The Chronicle of Higher Education
Blogs

Blogs

Leaking Mississippi Valley State U. Building, 8 Years Old, Faces $13-Million in Repairs

Leaks, mildew, and floors that don’t align with one another have kept an eight-year-old administration building at Mississippi Valley State University wrapped up in plastic and litigation, according to an astonishing article in the The Clarion-Ledger.

The newspaper, in Jackson, Miss., reports that the $12-million, 98,000-square-foot building leaked from the time it opened in 1999. By 2003 mildew had developed inside the walls. And the university noticed, the paper reports, that “some floors stuck out as much as two to three inches over others.”

The building was closed and its occupants were moved to trailers and the old administration building. In 2005 the state sued the contractor, Inman Construction, and the architecture firm, Johnson McAdams, but the case was settled out of court last year for $3.5-million—even though repairs, originally estimated at $4.6-million, are now expected to cost $13-million (not counting the cost of the trailers and other temporary arrangements). The state’s Bureau of Buildings oversees construction on the campus.

The university now expects the building to be usable by 2010.

Lawrence Biemiller | Tuesday March 18, 2008 | Permalink | Contact us

Comments

  1. This story makes it seem extremely odd that the case was settled for so little – unless the university decided that any more than that would result in the firm going under and no settlement at all.

    — Al    Mar 18, 03:58 PM    #

  2. When really bad things happen in relatively new buildings, there is generally both design and construction error, so both parties must belly up to the bar and pay. There is a limit though to what can be recovered since the liability insurance for example of the architect has a limit – anywhere from $1M to $5M. It is rarely the case that an aggrieved client will seek to put an enterprise out of business seeking money beyond the insurance limit. It would be more prudent for the client to pull a project specific insurance in addition to what he expects from the architect so that a higher coverage could respond to an exposure beyond the limit of the design professional or the builder.

    — chig    Mar 18, 04:58 PM    #

  3. If you click through to the Clarion-Ledger article, it suggests that the state thought it was doing okay by getting $3.5-million because at the time of the settlement, repairs were still estimated at $4.6-million.

    — Lawrence Biemiller    Mar 18, 05:03 PM    #