Response to Delay in Engineering Resubmission & Obtaining Engineer’s Approval.

Response to Delay in Engineering Resubmission & Obtaining Engineer’s Approval.

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                 : Response to Delay in Engineering Resubmission & Obtaining Engineer’s Approval.

Dear Sir,

We totally reject your letter ref: xxx dated 14th July xxxx wrongly stating a (Contractor Name) delay in engineering resubmission and obtaining Engineer’s approval. This an incorrect statement that does not reflect the actual status related to each one of these items and we would like to clarify the following:

First, based on the discussion between (Contractor Name) and the client during (Contractor Name) quotation review and approval stage, it was agreed to follow phase 1 approved materials for the next phases including Phase 2 which is the scope of our Sub-Contract agreement with you. The same was confirmed in your Email received on the 5th of May “that it has been advised by the client during progress meeting to proceed with the procurement with phase 1 material approval.” (Attachment No.1)

Additionally, we have received another Email from you on the 13th of May, where the client M/s North 25 reconfirmed to proceed with phase 1 approved materials. (Attachment No.2)

On the above basis and confirmations received via Email, (Contractor Name) has submitted all the material used in Phase 1 for approval and attached a copy of that approval along with every submittal to ease the review and expedite the approval of submittals. At the same time (Contractor Name) started placing orders.

Now it must be noted that instead of obtaining the approvals at the earliest, it took you between 50 to 69 days to provide us with the official response copies from the Engineer for the majority of the items. Please see Attachment No.3 that highlights the items submission date and response date for your reference.

Surprisingly and contrary to all the confirmations mentioned above to follow phase 1 approvals, we have received rejections to material submittals such as precast concrete, tiles, marble and vanity cabinet.

Below we highlight and put on record the actual condition behind each one of the pending submittals:

  • Precast concrete base (PDLM-MW-UNP-MT-AR-00408): According to your letter, (Contractor Name) delayed the resubmission for 36 days and the resubmission was not yet done the date of your letter. This is incorrect as the resubmission of rev.1 was done since 8th of July, 6 days prior to your letter date and it’s still currently under review.
  • Wall & Floor tiles (PLDM-MW-BJC-MT-AR-00393): This is a specified item and is not selected by (Contractor Name). The material submittal rev.0 was rejected mainly due to sample quality “tile not flat” noting that the sample was taken from M/s Beaver. (Contractor Name) took immediate action, arranged a new sample and resubmitted on the 2nd of July. But again the material was rejected on the 13th of July with a statement that “sample not matching with the control sample” even though the sample is from the tiles approved and used in phase 1.

During the meeting held on 15th July between (Contractor Name), yourself and the Engineer, we informed about the criticality of this approval in allowing (Contractor Name) to proceed with the procurement and production of the correct sample. We also informed that the supplier is having a minor stock (approx. 1600 sqm) in UAE, reserved for (Contractor Name), but the available materials will have a bit of shade difference from the control sample. The Engineer agreed to check the sample, and it was handed over by (Contractor Name) on the next day dated 16th July.

(Contractor Name) did all the required actions to secure the approvals at the earliest but the rejections for a selected item previously used in Phase 1 isn’t the responsibility of (Contractor Name) and such rejection will certainly impact the procurement and delivery of pods. It was also made clear during the meeting that in case of rejecting this available quantity, the tiles will then have a lead time of 6-8 weeks since it’s produced and shipped from INDIA, in such case the first delivery of 16th of August will not be met.

  • Vanity Laminate (PDLM-MW-UNP-MT-AR-00407): (Contractor Name) had secured 300 sheets of laminate for your project based on the Emails confirmation to proceed with phase 1 approvals prior to receiving the rejection on 7th June. The rejection was based on the ID cut sheet for phase 2 which diverted from Phase1 and replaced the laminate with a veneer finish. For that, and after many follow ups, we had a joint meeting with the Architect Engineer on 25th June, which the Resident Engineer couldn’t attend, and the architect informed that any decision to maintain the laminate finish or change to veneer needs to be discussed with the Resident Engineer.

A meeting with the Resident Engineer followed on the 28th June, in which he informed that he will discuss with the client. Unfortunately, despite more than 2 weeks of follow ups, a decision wasn’t taken yet. On the 15th July, during the joint meeting we had with the Engineer, (Contractor Name) were informed that the client will approve the laminate under the condition of a cost saving.

(Contractor Name) agreed to submit the potential cost saving which will be forwarded to you on 20 July xxxx.

  • Vanity Top (PDLM-MW-UNP-MT-AR-00392): This matter was raised to you verbally and by Email sent on 9th July. (Contractor Name) has put the resubmission on hold due to the specified supplier confirmation for non-availability of materials and his request to approve the slabs based on photos taken from quarry. The same was forwarded from your side to the Engineer. During the meeting held on 15th July, the Engineer called the supplier (M/s Ascon) who confirmed to him the non-availability and the lead time. Based on that, the Engineer accepted to check alternative material. We have provided a new sample and handed over to the Engineer office on 16th July and the sample was found acceptable. The Engineer confirmed via Email on 18th July that the Marble issue is resolved. (See attachment No. 4 for referred Emails)

We trust the above clarifies the status of approvals and we trust on your prompt action in securing a go-ahead to use the readily available tiles (1600 sqm) as described above to allow us to meet the schedule of the 16th August as first delivery.

This is for your information, record and necessary action.

Yours faithfully,

On behalf of xxx LLC                                                                      

xxx

project Manager

Leave a Reply

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