• Copy the reference
  • Tutorial video

Lawyers, other representatives, expert(s), tribunal’s secretary

Award

I. LIST OF DEFINED TERMS

ACE Associated Consulting Engineers International acting as the Project Manager of the CityStars Development Project in the Nasr City and Heliopolis areas of Cairo, between 1999 and August 2001
Action Code Pursuant to Clause 8.2(b) of TP4 Conditions of Contract and Clause 8.2(c) of TP5 Conditions of Contract, Action Code is a Drawing code status from 1 through 4, indicating whether construction could be commenced or not
Addada Bassam Addada, Claimants’ witness
Alexandria Construction Company The company to which TP4 Phase I was assigned, prior to Consolidated Contractors International Co. S.A.L. and Orascom Construction Industries Co. S.A.E. taking over in July 1999
Anglin Padraig Anglin, expert witness of Consolidated Contractors International Co. S.A.L. and Orascom Construction Industries Co. S.A.E.
As-Built Drawings Pursuant to Clause 1.1 (q) of the TP4 Conditions of Contract and Clause l.l(b)(iv) of the TP5 Conditions of Contract, As-built Drawings are "drawings, details, schedules, maintenance and operation manuals, prepared by the Contractor, deemed necessary for recording works executed"
As-Built Scenario One of the two conditions of PA’s simulation model of the Project, i.e., the conditions that actually prevailed on the Project
Base Programme Latest programme/progress update before occurrence of the alleged Delaying Event identified by Anglin
BoQ Bill of Quantities in the Parties’ Contract noting rates and prices
Bishouty Ziad Farraj Bishouty, Claimants’ witness
Blocks The groups of blocks comprising the City Stars Project, namely the A blocks, H blocks, and C blocks, for each Phase
Brooker Peter Henry Brooker of FTI Consulting, expert witness of Consolidated Contractors International Co. S.A.L. and Orascom Construction Industries Co. S.A.E.
Cassia Cassia and Associates, consultant of Golden Pyramids Plaza Co. S.A.E. and responsible for the architectural design for the CityStars Development Project in the Nasr City and Heliopolis areas of Cairo
ccco Consolidated Contractors International Co. S.A.L. and Orascom Construction Industries Co. S.A.E.
CCI Consolidated Contractors International Co. S.A.L.
Construction Drawings According to Section 1.1 (b)(iv) of Part II of the Contract Conditions (Particular Conditions), Construction Drawings are drawings, details and schedules prepared by the Contractor and approved by the Project Manager for amplifying and elaborating the contract drawings deemed necessary for the execution of the Works, and such other drawings as may from time to time be furnished by the Project Manager
Construction Drawings Pursuant to Clause 1. l(o) of the TP4 Conditions of Contract, "Construction Drawings or Working Drawings" are "drawings, details and schedules prepared by the Contractor and approved by the Engineer for amplifying, and elaborating the contract drawings deemed necessary for the execution of the Works, and such other drawings as may from time to time be furnished by the Engineer"
Contract The contract for the construction of the CityStars Development Project in the Nasr City and Heliopolis areas of Cairo entered into between the Parties on 29 July 2000, comprising the following documents: (i) the Contract Agreement; (ii) the Letters of Acceptance; (iii) the Contract Conditions of the Architectural and Electro-mechanical Works (TP5) Phases I and II and of the Concrete Works (TP4) Phases I and II; (iv) the Specifications for the Architectural & Electro-mechanical Works (TP5) Phases I and II and for the Concrete Works (TP4) Phases I and II; (v) the Drawings for the Architectural & Electro-mechanical Works (TP5) Phases I and II and for the Concrete Works (TP4) Phases I and II; (vi) the priced Bills of Quantities; and (v) the Tenders (see Clause 3 of the Contract Agreement)
Contract Agreement One of the documents forming the Parties’ Contract for the construction of the CityStars Development Project in the Nasr City and Heliopolis areas of Cairo entered into between the Parties on 29 July 2000
Contract Conditions The Contract Conditions (Parts I and II, i.e., General and Particular) of the Architectural and Electro-mechanical Works (TP5) of Phases I and II, and the Contract Conditions of the Concrete Works (TP4) of Phases I and II, being one of the documents comprising the contract for the construction of the CityStars Development Project in the Nasr City and Heliopolis areas of Cairo entered into between the Parties on 29 July 2000; the Contract Conditions also refer to: (i) the TP4 and TP5 Conditions of Contract; or (ii) the General and Particular Conditions
Contract Drawings Pursuant to Clause 1(1)(n) of the TP4 Contract Conditions and Clause 1.1 (b)(iii) of the TP5 Particular Conditions, § 1.1 (b)(iii), Contract Drawings are Contract Drawings Design prepared by Respondent
Contractor Consolidated Contractors International Co. S.A.L. and Orascom Construction Industries Co. S.A.E.
Contractual Rate  Under Clause 85.1 of the TP5 Conditions of Contract, the Contractual Rate is set at US$ 1: LE 3.4
Coordination Drawings  Pursuant to Clause 109 K of the Architectural General Specifications, § 109 K and Clause 31.2(c) of the TP5 Particular Conditions, Coordination Drawings are drawings prepared by Claimants for the purpose of coordination of the engineering and construction work
C-PHM  Claimants’ Post-Hearing Memorial dated 26 February 2013
CPM  Critical Path Method analysis, which is a conventional delay analysis conducted by Anglin
CRCICA  Cairo Regional Centre for International Commercial Arbitration
CRCICA Rules  Cairo Regional Centre for International Commercial Arbitration Rules of 2002
Crema Marphil Marble Claim One of the nine heads of Claimants’ Final Account Claims
Critical Path  Activities that will cause delay to the completion dates are known as being on the critical path
C-RPHM  Claimants’ Reply Post-Hearing Memorial dated 9 April 2014
C-SC  Claimants’ Statement of Costs dated 23 April 2014
Currency of Payment Claim One of the nine heads of Claimants’ Final Account Claims
Currency Split  Under Clause 85.1 of the TP5 Conditions of Contract, payment of sums for TPS Works is split at 50% in US$ and at 50% in LE
Customs Duties Claim One of the nine heads of Claimants’ Final Account Claims
CVN Contract Variation Notice, being a formal means of instructing design changes
CVO Contract Variation Order
DCN Design Change Notice
Deduction of LE 125 Million for Alleged One of the nine heads of Claimants’ Final
Defects based on TÜV Report Claim Account Claims
Deductions for Cost Savings for One of the nine heads of Claimants’ Final
Architectural Works/Materials Allegedly Account Claims
not as per Specification Claim Defects Liability Period The defects liability period named in the Appendix to Tender, calculated from the date of completion of the Works certified by the Engineer/Project Manager, pursuant to Clause 49.1 of the TP5 Contract Conditions
Delay and Disruption Claim Claims of Consolidated Contractors International Co. S.A.L. and Orascom Construction Industries Co. S.A.E. regarding losses arising out of the alleged delay and disruption caused to the CityStars Development Project in the Nasr City and Heliopolis areas of Cairo
Delay Event(s) The alleged Delay Events identified in Appendix 3 of the Anglin Report
DFC Drawing Field Change, by which Claimants could request information in order to clarify discrepancies in the design or construction of aspects of the Works in a Shop Drawing
E/M Electro-mechanical
EGP Egyptian pounds
Egyptian Arbitration Law Law No. 27/1994 Promulgating the Law Concerning Arbitration in Civil and Commercial matters, as most recently amended by Law No. 8/2000
Egyptian Civil Code Law No. 131/1948 Promulgating the Civil Code
Egyptian Commercial Code  Law No. 17/1999 Promulgating the Commercial Law
Egyptian Law on Evidence  Law No. 25/1968 for Evidence in Civil and Commercial Matters
Elsayed  Azza Elsayed, Claimants’ witness
Employer  Golden Pyramids Plaza Co. S.A.E.
Engineer  The Engineer for the CityStars Development Project in the Nasr City and Heliopolis areas of Cairo: (i) Hamza until 4 December 2000; and (ii) Moharram Bakhoum, as of 5 December 2000
EOT  Extension of Time
ETRR Respondent’s Expert Team (R-ET) Review Report ((1) the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering with the Bagley College of Engineering at Mississippi State University, as represented by Islam H. El-adaway, MASCE; (2) Capital Project Management, Inc. as represented by Michael D’Onofrio, P.E.; and (3) EGEC-MSS as represented by Samer Ezeldin, P.E.)
FIDIC  Fédération Internationale Des Ingénieurs-Conseils
Final Account Claims  Claims of Consolidated Contractors International Co. S.A.L. and Orascom Construction Industries Co. S.A.E. under various provisions of the contract for the construction of the CityStars Development Project in the Nasr City and Heliopolis areas of Cairo, to settle final accounts
Fire Sealant to the Top of Blockwork Walls Claim One of the nine heads of Claimants’ Final Account Claims
General Conditions Conditions of general application found in Part I of the contract for the construction of CityStars Development Project in the Nasr City and Heliopolis areas of Cairo entered into between the Parties on 29 July 2000
Gerges Amgad Eskander Gerges, Claimants’ witness
GPP Golden Pyramids Plaza Co. S.A.E.
Hamza Hamza and Associates, consultant of Golden Pyramids Plaza Co. S.A.E. and acting as the Engineer and as the structural design and structural consultant for the CityStars Development Project in the Nasr City and Heliopolis areas of Cairo until 4 December
  2000 and August 2001 respectively
Hearing Hearing held for these proceedings on 8 to 14 January 2014 at the Dubai International Arbitration Centre
IFC Issued for Construction
Impacted Programme The Base Programme following the identification of the critical path affected by the alleged Delaying Event including the completion date of the particular building
Interim Payment Certificates Pursuant to Clauses 60.2(c) and 60.10 of the TP5 Conditions of Contract, the Project Manager delivers to the Employer an Interim Payment Certificate stating the amount of payment to the Contractor which the Project Manager considers due and payable in respect of such statement, within 14 days of receipt of the signed provisional monthly statement
IPC Interim Payment Certificate
Kayyali Hazem Kayyali, Claimants’ witness
Kfoury Wafaa Dimitri Eskander Kfoury, Claimants’ witness
Khalaf Moneer Khalaf, Claimants’ witness
Law 27/1994 Law No. 27/1994 for Promulgating the Law Concerning Arbitration in Civil and Commercial matters, as most recently amended by Law No. 8/2000
LE Egyptian Pounds
Masroua Zikar Masroua, Claimants’ witness
Material Submittal Pursuant to Clause 8.2(c) TP5 Conditions of Contract Claimants were required under the Contract to submit a Material Submittal for Respondent’s approval prior to ordering materials
Measurement of Finished in TPS Claim One of the nine heads of Claimants’ Final Account Claims
Measurement of Plumbing Works Claim One of the nine heads of Claimants’ Final Account Claims
MEP Mechanical Electrical and Plumbing
Mock-Ups Partial sample constructions of works by the contractor subject to review by the employer and its designers
Moharram Bakhoum Moharram Bakhoum, acting as the Engineer and as the consultant for the structural works of the CityStars Development Project in the Nasr City and Heliopolis areas of Cairo as of 5 December 2000 and until August 2001 respectively
MOU Memorandum of Understanding signed by the Parties on 24 October 2002
MOU Amendment Amendment to the Memorandum of Understanding of 24 October 2002 concluded by the Parties on 23 June 2004
OCI Orascom Construction Industries Co. S.A.E.
   
Overall Determination The Project Manager’s Overall Determination
  of 18 December 2008
PA Thomas Mullen and Donna Mayo of PA Consulting, expert witnesses of Consolidated Contractors International Co. S.A.L. and Orascom Construction Industries Co. S.A.E.
Paint on Concrete/Ceiling Claim One of the nine heads of Claimants’ Final Account Claims
Parametrix  Jim Dugan of Parametrix, expert witness of Consolidated Contractors International Co. S.A.L. and Orascom Construction Industries Co. S.A.E.
Particular Conditions Conditions of particular application found in Part II of the contract for the construction of City Stars Development Project in the Nasr City and Heliopolis areas of Cairo entered into between the Parties on 29 July 2000; these conditions amend the General Conditions found in Part I of said contract
Permanent Works Pursuant to Clause 1.1(1) of the TP4 Conditions of Contract, Particular Conditions, Permanent Works are defined in as "the works to be executed and maintained in accordance with the Contract". Pursuant to Clause 1.1 (f)(ii) of the TP5 Conditions of Contract, Particular Conditions, "Permanent Works" are "the permanent works to be executed (including Plant) in accordance with the Contract"
PM Project Manager
PMO Project Management Organization comprising Bechtel and Golden Pyramids Plaza Co. S.A.E. and acting as the Project Manager of the CityStars Development Project in the Nasr City and Heliopolis areas of Cairo between August 2001 and February 2003; as of February 2003, the Project Management Organization comprised Golden Pyramids Plaza Co. S.A.E. and Moharram Bakhoum
PO POC POMI Programme Updates Procedural Order Paint on concrete/ceiling Principles of Measurement (International) for Works of Construction Programme Updates issued under Clause 14 of the Contract by Claimants
Project CityStars Development Project
Project Management Modelling System One of the approaches followed by PA Consulting in to quantify the schedule and labor hour impacts of events and conditions for which allegedly Respondent was responsible
Project Manager The Project Manager for the CityStars Development Project in the Nasr City and Heliopolis areas of Cairo, was: (i) Associated Consulting Engineers International between 1999 and August 2001; and (ii) Project Management Organization, comprising Bechtel and Golden Pyramids Plaza Co. S.A.E., between August 2001 and February 2003; as of February 2003, the Project Management Organization was comprised of Golden Pyramids Plaza Co. S.A.E. and Moharram Bakhoum
Prolongation costs Additional costs, such as additional and abortive engineering and extended presence on site past the contractual completion date
Rejoinder Statement of Rejoinder dated 6 November 2013
Reply Statement of Reply dated 30 July 2013
Reply C-SC Respondent’s Reply Statement of Costs dated 30 April 2014
Reply R-SC Claimants’ Reply Statement of Costs dated 30 April 2014
R-ET Report on Effect of Omitted Works Respondent’s Expert Team Report (R-ET) on Effect of Omitted Works ((1) the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering with the Bagley College of Engineering at Mississippi State University, as represented by Dr. Islam H. El-adaway, MASCE; (2) Capital Project Management, Inc. as represented by Michael D’Onofrio, P.E.; and (3) EGEC-MSS as represented by Dr. Samer Ezeldin, P.E.)
R-ET Review Report Respondent’s Expert Team (R-ET) Review Report ((1) the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering with the Bagley College of Engineering at Mississippi State University, as represented by Dr. Islam H. El-adaway, M,ASCE; (2) Capital Project Management, Inc. as represented by Mr. Michael D’Onofrio, P.E.; and (3) EGEC-MSS as represented by Dr. Samer Ezeldin, P.E.)
RFI Request for Information, by which Claimants were required to report a design problem to the Consultant or the Employer
Riad Christeen Halim Riad, Claimants’ witness
RICS Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors
R-PHM Respondent’s Post-Hearing Memorial dated 26 February 2014
R-RPHM Respondent’s Reply Post-Hearing Memorial dated 9 April 2014
R-SC Respondent’s Statement of Costs dated 23 April 2014
SCL Society of Construction Law in London
SCL Protocol Delay and Disruption Protocol produced in 2002 by the Society of Construction Law in London
Shaker Shaker Consulting Group, consultant of Golden Pyramids Plaza Co. S.A.E. and responsible for the Electro-mechanical works for the CityStars Development Project in the Nasr City and Heliopolis areas of Cairo
Shop Drawings Pursuant to Clause 1.1 (p) of the TP4
  Conditions of Contract, Shop Drawings are "drawings, details, schedules, manufacturer’s standards, catalogues, brochures, performance and test data, wiring and control diagrams, and all other descriptive data pertaining to material and equipment and methods of installation prepared by the Contractor". Pursuant to Clause 1. l(b)(v) of the TP5 Conditions of Contract, Shop Drawings are "drawings, details, schedules, manufacturer’s standards, catalogues, brochures, performance and test data, writing and control diagrams, and all other descriptive data pertaining to material and equipment and methods of installation prepared by the Contractor"
SMM7 1998 Standard Methods of Measurement of Building Works
SoC Statement of Claim dated 27 September 2012
SoD Statement of Defense dated 29 April 2013
Statement at Completion Pursuant to Clause 60.5 of the TP5 Conditions of Contract, the Contractor submits to the Project Manager no later than 84 days after the issue of the Taking-Over-Certificate in respect of the whole of the Works, six copies of a Statement at Completion with supporting documents showing in detail, inter alia, the final value of all the works done and all sums considered due or that will become due under the Contract
System Dynamics One of the approaches followed by PA Consulting in to quantify the schedule and labor hour impacts of events and conditions for which allegedly Respondent was responsible
Tender Packages TP4 Phases I and II and TP5 Phases I and II
Time-Slice approach Used by Anglin to demonstrate cause and effect to show critical delay on a critical path
ToCs Certificates of Completion for TP4 and Taking Over Certificates for TP5 issued by the Engineer/Project Manager
TP4 Conditions of Contract The Contract Conditions of the Concrete Works (TP4) of Phases I and II, of the contract for the construction of the CityStars Development Project in the Nasr City and Heliopolis areas of Cairo entered into between the Parties on 29 July 2000
TP4 Phase I The Tender Package for the structural works for Phase I of the CityStars Development Project in the Nasr City and Heliopolis areas of Cairo, awarded to Consolidated Contractors International Co. S.A.L. and Orascom Construction Industries Co. S.A.E.
TP4 Phase II The Tender Package for the structural works for Phase II of the CityStars Development Project in tire Nasr City and Heliopolis areas of Cairo, awarded to Consolidated. Contractors International Co. S.A.L. and Orascom Construction Industries Co. S.A.E.
TP5 Conditions of Contract The Contract Conditions (Parts I and II) of the Architectural and Electro-mechanical Works (TP5) of Phases I and II of the contract for the construction of CityStars Development Project in the Nasr City and Heliopolis areas of Cairo entered into between the Parties on 29 July 2000
TP5 Phase I The Tender Package for the Architectural and Electro-mechanical works for Phase I of the CityStars Development Project in the Nasr City and Heliopolis areas of Cairo, awarded to Consolidated Contractors International Co. S.A.L. and Orascom Construction Industries Co. S.A.E.
TP5 Phase II TPs The Tender Package for the Architectural and Electro-mechanical works for Phase II of the CityStars Development Project in the Nasr City and Heliopolis areas of Cairo, awarded to Consolidated Contractors International Co. S.A.L. and Orascom Construction Industries Co. S.A.E. The 70 Tender Packages for the two phases of the construction of the CityStars Development Project in the Nasr City and Heliopolis areas of Cairo
Transcript Transcript of Hearing of 8 to 14 January 2014
TÜV Reports Reports prepared by TÜV SÜD Industrie Service, Germany, based on, inter alia, an on-site inspection of the City Stars Project
UECs Unplanned Events and Conditions
VO Variation Order
VRV Variable Refrigerant Volume
Works Pursuant to Article 5 of the Contract Agreement, the Works comprise: the Concrete Works (TP4) of Phase I; the Architectural & Electro-mechanical Works (TP5) of Phase I; the Concrete Works (TP4) of Phase II; the Architectural & Electro-mechanical Works (TP5) of Phase II. Further, pursuant to Clause 1.1(g) of the TP4 Conditions of Contract and Clause 1.l(f)(i) of the TP5 Conditions of Contract, Particular Conditions, Works mean "the Permanent Works, the Temporary Works, and the Supplies or any of them as appropriate"
Would-Have Scenario One of the two conditions of PA’s simulation model of the Project, i.e. the conditions that would have prevailed on the Project in the absence of the alleged Respondent-responsible events and conditions

 

II. THE PARTIES

1.
Claimant No. 1:

Consolidated Contractors International Co. S.A.L.
Sabbagh and Khoury Building
Nicola Sursok Street
Ramlet Baida
Beirut
Lebanon

hereinafter referred to as "Claimant No. 1" or "CCI".

2.
Claimant No. 1 is a joint stock company duly established and existing under the laws of Lebanon, with commercial registration No. 12 - Offshore Register.
3.
Claimant No. 2:

Orascom Construction Industries Co. S.A.E.
160, 26th of July Street
Agouza, Giza
Egypt

now domiciled at

Nile City Towers
Southern Towers
Nile Corniche
Ram1et Beau Lac
Cairo
Egypt

hereinafter referred to as "Claimant No. 2" or "OCI".

4.
Claimant No. 2 is a joint stock company duly established and existing under the laws of Egypt, with commercial registration No. 38824 on 28/2/1976 Giza.
5.
Claimant No. 1 and Claimant No. 2 form a joint venture and are hereinafter collectively referred to as "Claimants" or "CCCO" or "the Contractor".
6.
In their Notices of Arbitration dated 26 January 2006 and 27 April 2006, Claimants have elected domicile for the purpose of the present arbitration proceedings at the following address:

CCCO, 24 Al-shaheed
Abdel Muneim Hafez,
4th Floor
Heliopolis, Cairo 11351
Egypt

7.
Claimants are represented in this arbitration by their duly authorised attorneys mentioned at page 2 above.
8.
Respondent:

Golden Pyramids Plaza Co. S.A.E.
No. 2, Al-Raed Ali Rashed Street
Star Capital 2, Floor 5
Heliopolis
Cairo
Egypt

hereinafter referred to as "Respondent" or "GPP" or "the Employer".

9.
Respondent is a joint stock company duly established and incorporated under the laws of Egypt, with commercial registration No. 301134.
10.
Respondent is represented in this arbitration by its duly authorised attorney and representative mentioned at page 2 above.
11.
Claimants and Respondent are hereinafter collectively referred to as "the Parties".

III. THE TRIBUNAL

12.
The CRCICA notified Professor Jan Paulsson (French national) of his appointment on 16 September 2010, as per the Claimant’s nomination dated 15 September 2010, and further notified to the Parties by the CRCICA on 30 September 2010. The CRCICA notified Hazim Rizkana (Egyptian national) of his appointment on 11 September 2011, as per the Respondent’s nomination dated 25 August 2011, and further notified to the Parties by the CRCICA on 26 September 2011.
13.
With the declaration of acceptance and statement of impartiality and independence signed by Professor Dr. Albert Jan van den Berg (Dutch national) on 5 January 2012, the Tribunal has been constituted as follows:

(i) Professor Dr. Albert Jan van den Berg
(confirmed upon joint nomination of the co-arbitrators)
Hanotiau & van den Berg
IT Tower, 9th floor
Avenue Louise 480 - Box 9
1050 Brussels
Belgium
Telephone: +322290 39 13
E-mail: aivandenberg@hvdb.com

(ii) Professor Jan Paulsson
(nominated by Claimants)
Villa 4019, Durrat
Kingdom of Bahrain
Telephone: + 973 37767676
E-mail: jpaulsson@law.miami.edu

(iii) Mr. Hazim Rizkana
(nominated by Respondent)
Helmy, Hamza & Partners
A member of Baker & McKenzie International
Nile City Building, North Tower
Twenty-First Floor
2005C, Cornich El Nil
Ramlet Beaulac, Cairo
Egypt
Telephone: + 2 02 2461 9301 E-mail: hazim.rizkana@bakermckenzie.com

IV. PROCEDURE

A. The Parties’ Arbitration Agreement and its Amendments

14.
On 29 July 2000, the Parties entered into a contract for the construction of the City Stars Development Project (the "Project") in the Nasr City and Heliopolis areas of Cairo (the "Contract"). The Contract is formed by a number of documents, including the Contract Agreement.1

(1) Clause 67 of the Annex to the Contract Agreement

15.
Pursuant to Article 19 of the Contract Agreement, the Annex to the Contract Agreement modified the Contract Conditions and constitutes an integral part of the Contract Agreement.2
16.
Accordingly, pursuant to Clause 67 of the Annex to the Contract Agreement, which substitutes Clause 67 of the Contract Conditions, the Parties agreed to settle any dispute arising out of a decision of the Project Manager by submitting such dispute to arbitration before a three-member tribunal under the Rules of the Cairo Regional Centre for International Commercial Arbitration ("CRCICA"):3

Settlement of Disputes

In case a dispute of any kind whatsoever arises between the Employer and the Contractor in connection with, or arising out of the Contract or the execution of the Works, whether during the execution of the Works or after their completion and whether before or after repudiation or other termination of the Contract, including any dispute as to any opinion, instruction, determination certificate or valuation of the Engineer/the Project Manager, the matter in dispute shall in the first place be referred in writing to the Project Manager, with a copy to the other party. Such reference shall state that it is made pursuant to this Clause. No later tha[n] the eighty-fourth day after the day on which he received such reference the Project Manager shall give notice of his decision to the Employer and the Contractor. Such decision shall state that it is made pursuant to this Clause.

Unless the Contract has already been terminated, the Contractor shall, in every case, continue to proceed with the Works with all due diligence and the Contractor and the Employer shall give effect forthwith to every such decision on the Project Manager unless and until the same shall be revised in an amicable settlement or an arbitral award as hereinafter provided.

If either the Employer or the Contractor be dissatisfied with any decision of the Project Manager, or if the Project Manager fails to give notice of his decision on or before the eighty-fourth day after the day on which he received the reference, then either the Employer or the Contractor may, on or before the seventieth day after the day on which he received notice of such decision, or on or before the seventieth day after the day on which the period of 84 days expired, as the case may be, refer the matter to be settled by way of arbitration under the Rules of the Cairo Regional Centre for International Commercial Arbitration, by three arbitrators to be appointed in accordance with the said Rules. The said arbitrators shall have full power to open up, review and revise any decision, opinion, instruction, determination, certificate or valuation of the Engineer / Project Manager. The arbitration shall be held in Cairo, conducted in the English language and the arbitral award shall be final, binding upon both parties and subject to no appeal. Should the said seventy day period elapse without referring the dispute to arbitration, then the decision rendered by the Project Manager or his failure to give such a decision shall be considered finally approved by and binding upon both parties, and subject to no legal recourse whether arbitral or judicial.

(2) The Memorandum of Understanding

17.
On 24 October 2002, the Parties signed a Memorandum of Understanding ("the MOU") on account of delays in the construction of the Project.4 The MOU amended, inter alia, the Parties’ arbitration agreement provided in Clause 67 of the Annex to the Contract Agreement. Pursuant to Clause 6 of the MOU, any disputes arising out of Phase I of the Project should be submitted to ad hoc arbitration before Sheikh Fahd Shobokshi acting as sole arbitrator:

6. The two Parties agree that the related delaying completion events for Phase I and any other disputes or claims arising during tire construction of Phase I shall be settled in accordance with clause 67 in the contract agreement by a special arbitral tribunal as stated hereunder.

All disputes between the Employer and the Contractor during the construction of the whole Phase I will be referred to the special arbitral tribunal of one arbitrator namely Sheikh Fahd Shobokshi who will act as a sole arbitrator, and whose decision shall be binding and final on the two parties without any need for legal enforcement.

Sheikh Fahd Shobokshi in his capacity as sole arbitrator has the right to use the services of any person(s) and/or identity to enable him to accomplish his mission. In addition, he will set down the procedures for the Arbitration Process.

The costs attributed by Sheikh Fahd in this respect shall be borne fifty/fifty by both the Employer and the Contractor.

Contractor’s Bank guarantees and bonds issued to the Employer under this Contract will not be liquidated by the Employer unless supported by an arbitral award.

18.
In addition, Clause 7 of the MOU provides that: (i) the reminder of the provisions of the Contract Agreement remain unchanged; and (ii) the MOU would be deemed null and void if Sheikh Fahd Shobokshi became unable to fulfil his mission:

7. Apart from the changes made in this MOU, all terms and conditions of the Contract agreement will remain unchanged. If for any reason, Sheikh Fahd Shobokshi would be unable to fulfil this mission, then the present.MOU will be deemed null and void, and as if it had never existed, leaving the parties under the original contract provisions enforced and unchanged.

No penalties will be applied by the employer unless awarded by arbitration.

(3) The Amendment to the Memorandum of Understanding

19.
On 23 June 2004, the Parties concluded an amendment to the MOU ("the MOU Amendment").5 The MOU Amendment provided for ad hoc arbitration registered with the CRCICA before a three-member tribunal chaired by Sheikh Fahd Shobokshi.
20.
Furthermore, the tribunal’s jurisdiction was extended to disputes arising out of Phase II of the Project. Also, the Parties waived their right to challenge any member of the tribunal on account of a business relationship of a tribunal member with the Parties:

All disputes between the Employer and the Contractor during the construction of the whole Phase I will be referred to a special arbitral tribunal formed of three arbitrators, as herein below provided.

3. Delete MOU Paragraph 6 a through d and substitute the following:

i. The Contractor has nominated Mr. Mohamed S[eo]udi, as arbitrator and the Employer shall appoint its nominated arbitrator in due course. Notwithstanding the provisions of Clause 67 of the Contract Agreement, the tribunal’s chairman has been appointed by both parties, as being Mr. Fahd Shobokshi.

ii. In the event an arbitrator fails to act or in the event of the dejure or de facto impossibility of his performing, and his replacement is not appointed by the relevant Party (ies) within ten days, he shall be appointed by the Cairo Regional Centre for International Commercial Arbitration ("CRCICA") as appointing authority.

iii. The Panel may inspect project accounts and books of either Party as necessary to render a decision.

4. The following is an addition to tire MOU provisions:

i. The arbitration shall not be registered in the Cairo Center for International Commercial Arbitration and accordingly the parties to the arbitration are not bound to apply its rules and procedures except 3 ii above.

ii. Both the Employer and the Contractor acknowledge the business relationship of all the arbitration panel’s members. The Contractor further acknowledges his awareness of the fact that Mr. Fahd Shobokshi [i]s a board director and interest holder in the Golden Pyramids Plaza Company and confirms that he has no objections or reservations in this regard. Any right to challenge the appointment of any panel’s member on such grounds is hereby finally and irrevocably waived by both parties except 3(B) above.

iii. The Panel’s decision shall be final and binding and fully implemented by both parties without delay. The Arbitrator’s awards shall not be subject to further legal recourse whether arbitral or judicial and shall not be subject to plea before the Egyptian courts.

iv. The Employer and the Contractor hereby agree that any disputes arising out of the Phase II of the Project that shall need to besettled by arbitration shall be also referred to the special arbitral tribunal mentioned above.

5. All remaining clauses of the MOU shall remain unchanged.

(strike-through as in original; bold is handwriting as in original)

21.
Pursuant to Clause 3(i) of the MOU Amendment, the Employer appointed Jawad Al Kassab as co-arbitrator on 12 August 2004.6

(4) The Preliminary Hearings of 10 February 2005 and 22 June 2005

22.
On 10 February 2005, the ad hoc tribunal comprising of Sheikh Fahd Shobokshi as Chairman and Mr. Mohamad Seoudi and Mr. Jawad Al-Kassab as co-arbitrators, held a preliminary hearing.7 The minutes of this preliminary hearing record the agreement that the CRCICA Rules would apply to the disputes between them:

It was further agreed, contrary to the second Memorandum of Understanding, that the disputes would be registered (or, in the case of the current disputes, remainregistered) with the Cairo Centre and that the Cairo Centre Rules would apply.

23.
On 22 June 2005, the same tribunal held a second preliminary hearing during which the Parties reiterated their agreement to apply the CRCICA Rules to all of their disputes:8

22. Both parties agreed that all disputes including current disputes will be registered with the Cairo Centre and that the Cairo Centre Rules would apply.

B. CRCICA Cases Nos. 467/2006 and 489/ 2006

(1) The Notice of Arbitration in CRCICA Case No. 467/2006

24.
Certain disputes arose between the Parties in the course of 2003 and 2004 which could not be resolved amicably. Claimants filed their Notice of Arbitration with the CRCICA on 26 January 2006.9 In their Notice of Arbitration, Claimants referred to the "Arbitration Agreement between the Claimants and the Respondent dated 29th July 2000" and its further amendments, arguing that "[t]aken together, these amendments therefore leave the Parties in exactly the position in which they stood under the original Clause 67: institutional arbitration in accordance with the Centre Rules, before a tribunal comprising three members constituted pursuant to the Centre Rules".10 As Mr. Seoudi, Claimants’ appointed arbitrator under Clause 3(i) of the MOU Amendment, resigned on 18 January 2006,11 Claimants appointed Dr. John Uff as arbitrator.12
25.
Claimants’ Notice of Arbitration was registered with the CRCICA as Case No. 467/2006 on 30 January 2006.13
26.
On 28 March 2006, given Respondent’s failure to appoint an arbitrator within the time-frame provided for by the CRCICA Rules, Claimants requested the CRCICA to appoint an arbitrator on Respondent’s behalf.14 The following day, the CRCICA reminded Respondent of its right to appoint an arbitrator by 5 April 2009.15
27.
On 4 April 2006, Respondent challenged the validity of the Notice of Arbitration and requested the CRCICA to "de-register" the Notice of Arbitration.16 Respondent submitted that: (i) Claimants’ Notice of Arbitration was "invalid" because it relied on the arbitration agreement of Clause 67 of the Parties’ Annex to the Contract Agreement, without referring to its amendments; (ii) Claimants failed to state that an ad hoc tribunal had already been constituted; and (iii) Respondent had already appointed an arbitrator on 12 August 2004.
28.
On 12 April 2006, Claimants replied to Respondent’s letter of 4 April 2006, contending that "the result of the repeated amendment of this dispute settlement mechanism has been to confirm the original position contemplated under Clause 67 - namely, the submission of all disputes under the Agreement to arbitration in accordance with the Centre Rules, before a three-person panel constituted pursuant to the same mechanism set out under Clause 67 of the Agreement".17 Claimants requested the CRCICA: (i) to deny Respondent’s request to de-register the Notice of Arbitration; and (ii) to set a timeframe for Respondent to appoint an arbitrator, failing which, to appoint an arbitrator on Respondent’s behalf.
29.
On 8 May 2006, Respondent reiterated the contentions made in its letter of 4 April 2006 and asserted, inter alia, that:18

... it is apparent that Claimants’ attempt to constitute a new arbitral tribunal and to oblige Golden Pyramids Plaza to make a new appointment of its arbitrator is a flagrant illegal act to hinder the functioning of the already constituted Arbitral Tribunal chaired by Mr. Shobokshy, which should not be allowed to by the Centre under any circumstances.

(2) The Supplemental Notice of Arbitration in CRCICA Case No. 467/2006 and the Notice of Arbitration in CRCICA Case No. 489/2006

30.
On 27 April 2006, Claimants filed a Supplemental Notice of Arbitration in CRCICA Case No. 467/2006, which referred to Clause 67 of the Parties’ Annex to the Contract Agreement and the effects of its amendments. It also included "further and related" claims.19 Claimants requested the CRCICA to update Case No. 467/2006 to include such claims and to separately register the Supplemental Notice of Arbitration as a new case.20 On 4 May 2006, the CRCICA registered the Supplemental Notice of Arbitration as Case No. 489/2006 and notified Respondent accordingly.21
31.
On 11 May 2006, Respondent requested the CRCICA to "de-register" the Supplemental Notice of Arbitration.22
32.
On 16 July 2006, Claimants requested the CRCICA to take note of (i) the constitution of the ad hoc tribunal; (ii) the amendments to the Parties’ arbitration agreement; (iii) the resignation of Mr. Seoudi; (iv) the appointment of Dr. John Uff and Claimants’ request that Respondent appoints an arbitrator; and (v) that tine CRCICA acknowledges Sheikh Fahd Shobokshi as Chairman, otherwise the CRCICA to appoint such arbitrator and/or Chairman.23

(3) The Supplemental Notices of Arbitration in CRCICA Cases Nos. 467/2006 and 489/ 2006

33.
Claimants filed a number of Supplemental Notices of Arbitration in both registered cases with the CRCICIA as follows.
34.
On 28 June 2006, Claimants filed their Supplemental Notice of Arbitration No. 2 in CRCICA Case No. 467/2006 and an identical Supplemental Notice of Arbitration No. 1 in CRCICA Case No. 489/2006.24
35.
On 7 September 2006, Claimants filed their Supplemental Notice of Arbitration No. 3 in CRCICA Case No. 467/2006 and an identical Supplemental Notice of Arbitration No. 2 in CRCICA Case No. 489/2006.25
36.
On 21 November 2006, Claimants filed their Supplemental Notice of Arbitration No. 4 in CRCICA Case No. 467/2006 and an identical Supplemental Notice of Arbitration No. 3 in CRCICA Case No. 489/2006.26
37.
On 22 February 2007, Claimants filed their Supplemental Notice of Arbitration No. 5 in CRCICA Case No. 467/2006 and an identical Supplemental Notice of Arbitration No. 4 in CRCICA Case No. 489/2006.27
38.
On 26 April 2007, Claimants filed their Supplemental Notice of Arbitration No.6 in CRCICA Case No. 467/2006 and an identical Supplemental Notice of Arbitration No.5 in CRCICA Case No. 489/2006.28
39.
On 20 August 2007, Claimants filed their Supplemental Notice of Arbitration No. 7 in CRCICA Case No. 467/2006 and an identical Supplemental Notice of Arbitration No. 6 in CRCICA Case No. 489/2006.29

(4) The Attempts to Constitute an Arbitral Tribunal for CRCICA

Cases Nos. 467/2006 and 489/2006 and Respondent’s Request to Strike CRCICA Cases Nos. 467/2006 and 489/2006

40.
In the meantime, the CRCICA and the Parties had been corresponding with each other and with potential arbitrators, in an attempt to constitute an arbitral tribunal for CRCICA Cases Nos. 467/2006 and 489/2006.
41.
On 31 August 2006, the CRCICA asked Sheikh Fahd Shobokshi and Mr. Al-Kassab to confirm whether they accepted their appointments as Chairman and arbitrator respectively.30 The CRCICA repeated such requests with respect to Mr. Al-Kassab on 9 September 200631 and on 7 November 2006.32
42.
Sheikh Fahd Shobokshi accepted his appointment on 2 September 200633 and Mr. Al-Kassab on 12 November 2006.34 As of 12 November 2006, the arbitral tribunal for CRCICA Case No. 467/2006 comprised Sheikh Fahd Shobokshi as Chairman and Dr. Uff and Mr. Al-Kassab as co-arbitrators.
43.
On 11 December 2006, Sheikh Fahd Shobokshi sent a letter to the Parties scheduling a meeting for a preliminary session for 10 January 2007.35
44.
On 21 December 2006, Claimants sent a letter to Sheikh Fahd Shobokshi asking him to withdraw from the office as Chairman in CRCICA Case No. 467/2006 for the foregoing reasons:36

As you know, your appointment to the office of Tribunal Chairman in the present matter was made pursuant to the terms of an Amendment to a Memorandum of Understanding signed between the parties on 23 June 2004. At the time you accepted to serve, it was understood on all sides that, in point of fact, you would act as mediator - a role which your substantial business interests with both sides of the present proceedings made you eminently suited to play.

But despite your best mediation efforts in the intervening period, the parties have unfortunately failed to resolve their differences amicably, and have now resolved to have recourse to the more formal process of arbitration. This, of course, changes the position entirely... Add to that the question whether the parties were really entitled to waive your various fundamental conflicts of interest in the matter at issue (as they have purported to do), and it becomes clear that you should now reconsider your position.

45.
On 8 January 2007, Sheikh Fahd Shobokshi sent a letter to the Parties noting that "[d]ue to the circumstances surrounding this Case and in order to ensure the continuation of the ongoing proceeding [he] felt obliged not to react before a new chairman is nominated by agreement of both Parties".37
46.
On 19 July 2007, Sheikh Fahd Shobokshi advised the Parties that he "decided to resign effective 26th of July 2007 allowing the parties [a] further opportunity to agree [on] a chairman before that date".38
47.
On 1 August 2007, Respondent requested the CRCICA to strike CRCICA Cases Nos. 467/2006 and 489/2006, on the ground that pursuant to Clause 7 of the MOU,39 Sheikh Fahd Shobokshi’s resignation rendered the MOU and the MOU Amendment null and void.40 According to Respondent, this resulted in "any and all procedures undertaken under the MOU, including the filing of cases No[s], 467/2006 CRCICA and 489/2006 CRCICA considered [to be] null and void".
48.
On 23 August 2007, Claimants sent a letter to the CRCICA requesting the dismissal of Respondent’s application to strike CRCICA Cases Nos. 467/2006 and 489/2006 and inviting Respondent to agree on the appointment of either one of Mr. Alan Redfern, Mr. Humphrey Lloyd QC, or Professor Karl-Heinz Böckstiegel as Chairman in both CRCICA Cases Nos. 467/2006 and 489/2006.41
49.
On 26 September 2007, the CRCICA requested Respondent to reply to Claimants’ letter of 23 August 2007.42
50.
Respondent replied on 8 October 2007, reiterating the striking of both CRCICA Cases Nos. 467/2006 and 489/2006.43
51.
On 22 October 2007, Claimants requested the CRCICA to proceed to the default appointment of a Chairman.44
52.
On 3 November 2007, Mr. Al-Kassab, the Respondent-appointed arbitrator in CRCICA Cases Nos. 467/2006 and 489/2006 resigned.45
53.
On 4 November 2007, the CRCICA informed the Parties and Dr. Uff that pursuant to Article 21.1 of the CRCICA Rules, "it is not for the center but for the arbitral tribunal to be constituted, to settle objections to its own jurisdiction, including contentions of the invalidity of the MOU".46 The CRCICA requested Respondent to appoint a new arbitrator by 3 December 2007.
54.
On 3 December 2007, Respondent appointed Mr. Walid Fouad Dahlan as arbitrator.47 One month later, on 3 January 2008, Mr. Fouad Dahlan informed the CRCICA that he had to decline the appointment on account of a possible conflict of interests.48 The CRCICA notified the Parties accordingly on 6 January 2008 and requested Respondent to appoint an arbitrator by 5 February 2008.49
55.
In the meantime, on 10 January 2008, the CRCICA decided to consolidate CRCICA Cases Nos. 467/2006 and 489/2OO6.50
56.
On 20 January 2008, Claimants requested the CRCICA to appoint an arbitrator on Respondent’s behalf.51
57.
On 4 February 2008, Respondent appointed Mr. Mohamed Sherif El-Nazer as arbitrator.52
58.
On 5 March 2008, Claimants objected to Mr. Sherif El-Nazer’s appointment on account of his involvement in the Project and the Project Management Organization which allegedly comprises Respondent.53 Subsequently, on 19 March 2008, Mr. Sherif El-Nazer resigned.54 The CRCICA notified the Parties accordingly on the same day and invited Respondent to appoint an arbitrator.55 On 20 April 2008, Respondent appointed Mr. Yasser Abdel-Salam Mansour as arbitrator.56 The CRCICA notified Mr. Yasser Abdel-Salam Mansour’s appointment on the same day.57 Following correspondence between the CRCICA and Mr. Abdel-Salam Mansour,58 the latter confirmed his impartiality and independence on 30 June 2008.59
59.
On 7 July 2008, Claimants noted the failure of co-arbitrators Dr. Uff and Mr. Abdel-Salam Mansour to select a Chairman within the set timeframe and invited the CRCICA to appoint a Chairman.60 On 9 July 2008, the CRCICA advised the co-arbitrators that it would appoint a Chairman if the co-arbitrators failed to do so urgently.61
60.
On the same day, Respondent sent a letter to the CRCICA submitting that the timeframe within which the co-arbitrators must select a Chairman has not yet expired and that, therefore, it was premature for the CRCICA to consider intervening.62
61.
On 9 August 2008, the CRCICA informed the Parties that it would prepare the process of appointment of a Chairman on account of the failure of Dr. Uff and Mr. Abdel-Salam Mansour to select a Chairman.63
62.
Subsequently, on 28 September 2008, the CRCICA appointed Professor Gabrielle Kaufmann-Kohler as President of the tribunal in CRCICA Consolidated Cases No. 467/2006 and 489/2006.64 Professor Kaufmann-Kohler accepted her appointment on 30 September 2008.65
63.
On 5 December 2008, Dr. Uff, Claimants-appointed arbitrator, resigned.66
64.
On 4 January 2009, Claimants appointed Mr. William Laurence Craig as arbitrator to replace Dr. John Uff.67
65.
The tribunal in CRCICA Consolidated Cases No. 467/2006 and 489/ 2006 was thus constituted, consisting of Professor Kaufmann-Kohler as Chair and Mr. Craig and Mr. Abdel-Salam Mansour as arbitrators.

(5) The Consolidation of CRCICIA Cases Nos. 467/2006 and 489/ 2006

66.
As mentioned above, on 10 January 2008, the CRCICA consolidated CRCICA Cases Nos. 467/2006 and 489/2006.68
67.
On 17 March 2008, Claimants filed their Supplemental Notice of Arbitration No. 8 in CRCICA Consolidated Cases Nos. 467/2006 and 489/2006.69
68.
On 18 June 2008, Claimants filed their Supplemental Notice of Arbitration No. 9 in CRCICA Consolidated Cases Nos. 467/2006 and 489/2006.70
69.
On 11 December 2008, Claimants filed their Consolidated Notice of Arbitration in CRCICA Consolidated Cases Nos. 467/2006 and 489/2006.71
70.
On 12 January 2009, Respondent filed a Preliminary Reply to the Consolidated Notice of Arbitration in CRCICA Consolidated Cases Nos. 467/2006 and 489/2006.
71.
On 16 February 2009, Claimants filed their Supplemental Notice of Arbitration No. 10 in CRCICA Consolidated Cases Nos. 467/2006 and 489/2006.72

(6) The Proceedings Before the Tribunal in CRCICA Consolidated Cases Nos. 467/2006 and 489/2006

72.
On 1 April 2009, the tribunal comprising Professor Kaufmann-Kohler, Mr. Craig and Mr. Abdel-Salam Mansour held a procedural hearing at the offices of the CRCICA in Cairo, with the purpose of finalizing and signing the Terms of Reference and discussing and finalising the procedural rules and calendar of the proceedings.73
73.
On 9 April 2009, the tribunal issued Procedural Order No. 1, inter alia, establishing the procedural rules to govern the proceedings and scheduling the timetable with a hearing on jurisdiction for 11 August 2009.74
74.
On 14 May 2009, Respondent filed its Memorial on Jurisdiction.
75.
On 30 June 2009, Claimants filed their Response on Jurisdiction.
76.
On 9 July 2009, a pre-hearing telephone conference was held between the tribunal and the Parties.
77.
On 15 July 2009, the tribunal issued Procedural Order No. 2, restating the matters discussed between the tribunal and the Parties during the pre-hearing telephone conference.75
78.
On 14 November 2009, a hearing on jurisdiction was held at the offices of the CRCICA in Cairo.
79.
On 28 July 2010, the tribunal in CRCICA Consolidated Cases Nos. 467/2006 and 489/2006 rendered its award on jurisdiction (the "Award").76 In the Award, the tribunal considered that the issues on which it had to decide were:77

1) How to characterize the Respondent’s objections to the Arbitral Tribunal’s jurisdiction? And

2) Did Sheik[h] Shobokshi’s resignation cause the MoU to become null and void? And

3) If Sheik[h] Shobokshi’s resignation did not render the MoU null and void, are the Claimants nonetheless estopped from relying on its validity? Or

4) If Sheik[h] Shobokshi’s resignation rendered the MoU null and void, what are the consequences?

80.
The tribunal concluded that:78

- The Parties entered into an arbitration agreement embodied in Clause 67 of the Contract;

- They amended certain terms of such arbitration agreement;

- This Arbitral Tribunal was constituted on the basis of the amendments;79

- The amendments became null and void;

- Consequently, the Tribunal is not regularly constituted and the constitution must be effected again;

- This consequence is without effect of the Parties’ rights under the Contract and on the registration of the Notice of Arbitration in Case No. 467/2006 and related Supplemental Notices (including notices referring to such case in its consolidated form).

81.
The tribunal rendered the following decisions:80

(i) The following provisions in connection with the arbitration agreement are null and void: Clauses 6 and 7 of the MoU; Clauses 3 and 4 of the MoU Amendment and Items 2 and 22 of the Minutes of the 22 June 2005 procedural meeting;

(ii) This nullity does not affect the Claimants’ Notice of Arbitration of 26 January 2006 and the Supplemental Notices of Arbitration in Case No. 467/2006, including Notices Nos. 8, 9, 10;

(iii) The Tribunal is not properly constituted and therefore lacks jurisdiction over the present dispute;

(iv) The arbitration costs amount to USD 350,522.00. They shall be borne in the proportion of 80% by the Claimants and of 20% by the Respondent. Accordingly, considering the advances of costs made, the Respondent shall pay to the Claimants an amount of USD 70,104.00 within 30 days from notification of this award;

(v) Each party shall bear its own legal fees and other expenses incurred in connection with this arbitration;

(vi) All other claims raised in these proceedings in relation to jurisdiction and constitution are dismissed.

C. The Procedure Before the Present Tribunal in CRCICA Case NO. 467/2006

(1) The Constitution of the Present Tribunal

82.
In light of the previous tribunal’s findings in CRCICA Consolidated Cases Nos. 467/2006 and 489/2007 in the Award of 28 July 2010, Claimants proceeded with the appointment of Professor Jan Paulsson as arbitrator in CRCICA Case No. 467/2006 on 15 September 2010.81 The CRCICA notified the Parties of Professor Paulsson’s appointment on 30 September 2010.82
83.
On 31 October 2010 Respondent appointed Mr. Dewan Sadek Afzal as arbitrator83, which he eventually declined on 16 February 2011 following an exchange of extensive correspondence with the CRCICA and the Parties.84
84.
On 10 March 2011, Respondent appointed Mr. Abdel-Salam Mansour, Respondent-appointed arbitrator in CRCICA Consolidated Cases Nos. 467/2006 and No. 489/2006.85
85.
On 23 March 2011, Claimants challenged the appointment of Mr. Abdel-Salam Mansour on account of his participation in CRCICA Consolidated Cases Nos. 467/2006 and 489/200686, which challenge was upheld by the CRCICA on 24 May 2011.87
86.
Subsequently, on 8 June 2011, Respondent appointed Professor George Abi Saab as arbitrator88, which he declined on 12 June 2011.89
87.
On 26 June 2011, Respondent appointed Counselor Mr. Mostafa El-Bahabete as arbitrator90, which he accepted on 3 July 2011.91 Subsequently, on 10 August 2011, Counselor Mr. El-Bahabete resigned.92
88.
On 25 August 2011 Respondent appointed Mr. Hazim Rizkana as arbitrator.93
89.
On 23 November 2011, Professor Paulsson and Mr. Rizkana nominated Professor van den Berg to serve as Chairman in CRCICA Case No. 467/2006.
90.
On 27 November 2011, the CRCICA notified the Parties of Professor van den Berg’s nomination.
91.
On 1 December 2011, Respondent requested clarifications on the impartiality and independence disclosures made by Professor van den Berg in an e-mail of 23 November 2011. Professor van den Berg provided such clarifications on 4 December 2011.
92.
On 14 December 2011, the CRCICA requested Respondent to reply to Professor van den Berg’s clarifications by 18 December 2011.
93.
Having failed to receive a response from Respondent by 18 December 2011, the CRCICA informed the Parties on 25 December 2011 that it assumed that there are no objections to the appointment of Professor van den Berg as Chairman in CRCICA Case No. 467/2006.
94.
On 28 December 2011, the CRCICA appointed Professor van den Berg as Chairman and informed the Parties hereof on 29 December 2011.
95.
On 3 January 2012, Professor van den Berg accepted his appointment as Chairman and sent to the CRCICA and the Parties his declaration of impartiality and independence. The CRCICA notified the acceptance and declaration to the Parties on 5 January 2012.
96.
Accordingly, on 5 January 2012, the Tribunal in CRCICA Case No. 467/2006 is constituted of Professor van den Berg as Chairman and Professor Paulsson and Mr. Rizkana as co-arbitrators.

(2) The Incomplete Case File Before the Present Tribunal

97.
On 29 February 2012, the Tribunal advised the Parties that it was not in a position to set the proceedings into motion as it was waiting to receive the complete file from the CRCICA.
98.
On 19 April 2012, the Tribunal, inter alia, requested the Parties to provide it with an index of those documents that the Tribunal, in the Parties’ view, should have in its possession.
99.
On 26 and 29 April 2012, the Parties submitted the requested indices of documents.
100.
On 14 June 2012, the Tribunal circulated the Consolidated Index, combining the indices submitted by the Parties, and invited them to provide it with all documents marked therein as missing by 31 July 2012.
101.
On 31 July 2012, Claimants informed the Tribunal that the Parties would jointly make available the requested documents via an internet File Transfer Protocol ("FTP") site. On the same date, Respondent informed the Tribunal that attempts for a joint submission had not been successful.
102.
On 1 August 2012, Claimants informed the Tribunal that they were unaware of any possible difficulties with the FTP site and noted that the documents were successfully transferred to the FTP site on 31 July 2012, giving the Tribunal the opportunity to verify the submitted documents.
103.
On 30 August 2012, upon invitation by the Tribunal, Respondent provided the Tribunal with further documents mentioned in the Consolidated Index.

(3) The Preparatory Telephone Conference of 17 April 2012

104.
In the meantime, on 6 March 2012, the Tribunal communicated to the Parties a draft Agenda for the Preparatory Telephone Conference regarding the conduct of the proceedings.
105.
On 20 March 2012, the Parties submitted their comments on the draft Agenda for the Preparatory Telephone Conference.
106.
On 17 April 2012, the Preparatory Telephone Conference took place.

(4) Procedural Order No. 1 By Consent

107.
On 3 May 2012, the Tribunal circulated a draft Procedural Order No. 1 to the Parties, reflecting the Parties’ comments to the draft Agenda of 20 March 2012 and the discussions held during the Preparatory Telephone Conference of 17 April 2012.
108.
On 14 May 2012, the Parties submitted their comments on draft Procedural Order No. 1. In its letter, Respondent specifically noted that it is "not entitled to waive any rights entitled to Respondent under the applicable law whether in regards to the timing for rendering the final award or otherwise." Respondent requested the Tribunal to add the following passage in Procedural Order No. 1:

Respondent’s participation in the discussion and/or production of this procedural Order shall not be construed or regarded as a waiver or limitation of any Respondent’s legal rights, including those provided under Article 45 of Law 27 for the year 1994.

109.
On 18 May 2012, the Tribunal circulated a revised draft Procedural Order No. 1 by consent to the Parties, incorporating the Parties’ comments.
110.
On 26 May 2012, Claimants confirmed that they have no further comments on the revised draft Procedural Order No. 1 by consent.
111.
On 29 May 2012, Respondent also confirmed that it had no further comments on the revised draft Procedural Order No. I by consent. On the same day, the Tribunal issued Procedural Order No. 1 by consent, setting forth the Procedural Timetable as well as the rules for the conduct of these proceedings as agreed between the Parties.

(5) The Tribunal’s Budget Estimate and the Payment of the Advance

112.
Meanwhile, on 16 May 2012, the Tribunal communicated a draft Budget Estimate on the basis of an hourly rate to the Parties for their review.
113.
On 7 June 2012, Claimants informed its agreement to the Tribunal’s draft Budget Estimate and proposed hourly rate. On the same day, Respondent informed the Tribunal that it had no comments on the draft Budget Estimate.
114.
On 6 August 2012, the Tribunal informed the Parties of its decision to fix an advance on costs at US$ 1,025,036, subject to later readjustments, pursuant to Articles 39 and 40 of the CRCICA Rules 2002. The Tribunal requested the Parties to pay the advance within 15 days of receipt of the Tribunal’s request. A reminder to pay the advance was sent by the Tribunal on 5 September 2012 followed by the CRCICA on 13 September 2012.
115.
On 17 September 2012, Respondent informed the CRCICA that it had no intention in making any payments of its share of the advance.
116.
On 19 September 2012, in light of Respondent’s refusal, the Tribunal requested Claimants to make payment of the entire advance in accordance with Article 40(3) of the CRCICA Rules 2002.
117.
On 20 September 2012, the CRCICA acknowledged receipt of payment of Claimants’ own share of the advance and invited Claimants to pay Respondent’s share pursuant to the Tribunal’s instructions of 19 September 2012.
118.
On 4 October 2012, the CRCICA acknowledged receipt of payment of the entire advance by Claimants.

(6) Claimants’ Request for Clarifications and/or Modifications to Procedural Order No. 1 By Consent

119.
In the meantime, on 25 July 2012, Claimants requested several clarifications and/or modifications to Procedural Order No. 1 by consent, particularly regarding the form in which documents and evidence would be presented in these proceedings.
120.
On 30 July 2012, Respondent advised the Tribunal that it did not agree with Claimants’ modifications requests.
121.
On 22 August 2012, the Tribunal provided clarifications to Procedural Order No. 1 by consent, but declined to modify it without the consent of both Parties.

(7) Claimants’ Statement of Claim

122.
On 27 September 2012, Claimants submitted their Statement of Claim, together with a "Filing List", five expert reports, nine witness statements and 596 exhibits.

(8) Procedural Order No. 2

123.
On 31 December 2012, Abdul Rahman Sharbatly, on behalf of Respondent, wrote to the Tribunal that Respondent (i) objects to the validity of Procedural Order No. 1 by consent; and (ii) requests an extension of time to submit its Statement of Defense, as well as further amendments to the Procedural Timetable of the proceedings. On the same day, the Tribunal invited Claimants to respond to Respondent’s objection and requests.
124.
In the meantime, on 3 January 2013, Claimants’ Counsel, Dr. Karim Hafez, noted that his firm was no longer representing Claimants and that Claimants were now represented by the firm Jones Day in Paris.
125.
On 4 January 2013, Jones Day confirmed their appointment as Claimants’ representatives and requested the Tribunal to extend the deadline to respond to Respondent’s objection and requests of 31 December 2012, to 9 January 2013. On the same day, the Tribunal granted the request.
126.
On 9 January 2013, Claimants provided their response and requested the Tribunal "not to allow further dilatory conduct by Respondent and to reject Respondent’s request to redraft Order N°l, as well as its request for additional time to file Respondent’s SoD".
127.
On the same day, the Tribunal provided the Parties with the opportunity of another round of submissions on Respondent’s objection and requests of 31 December 2012.
128.
On 13 January 2013, Mr. Abdul Rahman Sharbatly stated in a letter to the Tribunal that (i) Respondent appointed Mr. Eng. Midhat B. Yanni to act as Respondent’s authorized representative; (ii) Mr. Ashraf Yehia remained Respondent’s "trusted lawyer all in the sense of Rule 4" of the CRCICA Rules 2002; and (iii) requested that all notices be addressed to Eng. Yanni with a copy to Mr. Yehia.
129.
On the same day, and by way of a separate letter, Respondent informed the Tribunal that (i) Eng. Yanni received the Tribunal’s e-mail of 9 January 2013 on 10 January 2013 via Mr. Yehia; (ii) Fridays and Saturdays are non-business days in Egypt; and (iii) Respondent will recognize Claimants’ change of representation if Claimants properly notify such representation in writing to Respondent, the CRCICA and the Tribunal.
130.
Also on the same day, the Tribunal (i) extended the timeframes within which the Parties should provide their additional submissions on Respondent’s objection and requests of 31 December 2012; and (ii) requested Respondent to confirm that as of 13 January 2013, Eng. Yanni acts as representative of Respondent and Mr. Yehia renders assistance for Respondent within the meaning of Article 4 of the CRCICA Rules 2002. In a different e-mail to the CRCICA of 13 January 2013, the Tribunal advised the CRCICA that its e-mail of the same day to the Parties could not be delivered to Respondent and Eng. Yanni. The Tribunal requested the CRCICA to carry out the delivery.
131.
In light of the difficulties encountered in the transmission of electronic messages, on 14 January 2013, the CRCICA forwarded Respondent’s letters of 13 January 2013 to the Tribunal and Claimants, as well as the Tribunal’s e-mail of 13 January 2013 to Eng. Yanni.
132.
On the same day, Claimants forwarded to the Tribunal and Respondent a Power of Attorney of Claimants’ Counsel and a letter, stating, inter alia, that they had properly notified the change of their legal representation. In an e-mail of the same day, Claimants noted that their previous e-mail of the same day was not delivered to Eng. Yanni, which they would forward to him via facsimile.
133.
On 16 January 2013, the Tribunal informed the Parties that, inter alia, it considered that Claimants had properly advised their change of representation.
134.
On the same day, Eng. Yanni informed the Tribunal by letter that (i) he is Respondent’s representative as of 13 January 2013 and Mr. Yehia Respondent’s "trusted lawyer"; and (ii) Claimants had failed to clarify their change of representatives in writing. This letter was forwarded by the CRCICA to the Tribunal but not to Claimants’ Counsel on 17 January 2013.
135.
On 17 January 2013, Claimants informed the Tribunal that, inter alia, they had received several undeliverable messages from Eng. Yanni to all of their e-mails and facsimiles. In another e-mail of the same date, Claimants advised the Tribunal that they had not received any communication from Respondent in reply to their letter of 9 January 2013 due on 16 January 2013 as directed by the Tribunal.
136.
On 18 January 2013, the Tribunal submitted to the Parties of the correct e-mail address of Eng. Yanni and invited the Respondent to provide the correct facsimile number of Eng. Yanni.
137.
On 20 January 2013, Eng. Yanni sent a letter to the Tribunal, making further comments concerning the means of communication in these proceedings and Claimants’ representation.
138.
On 21 January 2013, the Tribunal forwarded to the Parties Claimants’ e-mails of 17 January 2013 and the Tribunal’s e-mail of 16 January 2013.
139.
On the same day, Claimants (i) submitted that they had not received a reply to their letter of 9 January 2013 by Respondent and that, therefore, Respondent’s opportunity to reply became moot; and (ii) requested the Tribunal to decide on the status of Procedural Order No. 1 by consent and the Procedural Timetable in light of the Parties’ submissions of 31 December 2012 and 9 January 2013.
140.
On 22 January 2013, the Tribunal forwarded to the Parties Eng. Yanni’s letter of 20 January 2013 and requested Claimants to comment on such letter by 25 January 2013.
141.
On 25 January 2013, Claimants (i) responded to Eng. Yanni’s letter of 20 January 2013; (ii) requested the Tribunal to order Respondent to address its future communication to the attorneys designated by Claimants; and (iii) reiterated then-request of 21 January 2013 that the Tribunal rules on the status of Procedural Order No. 1 by consent and the Procedural Timetable based on the Parties existing submissions.
142.
On 26 January 2013, the Tribunal (i) advised the Parties that it would issue a Procedural Order on the various matters raised by the Parties; (ii) forwarded to the Parties a correspondence timeline, requesting the Parties to confirm the correspondence that they have received and responded to; and (iii) requested the Parties to respond to correspondence that they had not had the opportunity to respond to.
143.
On 27 January 2013, Eng. Yanni stated vis-à-vis the Tribunal that, inter alia, it would only acknowledge correspondence in hard copy bearing receipt and sent stamps of the CRCICA and requested the CRCICA and the Tribunal to observe the CRCICA’s practice in receiving and resending all messages by facsimile bearing its stamps. The Tribunal forwarded the correspondence to Claimants on the same day.
144.
On 29 January 2013, Claimants raised a complaint to the effect that Respondent was disregarding the applicable procedural rules regarding the means of communication between the Parties and the Tribunal.
145.
On the same day, Eng. Yanni sent a letter to the Tribunal noting that, inter alia (i) the Tribunal’s letter of 26 January 2013 was not addressed to Claimants but to Jones Day; and (ii) Respondent would acknowledge Claimants’ Counsel once Claimants expressed their intent to appoint a new Counsel and a new Representative.
146.
Also on 29 January 2013, Claimants, in response to the Tribunal’s e-mail of 16 January 2013, stated that they did not receive Respondent’s letter of 16 January 2013 and the CRCICA’s e-mail of 17 January 2913. Subsequently, the Tribunal forwarded these e-mails as well as Respondent’s letter of 29 January 2013 to the Parties.
147.
On 30 January 2013, Claimants submitted that they had no further comments in addition to those set out in earlier correspondence with respect to the correspondence forwarded by the Tribunal on 29 January 2013.
148.
On 7 February 2013, Claimants sent an e-mail stating, inter alia, Claimants’ understanding that in the absence of a decision by the Tribunal granting an extension, Respondent would file its Statement of Defense pursuant to Procedural Order No. 1 by consent.
149.
On 12 February 2013, Eng. Yanni submitted that (i) Respondent did not recognize Claimants’ Counsel; (ii) the powers of attorney of Jones Day did not mention arbitration within their scope and were given by an officer who was not himself expressly mandated for arbitration; and (iii) Respondent still adhered to its position regarding the proposed means and form of notifications.
150.
On 13 February 2013, Claimants noted Respondent’s non-compliance with the CRCICA Rules 2002 and Procedural Order No. 1 by consent and requested the Tribunal to confirm and clarify, if necessary, the applicable rules on the Parties’ representation, communications and the validity of Procedural Order No. 1 by consent.
151.
On 20 February 2013, the Tribunal referred to the Parties’ correspondence as of 31 December 2012 and advised the Parties that it "has decided, amongst other matters, that the date of filing the Statement of Defence is extended until 30 April 2013 on the condition that all Parties confirm in writing their agreement extend the period of time for rendering the award until 30 May 2014, on or before 25 February 2013, which confirmation may be required for greater certainty in light of the provisions of Article 45 of the Egyptian Arbitration Law". The Tribunal also revised the remaining timetable, subject to the Parties’ confirmation.
152.
On 22 February 2013, Claimants agreed to extend the period of time for rendering the award until 30 May 2014 and confirmed Claimants’ acceptance of the revised timetable in the Tribunal’s e-mail of 20 February 2013.
153.
In light of the above-mentioned correspondence, the Tribunal issued Procedural Order No. 2 on 23 February 2013, deciding as follows:

(1) Respondent is represented in this arbitration within the meaning of Article 4 of the CRCICA Rules by:

(a) Mr. Yehia as Respondent’s Representative, in any event as of 5 January 2012, the date of the constitution of this Arbitral Tribunal, to date;

(b) Mr. Sharbatly as Respondent’s Representative between 31 December 2012 and 13 January 2013; and

(c) Mr. Yanni as Respondent’s Representative as of 13 January 2013 to date;

(2) For greater certainty, Respondent is directed to submit in the arbitration:

(a) a certified English translation of Mr. Yehia’s power of attorney; and

(b) a power of attorney for Mr. Yanni in the Arabic original language with a certified English translation;

within 10 days after the date of this Procedural Order;

(3) Messrs. Harb and Dorgan of Jones Day have made a valid notification of their representation of Claimants as Claimants’ Representative (and counsel) in this arbitration;

(4) Claimants are directed to provide a particularized power of attorney in the Arabic original language with a certified English translation within 10 days after the date of this Procedural Order;

(5) PO1, as agreed to by the Parties and issued by the Tribunal with the consent of the Parties on 29 May 2012, is valid and binding on the Parties;

(6) To confirm that the means and form of communication in this arbitration shall remain to take place pursuant to Section 4 of PO1 as authorized by Article 15(3) of the CRCICA. Rules and Article 31 of the Egyptian Arbitration Law;

(7) To amend the Procedural Timetable to the effect that the date of filing the Statement of Defense is extended until 30 April 2013, on the condition that all Parties confirm in writing their agreement to extend the period of time for rendering the award until 30 May 2014, on or before 25 February 2013 as further detailed in ¶ 139; if the Parties do not provide such confirmation on or before 25 February 2013, the Procedural Timetable recorded in Section 1.2. of PO1 remains unaltered;

(8) Respondent’s proposal regarding a grouping of claims is rejected at this stage of the proceedings.

(9) The Parties’ Submissions of Their Respective Powers of Attorney

154.
On 5 March 2013, Claimants provided the Tribunal with two electronic copies of the powers of attorney of Claimants’ Counsel, as requested by the Tribunal in its Procedural Order No. 2.
155.
On 13 March 2013, Respondent provided a non-certified English translation of Mr. Yehia’s power of attorney. Respondent also objected to Claimants’ powers of attorney not meeting formal requirements imposed by the laws of Egypt.
156.
On 25 March 2013, the Tribunal, inter alia, noted that it had not yet received a certified English translation of Mr. Yehia’s power of attorney and a power of attorney for Eng. Yanni in the Arabic original language with a certified English translation, pursuant to Section 142(2) of Procedural Order No. 2.
157.
On 26 March 2013, Claimants requested the Tribunal to reject Respondent’s objection to its powers of attorney.
158.
On 27 March 2013, Respondent: (i) reiterated its position regarding Claimants’ powers of attorney; (ii) stated that the English translation of Mr. Yehia’s power was expected to be received on 31 March 2013; and (iii) contended that the original of the power of attorney of Eng. Yanni had been duly deposited with the CRCICA.
159.
On 1 April 2013, Respondent submitted a copy of the certified English Translation of the power of attorney of Mr. Yehia.

(10) Procedural Order No. 3

160.
In relation to decision (7) of Procedural Order No. 2 concerning the amendment of the Procedural Timetable (see ¶ 153 above), Claimants indicated on 22 February 2013 their acceptance of the Tribunal’s proposed amendment and, therefore, the extension of the date of rendering the award to 30 May 2014.
161.
On 25 February 2013, Respondent indicated that it would have no objection to the proposed changes to the Procedural Timetable, provided that the Tribunal would confirm in writing that its e-mail of 20 February 2013 (see ¶ 151 above) would "not imply, in any way, direct or indirect, an invitation to waive the... procedural right [under Article 45 of the Egyptian Arbitration Law]".
162.
On the same day, the Tribunal, inter alia, reiterated the content of its e-mail of 20 February 2013 and Section 142(7) of Procedural Order No. 2.
163.
On 27 February 2013, Respondent submitted that the agreement of all Parties for extending the timetable of the proceedings would not be possible as Claimants’ representation was "still unevidenced". According to Respondent, the Tribunal did not require either Party’s consent regarding the period of time for rendering the award.
164.
On 28 February 2013, the Arbitral Tribunal issued Procedural Order No. 3. The Tribunal considered, inter alia, that it had accommodated Respondent’s request to record a reservation of its rights under Article 45 of the Egyptian Arbitration Law in Section 23 of Procedural Order No. 1 by consent. As both Parties had consented to the amendment of the Procedural Timetable, i.e., Claimants on 22 February 2013 and Respondent on 25 and 27 February 2013, the Tribunal decided to "affirm the amended Procedural Timetable as set forth in ¶ 139 of Procedural Order No. 2".
165.
Also on 28 February 2013, Claimants responded to Respondent’s letter of 25 February 2013, noting that under the current circumstances, the calendar of the proceedings as stated in Procedural Order No. 1 by consent should remain unchanged, and hence, that Respondent would be required to files its Statement of Defense by 28 February 2013.

(11) Procedural Order No. 4

166.
On 1 April 2013, Respondent requested a time extension of 36 months or - "when provided with the lacking information and softwares" by Claimants - a 30 months extension of time to submit its Statement of Defense.
167.
On 9 April 2013, Claimants requested the Tribunal to reject Respondent’s request for such an extension of time.
168.
On 18 April 2013, following further correspondence between the Parties on 15 and 17 April 2013, the Tribunal issued Procedural Order No. 4, considering, inter alia, "that Respondent’s request for certain documents in [its letter of 15 April 2013] should have been made by way of a timely and proper document production request". The Tribunal rejected Respondent’s request for an extension of time to submit its Statement of Defense.

(12) Procedural Order No. 5

169.
On 24 April 2013, Respondent submitted a request for document production.
170.
On 25 April 2013, Claimants requested the Tribunal to reject Respondent’s requests for document production.
171.
On 30 April 2013, following further correspondence of Respondent on 25 April and 30 April 2013, the Tribunal issued Procedural Order No. 5. The Tribunal rejected Respondent’s request for the production of documents and decided that the filing date of the Statement of Defense remained 30 April 2013. The Tribunal clarified that:

Respondent is at liberty, provided that it can give an adequate explanation for not having made its request in sufficient time to be able to rely on any documents produced in its Statement of Defence, to request documents from Claimants in timely manner after the filing of the Statement of Defence. For this purpose Redfern Schedule is attached to this Procedural Order No. 5 as Appendix 1.

(13) Procedural Order No. 6

172.
On 30 April 2013, Respondent submitted a "Preliminary Statement of Defense together with 37 exhibits, "under express protest and without prejudice to any of Respondent’s legal rights".94 In its Preliminary Statement of Defense, Respondent requested the Tribunal to issue a partial award in relation to its pleas95 and reserved its rights to "amend, amplify, supplement and/or amend its defences in future pleadings".96
173.
On 3 May 2013, Claimants replied, inter alia, that (i) "Respondent [was] attempting to create a situation of fait accompli for a bifurcation of the proceedings in contravention with Procedural Orders N° 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5" and that, therefore, bifurcation was not permitted; and (ii) that, pursuant to Section 5.2 of Procedural Order No. 1 by consent, Respondent had had an opportunity of seven months to file a fully particularised Statement of Defense.
174.
On 9 May 2013, Respondent replied, inter alia, that it "was not afforded the opportunity to prepare any defense on the merits of Claimant’s case, especially in the absence of the documents and software files referred to in Respondent’s letter of 24 April 2013". According to Respondent, it was compelled to request for bifurcation. Respondent also re-submitted a document production requests in Redfern Schedule format containing six requests ("Respondent’s Requests Nos. 1 to 6"), pursuant to Procedural Order No. 5.
175.
On 21 May 2013, Claimants (i) requested the Tribunal to reject Respondent’s request for bifurcation; and (ii) objected to Respondent’s Requests Nos. 1 to 6.
176.
On 26 May 2013, Respondent submitted, inter alia, that the Tribunal "is empowered and urged by both the Law and the Rules let alone the logic" to rule on Respondent’s pleas as "preliminary issues".
177.
On 27 May 2013, Claimants stated that it would respond to Respondent’s letter of 26 May 2013 in their Statement of Reply, due on 30 July 2013.
178.
On 4 June 2013, Claimants filed their "substantive responses" in relation to Respondent’s Requests Nos. 1 to 6.
179.
On the same day, Claimants submitted "a copy of the MS Excel Data Files" responsive to Respondent’s Request No. 6.
180.
On 5 June 2006, the Tribunal issued Procedural Order No. 6 (i) rejecting Respondent’s request to issue a partial award; (ii) deciding that Respondent’s Requests Nos. 1 to 6 were admissible; (iii) requesting Respondent to reply to Claimants’ objections to Respondent’s Requests Nos. 1 to 6 by 12 June 2013; (iv) noting that the Tribunal would render its decision on Respondent’s Requests Nos. 1 to 6 by 26 June 2013; and (v) noting that Respondent’s "Preliminary Statement of Defense" would for all purposes constitute Respondent’s Statement of Defense contemplated in ¶¶ 1.2(b) and 5.2 of Procedural Order No. 1 by consent and ¶ 139(b) of Procedural Order No. 2.
181.
On 11 June 2013, Claimants sent "three missing files" in relation to MS Excel Data files submitted on 4 June 2013.

(14) Procedural Order No. 7

182.
In accordance with Procedural Order No. 6, on 12 June 2013, Respondent replied to Claimants’ objections to Respondent’s Requests Nos. 1 to 6.
183.
On 17 June 2013, Claimants, inter alia, contended that all responsive documents to Respondent’s Request No. 6 had already been produced.
184.
On 24 June 2013, the Tribunal issued Procedural Order No. 7, granting Respondent’s Requests Nos. 1 to 5 as decided in the Redfern Schedule annexed to Procedural Order No. 7. In relation to Respondent’s Request No. 6, the Tribunal noted that responsive documents had been produced. The Tribunal ordered that the production of documents should take place by 1 July 2013.

(15) Procedural Order No. 8

185.
On 1 July 2013, Claimants produced a number of documents in reply to Respondent’s Requests Nos. 1, 3 and 4.
186.
With respect to Respondent’s Request No. 2, Claimants contended that no lines of Project documents provided to Claimants existed and recalled that such Projectdocuments themselves were all already in the possession, custody or control of Respondent.
187.
With respect to Respondent’s Request No. 5 Claimants proposed two possible alternatives for production of the software owned by Claimants’ expert PA Consulting ("PA"), one being the production of a dedicated laptop with PA’s system dynamics simulation software pre-installed, subject to the execution of a license agreement with PA.
188.
On 22 July 2013, Respondent submitted that (i) Claimants had not adequately complied with Respondent’s Requests Nos. 1, 2 and 3; (ii) rejected Claimants’ proposed options regarding Respondent’s Request No. 5; and (iii) requested unrestricted access to PA’s software.
189.
On 24 July 2013, Claimants set forth that they have complied with the Tribunal’s orders relating to Respondent’s Requests Nos. 1, 2 and 3. Furthermore, Claimants reiterated their offer to produce a dedicated laptop in reply to Respondent’s Request No. 5, subject to the execution of a license agreement between Respondent and PA.
190.
On 29 July 2013, the Tribunal issued Procedural Order No. 8 (i) rejecting Respondent’s objections to Claimants’ production of documents in the manner and to the extent stated in the Annex to Procedural Order No. 8; and (ii) finding that Claimants’ proposal to produce a dedicated laptop with PA’s software subject to the execution of the draft license agreement complied with the Tribunal’s order in relation to Respondent’s Request No. 5.

(16) Claimants’ Statement of Reply

191.
On 30 July 2013, Claimants submitted their Statement of Reply, together with 42 exhibits, 28 legal authorities, one supplemental witness statement and one supplemental expert report.

(17) Procedural Order No. 9

192.
By letter of 4 August 2013, Respondent submitted that the Tribunal's findings in Procedural Order No. 8 that Claimants’ proposal to produce a dedicated laptop with PA software was in compliance with the Tribunal’s order in Procedural Order No. 7 was confusing. Respondent further questioned whether there was a real need to install the software on such a laptop, enquired about the operational costs hereof and whether its experts would have free use of this pre-installed software.
193.
On 7 August 2013, Claimants confirmed that there would be no cost for Respondent to operate the PA software on the dedicated laptop. Claimants only reserved their right to include the costs of the laptop itself in the overall arbitration costs. Claimants further confirmed that installing the PA software on a dedicated laptop was necessary to ensure its proper functioning. Claimants also confirmed that the installed PA software would not contain any limitations and would allow Respondent’s experts to verify the findings of the PA Report.
194.
By e-mail of 13 August 2013, the Arbitral Tribunal considered that its decision in relation to Respondent’s Request No. 5 as annexed to Procedural Order No. § was unambiguous. It held that the presentation of the PA software on a dedicated laptop would in no way hinder Respondent’s procedural rights.
195.
By letter of 18 August 2013, Respondent objected to "all newly introduced - directly or indirectly - claims" in Claimants’ Statement of Reply.
196.
In a second letter on the same day, Respondent criticized, inter alia, the requirement to execute a license agreement for the PA software access. Respondent further suggested that Claimants should purchase the software from its own expert and submit it to the Tribunal while charging US$ 1,500 to the costs of arbitration. Respondent undertook to use the information "only in this Project and exclusively defending itself before the present Tribunal or any other forums Claimant may drag Respondent into".
197.
On 21 August 2013, Claimants requested that Respondent’s objections to their Statement of Reply should be dismissed. Claimants contended, inter alia, that the alternative calculations in their Statement of Reply were not new claims, but constituted only an amendment to Claimants’ existing claims, as is permitted under Article 20 of the CRCICA Rules, which is consistent with Article 32 of the Egyptian Arbitration Law.
198.
On 26 August 2013, the Tribunal issued Procedural Order No. 9 (i) deciding that Claimants’ alternative calculations of their claims in the Statement of Reply was in accordance with Article 20 of the CRCICA Rules 2002 and Article 32 of the Egyptian Arbitration law; and (ii) rejecting Respondent’s submission to substitute the requirement of the execution of a license agreement with Respondent’s undertaking as set forth in its letter of 18 August 2013.

(18) Procedural Order No. 10 and Further Correspondence Regarding the Venue of the Hearing

199.
On 29 September 2013, the Tribunal requested the Parties’ views with regard to and -to the extent applicable, preferred alternative location(s) for - holding the Hearing on an alternative location, "[i]n light of the volatile situation in Egypt".
200.
On 2 October 2013, Claimants advised the Tribunal that they had no objection to alternative venues proposed and deferred to the Arbitral Tribunal for the final choice. On the same day, Respondent objected to changing the Hearing venue from Cairo, Egypt to any other country.
201.
On 3 October 2013, Claimants sent a letter to the Tribunal, noting that the situation in Egypt remained unpredictable.
202.
On 7 October 2013, the Tribunal informed the Parties that it had decided to hold the Flearing outside Egypt. The Tribunal thereby offered two alternative options for venues (Dubai or Bahrain) and invited the Parties to inform the Tribunal of their preference by 10 October 2013.
203.
On 9 October 2013, Respondent reiterated that there were no circumstances to justify the holding of the Hearing outside Egypt and suggested that "the hearing can be convened in the well secured Citystars project".
204.
On 10 October 2013, Claimants submitted their agreement with the Tribunal’s decision to hold the Hearing outside Egypt, for the reasons summarized in the Tribunal’s e-mail of 7 October 2013. Claimants opted for Dubai as venue for the hearing.
205.
On 16 October 2013, the Tribunal issued Procedural Order No. 10, deciding that the hearing would take place in Dubai, United Arab Emirates.
206.
On 23 October 2013, Respondent sent a letter to the Tribunal recording "its express objection to changing the place of the Hearing to a place out of Egypt".
207.
On 25 October 2013, the Tribunal informed the Parties that the Hearing would take place at the Dubai International Arbitration Centre in Dubai, United Arab Emirates. This procedural decision was made as a matter of practicality and does not affect the fact that Cairo was and remained the legal seat of the arbitration.

(19) Respondent’s Application to Set Aside Procedural Order No. 2

208.
In the meantime, on 4 October 2013, Claimants advised the Tribunal that Respondent had made an application for the setting aside of Procedural Order No. 2 before the Cairo Court of Appeal and provided the Tribunal with a copy of Respondent’s setting aside application.
209.
On 8 October 2013, Respondent submitted that its application to set aside Procedural Order No. 2 "was submitted in the process of defending Respondent’s legal rights under the applicable law".

(20) Procedural Order No. 11

210.
On 22 October 2013, in light of the upcoming Pre-Hearing Telephone Conference and the Hearing, the Tribunal issued Procedural Order No. 11, completing the Procedural Timetable as set out in Procedural Order No. 2.

(21) Respondent’s Request for an Extension of Time to File the Statement of Rejoinder

211.
On 27 October 2013, Respondent requested an extension of time for the submission of its Statement of Rejoinder, due on 29 October 2013. Claimants objected to Respondent’s request on the same day.
212.
By e-mail of 28 October 2013, the Tribunal granted Respondent an extension of seven calendar days for the filing of its Statement of Rejoinder until 5 November 2013 and noted that all other deadlines in the Procedural would remain unchanged.
213.
On 6 November 2013, Respondent submitted its "Memorial" (hereinafter referred to as "Statement of Rejoinder") in electronic form. Respondent explained that 5 November 2013 was a public holiday in Cairo.
214.
Also on 6 November 2013, Respondent submitted eight copies of its Statement of Rejoinder, together with 137 exhibits, five Supplements, three expert reports, five "TÜV Reports" and 68 Taking Over Certificates with attachments in hard copy and on memory stick to the CRCICA, with the request to distribute these to Claimants and the Arbitral Tribunal.
215.
On 6 November 2013, Claimants acknowledged the electronic submission of Respondent’s Statement of Rejoinder, but submitted that the supporting documents identified therein were missing. Claimants requested Respondent to submit such documents electronically without delay.
216.
On 7 November 2013, the CRCICA acknowledged receipt of eight hard copies of the Statement of Rejoinder with a memory stick. The CRCICA noted that it only required three copies and that a distribution would only be possible against expenses, to be deposited by Respondent with the CRCICA.
217.
Following various e-mails between the Parties on 7 November 2013, Respondent undertook to pay the expenses for distribution of its Statement of Rejoinder and requested the CRCICA to dispatch the hard copies to avoid further delay.
218.
By e-mail of 14 November 2014, the CRCICA confirmed that the hard copies of the Statement of Rejoinder had been dispatched to Claimants, Professor van den Berg and Professor Paulsson on 11 November 2013, attaching the relevant bills of lading with respect to these international dispatches (unnecessary in the case of Mr. Rizkana).

(22) Procedural Order No. 12

219.
In an exchange of e-mails on 6, 7, 8, 13 and 15 November 2013, the Parties disagreed on whether Respondent’s hard copy submission of its Statement of Rejoinder and the hard and soft copy submission of the accompanying documents via the CRCICA was contrary to the requirements of ¶ 4 of Procedural Order No.1 by consent and ¶ 1(d) of Procedural Order No. 11.
220.
On 19 November 2013, Claimants confirmed receipt of the complete Statement of Rejoinder by courier from the CRCICA.
221.
By letter of the same day, Claimants applied to the Tribunal to exclude Respondent’s Statement of Rejoinder, with the exception of Sections III and IV. According to Claimants, apart from these sections, all arguments developed by Respondent in its Statement of Rejoinder exceeded Respondent’s right to "complement, elaborate or amend its defense" as recognized by the Arbitral Tribunal in Procedural Order No. 6. Claimants further submitted that Respondent’s deliberate withholding of evidence and arguments in the Statement of Defense was further aggravated by its belated submission of its Statement of Rejoinder.
222.
On 24 November 2013, Respondent requested that the Tribunal reject Claimants’ application.
223.
On 28 November 2013, after further correspondence from the Parties substantiating their respective positions, the Tribunal issued Procedural Order No. 12. The Tribunal decided to reject Claimants’ application to partially exclude Respondent’s Statement of Rejoinder and all accompanying exhibits as this would be "disproportionate and would violate Respondent’s rights of defence", noting that "Claimants are at liberty to seek leave from the Arbitral Tribunal for an opportunity to address additional issues raised by Respondent in its Statement of Rejoinder at the Hearing".

(23) Procedural Order No. 13

224.
On 4 December 2012, Claimants requested leave from the Arbitral Tribunal to address allegedly additional issues raised by Respondent in its Statement of Rejoinder through (i) the submission of additional documents prior to the Hearing; and (ii) the possibility for Claimants’ witnesses and experts to reply to the arguments and evidence in Respondent’s Statement of Rejoinder in their direct testimony at the Hearing.
225.
On 9 December 2013, Respondent requested the Tribunal to reject Claimants’ request.
226.
On 11 December 2013, the Tribunal issued Procedural Order No. 13, in which it decided (i) to partially grant Claimants’ request to submit additional documents by permitting Claimants to submit documents in reply to additional issues raised by Respondent in its Statement of Rejoinder by 20 December 2013; (ii) to grant Claimants’ request that their witnesses may reply to arguments and evidence in Respondent’s Statement of Rejoinder in their direct testimony at the Hearing; and (iii) to permit Respondent to cross-examine Claimants’ fact and expert witnesses with respect to their direct testimonies concerning arguments and evidence in relation to additional issues raised by Respondent in its Statement of Rejoinder.

(24) Notification of Witnesses Requiring Examination and Interpretation and Cut-Off Date for the Submission of Documentary Evidence

227.
On 21 November 2013, Claimants requested an extension of the deadlines for notification of fact and expert witnesses to be examined and of witnesses requiring interpretation, as well as the cut-off date for submission of documentary evidence set out in the Procedural Timetable in ¶¶ 1(e), 1(f) and 1(g) of Procedural Order No. 1 by consent (as amended by Procedural Order No. 11).
228.
On the same day, the Tribunal postponed the deadlines set out in ¶¶ 1(e), (f) and (g) of the Procedural Timetable until 28 November 2013.
229.
On 28 November 2013, the Parties notified the names of fact and expert witnesses whom they wished to cross-examine at the Hearing and who required interpretation. In addition, Claimants submitted additional documents identified as Exhibits C-640 to C-652.
230.
On 9 December 2013, the Parties notified the order of witnesses for examination at the Hearing pursuant to ¶ 1(g) bis of the Procedural Timetable.

(25) Pre-Hearing Telephone Conference of 12 December 2013

231.
On 10 December 2013, the Tribunal circulated a draft agenda for the Pre-Hearing Telephone Conference scheduled for 12 December 2013.
232.
On 11 December 2013, the Tribunal circulated an Excel spread sheet for the timing for the upcoming Hearing and requested each Party to supply estimates of the time it required at the Hearing.
233.
On 12 December 2013 at 3:00 pm GET, the Pre-Hearing Telephone Conference took place between the Tribunal and the Parties. During the Pre-Hearing Telephone Conference, the Parties were also heard on Respondent’s application of 12 December 2013.
234.
On 14 December 2013, the Tribunal circulated the minutes of the Pre-Hearing Telephone Conference of 12 December 2013.
235.
On 16 December 2013, Claimants (i) returned the Excel spread sheet for the timing of the Hearing containing Claimants’ sequence and estimated timing for their witness examination; and (ii) commented on the minutes of the Pre-Hearing Telephone Conference.
236.
On 17 December 2013, Respondent commented on the minutes of the Pre-Hearing Telephone Conference.
237.
On 18 December 2013, Respondent returned the Tribunal’s Excel spread sheet for the timing of the Hearing with Respondent’s sequence and estimated timing for its witness examination.
238.
On the same day and in reply to Respondent’s comments, the Tribunal provided clarifications on the minutes of the Pre-Hearing Telephone Conference.

(26) Procedural Order No. 14

239.
On 12 December 2013, in light of the Tribunal’s decisions in Procedural Order No. 13, Respondent requested the Arbitral Tribunal (i) to be granted an opportunity to present any new documents necessary to reply to those expected to be submitted by Claimants on 20 December 2013; and (ii) a full opportunity to address and respond to Claimants’ new evidence to be submitted by way of direct testimony during the Hearing. Respondent contended that, in compliance with Article 15(1) of the CRCICA Rules 2002 and Article 26 of the Egyptian Arbitration Law, such opportunity should not be shorter than the time available to Claimants (i.e., from the date of receiving Respondent’s submission dated 6 November 2013 until the the deadline of 20 December 2013 set in Procedural Order No. 13).
240.
During the Pre-Hearing Telephone Conference that took place on the same day (see ¶ 233 above), the Parties were heard in relation to Respondent’s requests.
241.
On 15 December 2013, the Tribunal issued Procedural Order No. 14, in which it (i) ordered Claimants to identify in writing to Respondent within 24 hours after receipt of Procedural Order No. 14 any voluminous documents they intended to submit on 20 December 2013; (ii) ordered Claimants to file a reasonably detailed summary of the subject matters for the direct examination of their witness by 23 December 2013; (iii) granted leave to Respondent to submit, with appropriate restraint, documents that are responsive to the documents that Claimants would file on 20 December 2013, by 2 January 2014.
242.
On 16 December 2013, in accordance with Procedural Order No. 14, Claimants informed the Tribunal that "the voluminous documents among those that Claimants shall submit on 20 December 2013 are copies of the MS Excel Data Files to which reference was made in the PA Expert Report, Appendix F, p. 2, footnote I".
243.
On 20 December 2013, Claimants submitted Exhibits C-626A and C-653 to C-675.
244.
On 23 December 2013, Claimants submitted a Chronological List of all Exhibits that had been filed to date by Claimants, a draft of the Joint Chronological List of Exhibits that had not been approved by Respondent, as well as Claimants’ summary of the subject matters of the direct examination of their witnesses.
245.
On 23 December 2013, Respondent submitted a Chronological List of Respondent’s Exhibits submitted to date.
246.
On 24 December 2013, the Tribunal invited Respondent to comment on a draft Joint Chronological List of Exhibits submitted by Claimants by 30 January 2013.
247.
On 30 December 2013, Respondent sent a letter to the Tribunal referring to the "Summaries of Witness Direct Testimony" submitted by Claimant on 23 December 2013 and to the documents filed by Claimant on 20 December 2013. Respondent contended, inter alia, that it was reserving its "full rights to respond to all Claimant's new evidence and related arguments, as shall be presented by Claimant[s] during the coming Hearing, by way of a written memorial to be submitted by Respondent after the [H]earing... to produce such memorial, along with any new evidence as may be necessary so that Respondent is effectively granted the opportunity to examine, analyse and respond to all Claimant’s newly interjected evidence". Respondent added that it "shall attend the Hearing with its team of experts who shall be ready to discuss and take cross-examination pertaining to their reports already filed and in the hands of the Tribunal and Claimant[s]".
248.
On the same day, Respondent replied to the Tribunal’s e-mail of 24 December 2013, stating that Respondent "can not approve the draft joint list proposed by Claimant[s] due to the reasons set out in [Respondent’s] letter by e-mail dated 23 December 2013".
249.
Also on 30 December 2013, Claimants replied to Respondent’s letter of the same date regarding Claimants’ "Summaries of Witness Direct Testimony" and documents filed on 20 December 2013. Claimants noted that these "complied fully and in good faith with the Tribunal’s instructions regarding the submission of new documents and summaries of witness direct testimony" and that they "oppose[d] Respondent’s reservation of the right to submit a written memorial after the hearing". Claimants also clarified that the documents filed on 20 December did not differ from the documents produced on 4 June 2013.
250.
On 31 December 2013, Respondent requested the Tribunal to exclude the documents submitted by Claimants on 20 December 2013 from the record, i.e., Exhibits C-626A and C-653 to C-675.
251.
On the same day, Claimants notified the Tribunal that it would not respond to Respondent’s letter of the same date unless invited to do so by the Tribunal.
252.
Respondent’s request of 31 December 2013 has become moot, as Respondent (i) used certain of these documents during the Hearing itself; and (ii) did not object to Claimants’ use of such documents during the Hearing.

(27) Claimants’ Further Document Production Requests

253.
On 20 December 2013, Claimants sent an letter to the Tribunal (i) referring to Claimants’ letter to Respondent of 17 December 2013 and requesting production of the impacted programs relied upon by Respondent’s experts in the Omitted Works Report; (ii) noting that Respondent did not reply to Claimants’ letter of 17 December 2013; and (iii) requesting the Tribunal to order Respondent to produce certain impacted programs which form the basis of the Omitted Works Report.
254.
On 25 December 2013, Respondent’s expert team sent an e-mail to the Tribunal and Claimants providing a link with access to the files relating to the programs used in the Omitted Works Report analysis.
255.
On the same day, Respondent sent a letter to the Tribunal replying to Claimants’ letter of 17 December 2013 and noting that Respondent has instructed its expert team to directly provide Claimants with the programs requested.

(28) Hearing of 8 to 14 January 2014

256.
On 6 January 2014, Claimants submitted their Demonstrative Exhibit.
257.
On 7 January 2014, Claimants informed the Arbitral Tribunal that it had received a submission of documents from Respondent at its Paris office the same day, in reply to the documents submitted by Claimants on 20 December 2013. In their e-mail, Claimants (i) objected to this submission on the allegation that pursuant to Procedural Order No. 14 documents were due on 2 January 2014; and (ii) requested the Tribunal to exclude Respondent’s documents identified as Exhibits R-176 to R-273.
258.
From 8 to 14 January 2014, the Hearing was held at the Dubai International Arbitration Centre. At the Hearing, Claimants were represented by their counsel, Messrs. Jean-Pierre Harb and Carroll S. Dorgan and Ms. Nicole Dolenz. Respondent was represented by its counsel, Messrs. Ashraf Yehia and Amr Helmy. The Hearing was transcribed in full by a court reporter. On a daily basis, the Tribunal circulated an update of the Excel spreadsheet on the timing for the Hearing, recording the time spent by the Parties and the Tribunal.
259.
On 8 and 9 January 2014, Claimants’ request to strike Respondent’s Exhibits R-176 to R-273 was discussed. In this respect, Respondent resent an e-mail that it had purportedly sent on 2 January 2014 to the Tribunal and Claimants, to which the Exhibits R-176 to R-273 were attached.
260.
On 16 January 2014, Claimants sent to the Tribunal, via e-mail, Exhibit C-636.
261.
On 20 January 2014, Respondent sent to the Tribunal, via e-mail, Column 21 references of Exhibit R-85.

(29) Procedural Order No. 15

262.
Following the discussions set out in ¶ 259 above, on 21 January 2014, the Tribunal issued Procedural Order No. 15. In Procedural Order No. 15, the Tribunal determined, inter alia, the timing for the Parties’ comments on the final transcript of the Hearing and the timing for the filing of the Post-Hearing and Reply Post-Hearing Memorials as well as the Costs and Reply Costs Submissions. Furthermore, the Tribunal decided not to admit Respondent’s Exhibits R-176 to R-273 into the record, as they had not been used by Respondent during the Hearing. The Tribunal noted, however, that "Respondent is at liberty to apply for admission of one or more of these documents by submitting a timely and reasoned request".
263.
On 22 January 2014, Claimants submitted the Parties’ jointly agreed corrections to the Hearing transcript.

(30) Procedural Order Nos. 16 and 17

264.
On 13 February 2014, Respondent applied for leave to present a number of further documents in response to allegedly new testimony presented during the Hearing. Claimants objected to this application on 17 February 2014.
265.
Also on 17 February 2014, Respondent applied to the Tribunal for the admission of a part of Exhibits R-176 to R-273 to which Claimants objected on 18 February 2014 (see also ¶¶ 259 and 262 above).
266.
Respondent replied to Claimants’ objection on 19 December 2014, reiterating its position.
267.
On 24 February 2014, the Tribunal issued Procedural Orders Nos. 16 and 17.
268.
In Procedural Order No. 16, the Tribunal decided on Respondent’s application of 13 February 2014. The Tribunal (i) rejected Respondent’s requests A and B for permissionto submit correspondence in reply to new evidence presented by Claimants through their witnesses Mr. Amgad Gerges on Day 2 of the Hearing and Ms. Wafaa Kfoury on Day 3 of the Hearing; (ii) granted Respondent leave to submit alongside its Post-Hearing Memorial the documents listed sub 1 to 3 in its request C "for permission to submit correspondence relating to the bundle of design drawing numbered 0/54 to 54.54 that was used by Claimants’ expert Mr. Jim Dugan of Parametrix during his testimony on Day 3 of the Hearing, as well as a corrected copy of such bundle"; and (iii) granted Respondent leave to submit alongside its Post-Hearing Memorial the "five impacted programmes" relating to Case 16 referred to in its Request D, subject to certain conditions.
269.
In Procedural Order No. 17, the Tribunal denied Respondent’s request of 17 February 2014 to resubmit Exhibits R-176 to R-273, received by the Chairman of the Arbitral Tribunal on 7 January 2014. The Tribunal reasoned, inter alia, that "Claimants’ due process rights would be affected as Claimants’ witnesses would not have an opportunity to comment on any documents submitted at this stage".

(31) Post-Hearing Memorials

270.
On 26 February 2014, the Parties simultaneously submitted their Post-Hearing Memorials, accompanied by Exhibits in the case of Respondent and an Annex in the case of Claimants.

(32) Reply Post-Hearing Memorials

271.
On 2 March 2014, Respondent sent a letter to the Tribunal applying for an extension of three weeks to submit its Reply Post-Hearing Memorial, on account of a severe illness unexpectedly suffered by Respondent’s representative Eng. Yanni.
272.
On the same day, the Tribunal granted Respondent’s application for an extension of three weeks for the simultaneous submission of the Reply Post-Hearing Memorials.
273.
On 4 March 2014, the Tribunal sent an e-mail the Parties revising the filing dates for the Costs and Reply Costs Submissions, on account of the three week extension granted for the simultaneous submission of the Reply Post-Hearing Memorials.
274.
On 9 April 2014, the Parties simultaneously submitted their Reply Post-Hearing Memorials, together with Exhibits.

(33) Additional Disclosure by Professor Jan Paulsson

275.
By e-mail of 4 March 2014 to the CRCICA, Professor Paulsson recorded his intention to join a new law firm in the process of being set up. At this occasion, Professor Paulsson disclosed possible professional relations between two of his future partners and (affiliates of) the Parties. Professor Paulsson further pointed out that a third future partner would be joining this new law firm from the Washington, D.C. office of Jones Day, of which the Paris office acts as counsel for Claimant in this case. Professor Paulsson, however, confirmed that none of the foregoing would affect his impartiality or independence to act as arbitrator in the present case.
276.
By e-mail of 5 March 2014, the CRCICA forwarded Professor Paulsson’s message to the Parties.
277.
On 14 April 2014, the CRCICA informed Professor Paulsson that no challenge had been lodged against him in connection with his disclosure of 4 March 2014. As Article 11 of the of the CRCICA Rules 2002 prescribes a limitation period of fifteen days after the circumstances likely to give rise to justifiable doubts as to the arbitrator’s impartiality or independence became known to that party, the CRCICA confirmed that there was no reason for Professor Paulsson not to participate in the completion of the remaining work on this case.

(34) Costs Submissions

278.
On 23 April 2014, the Parties submitted their respective Cost Submissions.

(35) Reply Costs Submissions

279.
On 30 April 2014, the Parties submitted their respective Reply Cost Submissions.

(36) Further Correspondence Between the Parties and the Tribunal

280.
On 6 May 2014, Respondent sent a letter to the Tribunal seeking to clarify that in their Reply Post-Hearing Memorial, Claimants filed Annex A entitled "Data extracted from AT31 and AT32 programme updates for Blocks Al - A3", but that said data relate to Blocks Hl - H4 instead, "which had better rates of progress, which entails totally misleading conclusions".
281.
On the same day, Claimants replied to Respondent’s letter, noting that Claimants intended to submit the data extracted from AT31 and AT32 programme updates for Blocks Al - A3 as described in their Reply Post-Hearing Memorial, and that indeed Annex A concerns data relating to the H-Blocks. Claimants, therefore, submitted a corrected Annex A.
282.
On 20 May 2014, Claimants sent a letter to the Tribunal referring to Respondent’s letter of 19 May 2014 and noting, inter alia, that in view of Respondent’s letter of 6 May 2014 and the submission of the corrected Annex A by Claimants, "there is no pending application from Respondent, nor do [Claimants] see a need for lengthy clarifications, as [Claimants] have not identified any resulting inconsistencies in [their] pleadings".
283.
On 20 May 2014, the Tribunal sent an e-mail to the Parties, referring to Claimants’ letter of 20 May 2014 and noting that it did not receive Respondent’s letter of 19 May 2014 referred to in the former.
284.
On 21 May 2014, Respondent forwarded to the Tribunal and to Claimants its letter of 19 May 2014. In said letter, Respondent referred to its letter of 6 May 2014 regarding Annex A of Claimants’ Reply Post-Hearing Memorial and noted that with its "application" of 6 May 2014, Respondent intended to show, inter alia, that the contents of the corrected Annex A support Respondent’s case regarding the delays due to plasterwork.
285.
On 4 June 2014, Respondent replied to the contents of Claimants’ letter of 20 May 2014 regarding, inter alia, the completeness of the plasterwork.
286.
On 5 June 2014, Claimants sent a letter to the Tribunal noting that Respondent’s letter of 4 June 2014 "includes new allegations regarding the VRV units", which "are inadmissible at this stage of the arbitration, unless they are expressly permitted by the Tribunal". In the latter case, Claimants noted that it would provide their answers on the VRV units within a deadline fixed by the Tribunal.
287.
On 6 June 2014, the Tribunal sent an e-mail to the Parties referring to Respondent’s letters of 6, 19 and 21 May 2014 and 4 June 2014 and Claimants’ letters of 6 and 20 May 2014 and 5 June 2014. The Tribunal noted that the contents of said correspondence were duly noted and that there was no further need to expand on them.
288.
On 30 June 2014, Claimants advised the Tribunal of a decision of the Cairo Court of Appeal, quashing a decision of the Cairo Economical Court which had, according to Respondent, fined Claimants’ two legal representatives LE 1,000,000 for having incorrectly announced that Claimants’ claims amounted to US$ 200,000,000 thereby contradicting Respondent’s disclosure in the bond prospectus of a claim of US$ 60,000,000.
289.
On 18 November 2014, the Tribunal informed the Parties that it intends to formally close the proceedings in accordance with Article 29(1) of the CRCICA Rules 2002 on 24 November 2014.
290.
Accordingly and pursuant to Article 29(1) of the CRCICA Rules 2002, on 24 November 2014, the Tribunal formally declared the proceedings in this arbitration closed.

V. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

A. The Project

291.
These arbitration proceedings concern Respondent’s development of a major commercial, hotel, leisure and residential project called CityStars, located in the Nasr City and Heliopolis areas of Cairo (defined as the "Project").97 The site area extends to 11.2 hectares with approximately 850,000 m² of development: three international hotel buildings, a shopping and entertainment mall, a medical centre, a residential tower with 266 apartments, an office tower comprising 70,000 m² of office space and an international exhibition centre of 20,000 m².98
292.
The construction of the Project was divided in two phases. Each phase comprised different buildings and was divided into over 70 Tender Packages (the "TPs"). Claimants were awarded four TPs, as follows:

(i) TP4 Phase I: structural works for Phase I;

(ii) TP4 Phase II: structural works for Phase II;

(iii) TP5 Phase I: architectural and electro-mechanical works for Phase I; and

(iv) TP5 Phase II: architectural and electro-mechanical works for Phase II.

293.
In October 1998, Claimants were awarded TP5 Phase I. In July 1999, Claimants were assigned to carry out the remaining works for TP4 Phase I, which had initially been awarded to Alexandria Construction Company, as well as for TP4 Phase II and TP5 Phase II.
294.
The start date for each TP was 1 August 1999. Each phase had a different completion date: Phase I was due to be completed by 30 April 2002, Phase II by 31 July 2002, subject to a two-month grace period.99

B. The Legal Relationship Between the Parties

295.
On 29 July 2000, the Parties entered into the Contract100 regarding the construction of the Project. The Contract comprises of a number of documents:101

The present Contract Agreement.

The Letters of Acceptance.

in respect of the Architectural & Electro-mechanical Works (TP5) Phase 1:
Employer’s letter dated 4 October 1998
Employer’s letter dated 5 November 1998
Employer’s letter ref. 270/99/FIN/GPP dated 28 July 1999
Contractor’s letter ref. 674/10/3.1/L.2063 dated 4 August 1999
Employer’s letter ref. 116/99/TEC/GPP dated 29 August 1999

in respect of the Architectural & Electro-mechanical Works (TP5) Phase If: Employer’s letter ref 271/99/FIN/GPP dated 29 July 1999
Contractor’s letter ref. 674/10/3.1/L.2063 dated 4 August 1999
Employer’s letter ref. 117/99/TEC/GPP dated 29 August 1999

in respect of the Concrete Works (TP4) Phase I:
Employer’s letter ref. 272/99/FIN/GPP dated 29 July 1999
Contractor’s letter ref. 674/10/3.1/L.2063 dated 4 August 1999
Employer’s letter ref. 115/99/TEC/GPP dated 29 August 1999

in respect of the Concrete Works (TP4) Phase II:
Employer’s letter ref. 273/99/FIN/GPP dated 29 July 1999
Contractor’s letter ref. 674/10/3.1/L.2063 dated 4 August 1999
Employer’s letter ref. 118/99/TEC/GPP dated 29 August 1999

The Contract Conditions (Parts I and II) of the Architectural and Electro-mechanical Works (TP5) Phases I and II, and the Contract Conditions of the Concrete Works (TP4) Phases I and II; as being amended in the hereby attached Annex.

The Specifications for: the Architectural & Electro-mechanical Works (TP5) Phase I; the Architectural & Electro-mechanical Works (TP4) Phases I and II.

The Drawings for: the Architectural & Electro-mechanical Works (TP5) Phase I; the Architectural & Electro-mechanical Works (TP5) Phase II; the Concrete Works (TP4) Phase I; and the Concrete Works (TP4) Phase II.

The respective priced Bills of Quantities.

The said Tenders.

296.
Pursuant to the Preamble of the Contract Agreement, it was:

... the intention of both parties to enter into one single contract (being this Contract Agreement) in order to unify to the most possible extent, the terms and provisions of said four offers, as well as to determine the general rules and guidelines, according to which the simultaneous implementation of the four said works shall be effected, in order to avoid any inconsistency or contradiction that may result in this context.

297.
Clause 10 of the Contract Agreement confirms the completion dates for each Phase: 30 April 2002 for Phase I and 31 July 2002 for Phase II with a two-month grace period. The completion date for Phase I was extended by the Project Manager on 29 April 2002 to 7 May 2002.102 As the extended completion date for Phase I was not met, the Parties once again extended the time period by signing the MOU on 24 October 2002 to various dates for each Block of Phase I as detailed in Annex A of the MOU.103
298.
In addition and as mentioned above,104 pursuant to Clause 67 of the Annex to the Contract Agreement, the Project Manager would entertain any disputes between the Parties prior to referral of such disputes to arbitration before a three-member tribunal under the CRCICA Rules.

C. Relevant Entities Involved in the Project

299.
The relevant entities involved in the Project were Respondent’s consultants regarding the Project, Respondent’s Project Manager and the Project’s Engineer.
300.
Respondent’s consultants regarding the Project were as follows:105

(i) Cassia and Associates ("Cassia");

(ii) Shaker Consulting Group ("Shaker");

(iii) Hamza and Associates ("Hamza"); and

(iv) Moharram Bakhoum.

301.
The role of the Project Manager was undertaken by the following entities:106

(i) Associated Consulting Engineers International ("ACE") between 1999 and August 2001; and

(ii) Project Management Organization ("PMO"), comprising Bechtel and the Respondent, between August 2001 and February 2003; as of February 2003, Bechtel has been replaced by Moharram Bakhoum.

302.
The role of the Engineer for the Project was undertaken by the following entities:107

(i) Hamza until 4 December 2000; and

(ii) Moharram Bakhoum as of 5 December 2000.

D. The Delays in the Construction of the Project

303.
Due to delays in the construction of the Project, the contractual completion dates were not met. The Parties’ MOU of 24 October 2002 modified the Contract as follows:108

(i) Clause 1 of the MOU reserved the Parties’ rights and remedies accrued to either Party up to the date of the MOU. It also provided for a postponement of all contractual penalties by the Employer, in the following manner:

The Parties agree that the Contractual rights and remedies accrued to either party, up to the date of signing this MOU, including but not limited to the application of all contractual penalties by the employer, which shall be postponed until confirmed by special arbitration as per item (6) of this MOU, and the rights of the contractor to claim extension of time and any associated additional costs, shall not be affected nor waived by this MOU.

(ii) Clause 2 of the MOU extended the completion date for Phase I in the following manner:

The Parties, having considered all the events, variations orders circumstances and all other matters, including Appendix (B), which have contributed to the completion delays, agree that the last new section completion date would represent the New provisional Completion Date for Phase I with sectional dates for each facility to be achieved as stated in Appendix "A" attached to this MOU.

(iii) Clause 5 of the MOU extended the validity of the Contractor’s bank guarantees and performance bonds:

The Contractor shall extend, within 20 days from the date of this MOU, the validity of all his bank guarantees, performance bond, insurance policies and any other time related and/or affected items included in the contract agreement to one year after the New Completion Date for Phase I stipulated in Clause 2 above, all to the approval of the Employer. His failure to carry out th[ese] requirements will be considered as a Contractor's default under Clause 63.1 of the Contract Agreement.

(iv) Pursuant to Clause 6(d) of the MOU, the "Contractor’s Bank guarantees and bonds issued to the Employer under this Contract will not be liquidated by the Employer unless supported by an arbitral award".

(v) The remaining provisions of Clause 6 of the MOU amended the arbitration agreement of Clause 67 of the Annex to the Contract Agreement, in the manner mentioned in ¶ 17 above.

304.
The Parties amended the MOU on 23 June 2004.109 The MOU Amendment modified and extended the arbitration agreement as described above.110 Furthermore, the MOU Amendment extended the reservation of the Parties’ rights and remedies made in the MOU to all the rights and remedies accrued "up to the end of Defects Liability Period":

2. MOU Paragraph 1: delete ‘up to the date of signing this MOU’ and substitute ‘up to the end of Defects Liability Period’.

305.
Moreover, pursuant to Clause 5 of the MOU Amendment, the Parties confirmed that all other clauses of the MOU would "remain unchanged".

E. The Dispute Between the Parties

306.
In the course of the Works, Claimants applied a number of times to the Project Manager for extensions of time in relation to individual delay events. The decisions with respect to these applications are disputed by Claimants.
307.
Notwithstanding the discrepancies, on 26 December 2004, Claimants and the Project Manager agreed to settle monetary differences with respect to Contract Variation Notices and New Item Rates at a sum of LE 15,566,132.96.111
308.
Furthermore, and on account of the delay in the construction of the Works, Respondent collected contractual liquidated damages for delay in respect of both Phases I and II for TP4 and TP5.112
309.
The Parties are in dispute as to who bears the responsibility for the delayed completion of the Works of the Project and as to whether Respondent was entitled to call on Claimants’ bonds.

VI. PARTIES’ POSITIONS AND RELIEF SOUGHT

A. Claimants

310.
Claimants submit that Respondent delayed and disrupted the progress of Claimants’ Works and that, therefore, Claimants are entitled to extra time and monetary compensation from Respondent. Claimants present a Delay and Disruption Claim, as well as Final Account Claims.
311.
The total amount claimed by Claimants is subject to four alternative calculations, each based on a different assumption.113 Claimants’ four alternative calculations, as revised in its Reply Post-Hearing Memorial are as follows:114
Updated for interest through 31 May 2014 Egyptian Pounds United States Dollars115 Annex of Reply Post-Hearing Memorial
Assessment No. 1 1,044,344,000 16,996,000 B
Assessment No. 2 996,652,000 16,966,000 C
Assessment No. 3 760,419,000 98,045,000 D
Assessment No. 4 771,904,000 97,125,000 E
312.
In their Statement of Reply, Claimants seek the following relief:116

[1] Claimants respectfully request that the Tribunal dismiss each objection raised by Respondent in its Statement of Defense and identified variously as "Formal Pleas", "Pleas of Jurisdiction" and "Pleas of Inadmissibility".

[2] In addition, Claimants respectfully request an Award granting them the following relief:

(a) A declaration that GPP is liable for the delayed completion of the TP5 Works and thus the delayed completion of all of CCCO’s Works;

(b) A declaration that GPP is liable for the disruption caused to the Works;

(c) A declaration that CCCO completed the Works within a reasonable time and was not required to complete the Works by the contractual Time for Completion;

(d) A declaration that the Project Manager ought to have awarded an extension of time to CCCO of at least 121 weeks for each of Phase I and II;

(e) The declarations with respect to CCCO’s Final Account Claims, as set out in the Statement of Claim at ¶ 1157(b)(i) (pp. 271-272), and a declaration that GPP is liable for the payment of CCCO’s "Final Account Claims";

(f) A declaration that GPP’s liquidation of CCCO’s bonds and guarantees was wrongful;

(g) A declaration that CCCO is entitled to be compensated in the currency proportions stipulated in Sub-Clause 85.1 of the Particular Conditions of Contract for TP5 Works;

(h) An order that GPP pay to CCCO (1) compensation for the loss and damage that CCCO has suffered by reason of the delayed and disrupted completion of the Works, (2) compensation with respect to CCCO’s Final Account Claims, and (3) those monies outstanding from Applications and the currency of payment claim, as follows:

(i) In the event the Arbitral Tribunal awards Claimants compensation for their costs arising from the delay and disruption for which GPP is responsible, until the date of the last Taking-Over Certificate (15 March 2005):

(aa)in the amount of LE 693,861,000, plus USD 91,425,000, should CCCO’s compensation for certain amounts be due 50% in United States Dollars and 50% in Egyptian Pounds, in accordance with Sub-Clause 85.1 of the Particular Conditions of Contract for TP5 Works; or

(bb) in the amount of LE 951,001,000, plus USD 15,796,000, should the loss or damages be due in Egyptian Pounds;

Or,

(ii) In the event the Arbitral Tribunal awards the compensation based upon CCCO’s entitlement to an extension of time through November 2004:

(aa)in the amount of LE 667,276,000, plus USD 87,274,000, should CCCO’s compensation for certain amounts be due 50% in United States Dollars and 50% in Egyptian Pounds, in accordance with Sub-Clause 85.1 of the Particular Conditions of Contract for TP5 Works; or

(bb) in the amount of LE 910,300,000, plus USD 15,796,000, should the loss or damages be due in Egyptian Pounds;

Or,

(iii) Such other amounts as CCCO may establish in due course or such other amounts as the Tribunal may determine; and

(i) Generally, an order that GPP pay to CCCO:

(i) CCCO’s arbitration costs, including but not limited to arbitrators’ fees and expenses, administrative fees, reasonable attorneys’ fees and the time costs of CCCO’s employees wholly or partly devoted to the prosecution of this arbitration, in such amounts as CCCO may establish in due course or such other amounts as the Tribunal may determine; and

(ii) Interest on all sums awarded, as detailed in Section IV of the SoC, for such periods and at such rates as the Tribunal may determine; and

(j) Such further or other relief that Claimants may request in the course of these proceedings or that the Tribunal may deem appropriate.

313.
Claimants reserved the right to amend or supplement their claims in accordance with Article 20 ("Amendments to Claim or Defence") of the CRCICA Rules 2002.
314.
Claimants reiterated their claims and request for relief in their Post-Hearing Memorial,117 and updated the calculations of interests on their claims in their Reply Post-Hearing Memorial as stated in ¶ 311 and as follows:118

148. Claimants respectfully request that the Arbitral Tribunal grant in full the relief that is requested in their Reply, ¶¶ 249-250, as modified to incorporate the updated calculations of interest that are set out [in Claimants’ Reply Post-Hearing Memorial], ¶¶ 140-147.

149. Claimants request that the Tribunal order that interest run upon all amounts awarded in relation to their individual Claims, including the Claim for arbitration costs, at the appropriate rate (Libor +2%, ECB rate or 5%, as the case may be) until the date of full payment of the relevant amount by GPP.

B. Respondent

315.
In its Statement of Rejoinder, Respondent seeks the following relief:119

- [1] The Nullity of the proceedings as a consequence of constituting the Arbitral Tribunal in violation with the provisions of the applicable law and the parties’ agreement; and/or as a direct consequence of accepting the challenge of Mr. Yasser Mansour.

- [2] Nullity, and in the alternative inadmissibility, of the Notice of Arbitration registering the case on 26 January 2006.

- [3] Nullity of the current proceedings as a direct consequence of the Arbitral Award of 28 July 2010.

- [4] The lack of jurisdiction over, in the alternative inadmissibility of and in the further alternative rejection of the Delay and Disruption Claim.

- [5] The lack of jurisdiction over, in the alternative inadmissibility of and in the further alternative rejection of all of the Final Account Claims.

- [6] The rejection of all claims for interest requested by Claimant.

- [7] That Claimant incurs all costs related to this arbitration.

316.
Furthermore, "Respondent reserves its full rights to amend, amplify, supplement and/or complement its defenses in future pleadings". Respondent also states in its Rejoinder that "[t]his Memorial is submitted without prejudice to any objections raised by Respondent in these proceedings or to Respondent’s rights under the applicable law".120
317.
In its Reply Post-Hearing Memorial, "Respondent maintains its requests for relief stated per its Memorial dated 6 November 2013, as further developed during the Hearing and in this reply memorial"121 and makes a reservation of rights as follows:122

Respondent confirmed that it did not provide a counterclaim in these proceedings. Therefore, GPP reserves the right of recourse against CCCO and reserves its full rights in this respect.

VII. THE TRIBUNAL’S ANALYSIS

318.
In the analysis below, the Tribunal has not only considered the positions of the Parties summarized in the present Award, but also their numerous arguments detailed in their various written memorials and oral submissions made at the Hearing. To the extent that these arguments are not referred to expressly, they are subsumed in the analysis.
319.
In presenting their respective cases, the Parties were at all times afforded equal treatment and granted equivalent and complete opportunities to make their respective cases. The Parties confirmed this during the last day of the Hearing:123

THE CHAIRMAN:... Then I come to my final point, which is that the Tribunal has the obligation to observe the fundamental principle of due process, so that the parties are treated with equality, on equal footing, and that each party has had the opportunity to present its case. The Tribunal would like to ask you whether the Tribunal has complied with this duty. Claimants?

MR HARB: Claimants confirm that the Tribunal has complied with its duty to treat both parties equally and have due process and applied to both parties.

THE CHAIRMAN: You have also been able to present your case?

MR HARB: Yes.

THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Mr Yehia?

MR YEHIA: We do believe that we have been afforded a reasonable opportunity to present our case, maybe not the best opportunity or the expected opportunity, but we have tried our best, and we thank the Tribunal for its patience with us.

THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. Have you also been treated on an equal footing?

MR. YEHIA: This is a very difficult question to answer because of the difficulties we have faced during the last period, when we were overwhelmed with all this new evidence, and we have approached the Tribunal more than once just to be able to know our case and defend our position. Maybe we were not successful in relaying the message properly to the Tribunal. Maybe it has been our mistake to a certain extent. But we really lived for months under the constraints, and we were fighting against all circumstances. I don’t think that we are able to overcome this feeling easily.

320.
Considering that Respondent raises objections concerning the Tribunal’s jurisdiction and admissibility of Claimants’ claim, the Tribunal will first determine on those matters (Section VIII below), before turning to certain evidentiary matters (Section IX below), Claimants’ Delay and Disruption Claim (Section X below), Claimants’ Final Account Claims (Section XI below) and the Quantum of Claimants’ Claims (Section XII below).

VIII. JURISDICTION OF THE TRIBUNAL AND MATTERS OF ADMISSIBILITY

321.
The Tribunal observes that Respondent has raised a number of "Formal Pleas", "Pleas of Jurisdiction" and "Pleas of Inadmissibility". The Tribunal understands these pleas to be a compilation of objections to the Tribunal’s jurisdiction and the admissibility of Claimants’ claims. The Tribunal will treat them accordingly.

A. The Parties’ Positions

322.
Respondent objects to the Tribunal’s jurisdiction and the admissibility of Claimants’ claims.
323.
Respondent alleges that as a consequence of constituting the Arbitral Tribunal in violation to the provisions of the applicable law and the Parties’ agreement, the present proceedings are null. Respondent bases its position on various allegations discussed below.
324.
Respondent objects to the manner in which the challenge of Mr. Mansour was conducted. According to Respondent, abstaining from referring the challenge to the allegedly competent Cairo Court of Appeal constituted a violation of the provisions of Article 19 of the Egyptian Arbitration Law (i.e., Law 27/1994).124
325.
Furthermore, Respondent asserts that Claimants’ Notice of Arbitration is null and void and/or inadmissible because Claimants’ former counsel, Dr. Hafez, allegedly did not hold a valid power of attorney.125
326.
In addition, Respondent contends that the previous arbitral tribunal, chaired by Professor Kaufmann-Kohler, did not have the power to rule that the Notice of Arbitration was validly registered with the CRCICA.126
327.
Also, Respondent submits that this Arbitral Tribunal lacks jurisdiction due to the non-existence of an arbitration agreement concluded between the Parties.127
328.
Respondent further claims that the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction and Claimants’ claims are inadmissible due to Claimants’ violation of various contractually agreed provisions. Respondent contends, inter alia, that Claimants have not complied with Sub-Clauses 44.2(a) and (b) of the TP4 and 5 General Conditions, which concern the Extension of Time for Completion, Sub-Clauses 53.1 and 53.3 of the TP5 General Conditions relating to the Procedure for Claims, and Clause 67 of the Contract Agreement, which relates to the settlement of disputes.128
329.
Claimants reject Respondent’s contentions in their entirety.129
330.
Claimants take issue with Respondent’s reliance on Article 19 of the Egyptian Arbitration Law and its characterization as being mandatory law. According to Claimants, Respondent’s submissions as to the effect of Article 19 of the Egyptian Arbitration Law are out of context and in disregard of Articles 17(1) and 21 of the Egyptian Arbitration Law.130
331.
Claimants also reject Respondent’s objections in relation to the alleged lack of jurisdiction due to (i) the alleged lack of power of attorney of Claimants’ former counsel; (ii) the lack of power of the previous tribunal under the chairmanship of Professor Kaufmann-Kohler to rule that the Notice of Arbitration was validly registered with the CRCICA although it had determined that it lacked jurisdiction; and (iii) the non-existence of an arbitration agreement.131
332.
With respect to the notice requirement in Clause 44 of TP5 General Conditions, as amended by the Particular Conditions, Claimants contend that the notice requirements do not bar jurisdiction or render a claim inadmissible.132
333.
With respect to Clause 53 of TP5 General Conditions, Claimants submit that Respondent does not use this clause as a basis of an objection to jurisdiction or admissibility.133
334.
With respect to Clause 67 of the Annex to the Contract Agreement, Claimants contend that (i) a dispute may arise in the absence of any determination by the Project Manager; (ii) the referral to the Project Manager does not require any substantiation and that, in any event, Claimants have substantiated their referrals of disputes; (iii) concerning arbitration, nothing in Clause 67 bars a party from referring a dispute to a pending arbitration; (iv) the Tribunal’s power is wide in that it can open up, review and revise new arguments and evidence submitted to the Tribunal in the arbitration; and (v) Claimants have satisfied all requirements of Clause 67.134

B. The Tribunal’s Considerations

335.
The Tribunal will deal with Respondent’s objections to the Tribunal’s jurisdiction and admissibility of Claimants’ claims in turn: (i) nullity of the proceedings based on the allegedly incorrect dealings in relation to the challenge of Mr. Mansour; (ii) Notice of Arbitration is null and void and/or inadmissible because of alleged lack of power of attorney of Claimants’ former Counsel; (iii) the former tribunal’s alleged lack of power to rule that the Notice of Arbitration was validly registered with the CRCICA; and (iv) the alleged lack of jurisdiction due to the non-existence of an arbitration agreement.
336.
In addition, the Tribunal will consider the disputed contractual issues between the Parties concerning the alleged lack of jurisdiction over Claimants’ claims and their alleged inadmissibility:

(1) Challenge of Mr. Mansour

337.
Respondent submits that the arbitral proceedings are null because the challenge of Mr. Mansour should have been decided by the competent court of appeal rather than by the CRCICA.135
338.
Respondent relies on Articles 19(1) and 19(3) of the Egyptian Arbitration Law (as amended) and submits that these provisions are mandatory law and part of public order.
339.
Articles 19(1) and 19(3) of the Egyptian Arbitration Law provide as follows respectively:136

(1) The challenge request, incorporating the reasons for such challenge, shall be submitted in writing to the arbitral tribunal within fifteen days from the date the challenging party becomes aware of the constitution of the arbitral tribunal or of the circumstances justifying such challenge. If the challenged arbitrator does not step down within fifteen days from the date of submitting such request, the request shall be forwarded, at no charges, to the court referred to under Article (9) of this law to be determined by a ruling that is not subject to appeal.

(3) The challenge request shall not result in the suspension of the arbitral procedures; and if it is ruled that the arbitrator is recused, the consequences will be that arbitral procedures that have been undertaken, including the arbitrators’ award, shall be deemed as having never existed.

340.
Respondent also relies on a decision of the Cairo Court of Appeal dated 26 April 2003 in support of its argument.137 In this context, Respondent submits that the presiding judge of the Cairo Court of Appeal who rendered the said decision, as well as other scholars, criticized the decision later merely because they became members of the advisory body of the CRCICA.138
341.
Claimants retort, inter alia, that Article 19 of the Egyptian Arbitration Law neither provides that it is mandatory, nor that the parties are not permitted to agree otherwise. Moreover, Claimants submit that decisions of a court of appeal - unlike those of the Court of Cassation - do not constitute binding precedents. In addition, Claimants contend that Article 19 of the Egyptian Arbitration Law should be read in conjunction with Articles 6, 17 and 25 of the same law, which give parties freedom to organize the arbitration proceedings, including submitting the proceedings to the rules of an arbitral institution. Claimants also point to Article 53(f) of the Egyptian Arbitration Law and submit that a claim for nullity of the proceedings on the basis that the CRCICA administered the challenge of Mr. Mansour is beyond the scope of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction as this would be a matter to be assessed by Egyptian courts.139
342.
The Tribunal concurs with Claimants.
343.
Articles 19(1) and (3) of the Egyptian Arbitration Law set forth that if a challenged arbitrator does not resign within 15 days, the request for a challenge shall be determined by the Court of Appeal. It does not, however, prevent the parties to an arbitration agreement from agreeing to a different procedure for the challenge of arbitrators.
344.
The Tribunal is of the view that Claimants have established the proper application of Article 19(1) of the Egyptian Arbitration Law. It comes into play only in the event that the Parties have not agreed to a procedure for challenging arbitrators. As the Parties have agreed in Clause 67 of the Annex to the Contract Agreement on arbitration under the Rules of the CRCICA, the CRCICA provisions concerning challenge of arbitrators govern. The relevant provision is Article 12(1) of the CRCICA Rules 2002, which reads as follows:

1. If the other party does not agree to the challenge and the challenged arbitrator does not withdraw, the decision on the challenge will be made:

a) When the initial appointment was made by an appointing authority, by that authority;

b) When the initial appointment was not made by an appointing authority, but an appointing authority has been previously designated, by that authority;

c) In all other cases, by the appointing authority to be designated in accordance with the procedure for designating an appointing authority as provided for in article (6).

345.
Article 6(2) of the CRCICA Rules 2002 provides in relevant parts that:

... If no appointing authority has been agreed upon by the parties, or if the appointing authority agreed upon refuses to act or fails to appoint the arbitrator within thirty days of the receipt of a party’s request thereof, either party may request the Centre to make such appointment.

346.
In the case at hand, Claimants had submitted their request to reject Mr. Mansour as arbitrator to the CRCICA on 23 March 2011.140 After giving Respondent and Mr. Mansour the opportunity to comment on Claimants’ challenge request, the CRCICA rendered its decision on 24 May 2011.141 This was consistent with the powers granted to the CRCICA under the CRCICA Rules.
347.
Since the CRCICA’s decision in relation to the challenge of Mr. Mansour was in accordance with the Parties’ agreement to submit themselves under the CRCICA Rules, Article 19 of the Egyptian Arbitration Law does not apply.
348.
Also, in agreement with Claimants, the Tribunal considers that pursuant to Article 53.1(f) of the Egyptian Arbitration Law, a claim for nullity of the proceedings on the basis that the CRCICA administered the challenge of Mr. Mansour is beyond the scope of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction as this would be a matter to be assessed by Egyptian courts.142
349.
In light of the foregoing, the Tribunal does not need to address Respondent’s further allegations in relation to Article 19 of the Egyptian Arbitration Law and the alleged consequences thereof.
350.
Accordingly, Respondent’s contention before this Tribunal that the alleged nullity of these proceedings is a consequence of Mr. Mansour’s challenge fails.

(2) Nullity of Notice of Arbitration due to lack of power of attorney of Claimants’ former Counsel

351.
Respondent submits that the Notice of Arbitration is null or inadmissible because of an alleged lack of power of attorney of Claimants’ former Counsel Dr. Hafez.143 In this respect, Respondent relies on Article 702 of the Egyptian Civil Code and Article 76 of the Egyptian Civil Procedure Law.
352.
Article 702 of the Egyptian Civil Code provides as follows:144

A special mandate, in respect of any act which is not an act of management, is required, and in particular for a sale, a mortgage, a gift, a compromise, an admission, an arbitration, the tendering of an oath and representation before the Courts.

A special mandate to carry out a certain category of juridical acts is valid, save as regards gratuitous acts, even though the object of such acts is not specified.

A special mandate only confers on the mandatory power to act in matters specified therein and in matters necessarily incidental thereto in accordance with the nature of each matter and prevailing custom.

353.
Respondent deduces from Article 702 that an attorney’s participation in arbitration procedures on behalf of a principal necessitates a special power of attorney authorizing such acts. According to Respondent, a general power of attorney is not sufficient.145
354.
Respondent further invokes the following passage of Article 76 of the Egyptian. Civil Procedure Law: "recognition of a claimed right, waiving it, compromise or arbitration shall be invalid unless made by way of a special proxy."146 Respondent submits that this excerpt supports the principle as understood by Respondent and referred to in the preceding paragraph in connection with Article 702 of the Egyptian Civil Code. In addition, Respondent refers to a Court of Cassation decision of 2002.147
355.
Claimants argue that this is the first time that Respondent challenges the validity of the powers of attorney conferred by Claimants to Dr. Hafez.148 Further, Claimants submit that in its Procedural Order No. 2 the Tribunal found that no formal power of attorney is legally required under the CRCICA Rules 2002 or under the Egyptian Arbitration Law.149
356.
With respect to Respondent’s references to Article 702 of the Egyptian Civil Code and Article 76 of the Egyptian Civil Procedure Law, Claimants submit that said provisions do not apply to international arbitration proceedings seated in Egypt and conducted under the CRCICA Rules.150 In this respect, Claimants rely on the decision of the Cairo Court of Appeal of 7 May 2008 finding that (i) in the event that parties have agreed on the rules of an arbitral institution such rules shall prevail over the Egyptian Arbitration Law except for provisions related to public order; and (ii) even if the institutional rules of arbitration did not include a specific requirement concerning the representation of the parties in the arbitration, the requirement of the Egyptian arbitration law shall not apply.151
357.
Claimants further contend that (i) under Egyptian law a subsequent approval amounts to an initial mandate;152 (ii) even if Dr. Hafez had no mandate at the time of commencing this arbitration, the arbitration would not be nullified;153 and (iii) Respondent has no standing to object to the powers of attorney issued by Claimants.154
358.
In the Tribunal’s view, Article 702 of the Egyptian Civil Code, Article 76 of the Egyptian Civil Procedure Law and the Court of Cassation decision of 2002 are not relevant to the present case. Respondent has not shown that these provisions and decision it relies upon apply to international arbitration seated in Egypt conducted under the CRCICA Rules. Accordingly, the Tribunal’s decision in ¶ 10 of Procedural Order No. 2 is maintained. Neither under the CRCICA Rules nor under the Egyptian Arbitration Law is a formal power of attorney legally required for a party’s representative in an international arbitration:155

A formal power of attorney is legally not required for a party’s Representative, but it is good practice to submit one. Neither the CRCICA Rules nor Law No. 27/1994 for Promulgating the Law Concerning Arbitration in Civil and Commercial matters, as most recently amended by Law No. 8/2000 (the "Egyptian Arbitration Law"), require that a party’s Representative has obtained and submits a formal power of attorney to validly represent such party in an international arbitration.

359.
The Tribunal notes that Respondent did not raise this objection in its initial responses and objections to the Notice of Arbitration of 26 January 2006 of 4 April156 and 11 May 2006.157
360.
In light of the foregoing, the Tribunal does not need to address any further arguments presented by the Parties on this point.
361.
Consequently, Respondent’s submission that Claimants’ Notice of Arbitration is null for alleged lack of power of attorney of Claimants’ former Counsel fails.

(3) Legal effect of the Arbitral Award of 28 July 2010

362.
Respondent further argues that as a direct consequence of the Arbitral Award of 28 July 2010, the current proceedings are null. Respondent refers to ¶ 108 of the Arbitral Award of 28 July 2010, in which the previous tribunal determined that it lacked jurisdiction.158 According to Respondent, that tribunal nonetheless went on in its decision, in ¶ 189(ii), to refer to the effect that Claimants’ Notice of Arbitration had not been affected by the nullity of the arbitration agreement.159 Respondent contends that "[p]ara 189(ii) of the Final Award dated 28 July 2010 is void, as it represents a finding reached by a tribunal lacking jurisdiction." Respondent concludes that "[a]ny procedure based upon this void finding shall in its turn be void."160
363.
The Tribunal can be brief with respect to this allegation. The Tribunal is in no position to decide on the challenge of the validity of another tribunal’s award. This is the prerogative of the courts. The Tribunal considers that Respondent has already pursued the avenue of attempting to set aside the Arbitral Award of 28 July 2010 before the court when it sought the annulment of, inter alia, ¶ 189(ii) of the said award. On 7 September 2011, the Cairo Court of Appeal issued its decision, rejecting Respondent’s relief.161
364.
Accordingly, Respondent’s objection with respect to the legal effect of the Arbitral Award of 28 July 2010 turning the present proceedings null is without merit.

(4) Lack of Jurisdiction due to non-existence of arbitration agreement

365.
Respondent contends that as of 29 July 2000, Clauses 67.1-67.4 of TP4 and TP5 General Conditions for Phases I and II were substituted by a new arbitration agreement on page 17 of the Contract Agreement. This arbitration agreement was amended by way of the MOU on 24 October 2002 in relation to TP4 and TP5 General Conditions for Phase I and the MOU Amendment in 2004 in relation to TP4 and TP5 General Condition for Phase II.162 According to Respondent, the arbitration agreement entered into between the Parties was amended on 22 June 2005 during a procedural meeting with a tribunal chaired by Sheikh Fahd Shobokshi. In Respondent’s view, the Parties’ consent to arbitrate was conditioned upon the presence of Sheikh Fahd Shobokshi on the tribunal. As Sheikh Fahd Shobokshi resigned from the tribunal, Respondent alleges that the option to arbitrate was no longer the Parties’ preference, but that, rather, the state courts would have jurisdiction.163
366.
Claimants retort that Respondent has not submitted evidence to substantiate its allegation regarding the Parties’ intention. They criticize Respondent for ignoring the fact that the Parties’ original contract provisions were based on the FIDIC Conditions of Contract and provided for the resolution of disputes by arbitration, not by state courts.164
367.
The Tribunal considers that while Claimants refer to the Arbitral Award of 28 July 2010 in support of their position,165 Respondent reiterates that that award declared the tribunal as lacking jurisdiction with the result that "the tribunal must lift its hand off the whole file and refrain from dealing with any further issue or proposing any other findings." According to Respondent, the Parties should be left under the original contract provisions. Also, Respondent contends that the parts of the Arbitral Award of 28 July 2008 relied upon by Claimants are a "mere reasoning within an award that is far from being res judicata and which is expected to be shortly cancelled by the Court of Cassation."166
368.
The Tribunal refers to the procedural background concerning the arbitration agreement set forth in ¶¶ 14 to 23 above.
369.
Respondent has not shown that the Parties "firmly intended to revert to the original contract provisions, a step before the Contract Agreement, hence having the [ordinary] state court as being the recourse for settling their dispute."167 To the contrary, as shown below, the record shows that the Parties’ intention was to refer their disputes to arbitration.
370.
The MOU refers in its first recital to the Contract Agreement of 29 July 2000:168

WHEREAS, the Employer and Contractor have entered into a Contract Agreement on 29th July 2000 for the execution of the Works relating to the Golden Pyramids Plaza (City Stars Project) in Cairo, and...

371.
Clause 7 of the MOU provides in relevant parts as follows:169

If for any reason, Sheikh Fahd Shobokshi would be unable to fulfill this mission, then the present MOU will be deemed null and void, and as if it had never existed, leaving the parties under the original contract provisions enforced and unchanged.

372.
The "original contract provisions" referred to in Clause 7 of the MOU are those contained in the Contract Agreement as referenced in the MOU recital, i.e., also Clause 67.
373.
Without the need to determine whether any statements made in the Arbitral Award of 28 July 2010 has res judicata effect or not, the Tribunal is of the view that its considerations are consistent with those reflected in the Arbitral Award of 28 July 2010. While the previous tribunal held that "Clauses 6 and 7 of the MoU; Clauses 3 and 4 of the MoU Amendment and Items 2 and 22 of the Minutes of the 22 June 2005 procedural meeting" are null and void,170 it also determined that Clause 67 of the Contract Agreement is not affected and remains in force:171

Indeed, the existence of an agreement by which the Parties validly consented to submit their dispute to arbitration is not in dispute. That consent is contained in Clause 67 of the Contract, the continuing validity of which is not contested.

This conclusion does not mean that the present dispute may not be properly submitted to arbitration. As a matter of fact, the Parties have not disputed the existence of a valid agreement to arbitrate. As a result of the nullity of the arbitration provisions of the MoU, the part of the original arbitration agreement embodied in Clause 67 of the Contract that had temporarily been modified by the MoU and its Amendment is revived. Consequently, Clause 67 of the Contract now stands in its entirety as the agreement to arbitrate between the Parties.

374.
Accordingly, the Tribunal considers that the Parties’ intention was to settle their disputes by means of arbitration. As will be shown further below,172 Clause 67 of the Annex to the Contract Agreement provides a valid agreement to arbitrate.

(5) Contractual Issues

375.
Respondent’s further objections concern Clauses 44, 53 and 67 of the Contract Agreement "as being the key contractual clauses for filing claims and disputes".173 The Tribunal does not see the necessity to determine whether Respondent’s objections raised in this regard may be characterized as jurisdictional or admissibility objections.

(a) Clauses 44.2(a) and (b) of the TP4 and TP5 General Conditions

376.
With respect to Clauses 44.2(a) and (b) of the TP4 and TP5 General Conditions, Respondent submits that Claimants have not complied with the conditions set out in those provisions. Respondent argues that Claimants ignore the wording of these provisions, which state that the Project Manager is not bound to make any determination unless the Contractor has complied with a timely notice.174
377.
Claimants counter that Respondent’s reliance on and interpretation of Clause 44.2 of TP4 and TP5 General Conditions contradicts the text of that provision. According to Claimants, non-compliance with Sub-Clauses 44.2(a) and (b) would not bar jurisdiction over a claim or render the claim inadmissible. Clause 44 concerns rather evidentiary issues relating to the merits of claims. In this respect, Claimants contend that, in any event, they have substantially complied with Clause 44 and refer to Respondent’s Exhibit R-85, columns M-P as well to the Anglin Report prepared by Mr. Padraig Anglin, Claimants’ expert witness,175 in support of their contention.176
378.
Sub-Clause 44.2 of the TP5 General Conditions, as amended in the Particular Conditions, provides as follows:

Provided that the Project Manager is not bound to make any determination unless the Contractor has

(a) within 7 days after such event has first arisen notified the Project Manager with a copy to the Employer, and

(b) within 7 days after such notification submitted to the Project Manager detailed particulars of any extension of time to which he may consider himself entitled in order that such submission may be investigated at the time.

379.
The dispute between the Parties surrounding Clause 44 concerns the question of whether Claimants had to give notice of their intention to claim an extension of time for completion for their claims to be admissible and the Tribunal having jurisdiction to determine them. The Tribunal will first consider the proper reading of Sub-Clauses 44.2(a) and (b).
380.
The Tribunal concurs with Claimants that Sub-Clauses 44.2(a) and (b) do not have the effect that Respondent attaches to them. The plain wording of Sub-Clauses 44.2(a) and (b) does not contain any language to the effect that the Contractor’s claim in the context of Clause 44 would be inadmissible or the Tribunal lacking jurisdiction if the Contractor would not comply with the notice requirements provided therein.
381.
In this respect, Respondent sets forth that the Project Manager would not make any determination "unless" the Contractor has complied with the notice requirements, as provided for in Sub-Clause 44.2(a).177 The Tribunal agrees with Respondent’s position in this respect to the extent it relates to the situation that the Contractor has complied with the notice requirement (see language "not bound to make any determination unless"). This interpretation does not, however, exclude the Project Manager’s discretion to make a determination even if the Contractor would not comply with the notice period. The Project Manager may not be bound to make such determination, but is free to make one nonetheless.178
382.
The Tribunal also notes that Clause 67, regulating the settlement of disputes between the Employer and the Contractor, does not require compliance with Sub-Clauses 44.2(a) and (b) in order to submit the dispute to the Project Manager and/or arbitration.
383.
In light of the foregoing, the Tribunal does not consider it necessary to assess whether Claimants have complied with Sub-Clauses 44.2(a) and (b) as tire non-compliance would not in any event render Claimants’ claims under Clause 44 inadmissible, nor otherwise defeat the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to determine those claims.

(b) Clause 53 of the TP5 General Conditions

384.
With respect to Clause 53 of the TP5 General Conditions, Respondent alleges that according to Sub-Clause 53.1 Claimants should have submitted a notice to the Project Manager with a copy to Respondent in relation to their intention to claim additional payment pursuant to a particular clause of the Contract Conditions or otherwise, within seven days after the event giving rise to the presented claim has first arisen. Furthermore, Respondent contends that according to Sub-Clause 53.3, Claimants should have submitted to the Project Manager an account giving detailed particulars of the amount claimed and the grounds upon which the claim is based within seven days from the date on which they submitted notice of their intention to claim additional payment in respect thereof.179
385.
Respondent answers that due to Claimants’ non-compliance with Sub-Clauses 53.1 and 53.3, the Project Manager dismissed the majority of Claimants’ claims. In addition, Respondent is of the view that the Tribunal’s power to "open up", "review" and "revise" the Project Manager’s determinations is limited to the Project Manager’s determination. Respondent concludes that no new evidence should be taken into account by the Tribunal.180
386.
Claimants rebut that Sub-Clauses 53.1 and 53.3 do not stipulate a jurisdictional bar or a rule regarding the admissibility of a claim.181 They submit that in any event they have complied with Clause 53. They refer in this respect to Respondent’s Exhibit R-85 and contend that it reflects the numerous notices and submissions in accordance with Clause 53 as also evidenced by the Anglin Report.182 Claimants further invoke Sub-Clause 53.4 as the governing provision on this point.183 Respondent rejects Claimants’ reliance on Sub-Clause 53.4.184
387.
Sub-Clauses 53.1, 53.3 and 53.4 of TP5 General Conditions, as amended in the Particular Conditions, provide as follows:

53.1 Notwithstanding any other provisions of the Contract, if the Contractor intends to claim any additional payment pursuant to any Clause of these Conditions or otherwise, he shall give notice of his intention to the Project Manager, with a copy to the Employer, within 7 days after the event giving rise to the claim has first arisen.

53.3 Within 7 days, or such other time granted by the Project Manager, of giving notice under Sub-Clause 53.1, the Contractor shall send to the Project Manager an account giving detailed particulars of the amount claimed and the grounds upon which the claim is based. Where the event giving rise to the claim has a continuing effect, such account shall be considered to be an interim account and the Contractor shall, at such intervals as the Project Manager may reasonably require, send further interim accounts giving the accumulated amount of the claim and any further grounds upon which it is based. In cases where interim accounts are sent to the Project Manager, the Contractor shall send a final account within 7 days of the end of the effects resulting from the event. The Contractor shall, if required by the Project Manager so to do, copy to the Employer all accounts sent to the Project Manager pursuant to this Sub-Clause.

53.4 If the Contractor fails to comply with any of the provisions of this Clause in respect of any claim which he seeks to make, his entitlement to payment in respect thereof shall not exceed such amount as the Project Manager or any arbitrator or arbitrators appointed pursuant to Sub-Clause 67.3 assessing the claim considers to be verified by contemporary records (whether or not such records were brought to the Project Manager’s notice as required under Sub-Clauses 53.2 and 53.3).

388.
Sub-Clauses 53.1 and 53.3, invoked by Respondent, must be read in conjunction with the entire provision, thus, also with Sub-Clause 53.4. In fact, the latter is relevant to the situation alleged by Respondent that Claimants have failed to comply with Sub-Clauses 53.1 and 53.3. The consequence of such non-compliance is set forth in Sub-Clause 53.4: "If the Contractor fails to comply with any of the provisions of this Clause... his entitlement to payment... shall not exceed such amount as the Project Manager or any arbitrator or arbitrators appointed pursuant to Sub-Clause 67.3 assessing the claim considers to be verified by contemporary records" (emphasis added). Thus, non-compliance with any of the sub-clauses of Clause 53 has the sole result of limiting the payment entitlement of the Contractor that cannot be verified by contemporary records. No other consequences are entailed with the non-compliance.
389.
Specifically, Sub-Clause 53.4 considers that non-compliance does not prevent the Contractor from commencing arbitration, as the reference to the appointment of "any arbitrator or arbitrators pursuant to Sub-Clause 67.3" and his/their assessment of the Contractor’s claim would otherwise be meaningless.
390.
Moreover, the Tribunal disagrees with Respondent’s interpretation to the effect that non-compliance with Sub-Clauses 53.1 and 53.3 prohibits the Tribunal from considering new evidence. Sub-Clause 53.4 provides the opposite. The assessment of the Tribunal is to be based on the "contemporary records (whether or not such records were brought to the Project Manager’s notice as required under Sub-Clauses 53.2 and 53.3)". Therefore, this Tribunal is not bound by the record as submitted to the Project Manager when determining claims raised by Claimants.
391.
Accordingly, the Tribunal finds that an alleged non-compliance with Sub-Clauses 53.1 and 53.3 would not result in a jurisdictional bar or make the Claimants' claim under Clause 53 inadmissible.
392.
Nevertheless, the Tribunal will assess whether Claimants have complied with Sub-Clauses 53.1 and 53.3 in order to determine Claimants’ payment entitlement.
393.
In this respect, the Tribunal observes that Respondent argues that the "Table of Events" found in Exhibit R-85 shows that the Anglin Report includes only one event that satisfies the relevant contractual provisions for extension of time and additional payment, i.e., Event No. OSA, and one that satisfies the clauses for extension of time, i.e., Event No. 02B.185 Claimants contend that they have submitted their overall claim for costs pursuant to Clause 53 in a letter to the Project Manager dated 20 October 2007.186
394.
Regarding Respondent’s Exhibit R-85, Claimants dispute the proposition that the time periods should always be calculated from the date on which a Contract Variation Notice ("CVN") was issued.187 Instead, the relevant delay was not triggered by the CVNs included in the narratives of the Anglin Delay Events but started earlier due to lack of design information and delayed decision-making by the Project Manager and the consultants.188 Nor do Claimants accept that they should have given notice and made submissions not only with respect to each delay event but with respect to each CVN and each revision to a CVN listed in Exhibit R-85.189 Claimants rely on Mr. Anglin’s testimony and further evidence that show that Claimants refused to proceed with some CVNs because the Project Manager issued such CVNs after the contractual completion date and without an extension of time or that the CVNs were not clear or were subject to further revision.190 Moreover, Claimants submit that in some instances listed in Exhibit R-85 Respondent ignored references to contractual notices, e.g., Event No. 9B, where Claimants’ acceptance of the CVN stated that contractual notice had already been given in three letters four days earlier.191
395.
In any event, Claimants submit that even if Claimants had failed to make timely submissions, each Anglin Delay Event is described in sufficient detail and with sufficient supporting contemporaneous project correspondence in Appendices 3 and 9 of the Anglin Report that allow ample verification by contemporaneous evidence.192 It is Claimants’ position that even if one Delay Event were not supported by contemporaneous evidence, Claimants’ claim for an extension of time is supported by several concurrent entitlements, i.e., all Delay Events mentioned in Appendix 3 of the Anglin Report and relied on by Mr. Anglin, overlap and support of the claim for an extension of time.193
396.
As requested by the Tribunal, Claimants provided comments and corrections with respect of the alleged delays in connection with Exhibit R-85.194 Claimants contend that their comments and corrections are not exhaustive, as additional records would show that Claimants provided additional notices and/or interim detailed particulars to the Project Manager that are not contained in Appendices 3 and 9.195
397.
The Tribunal has reviewed Exhibit R-85 and Annex A of Claimants’ Post-Hearing Memorial, including comments and corrections to Exhibit R-85 and related documents. In the Tribunal’s view, whether any delay event was triggered at the date of issuance of a CVN or at an earlier date, Claimants complied with Sub-Clause 53.1 with respect to Delay Events Nos. 01B, OSA, 08C, 09B, 18A regarding CVN 379(2) only, 21A regarding CVN 164(2), 23A regarding CVN 201(2), 29A regarding CVNs 266(2) and 313(2), 32A regarding CVN 406, 33A regarding CVN 563, 35A regarding CVN 450(1), 37A regarding CVNs 59(2), 78(2) and 109(3), 46A regarding CVN 268(1), 48A regarding CVN 97(3) and 49A regarding CVN 324.
398.
Furthermore, the Tribunal considers that neither the Delay Events mentioned in Appendix 3 of the Anglin Report nor Claimants’ overall claim for costs under Clause 53 dated 20 October 2007196 satisfy the timing requirements of Sub-Clause 53.3. Therefore, the Tribunal finds that Claimants failed to comply with Sub-Clause 53.3.
399.
Claimants’ partial non-compliance with Sub-Clause 53.1 and non-compliance with Sub-Clause 53.3 of TP5 General Conditions will result in the limitation of the payment entitlement of Claimants that cannot be verified by contemporary records. The Tribunal will assess Claimants’ payment entitlement when determining the quantum of Claimants’ Delay and Disruption Claim in Section XII.B below.

(c) Clause 67 of the Annex to the Contract Agreement

(i) Interpretation of Clause 67 of the Annex to the Contract Agreement

400.