To: MRPS JV No.

of Page: 4
FF27, 1st Floor, Main Bolevard Gulberg Date: March 25, 2024
III
Lahore, Pakistan 54600 Ref: P5-MRPS-L-0721
Tel: 0092 42 3575 1358/1359 Pls Contact: Mr. Yu Lin
Fax No.: Email: [email protected]
Subject Mangla Refurbishment Project, Package V, Balance of Plant
: Mechanical Works GMHD-05

Reply for the Engineer's Determination of Extension of Time

Claim

1. Contractor’s letter with P5-MRPS-L-0698 dated 2024-02-21

Ref:
2. Engineer’s letter with MRPS-P5-0670 dated 2024-02-01
3. Contractor’s letter with P5-MRPS-L-0685 dated 2024-1-31
4. Engineer’s letter with MRPS-P5-0657 dated 2024-01-17
5. Contractor’s letter with P5-MRPS-L-0637 dated 2023-10-31
6. Engineer’s letter with MRPS-P5-0581 dated 2023-10-05
7. Contractor’s letter with P5-MRPS-L-0615 dated 2023-08-07
8. Engineer’s letter with MRPS-P5-0553 dated 2023-08-07
9. Contractor’s letter with P5-MRPS-L-0597 dated 2023-07-27
10.Engineer’s letter with MRPS-P5-0535 dated 2023-06-09
11.Contractor’s letter with P5-MRPS-L-0477 dated 2022-10-25

Dear Mr. Gabriel Llort,

The Engineer’s comments in letter [4] for our observations for the EOT in [5] has
been well reviewed and the Contractor prepared the comprehensive reply as below
for your confirmation and re-valuation of our EOT for Unit 5&6.

Ii Contractor’s Observation: “the Engineer has not used the approved baseline
schedule to work out the EOT which is a fundamental
tool to determine the delay time in any EOT case “and
“the approved Baseline Project Time Schedule, which
also became part of the Contract, is the most
appropriate schedule for the analysis and evaluation
 of the EOT.”

Engineer’s Reply: “The Contractor’s assertion to use the Work Schedule

attached to the Contract Documents which is based
on a commencement date of 03 June 2019 is not
acceptable. The project commenced date is 13
December 2019. Therefore, the time of 1095 days for
completion of works started on 13 December 2019.
Any delay, attributable to the Employer or Contractor
is only considered after the project commencement
date.

It is noted that the Engineer adopted the Baseline

Schedule (Version - 5) submitted on 13 February
2020 based on the actual commencement date of 13
December 2019.”

Contractor’s Reply: The Contractor agreed with the engineer’s comment

to use the Project Schedule (Version - 5) as the
Baseline Schedule, attached (Annex-1) is the Baseline
Schedule for your reference.

Reference Document Annex-1 ZOEC-DC001_E Project Time Schedule

Iii Contractor’s Observation: “if the Engineer is not fully convinced with the
consequential delay time of 268 days, the Contractor
may further explicate/demonstrate the claimed time
of 268 days.”

Engineer’s Reply: “The Engineer’s determination is based on the

Contractor’s substantiation submitted in support of
their claim. The Contractor should have provided
further supporting documents/substantiation
enabling the Engineer to review and determination.”

The Contractor shall submit additional documentary

evidence for review and determination of the
Engineer, to demonstrate the impact of delays on the
critical path of works schedule in Primavera.”
Contractor’s Reply: Please kindly check our clarifications and documents
for each event below.

4.1 EVENT #1: SPREAD OF COVID-19 IN CHINA and 4.2 EVENT #2: SPREAD OF
COVID-19 IN PAKISTAN

Engineer’s reply The Engineer analyzed the Contractor’s claim in view

the notice served by the Contractor. However, the
contractor’s claim is generic with a reference to a
specific activity being impacted by COVID-19. It is
noted that the Contractor has claimed delay in various
activities on individual basis. Hence, the Engineer
could not find any evidence with respect to any activity
being impacted by COVID-19 and could not
determine/allowed extension of time.

Contractor’s Reply for Event As clarified in our previous letters, this is a generic
#1&#2: description of the Covid-19 project in Pakistan and
China, where the actual impacts lasted for almost 2
years (over 700 days), and some impacts still exist
even today. At the time when Covid-19 is spread, if we
strictly followed the related SOP, it was not possible
for us to conduct any site works. As we expressed
previously, we did the best to start site works slowly at
the condition that the work efficiency is quite low.

In our application of EOT, we only listed typical events

which could clearly express the impact to our progress
of works.

4.1.2 (C) EVENT #1: COVID-19; EVENT #1.2: DESIGN DELAY DUE TO COVID-19

Engineer’s Reply: “It is recognized that the Contractor took effective

measures and made great endeavor to perform his
obligations, including working from home, overtime
work, etc., in compliance with the provisions of Sub-
Clause 44.4 of GCC/PCC and recovered the time loss
due to COVID-19. Consequently, the impact on design
occurred in the beginning of COVID-19 was recovered
 till March 2020, implicating that there was no impact
on the overall completion period of the Contract.
However, the Contractor may provide detailed
substantiation on account of delay in designing
Expansion Joint for our review and evaluation. Hence,
no extension of time can be allowed.”

Contractor’s Reply: As we explained in previous letters, in Marh 2020,

the Contractor head-office had been allowed to
return to work but most of the manufacturers were
not able to start their work. Hence, to intimate the
impact to our design work, in the weekly report No.
ZOEC-DC-012, we listed part of the manufacturers
which could not start design work before 2020-03-22
and conditionally return to work afterward.

At that time, many of the manufacturers could

not start the design or manufacturing work until
2020-05-06 (including the expansion joint
manufacturer, insulation materials manufacturer,
pipe supports manufacturer and flange/piping
manufacturers etc.,) and did not inform us the
return-to-work date. Please refer to attached further
supporting document from the expansion joint
manufacturers, the design work actually started on
2020-05-08.
1. ZOEC-DC-012 2020-05-06 Weekly Report
Reference Document
2. Manufacturer's letter dated 2020.1.15
3. Manufacturer's letter dated 2020.2.20
4. Manufacturer's letter dated 2020.3.28
5. Manufacturer's letter dated 2020.5.8

EVENT #1: COVID-19; EVENT #1.3: Manufacturer’s Delay due to COVID-19

Engineer’s Reply: “Status on the manufacturing delays is hereunder.

 Delay in manufacturing of Water Filters/Strainers by M/s
Huarui.

The Engineer determined 31 days EoT against the

delay in manufacturing Water Filters/Strainers and the
Contractor expressed agreement to it.
 Delay in manufacturing of Valves by M/s JC Valves

The Engineer determined 53 days EoT against the

delay in manufacturing valves and the Contractor is
asking for 54 days. By calculations i.e., from 26 May
2020 to 18 July 2020 the duration is 54 days. Agreed.
 Delay in manufacturing of Pressure Reducing Valves by
M/s Shanghai Outelai Valve Machinery Co., Ltd The
Engineer determined 82 days (26 May 2020 to 15 August
2020) against the delay in manufacturing Pressure
Reducing Valves and the Contractor is asking for 97 days
from 26 May 2020 to 30 August 2020. The manufacturer, in
their last leter stated that “Our company was allowed to
resumed production from 2020-06- 01, and the assembly
work at part of the production line has been started. We
hereby inform you, the pressure reducing valves and
pressure relief valves you purchased are scheduled to be
ready for FAT on 2020-08-15. According to the latest
inspection station arrangement, the FAT could be witnessed
on the date 2020-08-30.” It says the Pressure reducing and
pressure relief valves will be ready for FAT on 15 August
2020 means the work will be completed till 14 August 2020,
however; it is iterated that the FAT can be witnessed on 30
August 2020. In view of the completion date of
manufacturing as per manufacturer’s statement, the
extension of time of 82 days determined by the Engineer is
correct.
 Delay in manufacturing of Stainless-Steel Pipes by M/s
Tiangang

The Engineer determined 53 days EoT against the

delay in manufacturing of Stainless-Steel pipes and
the Contractor agreed to it.
 Delay in manufacturing of Check Valves and Gate
Valves by M/s Ningjin APC

The Engineer determined 178 days EoT against the

delay in manufacturing of Check Valves and Gate
Vales and the Contractor agreed to it.
 Delay in manufacturing of Butterfly and Deluge Valves
 by M/s Weflo

The Engineer determined 189 days EoT against the

delay in manufacturing of Buterfly and Deluge Valves
and the Contractor agreed to it.”

Contractor’s Reply: The Contractor agrees with the Engineer's calculations

of the delayed event times as described above,
however the actual manufacturing delays were from
5/26/2020~11/30/2020, totally 189 days according to
the above calculation.

Event #1.4: Site Works Delay due to Covid-19

a. Event 1.4.1 Start Delay

Engineer’s Reply: “The Engineer determined 14 days of EoT on

account of difficulties faced by the Contractor in
starting the works on Pressurized Water, Drainage
and Dewatering and Compressed Air Systems. The
Engineer evaluated the delay time from the
scheduled start date till actual start dates on all the
three systems. The Contractor could not provide any
substantiation in favour of their claim. The Engineer
determined an extension of time of 14 days i.e., 27
May 2020 to 09 June 2020 (without compensation)
is correct.

Contractor’s Reply: The Contractor has shown clarification and

supporting documents for the start delay in
Letter P5-MRPS-L-0637, and Engineer did not
share any comments/rejection on the supporting
documents.

As clarified previously, since the Units 5-6 are

the first two units for refurbishment, it is easy to
understand and known to all that no
refurbishment work could be started without
manpower and tools/equipment as well as
accommodations and transportation vehicles,
and even the work is started, the working
efficiency will surely be impacted with limited
manpower and limited available/suitable
tools/equipment.

To comply with schedule requirements of start

dismantling on May 27,2020, as per the
mobilization requirement from Engineer on the
Kick-off Meeting in January 2020, the Contractor
immediately organized the first batch of Staff to
Pakistan on 28-02-2020 for mobilization and
physically mobilized to Mangla Site on 14-03-
2020 after the required quarantine in Islamabad.

However, due to the impact of widely spread of

Covid-19 in different regions of Pakistan from
March, 2020 (please refer to the previously
provided lockdown notices), the contractor could
not fully mobilized of the manpower and
tools/equipment. On May, 26, 2020, after
discussion with site Engineers, the Contractor
noticed and decided to start the dismantling
work of the U5-6 pressured water system from
around June 8th, 2020 and got the PTW with the
Assistance of Engineer and start work on June
10, 2020, which can be understood from the
Email sent to Engineer on May 26, 2020. It can
also be reflected in Engineer’s Notice in Letter
MRPS-P5-0035 dated April 6, 2020, which is
written “it is noticed that working conditions and
gathering of labours at site is unacceptable in a
current situation and violating law under Section
144 of “the Codeof Criminal Procedure 1898.”
As you may know that there has been increase
in the number of pandemic Corona Virus Cases
in the AJK as well as in Pakistan which may
have devastating effects on human lives.”

In addition, from the weekly report ZOEC-DC-

012 dated May 6, 2020 and Contractor’s Letter
P5-MRPS-S-0015 and email dated May 19,
2020, it is clear that the camp construction work
was suspended from March, 26 till May 28,
preventing the mobilization of manpowers. It is
 clear and known to all that the Contractor is not
fully adequate to start dismantling even on June
10, 2020, however, after communication with
Engineer and Employer, the Contractor takes
the high risk of Covid-19 infection to start the
work with limited manpowers and tools and not
well equipped accommodation as well as none
transportation vehicles.

In view of above clarification and attached

supporting documents, the Contractor is entitled
for the extension of time for Event 1.4.1
1. Kick-off Meeting MOM-2020.1.12
Reference Document
2. Mangla P5-Mobilization & COVID-19
Prevention Procedure-2020.2.27
3. Mangla P5-Entry permission for Mobilization
Team-2020.03.14
4. Weekly Report-2020.5.6
5. Email to Engineer Regarding Starting
Dismantling work of Unit 5-6-2020.5.26
6. Safety Working Conditions at Project Site-
2020.4.6
7. Request for facilitation in entry of ZOEC
employees to AJK area-2020.5.19
8. Request email for facilitation in entry of
ZOEC employees to AJK area-2020.5.19

b. Event 1.4.2 Dismantling Delay

Engineer’s Reply: “The Contractor’s claim is on account of delays due

to COVID-19. However, the Contractor has mixed up
the impact of COVID-19 with the dismantling of Fire
Protection System, part of pressurized water system
not allowed by O&M. The same could not be notified
by the Contractor under sub-clause 26.1 of GCC.
Further, the available record (Contractor’s and
Engineer’s Daily Reports) reflects that the Contractor
continued with works for pre-fabrication, installation
of pipes for pressurized water system indicating that
non-dismantling of fire protection pipes could not
impact the Contractor’s progress.
 Hence, the 69 days (from 27 June 2020 to 03
September 2020) of EoT determined by the
Engineer due to reduced pace of progress on
account of COVID-19 is correct.”

Contractor’s Reply: The Contractor agrees that from 2020.6.27 to

2020.9.3 the event was affected by the Covid-19 for
a total of 69 days, but from 2020.9.4 to 2021.1.4 (the
actual start time), mainly for the Owner's and the
other Contractor's reasons, the Contractor has
clarified it as a separate event#11 and provided
evidence of it.

C. Event 1.4.3 Erection Delay 01

Engineer’s Reply: “The Contractor could not provide any concrete

evidence in support of their claim. Hence, the
Engineer’s previous evaluation stands.”

Contractor’s Reply With trailing to the Contractor’s clarification in

Letter P5-MRPS-L-0637, the Contractor further
collected and translated the corresponding
supporting documents from the Civil Aviation
Administration of China and also add the
documents shared by the Engineer.
Additionally, from the presentations for the Project
Progress Meetings dated October 3, 2020 and
December 16, 2020, it is clearly notified by the
Contractor that Non-flight to Few Flight between
Pakistan and China, difficulties in dispatching
engineers (Page 12) and Site installation work is
impactd. And ZOEC is arranging other engineers
for site. Will need Employer’s support on
Engineer’s NOC Application and renew (Docs are
submitted.) (Page 14).
Furthermore, as shown in the application for Entry
permission of our Engineer Mr. Liukejun on July
31, 2021, our pipe Engineer Mr. Liu Kejun arrived
at Mangla Site on August 3, 2021 due to flight
shortage incurred by the covid-19.
 In View of previous and above clarifications, it is
definitely that the erection work is delayed due to
impact from the Covid-19, and the Contractor is
entitled for the claimed time. It is to be emphasize
that the actual impact of Covid-19 is much longer
than the claimed days.

Reference Documents 1. 2020-03-21 Notification from the Ministry of

Foreign Affairs and Civil Aviation Authority Pakistan

2. Translation 2020-03-26 Notice on Continuing to

Reduce International Passenger Flights during the
Epidemic Prevention and Control Period

3. Translation 2020-06-04 Notice of the Civil Aviation

Administration of China on Adjusting International
Passenger Flights

4. Translation 2021-04-28 Notice of the Civil Aviation

Administration of China

5. Project Progress Meeting-2020.10.03

6. Project Progress Meeting-P5-2020.12.16

7. Entry Permission for Mr. Liu Kejun-2021.7.31

2020-03-26 关于疫情防控期间继续调减国际客运航班
量的通知

2020-06-04 民航局关于调整国际客运航班的通知

2021-04-28 民航局关于国际定期客运航班熔断措施调
整试行的通知

d. Event 1.4.4 Erection Delay 02

Engineer’s Reply: “The Contractor could not provide any concrete

evidence in support of their claim. Hence, the
Engineer’s previous evaluation stands.”

Contractor’s Reply With trailing to the Contractor’s clarification in Letter

P5-MRPS-L-0637, the Contractor further collected the
notification email on August 16& 20, 2021 from the
Engineer regarding suspension of Package 6+8 due
to covid cases in Mangla Site and the notice letter
 P6+8-MRPS-L-0597 of Package 6+8 to Engineer and
required the Contractor to take precautions and strictly
followed the SOPs measurements. The Contractor
responded and notified that the contractor might have
to slow down the work progress for the coming couple
of weeks.

Additionally, as clarified and known to all at site,

around Eid of Kurban Bayram 2021, the Delta Strains
of Covid-19 gradually to spread in Mangla Site, so our
site team has taken more strict Measures to control
and prevent the infection from July till September,
2021, which can be certified by our site Tool-box talk
conducted by HSE Engieer (DC-S01-TT-076---081).

As repeatedly clarified, the Covid-19 continues to exit

during the whole process of refurbishment of Unit5-6,
the Contractor has made great endeavors to reduce
the impact of Covid-19. However, the work efficiency
and work time is definitely reduced, and erection work
is definitely impacted and delayed. The Contractor
only requested form one month extension from Aug. 1,
2021 to Aug. 31, 2021, during which period the Covid-
19 spreads in Mangla Site. Actually, it is much longer
spread than 30 days.

In View of previous and above clarifications, it is

definitely that the erection work is delayed due to
impact from the Covid-19, and the Contractor is
entitled for the claimed time.
1. Project Site Epidemic Notification from Engineer
Reference Documents
and Package 6+8-2021.8.16
2. Notification from Engineer-2021.8.20
3. Notification from P6+8 for suspension-2021.8.20
4. Reply to Project Site Epidemic Notification-
2021.8.20
5. DC-S01-TT-076-Toolbox Talk-2021.7.12
6. DC-S01-TT-077-Toolbox Talk-2021.8.2
7. DC-S01-TT-078-Toolbox Talk-2021.8.9
 8. DC-S01-TT-079-Toolbox Talk-2021.8.16
9. DC-S01-TT-080-Toolbox Talk-2021.8.23
10. DC-S01-TT-081-Toolbox Talk-2021.8.30

Event #2: Shipment Delay

Engineer’s Reply: Regarding the Contractor’s position on the Baseline

Schedule, please refer to our clarification at Sr. # ii.

As explained in our determination that the Contractor

spoke of non-availability suitable Vessels in China
and Pakistan without referring to COVID-19.
Practically, the Contractor based their claim on the
time taken by a Shipment from the country of origin
till delivery at Site. The delay in arriving of shipments
at site may be due to delayed provisions EIF/FI &
Income Tax Exemption Certificate or delay by the
Contractor in filing GD and clearance/transportation
of equipment from the port. In case of Employer’s
delayed provisions, the Contractor was required to
have notified the same specifically under sub-clause
26.1 of GCC. The Contractor's Notice of Force
Majeure cannot be considered applicable for all the
delaying events. Further, timely arrangement of
vessels falls within the responsibilities of Contractor.

Contractor’s Reply: It is agreed that there shall be many reasons for the
over-time in delivery. As the Contractor’s scope is to
arrange the vessel from Shanghai seaport to Karachi
seaport, we have collected the detailed shipment
situation (please refer to the evidence document in
event 2). The customs clearance is in Employer’s
scope and we have no idea about the reason of the
delay in customs works. As the customs agency,
CRRK shall provide the explanation. The Contractor
shall be entitled to apply claim for the delay of the
shipment.
1. Detail Situation for Shipment
Reference Documents
2. Shipment Arrival P5-S003
3. Shipment Arrival P5-S005
4. P5-MRPS-L-0222 2021-04-07 Tax Exemption
Certificate P5-S006 & P5-S010
 5. Shipment Arrival P5-S009
6. P5-MRPS-L-0217 2021-03-25 Custom Clearance
for Shipment P5-S011 P5-S012 P5-S013
7. Demand No. MRP-16
8.Request for the clarification of the customs
clearance delays-2024.3.22

Event #3: PW/MT Drawings delay due to Transformer Size Drawing

Engineer’s Reply: The Contractor accepted that they could not

serve notice under sub-clause 26.1 of GCC,
however, they referred to the letters P5-MRPS-
L-0046, P5-MRPS-L-0078 and P5-MRPS-L-
0104, on the delay sharing of drawings and
believed the same to have served the purpose
of Notice. From the review of the above letters it
is confirmed that the Contractor never hinted to
claim extension of time on account of any delay
in the provision of drawings.

Further, the Contractor could neither provide

justification/substantiation in favor of their claim
nor could demonstrates the impact of the delay
on the critical path of the Work Schedule,
hence; the Engineer’s previous determination
stands

Contractor’s Reply: In the Project Programme, not all the items are listed.
At the kick-off meeting, we have requested the
document and information from the Engineer and
reminded for many times, which shall be deemed as
Contractor’s hint to the programme (no reply
received).

The firefighting system is the important part in PW

system and part of the whole PW system. This is
clearly the critical path of the work schedule.

Reference Documents N/A

Event #4: 11kV to 400V Power Connection for Camp

Engineer’s Reply: The Contractor’s intention to claim extension of

 time on account of any event needs specific
‘Notice’ under sub- clause 26.1 of GGC. The
Contractor’s assertion that during the on-site
meetings as well as in the supporting
documents (no specific reference) the issue was
highlighted but the same cannot be considered
such discussions as the Contractor’s Notice.

The Contractor officially notified that the

dismantling works was started on 10 June 2020
and an extension of time has been allowed on
account of delayed start (from the Scheduled
start to the actual start dates) under item (b) of
Event # 1.4.

The Engineer’s previous determinations stands.

Contractor’s Reply: As clarified in Contractor’s Letter P5-MRPS-L-0637,

the Contractor applied the power supply connection
on December 20, 2019 ( Letter P5-IESCO-S-001)
with Employer’s Recommendation Letter on January
2, 2020 (Letter PD/MRP/2019/Package-V/30-32),
due to the slow progress of IESCO, the Contractor
notified and requested the Engineer for Assistance
from WAPDA in communication with IESCO for
electricity connection on May 5, 2020 (Letter P5-
MRPS-S-0013), and Engineer forwarded the same to
Employer through Email on May 9, 2020 (Please see
Engineer’s Email to Employer). Due to the
quarantine requirements of Employer, we are not
allowed to leave in GE’ Camp and Engineer send
letter to us for Vacation of Rooms in GE camp on
June 16, 2020 (Letter MRPS-P5-0054), the
Contractor notified and requested again for
assistance for temporary electricity connection of
Camp Area on June 18, 2020 (Letter P5-MRPS-S-
0023). The IESCO finally connected our transformer
and the electricity was ready on September 30,
2020, which can be verified from our first electricity
bill from IESCO dated October 29, 2020.

In view of above, the Contractor has notified the

 Engineer and Employer for the event and Engineer
and Employer have been helping coordinating.
However, due to the late action of IESCO, the 11KV
to 400V power connection for camp could not be
ready till end of September, 2020, which has greatly
affect the construction progress.

Meanwhile, Event #4 and Event 1.4.2 and different

events that simultaneously and cross affected the
progress.
1. P5-IESCO-S-001 Power Supply Connection-To
Reference Documents
IESCO-2019.12.20
2. P5-MRPS-S-0003 Electricity and Water
Connection for Site Camp-2019.12.24
3. Recommendation Letter of Employer to IESCO-
2020.1.2
4. Mangla P5-Entry permission for Mobilization
Team-2020.3.14
5. P5-MRPS-S-0013 Request for assistance from
WAPDA in communication with IESCO for electricity
connection-2020.5.5
6. Engineer's Email to Employer-2020.5.9
7. MRPS-P5-0054 2020-06-16 Vacation of Rooms in
GE Camp
8. P5-MRPS-S-0023 Assistance for Temporary
Electricity Connection of Camp Area-2020.6.18
9. P5-MRPS-S-0025 Invitation for Inspection of
Camp Construction Work-2020.7.13
10. IESCO Electricity Consuming Bill-2020.10.29

Event # 5: 11kV Power Connection for Powerhouse and Intake Dam

Engineer’s Reply: Same explanation as for Event # 4 above.

Contractor’s Reply: Same Explanation as for Even #4 above. Also we

have provided the email from Employer to O&M on
May 28, 2020.

Reference Documents 1. PD's Email to O&M for Assistance of

temporary power connection-2020.5.28
Event # 06 – Shut Down Plan

Engineer’s Reply: Conclusively.

 The Contractor did not notify the event of delay

pursuant to sub-clause 26.1 of GCC.

 The Contractor requested the Engineer/Employer for

complete shutdown of Units for installation of sectionalizing
valves in Units.

In view of the above and detailed deliberations

in our previous report, the Contractor is not
entitled extension of time under this event

Contractor’s Reply: As indicated by Engineer in the Progress Review

Meeting # 01 held on 06 October 2020, the
Contractor requested for complete shutdown of Units
for installation of sectionalizing valves in Units
according to schedule and actual site conditions (the
sectionalizing valves for common buss could not
completely intercept the water between units due to
leakage). However, according to the actual site
conditions, the O&M team did not allow the
contractor to work with complete shutdown of units.
However, it was indicated by Engineer/Employer that
this was was possible during the lean period as
mentioned in the Minutes of Meeting of the subject
meeting. Thus, it was instructed by Engineer to
conduct these activities during Lean period, and the
Contractor prepared these activities in the shutdown
plan to Engineer, which is not in compliance with the
Contract Schedule. There is no shutdown plan and
activities in the Contract schedule and clauses.

In addition, as clarified above, almost all the piping

team (except welder/fitter) were shifted to construct
the sectionalizing valves not only for Unit 5-6, the
main pipeline construction was impacted.

The Contractor agreed with Engineer that the

Contractor also performed parts of works for Unit 5-
6, however, please understand that due to the
 construction of sectionalizing valves and covid-19
cases, the contractor could not arrange addition
manpower/equipment separately for the mentioned
sectionalizing valves, thus the work efficiency for the
Unit 5-6 was very low since the most important work
during lean-period is the sectionalizing valves, which
is known to all and the shutdown plan also approved
by Engineer.

Reference Documents N/A

Event #7: JIS Flange

Engineer’s Reply: According to sub-clause 7-2.01 of Special

Provisions the Bid Drawings shall not be used
for construction. The Contractor shall prepare its
own drawings based on the specific products
furnished. Dimensions shall be the responsibility
of the Contractor and shall be verified before
manufacturing and construction. Fit of the Plant
into the existing Project features is the
responsibility of the Contractor. The
Contractor could not comply with the provisions
of the Contract and the consequent delay cannot
be atributed to the Employer.

Contractor’s Reply: As indicated by Engineer in the Progress Review

Meeting # 01 held on 06 October 2020, the
Contractor requested for complete shutdown of Units
for installation of sectionalizing valves in Units
according to schedule and actual site conditions (the
sectionalizing valves for common buss could not
completely intercept the water between units due to
leakage). However, according to the actual site
conditions, the O&M team did not allow the
contractor to work with complete shutdown of units.
However, it was indicated by Engineer/Employer that
this was was possible during the lean period as
mentioned in the Minutes of Meeting of the subject
 meeting. Thus, it was instructed by Engineer to
conduct these activities during Lean period, and the
Contractor prepared these activities in the shutdown
plan to Engineer, which is not in compliance with the
Contract Schedule. There is no shutdown plan and
activities in the Contract schedule and clauses.

In addition, as clarified above, almost all the piping

team (except welder/fitter) were shifted to construct
the sectionalizing valves not only for Unit 5-6, the
main pipeline construction was impacted.

The Contractor agreed with Engineer that the

Contractor also performed parts of works for Unit 5-6,
however, please understand that due to the
construction of sectionalizing valves and covid-19
cases, the contractor could not arrange addition
manpower/equipment separately for the mentioned
sectionalizing valves, thus the work efficiency for the
Unit 5-6 was very low since the most important work
during lean-period is the sectionalizing valves, which
is known to all and the shutdown plan also approved
by Engineer.
1. Specifications
Reference Documents
2. P5-PP-PWCA-005_A Piping arrangement
drawings of Pressurized Water and Compressor
Air of unit 5_AAR
3. P5-PP-PWCA-006_A Piping arrangement
drawings of Pressurized Water and Compressor
Air of unit 6_AAR

1.1.1. Event #8: Transformer in Place

Engineer’s Reply: The Contractor could not demonstrate that the

delay in water sprinkler system is due to the
Employer/Engineer and impacted the overall
completion of works for Unit 5-6. The Engineer’s
previous determination stands.
Contractor’s Reply: The Contractor has clarified clearly regarding the
refurbishment of Transformer water sprinkler system,
which not only involves in Package 5, but also
Package 6+8 or Employer, and clarified why the
Contractor’s work was delayed.

As shown in the email to Engineer on June 23, 2021,

the Contractor noticed and requested the
coordination of Engineer/Employer for early solution
of the transformer issue and it is clearly written in the
detail installation schedule for Unit 5&6 dated
August 15, 2021 that the Contractor is still waiting for
the final completion of U5 Transformer, and the
Contractor started the piping work on October 7,
2021 as shown in the daily report of October 6, 2021
after the transformer is ready.

In combination of the previous clarifications and the

above supporting documents, it is clear that the
delay due to transformer event is caused by
Package 6+8, not the Contractor, the Contractor is
entitled for the extension of time.
1. Mangla P5-Assistance-Coordination from
Reference Documents
Engineer-Employer-2021.6.23
2. Mangla P5-Detail Installation Schedule for U5&U6
Rev.C-2021.8.15
3. Mangla P5-Daily Progress Report-20211006

Event #9: Additional Work-Interface Work of Unit 5&6

Engineer’s Reply: It is noted that the Contractor clarified that they

did not utilize the team deployed for pressurized
Water System and other works and arranged one
designated piping team for the interface work and
the parallel piping works were performed by other
teams.

The Contractor’s statement is self-explanatory.

The additional interface work was performed by a
dedicated team and did not hamper the execution
of piping and other works under the Contract. As
such, existence of the event (additional works) in
 the absence of an impact on the progress does
not entitle the Contractor for extension in time for
completion. Hence, the Engineer’s previous
determination is reverted and declare that the
Contractor is not entitled for an extension of time
under this event.

Contractor’s Reply: For the interface work, the contractor has signed a
daily Daywork sheet with MRPS's site engineer
representative. Please refer to attached document.

Reference Documents 1. Interface Daywork for Unit 5-Signed

2. Interface Daywork for Unit 6-Signed

Event #10: Dismantling measures of U5-6 fire water pipe.

Engineer’s reply N/A

Contractor’s reply We assume the Engineer has agreed with our claim
for 19 days under this event.

Event #11: Dismantling Delay

Contractor’s Reply: As per Engineer’s reply in event #1.4.2, it is agreed

that the dismantling delay due to Covid-19 is
included in event #1.4.2. For those delay not
attributed to Covid -19, please refer to our evidence
in the event #11. (from 2020.9.4 to 2021.1.4 (the
actual start time)).

Reference Documents

In view of our further explanations and clarifications above, the Contractor has
provided full and complete supporting document to clearly explain our
application for extension of time for completion unit 5&6 works in our scope.
However, as per our understanding, the Engineer insisted that the Contractor
has not provided concrete evidence for the EOT claim. Therefore, we would
like to call a meeting to discuss the EOT items and better explain our reply, so
that this EOT could be earlier approved.

Your Sincerely.

Yu Lin

Project Manager

Zhejiang Orient Engineering Co., Ltd.