Long delays because of changes to design work and a rejigged tendering process for the Minoru Centre for Active Living are at the heart of a lawsuit between the builder, Stuart Olson, and the City of Richmond.
In early February, Stuart Olson launched a civil suit against the City of Richmond, claiming the city’s actions caused two years of delay in the $84-million project. The builder demanded $7 million in compensation.
The city, however, contends Stuart Olson was paid $6 million to manage the project and that the city relied on its advice in making decisions on the project.
While Stuart Olson claimed the city was responsible for design work, through its consultant architecture firm HCMA, the city countered that the construction company was supposed to review and give input at various stages of the project to make sure the drawings and specifications were “clear, consistent, constructible and coordinated.”
Stuart Olson also lists design-related actions they say the city was supposed to do – remedy errors, coordinate work of consultants, as well as get permits and approvals, among other things – but the city claims these were the responsibility of Stuart Olson.
In its lawsuit, Stuart Olson claims they should have been compensated for the extended time line, saying the delays were the fault of the city or its consultant, the architectural firm HCMA.
But, in response, the city counters that the contract with Stuart Olson limited the city’s responsibility vis-à-vis delays.
A slowdown in construction also seems to be tied to the tendering of the project, which was split into three broad areas: underground work, building construction and finishing work.
Bids for the building construction and finishing work came in so much higher than budgeted the city said it couldn’t proceed.
It was decided to split two of the three tender packages into nine to lower the cost – the city claims this was on advice from Stuart Olson. However, Stuart Olson claims it was done because of design “delays, deficiencies, errors, omissions and changes” in the project.
None of these claims have been proven in court.
