As a UCLA hospital is being rebuilt, the contracting firm behind
construction will simultaneously attempt to rebuild its
reputation.
A lawsuit between Tutor-Saliba and the Metropolitan
Transportation Authority will continue as the firm works on
construction of the UCLA Westwood Replacement Hospital. The firm is
the management sponsor for the contracting company,
Tutor-Saliba-Perini, in charge of finding subcontractors and
working on construction for the hospital.
Tutor-Saliba continues to function as a contracting firm during
the appeals process, as is evident in its involvement with the
Replacement Hospital.
Though the firm must deal with a lawsuit that has stretched over
nearly ten years, UCLA Capital Programs is satisfied with its
progress.
“We’re pretty much on schedule,” said Alvin
Lee, project manager for Capital Programs.
The contracting company Tutor-Saliba-Perini gained control of
the project through a bidding session and began the process of
construction in December 1999.
Capital Programs, the main force behind planning, design and
construction on campus, reviewed Tutor-Saliba-Perini before
accepting it as the project’s contractor.
Capital Programs took the lawsuits against the firm into
consideration but differentiated between the project undergoing
criticism, and the hospital project at hand.
“A subway project is different from a hospital
project,” Lee said.
The lawsuits were initiated by Tutor-Saliba, saying MTA failed
to pay for work done on the Wilshire Boulevard subway tunnels.
The court terminated the case on the grounds that Tutor-Saliba
filed false claims and withheld documents.
“The jury was never allowed to rule on guilt or
innocence,” said Pat Henderson, senior vice president for
Tutor-Saliba.
Though the firm produced 4,000 boxes of documents in court, MTA
believed there were missing documents, he said.
Meanwhile, MTA filed a countersuit against the firm for
allegedly submitting false claims to be paid by the company, and
for getting around regulations involving the use of minority
subcontractors.
MTA’s countersuit against the company was allowed to
continue even after Tutor-Saliba’s lawsuit was terminated.
The contracting firm found itself owing a $63 million fee to the
transportation company.
Due to an appeal by Tutor-Saliba, the payment is pending, but
accruing interest in the meantime, said Robert Reagan, principal
deputy county council for MTA.
“(The appeal) could last anywhere from a year, to a year
and a half,” he said.
Though Capital Programs took the company’s past into
consideration, it also reviewed the contractor’s merits on
hospital projects, he said.
In a joint effort with Tutor-Saliba-Perini, the firm has worked
on an excess of over a dozen hospital projects.
“Everyone feels very good about the job. As an overall
team, we’ve done very well,” said Dale Gold, on-site
manager under Tutor-Saliba.
Another aspect of site-related work Tutor-Saliba-Perini was
criticized for is the safety it provides to its construction
employees.
The contractor was sited for violations of state safety laws in
May 1997, three months after a construction worker was crushed by a
two-ton bin that broke from its chain.
Investigators working on the case said they found defects in the
chain being used, and the contractor was also cited for inadequate
employee training.
Officials said safety isn’t a concern on the hospital
project, though.
“We’ve had extremely good safety (on the hospital
project),” Gold said.
If it loses the appeal regarding the earlier citation, the firm
is financially prepared to pay any amount the court requests
without it having an effect on the progress of construction on the
hospital, Henderson said.
“We would continue to maintain our otherwise unblemished
reputation,” he said.