Our Ref. GSP/SA/20/2/2013 (2) The Resident Engineer Garissa Sewerage Project P.O.

Box 495-70100 GARISSA Dear Sir, RE:

20th February, 2013

GARISSA SEWERAGE PROJECT CONTRACT NO: NWSB/T/002/2008/2009 CONSTRUCTION OF ACCESS RAMP FOR THE ANAEROBIC POND

Please refer to your letter Ref. No. RE/GSP/INS/148 dated 15th February 2013 on the above subject matter. On at least two sittings with you, (most recently being on 16th and 18th February) I have indicated the complexity of the construction of access ramp my methodology statement dated 7th February 2013 notwithstanding. In our discussion, I did demonstrate to you how setting out to achieve fill layers measurable horizontally on both the cross-sectional and longitudinal alignments would be most complex. Attempting to achieve horizontal levels on either the longitudinal or the cross sectional axis would impose an exceptionally high demand on our surveyor who would have to take complex levels almost on a daily basis. Moreover, attempting to achieve horizontal levels along the two perpendicular axis (seen from above), as was originally envisaged, the contractors surveyor would be permanently stationed at the access ramp directing the entire operation, not to mention an almost similar number of man-hours for the REs surveyor in checking that the levels are achieved. As I intimated to you, this unduly gigantic effort would be a resource consuming exercise out expended for much less weighty reason that of maintaining a horizontal surface in the course of construction of the ramp. The contractor would like to engage your engineering judgement in this entire access ramp matter by allocating importance to the weighty issue of ensuring adequate compaction is achieved in the course of progression of construction. Please note that the present progression method not only guarantees sufficient compaction at the two sides of the longitudinal view, but also approaches the final surface in a logical sloping fashion which is constructionally desirable. In view of the constructional shape of a longitudinally sloping top surface of the ramp currently adopted by the contractor, I wish to call your attention to the futility of taking levels on the deepest part of the constructed ramp. The construction team used a point located towards the longitudinally lower end of the ramp and hence the difference in the present number of layers which is totally understandable.

In conclusion, I appeal to you to make judgement in view of this very wide picture - it is the contractual chance to exercise a technically sound an informed judgment. An adamant inflexibility based on a need to just maintain successive horizontal surfaces is in the contractors view closed to the true reality on site and altogether unnecessary. Kindly view the test results and use them as the main basis of authorization of continuation of the construction of the ramp. Yours faithfully,

ENG. S. K. RAGU SITE AGENT