Program CT40

7/28/2019 Program CT40

1/59

CRICA CASE NO.467/2006

CCCO VS. GPP

STATEMENT OF DEFENCE

Page 1 of59

Objections to The Contractors Claiming Practice

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PHASE I

No. 01- Gas Works

No. 02: Multimedia.

No. 04: Decorative Lighting.

No. 0

No. 07: H4 Additional Parking.

No. 8- Fire Escape:

No. 8B- Fire Escape:

No. 8C- Atrium Smoke Curtain (CVN 490):No. 9A- Smoke Management:

No. 9B- Smoke Management H1-H4 (CVN 226):

No. 9C- Car Park Smoke Containment and Extract Modifications:

No. 10- VRV Units:

No. 13: C78 Pyramid

No. 14- 5th Floor:

No. 15- CCTV & Security:

No. 16- Food Courts (Commercial Center Phase I):

No. 17- Refuse Room:

No. 18- Emergency Exit Signage Conduits:No. 19: Exhibition Roof Panels.

No. 21- Operators Electrical Requirements:

No. 22: 1st Basement Revised Lighting

No. 23- Busway Risers:

No. 24: FCU Connection to BMS

No. 25- False Ceiling & Column Capitals:

No. 26: Toilet [Access] Modifications

No. 27: False Ceiling Coordination

No. 28: Service Corridor Ceiling

No. 29: Operator FacilitiesNo. 31: Lighting Control Modifications

No. 32: Panel Board Feeders

No. 33: Cradle Cleaning System.

No. 35: Atrium Skylights.

No. 37: Audio Visual

No. 38: Life Safety Signage (H1-H4).

No. 39: Coffee Shop Ground Floor


2/59


CCCO VS. GPP


Page 2 of59

No. 40: Brasserie Restaurant.

No. 41: Folding Partitions.

No. 42: CDA Requirements.

No. 43: Boiler Redesign

No. 44: H4 Lift Pit @ X27/Y22.

No. 45: Penthouse

No. 46: Italian Restaurant

No. 47: Japanese Restaurant

No. 48: Lebanese Restaurant.

PHASE IINo. 01: Gas Works.

No. 53: A8 Building.

No. 54: H5/O1 Hotel: Change of Design

Stop Work.No. 55: H5/O1 HotelRelease of Revised Design.

No. 56: H5/O1 HotelRelease of TP5 Revised Design.

No. 60: C10 Swimming Pool.

No. 61: Commercial Centre Phase 2 Structural Redesign

No. 62: External Road Works.


3/59


CCCO VS. GPP


Page 3 of59

1- Gas Works

1A- Appointment of Egypt Gas

Gas Misr is the nominated sub contractor to CCCO. For the gas piping, it is known that therewas an agreement between GPP and Egypt Gas as the authorized company to construct gasworks in Egypt.

On other hand, many of works have been deleted from CCCOs scope of work, were inconjunction between CCCO and Egypt Gas as coordination process, such as Main Gas Shut-off Valve, Gas Pipes in Shafts and Gas Detection System.

The following table showing the delayed finish dates of Egypt Gas works, the affected CCCO2

ndfix works and the IRs concerned with 2

ndfix activities.

Floor Level

Egypt Gas Works

(Piping, Sleevs, seismic

Supports, ExpansionJoints)

Finish Dates

CCCO Works

(HVAC Conduits, F/P,

Plumbing, CablingWorks)

Finish Dates

HVAC Conduits, F/P,

Plumbing, Cabling

WorksFinish Dates

according to IRs

2nd

Basement30 May 2002 16 November 2002 14 September 2004

Ground

Floor16 January 2003 16 November 2002 11 July 2004

1st Floor06 February 2003 16 December 2002 28 February 2004

2nd Floor27 February 2003 01 March 2003 16 October 2004

According to the table above, Egypt Gas works were performed and finished within the periodwhere CCCO was carrying out 2

ndfix activities. Egypt Gas works were completed before CCCO

is able to finish its 2nd

fix activities with duration over a year.

Conclusion:

Since Egypt Gas works were performed concurrently with CCCO 2nd

fix activities, andthen there is no delay incurred due to Egypt Gas.


4/59


CCCO VS. GPP


Page 4 of59

1- Gas Works

1B- Gas Detection System

The Contractor claimed that alleged delaying event start date is 7 February 2002, where in themeeting held on 7 February 2002, Egypt Gas requested that CCCO stop the ceiling works

Program CT29 dated 1 January 2002 indicating a completion date for commercial center on 20March 2003, and program CT31 dated 1 March 2002 indicating completion date for commercialcenter on 11 February 2003, i.e. such instructions didnt affect the Block completion date

The Contractors delay analysis is based on CVN 247 & 247 (1). However, each CVN should beconsidered as a delaying event and to be simulated with its contemporaneous update to assess itsimpact upon the project completion date as indicated in Padraig Anglin expert report on projectdelay, section 4.

In the following analysis we will demonstrate the validity of each alleged delaying event:

CVN # 247

SoD No.: 2Title: Block H1-H4: Natural Gas Detection SystemPMO Letter: PMO/CCCO/TP5/02/17.0/802/463

1

Date of Issue: 8 May 2002

Instructions Included in the CVN Form:

- Proceed with work- No extension of time authorized

Contractors Reservations:

The Contractor did not provide substantiations that they preserved rights for delays mayencounter as a result of issuing CVN 247.

Comments:

1- The Contractor received the instructions to proceed with work pertaining to this eventthrough CVN number 247 which issued on 8 May 2002.

2- However, the contemporaneous update to assess the alleged impact upon the projectcompletion date should be HT33 data date 1 May 2002, but the Contractor simulate

this delaying event with update HT31 dated 1 March 2002, which is wrong.

3- Furthermore, the Contractor should simulate only the impact of issuing CVN 247 toassess its impact upon the contract completion date, but the Contractor analyzed theimpact of CVN 247 & 247 (1) all together in the same program update and combinedthe impact of several delaying events issued in various dates, which is deceptive

1See attached letter
http://e/Claimant's%20Statement%20of%20Claim%2027-09-2012/Emad%20Studies/Delaying%20Events%20Study%20-%20May%202013/CCCO%20-v-%20GPP%20-%20Appendix%203%20-%20No.%201%20Gas%20Works%20-%201B%20-%20Gas%20Detection%20System/2002-05-08-PMO-0463.pdfhttp://e/Claimant's%20Statement%20of%20Claim%2027-09-2012/Emad%20Studies/Delaying%20Events%20Study%20-%20May%202013/CCCO%20-v-%20GPP%20-%20Appendix%203%20-%20No.%201%20Gas%20Works%20-%201B%20-%20Gas%20Detection%20System/2002-05-08-PMO-0463.pdfhttp://e/Claimant's%20Statement%20of%20Claim%2027-09-2012/Emad%20Studies/Delaying%20Events%20Study%20-%20May%202013/CCCO%20-v-%20GPP%20-%20Appendix%203%20-%20No.%201%20Gas%20Works%20-%201B%20-%20Gas%20Detection%20System/2002-05-08-PMO-0463.pdfhttp://e/Claimant's%20Statement%20of%20Claim%2027-09-2012/Emad%20Studies/Delaying%20Events%20Study%20-%20May%202013/CCCO%20-v-%20GPP%20-%20Appendix%203%20-%20No.%201%20Gas%20Works%20-%201B%20-%20Gas%20Detection%20System/2002-05-08-PMO-0463.pdf


5/59


CCCO VS. GPP


Page 5 of59

4- In spite that CVN 247 was issued to Hotel Block H1-H4, but the contractor consider itsimpact to Blocks A1-A3, Commercial Center and F buildings.

Conclusion:

The contractor could not demonstrate in a sound delay analysis the impact upon theproject completion date as a result of this alleged delaying event

CVN # 247 (1)

SoD No.: 3Title: All Areas: Natural Gas Detection SystemPMO Letter: PMO/CCCO/TP5/02/17.0/1576/938

2

Date of Issue: 22 August 2002




The Contractor in his letter ref. 674/10/180A/ L. 36033

dated 25 August 2002, stated thefollowing:

- We write to inform you that completion of the works will be delayed beyond thecurrent extended Time for Completion

Comments:

4. The Contractor received the instructions to proceed with work pertaining to this eventthrough CVN number 247 (1) which issued on 22 August 2002.

5. However, the contemporaneous update to assess the alleged impact upon the projectcompletion date should be CT36, HT36, F136 & F236 data date 1 August 2002, but theContractor simulate this delaying event with update XX31 dated 1 March 2002, which iswrong.

6. Furthermore, the Contractor should simulate only the impact of issuing CVN 247 (1) toassess its impact upon the contract completion date, but the Contractor analyzed theimpact of CVN 247 & 247 (1) all together in the same program update and combinedthe impact of several delaying events issued in various dates, which is deceptive

Conclusion:



http://e/Claimant's%20Statement%20of%20Claim%2027-09-2012/Emad%20Studies/Delaying%20Events%20Study%20-%20May%202013/CCCO%20-v-%20GPP%20-%20Appendix%203%20-%20No.%201%20Gas%20Works%20-%201B%20-%20Gas%20Detection%20System/2002-08-22-PMO-0938.pdfhttp://e/Claimant's%20Statement%20of%20Claim%2027-09-2012/Emad%20Studies/Delaying%20Events%20Study%20-%20May%202013/CCCO%20-v-%20GPP%20-%20Appendix%203%20-%20No.%201%20Gas%20Works%20-%201B%20-%20Gas%20Detection%20System/2002-08-22-PMO-0938.pdfhttp://e/Claimant's%20Statement%20of%20Claim%2027-09-2012/Emad%20Studies/Delaying%20Events%20Study%20-%20May%202013/CCCO%20-v-%20GPP%20-%20Appendix%203%20-%20No.%201%20Gas%20Works%20-%201B%20-%20Gas%20Detection%20System/2002-08-22-PMO-0938.pdfhttp://e/Claimant's%20Statement%20of%20Claim%2027-09-2012/Emad%20Studies/Delaying%20Events%20Study%20-%20May%202013/CCCO%20-v-%20GPP%20-%20Appendix%203%20-%20No.%201%20Gas%20Works%20-%201B%20-%20Gas%20Detection%20System/2002-08-25-CCC-3603.pdfhttp://e/Claimant's%20Statement%20of%20Claim%2027-09-2012/Emad%20Studies/Delaying%20Events%20Study%20-%20May%202013/CCCO%20-v-%20GPP%20-%20Appendix%203%20-%20No.%201%20Gas%20Works%20-%201B%20-%20Gas%20Detection%20System/2002-08-25-CCC-3603.pdfhttp://e/Claimant's%20Statement%20of%20Claim%2027-09-2012/Emad%20Studies/Delaying%20Events%20Study%20-%20May%202013/CCCO%20-v-%20GPP%20-%20Appendix%203%20-%20No.%201%20Gas%20Works%20-%201B%20-%20Gas%20Detection%20System/2002-08-25-CCC-3603.pdfhttp://e/Claimant's%20Statement%20of%20Claim%2027-09-2012/Emad%20Studies/Delaying%20Events%20Study%20-%20May%202013/CCCO%20-v-%20GPP%20-%20Appendix%203%20-%20No.%201%20Gas%20Works%20-%201B%20-%20Gas%20Detection%20System/2002-08-25-CCC-3603.pdfhttp://e/Claimant's%20Statement%20of%20Claim%2027-09-2012/Emad%20Studies/Delaying%20Events%20Study%20-%20May%202013/CCCO%20-v-%20GPP%20-%20Appendix%203%20-%20No.%201%20Gas%20Works%20-%201B%20-%20Gas%20Detection%20System/2002-08-22-PMO-0938.pdf


6/59


CCCO VS. GPP


Page 6 of59

1- Gas Works

1C- Seismic Sensors



CVN # 204

SoD No.: 4Title: Blocks A1 to A8, F1, F2, Commercial Center and H1-H4: Seismic SensorsPMO Letter: PMO/CCCO/TP5/02/17.0/506/310

4

Date of Issue: 21 March 2002




The Contractor in his letter ref. 674/27/180A/L .20905

dated 2 April 2002, stated thefollowing:

- Late instruction for design change will cause delay and / or disruption to

the progress of works

Comments:

5- The Contractor received the instructions to proceed with work pertaining to this eventthrough CVN number 204 which issued on 21 March 2002.

6- However, the Contractor should simulate only the impact of issuing CVN 204 to assessits impact upon the contract completion date, but the Contractor analyzed the impact ofCVN 204 & 204 (2) all together in the same program update and combined the impactof several delaying events issued in various dates, which is deceptive

Conclusion:



http://e/Claimant's%20Statement%20of%20Claim%2027-09-2012/Emad%20Studies/Delaying%20Events%20Study%20-%20May%202013/CCCO%20-v-%20GPP%20-%20Appendix%203%20-%20No.%201%20Gas%20Works%20-%201C%20-%20Seismic%20Sensors/2002-03-21-PMO-0310.pdfhttp://e/Claimant's%20Statement%20of%20Claim%2027-09-2012/Emad%20Studies/Delaying%20Events%20Study%20-%20May%202013/CCCO%20-v-%20GPP%20-%20Appendix%203%20-%20No.%201%20Gas%20Works%20-%201C%20-%20Seismic%20Sensors/2002-03-21-PMO-0310.pdfhttp://e/Claimant's%20Statement%20of%20Claim%2027-09-2012/Emad%20Studies/Delaying%20Events%20Study%20-%20May%202013/CCCO%20-v-%20GPP%20-%20Appendix%203%20-%20No.%201%20Gas%20Works%20-%201C%20-%20Seismic%20Sensors/2002-03-21-PMO-0310.pdfhttp://e/Claimant's%20Statement%20of%20Claim%2027-09-2012/Emad%20Studies/Delaying%20Events%20Study%20-%20May%202013/CCCO%20-v-%20GPP%20-%20Appendix%203%20-%20No.%201%20Gas%20Works%20-%201C%20-%20Seismic%20Sensors/2002-04-02-CCC-2090.pdfhttp://e/Claimant's%20Statement%20of%20Claim%2027-09-2012/Emad%20Studies/Delaying%20Events%20Study%20-%20May%202013/CCCO%20-v-%20GPP%20-%20Appendix%203%20-%20No.%201%20Gas%20Works%20-%201C%20-%20Seismic%20Sensors/2002-04-02-CCC-2090.pdfhttp://e/Claimant's%20Statement%20of%20Claim%2027-09-2012/Emad%20Studies/Delaying%20Events%20Study%20-%20May%202013/CCCO%20-v-%20GPP%20-%20Appendix%203%20-%20No.%201%20Gas%20Works%20-%201C%20-%20Seismic%20Sensors/2002-04-02-CCC-2090.pdfhttp://e/Claimant's%20Statement%20of%20Claim%2027-09-2012/Emad%20Studies/Delaying%20Events%20Study%20-%20May%202013/CCCO%20-v-%20GPP%20-%20Appendix%203%20-%20No.%201%20Gas%20Works%20-%201C%20-%20Seismic%20Sensors/2002-04-02-CCC-2090.pdfhttp://e/Claimant's%20Statement%20of%20Claim%2027-09-2012/Emad%20Studies/Delaying%20Events%20Study%20-%20May%202013/CCCO%20-v-%20GPP%20-%20Appendix%203%20-%20No.%201%20Gas%20Works%20-%201C%20-%20Seismic%20Sensors/2002-03-21-PMO-0310.pdf


7/59


CCCO VS. GPP


Page 7 of59

CVN # 204 (2)

SoD No.: 5Title: Blocks A1 to A8, F1, F2, Commercial Center and H1-H4 & H5/O1 :

Seismic SensorsPMO Letter: PMO/CCCO/TP5/02/17.0/2323/1352

6

Date of Issue: 24 December 2002




The Contractor did not provide substantiations that they preserved rights for delays mayencounter as a result of issuing CVN 204 (2).

Comments:

3- The Contractor received the instructions to proceed with work pertaining to this eventthrough CVN number 204 (2) which issued on 24 December 2002.

4- However, the Contractor should simulate only the impact of issuing CVN 204 (2) toassess its impact upon the contract completion date, but the Contractor analyzed theimpact of CVN 204 & 204 (2) all together in the same program update and combinedthe impact of several delaying events issued in various dates, which is deceptive

Conclusion:


http://e/Claimant's%20Statement%20of%20Claim%2027-09-2012/Emad%20Studies/Delaying%20Events%20Study%20-%20May%202013/CCCO%20-v-%20GPP%20-%20Appendix%203%20-%20No.%201%20Gas%20Works%20-%201C%20-%20Seismic%20Sensors/2002-12-24-PMO-1352.pdfhttp://e/Claimant's%20Statement%20of%20Claim%2027-09-2012/Emad%20Studies/Delaying%20Events%20Study%20-%20May%202013/CCCO%20-v-%20GPP%20-%20Appendix%203%20-%20No.%201%20Gas%20Works%20-%201C%20-%20Seismic%20Sensors/2002-12-24-PMO-1352.pdfhttp://e/Claimant's%20Statement%20of%20Claim%2027-09-2012/Emad%20Studies/Delaying%20Events%20Study%20-%20May%202013/CCCO%20-v-%20GPP%20-%20Appendix%203%20-%20No.%201%20Gas%20Works%20-%201C%20-%20Seismic%20Sensors/2002-12-24-PMO-1352.pdfhttp://e/Claimant's%20Statement%20of%20Claim%2027-09-2012/Emad%20Studies/Delaying%20Events%20Study%20-%20May%202013/CCCO%20-v-%20GPP%20-%20Appendix%203%20-%20No.%201%20Gas%20Works%20-%201C%20-%20Seismic%20Sensors/2002-12-24-PMO-1352.pdf


8/59


CCCO VS. GPP


Page 8 of59

2- Multimedia

2A- Trietech Program



CVN # 204

SoD No.: 4Title: Blocks A1 to A8, F1, F2, Commercial Center and H1-H4: Seismic SensorsPMO Letter: PMO/CCCO/TP5/02/17.0/506/310

7

Date of Issue: 21 March 2002






- Late instruction for design change will cause delay and / or disruption to


Comments:

7- The Contractor received the instructions to proceed with work pertaining to this eventthrough CVN number 204 which issued on 21 March 2002.

8- However, the Contractor should simulate only the impact of issuing CVN 204 to assessits impact upon the contract completion date, but the Contractor analyzed the impact ofCVN 204 & 204 (2) all together in the same program update and combined the impactof several delaying events issued in various dates, which is deceptive

Conclusion:



http://e/Claimant's%20Statement%20of%20Claim%2027-09-2012/Emad%20Studies/Delaying%20Events%20Study%20-%20May%202013/CCCO%20-v-%20GPP%20-%20Appendix%203%20-%20No.%201%20Gas%20Works%20-%201C%20-%20Seismic%20Sensors/2002-03-21-PMO-0310.pdfhttp://e/Claimant's%20Statement%20of%20Claim%2027-09-2012/Emad%20Studies/Delaying%20Events%20Study%20-%20May%202013/CCCO%20-v-%20GPP%20-%20Appendix%203%20-%20No.%201%20Gas%20Works%20-%201C%20-%20Seismic%20Sensors/2002-03-21-PMO-0310.pdfhttp://e/Claimant's%20Statement%20of%20Claim%2027-09-2012/Emad%20Studies/Delaying%20Events%20Study%20-%20May%202013/CCCO%20-v-%20GPP%20-%20Appendix%203%20-%20No.%201%20Gas%20Works%20-%201C%20-%20Seismic%20Sensors/2002-03-21-PMO-0310.pdfhttp://e/Claimant's%20Statement%20of%20Claim%2027-09-2012/Emad%20Studies/Delaying%20Events%20Study%20-%20May%202013/CCCO%20-v-%20GPP%20-%20Appendix%203%20-%20No.%201%20Gas%20Works%20-%201C%20-%20Seismic%20Sensors/2002-04-02-CCC-2090.pdfhttp://e/Claimant's%20Statement%20of%20Claim%2027-09-2012/Emad%20Studies/Delaying%20Events%20Study%20-%20May%202013/CCCO%20-v-%20GPP%20-%20Appendix%203%20-%20No.%201%20Gas%20Works%20-%201C%20-%20Seismic%20Sensors/2002-04-02-CCC-2090.pdfhttp://e/Claimant's%20Statement%20of%20Claim%2027-09-2012/Emad%20Studies/Delaying%20Events%20Study%20-%20May%202013/CCCO%20-v-%20GPP%20-%20Appendix%203%20-%20No.%201%20Gas%20Works%20-%201C%20-%20Seismic%20Sensors/2002-04-02-CCC-2090.pdfhttp://e/Claimant's%20Statement%20of%20Claim%2027-09-2012/Emad%20Studies/Delaying%20Events%20Study%20-%20May%202013/CCCO%20-v-%20GPP%20-%20Appendix%203%20-%20No.%201%20Gas%20Works%20-%201C%20-%20Seismic%20Sensors/2002-04-02-CCC-2090.pdfhttp://e/Claimant's%20Statement%20of%20Claim%2027-09-2012/Emad%20Studies/Delaying%20Events%20Study%20-%20May%202013/CCCO%20-v-%20GPP%20-%20Appendix%203%20-%20No.%201%20Gas%20Works%20-%201C%20-%20Seismic%20Sensors/2002-03-21-PMO-0310.pdf


9/59


CCCO VS. GPP


Page 9 of59

6- Substation6A- Substation Revised Drawings:

Comments:

1- Program P51N indicated that Activity # SS-00AC010 (Receive Structural Design Dwgsfor Constrn) is a start milestone dated 1 August 2000

2- The Contractor claiming that receipt of the design was delayed from 1 August 2000 to18 October 2000 which delayed the construction works of substation

3- Program update No. 5116 dated 1 December 2000 shown that activity # SS-00AC010(Receive Structural Design Drawings for Construction) is actually completed on 19October 2000 and also showing that the Contractor had submitted the 1

stlot of

structural shop drawings for approval on 26 August 2000.

4- Program update No. 5116 dated 1 December 2000 showing also that the substationconstruction works was actually started on 20 September 2000

5- Program update No. 5116 showing also that the Contractor is actually received theArchitectural design drawings for construction on 4 October 2000

6- Therefore, the Contractor assumption that the design drawings have been delayedfrom 1 August 2000 till 18 October 2000 is deceptive.

Conclusion:



10/59


CCCO VS. GPP


Page 10 of59

6B- Substation S/C HVB:

Comments:

1- The Contractor submitted a standalone program for the substations named NSUS data

date 16 October 2001 via their letter ref. 674/26/180A/L0128 9, dated 18 October 2001,with completion date 4 May 2002.

2- PMO in their letter ref. PMO/CCCO/TP5/01/1.6/951/42710

, dated 22 October 2001,stated that CCC/O is now in the position of having the 66KV Substation comprehensivelyscheduled through to completion, with a consensus from all related parties concurring with and

supporting that schedule. In the PMO view, CCC/O is now in complete control of this program

and must drive thisplan to completion as targeted.

3- The contractor issued a revised version of the standalone program of the substationsnamed NS27 via letter ref 674/26/180A/ L. 1333

11, dated 18 November 2001, indicated

that substations completion date is delayed till 24 June 2002

4- The Contractor alleged that the delayed completion date of the substation is related tothe subcontractor HVB revisions, but they neither demonstrate what are these revisionsnor seeking PMO acceptance to the revised program.

5- The Contractor did not incorporate the substation program into the related Blockprogram until 1 December 2001.

6- The Contractor in order to assess the delays resulted from this alleged delaying event,just compared between two programs FT28 and FT39, without demonstrating what arethe cause of delays and did not provide proficient delay analysis to assess the impactupon the project completion date.

Conclusion:




http://e/Claimant's%20Statement%20of%20Claim%2027-09-2012/Emad%20Studies/Delaying%20Events%20Study%20-%20May%202013/CCCO%20-v-%20GPP%20-%20Appendix%203%20-%20No.%206%20Substation%20-%206B%20-%20Substation%20SC%20HVB/2001-10-18-CCC-0128.pdfhttp://e/Claimant's%20Statement%20of%20Claim%2027-09-2012/Emad%20Studies/Delaying%20Events%20Study%20-%20May%202013/CCCO%20-v-%20GPP%20-%20Appendix%203%20-%20No.%206%20Substation%20-%206B%20-%20Substation%20SC%20HVB/2001-10-18-CCC-0128.pdfhttp://e/Claimant's%20Statement%20of%20Claim%2027-09-2012/Emad%20Studies/Delaying%20Events%20Study%20-%20May%202013/CCCO%20-v-%20GPP%20-%20Appendix%203%20-%20No.%206%20Substation%20-%206B%20-%20Substation%20SC%20HVB/2001-10-18-CCC-0128.pdfhttp://e/Claimant's%20Statement%20of%20Claim%2027-09-2012/Emad%20Studies/Delaying%20Events%20Study%20-%20May%202013/CCCO%20-v-%20GPP%20-%20Appendix%203%20-%20No.%206%20Substation%20-%206B%20-%20Substation%20SC%20HVB/2001-10-22-PMO-0427.pdfhttp://e/Claimant's%20Statement%20of%20Claim%2027-09-2012/Emad%20Studies/Delaying%20Events%20Study%20-%20May%202013/CCCO%20-v-%20GPP%20-%20Appendix%203%20-%20No.%206%20Substation%20-%206B%20-%20Substation%20SC%20HVB/2001-10-22-PMO-0427.pdfhttp://e/Claimant's%20Statement%20of%20Claim%2027-09-2012/Emad%20Studies/Delaying%20Events%20Study%20-%20May%202013/CCCO%20-v-%20GPP%20-%20Appendix%203%20-%20No.%206%20Substation%20-%206B%20-%20Substation%20SC%20HVB/2001-10-22-PMO-0427.pdfhttp://e/Claimant's%20Statement%20of%20Claim%2027-09-2012/Emad%20Studies/Delaying%20Events%20Study%20-%20May%202013/CCCO%20-v-%20GPP%20-%20Appendix%203%20-%20No.%206%20Substation%20-%206B%20-%20Substation%20SC%20HVB/2001-11-18-CCC-1333.pdfhttp://e/Claimant's%20Statement%20of%20Claim%2027-09-2012/Emad%20Studies/Delaying%20Events%20Study%20-%20May%202013/CCCO%20-v-%20GPP%20-%20Appendix%203%20-%20No.%206%20Substation%20-%206B%20-%20Substation%20SC%20HVB/2001-11-18-CCC-1333.pdfhttp://e/Claimant's%20Statement%20of%20Claim%2027-09-2012/Emad%20Studies/Delaying%20Events%20Study%20-%20May%202013/CCCO%20-v-%20GPP%20-%20Appendix%203%20-%20No.%206%20Substation%20-%206B%20-%20Substation%20SC%20HVB/2001-11-18-CCC-1333.pdfhttp://e/Claimant's%20Statement%20of%20Claim%2027-09-2012/Emad%20Studies/Delaying%20Events%20Study%20-%20May%202013/CCCO%20-v-%20GPP%20-%20Appendix%203%20-%20No.%206%20Substation%20-%206B%20-%20Substation%20SC%20HVB/2001-11-18-CCC-1333.pdfhttp://e/Claimant's%20Statement%20of%20Claim%2027-09-2012/Emad%20Studies/Delaying%20Events%20Study%20-%20May%202013/CCCO%20-v-%20GPP%20-%20Appendix%203%20-%20No.%206%20Substation%20-%206B%20-%20Substation%20SC%20HVB/2001-10-22-PMO-0427.pdfhttp://e/Claimant's%20Statement%20of%20Claim%2027-09-2012/Emad%20Studies/Delaying%20Events%20Study%20-%20May%202013/CCCO%20-v-%20GPP%20-%20Appendix%203%20-%20No.%206%20Substation%20-%206B%20-%20Substation%20SC%20HVB/2001-10-18-CCC-0128.pdf


11/59


CCCO VS. GPP


Page 11 of59

8- Fire Escape:

The Contractors delay analysis is based on CVN 362 & 362 (1). However, each CVN should beconsidered as a delaying event and to be simulated with its contemporaneous update to assess itsimpact upon the project completion date as indicated in Padraig Anglin expert report on project

delay, section 4.


CVN # 362

SoD No.: 15Title: Commercial Center Zone C8: Provision of Fire Escape CorridorPMO Letter: PMO/CCCO/TP5/02/17.0/1147/665

12

Date of Issue: 1 July 2002





dated 2 July 2002, stated thefollowing:

- We give notice, pursuant to Clause 44, that the additional work, and thetiming of its instructions are likely to cause delay to Completion

Comments:

1- The Contractor in his delay analysis did not consider CVN 362 and take intoconsideration the impact of CVN 362 (1) only

2- The contractor in his interim detailed particulars issued on 7 July 2002 via letter ref.674/10/180A/ L. 3429

14, indicated that the net effect of the delay to completion is 63

working days to all works at level +9.40 for Zone C7/8

3- The Contractor in his delay analysis in SoC concluded that the subject CVN did notresulted critical delay to the Commercial Center

Conclusion:

The contractor did not suffer critical delay to the Commercial Center due to therequirement of CVN 362



http://e/Claimant's%20Statement%20of%20Claim%2027-09-2012/Emad%20Studies/Delaying%20Events%20Study%20-%20May%202013/CCCO%20-v-%20GPP%20-%20Appendix%203%20-%20No.%208%20Fire%20Escape%20-%208A%20-%20Fire%20Escape%20Corridor/2002-07-01-PMO-0665.pdfhttp://e/Claimant's%20Statement%20of%20Claim%2027-09-2012/Emad%20Studies/Delaying%20Events%20Study%20-%20May%202013/CCCO%20-v-%20GPP%20-%20Appendix%203%20-%20No.%208%20Fire%20Escape%20-%208A%20-%20Fire%20Escape%20Corridor/2002-07-01-PMO-0665.pdfhttp://e/Claimant's%20Statement%20of%20Claim%2027-09-2012/Emad%20Studies/Delaying%20Events%20Study%20-%20May%202013/CCCO%20-v-%20GPP%20-%20Appendix%203%20-%20No.%208%20Fire%20Escape%20-%208A%20-%20Fire%20Escape%20Corridor/2002-07-01-PMO-0665.pdfhttp://e/Claimant's%20Statement%20of%20Claim%2027-09-2012/Emad%20Studies/Delaying%20Events%20Study%20-%20May%202013/CCCO%20-v-%20GPP%20-%20Appendix%203%20-%20No.%208%20Fire%20Escape%20-%208A%20-%20Fire%20Escape%20Corridor/2002-07-02-CCC-3418.pdfhttp://e/Claimant's%20Statement%20of%20Claim%2027-09-2012/Emad%20Studies/Delaying%20Events%20Study%20-%20May%202013/CCCO%20-v-%20GPP%20-%20Appendix%203%20-%20No.%208%20Fire%20Escape%20-%208A%20-%20Fire%20Escape%20Corridor/2002-07-02-CCC-3418.pdfhttp://e/Claimant's%20Statement%20of%20Claim%2027-09-2012/Emad%20Studies/Delaying%20Events%20Study%20-%20May%202013/CCCO%20-v-%20GPP%20-%20Appendix%203%20-%20No.%208%20Fire%20Escape%20-%208A%20-%20Fire%20Escape%20Corridor/2002-07-02-CCC-3418.pdfhttp://e/Claimant's%20Statement%20of%20Claim%2027-09-2012/Emad%20Studies/Delaying%20Events%20Study%20-%20May%202013/CCCO%20-v-%20GPP%20-%20Appendix%203%20-%20No.%208%20Fire%20Escape%20-%208A%20-%20Fire%20Escape%20Corridor/2002-07-07-CCC-3429.pdfhttp://e/Claimant's%20Statement%20of%20Claim%2027-09-2012/Emad%20Studies/Delaying%20Events%20Study%20-%20May%202013/CCCO%20-v-%20GPP%20-%20Appendix%203%20-%20No.%208%20Fire%20Escape%20-%208A%20-%20Fire%20Escape%20Corridor/2002-07-07-CCC-3429.pdfhttp://e/Claimant's%20Statement%20of%20Claim%2027-09-2012/Emad%20Studies/Delaying%20Events%20Study%20-%20May%202013/CCCO%20-v-%20GPP%20-%20Appendix%203%20-%20No.%208%20Fire%20Escape%20-%208A%20-%20Fire%20Escape%20Corridor/2002-07-07-CCC-3429.pdfhttp://e/Claimant's%20Statement%20of%20Claim%2027-09-2012/Emad%20Studies/Delaying%20Events%20Study%20-%20May%202013/CCCO%20-v-%20GPP%20-%20Appendix%203%20-%20No.%208%20Fire%20Escape%20-%208A%20-%20Fire%20Escape%20Corridor/2002-07-07-CCC-3429.pdfhttp://e/Claimant's%20Statement%20of%20Claim%2027-09-2012/Emad%20Studies/Delaying%20Events%20Study%20-%20May%202013/CCCO%20-v-%20GPP%20-%20Appendix%203%20-%20No.%208%20Fire%20Escape%20-%208A%20-%20Fire%20Escape%20Corridor/2002-07-02-CCC-3418.pdfhttp://e/Claimant's%20Statement%20of%20Claim%2027-09-2012/Emad%20Studies/Delaying%20Events%20Study%20-%20May%202013/CCCO%20-v-%20GPP%20-%20Appendix%203%20-%20No.%208%20Fire%20Escape%20-%208A%20-%20Fire%20Escape%20Corridor/2002-07-01-PMO-0665.pdf


12/59


CCCO VS. GPP


Page 12 of59

CVN # 362 (1)

SoD No.: 16Title: Commercial Center Zone C8: Provision of Fire Escape Corridor services at

Level +9.40PMO Letter: PMO/CCCO/TP5/02/17.0/1715/1033

15

Date of Issue: 8 September 2002




The Contractor in his letter ref. 674/27/180A/ L. 3208 16 dated 19 September 2002, statedthe following:

- and confirm that we shall proceed with work as instructed by you throughthis variation notice

- We have already given contractual notices in letters 1, 2 and 3 above

Comments:

1- The Contractor in his letter ref. 674/10/180A/ L. 3681 dated 15 September 200217

,notified PMO regarding delays will be caused by many variation notices excluding 362(1)

2- However, and based on the above-mentioned comment, the contractor have confirmed

that they will proceed with work as instructed by PMO, i.e. without time extension.

3- The Contractor should simulate this delaying event with update CT37 dated 22 August2002, but they simulate it with update CT34 dated 1 June 2002, which is wrong.

4- The Contractor in his delay analysis in SoC concluded that the subject CVN did notresulted critical delay to the Commercial Center

Conclusion:

The contractor did not suffer critical delay to the Commercial Center due to therequirement of CVN 362 (1)



http://e/Claimant's%20Statement%20of%20Claim%2027-09-2012/Emad%20Studies/Delaying%20Events%20Study%20-%20May%202013/CCCO%20-v-%20GPP%20-%20Appendix%203%20-%20No.%208%20Fire%20Escape%20-%208A%20-%20Fire%20Escape%20Corridor/2002-09-08-PMO-1033.pdfhttp://e/Claimant's%20Statement%20of%20Claim%2027-09-2012/Emad%20Studies/Delaying%20Events%20Study%20-%20May%202013/CCCO%20-v-%20GPP%20-%20Appendix%203%20-%20No.%208%20Fire%20Escape%20-%208A%20-%20Fire%20Escape%20Corridor/2002-09-08-PMO-1033.pdfhttp://e/Claimant's%20Statement%20of%20Claim%2027-09-2012/Emad%20Studies/Delaying%20Events%20Study%20-%20May%202013/CCCO%20-v-%20GPP%20-%20Appendix%203%20-%20No.%208%20Fire%20Escape%20-%208A%20-%20Fire%20Escape%20Corridor/2002-09-08-PMO-1033.pdfhttp://e/Claimant's%20Statement%20of%20Claim%2027-09-2012/Emad%20Studies/Delaying%20Events%20Study%20-%20May%202013/CCCO%20-v-%20GPP%20-%20Appendix%203%20-%20No.%208%20Fire%20Escape%20-%208A%20-%20Fire%20Escape%20Corridor/2002-09-19-CCC-3208.pdfhttp://e/Claimant's%20Statement%20of%20Claim%2027-09-2012/Emad%20Studies/Delaying%20Events%20Study%20-%20May%202013/CCCO%20-v-%20GPP%20-%20Appendix%203%20-%20No.%208%20Fire%20Escape%20-%208A%20-%20Fire%20Escape%20Corridor/2002-09-19-CCC-3208.pdfhttp://e/Claimant's%20Statement%20of%20Claim%2027-09-2012/Emad%20Studies/Delaying%20Events%20Study%20-%20May%202013/CCCO%20-v-%20GPP%20-%20Appendix%203%20-%20No.%208%20Fire%20Escape%20-%208A%20-%20Fire%20Escape%20Corridor/2002-09-19-CCC-3208.pdfhttp://e/Claimant's%20Statement%20of%20Claim%2027-09-2012/Emad%20Studies/Delaying%20Events%20Study%20-%20May%202013/CCCO%20-v-%20GPP%20-%20Appendix%203%20-%20No.%208%20Fire%20Escape%20-%208A%20-%20Fire%20Escape%20Corridor/2002-09-15-CCC-3681.pdfhttp://e/Claimant's%20Statement%20of%20Claim%2027-09-2012/Emad%20Studies/Delaying%20Events%20Study%20-%20May%202013/CCCO%20-v-%20GPP%20-%20Appendix%203%20-%20No.%208%20Fire%20Escape%20-%208A%20-%20Fire%20Escape%20Corridor/2002-09-15-CCC-3681.pdfhttp://e/Claimant's%20Statement%20of%20Claim%2027-09-2012/Emad%20Studies/Delaying%20Events%20Study%20-%20May%202013/CCCO%20-v-%20GPP%20-%20Appendix%203%20-%20No.%208%20Fire%20Escape%20-%208A%20-%20Fire%20Escape%20Corridor/2002-09-15-CCC-3681.pdfhttp://e/Claimant's%20Statement%20of%20Claim%2027-09-2012/Emad%20Studies/Delaying%20Events%20Study%20-%20May%202013/CCCO%20-v-%20GPP%20-%20Appendix%203%20-%20No.%208%20Fire%20Escape%20-%208A%20-%20Fire%20Escape%20Corridor/2002-09-15-CCC-3681.pdfhttp://e/Claimant's%20Statement%20of%20Claim%2027-09-2012/Emad%20Studies/Delaying%20Events%20Study%20-%20May%202013/CCCO%20-v-%20GPP%20-%20Appendix%203%20-%20No.%208%20Fire%20Escape%20-%208A%20-%20Fire%20Escape%20Corridor/2002-09-19-CCC-3208.pdfhttp://e/Claimant's%20Statement%20of%20Claim%2027-09-2012/Emad%20Studies/Delaying%20Events%20Study%20-%20May%202013/CCCO%20-v-%20GPP%20-%20Appendix%203%20-%20No.%208%20Fire%20Escape%20-%208A%20-%20Fire%20Escape%20Corridor/2002-09-08-PMO-1033.pdf


13/59


CCCO VS. GPP


Page 13 of59

8B- Fire Escape:

The Contractors delay analysis is based on CVN 241, 263, 319, 374 & 374 (1), where its issuedates are as follow:

The Contractor to model these delays, five activities, each representing a CVN, were inserted into acopy of the CT29 program dated 1 January 2002, linked FF 60 to the appropriate activities.

However, each CVN should be considered as a delaying event and to be simulated with itscontemporaneous update to assess its impact upon the project completion date as indicated in

Padraig Anglin expert report on project delay, section 4.


CVN # 241

SoD No.: 17Title: Commercial Center: Fire Protection in Ceiling Void at level +9.40PMO Letter: PMO/CCCO/TP5/02/17.0/668/390

18

Date of Issue: 16 April 2002





dated 4 June 2002, stated thefollowing:

- and would like to advise you that the work ordered in the aboveinstruction can be accommodated without schedule impact to the current

target milestone date for completion

Comments:

1- The Contractor in his delay analysis alleged that the start date of this delaying event isin February 2002, in spite of that the first alleged delaying event is related to CVN #241, which issued on 16 April 2002


http://e/Claimant's%20Statement%20of%20Claim%2027-09-2012/Emad%20Studies/Delaying%20Events%20Study%20-%20May%202013/CCCO%20-v-%20GPP%20-%20Appendix%203%20-%20No.%208%20Fire%20Escape%20-%208B%20-%20Sprinkler%20Heads%20in%20False%20Ceiling%20Voids/2002-04-16-PMO-0390.pdfhttp://e/Claimant's%20Statement%20of%20Claim%2027-09-2012/Emad%20Studies/Delaying%20Events%20Study%20-%20May%202013/CCCO%20-v-%20GPP%20-%20Appendix%203%20-%20No.%208%20Fire%20Escape%20-%208B%20-%20Sprinkler%20Heads%20in%20False%20Ceiling%20Voids/2002-04-16-PMO-0390.pdfhttp://e/Claimant's%20Statement%20of%20Claim%2027-09-2012/Emad%20Studies/Delaying%20Events%20Study%20-%20May%202013/CCCO%20-v-%20GPP%20-%20Appendix%203%20-%20No.%208%20Fire%20Escape%20-%208B%20-%20Sprinkler%20Heads%20in%20False%20Ceiling%20Voids/2002-04-16-PMO-0390.pdfhttp://e/Claimant's%20Statement%20of%20Claim%2027-09-2012/Emad%20Studies/Delaying%20Events%20Study%20-%20May%202013/CCCO%20-v-%20GPP%20-%20Appendix%203%20-%20No.%208%20Fire%20Escape%20-%208B%20-%20Sprinkler%20Heads%20in%20False%20Ceiling%20Voids/2002-06-04-CCC-2492.pdfhttp://e/Claimant's%20Statement%20of%20Claim%2027-09-2012/Emad%20Studies/Delaying%20Events%20Study%20-%20May%202013/CCCO%20-v-%20GPP%20-%20Appendix%203%20-%20No.%208%20Fire%20Escape%20-%208B%20-%20Sprinkler%20Heads%20in%20False%20Ceiling%20Voids/2002-06-04-CCC-2492.pdfhttp://e/Claimant's%20Statement%20of%20Claim%2027-09-2012/Emad%20Studies/Delaying%20Events%20Study%20-%20May%202013/CCCO%20-v-%20GPP%20-%20Appendix%203%20-%20No.%208%20Fire%20Escape%20-%208B%20-%20Sprinkler%20Heads%20in%20False%20Ceiling%20Voids/2002-06-04-CCC-2492.pdfhttp://e/Claimant's%20Statement%20of%20Claim%2027-09-2012/Emad%20Studies/Delaying%20Events%20Study%20-%20May%202013/CCCO%20-v-%20GPP%20-%20Appendix%203%20-%20No.%208%20Fire%20Escape%20-%208B%20-%20Sprinkler%20Heads%20in%20False%20Ceiling%20Voids/2002-06-04-CCC-2492.pdfhttp://e/Claimant's%20Statement%20of%20Claim%2027-09-2012/Emad%20Studies/Delaying%20Events%20Study%20-%20May%202013/CCCO%20-v-%20GPP%20-%20Appendix%203%20-%20No.%208%20Fire%20Escape%20-%208B%20-%20Sprinkler%20Heads%20in%20False%20Ceiling%20Voids/2002-04-16-PMO-0390.pdf


14/59


CCCO VS. GPP


Page 14 of59

2- As a result of the above mistake, the contractor has utilized program CT29 dated 1January 2002 to simulate the impact of the alleged delaying event, which is a wrongselection.

3- The contractor in his interim detailed particulars issued on 12 May 2002 via letter ref.

674/10/180A/ L. 3214 20, indicated that they has utilized program CT32 dated 1 April2002 to simulate the impact of this alleged delaying event

4- The Contractor declared in his letter ref. 674/27/180A/ L. 249221

dated 4 June 2002,that CVN # 241 has no impact upon the project completion date

Conclusion:

The contractor did not suffer critical delay to the Commercial Center due to therequirement of CVN 241

CVN # 263

SoD No.: 18Title: Commercial Center: Fire Protection in Ceiling Void at level +14.20PMO Letter: PMO/CCCO/TP5/02/17.0/741/429

22






dated 16 May 2002, stated thefollowing:

- the preliminary analysis, shown on enclosure No. 1. Indicates ananticipated delay of 45 working days from the date of receipt of the subject

CVN

- this CVN will not, by itself cause delays to the target date of 31December 2002 due to the overriding concurrent delay caused by the Multi-

Media additional works

Comments:

1- The Contractor in his delay analysis alleged that the start date of this delaying event isin February 2002, in spite of that the issue date of CVN 263 was 29 April 2002




http://e/Claimant's%20Statement%20of%20Claim%2027-09-2012/Emad%20Studies/Delaying%20Events%20Study%20-%20May%202013/CCCO%20-v-%20GPP%20-%20Appendix%203%20-%20No.%208%20Fire%20Escape%20-%208B%20-%20Sprinkler%20Heads%20in%20False%20Ceiling%20Voids/2002-05-12-CCC-3214.pdfhttp://e/Claimant's%20Statement%20of%20Claim%2027-09-2012/Emad%20Studies/Delaying%20Events%20Study%20-%20May%202013/CCCO%20-v-%20GPP%20-%20Appendix%203%20-%20No.%208%20Fire%20Escape%20-%208B%20-%20Sprinkler%20Heads%20in%20False%20Ceiling%20Voids/2002-05-12-CCC-3214.pdfhttp://e/Claimant's%20Statement%20of%20Claim%2027-09-2012/Emad%20Studies/Delaying%20Events%20Study%20-%20May%202013/CCCO%20-v-%20GPP%20-%20Appendix%203%20-%20No.%208%20Fire%20Escape%20-%208B%20-%20Sprinkler%20Heads%20in%20False%20Ceiling%20Voids/2002-05-12-CCC-3214.pdfhttp://e/Claimant's%20Statement%20of%20Claim%2027-09-2012/Emad%20Studies/Delaying%20Events%20Study%20-%20May%202013/CCCO%20-v-%20GPP%20-%20Appendix%203%20-%20No.%208%20Fire%20Escape%20-%208B%20-%20Sprinkler%20Heads%20in%20False%20Ceiling%20Voids/2002-06-04-CCC-2492.pdfhttp://e/Claimant's%20Statement%20of%20Claim%2027-09-2012/Emad%20Studies/Delaying%20Events%20Study%20-%20May%202013/CCCO%20-v-%20GPP%20-%20Appendix%203%20-%20No.%208%20Fire%20Escape%20-%208B%20-%20Sprinkler%20Heads%20in%20False%20Ceiling%20Voids/2002-06-04-CCC-2492.pdfhttp://e/Claimant's%20Statement%20of%20Claim%2027-09-2012/Emad%20Studies/Delaying%20Events%20Study%20-%20May%202013/CCCO%20-v-%20GPP%20-%20Appendix%203%20-%20No.%208%20Fire%20Escape%20-%208B%20-%20Sprinkler%20Heads%20in%20False%20Ceiling%20Voids/2002-06-04-CCC-2492.pdfhttp://e/Claimant's%20Statement%20of%20Claim%2027-09-2012/Emad%20Studies/Delaying%20Events%20Study%20-%20May%202013/CCCO%20-v-%20GPP%20-%20Appendix%203%20-%20No.%208%20Fire%20Escape%20-%208B%20-%20Sprinkler%20Heads%20in%20False%20Ceiling%20Voids/2002-04-29-PMO-0429.pdfhttp://e/Claimant's%20Statement%20of%20Claim%2027-09-2012/Emad%20Studies/Delaying%20Events%20Study%20-%20May%202013/CCCO%20-v-%20GPP%20-%20Appendix%203%20-%20No.%208%20Fire%20Escape%20-%208B%20-%20Sprinkler%20Heads%20in%20False%20Ceiling%20Voids/2002-04-29-PMO-0429.pdfhttp://e/Claimant's%20Statement%20of%20Claim%2027-09-2012/Emad%20Studies/Delaying%20Events%20Study%20-%20May%202013/CCCO%20-v-%20GPP%20-%20Appendix%203%20-%20No.%208%20Fire%20Escape%20-%208B%20-%20Sprinkler%20Heads%20in%20False%20Ceiling%20Voids/2002-04-29-PMO-0429.pdfhttp://e/Claimant's%20Statement%20of%20Claim%2027-09-2012/Emad%20Studies/Delaying%20Events%20Study%20-%20May%202013/CCCO%20-v-%20GPP%20-%20Appendix%203%20-%20No.%208%20Fire%20Escape%20-%208B%20-%20Sprinkler%20Heads%20in%20False%20Ceiling%20Voids/2002-05-16-CCC-3245.pdfhttp://e/Claimant's%20Statement%20of%20Claim%2027-09-2012/Emad%20Studies/Delaying%20Events%20Study%20-%20May%202013/CCCO%20-v-%20GPP%20-%20Appendix%203%20-%20No.%208%20Fire%20Escape%20-%208B%20-%20Sprinkler%20Heads%20in%20False%20Ceiling%20Voids/2002-05-16-CCC-3245.pdfhttp://e/Claimant's%20Statement%20of%20Claim%2027-09-2012/Emad%20Studies/Delaying%20Events%20Study%20-%20May%202013/CCCO%20-v-%20GPP%20-%20Appendix%203%20-%20No.%208%20Fire%20Escape%20-%208B%20-%20Sprinkler%20Heads%20in%20False%20Ceiling%20Voids/2002-05-16-CCC-3245.pdfhttp://e/Claimant's%20Statement%20of%20Claim%2027-09-2012/Emad%20Studies/Delaying%20Events%20Study%20-%20May%202013/CCCO%20-v-%20GPP%20-%20Appendix%203%20-%20No.%208%20Fire%20Escape%20-%208B%20-%20Sprinkler%20Heads%20in%20False%20Ceiling%20Voids/2002-05-16-CCC-3245.pdfhttp://e/Claimant's%20Statement%20of%20Claim%2027-09-2012/Emad%20Studies/Delaying%20Events%20Study%20-%20May%202013/CCCO%20-v-%20GPP%20-%20Appendix%203%20-%20No.%208%20Fire%20Escape%20-%208B%20-%20Sprinkler%20Heads%20in%20False%20Ceiling%20Voids/2002-04-29-PMO-0429.pdfhttp://e/Claimant's%20Statement%20of%20Claim%2027-09-2012/Emad%20Studies/Delaying%20Events%20Study%20-%20May%202013/CCCO%20-v-%20GPP%20-%20Appendix%203%20-%20No.%208%20Fire%20Escape%20-%208B%20-%20Sprinkler%20Heads%20in%20False%20Ceiling%20Voids/2002-06-04-CCC-2492.pdfhttp://e/Claimant's%20Statement%20of%20Claim%2027-09-2012/Emad%20Studies/Delaying%20Events%20Study%20-%20May%202013/CCCO%20-v-%20GPP%20-%20Appendix%203%20-%20No.%208%20Fire%20Escape%20-%208B%20-%20Sprinkler%20Heads%20in%20False%20Ceiling%20Voids/2002-05-12-CCC-3214.pdf


15/59


CCCO VS. GPP


Page 15 of59


3- The contractor in his interim detailed particulars issued on 16 May 2002 via letter ref.

674/10/180A/ L. 3245 24, indicated that they has utilized program CT32 dated 1 April2002 to simulate the impact of this alleged delaying event

Conclusion:

The contractor could not demonstrate in a sound delay analysis the impact upon theproject completion date as a result of issuing the subject CVN

CVN # 319

SoD No.: 19

Title: Commercial Center: Fire Protection in Ceiling Void at level +4.20PMO Letter: PMO/CCCO/TP5/02/17.0/934/543

25

Date of Issue: 28 May 2002





dated 18 June 2002, stated thefollowing:

-

Therefore, the net effect is a delay to completion of the whole affectedarea (represented by Activity ID No. C45B1A1V30) projected to finish on 31March 2003, of 36 working days.

Comments:

1- The Contractor in his delay analysis alleged that the start date of this delaying event isin February 2002, in spite of that the issue date of CVN 319 was 28 May 2002


3- The contractor in his interim detailed particulars issued on 18 June 2002 via letter ref.

674/10/180A/ L. 3365 27, indicated that they has utilized program CT33 dated 1 May2002 to simulate the impact of this alleged delaying event

Conclusion:




http://e/Claimant's%20Statement%20of%20Claim%2027-09-2012/Emad%20Studies/Delaying%20Events%20Study%20-%20May%202013/CCCO%20-v-%20GPP%20-%20Appendix%203%20-%20No.%208%20Fire%20Escape%20-%208B%20-%20Sprinkler%20Heads%20in%20False%20Ceiling%20Voids/2002-05-16-CCC-3245.pdfhttp://e/Claimant's%20Statement%20of%20Claim%2027-09-2012/Emad%20Studies/Delaying%20Events%20Study%20-%20May%202013/CCCO%20-v-%20GPP%20-%20Appendix%203%20-%20No.%208%20Fire%20Escape%20-%208B%20-%20Sprinkler%20Heads%20in%20False%20Ceiling%20Voids/2002-05-16-CCC-3245.pdfhttp://e/Claimant's%20Statement%20of%20Claim%2027-09-2012/Emad%20Studies/Delaying%20Events%20Study%20-%20May%202013/CCCO%20-v-%20GPP%20-%20Appendix%203%20-%20No.%208%20Fire%20Escape%20-%208B%20-%20Sprinkler%20Heads%20in%20False%20Ceiling%20Voids/2002-05-16-CCC-3245.pdfhttp://e/Claimant's%20Statement%20of%20Claim%2027-09-2012/Emad%20Studies/Delaying%20Events%20Study%20-%20May%202013/CCCO%20-v-%20GPP%20-%20Appendix%203%20-%20No.%208%20Fire%20Escape%20-%208B%20-%20Sprinkler%20Heads%20in%20False%20Ceiling%20Voids/2002-05-28-PMO-0543.pdfhttp://e/Claimant's%20Statement%20of%20Claim%2027-09-2012/Emad%20Studies/Delaying%20Events%20Study%20-%20May%202013/CCCO%20-v-%20GPP%20-%20Appendix%203%20-%20No.%208%20Fire%20Escape%20-%208B%20-%20Sprinkler%20Heads%20in%20False%20Ceiling%20Voids/2002-05-28-PMO-0543.pdfhttp://e/Claimant's%20Statement%20of%20Claim%2027-09-2012/Emad%20Studies/Delaying%20Events%20Study%20-%20May%202013/CCCO%20-v-%20GPP%20-%20Appendix%203%20-%20No.%208%20Fire%20Escape%20-%208B%20-%20Sprinkler%20Heads%20in%20False%20Ceiling%20Voids/2002-05-28-PMO-0543.pdfhttp://e/Claimant's%20Statement%20of%20Claim%2027-09-2012/Emad%20Studies/Delaying%20Events%20Study%20-%20May%202013/CCCO%20-v-%20GPP%20-%20Appendix%203%20-%20No.%208%20Fire%20Escape%20-%208B%20-%20Sprinkler%20Heads%20in%20False%20Ceiling%20Voids/2002-06-18-CCC-3365.pdfhttp://e/Claimant's%20Statement%20of%20Claim%2027-09-2012/Emad%20Studies/Delaying%20Events%20Study%20-%20May%202013/CCCO%20-v-%20GPP%20-%20Appendix%203%20-%20No.%208%20Fire%20Escape%20-%208B%20-%20Sprinkler%20Heads%20in%20False%20Ceiling%20Voids/2002-06-18-CCC-3365.pdfhttp://e/Claimant's%20Statement%20of%20Claim%2027-09-2012/Emad%20Studies/Delaying%20Events%20Study%20-%20May%202013/CCCO%20-v-%20GPP%20-%20Appendix%203%20-%20No.%208%20Fire%20Escape%20-%208B%20-%20Sprinkler%20Heads%20in%20False%20Ceiling%20Voids/2002-06-18-CCC-3365.pdfhttp://e/Claimant's%20Statement%20of%20Claim%2027-09-2012/Emad%20Studies/Delaying%20Events%20Study%20-%20May%202013/CCCO%20-v-%20GPP%20-%20Appendix%203%20-%20No.%208%20Fire%20Escape%20-%208B%20-%20Sprinkler%20Heads%20in%20False%20Ceiling%20Voids/2002-06-18-CCC-3365.pdfhttp://e/Claimant's%20Statement%20of%20Claim%2027-09-2012/Emad%20Studies/Delaying%20Events%20Study%20-%20May%202013/CCCO%20-v-%20GPP%20-%20Appendix%203%20-%20No.%208%20Fire%20Escape%20-%208B%20-%20Sprinkler%20Heads%20in%20False%20Ceiling%20Voids/2002-06-18-CCC-3365.pdfhttp://e/Claimant's%20Statement%20of%20Claim%2027-09-2012/Emad%20Studies/Delaying%20Events%20Study%20-%20May%202013/CCCO%20-v-%20GPP%20-%20Appendix%203%20-%20No.%208%20Fire%20Escape%20-%208B%20-%20Sprinkler%20Heads%20in%20False%20Ceiling%20Voids/2002-06-18-CCC-3365.pdfhttp://e/Claimant's%20Statement%20of%20Claim%2027-09-2012/Emad%20Studies/Delaying%20Events%20Study%20-%20May%202013/CCCO%20-v-%20GPP%20-%20Appendix%203%20-%20No.%208%20Fire%20Escape%20-%208B%20-%20Sprinkler%20Heads%20in%20False%20Ceiling%20Voids/2002-06-18-CCC-3365.pdfhttp://e/Claimant's%20Statement%20of%20Claim%2027-09-2012/Emad%20Studies/Delaying%20Events%20Study%20-%20May%202013/CCCO%20-v-%20GPP%20-%20Appendix%203%20-%20No.%208%20Fire%20Escape%20-%208B%20-%20Sprinkler%20Heads%20in%20False%20Ceiling%20Voids/2002-06-18-CCC-3365.pdfhttp://e/Claimant's%20Statement%20of%20Claim%2027-09-2012/Emad%20Studies/Delaying%20Events%20Study%20-%20May%202013/CCCO%20-v-%20GPP%20-%20Appendix%203%20-%20No.%208%20Fire%20Escape%20-%208B%20-%20Sprinkler%20Heads%20in%20False%20Ceiling%20Voids/2002-05-28-PMO-0543.pdfhttp://e/Claimant's%20Statement%20of%20Claim%2027-09-2012/Emad%20Studies/Delaying%20Events%20Study%20-%20May%202013/CCCO%20-v-%20GPP%20-%20Appendix%203%20-%20No.%208%20Fire%20Escape%20-%208B%20-%20Sprinkler%20Heads%20in%20False%20Ceiling%20Voids/2002-05-16-CCC-3245.pdf


16/59


CCCO VS. GPP


Page 16 of59


CVN # 374

SoD No.: 20Title: Commercial Center (Level +14.20): Revision to Sprinkler location and

TypesPMO Letter: PMO/CCCO/TP5/02/17.0/1132/657

28

Date of Issue: 30 June 2002


- For Programming Purposes Only

Comments:

1- The Contractor in his delay analysis alleged that the start date of this delaying event isin February 2002, in spite of that the issue date of CVN 374 was 30 June 2002


Conclusion:

The contractor did not suffer critical delay to the Commercial Center due to therequirement of CVN 374, because it was issued for programming purposes only.

CVN # 374 (1)

SoD No.: 21Title: Commercial Center: Provision of Additional Sprinkler Heads at Level 14

Retail AreaPMO Letter: PMO/CCCO/TP5/02/17.0/1375/779

29

Date of Issue: 1 August 2002


- Proceed with work

- No extension of time authorized



dated 10 August 2002, stated thefollowing:


http://e/Claimant's%20Statement%20of%20Claim%2027-09-2012/Emad%20Studies/Delaying%20Events%20Study%20-%20May%202013/CCCO%20-v-%20GPP%20-%20Appendix%203%20-%20No.%208%20Fire%20Escape%20-%208B%20-%20Sprinkler%20Heads%20in%20False%20Ceiling%20Voids/2002-06-30-PMO-0657.pdfhttp://e/Claimant's%20Statement%20of%20Claim%2027-09-2012/Emad%20Studies/Delaying%20Events%20Study%20-%20May%202013/CCCO%20-v-%20GPP%20-%20Appendix%203%20-%20No.%208%20Fire%20Escape%20-%208B%20-%20Sprinkler%20Heads%20in%20False%20Ceiling%20Voids/2002-06-30-PMO-0657.pdfhttp://e/Claimant's%20Statement%20of%20Claim%2027-09-2012/Emad%20Studies/Delaying%20Events%20Study%20-%20May%202013/CCCO%20-v-%20GPP%20-%20Appendix%203%20-%20No.%208%20Fire%20Escape%20-%208B%20-%20Sprinkler%20Heads%20in%20False%20Ceiling%20Voids/2002-06-30-PMO-0657.pdfhttp://e/Claimant's%20Statement%20of%20Claim%2027-09-2012/Emad%20Studies/Delaying%20Events%20Study%20-%20May%202013/CCCO%20-v-%20GPP%20-%20Appendix%203%20-%20No.%208%20Fire%20Escape%20-%208B%20-%20Sprinkler%20Heads%20in%20False%20Ceiling%20Voids/2002-08-01-PMO-0779.pdfhttp://e/Claimant's%20Statement%20of%20Claim%2027-09-2012/Emad%20Studies/Delaying%20Events%20Study%20-%20May%202013/CCCO%20-v-%20GPP%20-%20Appendix%203%20-%20No.%208%20Fire%20Escape%20-%208B%20-%20Sprinkler%20Heads%20in%20False%20Ceiling%20Voids/2002-08-01-PMO-0779.pdfhttp://e/Claimant's%20Statement%20of%20Claim%2027-09-2012/Emad%20Studies/Delaying%20Events%20Study%20-%20May%202013/CCCO%20-v-%20GPP%20-%20Appendix%203%20-%20No.%208%20Fire%20Escape%20-%208B%20-%20Sprinkler%20Heads%20in%20False%20Ceiling%20Voids/2002-08-01-PMO-0779.pdfhttp://e/Claimant's%20Statement%20of%20Claim%2027-09-2012/Emad%20Studies/Delaying%20Events%20Study%20-%20May%202013/CCCO%20-v-%20GPP%20-%20Appendix%203%20-%20No.%208%20Fire%20Escape%20-%208B%20-%20Sprinkler%20Heads%20in%20False%20Ceiling%20Voids/2002-08-01-PMO-0779.pdfhttp://e/Claimant's%20Statement%20of%20Claim%2027-09-2012/Emad%20Studies/Delaying%20Events%20Study%20-%20May%202013/CCCO%20-v-%20GPP%20-%20Appendix%203%20-%20No.%208%20Fire%20Escape%20-%208B%20-%20Sprinkler%20Heads%20in%20False%20Ceiling%20Voids/2002-06-30-PMO-0657.pdf


17/59


CCCO VS. GPP


Page 17 of59

- We write to inform you that completion of the works will be delayed beyondthe current extended time for completion.

Comments:

1- The Contractor in his delay analysis alleged that the start date of this delaying event isin February 2002, in spite of that the issue date of CVN 374 (1) was 1 August 2002


Conclusion:


http://e/Claimant's%20Statement%20of%20Claim%2027-09-2012/Emad%20Studies/Delaying%20Events%20Study%20-%20May%202013/CCCO%20-v-%20GPP%20-%20Appendix%203%20-%20No.%208%20Fire%20Escape%20-%208B%20-%20Sprinkler%20Heads%20in%20False%20Ceiling%20Voids/2002-08-10-CCC-3518.pdfhttp://e/Claimant's%20Statement%20of%20Claim%2027-09-2012/Emad%20Studies/Delaying%20Events%20Study%20-%20May%202013/CCCO%20-v-%20GPP%20-%20Appendix%203%20-%20No.%208%20Fire%20Escape%20-%208B%20-%20Sprinkler%20Heads%20in%20False%20Ceiling%20Voids/2002-08-10-CCC-3518.pdfhttp://e/Claimant's%20Statement%20of%20Claim%2027-09-2012/Emad%20Studies/Delaying%20Events%20Study%20-%20May%202013/CCCO%20-v-%20GPP%20-%20Appendix%203%20-%20No.%208%20Fire%20Escape%20-%208B%20-%20Sprinkler%20Heads%20in%20False%20Ceiling%20Voids/2002-08-10-CCC-3518.pdfhttp://e/Claimant's%20Statement%20of%20Claim%2027-09-2012/Emad%20Studies/Delaying%20Events%20Study%20-%20May%202013/CCCO%20-v-%20GPP%20-%20Appendix%203%20-%20No.%208%20Fire%20Escape%20-%208B%20-%20Sprinkler%20Heads%20in%20False%20Ceiling%20Voids/2002-08-10-CCC-3518.pdf


18/59


19/59


CCCO VS. GPP


Page 19 of59

Conclusion:



20/59


21/59


CCCO VS. GPP


Page 21 of59

9B- Smoke Management H1-H4 (CVN 226):



CVN # 226

SoD No.: 24Title: Block H1-H4: Smoke Management SystemPMO Letter: PMO/CCCO/TP5/02/17.0/163/82

39







- we are returning herewith, for the record purpose, two original copies of

contract variation notice (CVN) No. 226 duly signed and marked asContractor is not proceeding with this contract variation work

Comments:

1- The Contractor rejected to proceed with CVN 226

2- PMO canceled CVN 226 via their letter ref. PMO/CCCO/TP5/02/17.0/935/54441

dated28 May 2002.

Conclusion:

The contractor did not suffer critical delay to Block H1-H4 due to the requirement of CVN226



http://e/Claimant's%20Statement%20of%20Claim%2027-09-2012/Emad%20Studies/Delaying%20Events%20Study%20-%20May%202013/CCCO%20-v-%20GPP%20-%20Appendix%203%20-%20No.%209%20Smoke%20Management%20-%209B%20-%20H1-H4%20(CVN%20226)/2002-04-10-PMO-0082.pdfhttp://e/Claimant's%20Statement%20of%20Claim%2027-09-2012/Emad%20Studies/Delaying%20Events%20Study%20-%20May%202013/CCCO%20-v-%20GPP%20-%20Appendix%203%20-%20No.%209%20Smoke%20Management%20-%209B%20-%20H1-H4%20(CVN%20226)/2002-04-10-PMO-0082.pdfhttp://e/Claimant's%20Statement%20of%20Claim%2027-09-2012/Emad%20Studies/Delaying%20Events%20Study%20-%20May%202013/CCCO%20-v-%20GPP%20-%20Appendix%203%20-%20No.%209%20Smoke%20Management%20-%209B%20-%20H1-H4%20(CVN%20226)/2002-04-10-PMO-0082.pdfhttp://e/Claimant's%20Statement%20of%20Claim%2027-09-2012/Emad%20Studies/Delaying%20Events%20Study%20-%20May%202013/CCCO%20-v-%20GPP%20-%20Appendix%203%20-%20No.%209%20Smoke%20Management%20-%209B%20-%20H1-H4%20(CVN%20226)/2002-04-30-CCC-2327.pdfhttp://e/Claimant's%20Statement%20of%20Claim%2027-09-2012/Emad%20Studies/Delaying%20Events%20Study%20-%20May%202013/CCCO%20-v-%20GPP%20-%20Appendix%203%20-%20No.%209%20Smoke%20Management%20-%209B%20-%20H1-H4%20(CVN%20226)/2002-04-30-CCC-2327.pdfhttp://e/Claimant's%20Statement%20of%20Claim%2027-09-2012/Emad%20Studies/Delaying%20Events%20Study%20-%20May%202013/CCCO%20-v-%20GPP%20-%20Appendix%203%20-%20No.%209%20Smoke%20Management%20-%209B%20-%20H1-H4%20(CVN%20226)/2002-04-30-CCC-2327.pdfhttp://e/Claimant's%20Statement%20of%20Claim%2027-09-2012/Emad%20Studies/Delaying%20Events%20Study%20-%20May%202013/CCCO%20-v-%20GPP%20-%20Appendix%203%20-%20No.%209%20Smoke%20Management%20-%209B%20-%20H1-H4%20(CVN%20226)/2002-05-28-PMO-0544.pdfhttp://e/Claimant's%20Statement%20of%20Claim%2027-09-2012/Emad%20Studies/Delaying%20Events%20Study%20-%20May%202013/CCCO%20-v-%20GPP%20-%20Appendix%203%20-%20No.%209%20Smoke%20Management%20-%209B%20-%20H1-H4%20(CVN%20226)/2002-05-28-PMO-0544.pdfhttp://e/Claimant's%20Statement%20of%20Claim%2027-09-2012/Emad%20Studies/Delaying%20Events%20Study%20-%20May%202013/CCCO%20-v-%20GPP%20-%20Appendix%203%20-%20No.%209%20Smoke%20Management%20-%209B%20-%20H1-H4%20(CVN%20226)/2002-05-28-PMO-0544.pdfhttp://e/Claimant's%20Statement%20of%20Claim%2027-09-2012/Emad%20Studies/Delaying%20Events%20Study%20-%20May%202013/CCCO%20-v-%20GPP%20-%20Appendix%203%20-%20No.%209%20Smoke%20Management%20-%209B%20-%20H1-H4%20(CVN%20226)/2002-05-28-PMO-0544.pdfhttp://e/Claimant's%20Statement%20of%20Claim%2027-09-2012/Emad%20Studies/Delaying%20Events%20Study%20-%20May%202013/CCCO%20-v-%20GPP%20-%20Appendix%203%20-%20No.%209%20Smoke%20Management%20-%209B%20-%20H1-H4%20(CVN%20226)/2002-04-30-CCC-2327.pdfhttp://e/Claimant's%20Statement%20of%20Claim%2027-09-2012/Emad%20Studies/Delaying%20Events%20Study%20-%20May%202013/CCCO%20-v-%20GPP%20-%20Appendix%203%20-%20No.%209%20Smoke%20Management%20-%209B%20-%20H1-H4%20(CVN%20226)/2002-04-10-PMO-0082.pdf


22/59


23/59


CCCO VS. GPP


Page 23 of59

9C- Car Park Smoke Containment and Extract Modifications:

The Contractors delay analysis is based on CVN 482

CVN # 482

SoD No.: 26Title: Commercial Center: Car Park Smoke Containment and Extract

ModificationsPMO Letter: PMO/CCCO/TP5/02/17.0/1699/1025

46





The Contractor in his letter ref. 674/27/180A/L. 313647

dated 16 September 2002, statedthe following:

- We are in receipt of the subject Contract Variation Notice (CVN) No.482, and confirm that we shall proceed with the work as instructed by you

through this variation notice

- We have already given contractual notices in letters 1,2 and 3 above

Comments:

1- The Contractor received the instructions to proceed with work pertaining to this event

through CVN number 482 which issued on 5 September 2002.

2- The Contractor in his interim detailed particulars submitted on 31 December 2002 vialetter ref. 674/10/180A/L. 4005

48, indicated that CVN 482 Notice To Proceed (activity

OUT002-000) was issued on 5 September 2002.

3- The Contractor in his SoC stated that to model the delay due to CVN 482, an activity withstart date of 5 September 2002 and a finish date of 13 September 2003, is inserted into a copy of

the C1SP programme

4- However, the contemporaneous update to assess the alleged impact upon the projectcompletion date should be CT37 data date 22 August 2002, but The Contractorsimulate this delaying event with update C1SP dated 14 September 2002, which iswrong

Conclusion:




http://e/Claimant's%20Statement%20of%20Claim%2027-09-2012/Emad%20Studies/Delaying%20Events%20Study%20-%20May%202013/CCCO%20-v-%20GPP%20-%20Appendix%203%20-%20No.%209%20Smoke%20Management%20-%209C%20-%20Car%20Park%20Smoke%20Curtain%20and%20Extract%20Modifications/2002-09-05-PMO-1025.pdfhttp://e/Claimant's%20Statement%20of%20Claim%2027-09-2012/Emad%20Studies/Delaying%20Events%20Study%20-%20May%202013/CCCO%20-v-%20GPP%20-%20Appendix%203%20-%20No.%209%20Smoke%20Management%20-%209C%20-%20Car%20Park%20Smoke%20Curtain%20and%20Extract%20Modifications/2002-09-05-PMO-1025.pdfhttp://e/Claimant's%20Statement%20of%20Claim%2027-09-2012/Emad%20Studies/Delaying%20Events%20Study%20-%20May%202013/CCCO%20-v-%20GPP%20-%20Appendix%203%20-%20No.%209%20Smoke%20Management%20-%209C%20-%20Car%20Park%20Smoke%20Curtain%20and%20Extract%20Modifications/2002-09-05-PMO-1025.pdfhttp://e/Claimant's%20Statement%20of%20Claim%2027-09-2012/Emad%20Studies/Delaying%20Events%20Study%20-%20May%202013/CCCO%20-v-%20GPP%20-%20Appendix%203%20-%20No.%209%20Smoke%20Management%20-%209C%20-%20Car%20Park%20Smoke%20Curtain%20and%20Extract%20Modifications/2002-09-16-CCC-3136.pdfhttp://e/Claimant's%20Statement%20of%20Claim%2027-09-2012/Emad%20Studies/Delaying%20Events%20Study%20-%20May%202013/CCCO%20-v-%20GPP%20-%20Appendix%203%20-%20No.%209%20Smoke%20Management%20-%209C%20-%20Car%20Park%20Smoke%20Curtain%20and%20Extract%20Modifications/2002-09-16-CCC-3136.pdfhttp://e/Claimant's%20Statement%20of%20Claim%2027-09-2012/Emad%20Studies/Delaying%20Events%20Study%20-%20May%202013/CCCO%20-v-%20GPP%20-%20Appendix%203%20-%20No.%209%20Smoke%20Management%20-%209C%20-%20Car%20Park%20Smoke%20Curtain%20and%20Extract%20Modifications/2002-09-16-CCC-3136.pdfhttp://e/Claimant's%20Statement%20of%20Claim%2027-09-2012/Emad%20Studies/Delaying%20Events%20Study%20-%20May%202013/CCCO%20-v-%20GPP%20-%20Appendix%203%20-%20No.%209%20Smoke%20Management%20-%209C%20-%20Car%20Park%20Smoke%20Curtain%20and%20Extract%20Modifications/2002-12-31-CCC-4005.pdfhttp://e/Claimant's%20Statement%20of%20Claim%2027-09-2012/Emad%20Studies/Delaying%20Events%20Study%20-%20May%202013/CCCO%20-v-%20GPP%20-%20Appendix%203%20-%20No.%209%20Smoke%20Management%20-%209C%20-%20Car%20Park%20Smoke%20Curtain%20and%20Extract%20Modifications/2002-12-31-CCC-4005.pdfhttp://e/Claimant's%20Statement%20of%20Claim%2027-09-2012/Emad%20Studies/Delaying%20Events%20Study%20-%20May%202013/CCCO%20-v-%20GPP%20-%20Appendix%203%20-%20No.%209%20Smoke%20Management%20-%209C%20-%20Car%20Park%20Smoke%20Curtain%20and%20Extract%20Modifications/2002-12-31-CCC-4005.pdfhttp://e/Claimant's%20Statement%20of%20Claim%2027-09-2012/Emad%20Studies/Delaying%20Events%20Study%20-%20May%202013/CCCO%20-v-%20GPP%20-%20Appendix%203%20-%20No.%209%20Smoke%20Management%20-%209C%20-%20Car%20Park%20Smoke%20Curtain%20and%20Extract%20Modifications/2002-12-31-CCC-4005.pdfhttp://e/Claimant's%20Statement%20of%20Claim%2027-09-2012/Emad%20Studies/Delaying%20Events%20Study%20-%20May%202013/CCCO%20-v-%20GPP%20-%20Appendix%203%20-%20No.%209%20Smoke%20Management%20-%209C%20-%20Car%20Park%20Smoke%20Curtain%20and%20Extract%20Modifications/2002-09-16-CCC-3136.pdfhttp://e/Claimant's%20Statement%20of%20Claim%2027-09-2012/Emad%20Studies/Delaying%20Events%20Study%20-%20May%202013/CCCO%20-v-%20GPP%20-%20Appendix%203%20-%20No.%209%20Smoke%20Management%20-%209C%20-%20Car%20Park%20Smoke%20Curtain%20and%20Extract%20Modifications/2002-09-05-PMO-1025.pdf


24/59


CCCO VS. GPP


Page 24 of59

10- VRV Units:The Contractor in his interim detailed particulars submitted via letter ref. 674/27/180A/L. 3358

49

dated 19 June 2002, stated the following:

A1 Block Delays:

According to the Target Program A1T0 for Block A1, showing completion of Block A1 works by 1

July 2002, the planned delivery date of the VRV Indoor units and "Refnet" headers, activity ID No.

A01.Z.PR01, was 27 October 2001with a total float of 52 working days to achieve the above A1

Block completion date.

A3 Block Delays:


October 2002, the planned delivery date of the VRV Indoor units and "Refnet" headers, activity ID

No. A03.Z.PR01, was 27 October 2001with a total float of 78 working days to achieve the above A3

Block completion date.

A2 Block Delays:


August 2002, the planned delivery date of the VRV Indoor units and "Refnet" headers, activity IDNo. A02.Z.PR01, was 27 October 2001with a total float of 135 working days to achieve the above

A2 Block completion date.

It is obvious from the contractors letter that the alleged planned delivery date of VRV units was 27October 2001, and it was delayed till 5 June 2002 as stated by the contractor in SoC.

However, the alleged delays to VRV units should be started on 27 October 2001, and thecontemporaneous update to assess the alleged impact upon the project completion date should beAT26 data date 1 October 2002, but The Contractor simulate this delaying event with update 5120dated 1 April 2002, which is wrong.

Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) dated 24 October 2002:

In the MOU dated 24 October 2002 all parties agreed that the completion dates for A1, A2, A3 & F2buildings including the impact of all delaying events occurred before 21 August 2002 (some CVNswere excluded and listed in the MOU appendixes) will be as follow:

Block A1 1 February 2003Block A2 19 January 2003Block A3 31 March 2003

However, the impact of the alleged delaying events should not delay the project completion date ofthese buildings beyond the above agreed dates.

But Padraig Anglin expert report on project delay indicated that the impacted completion dates ofthese buildings are as follow:

Block A1 11 June 2003Block A2 3 March 2003Block A3 11 June 2003

Which contradict with what have been agreed in the MOU dated 24 October 2002.

http://e/Claimant's%20Statement%20of%20Claim%2027-09-2012/Emad%20Studies/Delaying%20Events%20Study%20-%20May%202013/CCCO%20-v-%20GPP%20-%20Appendix%203%20-%20No.%2010%20VRV%20Units/2002-06-19-CCC-3358.pdfhttp://e/Claimant's%20Statement%20of%20Claim%2027-09-2012/Emad%20Studies/Delaying%20Events%20Study%20-%20May%202013/CCCO%20-v-%20GPP%20-%20Appendix%203%20-%20No.%2010%20VRV%20Units/2002-06-19-CCC-3358.pdfhttp://e/Claimant's%20Statement%20of%20Claim%2027-09-2012/Emad%20Studies/Delaying%20Events%20Study%20-%20May%202013/CCCO%20-v-%20GPP%20-%20Appendix%203%20-%20No.%2010%20VRV%20Units/2002-06-19-CCC-3358.pdfhttp://e/Claimant's%20Statement%20of%20Claim%2027-09-2012/Emad%20Studies/Delaying%20Events%20Study%20-%20May%202013/CCCO%20-v-%20GPP%20-%20Appendix%203%20-%20No.%2010%20VRV%20Units/2002-06-19-CCC-3358.pdf


25/59


CCCO VS. GPP


Page 25 of59

Conclusion:

The contractor could not demonstrate in a sound delay analysis the impact upon the project

completion date as a result of issuing the subject delaying event


26/59


CCCO VS. GPP


Page 26 of59

14- 5th Floor:

The Contractor in his SoC stated that To model the delay, activities with start and finish dates of 13August 2002 and 3 April 2003 for CVN 429 and 5 September 2002 and 8 February 2003 for CVN 481 are

inserted in a copy of the CT29 program, linked FF 0 to the E/M 2nd fix activities of the 5th floor and the

programme re-scheduled

Thus, the Contractor did not simulate the delaying event pertaining to CVN 136 to assess its impactupon the project completion date, but theirdelay analysis is based on CVNs 429 & 481

However, each CVN should be considered as a delaying event and to be simulated with itscontemporaneous update to assess its impact upon the project completion date as indicated inPadraig Anglin expert report on project delay, section 4.


CVN # 136

SoD No.: 36Title: Commercial Center: Composite False Ceiling: at Levels +18.60, +33.10

and 38.60PMO Letter: PMO/CCCO/TP5/02/17.0/102/58

50

Date of Issue: 17 January 2002





dated 2 February 2002, stated thefollowing:

- Late release of design information for the lighting layouts which by turninstigates design revisions to false ceiling will cause delay and disruption to


Comments:

1- The contractor in his interim detailed particulars issued on 15 October 2002 via letterref. 674/10/180A/ L. 3739

52, indicated that the start of delay due to late receipt of

design information provided in CVN 136 was started on 3 April 2002

2- The Contractor in his delay analysis did not consider CVN 136 and take intoconsideration the impact of CVN 429 & 481only.



http://e/Claimant's%20Statement%20of%20Claim%2027-09-2012/Emad%20Studies/Delaying%20Events%20Study%20-%20May%202013/CCCO%20-v-%20GPP%20-%20Appendix%203%20-%20No.%2014%205th%20&%206th%20Floor/2002-01-17-PMO-0058.pdfhttp://e/Claimant's%20Statement%20of%20Claim%2027-09-2012/Emad%20Studies/Delaying%20Events%20Study%20-%20May%202013/CCCO%20-v-%20GPP%20-%20Appendix%203%20-%20No.%2014%205th%20&%206th%20Floor/2002-01-17-PMO-0058.pdfhttp://e/Claimant's%20Statement%20of%20Claim%2027-09-2012/Emad%20Studies/Delaying%20Events%20Study%20-%20May%202013/CCCO%20-v-%20GPP%20-%20Appendix%203%20-%20No.%2014%205th%20&%206th%20Floor/2002-01-17-PMO-0058.pdfhttp://e/Claimant's%20Statement%20of%20Claim%2027-09-2012/Emad%20Studies/Delaying%20Events%20Study%20-%20May%202013/CCCO%20-v-%20GPP%20-%20Appendix%203%20-%20No.%2014%205th%20&%206th%20Floor/2002-02-02-CCC-1623.pdfhttp://e/Claimant's%20Statement%20of%20Claim%2027-09-2012/Emad%20Studies/Delaying%20Events%20Study%20-%20May%202013/CCCO%20-v-%20GPP%20-%20Appendix%203%20-%20No.%2014%205th%20&%206th%20Floor/2002-02-02-CCC-1623.pdfhttp://e/Claimant's%20Statement%20of%20Claim%2027-09-2012/Emad%20Studies/Delaying%20Events%20Study%20-%20May%202013/CCCO%20-v-%20GPP%20-%20Appendix%203%20-%20No.%2014%205th%20&%206th%20Floor/2002-02-02-CCC-1623.pdfhttp://e/Claimant's%20Statement%20of%20Claim%2027-09-2012/Emad%20Studies/Delaying%20Events%20Study%20-%20May%202013/CCCO%20-v-%20GPP%20-%20Appendix%203%20-%20No.%2014%205th%20&%206th%20Floor/2002-10-15-CCC-3739.pdfhttp://e/Claimant's%20Statement%20of%20Claim%2027-09-2012/Emad%20Studies/Delaying%20Events%20Study%20-%20May%202013/CCCO%20-v-%20GPP%20-%20Appendix%203%20-%20No.%2014%205th%20&%206th%20Floor/2002-10-15-CCC-3739.pdfhttp://e/Claimant's%20Statement%20of%20Claim%2027-09-2012/Emad%20Studies/Delaying%20Events%20Study%20-%20May%202013/CCCO%20-v-%20GPP%20-%20Appendix%203%20-%20No.%2014%205th%20&%206th%20Floor/2002-10-15-CCC-3739.pdfhttp://e/Claimant's%20Statement%20of%20Claim%2027-09-2012/Emad%20Studies/Delaying%20Events%20Study%20-%20May%202013/CCCO%20-v-%20GPP%20-%20Appendix%203%20-%20No.%2014%205th%20&%206th%20Floor/2002-10-15-CCC-3739.pdfhttp://e/Claimant's%20Statement%20of%20Claim%2027-09-2012/Emad%20Studies/Delaying%20Events%20Study%20-%20May%202013/CCCO%20-v-%20GPP%20-%20Appendix%203%20-%20No.%2014%205th%20&%206th%20Floor/2002-02-02-CCC-1623.pdfhttp://e/Claimant's%20Statement%20of%20Claim%2027-09-2012/Emad%20Studies/Delaying%20Events%20Study%20-%20May%202013/CCCO%20-v-%20GPP%20-%20Appendix%203%20-%20No.%2014%205th%20&%206th%20Floor/2002-01-17-PMO-0058.pdf


27/59


28/59


CCCO VS. GPP


Page 28 of59

CVN # 481

SoD No.: 38Title: Commercial Center: Modifications to Electrical Works at Levels 33.10 &

+38.53PMO Letter: PMO/CCCO/TP5/02/17.0/1696/1023

56





The Contractor in his letter ref. 674/27/180A/L.313557

dated 16 September 2002, stated thefollowing:

- We are in receipt of the subject Contract Variation Notice (CVN) No.481, and confirm that we shall proceed with the work as instructed by you

through this variation notice

- We have already given contractual notices in letters 1,2 and 3 above

Comments:

1- The contractor in his interim detailed particulars issued on 15 October 2002 via letterref. 674/10/180A/ L. 3739

58, indicated that the start of delay due CVN 481 was on 21

September 2002

2- The Contractor received the instructions to proceed with work pertaining to this eventthrough CVN number 481 which issued on 4 September 2002.

3- However, the contemporaneous update to assess the alleged impact upon the projectcompletion date should be CT37 data date 22 August 2002, but The Contractorsimulate this delaying event with update CT29 dated 1 January 2002, which is wrong

Conclusion:

The contractor could not demonstrate in a sound delay analysis the impact upon theproject completion date as a result of issuing the subject CVN.



http://e/Claimant's%20Statement%20of%20Claim%2027-09-2012/Emad%20Studies/Delaying%20Events%20Study%20-%20May%202013/CCCO%20-v-%20GPP%20-%20Appendix%203%20-%20No.%2014%205th%20&%206th%20Floor/2002-09-04-PMO-1023.pdfhttp://e/Claimant's%20Statement%20of%20Claim%2027-09-2012/Emad%20Studies/Delaying%20Events%20Study%20-%20May%202013/CCCO%20-v-%20GPP%20-%20Appendix%203%20-%20No.%2014%205th%20&%206th%20Floor/2002-09-04-PMO-1023.pdfhttp://e/Claimant's%20Statement%20of%20Claim%2027-09-2012/Emad%20Studies/Delaying%20Events%20Study%20-%20May%202013/CCCO%20-v-%20GPP%20-%20Appendix%203%20-%20No.%2014%205th%20&%206th%20Floor/2002-09-04-PMO-1023.pdfhttp://e/Claimant's%20Statement%20of%20Claim%2027-09-2012/Emad%20Studies/Delaying%20Events%20Study%20-%20May%202013/CCCO%20-v-%20GPP%20-%20Appendix%203%20-%20No.%2014%205th%20&%206th%20Floor/2002-09-16-CCC-3135.pdfhttp://e/Claimant's%20Statement%20of%20Claim%2027-09-2012/Emad%20Studies/Delaying%20Events%20Study%20-%20May%202013/CCCO%20-v-%20GPP%20-%20Appendix%203%20-%20No.%2014%205th%20&%206th%20Floor/2002-09-16-CCC-3135.pdfhttp://e/Claimant's%20Statement%20of%20Claim%2027-09-2012/Emad%20Studies/Delaying%20Events%20Study%20-%20May%202013/CCCO%20-v-%20GPP%20-%20Appendix%203%20-%20No.%2014%205th%20&%206th%20Floor/2002-09-16-CCC-3135.pdfhttp://e/Claimant's%20Statement%20of%20Claim%2027-09-2012/Emad%20Studies/Delaying%20Events%20Study%20-%20May%202013/CCCO%20-v-%20GPP%20-%20Appendix%203%20-%20No.%2014%205th%20&%206th%20Floor/2002-10-15-CCC-3739.pdfhttp://e/Claimant's%20Statement%20of%20Claim%2027-09-2012/Emad%20Studies/Delaying%20Events%20Study%20-%20May%202013/CCCO%20-v-%20GPP%20-%20Appendix%203%20-%20No.%2014%205th%20&%206th%20Floor/2002-10-15-CCC-3739.pdfhttp://e/Claimant's%20Statement%20of%20Claim%2027-09-2012/Emad%20Studies/Delaying%20Events%20Study%20-%20May%202013/CCCO%20-v-%20GPP%20-%20Appendix%203%20-%20No.%2014%205th%20&%206th%20Floor/2002-10-15-CCC-3739.pdfhttp://e/Claimant's%20Statement%20of%20Claim%2027-09-2012/Emad%20Studies/Delaying%20Events%20Study%20-%20May%202013/CCCO%20-v-%20GPP%20-%20Appendix%203%20-%20No.%2014%205th%20&%206th%20Floor/2002-10-15-CCC-3739.pdfhttp://e/Claimant's%20Statement%20of%20Claim%2027-09-2012/Emad%20Studies/Delaying%20Events%20Study%20-%20May%202013/CCCO%20-v-%20GPP%20-%20Appendix%203%20-%20No.%2014%205th%20&%206th%20Floor/2002-09-16-CCC-3135.pdfhttp://e/Claimant's%20Statement%20of%20Claim%2027-09-2012/Emad%20Studies/Delaying%20Events%20Study%20-%20May%202013/CCCO%20-v-%20GPP%20-%20Appendix%203%20-%20No.%2014%205th%20&%206th%20Floor/2002-09-04-PMO-1023.pdf


29/59


CCCO VS. GPP


Page 29 of59

15- CCTV & Security:

Contractors delay analysis as stated in SoC is based on CVNs 19, 19 (1) & 19 (2), however, eachCVN should be considered as a delaying event and to be simulated with its contemporaneousupdate to assess its impact upon the project completion date as indicated in Padraig Anglin expert

report on project delay, section 4.


CVN # 19

SoD No.: 39Title: Commercial Center: CCTV System UpgradingPMO Letter: PMO/CCCO/TP5/02/17.0/844/378

59

Date of Issue: 01 October 2002


- Notice To Proceed Required- No extension of time authorized



dated 13 November 2001, informedPMO with the amount of money required as an additional cost due to CCTV systemupgrading in Commercial and time required for delivery of the required items.

Comments:

1- CVN 19 was issued to the Contractor for requesting Proposal, not to proceed with work

2- The Contractor responded to PMO request in CVN 19 and submitted their proposal .


In the MOU dated 24 October 2002 all parties agreed that the completion dates forCommercial Center including the impact of all delaying events occurred before 8September2002 (some CVNs were excluded and listed in the MOU appendixes) will beas follow:

Commercial Center 11 September 2003

However, the impact of the alleged delaying event should not delay the project completiondate of Commercial Center beyond the above agreed date.

But Padraig Anglin expert report on project delay indicated that and due to the impact ofthis delaying event, the completion date of Commercial Center is delayed to 9 February2004, which contradicts with what have been agreed in the MOU dated 24 October 2002.


http://e/Claimant's%20Statement%20of%20Claim%2027-09-2012/Emad%20Studies/Delaying%20Events%20Study%20-%20May%202013/CCCO%20-v-%20GPP%20-%20Appendix%203%20-%20No.%2015%20CCTV%20&%20Security/2001-10-01-PMO-0378.pdfhttp://e/Claimant's%20Statement%20of%20Claim%2027-09-2012/Emad%20Studies/Delaying%20Events%20Study%20-%20May%202013/CCCO%20-v-%20GPP%20-%20Appendix%203%20-%20No.%2015%20CCTV%20&%20Security/2001-10-01-PMO-0378.pdfhttp://e/Claimant's%20Statement%20of%20Claim%2027-09-2012/Emad%20Studies/Delaying%20Events%20Study%20-%20May%202013/CCCO%20-v-%20GPP%20-%20Appendix%203%20-%20No.%2015%20CCTV%20&%20Security/2001-10-01-PMO-0378.pdfhttp://e/Claimant's%20Statement%20of%20Claim%2027-09-2012/Emad%20Studies/Delaying%20Events%20Study%20-%20May%202013/CCCO%20-v-%20GPP%20-%20Appendix%203%20-%20No.%2015%20CCTV%20&%20Security/2001-11-13-CCC-1287.pdfhttp://e/Claimant's%20Statement%20of%20Claim%2027-09-2012/Emad%20Studies/Delaying%20Events%20Study%20-%20May%202013/CCCO%20-v-%20GPP%20-%20Appendix%203%20-%20No.%2015%20CCTV%20&%20Security/2001-11-13-CCC-1287.pdfhttp://e/Claimant's%20Statement%20of%20Claim%2027-09-2012/Emad%20Studies/Delaying%20Events%20Study%20-%20May%202013/CCCO%20-v-%20GPP%20-%20Appendix%203%20-%20No.%2015%20CCTV%20&%20Security/2001-11-13-CCC-1287.pdfhttp://e/Claimant's%20Statement%20of%20Claim%2027-09-2012/Emad%20Studies/Delaying%20Events%20Study%20-%20May%202013/CCCO%20-v-%20GPP%20-%20Appendix%203%20-%20No.%2015%20CCTV%20&%20Security/2001-11-13-CCC-1287.pdfhttp://e/Claimant's%20Statement%20of%20Claim%2027-09-2012/Emad%20Studies/Delaying%20Events%20Study%20-%20May%202013/CCCO%20-v-%20GPP%20-%20Appendix%203%20-%20No.%2015%20CCTV%20&%20Security/2001-10-01-PMO-0378.pdf


30/59


CCCO VS. GPP


Page 30 of59

Conclusion:

The contractor did not suffer critical delay to the Commercial Center due to therequirement of CVN 19, because it was issued for requesting Proposal.

CVN # 19 (1)

SoD No.: 40Title: Commercial Center: Security Surveillance System UpgradingPMO Letter: PMO/CCCO/TP5/02/17.0/1120

61

Date of Issue: 29 June 2002


- For Programming Purposes Only


The Contractor in his letter ref. 674/27/180A/L.331962

dated 4 November 2002, informedPMO with the rates, quantities & prices associated with the revised CCTV system, additionto CCCO scope of work which covers CVN No. 19(2), 19(1) [for programming purpose only]& 19.

Comments:

1. CVN 19 (1) was issued to the Contractor for Programming Purposes Only, not toproceed with work

2. However, the contemporaneous update to assess the alleged impact upon the project

completion date should be CT34 data date 1 June 2002, but The Contractor simulatethis delaying event with update CT26 dated 1 October 2001, which is wrong


In the MOU dated 24 October 2002 all parties agreed that the completion dates forCommercial Center including the impact of all delaying events occurred before 8September 2002 (some CVNs were excluded and listed in the MOU appendixes) will beas follow:

Commercial Center 11 September 2003

However, the impact of the alleged delaying event should not delay the project completiondate of Commercial Center beyond the above agreed date.

But Padraig Anglin expert report on project delay indicated that and due to the impact ofthis delaying event, the completion date of Commercial Center is delayed to 9 February2004, which contradicts with what have been agreed in the MOU dated 24 October 2002.


http://e/Claimant's%20Statement%20of%20Claim%2027-09-2012/Emad%20Studies/Delaying%20Events%20Study%20-%20May%202013/CCCO%20-v-%20GPP%20-%20Appendix%203%20-%20No.%2015%20CCTV%20&%20Security/2002-06-29-PMO-1120.pdfhttp://e/Claimant's%20Statement%20of%20Claim%2027-09-2012/Emad%20Studies/Delaying%20Events%20Study%20-%20May%202013/CCCO%20-v-%20GPP%20-%20Appendix%203%20-%20No.%2015%20CCTV%20&%20Security/2002-06-29-PMO-1120.pdfhttp://e/Claimant's%20Statement%20of%20Claim%2027-09-2012/Emad%20Studies/Delaying%20Events%20Study%20-%20May%202013/CCCO%20-v-%20GPP%20-%20Appendix%203%20-%20No.%2015%20CCTV%20&%20Security/2002-06-29-PMO-1120.pdfhttp://e/Claimant's%20Statement%20of%20Claim%2027-09-2012/Emad%20Studies/Delaying%20Events%20Study%20-%20May%202013/CCCO%20-v-%20GPP%20-%20Appendix%203%20-%20No.%2015%20CCTV%20&%20Security/2002-11-04-CCC-3319.pdfhttp://e/Claimant's%20Statement%20of%20Claim%2027-09-2012/Emad%20Studies/Delaying%20Events%20Study%20-%20May%202013/CCCO

Date post:	03-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	dody
View:	216 times
Download:	0 times

Program CT40

Documents