Program CT40

CRICA CASE NO.467/2006 CCCO VS. GPP STATEMENT OF DEFENCE

Objections to The Contractor’s Claiming Practice TABLE OF CONTENTS

No. 01- Gas Works No. 02: Multimedia. No. 04: Decorative Lighting. No. 0 No. 07: H4 Additional Additional Parking. Parking. No. 8- Fire Escape: No. 8B- Fire Escape: No. 8C- Atrium Smoke Curtain (CVN 490): No. 9A- Smoke Management: No. 9B- Smoke Management H1-H4 (CVN 226): No. 9C- Car Park Smoke Containment and Extract Modifications: No. 10- VRV Units: No. 13: C78 Pyramid Pyramid No. 14- 5th Floor: No. 15- CCTV & Security: No. 16- Food Courts (Commercial Center Phase I): No. 17- Refuse Room: No. 18- Emergency Exit Signage Conduits: No. 19: Exhibition Roof Panels. No. 21- Operators Electrical Requirements: No. 22: 1st Basement Revised Lighting Lighting No. 23- Busway Risers: No. 24: FCU Connection to BMS No. 25- False Ceiling & Column Capitals: No. 26: Toilet [Access] Modifications No. 27: False Ceiling Coordination No. 28: Service Corridor Ceiling Ceiling No. 29: Operator Facilities No. 31: Lighting Control Control Modifications No. 32: No. 33: No. 35: No. 37:

Panel Board Feeders Cradle Cleaning System. Atrium Skylights. Audio Visual Visual

No. 38: Life Safety Signage (H1-H4). No. 39: Coffee Shop Ground Floor Floor

Page 1 of 59


No. 40: Brasserie Restaurant. Restaurant. No. 41: Folding Partitions. No. 42: CDA Requirements. Requirements. No. 43: Boiler Redesign Redesign No. 44: H4 Lift Pit @ X27/Y22. No. 45: Penthouse No. 46: Italian Restaurant Restaurant No. 47: Japanese Restaurant No. 48: Lebanese Restaurant.

No. 01: Gas Works. No. 53: A8 Building. Building. No. 54: H5/O1 Hotel: Change of Design – Stop Work. No. 55: H5/O1 Hotel Hotel –Release of Revised Design. No. 56: No. 60: No. 61: No. 62:

H5/O1 Hotel Hotel –Release of TP5 Revised Design. C10 Swimming Swimming Pool. Commercial Centre Phase 2 Structural Redesign External Road Works.

Page 2 of 59


1- Gas Works 1A- Appointment of Egypt Gas Gas Misr is the nominated sub contractor to CCCO. For the gas piping, it is known that there was an agreement between GPP and Egypt Gas as the authorized company to construct gas works in Egypt. On other hand, many of works have been deleted from CCCO’s scope of work, were in conjunction between CCCO and Egypt Gas as coordination process, such as Main Gas Shutoff Valve, Gas Pipes in Shafts and Gas Detection System. The following table showing the delayed finish dates of Egypt Gas works, the affected CCCO nd nd 2 fix works and the IRs concerned with 2 fix activities.

Floor Level

2nd Basement Ground Floor 1st Floor 2nd Floor

Egypt Gas Works (Piping, Sleevs, seismic Supports, Expansion Joints) Finish Dates

CCCO Works (HVAC Conduits, F/P, Plumbing, Cabling Works) Finish Dates

HVAC Conduits, F/P, Plumbing, Cabling Works Finish Dates according to IRs

30 May 2002

16 November 2002

14 September 2004

16 January 2003

16 November 2002

11 July 2004

06 February 2003

16 December 2002

28 February 2004

27 February 2003

01 March 2003

16 October 2004

According t o the t he table t able above, a bove, Egypt Gas G as works were performed and finished f inished within the period nd where CCCO was carrying out 2 fix activities. Egypt Gas works were completed before CCCO nd is able to finish its 2 fix activities with duration over a year.

Conclusion: Since Egypt Gas works were performed concurrently with CCCO 2 then there is no delay incurred due to Egypt Gas.

nd

fix activities, and

Page 3 of 59


1- Gas Works 1B- Gas Detection System The Contractor claimed that alleged delaying event start date is 7 February 2002, where in the meeting held on 7 February 2002, Egypt Gas requested that CCCO stop the ceiling works Program CT29 dated 1 January 2002 indicating a completion date for commercial center on 20 March 2003, and program CT31 dated 1 March 2002 indicating completion date for commercial center on 11 February 2003, i.e. such instructions in structions didn’t affect the Block completion date The Contractor’s delay analysis is based on CVN 247 & 247 (1). However, each CVN should be considered as a delaying event and to be simulated with its contemporaneous update to assess its impact upon the project completion date as indicated in Padraig Anglin expert report on project delay, section 4. In the following analysis we will demonstrate the validity of each alleged delaying event:

CVN # 247 SoD No.: Title: PMO Letter: Date of Issue:

2 Block H1-H4: Natural Gas Detection System 1 PMO/CCCO/TP5/02/17.0/802/463 8 May 2002

Instructions Included in the CVN Form: -

Proceed with work No extension of time authorized

Contractor’s Reservations: Reservations: The Contractor did not provide substantiations that they preserved rights for delays may encounter as a result of issuing CVN 247. Comments:

1

1-

The Contractor received the instructions to proceed with work pertaining to this event through CVN number 247 which issued on 8 May 2002.

2-

However, the contemporaneous update to assess the alleged impact upon the project completion date should be HT33 data date 1 May 2002, but the Contractor simulate this delaying event with update HT31 dated 1 March 2002, which is wrong.

3-

Furthermore, the Contractor should simulate only the impact of issuing CVN 247 to assess its impact upon the contract completion date, but the Contractor analyzed the impact of CVN 247 & 247 (1) all together in the same program update and combined the impact of several delaying events issued in various dates, which is deceptive

See attached letter Page 4 of 59


4-

In spite that CVN 247 was issued to Hotel Block H1-H4, but the contractor consider its impact to Blocks A1-A3, Commercial Center and F buildings.

Conclusion: The contractor could not demonstrate in a sound delay analysis the impact upon the project completion date as a result of this alleged delaying event

CVN # 247 (1) SoD No.: Title: PMO Letter: Date of Issue:

3 All Areas: Natural Gas Detection System 2 PMO/CCCO/TP5/02/17.0/1576/938 22 August 2002



Contractor’s Reservations: Reservations: 3

The Contractor in his letter ref. 674/10/180A/ L. 3603 dated 25 August 2002, stated the following: “We write to inform you that completion of the works will be delayed beyond the current extended Time for Completion Comments: 4.

The Contractor received the instructions to proceed with work pertaining to this event event through CVN number 247 (1) which issued on 22 August 2002.

5.

However, the contemporaneous update to assess the alleged impact upon the project completion date should be CT36, HT36, F136 & F236 data date 1 August 2002, but the Contractor simulate this delaying event with update XX31 dated 1 March 2002, which is wrong.

6.

Furthermore, the Contractor should simulate only the impact of of issuing CVN 247 (1) to assess its impact upon the contract completion date, but the Contractor analyzed the impact of CVN 247 & 247 (1) all together in the same program update and combined the impact of several delaying events issued in various dates, which is deceptive


2 3

See attached letter See attached letter Page 5 of 59


1- Gas Works 1C- Seismic Sensors The Contractor’s delay analysis is based on CVN 204 & 204 (2). However, each CVN should be considered as a delaying event and to be simulated with its contemporaneous update to assess its impact upon the project completion date as indicated in Padraig Anglin expert report on project delay, section 4. In the following analysis we will demonstrate the validity of each alleged delaying event:


4 Blocks A1 to A8, F1, F2, Commercial Center and H1-H4: Seismic Sensors 4 PMO/CCCO/TP5/02/17.0/506/310 21 March 2002



Contractor’s Reservations: The Contractor in his letter ref. 674/27/180A/L .2090 following:

-

5

dated 2 April 2002, stated the

“ Late instruction for design change will cause delay and / or disruption to the progress of works ”

Comments: 5- The Contractor received the instructions to proceed with work pertaining to this event through CVN number 204 which issued on 21 March 2002. 6- However, the Contractor should simulate only the impact of issuing CVN 204 to assess its impact upon the contract completion date, but the Contractor analyzed the impact of CVN 204 & 204 (2) all together in the same program update and combined the impact of several delaying events issued in various dates, which is deceptive


4 5




5 Blocks A1 to A8, F1, F2, Commercial Center and H1-H4 & H5/O1 : Seismic Sensors 6 PMO/CCCO/TP5/02/17.0/2323/1352 24 December 2002



Contractor’s Reservations: The Contractor did not provide substantiations that they preserved rights for delays may encounter as a result of issuing CVN 204 (2). Comments: 3- The Contractor received the instructions to proceed with work pertaining to this event through CVN number 204 (2) which issued on 24 December 2002. 4- However, the Contractor should simulate only the impact of issuing CVN 204 (2) to assess its impact upon the contract completion date, but the Contractor analyzed the impact of CVN 204 & 204 (2) all together in the same program update and combined the impact of several delaying events issued in various dates, which is deceptive


6



2- Multimedia 2A- Trietech Program The Contractor’s delay analysis is based on CVN 204 & 204 (2). However, each CVN should be considered as a delaying event and to be simulated with its contemporaneous update to assess its impact upon the project completion date as indicated in Padraig Anglin expert report on project delay, section 4. In the following analysis we will demonstrate the validity of each alleged delaying event:


4 Blocks A1 to A8, F1, F2, Commercial Center and H1-H4: Seismic Sensors 7 PMO/CCCO/TP5/02/17.0/506/310 21 March 2002




-

8



Comments: 7- The Contractor received the instructions to proceed with work pertaining to this event through CVN number 204 which issued on 21 March 2002. 8- However, the Contractor should simulate only the impact of issuing CVN 204 to assess its impact upon the contract completion date, but the Contractor analyzed the impact of CVN 204 & 204 (2) all together in the same program update and combined the impact of several delaying events issued in various dates, which is deceptive


7 8



6- Substation 6A- Substation Revised Drawings: Comments: 1- Program P51N indicated that Activity # SS-00AC010 (Receive Structural Design Dwgs for Constr’n) is a start milestone dated 1 August 2000 2- The Contractor claiming that receipt of the design was delayed from 1 August 2000 to 18 October 2000 which delayed the construction works of substation 3- Program update No. 5116 dated 1 December 2000 shown that activity # SS-00AC010 (Receive Structural Design Drawings for Construction) is actually completed on 19 st October 2000 and also showing that the Contractor had submitted the 1 lot of structural shop drawings for approval on 26 August 2000. 4- Program update No. 5116 dated 1 December 2000 showing also that the substation construction works was actually started on 20 September 2000 5- Program update No. 5116 showing also that the Contractor is actually received the Architectural design drawings for construction on 4 October 2000 6- Therefore, the Contractor assumption that the design drawings have been delayed from 1 August 2000 till 18 October 2000 is deceptive.


Page 9 of 59


6B- Substation S/C HVB: Comments: 1- The Contractor submitted a standalone program for the substations named NSUS data 9 date 16 October 2001 via their letter ref. 674/26/180A/L0128 , dated 18 October 2001, with completion date 4 May 2002. 10

2- PMO in their letter ref. PMO/CCCO/TP5/01/1.6/951/427 , dated 22 October 2001, stated that “CCC/O is now in the position of having the 66KV Substation comprehensively scheduled through to completion, with a consensus from all related parties concurring with and supporting that schedule. In the PMO view, CCC/O is now in complete control of this program and must drive this plan to completion as targeted.” 3- The contractor issued a revised version of the standalone program of the substations 11 named NS27 via letter ref 674/26/180A/ L. 1333 , dated 18 November 2001, indicated that substations completion date is delayed till 24 June 2002 4- The Contractor alleged that the delayed completion date of the substation is related to the subcontractor HVB revisions, but they neither demonstrate what are these revisions nor seeking PMO acceptance to the revised program. 5- The Contractor did not incorporate the substation program into the related Block program until 1 December 2001. 6- The Contractor in order to assess the delays resulted from this alleged delaying event, just compared between two programs FT28 and FT39, without demonstrating what are the cause of delays and did not provide proficient delay analysis to assess the impact upon the project completion date.


9

See attached letter

10 11



8- Fire Escape: The Contractor’s delay analysis is based on CVN 362 & 362 (1). However, each CVN should be considered as a delaying event and to be simulated with its contemporaneous update to assess its impact upon the project completion date as indicated in Padraig Anglin expert report on project delay, section 4. In the following analysis we will demonstrate the validity of each alleged delaying event:


15 Commercial Center Zone C8: Provision of Fire Escape Corridor 12 PMO/CCCO/TP5/02/17.0/1147/665 1 July 2002



Contractor’s Reservations: 13

The Contractor in his letter ref. 674/10/180A/ L. 3418 dated 2 July 2002, stated the following: - “We give notice, pursuant to Clause 44, that the additional work, and the timing of its instructions are likely to cause delay to Completion ” Comments: 1-

The Contractor in his delay analysis did not consider CVN 362 and take into consideration the impact of CVN 362 (1) only

2-

The contractor in his interim detailed particulars issued on 7 July 2002 via letter ref. 14 674/10/180A/ L. 3429 , indicated that the net effect of the delay to completion is 63 working days to all works at level +9.40 for Zone C7/8

3-

The Contractor in his delay analysis in SoC concluded that the subject CVN did not resulted critical delay to the Commercial Center

Conclusion: The contractor did not suffer critical delay to the Commercial Center due to the requirement of CVN 362

12 13 14

See attached letter See attached letter See attached letter Page 11 of 59



16 Commercial Center Zone C8: Provision of Fire Escape Corridor services at Level +9.40 15 PMO/CCCO/TP5/02/17.0/1715/1033 8 September 2002




The Contractor in his letter ref. 674/27/180A/ L. 3208 dated 19 September 2002, stated the following: - “… and confirm that we shall proceed with work as instructed by you through this variation notice” - “We have already given contractual notices in letters 1, 2 and 3 above” Comments: 17

1- The Contractor in his letter ref. 674/10/180A/ L. 3681 dated 15 September 2002 , notified PMO regarding delays will be caused by many variation notices excluding 362 (1) 2- However, and based on the above-mentioned comment, the contractor have confirmed that they will proceed with work as instructed by PMO, i.e. without time extension. 3- The Contractor should simulate this delaying event with update CT37 dated 22 August 2002, but they simulate it with update CT34 dated 1 June 2002, which is wrong. 4- The Contractor in his delay analysis in SoC concluded that the subject CVN did not resulted critical delay to the Commercial Center

Conclusion: The contractor did not suffer critical delay to the Commercial Center due to the requirement of CVN 362 (1)

15 16 17



8B- Fire Escape: The Contractor’s delay analysis is based on CVN 241, 263, 319, 374 & 374 (1), where its issue dates are as follow:

The Contractor to model these delays, five activities, each representing a CVN, were inserted into a copy of the CT29 program dated 1 January 2002, linked FF 60 to the appropriate activities. However, each CVN should be considered as a delaying event and to be simulated with its contemporaneous update to assess its impact upon the project completion date as indicated in Padraig Anglin expert report on project delay, section 4. In the following analysis we will demonstrate the validity of each alleged delaying event:


17 Commercial Center: Fire Protection in Ceiling Void at level +9.40 18 PMO/CCCO/TP5/02/17.0/668/390 16 April 2002




The Contractor in his letter ref. 674/27/180A/ L. 2492 dated 4 June 2002, stated the following: - “… and would like to advise you that the work ordered in the above instruction can be accommodated without schedule impact to the current target milestone date for completion” Comments: 1- The Contractor in his delay analysis alleged that the start date of this delaying event is in February 2002, in spite of that the first alleged delaying event is related to CVN # 241, which issued on 16 April 2002

18 19



2- As a result of the above mistake, the contractor has utilized program CT29 dated 1 January 2002 to simulate the impact of the alleged delaying event, which is a wrong selection. 3- The contractor in his interim detailed particulars issued on 12 May 2002 via letter ref. 20 674/10/180A/ L. 3214 , indicated that they has utilized program CT32 dated 1 April 2002 to simulate the impact of this alleged delaying event 4- The Contractor declared in his letter ref. 674/27/180A/ L. 2492 that CVN # 241 has no impact upon the project completion date

21

dated 4 June 2002,



18 Commercial Center: Fire Protection in Ceiling Void at level +14.20 22 PMO/CCCO/TP5/02/17.0/741/429 29 April 2002




The Contractor in his letter ref. 674/27/180A/ L. 3245 dated 16 May 2002, stated the following: - “… the preliminary analysis, shown on enclosure No. 1. Indicates an anticipated delay of 45 working days from the date of receipt of the subject CVN…” - “ this CVN will not, by itself cause delays to the “target date” of 31 December 2002 due to the overriding concurrent delay caused by the Multi Media additional works”

Comments: 1- The Contractor in his delay analysis alleged that the start date of this delaying event is in February 2002, in spite of that the issue date of CVN 263 was 29 April 2002

20 21 22 23

See attached letter See attached letter See attached letter See attached letter Page 14 of 59


2- As a result of the above mistake, the contractor has utilized program CT29 dated 1 January 2002 to simulate the impact of the alleged delaying event, which is a wrong selection. 3- The contractor in his interim detailed particulars issued on 16 May 2002 via letter ref. 24 674/10/180A/ L. 3245 , indicated that they has utilized program CT32 dated 1 April 2002 to simulate the impact of this alleged delaying event Conclusion: The contractor could not demonstrate in a sound delay analysis the impact upon the project completion date as a result of issuing the subject CVN


19 Commercial Center: Fire Protection in Ceiling Void at level +4.20 25 PMO/CCCO/TP5/02/17.0/934/543 28 May 2002




The Contractor in his letter ref. 674/27/180A/ L. 3365 dated 18 June 2002, stated the following: - “… Therefore, the net effect is a delay to completion of the whole affected area (represented by Activity ID No. C45B1A1V30) projected to finish on 31 March 2003, of 36 working days.” Comments: 1- The Contractor in his delay analysis alleged that the start date of this delaying event is in February 2002, in spite of that the issue date of CVN 319 was 28 May 2002 2- As a result of the above mistake, the contractor has utilized program CT29 dated 1 January 2002 to simulate the impact of the alleged delaying event, which is a wrong selection. 3- The contractor in his interim detailed particulars issued on 18 June 2002 via letter ref. 27 674/10/180A/ L. 3365 , indicated that they has utilized program CT33 dated 1 May 2002 to simulate the impact of this alleged delaying event

Conclusion: 24 25 26 27



The contractor could not demonstrate in a sound delay analysis the impact upon the project completion date as a result of issuing the subject CVN


20 Commercial Center (Level +14.20): Revision to Sprinkler location and Types 28 PMO/CCCO/TP5/02/17.0/1132/657 30 June 2002


For Programming Purposes Only

Comments: 1- The Contractor in his delay analysis alleged that the start date of this delaying event is in February 2002, in spite of that the issue date of CVN 374 was 30 June 2002 2- As a result of the above mistake, the contractor has utilized program CT29 dated 1 January 2002 to simulate the impact of the alleged delaying event, which is a wrong selection.

Conclusion: The contractor did not suffer critical delay to the Commercial Center due to the requirement of CVN 374, because it was issued for programming purposes only.


21 Commercial Center: Provision of Additional Sprinkler Heads at Level 14 Retail Area 29 PMO/CCCO/TP5/02/17.0/1375/779 1 August 2002



Contractor’s Reservations: The Contractor in his letter ref. 674/10/180A/ L. 3518 following: 28 29

30

dated 10 August 2002, stated the



-

“ We write to inform you that completion of the works will be delayed beyond the current extended time for completion.”

Comments: 1- The Contractor in his delay analysis alleged that the start date of this delaying event is in February 2002, in spite of that the issue date of CVN 374 (1) was 1 August 2002 2- As a result of the above mistake, the contractor has utilized program CT29 dated 1 January 2002 to simulate the impact of the alleged delaying event, which is a wrong selection.

Conclusion: The contractor could not demonstrate in a sound delay analysis the impact upon the project completion date as a result of issuing the subject CVN

30



8C- Atrium Smoke Curtain (CVN 490): SoD No.: Title: PMO Letter: Date of Issue:

22 Commercial Center: Fire Addition of a Smoke Curtain Around the Atrium at Level +33.10 31 PMO/CCCO/TP5/02/17.0/1739/1050 11 September 2002



Contractor’s Reservations: The Contractor in his letter ref. 674/10/180A/ L. 3681 the following:

-

32

dated 15 September 2002, stated

“ We write to inform you that completion of the works will be delayed beyond the current extended time for completion”

Comments: 1- The Contractor in his delay analysis alleged that the start date of this delaying event is 22 Februarys 2003, without substantiating this date. 2- However, the contemporaneous update should be C1F2 data date 15 February 2003 to assess the impact upon the project completion date, but The Contractor simulate this delaying event with update C1SP dated 15 September 2002, which is wrong. 3- The contractor in his interim detailed particulars issued on 25 November 2002 via letter 33 ref. 674/10/180A/ L. 3901 , indicated that they has utilized program CT39 dated 31 October 2002 to simulate the impact of this alleged delaying event 34

4- PMO in their letters ref. PMO/CCCO/TP5/02/17.0/1605/922 dated 9 November 2003 35 and ref. PMO/CCCO/TP5/02/17.0/1792/1028 dated 22 December 2003, reiterates that CCCO are solely responsible for the delay in this respect. 5- The latest update just before the Event date is C1F2 dated 15 February 2003, with completion date 14 February 2004, and the C1M2 dated 16 March 2003, is the update following the occurrence of the alleged Event, with completion date 13 March 2004 6- However, and based on the above-mentioned comment, the update C1M2 completion date should anticipate the impact of the alleged delaying Event in conjunction with other culpable delays. So, the impact of the alleged delaying Event (if any) should not exceed the update C1M2 completion date.

31 32 33 34 35

See attached letter See attached letter See attached letter See attached letter See attached letter Page 18 of 59



Page 19 of 59


9A- Smoke Management: The Contractor’s delay analysis is based on CVN 171


23 Block F1: Smoke Exhaust in Lift Lobby and Kitchen Exhaust/HVAC Works – Typical and Penthouse Floors 36 PMO/CCCO/TP5/02/17.0/248/152 12 February 2002



Contractor’s Reservations: The Contractor in his letter ref. 674/10/180A/ L. 2866 following:

-

37

dated 19 February 2002, stated the

“ Pursuant to the Contract requirements, we herby give notice that this late instruction will cause delay and / or disruption to the progress of work ”

Comments: 1-

The Contractor received the instructions to proceed with work pertaining to this event through CVN number 171 which issued on 12 February 2002

2-

However, the contemporaneous update should be FT29 data date 1 January 2002 to assess the impact upon the project completion date, but The Contractor simulate this delaying event with update FT27 dated 1 November 2001, which is wrong

3-

PMO requested the Contractor via their letter ref. PMO/CCCO/TP5/02/17.0/319/192 dated 25 February 2002 to submit within 7 days detailed particulars of the extension of time that CCCO consider themselves to be entitled.

4-

The Contractor didn’t provide in his SoC that they have been abide PMO requirements in the above-mentioned letter

38


36 37

38



9B- Smoke Management H1-H4 (CVN 226): The Contractor’s delay analysis is based on CVN 226 & 226 (1). However, each CVN should be considered as a delaying event and to be simulated with its contemporaneous update to assess its impact upon the project completion date as indicated in Padraig Anglin expert report on project delay, section 4. In the following analysis we will demonstrate the validity of each alleged delaying event:


24 Block H1-H4: Smoke Management System 39 PMO/CCCO/TP5/02/17.0/163/82 10 April 2002




-

40


“ …we are returning herewith, for the record purpose, two original copies of contract variation notice (CVN) No. 226 duly signed and marked as “Contractor is not proceeding with this contract variation work ”

Comments: 1-

The Contractor rejected to proceed with CVN 226

2-

PMO canceled CVN 226 via their letter ref. PMO/CCCO/TP5/02/17.0/935/544 28 May 2002.

41

dated

Conclusion: The contractor did not suffer critical delay to Block H1-H4 due to the requirement of CVN 226

39 40

41




25 Block H1-H4: Smoke Management System 42 PMO/CCCO/TP5/02/17.0/1442/831 8 August 2002




-

43


“ and confirm that we shall proceed with the work as instructed by you through this variation notice” “ We have already given contractual notices in letters 1,2 and 3 above”

Comments: 1-

The Contractor returned CVN 226 (1) signed and confirmed that they will proceed with 44 the work, and pointing to contractual notices issued on 11 August 2002 , via letter ref. 674/10/180A/L. 3523

2-

However, the above-mentioned contractual notice didn’t include CVN 266 (1), which means that the Contractor agreed to proceed with the subject CVN without extension of time.

3-

The Contractor received the instructions to proceed with work pertaining to this event through CVN number 266 (1) which issued on 8 August 2002.

4-

The Contractor in his interim detailed particulars submitted on 12 December 2002 via 45 letter ref. 674/10/180A/L. 3951 , indicated that the alleged delays pertaining to CVN 266 (1) started on 8 August 2002.

5-

However, the contemporaneous update to assess the alleged impact upon the project completion date should be HT36 data date 1 August 2002, but The Contractor simulate this delaying event with update HT32 dated 1 April 2002, which is wrong


42 43 44 45



9C- Car Park Smoke Containment and Extract Modifications: The Contractor’s delay analysis is based on CVN 482


26 Commercial Center: Car Park Smoke Modifications 46 PMO/CCCO/TP5/02/17.0/1699/1025 5 September 2002

Containment

and

Extract



Contractor’s Reservations: The Contractor in his letter ref. 674/27/180A/L. 3136 the following:

-

-

47

dated 16 September 2002, stated

“ … We are in receipt of the subject Contract Variation Notice (CVN) No. 482, and confirm that we shall proceed with the work as instructed by you through this variation notice” “ We have already given contractual notices in letters 1,2 and 3 above ”

Comments: 1-

The Contractor received the instructions to proceed with work pertaining to this event through CVN number 482 which issued on 5 September 2002.

2-

The Contractor in his interim detailed particulars submitted on 31 December 2002 via 48 letter ref. 674/10/180A/L. 4005 , indicated that CVN 482 Notice To Proceed (activity OUT002-000) was issued on 5 September 2002.

3-

The Contractor in his SoC stated that “to model the delay due to CVN 482, an activity with start date of 5 September 2002 and a finish date of 13 September 2003, is inserted into a copy of the C1SP programme ”

4-

However, the contemporaneous update to assess the alleged impact upon the project completion date should be CT37 data date 22 August 2002, but The Contractor simulate this delaying event with update C1SP dated 14 September 2002, which is wrong


46 47 48



10- VRV Units: The Contractor in his interim detailed particulars submitted via letter ref. 674/27/180A/L. 3358 dated 19 June 2002, stated the following:

49

“ A1 Block Delays: According to the Target Program A1T0 for Block A1, showing completion of Block A1 works by 1 July 2002, the planned delivery date of the VRV Indoor units and "Refnet" headers, activity ID No. A01.Z.PR01, was 27 October 2001 with a total float of 52 working days to achieve the above A1 Block completion date.” “ A3 Block Delays: According to the Target Program A3T0 for Block A3, showing completion of Block A3 works by 17 October 2002, the planned delivery date of the VRV Indoor units and "Refnet" headers, activity ID No. A03.Z.PR01, was 27 October 2001 with a total float of 78 working days to achieve the above A3 Block completion date.” “ A2 Block Delays: According to the Target Program A2T0 for Block A2, showing completion of Block A2 works by 26 August 2002, the planned delivery date of the VRV Indoor units and "Refnet" headers, activity ID No. A02.Z.PR01, was 27 October 2001 with a total float of 135 working days to achieve the above A2 Block completion date.”

It is obvious from the contractor’s letter that the alleged planned delivery date of VRV units was 27 October 2001, and it was delayed till 5 June 2002 as stated by the contractor in SoC. However, the alleged delays to VRV units should be started on 27 October 2001, and the contemporaneous update to assess the alleged impact upon the project completion date should be AT26 data date 1 October 2002, but The Contractor simulate this delaying event with update 5120 dated 1 April 2002, which is wrong.

Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) dated 24 October 2002: In the MOU dated 24 October 2002 all parties agreed that the completion dates for A1, A2, A3 & F2 buildings including the impact of all delaying events occurred before 21 August 2002 (some CVN’s were excluded and listed in the MOU appendixes) will be as follow: Block A1 Block A2 Block A3

1 February 2003 19 January 2003 31 March 2003

However, the impact of the alleged delaying events should not delay the project completion date of these buildings beyond the above agreed dates. But Padraig Anglin expert report on project delay indicated that the impacted completion dates of these buildings are as follow: Block A1 Block A2 Block A3

11 June 2003 3 March 2003 11 June 2003

Which contradict with what have been agreed in the MOU dated 24 October 2002.

49



Conclusion: The contractor could not demonstrate in a sound delay analysis the impact upon the project completion date as a result of issuing the subject delaying event

Page 25 of 59


14- 5th Floor: The Contractor in his SoC stated that “To model the delay, activities with start and finish dates of 13 August 2002 and 3 April 2003 for CVN 429 and 5 September 2002 and 8 February 2003 for CVN 481 are inserted in a copy of the CT29 program, linked FF 0 to the E/M 2nd fix activities of the 5th floor and the programme re- scheduled” Thus, the Contractor did not simulate the delaying event pertaining to CVN 136 to assess its impact upon the project completion date, but their delay analysis is based on CVN’s 429 & 481 However, each CVN should be considered as a delaying event and to be simulated with its contemporaneous update to assess its impact upon the project completion date as indicated in Padraig Anglin expert report on project delay, section 4. In the following analysis we will demonstrate the validity of each alleged delaying event:


36 Commercial Center: Composite False Ceiling: at Levels +18.60, +33.10 and 38.60 50 PMO/CCCO/TP5/02/17.0/102/58 17 January 2002




The Contractor in his letter ref. 674/27/180A/ L. 1623 dated 2 February 2002, stated the following: - “ Late release of design information for the lighting layouts which by turn instigates design revisions to false ceiling will cause delay and disruption to the progress of works” Comments:

50 51 52

1-

The contractor in his interim detailed particulars issued on 15 October 2002 via letter 52 ref. 674/10/180A/ L. 3739 , indicated that the start of delay due to late receipt of design information provided in CVN 136 was started on 3 April 2002

2-

The Contractor in his delay analysis did not consider CVN 136 and take into consideration the impact of CVN 429 & 481only.



Conclusion: The contractor could not demonstrate in a sound delay analysis the impact upon the project completion date as a result of issuing the subject CVN.


37 Commercial Center: Revised HVAC Architectural Design at Level 33.10 53 PMO/CCCO/TP5/02/17.0/1487/868 14 August 2002

Works

to

Facilitate

Revised



Contractor’s Reservations: The Contractor in his letter ref. following:

-

-

674/27/180A/L. 2989

54



Comments: 1- The contractor in his interim detailed particulars issued on 15 October 2002 via letter 55 ref. 674/10/180A/ L. 3739 , indicated that the start of delay due CVN 429 was on 21 September 2002 2- The Contractor received the instructions to proceed with work pertaining to this event through CVN number 429 which issued on 14 August 2002. 3- However, the contemporaneous update to assess the alleged impact upon the project completion date should be CT36 data date 1 August 2002, but The Contractor simulate this delaying event with update CT29 dated 1 January 2002, which is wrong Conclusion: The contractor could not demonstrate in a sound delay analysis the impact upon the project completion date as a result of issuing the subject CVN.

53 54 55




38 Commercial Center: Modifications to Electrical Works at Levels 33.10 & +38.53 56 PMO/CCCO/TP5/02/17.0/1696/1023 4 September 2002



Contractor’s Reservations: The Contractor in his letter ref. following:

-

-

674/27/180A/L.3135

57

dated 16 September 2002, stated the


Comments: 1- The contractor in his interim detailed particulars issued on 15 October 2002 via letter 58 ref. 674/10/180A/ L. 3739 , indicated that the start of delay due CVN 481 was on 21 September 2002 2- The Contractor received the instructions to proceed with work pertaining to this event through CVN number 481 which issued on 4 September 2002. 3- However, the contemporaneous update to assess the alleged impact upon the project completion date should be CT37 data date 22 August 2002, but The Contractor simulate this delaying event with update CT29 dated 1 January 2002, which is wrong


56 57 58



15- CCTV & Security: Contractor’s delay analysis as stated in SoC is based on CVN’s 19, 19 (1) & 19 (2), however, each CVN should be considered as a delaying event and to be simulated with its contemporaneous update to assess its impact upon the project completion date as indicated in Padraig Anglin expert report on project delay, section 4. In the following analysis we will demonstrate the validity of each alleged delaying event:


39 Commercial Center: CCTV System Upgrading 59 PMO/CCCO/TP5/02/17.0/844/378 01 October 2002


Notice To Proceed Required No extension of time authorized


The Contractor in his letter ref. 674/27/180A/L .1287 dated 13 November 2001, informed PMO with the amount of money required as an additional cost due to CCTV system upgrading in Commercial and time required for delivery of the required items. Comments: 1- CVN 19 was issued to the Contractor for requesting Proposal, not to proceed with work 2- The Contractor responded to PMO request in CVN 19 and submitted their proposal .

Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) dated 24 October 2002: In the MOU dated 24 October 2002 all parties agreed that the completion dates for Commercial Center including the impact of all delaying events occurred before 8 September 2002 (some CVN’s wer e excluded and listed in the MOU appendixes) will be as follow: Commercial Center

11 September 2003

However, the impact of the alleged delaying event should not delay the project completion date of Commercial Center beyond the above agreed date. But Padraig Anglin expert report on project delay indicated that and due to the impact of this delaying event, the completion date of Commercial Center is delayed to 9 February 2004, which contradicts with what have been agreed in the MOU dated 24 October 2002. 59 60



Conclusion: The contractor did not suffer critical delay to the Commercial Center due to the requirement of CVN 19, because it was issued for requesting Proposal.


40 Commercial Center: Security Surveillance System Upgrading 61 PMO/CCCO/TP5/02/17.0/1120 29 June 2002




The Contractor in his letter ref. 674/27/180A/L.3319 dated 4 November 2002, informed PMO with the rates, quantities & prices associated with the revised CCTV system, addition to CCCO scope of work which covers CVN No. 19(2), 19(1) [for programming purpose only] & 19. Comments: 1.

CVN 19 (1) was issued to the Contractor for Programming Purposes Only, not to proceed with work

2.

However, the contemporaneous update to assess the alleged impact upon the project completion date should be CT34 data date 1 June 2002, but The Contractor simulate this delaying event with update CT26 dated 1 October 2001, which is wrong

Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) dated 24 October 2002: In the MOU dated 24 October 2002 all parties agreed that the completion dates for Commercial Center including the impact of all delaying events occurred before 8 September 2002 (some CVN’s were excluded and listed in the MOU appendixes) will be as follow: Commercial Center

11 September 2003

However, the impact of the alleged delaying event should not delay the project completion date of Commercial Center beyond the above agreed date. But Padraig Anglin expert report on project delay indicated that and due to the impact of this delaying event, the completion date of Commercial Center is delayed to 9 February 2004, which contradicts with what have been agreed in the MOU dated 24 October 2002.

61 62



Conclusion: The contractor did not suffer critical delay to the Commercial Center due to the requirement of CVN 19 (1), because it was issued for Programming Purposes Only.


41 Commercial Center: Security Surveillance System Upgrade 63 PMO/CCCO/TP5/02/17.0/1217/707 10 July 2002



Contractor’s Reser vations: 64

The Contractor in his letter ref. 674/27/180A/L.3319 dated 4 November 2002, informed PMO with the rates, quantities & prices associated with the revised CCTV system, addition to CCCO scope of work which covers CVN No. 19(2), 19(1) [for programming purpose only] & 19. Comments: 1-

The Contractor received the instructions to proceed with work pertaining to this event through CVN number 19 (2) which issued on 10 July 2002.

2-

However, the contemporaneous update to assess the alleged impact upon the project completion date should be CT34 data date 1 June 2002 (no update for 1 July 2002 was issued), but The Contractor simulate this delaying event with update CT26 dated 1 October 2001, which is wrong

Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) dated 24 October 2002: In the MOU dated 24 October 2002 all parties agreed that the completion dates for Commercial Center including the impact of all delaying events occurred before 8 September 2002 (some CVN’s were excluded and listed in the MOU appendixes) will be as follow: Commercial Center

11 September 2003

However, the impact of the alleged delaying event should not delay the project completion date of Commercial Center beyond the above agreed date.

63 64



But Padraig Anglin expert report on project delay indicated that and due to the impact of this delaying event, the completion date of Commercial Center is delayed to 9 February 2004, which contradicts with what have been agreed in the MOU dated 24 October 2002.


Page 32 of 59


16- Food Courts (Commercial Center Phase I): 16A- Food Courts – Suspension of Work: 65

PMO in their letter ref. TP5/00/l.15/569/334 dated 18 October 2000, instructed the contractor “ As discussed in the meeting of 12 October 2000, this is to confirm the deletion of all finishing work at level + 19.00 between grids XI2 / X26 and YII / Y22 as marked on the attached sketch. This deletion excludes the ceiling services routes which are to be done as per shop drawings to be approved by MIS C&A / SCG ” The above instructions did not comprise suspension of works, just instructions to delete certain scope in certain area which should save sometime for the Contractor. 66

SWO number 6 was issued via letter ref. PMO/CCCO/TP5/02/1.15/123/074 dated 21 January 2002, and it was introduced to stop the works which have been deleted before on 18 October 2000 and did not constitute a new situation to the Contractor. The contractor recognized this fact in his interim detailed particulars submitted via letter ref. 67 674/10/180A/L. 3881 dated 18 November 2002, where stated that “ C1: Delays due to suspension of work s and late receipt of information ……”, then stated that “ D. Periods of delay – As explained in C1: Start of Delay 21 January 2002 …” i.e. the Contractor did not encountered delays before 21 January 2002 due to the suspension of works

Conclusion: The contractor did not suffer critical delay to the Commercial Center due to the requirement of SWO number 6.

65 66 67



16B- Food Courts – CVN 143: The Contractor’s delay analysis is based on CVN 143 & 166. However, e ach CVN should be considered as a delaying event and to be simulated with its contemporaneous update to assess its impact upon the project completion date as indicated in Padraig Anglin expert report on project delay, section 4.


43 Commercial Center: Level +19.00 – Deletion of TP5 Finishing Works 68 PMO/CCCO/TP5/02/17.0/132/079 22 January 2002




The Contractor in his letter ref. 674/27/180A/L .1649 dated 4 February 2002, informed PMO that “We confirm that we shall proceed with the works as instructed by you through this variation notice “ and did not point by any means to additional time may be encountered as a result of issuing CVN 143.

Comments: 1-

CVN 143 was issued to formalize the deletion of works instructed in PMO letter ref. 70 TP5/00/l.15/569/334 dated 18 October 2000, and SWO # 6 letter ref. 71 PMO/CCCO/TP5/02/1.15/123/074 dated 21 January 2002

2-

The issuance of CVN 143 did not constitute a new situation to the Contractor

Conclusion: The contractor did not suffer critical delay to the Commercial Center due to the requirement of CVN 143.

68 69

70 71




45 Commercial Center: Revised Electrical Installation to Food Court Area at Level +19.00 72 PMO/CCCO/TP5/02/17.0/232/141 10 February 2002




The Contractor in his letter ref. 674/10/180A/L .2868 dated 19 February 2002, informed PMO that “ Pursuant to the Contract requirements, we hereby give notice that this late instruction will involve abortive engineering and site works, and will consequently cause delay to the progress of the Works “. Comments: 1-

The Contractor received the instructions to proceed with work pertaining to this event through CVN number 166, which issued on 10 February 2002.

2-

The Contractor in order to assess the impact of this delaying event, analyzed the impact of CVN’s 143, 166, 166 (1) & 166 (2) all together in the same program update

3-

However, the Contractor should simulate only the impact of issuing CVN 166 to assess its impact upon the contract completion date, but the contractor combined the impact of several CVN’s issued in different dates, which is deceptive.


72 73



CVN # 166 (1) SoD No.: Title:

46 Commercial Center: Revised MEP Installation to Food Court Area at Level +19.00 74 PMO Letter: PMO/CCCO/TP5/02/17.0/382/232 Date of Issue: 6 March 2002 Instructions Included in the CVN Form: -



The Contractor in his letter ref. 674/27/180A/L.1969 dated 20 March 2002, informed PMO that “ Late release of design information and then further design modifications will cause delay and disruption to the progress of works “. Comments: 1-

The Contractor received the instructions to proceed with work pertaining to this event through CVN number 166 (1), which issued on 6 March 2002.

2-

The Contractor in order to assess the impact of this delaying event, analyzed the impact of CVN’s 143, 166, 166 (1) & 166 (2) all together in the same program update

3-

However, the Contractor should simulate only the impact of issuing CVN 166 (1) to assess its impact upon the contract completion date, but the contractor combined the impact of several CVN’s issued in different dates, which is deceptive.

4-

Furthermore, the contemporaneous update to assess the alleged impact upon the project completion date should be CT31 data date 1 March 2002, but The Contractor simulate this delaying event with update CT29 dated 1 January 2002, which is wrong


74 75




47 Commercial Center: Revised Electrical Installation to Food Court Area at Level +19.00 76 PMO/CCCO/TP5/02/17.0/1392/789 5 August 2002




-

77


“ and confirm that we shall proceed with the work as instructed by you through this variation notice” “ We have already given contractual notices in letters 1,2 and 3 above”

Comments: 1-

The Contractor returned CVN 166 (2) signed and confirmed that they will proceed with 78 the work, and pointing to contractual notices issued on 11 August 2002 , via letter ref. 674/10/180A/L. 3523

2-

However, the above-mentioned contractual notice didn’t include CVN 166 (2), which means that the Contractor agreed to proceed with the subject CVN without extension of time.

3-


4-

However, the contemporaneous update to assess the alleged impact upon the project completion date should be CT36 data date 1 August 2002, but The Contractor simulate this delaying event with update CT29 dated 1 January 2002, which is wrong


76 77 78



16C- Food Courts – Revised Design: Comments: 1-

The Contractor in his updated interim detailed particulars submitted via letter ref. 79 674/10/180A/L.4297 dated 12 April 2003, did not indicate any delays resulted from issuing revised drawings by PMO on 12 December 2002 via transmittal notice ref. 80 TN/TP5/02/CCCO/888

2-

PMO issued to CCCO revised drawings on 1 June 2003 via transmittal notice ref. 81 TN/TP22/03/CCCO/025

3-

However, The Contractor in order to assess the impact of issuing the revised drawings on 1 June 2003, should simulate this delaying event with the contemporaneous update C1MB dated 25 May 2003 to assess its alleged impact upon the project completion date, but The Contractor simulate this delaying event with update C1D1 dated 7 December 2002, which is wrong

Conclusion: The contractor could not demonstrate in a sound delay analysis the impact upon the project completion date as a result of issuing the revised design drawings.

79 80 81



17- Refuse Room: The Contractor’s delay analysis is based on SWO’s, CVN 311, 364 & 364 (1) and in order to assess the impact of these delaying events, the Contractor analyzed the impact of SWO ’s, CVN 311, 364 & 364 (1) all together in the same program update and combined the impact of several events issued in various dates, which is deceptive. However, the SWO’s and each CVN should be considered as a delaying event and to be simulated with its contemporaneous update to assess its impact upon the project completion date as indicated in Padraig Anglin expert report on project delay, section 4. Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) dated 24 October 2002: In the MOU dated 24 October 2002 all parties agreed that the completion dates for Commercial Center including the impact of all delaying events occurred before 8 September 2002 (some CVN’s wer e excluded and listed in the MOU appendixes) will be as follow: Commercial Center

11 September 2003

However, the impact of the alleged delaying event should not delay the project completion date of Commercial Center beyond the above agreed date. But Padraig Anglin expert report on project delay indicated that and due to the impact of this delaying event, the completion date of Commercial Center is delayed to 29 October 2003, which contradicts with what have been agreed in the MOU dated 24 October 2002. In the following analysis we will demonstrate the validity of each alleged delaying event:

Suspension of Work (SWO) SoD No.: Title: PMO Letter: Date of Issue:

49 Commercial Center: Notification to Cease Further Selected Contracts Works 82 PMO/CCCO/TP5/02/1.15/1037/475 5 November 2001

Instructions: -

PMO PMO PMO PMO PMO

issued formal issued formal issued formal issued formal issued formal

SWO SWO SWO SWO SWO

# 3 for Level 23.80 on 16 January 2002 # 5 for Level 28 on 16 January 2002 # 10 for Level 14 on 19 February 2002 # 13 for Level 4.20 on 19 February 2002 # 14 for Level 0.35 on 19 February 2002


The Contractor in his letter ref. 674/10/180A/L .2504 dated 13 November 2001, informed PMO that “We hereby give notice that this instruction may involve abortive engineering and site works, and will cause dela y and/or disruption to the progress of the works. “.

82



Comments: 1-

The Stop Work Orders have been rescinded as follow: - SWO # 3 for Level 23.80 have been rescinded on 15 July 2002 - SWO # 5 for Level 28 have been rescinded on 13 July 2002 - SWO # 10 for Level 14 have been rescinded on 15 July 2002 - SWO # 13 for Level 4.20 have been rescinded on 15 July 2002 - SWO # 14 for Level 0.35 have been rescinded on 15 July 2002

2-

However, the Contractor should simulate only the impact of issuing SWO’s to assess its impact upon the contract completion date, but the Contractor analyzed the impact of SWO’s, CVN 311, 364 & 364 (1) all together in the same program update and combined the impact of several events issued in various dates, which is deceptive

Conclusion: The contractor could not demonstrate in a sound delay analysis the impact upon the project completion date as a result of issuing the above-mentioned SWO’s.


50 Commercial Center: Construction of Refuse Rooms 84 PMO/CCCO/TP5/02/17.0/240/127 27 May 2002




The Contractor in his letter ref. 674/27/180A/L.2571 dated 9 June 2002, informed PMO that “… we are returning herewith two original copies of the Contract Variation Notice (CVN) No. 311 signed and marked as (Contractor is not proceeding with this Contract Variation Notice) “. Comments:

83

84 85 86

1-

The Contractor rejected to proceed with works pertaining to CVN 311.

2-

PMO issued letter to CCCO ref. PMO/CCCO/TP5/02/17.0/1201/693 dated 9 July 2002 stating that “ Pursuant to Clause 46.1 of the Contract Conditions, CCCO is directed to

86



expedite the rate of progress regarding the subject work of CVN # 311 and advise PMO with measures intended to be taken to advance the work and catch-up any incurred delay ” 3-

However, the Contractor should simulate only the impact of issuing CVN 311 to assess its impact upon the contract completion date, but the Contractor analyzed the impact of SWO’s, CVN 311, 364 & 364 (1) all together in the same program update and combined the impact of several events issued in various dates, which is deceptive

4-

Furthermore, the contemporaneous update to assess the alleged impact upon the project completion date should be CT33 data date 1 May 2002, but the Contractor simulate this delaying event with update CT27 dated 1 November 2001, which is wrong



51 Commercial Center: HVAC, Plumbing and Electrical System for Chilled Refuse Rooms 87 PMO/CCCO/TP5/02/17.0/1151/666 1 July 2002



Contractor’s Reservations: The Contractor did not provide substantiations that they preserved rights for delays may encounter as a result of issuing CVN 364.

Comments: 12-

3-

87

CVN 364 was issued for Planning Purposes only. However, the Contractor should simulate only the impact of issuing CVN 364 to assess its impact upon the contract completion date, but the Contractor analyzed the impact of SWO’s, CVN 311, 364 & 364 (1) all together in the same program update and combined the impact of several events issued in various dates, which is deceptive Furthermore, the contemporaneous update to assess the alleged impact upon the project completion date should be CT34 data date 1 June 2002 (no update for 1 July 2002 was issued), but the Contractor simulate this delaying event with update CT27 dated 1 November 2001, which is wrong





52 Commercial Center: Chilled Refuse Rooms at Levels -2.65 & 19.00 88 PMO/CCCO/TP5/02/17.0/1557/927 20 August 2002



Contractor’s Reservations: The Contractor did not provide substantiations that they preserved rights for delays may encounter as a result of issuing CVN 364 (1).

Comments:

88 89 90 91

89

1-

PMO issued to CCCO letter ref. PMO/CCCO/TP5/02/1.15/641/370 dated 3 May 2003, stating that “the conclusion is more than 8 months since the issuance of CVN 364 (1) have been elapsed and the order of the subject refrigeration equipment is yet to be placed. PMO is of the opinion that the rate of progress relevant to the work subject of CVN 364 (1) is very slow to comply with time for completion.”

2-

PMO issued to CCCO letter ref. PMO/CCCO/TP5/02/1.15/909/542 dated 9 July 2003, stating that “the history as set out in CCCO letter (ref. 3) was incorrect and contained fictitious asserts to justify the delay incurred .”

3-

CCCO in their letter to PMO ref. 674/63/180A/L .4367 dated 19 July 2003, confirmed that they will complete all installation of the work relevant to CVN 364 (1) with revised equipment capacity as set out in PMO letter dated 9 July 2003.

4-

It is obvious from the above-mentioned letters that PMO are holding CCCO the responsibility of delays resulted from issuing CVN 364 (1)

90

91



5-

However, the Contractor should simulate only the impact of issuing CVN 364 (1) to assess its impact upon the contract completion date, but the Contractor analyzed the impact of SWO’s, CVN 311, 364 & 364 (1) all together in the same program update and combined the impact of several events issued in various dates, which is deceptive

6-

Furthermore, the contemporaneous update to assess the alleged impact upon the project completion date should be CT36 data date 1 August, but the Contractor simulate this delaying event with update CT27 dated 1 November 2001, which is wrong


Page 43 of 59


18- Emergency Exit Signage Conduits: The Contractor delay analysis is based on CVN 379 and its revisions which issued as shown in the following table:

th

th

The Contractor in his SoC concluded that CVN 379 Rev 2 (Basement 1, 5 & 6 Floors), Rev 3 and Rev 4 has no impact upon the project completion date. Thus, the Contractor analyzed the impact of CVN 379, 379 (1) & 379 (2) (Ground Floor), all together in the same program update and combined the impact of several events issued in various dates, which is deceptive However, each CVN revision should be considered as a delaying event and to be simulated with its contemporaneous update to assess its impact upon the project completion date as indicated in Padraig Anglin expert report on project delay, section 4. Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) dated 24 October 2002: In the MOU dated 24 October 2002 all parties agreed that the completion dates for Commercial Center including the impact of all delaying events occurred before 8 September 2002 (some CVN’s were excluded and listed in the MOU appendixes) will be as follow: Commercial Center

11 September 2003

However, the impact of the alleged delaying event should not delay the project completion date of Commercial Center beyond the above agreed date. But Padraig Anglin expert report on project delay indicated that and due to the impact of this delaying event, the completion date of Commercial Center is delayed to 30 December 2003, which contradicts with what have been agreed in the MOU dated 24 October 2002. In the following analysis we will demonstrate the validity of each alleged delaying event:


92

53 Commercial Center: Modifications of Conduits for Emergency Exit Power Supply at levels 9 & 14 92 PMO/CCCO/TP5/02/17.0/1234/714 14 July 2002






The Contractor in his letter ref. 674/27/180A/L .2878 dated 26 August 2002, confirmed to PMO that they shall proceed with the works as instructed, and did not point by any means to additional time may be encountered as a result of issuing CVN 379.

Comments: 1- The Contractor accepted to proceed with CVN 379 without preserving rights concerning additional time 2- However, the Contractor should simulate only the impact of issuing CVN 379 to assess its impact upon the contract completion date, but the Contractor analyzed the impact of CVN 379, 379 (1) & 379 (2) (Ground Floor) all together in the same program update and combined the impact of several events issued in various dates, which is deceptive



54 Commercial Center: Modifications of Conduits for Emergency Signage Types and Locations – Level 9 94 PMO/CCCO/TP5/02/17.0/1716/1034 8 September 2002




The Contractor in his letter ref. 674/27/180A/L.3206 dated 19 September 2002, confirmed to PMO that they shall proceed with the works as instructed, and did not point by any means to additional time may be encountered as a result of issuing CVN 379 (1). 93

94 95



Comments: 1- The Contractor issued Clause 52.2 Notice for CVN 379 (1) via letter ref. 96 674/10/180A/L.3683 dated 15 September 2002, to claim additional payment or a varied rate or price 2- The Contractor accepted to proceed with CVN 379 (1) without preserving rights concerning additional time 3- The Contractor submitted their interim detailed particulars for CVN 379 (1) ref. 97 674/63/180A/L.3408 dated 8 October 2002, demonstrating that CVN 379 (1) had only cost impact upon the project. 4- Moreover, the Contractor should simulate only the impact of issuing CVN 379 (1) to assess its impact upon the contract completion date, but the Contractor analyzed the impact of CVN 379, 379 (1) & 379 (2) (Ground Floor) all together in the same program update and combined the impact of several events issued in various dates, which is deceptive

Conclusion: The contractor did not suffer critical delay to the Commercial Center due to the requirement of CVN 379 (1).


55 Commercial Center: Modifications of Conduits for Emergency Exit Signage Types and Locations at Levels +4.20, +14.20, +33.10 & +38.80 98 PMO/CCCO/TP5/02/17.0/2126/1247 5 November 2002



Contractor’s Reservations: The Contractor in his letter ref. 674/27/180A/L.3496 following:

-

96 97

98 99

99

dated 20 November 2002, stated the

“ … We are in receipt of the subject Contract Variation Notice (CVN) No. 379 (2), and confirm that we shall proceed with the work as instructed by you through this variation notice”



-

“ We have already given contractual notices in letters 1,2 and 3 above ”

Comments: 5-

The Contractor received the instructions to proceed with work pertaining to this event through CVN number 379 (2) which issued on 5 November 2002.

6-

However, the contemporaneous update to assess the alleged impact upon the project completion date should be CT39 data date 31 October 2002, but the Contractor simulate this delaying event with update CT34 dated 1 June 2002, which is wrong.

7-

Furthermore, the Contractor should simulate only the impact of issuing CVN 379 (2) to assess its impact upon the contract completion date, but the Contractor analyzed the impact of CVN 379, 379 (1) & 379 (2) (Ground Floor) all together in the same program update and combined the impact of several delaying events issued in various dates, which is deceptive


Page 47 of 59


19- Exhibition Roof Panels: The Contractor analyzed the impact of CVN’s 17, 17 (1) & 17 (2), all together in the same program update and combined the impact of several events issued in various dates, which is deceptive However, each CVN and revision should be considered as a delaying event and to be simulated with its contemporaneous update to assess its impact upon the project completion date as indicated in Padraig Anglin expert report on project delay, section 4. Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) dated 24 October 2002: In the MOU dated 24 October 2002 all parties agreed that the completion dates for Commercial Center including the impact of all delaying events occurred before 8 September 2002 (some CVN’s were excluded and listed in the MOU appendixes) will be as follow: Commercial Center

11 September 2003

However, the impact of the alleged delaying event should not delay the project completion date of Commercial Center beyond the above agreed date. But Padraig Anglin expert report on project delay indicated that and due to the impact of this delaying event, the completion date of Commercial Center is delayed to 30 November 2003, which contradicts with what have been agreed in the MOU dated 24 October 2002. In the following analysis we will demonstrate the validity of each alleged delaying event:


56 Adjustment to Provisional Sum for Exhibition Center 100 PMO/CCCO/TP5/02/17.0/847/381 1 October 2001


No extension of time authorized Submit Proposal within 7 days


The Contractor in his letter ref. 674/27/180A/L .1128 dated 7 October 2002, confirmed to PMO that they shall proceed with the works as instructed, and did not point by any means to additional time may be encountered as a result of issuing CVN 17.

100 101

See attached letter



Comments: 1-

The Contractor accepted to proceed with CVN 17 without preserving rights concerning additional time

2-

However, the Contractor should simulate only the impact of issuing CVN 17 to assess its impact upon the contract completion date, but the Contractor analyzed the impact of CVN’s 17, 17 (1) & 17 (2) all together in the same program update and combined the impact of several events issued in various dates, which is deceptive



57 Commercial Center: Modification to Exhibition Center Roof at Level +38.60 102 PMO/CCCO/TP5/02/17.0/1580/941 24 August 2002




The Contractor in his letter ref. 674/27/180A/L.3050 dated 4 September 2002, informed PMO that “… we are obliged to return herewith two original copies of the Contract Variation Notice (CVN) No. 17 (1) duly marked as (Contractor is not proceeding with this Contract Variati on Work) “.

Comments:

102 103

1-

The Contractor rejected to proceed with CVN 17 (1)

2-

Moreover, the Contractor should simulate only the impact of issuing CVN 17 (1) to assess its impact upon the contract completion date, but the Contractor analyzed the impact of CVN’s 17, 17 (1) & 17 (2) all together in the same program update and combined the impact of several events issued in various dates, which is deceptive

See attached letter



3-

Furthermore, the contemporaneous update to assess the alleged impact upon the project completion date should be CT37 data date 2 August 2002, but the Contractor simulate this delaying event with update CT27 dated 1 November 2001, which is wrong



58 Commercial Center: Modification to Exhibition Center Roof at Level +38.60 104 PMO/CCCO/TP5/02/17.0/1979/1166 15 October 2002




The Contractor in his letter ref. 674/27/180A/L.3354 dated 23 October 2002, informed PMO that “… we are obliged to decline your instruction to proceed with the subject CVN, and return herewith two original copies of the subject CVN marked as (Contractor is not proceeding with this Contract Variation Work) “.

Comments: 1-

The Contractor rejected to proceed with CVN 17 (2)

2-


3-

Furthermore, the contemporaneous update to assess the alleged impact upon the project completion date should be CT38 data date 30 September 2002, but the Contractor simulate this delaying event with update CT27 dated 1 November 2001, which is wrong


104 105

See attached letter



21- Operators Electrical Requirements: The Contractor analyzed the impact of CVN’s 164, 164 (1) & 164 (2), all together in the same program update and combined the impact of several events issued in various dates, which is deceptive However, each CVN and revision should be considered as a delaying event and to be simulated with its contemporaneous update to assess its impact upon the project completion date as indicated in Padraig Anglin expert report on project delay, section 4. Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) dated 24 October 2002: In the MOU dated 24 October 2002 all parties agreed that the completion dates for Commercial Center including the impact of all delaying events occurred before 8 September 2002 (some CVN’s were excluded and listed in the MOU appendixes) will be as follow: Commercial Center

11 September 2003

However, the impact of the alleged delaying event should not delay the project completion date of Commercial Center beyond the above agreed date. But Padraig Anglin expert report on project delay indicated that and due to the impact of this delaying event, the completion date of Commercial Center is delayed to 30 November 2003, which contradicts with what have been agreed in the MOU dated 24 October 2002. In the following analysis we will demonstrate the validity of each alleged delaying event:


59 Commercial Center: Revised Electrical Requirements 106 PMO/CCCO/TP5/02/17.0/230/139 9 February 2002

Installation

as

Operator




106 107

107

dated 14 February 2002, stated the

See attached letter



-

“ Pursuant to the Contract requirements, we herby give notice that this late instruction will involve abortive engineering and site works, and consequently cause delay and / or disruption to the progress of work ”

Comments:

1-

The Contractor received the instructions to proceed with work pertaining to this event through CVN number 164 which issued on 9 February 2002.

2-

Moreover, the Contractor should simulate only the impact of issuing CVN 164 to assess its impact upon the contract completion date, but the Contractor analyzed the impact of CVN’s 164, 164 (1) & 164 (2) all together in the same program update and combined the impact of several events issued in various dates, which is deceptive



60 Commercial Center: Revised Electrical Installation as New Operator Requirements 108 PMO/CCCO/TP5/02/17.0/474/292 18 March 2002




-

109

dated 31 March 2002, stated the


Comments:

1-

108 109

The Contractor received the instructions to proceed with work pertaining to this event through CVN number 164 (1) which issued on 18 March 2002.

See attached letter



2-

However, the contemporaneous update to assess the alleged impact upon the project completion date should be CT31 data date 1 March 2002, but The Contractor simulate this delaying event with update CT29 dated 1 January 2002, which is wrong

3-




61 Commercial Center: Revised Electrical Installation as New Operator Requirements 110 PMO/CCCO/TP5/02/17.0/1455/841 12 August 2002




-

111


“ We write to inform you that completion of the works will be delayed beyond the current extended Time for Completion ”

Comments:

110 111

1-


2-

However, the contemporaneous update to assess the alleged impact upon the project completion date should be CT36 data date 1 August 2002, but The Contractor simulate this delaying event with update CT29 dated 1 January 2002, which is wrong

3-

Moreover, the Contractor should simulate only the impact of issuing CVN 164 (2) to assess its impact upon the contract completion date, but the Contractor analyzed the

See attached letter



impact of CVN’s 164, 164 (1) & 164 (2) all together in the same program update and combined the impact of several events issued in various dates, which is deceptive


Page 54 of 59


23- Busway Risers: The Contractor analyzed the impact of CVN’s 191, 201, 201 (1) & 201 (2), all together in the same program update and combined the impact of several events issued in various dates, which is deceptive However, each CVN and revision should be considered as a delaying event and to be simulated with its contemporaneous update to assess its impact upon the project completion date as indicated in Padraig Anglin expert report on project delay, section 4. Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) dated 24 October 2002: In the MOU dated 24 October 2002 all parties agreed that the completion dates for Commercial Center including the impact of all delaying events occurred before 8 September 2002 (some CVN’s were excluded and listed in the MOU appendixes) will be as follow: Commercial Center

11 September 2003

However, the impact of the alleged delaying event should not delay the project completion date of Commercial Center beyond the above agreed date. But Padraig Anglin expert report on project delay indicated that and due to the impact of this delaying event, the completion date of Commercial Center is delayed to 8 January 2004, which contradicts with what have been agreed in the MOU dated 24 October 2002.

In the following analysis we will demonstrate the validity of each alleged delaying event:


64 Commercial Center: Electrical Feeder F62 from Main Distribution Board – 3 Section 2 112 PMO/CCCO/TP5/02/17.0/380/231 5 March 2002




-

112 113

113

dated 21 March 2002, stated the

“ Late release of design information and then further design modifications will cause delay and disruption to the progress of works”

See attached letter



Comments:

1-

The Contractor received the instructions to proceed with work pertaining to this event through CVN number 191 which issued on 5 March 2002.

2-

However, the Contractor should simulate only the impact of issuing CVN 164 to assess its impact upon the contract completion date, but the Contractor analyzed the impact of CVN’s 191, 201, 201 (1) & 201 (2) all together in the same program update and combined the impact of several events issued in various dates, which is deceptive



65 Commercial Center: Modification of Tap-Off and cables 114 PMO/CCCO/TP5/02/17.0/486/299 20 March 2002




-

115


“ Late release of a design change will cause delay and disruption to the progress of works”

Comments:

114 115

1-


2-

However, the Contractor should simulate only the impact of issuing CVN 201 to assess its impact upon the contract completion date, but the Contractor analyzed the impact of

See attached letter



CVN’s 191, 201, 201 (1) & 201 (2) all together in the same program update and combined the impact of several events issued in various dates, which is deceptive Conclusion: The contractor could not demonstrate in a sound delay analysis the impact upon the project completion date as a result of issuing the subject CVN.


66 Commercial Center: Horizontal Busway Upgrade 116 PMO/CCCO/TP5/02/17.0/1319/754 27 July 2002




-

117


“ Late release of a design change will cause delay and disruption to the progress of works”

Comments:

1-


2-

However, the Contractor should simulate only the impact of issuing CVN 201 to assess its impact upon the contract completion date, but the Contractor analyzed the impact of CVN’s 191, 201, 201 (1) & 201 (2) all together in the same program update and combined the impact of several events issued in various dates, which is deceptive


116 117

See attached letter



25- False Ceiling & Column Capitals: The Contractor analyzed the impact of PMO late response to RFI 1700 and CVN’s 235 & 235 (1), all together in the same program update and combined the impact of several events issued in different dates, which is deceptive However, each incident should be considered as a delaying event and to be simulated with its contemporaneous update to assess its impact upon the project completion date as indicated in Padraig Anglin expert report on project delay, section 4. In the following analysis we will demonstrate the validity of each alleged delaying event:


69 Commercial Center Level 19: False Ceiling and Column Capitals 118 PMO/CCCO/TP5/02/17.0/1124/649 30 June 2002




-

119


“ We write to inform you that completion of the works will be delayed beyond the current extended time for completion.”

Comments:

1-

CVN 235 was issued for programming purposes only and did not request the contractor to proceed with any additional works.

2-

Moreover, the Contractor should simulate only the impact of issuing CVN 235 to assess its impact upon the contract completion date, but the Contractor analyzed the impact of PMO late response to RFI 1700 and CVN’s 235 & 235 (1), all together in the same program update and combined the impact of several events issued in various dates, which is deceptive


118 119

See attached letter


Program CT40

Recommend Documents