The 2-year-old Petersen Events Center has leaks and structural flaws that are so bad, according to two lawsuits, that the $119 million basketball arena needs extensive repairs.

	Related stories Secrecy clouds cost overruns at Pitt's Petersen Events Center The money pit at Pitt: A two-part series

Defective architectural designs and bad workmanship, according to the lawsuits, have resulted in more than 200 holes in the roof, missing roof fasteners, pipe failures and heating and ventilation problems.

The University of Pittsburgh, which owns the Petersen, and the state Department of General Services, which built it, filed the lawsuits this week in Allegheny County Common Pleas Court. They are seeking unspecified damages.

The accusations are aimed primarily at Apostolou/Rosser architects of Mount Washington and G&W Roofing & Construction of Eighty Four.

The architects, the contractor and their lawyers did not respond to requests for comment.

The new charges are part of ongoing disputes between contractors, the state and the university.

The Post-Gazette disclosed in April that the project grew from $35 million when the arena was proposed in 1992 to $119 million when it opened in October 2002.

In one lawsuit, Pitt accuses Apostolou/Rosser of design deficiencies that resulted in costly fixes. The lawsuit does not say how much it cost to fix the problems, but the Petersen construction manager attributed $10.8 million in extra costs to architectural "errors and omissions."

In addition to those payments, the state paid 14 contractors and the construction manager $5.6 million to settle contract disputes. The lawsuit blames the architect for those costs and for the one-year delay in finishing the Petersen.

Although Apostolou/Rosser has not responded to the lawsuit, it has sued the state and portrayed the problems in a different light.

The firm was hired in 1998 to build a $50 million arena but turned in more costly plans. Eventually General Services increased the project allocation to $64 million.

Then the state awarded construction contracts for more than $69 million.

Pitt and General Services, according to the architects, "included substantial additive alternatives with the knowledge that these items would increase the project cost beyond the revised allocation of $64 million."

Its fees are based on the project allocation, so three years ago Apostolou/Rosser demanded another $2.1 million. Merle Ryan, the deputy secretary of General Services, acknowledged by letter that there was some basis for the architect's claim.

The state did not formally answer the claim, so Apostolou/Rosser appealed to the state Board of Claims, where the case is pending.

Last year the Post-Gazette disclosed that Pitt was aware of design problems before groundbreaking.

"Many critical details have not been totally developed and what is shown concerns me greatly," Pitt staff architect Mark Phillips wrote in a memo. He said Pitt would not want to take possession of the building "as detailed."

Apostolou/Rosser also called attention to design issues when the Petersen was on the drawing board.

"We have taken steps to reduce the scope of this project as well as reduce building components to barely acceptable levels in order to manage costs," the firm told the state. But the cuts were "reinstated at the direction of the university," with the state's concurrence.

The firm, which is a joint venture of Apostolou Associates of Mount Washington and Rosser International of Atlanta has been paid $5.1 million for its work.

The other lawsuit filed this week names G&W Roofing and Morin Corp., a Connecticut company that manufactured the aluminum roof. It cites Havens Steel Co. of Kansas City, Mo. but does not name that company as a defendant. Havens has filed for bankruptcy.

Havens has been paid $15.3 million, including $2.8 million to fix mistakes and settle a contract dispute.

The company installed the steel frame and the metal decking to which the roof is attached.

G&W has been paid $1.7 million, including $335,000 to fix mistakes and settle a contract dispute.

More than 200 holes have formed in the Petersen's dome where the roof connects to the steel frame, the lawsuit says.

Havens, the lawsuit claims, built the roof trusses at incorrect elevations, which "prevents the roof system from functioning properly."

G&W, according to the lawsuit, did not use enough fasteners to anchor the roof to the steel deck, did not fasten some of the clips, and spaced the clips improperly.

The clips are rubbing against aluminum roof panels and creating holes. They are "reaming out the rigid insulation and waterproofing membrane," creating a direct path for water to get into the building.

G&W tried to fix the roof, the lawsuit says, but notified Pitt in June that it would no longer do warranty work. Morin, the manufacturer, has voided its warranty.

Pitt spokesman Robert Hill would not discuss the leaks but he said the basketball teams will play at the Petersen as scheduled.

The Petersen project has been plagued with problems.

Pitt hired L.D. Astorino Architects to design the arena. But the state took over the construction project, and in 1998 General Services fired Astorino and hired Apostolou/Rosser.

The primary reason for the escalating cost before ground breaking was the decision by Pitt and General Services to double the size of the building. Years of delays inflated the price.

Pitt also changed the location, which required Pitt Stadium to be razed. Apostolou/Rosser was paid $627,000 for drawings that could no longer be used.

After ground was broken, the state ran up $28.5 million in construction overruns, a 34 percent rate that experts say is two to four times higher than normal.

General Services made costly decisions. The Petersen was set up as a "fast-track" project by which contractors were hired before drawings were finished.

The technique can save money by speeding up the construction schedule. The risk is that incomplete drawings will lead to costly fixes. The state ended up paying $18.6 million for such fixes, plus the $5.6 million to settle contract disputes.

The state also hired 25 "prime contractors," a decision that created logjams at the construction site. A construction manager was hired to coordinate the work, but General Services provided for no bonuses or penalties to encourage the firm to control costs and keep work on schedule.