1) to review the technical aspects of the three proposals previously solicited by KWPA and upgrade their technical specifications and improve their deficiencies;
2) to review the commercial, financial and legal aspects of the three proposals; and
3) to prepare a report and recommendation for KWPA.
1. Examine and review the proposals received for the execution of the project [RSK II] and wherever necessary, uprate the technical specifications... with due consideration to the improvements and corrections of the deficiencies....
2. Examine and review the commercial, financial and legal aspects of the proposals received and wherever necessary clarify the outstanding points with the respective tenderers.
3. Prepare the necessary report and recommendation for KWPA approval.
1. Whether, with regard to the engineering services it was to perform, the Claimant was restricted only to the work enumerated in Letter No. 3131.
2. Whether the work actually performed by the Claimant fell within the enumerated list of that letter.
3. Whether KWPA subsequently, either expressly or tacitly, ratified any of the work not so enumerated. In this connection it should be noted that the law of Iran and the United States both recognize that such subsequent ratification is the equivalent of mutual consent preceeding the performance of the work. See, The Civil Code of Iran, Art. 193 (M. Sabi trans. 1973); 3A Corbin, Corbin on Contracts § 564 (1960 & Supp. 1982).
Expert No. 1
After familiarizing himself with the documents filed by the parties and necessary to the performance of his task, Expert No. 1 shall give his opinion on the following:
1. the items of work performed by the Claimant which, according to standards of good engineering practice, were both necessary for the performance of consulting engineering services on RSK II and were performed adequately and accurately, including, but not limited to, the following:
a. Review of the technical, commercial, legal and financial aspects of the three bids previously solicited by KWPA;
b. Improvement of the technical aspects and deficiencies of the three bids;
c. Preparation of a report and recommendations on the three bids;
d. Preparation of conceptual design and equipment specifications;
e. Identification of the deficiencies in the original Reza Shah Kabir powerhouse and incorporation of their improvements into RSK II;
f. Investigations and studies;
g. Architectural work;
h. Electrical engineering work;
i. Geological work; and
j. Preparation of tender documents.
2. the amount of time and category of employee which, according to the standards of good engineering practice, would have been necessary to complete such work given the nature of the work and the conditions under which it had to be performed.
Expert No. 2
After familiarizing himself with the documents filed by the parties and necessary to the performance of his task, Expert No. 2 shall give his opinion on the following:
1. the fees to which the Claimant is entitled for such work. Such fees shall be arrived at by applying, to the amount of time and category of employee claimed by the Claimant, limited as required by the findings of Expert No. 1, the payment rates contained in Sections 1(a), 1(d) and 1(g) of Appendix III of the draft contract between the Claimant and KWPA. Overhead costs shall be reimbursed in accordance with Section 1(b) of Appendix III of the draft contract. Expenses which were reimbursable under Section 1(c) of Appendix III of the draft contract and which, according to the standards of good engineering practice, were necessary to the work performed by the Claimant on RSK II shall be reimbursed in accordance with Section 1(c) of Appendix III of the draft contract. As regards the "pack-up" work performed by the Claimant after 14 May 1979, reimbursement for such work shall be allowed to the extent that Expert No. 1 has ascertained that such work was consistent with the standards of good engineering practice, and shall be based on the payment rates contained in Sections 1(a), 1(d) and 1(g) of Appendix III of the draft contract.
On 23 June 1983, however, Mr. Shafeiei sent Chairman Bellet a note informing him that he intended to be absent from the Tribunal on vacation until the end of July. The Chairman responded by a note dated 29 June saying that, while a brief vacation was acceptable, Mr. Shafeiei was expected after 5 July. Nevertheless, after a further exchange of notes, Mr. Shafeiei has absented himself until the present and has given no address or telephone number where he could be reached. Only yesterday afternoon, too late to be of any use, did Mr. Shafeiei's legal assistant give the Tribunal a telephone number in another country where Mr. Shafeiei might be reached.
The Chairman has had all the successive drafts of this award since Mr. Shafeiei's departure deposited in his office in due time so that, if he had been present, he could have read and commented upon them, but no comments have been received. The Chairman also deposited in Mr. Shafeiei's office on 20 July 1983 a letter enclosing the final draft of the present award and informing him of the place and time of signature. Mr. Shafeiei failed to respond to the letter and did not attend the signing. In these circumstances, an arbitral tribunal cannot permit its work to be frustrated. This statement is made pursuant to Article 32, paragraph 4 of the Tribunal Rules of Procedure.