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 : Delivery of Pods without Marble Top
References : M/s xxx (Contractor Name) letter ref xxx dated 26-Nov-xxx
BGC Letter ref xxx dated 27-Dec-xxx
Dear Sir,
We are writing in response to your letter ref: xxx and with reference to the subject mentioned above and would like to clarify the following:
The statement that M/s xxx (Contractor Name) did not inform you of the status of the marble top is inaccurate. The pods were delivered to your site on 24, 25 and 26 November xxx and BGC QC/ Engineers have taken delivery of these pods. Please refer to attached delivery notes for your reference. Additionally, the MIRs for these pods have been raised immediately upon delivery as per their status at the day of delivery.
Background
On the 21 November 2020, M/s xxx (Contractor Name) has received an NCR showing a rejection on 38 installed marble tops from 38 delivered pods. All these marble tops were cut and installed from approved slabs. This highlighted a totally unpredictable approval process based on a largely subjective review.
M/s xxx (Contractor Name) had consequently no reasonable way of ensuring that the marble tops which were expected to be installed in the 69 pods planned for delivery on the 24, 25 and 26 November would be approved, even if these marble tops were cut from the same approved slabs.
We were therefore left with no other alternative but to deliver the Pods and their marble tops separately to site and secure the approval on the marble tops prior their installation in the Pods at site.
According to the above, the Pods delivered on 24 November xxx along with their associated marble sets were raised for inspection on the 25 November xxx to obtain approval prior installing. (Please refer to MIR-0294).
All these delivered sets were again rejected.
This unreasonably high rejection rate on marble tops that are cut from already approved marble slabs has led our marble supplier to halt supply.
Ongoing challenges in approval of marble tops
From 24 November till this date, we are doing all we can to source the market for the same “Bianco Carrara” marble in an attempt to secure marble slabs that could be approved without any assurance whatsoever that marble tops cut from such slabs would be found acceptable.
We have sent numerous sets from various suppliers to site for inspection and have raised more than 5 MIR’s for Marble from 24th of November till 24th of December, all “Bianco Carrara” and all of which were rejected. Only the latest delivery of the 24th December was partially accepted with 5 sets approved out of 9 delivered.
We have raised and continue to raise our concerns that the inspection of the marble tops is disregarding the approved benchmark slabs, as well as the inherent properties of this natural materials and are extremely subjective, leaving us with no reasonable way of predicting if a particular set will be approved or not.
Even MIRs on pods which do not include marble tops receive comments related to marble (i.e. see MIR #387) which attest to the totally arbitrary and unreasonable manner in which the inspections are being carried out.
Meeting with the Engineer dated 24 December xxxx
We have clearly raised our concern to BGC and to Dewan consultants during the meeting dated 24 December xxx that if the approval process maintains is current course and does take into account the approved slabs and the inherent randomness of this natural material “Bianco Carrara”, M/s xxx (Contractor Name) will not be able to reasonably guarantee that any marble top delivered to site will be approved.
M/s xxx (Contractor Name) has also requested during the meeting and hereby requests again BGC and/or the Engineer to tell us where and from which supplier we can find the marble slabs materials that they deem can be approved, we will then be more than ready to immediately secure such material.
Completion of delivery
We object to your statement that “delivery completion is rejected and is in delay”. Deliveries of all the pods have been made to site in accordance with our mutually agreed program and the last pod was delivered on 26 November xxx (Please refer to delivery notes). Furthermore, all pods have been installed at their final location. (Please refer to installation WIRs)
Comments on MIRs are being addressed as part of the site approval process.
Conclusion
We will continue to extend all our efforts to source “Bianco Carrara” marble from the market and deliver to site for approval, however as previously stated, we find ourselves in a position where we are trying to comply to purely subjective inspections that disregard approved samples and marble slabs and have no reasonable way of predicting what tops will be approved.
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 progress payments are delayed, in addition to 51 days for the default in the advance payment.
Yours faithfully,
On behalf of xxx LLC
xxx
project Manager
