12.04.2015 Views

3720 - Board of Claims

3720 - Board of Claims

3720 - Board of Claims

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

(through no fault <strong>of</strong> Intercounty), Tilcon would have to increase the price <strong>of</strong> asphalt by $4.00 per<br />

ton starting on August 2, 2002. (Ex. P-58). 21<br />

The parties do not dispute that the amount <strong>of</strong><br />

asphalt used on the project from August 2, 2002 to June 17, 2003, the actual completion <strong>of</strong> the<br />

Project, was 28,989 tons.<br />

Mr. Lizza testified that after he received the Exhibit P-58 letter, he contacted Tilcon and<br />

reached a verbal agreement with Tilcon regarding payment. Mr. Lizza testified further that,<br />

because Intercounty was experiencing losses in mid-2002 due to the utility obstructions on the<br />

Project, Tilcon agreed it would supply the asphalt but would not invoice Intercounty for the<br />

material escalation at that time. Instead, Intercounty and Tilcon agreed that Intercounty would<br />

pursue its legal remedies against PennDOT to recover its damages on the Project (including the<br />

subject amount for material escalation) and, when recovered, whether by judgment or settlement,<br />

Intercounty would then pay Tilcon the additional $4.00 per ton owed for asphalt material. If<br />

there was any deficit between the amount recovered from PennDOT and the amount owed to<br />

Tilcon, that amount would remain a liability <strong>of</strong> Intercounty to Tilcon. (N.T. 604-605).<br />

At the time <strong>of</strong> Mr. Lizza's testimony at hearing regarding this alleged arrangement with<br />

Tilcon, the <strong>Board</strong> asked whether or not there was any written evidence <strong>of</strong> this oral agreement.<br />

(N.T. 652-653). At the next day's hearing, Intercounty produced Exhibit P-86, a Liquidating<br />

Agreement, that had been executed the previous evening by Tilcon and Intercounty. Mr. Lizza<br />

identified the document, explained its last minute creation and testified that Exhibit P-86<br />

accurately reflected the earlier verbal agreement reached between Tilcon and Intercounty. (N.T.<br />

603-607, 675-679). Intercounty contended Exhibit P-86 supported its claim and moved to admit<br />

it. PennDOT objected to the admission <strong>of</strong> the document.<br />

21 Intercounty had planned to complete the Project by August <strong>of</strong> 2002 so its initial asphalt supply contract expired in<br />

August 2002.<br />

96

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

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!