12.04.2015 Views

3720 - Board of Claims

3720 - Board of Claims

3720 - Board of Claims

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

(through Mr. Pilosi and Mr. Sebastianelli) that Mr. Pilosi would act as go-between and facilitate<br />

utility pole relocation at the beginning <strong>of</strong> work on the Project, when, in fact, he did not; the<br />

design errors leading to inadequate space in the right-<strong>of</strong>-way for guy wire placement; PennDOT's<br />

decision to abandon the Construction Sequence originally mandated by it in favor <strong>of</strong><br />

Mr. Sebastianelli's ad hoc weekly work plans rather than allowing Intercounty to demobilize<br />

until the utility poles were relocated; and PennDOT’s excessive delay in resolving the guy<br />

wire/design problem; all served to force Intercounty to work out-<strong>of</strong>-sequence and in multiple<br />

areas spread out across the Project simultaneously rather than in the more compact, linear<br />

fashion it reasonably anticipated. PennDOT's actions also forced Intercounty to work around the<br />

existing poles and wires, all <strong>of</strong> which caused Intercounty to experience a significant loss in<br />

productivity.<br />

Having determined that Intercounty suffered disruption and loss <strong>of</strong> productivity on this<br />

Project as a result <strong>of</strong> PennDOT's active interference, the <strong>Board</strong> must now seek to quantify<br />

Intercounty's loss <strong>of</strong> productivity. In doing so, we first acknowledge PennDOT's criticism that<br />

Intercounty's proposed methodology (i.e. its effort to directly measure extra days/costs spent on<br />

excavation due to the pole relocation problems) is somewhat unconventional. Intercounty does<br />

not present the standard "measured mile" or "modified total cost" methods we usually see<br />

pr<strong>of</strong>fered to quantify disruption costs. However, both "traditional" methods have their own<br />

weaknesses; the "measured mile" being unavailable where, as here, the work disruption was<br />

immediate and pervasive; the "modified total cost" method being less accurate, in general,<br />

because it may include factors other than the wrong sought to be remedied (depending, inter alia,<br />

on how broadly it is applied and how careful the modifications). Moreover, given the facts <strong>of</strong><br />

this case, we agree with Intercounty that it is reasonable to estimate its lost productivity by<br />

101

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!