MERCER COUNTY Officials respond to bridge lawsuit

The contractor is looking to end its pact with the county.
By HAROLD GWIN
VINDICATOR SHARON BUREAU
MERCER, Pa. -- Mercer County officials say there is no documentation backing a contractor's contention that a county bridge inspector authorized a construction change on the Oakland Avenue Viaduct that caused a misalignment problem.
The contractor, Carmen Paliotta Contracting Inc. of Library, Pa., has made good on a threat to take the county to court over delays and additional expenses incurred in the effort to complete the Sharon bridge project that was to be finished in November 2001.
Paliotta filed suit in Mercer County Common Pleas Court last week asking the court to declare the county to be in breach of contract for reportedly dragging its feet on efforts to develop a corrective action plan to eliminate the misalignment.
The suit also asks the court to allow Paliotta to terminate its contract with the county and to award the company "in excess of $500,000" for expenses incurred as a result of delays and the cost of developing corrective plans the county never accepted.
About the lawsuit
A key argument in the suit is the allegation that an employee of TW Consultants of McCandless, Pa., the county's on-site bridge inspector, directed Paliotta to use stone rather than Class C concrete as the base beneath the bridge pedestals for the new bridge.
Paliotta maintains the pedestals, which support the structural steel, later settled, causing a slight misalignment in the bridge at the deck level.
The lawsuit says the company brought up the issue several times, even pointing out that the $3.6 million bridge replacement contract called for the use of Class C concrete, but that TW Consultants wouldn't change its position.
Therefore, the misalignment is the county's fault because it was the county's inspector who directed the change in base material be made, the lawsuit says.
County Commissioner Olivia Lazor said there is no documentation of any such change order on the project.
Any changes from the original contract are documented in writing and there are no notes or other documentation indicating a change in the base material was authorized by any inspectors, Lazor said.
Atty. Mark Longietti, county solicitor, confirmed Lazor's version of the facts.
Was design defective?
The lawsuit also faults the county for reportedly providing a "defective design" for the new bridge and failing to provide accurate and sufficient geotechnical information about the ground at the bridge site.
Longietti said there is a clause in the bridge contract cautioning Paliotta not to rely solely on information provided by the county or its agents and that such details are the contractor's ultimate responsibility.
The county further denies that the pedestals have settled at all but thinks they were simply improperly built, Longietti said.
Former Commissioner Gene Brenneman told The Vindicator last fall that the pedestals were resting on bedrock, not on stone filler as the contractor contended.
Paliotta said that efforts to develop a corrective plan were stymied by the county's refusal to ever define what an acceptable repair plan should be and repeated demands by the county for additional information.
The company said it submitted numerous proposals but none ever satisfied the county or the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, which is overseeing the project.
Paliotta was in the process of dismantling the entire structure to find out what was wrong with the pedestals but said it was stopped by the county Jan. 8.
The county refuses to allow the pedestals to be removed and that prevents Paliotta from determining exactly why they settled, the lawsuit contends.
Paliotta has already been paid $2.9 million on the $3.6 million contract.