Opinion ID: 2511798
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Force Account Work through Pay Estimate # 5

Text: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Item Cost Pay Request Description ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rock excavation needed or Phase I Rock Excavation $ 447.32 # 2 sanitary sewer line. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dry Utility Conduits at Conduits installed across subdivision entrance to subdivision $ 6,520.00 # 4 entrances. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dry Utilities installed from 2-25-08 Dry Utilities $33,086.12 # 4 to 4-22-08. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Added after review of WMC and Additional to Dry Utilities $ 4,120.84 # 5 HKM documentation. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Final Payment Reconciliation Total Retainage withheld on this project (includes retainage from PR# 5 work) $138,607.51 Work done on Pay Request # 5 (minus retainage for PR # 5 work) $ 3,708.76 Liquidated Damages back to WMC $ 107,683.73 ============ Final payment Amount $ 250,000.00 ____________ Retainage previously released $ 54,999.32 ____________ Full and final payment for PR# 5 $195,000.68 ____________ [¶ 7] The crux of the dispute at hand is the Retainage previously released item included in Pay Estimate #5. Western said that sum was encompassed in the mediation process and could not be deducted from the $250,000.00 settlement amount. Better Living takes the opposite position. Western also contends that the materials in the record of this case describe Retainage previously released as what had been paid prior to the mediation, and that that was not a matter discussed at the mediation. What is meant by Force Account work is not discussed other than to use those words. However, that phrase usually refers to change order work. See 2 Bruner & O'Connor on Construction § 6:84 (2010); Wayne Knorr, Inc. v. Department of Transportation, 973 A.2d 1061, 1066, fn. 1 (Pa.Comm.2009) also see pages 28-29 of the Standard General Conditions of the Construction Contract. [¶ 8] On October 29, 2008, it is undisputed that Western sent this e-mail to Better Living: Per the settlement agreement, if you will refer to Paragraph 1 and Paragraph 3, the final settlement amount is $250,000.00. If you do not agree with that we will have to go back to the attorneys and mediator for clarification.... [¶ 9] If there were any further communications between the parties about this disagreement, they are not a matter of record. However, on December 3, 2008, Western filed a Complaint for Declaratory Judgment seeking to enforce the exact terms of the September 29, 2008 agreement, which is set out in detail above. On January 6, 2009, Better Living filed a motion to dismiss or in the alternative for summary judgment. Western then filed a response containing about the same contentions that we are called upon to address in this appeal. The district court opted to dismiss Western's complaint after noting that the parties agreed there were no genuine issues of material fact and that Better Living was entitled to judgment as a matter of law because Western had not complied with the condition precedent prerequisite to a right to sue and is therefore barred from seeking judicial relief for their claim.