3720 - Board of Claims
3720 - Board of Claims
3720 - Board of Claims
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