3720 - Board of Claims

21. By prescribing the character, dimensions, location and other design specifications
for reconstruction and paving of the Project roadway, PennDOT provided design specifications for
these tasks and warranted to Intercounty that these plans and specifications would be adequate to
construct the Project. 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.
22. Delays and damages incurred in construction occasioned by the necessity of altering
plans because of an owner’s failure to originally provide adequate design are properly charged to
the owner. C.J. Langenfelder & Son, Inc. v. Department of Transportation, 404 A.2d 745 (Pa.
Cmwlth. 1979).
23. PennDOT also had the responsibility for securing all necessary rights-of-way for
the Project in advance of construction. 408 Specifications, § 107.18; Sheehan v. City of
Pittsburgh, 62 A. 642 (Pa. 1905).
24. Intercounty established by substantial evidence that PennDOT did not properly plan
for sufficient rights-of-way to accommodate the guy wires at several new pole locations. DGS v.
Pittsburgh Building Co., 902 A.2d at 989.
25. Because PennDOT failed to provide Project plans and design adequate to construct
the Project (by prescribing the location of the new utility poles through its permitting process for
this Project and then prescribing the character, dimensions, location and other design specifications
for reconstruction and paving of the Project roadway, but failing to provide sufficient room within
its rights-of-way for guy wires (as needed) on these new poles in its plans and design), PennDOT
materially breached the Contract and actively interfered with Intercounty’s work on the Project.
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.
26. Because PennDOT failed to adequately coordinate the utility pole and wire
relocation for the Project during the pre-Contract design phase, and thereby failed to act in a matter
necessary for prosecution of work on the Project (by, inter alia: prescribing the location of the new
utility poles through its permitting process for this Project and then prescribing the character,
dimensions, location and other design specifications for reconstruction and paving of the Project
roadway, but failing to provide sufficient room within its rights-of-way for guy wires (as needed)
on these new poles in its plans and design; failing to provide the utility companies affected by the
Project with the Construction Sequence and the final plans for the Project sufficiently in advance
of the start of actual work on the Project site so these utility companies could effectively plan
ahead for the timing and sequencing of the pole relocation work prescribed by the Contract; and
failing to indicate the old utility poles to be removed and/or the location of the new utility poles to
be installed on these final plans and drawings), PennDOT materially breached the Contract and
actively interfered with Intercounty’s work. See e.g., Coatesville Contractors, 506 A.2d at 865-
867; General Asphalt Paving, 405 A.2d at 1140-1141; Gasparini, 187 A.2d 161-162; S.J Groves &
Sons, Co., 343 A.2d at 76; Sheehan v. Pittsburgh, 62 A. at 642; Pittsburgh Building Co., 920 A.2d
at 987.
49