To: Daya Bina Contractor

STATEMENT OF CLAIM

Breach of Contract: The primary basis is that the contractor's failure to meet the agreed-
upon completion timeline of 30 months as specified in the contract. In this case, the
applicant team would like to argue that the contractor has breached the contract by not
fulfilling his obligation to complete the project on time as specified in the contract.

Poor Work Progress: On our behalf, we have documented some evidence of the
contractor's poor work progress, as highlighted by the multiple notices of reminder issued by
the applicant. This demonstrates the contractor's failure to meet project milestones and did
not maintain a satisfactory pace of work in completing this project.

Impact of Delays: Also, we would like to highlight the direct impact of the delays caused by
the contractor on the overall project timeline and subsequent implications. This could include
financial losses incurred on our behalf due to the extended project duration caused by the
contractor.

Discrepancy in EOT Approval: The discrepancy between the contractor's request for an
Extension of Time for (300 days). The argument here would be that the approved EOT which
is (193 days) was too long caused by various factors. The longer the project takes to
complete, the more expenses accumulate. This includes prolonged labor costs, equipment
rentals, overhead expenses, and any ongoing administrative costs associated with the
project's management.

Failure to Mitigate: During this project, the contractor failed to take adequate measures to
mitigate the delays or efficiently address the issues that led to the delays. This could be the
basis for negligence or lack of proactive problem-solving by the contractor, and the
application for 300 days EOT could not be granted as those problems are on the contractor’s
obligation to settle.

Yours sincerely,

…………………………….

(GREEN AVENUE)

(TENGKU HAKIMI PUTRA BIN TENGKU HAMIDI)