7/18/1995 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

FFF-- BOOK 95 FACE 54 Goodwin, Alexander, and Linville of Tampa, Florida. In turn, the architect engaged as its civil engineer L. Robert Kimball & Associates, Inc. (f/k/a Kimball -Lloyd, Inc.) who had an office in Vero Beach, Florida. The Construction Manager is Centex Rooney Construction Co., Inc. Local building requirements require on site retention of stormwater for a specified period. To this end, the contract contained specifications to provide compliance with these stormwater retention requirements. Specifically, Section 02724 entitled "Stormwater Underdrain Systems" was included in the specifications. Among other things, this section required that: The leaching chambers shall be as manufactured by the Infiltrator" Systems, Inc., Old Saybrook, Connecticut; Hancor, Inc . , Findlay, Ohio or approved equal. The contractor or his subcontractor for this particular phase of the project (Martin Paving Co.) or Martin's sub -subcontractor selected the "Infiltrator Systems". The Civil Drawings prepared by Kimball -Lloyd, Inc., as civil engineer for the project indicated 3 infiltrator beds. The drawings called for Bed #1 west of the Courthouse, Bed #2 east of the Courthouse and adjacent to the Judge's parking apron and Bed #3 south of the parking garage During the course of construction these three beds were installed. Beds #2 and #3 failed in that the infiltrators were apparently crushed and the soils subsided. The original infiltrator units were removed and replaced. As a consequence of the removal of Bed #2 it was discovered that the concrete apron and trellis installed thereon was not constructed in accordance with. contract documents. This necessitated the removal and replacement of the concrete apron of the Judge's parking lot and the trellis. The Claimant, J.A. Cummings on behalf of Martin Paving Inc . , now seeks to have the County pay for the replacement of the failed Beds #2 and #3 and for the replacement of the improperly installed Judge's parking lot apron and trellis. They are seeking a total of $277,967.00 in damages from the County. An objective analysis will show that the following explanations exist as to why the infiltrators failed: - 1. J.A. Cummings failed -to protect the work area as required by the contract documents. 2. Martin Paving failed to properly install the infiltration beds. 3. The product manufactured by Infiltrator failed. Under 1) and 2) there would be no cause of action against the County. Under 3) the owner (County) could be held responsible to the contractor because the specifications indicated that "Infiltrator" was a suitable product for the stormwater underdrain system. It should be noted that Martin Paving could also proceed in court against Infiltrator rather than the County. An objective analysis of the claim for repair for the improperly installed judges' parking lot would show no County responsibility whatsoever. On June 16, 1995 the County, architect, engineer and vendor (Infiltrator) met in a mediation session with Cummings/Martin at their request. The mediation failed. Cummings/Martin would not provide any information as to the breakdown of the demand for $277,976.00. 54 July 18, 1995 a