3720 - Board of Claims

More documents

Recommendations

Info

97. The 6% per annum statutory rate of interest is appropriately applied from July 12, 2004, to the date of this Order, April 23, 2009, as pre-judgment interest to the total damages of $590,883.06. This totals $169,406.17. 98. PennDOT is liable to Intercounty for a total judgment, including pre-judgment interest of $760,289.23. 99. PennDOT is liable for post-judgment interest on the total outstanding judgment at the statutory rate for judgments (6% per annum), calculated in the manner described for prejudgment interest, beginning on the date of the attached Opinion and Order and continuing until the date the judgment is paid in full. 62 Pa.C.S. Sec. 1751; 41 P.S. Sec. 202. 62
OPINION Plaintiff, Intercounty Paving Associates, LLC (“Intercounty”), a highway construction contractor, brings this claim against defendant, Department of Transportation (“PennDOT”) for delay, loss-of-productivity and other damages it claims to have sustained during the reconstruction of approximately three and one-half miles of Route 2001 located in Pike County, Delaware-Dingham Townships, Pennsylvania (the “SR 2001 Project” or “Project”). Intercounty performed this work pursuant to Contract No. 044077 (“Contract”), executed by PennDOT on June 5, 2001, for a bid value of $4,523,385.82. It seeks total damages in the amount of $1,415,507.11 plus interest and attorney’s fees for PennDOT's alleged acts and omissions in breach of the Project's Contract. These alleged acts and omissions in breach of contract include PennDOT’s failure to properly plan, schedule and coordinate the relocation of the utility poles on the Project; the existence of certain design flaws in the Project plans; and PennDOT’s unilateral modification to the prescribed construction sequence and insistence that work proceed despite the failure to timely relocate the utility poles on the Project. PennDOT, for its part, does not appear to contest the fact that the extensive delay in relocating the utility poles both delayed and interfered with Intercounty’s work on the Project. However, PennDOT points to various provisions in the Contract which it asserts relieve it from any responsibility for the lack of adequate planning and coordination of utility pole relocation apparent on this Project. PennDOT also contests the validity of various aspects of Intercounty’s damages calculation. I. PROJECT BACKGROUND SR 2001 is a two lane road (one lane in each direction) which runs through mildly hilly terrain with several twists and turns in Pike County, Pennsylvania (PennDOT District 4-0). The 63
Page 1 and 2:
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA INTERC
Page 3 and 4:
where PennDOT renamed it the “Con
Page 5 and 6:
5) Grade areas behind shoulders. 6)
Page 7 and 8:
38. In late 1999, two years before
Page 9 and 10:
could properly schedule their crews
Page 11 and 12: egarding what PennDOT could do to m
Page 13 and 14: during the pre-Contract period, and
Page 15 and 16: timetable and order of operations w
Page 17 and 18: pole relocation delays were hinderi
Page 19 and 20: perform more clearing and grubbing
Page 21 and 22: 160. Mr. Pilosi also testified he d
Page 23 and 24: 177. On March 11, 2002, Intercounty
Page 25 and 26: when doing its excavations subgrade
Page 27 and 28: construction problems that arise. H
Page 29 and 30: 214. PennDOT clearly misled Interco
Page 31 and 32: Delay Damages 225. Intercounty clai
Page 33 and 34: 244. The Tilcon letter, Exhibit P-5
Page 35 and 36: 265. With appropriate markup per Se
Page 37 and 38: 281. The Board finds that the diffe
Page 39 and 40: started to work, it had to finish t
Page 41 and 42: 315. Removal of the unsuitable mate
Page 43 and 44: desirable to complete the project.
Page 45 and 46: 352. Since no required road testing
Page 47 and 48: 8. To minimize erosion, the Conserv
Page 49 and 50: 21. By prescribing the character, d
Page 51 and 52: 30. Section 105.06(a) of the 408 Sp
Page 53 and 54: 36. Because Intercounty was instruc
Page 55 and 56: performance, the Contract’s excul
Page 57 and 58: Intercounty for the cost of general
Page 59 and 60: 71. Because the Contract (including
Page 61: 89. Although these provisions apply
Page 65 and 66: In addition to dividing work on the
Page 67 and 68: II. UTILITY POLE RELOCATION ISSUES
Page 69 and 70: the Project. Specifically, Intercou
Page 71 and 72: Moreover, we find PennDOT's defense
Page 73 and 74: were unprepared to do so. The Utili
Page 75 and 76: approximately five months. Actual p
Page 77 and 78: even though the as-planned sequence
Page 79 and 80: completed. Finally, Mr. Sebastianel
Page 81 and 82: can find no excuse for his complete
Page 83 and 84: To conclude, we find that, in subst
Page 85 and 86: Super. 1963); Angelo Iafrate Const.
Page 87 and 88: Construction Sequence could not be
Page 89 and 90: Paving undertook to negotiate the m
Page 91 and 92: adequate room for guy wires in its
Page 93 and 94: hoc weekly work schedules were addi
Page 95 and 96: For the Extended Field Conditions,
Page 97 and 98: PennDOT objected to admission of Ex
Page 99 and 100: y Chad Nansteel (Project Superinten
Page 101 and 102: (through Mr. Pilosi and Mr. Sebasti
Page 103 and 104: days of original excavation and the
Page 105 and 106: had to finish that section before m
Page 107 and 108: e necessary in order to stabilize t
Page 109 and 110: men back and forth to do the underc
Page 111 and 112: utilities. A prevailing party in an
Page 113:
ORDER AND NOW, this 23 rd day of Ap
show all

3720 - Board of Claims

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?