Regarding the revised partition drawing, your comment
Date: xxx
Ref: xxx
Kind Attn :Mr. xxx
Project: 2B + G + 14+ Lower Roof Hotel Building on Plot No. xxx at Al Barsha 1st, Dubai
Subject: Regarding the revised partition drawing, your comment
“Not approved” and our concerns regarding the same
Dear Sir,
With reference to the above, we would like to request you the following:
- Our partition design was submitted within the guidelines “Article 3.3 on Page 17 of Section 13255 of Volume II (Section A- 2 of 2)” which is a generalized specification and not specific to our requirements.
- The approved acoustic designer and supplier designed the partitions with the input of available area and input from all the stakeholders including consultant and client.
- The interconnecting wall P01 has thickness of 102 mm in our submitted drawings that is matching and complying all the acoustic requirements and drawings along with specification on “Article 3.3 b on Page 17 of Section 13255 of Volume II (Section A- 2 of 2)” for support for fixer, equipment and services. Please note that butterfly fisher plug to be used as per the Gypsum manufacturer recommendation (HITLI HHD-S CAVITY ANCHOR)
- As per the previous communication M/s Home Centre requires 123mm minimum wall thickness for the double shutter single frame door which requires changing our drawing accrdingly with additional cost that will be assessed after approval of M/s Home Centre drawings. Please refer attached email copy from Home Centre dated 15 March, 2017.
So, kindy be specify the points in “Article 3.3 on Page 17 of Section 13255 of Volume II (Section A- 2 of 2 that our submittal Ref: CC/AP/269/SH/CIV/ID/014 do not comply so we can make rectifications accordingly.
Please also note that we will raise cost and time varitaiton claim for the interconnecting wall as it is a specific requirement by external agency.
Regards,
For xxx Contracting L.L.C.
xxx
Project Manager