Questions 5 to 10

Parties: Owner Shinose Commons LLP (SCL) Partner A. Tom Donifin, Inc. (DPI) Partner B Dutton Peabody, LP (DPL) Retail Operator Liberty Valance, LLC (LVL) Architect Picketwire Architects, Inc. (PAD) Contractor Buck Langhorn, Inc. (GLD) Project: Seven Story Apartment Building, 192 Units Concrete Frame, Brick & Glass Exterior, Retail on Ground Level, Two Levels of Underground Parking Shinbone, Texas Design & Construction Issues Partners A and B entered into a limited liability partnership (LLP) for developing a seven story apartment building in Shinbone, Texas, Partner B has a construction division that contracted with the LLP to design and construct the apartment building with one level of retail on the ground floor, Buck Langhorn, Inc. (BLB) hired and directed Picketwire Architects, Inc. (PAT) in providing architectural structural and MEP design services: a Design-Build delivery method Shinbone Commons, LLP contracted with BLI using an AIA Document A141. Standard Form of Agreement Between Owner and Design-Builder", with the AIA Document A201. "General Conditions of the Contract for Construction", as part of the contract documents In the LLP agreement, Partner A agreed to purchase the first floor Retail component of the project from partner B's construction division, BLI, for the predetermined amount of $10.000.000.00. BLI guaranteed the completion date and cost of $45,000,000 for the project to the LLP entity. As the project progressed, Partner A met with PAI and their consultants directing them to make various changes without DPL's representatives being present. PAI proceeded with Partner A's revisions and issued the revised plans to BLL Partner Band BLI were very surprised by Partner A's actions without their input, but in the spirit of cooperation proceeded with the work. BLI received estimates from the subcontractors, totaling more than $4,000,000, and submitted the price for the revisions to the partners. Partner A was not happy with the pricing and pushed for BLI to absorb any extra costs using BLI's contingency The partners and BLI worked out the issues and work continued. Several other issues surfaced, such as adding a 4,000 square feet mezzanine level in the retail space. Partner A agreed to the cost and a modest time extension Partner A owned the adjacent property and provided sitework for the entire development past the property lines of Shinbone Commons. Bland Partner A had several disputes about access to the site and the delays caused by Partner A's subcontractors When the mezzanine was added, PAl reviewed the additions with the city's plan examiner and the examiner said BLI did not need a revised permit since the mezzanine would be considered part of the retail finish out. PAl relayed the city examiner's decision, in writing to the partners and BLI, who proceeded with the work. The building inspector stated that he would observe the 1 of 3 CE/CM 4304 & CE/CM 5378 Design Project, FALL 2021 installation of the mezzanine and only required the revised structural plans, adding the mezzaninc, be on site for review. The structural framing for the mezzanine was approved by the building inspector Partner A negotiated a contract for leasing the retail space with Liberty Valance, LLC(LVL). with the understanding the retail shell would be ready for finish out in July by 1.VL's contractor in time for them to open in November and not miss the holiday season sales. Early occupancy of the condos began in December and completed the next April. BLI worked diligently to complete the retail shell by July and accomplished most of the work except for the windows and exterior doors. It was a very dry year and the retail shell was accessible for beginning the mechanical clectrical and plumbing (MEP)rough-ins in July, LVL even hired BLI's drywall subcontractor to start building the walls in July along with a third party MEP sub, hired by BLI, who also started working in July installing air conditioning equipment LVL was responsible for providing their own design and construction documents, therefore they LVL was responsible for providing their own design and construction documents, therefore they hired an architect and design firm, but they hired PAl under a different agreement from the BLUPAI contract. LVL's manager. Angus Stackle was not a proficient manager and not diligent in making decisions which delayed the construction documents and the CDs were not submitted for permitting until October 25 LVL's contractor did not receive the finish-out building permit until November 7. LVL and Partner A claim that BLI's delay in enclosing the retail space with Windows and doors until September caused the delay in completing and opening the retail store until the next March. Also, LVL and Partner A claim that adding the mezzanine without updating the base building permit caused a delay in the issuance of LVL's finish-out permit Legal Posturing & Claims for Damages Partner A and LVL claim damages from BLI for delaying the start of work for the retail finish out due to the late installation of the windows and doors, plus the delay in acquiring LVL'S finish-out building permit. Partner A and LVL filed separate suits against BLI because of the claimed delay in the amount of $6,000,000 cach, totaling $12.000.000, citing lost rent from the retail space and lost business during the holiday season and anticipated profits BLI claims that the space was ready in time for finish out and LVL started work in the shell as scheduled. Also, BLI claims the delay in LVL obtaining afmisb-out building permit was not their faut since they were told to proceed with the mezzanine work by PAT and the city plan reviewer, and did not contract with PA for the design of Liberty Valance. LLC Since LVL did not open in time for the holiday season. Partner refused to buy the retail component from Partner Band BI for the $10,000,000 as previously spread. Partner B files suit against Partner A for the S10.000.000 and for BLI's calented general conditions due the design change delays, totaling $12,000,000 Instructions Review the documents mentioned in the case outline. You will individually create your report and Powerpoint presentation, then submit them on Canvas negroffor five students fer-Stamlying the informandement Develop your reports keeping in mind the questions and issues noted below, plus the Contract Documents and the interrelationships between the parties. Choose which path you would like to take in representing one of the parties by selecting Group A" or "Group 2 of 3 CE/CM 4304 & CE/CM 5378 Design Project. FALL 2021 SpA Assume your group has been hired by Partner A and LVL to be an Expert Witness for their complaint and defense. You must back up all of your answers bersisting the appropriats desuments and paragraphs Opinions may be expressed in your report and will be based on your professional experience Group B Assume your group has been hired by Partner Band BLI to be an Expert Witness for their law suit against Partner A and LVL and in their defense. You must back up all of your answers by referencing the propriate documents and parts Opinions may be expressed in your report will be based on your professional experience Present your findings in report format addressing at least cach of the issues and Questions below: (These are thought provoking questions to help in developing your report and not to be answered like taking a quiz 1. Are Partner A and L. VL.justified in susing Partner Band BLI? Why or why not? 2 Do Partner B and BLI have any contractual obligations to Partner A and LVL! 3. Are Partner Band BL.I justified in suing Partner A? 4. How would BLI prove they will incur additional general conditions due to changes in the 5. Should BLI have proceeded with the mezzanine without a revised building permit? 6. Should BLI have proceeded with Partner A's design changes without written approval? 7. Did the start of LVL's contractors work in the shell retail space constitute acceptance of the shell for finish out? & Does LVL have reason to blame Bul for delaying the completion of the retail store until design change delays, totaling $12,000,000 Instructions Review the documents mentioned in the case outline. You will individually create your report and Powerpoint presentation, then submit them on Canvas. Divide into your effort-et-five students-for-studying the information and forements Develop your reports keeping in mind the questions and issues noted below, plus the Contract Documents and the interrelationships between the parties. Choose which path you would like to take in representing one of the parties by selecting Group A" or "Group B". 2 of 3 CE/CM 4304 & CE/CM 5378 Design Project, FALL 2021 Group A Assume your group has been hired by Partner A and 1.VL to be an Expert Witness for their complaint and defense. You must back up all of your answers by referencing the appropriate documents and paragraphs Opinions may be expressed in your report and will be based on your professional experience. Group B Assume your group has been hired by Partner B and BLI to be an Expert Witness for their law suit against Partner A and LVL and in their defense. You must back up all of your answers by referencing the appropriate documents and paragraphs Opinions may be expressed in your report will be based on your professional experience. Present your findings in report format addressing at least cach of the Issues and Questions below: (These are thought provoking" questions to help in developing your report and not to be answered like taking a quiz.) 1. Are Partner A and LVL justified in suing Partner B and BLI? Why or why not? 2. Do Partner B and BLI have any contractual obligations to Partner A and LVL? 3. Are Partner B and BLI justified in suing Partner A? 4. How would BLI prove they will incur additional general conditions due to changes in the work? $. Should BLI have proceeded with the mezzanine without a revised building permit? 6. Should BLI have proceeded with Partner A's design changes without written approval? 7. Did the start of LVL's contractors work in the shell retail space constitute acceptance of the shell for finish out? 8. Does LVL have reason to blame BLI for delaying the completion of the retail store until March? 9. What other dispute resolution options are available to the parties besides litigation and why may these alternatives be more appealing? 10. Did PAI have a conflict of interest by working for both BLI and LVL? Report Outline Your reports should include the following topics at a minimum: Introduction Resumes of Experts - you may be creative in drafting your individual resumes Executive Summary Background & Methodology -facts of the case and how you approached the problem Opinions & Conclusions (detailed explanation and reference to relatod documents) Powerpoint presentation for the class (all team members will be presenting) Parties: Owner Shinose Commons LLP (SCL) Partner A. Tom Donifin, Inc. (DPI) Partner B Dutton Peabody, LP (DPL) Retail Operator Liberty Valance, LLC (LVL) Architect Picketwire Architects, Inc. (PAD) Contractor Buck Langhorn, Inc. (GLD) Project: Seven Story Apartment Building, 192 Units Concrete Frame, Brick & Glass Exterior, Retail on Ground Level, Two Levels of Underground Parking Shinbone, Texas Design & Construction Issues Partners A and B entered into a limited liability partnership (LLP) for developing a seven story apartment building in Shinbone, Texas, Partner B has a construction division that contracted with the LLP to design and construct the apartment building with one level of retail on the ground floor, Buck Langhorn, Inc. (BLB) hired and directed Picketwire Architects, Inc. (PAT) in providing architectural structural and MEP design services: a Design-Build delivery method Shinbone Commons, LLP contracted with BLI using an AIA Document A141. Standard Form of Agreement Between Owner and Design-Builder", with the AIA Document A201. "General Conditions of the Contract for Construction", as part of the contract documents In the LLP agreement, Partner A agreed to purchase the first floor Retail component of the project from partner B's construction division, BLI, for the predetermined amount of $10.000.000.00. BLI guaranteed the completion date and cost of $45,000,000 for the project to the LLP entity. As the project progressed, Partner A met with PAI and their consultants directing them to make various changes without DPL's representatives being present. PAI proceeded with Partner A's revisions and issued the revised plans to BLL Partner Band BLI were very surprised by Partner A's actions without their input, but in the spirit of cooperation proceeded with the work. BLI received estimates from the subcontractors, totaling more than $4,000,000, and submitted the price for the revisions to the partners. Partner A was not happy with the pricing and pushed for BLI to absorb any extra costs using BLI's contingency The partners and BLI worked out the issues and work continued. Several other issues surfaced, such as adding a 4,000 square feet mezzanine level in the retail space. Partner A agreed to the cost and a modest time extension Partner A owned the adjacent property and provided sitework for the entire development past the property lines of Shinbone Commons. Bland Partner A had several disputes about access to the site and the delays caused by Partner A's subcontractors When the mezzanine was added, PAl reviewed the additions with the city's plan examiner and the examiner said BLI did not need a revised permit since the mezzanine would be considered part of the retail finish out. PAl relayed the city examiner's decision, in writing to the partners and BLI, who proceeded with the work. The building inspector stated that he would observe the 1 of 3 CE/CM 4304 & CE/CM 5378 Design Project, FALL 2021 installation of the mezzanine and only required the revised structural plans, adding the mezzaninc, be on site for review. The structural framing for the mezzanine was approved by the building inspector Partner A negotiated a contract for leasing the retail space with Liberty Valance, LLC(LVL). with the understanding the retail shell would be ready for finish out in July by 1.VL's contractor in time for them to open in November and not miss the holiday season sales. Early occupancy of the condos began in December and completed the next April. BLI worked diligently to complete the retail shell by July and accomplished most of the work except for the windows and exterior doors. It was a very dry year and the retail shell was accessible for beginning the mechanical clectrical and plumbing (MEP)rough-ins in July, LVL even hired BLI's drywall subcontractor to start building the walls in July along with a third party MEP sub, hired by BLI, who also started working in July installing air conditioning equipment LVL was responsible for providing their own design and construction documents, therefore they LVL was responsible for providing their own design and construction documents, therefore they hired an architect and design firm, but they hired PAl under a different agreement from the BLUPAI contract. LVL's manager. Angus Stackle was not a proficient manager and not diligent in making decisions which delayed the construction documents and the CDs were not submitted for permitting until October 25 LVL's contractor did not receive the finish-out building permit until November 7. LVL and Partner A claim that BLI's delay in enclosing the retail space with Windows and doors until September caused the delay in completing and opening the retail store until the next March. Also, LVL and Partner A claim that adding the mezzanine without updating the base building permit caused a delay in the issuance of LVL's finish-out permit Legal Posturing & Claims for Damages Partner A and LVL claim damages from BLI for delaying the start of work for the retail finish out due to the late installation of the windows and doors, plus the delay in acquiring LVL'S finish-out building permit. Partner A and LVL filed separate suits against BLI because of the claimed delay in the amount of $6,000,000 cach, totaling $12.000.000, citing lost rent from the retail space and lost business during the holiday season and anticipated profits BLI claims that the space was ready in time for finish out and LVL started work in the shell as scheduled. Also, BLI claims the delay in LVL obtaining afmisb-out building permit was not their faut since they were told to proceed with the mezzanine work by PAT and the city plan reviewer, and did not contract with PA for the design of Liberty Valance. LLC Since LVL did not open in time for the holiday season. Partner refused to buy the retail component from Partner Band BI for the $10,000,000 as previously spread. Partner B files suit against Partner A for the S10.000.000 and for BLI's calented general conditions due the design change delays, totaling $12,000,000 Instructions Review the documents mentioned in the case outline. You will individually create your report and Powerpoint presentation, then submit them on Canvas negroffor five students fer-Stamlying the informandement Develop your reports keeping in mind the questions and issues noted below, plus the Contract Documents and the interrelationships between the parties. Choose which path you would like to take in representing one of the parties by selecting Group A" or "Group 2 of 3 CE/CM 4304 & CE/CM 5378 Design Project. FALL 2021 SpA Assume your group has been hired by Partner A and LVL to be an Expert Witness for their complaint and defense. You must back up all of your answers bersisting the appropriats desuments and paragraphs Opinions may be expressed in your report and will be based on your professional experience Group B Assume your group has been hired by Partner Band BLI to be an Expert Witness for their law suit against Partner A and LVL and in their defense. You must back up all of your answers by referencing the propriate documents and parts Opinions may be expressed in your report will be based on your professional experience Present your findings in report format addressing at least cach of the issues and Questions below: (These are thought provoking questions to help in developing your report and not to be answered like taking a quiz 1. Are Partner A and L. VL.justified in susing Partner Band BLI? Why or why not? 2 Do Partner B and BLI have any contractual obligations to Partner A and LVL! 3. Are Partner Band BL.I justified in suing Partner A? 4. How would BLI prove they will incur additional general conditions due to changes in the 5. Should BLI have proceeded with the mezzanine without a revised building permit? 6. Should BLI have proceeded with Partner A's design changes without written approval? 7. Did the start of LVL's contractors work in the shell retail space constitute acceptance of the shell for finish out? & Does LVL have reason to blame Bul for delaying the completion of the retail store until design change delays, totaling $12,000,000 Instructions Review the documents mentioned in the case outline. You will individually create your report and Powerpoint presentation, then submit them on Canvas. Divide into your effort-et-five students-for-studying the information and forements Develop your reports keeping in mind the questions and issues noted below, plus the Contract Documents and the interrelationships between the parties. Choose which path you would like to take in representing one of the parties by selecting Group A" or "Group B". 2 of 3 CE/CM 4304 & CE/CM 5378 Design Project, FALL 2021 Group A Assume your group has been hired by Partner A and 1.VL to be an Expert Witness for their complaint and defense. You must back up all of your answers by referencing the appropriate documents and paragraphs Opinions may be expressed in your report and will be based on your professional experience. Group B Assume your group has been hired by Partner B and BLI to be an Expert Witness for their law suit against Partner A and LVL and in their defense. You must back up all of your answers by referencing the appropriate documents and paragraphs Opinions may be expressed in your report will be based on your professional experience. Present your findings in report format addressing at least cach of the Issues and Questions below: (These are thought provoking" questions to help in developing your report and not to be answered like taking a quiz.) 1. Are Partner A and LVL justified in suing Partner B and BLI? Why or why not? 2. Do Partner B and BLI have any contractual obligations to Partner A and LVL? 3. Are Partner B and BLI justified in suing Partner A? 4. How would BLI prove they will incur additional general conditions due to changes in the work? $. Should BLI have proceeded with the mezzanine without a revised building permit? 6. Should BLI have proceeded with Partner A's design changes without written approval? 7. Did the start of LVL's contractors work in the shell retail space constitute acceptance of the shell for finish out? 8. Does LVL have reason to blame BLI for delaying the completion of the retail store until March? 9. What other dispute resolution options are available to the parties besides litigation and why may these alternatives be more appealing? 10. Did PAI have a conflict of interest by working for both BLI and LVL? Report Outline Your reports should include the following topics at a minimum: Introduction Resumes of Experts - you may be creative in drafting your individual resumes Executive Summary Background & Methodology -facts of the case and how you approached the problem Opinions & Conclusions (detailed explanation and reference to relatod documents) Powerpoint presentation for the class (all team members will be presenting)