3720 - Board of Claims

timetable and order of operations with the three utility companies. (N.T. 53-54, 419-420; Exs. P-
2B, P-11).
109. At the pre-job meeting on June 11, 2001, Mr. Nansteel from Intercounty inquired
about how utility pole and wire relocation arrangements and coordination for the Project would
be handled going forward, and PennDOT responded that coordination with the Utilities would be
handled by “Joe Pilosi and the state.” (N.T. 140-142, 231).
110. Mr. Pilosi testified that he stated at the pre-job meeting, "I would be the contact
person" for the utility relocations. (N.T. 91-92).
111. Mr. Pilosi further confirmed that Mr. Nansteel asked him at the June 11, 2001
pre-job meeting if he (Pilosi) “was willing to be the contact person for the utilities” and “if
[Nansteel] had a problem, could [Pilosi] contact the utilities and make any suggestions or get any
information that they [the Utilities] needed and relay that back to [Sam Sebastianelli].”
Mr. Pilosi stated that he agreed to this and that he told Mr. Nansteel that he would “. . . help out
to make the utilities respond quicker and do anything I could to move this project along.” (N.T.
121).
112. In response to questioning by PennDOT’s counsel, Mr. Pilosi testified he did not
recall telling Mr. Nansteel that all further coordination and contact with the Utilities during the
Project would be through him, but he also did not deny saying it. (N.T. 121).
113. The Board does not find a direct conflict between the testimony of Mr. Nansteel
and Mr. Pilosi, but to the extent their recollections about Mr. Pilosi’s statements at the June 11,
2001 pre-job meeting differ, the Board finds Mr. Nansteel’s version of the conversation more
credible. (F.O.F. 109-112, 117-118, 152-157; Board Finding).
114. Mr. Nansteel reasonably understood from the Pilosi/PennDOT statements at the
June 11, 2001 pre-job meeting that PennDOT and Mr. Pilosi would act as Intercounty’s
intermediary to contact the Utilities and that communications about pole relocation problems on
the Project should thereafter be made through PennDOT and Pilosi. (N.T. 91-92, 139-142, 231;
F.O.F. 109-113, 117-118, 152-157; Board Finding).
115. After the June 11, 2001 meeting, Intercounty did not call or contact the Utilities
directly because PennDOT represented that it was passing on Intercounty’s concerns/requests to
the Utilities through Mr. Pilosi. (N.T. 159, 231-232, 237-238, 1102; Board Finding).
116. Intercounty cooperated fully with the Utilities in the relocation of the utility poles
and wires throughout the duration of the Project. Examples of its cooperation include
Intercounty’s willingness to reverse the Construction Sequence at the June 11 pre-job meeting
and begin in Section Three, Intercounty’s prompt completion of the surveying and staking work
needed by the Utilities to begin pole relocation and Intercounty’s timely response to any clearing
and grubbing request to facilitate utility pole work. (N.T. 137, 139, 148-149, 159, 231-232, 237-
238, 470, 475, 1102; Board Finding).
15