Miami Beach Sued for $70M by Contractor on Unfinished Convention Center
The city has issued a notice of default to Clark Construction Group and claims the city is entitled to damages.
January 30, 2020 at 04:25 PM
4 minute read
The construction manager for the massive Miami Beach Convention Center redevelopment claims the city owes over $70 million for extra work resulting from the city's many designs changes.
Clark Construction Group LLC was hired as construction manager in 2015 agreement for the $515 million renovation and expansion project. It includes 500,000 square feet of exhibit walls, meeting rooms and support space plus a 60,000-square-foot ballroom, rooftop parking, and landscaping and road work.
In a lawsuit filed Wednesday, the Bethesda, Maryland-based builder claimed the city issued multiple changes to design drawings and agreed to some of the extra costs but declined many others. The city also declined to grant Clark all the extra time it needed to complete the work, leaving the contractor to either push to finish in time for major events or work around them.
Clark and its subcontractors "incurred significantly increased construction costs and delays as the city made hundreds of design changes throughout the project," company attorney Etan Mark said.
Most of the $70 million allegedly due is for payments to subcontractors, said Mark, managing principal at Mark Migdal & Hayden in Miami. Virginia-based Banker Steel Co. already sued Clark.
The city maintains Clark is at fault for completion delays and the city is entitled to damages.
"I find it shocking, given that Clark Construction has delayed this project for nearly 1.5 years and has yet to finish, that they have the gall to file a lawsuit against us," City Manager Jimmy Morales said by email. "Frankly, the city is the one entitled to damages, not Clark."
Morales added he won't litigate the issue "through the newspapers" and looks to its "day in court."
The city is hosting an NFL showcase in conjunction with Sunday's Super Bowl LIV and hosted Art Basel last December at the center at 1901 Convention Center Drive.
It held these and other events without a certificate of occupancy and generated revenue without paying Clark as it continues to work toward completion, Mark said.
Morales didn't address whether the center has a certificate of occupancy.
The lawsuit also named the city's representative, Hill International Inc., which was hired to monitor and manage the project, claiming it wrongly advised the city to reject proposed change orders. The city followed Hill's recommendations, the suit claims.
Hill International had no comment by deadline.
The city, which was responsible for the design, hired Clark when design documents were 65% complete. From those plans, Clark generated the $515.5 million guaranteed maximum price and June 30, 2018, substantial completion date, according to the complaint.
When the city provided the finished design, it wasn't based on what it already had given Clark or the $515 million agreed price, the company maintains. The city allegedly kept revising designs, essentially increasing project costs.
The city agreed in January 2017 to increase the guaranteed maximum price by nearly $40 million and push back the completion deadline to Aug. 8, 2018. The city allotted a 15-day extension to account for Hurricane Irma but six months later didn't allow for Clark's 39 other extension requests.
The city piled on more design changes, including eight issued after the completion deadline, according to the complaint. One required the addition of a connection such as an escalator or elevator between the ballroom and exhibit space.
When Clark requested clarifications, the city responded with more changes, the complaint said.
The city issued a notice of default to Clark and threatened to levy $15,000 a day in liquidated damages over deadline lapses, the complaint said.
"It's obviously Clark's position that that's the city's fault, not Clark's fault," Mark said. "Clark is continuing to work there because they want to finish the job and want to finish what it is they promised to do."
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
© 2024 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 AllFowler White Burnett Opens Jacksonville Office Focused on Transportation Practice
3 minute readHow Much Coverage Do You Really Have? Valuation and Loss Settlement Provisions in Commercial Property Policies
10 minute readThe Importance of 'Speaking Up' Regarding Lease Renewal Deadlines for Commercial Tenants and Landlords
6 minute readMeet the Attorneys—and Little Known Law—Behind $20M Miami Dispute
Trending Stories
- 1Call for Nominations: Elite Trial Lawyers 2025
- 2Senate Judiciary Dems Release Report on Supreme Court Ethics
- 3Senate Confirms Last 2 of Biden's California Judicial Nominees
- 4Morrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
- 5Tom Girardi to Surrender to Federal Authorities on Jan. 7
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
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