Our Ref: xxx
Date:
To
xxx Contracting LLC
P. O. Box xxx
Dubai, U.A.E.
Attention : Mr. xxx, Group Procurement Manager
Project : xxx Phase 2
Subject : Reply to allegations of Delay in submission/approval of MIRs
Dear Sir,
We are writing in response to your letters ref: xxx & xxx dated 24th & 9th December respectively.
Your allegations of delay in submission/approval of POD MIRs are baseless. You are fully aware that all the MIRs for 443 pods have been already submitted by M/s xxx (Contractor Name) as necessary. M/s xxx (Contractor Name) has no control over the period required by the Engineer to revert back with approval or comments on submitted MIRs, as this process is solely between the Main Contractor and the Engineer. Any MIR returned to M/s xxx (Contractor Name) with comments is being addressed accordingly and our teams are promptly executing the necessary work prior to resubmission (if required).
We further refer to your letter ref: BGC/SC/D17-85D/UNIPOD/0045 dated 30th November and we raise however our major concern that the leading cause of rejection of MIRs relate to the marble tops, and we are extremely disturbed by the manner in which these marble units are being inspected with complete disregard to the inherent properties of this natural material and the industry standards.
The Marble is a natural stone that will have inevitable variance from a slab to another with random vein and shade patterns, and we are appalled that even though the tops are being cut from approved slabs that are inspected and selected by the Engineer, these tops are being systematically rejected purely on the basis of subjective opinion of the inspector, over which we have absolutely no control.
This is putting extreme stress on our supply chain, as we are exhausting the available marble slabs in the market that could meet the unreasonably high expectation of the approving party.
The comments related to marble that we have received can be divided into 5 categories as follows:
- Edges to be pencil curved: We remind you that the approved shop drawings specify chamfered edge and not pencil curve. M/s xxx (Contractor Name) received the first comment to change the edge to pencil curve at the time of delivery. At this time over 50 sets were already procured and installed in the pods with chamfered edges in accordance with the approved shop drawings. This has led to major abortive works on the pods and has forced us to the change the finish to pencil curve on site. This was communicated on the 12th of October in our response to the Site Observation SOR/BGC/008 dated 11th October.
Additionally, while M/s xxx (Contractor Name) is doing its utmost to comply to this comment, there is still no clear specification or benchmark provided to us for the “pencil curved” finish or its tolerance, which is leading again to completely subjective inspections that we have no reasonable way of predicting.
- Countertop width to be as per approved drawing:
All countertop widths are as per the approved shop drawing.
This is a general comment included in all MIRs without any actual supporting evidence that the width is deviating from the approved drawings.
- Poor workmanship of joint finishing:
All joints are executed to the highest industry standards. Referenced Joints are between completely separate marble units in accordance with the approved shop drawings. Consequently, joints at these locations will always be visible.
The comment is again completely subjective without any indication of acceptable tolerance and while we are attending to such comments, we have not reasonable way of predicting approval.
- Color/shade not matching approved slabs:
All the sets were cut from the approved slabs without exception.
- Veins direction not matching:
All veins directions are matching. Book matching is not specified nor required, and the same has been clarified with the engineer. This is again a general comment and not specific to any MIR on which it is noted.
The comments stated above are noted on almost all the MIRs irrespective of whether they apply or not, which raises a concern that the comments are being generalized and do not relate to each pod or marble set individually.
As it was discussed during the meeting held on the 8th December with BGC and the Engineer, we have arranged a separate team for marble that is rechecking all the sets and is addressing any comments that may apply, however in light of the randomness of the approval process, we are currently unable to assess the extent of this exercise, as we find ourselves in a position where we are trying to comply to purely subjective inspections. We will nevertheless continue to extend all our efforts to secure reasonable approvals on the marble.
In closing, we remind you that you are still in default of your obligations in releasing our advance payment, work certification and progress payments and this is disrupting our ability to operate on site and secure material.
Accordingly, we reserve our rights for an Extension of Time (EOT) equivalent to the same number of days by which our advance payment is now delayed. (47 days)
All rights are reserved.
Yours faithfully,
On behalf of xxx LLC
xxx
project Manager
