3720 - Board of Claims

desirable to complete the project.” (N.T. 1073-1074, 1078-1080; Ex. P-60 at pp. 203-1, 110-2 to
110-4; Board Finding).
334. Because all but 470 cubic yards of the total 11,115 cubic yards of undercut on this
Project entailed excavation of an 8 foot bottom width or more, the Board finds that the bulk of
the undercutting performed on the Project was Class 1 Excavation and that Intercounty was paid
for that work at its bid rate of $9 per cubic yard. (F.O.F. 320, 324, 326, 332-333; Board
Finding).
335. Intercounty incurred costs of $34 per cubic yard or a total of $15,980 for the 470
cubic yards of undercutting it did that was Class 1A excavation. (N.T. 337, 789, 1079; Board
Finding).
336. Intercounty was already paid $9 per cubic yard for these 470 cubic yards or
$4,230 which must be deducted from the $15,980 total costs to calculate its unreimbursed
additional cost for this work. (F.O.F. 329-335; Board Finding).
337. Intercounty incurred additional costs of $11,750 ($15,980 minus $4,230) for the
undercutting performed at a width of less than 8 feet on the Project. With appropriate markup
pursuant to Section 110.03(d)(4) and (7) of the 408 Specifications, this amounts to $13,571.25 in
damages incurred by Intercounty for this work. (Ex. P-85 (9), P-60 at p. 110-5, 110-6; F.O.F.
329-336; Board Finding).
Undercutting Inefficiency Claim
338. Intercounty claims it incurred inefficiencies in doing the undercutting work since
that work had to be done out of sequence and in a non-linear fashion due to the multiple
instances of PennDOT’s active interference noted above. (Plaintiff’s Proposed Findings of Fact,
Conclusions of Law and Legal Brief, 132-146; Plaintiff’s Response to Defendant’s Post-
Hearing Brief, Appendix 1 at pp. 4, 10-11, 14-15; Exs. P-33, P-61, P-68).
339. Original excavation and backfilling of the subgrade must occur before the area is
tested and determined to be unstable. As a result, undercutting is typically done in spots along
the roadway construction following behind original excavation. (F.O.F. 311; Board Finding).
340. Intercounty had to move its equipment and men up and down the roadway to do
the undercutting on the Project in a non-linear sequence. (N.T. 256-271; Exs. P-33, P-60, P-61,
P-68).
341. Undercutting is not as lineal or sequential an operation as original excavation and
paving because only unstable problem areas must be undercut, if and as they are discovered.
(F.O. F. 311, 339-340; Board Finding).
342. Intercounty did not keep any records of equipment idled by undercutting delays
nor provide us with a comparison of its initial cost or time estimate to perform undercutting
43