Sent: 25 October 2007 14:44 To: Sam99@eim - Ae Subject

-----Original Message-----
From: Abraham Varghese [mailto:Abraham.Varghese@nakheel.com]

Sent: 25 October 2007 14:44
To: sam99@eim.ae
Subject:
Sir,
Is it okay If we take two copies of the original tender documents submitted by the Contractor duly
stamped and put a new stamp stating that it is the original Contract documents. Yes, if
Drawings, Specs, Priced BOQ etc. etc. formed part of the Tender, but remember to incorporate
any post tender negotiations that may have taken place. Also all documents that should form part
of the Contract Documents (such as instructions to Tenderers, Tender Addenda etc.) should be
incorporated with proper references made in the Form of Agreement; and documents that you do
not want to form part of the Contract Documents (such as a programme for the Works submitted
with the Tender) should be specifically excluded.
Regards,
Dr. Sam.
Dr. Indrawansa Samaratunga PhD, DSc

FRICS, FAIQS, FIQSSL, FCIArb, FCIOB, FCMI, FASI, FBEng
Chartered Quantity Surveyor and Registered Arbitrator / Expert
Australian Inst.of Qty.Surveyors-Middle East Representative
PO Box 23461, Dubai, UAE. T +971504588949 F +97143378668
regards
Abraham Varghese
Contracts Engineer
From: Hasaranga Fonseka [mailto:hasarangarf@yahoo.com]
To: sam99
Cc: dr.sam
Subject: conflict
Dear Dr sam,

My name is hasaranga fonseka & I attend the classes of last octomber session.I have
small question it is as per below,

Our project is a lumpsum contract , the problem is in our tender drawings from SMDB's
to DB's cable sizes are not mention but it clearly indicate as " cables to be decided based
on partitions of floor" The qty of cables are 20km.

But in the tender BOQ & tender drawings their are lot of differences, also in the tender
stage BOQ ajustments sheets (were these issued as Tender Addenda ?) also have been
given to the contractor but the contractor did not have made any changes.

now the contractor is claiming this as a variation. Contractually do we have to pay this ?
pls reply. Changes from the Contract Documents (not from Tender Documents) constitute
variations. If the BOQ adjustments (Tender Addenda ?) form part of the Contract
Documents, then they are not variations, even if the Tenderer ignored them at the Tender
Stage.
Regards,
Dr. Sam.


Thank you
Hasaranga Fonseka
----- Original Message -----

From: rajesh kumar "errajeshkumar@yahoo.com"
To: sam senior QS "sam99@emirates.net.ae"
Date: 02:36 PM
Subject: dear sir need some clarification regarding formulae for recovery
dear sir
one part of work which is in our contract
due to NOC delay
we are claiming the extension of time? If obtaining the NOC is Contractor’s obligation, then there is no
entitlement to EOT. If it is Employer’s responsibility, then there could be an entitlement to EOT.
while calculating prolongation cost just we are calculationg the prelims from our BOQ
for the head office overheads recovery
if suppose we are using any one of the formula from your seminar.

the engineer or employer can argue that all the head office overheads is covered in each and every items of
your BOQ, then why we have to give additional head office overhead based on these formulas???

how we can justify from contractor point of view?

one point the contractor can argue like : it will be covered if the project finished in the stipulated time (cntract
period), if not the contractor can claim his overheads (both site & head office overheads) This is the correct
argument.
Regards,
Dr. Sam.


this argument is right
any other points
kindly let me know sir
Respected Dr. Sam,

I am informing to the interested people regarding the training programme. Your classes are very much
helpful to all the Contract Administrators. You are doing a wonderful job for all the young Engineers & QS.
Thank You.

I have a question to ask you, Please give me your view/answer for this Question.

Question is....

"In Trial Trench item, there are four items in our BOQ and this is also meets the CESMM measurement
rules,
a) Number in material other than rock max.depth 2 to 3 metres; trenches to locate existing services; length 3
to 6 m ---------Unit is in "Nr"
b) Depth in material other than rock ---------------Unit is in " m"
c) Depth supported ----------Unit is in "m"
d) Depth backfilled with excavated material for reinstatement ---------Unit is in "m"

Work has been completed in all respects and RFI has also approved for the above work stating that trial
trench for a depth of 2-3 metres work is complete.

But, consultant QS has certified all items except "Depth supported" item. He asks us to give the proof of
depth supported.

We argued that, work has been comleted in all respects and giving proper support is Contractor's
responsibility and we did that also to complete the work as per the satisfaction of the Engineer/consultant.
Now, how can we prove that we did the work by giving proper support?

How to close this matter? If the type of material (in which trial trenches were excavated) did not require
supporting, then the item is not payable. If it required supporting, then whether the supporting was carried
out or not, (or more volume was excavated to retain side slopes or not), the item is payable.

As per CESMM hand book, Class B, "it is statutory that any depth above 1.2m should be properly supported
as the Health and Safety regulations" Is this applicable to Dubai ? Is it customary to do this in Dubai ? If not
then this CESMM3 requirement should have been replaced by the Bill Compiler with a requirement suitable
for Dubai, by stating it in the Preamble.. In this scenario, Contractor has taken proper care to execute the
work in all respects and it is accepted by the Engineer through RFI.

If Consultant QS ask about a particular item in the total activity, How can we substantiate this? This is why
records are very important.

Please give your expert opinion on this issue. Sorry, only general guide lines can be provided for general
enquiries. If however a Company requires an independent expert opinion, then all the circumstances need to
be investigated, all the relevant documents/records need to be studied and the assertions of both parties
need to be heard before an expert opinion could be provided, following the agreement of fees.
Regards,
Dr. Sam.


Thanks with regards,

C.Viswanath.
From: Sujith Kunnuth [mailto:Sujith.Kunnuth@VOPAK.COM]
To: sam99@eim.ae
Subject: Re: Questions and answers - CA Training
Dear Dr. Sam
I have one query.
We have an equipment contractor whose contract completion period is already over

and the work is still not completed. As per the new plan it will take another one
month, totalling the delay to 5 weeks. We intend to levy delay damages as per
contract clauses (1% per week).
Meanwhile we have some additional works required to be carried out in the

equipment. While we have approached the contractor for the same, they have come
up with unreasonable time & cost impact for the same. The time impact is almost to
cover up their 5 weeks delay, which according to us should not take more than 7-10
days. If the additional work is necessary or appropriate, then the equipment
contractor has an obligation to execute it within a reasonable time at a reasonable
cost. Otherwise he would be in breach of contract. Another option we have got is to
take over the equipment from them and then carry out the works ourselves, after the
said contractor is out. By doing this are we allowing the contractor to get rid of one
year warranty Probably yes, unless you can prove the above breach.. Will the
contractor still required to be warrant the equipment in case we are carrying out
some works during their warranty period? Generally the wording in warranty
documents is drafted to exclude liability if the customer carries out unauthorized
changes/repairs. Unless the breach could be proved, it is very likely that he
would be able to escape from his liability under the warranty.
Regards,
Dr. Sam.

Please advise.
Sujith

Sent: 25 October 2007 14:44 To: Sam99@eim - Ae Subject

Uploaded by

Document Informationclick to expand document information

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sent: 25 October 2007 14:44 To: Sam99@eim - Ae Subject

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Sent: 25 October 2007 14:44 To: Sam99@eim - Ae Subject

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

-----Original Message-----

From: Abraham Varghese [mailto:Abraham.Varghese@nakheel.com]

Dr. Indrawansa Samaratunga PhD, DSc

Dr. Indrawansa Samaratunga PhD, DSc

----- Original Message -----

Dr. Indrawansa Samaratunga PhD, DSc

Dr. Indrawansa Samaratunga PhD, DSc

Dear Dr. Sam

I have one query.

We have an equipment contractor whose contract completion period is already over

Meanwhile we have some additional works required to be carried out in the

Dr. Indrawansa Samaratunga PhD, DSc

You might also like