3720 - Board of Claims

More documents

Recommendations

Info

83. By failing to provide the Utilities with the Construction Sequence and the final plans and drawings until immediately before the start of work; failing to indicate the poles to be moved and the position of the new, relocated poles on its final plans and drawings; and failing to provide adequate space for guy wires on certain poles in its roadway design; PennDOT failed to adequately coordinate utility pole relocation for the Project in the pre-Contract period. (F.O.F. 61-82; Board Finding). 84. PennDOT did not do careful and effective planning on this Project as demonstrated by PennDOT’s failure to produce plans and drawings sufficient for Intercounty to build the Project and its failure to properly coordinate the utility pole and wire relocation on the Project in the pre-Contract period. (F.O.F. 79-83; Board Finding). 85. By prescribing the location of the new utility poles through the 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; failing to provide the Utilities with the Construction Sequence and the final plans for the Project sufficiently in advance of the start of the actual work on the Project site so the Utilities could effectively plan ahead for the timing and sequencing of the pole relocation work prescribed by the Contract; and failing to indicate the old utility poles to be moved and the locations of the new poles on these final plans and drawings; PennDOT failed to adequately coordinate the utility pole and wire relocation for the Project during the pre-Contract period and thereby failed to act in a matter necessary for prosecution of the work on the Project. (F.O.F. 61-84; Board Finding). 86. Because PennDOT failed to adequately coordinate the utility pole and wire relocation for the Project during the pre-Contract period and thereby failed to act in a matter necessary for prosecution of the work on the Project, PennDOT actively and materially interfered with Intercounty’s work. (F.O.F. 61-85; Board Finding). 87. Proper coordination of the relocation of the utility poles and wires was reasonably within the capability of PennDOT and critical to providing Intercounty with reasonably unobstructed access to its work on the Project. (F.O.F. 24-86; Board Finding). 88. By prescribing the location of the 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 poles on its plans and design; by failing to provide the utility companies affected by the Project with the Construction sequence and the final plans for the Project sufficiently in advance of the start of actual work on the Project site so these utility companies could plan ahead of the start of actual work on the Project site so these utility companies could plan ahead for the timing and sequencing of the pole relocation work prescribed by the Contract; and by failing to indicate the old utility poles to be moved and the location of the new utility poles to be installed on these final plans and drawings; PennDOT failed to adequately coordinate the utility pole and wire relocation for the Project 12
during the pre-Contract period, and thereby failed to take actions reasonably within its capability to provide Intercounty with access to work on the Project. (F.O.F. 24-87; Board Finding). 89. Because PennDOT failed to adequately coordinate the utility pole and wire relocation for the Project during the pre-Contract period, and thereby failed to take actions reasonably within its capability to provide Intercounty with reasonably unobstructed access to work on the Project, PennDOT actively and materially interfered with Intercounty’s work. (F.O.F. 24-88; Board Finding). 90. Because PennDOT provided Intercounty with final plans and drawings that did not allow sufficient space for pole relocations with guy wires, PennDOT failed to adequately coordinate the utility pole relocations in the pre-Contract design phase. (F.O.F. 24-46, 67-82; Board Finding). POST-CONTRACT ACTIVITY 91. In April 2001, the Contract drafted by PennDOT was circulated to various qualified contractors, including Intercounty, for public bidding. Bids were received and opened on April 19, 2001. (Exs. P-6, P-8, P-87). 92. Intercounty was the lowest responsible bidder and was awarded the Contract on May 18, 2001. (Ex. P-11). 93. On May 23, 2001, PennDOT sent Intercounty a notice that it had been awarded the Contract and requested Intercounty’s representatives attend a pre-construction conference on June 4, 2001. Mr. Pilosi sent a copy of this letter to the Utilities. (Ex. P-7). 94. On June 4, 2001, PennDOT held a pre-construction conference with representatives of Intercounty and the Utilities. The minutes of that meeting state that, “Mr. Pilosi reviewed the public utility involvement in the project.” (N.T. 589; Exs. P-7, P-9, P-11, P- 27). 95. There is no further evidence in the record regarding the substance of any conversations at the June 4, 2001 meeting respecting utility relocations. (N.T. 589; Exs. P-7, P- 9, P-11, P-27; Board Finding). 10). 96. On June 5, 2001, PennDOT completed execution of the Contract. (Exs. P-8, P- 97. On June 11, 2001, PennDOT held a pre-job meeting at the Project site with representatives from Intercounty, PennDOT, the Utilities and the Pike County Conservation District. Mr. Pilosi had notified the Utilities to attend and he chaired the meeting. (N.T. 87-88, 138-141, 149; Ex. P-7). 13
Page 1 and 2: COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA INTERC
Page 3 and 4: where PennDOT renamed it the “Con
Page 5 and 6: 5) Grade areas behind shoulders. 6)
Page 7 and 8: 38. In late 1999, two years before
Page 9 and 10: could properly schedule their crews
Page 11: egarding what PennDOT could do to m
Page 15 and 16: timetable and order of operations w
Page 17 and 18: pole relocation delays were hinderi
Page 19 and 20: perform more clearing and grubbing
Page 21 and 22: 160. Mr. Pilosi also testified he d
Page 23 and 24: 177. On March 11, 2002, Intercounty
Page 25 and 26: when doing its excavations subgrade
Page 27 and 28: construction problems that arise. H
Page 29 and 30: 214. PennDOT clearly misled Interco
Page 31 and 32: Delay Damages 225. Intercounty clai
Page 33 and 34: 244. The Tilcon letter, Exhibit P-5
Page 35 and 36: 265. With appropriate markup per Se
Page 37 and 38: 281. The Board finds that the diffe
Page 39 and 40: started to work, it had to finish t
Page 41 and 42: 315. Removal of the unsuitable mate
Page 43 and 44: desirable to complete the project.
Page 45 and 46: 352. Since no required road testing
Page 47 and 48: 8. To minimize erosion, the Conserv
Page 49 and 50: 21. By prescribing the character, d
Page 51 and 52: 30. Section 105.06(a) of the 408 Sp
Page 53 and 54: 36. Because Intercounty was instruc
Page 55 and 56: performance, the Contract’s excul
Page 57 and 58: Intercounty for the cost of general
Page 59 and 60: 71. Because the Contract (including
Page 61 and 62: 89. Although these provisions apply
Page 63 and 64:
OPINION Plaintiff, Intercounty Pavi
Page 65 and 66:
In addition to dividing work on the
Page 67 and 68:
II. UTILITY POLE RELOCATION ISSUES
Page 69 and 70:
the Project. Specifically, Intercou
Page 71 and 72:
Moreover, we find PennDOT's defense
Page 73 and 74:
were unprepared to do so. The Utili
Page 75 and 76:
approximately five months. Actual p
Page 77 and 78:
even though the as-planned sequence
Page 79 and 80:
completed. Finally, Mr. Sebastianel
Page 81 and 82:
can find no excuse for his complete
Page 83 and 84:
To conclude, we find that, in subst
Page 85 and 86:
Super. 1963); Angelo Iafrate Const.
Page 87 and 88:
Construction Sequence could not be
Page 89 and 90:
Paving undertook to negotiate the m
Page 91 and 92:
adequate room for guy wires in its
Page 93 and 94:
hoc weekly work schedules were addi
Page 95 and 96:
For the Extended Field Conditions,
Page 97 and 98:
PennDOT objected to admission of Ex
Page 99 and 100:
y Chad Nansteel (Project Superinten
Page 101 and 102:
(through Mr. Pilosi and Mr. Sebasti
Page 103 and 104:
days of original excavation and the
Page 105 and 106:
had to finish that section before m
Page 107 and 108:
e necessary in order to stabilize t
Page 109 and 110:
men back and forth to do the underc
Page 111 and 112:
utilities. A prevailing party in an
Page 113:
ORDER AND NOW, this 23 rd day of Ap
show all

3720 - Board of Claims

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

Delete template?

Save as template?