Response to Design Guardian Site Observation Report No. xxx
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 : Response to Design Guardian Site Observation Report No. xxx
Reference : a) xxx dated 28 September xxx
b) xxx dated 15 December xxx
c) xxx dated 14 January xxx
d)xxx dated 14 January xxx
e) xxx dated 18 March xxx
f) xxx dated 18 March xxx
g) xxx dated 08 April xxx
Dear Sir,
We refer to your letter ref: xxx dated 11 April xxx in relation to the stated subject and clarify as follows.
The letter states that it was concluded following the meeting dated 7 April xxx that “M/s xxx (Contractor Name) will diligently incorporate WB quality defects observations and accordingly implement necessary rectifications, do the final snags in the first floor to set the pods units quality benchmark final product for WB/N25 inspection & approval.”
This statement is broad in nature and inaccurate. Quality defects that relate to material supplied by the Main Contractor or are resulting from such material will remain under the Main Contractor’s liability.
With reference to quality defects associated with the tiles supplied by the Main Contractor, we have stated that we will support the Project in replacing a limited number of tiles on site to facilitate final signoffs and prevent the rejection of all the supplied tiles. This exercise can be initiated once replacement tiles are supplied by the Main Contractor.
In addition to our statement above, please find below our response point wise to the comments mentioned in your letter.
- Comment: Bathtub Stone offset to wall: Noted, but the joint finish around bathtub wall to be rectified as per the comments in the SOR.
M/s xxx (Contractor Name) response: All joint finishes are done as per the comments in the SOR. If any further comment is received for additional locations, we will review the comment and attend to that specific location on a case by case basis.
- Comment: Grout color inconsistency: Noted and M/s xxx (Contractor Name) to further study and submit alternative proposal to resolve the grout color inconsistency at the earliest.
M/s xxx (Contractor Name) response: Further to our earlier reply, the approved BASF Light Grey grout was tested on various types of tiles including other types used on the project. It was observed that the color impact only appears when in contact with tile type TL202, while no variation was observed on the same grout when in contact with other types of tiles, including the feature wall tiles. Test boards will be provided to the Main Contractor for reference. (Appendix 1)
- Comment: Tile surface lippages / unevenness of installation in the floor and walls by M/s xxx (Contractor Name) as observed by DG which is quite evident in the SOR.
M/s xxx (Contractor Name) response: We again reiterate that the lipping is a direct consequence of cupping/bending in the tiles procured and supplied by the Main Contractor.
In the referenced meeting dated 07 April xxx, M/s xxx (Contractor Name) has stated that during final snagging works, if specific locations are found to have extreme lippage from tile pieces, M/s xxx (Contractor Name) will replace these specific tiles to reduce the impact of this observation, provided that the Main Contractor supplies suitable replacement tiles and selects the replacement tile piece to be used.
M/s xxx (Contractor Name) has recorded the quality defect of the tile material from the first delivery made by the Main contractor, and this is recorded in our referenced correspondences (b) & (c) above. Those quality defects were further demonstrated when the Main Contractor’s own supplier has executed a mockup wall at the start of the project which has highlighted very clearly to all parties that lipping is unavoidable when using the available tile tolerances.
M/s xxx (Contractor Name) is taking all possible measures to ensure that tile lipping remains as close as possible to the tolerance allowed by the project specification and international standards. However, we will not accept under any circumstance to be made responsible for quality defects resulting from free issue tile material procured and supplied by the Main Contractor or any consequence of such material.
We also have to remind you that M/s xxx (Contractor Name) has issued a letter on 30 March xxx ref: UP‐1763/LET‐1387‐22/LS‐at notifying you that the supply of tiles has not been made by the Main Contractor for the remaining pods in production and accordingly production is halted.
- Comment: Vanity shelf offsets – Noted since the issue in SD differences against actual delivered/produced pods has been cleared and resolved already and ASCC will proceed rectification in line with M/s xxx (Contractor Name) rectification/snags schedule of each pods floor wise as per site programme.
M/s xxx (Contractor Name) response: The stated understanding between the Main Contractor and the Engineer has not been communicated to M/s xxx (Contractor Name). We also again record that there are no differences between the shop drawings and produced pods.
- Comment: Vanity Chamfer edge: As agreed in our workshop meeting held 07 April xxx, it will be rectified/complied as part of the final snags of pods units in 1st floor to set the benchmark of pods quality of final product.
M/s xxx (Contractor Name) response: All the sets were produced with pencil edge 1mm as per the approved drawings. However, following the Engineer’s change instructions as comments on the WIRs to have a washbasin & cistern chamfer edge, we have made the relevant alterations in the pods in levels 1, 2, 3, 19 & 20 so far and changed the edge from pencil to chamfer. We will continue with the same touchup for the edges once level 1 pods are inspected.
- Comment: Vanity timber stains – Noted and the same ASCC will be rectified along with M/s xxx (Contractor Name) snagging team floor wise as per site programme.
M/s xxx (Contractor Name) response: This is not a repair by M/s xxx (Contractor Name). The shelves are free issue items being supplied to M/s xxx (Contractor Name) from the Main Contractor and are being installed as received in the pods.
This comment is not related to M/s xxx (Contractor Name) and to be closed by the Main Contractor.
Please note that no work by any third party is allowed inside the pods without the express supervision of M/s xxx (Contractor Name) to retain the product warranties.
M/s xxx (Contractor Name) has produced the delivered pods in full compliance with the approved design, approved drawings, and approved materials. Moreover, M/s xxx (Contractor Name) has made use of the Free Issue Material which has been supplied by the Main Contractor, the quality and compliance of which is under the Main Contractor’s sole responsibility.
Accordingly M/s xxx (Contractor Name) are under no circumstances responsible for any consequences arising from such quality of materials and we urge you to close out the site observation report and send us the close out document.
Additionally we request you to deliver the remaining tiles and other Free Issue Items to allow us to proceed with the production of the last pods and we insist that your quality engineer must visit our factory and inspect all the pods currently in stock or under production and approve prior delivering to site.
We also remind you that M/s xxx (Contractor Name) is an off-site manufacturer which produces pods in factory, delivers completed units to site, then raises and secures approval for each pod upon delivery of pods to site and prior to installation. While M/s xxx (Contractor Name) will address any snags which are raised at final stage and during handing over in accordance with the terms of our Sub-Contract, we will not accept any rejection at final stage for which initial approval has been received, especially when such rejection relates to tiles, or any other Free Issue Material supplied by the Main Contractor.
This is for your information and records
This is for your information & record.
Yours faithfully,
On behalf of M/s xxx (Contractor Name) LLC
xxx
Projects Manager