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.

etween Intercounty and Tilcon. Instead, PennDOT simply reiterated its arguments that the<br />

document cannot be trusted because <strong>of</strong> the timing <strong>of</strong> its creation and because it is not supported<br />

by Tilcon invoices or Intercounty cost reports.<br />

The <strong>Board</strong> finds the testimony <strong>of</strong> Mr. Lizza regarding the oral agreement with Tilcon to<br />

be credible and reliable. We further find that, under the specifics <strong>of</strong> this case and the weight <strong>of</strong><br />

evidence presented, the oral agreement between Tilcon and Intercounty, coupled with Tilcon’s<br />

letter <strong>of</strong> June 15, 2002 (Exhibit P-58), are sufficient to support Intercounty’s claim that it is<br />

indebted to Tilcon for the asphalt material cost escalation <strong>of</strong> $115,956. The <strong>Board</strong> also finds the<br />

testimony <strong>of</strong> Mr. Lizza with respect to the identification and circumstances surrounding the<br />

creation <strong>of</strong> Exhibit P-86, and his assertion that Exhibit P-86 accurately reflects the parties' earlier<br />

oral agreement, to be credible and reliable. Because we find that adequate foundation has been<br />

provided for Exhibit P-86; because the document is relevant and material to the issues <strong>of</strong> the<br />

case; and because PennDOT has failed to state or support an adequate basis to preclude<br />

admission <strong>of</strong> this document, but has, at best, <strong>of</strong>fered reasons to question its persuasiveness, the<br />

<strong>Board</strong> will admit the document into evidence. Allegheny Ludlum Corp. v. Municipal Authority<br />

<strong>of</strong> Westimoreland County, 659 A.2d 20, 30-31 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1995); Com. v. Holtzapfel, 895<br />

A.2d 1284, 1289 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006). The <strong>Board</strong> finds that Intercounty has incurred material<br />

escalation costs for the increase in asphalt cost <strong>of</strong> $115,956 for material purchased after August<br />

2002 due to delay in the Project caused by PennDOT's active interference with Intercounty's<br />

work. With appropriate markup per Section 110.03(d)(4) and (7) this results in damages <strong>of</strong><br />

$144,945 due to Intercounty for material cost escalation.<br />

For Extended Project Supervision, Intercounty claims that it incurred expenses <strong>of</strong><br />

$89,731.00 for 7 months (from November 2002 to June 2003) for additional project supervision<br />

98

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

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!