12.04.2015 Views

3720 - Board of Claims

3720 - Board of Claims

3720 - Board of Claims

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

when doing its excavations subgrade and paving work. This caused Intercounty delay and<br />

disruption to its work on the Project in Sections One and Two. (N.T. 150-152, 229-230, 535,<br />

1059-1064, 1126; Ex. D-5; F.O.F. 71-75, 76-78, 80, 83, 134-135, 165, 171-192; <strong>Board</strong><br />

Finding).<br />

194. From August to October 2002, PennDOT ordered Intercounty to accelerate to try<br />

to finish the Project. While Intercounty and PennDOT were anxious to complete paving in 2002,<br />

the Contract contained restrictions against paving after October 31, 2002 because cold weather<br />

could adversely affect the bituminous mixture that was used. PennDOT refused to waive the<br />

specifications dictating the quality <strong>of</strong> the paving, so Intercounty could not proceed with the<br />

paving in the cold weather. (Ex. P-51; <strong>Board</strong> Finding).<br />

195. Due to winter weather, PennDOT suspended road construction paving activities<br />

from December 24, 2002 to April 10, 2003 for a total <strong>of</strong> 109 days. (N.T. 522-523, 953-954; Ex.<br />

P-61).<br />

196. The pole relocation problems had already pushed the SR 2001 Project into 2003<br />

and an additional design problem occurred at the intersection <strong>of</strong> Weber Road and SR 2001.<br />

(N.T. 541; <strong>Board</strong> Finding).<br />

197. The township objected to the width and steepness <strong>of</strong> the SR 2001 roadway at the<br />

Weber Road intersection. PennDOT eventually agreed to redesign it to lower the grade and<br />

improve the sight distances. (Exs. P-15, P-47, P-54, P-61).<br />

198. Intercounty constructed this section <strong>of</strong> SR 2001 at the Weber Road intersection<br />

and was paid for the extra work, but Intercounty was not compensated for any delay during this<br />

time. (N.T. 1153-1154; Ex. P-61).<br />

199. The Project was accepted, and the <strong>of</strong>ficial completion date was June 17, 2003.<br />

(Ex. P-53).<br />

200. In its original construction schedule, Intercounty planned to complete the Project<br />

by August 6, 2002. The contract completion date was November 6, 2002. (N.T. 486; Ex. P-53)<br />

201. From the contract completion date <strong>of</strong> November 6, 2002 to the actual completion<br />

date <strong>of</strong> June 17, 2003 was a period <strong>of</strong> 223 days or about seven months. (Ex. P-53; <strong>Board</strong><br />

Finding).<br />

202. On January 1, 2004, PennDOT authorized a 223 day extension <strong>of</strong> the Project’s<br />

completion date from November 6, 2002 to June 17, 2003. In PennDOT’s written authorization<br />

for certain additional expenses for this extended period, PennDOT wrote that the extra cost was<br />

caused by the “failure <strong>of</strong> the utility companies to relocate poles as planned and by overruns in<br />

earthwork quantities.” (Exs. P-53, P-2C, P-2E; Ex. D-31).<br />

25

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

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!