Bar – Boljare Highway,

Section Smokovac – Uvač – Mateševo

MSE Wall / Zid od armirane zemlje
RK 1+093 – RK 1+334
Expert’s Witness Report on Unforeseeable Physical
Condition under the Sub-Clause 4.12 / Stručni nalaz
o nepredvidivim fizičkim uslovima prema
potklauzuli 4.12

August 2020
Supervision of Design and Works
Nadzor nad Projektovanjem i Izgradnjom

Revision 01
 Supervision of Design and Works
on the Bar – Boljare Highway,
Section Smokovac – Uvač –
Mateševo

Document Control Sheet

Client: Ministry of Transport and Maritime Affairs

Project: Supervision of Design and Works on the Bar - – Boljare Highway

Section Smokovac – Uvač – Mateševo

Title: MSE Wall on RK 1+093 – RK 1+334; Expert’s Witness Report on Unforeseeable

Physical Condition under the Sub-Clause 4.12-Rev01. August 2020 / Zid od armirane
zemlje na RK 1+093 – RK 1+334; Stručni nalaz o nepredvidivim fizičkim uslovima
prema potklauzuli 4.12-Rev01

Revision History

Prepared by Checked by Approved by

ORIGINAL Darko Muza Jan Lorange Jan Lorange

SIGNATURE

DATE Rev00 10 July 2020 11 July 2020 11 July 2020

DATE Rev01 06 August 2020 06 August 2020 06 August 2020

1
 Supervision of Design and Works
on the Bar – Boljare Highway,
Section Smokovac – Uvač –
Mateševo

LIST OF CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION / UVOD................................................................................................................................3
2. CLAIM EVENT / DOGAĐAJ POTRAŽIVANJA.......................................................................................... 3
3. TECHNICAL REVIEW OF CONTRACTOR’S DOCUMENTATION / TEHNIČKI PREGLED
DOKUMENTACIJE IZVOĐAČA RADOVA .................................................................................................. 23
3.1. GENERAL COMMENTS / OPŠTI KOMENTARI....................................................................................... 23
3.2. TECHNICAL COMMENTS / TEHNIČKI KOMENTARI........................................................................... 42
3.3. TECHNICAL CONCLUSION / TEHNIČKI ZAKLJUČAK .................................................................. 44
4. GENERAL DESCRIPTION / OPŠTI OPIS.................................................................................................. 46
5. PRELIMINARY DESIGN / IDEJNI PROJEKAT....................................................................................... 48
6. CONCLUSION ON PRELIMINARY DESIGN / ZAKLJUČAK O IDEJNOM PROJEKTU................ 51
7. CONTRACTOR’S CLAIM ANALIZY / ANALIZA POTRAŽIVANJA IZVOĐAČA RADOVA...........53
8. FINAL CONCLUSION / KONAČAN ZAKLJUČAK................................................................................. 59

2

1. INTRODUCTION
Due to Contractor's claim for unforeseeable
geological conditions in occasions of changed
geological conditions, and accordingly
foundation of MSE Wall; observed during
excavation, herewith the Engineer is providing
our expert witness opinion below. This particular
Report shows our opinion on the Contractor's
Claims No. 128, 132 and 132-1, described in
chapter 2 of this Report; and related to Sub-
Section 1.1.1 – MSE Wall on chainage RK
1+093 – RK 1+334.
2. CLAIM EVENT
In Contractor’s submitted Fully Detailed
Overall Claim – The Description of ERE
Under Claim No. AP/EoT 128, Contractor
stated as follow: “During the preparation work
of the reinforced soil embankment (MSE wall)
construction at chainage RK 1+093 – RK
1+334, the unfavourable geological condition –
geological category P was found at part of
foundation zone in thickness exceeding 35,5 m.
As in the Preliminary Design, which is the
design documents provided by Employer at the
tender stage, the geology at the target zone was
categorised as K22 (defined as dominanted by
dolomites, dolomitic limestone) with barely
existind dilluvial deposition on the surface. It is
therefore expected that MSE wall was directly
located on the natural terrain with very limited
excavation.
Obviously, the geological information provided
in Preliminary Design was different and at the
same time it could not enable the Contractor to
predict such large extent of the geology category
P encountered on site, which have caused a
delay and disruption to the progress of the
Works and resulted in unplanned additional
costs and loss of time.
This ERE must be recognized by the CA and has
to have a contractual meaningfull, so that
Contractor considers this ERE fall within
unforeseeable site conditions (SC 4.12 and SC
1.1.6.8).
Supervision of Design and Works
on the Bar – Boljare Highway,
Section Smokovac – Uvač –
Mateševo
1. UVOD
Zbog Izvođačevih potraživanja za nepredvidive
geološke uslove u slučaju izmjenjenih geoloških
uslova, i sukladno tome fundiranju zida od
armirane zemlje, uočenih tokom iskopa,
Inženjer dostavlja svoje stručno mišljenje kako
slijedi. U ovom konkretnom Izvještaju dajemo
mišljenje o Izvođačevim potraživanjima br. 128,
132 i 132-1, koja su opisana u poglavlju 2 ovog
Izvještaja; i odnose se na Poddionicu 1.1.1 - Zid
od armirane zemlje na stacionaži RK 1+093 –
RK 1+334.
2. DOGAĐAJ POTRAŽIVANJA
U dostavljenom Izvođačevom potpunom
detaljnom sveobuhvatnom potraživanju –
Opis ERE shodno Potraživanju br. AP/EoT
128, Izvođač je izjavio slijedeće:
„Tokom pripremnih radova na nasipu od
armiranog tla (MSE zid), na stacionaži RK
1+093 – RK 1+334 pronađeno je nepovoljno
geološko stanje, kategorija P na dijelu zone
temelja u debljini većoj od 35,5 m.
Kao u Idejnom projektu, koji predstavlja
projektnu dokumentaciju koju je obezbijedio
Investitor u fazi Tendera, geologija ciljne zone
je kategorizovana kao K22 (definisana kao zona
u kojoj dominiraju dolomiti, dolomitični
krečnjak) s jedva postojećim deluvijalnim
nanosima na površini. Stoga je očekivano da će
MSE zid biti smješten direktno na prirodnom
terenu, s ograničenom količinom iskopavanja.
Očigledno je da se geološke informacije date u
Idejnom projektu razlikuju i istovremeno se
Izvođaču nije omogućilo da predvidi tako veliki
opseg geologije kategorije P s kojom se suočio
na gradilištu, a koja je prouzrokovala
kašnjenje i remećenje napretka radova i za
rezultat imala neplanirane dodatne troškove i
gubitak vremena.
Ovaj ERE mora biti priznat u US i mora imati
ugovorno značenje, tako da Izvođač smatra da
ERE spada u nepredvidljive uslove na terenu
(PK 4.12 i PK 1.1.6.8).
3

In the chapter The description of the ERE
Under Claim No. AP/EoT 132, Contractor
stated as follow: “Wiith the occurance of
Unforeseeable geological condition during the
construction phase, it is necessary to make a
Main Design change, i.e. to adjust the geometry
of the MSE wall in accordance with the actual
geology to satisfy the structure stability.
However, several months have passed since the
first submission on 07.18.2019, the Main Design
change of MSE wall RK 1+093 – RK 1+334
was still not being approved. The main reason
was that SRP does not accept the compressive
modulus that adopted in the Main Design
change, regardless the fact that this parameter
was defined in the additional geological
elaborate which was already approved by SRP
on 24.07.2019
In order to address the SRP doubts and move
forwards the review progress, the Contractor
has performed in situ test (which is the only way
to get the real compressive modulus) and the
results confirmed the parameters that previously
defined in the additional geological
elaborateand adopted in the Main Design
change are reasonable.
Despite all the efforts that the Contractor made ,
on 07.10.2019 the SRP again returned the Main
Design change that was updated with real
parameter, and strongly suggest the Contractor
to consider other solutions than MSE walls.
Having in mind the prolonged review process of
the Main Design change has caused delay and
disruption to the progress of the Works and
resulted in unplanned additional costs and loss
of time, the Notice of intention to the claim No.
132 under Sub-clause 20.1 was served on
01.11.2019.
In the chapter The description of the ERE
Under Claim No. AP/EoT 132/1, Contractor
stated as follow: “Follow up to the SRP’s
rejection of the Main Design change, the
Contractor has communicated with the SRP and
reached an agreement on the alternative
solution, which is, to replace MSE wall with
general embankment, including RC retaining
wall.
Supervision of Design and Works
on the Bar – Boljare Highway,
Section Smokovac – Uvač –
Mateševo
U poglavlju Opis ERE shodno Potraživanju
br. AP/EoT 132, Izvođač je izjavio slijedeće: S
javljanjem nepredvidljivih geoloških uslova
tokom izgradnje, neophodno je napraviti
izmjenu Glavnog projekta, tj. Prilagoditi
geometriju MSE zida u skladu sa stvarnom
geologijom, da bi se zadovoljili uslovi za
stabilnost konstrukcije.
Međutim, prošlo je nekoliko mjeseci od prvog
dostavljanja dana 18.07.2019., a izmjena
Glavnog projekta za MSE zid RK 1+093 – RK
1+334 još nijje odobrena. Glavni razlog je što
DKR ne prihvata modul stišljivosti koji je
usvojen u izmjeni Glavnog projekta, uprkos
činjenici da je taj parametar bio definisan u
dodatnom Geološkom elaboratu koji je odobrila
DKR dana 24.07.2019.
Da bi odagnale sumnje DKR-a i krenulo dalje s
revizijom, Izvođač je sproveo in-situ ispitivanje
(što je jedini način da se dobije stvarni modul
stišljivosti), i rezultati su potvrdili da su
parametri koji su prethodno definisani u
dodatnom Geološkom elaboratu i usvojeni u
izmjeni Glavnog projekta razumni.
Uprkos naporima Izvođača, dana 07.10.2019.
DKR je ponovo vratila izmjenu Glavnog
projekta koja je ažurirana stvarnim
parametrima, i toplo preporučila Izvođaču da
razmisli o drugim rješenjima, osim MSE zida.
Imajući u vidu da je produženi proces revizije
izmjene Glavnog projekta doveo do kašnjenja i
remećenja napretka radova i rezultirao
neplaniranim dodatnim troškovima i gubitkom
vremena, Obaviještenje o potraživanju br. 132
prema potklauzuli 20.1 je dostavljeno
01.11.2019.
U poglavlju Opis ERE shodno Potraživanju
br. AP/EOT 132/1, Izvođač izjavljuje slijedeće:
„Nakon odbijanja izmjene Glavnog projekta od
strane DKR-a, Izvođač je komunicirao s DKR-
om i postigao dogovor o alternativnom
rješenju, tj. da se MSE zid zamijeni opštim
nasipom, uključujući i AB potporni zid.
Shodno tome, radi preciznijeg definisanja
4

Accordingly, for the more precise definition of
the geological setting for the new solution of
embankment, the Annex to the Design of
additional geotechnical investigations was
submitted by the Contractor on 22.10.2019,
which, however, was rejected by SRP on
29.10.2019 again for the reason that parameter
issue was not resolved. (The truth is, the
Contractor on 10.10 2019 has clearly requested
SRP to indicate which method they consider as
reliable to get applicable parameter, but the
answer was never provided).
From the subsequent communication with the
SRP, Contractor was recommended to conduct
additional test for the compressive modulus. As
this requirement was conducted three months
after the approval of additional geotechnical
elaboration (the document wherein parameter
was defined), and the upcoming unfavourable
rainy season will adversely impact the testing on
site, it, without doubt will further delay the
approval of Main Design change. In this
circumstance, on the date of 02.11.2019 the
Notice of intention to the claim No. 132/1 under
Sub-clause 20.1 was served.
To be noted, there were more requirements /
comments given by SRP thereafter during the
review process (which were also unjusted and
with negative implication and which will be
elaborated in section of this Claim which deals
with factual matter), for which Contractor
choose not to submit new claim notices
separately, but consider them to be covered
under Claim No. 132 & 132-1, as they belong to
the same subject, that is, prolonged review of the
Main Design change.
The Contractor’s submission of the fully detailed
Claim is to be considered as an overall claim,
due to a fact that all of the events giving a rise to
Claim 120, Claim 132 and Claim 132/1 are
interstrickably linked, and all analyses are
inseparably connected, and therefore the effectt
of the events should be presented under
Contractor’s final overall entitlement to EOT
and additional payment.
In the same Report, in the chapter The Events U istom Izvještaju, u poglavlju Događaji koji
giving rise to Claim (Factual-matter analyses) su doveli do potraživanja (Analiza
Supervision of Design and Works
on the Bar – Boljare Highway,
Section Smokovac – Uvač –
Mateševo
geološkog okruženja za novo rješenje za nasip,
Izvođač je dostavio Dodatak Projektu dodatnih
geotehničkih ispitivanja dana 22.10.2019., koji
je, međutim, DKR odbacila dana 29.10.2019.,
ponovo iz razloga što pitanje parametara nije
bilo rješeno (istinu rečeno, Izvođač je dana
10.10.2019 jasno zatražio od DKR-a da
naznači metodu koju smatra pouzdanom za
dobijanje primjenjivih parametara, ali odgovor
noikad nije dat).
Kroz naknadnu komunikaciju s DKR-om,
Izvođaču je preporučeno da sprovede dodatna
ispitivanja za modul stišljivosti. Kako je ovaj
zahtjev postavljen tri mjeseca nakon odobrenja
dodatnog geološkog elaborata (dokumenta u
kom je parametar definisan), i nadolazeće
nepovoljno kišno vrijeme će imati negativan
uticaj na ispitivanja na gradilištu, to će bez
sumnje još odložiti odobravanje izmjene
Glavnog projekta. U takvim okolnostima, dana
02.11.2019. dostavljeno je Obaviještenje o
namjeri potraživanja br. 132/1 prema
potklauzuli 20.1.
Potrebno je napomenuti da je DKR dala još
zahtjeva / komentara o ovom pitanju tokom
procesa revizije (koji su takođe bili
neopravdani i nosili negativne implikacije, a o
čemu će se detaljnije raspravljati u poglavlju
ovog Potraživanja koje se bavi analizom
činjeničnog stanja) za što je Izvođač odlučio da
ne dostavlja nova Potraživanja pojedinačno,
već smatra da su pokriveni Potraživanjima br.
132 i 132/1, budući da spadaju pod isti
predmet, tj. Produženi proces revizije izmjene
Glavnog projekta.
Izvođačevo dostavljanje punog detaljnog
Potraživanja se treba smatrati za sveobuhvatno
Potraživanje, uslijed činjenice da su svi
događaji koji su doveli do Potraživanja br. 128,
132 i 132/1 neraskidivo povezani, i sve analize
neodvojivo povezane, pa se stoga efekti
događaja trebaju predstaviti u okviru
Izvođačevog finalnog sveobuhvatnog prava na
produženje roka za završetak i dodatno
plaćanje.
5

– The Occurance of Unforeseeable geological
condition, Contractor stated as follow:
“According to the approved Main Design of Sub-
Section 1.1.1 (Enclosure 5), the preparation
work of the reinforced soil embankment (MSE
wall) construction at chainage RK 1+093 – RK
1+334 on Sub-Section 1.1.1 was performed on
site. However, during excavation the
unforeseeable geological condition – geology
category P was found at the designed elevation
of foundation level where the firm rock
(limestone) was expected to be reached.
Category P mainly consist of scree material,
including colluvium, limestone debris, with the
low content of clay-send component, and it is
partly bounded. As confirmed by the results of
the subsequent exploration drilling in the
mentioned location (Enclosure 6), the soil
located at RK 1+093 – RK 1+334 is made of the
geological category P, with thickness exceeding
35,5 m.
In the Preliminary Design, which is the design
documents provided by Employer at the tender
stage, and on which bases Contractor’s Offer
was prepared, the geology was defined in the
longitudinal profile and cross sections drawing
(Enclosure 7 – Complete geotechnical cross
section of the terrain km 0+000 – 3+70;
Enclosure 8 – Engineering-geological cross
section profiles from km 0+000 – 2+500;
Enclosure 9 – Cross sections km 1+100 –
1+275). Specifically, the target zone was
dominated by dolomites, dolomitic limestone,
categorized as K22, with bearly existed dilluvial
deposition on the surface. It is therefore
predicted that the proposed MSE wall was
directly located on the nature terrain with very
limited excavation.
Obviously, the geological information provided
in Preliminary Design was different, i.e.
geological conditions have changed compared to
those given in Preliminary Design, at the same
time it could not enable the Contractor to
foresee the condition actually encountered on
the Site as stated above.”
In the chapter The Process of Making Main
Design Change, it is stated: “As in the
approved Main Design, the MSE wall was in
mainly designed and calculated as located on the
Supervision of Design and Works
on the Bar – Boljare Highway,
Section Smokovac – Uvač –
Mateševo
činjeničnog stanja) – Javljanje
nepredvidljive geološke situacije, Izvođač je
izjavio slijedeće: U skladu sa odobrenim
projektom Poddionice 1.1.1 (Prilog 5),
obavljeni su pripremni radovi na nasipu od
armiranog tla (MSE zid) na stacionaži RK
1+093 – RK 1+334, na Poddionici 1.1.1.
Međutim, tokom iskopavanja se naišlo na
nepredvidljivo geološko stanje – geologiju
kategorije P na označenoj koti temelja gdje se
očekivalo da će se naići na čvrstu stijenu
(krečnjak). Kategorija P se uglavnom sastoji od
drobine, uključujući koluvijum, krečnjačku
osulinu, s niskim sadržajem glina-pijesak
komponente, i samo djelomično je povezana.
Kako su potvrdili rezultati naknadnog istražnog
bušenja na navedenoj lokaciji (Prilog 6), tlo na
lokaciji RK 1+093 – RK 1+334 se sastoji od
geološke kategorije P debljine preko 35,5 m.
U idejnom projektu, koji predstavlja projektnu
dokumentaciju koju obezbijeđuje Investitor u
fazi tendera, i na osnovu kojeg je pripremljena
Izvođačeva Ponuda, geologija je definisana u
nacrtima podužnog profila i poprečnog
presjeka (Prilog 7 - Puni geotehnički poprečni
presjek terena km 0+000 do 3+70; Prilog 8 –
Inženjersko-geološki poprečni presjeci profila
km 0+000 – 2+500; Prilog 9 – Poprečni
presjeci km 1+100 – 1+275), Preciznije, u
ciljanoj zoni dominiraju dolomiti, dolomitični
krečnjaci, kategorizirani kao K22, s jedva
postojećim deluvijalnim nanosima na površini.
Stoga je bilo predviđeno da predloženi MSE
zid bude smješten direktno na prirodnom
terenu s veoma ograničenom količinom
iskopavanja.
Očigledno, geološke informacije date u Idejnom
projektu se razlikuju, tj. Geološka situacija se
izmjenila u poređenju na onu datu u Idejnom
projektu, a istovremeno se Izvođaču nije
omogućilo da predvidi situaciju na koju se
naišlo na licu mjesta, kako je gore opisano“.
U poglavlju Proces pravljenja izmjene
Glavnog projekta navedeno je: „ Kako je
odobrenom Glavnom projektu MSE zid
uglavnom projektovan i proračunat kao da stoji
6

rock (see Enclosure 5), with the occurance of
Unforeseeable geological condition during the
construction phase, it is necessary to develop a
Main Design change in comply with the actual
geology, i.e. to re-check all the representative
cross sectionsand adjust the geometry of MSE
wall to sattisfie the structure stability.
On 26.04.2019 the Contractor by letter RB-
BBH/1422/EM-P1 (Enclosure 10) submitted to
SRP the Design of additional geotechnical
investigation, which includes 5 borehole drilling
to the depth of 20 m, followed by testing. The
purpose of work was to provide more details of
actual geological situation for making the Main
Design change.
On 17.05.2019, the Enployer by letter
PJ/5166/DB (Enclosure 11) sent to the
Contractor SRP’s approval of Design of
additional geotechnical investigation.
On 24.06.2019 the Contractor by letter RB-
BBH/2237/EM-P1 (Enclosure 12) submitted to
SRP the Elaboration of additional geotechnical
investigations, that is based on investigation
results, the soil located at RK 1+093 – RK
1+334 is made of category P1 with thickness
exceeding 13 m, conditions for construction of
the reinforced soil retaining wall should be
adjusted accordingly; instead of the original
method on the Main Design – a reinforced soil
embankment founded on the rock (in that case,
there will be a very deep foundation, which is a
low economic benefit solution), it is
recommended that a reinforced soil embankment
with buttress to be applied, which, analized from
aspect of stability and bearing capacity has good
results.
On 06.07.2019, the Enployer by letter
PJ/7193/DB (Enclosure 13) sent to the
Contractor the SRP’s review report on
Elaboration of additional geotechnical
investigations, which give comment that 4
boreholes were not drilled up to the designed
depth, and concluded that the geotechnical
model of the ground was not fully defined;
accordingly the interpretation of the
engineering-geological section of the terrain
were not reliable.
Supervision of Design and Works
on the Bar – Boljare Highway,
Section Smokovac – Uvač –
Mateševo
na stijeni (v Prilog 5), s javljanjem
nepredvidljive geološke situacije tokom faze
izgradnje, neophodno je bilo sprovesti izmjenu
Glavnog projekta u skladu sa stvarnom
geologijom, tj. Ponovo provjeriti sve
reprezentativne poprečne presjeke i prilagoditi
geometriju MSE zida da bi se zadovoljili uslovi
stabilnosti konstrukcije.
Dana 26.04.2019. Izvođač je dopisom RB-
BBH/1422/EM-P1 (Prilog 10) dostavio DKR-u
Projekat dodatnih geotehničkih ispitivanja,
koji obuhvata bušenje pet rupa dubine do 20 m,
nakon čega slijedi ispitivanje. Svrha ovih
radova je da se dobije više detalja o stvarnom
geološkom stanju radi izvođenja izmjene
Glavnog projekta.
Dana 17.05.2019 Investitor je dopisom
PJ/5166/DB (Prilog 11) poslao Izvođaču
odobrenje DKR-a za Projekat dodatnih
geotehničkih istpitivanja.
Dana 24.06.2019. Izvođač je dopisom RB-
BBH/2237/EM-P1 (Prilog 12) dostavio DKR-u
Elaborat dodatnih geotehničkih ispitivanja, tj.
na temelju rezultata ispitivanja se pokazalo da
tlo na RK 1+093 – RK 1+334 pripada
kategoriji P1 sa debljinom preko 13 m, pa
uslove za izvođenje potpornog zida od
armiranog tla treba prilagoditi shodno tome:
umjesto originalne metode u Glavnom projektu
– nasip od armiranog tla utemeljen na stijeni (u
tom slučaju bi temelji bili veoma duboki, što je
rješenje niske ekonomske koristi), preporučuje
se primjena nasipa od armiranog tla s
podupiračima, što sa aspekta stabilnosti i
nosivosti ima dobre rezultate.
Dana 05.07.2019 Investitor je dopisom
PJ/7193/DB (Prilog 13) poslao Izvođaču
izvještaj DKR-a o Elaboratu dodatnih
geotehničkih ispitivanja, s komentarom da 3
bušotine nisu izbušene do projektovane
dubine, zaključivši da geotehnički model tla
nije u potpunosti definisan, pa shodno tome
tumačenje inženjersko-geološke sekcije terena
nije pouzdano.
7

On 18.07.2019 the Contractor by letter RB-
BBH/2630/EM-P1 (Enclosure 14) submitted to
SRP the updated version of Elaboration of
additional geotechnical investigations, which
provided explanation for the adjustments of the
designed depth of the boreholes. Namely, based
on the experience of the Designer and developed
geostatic calculations, P1 can be the subsoil for
planned reinforced soil embankment, for two
boreholes that were drilling down to recpectivly
15 m and 13 m depth in category P1, the
information provided from such depths is enough
for making Main Design change; for the third
one that was drilled to category P2 at the depth
of 12 m, the soil categorywas already made clear
and the soil characteristicscan only be increased
with depth, in such case it was unnecessary to
continue drilling down. In Contractor’s opinion,
the investigation works and tests performed are
adequate and can provide reliable input data for
making the adjustment ofr Main Design solution
.
On 24.07.2019, the Enployer by letter
PJ/8039/DB (Enclosure 15) sent to the
Contractor the SRP’s approval of Elaboration
on additional geotechnical investigations, with a
condition that the solution itself (the proposed
adjustment of the Main Design solution) can
latter be accepted.
On 18.07.2019 the Contractor by letter RB-
BBH/2629/EM-P1 (Enclosure 16) submitted to
SRP the Main Design change for Reinforced Soil
Embankment RK 1+093 – RK 1+334 (“Version
1” for easy reference). Namely, based on actual
geological situation and evidenced by
calculation, the MSE wall solution can be kept,
but with the following adjustment: lower down a
part of wall foundation and increase the length
of geogrids; lift up a part of wall foundation;
and apply ballast solution at a certain zone.
On 02.08.2019, the Enployer by letter
PJ/8490/DB (Enclosure 17) sent to the
Contractor the SRP’s report on review of the
Main Design change – Version 1, in which SRP
gave comments that used geological and
geotechnical parameters in calculation have not
been taken correctly from the Elaboration of
additional geotechnical investigations, also the
Designer should provide more details of
comparison of the original solution and newly
Supervision of Design and Works
on the Bar – Boljare Highway,
Section Smokovac – Uvač –
Mateševo
Dana 18.07.2019. Izvođač je dopisom RB-
BBH/2630/DS-DS1 (Prilog 14) dostavio DKR-u
ažuriranu verziju Elaborata dodatnih
geotehničkih ispitivanja, u kom se dalo
objašnjenje za prilagođavane dubine bušotina.
Naime, na temelju iskustava Projektanta i
sprovedenih geostatičkih proračuna, P1 može
biti podtlo za planirani nasip od armiranog tla,
a za dvije bušotine dubine 13 i 15 m respektivno
u kategoriji P1, informacije dobijene s tih
dubina su dovoljne za pravljenje izmjene
Glavnog projekta; što se tiče treće koja je
izbušena u kategoriji P2 na dubinu od 12 m,
kategorija tla je već bila jasna i karakteristike
tla se mogu samo povećavati s dubinom, te u
tom slučaju nije bilo neophodno nastaviti s
dubljim bušenjem.
Po mišljenju Izvođača, istražni radovi i
ispitivanja koja su sprovedena su odgovarajuća
i mogu pružiti pouzdane podatke za vršenje
prilagođavanja rješenja Glavnog projekta.
Dana 24.07.2019 Investitor je dopisom
PJ/8039/DB (Prilog 15) poslao Izvođaču
odobrenje Elaborata od strane DKR-a za
dodatna geotehnička ispitivanja, uz uslov da
samo rješenje predloženo prilagođavanje
rješenja Glavnog projekta)može kasnije biti
prihvaćeno.
Dana 18.07.2019. Izvođač je dopisom RB-
BBH/2629/DS-DS1 (Prilog 16) dostavio DKR-u
izmjenu Glavnog projekta za nasip od
armiranog tla RK 1+093 – RK 1+334
(„Verzija 1“ – radi lakše reference). Naime, na
temelju stvarne geološke situacije i kako je
posvjedočeno proračunima, može se zadržati
rješenje za MSE zid, ali uz slijedeća
prilagođavanja: spustiti dio temeja zida i
povećati dužinu geo-mreža; podići dio temelja
zida i podići balast u određenoj zoni.
Dana 02.08.2019. Investitor je dopisom
PJ/8490/DB (Prilog 17) poslao Izvođaču
izvještaj revizije DKR-a o izmjeni Glavnog
projekta – Verzija 1, u kom je DKR dala
komentare da primjenjeni geotehnički i geološki
parametri pri izračunavanju nisu bili pravilno
preuzeti iz Elaborata dodatnih geotehničkih
ispitivanja, i takođe da Projektant treba da
8
 Supervision of Design and Works
on the Bar – Boljare Highway,
Section Smokovac – Uvač –
Mateševo

designed solution. pruži više detalja u pogledu poređenja

originalnog rješenja i novoprojektovanog
On 05.08.2019 the Contractor by letter RB- rješenja.
BBH/2918/DS-DS1 (Enclosure 18) submitted to
SRP the updatedMain Design change – Version
2, which provided more details as SRP Dana 05.08.2019. Izvođač je dopisom RB-
required.But, as it was latter found that BBH/2918/DS-DS1 (Prilog 18) dostavio DKR-u
parameters remain uncorrected, on 14.08.2019, ažuriranu izmjenu Glavnog projekta – Verzija
the Contractor by letter RB-BBH/3092/DS-DS1 2, u kojoj je dato više detalja, kako je
(Enclosure 19) withdrow the above submission, zahtijevala DKR. Međutim, kako se kasnije
and the same day by letter RB-BBH/3097/DS- uvidjelo da parametri nisu korigovani, dana
DS1 (Enclosure 20)resubmitted the Main Design 14.08.2019 Izvođač je dopisom RB-
change – updated Version 2. BBH/3092/DS-DS1 (Prilog 19) povukao gornji
podnesak, i istog dana dopisom RB-
On 19.08.2019, the Employer by letter BBH/3097/DS-DS1 (Prilog 20) ponovno
PJ/9189/DB (Enclosure 21) sent to the dostavio izmjenu Glavnog projekta – ažuriranu
Contractor the SRP’s report on review of the verziju 2.
Main Design change – Version 2, but the
comments of SRP were given to the withdrowen Dana 19.08.2019. Investitor je dopisom
version, as it is stated that the parameters were PJ/9189/DB (Prilog 21) poslao Izvođaču
still not corrected; also, it stated that the izvještaj revizije DKR-a o izmjeni Glavnog
Designer made calculation with “insufficiently projekta – Verzija 2, ali komentari DKR-a su
reliable interpretation of the engineering- dati na povučenu verziju, budući da je
geological section of the terrain”. navedeno kako parametri još nisu korigovani,
takođe je navedeno da je Projektant vršio
On 22.08.2019 the Contractor by letter RB- proračun sa „nedovoljno pouzdanim
BBH/3226/DS-DS1 (Enclosure 22) submitted to tumačenjem inženjersko-geološke sekcije
SRP Main Design change – Version 3, which terena“.
provided clarification that the parameters were
already corrected and the calculation was also
updated; regarding SRP questioning to the Dana 22.08.2019. Izvođač je dopisom RB-
reliability of the geological information used as
BBH/3226/DS-DS1 (Prilog 22) dostavio DKR-u
the bases for calculation, Contractor replied that
izmjenu Glavnog projekta – Verzija 3, u kojoj
there is no assumption or interpretation ofsu data pojašnjenja da su parametri već
geological models, because all of them are from
korigovani i da je proračun ažuriran; što se tiče
approved additional geotechnical elaboration,
ispitivanja od strane DKR-a u pogledu
which met the requirements of the structurepouzdanosti geoloških informacija korišćenih
design and provided reliable and sufficientkao temelj za proračun, Izvođač je odgoovorio
bases for the structure calculation, no more
da nema pretpostavke tumačenja geotehničkih
geological investigation works will be needed.
modela, budući da svi potiču iz odobrenog
Contractor emphasized that MSE wall is flexible
Geotehničkog elaborata, čime se osiguravaju
structure which is suitable for most of thezahtjevi projekta i konstrukcije i osigurava
geology. To be noted, the given geology pouzdana i dovoljna osnova za strukturne
profileand parameters in the additional proračune, i nisu potrebni dodatni istražni
geological elaboration were more conservative
radovi. Izvođač je naglasio da je MSE zid
than the real situation (the foundation already
fleksibilna konstrukcija koja je odgovarajuća
excavated), and even according to the more za većinu geologija. Potrebno je navesti da su
conservative data, the newly designed solution
dati geološki profil i parametri u dodatnom
of MSE wall was verified to be satisfying. geološkom elaboratu bili konzervativniji, od
stvarnog rješenja (temelj već iskopan), te je čak
In the chapter Claim Notice No. AP/EOT 128 u skladu s konzervativnijim podacima novo
Contractor stated as follow: projektno rješenje za MSE zid provjereno

9

“On 02.09.2019 the Contractor by letter RB-
BBH/3444/CD-P1 (Enclosure 1) submitted to
the Engineer the Notice of intention to claim
Extension of Time for Completion and Addition
Payment No. 128 under Sub-clause 20.1, as the
occurrence of Unforeseeable geological
condition at the foundation of reinforced soil
embankment chainage RK 1+093 – RK 1+334
on Sub-Section 1.1.1 and subsequent need of
making Main Design change have made the
activity “MSE wall construction and backfilling”
unable to start on the scheduled date of
29.08.2019 in accordance with the latest
Programme Gant Chart as a part of
Contractor’s Proposal for Appendix 5
Subsequent Works with Completion date of
30.09.2020).
On 05.09.2019, the Employer by letter
PJ/9189/DB (Enclosure 23) sent to the
Contractor 23the SRP’s review report of Main
Design change – updated Version 2, in which
the SRP stated that Designer did not provide
responses or amendments to their previous
objections on used geological information; in
addition, the new comments were given: the
compression module for category P1 used in
calculation was overestimatedand should be
reduced; it is necessary to make an
improvements to the ground by grouting,
throught the entire width of excavation.
On 10.09.2019, the Employer by letter
PJ/10830/DB (Enclosure 24) sent to the
Contractor the SRP’s review report of Main
Design change – updated Version 3, which
confirmed that “the design engineers have, for
the most part, met the objections and made
proper amendment”, but “the question of the
compaction modul for the category (P) used in
calculations remains open…the value of 15 MPa
is overestimated”.
It should be noted the fact that the parameter –
compression modul for category P1 was first
defined in additional geotechnical elaborate, no
comment was given by SRP on it at that time,
and the document was approved on 24.07.2019
(Enclosure 15). Now, in the late phase of
reviewing of the Main Design change, SRP went
back to question the parameter that was defined
in the already approved document and
Supervision of Design and Works
on the Bar – Boljare Highway,
Section Smokovac – Uvač –
Mateševo
zadovoljavajuće.
U poglavlju Obaviještenje o Potraživanju br.
AP/EOT 128, Izvođač izjavljuje slijedeće:
„Dana 02.09.2019. Izvođač je dopisom RB-
BBH/3444/CD-P1 (Prilog 1) dostavio Inženjeru
Obaviještenje o namjeri potraživanja
Produženja roka za završetak i Dodatnog
plaćanja br. 128 u skladu sa Pkl 20.1 budući da
je pojava nepredvidivih geoloških uslova na
temelju nasipa od armiranog tla, stacionaža RK
1+093 – RK 1+334, na poddionici 1.1.1 i
naknadna neophodnost izmjene Glavnog
projekta onemogućila početak aktivnosti
„Izgradnja i zatrpavanje MSE zida“ planiranog
datuma 29.08.2019. u skladu s najnovijim
gantogramom programa kao dijelove
Izvođačevog predloga za Naknadne radove iz
Priloga 5 s datumom završetka 30.09.2020.).
Dana 05.09.2019. Investitor je dopisom
PJ/10576/DB (Prilog 23) poslao Izvođaču
izvještaj revizije DKR-a o izmjeni Glavnog
projekta – ažurirana Verzija 2, u kojoj je DKR
navela da Projektant nije dao odgovor ili
ispravke na prethodne primjedbe o
upotrijebljenim geološkim informacijama;
pored toga, dati su novi komentari: modul
stišljivosti za kategoriju P1 korišten u
proračunima je precijenjen i trebalo bi ga
umanjiti; neophodno je sprovesti pobaljšanje
tla injektiranjem kroz čitavu širinu nasipa.
Dana 10.09.2019. Investitor je dopisom
PJ/10830/DB (Prilog 24) poslao Izvođaču
izvještaj revizije DKR-a o izmjeni Glavnog
projekta – ažurirana Verzija 3, kojom se
potvrdilo da su Projektanti uglavnom „ispunili
zahtjeve date u primjedbama i sproveli
odgovarajuće ispravke“, ali pitanje modula
stišljivosti upotrijebljenom za kategoriju (P) u
proračunima ostaje otvoreno...vrijednost od 15
MPa je precijenjena.
Potrebno je napomenuti činjenicu da je
parametar – modul stišljivosti za kategoriju P1
prvo definisan u dodatnom geološkom
elaboratu, i da u to vrijeme DKR nije dala
nikakav komentar, a dokument je odobren dana
10

consequently rejectied the Main Design change
two times, this approach undoubtly would impact
the approval process.
While the Contractor is of the firm opinion that
the parameter applied in the Main Design
change is reasonable, having in mind SRP’s
doubts on it, the Contractor decided to prove the
load bearing capacity of the soil category P1 by
in situ test (the circular plate method), which is
the only way to get a real compression module.
The results, subsequentlyobtained were much
larger than 15 MPa (ranged from 50 MPa to 100
MPa), which means, the parameter used in
calculations was not overestimatedas SRP stated
(instead, it’s moe conservative).
On 16.09.2019 the Contractor by letter RB-
BBH/3629/CD-P1 (Enclosure 25) invited SRP to
be present on site for testing.
On 17.09.2019 the Contractor by letter RB-
BBH/3660/EM-P1 (Enclosure 26) explained to
the Engineer about the parameter (compression
module) issue, and invited the Engineer to be
also on site to supervise the testing.
On 18.09.2019 the Engineer by letter
IG/12511/VMR (Enclosure 27) replied that the
additional test for providing further evidence
was neither introduced in SRP’s review reports
nor approved by the SRP.
On 23.09.2019 the Contractor by letter RB-
BBH/3777/CD-P1 (Enclosure 28) gave further
explanation: in view of different opinion from
SRP on parameter issue, the only possible option
is to re-establish the factual situation by
performing in situ testing and that’s was what
Contractor did. However, the SRP and
Engineer bothhave rejected to come to site. The
testing was then performed with presence of the
Contractor’s designer and the geological
engineers from Geoproject (the company
authorized to perform the additional
geotechnical works), test report will be
submitted soon. The Contractor highlighted that
he has made a great efforts in solving the current
issue to expedite the review process, but the
approval of the Main Design change cannot be
achieved by the one-side effort, it required more
involvement aaand understanding of all parts
Supervision of Design and Works
on the Bar – Boljare Highway,
Section Smokovac – Uvač –
Mateševo
24.07.2019. (v Prilog 15). Sada, u kasnoj fazi
revizije izmjene Glavnog projekta, DKR se
vraća na pitanje parametra koji je definisan u
već odobrenom dokumentu, i shodno tome dva
puta odbija izmjenu Glavnog projekta, a takav
pristup će bez sumnje uticati na proces
odobravanja.
Iako je Izvođač uvjeren da je parametar
usvojen u izmjeni Glavnog projekta razuman,
imajući u vidu sumnje DKR-a, Izvođač odlučuje
da dokaže nosivost tla kategorije
P1ispitivanjem in-situ (metoda kružne ploče),
što je jedini način da se dobije stvarni modul
stišljivosti. Rezultati koji su dobijeni su mnogo
veći od 15 MPa (kretali su se od 50 MPa do
100 MPa), što znači da parametar upotrijebljen
u proračunu nije precijenjen, kako je tvrdila
DKR (štoviše, isti je konzervativniji).
Dana 16.09.2019. Izvođač je dopisom RB-
BBH/3629/CD-P1 (Prilog 25) pozvao DKR da
prisustvuje ispitivanju na gradilištu.
Dana 17.09.2019. Izvođač je dopisom RB-
BBH/3660/EM-P1 (Prilog 26) Inženjeru dao
objašnjenje o parametru (modul stišljivosti) i
pozvao ga da takođe prisustvuje na gradilištu i
nadzire ispitivanje.
Dana 18.09.2019. Inženjer je dopisom
IG/12511/VMR (Prilog 27) odgovorio da
dodatno ispitivanje za pružanje dodatnih
dokaza nije niti uvedeno kroz izvještaj DKR-a
o reviziji, niti ga je DKR odobrila.
Dana 23.09.2019. Izvođač je dopisom RB-
BBH/3777/CD-P1 (Prilog 28) dao daljnja
pojašnjenja; što se tiče mišljenja DKR-a o
pitanju parametra, jedino je moguće rješenje je
da se utvrdi činjenično stanje izvođenjem
ispitivanja in situ, i to je Izvođač i učinio.
Međutim, i DKR i Inženjer su odbili da dođu
na gradilište. Ispitivanje je stoga provedeno uz
prisustvo Izvođačevog Projektanta i geoloških
inženjera iz Geoprojekta (kompanije ovlaštene
za izvođenje dodatnih geotehničkih radova), i
izvještaj sa ispitivanja će biti uskoro dostavljen.
Izvođač je naglasio da je uložio velike napore u
11

concerned.
On 26.09.2019 the Contractor by letter RB-
BBH/3806/DS-DS1 (Enclosure 29) submitted to
SRP Main Design change – Version 4,
supplemented with the test report for
compressive module of categories P1 and P2.
This time, the compression modules from the
additional geological report are based on in situ
test at the designed foundation level, which are
the real parameters of the soil. Specifically, the
values for category P1 are ranged with 42,4 to
132 MPa, and for P2 they are 55,6 – 134,5 MPa,
which proves that the previous used parameter
15 MPa was not “overestimated”. The
calculations were updated by adopting the most
adverse case, that is 45 MPa for P1 and 50 MPa
for P2, the conclusion is that the newly designed
solution is fully adequate, no more grouting is
needed.
On 08.10.2019, the Employer by letter
PJ/11939/DB (Enclosure 30) sent to the
Contractor the SRP’s review report of Main
Design change –Version 4. This time, the SRP
unexpectably brought up his comment given to
additional geological Elaborate three months
ago, i.e. three boreholes were not drilled up to
the designed depth, and requested Contractor to
complete those investigation works. (Clearly the
Contractor had already provided explanations in
the updated elaborate which were latter
accepted by SRP in its approval on 24.07.2019).
In addition, SRP stated the applied test method
(circular plate with diameter of 30 cm)”may not
be deemed as valid-adequate for testing of the
established ground (environment P1), so the
obtained measurement results are deceiving”.
Therefore, Contractor should “apply rellible
methods for determing the module of
compression of scree material (category 1) at
greather depths”. Meanwile, SRP emphasised
the characteristics of geological category P1
and “strongly recommend to the Contractor to
consider alternative solutions.”
On 10.10.2019 the Contractor by letter RB-
BBH/4030/DS-DS1 (Enclosure 31) summarized
the Main Design change review process and
expressed Contractor’s stances and objections to
SRP comments. Namely, during the past three
Supervision of Design and Works
on the Bar – Boljare Highway,
Section Smokovac – Uvač –
Mateševo
rješavanje tekućeg pitanjada bi ubrzao proces
revizije, ali odobrenje izmjene Glavnog
projekta se ne može postići jednostranim
naporima, i potrebno je više uključenosti i
razumijevanja od svih zainteresovanih strana.
Dana 26.09.2019. Izvođač je dopisom RB-
BBH/3806/DS-DS1 (Prilog 29) dostavio DKR-u
izmjenu Glavnog projekta – Verzija 4, uz
dodatak izvještaja sa ispitivanja za modul
stišljivosti za kategorije P1 i P2.Ovog puta su
moduli stišljivosti iz dodatnog geološkog
izvještaja temeljeni na ispitivanju in situ na
projektovanom nivou temelja, što su stvarni
parametri tla. Preciznije, vrijednosti za
kategoriju P1 su u rasponu 42,4 do 132 MPa, a
za P2 se kreću 55,6 – 134,5 MPa, što dokazuje
da prethodno korišteni parametar 15 MPa nije
precijenjen. Proračuni su ažurirani usvajanjem
najnepovoljnijeg slučaja, tj 45 MPa za P1 i 50
MPa za P2, iz čega se zaključuje da je
novoprojektovano rješenje u potpunosti
adekvatno i da nije potrebno dodatno
injektiranje.
Dana 08.10.2019. Investitor je dopisom
PJ/11939/DB (Prilog 30) poslao Izvođaču
izvještaj DKR-a o reviziji izmjene Glavnog
projekta –Verzija 4. Ovaj put je DKR
neočekivano potegla svoj komentar dat na
dodatni geološki elaborat tri mjeseca ranije, tj.
da 3 bušotine nisu izbušene do projektovane
dubine, i zatražila da Izvođač sprovede te
istražne radove. (jasno je da je Izvođač već dao
objašnjenje u ažuriranom Elaboratu koga je
kasnije prihvatila DKR svojim odobrenjem
dana 24.07.2019.). Pored toga, DKR je izjavila
da se korištena metoda ispitivanja (kružna
ploča prečnika 30 cm) ne može smatrati
valjanom-adekvatnom, za ispitivanje utvrđenog
tla (kategorije P1), tako da dobiveni rezultati
mjerenja zavaravaju. Prema tome, Izvođač bi
trebao primjeniti pouzdane metode za
određivanje modula stišljivosti drobinskog
materijala (kategorija P1) na većoj dubini“. U
međuvremenu, DKR je naglasila karakteristike
geološke kategorije P1 i „toplo preporučila
Izvođaču da razmotri alternativna rješenja“.
Dana 10.10.2019. Izvođač je dopisom RB-
12
 Supervision of Design and Works
on the Bar – Boljare Highway,
Section Smokovac – Uvač –
Mateševo

months the Contractor have submitted four BBH/4030/DS-DS1 (Prilog 31) sumarno
versions of the Main Design change document, predstavio proces odobrenja izmjene Glavnog
but still not got approval. The main reason was projekta i izrazio stavove i primjedbe Izvođača
that SRP does not accept the applied na stavove DKR-a. Naime, u protekla tri
compressive modulus, regardless of the fact that mjeseca je Izvođač dostavio četiri verzije
this parameter was the first defined in the dokumentacije izmjene Glavnog projekta, ali i
approved additional geological elaborate, then dalje nije dobio odobrenje. Glavni razlog je što
was confirmed by in situ test (technical DKR ne prihvata primjenjeni modul stišljivosti,
explanation to the validation of the test method uprkos činjenici da je taj parametat prvotno
was further given in the subject letter). In definisan u odobrenom dodatnom geološkom
addition, SRP insisted that category P1 could elaboratu i potom potvrđen in situ ispitivanjima
not be a foundation soil for any structure thus (tehničko obaviještenje za valjanost metode
strongly recommended Contractor to consider ispitivanja je dato u predmetnom dopisu).
alternative design solutions, but it is also Pored toga, DKR je insistirala da kategorija
verified by the calculation that category P1 can P1ne može biti temeljno tlo za bilo koju
be foundation for MSE wall. konstrukciju, pa je stoga toplo preporučila
Izvođaču da razmotri alternativna rješenja, ali
In conclusion, the test method is reliable, the je takođe proračunom utvrđeno da kategorija
parameter is realistic and applicable, and the P1 može biti temelj za MSE zid.
adjusted design solution could work adequately,
the Contractor considered the SRP’s rejection of
the Main Design change is ungrounded and U zaključku, metoda ispitivanja je pouzdana,
unjustified. But the Contractor is still willing toparametar je realan i primjenjiv, a
consider other possible solutions according to prilagođeno projektno rješenje se može
the SRP suggestion, in order for the imphasse to adekvatno primjeniti, Izvođač smatra da je
be sooner overcome. The problem is, the soil DKR-ovo odbijanje izmjene Glavnog projekta
parameters are the basic data for any kind of the neutemeljeno i neopravdano. Međutim, Izvođač
structure solution, if this issue remain unsolved, je i dalje voljan da razmotri druga moguća
no substantial progress could be made, so the rješenja u skladu sa sugestijama DKR-a, da bi
Contractor asked SRP to clearly advise what is se što prije izašlo iz ćorsokaka. Problem je što
the reason of rejecting of defined parameters; su parametri tla osnovni podaci za bilo kakvu
ooor, to instruct which testing method in their vrstu konstrukcijskog rješenja, i ako se to
opinion is “reliable” to provide applicable pitanje ne riješi, nije moguće načiniti bilo
parameters. kakav značajan napredak, tako da je Izvođač
There is no reply from SRP. zatražio od DKR-a da jasno posavjetuje što je
razlog za odbijanje definisanih parametara, ili
da uputu koja metoda ispitivanja je po
In the chapter Claim Notice No. AP/EOT 132 njihovom mišljenju „pouzdana“ za dobijanje
Contractor stated as follow: primjenjivih parametara.
“On 23.10.2019, having in mind the SRP’s Nismo dobili nikakav odgovor od DKR-a.
unjustified rejection has prolonger the approval
process of Main Design change for Reinforced U poglavlju Obaviještenje o Potraživanju br.
Soil Embankment RK 1+093 – RK 1+334 and AP/EOT 132, Izvođač izjavljuje slijedeće:
led to further delay, the Contractor by letter RB- „Dana 23.10.2019. imajući u vidu da je
BBH/4189/CD (see Enclosure 2) submitted to neopravdano odbijanje od strane DKR-a
the EngineerNotice of intention to claim produžilo proces odobravanja izmjene Glavnog
Extension of Time for Completion and projekta nasipa od armiranog tla RK 1+093 –
Additional Payment No. 132 under Sub-clause RK 1+334 i dovelo do daljnjeg kašnjenja,
20.1. Izvođač je dopisom RB-BBH/4189/CD (v Prilog
2)dostavio Inženjeru obaviještenje o namjeri
Meanwhile, heaving in mind the huge time huge potraživanja produženja Roka za završetak i
time loss incurred and in order to push forward Dodatnog plaćanja br. 132 u skladu sa Pkl

13

the review process as SRP rejected the Main
Design change, the Contractor communicated
with the SRP and reached an agreement on the
alternative solution, that is, to replace MSE wall
with general embankment, including RC
retaining wall.
Accordingly, for the more precised definition of
geological setting for the new solution of
embankment, on 22.10.2019, the Contractor by
letter RB-BBH/4177/EM-P1 (Enclosure 32)
submitted to the SRP the Annex to the Design of
additional geotechnical investigations for
approval. Namely, the boreholes that were early
finished drilling will be re-drilled to the full
depth as required. The trial pits will be
excavated in the area of possible retaining wall
down to the P2 category in which the structure
will be founded, and the compressibility modul
for categories P1 and P2 will be determinated by
circular plate method.
On 29.10.2019, the Employer by letter
PJ/12879/DB (Enclosure 33) sent to the
Contractor the SRP’s review report, in which the
SRP gave specific comment that the boreholes
should be 2 m into the rock. However, the fact is
that this requirement could not be a mandatory
one, as defined in approved Design of additional
geological investigation works: depth of the
boreholes will be 2 m of entry into solid rock or
20 m depth”. In addition, SRP insisted the test
method of soil compaction modulus is not
reliable. Regarding this objection, the
Contractor has already in previous letter (see
Enclosure 31) provided technical explanations
and explicitly asked SRP to instruct which
method they consider as reliable, but the answer
was never provided, now, SRP is only repeating
the same comment that they previously given and
still not providing the requested answer, which,
would only led to further loss of time.
Upon the receipt of this negative review report,
there has been unofficial communication
between Contractor and SRP about above stated
objections, according to which the Contractor is
recommended to conduct test, that is, to still
apply the circular plate method, but adjust the
plate diameter from 30 cm to 60 cm.
Supervision of Design and Works
on the Bar – Boljare Highway,
Section Smokovac – Uvač –
Mateševo
20.1.
U međuvremenu, imajući u vidu već pretrpljeni
veliki gubitak vremena, i kako bi se krenulo
naprijed s procesom revizije kako je DKR
odbijala izmjene Glavnog projekta, Izvođač je
bio u komunikaciji s DKR-om i postigao
dogovor o alternativnom rješenju, tj. da se
MSE zid zamijeni opštim nasipom, uključujući
AB potporni zid.
Shodno tome, radi definisanja geološkog
okruženja za novo rješenje za nasip, dana
22.10.2019. Izvođač je dopisom RB-
BBH/4177/EM-P1 (Prilog 32) dostavio DKR-u
dodatak Projekta detaljnih geotehničkih
ispitivanja na odobrenje. Naime, bušotine koje
su ranije završene će biti ponovo izbušene do
pune dubine, kako je zahtijevano. Probne jame
će se iskopati u područjima mogućeg potpornog
zida do kategorije P2 u kojoj će konstrukcija
biti utemeljena, a modul stišljivosti za
kategorije P1 i P2 će se odrediti metodom
kružne ploče.
Dana 29.10.2019. Investitor je dopisom
PJ/12879/DB (Prilog 33) poslao Izvođaču
izvještaj DKR-a o reviziji, u kojem je DKR dala
specifičan komentar da bušotine treba da idu 2
m u stijenu. Međutim, činjenica je da taj
zahtjev ne može biti obavezan, jer je odobrenim
Projektom dodatnog geološkog ispitivanja
navedeno „dubina bušotina će biti 2 m do
ulaska u čvrstu stijenu ili dubine 20 m“. Pored
toga, DKR je insistirala da metoda ispitivanja
modula stišljivosti tla nije pouzdana. Što se
tiče primjedbe, Izvođač je već u prethodnom
dopisu (v Prilog 31) dao tehničko objašnjenje i
direktno pitao DKR da uputi koju metodu
smatra za pouzdanu, ali odgovor nikad nije
dobio. Sad DKR samo ponavlja isti komentar
koji su prethodno dali, a i dalje ne daje traženi
odgovor, što samo vodi do daljeg gubitka
vremena.
Po prijemu ovog negativnog izvještaja o
reviziji, obavljala se nezvanična komunikacija
između Izvođača i DKR-a oko gore navedenih
14

It should be noted, that this requirement of
additional test for obtaining parameter (soil
compaction modulus) was introduced by SRP in
significant delay, that is, after three months, has
passed since the approval of additional
geological elaborate on 24.07.2019 in which
parameter was defined, not to mention whether
this requirement has the justified couse.
Furthermore, with the coming of unfavourable
rainy season, the progress of in situ testing will
be significantly impacted considering its weather
sensitive nature, this, without the doubt will
further delay with the approval of Main Design
change.
In the chapter Claim Notice No. AP/EOT 132-1
Contractor stated as follow:
“On 01.11.2019 the Contractor by letter RB-
BBH/4347/CD (see Enclosure 3)submitted to the
Engineer Notice of Notice to Claim Extension of
Time for Completion and Additional Payment
No. 132/1 under Sub-clause 20.1, due to further
prolonged review process for the Main Design
change for Reinforced Soil Embankment RK
1+093 – RK 1+334.
On 07.11.2019 the Contractor by letter RB-
BBH/4415/EM-P1 (Enclosure 34) submitted to
SRP the new Design of additional geotechnical
investigations. Namely, according to SRP’s
requirement, the circular plate test will use the
plate with diameter 60 cm.
On 15.11.2019, the Employer by letter
PJ/13687/DB (Enclosure 35) sent to the
Contractor the SRP’s review report. In the
report, SRP gave requirement that two more
boreholes should be conducted at the foundation
of the wall. This was again a new comment,
which was not given to Contractor’s previous
submission of Annex to Design of additional
geotechnical investigations, whereby the
embankment and RC retaining wall solution was
already proposed. In addition, SRP required to
adopt the minimum value of the soil parameters
in the design, which was an unjustified
requirement and will only increase the cost of
alrernative solution, as well as the time
consumed.
On 19.11.2019 the Contractor by letter RB-
BBH/4564/DS-DS1 (Enclosure 36) submitted to
Supervision of Design and Works
on the Bar – Boljare Highway,
Section Smokovac – Uvač –
Mateševo
primjedbi, u skladu s čime je Izvođač
preporučio izvođenje ispitivanja po istom
principu kao prethodna ispitivanja, tj. da se i
dalje primjenjuje metoda kružne ploče, ali
prilagodi prečnik ploče sa 30 na 60 cm.
Potrebno je napomenuti da je ovaj zahtjev za
dodatnim ispitivanjem radi dobijanja
parametra (modul stišljivosti tla) DKR dala sa
značajnim kašnjenjem, tj. da je prošlo nekoliko
mjeseci od odobrenja Dodatnog geološkog
elaborata dana 24.07.2019. u kom je parametar
definisan, a da se ne govori o tome da li je taj
zahtjev uopšte bio opravdan. Nadalje, s
dolaskom nepovoljne kišne sezone, napredak in
situ ispitivanja će pretrpjeti značajan uticaj,
imajući u vidu da je osjetljivo na vremenske
prilike, što će bez sumnje još dovesti dojoš
daljeg kašnjenja izmjene Glavnog projekta.
U poglavlju Obaviještenje o Potraživanju br.
AP/EOT 132-1, Izvođač izjavljuje slijedeće:
Dana 01.11.2019. Izvođač je dopisom RB-
BBH/4347/CD (v Prilog 3) dostavio Inženjeru
Obavještenje o namjeri potraživanja
Produžetka roka za završetak i Dodatnog
plaćanja br. 132/1 prema Pkl 20.1, uslijed još
više produženog procesa revizije izmjene
Glavnog projekta za nasip od armiranog tla RK
1+093 – RK 1+334.
Dana 07.11.2019. Izvođač je dopisom RB-
BBH/4415/EM-P1 (Prilog 34) dostavio DKR-u
novi Projekat dodatnih geotehničkih ispitivanja.
Naime, sa zahtjevima DKR-a , za test kružnom
pločom će se koristiti ploča prečnika 60 cm.
Dana 15.11.2019. Investitor je dopisom
PJ/13687/DB (Prilog 35) poslao Izvođaču
izvještaj DKR-a o reviziji. U izvještaju je DKR
dala zahtjev da se još dvije bušotine trebaju
izvesti u temelju zida. To je opet bio novi
komentar, koji nije dat na Izvođačeve prethodne
podneske dodatka Projekta dodatnih
geotehničkih ispitivanja, gdje su već predložena
rješenja za nasip i AB potporni zid. Pored toga,
DKR je zahtjevala da se usvoji minimalna
vrijednost parametra tla u projektu, što je
neopravdan zahtjev i samo će povećati troškove
alternativnog rješenja, kao i vrijeme potrebno
15

SRP the updated Design of additional
geotechnical investigations with the required
two more boreholesin zone of retaining wall,
and gave technical explanation of the
Contractor’s objection on adopting the
minimum value.
On 25.11.2019, the Employer by letter
PJ/14040/DB (Enclosure 37) sent to the
Contractor SRP’s approval of Design of
additional geotechnical investigation.
On 10.12.2019 the Contractor by letter RB-
BBH/4881/DS-DS1 (Enclosure 38) submitted to
SRP the new Elaboration of additional
geotechnical investigation. The compressibility
module of categories P1 and P2 that obtain from
circular plate test (plate diameter 60 cm)are
respectively 100 MPa and 38 MPa, which only
again, prove that parameters defined in the
previous approved additional geotechnical
elaborate and further evidence by in-situ test
are reliable.
On 20.12.2019, the Employer by letter
PJ/15112/DB (Enclosure 39) sent to the
Contractor SRP’s approval of Elaboration of
additional geotechnical investigation, in which
the SRP confirmed that a clear picture of the
geological composition of the ground and a
reliable geotechnical model of the terrain was
presented.
On 20.12.2019 the Contractor by letter RB-
BBH/5033/DS-DS1 (Enclosure 40) submitted to
SRP the Main Design change – version 5, i.e. to
replace a MSE wall with general embankment,
including two reinforced concrete walls; and to
adjust a drainage in the certain area
accordingly. The additional expropriation
required as per Main Design change is
10.510,40 m2.
On 17.01.2020, the Employer by letter
PJ/332/DB (Enclosure 41) sent to the
Contractor SRP’s review report, in which the
Contractor was required to reduce the material
parameters, specifically the friction angle of
filling material and mechanical parameters of
founding soil in retaining wall and slope stability
calculation. In Contractor’s opinion, the
requirements from SRP were in very
Supervision of Design and Works
on the Bar – Boljare Highway,
Section Smokovac – Uvač –
Mateševo
za izvođenje.
Dana 19.11.2019. Izvođač je dopisom RB-
BBH/4564/DS-DS1 (Prilog 36) dostavio DKR-u
ažurirani Projekat dodatnih geotehničkih
ispitivanja sa zahtjevane 2 dodatne bušotine u
zoni potpornog zida, i dao tehničko objašnjenje
za Izvođačevu primjedbu na usvajanje
minimalne vrijednosti.
Dana 25.11.2019. Investitor je dopisom
PJ/14040/DB (Prilog 37) Izvođaču poslao
DKR-ovo odobrenje Projekta dodatnog
geotehničkog ispitivanja.
Dana 10.12.2019. Izvođač je dopisom RB-
BBH/4881/DS-DS1 (Prilog 38) dostavio DKR-u
novi Elaborat dodatnog geotehničkog
ispitivanja. Modul stišljivosti za kategorije P1 i
P2 dobijen ispitivanjem kružnom pločom
(prečnik ploče 60 cm) je respektivno 100 MPa i
38 MPa, čime se još jednom dokazuje da su
parametri definisani prethodno odobrenim
geološkim elaboratom i dalje dokazani in situ
ispitivanjem pouzdani.
Dana 20.12.2019. Investitor je dopisom
PJ/15112/DB (Prilog 39) Izvođaču poslao
DKR-ovo odobrenje Elaborata dodatnog
geotehničkog ispitivanja, u kom je DKR
potvrdila da je predstavljena jasna slika
geotehničkog sastava tla i pouzdan geotehnički
model terena.
Dana 20.12.2019. Izvođač je dopisom RB-
BBH/5033/DS-DS1 (Prilog 40) dostavio DKR-u
izmjenu Glavnog projekta - verzija 5, tj.
zamjena MSE zida opštim nasipom, uključujući
2 AB zida; i prilagođavanje drenaže u
određenom području s tim u skladu. Dodatna
eksproprijacija zahtjevana izmjenom Glavnog
projekta je 10.510,40 m2.
Dana 17.01.2020. Investitor je dopisom
PJ/332/DB (Prilog 41) poslao Izvođaču
izvještaj DKR-a o reviziji, u kom se od izvođača
traži da smanji parametre materijala,
preciznije ugao trenja materijala za ispunu i
mehaničke parametre za temeljno tlo u
16

conservative level comparing with the Eurocode
7 (which is required design standard), and the
fact is that submitted design solution is more
than adequate in term of safety.
On 17.02.2020 the Contractor by letter RB-
BBH/424/DS-DS1 (Enclosure 42) submitted to
SRP the Main Design change – version 6, which
was updated according to the requirement of
SRP, i.e. to adopt more conservative friction
angle of filling material and foundation soil in
retaining wall calculation.
On 28.02.2020, the Employer by letter
PJ/1816/DB (Enclosure 43) sent to the
Contractor SRP’s review report. Among five
books of Main Design change documents (Route,
Additional expropriation, Slope stability and
protection, Retaining wall and Drainage), the
comments were only regarding a part of
Drainage design – to provide a drainage
capability analyses of existing culvert on the
E80, which is out of expropriation line, as well
as to provide a detailed drawing of the joint part
of the ditch and entrance portal of the culvert.
On 03.03.2020 the Contractor by letter RB-
BBH/591/DS-DS1 (Enclosure 44) submitted to
SRP the Main Design change – version 7, which
was updated by providing the dimensions of
existing culvert entrance portal (to prove
existing culvert is capable to discharge water
from drainage ditch) and the detailed drawing of
joint zone.
On 04.03.2020, the Employer by letter
PJ/2044/DB (Enclosure 45) sent to the
Contractor SRP’s review report, in which the
SRP approved the Main Design change. To this
date, the soft copy of Main Design change
documents is fully approved.
The final solution is therefore determinated as:
to replace MSE wall with general embankment,
including wall of reinforced concrete structure
along the embankment toe on the positions
where the embankment exceeds the height of 30
m; and to adjust a drainage in certain area
accordingly. The additional expropriation
required by the Main Design change is 9.798,6
m2.
On 16.03.2020 the Contractor by letter RB-
Supervision of Design and Works
on the Bar – Boljare Highway,
Section Smokovac – Uvač –
Mateševo
potpornom zidu i proračun stabilnosti kosine.
Po mišljenju Izvođača, zahtjevi DKR-a su na
veoma konzervativnom nivou u poređenju sa
Eurocode 7 (što je zahtijevani projektni
standard)i činjenica je da je dostavljeno
projektno rješenje više nego adekvatno u
pogledu bezbjednosti.
Dana 17.02.2020.. Izvođač je dopisom RB-
BBH/424/DS-DS1 (Prilog 42) dostavio DKR-u
izmjenu Glavnog projekta - verzija 6, koja je
ažurirana u skladu sa zahtjevima DKR-a, tj. da
se usvoji konzervativniji ugao trenja
materijala za ispunu i temeljno tlo kod
proračuna za potporni zid.
Dana 28.02.2020. Investitor je dopisom
PJ/1816/DB (Prilog 43) poslao Izvođaču
izvještaj DKR-a o reviziji. Od 5 knjiga
dokumentacije Glavnog projekta (Trasa,
Dodatna eksproprijacija, Stabilnost i zaštita
kosina, Potporni zid i Drenaža), komentari su
dati samo na dio koji se odnosi na Projekat
drenaže – da se obezbjedi analiza drenažne
sposobnosti postojećeg propusta na E80, što je
izvan linije eksproprijacije, kao i da se daju
detaljni nacrti spojnog dijela kanala i ulaznog
portala propusta.
Dana 03.03.2020.. Izvođač je dopisom RB-
BBH/591/DS-DS1 (Prilog 44) dostavio DKR-u
izmjenu Glavnog projekta - verzija 7, koja je
ažurirana tako što su date dimenzije postojećeg
ulaznog portala propusta (kako bi se dokazalo
da je postojeći propust u stanju ispustiti vodu iz
drenažnog kanala) i detaljni nacrti spojne zone.
Dana 04.03.2020. Investitor je dopisom
PJ/2044/DB (Prilog 45) poslao Izvođaču
izvještaj DKR-a o reviziji u kom je DKR
odobrila ažuriranu izmjenu Glavnog
projekta.Do danas, elektronska verzija Izmjene
Glavnog projekta je u potpunosti odobrena.
Konačno rješenje je stoga određeno da bude:
zamjena MSE zida opštim nasipom, uključujući
zid od armiranog betona duž nožice nasipa na
pozicijama gdje nasip prelazi visinu od 30 m;
prilagođavanje drenaže u određenom dijelu s
tim u skladu. Dodatna eksproprijacija
zahtjevana izmjenom Glavnog projekta je
9.798,6 m2.
17
 Supervision of Design and Works
on the Bar – Boljare Highway,
Section Smokovac – Uvač –
Mateševo

BBH/700/CD-P1 (see Enclosure 4) requested

for Engineer’s issurance of Variation order, as
the above Main Design change Works should be Dana 16.03.2020.. Izvođač je dopisom RB-
treated as SC 13.9 Unforeseeable works, and BBH/700/CD-P1 (v Prilog 4) zatražio od
represents a variation of the scope of work due Inženjera izdavanje Naloga za izmjenu, budući
to chainged geological conditions in relation to da bi gore navedene radove iz Izmjene Glavnog
Preliminary Design. projekta trebalo tretirati kao PK 13.9
There is no reply received from Engineer. Nepredvidljivi radovi, i predstavlja izmjenu
obima radova uslijed izmjenjenih geoloških
In the chapter Conclusion, Contractor stated as uslova u odnosu na Idejni projekat.
follow: Od Inženjera nije dobijen nikakav odgovor.
“It follows from above that the review process of
Main Design change for Reinforced Soil U poglavlju Zaključak, Izvođač izjavljuje
Enbankment RK 1+093 – RK 1+334 took 230 slijedeće:
days (18.07.2019 – 04.03.2020) to complete, „Iz gore navedenog se vidi da je za proces
which was significantly prolonged due to SRP revizije izmjene Glavnog projekta za nasip od
questionioning of geotechnical imformation used armiranog tla RK 1+093 – RK 1+334 trebalo
as input for making Main Design change(i.e. 230 dana (18.07.2019. do 04.03.2020.) da se
borehole depth, compression module of category završi, što je značajno produženo jer je DKR
P) and the questioning of Main Design change preispitivala geotehničke informacije korištene
solution itself (i.e. MSE wall cannot be founded za ulazne podatke pri pravljenju izmjene
in category P1, and the alternative solution Glavnog projekta (tj. dubina bušotina, modul
should be considered), however, as showen stišljivosti za kategoriju P))i preispitivala samo
above, this questioning were all proved to be as rješenje izmjene Glavnog projketa (tj. MSE zid
unjustified. se nemože temeljiti na kategoriji P1, i treba
In addition, there were inpropper approaches of razmotriti alternativno rješenje). Međutim,
the SRP in review process, such as: kako je gore prikazano, sva ta preispitivanja su
1. Questioning the document that was already se pokazala kao neopravdana.
approved without justified reason; Pored toga, u pristupu DKR-a procesu revizije
2. The questioning/requirement/comment se javljao neprikladan pristup, kao npr:
given was either unfounded or was already 1. Preispitivanje već odobrene dokumentacije
answered by Contractor and should be bez opravdanog razloga;
considered as closed/solved; 2. Preispitivanje / davanje zahtjeva /
3. Giving repeated comments instead of komentara koji su bili ili neutemeljeni ili je
providing clear instruction, even after na njih Izvođač već odgovorio i trebalo ih
Contractor’s request; je smatrati riješenim / zatvorenim;
4. Giving requirement in a very late phase; 3. Ponavljanje komentara, umjesto davanje
5. Giving new requirement after Contractor jasnog naloga, čak i nakon zahtjeva
fulfilled all previous etc. Izvođača;
4. Davanje zahtjeva u veoma kasnoj fazi;
5. Davanje novih zahtjeva nakon što je
These approaches, without a doubt, have Izvođač ispunio sve prethodne itd,
delayed the approval process and consequently
caused delay and disruption to the progress of Ovakav pristup je bez sumnje prouzrokovao
the Works and resulted in unplanned additional kašnjenje procesa odobravanja i shodno tome
costs and loss of time. doveo do kašnjenja i remećenja napretka
radova, i za rezultat imao neplanirane dodatne
In the chapter Contractor’s entitlement to EoT, troškove i gubitak vremena.
Contractor states as follow:
U poglavlju Izvođačevo pravo na Produžetak
Roka za Zavržetak, Izvođač izjavljuje
slijedeće:

18
 Supervision of Design and Works
on the Bar – Boljare Highway,
Section Smokovac – Uvač –
Mateševo

Claim No. / ERE description / Opis SC applicable to this ERE Kvalifikacija EOT
Potraživanje ERE and gives entitlement to
br. EOT / PK primjenjiva na
ovaj ERE i daje pravo na
EOT
128 Unforeseeable 4.12 (unforeseeable
Explained in Delay
geological condition at physical difficulties) Analysis below /
the foundation of 8.4 (Extension of time for Objašnjeno u Analizi
reinforced soilcompletion) – (b) / kašnjenja – u nastavku
embankment RK 1+093 4.12 (nepredvidljive fizičke
– RK 1+334 on Sub- poteškoće)
section 1.1.1 /8.4 (produženje roka za
Nepredvidljivi geološki završetak) – (b)
uslovi na temelju nasipa
od armiranog tla RK
1+093 – RK 1+334 na
poddionici 1.1.1
132 Prolonged review 8.4 (Extension of time for Explained in Delay
132/1 process for Main Design completion) – (e) Analysis below /
change of reinforced 8.4 (produženje roka za Objašnjeno u Analizi
soil embankment RK završetak) – (e) kašnjenja – u nastavku
1+093 – RK 1+334 at
Sub-section 1.1.1 /
Produženi proces
revizije za izmjenu
Glavnog projekta za
nasip od armiranog tla
RK 1+093 – RK 1+334
na poddionici 1.1.1
The Contractor is “experienced”but he couldn’t Izvođač je iskusan, ali u vrijeme datuma
foresee reasonably, at the tender date, that he tendera nije mogao objektivno predvidjeti da je
encountered geological conditions – category P naišao na nepovoljne geološke uslove – tlo
soil with thickness exceeding 35,5 m at RK kategorije P, debljine veće od 35,5 m kod RK

19

1+093 – RK 1+334.
According to SC 4.12, this falls within
unforeseeable conditions, which the Contractor
encountered at the Site and therefore the
Contractor is entitled to the following…
In the chapter Illustration of relevant
provisions in the Contract; in the sub-chapter
4.12 Unforeseeable Physical Conditions (The
General Conditions), Contractor states as
follow:
“…According to the above provisions, the
Contractor has a right to ask a price adjustment
due to following:
 A – Variation in the volume of work due to
changed geological condition in relation to
the submitted Preliminary Design
(Framework agreement Article 4)
 B – Change of geological conditions, such as
soil and water which is inconsistent with the
design documentation, which was also
confirmed by Employer’s letter 01-492/2 of
14.02.2013. (Letter of Offer and Employer’s
reply letter)
 C – To the extent that the Contractor
encounters physical conditions which are
unforeseeable (SC 4.12)
 D – Variation of the scope of work due to
changed geological conditions in relation to
the delivered Preliminary Design (SC 13.9).
There is an observed discrepancy in English
and Montenegrin text observed!
AD A
Variation in volume of work means that change
to specific work must appear (Framework
agreement Article 4). The reason for this change
should be “change in geological condition” in
relation to Preliminary Design. It is not
disputable that the change in foundation
condition means that it is a change of geological
condition, and due to this change of geological
condition, there is a variation in volume of work,
i.e. to replace MSE wall with general
embankment, including reinforced concrete wall.
The additional expropriation required by the
Main Design change is 9.798,6 m2.
Supervision of Design and Works
on the Bar – Boljare Highway,
Section Smokovac – Uvač –
Mateševo
1+093 – RK 1+334.
Prema PK 4.12 ovo spade u nepredvidljive
uslove sa kojima se Izvođač susreo na
gradilištu i, stoga, Izvođač ima parvo na
slijedeće…”
U poglavlju Prikaz relevantnih odredbi
Ugovora; u potpoglavlju 4.12 Nepredvidljivi
fizički uslovi (Opšti uslovi), Izvođač izjavljuje
slijedeće:
„...U skladu sa iznad navedenim odredbama,
Izvođač ima pravo da traži korekciju cijene na
osnovu slijedećeg:
 A - Izmjena u obimu radova zbog
promjenjenih geoloških uslova u odnosu na
dostavljeni Idejni projekat (Okvirni
sporazum, Član 4),
 B – Promjena geoloških uslova, kao što su
zemljište i voda koja nije u skladu sa
projektnom dokumentacijom, što je
potvrđeno i putem dopisa Investitora 01-
492/2 od 14.02.2013. (Pismo Ponude i
odgovor Investitora)
 C – u mjeri u kojoj Izvođač susreće fizičke
uslove koji su nepredvidljivi (PK 4.12)
Zadatak Izvođača je da sada pronađe odgovor
na gore navedena pitanja.
Uočena je razlika u Engleskom i
Crnogorskom tekstu!
AD. A
Izmjena obima radova znači da promjena
određenih radova se mora desiti (Okvirni
Sporazum Član 4). Razlog ove promjene treba
da bude “promjena geoloških uslova” u odnosu
na Idejni projekat. Nije sporno da promjena
uslova tla podrazumijeva promjenu geoloških
uslova, i zbog ove promjene geoloških uslova,
dolazi do promjene obima radova, tj. zamjenu
zida od armirane zemlje sa nasipom,
uključujući armirani betonski zid. Dodatna
eksproprijacija tražena izmjenom Glavnog
projekta je 9.798,6 m2.
20

It could be concluded that the Contractor is
entitled to adjustment of price under Artice 4 of
Framework agreement.
AD B
The Letter of offer also gives the Contractor
right to claim in order to be recovered from
whatever negative consequences (this means
either acpects of money or time) due to change
of geological conditions, which is inconsistent
with design documentation (available to the
Contractor at the moment of submission of the
Offer, in our case is Preliminary Design). The
term “inconsistent” means “in opposition to,
conflicting with, in conflict with” (according to
Oxford dictionary) and according to “Black’s
Law Dictionary” it means “lacking agreement
among parts”.
Conclusion is that unforeseeable foundation
condition encountered on site after excavation
does mean that geological conditions were
changed and that represent something which is
not in agreement with conditions reflecting by
Preliminary Design.
AD C
The SC 4.12 refers to conditions which the
Contractor encounters at the Site when
executing the Works. It is necessary to compare
these conditions with the conditions “at offer
stage”. In such situation we must prove that they
were unforeseeable.
The definition of unforeseeable (SC 1.1.6.8) is
“not reasonably foreseeable by an experienced
Contractor by the date of submition of tender.”
An adverse physical condition or obstruction can
be said to have been foreseen only if an
experienced contractor considers there could be
substantial risk of such conditions or obstruction
arising.
At the tender stage (i.e. time when Contractor
formed and subsequently submitted their offer),
the Preliminary Design was provided by the
Employer, which shows that target zone was
categorized as K22 (dominated by dolomites,
dolomitic limestone), with bearly existing
dilluvial deposition on the surface. It is therefore
predicted that the proposed MSE wall was
Supervision of Design and Works
on the Bar – Boljare Highway,
Section Smokovac – Uvač –
Mateševo
Može se zaključiti da Izvođač ima pravo na
korekciju cijene u skladu sa Članom 4 Okvirnog
Sporazuma.
Ad. B
Pismo Ponude takođe pruža pravo Izvođaču na
potraživanje, kako bi se oporavio od bilo kojih
negativnih posljedica (ovo se odnosi i na aspekt
novca ili roka) usljed promjene geoloških
uslova koji nisu u saglasnosti sa projektnom
dokumentacijom (dostupnom Izvođaču u
vrijeme podnošenja ponude, što je u našem
slučaju Idejni projekat)...
...zaključak je da nepovoljni uslovi tla na koje
se naišlo na gradilištu nakon iskopa znače da
su se geološki uslovi promijenili i to predstavlja
nešto što nije u saglasnosti sa uslovima
navedenim u Idejnom projektu.
AD. C
PK 4.12 se odnose na uslove na koje Izvođač
naiđe na gradilištu u toku izvođenja Radova.
Neophodno je uporediti ove uslove sa uslovima
„u fazi ponude“. U takvoj situaciji ni moramo
dokazati da su bili nepredvidljivi... U fazi
tendera (tj. U vrijeme kad je Izvođač formirao i
nakon toga podnio svoju Ponudu), Investitor je
obezbijedio Idejni projekat, koji pokazuje da je
ciljana zona kategorisana kao K22 (dominiraju
dolomiti, dolomitski krečnjak). Stoga je
predviđeno da je predloženi zid od armirane
zemlje direktno lociran na prirodnom terenu, sa
jako ograničenim iskopom. Dalje, nije
uključivao evidenciju rizika za pitanja zemljišta
i klauzula 5.1 Opštih obaveza projektovanja
navodi „Investitor će preuzeti potpunu
odgovornost za Idejni projekat Projekta“.
Slijedi da je Investitor garantovao za Idejni
projekat i da se Izvođač oslanjao na to.
Stoga je očigledno da je značajan stepen uslova
nepovoljnog tla – geološka kategorija P na
dijelu zone temelja debljine veće od 35,5 m, na
koji se naišlo nakon iskopa , nepredvidljiv iskop
21
 Supervision of Design and Works
on the Bar – Boljare Highway,
Section Smokovac – Uvač –
Mateševo

directly located on the natural terrain with very
limited excavation. Furthermore, it did not
include a risk register for issues in the ground
and class 5.1. General Design Obligations state
“the Employer should take a full responsibility
for the Preliminary Design of the Project.” It
follows that the Employer warranted the
Preliminary Design and the Contractor relied on
it.
Therefore, it is obvious that the significant extent
of geological conditions – geological category P
at part of the foundation zone in thickness
exceeding 35,5 m that encountered after
excavation, are unforeseeable ground
conditions, and the Contractor is entitled to
additional payments.
tla, i da Izvođač ima pravo na dodatna
plaćanja.
Na osnovu navedenog, očigledno je da
predmetni ERE predstavlja:
 Promjenu uslova zemljišta u odnosu na
Idejni projekat (ispunjavajući preduslov
Člana 4 Okvirnog Sporazuma)
 Promjenu uslova zemljišta, što nije u
saglasnosti sa projektnom dokumentacijom
(ispunjavajući preduslov Pisma Ponude)
 Nepredvidljive nepovoljne uslove zemljišta
(ispunjavajući preduslov PK 4.12)
I Izvođač u poglavlju Analiza troškova, dalje
pokazuje da to prouzrokuje:
 Izmjenu obima radova (ispunjavajući
preduslov Člana 4 Okvirnog Sporazuma)
 Promjenu projektnog obima radova
(ispunjavajući preduslov Pisma Ponude)
 Kašnjenje i/ili dodatni neplanirani trošak
(ispunjavajući preduslov PK 4.12)

AD D
AD D Navedeno poglavlje ne postoji u Crnogorskoj
verziji!
By SC 13.9 it is envisaged that adjustment on the
contract price is possible based on
Unforeseeable Works in accordance to
paragraphs 3, 4 and 5of the Article 4 of the
Framework Agreement (please see above item A
about this Article 4 of the Framework
Agreement.

Due to difference between geological conditions

provided in the Preliminary Design and actual
geological conditions encountered during the
works, the varied Works were generated
including general embankment with wall
ofreinforced concrete structure along the
embankment toe on the positions where
embankment exceeds the hight of 30 m. These
works have to be defined as Unforeseeable
Works.
Based on above, it is evident that the subject
ERE represents:
 Change in ground conditions in relation to
the Preliminary Design (fulfilling the
precondition of Article 4 of Framework
Agreement)
 Change in ground condition which is
22
 Supervision of Design and Works
on the Bar – Boljare Highway,
Section Smokovac – Uvač –
Mateševo

inconsistent with the design documentation

(fulfilling the precondition of Letter of
Offer)
 Unforeseeable adverse ground conditions
(fulfilling the precondition of SC 4.12)
 Unforeseeable Works (fulfilling the
precondition of SC 13.9)
And the Contractor in Cost Analyses section,
further shown that it causes:
 Variation in volume of work ((fulfilling the
precondition of Article 4 of Framework
Agreement)
 Change of project works scope (fulfilling
the precondition of Letter of Offer)
 Delay and/or additional unplanned Cost
(fulfilling the precondition of SC 4.12)
 Variation of the scope of work (fulfilling the
precondition of SC 13.9)

3. TECHNICAL REVIEW OF 3. TEHNIČKI PREGLED

CONTRACTOR'S DOCUMENTATION
3.1. General comments
Contractor also reffering to defects from the
Main Design – absence of the category P. Due
to above mentioned reason, herewith we are
providing basic details form Geotechnical
Final Report for Main Design for Open
Route (Smokovac-Tunnel Suka; Tunnel
Suka -Tunnel Vežešnik; Tunnel Vežešnik
-Bridge Mrke). In chapter 3.2
GEOMORPHOLOGICAL PROPERTIES
OF THE TERRAIN it is stated: „The
following geomorphological processes exist on
this part of the terrain:
- Karst process, represented by surface karst
forms (valleys, sinkholes, vices);
- Physical-mechanical decay of rock masses,
especially pronounced in the surface area;
- Rock falling- slope process, rotary motions of
debris which was made by mechanical decaying
of stone rock masses that formed screestones at
DOKUMENTACIJE IZVOĐAČA RADOVA
3.1. Opšti komentari
Izvođač se poziva na nedostatke iz Glavnog
projekta – nepostojanje kategorije P. Iz
navedenog razloga donosimo osnovne detalje
iz Elaborata o detaljnim geotehničkim
istraživanjima za nivo Glavnog
građevinskog projekta za otvorenu trasu
(Smokovac – Tunel Suka; Tunel Suka –
Tunel Vežešnik; Tunel Vežešnik – Most
Mrke). U poglavlju 3.2
GEOMORFOLOŠKE ODLIKE TERENA
navedeno je slijedeće: „Od geomorfoloških
procesa na ovom dijelu terena dominanti su:
- Karstni proces, koji je označen pretežno
površinskim karstnim oblicima (dolovi, vrtače,
škrape);
- Fizičko-hemijsko raspadanje stijenskih masa,
što je posebno izraženo u površinskom dijelu;
- Osipanje – padinski proces, rotaciono
kretanje drobine stvorene mehančkim

23

the hilly slope in thickness of up to 8 m.“
In chapter 3.3 Geological Properties of Wider
Investigation Area in the Open Route From
Smokovac to Mrke Bridge; 3.3.1 Geological
composition it is stated as follow: „The stretch
from Smokovac to bridge Mrke of the open
route, which is the subject of this Elaboration,
exclusively involves carbonate rock mass of
Triassic-Jurassic (T,J), Upper Cretaceous
(K21, K22) and formations of Quaternary age.
Quaternary (Q)
The Quaternary formations found at the wider
area of the open route from Smokovac to bridge
Mrke and along the Morača's watercourse are
represented by:
- Terraced glacio – fluvial sediments;
- Deluvial and deluvial – coluvial sediments;
- Aluvial sediments.
... Stratified to banked limestones of Upper
Cretaceous age (K21, K22) build:
- Base of the terrain under the Quaternary
glaciofluvial sediments and screes at the stretch
from Smokovac to tunnel Suka (LK 0+000-
LK0+395;R0+000-RK0+400)
- Base of the terrain beneath the screes of
poorly bound limestone debris between the
tunnel Suka and tunnel Vežešnik;
In chapter 3.5.2 Hydrogeological properties
and functions of rock masses at the stretch of
open route from Smokovac to Mrke bridge it
is stated: „Based on the hydrogeological
properties and functions of the rock mass,
structural type of porosity and spatial position
of hydro geological phenomena, it is concluded
that:
... That the stretch of terrain between the tunnel
Suka and tunnel Vežešnik is built of thick layers
of screes (slightly bound fine-grained limestone
debris over the host rock of stratified to banked
limestones).
In chapter 3.6.1 Engineering-geological
Supervision of Design and Works
on the Bar – Boljare Highway,
Section Smokovac – Uvač –
Mateševo
raspadanjem kamenitih stijenskih masa kojim
su formirani sipari na brdskoj padini debljine i
do 8 m.
U poglavlju 3.3 Geološka građa šireg
područja istraživanog terena otvorene trase
od Smokovca do mosta Mrke; 3.3.1 Geološki
sastav, navedeno je slijedeće: „Na potezu od
Smokovca do mosta Mrke, duž otvorene trase,
koja je predmet ovog Elaborata zastupljene su
isključivo karbonatne stijenske mase
trijaskojurske(T,J), gornjokredne starosti (K21,
K22) i tvorevine kvartarne starosti.
Kvartar (Q)
Na širem području otvorene trase od Smokovca
do mosta Mrke i duž vodotoka Morače
zastupljeni su kvartarni sedimenti
predstavljeni:
- Terasnim glaciofluvijalnim sedimentima ;
- Deluvijalnim i deluvijalno koluvijalnim
sedimentima;
- Aluvijalnim sedimentima
... Slojeviti do bankoviti krečnjaci
gornjokredne starosti (K21;K22) izgrađuju:
- osnovu terena ispod kvartarnih
glaciofluvijalnih sedimenata i sipara na potezu
od Smokovca do tunela Suka (LK 0+000-
LK0+395; R0+000-RK0+400);
- Osnovu terena ispod sipara od slabije vezane
krečnjačke drobine između tunela Suka i tunela
Vežešnik...“
U poglavlju 3.5.2 Hidrogeološka svojstva i
funkcije stijenskih masa, na potezu otvorene
trase od Smokovca do mosta Mrke navedeno
je slijedeće: „Na osnovu hidrogeoloških
svojstava i funkcija stijenskih masa,
strukturnog tipa poroznosti i prostornog
položaja hidrogeoloških pojava, može se
zaključiti:
...Da potez terena između tunela Suka i tunela
Vežešnik izgrađuju debele naslage sipara
(slabije vezana sitnozrna krečnjačka drobina
preko osnovne stijene slojevitih do bankovitih
24

properties of terrain along open route at
stretch from Smokovac to bridge Mrke it is
stated: „In terms of engineering geology, the
terrain of the open route of stretch from
Smokovac to Mrke bridge is made of:
a. Unbound and bound non-stoned and poorly
stoned rocks, represented by:
- Deluvial – coluvial sediments (tranquilized
screes of unbound and poorly bound limestone
debris) and terra rossa...
General geotechnical terrain model for the
zone 2 at the stretch from the exit portal of
Suka tunnel to tunnel Vežešnik (LK1+127 -
LK1+243; RK1+091-RK1+348) is as follows:
- 0,0 - 8,0 m tranquilized screes of unbound,
poorly bound to highly bound limestone debris
by clayey and rarely calcite binder (bound
small limestone debris is held in a vertical side-
cuts in height of up to 6m);
- 8.0-30m poorly to highly cracked stratified to
banked limestones and dolomitic limestones.“
In chapter 4.3. GEOTECHNICAL
CONDITIONS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF
HIGHWAY AT PART OF OPEN ROUTE
FROM SMOKOVAC TO MRKE BRIDGE;
4.3.2 Zone 2 (LK1+127,08-LK1+243,25)
(RK1+091,43-RK1+348,33) it is stated: „The
terrain of this zone is made of interbedded to
banked limestones and dolomitic limestones
with dip and strike toward the northwest at
angle of 15-20° (EP 320-330/15-20). The host
rocklimestone - is overlaid by screes of
unbound and poorly bound debris, by clay and
rarely by calcite binder, of varying thickness
(1-8m), at the following stretches:
- left lane LK1+150 - LK1+195;LK1+230-
LK1+243
- Right lane RK1+150- RK1+230;RK1+238-
RK1+305; RK1+320-RK1+355
a) Embankment at the stretch from 1+150-
1+200 is up to 15m high (left lane) and
25m
Taking into account the geomorphological
Supervision of Design and Works
on the Bar – Boljare Highway,
Section Smokovac – Uvač –
Mateševo
krečnjaka).“
U poglavlju 3.6.1 Inženjerskogeološke
karakteristike terena duž otvorene trase na
potezu od Smokovca do mosta Mrke,
navedeno je slijedeće: „Teren duž otvorene
trase, na potezu od Smokovca do mosta Mrke
sa inženjerskogeološkog aspekta izgrađuju:
a. Nevezane i vezane neokamenjene i
slabookamenjene stijene pretstavljene:
- Deluvijalno-koluvijalnim sedimentima
(umireni sipari od nevezane i slabovezane
krečnjačke drobine) i crvenice...
Generalni geotehnički model terena za zonu 2
na potezu od izlaznog portala tunela Suka do
tunela Vežešnik (LK1+127-LK1+243;
RK1+091- RK1+348) je :
- 0,0-8,0m umireni sipari od nevezane,slabije
do jače vezane krečnjačke drobine glinovitim i
rjeđe kalcitskim vezivom (vezana sitna
krečnjačka drobina drži se u vertikalnim
zasjecima visine do 6m) ;
- 8.0-30m slabije do jače ispucali slojeviti do
bankoviti krečnjaci i dolomitični krečnjaci.“
U poglavlju 4.3 GEOTEHNIČKI USLOVI
IZGRADNJE AUTOPUTA NA DIJELU
OTVORENE TRASE OD SMOKOVCA DO
MOSTA MRKE; 4.3.2 Zona 2 (LK1+127,08-
LK1+243,25) (RK1+091,43-RK1+348,33)
navedeno je: „U okviru ove zone teren
izgrađuju slojeviti do bankoviti krečnjaci i
dolomitični krečnjaci koji padaju prema
sjeverozapadu pod uglom 15-20 stepeni (EP
320-330/15-20). Preko osnovne stijene-
krečnjaka zastupljeni su sipari od nevezane i
slabije vezane drobine, glinovitim i rijeđe
kalcitiskim vezivom promijenljive debljine (1-
8m) i to na slijedećim potezima:
 Lijeva traka LK1+150 -
LK1+195;LK1+230-LK1+243
 Desna traka RK1+150 -
RK1+230;RK1+238-RK1+305; RK1+320-
RK1+355
a) Nasip na potezu od 1+150-1+200 je visine
25

features of the terrain, which in the eastern
direction of the road zone are reflected in a
relatively steep hill slope that turns into a
distinct depression covered by scree of unbound
and poorly bound limestone debris, this stretch
should be solved by applying the reinforced soil
with prior removal of movable scree materials.
At the stretch 1+200-1+348,33 (right lane) road
in its entire length is in a 6-18 m high
embankment, which will be formed mainly on
the poorly to highly bound consolidated debris
(clay and calcite binder) or on host rock-layered
karstificated limestones. Embankments in height
up to 10m should be done at gradient 1:1.5, by
using local materials-screes of limestone debris
or limestone material from excavations, while
embankments of greater heights by using
reinforced soil. In case that classic high
embankment are undertaken, they should be
done at gradient 1:1.5 with a cutting by 2-3m
wide berms at every 7-8 m of height. The base of
design embankments is predominantly a poorly
to strongly bound fine-grained limestone debris
and subordinated layered limestone.
Prior to laying the embankment it is necessary
to remove a loose humus layer of debris from
the surface zone until a depth of 0,2-0,3m.
The footing part of the embankment at this
stretch (classical embankment of reinforced
soil) is recommeded to found on limestone or to
secure embankment by a low retaining wall
and related drainage. Backfilling is to be
complied with valid standards in nearly
horizontal layers with proper compaction. For
geotechnical area (right lane) stratified to
banked limestones and dolomitic limestones (3a)
which are in the surface very karstificated and
cracked, recommended reference values for this
stretch are physical mechanical parameters for
category D until a depth of 4-5m and for
category C until a depth of 15- 20m.
Slopes of throughcuts will be performed largely
within the category C and to a lesser extent
within categories D and P1 which relates
mainly to the surface parts of the terrain.
Supervision of Design and Works
on the Bar – Boljare Highway,
Section Smokovac – Uvač –
Mateševo
do 15m (lijeva traka) odnosno do 25m(desna
traka).
S obzirom na geomorfološke odlike terena koje
se ogledaju u relativno strmoj brdskoj padini,
koja u pravcu istoka u zoni puta prelazi u
izraženu depresiju prekrivenu siparom od
nevezane i slabovezane krečnjačke drobine,
ovaj potez riješiti primijenom armiranog tla uz
prethodno uklanjanje pokretnog siparskog
materijala.
Na potezu 1+200-1+348,33 (desna traka) put
je čitavom dužinom u nasipu visine 6- 18m, koji
će se formirati pretežno preko slabije do jače
vezane konsolidovane drobine (glinovitim i
kalcitskim vezivom) ili preko osnovne stijene-
slojevitih karstifikovanih krečnjaka. Nasipe
visine do10m izvesti pod nagibom 1:1,5,
korišćenjem lokalnih materijala-sipara od
krečnjačke drobine ili krečnjačkog materijala
iz iskopa, odnosno nasipe veće visine
primjenom armiranog tla. U slučaju da se
pristupi izradi klasičnih nasipa velike visine
iste izvoditi pod nagibom 1:1,5 sa
presijecanjem bermama širine 2-3m na svakih
7-8 m visine. Podloga projektovanih nasipa je
dominantno slabo do jače vezana sitnozrna
krečnjačka drobina i podređeno slojeviti
krečnjaci.
Prije polaganja nasipa neophodno je ukloniti
slabovezani humificirani sloj drobine iz
površinske zone do dubine 0,2- 0,3m.
Preporučuje se da se nožični dio nasipa na
ovom potezu (klasični nasip, armirano tlo)
fundira na krečnjaku ili izvrši osiguranje
nasipa nožičnim potpornim zidom sa pratećom
drenažom. Nasipanje izvršiti u skladu sa
važećim standardima u približno horizontalnim
slojevima uz propisno zbijanje. Za geotehničku
sredinu slojeviti do bankoviti krečnjaci i
dolomitičnikrečnjaci (3a) koji su u površinskom
dijelu veoma skaršćeni i ispucali, kao
mjerodavne vrijednosti na ovom potezu mogu
se usvojiti fizičko mehanički parametri za
kategoriju D do dubine 4-5m odnosno
kategorije C do dubine 15-20m.
Kosine usijeka izvodiće se većim dijelom u
26

Embankments will be laid mainly on rock
masses classified into category D and P. The
allowable capacity for categories C, D and P1
is provided in tables under chapter 4.3.4.
b) Through cut-embankment at stretch 1+200-
1+243,25 (left lane) the road is in a through cut
10-14m high, which will run through layered to
banked limestones that are in the surface part
very karstificated with distinct surface karst
forms (vices, etc.). The cut's slopes should be
formed at gradient 3:1 by fine smooth blasting
with cutting by 3m wide berms at ½ of height. At
the part where layered, karstified limestones are
covered by poorly bound debris, as is the case at
the stretch in length of 13m, it is required in
front of the entrance portal of the tunnel
Vežešnik to mitigate the peaks of the slopes to
2:1 with the protection of road meshes.
In chapter Stability analysis of embankments
it is stated as follow: „At the stretch from
Smokovac 0+000 to tunnel Suka 0+405,
embankments in height of up to 15m will largely
lay over the flat and good bearing terrain.
Given that the limestone material from the side
cuts and quality scree material are installed into
embankments at slope gradient 1:1.5 and that
the embankments are cut by 2m wide berm, at
every 10m of height, results of the analysis show
that the safety factor of 1,3 is met in natural
conditions as well as Fs>1 in seismic
conditions. At the stretch between the tunnels
Suka and Vežešnik, high embankments (15-25m)
will be formed mainly on the flat plateaus and
slope with gradient 5-15° and 25-30° at some
stretches.
Embankments will usually be formed over
bound limestone debris of screes. The high
embankments need to install quality limestone
materials from through cuts and side cuts. The
embankment 25m high will be done at gradient
1:1.5 and cut by two berms in width of 2m.
The stability analysis is made for 30 m high
embankment with reinforced soil (figures 34 and
35) which is done by characteristic EG profile
Supervision of Design and Works
on the Bar – Boljare Highway,
Section Smokovac – Uvač –
Mateševo
okviru kategorije C i manjim dijelom u okviru
kategorija D i P1 što se odnosi uglavnom na
površinske dijelove terena.
Nasipi će se polagati uglavnom na stijenskim
masama koje su izdvojene u kategoriju D i P.
Dozvoljena nosivost za kategorije C,D i P1
data je tabelarno u poglavlju 4.3.4.
b) Usjek-nasip na potezu 1+200 - 1+243,25
(lijeva traka) put je u usjeku visine 10-14m, koji
će se izvoditi kroz slojevite do bankovite
krečnjake koji su u površinskom dijelu veoma
skaršćeni sa izraženim površinskim karstnim
oblicima (škrape i drugo). Kosine usijeka
formirati pod nagibom 3:1 finim glatkim
miniranjem uz presijecanje bermom širine 3m
na ½ visine. Na dijelu gdje su slojeviti
karstifikovani krečnjaci prekriveni
slabovezanom drobinom, kakav je slučaj na
potezu dužine 13m, ispred ulaznog portala
tunela Vežešnik, neophodno je ublažiti vršne
dijelove kosine na 2:1 uz zastitu putarskim
mrežama.
U poglavlju Analiza stabilnosti nasipa
navedeno je slijedeće: „Na potezu od Smokovca
0+000 do tunela Suka 0+405 nasipi visine do
15m će se najvećim dijelom polagati preko
pretežno ravnog i dobro nosivog terena. Uz
uslov da se u nasip ugrađuje krečnjački
materijal iz zasijeka i kvalitetni siparski
materijal sa nagibom kosina nasipa 1:1,5 kao i
da se nasipi presjecaju bermom širine 2m, na
svakih 10m visine, rezultati sprovedenih
analiza ukazuju da je zadovoljen faktor
sigurnosti 1,3 u prirodnim uslovima i Fs>1 u
seizmičkim uslovima. Na potezu između tunela
Suka i tunela Vežešnik formiraće se visoki
nasipi (15-25m), pretežno na zaravnjenim
platoima i padini nagiba od 5-15 stepeni a na
pojedinim potezima i od 25-30 stepeni.
Nasipi će se najčešće formirati preko vezane
krečnjačke drobine sipara. U visoke nasipe je
neophodno ugraditi kvalitetni krečnjački
materijal iz zasjeka i usjeka. Nasip visine 25m
izvesti pod nagibom 1:1,5 uz presjecanje sa
dvije berme širine 2m.
27

13-13’ (app. 3.13). The analysis was done with
gradient of reinforced soil 6:1 and geogrids in
length of 9-12m (depending on position in
embankment) located at every 0.3m. The results
of stability analysis indicate that safety factors
Fs>1.3 (F=1.327) are met in natural and Fs>1
(Fs=1.165) in seismic conditions.
In chapter 5. RECOMMENDATIONS FOR
DESIGNER it is stated as follow:
„Geotechnical conditions for construction of
open route in the zones 1, 2 and 4 at the stretch
from Smokovac to bridge Mrke are changble
and are assessed as:
- Relatively favourable at the stretch from the
tunnel Vežešnik to Mrke bridge, where the open
route will run through the leveled karst plateau
of Mrke;
- Specific at the stretch from Smokovac to tunnel
Suka, where the right lane of the highway will
run through the lowland terrain constructed of
glaciofluvial sediments, and left lane over the
mountain slope that is built of limestone and
screes;
- Demanding and specific at the stretch between
the tunnels Suka and Vežešnik, where at the hilly
slope there are colluvial-diluvial sediments
(bound debris of screes)...
In the same chapter, ad b)Embankments it is
stated as follow: „Due to variable geo-
morphological properties at the stretch of the
open route from Smokovac to Mrke geotechnical
conditions for excavations are different.
- Embankments in height of up to 10m, on the
section between Smokovac and tunnel Suka
(right lane), which will lay over lowland terrain
that is built of glacio fluvial sediments, should
be made of limestone materials from the cuts
and and screes at gradient of 1:1.5. Previously,
remove a thin layer of humus over glacio fluvial
sediments in thickness of 10-15cm and compact
the subsoil with appropriate mechanization
(vibrating rollers, etc.)
- Embankments in height of up to 10m (section
Smokovac-Suka), which will be laid on the left
Supervision of Design and Works
on the Bar – Boljare Highway,
Section Smokovac – Uvač –
Mateševo
Sprovedena je i analiza stabilnosti za nasip sa
armiranom zemljom visine 30m(slike br.34 i
35) po karakterističnom IG presjeku 13-
13'(prilog br.3.13). Analiza je urađena sa
nagibom armirane zemlje 6:1 i geomrežama
dužine od 9-12m ( u zavisnosti od položaja u
nasipu), postavljenih na svakih 0,3m. Rezultati
sprovedene analize stabilnosti pokazuju da je
zadovoljen faktor sigurnosti Fs>1,3(Fs=1.327)
u prirodnim uslovima i Fs>1 (Fs=1.165) u
seizmičkim uslovima.
U poglavlju 5. PREPORUKE
PROJEKTANTU navedeno je slijedeće:
„Geotehnički uslovi izvođenja otvorene trase u
okviru zona 1,2 i 4 na potezu od Smokovca do
mosta Mrke su promjenljivi i mogu se ocijeniti
kao:
- Relativno povoljni na potezu od tunela
Vežešnik do mosta Mrke, gdje će se otvorena
trasa izvoditi preko zaravnjenog karstnog
platoa Mrka ;
- Specifični na potezu od Smokovca do tunela
Suka, gdje će se desna traka autoputa izvoditi
preko ravničarskog terena izgrađenog od
glaciofluvijalnih sedimenata a lijeva preko
brdske padine izgrađene od krečnjaka i sipara;
- Zahtjevni i specifični na potezu između tunela
Suke i Vežešnika, gdje su na brdskoj padini
zastupljeni koluvijalno-deluvijalni sedimenti
(vezana drobina sipara)...
U istom poglavlju, pod b)Nasipi navedeno je
slijedeće: „Zbog promjenljivih geomorfoloških
odlika terena na potezu otvorene trase od
Smokovca do mosta Mrke geotehnički uslovi
izvođenja raskopa su različiti.
- Nasipe visine do 10m, na dionici između
Smokovca i tunela Suka (desna traka), koji će
se polagati preko ravničarskog terena,
izgrađenog od glaciofluvijalnih sedimenata,
izvoditi od krečnjačkog materijala iz zasjeka i
sipara pod nagibom 1:1,5. Prethodno ukloniti
tanki humusni sloj, preko glaciofluvijalnih
sedimenata, debljine 10-15cm i izvršiti zbijanje
podtla odgovarajućom mehanizaciom (vibro
28
 Supervision of Design and Works
on the Bar – Boljare Highway,
Section Smokovac – Uvač –
Mateševo

lane, partly through a mountain slope built of valjci i drugo)

limestones, should be made of limestone
- Nasipe visine do 10m visine (dionica
materials with prior removal of unbound and
Smokovac-Suka) koji će se polagati duž lijeve
weakly bound debris of screes from the
trake, dijelom preko brdske padine izgrađene
mountain slope.
od krečnjaka, izvoditi od krečnjačkog
Scree material from the slope should be materijala uz prethodno uklanjanje nevezane i
disposed on temporary landfill and, after tests slabo vezane drobine sipara sa brdske padine.
for physical -mechanical properties, selectively
Siparski materijal sa padine odložiti na
built into embankments.
privremene deponije a nakon ispitivanja
- Embankments in height of 12-15m, at this fizičko-mehaničkih svojstava selektivno
stretch (from Smokovac to Suka) should be done ugraditi u nasipe.
classically, of limestone material at 1:1.5 or
- Nasipe visine od 12-15m, na ovom potezu (od
reinforced soil. With regard to the height of
Smokovca do Suke) izvoditi klasično, od
embankment, morphological features of the
krečnjačkog materijala pod nagibom 1:1,5 ili
terrain and taking a part in lowland areas with
primjenom armiranog tla. S obzirom na visinu
residential objects, preference should be given
nasipa morfološke odlike terena i zauzimanje
to embankments, of reinforced soil.
dijela ravničarskog područja sa izgrađenim
- High embankments (20-25m) between the stambenim objektima prednost treba dati
tunnels Vežešnik and Suke, which will be laid nasipima od armiranog tla.
over the unbound limestone debris of calmed
- Visoke nasipe (20-25m) između tunela Suke i
screes (on flattened plateaus and hill slope)
Vežešnika, koji će se polagati preko vezane
should be made of reinforced soil or in the
krečnjačke drobine umirerenih sipara (na
classical manner inclusive of installation of
zaravnjenim platoima i brdskoj padini) izvoditi
granular limestone material from excavations,
primjenom armiranog tla ili na klasičan način
embankments to be at gradient 1:1.5, with a
sa ugradnjom granuliranog krečnjačkog
berm in width of 2m at every 10m of height and
materijala iz iskopa, nasipe izvoditi pod
with protection wall donwhill. The low wall is to
nagibom 1:1,5, sa bermom širine 2m na svakih
be footed in the host rock - limestone.
10m visine i zaštitom nožičnim zidom sa
Preceding is an adequate preparation of subsoil nizbrdne strane. Nožični zid fundirati u
which involves removal of surface humified osnovnoj stijeni – krečnjaku.
layer and less bound debris in thickness of 0,3-
Prethodno izvršiti odgovarajuću pripremu
0,5m. After that, it is necessary to thicken the
podtla što podrazumjeva uklanjanje
subsoil to the maximum dry density and
površinskog humificiranog sloja i slabije
compaction of at least 50MP. These physical-
vezane drobine debljine od 0,3-0,5m. Nakon
mechanical properties will be controlled on the
toga je potrebno zbiti podtlo do maksimalne
spot by current control with respect to
suve zapreminske težine i do zbijenosti od
appropriate standards in this area that are listed
minimalno 50Mpa. Ove fizičko-mehaničke
at the end of this chapter. Due to the general
karakteristike će se kontrolisati na licu mjesta
stability, bottom pars of the embankment are
tekućom kontrolom uz poštovanje
required to lay down the host rock (Category D)
odgovarajućih standarda iz ove oblasti koji su
which will be achieved by wide excavations in
navedeni na kraju ovog poglavlja. Zbog
these zones and by formation of embankments or
generalne stabilnosti nožični dio nasipa je
reinforced soil at the specified conditions of
obavezno položiti na osnovnoj stijeni
executions from the civil design.
(kategorija D) što će se postići širokim
On this stretch, because of high embankment, iskopima u tim zonama i formiranjem nasipa ili

29

slope gradient and base of bound debris, priority
should be given to the reinforced soil
embankment.“
Due to a comparison, we are providing basic
details from Elaboration on Additional
Geotechnical Investigations and
Engineering-Geological Properties in area of
the Open Route Section Planned for the
Reinforced Soil Retaining Wall, Chainage
RK 1+093 - 1+334 In chapter 3.2
Geomorphological features of the terrain it is
stated: “From geomorphological processes, the
dominant on this part of the terrain are:
 Karst process, as represented by surface
and underground karst forms (valleys,
small caves, caverns);
 Physical-mechanical decay of rock masses,
especially pronounced in the surface area;
 Rock falling- slope process, rotary motion
of debris which was made by mechanical
decaying of stone rock masses that formed
screestones at the hilly slope in thickness
more than 10m.”
In chapter 3.3 Engineering – Geological
structure it is stated as follow: “The
Quaternary sediments are represented by
deluvial-colluvial scree and glacio-fluvial
sand – gravel materials.”
Deluvial – colluvial sediments – passive screes
(figure 4) - are represented by debris and
mostly limestone materials with a varying
content of clay component and with a content
of limestone blocks in size of over 0,5m.
Thickness of the scree sediments exceeds 13m.
Generally, these materials are loosely bound
to unbound, or rarely bound by a calcite
binder. At the concerned location, these
sediments are partly covered by an
emankment.
This scree is passive and accumulated over the
glacio-fluvial sediments. In present conditions,
it remains stable.”
Supervision of Design and Works
on the Bar – Boljare Highway,
Section Smokovac – Uvač –
Mateševo
armirane zemlje po zadatim uslovima izvođenja
iz građevinskog projekta.
Na ovom potezu zbog velike visine nasipa,
nagiba padine i podloge od vezane drobine
prednost treba dati izgradnji nasipa od
armiranog tla.“.
Zbog poređenja donosimo osnovne detalje iz
Elaborata o dopunskim geotehničkim
istraživanjima i inženjersko-geološkim
odlikama terena u zoni dijela otvorene trase
zid od armirane zemlje, stacionaža RK
1+093 – 1+334. U poglavlju 3.2
Geomorfološke odlike terena navedeno je
slijedeće: „Od geomorfoloških procesa na
ovom dijelu terena dominanti su:
- Karstni proces, koji je označen
površinskim i podzemnim karstnim
oblicima (dolovi, manje pećine, kaverne);
- Fizičko-hemijsko raspadanje stijenskih
masa, što je posebno izraženo u
površinskom dijelu;
- Osipanje – padinski proces, rotaciono
kretanje drobine stvorene mehančkim
raspadanjem kamenitih stijenskih masa
kojim su formirani sipari na brdskoj
padini debljine i veće od 10m.
U poglavlju 3.3 Inženjersko-geološka građa
terena navedeno je slijedeće: „Kvartarni
sedimenti su predstavljeni deluvijalno-
koluvijalnim siparskim i glaciofluvijalnim
pjeskovito-šljunkovitim materijalom.
Deluvijalno-koluvijalni sedimenti – umireni
sipari (slika 4), su predstavljeni su
drobinskim uglavnom krečnjačkim
materijalom sa promjenjivim sadržajem
glinovite komponente i sa sadržajem
krečnjačkih blokova veličine i preko 0,5m.
Debljina ovih siparskih sedimenata je i veća
od 13m. Uglavnom se radi o slabije vezanom
do nevezanom materijalu a rjeđe su vezani i
kalcitskim vezivom. Na lokaciji su dijelom
30

In chapter 3.3.1 Definition of EG units,
subunits and geotechnical categories it is
stated as follow: “Engineering-geological unit
IG1a1 is described as the Quaternary deluvial
– colluvial, scree material, with thickness
exceeding even 13 m. Thickness of the scree
material in the boreholes (B-3 through B-5) is
around 1.7-8.8m, while the boreholes B-1 and
B-2 were finished inside this material.
Generally, this material is loosely bound to
unbound (predominant is limestone debris with
a varying grain-size distribution, sharp-
angular, with various content of silt – clay
component and dm-sized blocks). This unit is
defined as P1 category.”
In chapter 3.4 Conditions for Section of
Reinforced Soil Retaining Wall it is stated as
follow: “The concerned location is intended
for construction of the open route including a
reinforced soil retaining wall.
The retaining wall will be formed on a slope
with an inclination of 20 to 25°.
Soil of surrounding area is characterized by
scree material that is accummulated over the
sandy – gravel glaciofluvial sediments and
limestones of Upper Cretaceous age. The very
ground surface has been affected by fillling
with natural materials. According to
information provided by the Employer, this
wall will be removed.
On basis of findings acquired by the subject
investigations, a geotechnical field model is
defined and analysis of design solution is
carried out from geotechnical point of view.
Stability analysis shows that the field is in
state of boundary equilibrium under natural
conditions and load from traffic and
reinforced soil. It is recommended to build a
small ballast on the section where the
reinforced soil will rely onto the scree
materials.”
In chapter 3.4.2 Stability analysis it is stated
as follow: “Stability analysis referrs to two
Supervision of Design and Works
on the Bar – Boljare Highway,
Section Smokovac – Uvač –
Mateševo
prekriveni nasipom.
Radi se o umirenom siparu, nataloženom
preko glaciofluvijalnog materijala a koji je u
sadašnjim uslovima stabilan.“
U poglavlju 3.3.1 Definicija IG jedinica,
podjedinica i geotehničkih kategorija
navedeno je slijedeće: „IG jedinica IG1a1 je
izdvojena kao kvartarni deluvijalno –
koluvijalni, siparski materijal debljine i preko
13m. Istražnim bušotinama (B-3 do B-5)
registrovana je debljina siparskog materijala
oko 1.7-8.8m dok su istražne bušotine B-1 i B-
2 završene u okviru ovog materijala.
Generalno se radi o slabije vezanom do
nevezanom materijalu (dominira krečnjačka
drobina različitog granulometrijskog sastava,
oštrouglasta, sa promenljivim učešćem
prašinasto-glinovite komponente i blokova dm
dimenzija). Ova IG jedinica je definisana kao
P1 kategorija.“
U poglavlju 3.4 Uslovi fundiranja dijela
potpornog zida od armirane zemlje
navedeno je slijedeće: „Na predmetnoj
lokaciji planirana je izgradnja otvorene trase
sa potpornim zidom od armirane zemlje.
Potporni zid će se formirati na padini sa
nagibom od 20 do 25°.
Teren u bližoj zoni karakteriše se siparskim
materijalom koji je nataložen preko
pjeskovito-šljunkovitih glacio-fluvijalnih
sedimenata i krečnjaka gornjokredne starosti.
Sama površina terena je izmjenjena
nasipanjem od prirodnog materijala. Nasip
će, prema podacima dobijenim od Investitora
biti uklonjen.
Na osnovu podataka dobijenih izvedenim
istraživanjima, definisan je geotehnički model
terena i izvršena je analiza projektnog rešanja
sa geotehničkog aspekta.
Analiza stabilnosti, pokazuje da je teren u
prirodnim uslovima uz opterećenje od
saobraćaja i od armirane zemlje u stanju
granične ravnoteže. Preporuka je da se na
dijelu terena gdje se armirana zemlja oslanja
31

cases as follows:
Case I – stability analysis for adopted load
from reinforced soil of 400 kPa and load from
traffic of 33.3 kPa, with and without seismic
influence;
Case II – stability analysis with ballast in the
foot section, with and without seismic
influence.
Having in mind that the concerned area, in
terms of seismicity, belongs to VIII° MKS,
impacts of seismics is simulated, with
equivalent static load, by horizontal and force
of 0,1 W and vertical of 0,5W (weight of
sliding blocks), as in accordance with data of
seismic micro reionization.
Stability analysis was carried out for natural
conditions, i.e. without the existing emankment
as it will be removed. Another case included
slope analysis with construction of ballast. The
ballast shown in the stability analysis is
approximative, so as to determine possible
solutions to slope stability. The precise sizes
and slope of the ballast should be determined
by the Designer as a modification to the Main
construction design.
The analysis showed that, in conditions of
loads from reinforced soil and traffic, the
slope is at state of limit equillibrium and that
for case of seismic influence the safety factor
is below 1, which implies implementation of
security measures.
Stability analysis with ballast gave safety
factors which satisfy the criterium Fs > 1,4
for slopes in natural conditions under load,
and Fs > 1,1 for slopes in seismic
conditions.”
In chapter 4. CONCLUSION it is stated as
follow: “As the ground in the area of
reinforced soil retaining wall is characterized
by great thickness of rockfall sediments, the
solution proposed by the Designer was
considered. Given the stability analysis
Supervision of Design and Works
on the Bar – Boljare Highway,
Section Smokovac – Uvač –
Mateševo
na siparski materijal izvede manji balast.
U poglavlju 3.4.2 Analiza stabilnosti
navedeno je: „Analiza stabilnosti je rađena u
dva slučaja i to:
Prvi - proračun stabilnosti uz usvojeno
opterećenje od armirane zemlje 400 kPa i
opterećenje od saobraćaja od 33.3 kPa sa i
bez seizmičkog uticaja;
Drugi - proračun stabilnosti uz izgradnju
balasta u nožičnom dijelu sa i bez seizmičkog
uticaja;
Imajući u vidu da predmetno područje, u
pogledu seizmičnosti, pripada VIII° MKS,
uticaj seizmike je simuliran, ekvivalentnim
statičkim opterećenjem, horizontalnom silom
od 0,1 W i vertikalnom od 0,5W (težine
kliznog bloka), shodno podacima seizmičke
mikrorejonizacije.
Analiza stabilnosti je izvedena u prirodnom
stanju, odnosno bez postojećeg nasipa,
obzirom na to da će nasip biti uklonjen. U
drugom slučaju je analizirana kosina uz
izgradnju balasti. Balast koji je prikazan na
analizama stabilnosti je aproksimiran u cilju
utvrđivanja mogućnosti rešavanja stabilnosti
padine. Precizne dimenzije i nagib balasti
treba da odredi Projektant u sklopu izmjena
Glavnog Građevinskog Priojekta.
Analizom je utvrđeno da se u uslovima
opterećenja od armirane zemlje i od
saobraćaja kosina nalazi u stanju granične
ravnoteže i da je u slučaju seizmičkog uticaja
faktor sigurnosti ispod 1, odnosno da je
potrebno uraditi osiguranje.
Analizom stabilnosti sa balastom su dobijeni
faktori sigurnosti koji zadovoljavaju
kriterijum Fs > 1,3, za kosine u prirodnim
uslovima uz opterećenje, odnosno Fs >1,1 za
kosine u seizmičkim uslovima.“
U poglavlju 4. ZAKLJUČAK navedeno je
slijedeće: „S obzirom da se teren u zoni dijela
potpornog zida od armirane zemlje
32

showed that the ground is in state of boundary
equlibrium under load from traffic operations
and reinforced soil, it is recommended that the
slope should be secured with a ballast in the
area where reinforced soil relies into the scree
material.
Precise sizes and slope of the ballast should be
defined by the Designer as a part of
modifications to the Main construction design.
Such solution was analyzed from aspect of
stability and bearing capacity.
Bearing capacity calcuation resulted in value
which exceeds the expected loads from the
facility and traffic.
From stability analysis inclusive of the ballast,
obtained safety factors are satisfying for the
cariteria Fs>1,3 and Fs>1.1 in seismic
conditions.
Expected settlements will take place during
construction of the Facility.”
Due to a comparison, we are providing basic
details from Elaboration on Geotechnical
Conditions for Construction of
Embankment Between the Tunnels Suka
and Vezesnik from km RK 1+093 to RK
1+334
In chapter 1 INTRODUCTION it is stated as
follow: “According to the Contract concluded
between the Employer (CRBC) and Geological
Contractor (Geoprojekt ltd.), supplementary
geotechnical investigations were carried out in
order to, along with use of findings from
earlier investigations, develop the Elaboration
on geotechnical conditions for construction of
embankment between the tunnels Suka and
Vežešnik from km RK 1+095 to RK 1+334, for
level of the Main Construction Design for Bar
– Boljare Highway, Section Smokovac –
Matesevo.
In general, natural structure of the terrain is
representative for valley sides of the Morača
river within this area. The basic rock mass is
limestone massif against which the Morača's
Supervision of Design and Works
on the Bar – Boljare Highway,
Section Smokovac – Uvač –
Mateševo
karakteriše velikom debljinom deluvijalno-
koluvijalnih sedimenata siparskih sedimenata,
analizirano je rešenje Projektanta. Kako je
izvedenom analizom stabilnosti dobijeno da je
teren uz opterećenje od saobraćaja i armirane
zemlje u stanju granične ravnoteže, preporuka
je da se kosina u dijelu gdje se armirana
zemlja oslanja na siparski materijal osigura
balastom.
Precizne dimenzije i nagib balasti treba da
odredi Projektant u sklopu izmjena Glavnog
Građevinskog Projekta.
Ovakvo rešenje je analizirano sa aspekta
stabilnosti i nosivosti.
Proračunom nosivosti je dobijena vrijednost
koja prevazilazi očekivano opterećenje od
objekta i saobraćaja.
Sa aspekta stabilnosti uz izradu balasta,
dobijeni su faktori sigurnosti koji
zadovoljavaju kriterijum Fs>1,3 i Fs>1.1 u
uslovima seizmičnosti.
Očekivana slijeganja će se obaviti tokom
izgradnje objekta.“
Zbog poređenja donosimo osnovne detalje iz
Elaborata o geotehničkim uslovima
izvođenja nasipa između tunela Suka i
Vežešnik od km RK 1+093 do RK 1+334.
U poglavlju 1 UVOD navedeno je slijedeće:
„Na osnovu ugovora između Naručioca
(CRBC) i izvođača geoloških istraživanja
(Geoprojekt d.o.o. Podgorica) izvedena su
dopunska geotehnička istraživanja, kako bi se,
uz korišćenje ranije izvedenih istraživanja,
izradio Elaborat o geotehničkim uslovima
izvođenja nasipa između tunela Suka i
Vežišnik od km RK 1+095 do RK 1+334, za
nivo Glavnog građevinskog projekta na
autoputu Bar – Boljare, dionica Smokovac –
Mateševo.
Prirodna konstrukcija terena u ovoj zoni je
inače karakteristika dolinskih strana rijeke
Morače u ovoj zoni. Osnovnu stijenu
predstavlja krečnjački masiv na koga je
33

terrace is relied, represented by sandy gravels
poorly to highly bound into a conglomerate
and highly bound in the area where the terrace
is approaching the Morača's bed. This terrace
is overlaid by deposits of colluvial materials,
i.e. screes from the slope in the hinterland.
These materials are represented by angular
sandy gravels origins from limestone, with a
certain percentage of debris and with local
blocks of rocks. Also, areas with a certain
percentage of clay-silt component are
encountered here and there. This was a brief
description of natural geology of the field in
this area, however it should be noted that, due
to intensive works for excavation of Suka and
Vežišnik, the natural structure of the field was
covered with enormous quantites of fill
(spilled) materials that were not compacted
but landfilled at this location temporarily.
Access and working roads were built on these
materials.
The figure below reflects the actual situation
at the site, where impact of the said works onto
the change in morphometry comparing to the
natural state is evident. It has been planned by
the Contractor, which is also a pre-requisite
for construction of the embankment, to
completely remove the deposited materials
until the natural structure of the terrain.
Appendices 1 and 2 clearly shows the
boundaries of the materials over the natural
ground.
According to the Agreement signed between
the Employer and Contractor, the Contractor
developed "Design of additional geotechnical
investigations for construction of an
embankment between the tunnels Suka and
Vežešnik from km RK 1+095 to RK 1+334",
for the General civil design. The Employer
handed the Design over to the Investor, who
forwarded it for perusal to the State Review
Panel that issued its approval and auditting
Clause UP199/18 as of 22.11.2019.
Since this location had been investigated for
construction of reinforced earth, which was
dismissed in the meantime, those works were
Supervision of Design and Works
on the Bar – Boljare Highway,
Section Smokovac – Uvač –
Mateševo
naslonjena terasa Morače koju predstavljaju
pjeskoviti šljunkovi koji su slabo do jače
vezani u konglomerat i vrlo jako vezani u zoni
gdje se terasa približava koritu rijeke Morače.
Preko ove terase su deponovani koluvijalni
materijali koji predstavljaju sipare sa padine
iz zaleđa. Ove materijali su uvidom na terenu
predstavljeni pjeskovitim uglastim šljunkom
krečnjalog porijekla sa određenim procentom
drobine i sa blokovima stijene koji se lokalno
javljaju. Takođe se mogu i sresti zone gdje
postoji i određeni procenat glinovito-
prašinaste komponente.
Ovo je ukrato bio opis geološke građe
prirodne konstrukcije terena u ovoj zoni, ali
mora se imati u vidu da je zbog velikih radova
na iskopu Suke i Vežišnika ova prirodna
konstrukcija terena zatrpana ogromnom
količinom nasutog (prosutog) materijala koji
nije zbijan već je ovdje privremeno
deponovan. Preko ovih materijala su
formirani i pristupni i radni putevi do tunela.
Na sledećoj slici je prikazano trenutno stanje
na terenu gdje se može vidjeti uticaj
navedenih radova na izmjenu morfometrije
terena u odnosu na prirodno stanje. Plan
Izvođača a i uslovna preporuka za izvođenje
budućeg nasipa je uklanjanje kompletnog
nabacanog materijala do prirodne
konstrukcije terena. U prilozima 1 i 2 data je
dovoljno tačna, orijentaciona granica
nabacanog materijala preko prirodne
konstrukcije terena.
Na osnovu Ugovora između Naručioca i
Izvođača, Izvođač je izradio “Projekat
dopunskih geotehničkih istraživanja za
potrebe definisanja geotehničkih uslova
izvođenja nasipa između tunela Suka i
Vežišnik od km RK 1+095 do RK 1+334“ za
nivo Glavnog građevinskog projekta.
Naručilac je predao Projekat Investitoru, a on
ga je proslijedio na pregled Državnoj
revizorskoj komisiji, dala saglasnost i
revizionu klauzulu broj UP-419/19 od
22.11.2019 god.
Obzirom da su na ovoj lokaciji rađena
34

still used and two boreholes B-1, B-2 i B-3
were redrilled, now carrying annotations B-1',
B-2' and B-3'. The two were drilled in the
immediate vicinity of the initial boreholes.
Also, 6 trial pits and 2 boreholes B-6 and B-7
were executed in order to define the
foundations of toe retaining wall.”
In chapter 3.4 Geotechnical conditions for
embankment construction it is stated as
follow: “This section of the open route is
planned for construction of embankment with
elements as shown in field cross-sections.
It is recommended to build the embankment by
using, as designed, the selected quality
subbase materials in compliance with
applicable standards. Gradient of its sides will
be 27°, i.e. 1:2. Height of level slopes will be
min 10 m, with a break berm 2m wide. Line of
the embankment is given in app. 1 and 2.
The total height of the embankment will be cca
30 m, while its thickness on natural material in
the area of the right edge of the road will
range to maximum 30 m in the area of
borehole B-4 (in length of cca 35 m), whereas
before and after this point the thickness
rapidly decreases.
A basic recommendation, which was an initial
idea, is to remove all filled and thrown
materials from this location. This material
could be repacked and used as material for
incorporation in the embankment providing
the prior proper preparation of it.
When removing the materials it is required to
remove up to 1 m of natural material, so as to
eliminate from the ko-dl materials any surface
deluvial-humus cover, which is expected to be
beneath the embankment.
Afterwards, it is required to prepare the
subsoil in a way that in areas where gradient
of natural material exceeds 20° stairs around
2 m wide will be built, buried into soil, with
gradient 1:1 to 2:1. For gradients between 20
and 30° it is required to provide a gap of 1 m
between the stairs, while for gradient of over
Supervision of Design and Works
on the Bar – Boljare Highway,
Section Smokovac – Uvač –
Mateševo
istraživanja za potrebe izgrdanje armirane
zemlje od koje se u međuvremenu odustalo, ti
radovi su iskorišćeni a za potrebe ovog
Elaborata su ponovljene tri bušotine B-1, B-2
i B-3 sada sa oznakama B-1', B-2' i B-3'. Ove
dvije bušotine su izvedene u neposrednoj
blizini prethodnih. Takođe, za potrebe
definisanja fundiranja nožičnog potpornog
zida izvedeno je 6 raskopa i dvije bušotine B-6
i B-7.“
U poglavlju 3.4 Geotehnički uslovi
izgradnje nasipa navedeno je: „Na ovom
dijelu otvorene trase planira se izgradnja
nasipa sa elementima kako je to prikazano na
poprečnim presjecima terena.
Preporučuje se izrada nasipa, kako je to i
planirano, sa selektovanim kvalitetnim
tamponskim materijalom u svemo saglasno
standardima. Nagib kosina nasipa će biti 27°
tj. nagib 1:2. Visine etažnih kosina će biti 10
m sa prekidnom bermom širine 2 m. Linija
nasipa je data u prilozima br. 1 i 2.
Ukupna visina nasipa će se kretati oko 30 m,
dok će se debljina nasipa nad prirodnim
materijalom u zoni desne ivice puta kretati od
maksimalnih oko 30 m u zoni bušotine B-4 (u
dužini oko 35 m) dok se prije ove tačke i
nakon nje debljina vrlo brzo smanjuje.
Kao osnovna preporuka, što je i idejom
planirano jeste da se ukloni sav nasuti i
nabacani materijal sa lokacije. Ovaj materijl
se može prepakivati i koristiti za materijal koji
će se ugrađivati u nasip ali tek nakon
adekvatne pripreme.
Prilikom uklanjanja materijala potrebno je
ukloniti do 1 m prirodnog materijala kako bi
se iz ko-dl materijla uklonio površinski
deluvijlno-humusni pokrivač koji se može
očekivati ispod nasipa.
Nakon toga je potrebno pripremiti podtlo tako
što će se u zonama gdje je nagib prirodnog
materijala preko 20° izvesti stepenice širine
oko 2 m, usječne u teren, sa nagibom 1:1 do
2:1. Za nagib terena između 20 i 30° između
35

30° the stairs shoud be built without the gaps.
For gradients in area where terrain is cut by
steep slopes, the embankment should be built
from the lower level until it becomes levelled
with the slope's top.
Prior to embankment works, it is required to
prepare the subsoil, i.e. to compact it until the
maximum dry density and compaction of
minimum 50 Mpa are obtained. The physical
mechanical parameters will be checked on
spot by means of current control and with
respect to applicable standards specified at the
end of this chapter.
When it comes to materials for the
embankment, materials from excavation for
Suka and Vezisnik tunnels may be used.
For that, it is required to form a well grained
subbase material (d10/d60>9) with the
following properties:
Maximum grain size should not exceed two
thirds of the thickness of the layer in which it
is installed. On general the grain size in
embankment should not exceed 400 mm.
Embankment of limestone material should be
done in approximately horizontal layers in the
longitudinal direction, in appropriate
thickness as per the standards, given to start
from the lowest parts of the terrain. In the
transverse direction, layers should have a
slope of at least 4%.
The embankment must be compacted to min
95% by the modified Proctor.
At the top of the embankment, below the sub-
grade, compression modulus must be Ev2>60
MPa, and CBR > 10 % needs to be achieved.
As for parameters that would fit the materials
prepared in such a manner, the probability
analysis was done for 30 m high embankment
(within geological maps for the phase of the
Highway Main construction design), given the
safety factor of cca 1.4 was met. The analysis
resulted in the following values:
Supervision of Design and Works
on the Bar – Boljare Highway,
Section Smokovac – Uvač –
Mateševo
stepenica se ostavljaju međuprostori od 1 m,
dok se za nagibe terena preko 30° stepenice
izvode bez međuprostora. Za nagibe terena u
zonama gdje je teren zasječen strmim
nagibom to se nasip izvodi sa donjeg nivoa
dok ne se ne poravna sa škarpom kosine.
Prije izrade nasipa potrebno je pripremiti
podtlo i to tako da je potrebno izvršiti zbijanje
podtla do maksimalne suve zapreminske težine
i do zbijenosti od minimum 50 MPa. Ove fiz.-
meh. karakteristike će se kontrolisati na licu
mjesta tekućom kontrolom uz poštovanje
odgovarajućih standarda iz ove oblasti koji su
navedeni na kraju ovog poglavlja.
Što se tiče materijala koji je potrebno ugraditi
u nasip za to se može koristiti materijal iz
iskopa tunela Suka i Vežišnik.
Za to je potrebno formirati dobro granulirani
tamponski materijal (d10/d60>9) koji ima
sledeće karakteristike:
Maksimalna veličina zrna ne smije biti veća
od dvije trećine debljine sloja koji se
ugrađuje, a po pravilu zrna u nasipu ne
smiju biti veća od 400 mm.
Nasip od krečnjačkog materijala izvoditi u
približno horizontalnim slojevima u podužnom
pravcu, odgovarajuće debljine u skladu sa
standardima, s tim što treba početi od najnižih
djelova terena. U poprečnom pravcu slojevi
treba da imaju nagib od najmanje 4 %.
Nasip mora biti zbijen na minimum 95 % po
modifikovanom Proktoru.
Na ravni nasipa ispod posteljice potrebno je
dostići modul stišljivosti Ev2 >60 MPa a CBR
mora biti veći od 10 %.
Što se tiče parametara koji bi odgovarali
ovako pripremljenom materijalu rađena je
probabilistička analiza za nasip visine 30 m (u
okviru geoloških podloga u fazi izrade
glavnog projekta autoputa), a da je
36

angle of internal friction φ = 39 (38-40);
cohesion c = 1 (0-2).
Given the preparation of embankment
described above, these parameters are
absolutely met, i.e.in practice, angle of
internal friction for embankment certainly
exceeds 40°, meaning that stability
requirement is satisfied.
The material planned for embankment as well
as natural material has good permeability
properties, i.e.the terrain leachates relatively
quickly. In any case, it is required, in order to
minimize the impact, collect all waters forming
along the two gullies above the Highway. This
could be achieved by building a drainage
trench above the Highway to maxpossible
depth in the Quaternary unbound and poorly
bound material. That water as well as water
from the tunnel and road should be collected
and transferred below the embankment into
the Moraca.
Execution of all earth works must be complied
with valid Montenegro standards- JUS
U.E1.010; JUS U.E8.010; JUS U.S4.064.”
In chapter 3.5 Geotechnical conditions for
foundation of wall in the embankment's toe
it is stated as follow: “Since the size of the
planned embankment is great, it will be
impossible to build it at exit from the Suka
tunnel without jeopardizing the motorway.
Therefore, it is planned to build a toe wall at
this section, in length of cca 90 m (App.1 and
2).
Execution of trial pits and two boreholes in
this section showed that the dominant
foundation soil is made of fluvio-glacial
materials with excellent properties, i.e. EG
units fl-gl (šlj,kg) – geotehchnical category P3
(ppendix. 2.2).
Supervision of Design and Works
on the Bar – Boljare Highway,
Section Smokovac – Uvač –
Mateševo
zadovoljen faktor sigurnosti od oko 1.4. Ovom
analizom su dobijene sledeće vrijednosti:
ugao unutrašnjeg trenja φ = 39 (38-40);
kohezija c = 1 (0-2).
Uz gore navedenu pripremu nasipa ovi
parametri su definitivno zadovoljeni tj. u
praksi ugao unutrašnjeg trenja nasipa sigurno
prevazilazi 40° tako da je uslov stabilnosti
nasipa zadovoljen.
Materijal budućeg nasipa pa i prirodni
materijal imaju solidne vodopropusne
karakteristike u smislu da se teren relativno
brzo ocijeđuje. U svakom slučaju je potrebno,
kako bi se što više smanjio uticaj, sve vode
koje se formiraju duž dvije jaruge pokupiti
iznad autoputa koliko je to moguće. Ovo je
moguće postići izradom drenažnog rova iznad
puta do maksimalne moguće dubine u
kvartarnim nevezanim i slabovezanim
materijalima. Tu vodu i vodu iz tunela i sa
saobraćajnice je potrebno pokupiti i sprovesti
ispod nasipa u Moraču.
Pri izvođenju svih zemljanih radova
pridržavati se važećih standarda u Crnoj Gori
- JUS U.E1.010; JUS U.E8.010; JUS
U.S4.064.“
U poglavlju 3.5 Geotehnički uslovi
fundiranja zida u nožičnom dijelu nasipa
navedeno je: „Kako je planirani nasip velikih
dimenzija to nije bilo moguće na izlazu iz
Suke formirati nasip a da se ne ugrozi
magistralni put. Iz tog razloga je planiran
potporni nožični zid u ovom dijelu dužine oko
90 m (prilozi 1 i 2).
Izvođenjem istražnih raskopa i dvije istražne
bušotine ovdje će temeljno tlo na većem dijelu
biti fluvio-glacijalni materijal odličnih
karakteristika tj. IG jedinica fl-gl (šlj,kg) –
geotehnička kategorija P3 (prilog br. 2.2).
Na osnovu uvida u IG građu terena u ovoj
zoni preporučuje se fundiranje zida u fluvio-
glacijlanom materijalu sa dubinom fundiranja
od minimum 1 m u geotehničkoj sredini P3.
37

Having in mind the EG structure of terrain in
this section, it is recommended to found the
wall in fluvio-glacial material with the
foundation depth of minimum 1 m in the
geotechnical unit P3. Also, the total
foundation depth should not be less than 1.5
m.
The geotechnical Unit P2 is present in slightly
greater thickness at the wall's beginning
section, whereas further it is absent.
In this beginning section, which is cca 20 m
long, thickness of P2 category is greater. This
is why foundation should be performed in
category P2, providing that elevation of
foundation excavation is 4 m lower than the
ground line from downhill side, i.e. foundation
is feasable if minimum depth of foundation
excavation is 4 m. Subsequently, it is required
to fill the ground with around 1m of well
grained subbase materials which should be
compacted to 100 Mpa.
Also, it is also possible to remove complete
category P2 from the foundation excavation
and to replace that material with lean concrete
up until the given elevation.
The terrain within the defined categories P3
and P2 has good bearing capacity for
designed loads and small primary settlement.
In chapter 4 CONCLUSION it is stated as
follow: “With regard to all additional
investigations performed for definition of EG
structure of field between the Suka and
Vežišnik tunnels, it can be concluded that
construction of the embankment is executable
if all suggestions given in this Elaboration are
respected.
Technogenic sediments (embankment),
colluvial-deluvial materials, fluvio-glacial
materials and limestone base were marked on
site and, accordingly, in drawings. Various
geotechnical categories were differentiated in
these EG units.
On the basis of all in detail processed field,
laboratory and cabinet data, we established
Supervision of Design and Works
on the Bar – Boljare Highway,
Section Smokovac – Uvač –
Mateševo
Takođe je potrebno zadovoljiti uslov da
ukupna dubina fundiranja ne može biti manja
od 1.5 m dubine.
Na početku zida se javlja nešto deblji sloj
geotehničke sredine P2, dok u nastavku ona
izostaje.
U ovom početnom dijelu, dužine oko 20 m
debljina P2 kategorije je veća te se
preporučuje fundiranje u kategoriji P2, ali uz
uslov da kota temeljnog iskopa bude 4 m niža
od linije terena sa nizbrdne strane tj. moguće
je fundiranje ako je najmanja dubina
temeljnog iskopa 4 m. Nakon toga je potrebno
uraditi nasipanje oko 1 m dobro granuliranog
tamponskog materijala koji je potrebno zbiti
na 100 MPa.
Takođe postoji mogućnost uklanjanja
kompletne kategorije P2 u temeljnom iskopu i
zamjena tog materijala sa mršavim betonom
do potrebne kote.
Teren u okviru izdvojenih kategorija P3 i P2
je dobro nosiv za projektovana opterećenja i
sa vrlo malim primarnim slijeganjem.
U poglavlju 4 ZAKLJUČAK navedeno je:
„Na osnovu svih dopunskih istraživanja koja
su urađena za potrebe definisanja IG građe
terena u zoni između Suke i Vežišnika može se
konstatovati da je izgradnja nasipa moguća uz
poštovanje svih preporuka datih u ovom
Elaboratu.
Na terenu, a samim tim i na grafičkim
prilozima su odvojeni tehnogeni sedimenti
(nasip), koluvijalno-deluvijalni materijali,
fluvio-glacijalni materijali kao i krečnjačka
osnova. U okviru ovih IG jedinica su
izdvojene različite geotehničke kategorije.
Na osnovu svih detaljno obrađenih terenskih,
laboratorijskih i kabinetskih podataka
izdvojene mjerodavne i reprezentativne
geotehničke sredine koje imaju različite
karakteristike, a prije svega različite fiz.-meh.
parametre koji su neophodni za adekvatno
38

representative and important geotechnical
units with their authentic properties, i.e.
different phyical and mechanical parameters
required for adequate design of both the
embankment and its toe section.
All data obtained from the field investigations
as well as by analysing the geomorphology of
this field section were used for definition of the
spatial dip and strike.
Soil bearing capacity is not problematic, while
settlements will be small or even neglectible in
some geotechnical categories. Surely it will be
required to establish a model and define
prognostic settlements. No matter how many
high values are obtained, it is important that
settlements will finish during the construction.
When the terrain stability is concerned, as
defined in the previous chapters, the terrain is
stable for variant of embankment construction
with use of standardized limestone materials.
The supervising Engineer should monitor the
compliance of field works with this
Elaboration, and at any moment when a real
situation on site deviates from this Elaboration
it is required to react and modify the solution
and documentation accordingly, so that the
terrain and structures will remain secured and
stable during the Highway exploitation in
future.”
Supervision of Design and Works
on the Bar – Boljare Highway,
Section Smokovac – Uvač –
Mateševo
projektovanje kako nasipa tako i nožičnog
zida.
Za definisanje prostornog zalijeganja
korišćeni su svi podaci dobijeni terenskim
istraživanjem kao i analizom geomorfologije
ovog dijela terena.
Nosivost terena nije problematična dok će
slijeganja biti mala ili čak zanemarljiva u
pojedinim geotehničkim kategorijama.
Svakako da je potrebno postaviti model i
odrediti prognozna slijeganja. Kolike kod
vrijednosti budu dobijene bitno je da će ta
slijeganja biti obavljena tokom gradnje
objekata.
Što se tiče stabilnosti terena kao što je i
definisano u prethodnim poglavljima, teren je
stabilan za varijantu izrade nasipa sa
standardizovanim krečnjačkim materijalom.
Ono što je navedeno i definisano u Elaboratu
je potrebno od strane nadzornog Inženjera
pratiti na terenu i u svakom momentu kada
realno stanje na terenu odstupa od onog
definisanog u Elaboratu potrebno je reagovati
i izvršiti potrebnu izmjenu rešenja i
dokumentacije kako bi objekti i teren bili
sigurni i stabilni u budućnosti prilikom
eksploatacije autoputa.“
39
 Supervision of Design and Works
on the Bar – Boljare Highway,
Section Smokovac – Uvač –
Mateševo

Picture 1: Main Design – EG Map km LK 1+127 – 1+243; DWG No. 1.2; Design code:
BBC**0MO003GL02
Slika 1: Glavni projekt – IG karta km LK 1+127 – 1+243; Crtež br. 1.2; Šifra projekta:
BBC**0MO003GL02

40
 Supervision of Design and Works
on the Bar – Boljare Highway,
Section Smokovac – Uvač –
Mateševo

Picture 2: Main Design – Detailed EG map with layout drawing of Investigated works; DWG No. 1;
Design code: BBC011TR_001GL03 (for option of MSE wall supported by ballast)
Slika 2: Glavni projekt – Detaljna IG karta sa položajem izvedenih istražnih radova; Crtež br. 1; Šifra
projekta: BBC011TR_001GL03 (za varijantu MSE zida sa balastnim materijalom)

41
 Supervision of Design and Works
on the Bar – Boljare Highway,
Section Smokovac – Uvač –
Mateševo

Picture 3: Main Design – Detailed EG map with layout drawing of Investigated works; Appendix No. 1;
Design code: BBC011TR_01GL04 (for option of Embankment with retainiing toe wall)
Slika 3: Glavni projekt – Detaljna IG karta sa položajem izvedenih istražnih radova; Prilog br. 1; Šifra
projekta: BBC011TR_01GL04 (za varijantu nasipa sa potpornim nožićnim zidom)

42

3.2. Technical comments
Described “Unforeseeable geological
condition” is manifested mostly as changed
geotechnical environment of the MSE wall
foundation (loose scree material instead
forecasted limestones).
In remedial measures Contractor designed:
 Ballast (backfilling material) outside the
foundation slope of the foundation – in the
first proposal of the Main Design change
Contractor haven’t took into consideration
possibility of designing of some other solution
(general embankment), even the Designer of
Elaboration on Additional Geotechnical
Investigations and Engineering-Geological
Pproperties in area of the Open Route Section
Planned for the Reinforced Soil Retaining
Wall, Chainage RK 1+093 - 1+334 stated as
follow: “Stability analysis shows that the field
is in state of boundary equilibrium under
natural conditions and load from traffic and
reinforced soil. It is recommended to build a
small ballast on the section where the
reinforced soil will rely onto the scree
materials.”
After negative Report on review of the Main
Design change – Version 4, (Enclosure 30) SRP
“strongly recommend to the Contractor to
consider alternative solutions”, and after the
Contractor started with MD change process in
this direction
During the entire process of the Main Design
change it is evident that the Contractor tried to
reduce the cists maximally; by reducing of
borehole drilling depth for the variant of MSE
wall (with ballast), as well as by not including of
the boreholes in the zone of RC retaining wall in
the variant of the high embankment (30+ m),
partly supported by a toe wall.
It is evident that mentioned location was used as
the mucking area for excavated material from
tunnels Suka and Vezesnik. Stockpilled material
wasn’t removed from the location, and it is
obvious from mentioned Contractor’s
Supervision of Design and Works
on the Bar – Boljare Highway,
Section Smokovac – Uvač –
Mateševo
3.2. Tehnički komentari
Opisani „Nepredvidivi geološki uslovi“
manifestuju se uglavnom kao izmjenjena
geotehnička sredina fundiranja zida od armirane
zemlje (siparski materijal umjesto
prognoziranih krečnjaka).
U korektivnim mjerama Izvođač je projektovao:
 Balast (materijal za zatrpavanje) van kosine
temelja – u prvom prijedlogu izmjene
Glavnog projekta
Izvođač nije razmotrio mogućnost
projektovanja nekog drugog rješenja (klasični
nasip), iako je projektant Elaborata o
dopunskim geotehničkim istraživanjima i
inženjersko-geološkim odlikama terena u
zoni dijela otvorene trase zid od armirane
zemlje, stacionaža RK 1+093 – 1+334
konstatovao slijedeće: „Analizom je utvrđeno
da se u uslovima opterećenja od armirane
zemlje i od saobraćaja kosina nalazi u stanju
granične ravnoteže i da je u slučaju
seizmičkog uticaja faktor sigurnosti ispod 1,
odnosno da je potrebno uraditi osiguranje.“
Nakon negativnog Izvještaja o reviziji izmjene
Glavnog projekta –Verzija 4, (Prilog 30), DKR
je „toplo preporučila Izvođaču da razmotri
alternativna rješenja“, nakon čega je Izvođač
počeo sa procesom izmjene Glavnog projekta u
tom smjeru.
Tokom cijelog postupka izmjene Glavnog
projekta evidentno je da je Izvođač pokušavao
maksimalno reducirati troškove; smanjenjem
dubine istražnih bušotina za varijantu zida od
armirane zemlje (sa balastom), kao i
neuvrštavanjem istražnih bušotina u zoni
potpornog AB zida u varijanti visokog
klasičnog nasipa (30+ m), djelomično
poduprtog AB potpornim nožićnim zidom.
Evidentno je da je navedena lokacija korištena
kao privremena deponija materijala iz iskopa
tunela Suka i Vežešnik. Deponovani materijal
nije uklonjen sa lokacije, što je evidentno i iz
navedenih Izvođačevih dokumenata, gdje je
navedeno: „Kao osnovna preporuka, što je i
43
 Supervision of Design and Works
on the Bar – Boljare Highway,
Section Smokovac – Uvač –
Mateševo

documents, where is stated: “A basic idejom planirano jeste da se ukloni sav nasuti i
recommendation, which was an initial idea, is to nabacani materijal sa lokacije.“
remove all filled and thrown materials from this
location.”

Picture 4: Main Design – High embankments that covered the natural ground; Design code:
BBC011TR_01GL04 (for option of Embankment with retainiing toe wall)
Slika 4: Glavni projekt – Veliki nasipi koji su prekrili prirodan teren; Šifra projekta:
BBC011TR_01GL04 (za varijantu nasipa sa potpornim nožićnim zidom)

44

3.3. Technical conclusion
In his supporting documents, Contractor
explained unforeseeable geological conditions as
a consequences of:
 Changed geotechnical environment of the
MSE wall foundation (loose scree material
instead forecasted limestones).
It is in line with conclusions from Preliminary
Design.
Removed material stays on relatively less steep
sections of the slopes, i.e. forming numerious
active scree loose materials, as it is already
described in the delivered Preliminary Design.
Main issue in such geological conditions
(surface loose scree material, usually up to 6 m
deep, and up to 20 m deep in the foult zones) is
choosing of structure, bearing in mind limited
founding conditions.
Also, the reason of Contractor’s execution of
trial pits only in the phase of geotechnical
investigations for this MSE wall is unclear.
It seems logical to add a necessary investigations
to confirm a position of the basic rock. By acting
on that way, thick layer of loose scree material
will be confirmed in earlier stage and necessary
Main Design change will be prepared and
approved in early stage of the Project, so thus
will avoid unnecessary waiting and numerous
revisions.
Due to a small volume of geotechnical
investigations performed for the Main Design, as
well as a scree material thickness significamtly
bigger than expected, additional geotechnical
investigations should be performed.
Mentioned parts of Contractor’s design
documentation shows that additional
geotechnical investigations were mandatory,
taking into account impossible founding of MSE
wall (without ballast material) in tranquilized
loose screes.
Also, after logical change of MSE wall with
Supervision of Design and Works
on the Bar – Boljare Highway,
Section Smokovac – Uvač –
Mateševo
3.3. Tehnički zaključak
U pratećim dokumentima, Izvođač je objasnio
nepredvidive geološke uslove kao posljedice:
 Izmijenjene geotehničke sredine fundiranja
zida od armirane zemlje (siparski materijal
umjesto prognoziranih krečnjaka).
To je u skladu sa zaključcima iz Idejnog
projekta.
Otkinuti materijal se na relativno blažim
delovima padine zadržava, odnosno, formira
brojne aktivne sipare, karakterističnog
izduženog oblika, kako je i opisano u
dostavljenom Idejnom projektu.
Osnovno pitanje u takvim geološkim uslovima
(površinski siparski materijal koji je uobičajene
debljine do 6 m, a u rasjednim zonama i preko
20 m) je odabir konstrukcije, obzirom na
limitirane uslove fundiranja.
Takođe, nejasan je razlog zbog kojeg je u fazi
geotehničkih istraživanja Izvođač izveo
isključivo istražne raskope za ovaj zid od
armirane zemlje.
Bilo bi logično dodati potrebne istražne radove
koji bi potvrdili položaj osnovne stijene. Na taj
način ranije bi bio potvrđen siparski sloj velike
debljine i potrebna izmjena Glavnog projekta
bila bi pripremljena i odobrena u ranoj fazi
Projekta, čime bi se izbjeglo nepotrebno
čekanje i brojne revizije.
Uslijed malog obima geotehničkih istraživanja
za potrebe Glavnog projekta, kao i debljine
sloja sipara znatno veće debljine od
pretpostavljene, bilo je potrebno izvesti dodatna
geotehnička istraživanja.
Navedeni dijelovi Izvođačeve projektne
dokumentacije pokazuju da su dodatna
geotehnička istraživanja bila nužna, uzevši u
obzir da je bilo nemoguće fundirati zid od
armiranog tla (a bez balastnog materijala) u
umirenim siparima.
Takođe, nakon logične izmjene zida od
45

ballast solution by the solution of heigh
embankment supported by toe wall, it was
necessary to perform additional geotechnical
investigations in order to confirm a foundation
soil for a toe wall.
It is important to highlight that removal of the
stock pile of excavated material from Suka and
Vezesnik tunnels excavation started after final
approval of the Main Design change (heigh
embankment with toe wall solution), even it was
necessary to do as the site preparation for any
solution; showing that Contractor didn’t have a
possibilities to remove stockpiled excavated
material in earlier stage, either didn’t showed
any interest to do so.
Supervision of Design and Works
on the Bar – Boljare Highway,
Section Smokovac – Uvač –
Mateševo
armirane zemlje sa balastom rješenjem visokog
nasipa sa nožićnim potpornim zidom, bilo je
potrebno odraditi dodatne geotehničke istražne
radove u svrhu potvrđivanja temeljnog tla za
fundiranje nožićnog potpornog zida.
Važno je napomenuti da je uklanjanje deponije
materijala iz iskopa tunela Suka i Vežešnik
počelo tek nakon konačnog odobrenja izmjene
Glavnog projekta (varijanta visokog nasipa sa
nožićnim potpornim zidom), iako je to bilo
potrebno učiniti u pripremi gradilišta za bilo
koju varijantu; iz čega se da zaključiti da
Izvođač nije imao mogućnosti ukloniti odloženi
iskopani materijal ranije, niti je za to pokazao
interes.
46

4. GENERAL DESCRIPTION
Dropping process
By mapping of the terrain, locations where or at
which rock masses of greater volume may have
occurred by dropping process have been
registered. It has been observed that the
occurrences of rash and fall are concentrated on
steep stripped rocks, that is, on steep sections
(excarpmans) up to several tens, even hundreds
of meters high. The tear-off material lingers on
relatively milder parts of the slope, that is, forms
numerous active screes, with a characteristic
elongated shape. The locations of these
occurrences are indicated by appropriate
markings on the engineering-geological map.
This material is poorly complex, unstable and
subject to constant movement. Screes and loose
materials formed from the collapsed material are,
to a lesser extent, fossilized and subdued by
vegetation (along Moraca). Dropping of smaller
blocks, measuring in meters, takes place mainly
from stunts or steep cliffs, from hypsometrically
higher zones. Most landslides occur after heavy
rainfall and during periods of sudden snow
melting, with rising temperatures.
This process is generally represented from
Smokovac to Bioča, in particular from km 0 +
800 to 1 +000 and km 3 + 300 to 3 +450.
Quaternary age creations are represented by
terraced glaciofacial deluvial-eluvial sediments
and terra rossa. Generally, in genetic terms the
following environments can be distinguished:
1. Terraced sediments are sandy-gravel
materials, that is, weaker and more strongly
bounded conglomerates. They are represented on
the right and left sides of the road from
Smokovac to Bioča in the Morača Valley. These
are terraced deposits with sub-surface dark black
and dusty sandy clays, from 0.5 to 1 m thick, can
be separated. With depth, the size of the gravel
grains increases and gradually these sediments
become conglomerates, where the grains are
bound by clay and calcite binders. Several
terraces were found, separated from each other
by cascades up to 1 m high.
Supervision of Design and Works
on the Bar – Boljare Highway,
Section Smokovac – Uvač –
Mateševo
4. OPŠTI OPIS
Proces odronjavanja
Kartiranjem terena registrovane su lokacije na
kojima je već došlo, ili na kojima može doći, do
odronjavanja stenskih masa veće zapremine.
Uočeno je da su pojave osipanja i odronjavanja
koncentrisane na strmim ogoljenim stenama,
odnosno, na strmim odsecima (ekskarpmani)
visine i do nekoliko desetina, pa i stotina
metara. Otkinuti materijal se na relativno
blažim delovima padine zadržava, odnosno,
formira brojne aktivne sipare, karakterističnog
izduženog oblika. Lokacije ovih pojava su
prikazane odgovarajućim oznakama na
inženjerskogeološkoj karti. Taj materijal je
slabo složen, nestabilan i podložan stalnom
kretanju. Sipari i osuline formirane od
obrušenog materijala su, samo manjim delom,
fosilizovani i umireni vegetacijom (uz Moraču).
Odronjavanje manjih blokova, metarskih
dimenzija, odvija se uglavnom iz zaostalih
ostenjaka ili strmih litica, iz hipsometrijski viših
zona. Do odrona najčešće dolazi nakon velikih
kiša i u periodima naglog topljenja snega, pri
porastu temperature.
Ovaj proces generalno je zastupljen od
Smokovca do Bioče, a naročito izražen od st
km 0+800 do 1 +000 i km 3+300 do 3 +450.
Tvorevine kvartarne starosti predstavljeni su
terasnim glaciofacijalnim deluvijalno-
eluvijalnim sedimentima i crvenicama.
Generalno, u genetskom smislu mogu se
izdvojiti sljedeće sredine:
1. Terasni sedimenti su šljunkovito-pjeskoviti
materijali, odnosno slabije i jače vezani
konglomerati. Zastupljeni su sa desne i
lijeve strane puta od Smokovca do Bioča u
dolini Morače. To su terasne naslage, kod kojih
se mogu izdvojiti pripovršinske mrko crne i
prašinaste pjeskovite gline, debljine od 0,5 do 1
m. Sa dubinom veličina zrna šljunka se
povećava i postepeno ovi sedimenti prelaze u
konglomerte, gdje su zrna vezana glinovitim
i kalcitskim vezivom. Konstatovano je više
terasa, koje su međusobno odvojene
47
 Supervision of Design and Works
on the Bar – Boljare Highway,
Section Smokovac – Uvač –
Mateševo

2. Deluvial deposits are of heterogeneous kaskadama visine do 1 m.

lithological composition. It is mainly dominated
2. Deluvijalne naslage su heterogenog
by limestone debris with sandy-dusty clay. These
litološkog sastava. Uglavnom dominira drobina
deposits are linked to the lower parts of the
krečnjaka sa pjeskovito-prašinastom glinom.
slopes, above the fluvio-glacial terraces.
Ove naslage su vezane za niže delove padina,
3. The terra rossa is represented at the bottom of iznad fluvio-glacijalnih terasa.
the sinkholes
3. Crvenica je zastupljena po dnu vrtača

5. PRELIMINARY DESIGN 5. IDEJNI PROJEKAT

We refer to the Elaborate of detailed Pozivamo se na Elaborat detaljnih

48

geotechnical investigations for the
development of the preliminary design;
Section: Podgorica - Veruša km 0 + 000 - 33 +
000 – Separate for the Open route, which
states the following:
ZONE 2 CH km 1+081,70 – 1+352,70 (right)
D = 271,00 m; CH km 1+125,30 – 1+324,431
(left) L = 199,01 m
“In this zone in length 200 – 270 m (left lane)
road will be in cut around 10 m deep. It is
basically a tunnel open cut representing next
zone of the route.
Slopes in cuts will be executed in banked to
layered texture limestones, with dip towards hill
5-20⁰. Slopes will be mostly formed along the
joints perpendicular to stratification, i.e. dip 3:1
to 4:1.
Eventual local unstable blocks should be
removed, and slope should be protected with
hexagonal mesh. Top parts of the slopes with
thinner diluvial compositions should be treated
especially from washing out and loosing. Due to
a fact that right lane is situated on the ground, it
is recommended to perform a unique excavation
for both lanes with continual platform for the
road constructions and a cut at left hand side.
This zone is represented with two profiles:
profile No. 3 CH km 1+150, attachment 2.1
profile No. 4 CH km 1+275 attachment 2.1. "
We refer to the PARCIAL REPORT on
geotechnical research for the preparation of
geotechnical documentation for the level of
preliminary design, for the Bar - Boljare
highway; Section: PODGORICA - VERUSA
part: km 0 + 000 to 12 + 000 (Smokovac-
Klopot), which states the following:
Zone 4 - open route (km 1+198 to km 1+259)
In this zone in approximate length of 60 m (left
lane) road will be in semi-cut or cut 10 m deep.
It is basically a tunnel open cut representing
next zone of the route.
Slopes in cuts will be executed in banked to
Supervision of Design and Works
on the Bar – Boljare Highway,
Section Smokovac – Uvač –
Mateševo
geotehničkih istraživanja za izradu Idejnog
projekta; Dionica: Podgorica – Veruša km
0+000 – 33+000 – Separat za otvorenu trasu,
u kojem je navedeno slijedeće:
ZONA 2 st km 1+081,70 - 1+352,70 (desna )
D = 271,00 m; st km 1+125,30 - 1+324,431
(leva) L = 199,01 m
„Na ovoj zoni dužine 200-270 m (leva traka)
put će biti u zaseku ili useku dubine oko 10 m.
To je u suštini predusek tunela koji predstavlja
sledeću zonu trase.
Kosina zaseka-useka će se izvoditi u
krečnjacima bankovite do slojevite teksture sa
padom slojeva u brdo pod uglom od 5-20°.
Kosine će se najvećim delom oformiti duž
pukotina upravnih na slojevitost, tj. sa
nagibima od 3:1 do 4:1. Eventualne lokalne
labilne blokove treba ukloniti, a kosinu štititi
putarskom mrežom. Vršne delove kosina, na
mestima gde preko krečnjaka leže tanje naslage
deluvijalnih materijala, treba posebno zaštititi
od spiranja i osipanja. Obzirom da se desna
traka praktično polaže po tlu, preporučuje se
jedinstven iskop za obe trake sa kontinualnim
platoom za kolovozne konstrukcije i jednim
zasekom sa leve strane. Ovu zonu reprezentuje
dva profila: profil br. 3 st. km 1+150, prilog
2.1 profil br. 4 st. km 1+275, prilog 2.1.“
Pozivamo se na PARCIJALNI IZVJEŠTAJ o
geotehničkim istraživanjima za izradu
geotehničke dokumentacije za nivo Idejnog
projekta, za autoput Bar – Boljare; Dionica:
PODGORICA– VERUŠA dio: km 0+000 do
12+000 (Smokovac-Klopot), u kojem je
navedeno slijedeće:
Zona 4 – otvorena trasa (st. km 1+198 do km
1+259)
Na ovoj zoni dužine oko 60 m (leva traka) put
će biti u zaseku ili useku dubine oko 10 m. To je
u suštini predusek tunela koji predstavlja
sledeću zonu trase.
49

layered texture limestones, with dip towards hill
5-20⁰. Slopes will be mostly formed along the
joints perpendicular to stratification, i.e. dip 3:1
to 4:1.
Eventual local unstable blocks should be
removed, and slope should be protected with
hexagonal mesh. Top parts of the slopes with
thinner diluvial compositions should be treated
especially from washing out and loosing. Due
to a fact that right lane is situated on the
ground, it is recommended to perform a unique
excavation for both lanes with continual
platform for the road constructions and a cut at
left hand side. "
The possibility of the presence of Quaternary
sediments – scree looses is present on the said
section of the highway and is foreseen in the
early stages of the Project. Therefore, in relation
to the Preliminary Design, the Supervisory
Authority confirms that the Designers of the
Preliminary Design (geological part: Elaborate
of detailed geotechnical Investigations for the
preparation of the Preliminary Design;
Section: Podgorica - Veruša km 0 + 000 - 33 +
000 and PARTIAL REPORT on geotechnical
research for the preparation of geotechnical
documentation for the level of the preliminary
design, for the highway Bar - Boljare; Section
PODGORICA-VERUŠA part: km 0+000 to
12+000 (Smokovac-Klopot) potential problem
was forseen and it was stated: “…Top parts of
the slopes with thinner diluvial compositions
should be treated especially from washing out
and loosing…”
We are reffering to the Elaborate of detailed
geotechnical Investigations for the
preparation of the Preliminary Design;
Section: Podgorica - Veruša km 0 + 000 - 33 +
000 - Separate for the Open route; Enclosure
1.1 – Engineering-geological map CH km
from 0+100 to 2+000; where the Quaternary
sediments are clearly marked on the map – dl –
Dilluvium, slope deposition – clayey debris.
Supervision of Design and Works
on the Bar – Boljare Highway,
Section Smokovac – Uvač –
Mateševo
Kosina zaseka-useka će se izvoditi u
krečnjacima bankovite do slojevite teksture sa
padom slojeva u brdo pod uglom od 5-20°.
Kosine će se najvećim delom oformiti duž
pukotina upravnih na slojevitost, tj. sa
nagibima od 3:1 do 4:1.
Eventualne lokalne labilne blokove treba
ukloniti, a kosinu štititi putarskom mrežom.
Vršne delove kosina, na mestima gde preko
krečnjaka leže tanje naslage deluvijalnih
materijala, treba posebno zaštititi od spiranja i
osipanja. Obzirom da se desna traka praktično
polaže po tlu, preporučuje se jedinstven iskop
za obe trake sa kontinualnim platoom za
kolovozne konstrukcije i jednim zasekom sa
leve strane.
Mogućnost prisutnosti kvartarnih sedimenata -
sipara prisutna je na pomenutoj dionici autoputa
i predviđena su u ranim fazama Projekta. Dakle,
u odnosu na Idejni projekat, Nadzorni organ
potvrđuje da su ga projektanti Idejnog projekta
(geološki dio: Elaborat detaljnih
geotehničkih istraživanja za izradu Idejnog
projekta; Dionica: Podgorica – Veruša km
0+000 – 33+000 – Separat za otvorenu trasu,
kao i PARCIJALNI IZVJEŠTAJ o
geotehničkim istraživanjima za izradu
geotehničke dokumentacije za nivo Idejnog
projekta, za autoput Bar – Boljare; Dionica:
PODGORICA– VERUŠA dio: km 0+000 do
12+000 (Smokovac-Klopot) predvidjeli
potencijalni problem, za koji je navedeno:
„....Vršne delove kosina, na mestima gde preko
krečnjaka leže tanje naslage deluvijalnih
materijala, treba posebno zaštititi od spiranja i
osipanja...“
Pozivamo se na Elaborat detaljnih
geotehničkih istraživanja za izradu Idejnog
projekta; Dionica: Podgorica – Veruša km
0+000 – 33+000 – Separat za otvorenu trasu;
Prilog 1.1 - Inženjerskogeološku karta st.
km od 0+100 do 2+000; gdje su u Zoni 2 jasno
naznačeni kvartarni sedimenti – dl –
Deluvijum, padinski nanos – zaglinjena
drobina.
50
 Supervision of Design and Works
on the Bar – Boljare Highway,
Section Smokovac – Uvač –
Mateševo

Picture 5: Elaborate of detailed geotechnical Investigations for the preparation of the Preliminary Design;
Section: Podgorica - Veruša km 0 + 000 - 33 + 000 - Separate for the Open route; Enclosure 1.1 –
Engineering-geological map CH km from 0+100 to 2+000 (Enlarged part of the Zone 2)
Slika 5: Elaborat detaljnih geotehničkih istraživanja za izradu Idejnog projekta; Dionica: Podgorica –
Veruša km 0+000 – 33+000 – Separat za otvorenu trasu; Prilog 1.1 - Inženjerskogeološku karta st. km od
0+100 do 2+000 (Uvećani dio zone 2)

6. CONCLUSION ON PRELIMINARY 6. ZAKLJUČAK U VEZI SA IDEJNIM

DESIGN PROJEKTOM

51

Taking into account main purpose of the
Preliminary Design to provide an input data to
Design-and- Built Contractor; by relatively low,
but sufficient level of geotechnical
investigations, occurrences of Quaternary
sediments in the form of deposits of variable
thickness screes are described in the
Geotechnical Report. All mentioned documents
were available to the Contractor in the tendering
stage of the Project.
Also, the purpose of geotechnical investigations
for the level of the Main Design is certainly to
obtain reliable geomechanical parameters in the
zones listed as critical within the Preliminary
Design. One such zone is certainly the zone
mentioned in this Claim Event, bearing in mind
the statement from the Preliminary Design,
related to the zones covered with scree loose
materials: “...This process is generally
represented from Smokovac to Bioča, in
particular from km 0 + 800 to 1 +000 and km 3
+ 300 to 3 +450."
Expected reaction of experienced and worldwide
recognized Contractor, taking into account
available data from the Tender stage about the
existence of scree loose material mapped on the
surface of the terrain (we are highlighting that
not any borehole was done in the frame of
Preliminary Design – data were given by
geological mapping of the terrain, usual, bearing
in mind the Design level – Preliminary Design)
and complexity of designed structure (heigh
MSE wall) will be more detail investigation in
order to get geomechanical input parameters for
preparation of the Main Design. This is the main
reason of GI for level of the Main Design.
Bearing in mind all above mentioned, as well as
the fact that mentioned information is considered
as sufficient for the level of Preliminary Design,
as well as the fact that Design and Built
Contractor is experienced and worldwide
recognized Contractor, with previous knowledge
of similar Works in similar environment, the
Engineer's opinion is that mentioned
phenomena’s cannot be treated as Unforeseeable
Geological Conditions.
Supervision of Design and Works
on the Bar – Boljare Highway,
Section Smokovac – Uvač –
Mateševo
Uzimajući u obzir glavnu svrhu Idejnog
projekta da obezbijedi ulazne podatke za
izvođača radova na projektovanju i izgradnji;
relativno niskim, ali dovoljnim nivoom
geotehničkih istraživanja, pojave kvartarnih
sedimenata u vidu naslaga sipara promjenjive
debljine opisane su u Geotehničkom izvještaju.
Svi navedeni dokumenti bili su dostupni
Izvođaču u tenderskoj fazi Projekta.
Takođe, svrha geotehničkih istraživanja za nivo
Glavnog projekta svakako je dobivanje
pouzdanih geomehaničkih parametara u zonama
navedenim kao kritične u okviru Idejnog
projekta. Jedna od takvih zona svakako je i
zona navedena u ovom Događaju potraživanja,
imajući na umu navod iz Idejnog projekta, a
koji se odnosi na zone prekrivene sipariskim
materijalima: „...Ovaj proces generalno je
zastupljen od Smokovca do Bioče, a naročito
izražen od st km 0+800 do 1 +000 i km 3+300
do 3 +450.“
Očekivana reakcija svjetski priznatog Izvođača,
uzevši u obzir podatak dostupan u vrijeme
Ponude o postojanju sipara kartiranih na
površini terena (napominjemo da na navedenoj
lokaciji nisu rađene istražne bušotine u okviru
Idejnog projekta – podaci su dobijeni
geološkim kartiranjem terena, što je uobičajeno,
imajući na umu nivo Projekta – Idejni projekt) i
kompleksnosti projektovane konstrukcije
(visoki nasip od armirane zemlje) bila bi
detaljnije istraživanje u svrhu dobivanja ulaznih
geotehničkih parametara za izradu Glavnog
projekta. To i je glavni smisao geotehničkih
istraživanja za nivo Glavnog projekta.
Imajući na umu sve gore navedeno, kao i
činjenicu da se pomenute informacije smatraju
dovoljnim za nivo Idejnog projekta, kao i
činjenicu da je Izvođač radova na projektovanju
i izgradnji iskusan i svjetski priznat Izvođač, sa
prethodnim poznavanjem sličnih radova u
sličnom okruženju, mišljenje Nadzornog organa
je da se pomenuti fenomeni ne mogu tretirati
kao nepredvidivi geološki uslovi.
52
 Supervision of Design and Works
on the Bar – Boljare Highway,
Section Smokovac – Uvač –
Mateševo

7. CONTRACTOR'S CLAIM ANALIZY 7. ANALIZA POTRAŽIVANJA

IZVOĐAČA RADOVA
In this Expert's Witness Report we have also
analysed Contractor's Claim No. 128, 132 and U ovom Stručnom Izvještaju Inženjera smo

53
 Supervision of Design and Works
on the Bar – Boljare Highway,
Section Smokovac – Uvač –
Mateševo

132/1 for Additional Payment (AP) (under SC analizirali Potraživanje izvođača br. 128, 132 i
20.1) and Extension of time (EoT); with new 132/1 za dopunsko plaćanje (pod SC 20.1) i
completion date (05 February 2021). Our produžetak roka za završetak radova 230 dana).
clarification is follow:
U dostavljenom Izvođačevom potpunom
In Contractor’s submitted Fully Detailed detaljnom sveobuhvatnom potraživanju –
Overall Claim – The Description of ERE Opis ERE shodno Potraživanju br. AP/EoT
Under Claim No. AP/EoT 128, Contractor 128, Izvođač je izjavio slijedeće:
stated as follow:
„Tokom pripremnih radova na nasipu od
“During the preparation work of the reinforced armiranog tla (MSE zid), na stacionaži RK
soil embankment (MSE wall) construction at 1+093 – RK 1+334 pronađeno je nepovoljno
chainage RK 1+093 – RK 1+334, the geološko stanje, kategorija P na dijelu zone
unfavourable geological condition – geological temelja u debljini većoj od 35,5 m...
category P was found at part of foundation zone
in thickness exceeding 35,5 m.
Očigledno je da se geološke informacije date u
Obviously, the geological information provided
Idejnom projektu razlikuju i istovremeno se
in Preliminary Design was different and at the
Izvođaču nije omogućilo da predvidi tako veliki
same time it could not enable the Contractor to
opseg geologije kategorije P s kojom se suočio
predict such large extent of the geology category
na gradilištu, a koja je prouzrokovala kašnjenje
P encountered on site, which have caused a
i remećenje napretka radova i za rezultat imala
delay and disruption to the progress of the
neplanirane dodatne troškove i gubitak
Works and resulted in unplanned additional
vremena.
costs and loss of time.
Opis slučaja rizika za poslodavca:
Description of Employer's risk event:
nepredvidivo fizičko stanje – izazvano
Unforeseeable Physical Condition – changes
promjenama u geološkim uslovima
of the geological condition
Izjava Nadzornog organa
The Engineer’s Statement
Poređenjem Idejnog projekta, zaključujemo da
By comparison of the Preliminary Design we are
su kvartarni sedimenti – dl – Deluvijum,
concluding that Quaternary sediments – dl -
padinski nanos – zaglinjena drobina
Dilluvium, slope deposition – clayey debris are
prikazani u Idejnom projektu; na mjestu na
showed in the Preliminary Design; at a place
kojem je naknadno utvrđena njihova debljina
where their thickness greater than 35.5 m was
veća od 35,5 m. Pozivamo se na Elaborat
subsequently determined. We are referring to
detaljnih geotehničkih istraživanja za izradu
Elaborate of detailed geotechnical
Idejnog projekta; Dionica: Podgorica –
Investigations for the preparation of the
Veruša km 0+000 – 33+000 – Separat za
Preliminary Design; Section: Podgorica -
otvorenu trasu; Prilog 1.1 -
Veruša km 0 + 000 - 33 + 000 - Separate for
Inženjerskogeološku karta st. km od 0+100
the Open route; Enclosure 1.1 – Engineering-
do 2+000 (slika 5).
geological map CH km from 0+100 to 2+000
(picture 5)

Podsjećamo da je Izvođač tri (3) puta izvodio

We are reminding that the Contractor performed
GI three (3) times on the same location:
1. Geotechnical investigations for the purpose
geotehnička istraživanja na navedenoj lokaciji:
1. Geotehnička istraživanja u svrhu izrade
Glavnog projekta – 12/2015. godine

54

of Main Design preparation – 12/2015
2. Additional geotechnical investigations for
the purpose of the Main Design change –
MSE wall with ballast option – 06/2019
3. Additional geotechnical investigations for
the purpose of the Main Design change –
Embankment supported by toe retaining
wall – 12/2019
In the frame of Geotechnical Final Report for
Main Design for Open Route (Smokovac-
Tunnel Suka; Tunnel Suka -Tunnel Vežešnik;
Tunnel Vežešnik -Bridge Mrke) (1) category P
up to 8 m thickness was determined; with the
remark that no exploratory drilling was
performed in this part of the route.
In the frame of Elaboration on Additional
Geotechnical Investigations and Engineering-
Geological Properties in area of the Open Route
Section Planned for the Reinforced Soil
Retaining Wall, Chainage RK 1+093 - 1+334 (2)
thickness of category P in the range of 13,5 m
was determined; due to the fact that the
boreholes were shortened instead of the
conditions of depth of 20 m or the conditions of
entry into solid rock at request of the Contractor,
as the ordering party, and the stated depth
corresponds to the depth of drilling.
In the frame of Elaboration on Geotechnical
Conditions for Construction of Embankment
Between the Tunnels Suka and Vezesnik from
km RK 1+093 to RK 1+334 (3) thickness of
category P in the range of 35,5 m was
determined by exploration drilling. All boreholes
were complied with the criterium of entering
inside the fluvio-glacial or limestone materials,
which was not the case in the previous two
studies.
All above mentioned leads to the conclusion that
it is a design error and not an unforeseeablee
physical condition - caused by changes in
geological conditions, taking into account the
statements on scree materials from the
PARTIAL REPORT on geotechnical research
for the preparation of geotechnical
Supervision of Design and Works
on the Bar – Boljare Highway,
Section Smokovac – Uvač –
Mateševo
2. Dodatna geotehnička istraživanja u svrhu
izrade izmjene Glavnog projekta –
varijanta nasipa od armiranog tla s
balastom – 06/2019. godine
3. Dodatna geotehnička istraživanja u svrhu
izrade izmjene Glavnog projekta –
varijanta nasipa s nožićnim potpornim
zidom – 12/2019. godine.
U sklopu Elaborata o detaljnim geotehničkim
istraživanjima za nivo Glavnog građevinskog
projekta za otvorenu trasu (Smokovac – Tunel
Suka; Tunel Suka – Tunel Vežešnik; Tunel
Vežešnik – Most Mrke) (1) utvrđena je
kategorija P u debljini do 8 m; uz napomenu da
nije izvođeno istražno bušenje u ovom diijelu
trase.
U sklopu Elaborata o dopunskim geotehničkim
istraživanjima i inženjersko-geološkim
odlikama terena u zoni dijela otvorene trase na
kojoj je planiran potporni zid od armirane
zemlje, stacionaža RK 1+093 - 1+334 (2)
debljina kategorije P iznosila je 13,5 m; iz
razloga što su bušotine umjesto uslova dubine
20 m ili uslova ulaska 2m u čvrstu stijenu
skraćivane na zahtjev Izvođača kao naručioca
Elaborata, te navedena dubina odgovara dubini
bušenja.
U sklopu Elaborata o geotehničkim uslovima
izvođenja nasipa između tunela Suka i Vežešnik
od km RK 1+095 DO RK 1+334 (3) dubina
kategorije P utvrđena istražnim bušenjem
iznosila je 35,5 m. Sve bušotine su izvedene
tako da zadovolje kriterijum ulaska u fluvio-
glacijalni ili krečnjački materijal, a što nije bio
slučaj u prethodna dva istraživanja.
Sve gore navedeno dovodi do zaključka da je
posrijedi greška u projektu, a ne
nepredvidivo fizičko stanje – izazvano
promjenama u geološkim uslovima,
uzimajući u obzir navode o siparskim
materijalima u sklopu PARCIJALNOG
IZVJEŠTAJA o geotehničkim istraživanjima
za izradu geotehničke dokumentacije za nivo
Idejnog projekta, za autoput Bar – Boljare;
55

documentation for the level of the preliminary
design, for the highway Bar - Boljare; Section
PODGORICA-VERUŠA part: km 0+000 to
12+000 (Smokovac-Klopot), as well as drawing
- Elaborate of detailed geotechnical
Investigations for the preparation of the
Preliminary Design; Section: Podgorica -
Veruša km 0 + 000 - 33 + 000 - Separate for
the Open route; Enclosure 1.1 – Engineering-
geological map CH km from 0+100 to 2+000
(picture 5)
We are also reffering to the Designer’s
statements from Geotechnical Final Report
for Main Design for Open Route
(Smokovac-Tunnel Suka; Tunnel Suka
-Tunnel Vežešnik; Tunnel Vežešnik -Bridge
Mrke), with next statement: “General
geotechnical terrain model for the zone 2 at the
stretch from the exit portal of Suka tunnel to
tunnel Vežešnik (LK1+127 - LK1+243;
RK1+091-RK1+348) is as follows:
- 0,0 - 8,0 m tranquilized screes of unbound,
poorly bound to highly bound limestone debris
by clayey and rarely calcite binder (bound small
limestone debris is held in a vertical side- cuts in
height of up to 6m)...
, as well as: „The footing part of the
embankment at this stretch (classical
embankment of reinforced soil) is recommeded
to found on limestone or to secure embankment
by a low retaining wall and related drainage.“
The Designer haven’t took into account this parts
of the Final Geotechnical Report, so in the Main
Design removal of scree loose material either
reinforcing by the toe retaining wall wasn’t
provided (this solution was adopted as the final).
Also, in his claim No. 128, 132 and 132/1
Contractor stated the following: “It follows from
above that the review process of Main Design
change for Reinforced Soil Enbankment RK
1+093 – RK 1+334 took 230 days (18.07.2019 –
04.03.2020) to complete, which was significantly
prolonged due to SRP questionioning of
geotechnical imformation used as input for
making Main Design change(i.e. borehole depth,
Supervision of Design and Works
on the Bar – Boljare Highway,
Section Smokovac – Uvač –
Mateševo
Dionica: PODGORICA– VERUŠA dio: km
0+000 do 12+000 (Smokovac-Klopot), kao i
grafički prilog - Elaborat detaljnih
geotehničkih istraživanja za izradu Idejnog
projekta; Dionica: Podgorica – Veruša km
0+000 – 33+000 – Separat za otvorenu trasu;
Prilog 1.1 - Inženjerskogeološku karta st.
km od 0+100 do 2+000 (slika 5).
Takođe, pozivamo se na navode Projektanta
Elaborata o detaljnim geotehničkim
istraživanjima za nivo Glavnog
građevinskog projekta za otvorenu trasu
(Smokovac – Tunel Suka; Tunel Suka –
Tunel Vežešnik; Tunel Vežešnik – Most
Mrke), koji je konstatovao slijedeće:
„Generalni geotehnički model terena za zonu 2
na potezu od izlaznog portala tunela Suka do
tunela Vežešnik (LK1+127-LK1+243;
RK1+091- RK1+348) je:
- 0,0-8,0m umireni sipari od nevezane,slabije
do jače vezane krečnjačke drobine glinovitim i
rjeđe kalcitskim vezivom (vezana sitna
krečnjačka drobina drži se u vertikalnim
zasjecima visine do 6m)...
, kao i slijedeće: „Preporučuje se da se nožični
dio nasipa na ovom potezu (klasični nasip,
armirano tlo) fundira na krečnjaku ili izvrši
osiguranje nasipa nožičnim potpornim zidom
sa pratećom drenažom.“
Projektant nije uzeo u obzir ove navode iz
Geotehničkog elaborata, te u Glavnom projektu
nije dao rješenje uklanjanja siparskog materijala
ili ojačanje nožićnim potpornim zidom (upravo
to rješenje je na kraju prihvaćeno kao konačno).
Takođe, u svom potraživanju br. 128, 132 i
132/1 Izvođač navodi slijedeće: „Iz gore
navedenog se vidi da je za proces revizije
izmjene Glavnog projekta za nasip od
armiranog tla RK 1+093 – RK 1+334 trebalo
230 dana (18.07.2019. do 04.03.2020.) da se
završi, što je značajno produženo jer je DKR
preispitivala geotehničke informacije korištene
za ulazne podatke pri pravljenju izmjene
Glavnog projekta (tj. dubina bušotina, modul
stišljivosti za kategoriju P))i preispitivala samo
56

compression module of category P) and the
questioning of Main Design change solution
itself (i.e. MSE wall cannot be founded in
category P1, and the alternative solution should
be considered)…
The Engineer’s Statement
Main Design review time (28 days) was defined
in the Contract, and from Contractor’s
supporting documents it is observed that not a
single Review Report submitted by the SRP was
submitted outside the defined deadline.
Also, taking into account all the above and
repeated details of the comments within the
Main Design Review Report of the Main Design
change proposal, the main intention was to
obtain actual data on the thickness of
tranquilised unbounded or loosely bounded
loose screes at the location of the future MSE
wall, or the Contractor's specific proposal of the
of a suitable solution in accordance with the
recommendations from the Final
Geotechnical Report. The final solution of the
approved change of the Main Design is identical
to the recommendation of Designer of the Final
Report for Main Design for Open Route
(Smokovac-Tunnel Suka; Tunnel Suka
-Tunnel Vežešnik; Tunnel Vežešnik -Bridge
Mrke) – classic embankment with toe retaining
wall.
Furthermore, Contractor’s comment on
performing of the additional exploration
boreholes executed in order to define a
geotechnical environment for founding of the toe
retaining wall: “In the report, SRP gave
requirement that two more boreholes should be
conducted at the foundation of the wall. This
was again a new comment, which was not given
to Contractor’s previous submission of Annex to
Design of additional geotechnical investigations,
whereby the embankment and RC retaining wall
solution was already proposed…” is unjustified,
bearing in mind the height of the toe retaining
wall itself, as well as a general height of the
embankment, and the fact that the Contractor
persistently avoided performing of
investigation boreholes at this location for the
Supervision of Design and Works
on the Bar – Boljare Highway,
Section Smokovac – Uvač –
Mateševo
rješenje izmjene Glavnog projketa (tj. MSE zid
se nemože temeljiti na kategoriji P1, i treba
razmotriti alternativno rješenje)...
Izjava Nadzornog organa
Ugovorom je definisano vrijeme revizije
Glavnog projekta (28 dana), a iz Izvođačeve
prateće dokumentacije vidljivo je da niti jedan
Izvještaj o reviziji dostavljen od strane DKR-a
nije dostavljen izvan definisanog roka.
Takođe, uzevši u obzir sve gore navedene i više
puta ponavljane detalje komentara unutar
Izvještaja revizije prijedloga izmjene Glavnog
projekta, osnovna namjera bila je dobivanje
stvarnih podataka o debljini umirenih
nevezanih ili slabo vezanih sipara na lokaciji
izvođenja budućeg zida od armirane zemlje, ili
Izvođačev konkretan prijedlog odgovarajućeg
prihvatljivog rješenja u skladu sa
preporukama Elaborata.. Konačno rješenje
odobrene izmjene Glavnog projekta identično je
preporuci Projektanta Elaborata o detaljnim
geotehničkim istraživanjima za nivo Glavnog
građevinskog projekta za otvorenu trasu
(Smokovac – Tunel Suka; Tunel Suka –
Tunel Vežešnik; Tunel Vežešnik – Most
Mrke) – klasičan nasip sa nožićnim porpornim
zidom.
Nadalje, komentar Izvođača o izvođenju
dodatnih istražnih bušotina za potrebe
definisanja geotehničke sredine fundiranja
nožićnog potpornog zida: „U izvještaju je DKR
dala zahtjev da se još dvije bušotine trebaju
izvesti u temelju zida. To je opet bio novi
komentar, koji nije dat na Izvođačeve
prethodne podneske dodatka Projekta dodatnih
geotehničkih ispitivanja, gdje su već predložena
rješenja za nasip i AB potporni zid...“ je
neopravdan, uzevši u obzir visinu samog
nožićnog potpornog zida, kao i generalnu visinu
nasipa; a i činjenicu da je na ovoj lokaciji
Izvođač uporno izbjegavao izvođenje
istražnih bušotina u svrhu definisanja
debljine sloja umirenih sipara.
57

purpose of defining the thickness of the layer
of tranquilised screes.
Also, any reason is unjustifiable for which the
Contractor did not perform the preparatory
works required to perform any solution -
removal of deposited material from the tunnel
excavations of the tunnel Suka and Vežešnik,
which is a precondition for performing of all
three proposed solutions (MSE wall, MSE wall
with ballast material and a classic embankment
with a toe retaining wall.
By forming of the landfill for excavated
material, the Contractor neglected the
construction of this complex structure (a MSE
wall of significant length and height) in the
early phase of the Project, and the start of works
was in the late phase of the Project (the first
submission of the Main Design change proposal
happen on 18 July 2019, after the discover of
tranquilized screes with significant thickness).
Also, the purpose of geotechnical investigations
for the needs of the Main Construction Design is
to condense investigations in areas that are
assessed as critical by insight into the
geotechnical documentation of the Preliminary
Design, in order to obtain a clearer picture of the
possibility of funding and construction in real
geotechnical environment.
The tranquilised screes were described as part of
the geotechnical documentation within the
Preliminary Design, and within the geotechnical
investigations for the needs of the Main Design
trial pits were carried out, which ended in the
tranquilised screes. Also, in further additional
geotechnical investigations, boreholes were
performed, which mostly ended in tranquilised
screes, and were shortened at the request of the
Contractor (as the ordering party of the
mentioned investigations).
From all the above, the request for the
extension of the time of 230 days is not clear.
The Engineer took into account actual physical
conditions observed on the site during the events
described in this Contractor's Claim, as well as
Supervision of Design and Works
on the Bar – Boljare Highway,
Section Smokovac – Uvač –
Mateševo
Takođe, neopravdan je bilo koji razlog zbog
kojeg Izvođač nije izveo predradnje potrebne za
izvođenje bilo kojeg rješenja – uklanjanje
deponovanog materijala iz tunelskih iskopa
tunela Suka i Vežešnik, a što je preduslov
izvođenja sva tri predložena rješenja (zid od
arnirane zemlje, zid od arnirane zemlje sa
balastom i klasični nasip sa nožićnim
potpornim zidom.
Formiranjem deponije materijala iz iskopa,
Izvođač je zanemario izvođenje ove zahtjevne
konstrukcije (zida od armirane zemlje
značajne dužine i visine) u ranoj fazi Projekta,
te je početak radova bio u kasnoj fazi Projekta
(prvo dostavljanje prijedloga izmjene Glavnog
projekta nakon otkrivene veće debljine
umirenih sipara dana 18.07.2019. godine).
Takođe, smisao geotehničkih istraživanja za
potrebe Glavnog građevinskog projekta je
progušćavanje istraživanja na područjima koja
su ocijenjena kritičnima uvidom u geotehničku
dokumentaciju Idejnog projekta, u svrhu
dobivanja jasnije slike o mogućnosti fundiranja
i izgradnje objekata u stvarnoj geotehničkoj
sredini.
Umireni sipari opisani su u sklopu geotehničke
dokumentacije u okviru Idejnog projekta, a u
okviru geotehničkih istraživanja za potrebe
Glavnog projekta izvedeni su istražni raskopi
koji su završili u umirenim siparima. Takođe, u
daljnjim dodatnim geotehničkim istraživanjima
izvođene su bušotine koje su uglavnom
završavale u umirenim siparima, a skraćivane
su na zahtjev Izvođača (kao Naručioca ovih
istraživanja).
Iz svega navedenog nije jasan zahtjev za
produžetak radova od 230 dana.
Nadzorni organ je uzeo u obzir stvarne fizičke
uslove uočene na lokaciji tokom događaja
opisanih u ovom potraživanju Izvođača, kao i
dokaze o fizičkim uslovima koje Izvođač može
predvidjeti prilikom podnošenja ponude – na
58

the evidences of the physical conditions which
may be foreseen by the Contractor when
submitting the Tender - available to the
Contractor.
As per the Engineer's opinion, Preliminary
Design – all the above mentioned parts related to
open route stretch between tunnels Suka and
Vezesnik are valid documents, familiar to the
Contractor when submitting the tender. Also, the
coverage of the base rock with tranquilized
screes could be noticed during the tour of the
route in the phase of preparation of the Offer.
Above mentioned Documentation, part of the
Preliminary Design, based on executed
Geotechnical Investigations (GI) for the frame of
the Preliminary Design is providing preliminary
input geological and geotechnical data to the
Tenderer by defining a general forecasted
geological conditions and please find final
conclusion as follow:
Supervision of Design and Works
on the Bar – Boljare Highway,
Section Smokovac – Uvač –
Mateševo
raspolaganju Izvođaču.
Po mišljenju Nadzornog organa, Idejni projekat
- svi gore navedeni djelovi koji se odnose na
dio otvorene trase između tunela Suka i
Vežešnik su validni dokumenti, poznati
izvođaču radova prilikom dostavljanja ponude.
Takođe, prekrivenost osnovne stijene umirenim
siparima mogla se uočiti prilikom obilaska trase
u fazi pripremanja Ponude.
Navedena Dokumentacija, koja je dio Idejnog
projekta, na osnovu izvedenih Geotehničkih
istraživanja (GI) za okvir Idejnog projekta daje
preliminarne ulazne geološke i geotehničke
podatke Izvođaču definisanjem opštih
predviđenih geoloških uslova, pa donosimo
slijedeći konačan zaključak:
59

8. FINAL CONCLUSION
Engineer's conclusion on Preliminary Design
facts is following:
 Mentioned Geotechnical elaborate was
done for the purpose of providing an
elementary Geotechnical data for the stage
of the Preliminary Design;
 Data were based on detailed Engineering –
geological mapping of the area,
Hydrogeological mapping and next onsite
Geotechnical investigation works: Geoelectrical
sondage and geophysical reffraction together
with compressive and tensile strength checking
– as per the Engineer's point of view sufficient
for the stage of the Preliminary Design;
 Contractor's description of this Claim event
is: “As in the Preliminary Design, which is
the design documents provided by
Employer at the tender stage, the geology
at the target zone was categorised as K22
(defined as dominanted by dolomites,
dolomitic limestone) with barely existind
dilluvial deposition on the surface. It is
therefore expected that MSE wall was
directly located on the natural terrain with
very limited excavation.
 Obviously, the geological information
provided in Preliminary Design was
different and at the same time it could not
enable the Contractor to predict such large
extent of the geology category P
encountered on site, which have caused a
delay and disruption to the progress of the
Works and resulted in unplanned additional
costs and loss of time.” We are reffering to
the Elaborate of detailed geotechnical
Investigations for the preparation of the
Preliminary Design; Section: Podgorica -
Veruša km 0 + 000 - 33 + 000 - Separate
for the Open route; Enclosure 1.1 –
Engineering-geological map CH km from
0+100 to 2+000; where in the Zone 2
Quaternary sediments – dl - Dilluvium,
Supervision of Design and Works
on the Bar – Boljare Highway,
Section Smokovac – Uvač –
Mateševo
8. KONAČAN ZAKLJUČAK
Zaključak Nadzornog organa o činjenicama u
vezi sa Idejnim projektom je sljedeći:
 Navedeni Geotehnički elaborat je urađen u
cilju obezbjeđivanja elementarnih
geotehničkih podataka za fazu Idejnog
projekta;
 Podaci su zasnovani na detaljnom
inženjersko - geološkom istraživanju
područja, hidrogeološkom kartiranju i
narednim geotehničkim istražnim
radovima: Geoelektrična sondaža i
geofizička refrakcija zajedno sa provjerom
tlačne i vlačne čvrstoće – prema
Nadzornom organu dovoljnoj za fazu
Idejnog projekta;
 U obrazloženju ovog događaja potraživanja
Izvođač navodi: “Kao u Idejnom projektu,
koji predstavlja projektnu dokumentaciju
koju je obezbijedio Investitor u fazi
Tendera, geologija ciljne zone je
kategorizovana kao K22 (definisana kao
zona u kojoj dominiraju dolomiti,
dolomitični krečnjak) s jedva postojećim
deluvijalnim nanosima na površini. Stoga
je očekivano da će MSE zid biti smješten
direktno na prirodnom terenu, s
ograničenom količinom iskopavanja.
 Očigledno je da se geološke informacije
date u Idejnom projektu razlikuju i
istovremeno se Izvođaču nije omogućilo da
predvidi tako veliki opseg geologije
kategorije P s kojom se suočio na
gradilištu, a koja je prouzrokovala
kašnjenje i remećenje napretka radova i za
rezultat imala neplanirane dodatne
troškove i gubitak vremena.” Pozivamo se
na Elaborat detaljnih geotehničkih
istraživanja za izradu Idejnog projekta;
Dionica: Podgorica – Veruša km 0+000 –
33+000 – Separat za otvorenu trasu;
Prilog 1.1 - Inženjerskogeološku karta
st. km od 0+100 do 2+000; gdje su u Zoni
60

slope deposition – clayey debris are
showed; also part of delivered Preliminary
Design
 By taking into consideration mentioned
parts of the Elaborate of detailed
geotechnical investigations for the
development of the preliminary design;
Section: Podgorica - Veruša km 0 + 000 -
33 + 000 – Separate for the Open route,
as well as PARTIAL REPORT on
geotechnical research for the preparation
of geotechnical documentation for the
level of the preliminary design, for the
highway Bar - Boljare; Section
PODGORICA-VERUŠA part: km 0+000
to 12+000 (Smokovac-Klopot); the
Engineer’s conclusion is that delivered
Preliminary Design in the Tender phase,
base for the Offer preparation, providing
enough information to forseen exact
geological conditions.
It is also unclear why the Contractor decided to
undertake a small (and unreliable) level of
geotechnical investigations for the preparation of
the Main Design. By performing exclusively trial
pits, the necessary information on the depth of
the base rock was not obtained, which is crucial
for the design of a MSE wall, taking into
consideration a statement from the Technical
Specifications: “All MSE walls will be founded
on firm limestone. If at the designed foundation
level firm limestone is not found, the soil shall be
furtherly excavated until firm limestone is
found”.
In our view, the point of preparing the Main
Design is to detail the insufficiently elaborated
parts of the Preliminary Design, which was not
the case here.
The Engineer's opinion is that due to insufficient
degree of investigations, in the Main Design
phase a Design Error occurred - according to
SCl. 5.8 of the Contract Conditions, as a result
of which the Contractor had to carry out
additional geotechnical investigations and
prepare a modification of the Main Design
accordingly.
Supervision of Design and Works
on the Bar – Boljare Highway,
Section Smokovac – Uvač –
Mateševo
2 jasno naznačeni kvartarni sedimenti – dl
– Deluvijum, padinski nanos –
zaglinjena drobina.; takođe dio
dostavljenog Idejnog projekta.
 Uzevši u obzir navedene dijelove
Elaborat detaljnih geotehničkih
istraživanja za izradu Idejnog projekta;
Dionica: Podgorica – Veruša km 0+000 –
33+000 – Separat za otvorenu trasu, kao
i PARCIJALNOG IZVJEŠTAJA o
geotehničkim istraživanjima za izradu
geotehničke dokumentacije za nivo
Idejnog projekta, za autoput Bar –
Boljare; Dionica: PODGORICA–
VERUŠA dio: km 0+000 do 12+000
(Smokovac-Klopot); zaključak Inženjera
je da je dostavljeni Idejni projekt u fazi
Tendera, na osnovu kojeg je
pripremljena ponuda pruža Izvođaču
dovoljnu informaciju na osnovu koje je
mogao predvidjeti stvarne geološke
uslove.
Takođe, nejasnan je razlog iz kojeg se Izvođač
odlučio na mali (i nepouzdani) nivo
geotehničkih istraživanja u svrhu pripreme
Glavnog projekta. Izvođenjem isključivo
istražnih raskopa nije dobijena potrebna
informacija o dubini osnovne stijene, a što je
ključno za projektovanje zida od armirane
zemlje, obzirom na navedeno iz Tehničke
specifikacije: „Svi mehanički stabilizovani
zidovi se fundiraju u krečnjaku. Ukoliko se ne
pronađe čvrsti krečnjak na projektovanoj koti
fundiranja, tlo se dalje iskopava dok se ne dođe
do čvrstog krečnjaka.“
Prema našem mišljenju, smisao pripreme
Glavnog projekta je detaljiziranje nedovoljno
razrađenih dijelova Idejnog projekta, a što
ovdje nije bio slučaj.
Mišljenje Inženjera je da se zbog nedovoljnog
stepena istraženosti u fazi Glavnog projekta
dogodila Greška u projektu – prema Pkl. 5.8
Ugovornih Uslova, uslijed čega je Izvođač
morao odraditi dodatna geotehnička istraživanja
i sukladno tome pripremiti izmjenu Glavnog
projekta.
61

If errors, omissions, ambiguities,
inconsistencies, inadequacies or other defects
are found in the Contractor’s Documents, they
and the Works shall be corrected at the
Contractor’s cost, notwithstanding any consent
or approval under this Clause.
The Engineer’s opinion is that the failure
resulted from poor selection and execution of
insufficient geotechnical investigations – trial
pits did not confirm the depth of the basic rock
favorable for foundation, which led to the
inadequacy of the approved Main Design
regarding the foundation of the MSE wall.
By comparison of above mentioned Engineer's
conclusions with Sub-Clause 1.1.6.8.
Unforeseeable means not reasonably foreseeable
by an experienced Contractor by the date for
submission of the Tender; the Engineer's
determination is that Experienced Contractor
should foresee all available geotechnical /
geological data provided by the date for
submission of the Tender (what is a main
purpose of Delivered Preliminary Design, as per
the Engineer's opinion) and took it into
consideration in further stages of the Design &
Built Project.
Furthermore, taking into account Sub-Clause
13.9 of Particular Conditions, where
Unforeseeable works are the works that relate to
variation of the scope of work due to changed
geological, hydrogeological and ecological
conditions in relation to the delivered
Preliminary Design, the Engineer's valuation is
that mentioned works cannot be treated as
unforeseeable works, with an explanation that
the works can be foreseen by an experienced
contractor from the submitted Preliminary
Design.
Supervision of Design and Works
on the Bar – Boljare Highway,
Section Smokovac – Uvač –
Mateševo
Ukoliko se u dokumentaciji Izvođača utvrde
greške, propusti, dvosmislenosti,
neadekvatnosti i ostale manjkavosti, ona i
Radovi podležu korekcijama o trošku Izvođača,
bez obzira na bilo koju saglasnost ili odobrenje
koje je bilo dato u skladu sa ovom klauzulom.
Mišljenje je Inženjera da je do propusta došlo
lošim odabirom i izvođenjem nedovoljnih
geotehničkih istraživanja – istražnim raskopima
nije potvrđena dubina osnovne stijene povoljne
za fundiranje, što je dovelo do neadekvatnosti
odobrenog Glavnog projekta po pitanju
fundiranja zida od armirane zemlje.
Poređenjem gore navedenih zaključaka
Nadzornog organa sa podtačkom 1.1.6.8.
Nepredvidivo predstavlja nešto što iskusni
Izvođač razumno nije mogao da predvidi do
vremena podnošenja Ponude; Inženjer je
utvrdio da Iskusni Izvođač treba da predvidi sve
raspoložive geotehničke / geološke podatke do
datuma za podnošenje ponude (što je glavna
svrha isporučenog Idejnog projekta, prema
mišljenju Nadzornog organa) i da ga uzme u
obzir u narednim fazama projekta projektovanja
i izgradnje.
Nadalje, uzimajući u obzir pod-klauzulu 13.9
Posebnih uslova, gdje su nepredvidivi radovi
radovi koji se odnose na promjenu opsega
radova zbog promijenjenih geoloških,
hidrogeoloških i ekoloških uslova u odnosu na
isporučeni idejni projekat, određivanje
vrednovanja Nadzornog organa da se pomenuti
radovi ne mogu tretirati kao nepredvidivi
radovi, uz obrazloženje da radovi mogu biti
predviđeni od strane iskusnog izvođača
radova iz dostavljenog Idejnog projekta.
62