Date: 1.Apr.

2020

Ref.: ATCCO-AV-CA-2020-293

To Messer’s: Consolidated Consultants Group

Attention: Eng. Isam Hamdan – Project Manager / Contract Administrator

Project: Abdali Views Project, Plots 7A1- a & 7A1-b, Abdali Project District, Amman

Subject: Additional Works Garbage Chute – Engineer’s Letter ref.

CA/ATCC0/2675/CA278/2020

Dear Sir,
Reference is made to your letter ref. CA/ATCC0/2675/CA278/2020 dated 11-Mar-2020 pertaining to
the above subject, we reaffirm our understanding which is completely consistent with the related
contractual provisions and documents as follows:

1- The Contractor fully complied with the related part of the Specifications (149100 section 1.05 C)
in the Contractor’s technical submittal submitted earlier, this part of the Specifications clearly
indicates to provide detailed layout of chute and components, indicating interface with structure,
enclosing walls, and utilities including pipe sizes and locations which already considered in our
technical submittal. The Engineer’s approval is mandatory required in order to proceed further.

2- The Contractor will fully comply with the related part of the Specifications (149100 section 3.01
B) during the installation phase, this part of the Specifications is obviously related to the
execution and interface with other work by coordinating sprinkler and spray cleaning devices with
size, location and installation of services utilities.

3- The designer confirmed that such provisions were not provided or considered at the networks
neither on the riser diagram of firefighting and water supply nor in the plans due to the variances
between different manufacturers. Thus, it is NOT the Contractor’s responsibility to make such
provisions for these services for one of the listed manufactures mentioned in the Contract
documents. Moreover, we would like to remind all parties that this subject is not part of the
Contractor Design.

4- The provided services reflected in the submitted shop drawings were considered as a design issue
that provided to suit the manufacturer requirement not to exceed the pressure head more than
10 bar at all sprinklers that provided and due to the height of the building the firefighting networks
were divided for a 2 sources to insure providing such required pressure with related pressure
reducing valves and tamper valves from the main raiser. This design issue was already was
discussed jointly with the designer.
5- CDD’s approval by Contractor will be obtained at late stage which can’t be postponed until that
time. Therefore and in order to avoid any further delay, the designer who should considered such
provisions in the design stage and get the approval accordingly to proceed further.

6- It is our firm view that the AOR always attempts to misinterprets the related Specifications in
order to consider such services as part of Contractor’s scope of work which is totally un-
contractual and causing a severe delay in the progress of the related Works. We hereby officially
re-confirm that it is the Designer’s fault and the Contractor rejects the poor and baseless excuse
mentioned in your aforementioned that such provisions were not provided as a special system
requirements varies from one manufacturer to another due to facts that such variances in respect
of location, sizes and capacities only..

Accordingly and based on all the related Contract documents listed in all our related
correspondences, the Engineer’s instruction which has been requested by the Contractor numerously
is still mandatory required in order to be able to carry out such additional works resulting from the
AOR’s responses and comments noting that all the related works are disrupted due to reasons totally
not attributable to the Contractor.

We reserve all our contractual rights regarding this matter.

For your kind consideration, urgent action and project records.

Best Regards.
Eng. Jamal Qarain
Project Manager