3720 - Board of Claims

mid-October 2001 (when the Utilities left the Project without touching Sections Two and One) to
January 2002, despite his representations at the June 11 meeting, remains without reasonable
explanation. 19
Applying the case law established by Pennsylvania's courts in Coatesville, General
Asphalt and their progeny to the case at bar, the Board finds that the representations of PennDOT
personnel that they were working to coordinate and expedite the utility pole relocation from the
outset of work on the Project when, in fact, they were not, constituted active interference with
Intercounty’s work on the Project. See also, Department of General Services v. Pittsburgh
Building Co., 920 A.2d 973, 991 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2007) (The Court found that DGS's actions in
withholding a memo about adverse soil conditions and directing the contractor to commence
work in contradiction of same deceived the contractor and actively interfered with its work).
James Corp. v. North Allegheny School District, 938 A.2d 474 (Cmwlth. Ct. 2007) (The Court
found active interference and misrepresentation by the school district that first told the contractor
that the E & S permit had been issued pre-bid when it had not); See also, S.J. Groves & Sons,
Co., 343 A.2d at 72; Gasparini, 187 A.2d at 162.
PennDOT's affirmative misrepresentations with regard to the role it would undertake
post-Contract in utility pole relocations in this case are ample grounds for dismissal of the
several exculpatory provisions relied upon by PennDOT to relieve it from responsibility for the
delay and disruption caused to Intercounty. However, there are several other circumstances here
which we also find to constitute active interference with Intercounty's work by PennDOT. The
most significant of these additional circumstances are PennDOT’s initial failure to include
19 If, indeed, it was not Mr. Pilosi’s job to communicate with the Utilities on pole relocation problems once the
Project commenced, why did he represent that he would do so at the June 11, 2001 pre-job meeting and why did Mr.
Sebastianelli perpetuate this representation by his conduct for the first six months of the Project?
90