12.04.2015 Views

3720 - Board of Claims

3720 - Board of Claims

3720 - Board of Claims

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

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

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

even though the as-planned sequence showed Intercounty working only in Section One doing<br />

Phase 2 work (permanent left-side reconstruction). 13<br />

As a result <strong>of</strong> this ongoing delay and disruption, and PennDOT’s insistence that<br />

Intercounty continue to work around same in an inefficient manner, Intercounty was prevented<br />

from finishing the Project by the November 6, 2002 Contract completion date. In fact, by the<br />

end <strong>of</strong> November 2002, the weather had become too cold for paving, and PennDOT suspended<br />

work on the Project from December 2002 to April 2003. The Project was finally completed on<br />

June 17, 2003. By this time, Intercounty had been delayed 223 days and had its work disrupted<br />

throughout the Project as a result <strong>of</strong> the utility pole relocation problems.<br />

Although various reasons have been suggested and/or hypothesized as the cause <strong>of</strong> this<br />

long delay in completion <strong>of</strong> the utility pole relocation and, hence, the source <strong>of</strong> the delay and<br />

disruption on the Project, the totality <strong>of</strong> evidence presented establishes that the poor initial<br />

planning efforts by PennDOT in the Pre-Contract design phase (discussed above), exacerbated<br />

by PennDOT’s inadequate responses to the problems encountered with pole relocation during<br />

construction, were the root causes <strong>of</strong> this problem. Specifically, we find PennDOT’s response to<br />

the pole relocation problems during construction (post-Contract) to be inadequate in the<br />

following respects: A) PennDOT’s exceedingly slow and inadequate response to Intercounty’s<br />

requests for assistance in expediting utility pole relocation during the first six months <strong>of</strong> the<br />

Project; B) PennDOT’s decision to abandon the Construction Sequence it prescribed by Contract<br />

in lieu <strong>of</strong> demobilizing for a period <strong>of</strong> time in response to the delayed pole relocations; and C)<br />

13 In June 2002, Intercounty was in Section Three performing Phase 3 work (excavation for permanent right-side<br />

reconstruction); in Section Two it was performing Phase 1 work (subbase and BCBC for temporary right-side<br />

widening) while the Utilities were there relocating wires and cables; and in Section One it was performing phase 2<br />

work (excavation and subbase for permanent left-side reconstruction).<br />

77

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

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!