• Copier la référence
  • Tutoriel vidéo

Addendum to Partial Award issued on 21 September 2020

I. INTRODUCTION

1.
Pursuant to Article 35(2) of the ICC Rules, the Arbitral Tribunal issues this Addendum (the "Addendum") to the Partial Award of 21 September 2020 in ICC Arbitration No. 20910/ASM/JPA (C-20911/ASM) (the "Partial Award").
2.
Unless otherwise noted, all capitalized terms and abbreviations used in this Addendum shall have the same meaning as in the Partial Award.

II. THE PARTIES AND THEIR REPRESENTATIVES

A. The Claimants

3.
The First Claimant in this Arbitration is Grupo Unidos por el Canal, S.A. (hereinafter referred to as "GUPC S.A." or the "First Claimant"), a corporation duly organized under the laws of Panama, with its registered address at:

Grupo Unidos por el Canal, S.A.
Building 22B, Brujas Road
Cocoli
Republic of Panama

4.
The Second Claimant is Sacyr, S.A. (hereinafter referred to as "Sacyr" or the "Second Claimant"), a company incorporated under the laws of Spain, with its registered address at:

Sacyr, S.A.
Paseo de la Castellana 83-85
28046 Madrid
Spain

5.
The Third Claimant is Webuild, S.p.A. (formerly Salini-lmpregilo, S.p.A) (hereinafter referred to as "Webuild, S.p.A" or the "Third Claimant"), a company incorporated under the laws of Italy, with its registered address at:

Webuild S.p.A.
Via dei Missaglia, 97
20142 Milan
Italy

6.
The Fourth Claimant is Jan De Nul, N.V. (hereinafter referred to as "Jan De Nul" or the "Fourth Claimant"), a company incorporated under the laws of Belgium, with its registered address at:

Jan De Nul, N.V.
Tragel 60
9308 Hofstade-Aalst
Belgium

7.
The First, Second, Third and Fourth Claimants are jointly and collectively referred to as the "Claimants".
8.
The Claimants are represented in this Arbitration by:

Ms. Carolyn B. Lamm
Mr. Hansel Pham
Mr. Matthew Drossos
White & Case LLP
701 Thirteenth Street, N. W.
Washington, D.C., 20005
U.S.A.
Tel.: +1 202 626 36 00
Fax: +1 202 639 93 55
Emails: clamm@whitecase.com
hpham@whitecase.com
mdrossos@whitecase.com

Mr. Phillip Capper
Mr. Nicolas Bouchardie
Ms. Angélica André
Ms. Kirsten Odynski
White & Case LLP
19, Place Vendôme
75001 Paris
France
Tel.: +33 1 55 04 15 15
Fax: +33 1 55 04 15 16
Emails: pcapper@whitecase.com
nbouchardie@whitecase.com
aandre@whitecase.com
kirsten.odynski@whitecase.com

Ms. Ana Maria Legendre
White & Case LLP
Paseo de la Castellana, 7
28046 Madrid
Spain
Tel.: +34 91 787 6372
Fax: +34 91 787 6399
Emails: alegendre@whitecase.com

Mr. Daniel Garton
Mr. Paul Brumpton
Mr. James Holden
White & Case LLP
5 Old Broad Street
London EC2N 1DW
United Kingdom
Tel.: +44 20 7532 1000
Fax: +44 20 7532 1001
Emails: dgarton@whitecase.com
pbrumpton@whitecase.com
james.holden@whitecase.com

Prof. Antonio Crivellaro
Prof. Andrea Carlevaris
Mr. Giovanni Minuto
Bonelli Erede Studio Legale
Via Michele Barozzi, 1
20122 Milan
Italy
Tel.: +39 02 771 131
Fax: +39 02 771 132 60
Email: antonio.crivellaro@belex.com
andrea.carlevahs@belex.com
giovanni.minuto@belex.com

Mr. Richard M. Preston
Mr. Jeffrey M. Hummel
Seyfarth Shaw LLP
975 F Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C., 20004
U.S.A.
Tel.: +1 202 463 24 00
Fax: +1 202 828 53 93
Emails: rpreston@seyfarth.com
jhummel@seyfarth.com

Ms. Monica Crespo
Mr. Jorge F. Lee
Mr Anibal Galindo
Mr Eduardo Gomez
Aleman, Cordero, Galindo & Lee 2do piso, Humboldt Tower
Calle 53 Este, Marbella
Panama City
Panama
Tel.: +(507) 269-2620
Fax: +(507) 263-5895
Emails: mcrespo@alcogal.com
jfl@alcogal.com
agalindo@alcogal.com
egomez@alcogal.com

Mr. Elliott Geisinger
Mr. Christopher Boog
Schellenberg Wittmer Ltd.
15bis, rue des Alpes, P.O. Box 2088
1211 Geneva 1
Switzerland
Tel.: +41 22 707 80 00
Emails: elliott.geisinger@swlegal.ch
christopher.boog@swlegal.ch

B. The Respondent

9.
The Respondent in this Arbitration is Autoridad del Canal de Panama (hereinafter referred to as "ACP" or the "Respondent"), an autonomous legal entity of the Republic of Panama having its offices at:

Building 740, Corozal West
Panama
Republic of Panama

10.
The Respondent is represented in this Arbitration by: Vinson & Elkins RLLP and Mayer Brown International LLP. All correspondence to the Respondent may be addressed solely to its legal representatives, whose contact details are as follows:

Vinson & Elkins RLLP
CityPoint, Level 33
One Ropemaker Street
London EC2Y 9UE
United Kingdom
Attention:
Mr. Nick Henchie
Tel.: +44 207 065 60 87
Email: nhenchie@velaw.com

Mr. James Loftis
Tel.: +1 713 758 10 24
Email: jloftis@velaw.com

Mr. Scott Stiegler
Tel.: +44 207 065 60 17
Email: sstiegler@velaw.com

Mr. Peter Danysh
Tel.: +1 713 758 20 60
Email: pdanysh@velaw.com

Ms. Ciara Ros
Tel.: +44.20.7065.6082
Email: cros@velaw.com

Ms. Georgina Barlow
Tel.: +44 207 065 60 52
Email: gbarlow@velaw.com

Ms. Susanna Fidoe
Tel.: +44 207 065 60 00
Email: sfidoe@velaw.com

Mr. Charles Aitchison
Tel.: +44 207 065 60 01
Email: caitchison@velaw.com

Mr. Ben Grunberger-Kirsh
Tel.: +44 207 065 60 00
Email: bgrunberger-kirsh@velaw.com

Ms. Stephanie Archer
Tel.: +44 207 065 60 08
sarcher@velaw.com

Ms. Delphine Troquet
Email: dtroguet@velaw.com

Ms. Maria Fernandez Sanchez
Email: mfernandez@velaw.com

Mayer Brown International LLP
201 Bishopsgate
London EC2M 3AF
United Kingdom
Attention: Mr. Raid Abu-Manneh
Tel.: +44 203 130 37 73
Email: rabu-manneh@mayerbrown.com

Mr. Kwadwo Sarkodie
Tel.: +44 20 3130 33 35
Email: ksarkodie@mayerbrown.com
Mr. George Fisher
Tel: +44 20 3130 35 34
Email: g fisher@mayerbrown.com

ACP Section for Legal Advice on Contracts, Canal Expansion Program Edificio
739, Corozal Oeste,
Panama,
Republic of Panama
Attention:
Mr. Carlos Arrue Montenegro
Tel.: +507 276 21 75
Email: caarrue@pancanal.com

Karla Arias
Tel.: +507 276 12 52
Email: karias@pancanal.com
Mr. Manus McMullan QC
Mr. Christopher Lewis QC
Mr. Peter Land
Atkin Chambers
Gray's Inn
London WC1R 5AT
United Kingdom
Tel.: +44 207 404 01 02
Email: mmcmullan@atkinchambers.com
clewis@atkinchambers.com
pland@atkinschambers.com

Mr. Andrés Jana
Bofill Mir & Alvarez Jana
Av. Andrés Bello 2711 - Piso 8
7550611 Las Condes
Santiago
Chile
Tel.: +56 227 577 616
Email: ajana@bmaj.cl

III. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

11.
On 21 September 2020, the Arbitral Tribunal issued the Partial Award. The Partial Award was received by the Claimants on 28 September 2020, and by the Respondent on 29 September 2020.
12.
On 28 October 2020, the Claimants filed an application to correct the Partial Award, pursuant to Article 35(2) of the ICC Rules1 and within the 30-day time limit provided therein (the "Request").
13.
On 30 October 2020, the ICC Secretariat acknowledged receipt of the Claimants' Request and informed the Arbitral Tribunal that it should grant a time limit of no more than 30 days to the Respondent to respond to such Request, and thereafter should issue its draft decision on the Request no later than 30 days after the expiry of such time limit.
14.
On 31 October 2020, the Arbitral Tribunal granted the Respondent a time limit until 16 November 2020 to take position on the Claimants' Request.
15.
On 16 November 2020, the Respondent submitted its response to the Claimants' Request (the "Response").
16.
On 13 December 2020, the Arbitral Tribunal submitted the draft addendum to the Partial Award to the ICC Court for its approval.
17.
On 17 December 2020, the ICC Court approved the draft addendum.

IV. LEGAL FRAMEWORK

18.
The interpretation and correction of arbitral awards issued under the ICC Rules is governed by Article 35 of the ICC Rules, which states in pertinent part:

Article 35: Correction and Interpretation of the Award; Remission of Awards

1) On its own initiative, the arbitral tribunal may correct a clerical, computational or typographical error, or any errors of similar nature contained in an award, provided such correction is submitted for approval to the Court within 30 days of the date of such award.

2) Any application of a party for the correction of an error of the kind referred to in Article 35(1), or for the interpretation of an award, must be made to the Secretariat within 30 days of the receipt of the award by such party, in a number of copies as stated in Article 3(1). After transmittal of the application to the arbitral tribunal, the latter shall grant the other party a short time limit, normally not exceeding 30 days, from the receipt of the application by that party, to submit any comments thereon. The arbitral tribunal shall submit its decision on the application in draft form to the Court not later than 30 days following the expiration of the time limit for the receipt of any comments from the other party or within such other period as the Court may decide.

3) A decision to correct or to interpret the award shall take the form of an addendum and shall constitute part of the award. The provisions of Articles 31, 33 and 34 shall apply mutatis mutandis.

19.
According to Article 35(2) of the ICC Rules, within 30 days from receipt of the Partial Award, a party may make a request for correction of the same type of errors mentioned in Article 35(1), i.e. "a clerical, computational or typographical error, or any errors of similar nature". In deciding upon such a request, the Arbitral Tribunal shall not review or revisit its legal reasoning, nor shall such a correction lead to a modification of the Tribunal's decision.2
20.
The Claimants' Request was filed within the 30-day time limit set out in Article 35(2) of the ICC Rules and the Respondent was provided the opportunity to comment on the Request. All necessary procedures have therefore been complied with prior to the issuance of this Addendum.

V. DECISION ON THE CLAIMANTS' APPLICATION

21.
The Claimants request clarification of the wording of two paragraphs of the Partial Award, namely paragraphs 986 and 1509. The two requested clarifications are discussed in further detail in Sections (B) and (C), below.
22.
The Claimants have also submitted a list of typographical and clerical errors identified in the Partial Award, which they request be corrected, as discussed further in Section (D), below.

B. Correction to Paragraph 986 of the Partial Award

23.
Paragraph 986 of the Partial Award states, in pertinent part:

[...] other contemporaneous evidence indicates that GUPC had identified the presence of swelling days (smectites) in the basalts from Ciricito and Cerro Escobar (neither located in the PLE but both on the Pacific side) as early as December 2007 and that Dr. Di Pace, who was working with MWH to prepare GUPC's tender, had recommended that ethylene glycol and x-ray diffraction tests be conducted on the basalts. It appears that GUPC did carry out some additional testing on the 1939 excavation basalt that showed 3.8% nontronite, also a swelling day.3 [Emphasis added.]

2. Claimants' Position

24.
In regard to the highlighted portion of paragraph 986 set out above, the Clamaints make the following comment:

Ciricito is not located on the Pacific side, but in Colon Province on the Atlantic side; see SOC, Ch. III, ¶ 552 ("GUPC's personnel also visited a quarry operated by CUSA in Ciricito, in the Province of Colón, towards the Atlantic side."). Claimants therefore request that the Tribunal clarify how this sentence should be phrased.4

3. Respondent's Position

25.
In its Response, the Respondent submitted the following comment regarding the Claimants' requested clarification:

The ACP agrees that Ciricito is located on the Atlantic side.5

4. Decision

26.
Based on the submissions of both Parties and the relevant reference to the file, the Arbitral Tribunal confirms that paragraph 986 of the Partial Award erroneously refers to Ciricito as being located on the Pacific side and requires correction.
27.
The text of paragraph 986 of the Partial Award is hereby corrected as follows:

Moreover, while the Claimants' witness, Mr. Buffa, gave evidence that these tests did not raise any concerns regarding the suitability of the basalt when crushed, other contemporaneous evidence indicates that GUPC had identified the presence of swelling days (smectites) in the basalts from Ciricito and Cerro Escobar (neither located in the PLE, but both the latter being located on the Pacific side) as early as December 2007 and that Dr. Di Pace, who was working with MWH to prepare GUPC's tender, had recommended that ethylene glycol and x-ray diffraction tests be conducted on the basalts. It appears that GUPC did carry out some additional testing on the 1939 excavation basalt that showed 3.8% nontronite, also a swelling day.

28.
Apart from the changes highlighted in red above, the text of paragraph 986 including the footnotes remain unchanged.

C. Correction to Paragraph 1509 of the Partial Award

29.
Paragraph 1509 of the Partial Award states:

The Claimants contend that, pursuant to Sub-Clause 8.4 [Extension of Time for Completion] of the Conditions of Contract, the Contractor is entitled to an Extension of Time of 202 days and compensation for the losses incurred as a result of the A CP's breaches of the Contract and of Panamanian law in relation to the concrete mix design ("CMD") for the Project, namely, the ACP's interference in the Contractor's CMD program, the ACP's wrongful rejection of compliant structural marine concrete ("b") mixes and prohibition on the Contractor proceeding with the placement of Structural Marine Concrete ("SMC"), and the ACP's instruction to use silica fume in the SMC mixes in May 201 7.6

2. Claimants' Position

30.
In regard to paragraph 1509, the Claimants request "that the Tribunal explain the meaning of "b" in this paragraph."7

3. Respondent's Position

31.
The Respondent has no comment on the requested clarification.8

4. Decision

32.
Having reviewed the relevant text, the Arbitral Tribunal concludes that paragraph 1509 of the Partial Award contains a typographical error and hereby corrects the text of paragraph 1509 as follows:

The Claimants contend that, pursuant to Sub-Clause 8.4 [Extension of Time for Completion] of the Conditions of Contract, the Contractor is entitled to an Extension of Time of 202 days and compensation for the losses incurred as a result of the A CP's breaches of the Contract and of Panamanian law in relation to the concrete mix design ("CMD") for the Project, namely, the ACP's interference in the Contractor's CMD program, the ACP's wrongful rejection of compliant structural marine concrete (b") Structural Marine Concrete ("SMC") mixes and prohibition on the Contractor proceeding with the placement o f Structural Marine Concrete (" SMC"), and the ACP's instruction to use silica fume in the SMC mixes in May 2011.

33.
Apart from the changes highlighted in red above, the text of paragraph 1509 including the footnotes remain unchanged.

D. Correction of Other Clerical and Typographical Errors

34.
Attached to the Claimants' Request was a list containing typographical and clerical errors identified by the Claimants in the Partial Award and the Claimants' proposed corrections. The Arbitral Tribunal agrees with all of the Claimants' proposed corrections, save for the following point.
35.
In its Response, the Respondent commented upon one of the proposed corrections to paragraph 641 of the Partial Award. The Arbitral Tribunal agrees with the Respondent that the word "supersed" should be corrected to "supersede" (and not "superseded", as proposed by the Claimants), which corresponds to the wording of Sub-Clause 1.16 [Entire Agreement] of the Conditions of Contract that is being cited.9
36.
Furthermore, the Arbitral Tribunal notes that in respect to paragraph 1159 of the Partial Award, in addition to replacing the word "was" by "were" as proposed by the Claimants, the word "and" should also be deleted, as indicated below:

The Claimants submit that the ACP also had contractual duties pursuant to Sub-Clause 4.10 [Site Data] of the Conditions of Contract, which required the ACP to provide GUPC with the GIR and as well as the geotechnical data in its possession that was were relevant to the Project, and which guaranteed (at Sub-Clause 4.10.3) the "sufficiency, suitability and completeness" of the ACP's "geotechnical characterization and interpretation" in the GIR of the physical conditions "to be encountered at and below the Foundation Level of each Lock Structure" in the "area inside the footprint of each Lock Structure" (thus, including the foundation conditions in the PLE).10

37.
All of these corrections are set out in the table contained in paragraph 38(iii) below.

E. Operative Part

38.
For the reasons set out above, the Arbitral Tribunal renders the following Addendum to the Partial Award, which shall form an integral part of the Final Award:

i. Paragraph 986 of the Partial Award is modified as follows:

Moreover, while the Claimants' witness, Mr. Buffa, gave evidence that these tests did not raise any concerns regarding the suitability of the basalt when crushed, other contemporaneous evidence indicates that GUPC had identified the presence of swelling days (smectites) in the basalts from Ciricito and Cerro Escobar (neither located in the PLE, but the latter being located on the Pacific side) as early as December 2007 and that Dr. Di Pace, who was working with MWH to prepare GUPC's tender, had recommended that ethylene glycol and x-ray diffraction tests be conducted on the basalts. It appears that GUPC did carry out some additional testing on the 1939 excavation basalt that showed 3.8% nontronite, also a swelling day.

[All internal footnotes are omitted and remain unchanged.]

ii. Paragraph 1509 of the Partial Award is modified as follows:

The Claimants contend that, pursuant to Sub-Clause 8.4 [Extension of Time for Completion] of the Conditions of Contract, the Contractor is entitled to an Extension of Time of 202 days and compensation for the losses incurred as a result of the A CP's breaches of the Contract and of Panamanian law in relation to the concrete mix design ("CMD") for the Project, namely, the ACP's interference in the Contractor's CMD program, the ACP's wrongful rejection of compliant Structural Marine Concrete ("SMC") mixes and prohibition on the Contractor proceeding with the placement of SMC, and the ACP's instruction to use silica fume in the SMC mixes in May 2011.

[All internal footnotes are omitted and remain unchanged.]

iii. The paragraphs of the Partial Award containing clerical and typographical errors as identitifed in the annex to the Claimants' Request are corrected as set out in the following table. All uncited portions of said paragraphs as well as any internal footnotes remain unchanged.

Paragraph/ pageOriginal textCorrected text
498 For all of these reason, the Arbitral Tribunal finds that [...] For all of these reasons, the Arbitral Tribunal finds that [...]
501 The Claimants assert that that the primary grounds for the claims [...] The Claimants assert that the primary grounds for the claims [...]
520.vi In accordance with this principle of contra proferentum [...]. [T]he application of the contra proferentum rule does not require [...] In accordance with this principle of contra proferentem [...]. [T]he application of the contra proferentem rule does not require [...]
521 Also, regarding the application of the contra proferentum rule to the Contract, [...] Also, regarding the application of the contra proferentem rule to the Contract, [...]
526 [...] including its corollaries venire contra factum proprium non valet, contra proferentum and legitimate reliance [...] [...] including its corollaries venire contra factum proprium non valet, contra proferentem and legitimate reliance [...]
527 [...] the nature and object of the contract, trade usages, and the contra proferentum rule [...] [...] the nature and object of the contract, trade usages, and the contra proferentem rule [...]
633 [...] Article 1139, which reflects the contra proferentum principle [...] in which case the contra proferentum rule would not apply. [...] Article 1139, which reflects the contra proferentem principle [...] in which case the contra proferentem rule would not apply.
641 1.13.3 The Contractor shall give all notices, [...] who shall then provide reasonable assistance to the Contractor in accordance with Sub-Clause 2.2 [Permis, Licenses or Approvals] to promptly [...] 1.13.3 The Contractor shall give all notices, [...] who shall then provide reasonable assistance to the Contractor in accordance with Sub-Clause 2.2 [Permits, Licenses or Approvals] to promptly [...]
641 1.16 The Contract and the documents incorporated herein [...] and the Contractor and supersed all prior negotiations, commitments, [...] expressly incorporated hereing[...] 1.16 The Contract and the documents incorporated herein [...] and the Contractor and supersede all prior negotiations, commitments, [...] expressly incorporated herein[...]
641 4.12.6 Save as expressly provided in this Sub-Clause 4.12, [...] or to any Milestone Date(s), arigin from, out of or in connection [...] 4.12.6 Save as expressly provided in this Sub-Clause 4.12, [...] or to any Milestone Date(s), arising from, out of or in connection [...]
641 5.1 The Contractor warrants and undertakes that he and all Subcontractors [...] at all reasonable times, untile the xpirey date of the relevant Defects Notification Period. 5.1 The Contractor warrants and undertakes that he and all Subcontractors [...] at all reasonable times, until the expiry date of the relevant Defects Notification Period.
641 8.4 (e) any delay, impediment or preention caused by or attributable to the Employer [...] 8.4 (e) any delay, impediment or prevention caused by or attributable to the Employer [...]
641 20.1 The Contractor [...] shall (if instructed) wubmit copies to the Employer's Representative... If the event or circumstance giving rise to the claim has a continuing effet [...] If the Contractor fails to copmlay with this or another Sub-Clause [...] 20.1 The Contractor [...] shall (if instructed) submit copies to the Employer's Representative [...]If the event or circumstance giving rise to the claim has a continuing effect [...] If the Contractor fails to comply with this or another Sub-Clause [...]
675 [...] assuring that it preparation is not done [...] [...] assuring that its preparation is not done [...]
756 The Claimants assert that GUPC's Tender was prepared in accordance with Prudent Industry Standards and was correctly based the requirement that the PLE Basalt be the main source of concrete aggregates for the Project. The Claimants assert that GUPC's Tender was prepared in accordance with Prudent Industry Standards and was correctly based on the requirement that the PLE Basalt be the main source of concrete aggregates for the Project.
808 [...] vi. Sub-Clause 5.1 [General Design Obligations]: [...] responsibility for the information contained in the Volume IV Documents [...] [...] vi. Sub-Clause 5.1 [General Design Obligations]: [...] responsibility for the information contained in the Volume VI Documents [...]
809 Moreover, and contrary to the Contractor's allegations, the Respondent states that the used of the PLE Basalt as the primary source of concrete aggregates [...] Moreover, and contrary to the Contractor's allegations, the Respondent states that the use of the PLE Basalt as the primary source of concrete aggregates [...]
856 The Respondent takes the position that a careful anaylsis of the geological forms and planning sheets submitted by the Claimants as evidence [...] The Respondent takes the position that a careful analysis of the geological forms and planning sheets submitted by the Claimants as evidence [...]
876 [...] no excess waste (when one compares what amount of waste was actually experienced with what should have been reasonably been expected). [...] no excess waste (when one compares what amount of waste was actually experienced with what should have been reasonably expected).
877 [...] and that the case put forth by the Contractor is very different the one that was made previously. [...] and that the case put forth by the Contractor is very different from the one that was made previously.
884 Mr. Piotr Versteele, who was Assistant Plant Manager at the Pacific Site from January to December 2010 and Plant Manager from December 2010 to August 2012 [...] Mr. Pieterjan Versteele, who was Assistant Plant Manager at the Pacific Site from January to December 2010 and Plant Manager from December 2010 to August 2012 [...]
P. 225 a. Requirements of Sub-Clause 1.9.4 of the Conditions of Contract b. Requirements of Sub-Clause 1.9.4 of the Conditions of Contract
P. 226 b. The Environmental Impact Study in the Employer's Requirements c. The Environmental Impact Study in the Employer's Requirements
953 That provision contains the contra proferentum rule of contract interpretation [...] That provision contains the contra proferentem rule of contract interpretation [...]
954 Applying the contra proferentum rule in this instance [...] Applying the contra proferentem rule in this instance [...]
P. 228 c. The errors alleged by the Contractor d. The errors alleged by the Contractor
P. 231 d. Discoverability of the errors by an experienced contractor exercising Prudent Industry Practices and due care e. Discoverability of the errors by an experienced contractor exercising Prudent Industry Practices and due care
1069 This being said, th majority also recognizes [...] This being said, the majority also recognizes [...]
1159 [...] which required the ACP to provide GUPC with the GIR and as well as the geotechnical data in its possession that was relevant to the Project. [...] which required the ACP to provide GUPC with the GIR as well as the geotechnical data in its possession that were relevant to the Project.
1166 [...] who estimates that a reasonable tender allowance would have be 20,588 m3 of lean concrete [...] [...] who estimates that a reasonable tender allowance would have been 20,588 m3 of lean concrete [...]
1203 [...] the Contractor's previous geotechnical expert in DAV Referral 13A was of the opinion that [...] [...] the Contractor's previous geotechnical expert in DAB Referral 13A was of the opinion that [...]
1232 The Respondent submits that the Contractor has not demonstrated any entitlement with respect to the foundation conditions claims, as further detailed further in the Respondent suggested section on quantum. The Respondent submits that the Contractor has not demonstrated any entitlement with respect to the foundation conditions claims, as detailed further in the section on quantum.
1241 The first was the borehole campaign carried out between March and October 2001, with a total of 110 boring drilled along the proposed alignments [...] Finally, in 2007, an additional 128 boring were drilled on the Pacific side. The first was the borehole campaign carried out between March and October 2001, with a total of 110 borings drilled along the proposed alignments [...] Finally, in 2007, an additional 128 borings were drilled on the Pacific side.
1292 [...] the Arbitral Tribunal shall therefore makes its own examination and determination. [...] the Arbitral Tribunal shall therefore make its own examination and determination.
1301 [...] and Mr. Tere Abadia of the ACP [...] [...] and Ms. Tere Abadia of the ACP [...]
1331 [...] takes the position that [Section 1.2 of the GIR (Purpose and Limitations] clearly directs [...] [...] takes the position that [Section 1.2 of the GIR (Purpose and Limitations)] clearly directs [...]
1355 Figure 5.10c of the GIR set out the shear strength [...] Figure 5.10c of the GIR sets out the shear strength [...]
1439 [...] the GIR's interpretation of the foundation conditions within the basalt reach of the PLE indicate that [...] [...] the GIR's interpretation of the foundation conditions within the basalt reach of the PLE indicates that [...]
1441 This information would lead a prudent Tenderer to expect some sheared basalt in the PLE, but still a very limited about based on the characterization of foundation level given in the GIR. This information would lead a prudent Tenderer to expect some sheared basalt in the PLE, but still a very limited amount based on the characterization of foundation level given in the GIR.
1526 [...] specifically addressed the issue of the ASTM C1202 testing and the fact that - in the absence of a test age prescribed by the ER - that an appropriate test age would be one year [...] [...] specifically addressed the issue of the ASTM C1202 testing and the fact that - in the absence of a test age prescribed by the ER —an appropriate test age would be one year [...]
1532 The Claimants submit that the 4 February 2011 submittal, which consisted of SMC mix S1 and S8, were submitted for use in the Upper Chamber The Claimants submit that the 4 February 2011 submittal, which consisted of SMC mix S1 and S8, was submitted for use in the Upper Chamber [...]
1565 [...] the Respondent sets out some key issues that it considers important for the Arbitral Tribunal, [...] which the Respondent contends all supports its case that the Contractor was not in a position [...] [...] the Respondent sets out some key issues that it considers important for the Arbitral Tribunal, [...] which the Respondent contends all support its case that the Contractor was not in a position [...]
1571 [...] the submittal of concrete mixes to the ACP was merely for the purpose of demonstrating that complaint mixes were being developed. [...] the submittal of concrete mixes to the ACP was merely for the purpose of demonstrating that compliant mixes were being developed.
1573 The APC decided to impose a 1000 Coulombs limit [...] The ACP decided to impose a 1000 Coulombs limit [...]
1585 [...] there were issues with the concrete mix designs that the APC should have raised earlier. [...] there were issues with the concrete mix designs that the ACP should have raised earlier.
1586 [...] the Contractor always retained full responsibility for carrying out the Works in compliance with the Contract and is precluded, by Section 01 41 16 of the Employer's Requirements, from [...] [...] the Contractor always retained full responsibility for carrying out the Works in compliance with the Contract and is precluded, by Section 01 42 16 of the Employer's Requirements, from [...]
1665 On 24 March 2010, the Contractor issued a Notice of Claim (Claim 13) [...] On 24 March 2011, the Contractor issued a Notice of Claim (Claim 13) [...]
1676 The APC responded to RFV 0068 on 6 June 2011. The ACP responded to RFV 0068 on 6 June 2011.
1689 [...] the Contractor informed the APC that it was submitting [...] [...] the Contractor informed the ACP that it was submitting [...]
1705 [...] unless and until such Determination has been revised in under Clause 20 [...] [...] unless and until such Determination has been revised under Clause 20 [...]
1734 1.04 ESIGN CRITERIA/SYSTEM DESCRIPTION AND PERFORMANCE 1.04 DESIGN CRITERIA/SYSTEM DESCRIPTION AND PERFORMANCE
1829 [...] project manager intending to ensure the independent and impartiality of such laboratories. [...] project manager intending to ensure the independence and impartiality of such laboratories.
1866 In this regard, the Arbitral Tribunal finds the evidence of the what the Tenderers submitted in their tenders to be particularly relevant. In this regard, the Arbitral Tribunal finds the evidence of what the Tenderers submitted in their tenders to be particularly relevant.
1885 While the Claimants argue that under Sub-Clause 3.4 [Determinations], the Employer's Representative should have... While the Claimants argue that under Sub-Clause 3.5 [Determinations], the Employer's Representative should have...
1912 [...] incorporate this data into the STADIUM service life model [...] [...] incorporate these data into the STADIUM service life model [...]
1916 [...] nor could it have poured structural concrete at the rates planned in the ABP at any point prior to 18 August 2011 (and possibility even thereafter [...] [...] nor could it have poured structural concrete at the rates planned in the ABP at any point prior to 18 August 2011 (and possibly even thereafter [...]
1932 In support of their position, the Claimants argue that the determination of EOTs is a separate and distinct exercise from the determination of delay damages, and that the Respondent is wrong to assert that it would be entitled to delay damages from the simple fact that of the Contractor not succeeding on its EOT claim. In support of their position, the Claimants argue that the determination of EOTs is a separate and distinct exercise from the determination of delay damages, and that the Respondent is wrong to assert that it would be entitled to delay damages from the simple fact of the Contractor not succeeding on its EOT claim.
1961 The Claimants submit that GUPC is therefore entitled to [...] i. Additional direct costs for the additional works in had to perform in relation to the production of concrete aggregates [...] The Claimants submit that GUPC is therefore entitled to [...] i. Additional direct costs for the additional works it had to perform in relation to the production of concrete aggregates [...]
1961 ii. Prologation costs corresponding to its EOT entitlement [...] ii. Prolongation costs corresponding to its EOT entitlement [...]
2027 As set out in Section XI above, the Arbitral Tribunal has determined that a reasonable tender allowance for lean concrete would have been 50 mm under regular conditions. As set out in Section XI above, the Arbitral Tribunal has determined that a reasonable tender allowance for lean concrete would have been 50 cm under regular conditions.
2046 [...] where shear zones were encountered but could not have been anticipated, the Contractor should have foreseen 50 mm of lean concrete. [...] where shear zones were encountered but could not have been anticipated, the Contractor should have foreseen 50 cm of lean concrete.
2056 [...] in light of the Tribunal's determination that a reasonable tender allowance would in fact have been 50 mm [...] [...] in light of the Tribunal's determination that a reasonable tender allowance would in fact have been 50 cm [...]
2056 Mr. Hunter calculates this deduction using a lean concrete volume of 325 m3 (based on a reasonable tender allowance of 25mm) [...] Both experts base their calculation on a tender allowance of 25mm [...] Mr. Hunter calculates this deduction using a lean concrete volume of 325 m3 (based on a reasonable tender allowance of 25cm) [...] Both experts base their calculation on a tender allowance of 25cm [...]
2104 The Claimants also contend that the during the pre-tender and tender stages [...] The Claimants also contend that during the pre-tender and tender stages [...]
2108 [...] caused the Project to suffer delays and additional costs, in particular in relation the ACP's consistent failure to issue fair determinations [...] caused the Project to suffer delays and additional costs, in particular in relation to the ACP's consistent failure to issue fair determinations [...]
2188 671. With regard to [...] The slide then listed the contribution of five financing institutions in the amount of USO 2.3 billion and the amount to be funded by the ACP, i.e., USO 2.95 billion, for a total of USO 5.25 Billion. 669. With regard to [...] The slide then listed the contribution of five financing institutions in the amount of USD 2.3 billion and the amount to be funded by the ACP, i.e., USD 2.95 billion, for a total of USD 5.25 Billion.
Fn. 460 DIEZ DE PICAZO, Fundamento de Derecho Civil Patrimonial I, Introducción Teoría del Contracto, 6th Ed., Thomson Civitas [C-LA-0092, pp. 7-8]. DIÉZ DE PICAZO, Fundamento de Derecho Civil Patrimonial I, Introducción Teoría del Contrato, 6th Ed., Thomson Civitas [C-LA-0092, pp. 7-8].
Fn. 952 C-EX-26, Shilston II, Ch. 26 34 C-EX-26, Shilston II, Ch. 6 34
Fn. 1856 Exhibit C-0477 Exhibit R-0477

iv. All other applications and/or requests for relief are dismissed.

Citations postérieures de ce document dans sa totalité :
Citations postérieures de cet extrait :
Cliquez sur le texte pour sélectionner un élément Cliquez ailleurs pour désélectionner un élément
Sélectionner un mot clé :
1 /

Accédez instantanément à la jurisprudence, aux traités et à la doctrine les plus pertinents.

Commencez votre période d'essai

Déjà enregistré ?