Rejection of PODS material inspection request

Our Ref: xxx

Date: xxx

To                           : xxx Contracting Company LLC

                               P. O. Box xxx, Dubai, U.A.E.

Attention            : Mr. xxx, Senior Project Manager

Project                 : xxx Tower, Dubai – U.A.E.

Subject:                Rejection of PODS material inspection request

Reference:       a) M/s xxx (Contractor Name) letter ref: xxx dated 13 January M/s xxx (Contractor Name)

Dear Sir,

We are writing to inform you that out of 81 pods delivered to site until 15 April M/s xxx (Contractor Name), we have received approved MIRs for 67 PODs while we have been surprised to receive C status on 14 PODs, despite the fact that these PODs have been produced in accordance with approved drawings and materials:

Accordingly, we would like to address point by point general comments listed on the relevant MIRs by the Engineer since a large number of these comments are contradictory to the approved POD drawings and materials (appendix A)

Architectural:

1. Comment: WC seat cover is missing:

M/s xxx (Contractor Name) response: The seat cover remains uninstalled until handing over since this item is very sensitive to damage on site. This is the same process which has been followed on all delivered PODs and the Engineer is well acquainted with this process.  We can install the seat cover at any time at the Main Contractor’s request.

• Comment: Access Panel not fixed:

M/s xxx (Contractor Name) response:  The access panel remains uninstalled and wrapped until handing over. This is again to avoid damage since other contractors (especially MEP) require access through this access panel. Again, this is the same process which has been followed on all delivered PODs and the Engineer is well acquainted with this process.  We can install the access panel at any time at the Main Contractor’s request.

• Comment: Countertop edges should be pencil round and not sharp

M/s xxx (Contractor Name) response: The comment is not accurate. The Countertop edges are provided pencil round as per the approved first in place POD inspected in factory by the Engineer.

• Comment: Drip mould under counter to be provided same as Phase 4.

M/s xxx (Contractor Name) response: All Countertops are produced as per approved shop drawings and as per the approved first in place POD inspected in factory by the Engineer. M/s xxx (Contractor Name) cannot retro-actively implement out of factory a detail by any other party which has not been raised during design and prior to production and delivery.

• Comment: Strip tiles is slightly glossy compare with approved sample, to match the approved one.

M/s xxx (Contractor Name) response: The glazing of the strip tile is in accordance with the comment raised by the Engineer during the first in place POD inspection. Refer to the record of the inspection comments letter reference (a) point # 3.

As recorded, the approved tiles and their level of glazing are sourced from available stock with the manufacturer since a new batch of tiles cannot be produced due to the limited quantity required for the project (not exceeding 300 sqm). Consequently, M/s xxx (Contractor Name) has limited control over the selection of this tile or its finish and cannot change it.

• Comment: Ensure floor level are properly coordinated with outside POD’s floor level as per approved drawing.

M/s xxx (Contractor Name) response: This is a general comment and PODs are installed following Main Contractor’s surveyor points.

• Comment: Final approval subject to installation and finishing inspection approval.

M/s xxx (Contractor Name) response: noted.

• Comment: Bubbles on the tile strip not accepted

M/s xxx (Contractor Name) response: This is an old general comment on an old sample of tile strip which was inspected in factory and already addressed. All installed tiles are without bubbles (black small dots).

Electrical Comments:

1. Comment: Cove light wiring to the PODs shall be done properly with Flex-conduits, naked wires not acceptable in the cove and above.

M/s xxx (Contractor Name) response: The wiring is done as per the approved shop drawings and in accordance with first in place POD inspected and approved at M/s xxx (Contractor Name) factory prior to mass production. Implementing such a new requirement will lead to major abortive works which cannot be done on site by M/s xxx (Contractor Name).

• Comment: PVC Junction Box above the cove with unwanted opening/knock out which is not acceptable, shall be rectified/replaced.

M/s xxx (Contractor Name) response: PVC junction box is as per approved material, and in accordance with first in place POD inspected and approved at M/s xxx (Contractor Name) factory by the Engineer prior to mass production. Implementing such a new requirement will lead to major abortive works which cannot be done on site by M/s xxx (Contractor Name).

• Comment: All final fixtures acceptance subject to successful testing and commissioning.

M/s xxx (Contractor Name) response: PODs are tested and commissioned in factory prior to delivery. Check sheets relative to each POD are attached to its MIR. Final testing and commissioning of the main systems is not under the scope of M/s xxx (Contractor Name) and the approval of the individual Pods shall not be withheld until the completion of the scope of another party.

• Comment: Ensure cove lights installed properly inside cove without any bends or misaligning

M/s xxx (Contractor Name) response:  Cove lights are Already installed without any bends or misalignment.

Additional electrical comments issued on B3 level 3 Pods only.

1. Comment: Strip lights installation shall be supported by transparent clips & flex conduit shall be provided for wiring

M/s xxx (Contractor Name) response: this comment is not acceptable. This refers to a comment made on drawings from the subsequent contract (phase 5B) drawings while this contract (Phase 5A) pods are already produced based on this contract’s approved drawings, approved materials and first in place POD inspected and approved at M/s xxx (Contractor Name) factory. Implementing retro-actively such a comment will lead to major abortive works which cannot be done on site by M/s xxx (Contractor Name).

• Comment: Wires color are subject to final wire pulling IR approval as relevant load schedule have not attached and not available on-site during inspection.

M/s xxx (Contractor Name) response: wires colors are based on the approved load schedule issued by the Main Contractor to M/s xxx (Contractor Name). (Appendix B). M/s xxx (Contractor Name) cannot change wiring out of factory on delivered pods.

• Comment: Water connection shall be far away from the driver/lighting fixtures location.

M/s xxx (Contractor Name) response: PODs are produced following approved drawings and water connection is indicated on approved drawings. Changing the location of the water connection at this stage will lead to major abortive works which cannot be done on site by M/s xxx (Contractor Name).

• Comment: Proper driver fixation for heat dissipation shall be provided.

M/s xxx (Contractor Name) response: This is a general and vague comment. The fixation is executed as per all approved previous phases PODs, approved drawing & approved first in place POD.

• Comment: Warranty shall be provided as commented.

M/s xxx (Contractor Name) response: warranty is not part of the MIR submittal of PODs. Warrantees are provided at final handing over and are not a prerequisite for the approval of the delivered PODs.

• Comment: Separate IR shall be submitted for electrical connection above false ceiling.

M/s xxx (Contractor Name) response: This is NOT M/s xxx (Contractor Name) scope.

• Comment: Separate IR shall be submitted for final fix above false ceiling (contractor to ensure FCU/water heater flex outlet shall be accessible from the POD access panel.)

M/s xxx (Contractor Name) response: This is NOT M/s xxx (Contractor Name) scope.

All PODs that are built in our factory and delivered to the site and produced in accordance with approved drawings and approved materials for this contract.

We have also built in the factory the first-in-place mockup POD to ensure that no additional comments are raised prior to the start of mass production and delivery. The first-in-place POD has been comprehensively inspected and approved by the Main Contractor and the Engineer clearing the way for mass production.

None of the comments issued on these 14 MIRs are therefore applicable.

Except for the first two comments relating to avoidance of damage (seat cover and access panel) all comments are either not in our scope of work or are contradictory to the approved drawings and materials or are new requirements.

We now have major concerns moving forward that the approval of all delivered pods which are produced in accordance with the approved drawings and materials will be subject to new requirements and consequently will also receive C status.

Accordingly, we find no other alternative but to suspend deliveries of PODs until these comments are clarified to all parties and approval of the PODs is not withheld on the grounds of new requirements which cannot be executed by M/s xxx (Contractor Name) on site.

Therefore, we urge you to discuss with the Engineer to revert these rejections, and to discuss with them regarding the comments not related to this project phase or not related to M/s xxx (Contractor Name).

Yours faithfully,

On behalf of M/s xxx (Contractor Name) LLC

xxx

Projects Manager