3720 - Board of Claims

January 2002 meeting that GPU was having trouble with a local landowner acquiring permission
to anchor its guy wires on this individual’s property.
Based on the evidence as a whole, the Board finds that PennDOT failed to adequately
perform its pre-Contract utilities coordination responsibilities. To begin with, we note our
agreement with Intercounty's general proposition that the “coordinated” approach to relocating
the utility poles on this Project called for careful and effective planning and design on
PennDOT's part prior to the Contract being awarded. We further agree that PennDOT's failure to
convey to the Utilities the detailed Construction Sequence by which the Project was to be built
prevented the Utilities from developing a cogent work plan and schedule for relocating the utility
poles to coincide with Intercounty’s scheduled work prior to the pre-job conference held
immediately before the commencement of work. 9
Additionally, we find that the failure of
PennDOT's design team to identify on the Project's final plans and drawings which poles were to
be relocated and the locations of the new poles to be installed further hindered the Utilities’
planning; exemplified the lack of sufficient coordination in this early phase; and contributed to
the pole relocation problems experienced on site during the construction phase. Most
significantly, however, we find that PennDOT's failure to provide final plans and drawings
affording adequate space for guy wires within PennDOT's right-of-way for all the new poles was
a material defect in its design, responsible for substantial delay in utility pole relocation. 10
9 Mr. Pilosi admits he did not send the Construction Sequence to the Utilities to provide them advance notice of the
upcoming Project work plan. Since the Construction Sequence was set forth in the final plans and drawings for the
Project, it is apparent that he also failed to provide to the Utilities with the Project’s final plans and drawings in
advance of the job meetings. The evidence presented (including Mr. Pilosi's testimony) is less clear on whether he
ever told the Utilities when the Project was expected to start prior to the May 23, 2001 contract award letter so the
relocation work would be put in the Utilities' work queue in a reasonably timely manner.
10 Even though the guy wire problem pertains to only a few poles, we note that the inability to properly place even a
few new poles among those to be relocated (while not preventing installation of all new poles) would nonetheless
preclude moving/restringing the utility lines themselves and, therefore, would delay removal of the old poles (which
were the actual physical impediment to Intercounty's excavation and paving work) until the guy wire problems and
new pole placements were finally resolved.
70