Architects file counterclaim about Pete

Responding to Pitt’s recent lawsuit concerning the Petersen Events Center, architectural firm… Responding to Pitt’s recent lawsuit concerning the Petersen Events Center, architectural firm Apostolo/ Rosser International has filed a counterclaim against Pitt and the state Department of General Services.

The firm, a target of Pitt’s recent lawsuit, has placed the blame for problems with the Petersen Events Center on Pitt and General Services.

“Apostolou/ Rosser acted with all due care under the circumstances, properly performed its services and the delays, disruptions, interferences and/or additional costs on [the] project were not caused by Apostolou/ Rosser,” the firm said in the counterclaim.

The firm, a combination of the Mount Washington-based Apostolou Associates and Atlanta-based Rosser International, said it performed its services in a proper manner and did not “breach professional standards,” as Pitt and General Services suggested in their original suit.

Apostolou/ Rosser denied all of the numerous allegations filed by Pitt and the Department of General Services, and it blamed Pitt and General Services for any damages to the Petersen Events Center.

Some of the original allegations against Apostolou/ Rosser include “committing numerous design errors, and providing contract documents with deficiencies and defects requiring extensive and costly modifications or alterations to correct,” “preparing and issuing contract documents in an incomplete, improper and untimely manner,” and “delaying, disrupting and/or interfering with the work of the prime contractors.”

In the counterclaim, Apostolou/ Rosser claims that General Services changed the proposed location of the Petersen Events Center, enlarged it, and accelerated the design and construction schedule after initially contracting the firm. The result of these changes caused the overall cost of the project to skyrocket, the firm alleges.

In June 1999, Apostolou/ Rosser said it gave Pitt and General Services a construction cost estimate of $68,506,797 for the Petersen Events Center. The firm claims it was instructed to meet the original state budget of $55 million for the project, regardless of additions to the project desired by Pitt and directed by General Services.

Apostolou/ Rosser said it made “numerous suggestions regarding design adjustments/ alternatives to reduce the cost,” but Pitt and General Services rejected them.

“The DGS and the University of Pittsburgh unreasonably refused to participate in or permit changes that could substantially decrease the cost of the project,” the firm said in the counterclaim.

The firm also said it should have received an extension to the design schedule because of the delays caused by value engineering and the requested re-design.

But Apostolou/ Rosser said General Services would not extend the construction schedule. As a result, the firm said, it had to complete six months of work in a three-month period. The rushed schedule caused the firm to hire extra employees, it said in the counterclaim, and forced personnel to work more hours to finish the project in the shorter amount of time.

“The design team has not been compensated for this extra effort,” the firm said.

Apostolou/ Rosser said Pitt was able to use the Petersen Events Center three months earlier than it could have without the rush. It claims the early opening reduced costs to other facilities and produced revenue for Pitt through various activities hosted at the Petersen Events Center.

“This additional three months of savings from other facilities and income from the facility was received unjustly by the University of Pittsburgh and at the detriment of Apostolou/ Rosser, through the performance of their services,” the firm said.

To compensate for its financial loss, Apostolou/ Rosser requested “in excess of the Court’s jurisdictional amount of $25,000, together with costs and other relief to which it is justly entitled,” according to the claim.

Pitt spokesperson John Fedele said the University had no comment.