Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

ACCHIONE AND CANUSO v. COMMONWEALTH PENNSYLVANIA (04/25/83)

decided: April 25, 1983.

ACCHIONE AND CANUSO, INC., APPELLANT,
v.
COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, APPELLEE



No. 81-3-406, Appeal from the Order of the Commonwealth Court, entered December 2, 1980, at No. 350 C.D. 1979.

COUNSEL

Marvin Comisky, Richard M. Rosenbleeth, Alan C. Gershenson, Philadelphia, for appellant.

George B. Wenick, Asst. Atty. Gen., Harrisburg, for appellee.

Roberts, C.j., and Nix, Flaherty, McDermott, and Zappala, JJ. Nix and Flaherty, JJ., filed dissenting opinions. Larsen and Hutchinson, JJ., did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case.

Author: Zappala

[ 501 Pa. Page 339]

OPINION

This is an appeal from an Order of the Commonwealth Court reversing a Board of Claims award granted to appellant-construction company for increased costs incurred due to extra trenching work not included in the original contract but ordered subsequent to that contract's execution.

Facts relevant to the disposition of this appeal are summarized from the comprehensive findings made by the Board as follows:

Appellant and appellee entered into a contract on October 5, 1975 for highway improvements in Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania. Item 910-6000 of the contract called for 13,131 lineal feet (lf) of trenching which was to be let at a unit price per lineal foot.

This trenching consisted of excavating areas of grass, sidewalk, and highway. These respective areas involved different costs per lineal foot due to the varying degree of difficulty required to trench those areas. Because the contract item required only a unit price for all trenching, it was important to ascertain the exact area to be trenched so that the amount of each respective area could be calculated and averaged into one unit price.

From an inspection of the site and a take-off of the plans, DePaul, the subcontractor of appellant, calculated that 16,658

[ 501 Pa. Page 340]

    linear feet of trenching would be required to complete the job. This was 3,527 linear feet more than the bid specifications required. Due to this discrepancy, he contacted the consulting engineers for the project who directed DePaul to assume that 50% of the existing conduit would be reusable and thus would require no new trenching.

From this information, DePaul proceeded to calculate the cost for individual areas of trenching and from that the unit price as follows:

Individual Areas Totals

Cost for Earth 9,759 l.f. X $13 l.f. $126,867

Cost for Sidewalk 3,033 l.f. X $23 l.f. 69,759

Cost for Highway 3,866 l.f. X $52 l.f. ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.