3720 - Board of Claims

started to work, it had to finish that section before moving to excavate or build in other sections.
(Ex. P-2A).
298. The construction methods to be used for the embankments were otherwise left to
the contractor. (N.T. 1068, 1160; Ex. P-17).
299. When Intercounty bid the Project, it planned to start construction in Section One
where it needed to construct embankments. To do this, Intercounty’s original excavation plan
was to immediately go to Section Three where it would excavate the material it needed from the
cut areas in the hillside, load the material into dump trucks, and then transport, dump, spread and
compact the material where it was needed in Section One directly and without stockpiling this
material. Later, it planned to build the embankments in Section Two by also going into the
hillside along the Section Three roadway for the material as it was needed and without
rehandling. (N.T. 357-360; 624-626).
300. Intercounty never discussed this original excavation plan for building the
embankments with PennDOT, and never had PennDOT’s approval for this plan. (N.T. 359).
301. Under the original Construction Sequence, Intercounty would not have been able
to use its original excavation plan, but instead would have had to start in Section One by building
the embankments there and would not have been able to excavate any material from Section
Three until much later. (N.T. 357-359; Ex. P-2A; Board Finding).
302. Pursuant to the 408 Specifications, Intercounty would have had to purchase fill
material offsite, truck it to the site and off-load it to create the Section One embankments. The
same would have been true for Section Two. (N.T. 357-360; Exs. P-2A, P-59, P-60; F.O.F.
291-301; Board Finding).
303. When it got to Section Three, Intercounty would have had to excavate the hillside
and pay substantial costs for hauling and disposing of that material offsite. (N.T. 357-360; Exs.
P-2A, P-59, P-60; F.O.F. 291-301; Board Finding).
304. The Board finds that Intercounty’s claim that the re-handling costs were “extra
costs” caused by the “flip” in the Construction Sequence is a flawed theory of recovery because
it was premised on its plan for doing the work that would not have been permitted under the
original Construction Sequence. (N.T. 357-359; F.O.F. 289-303; Board Finding).
305. When the Construction Sequence was flipped at the beginning of work on the
Project, Intercounty started with the hillside excavation in Section Three and, as per the original
Construction Sequence, was restricted to completing that section before creating any
embankments in other sections. (N.T. 357-359; Ex. P-2A).
306. Because Intercounty stockpiled the Section Three material as directed by
PennDOT, Intercounty did not have to purchase fill offsite and truck it in to construct the Section
One and Two embankments. By using the stockpiled material, it saved the costs of significant
“borrow” material. (F.O.F. 289-305; Board Finding).
39