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.

eturn to the site when they left in mid-October <strong>of</strong> 2001 without touching Sections Two or One.<br />

Instead, he ignored Intercounty’s problems for six months.<br />

When questioned at hearing as to why he failed to act during this time, Mr. Pilosi<br />

testified, inter alia, that he acted on this job in accord with his general practice. Specifically, he<br />

noted that contractors on other jobs would frequently “cry wolf” when they experienced utility<br />

delays. Accordingly, when he heard Intercounty's complaints, he deliberately took no action in<br />

the early months <strong>of</strong> the Project.<br />

Mr. Pilosi also testified that he did not take any action to contact the Utilities during the<br />

first six months <strong>of</strong> the Project because he felt it was not his job to call the Utilities after the<br />

Project began. He instead insisted, at hearing, that it was Intercounty’s responsibility under the<br />

Contract to handle the Utilities directly once work began. This position, espoused at hearing by<br />

Mr. Pilosi and argued by PennDOT, will be addressed further below. We would note, however,<br />

that this position is nonetheless contradicted in fact by Mr. Pilosi’s statements at the June 11 prejob<br />

meeting; Mr. Sebastianelli’s actions during the Project; and Mr. Pilosi’s actions after January<br />

2002 when the pole relocation was already badly delayed. Starting in January 2002, Mr. Pilosi<br />

reversed his earlier behavior and became active in calling the Utilities to meetings, urging the<br />

Utilities to come to the site, requesting their work schedules and seeking resolution <strong>of</strong> the<br />

ongoing "guy wire problem" on the Project.<br />

Although we can understand why Mr. Pilosi may not have felt the need to act for the first<br />

few months <strong>of</strong> the Project, and would have taken some comfort that the Utilities were at least<br />

working on site between late August to mid-October 2001, we find little merit in Mr. Pilosi's<br />

rationale that he was justified in ignoring the utility pole relocation problems on this Project for<br />

the entire six months because other contractors on other projects <strong>of</strong>ten "cry wolf." Moreover, we<br />

80

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

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!