Reply to your letter regarding Vanity counters

Reply to your letter regarding Vanity counters

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        Reply to your letter Ref : AP/269/CC/288 dated 26.03.2017 regarding Vanity counters

Dear Sir,

With reference to the above and your letter Ref : CC/AP/348/17 we clarify an respond as follows:

  1. In order to get the inspection done and their design confirmation from the supplier for 120 kgs load capacity for any reaction points on the counter including the perimeter at the wash basin, the Main Contractor had no direct contractual relationship with the supplier as well as his reply will be considered null and void.
  2. The issue for Nomination for the Supply and Fixing, the “so called” supplier stated that his scope of work is only the supply, so who will design the support and confrm that the counter acts as a platform? Our email communication with the supplier is attached for your review. Further ti this, our letters Ref: CC/AP/202/16 and CC/AP274/16 still remained unanswered.
  3. In reply to Item No. 2 of your letter, your initial instruction and the general practice that counter can be designed for Nominal load i.e. 60 kgs was increased to 120 kgs just due to safety concerns by the Employer after which we followed up verbally for supply of support and samples of screw which kept our work at the toilets on hold until delivery.

We fixed and tested for 120 kgs on the day the support was supplied but had to remove it due to deflection by a centimeter. Gypsema then reconfirmed the design which we retested, but you commented for 170 KG on 19.03.2017 R1 of shop drawing.

  • Our shop drawings were submitted to you office on 26.02.2017 and we received your comments on 19.03.2017 which was super ceded by R1 on 19.03.2017 i.e. 170 kgs with zero deflection. (commented after almost 37 days) and finally approved on 27.03.2017.
  • For Item No. 3 of your letter, we reply that your statement that the discussion was held on 19.03.2017, our letter, CC/AP/335/17 dated 20.03.2017 on reply to your comment is self explanatory. The discussion was held on 22.03.2017 and not on 19.03.2017, if you consider this verbal communication between Arkiplan and Client as formal instruction, then in this case, in the span of past 5 months we has almost 20 meetings to decide the parttion of which the final decision happened at your office. You did not consider these as formal instructions so what is your point of view on considering a verbal discussion based on your perception? We will raise this issue separately.

Kindy provide the code reference either BS or ASTM stating counter design and load carrying capacity should be 120 kgs or the Client is asking beyond standard and contractor Is not responsible for the same.


  1. Counter Drawings were submitted on 26.02.2017 and reply received on 19.03.2017 almost 37 days after submission. (Delay in approval)
    1. The documents attached in chronological order as below are self explanatory 
  2. CC/AP/202/16 dated 05.12.2016, request to provide load for counter
  3. CC/AP/274/16 dated 11.02.2016, regarding nomination of vanity counter subcontractor
  4. CC/AP/269/SH/CIV/ID/012 dated 26.02.2017, shop drawing submitted
  5. CC/AP/269/SH/CIV/ID/012 R1 dated 15.03.2017, revised shop drawing submitted; approval received on 27.03.2017   
  6. CC/AP/269/335/17 dated 20.03.2017, reply to your comment on our shop drawing submittal.
  7. Email between CC and Denolex for confirmation of vanity counter strength and loading
    1. Furthermore, MEP inspection raised for Toilets on 04.03.2017 (CEM/WI/269/141) and 18.03.2017 (CEM/WI/269/141-R1) were rejected due to counter issue and non availability of approved drawings.

So, the transferring of blame to Main Contractor that we delayed the work at toilet area is an unjustified and unfair conclusion. As you are at the site always and you are aware of when the mock up work started and the reason for delay, please not that contractor left no stone unturned even incurring additional cost of reworks to expedite the works including delivery of tank/mixer diverter etc. that we kept waiting for a long time.

Kindly review and record the ground facts at site.


For xxx Contracting L.L.C.


Project Manager

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *