POD’s marble color deviations against approved marble top material
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 : POD’s marble color deviations against approved marble top material
Dear Sir,
We are writing in response to your letter ref: xxx dated 26th December and with reference to the subject mentioned above and would like to inform the following:
All our delivered and installed marble tops are from slabs which are selected, inspected, and approved by the Engineer. All these tops are also fully in line with the Control Sample range issued by the Engineer via letter ref: xxx (attachment 1) and slab inspection MIR ref: xxx rev.0 (attachment 2).
We are attaching herewith (attachment 3) photos of rejected marble sets which demonstrates without ambiguity that delivered sets are clearly in accordance with approved slabs and referred to in attachments 1 & 2 but still being rejected regardless.
M/s xxx (Contractor Name) is complying fully with projects quality standards and benchmarks and we are providing marble that is in full compliance with the attached approved sample as can be clearly seen is the attached pictures.
We are extremely disturbed and shocked by the manner in which the marble tops are being inspected with complete disregard to the inherent properties of this natural material and the industry standards, and we are appalled by the manner by which BGC is opting to deflect such unreasonable rejections onto M/s xxx (Contractor Name).
We again state that the Marble is a natural stone that will have inevitable variance from a slab to another with random vein and shade patterns, and even though the tops are being cut from approved slabs, these delivered tops are being systematically rejected purely based on subjective opinion and statements, over which we have absolutely no control.
The unreasonable rejection process is clearly apparent also in such cases when even when the inspector is approving the completed marble sets (refer to attachment 4, MIR UNP-MIR-00421 rev.00 received on
28th Dec where he approved 2 sets type 3) the same approved marble sets are then rejected once they are installed in the pods (refer to attachment 5, MIR UNP-MIR-00387 rev.01).
We categorically reject your statement that no action is taken by M/s xxx (Contractor Name).
We have been delivering marble regularly to site (more than 8 different deliveries of marble for inspection, over 60 sets) and exploring all the market options to provide sets that could satisfy the Engineer’s particular requirement but still getting the same unreasonable rejection result.
We again state for the record that we request BGC or the Consultant to provide us with the contacts of any supplier which has the marble material that the Consultant deem acceptable for approval, and M/s xxx (Contractor Name) is ready to immediately procure this material and deliver it to site.
The current approval process of marble is completely arbitrary and M/s xxx (Contractor Name) has currently absolutely no control over such a process which goes beyond any fair industry practice.
BGC’s blatant attempt to deflect such unreasonable rejections on to M/s xxx (Contractor Name) instead of addressing this seriously with the Engineer in an ethical and professional manner is evident and unacceptable.
Meetings with the Engineer
Your statement that we have agreed to complete any rectification works and secure approvals by 13.01.202 is incorrect and complete fabrication. We have furthermore already rejected the content of the Coordination MOM No.28 which we received on 15.12.xxxx (ref to attachment 6) due to your unilateral misrepresentation of the facts and your clear intent not to record any of the statements made by M/s xxx (Contractor Name) during this meeting.
Furthermore, the request of the Engineer to recheck the marble tops and revisit the pencil curve edge detail has already been completed on site and relevant MIRs are already being raised.
Status on site
We further record that while the delivery of all the Pods to site was completed on 26 November xxxx, the site is still not ready to allow us to complete the full installation. This is clearly recorded in our weekly reports including latest weekly report dated 09 January 2021 (attachment 7) showing pending civil and MEP works by BGC.
BGC default in releasing advance payment, work certification and progress payments.
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 certification and progress payments are delayed, in addition to 70 days for the default in the advance payment.
All rights are reserved.
Yours faithfully,
On behalf of xxx LLC
xxx
project Manager