My comments are given in red below:-

-----Original Message-----
From: Khalid Mahmood Dar [mailto:khalidmahmooddar@yahoo.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2008 8:17 AM
To: sam99@eim.ae
Subject: How to collect my Certificate

Dear Sir,
 
I am working in …….. area. This is a ………. Project where NEW FIDIC (modified) is
part of Contract document.
 
Sub Clause14.1d  "the contractor shall submit to Employer's Representative, within 28
days after the commencement date a proposed breakdown of each lump sum price in the
Schedule of Contract Price (including the Bill of Quantities).The Employer's
Representative may take account of the breakdown when preparing Payment Certificates,
but shall not be bound by it." 
 
We already submitted detailed breakdown for all lump sum items  for example under
SUPERVISION AND LABOUR  we have give
 
DESIGNATION            AMOUNT
 
Project Manager          Dhs........
Project Engineer          Dhs........
.
.
.
.
Labour                          Dhs.....
 
 
Now our consultant asking Nos. of engineer, Pm, labours and rate as well.
 
Please advice me should we bound for it or the detail which we already given that is
sufficient.?
 
 Since the requirement of the breakdown is for the purpose of Payment Certificates, and if
the ER considers that numbers and rates are required for the Payment Certificates, then
an obligation to submit them could exist.

Regards,

Prof. Sam.
Prof. Indrawansa Samaratunga PhD, DSc
FRICS, FAIQS, FIQSSL, FCIArb, FCIOB, FCMI, FASI, FBEng
Chartered Quantity Surveyor and Registered Arbitrator / Expert
 Australian Inst.of Qty.Surveyors-Middle East Representative
PO Box 23461, Dubai, UAE. T +971504588949 F +97143378668
 
Thanks and Regards
  
Khalid
 
 
----- Original Message -----
From: Mohamed Yousuf
To: sam99@eim.ae
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2008 02:57:55 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: Big Thank You + Q&A
Dear Dr. Sam
 
We are Precast Supplier facing problem in Variation Approval by Main Contractor/Client;
Kindly advice  how we can force the Main contractor (by qualifying during tender submission or variation
indication) to claim that In case of Main contracotr's failure to approve in certain period of time, it deemed to
be approved and MC liable to pay".

If your supply agreement is based on conditions similar to those existing in FIDIC-4th, then the obligation to
pay for variations (and to pay for them every month) already exists. If not, then modify FIDIC-4th Clauses 51
and 52 to suit a supply contract and include in your future agreements.

Regards,

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

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

From: shareef
To: sam99@eim.ae
Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2008 11:21:13 +0400
Subject: clarification

 Dr. Sam

 Could u please advise why do we calculate mass of steel for re-bars (Density x volume)
even though POM(I) clause C3.2 states ‘Bar reinforcement shall be measured by weight”

 Because it is inconvenient to weigh each bar to find its weight/mass, the standard
practice in the industry is to use volume x density. Such ambiguity is eliminated, if you
are using CESMM3, as rule M7 in Class G stipulates to calculate mass using this method.

Regards,

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

Mohd. Farooqui

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

From: Shabbir Parkar
To: sam99@eim.ae
Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2008 20:06:26 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: A Big Thank You + Q&A

Thanks Dr. Sam for sharing Q&A regularly with me and my colleagues. I  find this
material of great value in knowing the application side of the FIDIC form of
contracts i.e. the type of problems being encountered by the Contract Administrators in
this part of world and possible solutions. My colleagues and I refer to it as an authentic
source of information when we are in doubt about our rights or obligations.   
 
Please accept my best wishes for your good health and also for the success of your
mission of upgrading the quality of  Contract Adminitration practiced in the U.A.E.   
 
Kind regards,
 
Shabbir A. Parkar

Thank you for your kind words.

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

From: "Easterbrook, Henry"
To: sam99@eim.ae
Date: Sun, 19 Oct 2008 11:44:50 +0100
Subject: Q&A

Prof Sam,

 If you get chance could you consider and offer your informal opinion on the following: 

1. This example is based on a completely bespoke form of contract (that originates from a
Utilities company’s own suite of documents) which bares no resemblance to anything
else I have seen but it’s the general principle I am interested in. The project is a complex
Turnkey/EPC utilities project. The contactor finally accepted the LOA (unqualified) but in
their acceptance letter, as with all previous correspondence, they list preceding
correspondence references and dates meaning there is a string of correspondence
linking back every letter ever sent by the Contractor. The post tender negation period
went on for over a year and there were many qualifications that we closed out in
meetings and through verbal agreements. The priority of documents is listed as 1)
Contract Agreement, 2) Letter of Acceptance etc. But the contract agreement
incorporates the LOA (at the top level priority) so…….. MY QUESTION IS…… does this
mean any referenced correspondence from the Contractor (and qualifications listed
 therein) can be relied upon by the contractor? Yes. Since an Offer can carry any
conditions/qualifications, and the acceptance is required to be unconditional and
absolute, the parties are deemed to have agreed to any and all conditions/qualifications
stated in such string of correspondence.

2.   A fictitious example – A project has been tendered, the Tender Docs show a broad
window for commencement (say between 1st Feb 2009  to 1st July 2009) and an assumed
duration (say between 40 week and 80 weeks). The successful Tender returns a
compliant bid and is awarded the project. If an unscrupulous client was to prepare
contract docs with detailed but very unfavourable programme info (albeit within the given
windows for commencement & duration detailed in the tender docs) does the contractor
have any grounds for using his own date for commencement and duration? Since the
programme info in the Contract Documents is deemed to supersede those referred to in
the Tender Documents, unless the Contractor can successfully plead physical
impossibility, he is bound by them. And more specifically in the following circumstances: 

a.       The Contract is signed and returned but with the Contractor appends his own
programme showing his preferred commencement & duration (within the
windows provided at tender stage) – what is the contract programme info? What
the Contractor appended is binding, if it is properly incorporated into the Contract
Documents.

b.      The Contract is signed and returned (unqualified) but the contractor had noted
his preferred commencement & duration in his Tender (which is not in contract
documents) and is late finishing based on contract documents? Can damages be
levied? Yes. The contract programme is deemed to have superseded the Tender
programme.

c.       The Contract is signed and returned (unqualified) but with the Contractor later
submits his own programme that conflicts. The contractor submits a variation for
acceleration costs which goes unanswered. The Contractor completes inside the
client’s dates/durations, and then goes through the dispute resolution procedure
to recover his acceleration costs – How would a 3rd party find in the case?
Contract programme is binding. No entitlement to acceleration costs.

3.   Another fictitious example – A Tender is issued - the scope of work is defined as 100m2
of concrete (lump sum, spec & drawings). A Contractor returns a tender that is clearly
wrong, qualified & non compliant (i.e. for 90m2 of tarmac) for the sum of £1,000. Things
move on and contract documents are prepared, there is no reference to the Contractor’s
tender and the tendered scope (100m2 of concrete) is detailed for sum of £1,000.
Assuming the contract is silent concerning correction of tender errors what is likely to
happen in the following instances: (with & without a section in the BQ for correction of BQ
errors) 

a.       The Contract is signed and returned – later the contractor submits a variation for
the additional cost of the work from his tender. How can there be a variation if a
variation is not instructed ? The Contractor is obligated to execute the work
shown in the Drawings and described in the Specification (and not what he
quoted for in his Tender which did not form part of the Contract)

b.      The Contractor commences work onsite without signing the Contract. The
contractor mobilises and orders materials etc, the Contractor later rejects the
contract documents, pulls off site and pursues a claim for loss and expense. If
the Contractor proceeded without an instruction to do so from the Employer, then
 no recompense. Otherwise recompense on quantum meruit basis. Since there is
no mention of the Contractor’s offer in the Contract Documents, it amounts to a
rejection of the Contractor’s Offer, and therefore the Contractor has the right to
reject the Contract Documents.

Regards,

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

 Many thanks in advance

 Regards

 Henry

Questions should be short and

simple !
----- Original Message -----
From: Mudhar Abbas
To: sam99@eim.ae
Date: Sun, 19 Oct 2008 10:44:35 +0400
Subject: Question

Dr. Sam,

How are you? Hope well.

 I have an issue:

 I have Main Contractor (MC) and Nominated Subs (NS) under him. One of the NS, we will call
him NS1 for the sake of the question, showed tremendous delay in his work; therefore, the MC
remove some of the scope and gave it to new Subcontractor, we will call him NS2 here.

 The scope that was removed is aluminum doors which include indoor and outdoor cladding and
glass. But the MC, in his letter, didn’t specify which cladding is to be removed from the NS1.
Therefore when we asked NS1 about his part which we believe include the indoors cladding, he
said no I am not going to do it because it is removed from me.

 Who is on fault? MC (for not properly ring fencing the deleted scope) What is the status under
FIDIC? Not applicable. What could be done? MC should once again issue the instructions to NS1
and NS2 (this time with properly specified scope) and also bear all the consequences.
Regards,

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

 Kind regards,

 Mudhar A. Abbas

Area Construction Manager

Mobile: +971502037065

Turner
Turner Construction - International LLC

Burj Dubai Development - The Dubai Mall Project

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

From: "Munyori, James"
To: sam99@eim.ae
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2008 10:29:34 +0400
Subject: RE: Big Thank You + Q&A

We thank you for imparting all that knowledge / experience distilled over the years to us. The
course has changed the way I look at contract management.

 Once again, thanks

 James Munyori, PMP

Site Manager (Infrastructure)

Faithful+Gould

Thank you for your kind words.

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

From: Muhammad Faisal
To: "Dr. Sam" <sam99@emirates.net.ae>
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 2008 11:57:30 +0400
Subject: Dr. Sam's valuable advice on EoT issue
Dear Dr. Sam,
 
I attended the “Sound Contract Administration” Course in September 2008 and I
am really thankful to you for providing the valuable knowledge and information on
contract administration in the construction industry.
 
I would be grateful if you could provide me your advice on an issue relating to
time extension in the following scenario:-
 
Conditions of Contract: FIDIC Fourth Edition
 
Type of Works: District Cooling Distribution Pipe Network
 
One clause in the "Contract Documents - Instructions to Tenderers" states that
the Tenderer (now Contractor) is notified that other contractors within the Site
executing works of various nature including civil works will necessitate due
consideration to establish careful coordination between successful Tenderer and
the said contractors to avoid any conflict in operations including accessibility
which would cause harm to each other’s property, works and work programmes.
 
Clause 14.1 of FIDIC has been amended in the Particular Conditions to include
that the Contractor shall incorporate into the programme, any activities and/or
constraints arising from the work of other contractors pursuant to Sub-Clause
31.1.
 
The programme was submitted by the Contractor and consented by the
Engineer. However, the Contractor was unable to catch up his programme due to
lack of resources etc. and the project has been delayed. Please note that during
the scheduled Time for Completion, other contractors working at the same Site
were ready to provide the access to the Contractor as per the originally agreed
programme (Clause 14.1).
 
However, following elapse of scheduled Date for Completion of the Works, other
contractors [employed by the Employer and working on the same Site at the time
of Tender] delayed the Contractor considerably in providing access to execute
his pipe works.
 
Please advise whether or not the Contractor is entitled for time extension for
delay caused by other contractors after elapse of scheduled date for completion
of works. One argument is that had the Contractor executed the works as per his
programme (which was agreed with other contractors) there would have been no
delay to the project. Other argument is that the Contractor is entitled to time
extension under the Contract if delay is caused by the Employer (other contractor
employed by the Employer in this case).
 
I would be grateful if you could support your advise with reasoned explanation.
If it can be demonstrated that, had the Contractor proceeded according to his Clause 14.1
programme, the pipe works would not have resulted in a delay to the project completion,
then the Contractor is not entitled to EOT.

On the other hand, if it can be demonstrated that the pipe work contractor was any way in
delay and therefore, even if the Contractor was on schedule, it would not have made any
difference, and that the effects of both delays are concurrent in delaying the project
completion, then the Contractor is entitled to EOT. 

Regards,

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

Thanks & best regards,

 
Muhammad Faisal Chaudhary

-----Original Message-----
From: Sameer Siwani [mailto:Sameer.Siwani@keoic.com]
Sent: Saturday, November 01, 2008 6:47 PM
To: sam99@eim.ae
Subject: RE: Dear Class of Autumn 2008 - Q&A

Prof Sam,
 
Firstly, thanks for initiating this follow up correspondence and please note that I intend to
remain connected to the training group.
 
Secondly, I would like to take this opportunity to convey my genuine gratitude to your
determined efforts to induce the much needed knowledge regarding proper practices to
an otherwise ignorant industry.
 
Thirdly, I would request you to please keep me informed regarding any other
advanced/detailed courses by which I may gain further knowledge and discharge my
duties in an even more professional and correct manner.
 
Laslty, I look forward to your continued support in my pursuit of further knowledge and
effective problem solving.
 
Thanks and Regards,

Sameer Siwani
Thank you for your kind words. Details of the advanced course being structured were forwarded
in the July 2008 Q&A emailed to you on 3rd November 2008.

Regards,

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