3720 - Board of Claims

were unprepared to do so. The Utilities told PennDOT at this June 11, 2001 meeting that they
could not start moving poles as required by the Contract's Construction Sequence.
After some further discussion at this pre-job meeting, the Utilities requested that the order
of the Construction Sequence be reversed and that Intercounty start its work in Section Three,
then proceed to Section Two, then Section One. The reason given for this sequence flip was that
there were fewer poles to be moved in Section Three and the change would allow the Utilities a
“better chance” of staying ahead of Intercounty on the Project. With this change the Utilities
then agreed to begin work on pole relocation in Section Three upon completion of the necessary
surveying and staking work by Intercounty.
Prior to this meeting, Intercounty did not know
about PennDOT’s failure to give the Utilities the Construction Sequence.
It was also at this meeting that Intercounty inquired about how utility relocation
arrangements and coordination issues would be handled going forward. PennDOT responded
that coordination with the Utilities would all be handled by "Joe Pilosi and the state." (N.T. 141).
Mr. Nansteel, Intercounty’s construction superintendent, understood from this response that
following the pre-job meeting he was to address any future issues or concerns with utility pole
relocation to Sam Sebastianelli (PennDOT’s lead inspector and primary PennDOT contact
person on the Project day-to-day) and/or Mr. Pilosi. 12
Thereafter, as work proceeded on the
Project and problems with the utility pole relocation escalated, Mr. Nansteel and Intercounty did
as they were instructed and sought PennDOT’s assistance through Mr. Sebastianelli and
12 Mr. Pilosi testified he did not recall telling Mr. Nansteel that all further coordination and contact with the Utilities
would be through him, but he also did not deny saying it. (N.T. 121). Mr. Pilosi's version of the conversation is that
Mr. Nansteel asked him if he "was willing to be the contact person for the utilities" and "if [Nansteel] had a problem,
could [Pilosi] contact the utilities and make any suggestions or get any information that they needed and relay that
back to [Sam Sebastianelli, the PennDOT project inspector on the job]" and that he [Pilosi] agreed to this.
Mr. Pilosi also stated that he told Mr. Nansteel that he would "... help out to make the utilities respond quicker and
do anything I could to move this project along." (N.T. 121). The Board does not find a direct conflict between the
testimony of Mr. Nansteel and Mr. Pilosi, but to the extent their recollections differ, the Board found Mr. Nansteel's
version of the conversation more credible.
73