CRICA CASE NO.467/2006 CCCO VS.

GPP STATEMENT OF DEFENCE

Objections to The Contractors Claiming Practice TABLE OF CONTENTS PHASE I

No. 01- Gas Works No. 02: Multimedia. No. 04: Decorative Lighting. No. 0 No. 07: H4 Additional Parking. CVN # 247 (1) No. 8- Fire Escape: No.: 3 No. SoD 8B- Fire Escape: Title: All Areas: Natural No. 8C- Atrium Smoke Curtain (CVN 490):Gas Detection System PMO Letter: PMO/CCCO/TP5/02/17.0/1576/938 No. Date 9A- Smoke Management: of Issue: 22 August 2002 No. 9B- Smoke Management H1-H4 (CVN 226): Included in the CVN Form: No. Instructions 9C- Car Park Smoke Containment and Extract Modifications: No. 10- VRV Units: with work - Proceed
extension of time authorized No. 13: -C78No Pyramid No. 14- 5th Floor: Contractors Reservations: No. 15- CCTV & Security: No. 16- Food Courts (Commercial Center Phase I): The Contractor in his letter ref. 674/10/180A/ L. 3603 dated 25 August 2002, stated the following: No. 17- Refuse Room: - We write to inform you that completion of the works will be delayed beyond the current No. 18- Emergency Exit Signage Conduits: extended Time for Completion

No. 19: Exhibition Roof Panels. No. Comments: 21- Operators Electrical Requirements: No. 22: 1. 1st Basement Revised Lighting The Contractor received the instructions to proceed with work pertaining to this event No. 23- Busway Risers: through CVN number 247 (1) which issued on 22 August 2002. No. 24: FCU Connection to BMS 2. However, contemporaneous update to assess the alleged impact upon the project No. 25- False Ceiling &the Column Capitals:
completion date should be CT36, HT36, F136 & F236 data date 1 August 2002, but the

No. 26: Toilet [Access] Modifications Contractor simulate this delaying event with update XX31 dated 1 March 2002, which is wrong. No. 27: False Ceiling Coordination No. 28: Service Corridor Ceiling 3. Furthermore, the Contractor should simulate only the impact of issuing CVN 247 (1) to No. 29: Operator Facilities assess its impact upon the contract completion date, but the Contractor analyzed the No. 31: Lighting Control Modifications impact of CVN 247 & 247 (1) all together in the same program update and combined the impact of several No. 32: Panel Board Feeders delaying events issued in various dates, which is deceptive No. 33: Cradle Cleaning System. No. Conclusion: 35: Atrium Skylights. No. 37: Audio Visual The contractor could not demonstrate in a sound delay analysis the impact upon the No. 38: Life Safety Signage (H1-H4). project completion date as a result of this alleged delaying event No. 39: Works Coffee Shop Ground Floor 1Gas

1C- Seismic Sensors

Page 1 of 59

The Contractors 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

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

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

PHASE II
No. 01: Gas Works. No. 53: A8 Building. No. 54: H5/O1 Hotel: Change of Design Stop Work. No. 55: H5/O1 Hotel Release of Revised Design. No. 56: H5/O1 Hotel Release of TP5 Revised Design. No. 60: C10 Swimming Pool. No. 61: Commercial Centre Phase 2 Structural Redesign No. 62: External Road Works.

Page 2 of 59

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

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 CCCOs 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

Egypt Gas Works (Piping, Sleevs, seismic Supports, Expansion Joints) Finish Dates 30 May 2002 16 January 2003 06 February 2003 27 February 2003

CCCO Works (HVAC Conduits, F/P, Plumbing, Cabling Works) Finish Dates 16 November 2002 16 November 2002 16 December 2002 01 March 2003

HVAC Conduits, F/P, Plumbing, Cabling Works Finish Dates according to IRs 14 September 2004 11 July 2004 28 February 2004 16 October 2004

2nd Basement Ground Floor 1st Floor 2nd Floor

According to the table above, Egypt Gas works were performed and finished 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

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

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 didnt affect the Block completion date The Contractors 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

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

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

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

Instructions Included in the CVN Form: Proceed with work No extension of time authorized

Contractors Reservations: 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 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 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
3

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
2
3

See attached letter See attached letter Page 5 of 59

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

1- Gas Works 1C- Seismic Sensors

The Contractors 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:

CVN # 204
SoD No.: Title: PMO Letter: Date of Issue: 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

Instructions Included in the CVN Form: Proceed with work No extension of time authorized

Contractors Reservations: The Contractor in his letter ref. 674/27/180A/L .2090 following: 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
5

dated 2 April 2002, stated the

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

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

4
5

See attached letter See attached letter Page 6 of 59

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

CVN # 204 (2)

SoD No.: Title: PMO Letter: Date of Issue: 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

Instructions Included in the CVN Form: Proceed with work No extension of time authorized

Contractors 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

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

See attached letter Page 7 of 59

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

2- Multimedia 2A- Trietech Program

The Contractors delay analysis is based on CVN 204 & 204 (2). 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. In the following analysis we will demonstrate the validity of each alleged delaying event:

CVN # 204
SoD No.: Title: PMO Letter: Date of Issue: 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

Instructions Included in the CVN Form: Proceed with work No extension of time authorized

Contractors Reservations: The Contractor in his letter ref. 674/27/180A/L .2090 following: 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
8

dated 2 April 2002, stated the

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

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

7
8

See attached letter See attached letter Page 8 of 59

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

6- Substation 6A- Substation Revised Drawings:

Comments: 1- Program P51N indicated that Activity # SS-00AC010 (Receive Structural Design Dwgs for Constrn) 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.

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

Page 9 of 59

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

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. 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.
10

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

See attached letter See attached letter See attached letter Page 10 of 59

10 11

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

8- Fire Escape:
The Contractors 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:

CVN # 362
SoD No.: Title: PMO Letter: Date of Issue: 15 Commercial Center Zone C8: Provision of Fire Escape Corridor 12 PMO/CCCO/TP5/02/17.0/1147/665 1 July 2002

Instructions Included in the CVN Form: Proceed with work No extension of time authorized

Contractors Reservations: 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
13

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

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

CVN # 362 (1)

SoD No.: Title: PMO Letter: Date of Issue: 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

Instructions Included in the CVN Form: Proceed with work No extension of time authorized

Contractors Reservations: 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: 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
17 16

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

15
16 17

See attached letter See attached letter See attached letter Page 12 of 59

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

8B- Fire Escape:

The Contractors 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:

CVN # 241
SoD No.: Title: PMO Letter: Date of Issue: 17 Commercial Center: Fire Protection in Ceiling Void at level +9.40 18 PMO/CCCO/TP5/02/17.0/668/390 16 April 2002

Instructions Included in the CVN Form: Proceed with work No extension of time authorized

Contractors Reservations: 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
19

18
19

See attached letter See attached letter Page 13 of 59

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

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 Conclusion: The contractor did not suffer critical delay to the Commercial Center due to the requirement of CVN 241
21

dated 4 June 2002,

CVN # 263
SoD No.: Title: PMO Letter: Date of Issue: 18 Commercial Center: Fire Protection in Ceiling Void at level +14.20 22 PMO/CCCO/TP5/02/17.0/741/429 29 April 2002

Instructions Included in the CVN Form: Proceed with work No extension of time authorized

Contractors Reservations: 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 MultiMedia additional works
23

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

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

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

CVN # 319
SoD No.: Title: PMO Letter: Date of Issue: 19 Commercial Center: Fire Protection in Ceiling Void at level +4.20 25 PMO/CCCO/TP5/02/17.0/934/543 28 May 2002

Instructions Included in the CVN Form: Proceed with work No extension of time authorized

Contractors Reservations: 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
26

Conclusion:
24 25 26 27

See attached letter See attached letter See attached letter See attached letter Page 15 of 59

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

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

CVN # 374
SoD No.: Title: PMO Letter: Date of Issue: 20 Commercial Center (Level +14.20): Revision to Sprinkler location and Types 28 PMO/CCCO/TP5/02/17.0/1132/657 30 June 2002

Instructions Included in the CVN Form: 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.

CVN # 374 (1)

SoD No.: Title: PMO Letter: Date of Issue: 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

Instructions Included in the CVN Form: Proceed with work No extension of time authorized

Contractors Reservations: The Contractor in his letter ref. 674/10/180A/ L. 3518 following:
28 29 30

dated 10 August 2002, stated the

See attached letter See attached letter Page 16 of 59

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

Comments:

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

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

See attached letter Page 17 of 59

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

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

Instructions Included in the CVN Form: Proceed with work No extension of time authorized

Contractors Reservations: The Contractor in his letter ref. 674/10/180A/ L. 3681 the following: 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 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.
34 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

31
32 33 34 35

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

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

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

Page 19 of 59

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

9A- Smoke Management:

The Contractors delay analysis is based on CVN 171

CVN # 171
SoD No.: Title: PMO Letter: Date of Issue: 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

Instructions Included in the CVN Form: Proceed with work No extension of time authorized

Contractors Reservations: The Contractor in his letter ref. 674/10/180A/ L. 2866 following: 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 didnt provide in his SoC that they have been abide PMO requirements in the above-mentioned letter
38 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

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

36
37

See attached letter See attached letter See attached letter Page 20 of 59

38

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

9B- Smoke Management H1-H4 (CVN 226):

The Contractors 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:

CVN # 226
SoD No.: Title: PMO Letter: Date of Issue: 24 Block H1-H4: Smoke Management System 39 PMO/CCCO/TP5/02/17.0/163/82 10 April 2002

Instructions Included in the CVN Form: Proceed with work No extension of time authorized

Contractors Reservations: The Contractor in his letter ref. 674/27/180A/ L. 2327 following: 40

dated 30 April 2002, stated the

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

See attached letter See attached letter See attached letter Page 21 of 59

41

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

CVN # 226 (1)

SoD No.: Title: PMO Letter: Date of Issue: 25 Block H1-H4: Smoke Management System 42 PMO/CCCO/TP5/02/17.0/1442/831 8 August 2002

Instructions Included in the CVN Form: Proceed with work No extension of time authorized

Contractors Reservations: The Contractor in his letter ref. 674/27/180A/ L. 2949 following: 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 didnt 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 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
43

dated 15 August 2002, stated the

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

42
43 44 45

See attached letter See attached letter See attached letter See attached letter Page 22 of 59

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

9C- Car Park Smoke Containment and Extract Modifications:

The Contractors delay analysis is based on CVN 482

CVN # 482
SoD No.: Title: PMO Letter: Date of Issue: 26 Commercial Center: Car Park Smoke Modifications 46 PMO/CCCO/TP5/02/17.0/1699/1025 5 September 2002 Containment and Extract

Instructions Included in the CVN Form: Proceed with work No extension of time authorized

Contractors Reservations: The Contractor in his letter ref. 674/27/180A/L. 3136 the following: 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 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
46
47 48 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

See attached letter See attached letter See attached letter Page 23 of 59

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

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: 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 contractors 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.
49

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 CVNs 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

See attached letter Page 24 of 59

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

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

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

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 CVNs 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:

CVN # 136
SoD No.: Title: PMO Letter: Date of Issue: 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

Instructions Included in the CVN Form: Proceed with work No extension of time authorized

Contractors Reservations: 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: 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.
51

50
51 52

See attached letter See attached letter See attached letter Page 26 of 59

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

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.

CVN # 429
SoD No.: Title: PMO Letter: Date of Issue: 37 Commercial Center: Revised HVAC Works Architectural Design at Level 33.10 53 PMO/CCCO/TP5/02/17.0/1487/868 14 August 2002 to Facilitate Revised

Instructions Included in the CVN Form: Proceed with work No extension of time authorized

Contractors Reservations: The Contractor in his letter ref. 674/27/180A/L. 2989 following: 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 54

dated 26 August 2002, stated the

We are in receipt of the subject Contract Variation Notice (CVN) No. 429, 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

See attached letter See attached letter See attached letter Page 27 of 59

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

CVN # 481
SoD No.: Title: PMO Letter: Date of Issue: 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

Instructions Included in the CVN Form: Proceed with work No extension of time authorized

Contractors Reservations: The Contractor in his letter ref. 674/27/180A/L.3135 following: 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
57

dated 16 September 2002, stated the

We are in receipt of the subject Contract Variation Notice (CVN) No. 481, 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

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.

56
57 58

See attached letter See attached letter See attached letter Page 28 of 59

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

15- CCTV & Security:

Contractors delay analysis as stated in SoC is based on CVNs 19, 19 (1) & 19 (2), h owever, 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 # 19
SoD No.: Title: PMO Letter: Date of Issue: 39 Commercial Center: CCTV System Upgrading 59 PMO/CCCO/TP5/02/17.0/844/378 01 October 2002

Instructions Included in the CVN Form: Notice To Proceed Required No extension of time authorized

Contractors Reservations: 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 .
60

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 CVNs 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.
59
60

See attached letter See attached letter Page 29 of 59

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

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.

CVN # 19 (1)
SoD No.: Title: PMO Letter: Date of Issue: 40 Commercial Center: Security Surveillance System Upgrading 61 PMO/CCCO/TP5/02/17.0/1120 29 June 2002

Instructions Included in the CVN Form: For Programming Purposes Only

Contractors Reservations: 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
62

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 CVNs 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

See attached letter See attached letter Page 30 of 59

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

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.

CVN # 19 (2)
SoD No.: Title: PMO Letter: Date of Issue: 41 Commercial Center: Security Surveillance System Upgrade 63 PMO/CCCO/TP5/02/17.0/1217/707 10 July 2002

Instructions Included in the CVN Form: Proceed with work No extension of time authorized

Contractors Reservations: 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
64

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 CVNs 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

See attached letter See attached letter Page 31 of 59

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

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.

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.

Page 32 of 59

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

16- Food Courts (Commercial Center Phase I): 16A- Food Courts Suspension of Work:
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. 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 works 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
66 65

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

65 66 67

See attached letter See attached letter See attached letter Page 33 of 59

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

16B- Food Courts CVN 143:

The Contractors 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.

CVN # 143
SoD No.: Title: PMO Letter: Date of Issue: 43 Commercial Center: Level +19.00 Deletion of TP5 Finishing Works 68 PMO/CCCO/TP5/02/17.0/132/079 22 January 2002

Instructions Included in the CVN Form: Proceed with work No extension of time authorized

Contractors Reservations: 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 addition al time may be encountered as a result of issuing CVN 143.
69

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

See attached letter See attached letter See attached letter See attached letter Page 34 of 59

70 71

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

CVN # 166
SoD No.: Title: PMO Letter: Date of Issue: 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

Instructions Included in the CVN Form: Proceed with work No extension of time authorized

Contractors Reservations: 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 CVNs 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 CVNs issued in different dates, which is deceptive.
73

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.

72
73

See attached letter See attached letter Page 35 of 59

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

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: Proceed with work No extension of time authorized

Contractors Reservations: 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 CVNs 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 CVNs 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
75

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.

74
75

See attached letter See attached letter Page 36 of 59

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

CVN # 166 (2)

SoD No.: Title: PMO Letter: Date of Issue: 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

Instructions Included in the CVN Form: Proceed with work No extension of time authorized

Contractors Reservations: The Contractor in his letter ref. 674/27/180A/ L. 2942 following: 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 didnt include CVN 166 (2), 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 166 (2) which issued on 5 August 2002. 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
77

dated 15 August 2002, stated the

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

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.

76
77 78

See attached letter See attached letter See attached letter Page 37 of 59

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

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

See attached letter See attached letter See attached letter Page 38 of 59

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

17- Refuse Room:

The Contractors delay analysis is based on SWOs, CVN 311, 364 & 364 (1) and in order to assess the impact of these delaying events, the Contractor analyzed the impact of SWOs, 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 SWOs 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 CVNs 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 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: Instructions: PMO issued formal SWO # 3 for Level 23.80 on 16 January 2002 PMO issued formal SWO # 5 for Level 28 on 16 January 2002 PMO issued formal SWO # 10 for Level 14 on 19 February 2002 PMO issued formal SWO # 13 for Level 4.20 on 19 February 2002 PMO issued formal SWO # 14 for Level 0.35 on 19 February 2002 49 Commercial Center: Notification to Cease Further Selected Contracts Works 82 PMO/CCCO/TP5/02/1.15/1037/475 5 November 2001

Contractors Reservations: 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 delay and/or disruption to the progress of the works..
82
83

See attached letter Page 39 of 59

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

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 SWOs to assess its impact upon the contract completion date, but the Contractor analyzed the impact of SWOs, 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 SWOs.

CVN # 311
SoD No.: Title: PMO Letter: Date of Issue: 50 Commercial Center: Construction of Refuse Rooms 84 PMO/CCCO/TP5/02/17.0/240/127 27 May 2002

Instructions Included in the CVN Form: Proceed with work No extension of time authorized

Contractors Reservations: 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: 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 85

83

See attached letter See attached letter See attached letter See attached letter Page 40 of 59

84
85 86

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

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 SWOs, 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

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.

CVN # 364
SoD No.: Title: PMO Letter: Date of Issue: 51 Commercial Center: HVAC, Plumbing and Electrical System for Chilled Refuse Rooms 87 PMO/CCCO/TP5/02/17.0/1151/666 1 July 2002

Instructions Included in the CVN Form: For Programming Purposes Only

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

Comments: 1- CVN 364 was issued for Planning Purposes only. 2- 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 SWOs, 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 3- 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
87

See attached letter Page 41 of 59

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

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.

CVN # 364 (1)

SoD No.: Title: PMO Letter: Date of Issue: 52 Commercial Center: Chilled Refuse Rooms at Levels -2.65 & 19.00 88 PMO/CCCO/TP5/02/17.0/1557/927 20 August 2002

Instructions Included in the CVN Form: Proceed with work No extension of time authorized

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

Comments: 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)
91 90 89

88 89 90
91

See attached letter See attached letter See attached letter See attached letter Page 42 of 59

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

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 SWOs, 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

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.

Page 43 of 59

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

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:

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 CVNs were excluded and listed in the MOU appendixes) will be as follow: Commercial Center 11 September 2003

th

th

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:

CVN # 379
SoD No.: Title: PMO Letter: Date of Issue: 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

92

See attached letter Page 44 of 59

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

Instructions Included in the CVN Form: Proceed with work No extension of time authorized

Contractors Reservations: 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.
93

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

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

CVN # 379 (1)

SoD No.: Title: PMO Letter: Date of Issue: 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

Instructions Included in the CVN Form: Proceed with work No extension of time authorized

Contractors Reservations: 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 95

See attached letter See attached letter See attached letter Page 45 of 59

94
95

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

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).

CVN # 379 (2)

SoD No.: Title: PMO Letter: Date of Issue: 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

Instructions Included in the CVN Form: Proceed with work No extension of time authorized

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

96 97

See attached letter See attached letter See attached letter See attached letter Page 46 of 59

98
99

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

Comments:

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

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

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.

Page 47 of 59

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

19- Exhibition Roof Panels:

The Contractor analyzed the impact of CVNs 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 CVNs 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:

CVN # 17
SoD No.: Title: PMO Letter: Date of Issue: 56 Adjustment to Provisional Sum for Exhibition Center 100 PMO/CCCO/TP5/02/17.0/847/381 1 October 2001

Instructions Included in the CVN Form: No extension of time authorized Submit Proposal within 7 days

Contractors Reservations: 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.
101

100
101

See attached letter

See attached letter Page 48 of 59

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

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 CVNs 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

Conclusion: The contractor did not suffer critical delay to the Commercial Center due to the requirement of CVN 17.

CVN # 17 (1)
SoD No.: Title: PMO Letter: Date of Issue: 57 Commercial Center: Modification to Exhibition Center Roof at Level +38.60 102 PMO/CCCO/TP5/02/17.0/1580/941 24 August 2002

Instructions Included in the CVN Form: Proceed with work No extension of time authorized

Contractors Reservations: 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 Variation Work) .
103

Comments: 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 CVNs 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

102
103

See attached letter

See attached letter Page 49 of 59

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

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 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.

CVN # 17 (2)
SoD No.: Title: PMO Letter: Date of Issue: 58 Commercial Center: Modification to Exhibition Center Roof at Level +38.60 104 PMO/CCCO/TP5/02/17.0/1979/1166 15 October 2002

Instructions Included in the CVN Form: Proceed with work No extension of time authorized

Contractors Reservations: 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) .
105

Comments: 1- The Contractor rejected to proceed with CVN 17 (2) 2- Moreover, the Contractor should simulate only the impact of issuing CVN 17 (2) to assess its impact upon the contract completion date, but the Contractor analyzed the impact of CVNs 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 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

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.

104
105

See attached letter

See attached letter Page 50 of 59

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

21- Operators Electrical Requirements:

The Contractor analyzed the impact of CVNs 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 CVNs 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:

CVN # 164
SoD No.: Title: PMO Letter: Date of Issue: 59 Commercial Center: Revised Electrical Requirements 106 PMO/CCCO/TP5/02/17.0/230/139 9 February 2002 Installation as Operator

Instructions Included in the CVN Form: No extension of time authorized Submit Proposal within 7 days

Contractors Reservations: The Contractor in his letter ref. 674/10/180A/L .2839 following:
107

dated 14 February 2002, stated the

106
107

See attached letter

See attached letter Page 51 of 59

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

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 CVNs 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

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.

CVN # 164 (1)

SoD No.: Title: PMO Letter: Date of Issue: 60 Commercial Center: Revised Electrical Installation as New Operator Requirements 108 PMO/CCCO/TP5/02/17.0/474/292 18 March 2002

Instructions Included in the CVN Form: Proceed with work No extension of time authorized

Contractors Reservations: The Contractor in his letter ref. 674/27/180A/L .2071 following: Comments:
109

dated 31 March 2002, stated the

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

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

108
109

See attached letter

See attached letter Page 52 of 59

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

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- Moreover, the Contractor should simulate only the impact of issuing CVN 164 (1) to assess its impact upon the contract completion date, but the Contractor analyzed the impact of CVNs 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

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.

CVN # 164 (2)

SoD No.: Title: PMO Letter: Date of Issue: 61 Commercial Center: Revised Electrical Installation as New Operator Requirements 110 PMO/CCCO/TP5/02/17.0/1455/841 12 August 2002

Instructions Included in the CVN Form: Proceed with work No extension of time authorized

Contractors Reservations: The Contractor in his letter ref. 674/10/180A/L .3518 following: Comments:
111

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

1- The Contractor received the instructions to proceed with work pertaining to this event through CVN number 164 (2) which issued on 12 August 2002. 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

110
111

See attached letter

See attached letter Page 53 of 59

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

impact of CVNs 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

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.

Page 54 of 59

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

23- Busway Risers:

The Contractor analyzed the impact of CVNs 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 CVNs 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:

CVN # 191
SoD No.: Title: PMO Letter: Date of Issue: 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

Instructions Included in the CVN Form: No extension of time authorized Submit Proposal within 7 days

Contractors Reservations: The Contractor in his letter ref. 674/27/180A/L .1970 following: 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

112
113

See attached letter

See attached letter Page 55 of 59

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

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 CVNs 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.

CVN # 201
SoD No.: Title: PMO Letter: Date of Issue: 65 Commercial Center: Modification of Tap-Off and cables 114 PMO/CCCO/TP5/02/17.0/486/299 20 March 2002

Instructions Included in the CVN Form: Proceed with work No extension of time authorized

Contractors Reservations: The Contractor in his letter ref. 674/27/180A/L .2077 following: Comments:
115

dated 1 April 2002, stated the

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

1- The Contractor received the instructions to proceed with work pertaining to this event through CVN number 201 which issued on 20 March 2002. 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

114
115

See attached letter

See attached letter Page 56 of 59

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

CVNs 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.

CVN # 201 (1)

SoD No.: Title: PMO Letter: Date of Issue: 66 Commercial Center: Horizontal Busway Upgrade 116 PMO/CCCO/TP5/02/17.0/1319/754 27 July 2002

Instructions Included in the CVN Form: Proceed with work No extension of time authorized

Contractors Reservations: The Contractor in his letter ref. 674/27/180A/L .2077 following: Comments:
117

dated 1 April 2002, stated the

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

1- The Contractor received the instructions to proceed with work pertaining to this event through CVN number 201 which issued on 20 March 2002. 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 CVNs 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.

116
117

See attached letter

See attached letter Page 57 of 59

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

25- False Ceiling & Column Capitals:

The Contractor analyzed the impact of PMO late response to RFI 1700 and CVNs 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:

CVN # 235
SoD No.: Title: PMO Letter: Date of Issue: 69 Commercial Center Level 19: False Ceiling and Column Capitals 118 PMO/CCCO/TP5/02/17.0/1124/649 30 June 2002

Instructions Included in the CVN Form: Proceed with work No extension of time authorized

Contractors Reservations: The Contractor in his letter ref. 674/10/180A/L .3518 following: Comments:
119

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.

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 CVNs 235 & 235 (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 did not suffer critical delay to the Commercial Center due to the requirement of CVN 235
118
119

See attached letter

See attached letter Page 58 of 59

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

CVN # 235 (1)

SoD No.: Title: PMO Letter: Date of Issue: 70 Commercial Center: Column Capitals at Level 19 120 PMO/CCCO/TP5/02/17.0/1384/785 4 August 2002

Instructions Included in the CVN Form: For Programming purposes only

Contractors Reservations: The Contractor did not provide substantiations that they preserved rights for delays may encounter as a result of issuing CVN 235 (1).

Comments:

1- The Contractor received the instructions to proceed with work pertaining to this event through CVN number 235 (1) which issued on 4 August 2002. 2- The Contractor in his interim detailed particulars submitted on 20 November 2002 via 121 letter ref. 674/10/180A/L. 3889 , indicated that the alleged delays pertaining to CVN 235 (1) was started on 19 November 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 CT32 dated 1 April 2002, which is wrong 4- Moreover, the Contractor should simulate only the impact of issuing CVN 235 (1) to assess its impact upon the contract completion date, but the Contractor analyzed the impact of PMO late response to RFI 1700 and CVNs 235 & 235 (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 subject CVN.

120
121

See attached letter

See attached letter Page 59 of 59