3720 - Board of Claims

214. PennDOT clearly misled Intercounty into believing PennDOT was making efforts
to expedite pole and wire relocations (when in fact, it was not) by reason of: Mr. Pilosi’s
representations made at the June 11, 2001 meeting that all further coordination with the Utilities
would be handled by Mr. Pilosi and/or PennDOT; Mr. Sebastianelli’s actions thereafter
confirming same throughout the remainder of the Project; the failure of anyone from PennDOT
to advise Intercounty that it should be dealing directly with the Utilities regarding pole relocation
issues during the Project; and Mr. Pilosi’s complete failure to do anything to facilitate utility pole
and wire relocation during the first six months of the Project. The Board finds the foregoing
combination of representations and continued inaction by PennDOT particularly troublesome
after the Utilities left the Project in mid-October 2001 after completing only Section Three and it
was obvious that utility pole relocation was severely delayed at that point. (N.T. 140-141, 231,
619; F.O.F. 109-114, 117-118, 134-135, 152-157, 210-213; Board Finding).
215. By misleading Intercounty into believing PennDOT was making efforts to
expedite utility pole and wire relocation when it was not, PennDOT actively and materially
interfered with Intercounty’s work on the Project. (N.T. 140-141, 231, 619; F.O.F. 109-114,
117-118, 134-135, 152-157, 210-214; Board Finding).
216. PennDOT actively interfered with Intercounty’s work by making affirmative
representations which misled Intercounty into thinking that PennDOT was communicating its
concerns with pole and wire relocations to the Utilities and was taking action to expedite the
Utilities’ performance, when, in fact, PennDOT was not doing so for the first six months of the
Project. (F.O.F. 109-114, 117-118, 134-135, 152-157, 210-215; Board Finding).
217. PennDOT’s refusal to consider a work suspension after the Utilities left the
Project in mid-October 2001 (with only a small portion of the pole relocations accomplished)
and its direction to Intercounty to work in an unplanned, out of sequence and piecemeal way
under the ad hoc weekly work schedules created by PennDOT (instead of pursuant to the
Construction Sequence) materially altered the Contract’s prescribed work sequences and
hindered Intercounty’s work for the remainder of the Project. (Exs. P-8, P-59; F.O.F. 133-145,
173-202; Board Finding).
218. PennDOT actively interfered with Intercounty’s work on the Project by materially
altering the Contract’s prescribed work sequences from mid-October 2001 onward. (F.O.F.
133-145, 173-202; Board Finding).
219. PennDOT actively interfered with Intercounty’s performance by its acts of
abandoning the Construction Sequence, refusing to suspend work and insisting that Intercounty
work in an unplanned, piecemeal fashion instead of the planned, linear sequence of construction
steps. (F.O.F. 133-145, 173-202; Board Finding).
220. PennDOT actively interfered with Intercounty’s work on the Project and failed to
act in a manner necessary to the prosecution of the work by its initial failure to plan enough room
for guy wires as needed for several new poles on the Project and then by PennDOT’s excessively
long delay in resolving the right-of-way/guy wire design problem (from August 2001 to March
2002). (F.O.F. 24-81, 134-135, 145, 165, 168, 170-196; Board Finding).
29