91视频

Portland Community College is suing architecture and engineering firms that performed work for the College Services Building on its Sylvania campus.

The school claims that and failed to adequately design the concrete floors of the $5.25 million building, which has floors that sag excessively. The floor defects led to damage in drywalls, wall partitions and doorjambs, the school claims.

PCC is demanding that the firms pay $2.4 million in damages.

鈥淧CC takes its stewardship of public resources, including the management of bond dollars, very seriously,鈥� said James Hill, communications specialist for PCC.

The three-story building, which was completed in 2006, was paid for with money from a $144 million bond measure approved by voters in 2000. The structure houses offices for services including transportation and public safety.

The lawsuit claims that Opsis broke a project agreement in which the firm vowed to provide competent and professional architectural services. The suit also accuses Group Mackenzie of negligence and failure to exercise the degree of skill ordinarily possessed by 鈥渞eputable鈥� engineers.

Both Opsis and Group Mackenzie declined to comment. However, James Meyer, a partner at Opsis, did say that all the parties involved were working toward a resolution.

鈥淚 would like (a resolution) tomorrow, but I think the process will take some time,鈥� he said.

Under the state statute of repose, public works project owners have 10 years after construction is completed to submit a claim against the project’s architects or engineers. Similarly, owners have 10 years to submit a claim against the project’s general contractor.

However, unlike claims against general contractors, claims against architects and engineers on public works projects have a two-year 鈥渄iscovery period,鈥� so claims must be submitted within two years after design defects are found. The validity of PCC’s lawsuit could be dependent on whether PCC can prove that it noticed the floors were sagging within the past two years.

鈥淭he fight is often about when the defect is discovered for claims against architects and engineers,鈥� said Jill Schneider, a commercial litigation lawyer with . 鈥淭he claim must be brought within two years of when the 鈥� defective design聽was first discovered or should have been discovered with reasonable care.

鈥淯sually an owner is not tasked with the responsibility to do a full-bore investigation on a regular basis. That is the general standard 鈥� what PCC should have discovered rests entirely on the facts of the situation.鈥�

The lengths of the discovery period and the statutes are products of legislative lobbying by architects, engineers and contractors to gain advantageous rules, Schneider said.

The reason why claims against architects and engineers have a two-year discovery period, which essentially reduces litigation risk by eight years for public works projects, is simple, said Cindy Robert, a lobbyist for the American Institute of Architects.

鈥淥nce you notice (the defects), you have to say something right away 鈥� and for design, that makes sense,鈥� she said. 鈥淚f there’s a problem with the design, there’s probably a problem with the construction, so you want to get on it right away.鈥�

The project’s general contractor, , is not named in the lawsuit; however, it could be served later, Robert said, because the window is wider.

鈥淧art of the problem of those who sue in this situation is they just cast a wide net and bring in whoever they can,鈥� Robert said.

PCC declined to comment on this possibility.

The defendants’ lawyers must file a response to the lawsuit within 30 days, but the time frame for litigation isn’t set.