Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout95-02330 j 'S: "" , ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ o \i \A' ...... ':7' - ~ .<, ) .. ' ~ c_<_ t r- , _~l :'-1 ~ .... -. = ((2) ."'~:. .. " .. ~ .,,~ ......' .tIIA tI , . 5, In early 199:1, during a project to renovate the Scranton Central!-ligh School (SCHS) which is owned by LJC, Alex Camayd, AlA, principal in the architectural firm of Leung, !-lemmieI' and Camayd and who serves as architect for the project and agent of LJC, identified the need for LJC to hire an independent specialist to perform a preliminary assessment of the presence and possible abatement of hazardous materials at SCHS, 6. As a result of the recommendation to hire an independent contractor by letter dated January 27, 199:1, Bart Burne, Ed.D., Vice President for Academic Operations, accepted the January 11, 1993 proposal of Cocciardi pertaining to a Phase I Environmental Study for the presence of hazardous materials in SCHS, (attached hereto as Exhibit A) 7. By later dated March 5,1993, Cocciardi provided LJC with a Proposal of Services for a Phase II-Ill Environmental Audit Procedures to be performed for LJC at the SCHS. (attached hereto as Exhibit B) 8, After negotiations between Cocciardi and LJC, the proposal for Phase 11- III Environmental Audit Procedures testing/specification phase was resubmitted by Cocciardi to LJC under letter dated July 12, 199:1. (attached hereto as Exhibit C) 9. After further negotiations between Cocciardi and LJC, the aforestated July 12,199:1 proposal was amended by proposal dated July 20, 199:1. (attached hereto as Exhibit D) 2 .. llJ, The July 2lJ, 1993 proposal of Cocciardi fur I'hnse 11-111 Environmentnl Audit Procedures was nccepted by LJC ns further evidenced by the signature of Dr. Joseph G. Morelli, President of LJC dated July 27, 1993. (attached hereto as Exhibit E) 11. Under an ndditionnlleller of July 12, 1993, Cocciardi provided LJC with a revised proposnlto provide services designnted to cover consulting costs for the ongoing provision of curriculum development services which proposnl wns accepted by LjC ns evidenced by the signature of Dr. Joseph G. Morelli, President, dated August 4, 1993. (attnched hereto ns Exhibit F) 12. At about this time, numerous specification meetings and discussions occurred between Cocciardi, LJC and LJe's nrchitect, Leung Hemmler Camayd, P.c. with regnrd to Phase II services to be provided by Cocciardi. 13. As nn outgrowth of the meetings and discussions between Coccinrdi, LjC, and Leung Hemmler Camayd, P.c., it was agreed between Cocciardi nnd LjC that Phase II services should include nn)' minor remedinl nctivities which needed to be completed. 14, These disrussions am! the ngreement arc further evidenced by the Cocciardi letter dated September 111, 1993, addressed to Dr, Bart Burne of LlC (attached hereto as Exhibit G) 15, Phase I Environmental Study services were performed by Cocciardi for LJC at the SCHS and Cocciardi has been reimbursed for the work by LJC :1 . Hi. Phase 1/ Environmental Audit Procedures services werl! performed by Cocdilrdi for LJC at the SCHS ami Cocdilrdi has been reimbursed for the work by LJC. 17. On November 31l, 1993, Phase 11/ Environmental Remediation cost summilries were provided to LJC and to the project construction managers, Sardoni Construction, for LJe's construction project at SCHS, (attached hereto as Exhibit H) 18, Between November 10 and November 20,1993, Cocdardi provided Phase III remedial activities in order to allow Scranton Steam Company to operate in SCHS as evidenced by Invoice # 93235 which was issued to LJC by Cocdardi and for which Cocdardi has been reimbursed, (attached hereto as Exhibit I) 19. Between November, 1993 and March, 1994, Cocdardi continued to perform Phase I, 1/, and III consulting services on behalf of LJC under the provisions and authority of the aforestated proposals. (see paragraphs 6 and 1(1) 20, Permits were filed for LJC in compliance with the National Emissions Standards and Hazardous Air Pollutants Act, and the U,S. EPA permitting requirements for asbestos abatement and demolition activities by Cocdardi on or about February 18, 1994. Included with this were clarifications for lead based paint spedfications and the site safety and health plan. (attached hereto as Exhibit J) 21. Cocdilrdi issued InVoice # 93256, Invoice # 93277 and Invoice # 93276 in the total amount of $9,616.00 for Phase If-II/ services which has been paid by LJC. (attached hereto as Exhibit K) ./ - 22. Beginning in March, 11)1).\, Cocdardi performed Phase 111 consulting serviCl's for LJC at SCHS under the terms and authority of the July 20, 11)1)3 proposal. 23. Cocdardi issued Invoice #1),1295, Invoice #1)'\365, Invoice #1)'\31l1) and Invoice #1),\41)0 in the total amount of $66,127,31 for Phase 111 consulting services provided by Cocdardi to LJe. (attached hereto ilS Exhibit L) 24. Cocdardi perfornll'd all consulting services identified in the foregoing paragraph on behalf of LJe. 25, All consulting services identified in the foregoing paragraph 23, were provided by Cocciardi to LJC in compliance with and under the authority of the July 20, 11)93 proposal. 26, LJC has failed to reimburse Cocciardi for the Phase III consulting services identified in the foregoing paragraph 23, LJC is delinquent in the payment of these consulting services, 27. LJC is in default of and has breached the terms and conditions of the July 20, 1993 proposal. 28. LJC has received the benefit of the consulting services provided to it by Cocciardi and has been unjustly enriched or enhanced by the receipt of those consulting services. 21), LJC has not reimbursed Cllcdardi $66,127,31 for the benefit of the services identified in the a(orl'stated paragraph 23, 5 30, On Octobcr 30, IYY4, a ~1I'c.final inspcction was conductcd at SCHS by Cocciardi on bchalf of LJC, which inspcction was conductcd subscqucnt to thc Environmental Remcdiation activitics which took placc during thc Spring and Summcr of 1994, Conclusions of that prc.final inspcction wcrc providcd by Cocciardi to LJC. (attached hereto as Exhibit M) 31, Bctwcen August, 1993 and Junc, 1994, Cocciardi provided curriculum consulting services to LJC, pursuant to the aforestated proposal. 32. As a result of having provided curriculum consulting services to LjC, Coccinrdi issued Invoice #93134, Invoice #93136, Invoice #93252, Invoice #94292, Invoice #94359 and Invoice #94388, which Invoiccs total $2,270.00. (attached hereto as Exhibit N) 33. LJC, although having rcceived curriculum consulting services from Cocciardi, has failed to reimbursc Cocciardi the aforestated $2,270.00. 34. LjC is in default of and has breached the terms and conditions of the July 12,1993 proposal. 35. LJC has received the benefit of the consulting services provided to it by Cocciardi and has becn unjustly enriched or enhanced by the reccipt of those consulting services, 36, LJC has not reimbursed Cocciardi $2,270,00 for the benefit of the services identified in the aforcstated pnragmph 32, n EXHIBIT A EXHIBIT B ,. "",, " A#N.hm~'uJ "d'" C~dS~~~I ~. . , . " Safety . Health . Environment:11 Training and COl1Sulting HaJ::ch 5, 1993 Or. Bart Burne Assistant ~resid.nt Lackawanna Junior college 901 ~rospect Ave. Scranton, ~A 18595 RE: ~roposAl of Services ~hase II-III Environmental Andit ~rocedures Oear Bart: As stated in I1IY memo of 2/26/93, I am enclosing pricing and specifications for a combined ~hase II-III effort in the Scranton Central Building, which you are purchasing. In my memo of 1/1/93, I stated that costs of approximately $5,000,- $10,000 would be required to conduct the phase II study. These costs may be slightly elevated, due to the inclusion of some ~hase .III (abatement/removal) work during the ~hase II process, which will greatly reduce your final ~hase III costs. Subsequently, I have delineated specific costs/scope of activities to certify as safe/compliant, the ~eas identified in the ~hase ,I study. ~lease feel free to contact me if any additional info~ation is necessary, or if you wish to schedule these actions through our group. Sin?lY, '" /] . / :1f" Q.J...~ ;lLY~ot/ ~ ;J(.sCj)/~ os.ph A. Cocciardi, K.S., C.S.~. Cocciardi , Associates, Inc. CSP License 19763 Asbestos Inspector License 1003714 Asbestos Supervisor License 1002672 Asbestos Management ~lanner License 1003714 ~A DER - Water Quality Underground Storage Tank License 1280 Bureau of Radiation Protection License '1103 JAC/bb Enclosure -+823 E. Ttindle Road, SULte 100 . Mechanicburg, P.'\ liOS5 . (ili) i63-i+iS . E'.~'( (ili) 163-2080 ~ ." . .' ,. "of , .. .' " , Section IV - Other Activitv Sucrcrested Date ~ v( 4.1 Reinspection for removal Upon notification $500 of previously cited of removal by laboratory chemicals, Scranton School chemical hazards & District maLntenance supplies y chemicals 4.2 Radon Testing, in Imme,diately $950 compliance with .Schools. ;i quidelines 4.3 Respirable & non-respirable Immediately $650 dust particle testing throughout the building, due to the amount of fibers, particles & dusts evidenced throughout the building. SII1'11'fftarv The total cost for the complete testing program as cited above for the specification/approval of contractors for remediation, where required, and for testing and inspection for remediation once scheduled is 514,720. Additional times and tests can be billed on a hourly basis, as cited above. Final remediation costs (Phase III) will be vastly reduced, as you will be paying outside environmental contractors only for specific segments of work, where requLred, as delineated by this phase II work. Please feel free to contact me if you wish to ini~iate this Phase II-III approach, or if you require any additional information in this area. ~inc rely, ~Oyi.lf Q..Q . . - / I ,.... .,... , ,.., ~ ~ . , '~../. II~, C~'';6 Joseph A. Cocciardi, M.S., C.S.P. Cocciardi & Associates, tnc. JAC/bb cc: c. Zwiebel EXHIBIT C C~dS~~~I July 12, 1993 Safety . Health . Environmental Tr:lining and Consulting Dr. Bart Burne Assistant Pre~ident Lackawanna Junior College 901 Prospect Avenue Scranton, PA 18595 RE: Phase II-IIII Environmental Procedures Testing/Specification Phase Dear Dr. Burne: , ' Enclosed please find my Harch 5, 1993.proposal of services for the Scranton Central Buildinq. As specified, sections 1.1 (Buildinq Asbestos Air Monitorinq); 1.2 (~~ specs, permits and contractor qualifications); 2.1 (Lead Paint determination); 2.2 (Ambient Lead in Air determination); 3.1 (PCB testing); 4.1 Buildinq Review, (including pigeon droppings and spores in the attic); 4.2 (Radon) and 4.3 (Respirable and Non-Respirable dust testinq) should be initiated immediately. Costs for these sections of the proposal are $12r120 (see attachment for breakdown) " Initiatinq this process now should meet your fall deadlines. We will prioritize any testing in areas where current occupancy is occurrinq, or where you anticipate occupancy. Note, this figure does not include on-site time to test and monitor the projects once scheduled. This time will be estimated once specifications are completed, but will be billed per the 3/5 quote at $48/hr. and $38/sample. This includes section 1.3, 1.4 (Asbestos Removal/Air Monitorinq); 2.3 and 2.4 (lead removal specifications (if necessary) and lead in water testing]; and section 3.2 ((packaqinq and testing of PCB ballasts (if identified)] . Please feel free to contact me if any additional information is necessary, or if you wish to schedule this project, Sincerely, ~'.::: 'Af/~~ 'iM Gtz ~~~~~h A. Cocciardi, M,S'r C:S.P, I Cocciardi' Associates, Inc, JAC/hbl1w":1;..14 4823 E. Trindle Road, Suite 100 · Mechanicsburg, PA li055 . (Hi) i63.i4i5 . FAX (717) 163-2080 EXHIBIT 0 . \ . , .~ - . C ~dS~~~s~ I I . r...~ :,'/~ . -, .- Safety . Health . Environmencal Tr.llning and Consuldng .4:~ :q,:t/ July 20, 1993 Dr. Bart Burne Assistant president Lackawanna Junior College 901 Prospect Avenue Scranton, PA 18595 REI Phase II-III I Environmental Procedures Specifications Amendments Dear Dr. Burne: As discussed with Mr. Alex Camyd, please find the following amendments.to my July 12, 1993 proposal of services for the Scranton Central Building, As originally specified, in this proposal, we will be completing Sections 2.1, 2.2, 3.1 and 3.2 (note, this is a change which additionally includes the packaqing of PCB materials) 4.1, 4.2 and 4.3 as specified in the attached March 5, 1993 proposal. Costs for these services is S12,120. This Phase II-III review should be accomplished as soon as possible to allow for any remediation which is necessary during the early fall of 1993. Please noter the figure does not include on-site time for minor remediations which we may be accomplished with our staff. This minor remediation phase can only be estimated once the specifications for the environmental work has been matched with those of the architect for the project. Time for any remediation which we can accomplish will be billed at $48/hour and S38/sample. This includes sections 1.3, 1.4, 2.3, and 2.4 of the March 5, 1993 proposal (attached). If all remediation services are minor, the total cost of remediation may be $3,000-$5,000, if accomplished with our staff. If major environmental remediation is necessary, (not be accomplished with our staff) the S31000- $5,000 may be necessary for monitoring the projects and f nal clearance air samples. 4823 E, Trindle Road, Suite 100 . ~lechanicsburg, PA 17055 . (71 i) i63.Hi5 . FAX (717) 763.2080 EXHIBIT E .' JUL 2i'93 14:39 No.012 P,02 , . C ~d~~c~~s~J? I , ;, July 20, 1993 Safety · Health . EnvIronmental Trolnlng and Consulting Dr. Bart Burne AasiBtant President Lackawanna Junior College 901 Prospect Avenue Scranton, PA 18595 REr Phase II-IIII, Environmental Procedures Specifications Amendments Dear Dr. Burner As discussed with ~x. Alex C4myd, please find the following AmendmentB to my July 12, 1993 proposal of services for the Scranton Central BUilding. As originally specified, in this proposal, we will be completing Sections 2.1, 2.2, 3.1 and 3.2 (note, this is /I change which additionally includes the packaging of PCB materials) 4,1, 4.2 and 4.3 as specified in the attached March 5, 1993 proposal. Costs for these se~ices is $12,120. This Phase II-III review should be accomplished /IS soon as POssible to allow for any remediation whiCh is necessary during the early fall of 1993. Please note, the figure does not include on-site time for minor remediations which we may be aCcomplished with our staff, This minor remediation phase can only be estimated once the specifications for the environmental work has been matched with those of the architect for the project. Time for any remediation which we can aCcomplish will be billed at $48/hour /lnd $38/s4mple. This includes sections 1.3, 1.4, 2.3, and 2.4 of the March 5, 1993 proposal (attached). If all remediation services are minor, the total cOst of remediation may be $3,000-$5,000, if accomplished with our staff. If major environmental remediation is necessary, (not be accomplished with OUr staff) the $3,000- $5,000 may be necessary for monitoring the projects and final clearance air samples. ~1321 F. Tlil1.:!!,- R,)"d, ~llil,. lc'~ . \Ie_bllk''''.ir,:, P.\ :-L'55 . ,-Ii') 76J.7,,7" . FA" (7[7) 7r'\,21)~(1 EXHIBIT F 1 .. " " - .... . - - C ~dS~~~~~I qt.j- 5t.f'~ ~)u.4.."....J-oo.. ./.. ,.!; .,. - . Safety . Health . Environmental Training and Cunsultlng - July 12, 1993 "") Cu..etllt,l/L...,,.l bell. Dr. Bart Burne A8sistant President Lackawanna Junior College 901 Prospect AvenUe Scranton, PA lBSOS SUBJECT, Proposal of Continued Curriculum Development and Presentation Services Environmental Health and Safety Dear Dr. Burne I I have enclosed a revised proposal of services desiqned to cover consulting costs for the on going provision of curriculum development services. This proposal anticipates approximately 5 days of services required this summer, and 5 in the fall. It should cover the phaee of the project up to and including course approval for all new Environmental Health and S~ clasaee Added to the Lackawanna Junior Colleqe c~alog. Coete for the service WiLL be $lS00/per semester, (SSOO/monthl for the summer and fall sf 1993. Additional wo~ on this area can be charged at the same ~, Lf necARD.rz. An exemplary press release is also enclosed. Please contact me if any additional information is neceseary. Sincerely, . '~d ~cIt; J1N],C~ os(ph A. Cocciardi, M.S., C.S.P. Cocciardi & Associates, Inc. JAC/hb/lIcq........ Enclosurel 3/17 memo This 1S approved to procede under the terms stated in this proposal. J~n.1;r~1~ . Datd' l" / 'I /93 iB23 E, Trlndle Road, 5ul1r 100 · Mech.mksblll'g, l'A 1 ;055 . (717) 763.1475 . FAX (717) 763-2080 EXHIBIT G ,.~ to :. 0" '. C ~dS~~~~I Safety · Health · Environmental Training and Consulting ~orve1ed\~ i82J E. 'liIndl. Read. Suite 100 Mcchanltsburg. P,\ 170" (71n Td:\.T+T' FA:" (TIn Td3.2080 Nonhust Rqtonal OpcntlOllS 411 N, I'cnnsyl\-.nla AVUlu" Suite 20d wllkes.Bam. P.\ 18102 (TIT) 8H.nn . F....'< (nn 823-892' September 10, 1993 Dr. Bart Burne Lackawanna Junior 'College 901 Prospect Avenue Scranton, PA 18505 RE: PHASE II ASBESTOS RELATED CONCERNS SCRANTON CENTRAL BUILDING, LACKAWANNA JUNIOR COLLEGE Dear Bart: As part of the ongoing environmental services provided by our group at the Scranton Central building, Cocciardi and Asvaciates, Inc. has identified several areas of friable and fallen Asbestos Containing Materials. These areas have currently been sealed, with danger signs being placed at the entrances to the rooms. Friable Asbestos Containing Materials constitute willful violations under the Department of Labor Occupational Safety and Health Administration standards, and as such, employee exposure in these areas may place Lackawanna Junior College in jeopardy of $70,000 fines per room, per violation, per daYr per employee. Subsequently, I highly recommend employees remain from these areas. The two areas currently identified with signs are the former book storage area in the basement level and the steam run tunnel adjacent to the boiler room of the facility. As part of the Phase III quoted services, we will be scheduling the packaging of friable fallen materials in these areas as soon as possible, and will subsequently re-test air and open them to the general public and your employees as is appropriate. Again, due to the regulatory status of these rooms, I hiqhlv recommend that your employees remain from these areas, On two occasions, signs have been removed from the areas in which friable asbestos has fallen, and it appears that individuals haole entered these areas, EXHIBIT H ..,. '\ , ... --.,- 'F ' C ~dS~~~~I Safety . Health · Environmenul Training an~ Consulting %13 E. TriDdle Road. Sui.. 100 Mcchanlc:sb.... PA 170" mn 763-1+7' FA.,( mn 163-2080 November 30, 1993 Nonhasc Rqloaal OpcndollS ill 1'1, P<nnsy\vaala Avm.... SWill 206 W\lka.Barre. PA 18701 (111) 82i.J1il . lWC (711) 81J..8925 Hr. Steve Paras hac Sardoni Construction 4S Owen Street Forty Fort, PA 18704 REI Cost Snmmllry Phase III Environmental Remediation Lackawanna Junior College: Scranton Central Building Dear Hr. Paras hac I Attached with this correspondence please find an estimate of costs for the abatement/remediation of the three (3) environmental concerns previously discussed at Scranton Central High School/LJC. These areas are Asbestos Containing Materials, lead based paint and PCB contaminated ballasts. Estimates for removal of all vinyl asbestos tile have been included, as well as removal of approximately 9,000 square feet of roofing material and mastic. Additionally, the price has been estimated ,for the removal of 4,800 square feet of roofing material which may be covered with plastic or plywood. The costs for asbestos abatement have been based on remedial pricing, after January 1, 1994. I believe actual bid figures will be slightly lower. Industrial Hygiene costs for approximately 2-3 weeks of air monitoring, (pre, during and post job monitoring) and clearance sampling have also been included. Costs for project monitoring during the course of the activiti.. are included as well. Secondarily, the area of lead based paints has been addressed. It appears that approximately 20,000 square feet of lead based paint can be scraped, cleaned and re-encapsulated on site. An estimate has been given for this activity. It appears that approximately 7,000 sq. ft. of walls containing lead based paint need to be demolished, and I believe that an environmental contractor on site would be the best group to actually demolish these areas and dispose of the lead containing waste. Industrial hygiene time and air monitoring has also been included for these activities. EXHIBIT I EXHIBIT J . ~ -'--:.. , C ~dSs~~~~I Safety · Health . Environmental Training and Consulting Corpo12'. omc. i813 E. lilndl. Rold, SUlr. 100 Mcchanlcsburg. PA 170" (71n 763-7'IT' . PA,'C (717) 763.2080 NOMWI Regtonal OpcradollS m N, Ptnnsylvmla Avcn... SIIil& 206 Wllkco-lIam. PA 18701 (TIT) 81'1-31+2 . PA,'C (717) 813-8925 February 24, 1994 Hr. Steve Paras hac Sardoni Construc~ion 45 OWen Street Forty Fort, PA 18704 RE: Lead Base Paint Removal Specifications Scranton Central Building (Exterior Window Casings) Dear Hr. Parallhac: ~his memo confirms our discussion of February 21, 1994, concerning safety and health requirements around the scraping and low pressure water cleaning of the lead containing paint (on window casings) in the exterior area of the Scranton Central Project. You shoul~ initially advise all contractors that they must comply with 29CFR1926.62 (lead in construction) standards of , the O.S. Department of Labor. The standard requires a written hygiene and health plan for the activity, respirator use, air monitoring and medical monitoring for employees porforming the paint scraping. Of note, some the paint on the exterior windows has been tested and found to be at 50,000 parts per million (lead) or greater. If additional areas aside from the window casings are to be addressed, please notify us and we will perform testing in these locations. On February 22, 1994, I spoke with Mr. Bill Fiorini, Code Enforcement Officer for the City of Scranton. OUr discussion centered around Section 303.3 of the BOCA (Scranton) Maintenance Code and Section 1818.1 and 1818.2 of the BOCA (Scranton) Building Code. Both of these sections address public health and safety while the removal of toxic substances is occurring. While ventilation and enclosure is recommended in the code, it is at the discretion of the local code official to require additional or equivalent safety and health procedures. I suggested the following to Mr. Fiorini: . .0, 0.. '._ February 24, 1994 Mr. Steve Paras hac paqe 2 A. We would perform lead in soil samples around the school, prior to job initiation. B. We would require drop cloths or poly clothes in all areas where either liquid or solid waste would be generated, and would require the contractor (whq would operate in compliance with the OSHA standards) to clean this material and dispose of it as lead containinq waste (appropriate levels) . C. We would perform some air monitorinq on several days of scraping operations at the property line (sidewalk) to determine if any public exposure to lead was occurrinq. In the event any hiqh levels of lead were detected, th~ City of Scranton Health Department would be notified. At the conclusion of the project additional sampling of Boils or areas around the facility would be performed. In the event these were higher then the initial prejob samples, the contractor would clean to the backqround levels. I advised Mr. Fiorini that the contractor or your office would be submittinq a proposal similar to this for approval prior to the start of work. Please feel free to contact me if you wish any additional assistance in this area, or if you wish us to perform or schedule any of the monitorinq discussed. Sincerely, (j~~ {/ ~4/af';a'J cJdl J9'eph A. Cocciardi, MS, CSP Cocciardi and Associates, Inc. JAC/CW/lbpu,..r cc: Rachael Moe Scranton File EXHIBIT K COCCIARDI , ASSOCIATES, IHC. 4823 E. TRIRDL! ROAD SUITE 100 MECHANICSBURG, PA 17055 (717) 763-7475 Lackawanna Jr. College 901 Prospect Avenue Scranton, PA 18550 INVOICE HUHBER. INVOICE DATE. DUE DATE. INVOICE Cust. .0083 Per Coat Minimizaton quote (Summary) 1/11/94, through LHC/Sardoni. Area 1 - 1.5. Licensed Project Designer. $1568 (ZPA License '2672) Area 2 - 2.2. BUD - Lead Abatement Specification: 1568 Area 3.0. PCB/Haz Substance Specif.. 784 Health , Safety Work Planl 2200 TCLP Procedure (X4)1 410 TOTAL 1.5\ Interest charged after 30 days. AI//II:I7,rt~ d ",.(j I 93277 01/31/94 03/02/94 6,530.00 6r530.00 EXHIBIT L COCCIARDI , ASSOCIA!rES, INC. "823 !. TlUNDLE ROAD SUI'rE 100 HECHANICSBURG, PA 17055 (717) 763-7475 LAckawanna Jr. College 901 Prospect Avenue Scranton, PA lB550 INVOICE NtlHBER: INVOICE ~: DOE DA!rE I 943B9 05/31/94 06/30/94 INVOICE ------- Customer . 00B3 Job . 94-5443 Scranton Central project On-Site Time: cocciardi: 32 hr @ $98 .. $ 3,136 Moel 112 hr @ $50 .. 5,600 Zwiebel: 24 hr @ $50 .. 1,200 Lab Samples: ACM (inc. blank3) 12 @ $38 .. 456 Pb (inc. blanks) 182 @ $38 .. 5,096 Equipment I IPCO safety 5/1B/94 104.65 ~~A 5/18/94 .. 291.05 Team Env 5/06/94 .. 603.49 Team Env 4/0B/94 .. 520.96 Federal Express: Lal:I sam.ples .. 321.50 10' handling feel .. 179.17 17,45B.82 TOTAL 17,458.82 1,5~ interest charged after 30 days C~d~S~~I @@4JJtJii, r~@ Safety · Health · Environmental Training and Consulting Cc'l"'nlC omce 4fID Eo UUllll. Read. 5ulcc 100 MechaaJcsburg. PA 170" (TIn reJ.r+n . F,~'( (71n Tel-lOSO NOMa.. ResiorW Opcndolll +ll N. P<nnsylVlllla Avenue. SullO we Wilkes-StITt, PA IS702 (TIn 82..)2+2 . FAX (TIn 8lJ.l1923 September 2, 1994 Dr. Bart Burne Lackawanna Junior College 901 Prospect Avenue Scranton, PA 18505 RE: Job '94-5183 Pre-Final Inspectional Activities Scranton Central Building Dear Dr. Burne: On October 30, 1993, a pre-final inspection was conducted at the Scranton Central site in the Lackawanna Junior College building. This inspection was conducted subsequent to the environmental remediation activities conducted during the Spring and Summer of 1994. The following was concluded: 1. All asbestos containing materials in the Scope of Services to be provided by Wyoming S. & P. have been concluded. Appropriate visual and site inspectional tests have been provided docUlllenting the area as .Clean'. (See Point 5 below) . 2. Lead containing paints have been encapsulated or scraped in all areas to be repainted. Lead containing materials have been reduced to below 500 parts per million in any area or wall to be demolished. PCB ballasts remain in place, coordinated with Ms. Rachel Moe removal of these items. 4. Hazardous materials should be reviewed with Ms. Rachel Moe to determine if materials have been removed in compliance with the Scope of Services. and scheduling should be for the monitoring of the 3. 5. Approximately 1 r 000 square feet of vinyl asbestos tile has not been removed as specified in the scope. This VAT needs to be removed in areas where wiring conduit will be run, EXHIBIT N preliminary assessment of the presence and possible abatement of hazardous materials at Scranton central High School, LJC is without knowledge and information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averment, and therefore, the same is deemed denied and proof thereof is demanded. By way of further answer, as to the allegation that either Camayd, individually, or the architectural firm of Leung, Hemmler and Camayd, were agents of LJC, the same are conclusions of law to which no response is necessary. If an answer is deemed necessary, the allegations that either Camayd, individually, or the architectural firm of Leung, Hemmler and Camayd, were agents of LJC, are denied. To the contrary, at all times pertinent hereto, camayd, individually, and the architectural firm of Leung, Hemmler and Camayd were independent contractors. 6. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that by letter dated January 27, 1993, Bart Burne, Ed.D., Vice President for Academy Operations, authorized plaintiff to undertake a Phase I Environmental Study. As to the allegation that Plaintiff made a proposal for Phase I Environmental study on January 11, 1993, after reasonable investigation, Defendant is without knowledge and information sufficient to form a bellef as to the truth of the averment, and therefore, the same is deemed denied and proof thereof is demanded. 7 . Admi tted. 8. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that the proposal for Phase II-III Environmental Audit Procedures was resubmitted by let.ter dat.ed July 12, 1993. A8 to t.he allegation that the proposal was resubmitted after negotiations between Plaintiff and LJC, Defendant is without knowledge and information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averment, and therefore, the same is deemed denied and proof thereof is demanded. 9. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that the July 12, 1993 proposal was amended by proposal dated July 20, 1993. It is denied that the proposal was amended as a result of negotiations between Plaintif f and LJC. To the contrary, any negotiations occurred between Plaintiff and either Camayd, individually, or the architectural firm of Leung, Hemmler and Camayd. 10. Denied as stated. It is admitted only that Joseph G. Morelli authorized Plaintiff to proceed under the terms of the July 20, 1993 Phase II-III proposal. It is denied that Morelli's signature constitutes further evidence of acceptance. To the contrary, Morelli's signature dated July 27, 1993, constitutes the only authorization for Plaintiff to proceed under the terms of the July 20, 1993 Phase II-III proposal. By way of further answer, Morelli's signature authorized Plaintiff to perform only the procedures specifically set forth in the proposal of July 20, 1993. 11. Denied as stated. It is admitted only that on August 4, 1993, Joseph G. Morelli authorized Plaintiff to provide consulting services only for the summer and fall of 1993, as referenced in the July 12, 1993 proposal. 12. After reasonable investigation, Defendant is without 3 knowledge and informaticn sufficiont to form a beiief as to the truth of the avermont, and therefore, the same is deemed denied and proof thereof is demanded. 13. Denied. LJC authorized Plaintiff to perform only the procedures specifically set forth in the terms of the Phase II-III proposal dated July 20, 1993. 14. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted only that Plaintiff sent a letter to Dr. Bart Burne of LJC dated September 10, 1993. It is denied that this letter constitutes evidence of any agreement between Plaintiff and LJC for Plaintiff to perform any procedures other than those specifically set forth in the terms of the Phase II-III proposal dated July 20, 1993. 15. Admitted. 16. Admitted. 17. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that on November 30, 1993, a Phase III Environmental Remediation Cost summary was provided by Plaintiff to Sardoni [sic] Construction. It is denied that the Cost Summary was pro v ided to LJC. To the contrary, Exhibit H of Plaintiff's Complaint is addressed only to Sardoni [sic) Construction. By way of further answer, it is denied that Plaintiff was authorized to perform a Phase III Environmental Remediation Cost Summary by virtue of the July 20, 1993 proposal. To the contrary, under the proposal, Plaintiff was to complete only sections 2.1, 2.2, 3.1, 3.2, 4.1, 4.2 and 4.3 of the Phase II-III Activities, as outlined in Exhibits Band E to Plaintiff's 4 Complaint.. lB. Denied as stated. It is admitted only that LJC reimbursed Plaintiff for services provided pursuant to Plaintiff's Invoice N 93235. To the extent that Plaintiff performed Phase III remedial activities between November 10, 1993 and November 20, 1993, these activities consisted of activities specifically authorized by the July 20, 1993 proposal. 19. Admitted in part and denied in part. As to the allegation that between November, 1993 and March, 1994, Plaintiff performed services under the provisions and authority of the January 11, 1993 proposal, after reasonable investigation, Defendant is without knowledge and information sufficient to form a belief that there existed a proposal dated January 11, 1993, and therefore, the same is deemed denied and proof thereof is demanded. As to the allegation that between November, 1993 and March, 1994, Plaintiff performed services under the proviSions and authority of the July 20, 1993 proposal, it is admitted that Plaintiff performed some services specifically authorized by that proposal. By way of further answer, it is denied that all of the services Plaintiff performed between November, 1993 and March, 1994, were under the provisions and authority of the July 20, 1993 proposal. To the contrary, under the proposal, Plaintif f was to complete only sections 2.1, 2.2, 3.1, 3.2, 4.1, 4.2 and 4.3 of the Phase II-III Activities, as outlined in Exhibits Band E to Plaintiff's Complaint. The services Plaintiff performed and for which 5 Plaintiff seeks payment in this lawsuit were beyond the scope and authority of the aforementioned sections. 20. Denied. As to the allegation that Plaintiff filed permits in compliance with the National Emissions Standards and Hazardous Air Pollutants Act, and the U.S. EPA permitting requirements for asbestos abatement and demoli tion activi ties, after reasonable investigation, Defendant is without knowledge and information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments, and therefore, the same is deemed denied and proof thereof is demanded. By way of further answer, if the permits were filed, it is specifically denied that the July 20, 1993 proposal authorized Plaintiff to file the permits on behalf of LJC. To the contrary, under the proposal, PlaintIf f was to complete only sections 2.1, 2.2, 3.1, 3.2, 4.1, 4.2 and 4.3 of the Phase II-III Activities, as outlined in Exhibits Band E to Plaintiff's Complaint. 21. Denied as stated. It is admitted only that LJC reimbursed Plaintiff for services provided pursuant to Plaintiff's Invoices N 93256, N 93277 and 1/ 93276. To the extent that Plaintiff performed Phase II-III.services under these invoices, these services consisted only of activities specifically authorized by the July 20, 1993 proposal. 22. Denied. To the contrary, the act! v!ties performed by Plaintiff beginning in March, 1994, were neither under the terms of, nor authorized by, the July 20, 1993 proposal. Under the 6 proposal, Plaintiff was to complete only sections 2.1, 2.2, 3.1, 3.2, 4.1, 4.2 and 4.3 of the Phase II-III Activities, as outlined in Exhibits D and E to Plaintiff's complaint. The services Plaintiff performed and for which Plaintiff seeks payment in this lawsuit were beyond the scope and authority of the aforementioned sections. By way of further answer, because the acti vi ties performed by Plaintiff beginning in March, 1994 were not authorized by the July 20, 1993 proposal, the same did not constitute Phase III consulting services. 23. Denied as stated. It is admitted that Plaintiff issued Invoices N 94295, N 94365, N 943B9 and 1/ 94490 in the total amount of $ 66,127.31. It is denied that the invoices represent Phase III consulting services provided by Plaintiff to LJC. To the contrary, the activities represented by the invoices were not authorized by the July 20, 1993 proposal, and therefore, the same did not constitute Phase III consulting services. 24. Denied. It is denied that the consulting services identified in paragraph twenty-three (23) of Plaintiff's Complaint represent Phase III consulting services provided by Plaintiff to LJC. To the contrary, the activities represented by the invoices were not authorized by the July 20, 1993 proposal, and therefore, the same did not constitute Phase III consulting services. 25. Denied. To the contrary, the July 20, 1993 proposal authorized Plaintiff to perform only the services identified in sections 2.1,2.2,3.1,3.2,4.1,4.2 and 4.3 of the Phase II-III 7 Activities, as outlined in Exhibits Band E to Plaintiff's Complaint. The aforementioned sections did not authorize Plaintiff to perform the services identified in paragraph twenty-three (23) of Plaintiff's Complaint. 26. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted only that LJC has not paid Plaintiff for Invoices N 94295, N 94365, N 943B9 and N 94490. It is denied that LJC had any obligation to reimburse Plaintiff for the consulting services ident!fled in paragraph twenty-three (23) of Plaintiff's Complaint or that LJC is delinquent in payment therefor. To the contrary, the July 20, 1993 proposal authorized Plaintiff to perform only the services identified in sections 2.1, 2.2, 3.1, 3.2, 4.1, 4.2 and 4.3 of the Phase II-III Activities, as outlined in Exhibits Band E to Plaintiff's Complaint. The aforementioned sections did not authorize Plaintiff to perform the activities identified in paragraph twenty-three (23) of Plaintiff's Complaint. 27. The averments of paragraph twenty-seven (27) are conclusions of law to which no response Is necessary. To the extent that a response is required, it is denied that LJC is in default of and/or has breached the terms of the July 20, 1993 proposal. To the contrary, LJC has reimbursed Plaintiff all amounts due pursuant to the proposal. By way of further answer, the amounts for which Plaintiff seeks payment relate to activities Plaintiff performed that were not authorized by the proposal. 2B. The averments of paragraph twenty-eight (2B) are B conclusions of law to which no response is necessary. To the extent that a response is required, the averments of paragraph twenty-eight are denied as stated. It is admitted only that LJC received the benefit of consulting services provided by Plaintiff under sections 2.1, 2.2, 3.1, 3.2, 4.1, 4.2 and 4.3 of the Phase II-III Activities, as outlined in Exhibits Band E to Plaintiff's Complaint. It is denied that LJC has been unjustly enriched thereby, as LJC has reimbursed Plaintiff for all services Plaintiff performed pursuant to the July 20, 1993 proposal. By way of further answer, it is denied that LJC received the benefit of consulting services provided by Plaintiff that were beyond the scope of sections 2.1,2.2,3.1,3.2,4.1,4.2 and 4.3, as LJC never requested nor authorized Plaintiff to perform services other than those authorized under the proposal. 29. Denied as stated. It is admitted only that LJC has not paid Plaintiff for Invoices 1/ 94295, N 94365, # 94389 and 1/ 94490. It is denied that LJC had any obligation to reimburse Plaintiff for the Phase III consulting services identified in paragraph twenty- three (23) of Plaintiff's Complaint or that LJC is delinquent in payment therefor. To the contrary, the July 20, 1993 proposal authorized Plaintiff to perform only the services identified in sections 2.1, 2.2, 3.1, 3.2, 4.1, 4.2 and 4.3 of the Phase II-III Activities, as outlined in Exhibits Band E to Plaintiff's Complaint. The aforementioned sections did not authorize Plaintiff to perform the activities identified in paragraph twenty-three (23) 9 of Plaintiff's Complaint. 30. After reasonable investigation, Defendant is without knowledge and information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averment, and therefore, the same is deemed denied and proof thereof is demanded. ]1. Denied. The proposal dated July 12, 1993, relating to curriculum consulting serviceE; authorized Plaintiff to provide said services only for the summer and fall of 1993. 32. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted that piaintiff issued Invoices N 93134, N 93136, N 93252, N 94292, N 94359 and N 943BB, which Invoices total $2,270.00. It is denied that Invoices N 93136, N 93252, N 94292, N 94359 and 1/ 943BB represent services performed pursuant to the July 12, 1993 proposal. To the contrary, the proposal only authorized Plaintiff to perform curriculum consulting services for Bummer and fall, 1993. By way of further answer, it is denied that Invoice 1/ 93134 represents services performed pursuant to the July 12, 1993 proposal. To the contrary, the services represented by Invoice 1/ 93134 were performed prior to the alleged acceptance of the proposal by LJC on August 4, 1993. 33. Denied. It is denied that Invoices N 93134, N 93136, , 93252, N 94292, N 94359 and N 9438B represent services performed pursuant to the July 12, 1993 proposal. To the contrary, the proposal only authorized plaintiff to perform curriculum consulting services for summer and fall, 1993, and therefore, LJC never owed 10 Plaintiff the aforestated $ 2,270.00. By way of further answer, the services represented by Invoice N 93134 were performed prior to the alleged acceptance of the proposal by LJC on August 4, 1993, and therefore, were not performed under the authority to the July 12, 1993 proposal. 34. The averments of paragraph thirty-four (34) are conclusions of law to which no response is necessary. To the extent that a response is required, the averments of paragraph thirty-four (34) are denied. To the contrary, Invoices 1/ 93136, N 93252, 1/ 94292, N 94359 and N 9438B do not represent services performed pursuant to the July 12, 1993 proposal, because the proposal only authorized Plaintiff to perform curriculum consulting services for summer and fall, 1993, and therefore, LJC never owed Plaintiff the aforestated $ 2,270.00. By way of further answer, the services represented by Invoice N 93134 were performed prior to the alleged acceptance of the proposal by LJC on August 4, 1993, and therefore, were not performed under the authority to the July 12, 1993 proposal. 35. The averments of paragraph thirty-five (35) are conclusions of law to which no response is necessary. To the extent that a response is required, the averments of paragraph thirty-five (35) are denied. To the contrary, Invoices 1/ 93136, N 93252, N 94292, N 94359 and N 9438B do not represent services performed pursuant to the July 12, 1993 proposal, because the proposal only authorized Plaintiff to perform curriculum consulting 11 services for summer and fall, 1993. By way of further answer, the services represented by Invoice N 93134 were performed prior to the alleged acceptance of the proposal by LJC on August 4, 1993, and therefore, were not performed under the authority of the July 12, 1993 proposal. By way of further answer, it is denied that LJC received the benefit of consulting services provided by Plaintiff beyond the scope of the July 12, 1993 proposal, as LJC never requested nor authorized Plaintiff to perform services other than those authorized under the proposal. 36. Denied as stated. It is admitted only that LJC has not paid Plaintiff for Invoices N 93134, N 93136, N 93252, N 94292, * 94359 and N 943BB. It is denied that LJC had any obligation to reimburse Plaintiff for the services represented by these Invoices. To the contrary, Invoices # 93136, N 93252, N 94292, N 94359 and N 943BB do not represent services performed pursuant to the July 12, 1993 proposal, because the proposal only authorized Plaintiff to perform curriculum consulting services for summer and fall, 1993. By way of further answer, the services represented by Invoice N 93134 were performed prior to the alleged acceptance of the proposal by LJC on August 4, 1993, and therefore, LJC never owed Plaintiff the aforestated $ 2,270.00. 37. Admitted in part and denied in part. It is admitted only that Plaintiff's claims total $ 68,397.31. It is denied that the services for which Plaintiff seeks payment were provided pursuant to the terms of any agreement between Plaintiff and LJC. To the 12 contrary, the services for which Plaintiff seeks payment were beyond the scope and authority of the agreements that Plaintiff had with LJC. 3B. After reasonable investigation, Defendant is without knowledge and information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the averments of paragraph thirty-eight (38), and therefore, the same are deemed denied and proof thereof is demanded. 39. Denied as stated. It is admitted that Plaintiff has repeatedly demanded payment of the amounts alleged in Plaintiff's complaint and that LJC has refused to pay Plaintiff these amounts. It is denied that these amounts are due Plaintiff. To the contrary, LJC has paid Plaintiff all amounts due for services rendered pursuant to the July 12, 1993 and July 20, 1993 proposals. WHEREFORE, Defendant, Lackawanna Junior College respectfully requests judgment in its favor and against Plaintiff, together with reasonable costs. NEW MATTER 40. Paragraphs one (1) through thirty-nine (39) of Defendant's Answer are incorporated herein by reference as if fully set forth. 41. Plaintiff has failed to state a cause of action. 42. Plaintiff's cause of action, if any, is barred by the applicable statutes of limItations. 43. Plaintiff's cause of action, if any, is barred by the 13 doctrino of laches. 44. LJC has paid fully all amounts due under the July 12, 1993 and July 20, 1993 proposals. Under the July 12, 1993 proposal Plaintiff was to perform curriculum consulting services for only summer and fall, 1993, subsequent to the alleged acceptance. LJC has paid Plaintiff for the summer and fall, 1993 curriculum consulting services performed subsequent to LJC's alleged acceptance of the proposal on August 4, 1993. Under the July 20, 1993 proposal, Plaintiff was to perform only the services identified in sections 2.1, 2.2, 3.1, 3.2, 4.1, 4.2 and 4.3 of the Phase II-III Activities, as outlined in Exhibits Band E to Plaintiff I s complaint. LJC has paid Plaintiff for the services Plaintiff performed identified in sections 2.1,2.2, 3.1, 3.2, 4.1, 4.2 and 4.3. 45. Under the July 12, 1993 proposal Plaintiff represented that it was to perform curriculum consulting services for only summer and fall, 1993. LJC relied on this representation in authorizing Plaintiff to proceed under the July 12, 1993 proposal. Plaintiff's Complaint seeks payment for services outside the scope of the July 12, 1993 proposal. Plaintiff is estopped from asserting that it is entitled to payment for services, if any, it performed beyond the scope of the July 12, 1993 proposal. 46. Under the July 20, 1993 proposal, Plaintiff represented that it was to perform only the services identified in sections 2.1,2.2,3.1,3.2,4.1,4.2 and 4.3 of the Phase II-III 14 Activities, as outlined in Exhibits Band E to Plaintiff's Complaint. LJC relied on this representation in authorizing Plaintiff to proceed under the July 20, 1993 proposal. Plaintiff's Complaint seeks payment for services outside the scope of the July 12, 1993 proposal. Plaintiff is estopped from asserting that it is entitled to payment for services, if any, it performed beyond the scope of the July 20, 1993 proposal. 47. Plaintiff failed to seek LJC's authorization to perform activities beyond those specifically identified in the July 12, 1993 and July 20, 1993 proposals, and LJC never authorized Plaintiff to perform activities beyond those specifically identified in the July 12, 1993 and July 20, 1993 proposals. 4B. LJC never accepted the benefit, if any, of the acti v i ties Plaintiff performed, if any, beyond the scope of the July 12, 1993 and July 20, 1993 proposals. 49. Plaintiff's cause of action for unjust enrichment is barred because the relationship between Plaintiff and LJC was governed by express contract. 50. Plaintiff's acceptance of payment pursuant to the July 12, 1993 and July 20, 1993 proposals constituted an accord and satisfaction for any amounts due. 51. LJC never received consideration for Plaintiff's alleged performance of services beyond the scope and authority of the July 12, 1993 and July 20, 1993 proposals, because LJC never requested Plaintiff to perform these services. 15 it is not clear that any unjust benefit has been conferred upon LJC beyond the services agreed upon in the July 20th Letter. Cocciardi has also sued for monies allegedly due on a contract to provide curriculum development services. The contract is contained in a letter dated August 4, 1993 (the "August 4th Letter"), attached to Plaintiff's Complaint as Exhibit r, which was approved by the College. This letter contract approved curriculum development services only for the summer and fall of 1993, which were paid by the College. There is no other written contract for services beyond the summer and fall semesters of 1993. Statement of Css~es 1. Was there an enforceable contract between the parties for anything other than the work authorized in the July 20th Letter7 2. Was there an enforceable contract between the parties for anything other than curriculum development services in the summer and fall of 19937 2. Is LJC liable to Cocciardi under the doctrine of unjust enrichment 7 Cdentitv of Witnesses I. Joseph A. Cocciardi List of EXhibits See attached Exhibit A. 3 NO DATE AT TO/mON RE 1 8/21/95 B BURNE/ J CLOSURE INFO/ COCCIARDI INTERIM/ FINAL REPORT 2 7/18/95 COCCIARDI/ HTG IHTfl COCCIARDI BURNE TO DISCUSS LITIGAION 3 3/29/95 HRYKALO/ COLLECTION NOTICE YOflE 4 3/24/95 COCCIARDI/ ITEHIZING AMOUNT DUE MRYKALO 5 3/16/95 BURNE/ EXPLAIN AMOUNT DUE COCCIARDI WITH ATTACHMENTS 6 9/2/94 T BURNE/ PRE-FINAL INSPECTION COCCIARDI 7 4/1B/94 Q DISTRIBUT/ FOLLOW UP SAFETY COCCIARDI SERVICES 8 4/B/94 DISTRIBUT/ SPECS FOR ABATEMENT COCCIARDI 9 2124/94 N PARAS HAC/ LEAD PAINT REMOVAL COCCIARDI SPECS 10 12/13/ M BURNE/ TRANSMITTING REPORT 93 COCCIARDI OF I~NESTIGATION 11 11130/ K PARAS HAC/ ESTIMATE OF COST FOR 93 COCCIARDI PHASE II I 12 9/10/93 I BURNE/ PHASE II ASBESTOS COCCIARDI CONCERNS 12 8/5/93 BURNE/ CURRICULUN A COCCIARDI 13 7/27/93 F COCCIARDI/ TRANSNITTING BURNE APPROVAL OF 7/20/93 LTR OUTINING PH 11- III 14 7/20/93 E BURNE/ AMENDHENT TO 7/12/93 COCCIARDI PROPOSAL RE: PH II III ENVIRONNENTAL PROCEDURES AND ESTIHATE 15 7/12/93 G BURNE/ CUHRICULUM SERVICES COCCIARDI ~ 8/5/93 FI\X, 8/5/93 LTR AND 3/17/93 LTH 16 7/12/93 D COCCIARDI/ $12,120 EST FOR PH BURNE II AND I II RE: PROPOSAL DTD 3/5/93 17 4/5/93 C COCCIARDI/ F~X TRANSMITTING CAMJ\YD LHC'S COMMENTS TO LJC ON COCCIARDI PH I REPORT 18 3/29/93 BURNE/ LHC COMl-1ENTS ON COCCIARDI PH I REPORT 18 3/17/93 BURNE/ CURRICULUM PROPOSAL A COCCIARDI 19 3/5/93 B BURNE/ PRICING AND SPEC'S COCCIARDI FOR PH II-III EFFORT 20 1/27/93 A COCCIARDI/ AUTHORIZATION TO BURNE PROCEED WITH PH 1 COST OF $1,500 21 1/11/93 BURNE/ DESCRIPTION OF PH I COCCIARDI SERVICES ~~ 1/7/93 BURNE/ PRESENCE OF " COCCIAP.DI HAZ.~DOUS ~mTERIALS INV DATE INV CHECK NO ANOUNT 93042 3/10/93 150 9313.1 7/29/93 500 93136 7/30/93 100 93152 8/27/93 500 1643 93155 II 8/30/93 7,000 3750 93175 9/29/93 500 1643 93186 H 10/14/93 3,67,1 1670 93205 10/29/93 500 1643 93214 J 10/29/93 1,446 1670 93215 10/29/93 566 1670 93234 11/30/93 500 1670 93235 L 11/30/93 1,436 1670 93244 12/29/93 500 2558 93252 12129/93 195 93256 N 12131/93 1,862 2558 93276 N 1/31/94 1, 224 3857 93277 N 1/31/94 6,530 4159 93280 1/31/94 400 2444 94292 1/21/9'} 475 94295 0 3/1/94 11,028.75 94304 3/1/94 500 4813 94312 3/16/94 500 4813 94330 p 3/31/94 3,662 114 94359 4/30/94 500 5917 94365 R 4/30/94 15,342.21 94388 5/31/94 500 94389 S 5/31/94 17, '158.82 94490 s 9/30/9.1 22,297.53 2. As alleged by Plaintiff in its Complaint, the Defendant, Lackawanna Junior College ("LJC" or "Defendant"), is a non-prOfit corporation organized under the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and has its registered and principal offices in Lackawanna County at 901 Prospect Avenue, Scranton, Pennsylvania IB505. 3. The Plaintiff alleges that it has offices located at 4B23 East Trindle Road, Suite 100, Mechanicsburg, PA 17055. 4. LJC has no business location in Cumberland County. 5. LJC conducts no business in Cumberland County. 6. LJC was served in Lackawanna County by deputized service by the Sheriff's Office of Lackawanna County. THE CAUSE OF ACTION AROSE IN LACKAWANNA COUNTY. 7. The subject matter of the Complaint involves a dispute over payment for services allegedly performed by Plaintiff in connection with the preliminary assessment of the presence and possible abatement of hazardous materials at the Central High School Building (the "Building") located in the City of Scranton, Lackawanna County, Pennsylvania. B. All work allegedly performed in connect!on with the subject matter of this Complaint would have been performed by Plaintiff at the Building, in Defendant's offices, or in the 2 offices of Defondant.s architect, all of which are located in Lackawanna county. 9. No transaction or occurrence related to this action took place in Cumberland Countj. THERE IS NO CONTRACT UPON WHICH PLAINTIFF MAY BE COMPENSATED OR UPON WHICH VENUE CAN BE BASED IN CUMBERLAND COUNTY. 10. In its Complaint, Plaintiff sets forth a series of letters upon which it alleges agreement was made to provide servir.es and payment therefor. 11. The letters attached to Plaintiff's Complaint do not reflect or justify any agreement by Defendant to pay the sums of money demanded by Plaintiff in its Complaint. 12. There is no contract for services between the parties. 13. Plaintiff does not allege there is a contract between the parties setting forth terms and conditions for payment of the sums of money demanded by Plaintiff in its Complaint. 14. There was never any agreement between the parties, express, written, oral, or implied, that Defendant would pay Plaintiff the sums of money demanded by Plaintiff in its Complaint. 15. Defendant has not been unjustly enriched. 16. The sums of money demanded by Plaintiff in its Complaint are far in excess of the estimates provided by Plaintiff to 3 . ,. !;, 'i',.': /., ,. . , :,'\; .'1 i'i" r,' .'1.......:::/,. \. i'I' ';' I''', ," r 1 _~ r." ., j ,f , .'ti " bl! t " '_1 " i L '.iI.: ~ ,1.11. 1 :~ '. .! '1:, , ..1. t '.' .--;i-';'t' '.'(' ... ~ ! ~ I i I 1.11. n I]' t.lI....' .Jl t ,,'tl'.' j "IIIJ !i ":.11',2 r -1 ~ : 'I.. t',' Ji'l tJI,l1 ,1 t I', "llll J' ';U L .:11..1 1..'i'.' Llr:L.tw 1lill " ,. , .. .w I Ii '1l. I 1.1(,'. .J . ~J.. " , -' .1 '~ ~' ;\. , " , " I,. 7110, , ) \'-JT'-"~ . ?rL;Ll'.~J (3rj : : ~ " ;.1 I : ~. ~ . ;. "t' ,1.\: ,,:\.)'/',';:;/', " ". ~ . , . ...: !;. , "", . II1I . -, " ! ~,. .... I, [, 'r,..... .' j '.' 1.,: I. I' " ~ 1lllll. . consulting costs for the ongoing provision of curriculum development services. Although the proposal references services for the summer and fall of 1993, it further references services to be provided for all new environmental health and safely classes added to the Lackawanna Junior College ("LJC") catalogue. Moreover, the proposal also envisions additional work which would be charged at the same rate, if necessary. Likewise, Defendant's averments with regard to the July 20, 1993 proposal are misstated. LJC has failed to pay Cocciardi for services rendered under the terms and within the terms of the proposals, as amended, and authorization to perform work provided to Cocciardi by LJC. 45. The averments of this paragraph constitute a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. To the extent that a responsive pleading is required, the averments of this paragraph are denied. Moreover, the averments of this paragraph attempt to characterize and restate the language of a written document which document speaks for itself. It is specifically denied that Cocciardi seeks payment for any services which arc outside the scope of the July 12, 1993 proposal as that proposal specifically contemplated ongoing services. All professional services provided by Cocciardi were authorized by LJC LJC received the benefit of all professional services provided to it by Cocciardi and is responsible for the payment of not only the contractual price but also the quantum meruit value of these services. 46. The averments of this paragraph constitute a conclusion of law tll which no responsive pleading is required. Tllthe extent that a responsive pleading is 2 required, the averments of this paragraph are denied. It is specifically denied that the July 20. 1993 proposal represented that only those services in sections 2.1, 2.2, :1.1, :1.2, 4.1,4.2 and 43 would be performed by Cocciardi. 47. Denied. All professional services provided by Cocciardi and which haw been invoiced to LJC as further represented within the awrments of the Cocciardi complaint, were either within the scope of proposals provided by Cocciardi to LJC, which proposals were accepted and authorized by LjC, or within the sCllpe of work which was negotiated and agreed to between the parties. 48. Denied. Not only did LJC accept the benefit of Cocciardi's professional services but also authorized and requested the benefit of all services provided to it by Cocciardi. 49. The averments of this paragraph constitute a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. 50. The averments of this paragraph constitute a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. 51. The averments of this paragraph constitute a conclusion of law to which no responsive pleading is required. 52. There is no responsive pleading relluired by this paragraph. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, Cocciardi ilnd Associiltes, Inc., respectfully requests judgment in its favor and against Defendant. together with I'l'asonable costs, inlerl'sl and such other relief as the Court deems appropriilte. :1 . has ever had 01' may have against Defendant 01' any of its succcssors, assigns, subsidiarics, affiliatcs, 01' parcnt companics, or any of their present 01' former directors, officcrs, and cmplo)'ccs, for damagcs, intcrcst, costs, attorncy's fecs, and damagcs and claims for rclief of any kind 01' naturc whatsocl'cr, Defendant agrccs to PilY to Plilintiff thc totill sum of Sixty-Onc Thousilnd Scvcn Hundred Scvcnty Dollilrs ($61,770.00), to bc milde ilS follows: a. Onc Thousand Scvcn Hundrcd Sevcnty Dollars ($1,770.00) is to bc mildc upon full cxccution of this Agrcemcnt; ilnd b. Commcncing on thc tcnth (10th) dilY of januilry 1997, and continuing on the tcnth (10th) day of each month thereaftcr, Defendilnt shall pay to Plaintiff six (6) cquill consecutivc monthly installmcnts each in the amount of Tcn Thousilnd Dollars ($10,000.00). No further paymcnts of any kind or nature whatsocver shall be paid to, or on behalf of, Plaintiff under this Agrecment. If any payment is not made within ten (10) days of written notice (from Plaintiff to Defcndant) that pa)'mcnt is due, Plaintiff shall bc entitled, without further notice to Defendant, to declare the entire amount due under this Agreement immediately due and payable. Plaintiff may take whatever action necessary to enforce payment of this amount including seeking court enforcement of the order and/ or contempt proceedings. ::I. Mutual Rplease. Except for the enforcement of the terms and obligations under this Agrcement, the Plaintiff and Defendant, thcmselves and for their successors and assigns, do hereby fully, finally and forever remise, release and discharge each other, and their succcssors, assigns, and thcir present or formcr dircctors, officcrs, and cmployccs of and from any and all manner of claims, rights, actions, causcs of actions, suits, controversies, executions, debts, complaints, 01' claims for alt01'llcys' fees and costs, and any and all damages, claims, chargcs, and dcmands of any kind or nature whatsoevcr, whethcr in law or in equity, whethcr accrued or hcreinafter maturing, which they havc ever had, now hilvc 01' milY have ilgainst cach othcr ilrising out of, related to or conncctcd in ilny way with any ilctS, cvcnts 01' facts from thc beginning of timc to the date of this Agrecmcnt, and relatcd to any and all claims, causes of actions, illlegations 01' chargcs of any kind which wcrc assertcd or which might hilve bccn asscrtcd by Plaintiff or Defcndant in thc Pcnding Lawsuit. 13t1:\t11 , 0- ,-0 0 ~ ", --n -:l .'.:J '"'C1\1l ,~ :;~ P'll' <"') /'; ._'.' - " ~ .' .-' ...l (,'~ .~ .,; () -' ~~;C", .,-, :fl~ 'J;;r :l~ ~h~ ~ -; ~ ~l ) Cf! ....,:: ~ -,' U1 ?i'i :'''} .... If\ ... ha7.l\rdous mllterials. Therealler. LJC requested that Coeeillrdi provide services for Phase II-III environmental audit procedures which were to be perfonned lit SCIIS. In addition to these phases of environmental services, Cocciardi was III so engaged by LJC to provide services designed to cover consulting costs on an ongoing basis for curriculum development services. LJC provided classes in environmental and safety areas lor LJC who at the time was allempting to expand its curriculum in that area, Cocciardi was engaged to provide curriculum development in these arcus on a semester by semester basis. Between 1993 and 1995, Coceiardi performed services on behalf of LJC and LJC accepted and benefited from services provided to it by Cocciardi. Aller having performed these services, Cocciardi invoiced LJC for the services in accordance with the proposals which had been previously provided to LJC and accepted by it. LJC has failed to reimburse Coeciardi the fullamounl for the provided services and as a result. is in breach of the terms and conditions of the proposal and has also been unjustly enriched and enhanced by the receipt of these services. Coeciardi seeks reimbursement in the amount of $77,666. 74. along with interest and costs. II. Statement Of Basic Facts As To DlIma~es Coccinrdi seeks to recover damages under the theory of contrnct and implied in fact contract. Coccinrdi seeks to recover $77,666,74. along with interest and costs, which represent the amount of invoiced services which hnve been provided by Cocciurdi to LJC and for which LJC has not reimbursed Cocciardi. In the alternative, Coecillrdi seeks to H"J.I.I 2 In addition, LJC has claimed a privilege to Cocciardi's request for calendars, diaries and other memoranda generated by management of LJC. Cocciardi has asserted that such discovery is not protected and should be produced. Cocciardi would seck the Court's direction to have such documents produced to it prior to the commencement of trial. V. Identity Of Witnesses Cocciardi rray seek to call some or all of the following individuals as witnesses: 1. Joseph A. Cocciardi. CD Rachel Moe. (j) Eileen Palumbo. 4. Alex Camayd, as on cross. 5. Bart Bume. as on cross. 6, Joseph G. Morelli, as on cross. 7. Ray Angeli, as on cross. 8. Paul Williamson, as on cross. 9, Bob Thomas, as on cross. 10. Dan Mrykalo, as on cross. VI. List Of Exhibits Cocciardi may seck to introduce some or all of the I(Jllowing documents as exhibits: I. Letter of Lackawanlla Junior College to Joseph Cocciardi. dated January 27, }993. Complaint Exhibit "A", KI>J4.1 4