3720 - Board of Claims

More documents

Recommendations

Info

PennDOT’s failure to address the guy wire/design problem from the start of construction (August 2001) until the end of March 2002. Inadequate Assistance with Pole Relocation With respect to PennDOT’s exceedingly slow and inadequate response to Intercounty’s request for help with the pole relocation problems during the first six months of construction, we start with Mr. Pilosi’s initial representations at the June 11 pre-job meeting. At this meeting, Mr. Pilosi, as PennDOT’s District 4-0 Utilities Administrator, stated that PennDOT and he would coordinate and address utility pole relocation issues going forward. However, his abject failure to do so for the first six months of the Project, despite repeated requests by Intercounty for assistance in expediting this work, was, in our view, a material and contributing cause of the overall delay and disruption to the Project. To understand the impact of PennDOT’s actions/inaction here, we note first that Mr. Sebastianelli, PennDOT’s inspector-in-charge for the Project, was on site daily and was well aware of the problems created for Intercounty by the initial seven week starting delay and the slower than expected pace of the pole relocation. 14 He was also aware early on (or should have been aware at least by mid-October 2001 when the Utilities left the job without even starting in Section Two or One) that any further delay in the planned relocation of the poles and wires would so disrupt Intercounty’s work schedule (as dictated by PennDOT's Construction Sequence) that unless prompt action to correct this problem was taken, Intercounty’s work could not be completed as planned. Mr. Sebastianelli also knew during this early period of the Project, July through December 2001, that all pole relocations for the Project should have been 14 Mr. Sebastianelli, the PennDOT employee with the most first-hand knowledge about the Project's daily progress and delays, was not called by PennDOT to testify at trial. As a result, the testimony of Mr. Nansteel regarding the Project’s progress, the utility pole relocation delay problems and discussions with PennDOT personnel on site stands largely uncontradicted. 78
completed. Finally, Mr. Sebastianelli was aware that Intercounty repeatedly sought (and was relying upon) help from PennDOT to rectify the delay with utility pole relocation as this was the topic of daily conversations between Mr. Nansteel and Mr. Sebastianelli, and Mr. Sebastianelli repeatedly indicated to Mr. Nansteel that he had contacted Mr. Pilosi for help with the Utilities to expedite the pole relocations. We also note that Intercounty's requests for help eventually took a formal, written form on September 27, 2001, when Mr. Nansteel wrote PennDOT setting forth the construction delay and disruption problems that Intercounty was experiencing because of the delayed pole relocation. (Ex. P-18). Despite these repeated requests for assistance with expediting the utility pole relocation during the first six months of the Project, and the justifiable belief by Intercounty that Mr. Pilosi was working throughout this time to minimize the relocation delays (resulting from Mr. Pilosi's representations at the June 11 pre-job meeting and Mr. Sebastianelli’s ongoing actions perpetuating this belief), the unfortunate fact is that Mr. Pilosi did nothing to expedite the utility pole relocation for the first six months of the Project. By his own testimony, Mr. Pilosi knew that the Utilities had not been given the Construction Sequence before the Project started and that they arrived at the June 11, 2001 pre-job meeting unprepared to agree to the planned work sequence. He was also well aware of the ongoing pole relocation problems from the beginning of July 2001 and of Intercounty's repeated requests to PennDOT for assistance with this problem. Despite this, from the pre-job meeting on June 11, 2001 until January 2002, Mr. Pilosi exerted no effort whatsoever during this time to assert the leverage PennDOT had over the Utilities to gain their cooperation and complete the pole relocations. He did not contact the Utilities to request they expedite their work when they proceeded slower than scheduled nor even to request they 79
Page 1 and 2:
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA INTERC
Page 3 and 4:
where PennDOT renamed it the “Con
Page 5 and 6:
5) Grade areas behind shoulders. 6)
Page 7 and 8:
38. In late 1999, two years before
Page 9 and 10:
could properly schedule their crews
Page 11 and 12:
egarding what PennDOT could do to m
Page 13 and 14:
during the pre-Contract period, and
Page 15 and 16:
timetable and order of operations w
Page 17 and 18:
pole relocation delays were hinderi
Page 19 and 20:
perform more clearing and grubbing
Page 21 and 22:
160. Mr. Pilosi also testified he d
Page 23 and 24:
177. On March 11, 2002, Intercounty
Page 25 and 26:
when doing its excavations subgrade
Page 27 and 28: construction problems that arise. H
Page 29 and 30: 214. PennDOT clearly misled Interco
Page 31 and 32: Delay Damages 225. Intercounty clai
Page 33 and 34: 244. The Tilcon letter, Exhibit P-5
Page 35 and 36: 265. With appropriate markup per Se
Page 37 and 38: 281. The Board finds that the diffe
Page 39 and 40: started to work, it had to finish t
Page 41 and 42: 315. Removal of the unsuitable mate
Page 43 and 44: desirable to complete the project.
Page 45 and 46: 352. Since no required road testing
Page 47 and 48: 8. To minimize erosion, the Conserv
Page 49 and 50: 21. By prescribing the character, d
Page 51 and 52: 30. Section 105.06(a) of the 408 Sp
Page 53 and 54: 36. Because Intercounty was instruc
Page 55 and 56: performance, the Contract’s excul
Page 57 and 58: Intercounty for the cost of general
Page 59 and 60: 71. Because the Contract (including
Page 61 and 62: 89. Although these provisions apply
Page 63 and 64: OPINION Plaintiff, Intercounty Pavi
Page 65 and 66: In addition to dividing work on the
Page 67 and 68: II. UTILITY POLE RELOCATION ISSUES
Page 69 and 70: the Project. Specifically, Intercou
Page 71 and 72: Moreover, we find PennDOT's defense
Page 73 and 74: were unprepared to do so. The Utili
Page 75 and 76: approximately five months. Actual p
Page 77: even though the as-planned sequence
Page 81 and 82: can find no excuse for his complete
Page 83 and 84: To conclude, we find that, in subst
Page 85 and 86: Super. 1963); Angelo Iafrate Const.
Page 87 and 88: Construction Sequence could not be
Page 89 and 90: Paving undertook to negotiate the m
Page 91 and 92: adequate room for guy wires in its
Page 93 and 94: hoc weekly work schedules were addi
Page 95 and 96: For the Extended Field Conditions,
Page 97 and 98: PennDOT objected to admission of Ex
Page 99 and 100: y Chad Nansteel (Project Superinten
Page 101 and 102: (through Mr. Pilosi and Mr. Sebasti
Page 103 and 104: days of original excavation and the
Page 105 and 106: had to finish that section before m
Page 107 and 108: e necessary in order to stabilize t
Page 109 and 110: men back and forth to do the underc
Page 111 and 112: utilities. A prevailing party in an
Page 113: ORDER AND NOW, this 23 rd day of Ap
show all

3720 - Board of Claims

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

Delete template?

Save as template?