3720 - Board of Claims

egarding what PennDOT could do to make room for the guy wires. Possible solutions discussed
included redesign of the area or acquisition of additional rights-of-way from the adjacent
landowner. However, PennDOT quickly determined it would not pay for additional rights-ofway.
(N.T. 93-94, 119-120, 289, 598; Exs. P-3, P-4, P-14, P-59).
76. PennDOT’s original design did not allow sufficient room for guy wires in the
right-of-way at several new pole locations along the Project, although PennDOT itself had
authorized and approved these new pole locations by permit. (Exs. P-3, P-4, P-59; F.O.F. 75;
Board Finding).
77. Prior to PennDOT’s soliciting bids for this Project, the Utility Relocation Unit
failed to determine what, if any, special right-of–way requirements there might be for the new
pole locations, and PennDOT’s designers failed to allow sufficient space in the right-of-way for
the guy wires that supported some of the new, relocated utility poles. (N.T. 61-64, 69, 1121-
1123; F.O.F. 67-76; Board Finding).
78. Although guy wires may have affected and prevented placement of only a few
poles, the inability to place all of the new poles in the right-of-way prevented transfer or
restringing of the utility wires in the affected section. This, in turn, precluded removal of old
poles (and thereby impeded building the new roadway) until a final resolution of all guy wire
pole placement problems. (N. T. 81, 93, 230-231; Exs. P-25, P-59; F.O.F. 68-77, 134-135,
170-196; Board Finding).
79. PennDOT provided design specifications for the Project by prescribing the
character, dimensions, location and other design details for reconstruction and paving of the
Project roadway in the Project’s plans, drawings, specifications, permits and Contract. (F.O.F.
4-5, 24-78; Board Finding).
80. By prescribing the location of new utility poles through its permitting process for
this Project and then prescribing the character, dimensions, location and other design
specifications for reconstruction and paving of the Project roadway, but failing to provide
sufficient room within its rights-of-way for guy wires (as needed) on these new poles in its plans
and design; PennDOT failed to provide Project plans adequate to construct the Project. (F.O.F.
24-79, 134-135, 170-196; Board Finding).
81. Because PennDOT failed to provide plans adequate to construct the Project,
PennDOT failed to act in a matter necessary for prosecution of the work on the Project and
actively and materially interfered with Intercounty’s work on the Project. (F.O.F. 24-80, 134-
135, 170-196; Board Finding).
82. The documents and evidence in this case, including Mr. Pilosi’s own testimony
describing his job and his actions with regard to the Project, establish that PennDOT attempted to
coordinate the utility pole and wire relocations needed for the Project in the pre-Contract period
pursuant to its own internal policies and procedures. (F.O.F. 24-80; Board Finding).
11