UTEP Swimming and Fitness Center

Contact Us




UTEP Swimming and Fitness Center

Client Contractor
Location El Paso, Texas
Scope Of Work Contract analysis, Windows schedule analysis, delay analysis, damage assessment
Schedule 2012-2013

Project Detail


The $32 million Swimming and Fitness Center expansion project at The University if Texas at El Paso included the construction of an additional 90,000 square feet which consists of an indoor jogging track, a rock-climbing wall, an expanded exercise area, an indoor soccer arena, racquetball courts, a multipurpose room for basketball and volleyball, an outdoor pursuits yard, locker rooms, equipment rooms, a juice bar, offices and storage space.

During the course of the Project a dispute occurred between the Contractor and Subcontractor regarding alleged delays and damages incurred as a result of the Subcontractor’s.

Spire was retained by the primary contractor and its construction law firm to review and analyze delays and damages that occurred on the project in order to determine responsibility. Spire’s findings were summarized in a report of findings and expert witness testimony was provided. Principal of Spire Consulting Group, Anthony Gonzales, and Associate Principal, John Wolf, testified before the arbitration panel as to the delays attributable to the subcontract and the associated costs of such delays.

The arbitration panel praised Mr. Gonzales’ testimony regarding his response to an allegation made by the Subcontractor about Spire’s report by stating in its filing, “What followed was a display of brilliant, professional competence. Mr. Gonzales knew exactly what situation the Arbitrator described, and he pointed to various parts of his report and to the underlying data to demonstrate that he had taken this entire situation into account, the manner in which he calculated the effect of that altered work and the impact on his analysis. His testimony was thorough, competent and impressive.”

As a result of the arbitration, Spire’s client recovered the full amount of damages and additional fees including interest, attorney fees, administration filling and case services fees, and expert witness fees. Regarding the recovery of the expert witness fees, the panel states in its filing that the experts retained by the prime contractor were, “competent, thorough and experienced, and there was no evidence that this fee was excessive for the work involved or the product delivered.”