Connect with us

Miami, Florida Local News

Battle with developer may slow new Miami-Dade Courthouse

[ad_1]

Written by Richard Battin on April 2, 2024

Advertisement

Battle with developer may slow new Miami-Dade Courthouse

Money issues may strangle a planned October completion of the new county Civil and Probate Courthouse on Flagler Street downtown as Miami-Dade and the builder trade claims.

Mediation Feb. 7 “resulted in an impasse,” said Kathy Labrada, chief efficiency and compliance officer for the Internal Services Department. The matter is slated for review in late April.

Builder Plenary Justice Miami has “submitted claims for additional compensation” totaling $19.5 million and time extensions, according to a February report by Mayor Daniella Levine Cava.

Plenary blamed its more-time, more-money claim on the need to move a redundant FPL line “serving the Metrorail,” the mayor’s report says, and the “connection/relocation of the chilled water pipe system.”

Her report calls Plenary’s claims “purported.” The company seeks a 266-day extension to finish work. The building will replace the current courthouse next door, built in 1924.

“It is important to note” the mayor’s report says, “that these claims precede all construction activities on the site.”

Plenary also seeks an added $868,000 for wages. The county rejects that, as it does all of Plenary’s claims, noting that the contract “specifies that labor wage rates would be reviewed annually and increased, if appropriate.”

Plenary also wants $2.6 million for “delayed profits … because the county will not begin making payments until the building is made ready for occupancy.”

Miami-Dade has counterclaims. Plenary failed “to adhere to design and construction requirements stipulated in the contract,” the mayor asserts, and also failed “to identify the existence of the power line.”

The county has accused Plenary of “failure to fulfill contractual responsibilities,” particularly “the permitting and the relocation of utilities, which were explicitly designated as the developer’s responsibility.” The county’s counterclaim is about $16 million.

[ad_2]

Richard Battin

Source link