EOT Presentation

Response to Contractor’s Presentation

340401
29 February 2016
 Access Ramp
 1. The Engineer does not agree that it was armour rock that was
encountered and that they were boulders and that they were
foreseeable from the ground investigation reports available at the
time of tender.

 2. The claim is now under arbitration and since the Engineer does
not accept there has been any unforeseen element then there can
be no EOT from the Engineer.

 3. If the Chief Engineer were to consider and grant any such EOT
then this would be making an assumption that the arbitration will
find in favour of the Contractor.

 4.Time for the Access Ramp works is concurrent with other works
and is not critical and even adding up all the (unaccepted) times
claimed by the Contractor then this would be less than the overall
extension of time already granted. So it has no effect.

2 29 February 2016
 Access Ramp SA-1 & SA-2 Restriction
 1. Contract Document Serial Page 0069 set out the requirements
for security compliance and the Contractor at the time of tender
was required to make allowance for occasional restrictions.

 2. Contract Document Serial Page 0724 – Police Verification is

required to be done prior to issue of passes and the Contractor has
been found lacking on this on various occasions and account
would need to be taken on such.

 3. Contract Document Serial Page 0072 – Working Hours are set at

0800 to 2000hrs so there is no immediate right for the Contractor to
be able to work night shift.

 4. Allowance for night shift and permitted weekend working could

make up for all and more of the claimed time for security.

3 29 February 2016
 Access Ramp SA1 & SA2 cont’d
 5. The Contractor has not provided a detailed submission for this
claim even after several notices to do so and therefore the
Engineer is unable to give a determination.

 6. It can only be assumed that the Contractor has arrived at the

claimed 14 days over their claimed extended period so on the
original 135 days construction programme significantly less would
accrue if it was found to be valid.

 7. Notwithstanding the above the Access Ramp is not on the critical

path and any delay is concurrent with the other works and no
contribution to overall delay is applicable and therefore no
requirement for and EOT for the whole works.

4 29 February 2016
 FOB Underwater Blasting
 1. Agreement on the extent that this was unforeseen has been
agreed with letters D4324 dated 01 Oct 2014 and D5037 dated
May 2015 being relevant.

 2. Payment for blasting and removal of the concrete debris has

been paid.

 3. It is accepted that time was required for obtaining the blasting

licence but blasting was also required by the Contractor on the
footprint of the original collapsed FOB to make way for the plinth
beam construction. This principle was agreed in evaluation
settlement of the claim.

 The additional blasting work relates only to the removal of material

on the north side of the original North FOB.

5 29 February 2016
 FOB Underwater Blasting cont’d
 5. The Contractor has carried forward to this claim their first
submission of the claimed 155 days without taking into account the
claim settlement and proportioning of that agreed as additional.

 6. Notwithstanding this the work was concurrent with other items

and was not on the critical path as shown by their RO programme.
With the early EOT for the Entrance Cofferdam amounting to 359
days any increase in time for debris removal was further from the
critical path.

 7. The Engineer does not accept there to be any additional work for
blasting at the South FOB and the Contractor agreed that in
settlement of their claim for payment for blasting on the North FOB
there would be no claim for the South FOB. Minutes of Meeting
……….

6 29 February 2016
 FOB – Time to Remove Sunken Object
 1. The wreck encountered was not a jack-up as being suggested
by the Contractor but was a small pontoon of estimated size ????

 2. A leg of HCC’s barge was damaged but there can be no

reasonable reason other than their lack of diligence for it to take 13
months for repair. No competent marine contractor intent on
progress would take this long.

 3. It was the Contractor’s refusal to properly investigate and/or take

on a specialist sub-contractor that led to the delay.

 4. To break the impass the Employer had to advertise for

underwater survey company and then for salvage company and
nominate them as sub-contractor to HCC.

7 29 February 2016
 FOB – Time to Remove Sunken Object cont’d

 5. The barge turned out to be much smaller than HCC had claimed
and the area was in fact more a pile of concrete debris which if
properly surveyed and investigated by the Contractor would have
been found much earlier.

 6. The same philosophy as that for underwater blasting is applied

in that the element was not on the critical path and occurred
concurrently with other works and was absorbed by the overall
EOT\ of 359 days.

8 29 February 2016
 FOB – Additional Time for Rock Level
 1. The Contractor refers in their claim to a rock level obtained from
a post dredge survey carried out by Essar. This is a bathymetric
survey and can only be used as such i.e. to give a bed level after
dredging rock and/or soft material. It cannot possibly give the rock
quality to be found at that level or lower.

 2. Ground investigation reports were provided for the tenderers and

these were by Afcoms and Cemindia and should have been used
for tender design.

 3. The Contractor also visited DGNP’s offices prior to tender and

took further copies of some geotechnical reports and they have
noted having received a copy of Consulting Engineering Services
Drawing No. 8825/11/CC/C-02 which gave further information on
rock profiles.

9 29 February 2016
 FOB – Additional Time for Rock Level cont’d

 4. The Contractor has made incorrect interpretation of the data at

the time of tender and this does not provide grounds for
compensation.

 5. The Engineer concludes that the Contractor is entitled to neither

an EOT or additional costs.

10 29 February 2016
 FOB – SA-1 & SA-2 Entry Restriction
 1. The Engineer has requested the Contractor to submit full details
on this subject but to date the Contractor has failed to do so. Ref;
to letters ????????????

 2. The Engineer has thus been prevented from making a fair

determination by the Contractor.

11 29 February 2016
 Headwall – Encountering Rock Armour
 1. Reference should be made to the Engineer’s response to claims
for the Access Ramp, which claim is now under arbitration.

 2. The Contractor has submitted no evidence that the boulders

found in excavations where rock armours but even if they were
there would be no difference in dealing with them or boulders.

 3. Boulders are shown in the tender geotechnical information to be

present in the site. Furthermore from the history of the site it is
known to have been made up of massive filling.

 4. FIDIC GCC requires the Contractor to take account of the form

and nature of the site including sub-surface conditions.

 5. The Engineer determined that the Contractor is not entitled to

any cost or time for excavation or working with boulders.

12 29 February 2016
 Headwall – SA-1 & SA-2 Entry Restrictions

 1.The Engineer has requested the Contractor to submit full details

on this subject but to date the Contractor has failed to do so. Ref;
to letters ????????????

 2. The Engineer has thus been prevented from making a fair

determination by the Contractor.

13 29 February 2016
 Entrance Cofferdam
 1. The R0 programme date for commencement of the Entrance
Cofferdam design was 9 April 2011.

 2. While the Contractor may be complemented for carrying out

prior inspection and data gathering and along with discussions on
the findings and solutions for the South Abutment a decision was
made, as the Contractor records, on 02 May 2011. This was just 23
days after the programmed date for the design commencement of
the original length of cofferdam.

 3. The change required to the cofferdam to demolish and replace

the South Abutment was to add a length to encompass the
abutment. There could be no change to the original and the design
for the original could have proceeded on schedule or even earlier
and may well have to some degree.

14 29 February 2016
 Entrance Cofferdam cont’d
 4. The R0 programme date for commencement of construction was
13 September 2011 and the varied works did not prevent the
design for this being advanced and completed in line with the
Contractor’s programme.

 5. It is emphasised that the Entrance Cofferdam was a temporary

works structure and did not require the checking procedure for the
permanent works or the Engineer’s approval.

 6. The key problem at this time was that the Contractor’s tender
design was inadequate and would fail.

 7. The Engineer provides a sketch of the Contractor’s tender

proposal for the cofferdam piles where it should be noted that the
full required depth of the sill had not been shown by the Contractor
and has been added by the Engineer.

15 29 February 2016
 Entrance Cofferdam cont’d

16 29 February 2016
 Entrance Cofferdam cont’d
 8. Furthermore the Contractor had again used the Essar
bathymetric survey dredge level as an assumption of sound
structure bearing rock.

 9. The Contractor should have used the data from the geotechnical
reports and other records available with him at the time of tender.

 10. The Contract Document states that for “Design Criteria” the
“Soil/rock investigations and rock permeability test” the reports of
Afcoms and Cemindia were to be used.

 11. Drawing a conclusion on rock capabilities from a bathymetric

survey which gives no criteria or characteristics is deeply flawed
and uncomprehensible.

17 29 February 2016
 Entrance Cofferdam cont’d

18 29 February 2016
 Entrance Cofferdam cont’d
 12. The Contractor’s own ground investigation was carried out
between ???????????? And reported on ???????????

 13. The necessity for reinforced concrete piles could have been
foreseen had the Contractor used the most appropriate data
available at the time of tender and would have saved the
Contractor time searching and toiling over unsavoury facts that
emerged during detailed design.

 14. The Engineer does not believe that additional time is due for
developing the design for the additional cofferdam as the
Contractor was adamant that construction had to start from the
North FOB and that a separate start could not be made at the
South FOB.

19 29 February 2016
 Entrance Cofferdam cont’d
 15. No EOT is due as a consequence of the Contractor changing
the design from that submitted with the Contractor’s tender as
there were no un-foreseen circumstances as far as ground
conditions were concerned.

 16. Contemporary records for removing concrete obstructions were

agreed with the Contractor and both cost and time awarded and
applied. Based on this the ???? Days have been granted and
added to the overall EOT

20 29 February 2016
 Entrance Cofferdam cont’d
 17. Stoppage for work to facilitate underwater blasting was taken
from contemporary records where 1 hour was allowed per blast.
The Contractor’s request for consideration of 4 hrs per blast does
not relate to any actual fact or record. An award of ??? Days has
been granted and added to the overall EOT for the Contract.

 18. Redesign due to a weak strata was a further result of the

Contractor not taking account properly of all the available ground
investigation data and records of previous site works. The Engineer
maintains that the Contractor’s assumptions were optimistic as
boreholes BH 24-25 and MB10 give rock levels between -1.35mCD
and -13.40mCD.

 19. There were also drawings from previous works for dynamic
cone penetration tests that show rock near -14.5mCD adjacent to
borehole MB10.

21 29 February 2016
 Entrance Cofferdam cont’d

22 29 February 2016
 Entrance Cofferdam cont’d

23 29 February 2016
 Entrance Cofferdam cont’d

24 29 February 2016
 Entrance Cofferdam cont’d
 20. There was other data that showed abruptly changing rock
levels and fall offs.

25 29 February 2016
 Entrance Cofferdam cont’d
 21. The Contractor’s claimed delays for security alerts have not
been evaluated by the Engineer because the Contractor has not
submitted the requested details. (HCC’s Item k)

 22. Claimed Additional Works After Initial Dewatering –

 (HCC Item l)

 23. Claimed Excavation of Extra Rock Due to Shifting Headwall

Towards Land
 (HCC Item m)

 24. Claimed Time Required for Construction of South Abutment

 (HCC Item n)

26 29 February 2016
 Entrance Cofferdam cont’d
 25. Claimed Additional Time Required for Demolition of Piles
 (HCC Item o)
 As previously responded the Engineer has made clear that the
Contractors tender design for the Entrance Cofferdam piles was
inadequate and for construction they had to increase the capacity
of the cofferdam piles. This the Contractor chose to do by installing
reinforced concrete within their steel liner. The responsibility was
the Contractor’s under the Contract and the removal of then is also
the responsibility of the Contractor’s at not cost to the Employer
and with no increase in time allowance or EOT.

 26. Claimed Additional Time Required to Demolish Additional

Length of ECD – (HCC Item p)

27 29 February 2016
 Removal of Excess Silt Deposited in Dock Area

28 29 February 2016
 Ground Improvement of Dock Master Complex

29 29 February 2016
 Extension of Dock Floor
 1. The length of the dock has not changed and remains as the
tender design.

 2. The length of the section produced by the FOB’s could be

considered to be shorter than expected by 3.25m and the portion
over land increased by 3.25m.

 3. The Engineer has written to the Contractor correcting their

claimed 5.25 m to 3.25 m in letter ref: ????? Dated ?????? But the
Contractor has not responded and maintains use of their figure
possibly to embellish their case.

 4. With no overall increase in dock length the trade off is more on

land against less in sea.

 5. There was plenty of advance awareness and it is the Engineer’s

contention that it would be less costly and less or no time increase
for excavation and building on land.

30 29 February 2016