Response to Design Guardian Site Observation Report No. xxx
Our Ref: xxx
Date:
To
xxx Contracting LLC
P. O. Box xxx
Dubai, U.A.E.
Attention : Mr. xxx, Group Procurement Manager
Project : : xxx Tower, Dubai – U.A.E.
Subject : Response to Design Guardian Site Observation Report No. xxx
Dear Sir,
We are in receipt of your letter ref: xxx dated 08 December xxx and we fundamentally reject the allegations of serious issues in terms of pod finishes, especially when such finishes relate to material supplied by the Main Contractor.
Please refer to the below point wise response to each comment received in the Site Observation Report No. xxx:
- First Floor – Master Bathroom Pod – Tile lipping evident, similar issue to apartment flooring – to be rectified and root cause found in all cases.
M/s xxx (Contractor Name) Response: Tiles are a Free Issue Material selected, procured and delivered to M/s xxx (Contractor Name) by the Main Contractor. The concerns over the quality of the tiles received by M/s xxx (Contractor Name) especially in terms of flatness and dimensional tolerance were raised to the Main Contractor in multiple quality reports (appendix A). We have also already notified the Main Contractor that the differences in bends and undulations observed in these tiles and specifically the difference between one tile and another in the same package will still lead to lipping that no amount of workmanship can overcome.
Apartment flooring is not in the scope of M/s xxx (Contractor Name); however, we do recognize the fact that the quality of the tiles is leading to identical lipping comments on the Main Contractor’s own scope of works.
Improvement of the lipping is not possible while using the current tile supplied by the Main Contractor. M/s xxx (Contractor Name) is already taking all the possible measures to ensure that if any lipping occurs, it will be maintained as close as possible to the tolerance allowed by the project specification and international standards.
- Grout color variations through the pods also to be rectified to ensure grout color is uniform, any tile installations with inconsistent grout colors will not be accepted.
M/s xxx (Contractor Name) response: We note the Engineer’s comment, and we are investigating all pods delivered to site in order to identify locations where lack of uniformity may be observed. Although no color variation is being observed at the completion of the pods in factory or at delivery to site, we will engage the grout supplier on an urgent basis to identify the root cause of any such color variation that may be manifesting while pods are on site for an extended period of time.
- Open access panels need to be covered with solid ply sheets & plastic cover to protect pods – damaged sink found in bathroom. Dust, debris and water ingress in other pods which will require further cleaning and repair work/replacement of finishes due to other trades. Current pod status is unacceptable for formal snagging or inspection sign-off.
M/s xxx (Contractor Name) response: The request of the Engineer is within the scope of the Main Contractor and not M/s xxx (Contractor Name). We remind you that the full responsibility of protecting the pods delivered to site is on the Main Contractor. M/s xxx (Contractor Name) is already protecting the pods with polythene sheets and temporary doors as stipulated under our Sub-Contract agreement.
In addition, the misusage of pods by the Contractor’s own teams and subcontractors and the damages that the Engineer is highlighting in the Site Observation Report were notified earlier by M/s xxx (Contractor Name) via damage reports & communications. (Appendix B)
- Wash basin counter edges in general do not match with pod Mockups – edges are too sharp and require further chamfer to match mockup.
M/s xxx (Contractor Name) response: Wash basin counter edges do not match the pod mockups due to the fact that we have received the following comment on the mockup pods requiring us to have sharper edges to match outer vanity edge radius.The comment received now contradicts with the previous comment received on mockup pods which is the following:
“Vanity top inner basin pencil round edges too large and should match outer vanity edge radius. To be rectified in mockup.”
M/s xxx (Contractor Name) has implemented the comment received on the mockup pods in all subsequent production and reduced the vanity top inner basin edge to match the outer vanity edge. If you require us to change back to match the original mockup, we are able to follow this new instruction on sets that are not yet produced. Changing all sets which are already produced will lead to abortive works which will have commercial and time implications.
- Grouting to cistern countertop – multiple pods – not accepted, this work should not be carried out on-site – confirm why this is required.
M/s xxx (Contractor Name) response: M/s xxx (Contractor Name) agrees with the comment, such work should not be carried out on site and M/s xxx (Contractor Name) does not carry out any work on site as we control our quality in factory. The locations indicated in the Site Observation Report suggest work on site was performed by the Main Contractor following the installation of the shelves. While we do not have confirmation of this, M/s xxx (Contractor Name) will keep ensuring that no such issue exists in any delivered pod.
We further urge you to inspect the pods within 24 hours from their arrival to site which will address any such observation in the future. Also, we openly invite the Engineer to inspect the pods in factory prior to delivery so that he may verify at his convenience the quality of the completed pods.
- Tile pattern type with corner “vein” to be omitted throughout – this looks like a damaged tile – this pattern is rejected.
M/s xxx (Contractor Name) response: We are surprised to receive such a comment at this time. We have to note that the tiles are a Free Issue Material supplied by the Main Contractor and M/s xxx (Contractor Name) has installed these tiles as they have been received. If any particular pattern is not acceptable, we request the Main Contractor not to supply any tiles showing such pattern in future production.
Upon receipt of this observation M/s xxx (Contractor Name) has immediately started sorting out this tile pattern if found in all the new pods entering production from the date of the observation.
If you require that M/s xxx (Contractor Name) engages in abortive works in factory to remove any tile showing this pattern in already tiled but not yet delivered pods, this will lead to abortive works in factory which will have commercial and time implications.
For pods which have already been delivered, the Main Contractor should address this concern as he is the supplier of the tiles and is able to perform abortive works on site if necessary.
We have to stress however that from the amount of sorting which was done from the receipt of the Observation Report to this date, around 20% of the tiles delivered by the Main Contractor present a form of this tile pattern and has been sorted out and can be collected by the Main Contractor at his convenience. Any shortages in tile supply as a result of this segregation should be duly addressed by the Main Contractor.
- Water damage to bathroom shelves in a number of pods. Shelves should also fill entire width of recess and outer edge aligned with wall. Damage to tiles from later installation by Joinery Sub-Contractor in one powder room.
M/s xxx (Contractor Name) response: We agree with the Engineer’s comment as we have noted that the shelves in levels 1 to 4 were excluded by the Main Contractor from the M/s xxx (Contractor Name) scope and were installed on site by the Contractor’s own joinery subcontractor.
Furthermore, the misuse of the pods by the joinery subcontractor was notified by M/s xxx (Contractor Name) to the Contractor via letter ref: xxx dated 31 October xxx. (Appendix C)
Rectification of such damages/misuse of delivered pods should be addressed by the Main Contractor on site.
- Tiles patterns for general wall tiles and shower feature tiles have been noted on numerous occasions to M/s xxx (Contractor Name) and ASCC that the tile pattern variants need to be mixed to ensure that the same tile pattern is not repeated in the same location, either adjacent or in close proximity. This has been disregarded by M/s xxx (Contractor Name) in a number of Pods as delivered to site and these tile installations are rejected for failing to address Client comments.
M/s xxx (Contractor Name) response: M/s xxx (Contractor Name) fully complied with the comment released on the mockup pods in Email dated 16 September xxx (appendix D) which states “tile print pattern variants to be re‐distributed to avoid any matching tiles being adjacent. This applies to both tiles (standard and feature)”
For standard wall: no matching tiles have been installed adjacent in any direction. Please note that the comment did not mention or address close proximity or what such statement as close proximity means.
M/s xxx (Contractor Name) will however re-visit all delivered pods, and in the case where a matching tile has been installed adjacent to another, we will address the comment accordingly.
For feature wall: M/s xxx (Contractor Name) has received from the Main Contractor a single tile pattern for the feature wall. Consequently, adjacent tiles of this single pattern are unavoidable.
M/s xxx (Contractor Name) has maintained a minimum amount of randomness by rotating this tile when possible while installation with due consideration that the rotation of the tile also impacts the tile lipping which has been evidently recorded by M/s xxx (Contractor Name) as being a primary concern on the tiles supplied by the Main Contractor.
If additional randomness is required in the feature wall, we advise the Main Contractor to supply one or two additional tile patterns for the feature walls.
- L-Shape tile repair over pod is not accepted. Tile should be replaced with an L-shape tile, not a vertical joint. Joint lines should also follow standard width and color. Poor workmanship, this needs to be managed by the pod manufacturer.
M/s xxx (Contractor Name) response: As per design and mockup comments, maid room pods have a vertical joint and other pods have an L-Shape tile above the door.
For pods which have an L-Shape tile above the door, M/s xxx (Contractor Name) has raised concern during on the potential breakage of this tile shape during transportation and handling and advised on having a vertical joint.
The Engineer/Client insisted on following the L-shape design.
During the mockup inspection, the same was also discussed and the comment received on the mockup pods was to make a trial for fixing tiles around door on-site to avoid additional joint/cut pieces and that for maid’s pods L-shape is not required.
We have monitored the tiles breakage in the delivery of the first 2 levels pods and we noticed that a concerning number of L-shape tiles were being broken as we expected.
For this reason, the tiles for upper levels are being fixed on site with the exception of maid pods which are agreed by the Engineer/Client to have a vertical joint above the door area.
M/s xxx (Contractor Name) will aim to improve the quality of installing this L-shape tile on site as per the Engineer’s observation, we do however kindly ask the Engineer to be reasonably mindful of the inherent differences between tiling in a factory-controlled environment as opposed to tiling in an open project site.
- Wall and floor tile alignment still requires coordination in some pods as discussed during shop drawing review and sign-off. Example below is within 1st floor powder room.
M/s xxx (Contractor Name) response: The wall and floor tile alignment is as per the approved drawings. It was agreed during shop drawings review and sign-off to allocate one point in each pod for alignment of the floor & wall tiles and the same is being followed by M/s xxx (Contractor Name). (Refer to appendix E for the alignment point for example agreed for the powder room pod).
- Potential clash of shower door with adjacent tiled wall in corner showers – review option to restrict door opening to 90 degrees. Inner shower door finger pull has been installed incorrectly in all showers reviewed. The finger pull recess needs to be on underside of the handle as noted in shop drawing reviews.
M/s xxx (Contractor Name) response for shower door: The installed hinges are as per approved material submittal where the technical data sheet shows a range of movement of 180 degrees and not 90 degrees as suggested. Accordingly, the door is able to move past 90 degrees.
While not in M/s xxx (Contractor Name) scope of works, it was our understanding during the mockup review that a door stopper would potentially be supplied and installed by the Main Contractor. No further instruction was received by M/s xxx (Contractor Name).
M/s xxx (Contractor Name) response for finger pull shower door handle: The shower handle finger pull freely rotates 360 degrees at all times. This is in accordance with the approve material.
M/s xxx (Contractor Name) has produced the delivered pods in full compliance with the approved design, approved drawings, and approved materials. Moreover, M/s xxx (Contractor Name) has made use of the Free Issue Material which has been supplied by the Main Contractor, the quality and compliance of which is under the Main Contractor’s sole responsibility.
We categorically object to the Main Contractor’s statements in his letter which make allegations of serious issues in the pods when the overwhelming majority of comments conveyed in the attached Observation Report directly relate to the Main Contractor’s own shortcomings on site or on the Main Contractor’s own Free Issue Materials.
We are further disturbed by the fact that the Main Contractor has seemingly forwarded this Observation Report to M/s xxx (Contractor Name) without addressing or acknowledging such observations that directly relate to his own shortcomings or his own Free Issue Materials
The Main Contractor is advised to take precautions on site to avoid the repeat of damages which have occurred as a result of the works performed by his staff or his subcontractors on site, especially in terms of damages to tiles or other finishes when installing the permanent shelves, or any damages resulting from his staff accessing the pods, whether for MEP works access or otherwise.
We further request the Main Contractor to rectify such damages to avoid any further Observation Reports by the Engineer.
Moreover, M/s xxx (Contractor Name) is still awaiting your next delivery of tiles, and we request that you seriously and promptly rectify the comments on the quality of the tile and the supplied tile patterns in your next delivery. We also advise to include additional tile patterns for the feature wall if you deem it necessary.
Please note that M/s xxx (Contractor Name) is an off-site manufacturer which produces pods in factory, delivers completed units to site, then raises and secures approval for each pod upon delivery of pods to site and prior to installation. While M/s xxx (Contractor Name) will address any snags which are raised at final stage and during handing over in accordance with the terms of our Sub-Contract, we will not accept any rejection at final stage which initial approval has been received, especially when such rejection relates to tiles, or any other Free Issue Material supplied by the Main Contractor.
This is for your information and records,
All our rights are reserved.
Yours faithfully,
On behalf of xxx LLC
xxx
project Manager