My Comments are given in red below.

This would be the last Q&A for about a month, as I would from now
onwards be busy with preparations and conducting of the Class of January 2008.

If you wish to send any of your colleagues for this class, there are still places vacant. Course details are
attached.

Regards,

Prof. Sam. 

Prof. Indrawansa Samaratunga PhD, DSc

FRICS, FAIQS, FIQSSL, FCIArb, FCIOB, FCMI, FASI, FBEng
Chartered Quantity Surveyor and Registered Arbitrator / Expert
Australian Inst.of Qty.Surveyors-Middle East Representative
PO Box 23461, Dubai, UAE. T +971504588949 F +97143378668

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

From: ajammal@ellisdon.com
To: sam99@emirates.net.ae
Date: Sun, 06 Jan 2008 10:18:55 +0400
Subject: Merry Christmas

Dear Proff.Sam,

Merry Christmas and happy new year to you and family.

I have this question and would appreciate if you can reply to.

Our GC submitted a claim EOT 3 revision 1 which included two items

1-claim for scarcity of cement
2-tiling

We reviewed and issued an EI rejecting the cement and requested

substantiation from the GC for the tiling.

The GC after one month submits EOT revision 2 with 8 additional

chapters
like block work ,suspended ceiling ,external block,tiling,and so on.

Although GC is not entitled to submit additional items without first

sending notification we reviewed all his items and assessed fairly and
reasonably.

Before we finalized our review the client decided to negotiate

directly
with the contractor alone and in one/two weeks granted the contractor
EOT for one year.The client was advised by the PMs that not only this is
not the right thing to do, but also advised the client that duration
granted is not logical and eventually you need to put a cost to that.

The client insisted that the Engineer issues an EI to the contractor

with the extension of time although the engineer is not in agreement to the
duration granted to the GC.

The EI only included revised completion dates with no reference to the

events considered in the determination of the entitlement etc.

Now we and the Engineer have done our review and find the duration the
GC
is entitled for is one month with costs compared to the one year the
client granted.

1. Can we at anytime cancel the EI already issued, as this should have

been an interim determination of an extension of time The Engineer cannot reduce the amount of any
interim EOT given.
2. or do we only grant costs related to the new duration. Yes. Cost are not related to EOT. Costs are related
to the delays.
3. Since the client agrees to the extension they negotiated it is the
client's wish? The parties to a contract are at liberty to mutually agree on any new terms and conditions or
modify them at any time as they prefer.

Thank you

___________________________
Ahmad Jammal

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

From: ranjan dommaniga
To: "Prof. Sam" <sam99@emirates.net.ae>
Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2008 09:44:25 +0000
Subject: RE: Q&A

Dear Prof. Sam  

 
There is a FIDIC base re-measured contract; contract value is 9,000,000, already awarded
to the contractor. Commencement date was 23-July -2007. Due to some reason
contractor was not commence so far, at beginning stage there was no consultant, Contract
directly awarded by the Employer. Recently they have appointed a consultant for the
contract. While checking the scope, there was some duplication, when it corrected the
scope was reduce up to 5,000,000. However, Contractor had instructed to commence the
project from 15-Jan-2008.
 
 Now Contractor requesting, submit a performance bond and insurance base on
revised scope. It is to the benefit of both parties to sign an amendment to the contract revising
the Contract Price and allowing for a discount in respect of Insurance and bonds in the reduced
amounts.
 Employer did not desire to revise his original awarded letter, Contract sum given
in as 9m. Then eventually Employer would have to pay the Contractor his under-
recoveries pursuant to Sub-Clause 52.3 as the Effective Final Account would be
less than Effective Contract Price by over 15%.
 
As a Consultant, how we can administrate this situation. Please clarify! Advice the
Employer on the above two comments.
 
Regard
 
Ranjan

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

From: Hasaranga Fonseka
To: sam99 <sam99@emirates.net.ae>
Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2008 01:40:15 -0800 (PST)
Subject: pls clarify
 
Dear Dr Sam,
Our original project duration was 150 days & the contract sum was 133 milion &
excavation volume was 15 million m3, as a variation to the project there was an additionl
excavation of 27 million m3 & a 471 days of additional time was given for the project.
but as the contractor we were agreed to do the additional work for the same excavation
rate. For the time extention we claimd time related priliminaries & Headoffice
overheads . is this correct.? Correct. can we claim head office overheads again.(because
in the rate of excavation  ,profits & head office overheads are already included)
pls clarify Pursuant to Sub-Clause 52.3 there would be an adjustment to deduct the Head
Office Overhead over-recovery which is beyond 15%.
 
Hasaranga Fonseka