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