Case 3:19-cv-21248-BRM-LHG Document 1 Filed 12/10/19 Page 1 of 25 PageID: 1
`
`
`
`FOX ROTHSCHILD LLP
`Formed in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
`By:
`Sarah B. Biser (#024661991)
`
`Jeffrey M. Pollock (#015751987)
`Princeton Pike Corporate Center
`997 Lenox Drive
`Lawrenceville, NJ 08648
`Tel: 646.601.7636 / Fax: 212.692.0940
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`The Trustees of Princeton University
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
`
`
`
`THE TRUSTEES OF PRINCETON
`UNIVERSITY,
`
` Plaintiff,
`
` v.
`
`TOD WILLIAMS BILLIE TSIEN
`ARCHITECTS, LLP; JACOBS
`ARCHITECTS/ENGINEERS, INC.; and
`JACOBS CONSULTANCY INC.,
`
` Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`:
`
`
`
` Civil Action No. ________________
`
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT &
`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`
`(Document Electronically Filed)
`
`Plaintiff, The Trustees of Princeton University (“Princeton” or “Plaintiff”), a private,
`
`non-profit educational institution, brings this Complaint against Defendants Tod Williams Billie
`
`Tsien Architects, LLP (“TWBTA”), Jacobs Architects/Engineers, Inc., and Jacobs Consultancy
`
`Inc. (collectively, “Jacobs” or the “Jacobs Entities”) (the three defendants are referred to
`
`collectively herein as “Defendants”), and states and alleges as follows:
`
`
`Active\105828599.v1-12/10/19
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-21248-BRM-LHG Document 1 Filed 12/10/19 Page 2 of 25 PageID: 2
`
`
`
`
`
`NATURE OF THE CASE
`
`1.
`
`Defendants are design professionals engaged by, or on behalf of, Princeton to
`
`provide professional design services related to the design and construction of The Andlinger
`
`Center for Energy and the Environment (“Andlinger” or the “Project”). Princeton engaged
`
`TWBTA to serve as the project architect, and TWBTA, in turn, engaged Jacobs as engineering
`
`sub-consultants for the design of the Project as well as other sub-consultants who are not named
`
`herein.
`
`2.
`
`Defendants TWBTA and Jacobs (collectively, the “Design Team”) failed to
`
`perform their professional design responsibilities in accordance with the prevailing standard of
`
`care, resulting in unnecessary and excessive additional costs and extensive project delays.
`
`Further, the Design Team failed to meet the Schedule Milestones set forth in the prime design
`
`contract and failed to design to budget as contractually required and, therefore, breached their
`
`contracts. By this action, Princeton seeks to recover the damages it has incurred as a result of
`
`Defendants’ professional negligence and breach of contract.
`
`3.
`
`Princeton is a non-profit educational institution, existing under the laws of the
`
`THE PARTIES
`
`State of New Jersey, with its principal place of business located at One Nassau Hall, Princeton
`
`University, Princeton, New Jersey 08544.
`
`4.
`
`Upon information and belief, TWBTA is a limited liability partnership organized
`
`under the laws of the State of New York, with its principal place of business located at 222
`
`Central Park South, New York, New York 10019. TWBTA provided architectural services
`
`related to the Project.
`
`
`Active\105828599.v1-12/10/19
`
`-2-
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-21248-BRM-LHG Document 1 Filed 12/10/19 Page 3 of 25 PageID: 3
`
`
`
`5.
`
`Upon information and belief, Jacobs Architects/Engineers, Inc. (“Jacobs
`
`Architects/Engineers”) is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Delaware, with
`
`its principal place of business located at 777 Main Street, Fort Worth, Texas 76102. Jacobs
`
`Architects/Engineers was a sub-consultant of TWBTA that provided engineering services related
`
`to the Project, specifically with respect to scientific laboratory spaces.
`
`6.
`
`Upon information and belief, Jacobs Consultancy Inc. (“Jacobs Consultancy”) is
`
`a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Texas, with its principal place of business
`
`located at 5995 Rogerdale Road, Houston, Texas 77072 and an office located at 100 Walnut
`
`Avenue, Suite 604, Clark, NJ 07066. Jacobs Consultancy was a sub-consultant of TWBTA that
`
`provided engineering services related to the Project, specifically with respect to scientific
`
`laboratory spaces.
`
`
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`7.
`
`This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action pursuant to 28
`
`U.S.C. §1332, as there is complete diversity between the parties and the amount in controversy
`
`exceeds $75,000.00, exclusive of interest and costs.
`
`8.
`
`The Court has personal jurisdiction over TWBTA because TWBTA has
`
`contractually consented to such jurisdiction. Article XVII (c) of the agreement to perform
`
`architectural design services for the Project entered into between Princeton and TWBTA, dated
`
`February 12, 2009 (the “Design Contract”) provides for the exclusive jurisdiction in the State or
`
`Federal courts of New Jersey for actions arising under the Design Contract. Further, this Court
`
`has personal jurisdiction over TWBTA because it conducted business in the state and Plaintiff’s
`
`cause of action relates to and arises out of the business that it conducted in the state, and it has
`
`
`Active\105828599.v1-12/10/19
`
`-3-
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-21248-BRM-LHG Document 1 Filed 12/10/19 Page 4 of 25 PageID: 4
`
`
`
`availed itself of New Jersey laws by negotiating the Design Contract and performing the design
`
`services required as Project architect for the Project.
`
`9.
`
`The Court has personal jurisdiction over Jacobs Architects/Engineers because it
`
`has consented to jurisdiction pursuant to Section 8.2 of its agreement with TWBTA, whereby
`
`Jacobs Architects/Engineers agreed to participate in whatever dispute resolution process for this
`
`matter to which TWBTA is a party or participant. In addition, the Court has personal jurisdiction
`
`over Jacobs Architects/Engineers because it conducted business in the state and Plaintiff’s cause
`
`of action relates to and arises out of the business that it conducted in the state, and it has availed
`
`itself of New Jersey laws by performing engineering services required for the Project.
`
`10.
`
`The Court has personal jurisdiction over Jacobs Consultancy because it has
`
`consented to jurisdiction pursuant to Section 8.2 of its agreement with TWBTA, whereby Jacobs
`
`Consultancy agreed to participate in whatever dispute resolution process for this matter to which
`
`TWBTA is a party or participant. In addition, the Court has personal jurisdiction over Jacobs
`
`Consultancy because it conducted business in the state and Plaintiff’s cause of action relates to
`
`and arises out of the business that it conducted in the state, and it has availed itself of New Jersey
`
`laws by performing engineering services required for the Project.
`
`11.
`
`Venue is proper in the District of New Jersey pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1391(b)(2).
`
`ALLEGATIONS COMMON TO ALL COUNTS
`
`12.
`
`In 2008, Princeton issued an RFP for the design and construction of the Andlinger
`
`Center for Energy and the Environment, a state-of-the-art, 129,000 square foot facility for
`
`research and teaching in the areas of sustainable energy-technology development, energy
`
`efficiency, and environmental protection and remediation. Andlinger would bring together
`
`faculty members from various departments and interdisciplinary centers, including Chemical
`
`
`Active\105828599.v1-12/10/19
`
`-4-
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-21248-BRM-LHG Document 1 Filed 12/10/19 Page 5 of 25 PageID: 5
`
`
`
`Engineering, Electrical Engineering, Civil and Environmental Engineering, Mechanical and
`
`Aerospace Engineering, and the Princeton Institute for Science and Technology of Materials,
`
`among others, in a world-class facility devoted to research and teaching in the areas of energy
`
`and the environment.
`
`13.
`
`On or about February 12, 2009, Princeton engaged TWBTA to perform
`
`architectural design services for the Project pursuant to the Design Contract. A copy of the
`
`contract between Princeton and TWBTA for Design Services for the Andlinger Center for
`
`Energy & Environment, Contract No. FC0003914W, dated February 12, 2009, is attached hereto
`
`as Exhibit A.
`
`14.
`
`In order to perform and complete the design services necessary for the Project,
`
`TWBTA engaged Jacobs Architects/Engineers and Jacobs Consultancy as well as other sub-
`
`consultants.
`
`15.
`
`On or about July 11, 2011, Princeton engaged F.J. Sciame Construction, Inc.
`
`(“Construction Manager”), to act as construction manager to construct the Project.
`
`16.
`
`Project design commenced in 2009. Construction commenced in 2012 and was
`
`substantially completed on January 1, 2016.
`
`The Design Contract
`
`17.
`
`The Design Contract sets forth the terms of the agreement between Princeton and
`
`TWBTA, including setting forth the standard of care.
`
`18.
`
`Article VI(a) of the Design Contract, which established the Standard of Care,
`
`provides that:
`
`Standard of Care. Architect-Engineer shall perform the Services
`hereunder this Agreement in accordance with the standards of skill and
`care generally exercised by other design professionals in the same locale
`acting under similar circumstances and conditions.
`
`
`Active\105828599.v1-12/10/19
`
`-5-
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-21248-BRM-LHG Document 1 Filed 12/10/19 Page 6 of 25 PageID: 6
`
`
`
`19.
`
`Article VI(b) (Project Administration Services) of the Design Contract, which
`
`sets forth TWBTA’s administration obligations, provides that:
`
`Project Administration Services. The Architect-Engineer shall provide
`all project administration services necessary to facilitate the orderly
`progress of
`the Project,
`including attending Project meetings,
`communicating with others as appropriate, monitoring progress and
`issuing progress reports to Princeton University, supervising Architect-
`Engineer’s in-house personnel, directing Architect-Engineer’s Consultants
`and coordinating and managing information flow and decision-making.
`(Emphasis supplied).
`
`20.
`
`Article VI(d) (Project Cost Control) of the Design Contract provides that:
`
`(1) Duty to Design the Project Within the Construction Budget.
`Architect-Engineer shall design the Project so that the Construction Cost
`to construct the Project in accordance with the Construction Documents
`prepared by the Architect-Engineer and its Consultants does not exceed
`the Construction Budget. The Architect-Engineer acknowledges that the
`Construction Budget includes adequate provision for the construction of
`all elements of the Project designed by or specified by the Architect-
`Engineer and its Consultants as contemplated by the Project Description
`attached as Part II of the Contract.
`
`21.
`
`Article VI(f) (Coordinated Services) of the Design Contract, which sets forth
`
`TWBTA’s obligations to coordinate its services and those of its sub-consultants, provides that:
`
`Coordinated Services. The Architect-Engineer acknowledges that it is
`essential that all Services in connection with the Project be coordinated,
`including services provided by Princeton University. The Architect-
`Engineer shall coordinate the services of all its architects, engineers, Basic
`Consultants and Specialized Consultants for the Project, shall review and
`check all drawings and specifications prepared by architects, engineers,
`Basic Consultants and Specialized Consultants for the Project, and shall
`make modifications as necessary, to assure that they are integrated into a
`coordinated and complete set of documents prior to each submission. In
`addition, the Architect-Engineer shall coordinate its Services with services
`provided by Princeton University and Princeton University’s in-house
`architects.
`
`22.
`
`Article VII(f) (Construction Documents Phase Services) of the Design Contract
`
`provides, at Article VII(f)(3), that:
`
`
`Active\105828599.v1-12/10/19
`
`-6-
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-21248-BRM-LHG Document 1 Filed 12/10/19 Page 7 of 25 PageID: 7
`
`
`
`Drawings. Drawings shall document the scope of work and details for the
`project, and shall be coordinated both internally, with the Consultants, and
`with the specifications. Construction Documents shall, in accordance with
`the Standard of Care set forth in Article VI(a), be in compliance with those
`codes, ordinances, statutes, regulations and laws applicable to the
`Architect-Engineer’s Services, except
`to
`the extent expressly and
`specifically stated in detail in writing by Architect-Engineer at the time of
`such submission.
`
`23.
`
`Article VII(h) (Construction Phase Services – Administration of the
`
`Construction Contract) of the Design Contract, which sets forth the requirements for
`
`TWBTA’s services during the Construction Phase, provides, among other things, that TWBTA
`
`shall:
`
`(i) administer the contract between Princeton and the Contractor in
`accordance with the Construction Documents;
`
`(ii) respond to requests for information by way of sketches or other
`supplemental instructions without causing construction delays and within
`the time agreed to between Contractor and the Architect-Engineer, but
`shall not result in construction delays; and
`
`(iii) revise the Construction Documents due to, among other things, a
`reasonable number of Princeton’s proposed changes to the Construction
`Documents.
`
`24.
`
`Article VII(h)(4)(ii) (Due to Architect-Engineer’s Error) of the Design Contract
`
`also provides, in relevant part, that changes to Construction Documents caused by TWBTA’s
`
`error, omission or failure to coordinate must be made promptly and at no additional cost to
`
`Princeton:
`
`[i]f the Construction Documents must be changed to correct Architect-
`Engineer’s error, omission, or failure to coordinate the drawings and
`specifications comprising
`the Construction Documents, Architect-
`Engineer will make the change promptly upon becoming aware of the
`need for a correction, as part of its Basic Services, and at no additional
`cost to Princeton University. Architect-Engineer will work with Princeton
`University and the Contractor to minimize the impact of the resulting
`changes on the cost of the Project and the Construction Schedule.
`
`
`Active\105828599.v1-12/10/19
`
`-7-
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-21248-BRM-LHG Document 1 Filed 12/10/19 Page 8 of 25 PageID: 8
`
`
`
`25.
`
`Article VII(h)(10) (Submittals) of the Design Contract provides, in relevant part,
`
`that TWBTA shall review all submittals, including shop drawings, product data, and samples,
`
`within ten (10) days of receipt of first submissions and subsequent submittals of same, and that
`
`the shop drawing review process shall not be used by the Architect-Engineer to enhance or
`
`modify the design of the project. Article VII(h)(10) provides:
`
`Submittals. The Architect-Engineer shall review and/or approve the
`Contractor’s submittals such as shop drawings, product data and samples.
`The Architect-Engineer’s action shall be taken within ten (10) working
`days of receipt of first submissions and subsequent submittals, unless a
`shorter period is agreed to with respect to particular submittals. Review of
`such submittals is not conducted for the purpose of determining accuracy
`and completeness of other details such as dimensions and quantities or for
`substantiating instructions for installation or performance of equipment or
`systems by the Contractors, all of which remain the responsibility of the
`Contractor. The Architect-Engineer’s review shall not constitute approval
`of safety precautions or programs, or of construction means, methods,
`techniques, sequences or procedures. The Architect-Engineer’s approval
`of a specific item shall not indicate approval of an assembly of which the
`item is a component. When professional certification of performance
`characteristics of materials, systems or equipment is required by the
`Construction Documents, the Architect-Engineer shall be entitled to rely
`upon such certification to establish that the material, systems or equipment
`will meet
`the performance criteria required by
`the Construction
`Documents. The shop drawing review process shall not be used by the
`Architect-Engineer to enhance or modify the design of the project.
`
`26.
`
`Article VII(d), (e), (f), (g), and (h) of the Design Contract further required
`
`TWBTA to provide its services in accordance with customary milestones broken down between
`
`the design phase, bidding and negotiation phase, and construction phase as follows:
`
`During the Schematic Design Phase, TWBTA would submit
`(i)
`Schematic Design Documents
`that
`included, among other
`things,
`preliminary architectural, mechanical, electrical, civil, and landscape
`designs within the prescribed Construction Budget of $102,290,000.00 for
`Princeton’s review and approval;
`
`During the Design Development Phase, TWBTA would submit
`(ii)
`Design Development Documents that included, among other things,
`architectural, mechanical, electrical, civil, and landscape designs that
`
`
`Active\105828599.v1-12/10/19
`
`-8-
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-21248-BRM-LHG Document 1 Filed 12/10/19 Page 9 of 25 PageID: 9
`
`
`
`established the final scope of each discipline for Princeton’s review and
`approval;
`
`(iii) During the Construction Documents Phase, TWBTA would submit
`Construction Documents
`that
`included, among other
`things, fully
`coordinated drawings documenting the scope and detail for the Project;
`
`(iv) During the Bidding and Negotiation Phase TWBTA would, among
`other things, assist Princeton in evaluating and awarding bids to
`contractors to construct the Project; and
`
`During the Construction Phase, TWBTA would, among other
`(v)
`things, review contractor submittals including shop drawings, respond to
`questions from the contractor concerning the design, prepare further
`sketches and direction to the contractor, attend project meetings, review
`the contractor’s applications for payment, and regularly visit the site and
`review the progress and quality of construction, and report back to
`Princeton.
`
`27.
`
`Article VI(e)(3) (Consultant Agreements) of the Design Contract requires
`
`TWBTA to include a provision in its subcontracts with consultants, like the Jacobs Entities,
`
`expressly designating Princeton as a third-party beneficiary of those subcontracts, stating, in
`
`relevant part:
`
`Consultant Agreements. Architect-Engineer, shall upon request, provide
`to Princeton University complete and correct copies of Architect-
`Engineer's agreement with each Consultant, including amendments
`thereto. Architect-Engineer shall enter into an agreement with each
`Consultant pursuant to which the Consultant assumes toward the
`Architect-Engineer all of the obligations that the Architect-Engineer
`assumes toward Princeton University under the Contract. In addition, each
`contract shall include the following provisions:
`
`An agreement by the Architect-Engineer and Consultant
`(i)
`that Princeton University is a third-party beneficiary of the
`agreement, entitled to enforce any rights thereunder for its benefit,
`and that Princeton University shall have the same rights and
`remedies vis-à-vis such Consultants that the Architect-Engineer
`may have, including, but not limited to, the right to be
`compensated for any loss, expense or damage of any nature
`whatsoever incurred by Princeton University, resulting from any
`breach of such agreements by the Consultant, any breach of
`representations arising out of such agreements and any negligent
`
`
`Active\105828599.v1-12/10/19
`
`-9-
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-21248-BRM-LHG Document 1 Filed 12/10/19 Page 10 of 25 PageID: 10
`
`
`
`error or omission of such Consultant in the performance of any of
`its professional services obligations under such agreements; . . . .
`
`28.
`
`The Design Contract, at Article XI (Time of Performance), also required that
`
`TWBTA perform its Services in accordance with the Milestone Design Schedule:
`
`29.
`
`Time is of the essence for this Contract. The Architect-Engineer shall perform its
`
`services under the Contract in accordance with the Milestone Design Schedule set forth below
`
`and the Design and Construction Schedule as described in Article VI(c).
`
`Project Phase
`Schematic Design Phase
`
` SD Drawings Complete
`
`Milestone Dates
`December 25, 2009
`
`October 23, 2009
`
` SD Complete/Approval to Proceed to DD
`
`January 22, 2010
`
`Design Development Phase
`
`Construction Documents Phase
`
` 50% Documents Complete
`
` 85% Documents Complete
`
`October 13, 2010
`
`September 14, 2011
`
`February 4, 2011
`
`June 17, 2011
`
` 100% Documents Complete
`
`September 14, 2011
`
` GMP Agreement
`
`Bidding & Negotiation Phase
`
`Construction Phase
`
`Close-Out Phase
`
`
`October 7, 2011
`
`November 4, 2011
`
`February 27, 2015
`
`March 2, 2016
`
`30.
`
`Finally, the Design Contract calls for TWBTA to indemnify Princeton for
`
`TWBTA’s negligent acts. Article XII(h)(1) (Indemnification) of the Design Contract states, in
`
`relevant part:
`
`
`Active\105828599.v1-12/10/19
`
`-10-
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-21248-BRM-LHG Document 1 Filed 12/10/19 Page 11 of 25 PageID: 11
`
`
`
`To the fullest extent permitted by the laws of the State of New Jersey . . .
`the Architect-Engineer (the “Indemnitor” for purposes of interpreting this
`Paragraph) agrees to indemnify and hold harmless, and pay for the defense
`of Princeton University, its trustees, officers and employees, and any
`affiliated or related entities . . . against all claims, loss, liability, damage,
`costs and expenses, including reasonable attorney’s fees, that are alleged
`to have occurred in whole or in part arise as a result of, but only to the
`extent caused by and in proportion to, the negligent acts or omissions of
`the Indemnitor, its agents, consultants, employees, or representatives.
`(Emphasis omitted).
`
`The Design Team’s Unsatisfactory Performance
`
`
`
`
`
`31.
`
`From the outset, TWBTA failed to properly and efficiently coordinate its work
`
`with that of its sub-consultants and to manage the work of its sub-consultants.
`
`32.
`
`TWBTA’s failure to coordinate its subconsultants and failure to properly manage
`
`the design process in a timely manner delayed the completion of the design, and the
`
`administration of the construction. TWBTA’s failures plagued the Project, causing Princeton to
`
`incur additional costs and suffer project delays.
`
`33.
`
`Further, over the course of the design process, the Design Team repeatedly
`
`submitted designs that exceeded the construction budget for the Project. In fact, the initial
`
`design submission exceeded the design to budget by over fifty percent (50%). The Design
`
`Development submission and 50% and 85% construction documents were also over budget.
`
`34.
`
`Submission of grossly over-budget designs required additional rework and
`
`extensive value engineering at each design milestone including Schematic Design, Design
`
`Development, 50% Construction Documents and 85% Construction Documents to achieve a
`
`construction budget that was acceptable to Princeton.
`
`35.
`
`Over the course of the Construction Document Phase, drawings, specifications,
`
`and other work product prepared by the Design Team were routinely incomplete and deficient.
`
`TWBTA Failed to Submit Complete Documents
`
`
`Active\105828599.v1-12/10/19
`
`-11-
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-21248-BRM-LHG Document 1 Filed 12/10/19 Page 12 of 25 PageID: 12
`
`
`
`In Accordance with Contract Milestones
`
`Over the course of the Construction Document Phase, TWBTA’s drawings,
`
`36.
`
`specifications, and other work product were routinely incomplete, deficient and late.
`
`37.
`
`TWBTA failed to meet the following key Contract Milestones:
`
`
`
`% Complete
`
`Contract Milestone
`
` Schematic Design Phase
`
`December 25, 2009
`
` SD Drawings Complete
`
`October 23, 2009
`
` SD Complete/Approved to Proceed to DD
`
`January 22, 2010
`
` Design Development Phase
`
`October 13, 2010
`
` 85% Documents Complete
`
`June 17, 2011
`
` 100% Documents Complete
`
`September 14, 2011
`
` GMP Agreement
`
`October 7, 2011
`
`
`
`38.
`
`Instead, TWBTA issued their Construction Documents as follows:
`
`% Complete
`
`Contract Milestone
`
`Date of Submission
`
`Design Documents Complete
`
`-
`
`-
`
` 85% Documents Complete
`
`June 17, 2011
`
`August 12, 2011
`
` 100% Documents Complete – First Release
`
`September 14, 2011
`
`January 13, 2012
`
`100% Documents Complete – Second Release
`
`September 14, 2011
`
`June 15, 2012
`
` GMP Agreement
`
`October 7, 2011
`
`March 12, 2012
`
`
`
`39.
`
`As set forth above, on August 12, 2011, the Design Team submitted drawings and
`
`specifications to Princeton that the Design Team claimed to be 85% complete (and upon which
`
`the Construction Manager’s guaranteed maximum price (“GMP”) was to be based). The Design
`
`
`Active\105828599.v1-12/10/19
`
`-12-
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-21248-BRM-LHG Document 1 Filed 12/10/19 Page 13 of 25 PageID: 13
`
`
`
`Team’s missing details and coordination resulted in the issuance by TWBTA of eleven (11) Bid
`
`Addenda and four (4) Construction Addenda before the end of 2011. As a result, Princeton was
`
`forced to require the Construction Manager to delay the buyout of certain key trade
`
`subcontractors to provide more time for the Design Team to complete its work.
`
`40.
`
`After the submission on August 12, 2011, TWBTA issued the following bid
`
`addenda:
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`d.
`
`e.
`
`f.
`
`Bid Addenda 1–3
`
`Bid Addenda 5–8
`
`Bid Addenda 4
`
`Bid Addenda 9
`
`Bid Addenda 10
`
`Bid Addenda 11
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`9/27/11
`
`9/30/11
`
`10/6/11
`
`10/31/11
`
`11/7/11
`
`12/2/11
`
`41.
`
`Prior to construction TWBTA issued the following construction addenda:
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`d.
`
`Construction Addendum 1
`
`9/26/11
`
`Construction Addendum 2
`
`9/27/11
`
`Construction Addendum 3
`
`10/12/11
`
`Construction Addendum 4
`
`9/26/11
`
`42.
`
`Like the 85% set, the 100% Construction Documents package that TWBTA
`
`issued on January 13, 2012 were not complete. The drawings were missing details and
`
`coordination. Thus, after this package was issued, TWBTA issued more construction addenda:
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`Construction Addendum 6 & 7
`
`2/14/12
`
`Construction Addendum 8
`
`
`
`2/17/12
`
`Construction Addendum 12 & 13
`
`3/01/12
`
`
`Active\105828599.v1-12/10/19
`
`-13-
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-21248-BRM-LHG Document 1 Filed 12/10/19 Page 14 of 25 PageID: 14
`
`
`
`43.
`
`Princeton could not finalize the GMP with the Construction Manager until March
`
`12, 2012 – five months after the scheduled milestone. Construction commenced on or about
`
`February 27, 2012.
`
`44.
`
`The 100% Construction Documents were still not complete. TWBTA issued the
`
`following construction addenda after the GMP was executed:
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`d.
`
`e.
`
`f.
`
`g.
`
`Construction Addendum 9
`
`Construction Addendum 14
`
`Construction Addendum 10
`
`Construction Addendum 5
`
`Construction Addendum 11
`
`Construction Addendum 16
`
`Construction Addendum 15
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3/14/12
`
`3/23/12
`
`4/20/12
`
`5/01/12
`
`5/03/12
`
`5/22/12
`
`6/01/12
`
`45.
`
`Princeton’s numerous admonitions to TWBTA to complete the drawings properly
`
`were not heeded. TWBTA issued a final consolidated drawing set that included these addenda
`
`on June 15, 2012 (the “Consolidated Set”), which was also labeled as the 100% Construction
`
`Documents. The Design Team issued one last construction addendum four months after the
`
`Consolidated Set was issued – Construction Addendum 8 – on October 10, 2012.
`
`46.
`
`Yet, the revised set of 100% Construction Documents was still incomplete --
`
`resulting in significant rework and redesign by the Design Team on an on-going basis during the
`
`Construction Phase of the Project.
`
`47.
`
`Contrary to the express provisions of the Design Contract, TWBTA and the
`
`Design Team often used trade subcontractor shop drawings, in particular, mechanical trades’
`
`shop drawings, as an opportunity to revise the design and finish incomplete or incorrect designs
`
`contained in the construction drawings.
`
`
`Active\105828599.v1-12/10/19
`
`-14-
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-21248-BRM-LHG Document 1 Filed 12/10/19 Page 15 of 25 PageID: 15
`
`
`
`The Design Team Issued 87 ASIs That Required Revisions
`to More Than a Thousand Drawings
`
`
`
`48.
`
`The failure of TWBTA and the Jacobs Entities to properly, timely, and fully
`
`complete the project design resulted in the Design Team’s issuance of scores of Architect’s
`
`Supplemental Information notices (each an “ASI”) to the Construction Manager. In fact, the
`
`Design Team used ASIs and Addendum - over the one-year time period subsequent to the
`
`submission of 85% Construction Documents - to complete the design work, including
`
`coordination among the subconsultant disciplines.
`
`49.
`
`After the so-called 100% Construction Documents were issued, TWBTA issued
`
`approximately eighty-seven (87) ASIs from June 15, 2012 until June 21, 2017. These ASIs
`
`fundamentally revised and modified the 100% set of Construction Documents, and contained
`
`revisions that captured missing or incorrect details and missing design coordination required for
`
`the construction of the Project. Moreover, seven (7) of the ASIs were revised and resubmitted
`
`with even more design revisions.
`
`TWBTA’s Incomplete and Deficient Work
`Resulted in No Less than 462 Change Orders
`
`
`
`50.
`
`The impact of the cascade of ASIs and other design changes was extensive. The
`
`ASIs and the Design Team’s other incomplete or deficient work resulted in the issuance of no
`
`less than four hundred and sixty-two (462) out of the Project’s six hundred and fifty-four (654)
`
`Change Order Requests (“CORs”) to the Construction Manager.
`
`51.
`
`Of the four hundred and sixty-two (462) design related CORs, four hundred and
`
`thirty-eight (438) CORs are related to TWBTA’s and/or Jacobs’ errors and omissions; seventeen
`
`(17) CORs are related to additional Building Information Modeling (“BIM”) services as a result
`
`of design revisions; and seven (7) CORs are related to delays that the Design Team caused.
`
`
`Active\105828599.v1-12/10/19
`
`-15-
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-21248-BRM-LHG Document 1 Filed 12/10/19 Page 16 of 25 PageID: 16
`
`
`
`52.
`
`Thus, Princeton has been damaged in an amount no less than $3,400,000 (the
`
`“Errors and Omissions Costs”) resulting from the four hundred and thirty-eight (438) CORs
`
`related to the Design Team’s errors and omissions. The Design Team is responsible for these
`
`Errors and Omissions Costs, which would not have been incurred had the Design Team delivered
`
`a set of fully detailed and complete coordinated drawings from the outset of the Project.
`
`
`
`Additional BIM Services & Costs
`
`53.
`
`The Design Contract required that TWBTA deliver a full model of the Project
`
`using Building Information Modeling (“BIM”). The Design Contract specifically provides, in
`
`relevant part, in Part II, Project Description (at page 4 - 5):
`
`Building Information Modeling
`
`The selected Architect will implement a design and documentation
`process that is fully coordinated with all consultants. It is highly desired
`that the Architect will utilize three-dimensional, real-time, dynamic
`building modeling software to increase productivity in building design and
`construction. The process is to produce a Building Information Model
`(BIM), which encompasses building geometry, spatial relationships,
`geographic information, and quantities and properties of the building
`components. It is anticipated that the Architect will work with Princeton
`University at the earliest inception of the project to establish an acceptable
`BIM standard for the project.
`
`54.
`
`The original BIM coordination
`
`that
`
`the Construction Manager and
`
`its
`
`subcontractors carried out required extensive revisions by the Construction Manager and
`
`mechanical subcontractors because of the incomplete drawings and volume of revisions received
`
`from the Design Team.
`
`55.
`
`The ASIs that TWBTA issued after issuance of the Consolidated Set resulted in
`
`seven (7) change order requests to Princeton by the Construction Manager for revisions required
`
`to the BIM Construction Model. These changes order were as follows:
`
`(i)
`
`CO 44
`
`
`
`MMC Contractors
`
`
`
`$ 4,521
`
`
`Active\105828599.v1-12/10/19
`
`-16-
`
`

`

`Case 3:19-cv-21248-BRM-LHG Document 1 Filed 12/10/19 Page 17 of 25 PageID: 17
`
`(ii)
`
`CO 171A R1
`
`Barham Group
`
`(iii) CO 171B R1
`
`(iv) CO 171C A
`
`
`
`
`
`MMC Contractors
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`$ 523,224
`
`$ 263,639
`
`Unity International Group
`
`$ 212,077
`
`(v)
`
`CO 171C BR1
`
`Unity International Group
`
`$ 196,203
`
`(vi) CO 233B
`
`(vii) CO 249 R1
`
`Total:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Sciame
`
`Majek
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`$ 156,606
`
`$ 7,681
`
`$1,363,951
`
`56.
`
`Thus, the ASIs, which fundamentally changed elements of the desi