-style mix head will be used to mix the polyurethane for the surface layer
until the material is ready to be sprayed. Some Offerors of Method 1 will use a large tank for
transporting and the polyurethane to the job site. Additionally, the tank can be used for mixing
the polyurethane on site. The polyurethane will be poured from the mixer into 55 gallon
janitorial trash cans. The polyurethane will then be poured from the trash cans into a spraying
machine.

After the polyurethane has been mixed and poured into a spraying machine, the polyurethane
will be sprayed side to side over the entire surface of the track. Offerors of Method 1 will be
careful not to let the polyurethane be sprayed off the track. Rubber brooms will be used to
distribute the polyurethane evenly across the track. Once the first layer of spray has dried, a
second layer will be applied using the same process.

4
Once the second layer of spray is dry, ASBA Certified Stripers will use a combination of striping
machines, number templates, and white polyurethane or latex paint to apply the markings to the
track. Stripers will follow the regulations set forth by the NCAA and World Athletics to apply all
necessary lines and graphics, at the correct placements, across the track surface. Lines
designating eight lanes around the track will be painted first using the striping machine, followed
by additional start and finish lines. Other graphics will be painted by hand using paintbrushes,
spray paint, and number or graphic templates.

Method 2 is the best option to increase the lifespan of the track. A new resilient track surface will
remain in good condition for up to 7 years before a resurfacing is needed. Additionally, the track
can go another two decades before the resilient surface needs replaced again. Method 2 is the
only method that can address and fix issues in the asphalt base, which may save MSSU money in
the long run. Small damages to the asphalt base, if fixed using Method 2, can be prevented from
becoming severe damages resulting in significant repair costs.

A drawback of Method 2 is the price. The additional costs of removing and replacing the
resilient track surface, as well as repairing the asphalt base, make Method 2 the most expensive
option. Another drawback is the timeline. Method 2 can take two to three months to complete,
which may cause issues for the soccer and football teams at MSSU. However, the potential
savings in future costs of conducting Method 2 may outweigh the drawbacks.

Potential Issues Affecting Work

Weather is the number one factor affecting work. Nighttime temperatures must be above 45°F
for work to begin. Additionally, work cannot be completed on days with rain or high amounts of
wind. Long sequences of bad weather during the summer months, when work will be conducted,
could affect the overall timeline of the project. Well prepared Offerors should have flexibility
planned into their schedules to finish the project before the fall semester begins.

Another potential issue affecting work would be the presence of severe damage or irregularities
in the asphalt base. If such damage is found, and was not caused by the subcontracted entities,
the track will be potentially hazardous to run on until the damage is fixed. Fixing severe damages
or irregularities would mean the entire asphalt base would need removed, substantially raising
the cost of the project. Well prepared Offerors should propose to examine the asphalt base before
beginning of construction to identify any potential signs of severe damage or irregularities that
may change the project plans.

Conclusion

Personnel and equipment for both methods are as expected. Some exceptions are noted in
method summaries where relevant.

5
MANAGEMENT SUMMARY

Abbott & Hewitt Architects (AHA), a division of Brown Research and Technology (BRT), is a
company that provides services in architectural design, engineering and construction
administration, landscape design, and design process. AHA is under contract to design and
oversee the improvement of the running track on the campus of Missouri Southern State
University (MSSU). The current track is outdated and can no longer meet the needs of the MSSU
track and field teams.

AHA discovered that the current track surface has formed excessive bubbles of air. Additionally,
the edge of lane eight has begun to break. The overall surface of the track is worn-out from
weather and excessive use. Although the track was originally built with approval from the
National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA), the current condition of the track surface does
not meet the modern NCAA standards. No track and field meets can be held on the campus of
MSSU until the current track surface is either improved or replaced.

The MANAGEMENT SUMMARY of this document contains overviews of timelines of, costs
of, and personnel used in implementing the three methods most likely to be proposed for
bringing the MSSU track up to date with current NCAA standards. As all three methods will
meet or exceed minimum work requirements, summaries are given here with exceptions to cost
and personnel highlighted as necessary.

Note on Permitting/Licensing

All methods discussed in this report will necessitate AHA/BRT to have obtained appropriate
licensing from the Missouri state Board For Architects, Professional Engineers, Professional
Land Surveyors and Professional Landscape Architects (APEPLSPLA). Due to the short timeline
required for the three proposed methods, no costs should arise to renew any licenses from the
APEPLSPLA. Proposing entities are required to be current ASBA Certified Track Builders and
Stripers. Due to MSSU’s status as a state university, no building permits are required from Jasper
County or the City of Joplin.

Method 1: Resurfacing and Repairing

Resurfacing and repairing the track is the most inexpensive method for bringing the track up to
date with current NCAA standards. The primary benefit of Method 1 is that the method requires
the least amount of personnel, as well as the least number of resources. Cost ranges for Method
1, depending on the costs determined by bidding entities, are $141,750-$206,500.

The cost estimates of Method 1 are derived as follows: annual inspection of running track:
$1,600-$5,000 (based on 16 years of annual inspections); patchwork and repairs: $50,000-
$100,000; 2 layers of polyurethane structural spray: $71,225-$93,500; striping: $5,500-$9,000.

Personnel for Method 1 will consist of AHA/BRT employed architects. The repair and
resurfacing work will consist of personnel under the jurisdiction of a subcontracted entity. All
personnel costs are included in the cost estimates outlined in the previous paragraph.

6
Timeline of Method 1 is approximately 1-2 months.

Method 2: Replacing the Resilient Surface

Replacing the resilient surface of the track is the most inexpensive option in the long term. The
primary benefit of Method 2 is that the method brings the track up to date with current NCAA
standards while addressing and fixing damages to the asphalt base. Method 2 replaces the
current, worn-down track surface with a new, more enduring surface. An additional benefit of
this replacement is the fact the new track will require less frequent repairs and resurfacing when
compared to the current track.

Cost ranges for Method 2, depending on the bidding entities’ costs, are $194,380-$254,300.

The cost estimates of Method 2 are derived as follows: annual inspection of running track:
$1,600-$5,000 (based on 16 years of annual inspections); removal and disposal of existing
synthetic surface: $8,800-$15,125; restoration of asphalt: $1,500-$10,950; installation of new
rubberized polyurethane base mat: $89,980-$137,500; 2 layers of polyurethane structural spray:
$71,225-$93,500; striping: $5,500-$9,000.

Personnel for Method 2 will consist of AHA/BRT employed architects. Replacing the resilient
surface of the track will consist of personnel under the jurisdiction of a subcontracted entity. All
personnel costs are included in the cost estimates outlined in the previous paragraph.

Timeline of Method 2 is approximately 2-3 months.

7
 Works Cited

American Athletic Track and Turf. “Things You Should Know About a Polyurethane Structural

Re-spray or Resurfacing for Synthetic Surface Running Tracks.”

https://www.trackandturf.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/Poly-ReSpray-What-to-

Know-1.pdf.

“APEPLSPLA.” Missouri Division of Professional Registration, https://pr.mo.gov/apelsla.asp.

Accessed 2 May 2021.

Boldt, Andrea. “About Running Track Surfaces.” livestrong.com,

https://www.livestrong.com/article/89533-running-track-surfaces/. Accessed 2 May 2021.

CGA Architects | Joplin, MO & Ardmore, OK. Corner Greer & Associates, Inc. Architects, 2021,

https://cornergreer.com/. Accessed 2 May 2021.

Duval County Public Schools. “Resurfacing and Repair of Athletic Tracks.” 4 Mar. 2021,

https://dcps.duvalschools.org/cms/lib/FL01903657/Centricity/Domain/4449/ITB-034-21-

LN%20RESURFACING%20AND%20REPAIR%20OF%20ATHLETIC

%20TRACKS.pdf.

“400m Running Track.” Dimensions.com, https://www.dimensions.com/element/track-and-field-

400m-running-track. Accessed 2 May 2021.

“How to pave wet pour athletic track,Sandwich system running track.” YouTube, uploaded by

Acappella Rubber Industries, 15 Oct. 2014, https://www.youtube.com/watch?

v=87VYknMyF1I&t=1s.

Linden Polyurethane Team. “The Key to Mixing Polyurethane: Precision and Consistency.”

Linden Polyurethane, 16 Dec. 2019, https://www.lindenindustries.com/blog/the-key-to-

mixing-polyurethane-precision-and-consistency/.

8
Narozanick, Bill. “Best Types of Running Track Surfaces for School Sports Facilities.”

American Athletic Track and Turf, https://trackandturf.com/best-types-of-running-track-

surfaces-for-school-sports-facilities/. Accessed 2 May 2021.

National Collegiate Athletic Association. “Rule 1 / Construction of Facilities.” Field Diagram

Track and Field.pdf,

https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/research_and_citation/mla_style/mla_formatting_and_style_g

uide/mla_works_cited_other_common_sources.html.

“NRG Track Systems.” General Sports Surfaces, https://generalsportssurfaces.com/track/track-

surfaces/. Accessed 2 May 2021.

“Process.” All American Tracks Corp., http://www.allamericantracks.com/process.html.

Accessed 2 May 2021.

“Products – Spec 2.” Playsafe Surfacing, LLC, http://playsafesurfacingllc.com/spec-2/. Accessed

2 May 2021.

Raymore-Peculiar School District. “Raymore-Peculiar School District Request for Proposal

(RFP): Panther Stadium Track Resurfacing.”

http://www.raypec.k12.mo.us/DocumentCenter/View/18132/Track-Resurface-2019?

bidId=. Accessed 2 May 2021.

Regional District of North Okanagan. “Request for Proposal Documents for the Regional District

of North Okanagan Athletic Park Synthetic Running Track Surfacing Project.” Mar.

2014, http://www.rdno.ca/tenders/140403_RFP_2014-10_Synthetic_Running_Track.pdf

“Running Track Construction.” Sport Surfaces LLC,

https://sportsurfaces.com/construction/running-track-construction/. Accessed 2 May

2021.

9
“Running Track Resurfacing.” Sport Surfaces LLC,

https://sportsurfaces.com/resurfacing/running-track-resurfacing/. Accessed 2 May 2021.

“Sports Surfaces: Running Track Design & Construction.” Snyder & Associates,

https://www.snyder-associates.com/webinars/sports-surfaces-running-track-design-

construction/. Accessed 2 May 2021.

“Track and Field Surfacing or Resurfacing – IAAF.” YouTube, uploaded by sprayforcemfg, 16

Aug. 2019, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oj-KVjeHTvo.

“Track Division.” American Sports Builders Association,

https://sportsbuilders.org/page/TrackDivision. Accessed 2 May 2021.

“Track.” SMG Sportplatzmaschinenbau GmbH, https://www.smg-gmbh.de/en/products/track.

Accessed 2 May 2021.

“Time to Fix Your Running Track?” Competition Athletic Surfaces Inc., 7 May 2013,

https://competitionathleticsurfaces.com/pages/news/time-to-fix-your-running-track.php.

“Where Performance Meets Durability.” Keystone Sports Construction,

https://keystonesportsconstruction.com/running-track-surfaces/. Accessed 2 May 2021.

10