Subject: Reply to the Engineer’s letter titled “Follow up from Progress Meeting dated 12 December

2023”

Reference is made to the Engineer’s letter referenced [RED-WSP-LTR-CNT-000132] dated December 12,
2023; the contractor provides hereunder a point-to-point reply to the main points triggered under the
Engineer’s letter as follows:

The Engineer Statement “It was yet again noted that the Revised Baseline / Recovery Schedule is still to
be fully completed and submitted including mitigation of delays. This must be issued by Thursday 14th
December 2023. The Finish date is still to be 1 st September 2024. This does not need to be tied the
strengthening works.”

Contractor Reply: The Contractor has outlined in numerous letters that the Engineer’s request is not in
line with the Contract, which mandates the Contractor to submit the revised Programme only if the
Works suffered delays not listed under Sub-Clause 8.4 of the Contract, while the events which lead to
slippage of the Time for Completion beyond the contractual completion dates are the flawed palace
strengthening Works design Drawings and the Variation instruction concerning the strengthening works
at the palace foundation. Hence, the contractor emphasizes its rejection to submit a revised Programme
not incorporating the excusable delays that led to driving the Time for Completion to be beyond the
contractual completion date, knowing that the longest path in the Project which is attached weekly to
the weekly report reveals that the most critical activities and the driving delays come from the palace as
it is the driving building on the Project, so the Contractor awaits the Engineer’s fair determination of its
entitlement for the extension of Time for Completion

Engineer’s statement “With regards to Progress after 281 days on the Project the overall completion
was to be 57% but has only achieved 41%. This is still 16% behind baseline schedule and requires
improvement.
Although Construction is progressing generally as planned the Engineering and Procurement is still
very late and not showing any improvement. Engineering is detailed as 21% in delay; Procurement is
54% behind. Engineering was supposed to be complete by 12 December 2023.
Procurement of long lead MEP items (16 weeks plus) is still not being actioned. Overall procurement
was to be in excess of 90% this is now more than 50% behind schedule. There was some progress in the
last week but not enough.”

Contractor Reply:

The contractor hereby wants to clarify the following:

 A. Construction delays: The Contractor has clarified at the previous progress meeting dated
December 12, 2023, that the construction status shows that the contractor is ahead in
construction works as overall progress if the Works at the main palace were excluded as
shown in the figure below.

B. Engineering Works: as mentioned above the Contractor is ahead in construction progress;

thus, the delay in the engineering works doesn’t impact the progress of Works on Site.

C. Procurement Works: the contractor already submitted new dates to mitigate the delays in
procurement and emphasized its intention to mitigate these delays by shortening the
shipment and delivery duration for all long lead items that were delayed behind the
Programme.

Finally, the Contractor would like to reiterate that the dominant cause of the slippage of the Time for
Completion beyond the contractual dates is the flawed design Drawings of the strengthening Works of
the palace and the Variation instructed to design, supply, and install strengthening works at the palace
foundation, which were deprived the Contractor from executing the Works as intended.