'Chaotic Workflow': Plaza Construction Accused of Mismanaging Miami's Paraiso Bay Project
Electrical subcontractor Dynalectric Co. says it's owed more than $1.9 million for extra work it had to do because of multiple design changes to the Edgewater condominium tower.
December 06, 2018 at 02:23 PM
4 minute read
The Paraiso Bay electrical subcontractor says it's owed more than $1.9 million for its work on the condominium tower after Plaza Construction allegedly mismanaged the project and didn't allot additional time for extra work arising from design changes.
Dynalectric Co., a subsidiary of Connecticut-based infrastructure company EMCOR Group Inc., was hired through a $5.3 million contract with New York-based general contractor Plaza Construction in 2014 for electrical work on the now-finished 53-story building that's part of the four-tower Paraiso complex in Miami's trendy Edgewater.
“Plaza's failure to extend the contract time for the project delays and impacts placed unrelenting pressure on Dynalectric to meet unrealistic and artificial completion dates. … Dynalectric was forced to work extensive overtime and to increase its manpower to levels not anticipated of foreseen by Dynalectric when the contract was awarded,” Dynalectric says in its Nov. 14 lawsuit against Plaza.
Plaza President Brad Meltzer said his firm will defend itself.
“Plaza Construction has meritorious defenses and cannot comment further on this pending litigation,” he said in part in an emailed statement.
Dynalectric's attorney, R. Steven Holt of Katz Barron in Fort Lauderdale, didn't return a request for comment.
Plaza isn't entirely to blame for the design changes, as many likely came from the developer and architect, Dyanalectric said in its Miami-Dade Circuit Court complaint. But the company said Plaza didn't give extra time to finish the work, didn't properly respond to requests for work changes Dynalectric turned in and mismanaged the project by giving directions orally to control the work instead of using the proper scheduling system.
“The result was a chaotic workflow,” according to the complaint.
Plaza issued 13 major project design changes, most of which affected electrical work, and Dynalectric made more than 250 change orders, which are requests for extra payment or more time that the general contractor submits to the developer. Dynalectric says its contract required Plaza to review these change orders as soon as it gets them and to reply promptly. Yet, Dynalectric says, some of the change orders still are pending.
Plaza “demanded direct cost concessions that were unfair and unwarranted as a condition to funding any costs at all. … Plaza effectively held Dynalectric hostage, withholding funding for long periods and demanding arbitrary price reductions,” according to the complaint.
Aside from how Plaza managed the project, Dynalectric also is taking issue with how Plaza represented things versus the reality. Plaza held out the prospect that Dynalectric would be treated fairly and that there would be a “fair resolution of the impact and inefficiency costs caused by the changes and the mismanagement by Plaza. At the same time, according to the complaint, Plaza's contract with the developer spelled out a delays payment recourse for Plaza — but none for subcontractors like Dynalectric.
Plaza also had levied similar accusations against the developer. On Aug. 24, 2017, it sued site owner PRH NE 31st Street LLC, an affiliate of Paraiso complex developer, Miami-based The Related Group, seeking to get paid for the extra work it had to do stemming from the many design changes. PRH NE 31st Street denied the claims and counter-sued alleging Plaza had a $115 million guaranteed maximum price for the contract that could be increased only under certain conditions. It also in part accused Plaza of not finishing the project on time, meaning Plaza owes liquidated damages; not hiring a competent project manager and adequately skilled staff; and not meeting contract and governmental construction requirements, including the Florida Building Code.
The suit was dismissed Feb. 27, 2018, after Plaza and PRH NE reached a settlement, which remains sealed.
Dynalectric claims it should have been included in the settlement but instead was kept in the dark, contrary to both its contract and standard practice.
Dynalectric says some of the changes that made for extra work on the building at 650 NE 31st St. included numerous late design changes to electrical and fire alarm systems; foundation work-related and pool deck lighting design delays; and late, incomplete and defective electrical and fire alarm designs.
Dynalectric argues that its understanding when it signed on for the job was that project designs were finished.
The claims include breach of contract and breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing counts, as well as a quantum meruit count seeking Plaza to pay for Dynalectric's extra work.
Related stories:
Gran Paraiso Developer Sues Over Tower Crane That Collapsed During Hurricane Irma
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllVedder Price Shareholder Javier Lopez Appointed to Miami Planning, Zoning & Appeals Board
2 minute readReal Estate Trends to Watch in 2025: Restructuring, Growth, and Challenges in South Florida
3 minute read830 Brickell is Open After Two-Year Delay That Led to Winston & Strawn Pulling Lease
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Law Firms Expand Scope of Immigration Expertise, Amid Blitz of Trump Orders
- 2Latest Boutique Combination in Florida Continues Am Law 200 Merger Activity
- 3Sarno da Costa D’Aniello Maceri LLC Announces Addition of New Office in Eatontown, NJ, and Named Partner
- 4Friday Newspaper
- 5Public Notices/Calendars
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250