MINISTRY OF WATER RESOURCES Amibara Drainage Project 1
REVIEW OF CONTRACTOR’S
Claims Report
Addis Ababa
April 1997INTRODUCTION
The claims  assessment report produced by  the Resident Engineer of the Consultant was  based on the sequence of the claims  presented in the consolidated claims  report submitted by  the contractor (Joint Venture) in September, 1994.
The  claims  were  presented  in  12  main  sections  which  were  included  in  the  consolidated  report and other claims are submitted from time to time which are 15 in number.
The review of the claim report was  carried out in accordance with the order of the claims presented by  the Resident Engineer. In the report the contractor, presented each section as appendices  while the claim assessment report used the titles  submission for the same items. In this report each is referred to as section.
In the claims assessment the committee has followed the following steps:-
1.         Study background of the claims and refer to supporting documents.
2.         As per clause 52 of particular conditions of the contract document relating to
timely notification & substantiation.
3.         Hand written remarks underneath correspondence are not considered, since they 
are not passed to the contractor formally.
4.         Calculation for additional payments are based on Resident Engineers approach.
SECTION 1   CONTRACT PARTICULARS.
this  section presents  General Information on the contract which included disruption of the project, the list of contract documents, parties  to the contract, contract prices, key  dates  and nuilestous and contract programme. As the data presented are facts, they have assumed to have been accepted as such in the assessment report. The committee also accepted them as factual records.SECTION 2 LATE MOBILIZATION ADVANCE
As  the claim Assessment Report indicated that, the contractor had withdrawn the claim, no assessment has  been presented. But the committee reviewed the claim to observe the basis of the contractors decision.
As  the introduction the background to the claim was  reviewed. Following the conclusion of the contract agreement on 18 September, 1991, the order to commence work given by the Engineer and the site formally  handed over to the contractor by  the client, on 14,h October, and 21” of the same month respectively. Subsequently  the contractor submitted separate application for advance mobilization loan.
Invoices  No 1 & 2, for local and foreign components, respectively  were submitted by  the contractor on 7"' October 1991. After the Engineer certified the payments, the client sent applications  for payment to the African Development Bank  on 15 October 1991. Payment to the contractor was made for all the foreign exchange on 3O'h December 1991 but did not pay the local currency  portion until 30 March 1992. The client paid its  share of the local currency portion on 11 November 1991, about a month after receipt of the certification by the Engineer.
Although it is understood that the advance mobilization loan should be paid as soon as practically possible to assist the contractor to mobilize on time, there was no fixed date in the contract for the payment to be effected. Further, it is  understandable that under normal circumstances, ADF require at least two months to effect payments following receipt of payment applications. Hence, as  the client paid its  share on time, and also ADF effected the major payments  within normal period , it was  felt by  the committee that there was  no substantial hinderance to delay  of
commencement  of  mobilization  by  such  a  major  contractor.  The  delay  in  payment  of  Birr  431
844.42 by the ADF, which represents only a minor portion of the total advance loan (Birr 6 960 950.36), was  not construed to have a substantial effect. Hence, the committee concluded that the action taken by the contractor to withdraw the claim was proper.SECTION 3. LATE CUSTOMS CLEARANCE
The changes made in the terms of tender document pertaining to the payment of customs duties, where in the final agreement, the initial arrangement for reimbursing the contractor through the certificates  was  modified. The changes  summarized in 3.1 of the claim analysis  are found to be in line with the contract agreement.
Accordingly, the payment of customs duties for the project, in connection with the materials and equipment imported by the contractor had to be effected in two ways.
a. Direct payment by the client
In accordance with the directive given by the Ministry of finance in their letter
13/99/54 dated Nehasse 11, 1982 (17 August 1990), the client pays customs duties 
directly to the Customs Authorities. In the contract agreement Clause 73 (3) Annex 7,
the responsibility of effecting all procedures of importation including the presentation of
the assessment of the customs duties to the client lies on the contractor.
b. Importation under bank guarantee
As proposed by the contractor during tender negotiation and incorporated in Clause 73(4) ii, and approved by  the Ministry  of Finance, the contractor was  allowed to temporarly import construction equipment and other items, which were to be reexported upon completion of the project works  by  depositing a bank  guarantee instead of depositing maney for customs duties.
Under the first agreement, the obligation of the client, as  stated in Clause 73(4) ii of the agreement was to assist the contractor as required, such as writing supporting letters for the contractor and when the custom estimate is presented by the contractor, to effect payment to the customs  Authority. In connection with the second arrangement, the responsibility  of the employer is  to give assistance required; hence the main responsibility  lies  with the contractor which includes  fulfilling all conditions  related with the performance bond. However, as the contract agreement is silent on the extent and5
the effectiveness  of such assistance, the comment given by  the Resident Engineer, in sections  3.1 and 3.2 of the claim analysis, to reject the contractor’s  attempt to make the client liable, has been accepted by the committee.
However, it was  felt that according to the Ethiopian law, if the problems  faced by  the contractor are related to intergovernmental departments  and the employer fails  to provide assistance, then the latter could be liable for the lack  of co-operation by  the concerned departments. The lack  of assistance by  the government departments  can not be a force mejure to the client under the law.
The committee reviewed some of the assistance given to the contractor in connection with the acceptance of the Bank  guarantee. It was  observed that the client wrote two letters to the Ministry  of Finance, letter No 6/17/756 dated 25 Yekatit 1984 (March 4, 1992) and No 6/17 dated Magabit 26, 1984. (4 April, 1992). The first was  written by  the previous  Water Resources  Development Authority, requesting the Ministry  to accept the Bank  guarantee lodged by  the contractor. However as  the Ministry  required that the document should be counter guaranteed by  a local bank  with which the contractor had to comply, the Water Resources  Commission wrote the second letter cited above, to request the Ministry  of Finance, to allow the contractor to import equipment that arrived at Assab port, to curtail the delay  in importation and the commencement of the project construction.
As  the contractor claimed that mobilization was  delayed owing to delay  in payment of customs  duties  and delay  in providing supporting documents, the committee reviewed the activity  schedule that formed part of the contract agreement, since both parties  have agreed to the mobilization schedule as  well, which included custom clearance, for delay in mobilization which also affected project construction, one of the parties  should be responsible. According to Ethiopian law, even if a party  has  not directly  committed any mistakes, by  implication, it could still be liable. Il was  noted that mobilization started late and continued for about four and half months, in excess  of the three months indicated in the original construction schedule. But the mobilization period was  extended in the revised schedule submitted by the contractor to the Resident Engineer on 2nd March 1992.It was  reported to the committee that the claim in connection with delay  in customs clearance was not recorded by the Engineer, in the various progress reports prepared at the time. Infact the report recorded that the delays were caused by lack of space on ships designated for Ethiopia, by problems with clearances at Assab port as well as lack of transport facilities  in Ethiopia. It was  noted that the delay  was  reported only  when the consolidated claims were submitted by the Contractor in September 1994.
A qurrey was also raised in connection with the possibility of clearing goods from Assab port, that were imported under one Bill of Lading. This relates to clearance of the
clients’ and the contractors equipment that were consigned together. The client may be liable for delays following the clearance of the contractors equipment.
The   validity   of   the   proposed   extension   of   time   by   the   Engineer,   and   its   legal acceptability  were  considered.  In  accordance  with  the  information  obtained  from  the Foreign Procurement Services of the Ministry, a chart has been prepared to depict the durations  required  for  each  activity  starting  from  the  receipt  of  shipping  documents  by the  exporter,  to  the  completion  of  clearing  of  goods  from  the  port  of  Assab.  In  line with  the  chart,  it  was  observed  that  under  normal  circumstances  the  whole  process requires 6.5 weeks.
The initial mobilization period of 2 1/2 months, starting by Mid October, 1991, as shown in the work programme furnished by the contractor, following the award of the contract, has   been   assessed.   Although   the   contractor   planned   to   complete   mobilization   by December 1991 and start pipe machinery installation by January 1992, the machine which was critical for the sub-surface drainage works was not shipped until 1993. By the end of  the  initially  proposed  mobilization  period  the  contractor  managed  to  place  order  for the machine and receive approvals for his camp sites, and start some camp installation works. The ship carrying the machine arrived at Assab on 2nd  August 1992 after being delayed for three weeks at a port in for repair works. It was observed that this indicates that the planned mobilization period was not realistic.
As the contractor appealed in his letter 92/0335/AP/YM dated 24July 1992 spaces were not available on ships  designated for Ethiopia, and the ship that finally  carried the machine was delayed due Jo the need for repairs, the Engineer granted an extension oftime of 9.5 weeks. The contractor then prepared a revised construction programme, which indicated a mobilization period of 4.5 weeks  ending April. 1992. However, the progress  reports  indicated that in actual fact, mobilization was  not completed until February  1993. It was  also noted that, despite the revision of the work  programme indicating late mobilization and late commencement of the construction activities, the contractor maintained the project completion date of April 1994, as  shown in his  initial programme.
The contractor claimed for time extension and compensation for delays, that occurred after the ship Andinet arrived at the port of Assab. The claim made by  the contractor for a total of 29.2 weeks has been reduced by the Engineer to 95 days as the delay, for which the client is responsible, as this was considered to be caused by delay in payment f customs  duties. The committee supported the proposal of the Resident Engineer to reject, the 22 days and 17 days claims related with issuance of supporting letter by the project office and the time elapsed between receipt of the supplying letter, and presentation of the customs estimates by the contractor respectively.
The committee considered the 95 days delay in detail. In accordance with clause 73 (4) 11, the client is responsible for payment of the customs duties. If a delay is caused by the port clearance, beyond die expected normal clearing time, the client will be liable to grant extension of time. From the correspondences, it was  noted that, as  the client did not have the required budget to pay the estimated Birr 1.7 million, a request was sent to the Ministry of Finance by a letter 3/1/11 dated Meskerem 23. 1984, (30 October 1992) requesting for release of the goods  prior to payment of customs  duties. After receiving the letter from the Ministry  permitting the client to clear the goods, the customs Authority  instructed the Eastern shewa customs  Branch office to release the goods  by letter dated hidar 3, 1985 (12 November, 1992).
It was  fell that, after receipt of die letter of die Ministry  of Finance by  the Customs Authority  in Addis  Ababa, authorizing the release of the goods, die obligation of the client had been fulfilled. The receipt of the letter is  construed as  effecting payment. Subsequent to issuance of the letter, on 9 z\ugust, 1992 the Engineer informed the contractor that the goods  could be released by  the Customs  Authority. Following this, it was up to the contractor to get the letter required from the Customs Authority to thecustoms  branch office at Nazareth. It was  also observed by  the committee that, the contractor was  effecting clearance from the Nazareth Branch Office for his  own convenience.
Further, it was noted that the permission given by the Ministry of Finance and the related correspondences, were not mentioned by  the contractor in the consolidated claims. As a result, the Engineer who assessed the claims, might have not considered them when he proposed the extension of time.
The whole process of obtaining permission of the release of the goods and passing the permission to the customs  Authority  took  27 days, from 8/9/22 to 5/10/92. Under normal circumstances, this  should have taken about 10 working days. Hence it was concluded by the committee that the client should be responsible for the balance i.e 17 days, 27 - 10 days.
As  the Engineer considered the time between submission of the letter to the customs office at Nazareth (5/10/92) and the release of goods  by  the customs. Authority (20/12/92), which is  46 days  as  part of delay  for which the client was  responsible, the committee assessed for comperision. the time that could have been required to clear the goods. For this  purpose the time required for the goods  imported llirough the first shipment, "NETSANET" was  reviewed. It was  observed that the Bank  guarantee for payment of the offers customs was accepted by the customs Authority at Nazareth on 17 April and the goods were released from port on 27th of the same month, thus requiring only 10 days. Hence, it was felt by the committee that, the cause of delay of 46 days, is not clear, as it was not reported to the Engineer or the owner at the time. Thus it was concluded that this part of the claim fails to get acceptance.
3.3.2   Air Fright
The contractor claims that there was delay in clearing items imported by him through air freight. He further states that although clearance could be effected in 3 days, the average
time taken by him was 38 days. He allegedly stated that the reason for he delays were attributed to both the client and the engineer. According to this, the client did not handlethe contractors bank guarantee properly while the Engineer did not accept his letters for about 20 days owing to the latter’s absence from office both of which led to delays in customs clearance, c*
The committee reviewed the statements  presented by  the contractor. As  discussed earlier, the problems related with the bank guarantee are not the concern of the client and all claims  related with the document fail to succeed. The minimum time required to clear from customs, items imported through air freight has been, found to be more than 3 days, contrary to what was claimed by the contractor.
After  reviewing  the  list  of  airfreight  consignments  provided  in  the  consolidated  claims, it  was  noted  that  only  one  invoice,  No.  A-AD  176,  was  cleared  in  3  days,  other  than those  imported  through  DHL.  About  four  invoices  were  cleared  in periods ranging  from 11  to  13  days.  Based  on  these,  the  committee  recommended  that,  the  minimum  time required for clearing should be 11 days, contrary to the contractors assertion of 3 days. It was also observed that as some of the spare parts were voluminous, they have to be taken to the customs store, for checking and valuation which takes some time. Further, it was noted that there was no stated clearance time in the contract agreement.
As the contractor, has not provided his claim by referring to conditions of contract, and owing to the aforementioned reasons, the committee accepted with the opinion given by the Engineer that the claim fails to succeed, with the exception of the PVC fitting which are considered to affect the rate of progress of work.
3.5 Claims For Additional Payment
The costs  claimed by  the contractor under each category  and recommended by  the Resident Engineer were reviewed in accordance with the sequences  presented in the report as follows.
Based on the excusable delays, the committee recommended a total of 17 days, 9th September to 26 October, 1992. The claimable costs  incurred by  (he contractor during this period were revised using the basic rates recommended by the Engineer. The costs are presented in this with the reference numbers used in the reports as follows.3.5.1 Joint Venture expatriate costs
The committee has accepted the basis of computations of the repayable costs, as those related to idle time of staff and machinery, as well as reduced productivity. Further, as the delay occurred within the contract period, no additional over head costs would have occurred.
The report recommended payment for two staff members, Mrs. K. Zobernig, and Z.Voga who were directly  involved in pipe laying, out of seven staff members claimed, which is  concurred with by the committee but reducing the in man-months, in line with the accepted claimable period stated above.
k.
z.
Zobeerg, construction manager, 75% @ 20419 =15314/m forl7 days = 7780.80 Vuga, foreman mechanic, "i00% = 11656/month for 17 days 
Total cost of delay of 17 day 
= 5922.20
=13703.00
Summary
Total costs claimed by contractor
* recommended by engineer
"
" committee
DM 376 800.78 93 447.00
13 703.00
3.5.2   Office and House costs in Addis Ababa
It was agreed with the consultants recommendations that as the office and houses were required irrespective of the non critical items, they  are required for the full duration of the contract, and thus did not draw additional costs.
3.5.3   JV’s local staff and office running costs on site.
Out of the total number of staff claimed by  the contractor to have been employed, the number of which varied during each month the Engineer computed the average per month as  being 76, and recommended compensation related to 67 only. The remaining 9 including the Administrator, a store keeper and seven guards  were required for the whole duration of the contract. This figure amounts to 88% for the total periodrecommended. It was  noted that as  these were skiled contract worker, the contractor could not lay  them off and employ  them orgain or others  as  skilled labour is  not easily available in the area.
The recommendation of the committee based on the costs incurred during the 17 days as follows:
Claimed by
cont
ractor
recommended
by Engineer
recommended
by Committee
Costs 
436
237.39
89 913
11 895.29
(Birr)
3.5.4   JV Plant costs
Although die contractor claimed composition for 37 different kinds  of machines  and equipment that were idle during the delay  period, the engineer recommended compensation for 28 in no. which was  accepted by  the committee. The other were required for the full duration of the contract. Further, the engineer also revised the full complement weekly  cost claimed by  the contractor in accordance with the figures  in the contract document.
The costs recommended by the committee are presented in the following table.
Claimed   by contractor
Costs (DM) 237 525.02
3.5.5  Specialists on stand by
It was confirmed that
the recommended in the report
106 886.41
Recommended by the committee 19 588.16
the contractor has withdrawn the claim                   by letter No.
96/077/HE/ag dated 24/01/1996 .3.5.6 - 3.5.9                JV cost during 5 weeks delay
The delays, which were connected with the release of airfreight from Bole customs, have been rejected by  the Engineer, and the committee concurred with the recommendation. Hence, the committee agrees with the Engineers recommendation that no payment is due to the contractor.
3.5.10             Loss of margin over the period of combined delays.
The conclusion of the report that as  the delays  occurred within the contract period, no additional cost should have been incurred, and thus no profit is claimable by the contract, has been accepted.
3.5.11             EWWCA costs during the 5 week delay.
This claim which was made in connection with the delay in release of air freight in Bole customs  fails  to get acceptance owing to die same reasoning presented for claims presented in sections 3.5.6 to 3.5.9.
3.5.12             Demurrage and Storage Costs
The contractor claimed for demurrage and storage charges  paid by  him owing to the delays  in customs  clearance in connection with ships  at Assab Port, and air freight at Bole airport. As  the contract was  not clear whether storage fees  were included in customs  clearance estimates, the report recommended that, in accordance with the practice of paying storage charges  by  the owners for supply contracts the Client for his equipment the letter should at least recompense the contractor
After reviewing the proposal, the committee supported the recommendation of the Engineer that the Employer shall compensate the contractor for the storage charges  for his  equipment, and those charged for the contractors  equipment should be bom by  the Contractor himself.The costs (Birr) recommended are as follows based on 17 days delay accepted
Shipment
Claimed by the
Contractor
Recomended by
the Engineer
Proposed by the
Committee
3 (JV)
4 (JV)
6 (WRDA)
8 (WRDA) Part 1    9 (WRDA) Part 2 9 (JV)
Air freight (JV)
510.00
368.00
266955.44
703.00
7331.69
5229.28
4754.00
285842.41
-
-
-
266955.44
703.00
-
5229.28
2377.
-
29074.36
101.80
808.80
-
1701.35
3.5.13             Additional Expenses and Transport Costs
Although the contractor claimed a total of Birr 19 433.50 for expenses  incurred by  him for transport and other expenses  during the delay, the claim was  not found by  the Engineer to be justified and the committee has concurred with the conclusion.3.5.14              Summary of Costs Due to Customs Release
Contractor
Engineer
Committee
DM
Birr
DM
Birr
DM
Birr
3.5.1
3.5.2
3.5.3
3.5.4
3.5.5
3.5.6
3.5.7
3.5.8
3.5.9
3.5.10
3.5.11
3.5.12
3.5.13
JV expatriate Costs of 18.5 week Delay
Office and House Costs in Addis Ababa
JV site Running Costs JV Plant costs Specialists on Standby JV Expatriate Costs of 5 Week Delay
Office and House Costs in Addis Ababa
JV Site Running Costs JV Plant Costs
Loss of Margin over Combined Delays Subcontractor's Resources over 5 weeks Demurrage and storage Charges
Additional Transport
costs
376 800.78
93447.0
13703.00
355408.11
436237.39
89913.07
11895 29
237 525.02
161 662.82
108 967.67
106886.41
19588.16
75 752.05
80693.73 169543.75 690735.50 870044.00
275255.72
31686.29
285842.41
19433.50
Claim No. 4. withholding of permission To Commence the Works.
The claim made by  the contractor for a compensation of Birr 59 598.00 owing to the delay  in commencement of works  as  a result of withholding of permission to commence work  by  the Engineer, was  confirmed to be fully  withdrawn in his  letter 26/101/ HE/ ag dated 05/02/199. Thus die claim was not reviewed.Cross referencing has been done to the correspondence made between the contractor and the consultant.
Hand written remarks (foot notes) by the RE's staff at the bottom of the contractor's letter were not accepted as a factual record for they were not officially communicated to the contractor
8 working hours has been considered in the analysis.
C:Ami-App$
2APPENDIX 5
LACK  OF  POSSESSION  OF  SITE  AND  REDUCED  PRODUCTIVITY  CAUSED  BY  THE AFAR PROBLEMS.
5.1.     Synopsis
Based on the claims presented by the contractor in this section the RE has summarized his opinion and the committee has  looked in to both arguments  and relevant documents  for proper evaluation of the presentation.
5.2.     Contractual Background
The  committee  is  not  in  disagreement  with  the  quoted  clause  42,  as  being  a  reference article to base the claim
5.3.    History of Events.
5.3.1    Late access to the site compounds.
The committee has  looked in to the reasonings  made by  the two parties  (Engineer & contractor) and is in agreement with the conclusion made by the RE, in which he pointed out clause 52A of the condition of contract where the contractor failed to notify  and substantiate in due course.
5.3.2    Late access to Dinile Hill borrow pit
It  is  understood  from  the  correspondence  that  delays  have  been  experienced  by  the contractor.
5.3.3.  Disruption by the afars over the project area
With respect to this  section the contractor has  claimed 123 items  and considered by  the consultant. However, the committee has  gone through each item and commented accordingly The analysis has been based on the following points.
Whether or not the contractor complies with clause 52 of the conditions of contract, where notification and substantiation have been kept intact as per the contract terms for the purposes of this assessment. The committee considers substantiation to include;
•   Cause of the stoppage
•   Starting and ending time of the stoppage
•   Resources and site affected.Item No.1                     Rejected, Ref. GLH/0092/92 of 5th May, 1992
Item No 2                     Ditto
Item No. 3                   The committee concurred with that it has no impact on time as was not included in the summary sheer, item 5.4 p.27
Item No. 4                    Not substantiated, just an information, hence rejected
Item No 5                    With respect to this claim the contractor claimed 7 hours on
16/07/92. How ever, 2 75 hrs has been accepted relating to letter ref. Jvs/028/92 of 21/07/92.
Item No.6                    Relating to the contractor's claim 4 hrs has been accepted with respect to letter ref. Jvs/029/92 of 21/07/92. Also 3.5 hrs has also been accepted accordingly.
Item No. 7                   The claim is not substantiated, hence rejected.
Item No.8 & 9              The committee rejected for its incompleteness, besides, it is only a notification
Item No 10-17              Rejected because it is only an information and not substantiated
Item No 18-19
Previous meeting highlights, letter ref. Jv/143/92 of Dec. 17/92 ie.
rejected by RE.
Item No 20
Since it is only a notification and not substantiated, it is rejected.
Item No.21
Timing  and  referencing  are  not  compatible  with  each  other  when
cross  checked  against  the  available  documents  of  the  contractor,
hence not accepted.
Item No. 22
It was understood by the committee that the stoppage of the work 
was due to the contractor's method of construction that caused
stoppage, owing to breakage of the electric poles, hence it is the
responsibility of the contractor, claim rejected.
Item No.23
As per the letter ref. Jvs/HA/197/93 of 31/01/93, there is no
substantiation presentation, therefore the committee rejected this 
article.
Item No 24                  The main contractors letter is missing, but the sub-contractor's has been submitted to the engineer's office which may not make the executing agency liable. Therefore the committee did not accept this claim as the main contractor did/t claim the stoppage.
Item No.25
No  substantiation,  only  notification,  Thus  it  was  found difficult by the committee tC'accept this part, hence rejected.Item No.26-28             These claims were rejected due to the following reasons:
Not substantiated, it is only a notification, rejected by the RE ref. 93/0534/90, dated 17/05/93.
Item No 29
It is a notification, not substantiated, hence rejected.
Item No.30                  Ditto
Item No. 31                 As per letter of Jvs/HA/234/93 written on 12/04/93, there was no stoppage on 8/04/93, hence claim rejected.
The letter of 10/04/93's is incomplete, starting time of stoppage is indicated but no endding time, hence difficult to decide on the time lost due to stoppage, rejected.
On 12/04/93, Ato Fisseha and Mr. Werner from the contractor and Ato Adunga from the client's side were arrested but we don't see the construction activity (work) being hindered or stopped As  to our understanding the construction activity  has  been carried out normally, therefore no claim is recognized.
Contractor's  information like starting time of stoppage has  been indicated, but no ending time. There also has been no RE's comment these put the committee in a difficult position to assess or conclude on the matter, rejected.
Item No 32&33 Relating to contractor's letter of ref. 93/0527/00 dated 14/04/93 the engineer's letter Ref GLH/0026/93 dated 19 May 93 has rejected the claim, the committee agrees with the RE comments.
The site meeting of REF.JV/060/93 dated 18 May, 93 points  out that the agreement has been reached between local people and the project not to commit any  disruption. The contractors  claim documents  also shows  on page 13 appendix  5 that the meeting "concluded the disruption should be discontinued in the interests  of the project and the contractor. In connection with this  the committee concurred with the consultants comments.
Item No34
The committee concluded that is the responsibility of the contractor to
look after his properties, hence the claim is rejected
Item No. 35
It was indicated that information was given on causes of delays on
SD7, but clam was not lodged.
Item No.36
The engineer didn't respond to the effect and the contractor didn't
substantiate that he notified the starting time but not ending time
This put the committee in a difficult position to conclude any thing,
claim rejected.
Item No.37
The committee considers this item as an information package, not
substantated, hence rejectedItem No 38                  Ditto
Item No 39                 This claim is accepted by the committee
Item No. 40                Since there is no justification to the matter the committee rejected the claim
Items No.41 to 51 Are rejected for being a notification only, not substantiated.
Item No. 52                 The committee believes that it is the responsibility of the contractor to look after his property, hence the client is not liable to any losses or damages to the contractor's properties.
Item No 53                  Not the right channel to lodge claims, reference has been made to Jvs/HA/397/93 of 15/10/93
Item No.54                 Not substantiated. Ref.Jvs/HA/408/93 of 25/10/93, claim rejected
Item No.55                  Even though the claim has been more or less detailed it did not indicate the causes for stoppage, hence not accepted.
Item No.56                  Not substantiated Ref. Jvs/HA/423/93 of 05/11/93, hence rejected
Item No.57                  Notification, also the consultant has replied indicating the problem has arisen by the contractor him self. Ref 93/1040 & 1041/HA/ag of 2nd Nov.93 & MMP/GLH/0046/93 of Nov.5"1 93, hence rejected
Item No 58                  The committee agreed only on 3 hrs delay, Ref. Jv/170/93 of 17th Nov, 93.
Item No. 59                 The committee concurred with the engineer's letter Ref. Jv/191/93 or 26th Nov.93
Item No 60                  This is only a notification of the claim. Ref. Jvs/HA./941193 of 01 /12/93 and also EWWCA's letter Ref. ADP/Jv293/93 of 30/11/93 has not given complete timing, ending time was not indicated but starting, claim not accepted.
Item No.61                  This is not substantiated claim rejected
Item No 62-64                 The notification submitted earlier is substantiated and only 4 hrs is affected by the incidence.
Item No 65 &66                It is the responsibility of the contractor to look after his property, claim rejected
Item No.67                   Half an hour of stoppage is accepted.
Item No 68                   Claim accepted as per the RE'S comment relating to 25th Dec, 93 Ref.Jv/227/93 of Dec 31 st,93.
C:Ami-!leni
3Item No.69 The claim is timely notified and substantiated as well, hence the
committee accepted a 3.5 hrs stoppage
Item No.70
The claim lodged here is not substantiated claim rejected
Item No 71
The contractor has notified and substantiated, how ever, since the
repair work has been initiated by the contractor himself the employer
is not liable to the stoppage involved .still he has shifted the
machineries else where for utilization of the same Therefore the
committee considers no point to be recorded, claim rejected
Item No. 72
8 hrs of stoppage is accepted for activities No 1,2,3,4,6,8.7 due to the
stoppage brought about by the regional administration's office
decision requiring work’s participation in the political discussion
Item No. 73
On Jan. 20,1994 3.75 hrs stoppage is accepted by the committee as 
it was timely notified and substantiated
On Jan. 21 st 1994
Claim for 8 hrs idle time is accepted
Item No 74
The contractor has submitted notification letter timely for the claim he
intended to make, however since the ending time of the stoppage is 
not stated the committee has considered this as un-substantiated
document, hence rejected
Item No 75
The stoppage was caused by the meeting conducted by the workers 
of the contractor, hence the client is not held liable for the claim
lodged.
Item No 76
5 hrs agreed
Item No. 77
The claim is timely notified and substantiated however the stoppage
begun at 5:30 which is the official ending time for normal working hrs,
hence we see no working time lost
Item No.78
This is considered to be a general information that attempt has been
made to stop the work progress on secondary drain Nr.SD7, hence
claim rejected.
Item No.79
General information, no detail presentation for further consideration,
claim rejected.
Item No.80
The claim is notified but no ending time for stoppage indicating not
Item No81
substantiated, hence rejected
he contractor should have exercised engineering safety round xcavation pits to secure safety, as per the contract terms therefore his part of the claim is not accepted
Item No.82                   The employer is not liable to losses relating to theft as it is not the bligation of the employer to look after the property of the contractor
C.Ami-hein
■iItem No.83
It is only a notification. No detail presentation is made and is difficult for further consideration. Hence rejected
item No.84                  The contractor has submitted the notification and other relevant particulars but no indication of ending time of the stoppage which the committee found difficulty in perusing the mater any further.
Item No. 85                The employer should not be held responsible for any loss caused by theft as it is solely the duty and responsibility of the contractor to look 
after his property.
Item No 86.
The committee couldn't consider this claim for it being incomplete
presentation that no substantiation was given, hence rejected.
Item No.87
This is only a bit of information, hence difficult for further
consideration, claim rejected.
Item No.88
As for item No. 85 above
Item No.89
The claim is notified but no substantiation was given to pursue the
matter any further, hence rejected
Item No. 90
The claim on Feb,28/94 from 7:00-11:00 is timely notified and
substantiated, claim accepted.
Item No. 91
The claim made on the 1st 2nd & 3rd of March 1994 incidence is 
accepted to be correct by the committee which resulted in 5,8 & 3 hrs 
loss respectively.
Item No.92
As per the only letter available, related to this particular incidence i.e
Jvs/HA/663/94 dated 04/03/94, the claim is not substantiated
Hence rejected.
Item No 93
As for item 92 above
Item No. 94.
The claim is not substantiated. Hence, rejected.
Item No. 95
No. supporting document was given to substantiate the claim, ref.
Jvs/HA/662/94, dated 03/03/94
Item No.96
This is notification for variation order request, and not yet
substantiated. Therefore the committee found difficulty accepting
this part as presented, Ref. ADP/jv/523/94 of 09/06/94.
Item No. 97
The committee have agreed upon 1.5 hrs loss. Ref. Jvs/HA/670/94
of Mar,05/94
Item No. 98
The 1.5 hrs, claim for the incidence which took place on site of
surface drain is accepted. Ref. Jvs/HA/675/94 of Mar,08/94.
Item No.99
The 3 and 1.5 hrs time loss suffered by the contractor on 09 & 10 of
Mar, 94 respectively is accepted. Ref. Jvs/HA/691/94 of 12/03/94.Item No 100               The letter Jvs/HA/699/94 dated 14/03/94 is only incomplete information or notification hence rejected.
Item No. 101              Ditto Ref. Jvs/HA/702/94 of 15/03/94
Item No 102              The claim is agreed only for 1 hr alone, Ref. Jvs/HA/704/94 dated
17/03/94.
Item No. 103             The claim is not substantiated Hence rejected, Ref. ditto
Item No 104               Employer is not liable for any theft, claim rejected
Item No. 105              Employer should not be held responsible for any action taken by the police.
Item No. 106             The 1.5 hrs lost due to the incidence is accepted Ref Jvs/HA/727/94 of 25/03/94
Item No. 107             The employer has no obligation to safeguard the properties of the contractor from theft, Ref. ditto
Item No. 108             There is no document of local administration attached nor is there detail presentation, hence rejected.
Item No. 109             The disturbance was provoked by the contractor's employees, hence the contractor is to shoulder the consequences, Ref. Jv/345/94 of April 5th, 1994.
Item No. 110-112      These items give only information, no clarification document, hence
rejected.
Item No.113
This claim is rejected not substantiated. Ref. Jvs/HA/766/94 of
09/04/94.
Item No 114
The loss of time suffered by the contractor on the lateral drainage
work is agreed upon to be 2 hrs.
Item No 115
The Bull dozer deployed on the bush clearing site was idle for 5 hrs 
on 24 & 8 hrs on 26 of May,94. Ref Jv/406/94 dated 25,May/94.
Item No. 116
The 2.10 hrs stoppage on lateral drain work is accepted.
Item No.117
The time lost on \ne surface drain works operations is aqreed to be
2.5 hrs.
Item No.118
This claim is not substantiated, hence rejected, Ref. Jvs/HA/891/94
dated 27/05/94.
Item No. 119
The employer is not liable for the car given to the electoral board
voluntarily by the subcontractor, Ref Jvs/HA/897/94 of 02/06/94.
C:Aini-llem
6Item No. 120              This claim is not substantiated, hence not accepted. Ref.
Jvs/HA/938/94 of 16/06/94.
Item No. 121              Ditto Ref.ADP/Jv/552/94, of 05/07/94.
Item No. 122              The contractor hasn't responded to the request for clarification and also didn't mention ending time of the stoppage, hence rejected.
Item No. 123              The committee has accepted the 4 hrs loss of time suffered by the contractor on July 20,94.5.4.1   Determination of extension of time
General The analysis  given by  the RE is  reasonable, however based on the available correspondence and fulfillment of records  as  per clause 52A, calculation of time lost, (delays) the committee has significant differences with the RE.
5.4.1.1  Late access to site compound.
Agreed with the RE's conclusion, i.e the contractor has failed to claim on due time.
5 4 1.2 Late access to Dinile Hill borrow pit.
Agreed  with  RE’s  analysis,  time  lost  between  15/6/93  to  31/7/93  which  is  6  weeks  is accepted
5.4.2. Critical delays to subsurface drainage.
RE's analysis approach is followed. However, the time lost due to the Afars interference recording , as per clause 52A difference is observed. (See comments above)
RE's (days)
Committee's (days)
Collector Drain
28 98
0.19
Lateral drain
39.45
1.71
Therefore maximum time lost 1.71 days or 1.71/6=0.29 week5.4.3  Critical delay to surface drainage.
Re’s analysis approach is followed, however, the time lost due to the Afars interference record as per clause 52A difference is observed, (see the comments above)
RE's (days)             Committee's (days)
Surface Drainage                              50 Therefore, time lost 7.47/6 = 1.25 weeks
6.6 Claim for Additional Payments.
5.5.1  Lack of possession of site JV Expatriate cost
7.47
The committee estimate of the cost of men and machinery of 6 weeks,
Accepted by the RE.
ITEM
WEEKLY COST (DM)
TOTAL COST 
(DM)
Screen (crusher)
729.13
4374.78
Dozer
713.96
4283.76
Shovel Loader
562.20
3373.20
Vehicle
511.20/4
766.80
Housing
1452.00/13
670.15
Generator
524.09/4
792/14
Supervisor
11656.00/4.33
16151.50
Total
30412.33
Subsurface Drainage,
As per the committee's analysis 1.71 days or 0.29 week is accepted.
Therefore cost for staff:
STAFF
WEEKLY COST (DM)
TOTAL COST for 0.29 wks
VUGA
11656
3380.24
SCHMIDT
11350
3291.50
Total
6671.74
Surface Drainage Time Lost
RE's 
50 days or 8.33 weeks
Committee's              7.47 days or 1.25 Cost over 1.25 weeks
C:Aini-A|«p5
39r
Staff
Entfe liner Entfellner Hahn Vollrouth
Cost/ month (DM)
20269
14397
18110
15063
Total cost DM 67839
Cost for 1.25 weeks (1.25 /4 33) * 67839 = DM 19584.00
5.5.1.2 Office and housing in Addis Ababa
The committee has accepted RE's reasoning for this part of payment Rents as per RE
Location
Office Bole Road House 1
House 2 House
Cost/month, Birr
4100
3000 Not applicable
8000
Total Birr 15100
Total cost for 1.25 weeks
(1 25/4.33) *15100 = Birr Running cost (RE)
Monthly cost; 54881.61 Birr/month Total for 1.25 weeks;
4359.12
54881.61 *(1.25/4.33) = Birr 15843.42
Total For 5.5.1.2 :      4359.12 + 15843.42 = Birr 20202.52
5 5.1 3 JV local staff and office running cost
The committee has accepted RE's reasoning for this part of payment. As per RE's analysis:
Local wages
Food
Workmen compensation Total Birr
C:Aini-App5
47831.11 Birr/month
4225.23
1058.52
500874.86
4See RE's analysis.
Total cost for 1.5 weeks
(50874.86/4.33) * 0.29 = Birr 3407.32
• Surface drainage running cost,
(6806.49/4.33) *1.25 = Birr 19647.95
Total For 5.5.1.3;
3407.32 + 19647.95 = Birr 23055.27
5.5.1.4. JV plant cost
See RE"s analysis, based on that, 7000.99*0.29 = DM 2030.29
Total time with intervening period.
1 25 + 1.07 = 2 32 weeks
Total cost over 2.32 weeks delay = 7167 93 *2.32 = DM 16629.60 Total for 5.5.1.4
2030.29 + 16629.60 = DM 18659.89
5.5 1 5.           Loss of margin See RE's analysis approach 11444.18 *1 25 = DM 14305.23
5.5.1 6
Subcontractor’s resources
The RE has analyzed the subcontractor's machinery and manpower
Total wage, 10% JV expense Subcontractor's
Birr 99530 00
9553.00
"        89577.00
Out of 9553 Birr 75 68% in DM, = DM 5,629.78
However, this calculation is for 8.33 weeks delay time which has to be for 1.25 according to the committee analysis therefore subcontractor’s claim amounts:
(1.25/8.33) * 89577 = Birr 13441.92 (1 25/8.33) * 5,629.78 = 844.80
C:Ami-App5
5APPENDIX 6
REDUCED PRODUCTIVITY OF THE WORK FORCE
Comments    6.4.1-6.4.2. Concurred with the RE’s comment.
6.4.3               Although the RE accepted the committee couldn't approve
the claim due to the following reasons.
There is not any condition (clause) to substantiate this claim nor is there a clear indication as to where the case may apply, to the special risks like war, hostility, usurped power etc.
Any possible increase in cost has been covered in the preceding sections. Claus 42 has been considered in the analysis
APPENDIX 7
CARE OF WORK
The committee has accepted the RE's comments.
Section 8
Unforeseen Conditions At The Main Drain 1
The committee agrees with RE's conclusion
APPENDIX 9
Late Changes To The Design Of The Construction
9.1     GENERAL: The contractor has first received all necessary drawings, according clause 1.06. the contractor should detail working drawings for his subsequent undertakings Clause 1.08 refers also RE's comments on submission 8 as 
well.
9 2 Contractual Backgrounds: Agreed with RE.
9.3     As per the RE's Comment
9.4.    Impact Upon Time.
9.4.1.  Delay in Providing Design Information.
According to the RE's statement there is no impact upon time, the committee agrees with this argument9.4.2.  Effect of Delayed Drawings in Trencher Movements.
i.  RE's  comment  contradicts  9.4.1  in  which  providing  design  information  analysis  has concluded  that  it  has  no  impact  upon  time.  But  in  section  9.4.2  the  consultant agrees with delay proposed by the contractor.
ii  Even  if  a  delay  in  machinery's  movement  is  affected  he  has  an  obligation  to  detail drawings  and  schedule  his  work  sequence  and  request  approval.  (See  technical specification for Drawings of the contract document)
iii. No documentary evidence has been presented to accept the delay time. Due to the above  points  the  committee  found  difficulty  concurring  with  the  RE's  comment; hence the claim is rejected
9.4.3. Extension of Time
The RE mentioned that he would approve certain items based on his letter JV/631/94 and daily records but no daily records were shown nor his quoted letter justifies this. However, the committee couldn't accept his recommendation because of
a)        The 3 cases mentioned under item 9.4.2. and
b)        The committee couldn't justify items 9.4.1,9.4.2 and 9.4.3. Hence this item is rejected.
c)         In his letter Jvs/HA/330/93 of 11/08/93 as substantiation of his claim comments that he was denied an access in B12 by the state farm. But the letter doesn't state why. Therefore, the committee considers this item as un satisfactory document. Hence, argument is not pursued any further here, the 6 day claim rejected.
d)          Letter   Jvs/HA/93   of   21/08/93   is   only   notification   not   substituted,   no   clear presentation. Hence, this item is rejected.
e)        JVS/HA/588/94 substantiate stoppage of trenches 36/30 in which the committee accepted 9 days of time extension.
9.5.     CLAIM FOR ADDITIONAL PAYMENT
The committee agrees with the RE’s comment with respect to sections a, b and c of this section.
9.5.1  Additional cost of Re-survey
The RE's comment is accepted by the committee.
9.5.2. Double handling of excavation work on MD1 due to EELPA's power transmission line
The  committee  agrees  with  the  RE's  comment  in  which  Birr  48927.96  is  payable Ref Jv/063/93 of 24, May/1993.
9 5.3 Prolongation or surface drainage operation greed with the RE's comment. 9.5.4.  Prolongation of subsurface drain operation
9.5.5 Jv expatriate costs9.5.6. Office and house costs
9.5.7   JV local staff and office running cost
9.5.8    Loss of margin.
The  committee  disagrees  with  RE's  comment  in  which  reasons  stated  under  item  9.4.3. disqualify the presentation, hence these items are rejected.
9.5.9. Extra cost of air freight over ship freight.
The committee agrees with the RE's analysis Ref. letter Jv/091/96.
ABP£ND1X1O
Changes To Cost Legislation
The court case of the 40% allowance for 50 workers ruled against the employer and the contractor claimed to be reimbursed as per the rulings.
The RE decided to look into this matter under different headings, other claims, hence this item is not accounted under this section.
10.4.   The RE agreed a 3 day delay has been effected on Dinile Hill on trenching operation due to confiscation of equipment and vehicles and subsequent depletion of stocks of red ash material. He also recommended Birr 6252.76 should be reimbursed, item 10.5.1 the RE  didn't  refer  to  any  supporting  documents  or  substantiate  otherwise.  This  put  the committee  is  a  difficult  position  to  cross  check  the  RE's  analysis,  also  the  committee looked  into  possible  relevant  documents  but  found  no  supporting  evidence.  Hence  this part of the claim is rejected.
Appendix 11
Restraining order against movement of contractors vehicles. Withdrawn by the contractor
Appendix 12
Delays and Extension of Time Rejected By R.E
Appendix 13
Breakdown of the contract prices Only information, claim rejected
C:Ami-App5
oSUBMISSION NO. 14
SECTION 4A & 4B
EWWCA’S Afar Guards In Excess, PART I & II.
It appears from correspondence and RE's comments that the employment of excess Afar Guards reflect the reality that the site would be secured only through the employment of such an arrangement. It is believed that securing possession of site is the responsibility of the employer.
Also, the employer gave the instruction to employ as above to safe guard the site, ref...)
Therefore, it is agreed that the cost incurred as a result of this employment arrangement should be borne by the client.
However, the figure computed by the RE is a bit unclear that overheads are taken as 13.6% where overheads are normally 12% therefore, the figure would be:
Actual cost,
Birr
Sub-contractor's profit
Birr
Total sub-contractor's chargeBirr
JV profit and charges at 10% Birr
Total Payable
SUBMISSION 15
EWWCA DISRUPTION PART I A TO G
SECTION 3A TO 5G EWWCA Downtime parts A-G
Birr
309480 00
37137.60
346617.60
34661.70
381279.30
The committee has cross checked the contractor's and RE’s presentation that this part of the claim is not included in the previous submission item 5, possession of site (disruption claim).
The contractor presented a major part of substantiation items relating to the claims from part II a through G in which the RE has agreed with the approach. However, the committee didn't agree as presented owing to the missing dates of stoppage in the substantiation document, this placed the committee in a difficult position to concur with the presentation made.
SUBMISSION 16
SECTION 8A TO 8E
8a and 8b storage Charge Paid on Behalf of ADP. 8c Withholding tax paid on behalf of ADP
8d Customs duties paid on behalf of ADP, 8e Sales tax paid on behalf of ADP.
C:Ami-App5
o8a and 8b storage charge paid on behalf of ADP's interest.
Under the terms of the contract MOWR has an obligation to pay custom duties for materials or equipment which would eventually become the property of MOWR as stated by the RE in his final submission Nr. 16 ref AA/063/ADP/96 of June, 3,96 . And this has been concurred with by the committee. However the figure for stoppage fee suggested by the RE is not in agreement with the committee's.
The committee recommends Birr 31686.29 to be paid to the contractor, not Birr 275255.72 as computed by the RE. Ref. Final submission Nr. 16 quoted above. The interest related to the agreed figure by the committee as above is also payable to the contractor as follows Days payment overdue, 14/10/94 to 30/06/96.
Interest cost at 12% per annum on a principle of Birr 31686.29
31686.29*625/365*0.12 = 6510.88 Birr
The committee recommends payment of Birr 6510.88 for financing up to 30th June 96, as per the RE's proposal.
8c withholding tax paid on behalf or ADP, markup.
The committee agrees with the reasons made by the RE under this section with respect to mark up and profit margin and recommends as follows:
Markup
Birr 78265.29 * 12/12*. 12 =9391 83
Profit margin             Birr 78265.29*4.97/100 =3889.78
The total amount recommended for payment by the committee on this account is:
Birr 9391.83 + 3889.78 = Birr 13281.61
8d Customs duties paid on behalf cTADP, Markup.
The RE recommended as lose of revenue which is caused by the difference in the loss of revenue received when payment is made, the approach is, (Ref. Final submission Nr. 16) Custom duties paid by JV - custom duties repaid by ADP = loss of revenue
69361.50-53412.69 = Birr 15948.81
The RE recommends Birr 15948.81 should be reimbursed to the contractor.
In addition the RE recommends  a profit margin of an outlay  of Birr 307605.91 (Ref. application profile, submission Nr. 16) to be paid to the contractor on 4 97% basis as referred by the RE in this same submission. Therefore, he recommends:
Bin 307605 91 * 4.97/100 = Birr 15288.01
The total amount recommended by the RE on this account is,
C:Ami-App5
IIBirr 15948 81 + 15288.01 = Birr 31236 82
The committee agrees with the above figure to be reimbursed to the contractor.
8e Sale tax paid on behalf of ADP, mark up.
The RE recommends that no payment is due on this account and concurred with by the committee.
The committee therefore, recommends total payment to the contractor as follows
8b        6510.88
8c       13281 61
8d       31236.82
Be      Nil
5W22J1
SUBMISSION 17
PREPARATION OF DISPERSION CLAIM PART I.
In his submission Nr. 17 AA/067/ADP/97 of 3 June,96 the RE "Suggested that about 80% of the claim is relevant and could not have been shortened. Likewise, the committee believes that certain costs would be incurred irrespective of whether or not the claim was fully established. The committee's approach in fixing the cost incurred in this section of the claim is  based on the prorata of total recommended figures  of the committee's recommendation and the contractor's submission i,e, 2.61% for DM and 1.38% for Birr amount
Therefore, details shall be as follows, based on the RE's steps of Analysis.
A)  The RE in his submission above accepted certain items which he called unaltered direct cost  amounting  to  DM  13651  41  and  Birr  2500.00.  The  committee  agreed  with  this respect.
Staff costs has also been calculated by the committee as follows
a)        Operation director = 10274 85
b)        Senior claims engineer = 36979.47’2.61% = 965.16 Total = 11240.01
C:Aini-App5
12B)       Similarly accommodation charges are reduced as follows:
Total days = 50 days claimed by the contractor
Total cost = Birr 21633.05
Total new days = 9.5+1.(38*40.5) /100 = 10.06
New cost =21633.05*10.06/50 = Birr 4586.21
C)       The RE proposed Birr 500 & agreed by the committee
D)       The RE rejected overheads claimed by the contractor which is also concurred with by the committee
The committee recommends payment of the following amounts
A
Unaltered direct costs
B
Staff accommodation
C.
Transport
D.
Over head
TOTAL
DM
13651.41
11240.01
00.00
00,00
24891.42
Birr
2500.00 4586.21
00.00
00.00
7586.21
SUBMISSION NR.18
OTHER CLAIMS, SECTION 7
JV Afar Guards In Excess, 40% Allowances.
The committee has gone through various correspondence and RE's analysis in which he concurred with the RE's recommendations as he found no ground to either vary or reverse the recommendation.
SUBMISSION NR.19
OTHER CLAIMS.
2 Handing over furniture, 1st attempt. 3 Equipment damaged by operators 6 Burglaries
9a to 9d Bonuses paid to JV staff.
C:Ami-App5
132.        Furniture
Claim for time lost cost for release of the furniture from the contractor's compound due to court cases, since the court case is not the fault of the employer RE has rejected this part of the claim, committee concurred with..
3. Equipment Damaged By The Operators
The RE's analysis is fully accepted by the committee and as per clause 52 the claim is not substantiated on due time.
6. Burglaries.
The committee agrees with the RE's clarification.
9ato9d: Bonuses Paid To JV Staff
The RE's analysis is accepted by the committee to be just and correct as there is no clause in the contractual document that states Bonuses paid to JV staff under the employer's responsibility.
C:Ami-App5
14SUBMISSION NR.20
DISRUPTION PART II.
PART HA, IV DISRUPTION.
This part of the claim is the continuation of submission 5 which is not included in the section The committee went through the analysis made by the contractor and the engineer and had given his comments as follows:
Analysis of Time Extension
•   Letter J VS/HA/1149/94 of 12/10/94.
•     With  respect  to  the  Sub  Contractor's  letter  Ref.  ADP/JV/637/94  of  09/10/94  the  contractor  did not  indicate  the  ending  time  for  the  stoppage,  however  this  was  substantiated  in  the  contractor's letter  Ref.  J  VS/HA/1162/94  dated  19/10/94  with  the  sub  Contractor's  letter  attachment  Ref. ADP/JV/648/94  of  18/10/94  The  committee  therefore  agrees  with  53  hr  this  excludes  Sundays and only considers 8 hr. working a day.
•     Leiter  J  VS/HA/1162/94  dated  19/10/94  (ADP/JV/648/94,)  in  this  letter  the  contractor  didn’t substantiate  his  claim,  i.e.  no  ending  time,  but  in  his  letter  Ref  JVS/JIA/1170/94  dated  29/10/94. the committee agrees 57.5 hr., this also excludes Sundays and considers 8 hr. working a day.
•    Letter  J  VS/HA/1170/94  dated  29/10/94  (ADP/J  V/659/94)  the  contractor  did  not  substantiate  in this letter of the claim but this was substantiated in the contractor letter of JVS/HA/1179/94 dated 08/11/94  (ADP/674/94) the agreed time is  I9hr. the committee agrees that the stoppage has taken place   and   confirmed   from   correspondence   that   the   RE*s   letter   instructed   the   contractor   a resumption  of  work  in  his  letter  Ref.  JV/624/94  of  24  Nov.  1994.  This  calculates  the  stoppage amounting to 146 hr. (02/11/94 -24/11/940.
•  Leiter  J  VS/1066/94  ol  24/08/94  (ADP/J  V/595/94)  dated  23/08/94  not  substantiated  hence,  not accepted.
•  Letter J  VS/HA/1029/94  dated  28/07/94  (ADP/J  V/5  79/94  of 28/07/94), these letters  do not cross refer, hence this claim is not accepted.
.  Letter  JVS/HA/1002/94  dated  18/07/94  (ADP/JV/567/94  of  18/07/94)  this  is  considered  to  be  a notification  that  there  has  been  a  rainfall  during  the  preceding  night.  However,  the  references quoted by the RE and submission by the contractor do not correspond to each other, hence its is not  accepted  by  the  committee  also  ADP/JV/695/94  refers  to  rain  problems  which  is  the  regular rainy season well known to the contractor at the early stage. The committee do not agree with this claim
i•   Letter   JVS/HA/1102/94   dated   03/09/94   (ADP/JV/611/94   of   01/09/94),   this   relates   to   the contractor's  own  labour  administrative  problems,  clause  65(5)  general  condition  of  the  contract applies, hence not pursued further.
•  Letter  JVS/IIA/607/94  dated  30/08/94  relates  to  the  Ethiopian  new  year  holiday,  which  is  not submitted  through  the  main  contractor,  however  this  is  not  considered  a  legitimate  point  as  a claim  by  the  committee,  hence  not  agreed  with  the  comments  made  by  the  RE.  The  committee therefore agrees only with 5.74 weeks as opposed to the RE’s recommendations amounting to 13 weeks.
a) Running Expenses, Addis Ababa and Site.
Time period 5.74 weeks
Up to 17lh February 1995, monthly cost - 49660.16 
Total cost » (5.74/4 33)*49660 16
- Birr 6581.25
b) Housing and office cost
Office Bole road granted by the RE as Bin 410 this figure has been concurred with by the committee
House 1              For 5.74 weeks @ Bin 5000 per month 
= (5.74/4/4 33*5000=Birr 6628.18
House 2             Not applicable
House 3              For 5.74 weeks @ BirT 8000 per month 
= (5.74/4.33)*8OOO-Birr 10605.08
TOTAL = (410.00+6628.18+10605.08)=17643.25 Birr
c)  Plant costs
No plant cost is considered by the committee because there is no agreement in which the main  contractor's machineries upon  completion  of their duty  could  be (shall be) considered to be part of the Subcontractor's machineries necessary to the work.•  The  contractor  has  accordingly  imported  machineries  for  respective  duties,  in  the  event one of the parlies finishes the undertaking earlier than the other party he can on his own assist the one behind, but this should not entail cost on the employer as this arrangement has been made between the two parties only.
d) J V Expatriate Costs
Site Agent
5.75 weeks, @ 14379 DM per month 
(5.74/4.33)* 14379= 19085.17 DM
Commercial Manager
5.74 weeks, @ 18110 DM per month 
(5.74/4 33)*18110=24007.25 DM
Project Manager
5.74 weeks, @ 20269 DM per month 
(5.74/4.33)*20268=26869.30 DM
TOT AL69961.72 DM
e) JV Head Office Overheads
The  committee  wouldn’t  be  able  to  find  any  background  information  (logical  relation)  or justification to consider this part of the claim, hence this is not pursued any further.
0 EWWCA Costs
The committee agreed with the RE's approach in which he fixed the 70% for supervision by JV, therefore the payable amount to the contractor would be:
a Running expenses Addis Ababa and site         Birr  65831.25 
b Housing and office costs
Total
Birr 17643.25 
Birr 83474,50
c. Plant Cost
d Expatriate costs
e. Head office overheads
Nil
DM69961.72
Nil
Total
Amount payable Birr 0.70*83474.50
= Birr 58432.15
= DM 0 70*69961.72 = DM49973.20
DM 69961,72SUBMISSION NR. 21
PROLONGATION OF BONDS & INSURANCE
The RE has made a prorata of cost in his final calculation, however the committee has come up with his own figure:
To the employer account, (5.99/17.49)*100, i.e, 39.97% of the total agreed cost.
To  the contractor, (100-39.97), i.e. 60.03% of the total agreed  cost, for section  e interest on delayed  payment of retention  money  the total cost claimed  by  the contractor DM 81237  59 and BirT 30727.01 based on an interest rate of 12% (RE's figure).
Essentially,  this  is  the  cost  of  financing  the  contractor's  over  draft  for  the  amount  retained over the extended contract period.
The figure computed is,
DM 81237.59*39.97=DM 32470.67 Birr 30727.01 *39.97 = Birr 12281 59
SUBMISSION NR. 22
1 IB     40% Allowance
I1C"
1 ID R
n
he
n
11F        If
n
R
N
Part I Part  n Pait  ni Part  IV Part  V
IIG       Court Cases Various As Fol    lows: Illi        Alo Husscn Asscfa
111      6 Men Compensation
11.1     Compensation For 3 Items
IIK
IIL Uniform For Guards 1
M6    n
MOWR legal service advised allowance is not accepted and the RE has agreed on die comment that no  legislation  change and  the 40% allowance paid  is contractor's award  to  his employees both  hired from outside project area and in the project vicinity. (Clause 34(12) part (II).
.1The contractor has created less favourable condition between his employees in paying 40% allowance lor the employees hired from the outside project area. Besides, the committee couldn't come across any  document or correspondence informing  the employer and  permission  there to  do  so  Therefore, the committee is not in a position to accept this part of the claim. With his letter PA3/I/213 of 25 October 1995 the RE didn't accept the subject matter however, he considered to cover the contractor's bonafidc, by adding 40% allowance to the base rate Birr 2.
Eventhough  as  to  proclamation  64  of  1975  defines  that  wage  shall  include  allowance,  this  is  not applicable to this particular area therefore the RE’s approach of establishing of wage is not accepted
COST CONSIDERATION
The committee has gone through  the analysis made by  the RE before and  after the legislation. However, it is not found to be acceptable by the committee for concurrence with, hence this part is rejected because of the reasons given above regarding the hardship allowances.
SUBMISSION NR 23
OTHER CLAIMS SECTION 13 AND 14
13  Taxes  On  Deferred  Payment  Of  Claims
14 Interest On Deferred Payment Of Claims
Based  on  the employer's decision  to  consider all claims in  one go  the Resident Engineer advised the employer not to do this, otherwise, they would be in technical breach of contract and that interest charges may have to be home by MO\VR, in his letter AA/36/ADP/95 of 16 May  1995. Il is understood  from the correspondence that the situation  has not developed further. Therefore, this submission  as commented  by  die RE and  concurred  with  by  the committee, it is by way of notification hence no payment would be considered in this section of the claim.SUBMISSION NR. 24
OTHER CLAIMS, SECTION 12 COST OF VISA
In the 2n<l to Inst paragraph of the RE’s comments of this section, it is stated "it is understood tlifit die MOWR letter to the co 'ractor requesting a replacement project manager was brought about by a government directive" which made the committee feel that there was a strong disenchantment with the contractor's management therefore the committee has the impression that the employer wouldn’t probably have facilitated visas as required owing to Uie above quotation,  which  might  be  considered  under  Clauses  34(10)  of  particular  application. Therefore, no financial recommendation is made by the committee in this section of the claim.
SUBMISSION NR. 25
DISRUPTION CLAIM PART II, PART UB.
Under this claim submission there are a list of claim items (I to 11 cases) which will be treated accordingly as below.
1) Court cases, 40% hardship allowances
The  position  of  the  committee  that  has  been  explained  in  submission  Nr.  22  is  also applicable in this case, hence no recommendation of payment is due to the contractor.
2)  Court cases, camp facilities
The committee agrees with the comments made by the RE that since the case is still pending at the Federal Government supreme court, conclusion on this is subject to the court rulings.
3)  Uniform for guards,
The contractor has enumerated contractual clauses i.c. 65(4),70(1),70(2),34(9),& 34(12) in support of his claim. However, 65(4) is not applicable because the ruling was made by a duly constituted authority (court).
70(1) is not applicable as it only refers to a wage rale.
70(2( is not applicable because there was no changes or introduction to law which causes additional costs to the contractor.34(9) is not applicable because the contractor has an obligation to be abide by the orders passed by a duly constituted authority with regard to engagement, working conditions of labour and all other matters connected therewith.
34(12) is not applicable due to the reasons stated in connection to clause 34(9)
4)   court case -red ash
With reference to die contract annexures of addendum Nr. 1 question and answer Nr.21 it has been stipulated that if any payment necessary would be borne by the contractor. Hence there is no payment recommended by this committee (clause 28 G O.)
5)  Appendix 11-
This relates also to disruption claim part I
Section 11
Restraining Order.
The committee agrees with the RE's analysis in this section. However the comments made under item 5.3.2 of this section is not concurred with by the committee as this has already been dealt with in the preceding section, court cases. 40% hardship allowances, court cases red ash etc., where no payment was justified, hence the committee recommends no payment under this section.
6)  Court cases - other case
This relates to " other cases, section 1 Ig to 11 k."
The committee agrees with the RE’s comment in which the RE concluded compensation for dismissal with the respect to the above section is rejected.
7)   Disruption of physical work on site.
Disruption Part 11, Section 31 to 3G, EWWCA down time part A to G
No additional information is  provided in litis  current claim when compared to submission Nr. 15 (some issue) therefore the reader is  referred to the comment presented under submission Nr. 15.
78) Disruption of demobilization
The committee agrees with the P.E’s analysis in which he recommended no payment in this section
9) Major disruption
The claim was based on the employer's letter of 21/11/94 Ref. MD41/246 which the RE would think  the contractor was  instructed by  this  employer letter to act. However the committee understood the content of die letter to be only a means to giving an information to support die contractor in the court cases. The letter is not contained with the intention to give instruction (o the contractor. The claims lodged by the contractor in items 2 to 9 but considered 2 and 3 by the RE arc not accepted by the committee respectively. Hence the committee makes no financial recommendation in this respect, owing to the above reasons.
10) Financing of cost of additional works
The contractor lodged this part of llie claim as though he undertook additional works, thus requiring additional payment The RE in this respect agrees with the contractor's presentation. However the committee tried to ascertain the said additional works, but couldn’t
%
do this, because, it has never been detailed nor substantiated by the claimant The RE evenlhough agrees with the contractor's submissions, didn’t go further in putting the claim more readable. The committee therefore with die above information decided to make no financial recommendation with this regard
11)       Extension of Time.
The contractor based his claim on the preceding sections, 2 to 9 and sections 6 and 12 from part 1. With regard to sections 2 to 9 the committee is in disagreement with contractors presentation where he made no time extension nor payment there of relating to section 6 ond 12 like wise no agreement was made for section 6 nor time extension for 12.
12)         Summary
Under this submission Nr. 25 rotating to items 1 through 10 the committee has made either no financial recommendation or granted extension of time.
COUN TER CLAIM AGAINST THE CONTRACTOR.
The committee concurs with the figure agreed between the contractor and the RE relating to (he counter claim against Ore contractor. This is based on Uic reference which was made to letter of ref. J V/179/95 dated Nov.3 1995 and Ref. JV/055/96 dated March 5 1996.TOTAL EXTENSION OF TIME
As per the revised work schedule submitted by die contractor on 02/03/92, project completion lime is March 30, 1994, however, due to various reasons i.e. custom clearance., lack of possession of site, unforeseen conditions (rain) and others, the contractor is awarded extension of time till February 1 7, 1995 by the RE. With regard to this the committee has accepted only 36.5 days of extension of lime
which extends die project completion period to May 7, 1994. Actually the project was completed in March 1996. Therefore, the Employer has the right to lodge counter claims for the liquidated damage as above.
SUBMISSION 26
OTHER CLAIMS SECTION 16 PREPARATION OF DISRUPTION PART U
Like the approach undertaken in submission Nr. 17 this part of the claim could also be treated like wise in which a prorata will be made between the claim loged by the contractor and claim agreed with by the committee. Therefore the amount payable,
Birr (5638.74/3564615.10*16767.00= bin 2522 89). DM (107335.29/3483526.90)* 26789.80 = DM 825.45
oDisruption Claim Part I
Summary of Claims
Submitted by The Contractor
Proposed by RE
Proposed bv the Committee
Section
Title
Dm Claimed
Birr Claimed
D.M Payment
Birr Payment
Sub
Surface
2
Late Mobilization Advance
Dm
Birr
2.5.1.
cost of JV staff on standby
Withdrawn in full by J
Withdrawn in full by JV
2.5.2.
Office and house costs in Addis A
Withdrawn in full by J
Withdrawn in full by JV
2.5.3
Loss of margin over period of del
Withdrawn in full by J
Withdrawn in full by JV
2.5.4
Cost of EWWCA staff on standby
Withdrawn in full by J
Withdrawn in full by JV
Total for section 2
0
0
0
0
3
late Customs Clearance
3.4.3
Effect on programmed activities
3.5.1
JV expatriate cost during delay
387.675.40
0
0
93 447
13,703
3.5.2
Office and house costs in Addis A
0
268,503.28
0
0
0
3.5.3
JV local staff and office running C site during delay of 18.5 weeks
0
290.789.62
89,913.07
0
0
11.895 29
3.5.4
JV plant costs during delay of 18
262,125.02
0
0
106,886.41
19.588.16
3.5.5.
Specialists on standby waiting deli
Withdrawn in f ull by
0
0
0
0
3.5.6
JV expatriate costs during delay
104,840.89
0
0
0
0
0
357
..
3.5.8
Office and house costs in Addis A delay of 5 weeks
0
80.656.78
0
0
0
0
Jv local staff and office running C site durinq delay of 5 weeks
0
78,591.79
0
0
0
0
359
JV plant costs during delay of 5
70,844.60
0
0
0
0
0
3 5 10
Loss of margin over period of com
268,938.23
0
0
0
0
0
3 5 11
subcontractor's resources over 5
0
870,044.00
0
0
0
0
3 5 12
Demurrage and storage costs
0
289.851.88
275,255.72
0
0
31,686.29
3 5 13
Additional expenses and transport
0
19.433.50
0
0
0
0
rota I for section 3
1.094 433.14
1,897 870.85
365.168 79
200.333.41
33.291.1b
43 581.58
ami-claixls
Page 1Summary of Claims
Submitted by The Contractor
Proposed by RE
Proposed by the Committee
Section
Title
Dm Claimed
Birr Claimed
DM Payment
Birr Payment
Sub
Surface
Dm
Birr
4
Withholding  persmission  to commence the works
4.4
Impact on time
Withdrawn in full by JV
Withdrawn in full by JV
4.5
Claim for additional payment
Withdrawn in full by JV
Withdrawn in full by JV
Total for Section 4
0
0
0
0
5
Lack of possession of site and reduced productivity caused by the Afar problems
5.4.2
Critical delays to sub surface drainage critical delays to surface drainage
5.5,1.1
JV expatriate costs during delay
155,042.73
0
195,232.04
0
30,412.33
5.5.1.2
Office and house costs in Addis A
0
110,517.36
0
134,629.75
4,359.12
5.5.1.3
JV local staff and office running during delay of 7 weeks
0
110.028.51
0
207,304.96
23,055.27
5.5.1.4
JV plant costs during delay of 7 weeks
99,182.44
0
112,884.98
0
2,030.29
5 5.1.5
Loss of margin over period of 7 weeks
80,109.26
0
95,530.02
0
14,305.23
0
5.5.1.6
EWWCA resources over 18 week?.
0
3.453.901.20
7,532.51
89,845.22
844.8
13441.92
Total for section 5                        „------
<#^934.43
3,674,447.07
411,179.55
■/\
431,779.93
47,592.65
40,856.31
6
Reduced Productivity of the Workforce
6.4.1
Non productive costs of staff
201,609.95
0.00
6.4.2.
Hardship allowance
68,000.00
0.00
0
0
6.4 3
Reduced Productivity
rtJ319.892.49
129,727.35
85 665.43
34,740.26
Total for section 6
589.532.44
129,727.35
85,665.43
34,740.26
AMI-CLAI.XLS
Page 2Summary of Claims
Submitted by The Contractor
Proposed by RE
Proposed by the Committee
Section
Title
Dm Claimed
Birr Claimed
D.M Payment
Birr Payment
Sub
Surface
Dm
Birr
7
Care of the works (Flooding)
7.4.5
Summary of delays
Included above
0
7.5.1
Repairs to dyke prior to main flood
Refereed to Insurance
Refereed to Insurance
7.5.2
Reoairs to dyke to minimize flood
Referred to Insurance
Referred to Insurance
7.5.3
Stoppage by subcontractor during
Referred to Insurance
Referred to Insurance
7.5.4
Stoppage by JV during flood
Referred to Insurance
Referred to Insurance
7.5.5
Repairs to damaged equipment
Referred to Insurance
Referred to Insurance
7 5.6
Re construction of access toad to • /
Referred to Insurance
Referred to Insurance
7.5.7
Photo documentation
Referred to Insurance
Referred to Insurance
7.5.8
Remedial works to surface daring
Referred to Insurance
Referred to Insurance
7.5.9
Remedial works of flushing the su
Referred to Insurance
Referred to Insurance
7.510
JV expatriate costs during delay
76,858.31
0
0.00
0
7.5.11
Office and house costs in Addis
Ababa
64,999 64
0.00
0
7.5.12
JV local staff and office running costs on site during delay of 4 weeks
62,873.43
0.00
0.00
7 5 13
.
Loss of margin over period of 4 week
45,776.72
0.00
0
Total for Section 7
228,308.03
350.938.89
0
o
0
8
Unforeseen  conditions  at  the  Main Drain 1
8.4
Impact on time
851
Prolonged activity of EWWCA
0.00
1,040,124.40
0
0
Total for section 8
0.00
1,040.124.40
AMI-CLAI XLS
Page 3Summary of Claims
Submitted by The Contractor
Proposed by RE
Proposed bv the Cnmmittpp
Section
Title
Dm Claimed
Birr Claimed
D M Payment
Birr Payment
Sub
Surface
Birr
9
Late changes to the design of the
works
9.4
Impact on time
9.5.1
Additional cost of re-survey
0
40,684.00
0
0
9.5.2
Double handing of excavation or EELPA transmission line
0
0
0
48.927.96
9.5.3
Prolongation of surface drainage
0
1,783,070.40
0
48.927.96
0
9.5.4
Prolongation of surface drainage
332,969.62
0
0
9.5.5
JV expatriate costs during delay
492,794.46
0
9.5 6
Office and house costs in Addis A
plant
380,487.96
21,252.66
0
9.5.7
JV local staff and office running during delay of 235 weeks
0
369,381.41
28.003.96
0
9.5.8
Loss of margin over period of 23.5
268,938.23
0
0
0.00
959
Extra cost of airfreight over ship
7,247.80
0
7.247.80
0.00
7,247.80
Total for section 9
1,101.950.11
2,573,623.77
56,504.42
48.927 96
7,247.80
48.927.96
10
Change to Cost Legislation
10.4
Impact on time
10.5.1.
Overtime working at Dinile Hill
0.00
6,252.76
0
6 252.76
10 5 2
.. 10 5 3
Cost of vehicle confiscated
11,392.59
0
3,298.30
0
. 10 5 4
StoDoaae of JV eauipment for 3d
7,084.99
0
6.072.39
0
.. 10 5 5
JV expatriate costs during delay
10,484.99
000
2,656 58
0
Office and house costs in Addis A
0.00
8,081.02
0
0
10 5 6
JV local staff and office running during delay of 0 5 weeks
10.5.7
.
Loss of margin over period of 0.5
5,722.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
34,684.66
22,192.96
12.027.27
6 252.76
AMI-CLAI.XLS
Page 4Summary of Claims
Submitted by The Contractor
Proposed by RE
Proposed by the Committee
Section
Title
Dm Claimed
Birr Claimed
D.M Payment
Birr Payment
Sub
Surface
Dm
Birr
11
Restraining order against movement of contractor's vehicles
11.4
Impact on time and cost
Total for section 11
0
0
0
0.00
12
Delays and Extension of Time
123.1
Stoppages due to adverse weather
0.00
0.00
0.00
0
12.3.2
Holidays, public meetings strikes
0
0
0.00
0
Total for Section 12
0.00
0
0
0.00
Total For Disruption Part I
3,383,242.81
9,688,925.20
930,545.46
722,034 32
88 371 89
133.365.85
AMI-CLAI.XLS
Page 5Disruption Claim Part II
Summary of Claims
Submitted by The Contractor
Proposed by RE
Proposed by the Committee
Section
Title
Dm Claimed
Birr Claimed
D.M Payment
Birr Payment
Sub
Surface
Dm
Birr
1
Running Expenses Addis Ababa
2
Housing and office costs
0
0
Included elsewhere
3a
EWWCA downtime part A
194,049.49
78.219.81
25.651.08         305,957.30
3b
EWWCA downtime part B
53,987.79
21.762.05
Included above in 3a
3c
EWWCA downtime part C
30,971.05
12.484.19
Included above in 3a
3d
EWWCA downtime part D
46.472.45
18.732.68
Included above in 3a
3e
EWWCA downtime part E
53.895.04
21,724.66
Included above in 3a
3f
EWWCA downtime part F
4.641.32
1.970.98
Included above in 3a
3q
EWWCA downtime part G
12,272.07
4.946.78
Included above in 3a
j                     — -
IIA
JV disruption (part included allowance
355.035.00
443,921.12
276,793.93
131,680.62
49,973.20
58.432.15
ilB
01.02.95 31.03.96 as follows:’ Section
Title
Summary of Claims Submitted by 
the Contractor
Proposed by RE
Sub Surface
Dm Claimed
Birr Claimed
Proposed by the Committee
D.M Payment       Birr Payment
IIB.01
Office and housing cost
Dm
Birr
8,350.16
140.000.00
Included below in IIB 1 to 11
IIB.02
Running expenses Addis and site
0.00
402848.12
Included below in IIB 1 to 11
IIB.03
Cost for expatnates
387.978.30
0.00
Included below in IIB 1 to 11
IIB.04
Depreciation of plant and vehicles
864.804.12
0.00
Included below in IIB 1 to 11
IIB.05
Prolongation of bonds and insurance
315.810.27
36496.46
Included below in IIB 1 to 11
IIB.06
Lose of marg.h
698094.98
0.00
Included below in IIB 1 to 11
'J
IIB.07
Cost of freelance assistance
0.00
29260.00
Included below in IIB 1 to 11
IIB.08
Additional insurance cost
16879.40
0.00,
Included below in IIB 1 to 11
IIB.09A
Additional expenses
0.00
85650.00
Included below in IIB 1 to 11
IIB.09B
Additional expenses
0.00
6947.00
Included below in IIB 1 to 11
IIB.09C
Additional expenses
0.00
17370.80
Included below in IIB 1 to 11
IIB.01
40% hardship allowance
Already included as other claims
0.00
167322.05
IIB.02
Camp facilities
0.00                 888276
0.00
0
IIB.03
Uniforms for guards
Already included as other claims
0.00
10269.83
IIB.04
Red Ash
Included already in IIB.01 to IIB
0.00
0.00
IIB.05
Restraining order
Included already in IIB.01 to IIB
0.00
0.00
IIB.06
Court cases Other cases
Included already in IIB.01 to IIB
0.00
0.00
IIB 07
Disruption of physical works on site
Included already in disruption Pa
0.00
0.00
IIB 08
Disruption of demobilization
Included already in IIB.01 to IIB
0.00
0.00
IIB 09
.
IIB 10
Major disruption (summary of claim)
Included already in IIB.01 to IIB
0.00
139227.8
Financing of cost of additional wo
Not detailed yet
IIB 11
Extension of time
27094.36
0.00 17207.04
Total for disruption Part II
3,042,741.44
2.210,510.55
329530.37
771664.64
49973.2
58432.15
BOOK1.XLSOther Claims
Summary of Claims
Submitted by The Contractor
Proposed by RE
Proposed bv the Com mt ft a a
Section
Title
Dm Claimed
Birr Claimed
D.M Payment
1
Birr Payment
Prolongation of bonds and insurance
Sub
Surface
Dm
Birr
2
Handing over furniture...
4,424.70
1,243.83
0
3
Equipment damaged by operators
0
22,533.80
912.31
0
381 279 30
,.
4a
0
EWWCA Afar guards in execs part
0
407,343.20
0
386,726.21
4b
EWWCA Afar guards in excess part
0
200,676.00
Included above
5
Interest paid on overdraft part I
0.00
108,864.50
0
0
6
Burglaries
4,495.26
3,500.00
0.00
0
7
JV Afar guards in excess. 40% allo.
4.806.15
37 409.86
0.00
25,750.27
25,750.27
8a
Taxes, stargaze and duties paid on behalf of ADP
8b
And interest on late payment as flow
56.559.39
6,510.88
8c
Withholding tax paid o behalf of
~o.oo'
11,740.02
0.00
13,281.61
13.281.61
8d
Custom duties paid on behalf of
0.00
42,690.64
0.00
31,236.82
31 236.82
8e
Sales tax paid on behalf of ADP m
0.00
45,871.91
0.00
0.00
9a
Bonuses paid to JV staff 1
6.900.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
9b
Bonuses paid to JV staff 2
6,900.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
9c
Bonuses paid to JV staff 3
24,150.00
2,012 50
0.00
0
9d
Bonuses paid to JV staff 4
6,900.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
10
Preparation of disruption claim pa
70,260.79
30,017 89
53,509.84
21.117.76
24891.42
7,586.21
11a
.. Cases as follows
11b
40% allowance part I
23,369.831
188,306.64
0.00
131,964.93
11c
40% allowance part II
2,530.00
143,584.07
0.00
Included above
11d
40% allowance part III
0.00
16,421.55
0
Included above
11e
40% allowance part IV
0.00
1,718.56
0
Included above
11f
40% allowance part V
0.00
2,031.36
0.00
Included above
11a
Court cases various as flows
11h
Ato Hussen Asefa
0.00
943.00
See part IIB
See Dart IIB
11i
6 man compensation
0.00
2,070.00
See part IIB
See part IIB
11i
• 'J
Compensation for 3 items
0.00
17,250.00
See part IIB
See part IIB
ami-clai.xls
Page 8Summar
Submitted byy 
of Claims
The Contractor
Proposed bv RE
PrODOSed bvthp Cnmmitfpa
Section
11k
Title
Compensation for 6 items case 1
Dm Claimed n on
Birr Claimed
D.M Payment
07 floo r\n
Sub
Surface
Uniforms for guards I
£i
.ojy.uu
Birr
11L
113.23
12
Cost of Visa
12,256.64
oee Hart IIB
See Part IIB
See Part IIB
See Part IIB
6.165.55
3,907.11
5.361.35
3,397.49
13
Taxes on deferred payment of claim
To be
presented after payment
of
To be presented at a later date
14
Interest on deferred payment of
To be
presented after payment
of
To be presented at a later date
15
Preparation of Disruption Part II
26,789.89
16,767.00
1,307.68
8.399.50
825.45
2 522 89
,.
Total for Other Claims
440,785.54
1,354.104.69
112,967.06
698,400.39
58,187.54
480.449 48
Summary
Disruption Claim Part I
3,383,242.81
9,688,925.29
930,545.46
722,034.32
88.371.84
133,365.85
Disruption Claim Part II
3,042,741.44
2,210,510.55
329,539.37
771,664 64
49.973.20
58.432.15
Other Claims
440,785.54
1,354,104.60
112,967.06
698,400.39
58.187.54
480 449.48
\
_____________________
/
Total for All Claims                                V
6,866,769.79
13,135 183.39 -- ------- ---- --- -
1,373,051.89
2.192.099.35
196.191.35
672.247.48
Counter Claims Against the contractor
1. State farms flooding of fields
0.00
248,422.48
0.00
248,422.48
0
248.422.48
2. Afar task flooding of fields
0.00
127,574.50
0.00
127,574.50
0
127,574.50
Total Counter Claims
0.00
375,996.98
0
375.996.98
AMI-CLAI.XLS
Page 9

< <

Summery

Amibara Drainage Project Claims Report Summary

Amibara Drainage Project 1 - Claims Report Summary

Project: Amibara Drainage Project 1

Document: Review of Contractor's Claims Report

Location: Addis Ababa, Ethiopia

Date: April 1997

1. Introduction

The report reviews claims submitted by the contractor (Joint Venture) in September 1994, which were organized into 12 main sections with 15 additional claims submitted periodically. The assessment followed the contractual conditions, particularly Clause 52 regarding timely notification and substantiation.

2. Key Claim Sections and Outcomes

2.1 Late Mobilization Advance

Contractor withdrew this claim
Committee found no substantial hindrance to mobilization despite minor payment delays

2.2 Late Customs Clearance

Committee accepted 17 days of delay (vs contractor's claim of 95 days)
Recommended payment: DM 13,703 (expatriate costs) and Birr 31,686 (storage charges)
Rejected claims related to air freight clearance delays

2.3 Lack of Site Possession (Afar Problems)

Reviewed 123 disruption items - accepted only selected claims with proper substantiation
Accepted 6 weeks delay for Dinile Hill borrow pit access
Recommended payments for expatriate, local staff, and plant costs during delays

2.4 Late Design Changes

Most claims rejected due to lack of evidence or contractor's obligation to detail drawings
Accepted Birr 48,927 for double handling due to power line issues

2.5 EWWCA Afar Guards in Excess

Accepted that securing site was employer's responsibility
Recommended payment: Birr 381,279 (including 10% profit margin)

3. Financial Summary

Claim Category	Contractor's Claim	Committee's Recommendation
Disruption Claim Part I	DM 3,383,242.81 + Birr 9,688,925.29	DM 88,371.84 + Birr 133,365.85
Disruption Claim Part II	DM 3,042,741.44 + Birr 2,210,510.55	DM 49,973.20 + Birr 56,432.15
Other Claims	DM 440,785.54 + Birr 1,354,104.60	DM 58,187.54 + Birr 480,449.48
Total	DM 6,866,769.79 + Birr 13,133,183.39	DM 196,191.35 + Birr 672,247.48

4. Counter Claims

The employer lodged counter claims for flooding damages:

State farms flooding: Birr 248,422.48
Afar task flooding: Birr 127,574.50
Total: Birr 375,996.98

5. Key Observations

Committee frequently rejected claims due to lack of proper notification/substantiation per Clause 52
Many claims were reduced significantly from contractor's original amounts
Project completion was delayed from original March 1994 date to March 1996
Committee accepted only 36.5 days extension (to May 7, 1994), making employer eligible for liquidated damages