3720 - Board of Claims

had to finish that section before moving to excavate or build in the other sections. (Ex. P-2A).
The construction methods to be used for the embankments were otherwise left to the contractor.
(Ex. P-17; N.T. 1068, 1160).
Intercounty's allegation that it incurred expenses for stockpiling and re-handling that
were beyond those it would have incurred under the original Construction Sequence is simply
wrong. According to Mr. Nansteel and Mr. Lizza, Intercounty originally planned to obtain
embankment material for use on the Project (all sections) by taking it from a large cut area in
Section Three and immediately trucking it to create the required embankments in Sections One
and Two. (N.T. 357-359, 624-626). However, under the original Construction Sequence,
Intercounty was required to start in Section One by building the embankments and would not
have been able to excavate any material from Section Three until much later. Pursuant to the
408 Specifications, Intercounty would have then had to purchase fill material offsite at its own
expense, truck it to the site and off-load it to create the Section One embankments. The same
would have been true for Section Two. When it got to Section Three, Intercounty would have
had to excavate the hillside and pay substantial costs for hauling and disposing of the excess
material. Thus we find Intercounty’s theory of recovery (i.e. that the re-handling costs are “extra
costs” caused by the "flip" in the Construction Sequence) to be flawed because it is premised on
a plan for doing the work which would not have been permitted under the original Construction
Sequence.
When the Construction Sequence was flipped at the beginning of work on the Project,
Intercounty saved the costs of significant "borrow" material. Intercounty started with the hillside
excavation in Section Three and, as per the original Construction Sequence, was restricted to
completing that section before creating any embankments in other sections. PennDOT, without
105