My comments are given in red below.

Regards,

Prof. Sam.
Prof. Indrawansa Samaratunga PhD, DSc
FRICS, FAIQS, FIQSSL, FCIArb, FCIOB, FCMI, FASI, FBEng
Chartered Quantity Surveyor and Registered Arbitrator / Expert
Australian Inst.of Qty.Surveyors-Middle East Representative
PO Box 23461, Dubai, UAE. T +971504588949 F +97143378668

-----Original Message-----
From: Nicolas Mendoza Manalo [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2008 10:44 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Question

Dear Dr. Sam,

I have a confusion regarding this ''materials on

site''..my question is;

The client is granted us to pay all materials on site and they agreed to
incorporate it in Interim Payment Certificate but they said they would
deduct it in pro-rata basis whenever we are submitting application for
Interim payment certificate eventhough that the materials are not yet
completely installed...is this a right practice? Or should I tell to
them to deduct the full amount of materials on site paid for us once the
materials are completely installed. Please clarify.

If you get paid for all the materials brought on site through one
payment certificate, then any portion thereof that would still remain on
site (not installed) should appear as material on site, in the
subsequent (cumulative) payment certificates as well.

Regards,

Prof. Sam.
Prof. Indrawansa Samaratunga PhD, DSc
FRICS, FAIQS, FIQSSL, FCIArb, FCIOB, FCMI, FASI, FBEng
Chartered Quantity Surveyor and Registered Arbitrator / Expert
Australian Inst.of Qty.Surveyors-Middle East Representative
PO Box 23461, Dubai, UAE. T +971504588949 F +97143378668

Thanks and Regards,

-Student
Batch June 2008

-----Original Message-----
From: Ian Milford [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, September 25, 2008 4:50 PM
To: Prof. Sam
Subject: Querie on EOT - Al-Tayer Stocks
Hi Dr Sam.

I hope you are well.

I have a very quick question relating to an EOT claim which we have submitted.

We have submitted a claim on the 7th July 2008 for delays we have experienced on a particular
project. The Engineer has failed to respond within 42 days as noted within the contract.

How do we proceed with the claim? Do we consider it to be deemed accepted?

If you are quite confident about your entitlement to EOT and also about the accuracy of your
delay impact analysis, then a revised programme showing the revised date of completion could
be sent to the Engineer stating that you are proceeding according to that, as there was no
response within the period required by the contract.

How should we respond should we receive a response after the 42 days?

Since you have your entitlement to EOT and the number of days are correct, it is unlikely that a
professional Engineer would determine anything to the contrary. If he does, then it would amount
to a dispute which would eventually be resolved in your favour through the specified dispute
resolution process.

Regards,

Prof. Sam.
Prof. Indrawansa Samaratunga PhD, DSc
FRICS, FAIQS, FIQSSL, FCIArb, FCIOB, FCMI, FASI, FBEng
Chartered Quantity Surveyor and Registered Arbitrator / Expert
Australian Inst.of Qty.Surveyors-Middle East Representative
PO Box 23461, Dubai, UAE. T +971504588949 F +97143378668

Many thanks

Ian

Kind Regards

Ian Milford
Project Manager

----- Original Message -----

From: Conservado Vic
To: [email protected]
Date: Sat, 13 Sep 2008 22:40:43 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re:

Dear Dr. Sam,

 
I would like to ask your opinion. In re-mesuring the reinforcement which unit weight of steel will
be used.
 
      1. Unit weight based on manufacturers (random) test certificate. No.
      2. Unit weight based on standard of CESMM3 - G5 - M7 and Specs. BS4449 Yes.
If however, the Contractor was notified that the test certificates show weights below the
acceptable tolerance but would still be accepted subject to a saving, then item 1 above should be
used for the calculation.

Regards,

Prof. Sam.
Prof. Indrawansa Samaratunga PhD, DSc
FRICS, FAIQS, FIQSSL, FCIArb, FCIOB, FCMI, FASI, FBEng
Chartered Quantity Surveyor and Registered Arbitrator / Expert
Australian Inst.of Qty.Surveyors-Middle East Representative
PO Box 23461, Dubai, UAE. T +971504588949 F +97143378668
 
Kind regards,
 
Vic

-----Original Message-----
From: ANANDA WEERAKOON [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2008 12:55 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: A Big Thank You + Q&A

Dear Sir,
 
 Please help me to solve this problem.  
 
Provisional sum included in the Contract is also part of the scope of works to the Main
contractor (obligations and responsibilities) is it correct? Yes. If provisional sum
allocated in the Contract but none of them was carried out and was deleted by Engineer
(the reason was not to awarded any contractor directly) can the Engineer deduct
Contractor,s prelims (any portion) as a variation ? . No. Any Preliminaries (which are not
“Specified Requirements”) are at Contractor’s risk, and the Contractor has already
considered that the PS work may or may not be executed. If any provisional sum is
awarded to the Main Contractor via instruction issued by Engineer (BOQ rate is
applicable) can the Contractor claim additional prelims? No. If however, the work that
was either defined or that could be inferred from the originally available information is
increased significantly through the instruction issued to expend the PS, then to the extent
that the Contractor can prove that the risks he priced in the Preliminaries are affected by
such increase, he can claim an additional payment. (This may seem to be unfair to the
Employer because the converse would not be applicable, but that is due to the
Employer’s own making. If items are provided next to a PS item for the tenderers to
price all costs related thereto, such as attendance, special attendance, builder’s work,
mark-ups etc. without leaving any room whatsoever for the Contractor to resort to pricing
them in the Preliminaries, and if the Consultant/Employer analyze the tenders properly
and ensure such items are properly priced and no components thereof are distributed over
the Preliminaries prior to an award, then the Contractor would not have any claim
regarding additional Preliminaries.)
Regards,

Prof. Sam.
Prof. Indrawansa Samaratunga PhD, DSc
FRICS, FAIQS, FIQSSL, FCIArb, FCIOB, FCMI, FASI, FBEng
Chartered Quantity Surveyor and Registered Arbitrator / Expert
Australian Inst.of Qty.Surveyors-Middle East Representative
PO Box 23461, Dubai, UAE. T +971504588949 F +97143378668

  

- ----- Original Message -----

From: abdul azeez isma lebbe
To: Prof Sam <[email protected]>
Date: Sun, 07 Sep 2008 09:47:47 +0400
Subject: Q & A
Dear Prof.
I am very much thank full to you for your invaluable services.
if you could please clarify this matter, would be very help ful
 
There is a project has been completed by the Contractor and TOC and Defects Liablity Certificate also
issued. But Now it was found that there is a pipe work to be done by the contractor for the use of Etisalat,
where the works had been included in the Contractors Scope of Works ( included in the BOQ).
While executing the works it has been verbaly agreed by the Engineer and Employer that the particular
works to be taken care of by Employer. On the ocassion of issuing DL certificate, the particular works is not
been listed in snag list by the Engineer. At present the particular pipe is to be completed to enable Etisalat to
do the works.
 
Do the Contractor Liable to complete the works, which was included in the Scope after issue of DL
Certificate?

Do the contractor is under his obligation to the contract.

The verbal instruction to omit the work for execution by the Employer is a variation. (The Contractor should
have confirmed it in writing at that time in order to avoid complications such as this.) Even otherwise, the
Engineer still has a responsibility to confirm his verbal instruction in writing.

There is no obligation to do this work now, after the issue of DLC.

Regards,

Prof. Sam.
Prof. Indrawansa Samaratunga PhD, DSc
FRICS, FAIQS, FIQSSL, FCIArb, FCIOB, FCMI, FASI, FBEng
Chartered Quantity Surveyor and Registered Arbitrator / Expert
Australian Inst.of Qty.Surveyors-Middle East Representative
PO Box 23461, Dubai, UAE. T +971504588949 F +97143378668
 
Please Verify.
 
Thank you very much.
 
Abdul Azeez.

---- Original Message -----

From: Ram Prasad
To: [email protected]
Date: Sun, 07 Sep 2008 08:06:17 +0400
Subject: Re: Away from Dubai
Dear Sir,
 
Thank you very much for your kind information. I am a student of your July 2008
class. I am having a following doubt. Please clarify. Kindly consider the following
situation;
 
A contractor has supplied plant & machinery to execute lump sum contract. At the
time of receipt no body observed damage to a part of machinery(Including
engineer's rep at site) & contractor has been paid against his CIF invoice.
 
But at the time of erection in presence of manufacturer supervisor it has been
observed the machinery has to be sent back to factory to repair. My question is now
whether engineer is eligible to deduct the amount equivalent of CIF value of the
machinery in contractor's present running account bill (Progress payment) Yes.

Had the damage been detected earlier, no payment would have been certified.
Failure by the Engineer to detect the damage does not absolve the Contractor of his
obligation. The Engineer has authority to correct any previous payment certificate,
vide any subsequent payment certificate.

Regards,

Prof. Sam.
Prof. Indrawansa Samaratunga PhD, DSc
FRICS, FAIQS, FIQSSL, FCIArb, FCIOB, FCMI, FASI, FBEng
Chartered Quantity Surveyor and Registered Arbitrator / Expert
Australian Inst.of Qty.Surveyors-Middle East Representative
PO Box 23461, Dubai, UAE. T +971504588949 F +97143378668
 
Thanks & Regards
Rama Prasad.S
Project Manager
ETA - Power Projects Division

-----Original Message-----
From: Munyori, James [mailto:[email protected]]
Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2008 1:31 PM
To: [email protected]
Subject: RE: A Big Thank You + Q&A

Thank you Sir,

 
I will always value that course and the immense insight/confidence it has given me with
regard to contractual matters. It has organized my hitherto extensive but nevertheless
disjointed experience in contract matters. Also special thanks for your willingness to
freely share your knowledge with all who seek your assistance. (July 2008 Alumini,
Sound Contract Adminstration). Many Thanks.
 
 
 
James Munyori, PMP
Site Manager (Infrastructure)
Faithful+Gould