12.04.2015 Views

3720 - Board of Claims

3720 - Board of Claims

3720 - Board of Claims

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

objection from Intercounty, instructed Intercounty not to waste the Section Three material, but to<br />

stockpile it for later use on the Project. As a result, Intercounty did not have to purchase fill<br />

<strong>of</strong>fsite later and truck it in for the embankments, but instead it used the Section Three stockpiled<br />

material and incurred some costs for re-handling instead <strong>of</strong> importing borrowed fill at its own<br />

cost. In sum, Intercounty has not established that “flipping” the Construction Sequence caused it<br />

to incur costs beyond those it would have incurred anyway or that it did anything out <strong>of</strong> the norm<br />

for Class 1 Excavation by stockpiling cut material for subsequent use as fill on the Project.<br />

Under the provisions <strong>of</strong> the Contract and the 408 Specifications, Intercounty is not<br />

entitled to further payment for its stockpiling and re-handling activities under Class 1<br />

Excavation. PennDOT has no liability for these costs.<br />

Intercounty also claims that PennDOT owes it additional compensation relating to its<br />

performance <strong>of</strong> certain undercutting (i.e. the removal <strong>of</strong> unstable material as determined during<br />

roadway subgrade construction and the backfilling <strong>of</strong> these excavations with “borrow” rock until<br />

the ground is stable). Intercounty contends that it is entitled to recover because <strong>of</strong> undisclosed<br />

site conditions, because it had to do more undercutting excavation than planned, because it was<br />

not paid at the proper rate for this excavation and because it incurred inefficiencies due the out<strong>of</strong>-sequence,<br />

spread-out nature <strong>of</strong> the undercut work caused by disruption to the planned<br />

Construction Sequence. PennDOT responds that it correctly disclosed all site conditions known<br />

to it, that undercutting was to be expected, that it made no representations as to the quantity <strong>of</strong><br />

the undercut and that it paid Intercounty for the undercut work at the rate designated in the<br />

Contract.<br />

The evidence supports PennDOT's contention that Intercounty knew or should have<br />

understood that once the excavation to widen the roadway began that some undercutting would<br />

106

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

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!