3720 - Board of Claims

hoc weekly work schedules were additional acts that actively interfered with Intercounty's work
on the Project.
Materially altering a contractor’s work sequence has been held to breach the contract and
make PennDOT liable for damages. Commonwealth v. S.J. Groves, 343 A.2d at 76-77. In S.J.
Groves, PennDOT changed the contractor’s work sequence in a contract with special provisions,
and the Board held PennDOT liable for the contractor’s damages for extra costs. In Dubrook,
Inc. v. Commonwealth Department of Transportation, No. 1001 Pa. Bd. Of Claims at 21, 23
(1992), the Board found PennDOT liable for damages for changing a road repair contract when it
altered the contractor’s methods of construction. See also, W.P. Dickerson, 400 A.2d at 930;
Coatesville, 506 A.2d at 865); E.C. Ernst, Inc. v. Koppers Co., Inc., 476 F.Supp. 729, 744 (W.D.
1979).
In summary, the Board finds the Contract’s exculpatory provisions, including those
stating “no damages for delay” and shifting responsibility for utility problems to the contractor,
are not enforceable because PennDOT’s acts and omissions enumerated above misled
Intercounty and actively interfered with the performance of its work on the Project. See e.g.
Coatesville, 506 A.2d at 865-866; Gasparini, 187 A.2d at 162; General Asphalt Paving, 408 A.2d
at 1141; Sheehan, 62 A.2d at 642; S.J. Groves 343 A.2d at 76-76; James Corp., 398 A.2d at 484-
485. Because PennDOT’s actions constituted active interference with Intercounty's work and
breached the Contract, PennDOT is liable to Intercounty for the delay and disruption damages
caused by same.
IV. INTERCOUNTY’S DAMAGES
As noted above, the Board has concluded that the evidence presented amply supports
Intercounty's claim that it was both delayed for the entire Project overrun period of 223 days and
93