12.04.2015 Views

3720 - Board of Claims

3720 - Board of Claims

3720 - Board of Claims

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

Moreover, we find PennDOT's defense to this aspect <strong>of</strong> the complaint (i.e. that it was unaware <strong>of</strong><br />

this problem until January 2002 and/or that it was the Utilities' fault for not identifying the need<br />

for guy wires in its initial response to Mr. Pilosi) to be without merit. PennDOT had the ultimate<br />

authority to approve the pole relocations submitted by the Utilities. It did so and then provided<br />

Intercounty with plans that did not allow sufficient space for such pole relocations, and<br />

construction <strong>of</strong> the road as designed. By doing so, PennDOT failed to adequately coordinate the<br />

utility pole relocations into its design for the roadway in this pre-Contract phase and failed to<br />

provide Intercounty with plans and drawings adequate to complete the Project.<br />

Finally, we note our agreement with Intercounty that PennDOT was also required to give<br />

each affected utility company advance notice <strong>of</strong> the Project's estimated start date as soon as<br />

reasonably possible so each utility company could (at least tentatively) place the Project in its<br />

work queue sufficiently in advance so as not to delay pole relocation. However, we are unable to<br />

find that Intercounty has carried its burden <strong>of</strong> pro<strong>of</strong> to establish that PennDOT failed to do so.<br />

Specifically, the lack <strong>of</strong> evidence that Mr. Pilosi gave the Utilities sufficient advance notice <strong>of</strong><br />

the Project prior to the pre-construction job conference does not establish by a preponderance<br />

that he failed to do so. Similarly, the failure to provide the specific Construction Sequence and<br />

final plans/drawings in advance <strong>of</strong> these meetings does not establish that PennDOT failed to at<br />

least advise the Utilities reasonably in advance <strong>of</strong> the anticipated Project start date. Accordingly,<br />

while we have some doubt that PennDOT provided sufficient advance notice to the Utilities, we<br />

are unable to find this as a matter <strong>of</strong> fact based on the evidence provided and this does not enter<br />

into our decision.<br />

Despite Intercounty's failure to carry its burden <strong>of</strong> pro<strong>of</strong> on this last issue, Intercounty has<br />

established that PennDOT failed to adequately coordinate utility pole relocation for the Project in<br />

71

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!