Claim Number 13

FEDERAL DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF ETHIOPIA
ADDIS ABABA ADMINISTRATION

ADDIS ABABA CITY ROAD AUTHORITY
ADDIS ABABA RING ROAD PROJECT
INTERIM SUBMISSION FOR
FURTHER AWARD OF EXTENSION OF TIME AND ADDITIONAL COSTS
NO.13
(VOLUME 1: MAIN CLAIM DOCUMENT)
Submitted by:
China Road and Bridge Corporation

Addis Ababa Ring Road Project Office
P.O.Box 2509
Tel. 0025-1-34 19 71
Fax. 00251-1-34 19 72
Addis Ababa, Ethiopia March, 2003
1
Addis Ababa Ring Road Project
Submission for Further Extension of Time Award and Compensation
Table of Contents
Page
PREAMBLE 4
1.0 INTRODUCTION 6
1.1 Project Data 7

1.2 General 9
1.3 Period Covered by this submission 9
2.0 CATEGORIES OF TIME EXTENSION AND COMPENSATION

11
SUBMISSION
13
2.1. Due to failure to give possession of site(R.O.W problem).
2.1.1. Contract Particulars 14
2.1.2. Detail Case Description 14
2.1.3. Detail Particulars 43
2.1.4. Supporting Documents 44
45
2.2 Due to Change in subsequent Legislation
2.2.1 Contract Particulars 46
2.2.2 Detail Case Description 46
2.2.3 Detail Particulars of the Claim 46
2.2.4 Supporting Documents 46
52
2.3 Due to Employer’s and/or Special risks
2.4. Due to Additional Works and Suspensions(site records)

57
3.0 CHRONOLOGY OF DELAYS
78
4.0 ADDITIONAL OVERHEAD COSTS
81
5.0 EXTENDED COMPLETION TIME
6.0 CONCLUSION 83
86
2
APPENDICES
Appendix 1 Schedules of work
Appendix 2 Supporting Documents due to failure to give possession of

site
Appendix 3 Supporting Documents due to change in Legislation.
Appendix 4 Supporting Documents due to Employer's and/or special

risks.
3
PREAMBLE
The agreement for the construction of Ring Road Project was concluded on 23rd March 1998
between the Employer, Addis Ababa City Road Authority and the Contractor, China Road and
Bridge Corporation.
The work comprises a total length of 33.257 km road with a typical design width of 40m by two
directions, including 2+2 Carriage-way, 2+2 frontage road and sidewalks and a total of 31 structures
(2 Viaducts, 1 Big River-Crossing Bridge, 3 interchange Bridges, 18 Footbridges, 4 Slab Bridges
and 7 other Medium/Small-Sized Bridges or Over bridges).
Since the commencement of the project until Dec. 31, 2002, thirty one (31) payment certificates
were submitted and the total work executed including pre-casted items for the main contract
amounted to Birr 449,335,377 (Four hundred forty nine million three hundred thirty five thousand
three hundred seventy seven). This makes the percentage of works executed so far 97.9 This is
however, on an earnings basis. The actual physical accomplishment based on the planned
activities is higher than the percentage on earnings. The time elapsed, as of 31, 2002 is 1743 days
(out of which 823 days are the time extension awarded) which is 90.9%. The difference in
percentage between the work executed and time elapsed reveals the fact that the project is
substantially behind schedule.
The delays are cased by factors beyond the contractor's control. The delay factors for the period
since the commencement of the project until June 30, 2002 were submitted in CRBC's Interim Time
Extension and Financial Claims Nos. 1,2,3,4, 5, 6, 7, 8and 9. In the claims, 1143 days were
requested as justified delays. The remaining delay factors for the period from July 1st, 2002 to Dec.
31, 2002 are presented in this claim document number 13.
During the period covered in this claim (from July 1st, 2002 – Dec. 31, 2002), the contractor has
experienced serious problems related to taking over of the site (Rights - of - way problem), frequent
design changes and delay in issuing design changes and delay in issuing design details and work
orders. Many notices and site records associated with the above mentioned factors were submitted to
the Engineer.
By far, the main cause of delay has been the confined and fragmented working of foot paths caused
by the Rights of Way problem, an issue upon which CRBC have frequently notified both the
Engineer and the Employer.
This delay has caused heavy additional and unforeseen expenses on the part of the Contractor's
direct costs, particularly by way of lost production. The major delay to the work program, in
additional to causing direct loss of production has also caused the need for a considerable extension
of time with the accompanying extension of over head costs.
4
CRBC is aware that each case submitted within this document is well-known by the Engineer and
the Employer and the evidence presented should there by be recognized and acceptable to both
This submission is presented based upon the following contract particulars:

- Minutes of pre-bid meeting in the tender proposal, Volume 1-B
- Minutes of meetings on contract negotiation
- Technical Specifications (Tender Documents - Volume 2)
- 1202 - Services
- 6100 - Concrete, Steel reinforcement, Form work & Concrete finish.
- Sub-Clause 1.5 of the conditions of contract
Notices, Consents, Approvals, Certificates and Determinations
Engineer's Duties and Authority
Disruption of progress.
- Sub-Clause 6.4 of the conditions of contracts
Delays and cost of delay of drawings
Supplementary drawings and Instructions
- Sub-Clause 12.2 of the conditions of Contract
Delay arising out of physical obstructions
Work to be in accordance with contract
- Sub-Clause 20.3 and 20.4 of the conditions of contract
Employer’s risks and loss or damage due to Employer’s risks
- Sub-Clause 42.1 and 42.2 of the Conditions of contract
Delay and extra cost arising out of the failure to give possession of site.
- Sub-Clause 44.1(c) of the Conditions of contract
Delay arising out of exceptionally adverse climatic conditions
Variations
Substantiation of Claims
Increased costs arising from special risks
Complete documents, analyzing the main areas of delays and disruptions that have necessitated the
filing of this submission together with the required breakdown and supporting documents are
enclosed herewith.
5
1.0 INTRODUCTION
6
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Project Data

Project: Addis Ababa Ring Road Project
Employer: Addis Ababa City Road Authority
Consultant: Parkmans, International Consultancy
Contractor: China Road and Bridge Corporation
Contract Period: 1095 Calendar Days (3 years)
Date of Signing of Contract: 23rd March 1998
Date of Notice of Commencement: 26th March 1999
Date of Commencement: 28 days after date of notice to commence
i.e. 23rd April 1998
Mobilization Period: 4 months (120 days) after the date of commencement
(23rd April - 23rd August 1998)
Contractual Date of Completion: 23rd April 2001
Percentage of contract time elapsed as of June 30, 2002: 138.9 (from April 23rd 98
to June 30, 2002)
Time extension requested so far: 242 calendar days: in submission No. 1
81 calendar days: in submission No. 2
Total =1209 days.
Time extension granted (approved) so far: 87 days from submission No. 1 (under negotiation)
172 days from submissions No. 2-5 (under negotiation)
Financial Claim submitted so far: 16,182,558.35 Birr in submission No. 1
7
4,286,769.90 Birr in submission No. 2 (after deducting price
escalation claim)
3,670,632.76 Birr in submission No. 3 (after deducting price
escalation claim)
3,278,437.00 Birr in submission No. 4
22,226,524.11 Birr in submission No.6
10,118,460.24 in submission No. 9
Total = 235,362,247.12
Financial Claim approved so far:
z The claim Assessor has recommended Birr
63,737,260.92
z AACRA has recommended only Birr 20,898,057.93
z CRBC has disagreed to the above recommendations.
Period covered in this submission: 181 days (July 1st 2002 – Dec. 31st 2002)
Main contract Price: Birr 459,000,000.00
Supplementary contract for route lighting Birr 76,500,000.00
Ambo and Megenagan interchange Birr 68,332,384.17
V.O Amount: Not yet determined
Total amount of work executed for main contract as of 31/12/02:
449,335,377 Birr (97.89%)
Total amount of work done for route lighting
Contract as of 31/12/02: 51,104,343 Birr (66.8%)
Total amount of work done for Ambo and Megenagna
8
Interchange as of 31/12/02: 4,611,935 (6.7%).
1.2 General
The Addis Ababa Ring Road Project starts from Ambo Roundabout and ends at Asmara
Road Megenagna Roundabout with a total length of 33.257 km. The typical design width is
40m by two directions, including 2+2 carriageway, 2+2-frontage road and sidewalks. The
road fabric comprises 30/45cm capping layer, 20/30/47/52cm-subbase course, 15/30/35cm
base course and 8/10cm Asphalt Surfacing. The total structures include 2 viaducts, 1 big
river-crossing bridge, 3 interchange bridges, 18 footbridges, 3 slab bridges and 7 other
medium/small sized bridges or over bridges.
The Employer, Addis Ababa City Road Authority and the Contractor, China Road and
Bridge Corporation signed the construction contract on 23rd March 1998. Parkman, the
International Consultancy, has been assigned for supervision and Contract Administration of
the work.
1.3 Period Covered by the Claim
CRBC has already presented its interim submissions Nos.1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11 & 12 both
for time extension and financial damages for the periods covering from the date of
commencement to June 30, 2001 on 15th Sept. 1999, 9th June 2000, 21st Aug. 2000, 16th Feb.
2001, 3rd April 2001, 24th Sept. 2001, 4th Oct. 2001, Feb. 27, 2002 and 30th August 2002 (for
claims 9-12) respectively. This is the 13th interim submission for the period covering from
July 1st, 2002 to Dec. 31st 2002.
Various notices of claims were submitted to the Engineer within this period. Details of
principal, delay factors and extra costs (and/or damages) arising out of the delays and other
factors are considered and submitted in this document. Although CRBC have tried to
enclose most significant cause of extra cost and delay within this submission it must be
appreciated that to fulfil his objective totally is not possible i.e there may be omissions
which will have to be reviewed later.
In the above matters concerning the employer's obligations under the Contract CRBC have
frequently made the point that the extreme delays and costs of disruption to the Contract,
together with the lack of additional payment has put CRBC into a serious situation
necessitating their financing the project.
Consequently CRBC submit that the time is long overdue for a substantial on account
payment against:-
- Variations agreed in principle but not evaluated

- Variations not yet agreed in principle
- Price adjustment – imported materials
- Recorded work items
9
- Disputed items
- Prolongation costs (Birr 2,299,242.81 was determined by the Engineer in his
letter reference 22073/C.S17 dated 9th May 2000 against application 1 only).
CRBC consequently wish to remind both the Employer and the Engineer that the
processing of payment as above is a long outstanding item and remind both parties of
their agreement to expedite the matter.
10
2.0 CATEGORIES OF TIME
EXTENSION AND COMPENSATION
CLAIMS
11
2.0 CATEGORIES OF THIS SUBMISSION FOR FURTHER EXTENSION
OF TIME AND COMPENSATION
CRBC's requests for time extensions and compensations are categorized into the following
groups:
2.1 Due to failure to give possession of site .

2.2 Due to change in subsequent Legislation
2.3 Due to Employer’s and/or special Risks
2.4 Due to additional works and suspension.
12
2.1. R.O.W Problem
(Mainly Affecting During the Period Under
Review Sections
2A, 2B and the two Interchanges)
13
2.1 SUBMISSION DUE TO FAILURE TO GIVE POSSESSION OF SITE
2.1.1. Contract Particulars:
This application is prepared based on the following Contract Particulars:
- Minutes of pre-bid meeting in Tender Proposal, Volume 1-B

- Sub-causes 12.2 &13.1 of the conditions of contract.
- Sub-Clause 42.1,42.2 and 53.3 of the Conditions of Contract.
- Section 1202 of the Specification (Tender Documents-Volume 2)
2.1.2. Detail Case Description
2.1.2.1 General:
CRBC inquired detail information about the situation of existing services and those to be
relocated during the pre-bid meeting held on Tuesday 27th Oct. 1997 at Addis Ababa
Municipality Building.
Question No.29 was put like this:
"Could you provide and drawings for existing services, together with details of those to be
relocated?"
The answer given was:
"The relocation of services is currently 90% completed and all will be relocated before the site
is handed over. The relocation of services will be indicated to the Contractor on site at hand
over."
The above stated question and answer were annexed to CRBC Tender Proposal volume 1-B.
The Construction Contract was concluded on 23rd March 1998 bearing in mind that the
relocation will be completed before the site is handed over to the contractor and the work would
be commenced as scheduled in the Tender Proposal. Since clause 42 of the conditions of
contract part I was not amended in part II, the Employer had an obligation to hand over the full
land take between contract limits in good time before CRBC needed to gain access as per the
Contract program.
However, at a time more than 1 year after expiry of the original contract program, the
demolition of existing properties such as houses, building, fences, etc. and relocation or
protection of services (utilities) like telephone, Electric, Water and waste water lines have not
been completed yet. The Contractor mobilized adequate earthmoving equipment and
14
commenced and progressed earthworks simultaneously on the project as per the Contract
program. Demolition of houses and other properties and relocation and /or protection works on
utilities existing within the R.O.W were (and still are) substantially delayed. Within a few
weeks of project commencement all site areas should have been free from Rights-of way
problem. However , the right-of-way problem is still the major problem negatively affecting the
smooth commencement and progress of the works. In CRBC interim submissions.1,2 and 3, this
factor alone accounted for a total of 340 calendar days of delay. After 138.9% of the contract
time has elapsed, the right-of-way problem is not yet fully resolved.
CRBC has, during the execution of the works, encountered and is still encountering physical
obstructions, on the site. These physical obstructions were not foreseeable by CRBC since it
was considered that the said 90% of the relocation would be completed during the very early
stages of the project. It has therefore, been physically impossible for CRBC to execute and
complete the works in strict accordance with the contract pursuant to sub-clause 13.1 of the
conditions of contract. This obvious factor entitles the contractor to both extensions of time and
extra cost incurred pursuant to sub-clause 12.2 of the conditions of contract.
Sub-clause 42.1 of the conditions of contract stipulates that, the contractor is given possession
of the site for the purpose of carrying out the works. It also states that, the employer should,
with the Engineer’s notice to commence the works, give to the Contractor possession of the site
(or portions thereof) where appropriate. It is only upon fulfillment of this Condition that the
contractor would be able to perform by efficiently deploying the required manpower and
equipment as per his program.
2.1.2.2. Description of Individual Causes of Increased Cost
In order to demonstrate the serious impedance which occurred to CRBC's work schedule as
a consequence of the "Right of Way" problem we describe below how the lack of space (of
both a permanent and temporary nature) caused extreme delay and large additional costs.
As this extract is taken from our "Direct Cost Application" relating to section 1B, we have
referenced the relevant paragraphs as "DC".
15
DC0. Explanation of Changed Circumstances Due to Right of way Problem
DC.01. Introduction
DC01.1. This section of the submission was incorporated in CRBC'S document number 7 entitled
"Contractor's submission of Interim Claim No 7 for direct cost resulting from changes to
section 1B i.e:-
z Lack of possession of site.
z Other variations and Extra works
Presented by CRBC under cover of their letter reference CRBC/HT126/524/01 dated 4th
October 2001.
DC01.2. In order that the nature and effects of the changes created by the restricted right of way
(particularly in densely populated areas) could be readily understood, CRBC set out a
detailed explanatory report.
DC01.3. This report is now repeated herein as the "Right of way" problems have seriously affected
production and progress up to (and after) 30th June 2002, being the cut-off date of this
present submission no. 9.
DC01.4 Section 1B delays have prevented the transfer of resources to sections 2A and 2B. However,
these sections (at the times of writing this submission) have their own "Right of way"
problems. These are further aggravated by late resolution of services problems within these
2 sections, particularly in respect of existing sewers.
DC01.5 Incidence of "Right of Way" problems have occurred in section 1A but of a far less
intensity than 1B.
DC01.6 Thus the explanations which follow in this part of the submission refer principally to
section 1B, developing into section 2A and 2B of the site works.
DC01.7. If further details are required concerning the effects of the "Right of Way" problem on
CRBC'S planned method of execution, reference should be made to "Contractor's
submission of Interim Claim No. 7" as set out in paragraph No. 1.1 above.
DC1. Tender Drawings
DC1.1. Reference is made to tender drawings:-
“List of Abbreviations “ Drawings No 22021/08/07
“Typical Details – Road Cross Sections – 2 sheets
- Drawings No 2202/08/10 and 11
From the above drawings (copies attached) the following points will be noted :-
(i) The Limit of permanent works is the “Slope Stake Points” which denote the limit
16
of cut areas or in fill areas the toe of the embankment.
(ii) Inspection of the above sections and definitions on the Road Layout Plan Drawings
reveals that the Limits of the Contracts are set back from the “Slope Stake Point” by
a variable amount.
(iii) In several cases, particularly where the road geometry has been changed the “Limit
of Contract” line lies with the Construction area. However there is clearly provision
for this to be rectified before commencement of construction – the “List of
Abbreviations” drawing provides for “Amendments to Rights of Way Line to be
agreed with the Client”.
DC2. Specification
DC2.1. The Specification provides for the Contractor to be paid for all works which he has to
execute in connection with the encountering of services.
Relocation or connecting them (in the case of foul/storm water drainage) into available or
new systems would be at the instruction of the Engineer. Should delays be caused due to the
Employer or owner of the service the programme shall be altered (i.e extended) and
compensation made to the Contractor (Specification clause 1202).
It is clear that the Engineer, on many occasions, was prevented from issuing instructions to
deal with such events as there was no space in which to put any diversionary or cut off
facilities. This has caused major difficulty and delays in construction.
DC2.2. With regard to failure to handover the full site to the Contractor, it is clear that the Contractor
has no right to occupy land which is under the occupation or ownership of others. (Entry
conditions set out in Specification clause 1213 are directed towards exceptional occasions
and for specific purposes – eg gaining access to services, etc in which such entry would
apply outside the “Right of Way line”)
Similarly the Contractor has no authority to evict an occupant of land from an area which is
within the Contractor’s assumed “Right of Way”.
17
DC3. Conditions of Contract
DC3.1. Clause 42.1 places responsibility upon the Employer to give to the Contractor “so much of
the Site and such access as, in accordance with the Contract is to be provided by the
Employer”.
DC3.2. Clause 42.2 states that the Contractor shall be given an extension of time should the
Employer fail to give possession in accordance with the terms of clause 42.1
Thus the Contractor has a clear case for recovery of his extra time and expenses in the event
that failure by the Employer in providing possession results in additional costs or delay.
DC4. Planned Method of Construction

DC4.1. The planned method of construction which the Contractor inserted in his Contract
programme (which was approved) was to construct the service roads first and divert existing
traffic into them. This would then permit free access for the construction of main
carriageways.
DC4.2. Reference to the attached drawings No 22021/08/10 "Road Cross Section” will emphasis the
importance of the following sequences of work:-
(i) Excavate/from embankment to the “Slope Stake Points” and to a protective layer
thickness (say 15cm) above formation level.
(ii) Construct the outside ditch as this will prevent seepage or foul/storm water influx
onto the site and drain into prepared sumps. Place capping fill.
(iii) Construct the main drain runs to the channels of the services roads.
(iv) Construct sub base.
(v) Construct kerb race and connect gullies.
(VI) Lay asphalt. After backfill behind the kerb, build sidewalk and trim side slopes to
final profile.
DC4.3. The above activities were intended to be continuous and could be so under the above
18
plan (for the full land-take width) which could be interpreted from the tender drawings and
inserted in the Contractor’s programme.
The seasonal nature of the work was incorporated into programme as follows which related to
section 1B:-
- Dry Season 1 (October 98 to June 99)
Construct frontage roads to sub base plus other carriageway main drains.
- Dry season 2 (October ’99 to June ’00)
Put public traffic onto frontage roads. Then undertake main carriageway cut, fill capping
fill and sub base activities Construct main carriageway drainage and pave main
carriageways.
The above sequence is readily determined from inspection of the Contract Programme.
DC5. Actual circumstances of Construction

DC5.1. The historical record of events, as they developed, is well documented.
DC5.2. A narrative of these events in Section 1B is appended to this submission in summary
forms for the relevant 6 month stages of the execution period i.e 01.07.01 to 31.12.01.
DC5.3. A comparison of the activities and durations of work in Section 1B details in the Contract
Programme and those actually executed is also appended.
DC5.4. It will be seen from this comparison and from the “Target Programme to completion”
submitted on 11th July 2001 that the start and completion of section 1B will be radically
changed from the original planned date as follows:-
Start Complete Month

Original Contract Programme 16.02.99 30.06.00 16.5
Actual/Forecast 01.03.99 31.12.02 40
Forecast Total Delay 23.5
Delay to 31.12.06(ongoing) 23.5
19
DC6. Causes and Effects of Changes in the Sequence and Method of Working.
DC6.1. There is one fundamental cause of the disaster which has occurred in Section 1B:-
“LACK OF WIDTH OF SITE”.
This has been displayed on this project mainly in the following ways:-
- Formidable structures encroaching into the construction area.
- Fences, temporary structures encroaching into the Construction area.
- Lack of space to construct outer frontage road drainage run.
DC6.2. The main effects of these changes from the original concept by activity discipline has been
as follows:-
- Earthworks (Excavation and capping Fill).
• Inability to conclude stage 1 Earthworks in one visit.
(it is essential to conclude Stage 1 leaving a protection layer of 15 cm or so
above formation and side slopes. Formation of Site Slopes and perimeter
drainage permits carriageway drainage to be executed. After all drainage is
working carriageway formation can be trimmed and sub base plus subsequent
works can then be conducted in free drainage conditions.
z Consequences of the lack of land to be used were:-
* Major extra expenses on verges. most of which has to be by hand because it is
impossible to obtain machine access.
* What work can be done by machines is in fragmented and discontinuous
sections.
* Impossibility of forming the essential perimeter ditch which would have cut
off storm water during the wet season and any foul/storm water seepage.
z Stage 2 earthworks conducted discontinuously.
Consequences
* Working in small sections
* Frequent damage to formation particularly during wet season
as a result of inability to cut off foul/storm water seepage into the site.
20
* total lack of continuity of operations.
z Drainage Construction
Consequences:-
* No cut off of perimeter seepage to lead storm water torrents into
the side ditch because it did not exist.
* Constructing drainage in water logged conditions.
* Inability to work with correct plant due to lack of working
space.
* Inability to construct pipe lines from Manhole to Manhole
and conclude as work proceeds.
z Lack of continuity and anticipated productivity
- Sub-Base
Consequences
* Working in small areas
* No side ditch into which to drain water during and after subbase construction
creating excessive remedial work to sub-base particularly during rainy
season.
- Kerbs and Barriers
Consequences :-
* Working in small lengths
* Working in random parts of section 1 B
- Asphalt
Consequences :-
* Working in small areas

Or
Awaiting excessive time for large areas to be available
* Excessive Joints
21
DC7. Other Variations
DC7.1. Change of Levels Frontage Road V Main Carriageway.
CRBC had to Vacate Section 1B in May 1999 (CRBC Letter reference CRBC/0251/99 dated
8th May 1999 refers) due to level redesign and the requirement by the Engineer to separate
levels of frontage roads and main carriageways. Also the implementation of a new split level
separator visit.
The requirement for 2 phase construction on normal and split level separators created a new
and lengthy series of activities.
DC7.2. Additional Services Diversions
Many additional services were encountered during roadworks construction.
DC7.3. Working within Dense Traffic

(Vehicular and Pedestrian)
The original plan to construct perimeter works and frontage roads as the first stage had to be
abandoned due to the Right of Way problem.
This meant principally that :-
- Frontage roads and Main Carriageway alike were vulnerable during construction to
the effects of rain and sewage/storm water seepage.
- Rain entering the site from junction roads was free to enter the full site. Had it been
possible to construct frontage road first then the gullies would have taken the bulk of
the surface flow. However cut off filter drains would have been a sensible expedient,
but were not instructed.
- Frequent diversions of traffic were necessary.
DC8. Conclusions to this section of Narrative

DC8.1. The radical changes to CRBC’s sequence and method of work caused by the Right of
Way problem coupled with unforeseen obstructions have caused extreme delay and
Additional cost to CRBC, both in respect of the construction of Section 1B and in late
release of resources to Sections 2A and 2B.
22
DC8.2 The effects of these changes are such as to delay the section 1B operation previously
planned at 16.5 months such that it will ultimately take 40 months, of this 23.5 months delay
some 17.5 months has occurred to 31.12.01 together with a "knock on" effect of the same
order in sections 2A & 2B.
DC8.3. Since the whole problem arises due to lack of Possession of Site it is considered that time
and payment matters may be resolved amicably under Clause 51 of the Conditions of
Contract rather than as a breach on the part of the Employer under Clause 42.1.
Should the Employer/Engineer not agree the principle of this agreement then the matter can
be readily dealt with under Clauses 42.1 and 42.2.
23
The following table shows the major case descriptions related to rights-of-way problems. The table
also displays the effort CRBC has demonstrated for the timely resolving of the problem.
TABLE 1
S/N Case Description Ref. No. of Letter Date Issued

1. R.O.W problem on Km32+280 New foot bridge CRBC/HT141/356/02 17/7/02
CRBC notified the Engineer that they have encountered a R.O.W
probl3em while commencing construction of the foot bridge at
Km32+280. The R.O.W problem existed on the LHS and as a result,
construction of pier No. 9, No. 10 and No. 11, were fully suspended
since July 7, 2002. CRBC therefore, requested the Engineer to advise
the concerned body to settle the R.O.W problem. CRBC deemed the
letter to be notice of claim pursuant to sub-clauses 12.2 and 42.2 of
the conditions of Contract.
2. CRBC have notified the Engineer and the Employer that they have CRBC/HT151/374/02 29/7/02
encountered the following R.O.W problem
a. Gergi RBT
- There are non-demolished and non-related properties
such as fence, house and electric poles on LHS of the
RBT.
- There are non –relocated under ground water mains
and telephone cable on LHS of the RBT.
b. Km13+350 new foot bridge
- There are non-demolished and non-relocated properties
such as Fence, trees electric poles and under ground
water main on LHS & RHS.
c. Km9+650 new foot bridge
- There are non-demolished and non-relocated properties
such as houses and electric poles on the RHS.
3. R.O.W Obstruction on Ambo and Megenagna Interchange CRBC/HT145/365/02 23/7/02

CRBC here notified the Engineer and the Engineer and the
Employer that they have encountered the R.O.W obstructions
on Ambo and Megenagna Interchanges.
Megnenagena Interchange
1. There are houses, fences and electric poles located on
sites of pier No. 6 & 7 which needs immediate
demolitions and or relocation (Refer picture No. 1 -
No. 4).
2. There are crossing mains (diameter 1000mm &
30mm), concrete pipe and a monument at the position
of pier NO. 3 (Refer picture No. 5 No. 8).
3. The position of Abutment No. 0 and pier No. 1 is
serving as taxi terminal. The concerned authorities
have to designate another parking area out of our site
so that we can proceed with our work on that section.
(Refer picture No. 9 and No. 10).
4. There are non relocated crossing overhead electric
line and poles on the location of abutment No. 0
(refer picture No. 11).
24
5. There are longitudinal electric poles and fence on
RHS of pier NO. 1 and abutment No. 0 (Refer picture
No. 12 & No. 14).
6. There exists non relocated water main on the RHS
retaining wall (south bound) and Abutment No. –0
(Refer picture No. 13).
Ambo Interchange
1. there is electric pole which needs relocation at pier No.
4 and No. 5.
2. There are electric poles which need relocation at pier
No. 3.
3. There are houses, fences and electric poles which have
to be relocation and/or demolished at pier No. 1, No. 2
and abutment No. 0.
4. There are houses, fences and electric poles which have
to be relocated and /or demolished along the LHS
frontage road.
CRBC requested the Engineer to advise the concerned body
to relocate or demolish there properties within the time frame
indicated in the updated clause 14 program.
4. R.O.W problems on side walk (Km40+100 ~ Km40+950) CRBC/HT160/388/02 12/08/02
CRBC have notified the Engineer that there are properties and
services within the R.O.W that need demolition and re-location.
CRBC further requested the Engineer to advise the concerned bodies
to take the appropriate action with out further delay.
5. R,O.W problems of footpath at section 2A & 2B CRBC/SG044/4333/02 25/9/02
CRBC have submitted the list with pictures regarding the R.O.W
problems of foot path at section 2A and 2B. Since CRBC are
proceeding with the foot path work of which some are interrupted by
the above mentioned problems, the concerned authorities need to be
requested to take quick action for hte settlement, particularly at the
following segments:
Abo RBT
Km32+120 (Right)
Km31+980 – K32+000 (Left)
K32+580 – 620 (Left)
K34+514 (Left)
K39+270 – 360 (left)
K40+290 (Right)
6. R.O.W problems at Megenagna CRBC/SG045/445/02 02/10/02
CRBC have notified the Engineer there are still incompleteness of
house moving and existence of Tele-line and power line affecting the
work of bore hole drilling
7. Suspension of work at Megenagna viaduct due to R.O.W CRBC/HT194/440/02 02/10/02
problems CRBC/HT200/450/02 05/10/02
CRBC referred to the following letters in which they
requested the Engineer to settle R.O.W problems on Ambo &
Megenagna viaducts:
- Ref. CRBC/HT143/358/02 dated July 20, 2002: CRBC
has clearly noted in its schedule that all R.O.W
problems has to be settled until July 25, 2002.
25
- Ref. CRBC/HT145/345/02 dated July 23, 2003:
detail records of R.O.W obstruction of Ambo
and Megenagna viaducts were submitted and
CRBC urged both the Employer and the
Engineer to resolve within the time frame
indicated i the schedule.
CRBC's operation at Megenagna viaduct is now being
seriously affected as no timely action is taken by the
Employer to settle those outstanding R.O.W problems. The
pilling work at Megenagna is fully suspended starting 28th
September 2002 and the whole resources deployed on the
pilling activity were kept idle since then upto 4/10/02.
CRBC thus notified the Engineer that they shall maintain all
records required by the Engineer to substantiate their delay
and financial claims pursuant to clause 44 of the conditions
of Contract.
8. Major R.O.W Problems of Foot path at Sections 2A and 2B CRBC/SG046/446/02 10/10/02
Reference was made to CRBC's letter ref. CRBC/SG044/433/02
regarding R.O.W problems at section 2A & 2B. There is no action
which has been taken by now, except for one at K40+290 (R).
Some problems are interrupting the construction activities, such as the
obstructions at the left of K31+980 – Km32+000 are impeding the
works of foot path and U-shape ditch, and result in demobilization of
equipment.
Some major problems which need the top priority to be given for
settlement are the following:
K31+980 – K32+000 (L) House
K32+120 (R) water main ∅300
K34+540 (R) Electric measuring meter
K34+514 (L) House
K34+760 – 800 (R) water pipe ∅100PVC
K39+270 – 360 (L) House and watermain
9. Obstruction for foot bridge at K13+350 CRBC/SG047/467/02 10/10/02
CRBC informed the Engineer that the existing water pipe at the right CRBC/SG053/502/02 01/11/02
is affecting the foundation work and the existing power lines with
high tension and low tension at both sides are lowering the work
efficiency, cause the construction activities under dangerous situation,
and further, will interrupt the pier column work.
10. R.O.W Problems at 2A section CRBC/SG048/468/02 14/10/02
The site re-check was made by CRBC's Mr. Tong and Parkman's Ato CRBC/HT213/483/02 23/10/02
Takele and the following findings were registered:
a. There is R.O.W problem at K31+980 K32+000(L) which is
affecting our footpath work and U-ditch construction.
b. K32+120(R) there is ∅300mm watermain.
c. House at K34+514 enters inside 1.2m of foot path. This
R.O.W problem has never been solved.
d. Electric meters at K34+540(R) and K31+750(L) should be
removed before CRBC starts construction.
e. ∅100PVC water pipe at K34+760 – 800(R) was not
relocated to the proper position by AAWSA and still affecting
our footpath work.
CRBC requested the Engineer to urge the concerned authorities to
26
solve the problems as soon as possible, so as to minimize the
interruption to the construction.
11. Watermain Relocation at the right of K33+900 – K34+020 and CRBC/SG051/492/02 31/10/02
K34+700 – K34+800
CRBC informed the Engineer that AAWSA has planned to relocate
the water pipe ( ∅100PVC) at the right of K33+900 – K34+020 and
K34+700 – K34+800 which were interfering with the foot path work
starting from 01/11/02
CRBC further notified the Engineer that since this activity affected the
footpath construction, CRBC recorded the event to assist the claim as
a result of this operation
12. R.O.W problem at the right of K32+480 – K32+500 CRBC/SG052/493/02 31/10/02
CRBC informed the Engineer that the footpath construction at the
right of K32+480 – K32+500 is unable to proceed with, due to the
lack of slope stake limit. The Engineer was further requested to check
on the site, and issue there instruction as soon as possible.
13. Status of R.O.W problems on footpath in sections 2A & 2B CRBC/SG059/543/02 28/11/02
CRBC has notified the Engineer the status of R.O.W problems
concerning foot path in sections 2A & 2B. The current status is
indicated below.
CH Obstructions Current Status

K31+800 House Interrupting footpath and U-ditch
~K32+000(L) work
K34+514(L) House Interrupting footpath work
K34+450(R) Electric Resulted in footpath work jumping
mater 10m removed on 27th, 11, 2002
K34+760(R) Subsurface Need instruction if lower it or not
Tele-cable
K39+270 House, fence Interrupting footpath work need
–360(L) watermain rapid solution
∅400
K40+280-296( Iron sheet Affecting footpath work
R) fence
K40+470 –505 Iron sheet Affecting footpath work
fence
K40+920 Wire netting Affecting footpath work
fence
CRBC requested the Engineer that the concerned authorities should be
urged to solve the problems ASAP
14. R.O.W problem on Km9+650 New footbridge CRBC/HT230/545/02 29/11/02
Reference was made on CRBC's letter ref No. HT151/374/02 dated CRBC/HT001/001/02 20/1/03
29/7/02 regarding R.O.w problems on Km9+650 new foot bridge.
CRBE notified the Engineer en by the concerned bodies to resolve the
R.O.W problem, they are now forced to suspend their operation (pier
No. 7 – No. 11) starting Nov. 22, 2002 due to the existing non
demolished houses and non-relocated utilities.
CRBC further requested the Engineer to urge the concerned bodies to
finalize the relocation and demotion without further delay.
CRBC deemed this letter to be notice of claim pursuant to sub-clause
42.2 of the conditions of contract.
27
15. Physical obstructions in 2A and 2B CRBC/HT236/561/02 17/12/02
CRBC recalling their repeated request for demolition and relocating
of services and properties in 2A and 2B sections, submitted lists of
unsettled physical obstructions in 2A and 2B.
2A section
1. Footpath
Km31+980 – Km32+000 (LHS) – House
Km34+514 (LHS) – House
Km31+500 RBT (LHS) on branch road
2. Junction
Km34+730(LHS) – House
Km34+820 (RHS) – Electric pole
2B Section
1. Footpath
Km39+270 – Km39+360 (LHS)
- houses & 400mm water main
Km40+280- Km40+290 (RHS – Fence)
Km40+920 ~ 950 (RHS wire Fence)
CRBC urged the Engineer to settle the physical obstruction.
16. R.O.W problem at Ambo viaduct CRBC/HT235/560/00 13/12/02
CRBC referring to their letter dated 23rd July 2002, Ref. No. CRBC/HT237/573/02 20/12/02
CRBC/HT145/365/02 regarding the existing obstructions at Ambo
viaduct sites (Item NO. 3 in this list) notified the Engineer that all
obstructions which they have requested to be settled are still not
demolished and/or relocated.
In accordance with the updated clause 14 programme, the road work
cut ad fill in that section has to be started by the middle of December
2002. Nevertheless, CRBC have not yet even started the ground
survey works as it is impossible due to the existing properties.
CRBC further notified the Engineer that the following major and
critical item of works are suspended due to R.O.W problem and
subsequent delay to prepare the shop drawings:
a. Construction of central separator retaining wall and associated
works;
b. Construction of the road work on the slip road from
Km9+250 –end.
c. Construction of road works on the main line from Km9+250 –
end.
d. Piling works on pier No. –3 pier No. 5 and related works.
e. Piling work on Abutment (south Bound) and associated
concrete and masonry works of same.
In general CRBC notified the Engineer that, their schedule operation
is highly affected due to the existing R.O.W problems and this letter
was deemed to be notice of claim pursuant to sub-clause 52.2 and 40.2
of the conditions of contract.
28
17. R.O.W problem at Ambo viaduct CRBC/HT241/586/02 24/12/02
CRBC referring to their letter dated 13/12/2002 Ref. No.
Pk/CRBC/22073/446 27/12/02
CRBC/HT235/560/02 sent a simple sketch showing section having 2/C.S2
R.O.W problems.
The R.O.W problem has caused them to suspend the approach road
works on the main line and the slip roads as well. CRBC's resources
scheduled to be deployed for this particular are a were kept idle. List
of idle equipment, directly assigned for the work are as shown below:
I.No Idle Equipment Capacity No. Location

1 Bulldozer (D85) 220HP 1 Joseph RBT
3
2 Excavator 2M 1 Jimma site
3 Grader 175HP 1 Bulbula camp
4 Roller 12T 1 Kaliti camp
3
5 Loader 3M 1 Kaliti camp
6 Dump Truck 20T 10 Jimma camp
CRBC has thus, requested the Engineer to advice the concerned body
to expedite the relocation and/or demolition so that they will be able
to proceed with all suspended works in that section without further
delay.
The critical road sections greatly affected by the right-of-way problem are 2A, 2B and the two
Interchanges. Earthworks for frontage roads and pedestrian roads on both sides and drainage
installations are critical activities in those sections.
29
2.1.2.3 R.O.W problem references from Monthly Reports
The following pertinent R.O.w problem related facts are extracted from the monthly
reports. These points reveal the fact that the R.O.W problem is still a problem adversely
affecting the smooth progress of the works
From the Monthly report of July 2002.
1. Site Records & Notifications
The contractor has still continued submitting different site records showing extra work done and
problems encountered:
z Site records (No. 308 – No. 312) showing extra work done on four different sections
(Ref. HT138/342/02).
z Site records (No. 313 – No.314) showing extra work done on two sections (Ref.
HT150/372/02).
z Record of extra asphalt work done on 7 different junctions of 1B section (Ref.
HT148/378/02).
z Record of extra work done to excavate and backfill existing sewage pipe from
Km40+300 – Km40+700 (Ref. HT149/371/02).
z R.O.W problems on Km32+280 new foot bridge reported to the Engineer (Ref.
HT141/356/02).
z New rate for steel water main support at slab bridge No. 2 & 3 submitted to the
Engineer for approval (Ref. HT140/355/02).
z Damage of work (Km38+600 – Km38+750 LHS) due to unauthorized excavation by
owners of services reported to the Engineer (HT144/364/02).
z R.O.W problems on Gergi RBT, Km13+350 new foot bridge and Km9+650 new foot
bridge reported to the Engineer (HT151/374/02).
z Delay of the foreign portion payment certificate No. 27) reported (HT151/374/02).
z Delay of the foreign portion payment (certificate No.27) reported (HT153/374/02).
z Delay of the foreign portion payment (certificate No.27) reported (HT153/378/02).
z R.O.W obstruction on Ambo & Megeneagena interchanges notified to the Engineer
(HT145/365/02).
2. General remakes & action to be taken
The following major problems which are already addressed through different
correspondences earlier, are not still solved and require immediate attention of the Engineer
and the Employer.
30
2.1 Unauthorized work by owners of services
As we have repeatedly informed, the owners of services specially AAWSSA are
not willing to coordinate their relocation operation with us. They are still
excavating and relocation their pipe’s within the Ring Road without our consent
and understanding. The damage on our U-ditch from Km 38 + 600 – m 38 + 750
LHS can be recent example which happened during this month. All these
uncoordinated operations are highly affecting completed works and reducing work
efficiency. Hence we still would like to request the Employer to advise all
concerned owners to notify us whenever doing anything within the Ring Road and
moreover finish relocating their services in 2A/2B before the coming dry season.
2.2 R.O.W problems on Ambo & Megenagna Viaduct
As indicated in the updated clause 14 program, the permanent work on Ambo &
Megenagena viaducts have to be started within the first week of August
2002.Nevertheless, there are still a lot of non relocated services and non
demolished properties on both sites. Hence we would like to request the Engineer
and the Employer to advise the concerned bodies as to expedite the relocation and
demolition works.
2.3 Junctions and side walks in 2A/2B sections.
Side walk and junction works were the most critical and delayed activities while
construction 1A & 1B section. The major causes of delay were late submission of
design details and R.O.W problems. Such problems may still napped in the
remaining sections. Hence , we would like to request that all necessary design
details and “opening up” of services on junctions and sidewalks of 2A and 2B be
completed without further delay.
31
From the Monthly report of August 2002.
z Site records of extra works done (No318-NO320) (Ref. HT169/402/02).
z R.O.W problems on side walk, Km40+100 – Km40+950 (ref. HT/160/388/02).
2. General remarks & actions to be taken
The following remarks still need immediate attention of the Engineer and the Employer.
2.1 R.O.W problems on Ambo & Megenagna vidact.
CRBC has already commenced the piling work at Megengna viaduct and the same work
will start at Ambo site. There are still non-related services and non demolished properties
on both sites. Details records about R.O.W problems already submitted to the Engineer last
month. Hence we would like to request the Engineer and the Employer to advise the
concerned bodies to settle these outstanding problems without further delay.
2.2 Junction details for 2A/2B
No design details is given for junctions of 2A/2B sections despite CRBC’s repeated request.
In some cases the existing junctions have a gradient much higher that the allowable limit.
Some junctions have crossing water main which require relocation on protection. Hence,
we would like to request the Engineer to provide us design details and clear instruction on
the method of protection of utilities for all junctions of 2A/2B without further delay.
2.3 Junctions and side walks in 2A/2B section
Side walk and junction works were the most critical and delayed activities while
constructing 1A & 1B section. The major causes of delay were late submission of design
details and R.O.W problems. Such problems may still napped in the remaining sections.
Hence, we would like to request that all necessary design details and “opening up” of
services on junctions and sidewalks of 2A and 2B be completed without further delay.
32
From the monthly Report of September 2002
The following site records and notifications were submitted to the Engineer during this
reporting month:
z Site records for extra work done (No321– No322) – Ref. HT180/418/01.
z R.O.W problems on footpath of 2A/2B (SG044/433/02).
z Suspension of U-ditch works from KM32+900 – KM33+700 due to the need for design
change (HT181/419/01).
z Delay of payments(HT187/428/02).
z Suspension of piling work at Megenagna viaduct due to R.O.W problem (HT194/440/02).
z Request for design details of Megenagna slip roads (HT191/435/02)/
z R.O.W problems at Megenagna viaduct (SG045/445/02).
z Junction problems in2A/2B (HT173/407/01 reminder (HT032/083/02).
3. General Remarks & action to be taken
The following problems are not yet resolved and still require immediate attention of the
Engineer and the Employer:
2.1 R.O.W Problems on Ambo & Megenagna Viaduct
Even though CRBC has notified the Engineer and the Employer to resolve existing
R.O.W problems on Megenzgna and Ambo Viaducts, no timely solution was given. As
a result the piling works on Megenzgna Viaduct were suspended for around one week
time starting September 28,2002. Hence we would like to request the Engineer and the
Employer to expedite the relocation and demolition works on Ambo site to avoid the
same problem.
2.2 Junction Details for 2A/2B
No sufficient design details are given for junctions for 2A/2B sections despite CRBC’s
repeated request. In some cases the existing junctions have a gradient much higher that
the allowable limit. Some junctions have crossing water main which require relocation
on protection. Hence, we would like to request the Engineer to provide us design
details and clear instruction on the method of protection utilities for all junction of
2A/2B without further delay.
33
From the monthly Report of October 2002.
reporting month:
z Site records of extra work done (No.323 – No.324) – (HT199/448/02).
z Major R.O.W problems on footpath of 2A/2B (Ref SG046/466/02).
z Obstruction on foot bridge at KM13+350 (Ref. SG047/467/02).
z Major R.O.W problems on foot path of 2A/2B (Ref SG046/466/02).
z R.O.W problem sin 2A section (Ref SG048/468/02).
z R.O.W problems on foot path of 2A/2B (Ref HT213/483/02).
z Load test on preliminary piles for Ambo viaduct (Ref HT215/489/02).
z Water main relocation at RHS of Km33+900 – Km34+020 and Km34+700 –
Km34+800 (Ref SG051/492/02).
z R.O.W problem at RHS of Km32+480 – Km32+500 (Ref SG052/493/02).
z Suspension of work at Megenagna viaduct due to R.O.W problems (Ref
HT194/440/02).
z R.O.W problems at Megenagna viaduct (Ref. SG045/445/02).
z Pile depth for Ambo viaduct (Ref. HT205/461/02, HT207/467/02).
z Suspension of pile cap works on Megenagna viaduct (HT208/471/02).
z Load Test on preliminary piles for Ambo viaduct (HT215/489/02).
3. General remarks & action to be taken
Engineer and Employer:
The R.O.W problems on Ambo viaduct sites were not yet resolved until now
despite CRBC’s repeated notification since July 2002.Hene we still would
like to request the Engineer and the Employer to expedite the relocation and
demolition works with out further delay.
2.2. Obstructions on side walks of 2A/2B
It is not still possible to smoothly proceed with construction of the foot path
in some sections of 2A/2B due to existing R.O.W problems. Hence, we would
like request the Engineer and the Employer to advise the concerned owners to
settle this problem.
34
From the monthly Report of November 2002.
reporting month:
z Notice on suspension and commencement of Ambo viaduct piling works .
(HT219/504/02 dated November 01,2002).
z Records of extra works and suspension on pier No7 of Megenagna viaduct
z Records of extra works done and suspension on pier No3 of Megenagna viaduct
z Records of idle resource on Megenagna viaduct (HT228/535/02 dated November
21,2002).
Engineer and Employer :
The R.O.W problems on Ambo viaduct sites were not yet resolved until now
despite CRBC’s repeated notification since July 2002.Hene we still would
like to request the Engineer and the Employer to expedite the relocation and
demolition works with out further delay.
2.2. Obstructions on side walks of 2A/2B
It is not still possible to smoothly proceed with construction of the foot path
in some sections of 2A/2B due to existing R.O.W problems. Hence, we would
like request the Engineer and the Employer to advise the concerned owners to
settle this problem.
35
From the monthly Report of December 2002.
The following few site records and notifications were submitted to the Engineer:
z Site records of extra demolition at Km32+285 as per the Engineer’s instruction
(HT238/576/02 dated December 19,2002).
z R.O.W problem at Ambo viaduct (HT241/586/02 dated December 24,2002).
z R.O.W problem at Ambo viaduct (HT237/573/02 dated December 20,2002).
z Idel resource due to ROW problem at Ambo viaduct (HT241/586/02 dated
December 24,2002).
z ROW problem at Ambo viaduct (HT235/560/02 dated December 13,2002).
z Extra work of new retaining wall at Megengna viaduct (HT233/557/02 dated
December 11,2002).
z Physical obstruction in 2A/2B footpath & junctions (HT236/561/02 dated
December 17,2002).

The following outstanding problems still require immediate attention of the Engineer and
the Employer:
The R.O.W problems on Ambo viaduct is not yet fully settled despite
repeated request. The works form pier three to south bound abutment
including the adjacent slip road are fully suspended until end of this reporting
month. Hence we still would like to request the Engineer and the Employer to
expedite the relocation and demolition works with out further delay
2.2. Physical Obstruction on side walks and Junction of 2A/2B.
There still exists unsettled R.O.W problems on few sections of 2A/2B
junctions. Details are stated in HT236/56/02. Hence, we would like to request
the Engineer and the Employer to advise the concerned owners to settle these
problems as soon as possible.
36
2.1.2.4. Delays to Sections 2A &2B
1.0. Introduction
1.1. Sections 2A and 2B have continued to be delayed during the period under review
(01.07.01 to 31.12.01) by the following main causes:-
(i) The delays within sections 1A and 1B which retained key equipment resources for
far longer a period than planned. (These causes are described in detail in other parts
of this submission.
(ii) Additional works required in order to commence permanent works for example:-
- Water main protection;
- Temporary drainage provision for waste water treatment;
- Extra cleaning works of the drainage pipes blocked by sewage and silt.
(iii) "Right of way" problems, which are contained in section 2.1.2. of this submission.
1.2. In addition to the direct effect of delays in sections 1A & 1B of the project on
equipment availability the delaying influence which still exists is the inability to
cut off the flow of foul sewerage entering the sites of 2A & 2B at many locations.
Many notifications have been made to this effect. Specification clause 1202 is
particularly drawn to the attention of both the Employer and the Engineer in this
respect.
As at the time of writing this submission instructions from the engineer (which
will cut off the ingress of sewerage and thus permit earth works to be executed)
are still awaited.
37
2.1.2.5 Due to Delay of work in section 1A (chainage 18+800 to 30+100)
1. Introduction
1.1. In CRBC's submission number 6 (Extension of Time and Additional cost to
30.06.01) the following principal delays were recorded concerning section 1A of
the project:
i. delays caused by late removal of the existing railway bridge.

ii. Delays resulting from failure of excavated slopes to Kaliti Interchange,
necessitating the issue of variation orders to construct additional retaining
walls.
iii. Delays resulting from late instruction concerning cut off ditches and road
junctions.
1.2. On 11th July 2001 CRBC issued their "Target Completion programme" which, in
the absence of an award of Extension of Time, incorporated the minimum
extension to which CRBC considered themselves entitled after their various
submissions were reduced by the Engineer/Employer (i.e a 26 month extension
leading to a completion date of 15th June 2003).
1.3. Within this programme CRBC estimated that the completion of section 1A would
be on 30th September 2001.
1.4. In the event section 1A was opened only on 11th January 2002. Thus there was a
further delay of some 3.5 months relative to the forecast based on circumstance
prevailing at 30.06.01.
1.5. The main reason for the delay was the fact that the excavated slope to the slip
roads on the west side had become unstable as a consequence of the effects of wet
weather.
1.6. The Engineer issued on instruction to extend the length and increase the height of
the retaining walls which CRBC had already constructed to the design instructed
by the Engineer.
1.7. Excavation of the new retaining walls could not safely be conducted until the end
of the wet season since the excavation involved would further undermine the
already unstable slope. Agreement was made between CRBC and the Engineer to
this effect.
1.8. Hence the main cause of delay to the hand over of section 1A was the problems
affecting the cut slope of the Kaliti Interchange. The remedy in the form of
retaining walls and special fill constitutes walls and special fill constitutes a
variation. This variation is just cause for entitlement under clause 44.1(a) for
extension of time.
1.9. Under clause 51 CRBC are due to be reimbursed the appropriate price under the
construct for the execution of the varied works.
38
2.1.2.6 Further Explanation of Contractors rights in respect to "Lack of Possession"
Review of the contractual situation concerning the "Frontage Areas" "Rights of way",
"Possession of site" and the Effect of Existing services, storm water drains and foul
sewers fully confirms of CRBC's right to extension of time.
2.1.2.6.1 CRBC have experienced extreme delay as a consequence of: -
Undefined limits of the site

Non-release by owners of their property in part or whole.
Delayed instruction on the profile of the excavation /fill areas side slopes where
encroaching on existing properties.
Delayed instructions on: -
Existing Services
Existing storm water and foul sewerage pipes entering (or leaving)
the site through its limits of contract,
Verge and side slope profiles
Arrangements for dealing with storm water by way of V ditch or filter
drain or alternative methods.
2.1.2.6.2 Provision for these events can be identified within the contract under: -
Clause 7.1”Supplementary drawings and instructions”.

CRBC emphasize herewith the requirement for the Engineer to “issue such
supplementary drawings and instructions as shall be necessary for the purpose of
the proper and adequate execution and completion of the works”.
CRBC argue that many instructions, essential to the progress of the works have
been significantly delayed and in many cases not received at all, thus causing
extreme delay.
Clauses 42.1”Possession of site and access thereto”.
This clauses permits the Employer, should he so prescribe, to make available to the
Contractor such portions of works as permit him to commenced and proceed with
the execution of the works in accordance with the program referred to in clause
14”.
CRBC argue herewith:-
i. The Contract does not make provision for handing over” in portions” and is
not therefore a “phased Contract”.
ii. Were the Employer so to have prescribed this requirement in the contract
(which he did not), failure to hand over significant portions of land before the
original contract completion Date must constitute his clear non-compliance
with the requirements of a “phased contract”.
iii. Good earth works stage practice constitutes forming the profile to the full
39
cross sectional width designed by the Engineer to the Engineer to the level
of protection layer above formation. This key requirement has been denied
to CRBC in major parts of the project. This has also meant that CRBC
have not been able to undertake verge works and associated drainage
works within the normal sequence and by using planned) and normal)
methods.
Hence, owing to the extreme seriousness of the situation it is necessary to
address contractually the events and effects related to “Failure to Give
Possession”.
Clauses 42.2 “Failure to Give Possession”.
This clause states unequivocally the Contractor’s right to extension of time and cost
recovery in the event of such failure by the Employer to give possession of site by the due
date.
There are no special clauses within the Conditions of Contract part II changing the
Engineer’s /Employer’s duties are expressed in clause 42.2.
Clause 44.1 “Extension time for Completion”
This clause provides clearly for an extension of time to be awarded due to specific reasons,
which are relevant to circumstances, which have occurred on this project.
It is to be noted that “the Engineer shall, after due consultation with the Employer and the
Contractor, determine the amount of such extension”.
CRBC point out in connection with the above contractual requirements, that the time for
completion of the main contract will be extended by 414 days in accordance with
Addendum No 2 starting from May 10,2002.
Clauses 44.2 and 44.3
These clauses firmly emphasis the full justification of an extension of time being awarded
to CRBC as is set out in this document.
Particularly this is the case as in provided in cause 44.3 ”on receipt of such interim
particulars, the Engineer shall, without undue delay, make an interim determination of
extension of time”.
2.1.2.6.3 Specification clause 1202 “Services”
Concerns dealing with existing services, the principal and parts being as follows:-
"When the Contractor details his programme of work he shall, in consultation with the
Engineer, clearly indicate when will require the owner to start and conclude the moving of
each service. Should it thereafter, through delays on the part of the Employer or the owner
of the service to be moved, not be possible to adhere to the programme of work, such
programme shall be suitably altered by the Contractor in consultation with the Engineer so
40
as to limit, as far as possible, the extent of any damages or delays. Should it not be possible
to limit entirely the damages or delays resulting from the alterations necessary to the
programme of work, the Contractor shall be reimbursed for any additional costs or damages
incurred by him."
"Whenever service are encountered which interfere with the execution of the works and
which require to be moved and relocated, the Contractor shall advise the Engineer, who
will determine the extend of the work, if any, to be undertaken by the Contractor in
removing relocation and reinstating or protecting such services."
The cost of opening up and searching for services shall be paid for either as “Extra work”
in terms of clauses 52 of the General Conditions of Contract from the Provisional sum
allowed in the Bill of Quantities to cover this item of work.
"Any work required to be undertaken by the Contractor in protecting or moving and
relocation of services for which no provision is made in the Contract Document., or for
which no applicable tender rates exist, will be classified and paid for as ”Extra work” as
prescribed in the General Conditions of Contract."
From the above section 2.1.2.2 the following facts are clearly established: -
(ii) CRBC have kept the Engineer closely informed of circumstances likely to causes
delay to the programme and entry expense to the Employer.
(iii) CRBC have followed to the Employer requirements in respect of notifying the
Engineer concerning obstructions rated by existing services.
(iv) In many very important cases the Engineer has not instructed when inarguable
requested to do so by CRBC.
(v) Delays as a consequence have occurred to CRBC programme.
(vi) Under the Contract, principally clauses 44 and 51, together with specification
clauses 1202,CRBC are entitled to extension of time and reimbursement of
additional costs.
2.1.2.7. Delay to Ambo and Megenagna Interchanges:-
The permanent works on Ambo and Megenagna Interchanges should have been
commenced within the 1st week of August 2002 in accordance with the updated clause
14 program. Nevertheless, there were a lot of non-relocated services and non
demolished properties on both sites.
Detail records about R.O.W problems were submitted to the Engineer since July 2002
(Pls refer HT145/365/02,HT241/586, HT237/573/02, HT235,560/02).
The adverse effects of the R.O.W problems is outlined herein below:
41
- The piling works on Megenagna Interchange were suspended for one week starting
September 28,2002.
Refer September 2002 monthly Re-port
Refer HT/194/440/02
Refer SG045/445/02
- The piling works at Ambo Interchange were suspended
Refer HT241/586/02
42
2.1.3. Detail Particulars of this submission:
A. Request for Further Extension of Time:
The contractor has suffered delay from failure on the part of the Employer to give Possession of
site in accordance with the terms of Sub-clause 42.1 of the conditions of contract. Therefore, the
time extension presented hereunder is prepared and submitted. The amount of time extension is
calculated herein below:
1. Unavailability of R.O.W Width Denoted in the Tender Drawings:
The R.O.W width denoted in the Tender Drawings has not been available to CRBC. This has
seriously impeded CRBC’s operations on line 1 and 4 drainage pipes, ditches and side walks.
If the land lake in the Tender Drawing had been available the Engineer would have been able to
instruct CRBC, to cut off the verge drainage water consisting of surface water and sewerage and
feed it into appropriate system. In spite of CRBC’s repeated requests, however, there are only
few ditches instructed.
The Engineer has been forced to instruct changes to the Construction of sidewalks to suit
specific local conditions due to R.O.W problems.
As can be seen from the Tender Drawings, the "R.O.W line" is generally 3 to 4 meters outside
the "Slope stake point." However as pointed out above the contract limit is in many cases within
the slope stake point, and has frequently been advised by the Engineer to be (typically) a 40
meters width which is coincident with the outside of the sidewalk.
2B and 2A sections and Ambo & Megenagna Interchanges are considered to be critical sections
regarding the R.O.W problems.
A) 2B and 2B SECTIONS
The percentage of side walks and drainage ditch against the whole width of road is
considered as following
(3m + 2.3m) x 2 x 100% = 26.5%

40m
This implies that 26.5% x 76.5% (Taken from submission 9) of the claim period (i.e
181 days) was wasted due to said R.O.W problems.
Therefore, 26.5% x 70.2% of 181 days = 34 days are requested as legitimate time
extension.
43
B) AMBO & MEGENAGNA INTERCHANGES
The minimum time extension requested is 30 days. (Minimum of 2 weeks for each
Interchange).
Conclusion:
a. Time extension requested due to unavailability of R.O.W width denoted in the Tender
Drawings in 2A section is 37 days.
b. Time extension requested due to R.O.W problem related to the Interchanges = 30 days.
Total = 67 days
B. Financial Compensation Claim:
CRBC submits only for the overhead cost compensation for the extended period and the same has
been presented in section 4.0 of this claim document. The additional cost incurred regarding the two
Interchanges is included in 2.4.
2.1.4. Supporting Documents:
The list of letters on pages 24-29 are annexed in Appendix two as supporting
documentary evidences.
These letters clearly show the magnitude of the R.O.W problems and CRBC’s effort to
solve the problem.
44
2.2. DUE TO CHANGE IN SUBSEQUENT
LEGISLATIONS
45
2.2 Sub Mission due to Subsequent Legislation
2.2.1 Contract Particulars:
This claim is prepared on the basis of the following contract particular:
Sub-clause 70.2 of the conditions of contract.
2.2.2 Detail Case Description
CRBC has incurred additional cost related to increment of freight in the duty paying value
from Djibouti port to Galafi, during the claim period.
Sub-clauses 70.2 of the Conditions of contract, part I, stipulates that:
“If after the date 28 days prior to the latest date form submission of tenders for the contract
there occur in the country in which the works are being or are be executed changes to any
National or state stately ordinance, Decree or other law or any regulation or bye-law of any
local or other duly constituted authority or the introduction of any such state stature
ordinance. Decree, law Regulation or bye-law which cause additional or reduced cost to the
contractor, other than under sub-clause 70.1 in the execution of the contract, such
additional or reduced cost shall, after due consultation with the Employer and the
contractor, be determined by the Engineer shall notify the contractor accordingly, with a
copy to the Employer”.
The additional cost incurred is due to the increment of freight in the duty paying value from
Djibouti port to Galafi for imported materials.
a. Increment of freight in the duty paying value from Djibouti port up to Galafi:
The Ethiopian Customs Authority has issued instruction letter to all customs offices to
include freight in the duty paying value from Djibouti port to Galafi. The increased
rate as per the letter issued from the Authority (attached in the supporting document
–annex) is 4.52 cents per Km per quintal. The new increment has been effective as of
22/9/2002 (12/10/93 E.C).
CRBC has notified the Engineer and client about the issue by its letter dated 17th April
2002 ref. No. CRBC/HT067/161/02.
2.2.3 Details Particulars of the claim:
The additional costs incurred by CRBC in relation to increment of freight in the duty
paying value from Djibouti port upto Galafi for imported materials are attached in the
followings pages.
The detail and summary of the amounts are presented herein below:
2.2.4 Supporting Documents
The supporting documents are presented in Annex 3.
46
47
48
49
50
51
2.3 CLAIM DUE TO EMPLOYER’S
AND/OR SPECIAL RISKS
52
2.3 SUBMISSION DUE TO EMPLOYER’S AND/OR SPECIAL RISKS
2.3.1 Contract Particulars

This claim prepared based on the following contract particulars:
- Sub-clauses 12.2 and 13.1 of the conditions of contract
- Sub-clauses 20.3 and 20.4 of the conditions of contract
- Sub- clauses 53.3,65.2,65.5 and 65.6 of the conditions of contract
2.3.2 Detail Case Description

The contract (the contractor’s Tender proposal- volume 1-B) foresaw that the port
of Assab as the port of delivery. The ocean shipment should have therefore been
from port of China 9or any other for country) to Assab. Due to the Etho-Eritrea
border conflict, which brought from the beginning of May 1998 and is still
underway, however, the port of Assab was closed and the port of delivery became
the port of Djibouti.
The Ethio-Eritrea war and the closure of the port of Assab are factors against which an
experienced contractor like CRBC could not reasonably have been expected to take precaution.
These are definitely unforeseen factors and were outside the control of the contractor. Such
risks are Employer’s and special risks in accordance with sub-clauses 20.4 and 65.2 of the
conditions of contract respectively. Furthermore, it was physically impossible for CRBC to use
the port of Assab in accordance with sub-clause 13.1 of the conditions of contract. This
physical obstruction (condition) was not foreseeable by an experienced contractor and entitles
CRBC to extension of time & extra cost as per clause 12.2 of the conditions of contract.
CRBC has notified the Engineer its difficulty for the importation and transportation of the
Engineering cargoes from China to Assab by its letter dated 28th may 1998 ref
No0061/98.CRBC has also submitted Notice of claim No 005 regarding disruption of
retransformation for equipment by its letter dated 9th March 1999ref No
CRBC/HT016/0134/99 (The above mentioned notices were annexed to the 1st interim claim
document).
In the interim submission No 1 both time extension and financial compensation
claim due to this particular factor have been prepared and submitted. In interim
submission Nos 2, 3,4,8, 9 and this claim, however, only extra transportation cost
from Djibouti to Addis Ababa is requested pursuant to sub-clauses 12.2, 20.3, 44.1
(e), 53.3 and 65.5 of the conditions of contract. The delay caused by this factor is
relatively negligible and thus not considered.
53
The following table shows the lost of transportation expenses between July 1st, 2002 and Dec.31, 2002.
The list clearly shows the date of payment/transport. Company and transportation costs.
LIST OF TRANSPORTATION EXPENSES

(From Djibouti to Addis Ababa)
Date of
S/N Transportation Company Transportation Cost
Payment
1 12/8/2002 Tiru sina Fr. Tr. Owners Association 4,125.00
2 16/8/2002 International Fr. Tran. Owners Association 13,600.00
3 4/9/2002 United Fr. Trans. Association 9,600.00
4 4/9/2002 Walice Fr. Trans. Owners Association 9,600.00
5 16/9/2002 Semhar Inland Transport General Trading PLC 10,500.00
6 3/10/2002 H.H. Abdi Transporters 3,750.00
7 19/9/2002 Walia Fr. Tr. Owners Association 4,500.00
8 28/09/2002 Abera Mengesha General Tech. Service 10,500.00
9 03/10/2002 Tana Transport PLC 39,500.00
10 28/10/2002 W/Gebrel G/Mariam Fr. Transport 3,920.00
11 11/11/2002 Africa Fr. Tr. Owners Association 4,800.00
12 20/11/2002 Tesgaye Megene Fr. Private Transport 9,600.00
13 12/11/2002 Semhar Inland Transport General Trading PLC 9,600.00
14 30/11/2002 International Fr. Tr. Owners Association 15,500.00
15 5/12/2002 Fantanesh Yimer Fr. Tr. PLC 9,000.00
TOTAL 158,095.00
2.3.3 Detail Particulars of the Claim

A. Extra Transportation Cost:
As described in the detail case description above, the port of Djibouti had become the
port of delivery. The inland transportation was thus, from Djibouti to Addis Ababa. The
distance from the port of Assab to Addis Ababa is 882Km while from Djibouti to Addis
Ababa is 933Km. Longer and inferior quality road from Djibouti to Addis Ababa
implied extra cost to the contractor.
It can be seen from the above table that, CRBC has paid a total sum of Birr 158,095.00
to different transportation Companies for transporting the different cargoes from the
port of Djibouti to Addis Ababa (During the Claim period).
54
The extra cost paid by CRBC due to the long distance is calculated below:
158,095 – 158,095 X 882
933
= 158,095 – 149,453.14
= 8,641.86
- Additional cost due to the rate difference (The rate form Djibouti to Addis was 0.37
Birr/ton/Km while the rate was 0.35 Birr/ton/Km from Assab) is calculated as follows:
= 158,095 ÷ 0.37 x (0.37 – 0.35)
= 8,545,70
- Total additional cost will be:

= 8,641.86 +8,545.70
= 17,187.56
Therefore, a sum of Birr 301,277.25 is claimed as extra transportation cost due to the
closure of Assab and use of Djibouti.
2.3.4 Supporting Documents:

The following documents are attached in appendix 5 as documentary evidences for
this claim:
1. Translation of quotation that indicates ocean shipment was foreseen

from Tianjin port to Assab Port ---------------------------------------------------1
page.
2. List of specified materials & the Basic Prices indicating that the unit
Prices are CIF Assab -------------------------------------------------------------1
page.
3. Copies of invoices showing Transportation Expenditures paid

to different transportation Companies--------------------------------------- 37
pages.
55
2.4 Claim Due to Additional Works and
Suspensions
56
2.4 Claim Due to Additional Works and Suspensions
2.4.1 Contract Particulars:
This application is prepared based on the following contract particulars:
- Sub –clauses 12.2 and 13.1 of the conditions of contract.
- Sub-clauses 42.1, 42.2 and 53.3 of the conditions of contract.
- Sub-clauses 51.1, 51..2, 52.1 and 2.2 of the conditions of contract.
2.4.2 Detail Case description:
The items presented in this section of the submission manly consist of "requested
variations under discussion" for the period from 01.07.02 to 31.12.02 and are
inserted from the view point of the entitlement for extension of time and
compensation associated with the items concerned.
CRBC has continuously submitted various site records for extra works ans
suspensions to the Engineer.
CRBC has also notified the Engineer that it is the Engineer's contractual obligation
to inspect or check contemporary records without necessarily admitting the
Employer's liability pursuant to sub-clause 53.2 of the conditions of contract by
the letter dated 10.4.02 Ref. No. CRBC/HT073/182.02.
2.4.3. Detail Particulars of the claim:
The additional time and cost requested due to extra work done at various sections
of the road and suspensions caused by R.O.W problems or lack of timely decision
and/or information are presented in the following pages.
2.4.4. Supporting documents:-
The letter and attachments to each letter submitted to the Engineer during the
occurrence of each particular case are considered to be supporting documents.
To reduce the volume of this submission, they are not attached to it.
57
A. SITE RECORDS FOR EXTRA WORKS
CRBC has submitted site records for extra works by the letter Dated July 8,2002 Ref No
CRBC/HT138/342/02. The extra works are related to the following:
1. Extra garbage and sewage disposal work done from Km33+335 –
Km33+380 (RHS).
2. Extra repair work of drainage pipe damaged by illegal residents (who
tried to connect their sewage line to our drainage pipes) as instructed
by the Engineer.
3. Ditto No 309, at Km12+660 (1st line).
4. Extra access construction on five locations of 1B section as instructed
by the Engineer.
5. Extra work of connecting community sewage line with the Ring Road
drainage system as instructed by the Engineer at Km15+180 (1st line).
6. Ditto No 311, on three places of 1A section.
Details of the extra time and cost requested is worked out herein below:
1. Additional time and cost requested for extra garbage and sewage disposal work
done from Km33+335 – Km33+380 (RHS).
a. Equipment Involved
Equipment Capacity Number Worked Total Hourly Total

Hour Hour Rate Amount
3
Excavator 1.2M 1 20 20 116.44 2,328.80
Dump truck 10 M3 3 20 60 75.74 4,544.40
TOTAL 20 6,873.20
Note: The additional time of 20hrs is considered.
b. Manpower:
Worked Total Hourly Total

Title Number
Hour Hours Rate Amount
Labour 10 20 200 9.42 1,884.00
Foreman 2 20 40 22.63 905.20
Total 20 2,789.20
Note: Ditto as 1(a) above.
58
2. Additional time and cost requested for extra repair work of drainage pipe
damaged by illegal residents (who tried to connect their sewage line to our
drainage pipe) as instruction by then Engineer.
a. Equipment:

Equipment Capacity Number
Concrete
9M3 1 4 4 80 320.00
Mixer truck
Vib. Roller 10T 1 4 4 61.70 246.80
Tire roller 15T 1 4 4 40 160.00
Dump truck 13 M3 1 4 4 75.74 302.96
TOTAL 4 1,029.76
Note: Ditto as 1(a) abocve.
b. Manpower:
Total Hourly Total

Title Number Worked Hour
Hour Rate Amount
Labour 4 40 160 9.42 1,507.20
Forman 1 40 40 22.63 905.20
TOTAL 40 2,412.40
c. Material
Description Unit Quantity Unit Price Total Amount

Surrounding 2
M 2 600 1,200.00
Concrete (C-30)
2
Tack coat M 2 5.5 11.00
Wearing Course
M2 2 35 70.00
(8Cm)
Total 1,281.00
3. Ditto as item No 2 above but at Km12+660 (1st line)
a. Equipment:
Concrete
9M3 1 4 4 80 320.00
Mixer truck
Vib. Roller 10T 1 4 4 61.70 246.80
3
Dump truck 13 M 1 4 4 75.74 302.96
59
b. Manpower:
Total Hourly Total

Hour Rate Amount
Labour 4 30 120 9.42 1,130.40
Forman 1 30 30 22.63 678.90
TOTAL 30 1,809.30
c. Material

Surrounding
M3 3 600 1,800.00
Concrete (C-30)
Tack coat M3 2 5.5 11.00
Surface treatment M3 2 35 70.00
Total 1,881.00
4. Additional time and cost requested for extra access Construction on five locations
of 1B section as instructed by the Engineer.
a. Equipment:

Vib. Roller 10T 1 32 32 61.70 1,974.40
Dump truck 13 M3 1 8 8 75.74 605.92
TOTAL 32 2,580.32
b. Manpower:
Total Hourly Total

Hour Rate Amount
Labour 4 110 440 9.42 4,144.80
Forman 1 110 110 22.63 2,489.30
TOTAL 110 6,634.10
c. Material
Sand M3 1 60 60.00
Cement Kg 250 0.70 175.00
Prime coat & surface
M2 68 60 4,080.00
treatment
Total 4,315.00
60
5. Additional time and cost requested for extra work of connecting community
sewage line with the Ring Road drainage system as instructed by the Engineer at
Km15+180 (1st line).
a. Equipment:

Concrete
9 M3 1 4 4 80 320.00
Mixer truck
Vib. Roller 10T 1 4 4 61.70 246.80
Dump truck 13 M3 1 4 4 75.74 302.96
TOTAL 4 869.76
b. Manpower:
Total Hourly Total

Hour Rate Amount
Labour 4 110 440 9.42 4,144.80
Forman 1 110 110 22.63 2,489.30
TOTAL 110 6,634.10
c. Material

Surround Concrete
M3 2 600 1,200.00
(C-30)
2
Tack coat M 4 5.5 22.00
Surface treatment M2 4 35 140.00
Total 1,362.00
61
B. SITE RECORDS FOR EXTRA WORKS
CRBC has submitted site records for extra done by the letter Dated July 24,2002 Ref
No CRBC/HT147/369/02. The extra works are related to the following:
1. Extra work done to relocate competed drainage pipes on Km32+672
outfall as instructed by the Engineer.
2. Extra work done to protect crossing pipe at Km32+672 as instructed by
the Engineer.
Details of the extra time and cost requested is worked out herein below:
1. Extra work done to relocate completed drainage pipes on Km32+672 outfall as
instructed by the Engineer.

Excavator 1.2M3 1 4 4 116.44 465.76
TOTAL 4 465.76
Note: Ditto as 2 (a) below.
b. Manpower:

Title Number
Labour 10 4 40 9.42 376.80
Foreman 1 4 4 22.63 90.52
Total 4 467.32
c. Material

Red ash Material M3 15 21.70 325.50
Total 325.50
62
2. Extra work done to protect crossing pipe at Km32+672 as instructed by the
Engineer

Excavator 1.2M3 1 7 7 116.44 815.08
Concrete 9 M3 1 7 7 80 560.00
Mixer truck
TOTAL 7 1,375.08
Note: The additional time of 7 hrs is considered.
b. Manpower:

Title Number
Labour 12 7 84 9.42 791.28
Foreman 2 7 14 22.63 316.82
Total 7 1,108.10
c. Material

C-20 Concrete M3 12 600 7,200
Total 7,200
63
C. SITE RECORDS FOR EXTRA WORKS ON JUNCTIONS OF 1B
CRBC has submitted the cost estimation for the extra works by the letter dated July
26,2002 Ref No CRBC/HT148/370/02. Details of the extra works is presented below:
CRBC have done extra Asphalt works beyond the design limit to connect the Ring Road
with the existing roads on the followings junctions.
1. Italian RBT (LHS Slip Road): 7.5mt x 3.5mt = 26.25mt2.
2. Km 15 + 670 (LHS junction): 6.7mt x 2.4mt = 16.08mt2
3. Km 15 + 500 (LHS junction): 6mt x 6.5mt = 39mt2
4. Km 15 + 120 (LHS junction): 5mt x 8.0mt = 40mt2
5. Km 13 + 118 (LHS junction): 8mt x 36mt = 288mt2
6. Km 10 + 530 (LHS junction): 7.8mt x 5mt = 42.9mt2
7. Market RBT (LHS Slip Road)= ½ (8.5 + 6.5)mt x 33mt = 247.5m2
Total Area = 699.7mt2
Total Amount = 699.7mt x99.32Br/m2
= 69,494.20 Birr
(Refer our letter dated 24th Sept. 2001 Ref HT115/492/01 where we request for new rates
for junction).
64
D. SITE RECORDS FOR EXTRA WORKS
CRBC has submitted site records for extra works by the letter dated July 26,2002 Ref
No CRBC/HT150/372/02.
The extra works are related to the following:
1. Extra demolition work of double NJB at Km32 + 280 in order to
construction the newly added footbridge.
2. Extra work of dry waste disposal from Km 32 + 914 – Km 32 + 950
(LHS)
Details of the extra time and cost requested are presented below:
1. Additional time and cost requested for extra work of double NJB at Km 32 + 280
in order to construct the newly added footbridge.
a. Equipment:

Excavator 1.2 M3 1 5 5 116.44 582.20
Dump truck 10 M3 3 5 15 75.74 1,136.10
TOTAL 5 1,718.30
Note: The additional time of 5hrs in Considered..
b. Manpower:
Total Hourly Total

Hour Rate Amount
Labour 5 5 25 9.42 235.50
Forman 1 5 5 22.63 113.15
TOTAL 5 348.65
c. Material

Demolished bedding
M3 2.13 500 1,065.00
Concrete
Demolished double
Faced NJB M 15 100 1,500.00
Total 2,565
65
66
2. Additional time and cost requested for extra work of dry waste disposal from Km
32 + 914 – Km 32 + 950 (LHS).
a. Equipment:

Excavator 1.2 M3 1 5 5 116.44 582.20
Dump truck 10 M3 2 5 10 75.74 757.40
TOTAL 5 1,339.60
b. Manpower:
Total Hourly Total

Hour Rate Amount
Labour 6 5 30 9.42 282.60
Forman 1 5 5 22.63 113.15
TOTAL 5 395.75
67
E. SITE RECORDS FOR EXTRA WORKS
CRBC has submitted site records for extra works by the letter dated August 27,2002
Ref No CRBC/HT169/402/02.
The extra works are related to the following:
1. Extra work of relocating unlined open ditch and installation
of concrete pipe at Km32 + 835 (LHS) junctions.
2. Extra work of demolishing existing sewer line below the
formation level at Km33+050 as instructed by the Engineer.
3. Extra work of excavation, backfilling and cart away to
remove existing sewage pipe as instructed by the Engineer.
Details of the extra time and cost requested are presented below:
1. Additional time and cost requested for extra work of relocating unlined open ditch
and installation of Concrete pipe at Km 32+835 (LHS) junction.
a. Equipment:

Excavator 1.2 M3 1 4 4 116.44 465.76
Dump truck 13 M3 7 4 28 75.74 2,120.72
TOTAL 4 2,586.48
b. Manpower:
Total Hourly Total

Hour Rate Amount
Chinese
1 4 4 50 200.00
Supervisor
Forman 2 4 8 22.63 181.04
Labour 5 4 20 9.42 188.40
TOTAL 4 569.44
Note: Ditto as 2(a) below.
68
2. Additional time and cost requested for extra work of demolishing existing sewer
line below the formation level at Km 33+050as instructed by the Engineer.
a. Equipment:

Excavator 1.2 M3 1 8 8 116.44 931.52
Loader 3 M3 1 8 8 75 600.00
Dump truck 10 M3 3 4 12 75.74 908.88
Compactor 1 tom 1 8 8 19.34 154.72
TOTAL 8 2,595.12
b. Manpower:
Total Hourly Total

Hour Rate Amount
Forman 2 8 16 22.63 362.08
Labour 10 8 80 9.42 753.60
TOTAL 8 1,115.68
c. Material

Red ash Material M3 86 21.70 1,866.20
Total 1,866.20
69
3. Additional time and cost requested for extra work of excavation, backfilling and
Cart way to remove existing sewage pipe as instructed by the Engineer.
a. Equipment:

Excavator 1.2 M3 1 32 32 116.40 3,724.80
Dump truck 13 M3 5 32 160 75.74 12,118.40
Vib. Roller 50 ton 1 32 32 61.70 1,974.40
TOTAL 32 17,817.60
Note: Ditto as 2 (a) above.
b. Manpower:
Total Hourly Total

Hour Rate Amount
Forman 2 32 64 22.63 1,448.32
Labour 5 32 160 9.42 1,507.20
TOTAL 32 2,955.52
c. Material

Spoiling material M3 496 22 10,912.00
Capping layer material M3 496 40.93 20,301.28
Total 31,213.28
70
F. SITE RECORDS FOR EXTRA WORKS
CRBC has submitted site records for extra works by the letter dated September
13,2002 Ref No CRBC/HT180/418/02. The extra works are related to the following:
1. Extra work done to relocate crossing pipe as instructed by the Engineer
(Km33+945 – 950, line 2 to line 1).
2. Extra work done to demolish completed concrete pipe and filter drain as
instructed by the Engineer (Km33+911 – 950 line 2).
Detail of the extra time and cost requested a\re presented below:
1. Additional time and cost requested for extra work done to relocate crossing pipe
as instructed by the Engineer (Km 33+945 – 950, line 2 to line 1).
B. Manpower:
Total Hourly Total

Hour Rate Amount
Labour 6 16 96 9.42 904.32
Forman 1 16 16 22.63 362.08
TOTAL 16 1,266.40
C. Material

Reinforced Concrete M3 1.62 600 972.00
Total 972.00
71
2. Additional time and cost requested for extra work done to demolish completed
concrete pipe and filter drain as instructed by the Engineer (Km33+911 – 950line
2).
a. Equipment:

Excavator 1.2 1 4 4 116.40 465.60
Loader 30 M3 1 4 4 75 300.00
Dump truck 10 M3 2 4 8 75.74 605.92
TOTAL 4 1,371.52
b. Manpower:
Total Hourly Total

Hour Rate Amount
Labour 5 4 20 9.42 188.40
Foremen 1 4 4 22.63 90.52
TOTAL 4 278.92
c. Material

Demolish Concrete
M 39 50 1,950
pipe ( 500)
Demolish narro filter
M 3 75 2,925
drain
3
Red ash material M 70 21.70 1,519
Total 6,394.00
72
G. SITE RECORDS FOR EXTRA WORKS
CRBC has submitted site records for extra works by the letter dated October 4,2002
Ref No CRBC/HT199/448/02.
The extra works done are related to the following:
1. Extra work of demolishing concrete & Backfill to treat water main Leakage at
Km 33+34.
2. Extra work of demolishing kerbs and completed pavement to change the
access at Km 13+700 (RHS) in to junction.
Detail of the extra time and cost requested are presented below:
1. Additional time and cost requested for extra work done to demolish concert and
backfill to treat water main leakage at Km 33+340.
a. Equipment:

Excavator 1.2 M3 1 1 1 116.40 116.40
Loader 3.0 M3 1 1 1 75 75.00
TOTAL 1 191.40
Note: Ditto as 2(A) below:
b. Manpower:
Total Hourly Total

Hour Rate Amount
Labour 4 8 32 9.42 301.44
Foremen 1 8 8 22.63 181.04
TOTAL 8 482.48
c. Material

Demolish of standard
M 5 250 1,250.00
Concrete slab
Backfill of trench with
M3 2 600 1,200.00
concrete (C-30)
Total 2,450.00
73
2. Additional time and cost requested for extra work done to demolish kerbs and
completed pavement to change the access at Km 13 + 700 (RHS) into junction.
a. Equipment:

Loader 3 M3 1 12 12 75 900.00
Dump truck 10 M3 1 8 8 75.74 605.92
TOTAL 12 1,505.92
Note The additional time of 12 hrs is considered.
b. Manpower:
Total Hourly Total

Hour Rate Amount
Labour 16 12 192 9.42 1,808.64
Foremen 2 12 24 22.63 543.12
TOTAL 12 2,351.76
c. Material

Demolish Kerbs M 23 75 1,725.00
Demolished single face
M3 45 100 4,500.00
statement
Total 6,225.00
74
H. SITE RECORDS FOR EXTRA WORKS
CRBC has submitted site records for extra work done and suspension on pier No 3 of
Megenagna Viaduct by the letter dated 21-11-2002 ref No CRBC/HT227/531/02. The
detail breakdowns are given below:
1. Time lost
• Date of instruction to suspend pier 3 cap:
October 11, 2002 (refer your letter Ref 4277/C.S100/17 dated October
12,2002)
• Date of approval of the revised drawing October 19,2002.
• Time taken to dismantling and replace the already laid re-bar
Desalting: 3 days
Replacement: 81/2 days
Total = 111/2 day
• The actual time lost is the time taken for dismantling and replacing of
the re-bar , i.e 11.5 days.
2. Direct Financial Losses (for dismantling the re-bar)
• Manpower
- Daily labourer: 75Man-day x 10hur x 9.42Br/hr
= 7,065 Br
- Forman : 3Man – day x 10hrs x 22.62Br/hr
= 678.6Br
Total = 7,743.60
75
I. SITE RECORDS FOR IDLE RESOURCE ON MEGENAGNA VIADUCT DUE
TO R.O.W PROBLEM.
CRBC has submitted site records IDLE RESOURCES ON Megenagna due to R.O.W
problem by the letter dated Nov. 21,2002 Ref No CRBC/HT228/532/02.
The direct cost incurred upon us due to suspensions a result of R.O.W problem is Birr
284,284.76 and the time lost is 6 days as shown below:
List of Idle Resource on Megenagna Viaduct Piling Works

(September 28,2002 – October 3,2002)
(Total idle hour = days x 8hr x 8hr/day = 48 hour)
1. Man power Number Idel Hourly Total (Br)
Hour Cost
1. Superintendent
1 48 23.09 1108.32
(Expatriate)
2. Foreman (expatriate) 5 48 22.63 5431.20
3. Foreman (Local staff) 3 48 22.63 3,258.72
4. Electrician 2 48 9.42 904.32
5. Mechanic 3 48 9.42 1356.48
6. Carpenter 7 48 9.42 3165.12
7. Surveyor 2 48 22.63 2172.48
8. Guard 8 48 9.42 3617.28
9. Operator 9 48 9.42 4069.44
10. Labourer 74 48 9.42 33,459.84
11. Flagman 10 48 9.42 4,521.60
Sub-total idle manpower cost 63,063.80
II Equipment
Number Idle Hourly Total (Br)
Hour Cost
1. Drilling Rig (BG07) 1 48 3014.5 144,696.00
2. Crane (55T) 1 48 386.5 18,512.00
3. Truck Mixer (6m )3
2 48 100.98 9,694.08
4. Welding machine 1 48 64.98 3,119.04
5. Generator (12kw & 48
2 51.00 4,896.00
10kw)
6. Exca1vator 1 48 74.95 3,597.60
7. Dump1 truck (20T) 1 48 75.74 3,635.52
8. Flat bed1 truck (20T) 1 48 150.96 7,246.08
9. Loader (32 M3) 1 48 74.95 3,597.60
10. Small vehicles 2 48 52.91 5,079.36
11. Mixing plant 2 48 126.3 12,124.80
12. Air compressor 1 48 103.81 4,982.88
Sub-total idle Equipment cost 221,220.96
Total cost of idle resource Birr 284,284.76
76
J. SITE RECORDS OF EXTRA WORKS DONE AND SUSPENSION ON PIER No
7 OF MEGENAGNA VIADUCT
CRBC has submitted site RECORDS FOR EXTRA WORK DONE AND
SUSPENSION ON PIER No 7 of Megenagna Viaduct by the letter dated Nov 21,2002
Ref NoCRBC/HT226/530/02.
The following direct extra cost were incurred to extend level of pile NO 7-7:
Re-Bar : 12.21 Kg x 7.4 Birr/Kg = 155.4 Br.
C-20concrete: 1M3 x 734.55 Br/Kg = 734.55 Br.
Daily Labourer: 8 Persons x 10 hrs x 9.42 Br/hr = 753.6 Br.
Total = 1,643.55 Br.
77
SUMMARY
Item Description of Clam Item Time Extension Additional Cost

No Requested Requested (Birr)
1(A) Site records for extra works (letter dated 20hrs 49,587.26
8/7/2002, ref No CRBC/AT138/342/02)
2(B) Site records for extra works (24/7/02, 7hrs 10,941.76

CRBC/HT/369/02)
3© Site records for extra Asphalt work on Junctions 69,494.20

of 1B (26/7/02, cRBC/148/370/02).
4(d) Site records for extra works (26/7/02 5 hrs 6,367.30

CRBC/148/370/02).
5(E) Site records for extra works (27/08/02, 8hrs 60,719.32

cRBC/HT169/402/02)
6(F) Site records for extra works (13/09/02, 4hrs 10,282.84

CRBC/HT180/418/02)
7(G) Site records for extra works (4/10/02, 12hrs 13,206.56

CRBC/HT199/448/02)
8(H) Site records of extra works one and suspension on 92hrs (11.S days) 7,743.60
pier No 3 of Megenagna Viaduct(21/11/02,
cRBC/HT227/531/02).
9(I) Site records for idle resources on Megenagna 48hrs (6 days) 284,284.76
viaduct due to R.O.W problem.
(21/11/02, CRBC/HT228/532/02)
10(J) Site records of extra works done and suspension 196 hrs (25 days) 1,643.55
of pier No7 of Megenagna Viaduct.
Total 196hrs (25days) 514,271.15
Note:
1. Out of the 196hrs 140hrs(17.5days = 18days) are accounted for the

Interchanges
2. 56 hrs (7days) are accounted for road works.
78
The table and bar chart on next pages shows the chronological occurrence of delays.
The table outline the cause, range, effective and cumulative effects of the delays for the
schedule of works.
Effective delays are those delays, which contribute to the delay of the work as a whole
and are summed as cumulative delays.
Effective and cumulative delays show the interrelationship between delays affecting
preceding and succeeding works along its execution path of the construction network.
Cumulative delay is the value in days assigned for the sum of the delays which would
have affected all works preceding the item of work under consideration along its
execution path of the construction network.
Table Showing Chronology Of Delays
I/No. Types of Activities Cause(s) of Range(s) of Delay No. of Effective Cumulative

affected Delay days delay delay
delayed
1 Road works 2.1 July ½ – Dec. 31, 2002 37 37 37 R.
2.4 July01/02 – Dec. 31, 02 25 25 62 Ex
2 Pipe Culvert, Barrier, 2.1 Included in 1 above - 62 Co

Kerbing
2.4 Included in 1 above - - 62 Co
3 Ambo Interchange 2.1 Included in 1 above 15 15 77 Co
2.4 Included in 1 above.

4 Megenagna Interchange 2.1 Included in 1 above 15 15 92 Co
2.4 Included in 1 above Co
Note: 1. The Numbers under cause(s) of delay refer to the delay category number
indicated under item No.2.0 in the claim text.
2. All of the 92 days of excusable delay are compassable delays
3. The excusable and compensable delays for road works are 62 days.
4. The excusable and compensable delays for the Interchanges are 30 days.
79
Bar Chart Showing Effective and Concurrent Delays
Ranges of Delay
I/No Causes of Delay Delay 2002
Time
(Day) July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. Dec.
1. Failure to give 67
possession of site
(Roads & Intecharges)
4. Additional works 25
suspension
92
Total Effective Delay
Concurrent Delay
Effective Delay
Note:
1) The effective delay is 92 days over 6 months.
2) 37 days accounted for the road works
3) 30 days accounted for the Interchange.
4) 25 days accounted for the additional works & suspensions (7 days related to
road works and 18 days are related to the Intercharges).
80
4.0 FRUTHER SUBMISSION FOR
RECOVERY OF OVERHEAD COSTS
81
4.0 CLAIM ON OVERHEAD COSTS
4.1 Road Works
4.1. 1 CRBC's tender included 25% contribution on overheads and profits on Net costs
(equivalent to 20% of gross contract Amount)
Thus the OHP portion of the discounted
Contract Amount of Birr 459, 000,000 was
459,000,000 x 20% =91, 800,000
of this amount time
based OHP was 80% =73,400,000
Distributed over 1095 days =67,068 per day
4.1.2 As shown in the chronology of Delay's the road works has been delayed by 44 days.
Therefore CRBC justified payment for extension of time costs due to delays in this
period under review (01/7/01 to 31/12/01) is 44 days x 67,078 =2,951,432.00 Birr.
4.2 Ambo and Megenegna Interchanges
4.2.1 CRBC’s offer included 25% contribution on overheads and profits on Net costs
(Equivalent to 20%of gross contract Amount).
This the OH portion of the Contract amount of Birr-----68, 332,384.17
68,332,384.17 x 20% = 13,666,476.
of the amount time based OHP was 80% = 10,933,180.00
Distributed over 414 days = 26,408.647 Per day.
4.2.2 As shown in the Chronology of delay, the Interchanges related time extension
requested is 48 days. Therefore, CRBC’s justified payment for extension of time
related to the Interchanges shall be
48 daysx26,408.65 Birr/day=1,267,615.20Birr
Total OH cost request = 2,951,432.00 + 1,267,615.20
= 4,219,047.20 Birr
82
83
The approved Contract programme has been used as the basis of calculating the
Extensions of Time due to factors discussed in this submission be awarded to the
Contractor.
The approved contract programme shows that work was due to commence on 23rd April
1998 to be completed on 23rd April 2001. With the 4 months mobilization period as
agreed in the minutes of meeting No. 1 on February 9th 1998 (discussion Nos. 4,5,6) and
included in the 1095 calendar days contract period, the date of completion after the 1095
calendar days contract period will therefore, be 23rd April 2001.
The Engineer has proposed only 87 days of time extension (under negotiation) out of the
242 days claimed in interim claim No. 1. CRBC do not agree that this is a sufficient
award. Further justification has been submitted and if further justification is required, it
also can be submitted.
The total entitlements submitted by CRBC are summarized below:
Claim Date of Circumstances Requested

No Submission To time extension
th
1. 15 Sept. 1999 30.06.99 242 days
2. 9th June 2000 31.12.99 81 days
3. 21st August 2000 30.06.00 78 days
4. 16th February 2001 31.12.00 74 days
5. 3rd April 2001 30.06.00 340 days
6. 24th September 2001 31.12.01 100 days
7. 27th February 2002 31.12.01 148days
8. 30th August 2002 30.06.02 146 days

Total todate requested time extension 1209
Thus the cumulative time extension requested until June 30, 2002 amounted to 1209 days.
The project has therefore, been extended by the same amount of days. Thus, completion date
of the project due to be awarded to the Contractor taking into account circumstances to
30.06.02 was 18th March 2004.
84
As described in section 3.0, CHRONOLOGY OF DELAYS, of this claim document, the
cumulative entitlement during the period 01.07.01 to 31.12.01 amounted to 92 days. The
project will therefore, be extended by the same amount of 92 days, after 18.03.04, making
the new completion date of the project June 20,2004. Including the 150days given to
complete the supplementary rute lighting work, the extended completion time shall be Nov.
20,2004. However since in Addendum No 2 it was agreed that the extended completion time
for the Road works will not exceed June 28,2003. Therefore, CRBC requested only 30 days
of extension time for the two Interchanges (taken from the Chronology of delay).
85
6.0 CONCLUSION
86
6.0 CONCLUSION
Contractor's requests for time extension and compensation are summarized herein
below under the sub-titles "Time Extensions" and "Compensations". These relate to
the period 01.07.02 to 31.12.02.
6.1 Time Extensions:

As already indicated in "CHRONOLOGY OF DELAYS". (Section 3.0), the total
entitlement to the Contractor of Extension of time concerning delays outside his
control, during the period 01/07/02 to 31/12/02 is 92 calendar days. However, only
30days for the two Interchange are requested.
6.2 Compensations:
Requests of compensation relating to the same period are:-
6.2.1 Compensation claim due to Employer’s

and/or special risks
-Transportation costs -------------------------------------------------17,187.56
6.2.2 Change in legislation ----------------------------------------------150,729.15
6.2.4.Extra cost requested for additional works 514,271.15
6.2.5.Claim on Overhead Costs -----------------------------------------4,219,047.20
Total compensation Claim Birr------------------------------4,901,235.00
87
Appendix 3
Supporting Documents Due
to Employer’s and/or Special Risks.
88
Appendix 4
Supporting Documents Due to
Change in Legislation
89
Appendix 2
Supporting Documents Due to Failure to

Given Possession of Site.
90

Claim Number 13

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Claim Number 13

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Claim Number 13

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

FEDERAL DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF ETHIOPIA

ADDIS ABABA ADMINISTRATION

ADDIS ABABA RING ROAD PROJECT

INTERIM SUBMISSION FOR

FURTHER AWARD OF EXTENSION OF TIME AND ADDITIONAL COSTS

(VOLUME 1: MAIN CLAIM DOCUMENT)

China Road and Bridge Corporation

1.1 Project Data 7

2.0 CATEGORIES OF TIME EXTENSION AND COMPENSATION

2.4. Due to Additional Works and Suspensions(site records)

Appendix 1 Schedules of work

Appendix 2 Supporting Documents due to failure to give possession of

Appendix 3 Supporting Documents due to change in Legislation.

Appendix 4 Supporting Documents due to Employer's and/or special

This submission is presented based upon the following contract particulars:

1.1 Project Data

1.3 Period Covered by the Claim

- Variations agreed in principle but not evaluated

OF TIME AND COMPENSATION

2.1 Due to failure to give possession of site .

2.1.1. Contract Particulars:

This application is prepared based on the following Contract Particulars:

- Minutes of pre-bid meeting in Tender Proposal, Volume 1-B

2.1.2. Detail Case Description

Question No.29 was put like this:

The answer given was:

2.1.2.2. Description of Individual Causes of Increased Cost

DC4. Planned Method of Construction

DC5. Actual circumstances of Construction

Start Complete Month

* Working in small areas

DC7.1. Change of Levels Frontage Road V Main Carriageway.

DC7.2. Additional Services Diversions

Many additional services were encountered during roadworks construction.

DC7.3. Working within Dense Traffic

DC8. Conclusions to this section of Narrative

S/N Case Description Ref. No. of Letter Date Issued

3. R.O.W Obstruction on Ambo and Megenagna Interchange CRBC/HT145/365/02 23/7/02

CH Obstructions Current Status

I.No Idle Equipment Capacity No. Location

2. General remarks & action to be taken

i. delays caused by late removal of the existing railway bridge.

2.1.2.6.1 CRBC have experienced extreme delay as a consequence of: -

 Undefined limits of the site

 Clause 7.1”Supplementary drawings and instructions”.

 Clause 44.1 “Extension time for Completion”

 Clauses 44.2 and 44.3

2.1.2.6.3 Specification clause 1202 “Services”

A. Request for Further Extension of Time:

1. Unavailability of R.O.W Width Denoted in the Tender Drawings:

(3m + 2.3m) x 2 x 100% = 26.5%

B. Financial Compensation Claim:

2.1.4. Supporting Documents:

2.3.1 Contract Particulars

2.3.2 Detail Case Description

LIST OF TRANSPORTATION EXPENSES

2.3.3 Detail Particulars of the Claim

- Total additional cost will be:

2.3.4 Supporting Documents:

1. Translation of quotation that indicates ocean shipment was foreseen

Undefined limits of the site

Clause 7.1”Supplementary drawings and instructions”.

Clause 44.1 “Extension time for Completion”

Clauses 44.2 and 44.3