3720 - Board of Claims

15. Every contract contains the implied obligation that neither party will do anything to
prevent, hinder or delay performance of the other. See e.g. Able-Hess Associates v. SSHE
Slippery Rock University, No. 3369, 2003 WL 22524494 at *13 (Pa. Bd. Claims Oct. 27, 2003);
Gasparini Excavating Co. v. Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission, 187 A.2d 157, 161-162 (Pa.
1963); State Highway and Bridge Authority v. General Asphalt Paving Co., 405 A.2d 1138, 1140-
1141 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1979).
16. It constitutes a breach of contract and active interference with a contractor’s work
if: (1) there is affirmative or positive interference by the owner with the contractor’s work; or (2)
there is a failure on the part of the owner to act in some essential matter necessary to the
prosecution of the work. See e.g. Coatesville Contractors & Engineers, Inc. v. Borough of Ridley
Park, 506 A.2d 862, 865-867 (Pa. 1986).
17. An owner who is party to a construction contract has a fundamental obligation to
take those actions reasonably within its capability to provide its contractor with reasonably
unobstructed access to the work site. Id.; A.G. Cullen Construction, Inc. v. State System of
Higher Education, 898 A.2d 1145, 1160 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006); Gasparini, 187 A.2d at 161-162,
Com., Department of Highways v. S. J. Groves and Sons Co., 343 A.2d 72, 76 (Pa. Cmwlth.
1975), General Asphalt Paving, 405 A.2d at 1140-1141.
18. PennDOT, through its Utility Relocation Unit and District Utility Relocation
Administrator, had a responsibility and duty to properly coordinate the relocation of the utility
poles and wires affecting the Project prior to the execution of the Contract pursuant to its own
internal policies and procedures; because such coordination was an essential matter necessary to
prosecution of the roadway work on the Project; and because such actions were reasonably within
its capability and critical to providing Intercounty with reasonably unobstructed access to its work
on the Project. N.T. 38; Ex. P-1M; See e.g. Coatesville Contractors, 506 A.2d at 865-867; A.G.
Cullen Construction, 898 A.2d at 1160; Gasparini, 187 A.2d at 161-162; S. J. Groves and Sons
Co., 343 A.2d at 76; General Asphalt Paving, 405 A.2d at 1140-1141.
19. PennDOT also had a duty to properly plan and design the Project. 408
Specifications § 104.01; United States v. Spearin, 248 U.S. 132, 137, 39 S. Ct. 59, 61 (1918);
Canuso v. City of Philadelphia, 192 A. 133, 136 (Pa. 1937); A.G. Cullen Construction, 898 A.2d at
1160; Department of Transportation v. W.P. Dickerson & Son, Inc., 400 A.2d 930, 932 (Pa.
Cmwlth. 1979); Allentown Supply Corp. v. Stryer, 195 A.2d 274, 279 (Pa. Super. 1963); Angelo
Iafrate Const. Co. v. Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission, No. 3654, 2006 WL 2585020 at *29-30,
41-42 (Pa. Bd. Claims, July 27, 2006).
20. When a contractor builds or otherwise performs according to plans or specifications
supplied by a project owner, the contractor cannot be held responsible for insufficiency of the
work or for defects in the plans or specifications. United States v. Spearin, 248 U.S. at 137, 39 S.
Ct. at 61; Canuso v. City of Philadelphia, 192 A. at 136; A.G. Cullen Construction, 898 A.2d at
1160; W.P. Dickerson & Son, 400 A.2d at 932; Allentown Supply Corp. v. Stryer, 195 A.2d at
279.
48