Your ref. HC-CM: AL BAR-CL-02 dtd. 09.05.17 and our issue

Your ref. HC-CM: AL BAR-CL-02 dtd. 09.05.17 and our issue

Date: xxx
Ref no:CC/HC/005

To             :M/s xxx Center

Attn         : Mr. xxx

Project     : 2B + G + 14+ Lower Roof Hotels Building on Plot No. 373-1297 at Barsha,  Dubai

Subject     : Your ref. HC-CM: AL BAR-CL-02 dtd. 09.05.17 and our issue

In reply of your communication contains, find our disagreement based on time-lapsed and your denial now with professional agreement/acceptance for your previous agreement/acceptance in your minutes of meeting (attachment mail no.01) and item no. 1, 2 and 3 (mail attachment) and condition fulfilled for item no. 3 in our mail communication on 04.04.17 at 8:48 am (Attachment no. 2)

Kindly note our serious concern and please reply not later than within 24 hours because we have serious impact on the project due to your denial statement/bear the responsibilities for time and cost impact (you raised the issue which was close on ref. 29.03.17 attachment-A, minutes of meeting prepared by Home Centre and our letter ref.  CC/AP/365/17 dtd. 03.04.17 attachment-B)


  1. HHD-S Cavity anchor by M/s HILTI and your claim that recommended by the CHIRAG Contracting

The CC disagree that “we (CHIRAG)” requested the HHD-S.

Yes we did the extra efforts by putting time and cost due to failure from your end to provide suitable fixing accessories and your call for help in to source out, kindly refer….

a. CC/HC/001 dtd. 01.03.17  attachment- C               no compliance

b. CC/HC/002 dtd.13.03.17   attachment-D                      do

c. CC/HC/004 dtd.25.03.17   attachment-E                       do

  • Regarding cost implication issue raised

The Home Centre selected based on technical competency by understanding scope that fit out units will be fixed on gypsum wall surface and your quotation, assumption during the design, the professional must design the connections as per load with technically suitable accessories and it is part of your professional indemnity.

It is a design part no variation considered because there is no instruction for variation/ its approval stage.

  • Your recommendation for fixed plywood back-up
  1. We disagree with your statement because you did not mentioned technical reasons and “caused of the risks” it your hypothetical assumption (not acceptable provide technical and design proof)

Our assumption every component design with the connections by the designer under professional responsibility the load factor, tensile forces and torques etc.

So, follow the concept of the design including the connection details and prove that HHD-S cavity anchor are unsuitable/improper for our gypsum wall correction details.

  •  In your hypothetical statement you are challenging the design and researched of global player the HILTI and Gypsemma, they are professional in their respective field and having professional indemnity insurance and approve by local government.
  • The HHD-S failure will be consider,  if it fail by the tensile force or torsion analyze scenario
  • Kindly prove the failure point (HILTI provided design parameter if have doubts, kindly approach to HILTI)
  • Yes, your concern any defect in the fixing… we do agree the workmanship perfections and the quality assurance for fixing is your concern and it maybe scenario with you because lack of skilled workers.

“Photo attachment mail no. 3”, is self-explanatory and it happened due to workmanship only at sliding door.

So, the defect liability lies within Home Centre jurisdiction for workmanship quality and assurance and it can’t be denied legally as per contract.

  • Your  item no.2, that you will proceed with HILTI  upon cost acceptance

The main contractor working at site and reach up to 5th floor and you came back with the statement after 42 days. In Principal we are not accepting improper fixing screw and no variation, if your recommendation of plywood back up to save your HILTI anchor cost, kindly advice that will pay our rework cost that would be between AED 30,000.00 to 40,000.00 to fulfill your recommendation on 09.05.2017 for the re-work and other claim for the delay.

  • Your item no. 3 and 4,

Kindly submit your variation along with the following document:

Kindly submit your claim with instruction of variation instruction, BOQ for approved and revised along with drawings as per approved and revised with cost analysis.

We will forward your claim to the employer for review, analyzed and approve or rejection.

  • “Your statement all changes and deviation have received has been incorporated but no circumstances be subject to our acceptance in terms”
  • For the cost kindly refer no. 1, 2 and 3 for HILTI/HHD-S we are not accepting your terms as explain in our items no 1, 2 and 3 self- explanatory.
  • WITHIN 2 DAYS because work in progress  and “who will be responsible for all our loses”
  • If you will not resolve this issue technically our claim of delay will be raise along with the cost and time to the employer / Home Centre.


In our communication with ref. CC/HC/004 dtd. 25.03.17 and ref. 29th March 2017 (with your acceptance), issue was closed base on technical ground, discussed; technically and physically check at site before reaching the agreement / argument closed.

  1. We strongly recommend not using of fix unspecified accessories or any item even if there is plywood back up but it will be fixed through gypsum.
  2. You submitted the schedule of work program as per letter ref. CC/GYS/LPO/17-01 dtd.25.02.17 item no. 7 we will forward to the client for their acceptance for completion of your work by May 25th 2018.
  3. Kindly review for the Risk and to own the ownership based on


Thanks and request to acknowledge or be consider the communication clear and understood with reply within requested time (2 days)

For xxx Contracting L.L.C

Project Manager

Leave a Reply

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