Preview:

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA A. G. Cullen Construction, Inc., Petitioner v. State System of Higher Education, Respondent State System of Higher Education, Petitioner v. A. G. Cullen Construction, Inc., Respondent BEFORE: : : : : : : : : : : : : : :

No. 666 C.D. 2005

No. 776 C.D. 2005 Submitted: November 18, 2005

HONORABLE JAMES GARDNER COLINS, President Judge HONORABLE ROBERT SIMPSON, Judge HONORABLE MARY HANNAH LEAVITT, Judge FILED: March 15, 2006

OPINION BY JUDGE SIMPSON

This matter presents cross-appeals of A.G. Cullen Construction, Inc. (A.G. Cullen) and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, State System of Higher Education (State System) from a decision of the Board of Claims (Board). The parties' claims arise out of a contract for the renovation of the administration building on a state university campus. While the parties collectively raise over a dozen contentions, the primary question is whether the Board properly assigned responsibility for delays associated with completion of the project. Upon review, we affirm, but remand the matter for an award of attorney's fees on a limited issue.

I. Background This case arises out of a contract between A.G. Cullen and the State System for the renovation of John Sutton Hall, the administration building on the Indiana University of Pennsylvania (IUP) campus. Originally constructed in 1875, John Sutton Hall is noted as the centerpiece of the IUP campus and is valued as an historic structure. The State System selected a project architect with extensive experience in the restoration of historic buildings to design the project. In April 2000, the State System solicited bids for the project from prime contractors. A.G. Cullen was the successful bidder for the general construction prime contract. A.G. Cullen's scope of work included the removal and replacement of 550 wood-framed windows, replacement of plumbing and heating systems, and the installation of ventilation and air-conditioning systems. The State System issued A.G. Cullen a notice to proceed on June 1, 2000. Pursuant to the contract specifications, the scheduled project completion date was August 24, 2001. As a result of delays, however, A.G. Cullen did not complete the project as scheduled. Rather, the project architect issued A.G. Cullen a certificate of substantial completion on February 12, 2002. The architect also provided A.G. Cullen with a detailed punchlist of several hundred unfinished items. The State System substantially reduced its payments to A.G. Cullen pursuant to a liquidated damages clause in the contract and the estimated cost of completing the punchlist items.

2

A.G. Cullen subsequently filed four complaints against the State System with the Board. Through its complaints, A.G. Cullen sought damages for the following alleged breaches of the contract:

Download 666cd05-3-15-06.pdf

Pennsylvania Law