1、DIAR DUSHANBE PROJECT PHASE 1Ref No: SHY/DDP/PE1/12/134 Date: 17th November, 2012To: Mr. Sadettin Otluoglu Resident EngineerDAR Muhendislik Musavirlik A.S.AINI Street 24a “Markazai Tijori” CJSC “S.A.S”, 3rd FloorDushanbe, Tajikistan 734012Tel: +992(44)601 92 88RE: Contract ID: 55002348 Construction
2、of Diar Dushanbe Project - Phase1Subject: Commencement Date to be amended Our Ref.: SHY/DDP/PE1/12/113 dated on 5th October 2012Your Ref.: QDDP-IMS-SNH-121112-858 dated on 12th Nov. 2012 _Dear Sir,Your comments against the subject have been duly noted and we reply you following your numbering.1. Suc
3、h “late becoming aware” of the circumstances shall not deprive our opportunity to articulate our entitlements under the Contract. 2. The enclosed chart is fairly self-explanatory of the Case. 3. We never alleged that the Employer has to give consent to the Commencement upon the submission of insuran
4、ce. Under this typical case, the Site has been consequentially withheld due to the non-finalization of the PS rather of the insurance. Meanwhile, we kindly draw your attention to the Appendix to Tender, wherein the deadline of submission of Insurance has been clearly specified upon the Commencement
5、Date. 4. The reason why the Arab Bank rejected to issue the PS for the Project is mainly due to the high risks which might be potentially arisen from the Country where the Work is to be executed. The statement in Email you attached “the worst thing is that our Bank stressed much the country risk of
6、this Projects location” bears the fruit. 5. Nobody would deny the inherent interlinking between the laws of PS to be governed and the risks of the Country. Hence, our statement in our Ref.: 113 “such problem/blame should not be solely apportioned to the Contractor” shall remain unchanged. 6. Definit
7、ely, our fair interpretation of cause related to the excusable delay Event should not be construed as the violation of the Harmony & Business Ethics Requirements.7. We sincerely request you to reevaluate the Case and your fair determination as per Sub-Clause 3.5 is expecting as follows:1) Amendment
8、of the NTP or,2) The equivalent period (15/8 201220/9 2012) to be granted as per Sub-Clause 8.4 of GCC.3) No extra cost to be claimed by the Contractor as his good gesture, if any alternative of determinations as mentioned 1) & 2) was given from your end. Hopefully, the issues shall be finalized soon among the Stakeholders. Yours faithfully,Project Manager of * Corporation LimitedEnclosure: the chart devised for interpretation of the EventCC: Mr. Rakesh Pant, QD Project ManagerMr. Ahmet Ziya Akyil, IMS Project Manager
