GUPC v. ACP (II) (Concrete Arbitration), Partial Award, 21 sept. 2020

DEFINED TERMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
I. THE PARTIES AND THEIR REPRESENTATIVES
A. The Claimants
B. The Respondent
II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY
III. THE ARBITRATION AGREEMENTS
IV. APPLICABLE LAW
A. Procedure
B. Merits
V. FACTUAL BACKGROUND TO THE DISPUTE
A. The Panama Canal Expansion Project
B. The Tender
C. The Parties' Agreements
D. Proceedings before the DAB
E. ARBITRATION PROCEEDINGS
VI. STRUCTURE OF THE AWARD AND ISSUES TO BE DECIDED
VII. EVIDENTIARY ISSUES
VIII. ISSUE PRECLUSION
A. Respondent's Position
B. Claimants' position
C. ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL’S DETERMINATION
IX. THE LEGAL AND CONTRACTUAL FRAMEWORK
A. Claimants' Position
1. Legal and contractual framework
2. Applicable rules of contract interpretation
3. Allocations of risk and exculpatory clauses
4. ACP's legal and contractual duties
B. Respondent’s Position
1. Legal and contractual framework
2. Applicable rules of contract interpretation
3. Allocations of risk and exculpatory clauses
4. ACP's legal and contractual duties
5. Civil liability under Panamanian law
C. Arbitral Tribunal's Determination
1. The legal framework applicable to the ACP and its contracts
2. The rules of contract interpretation under Panamanian law
3. The Parties’ rights and obligations under the Contract
a. The key contractual provisions
b. The nature of the Contract
c. The contractually agreed allocations of risk and limitations of liability
d. The Parties' duties under Panamanian law
e. The integration of legal duties into the Contract
X. CONCRETE AGGREGATE PRODUCTION
A. Claimants’ Position
1. The use of the PLE Basalt as a "fundamental datum"
2. GUPC's Tender and crushing plant design
3. Degradation of the basalt
4. Error in the Employers' Requirements
5. Entitlement under Article 1345 of the Civil Code
6. Breaches of duties under Panamanian law
7. Gross negligence
8. Alleged allocations of risk and exclusions/limitations of liability
9. Damages
a. Modifications to the crushing plants
b. Increased waste and re-excavation due to unsuitability of basalt
10.Notice of Claim and Determination
B. Respondent's Position
1. Allocations of risk and responsibilities under the Contract
2. Error in the Employer's Requirements
3. Article 1345 of the Civil Code⁶⁶⁹
4. Alleged breaches of duties under Panamanian law
5. Alleged (gross) negligence
6. Alleged degradation theory
7. Modifications to crushing plants
8. Alleged waste and re-excavation of basalt
9. Notice of Claim and Determination
C. Arbitral Tribunal's Determination
1. The problems encountered by the Contractor when crushing the excavated basalt and the ACP’s case on contamination
2. Are the Contractor's claims excluded under Sub-Clause 4.12.6 of the Conditions of Contract?
3. Are the Contractor's claims excluded under Sub-Clause 4.20 [Employer's Equipment andFree-lssue Material] of the Conditions of Contract and Paragraph 1.07 of Section 01 50 00 of the Employer’s Requirements concerning "Borrow Material and Available Aggregates"?
4. Is the Contractor entitled to compensation for errors in the Employer's Requirements pursuant to Sub-Clause 1.9.4 [Errors in the Employer's Requirements]?
a. Notice and time-bar
a. Requirements of Sub-Clause 1.9.4 of the Conditions of Contract
b. The Environmental Impact Study in the Employer's Requirements
c. The errors alleged by the Contractor
d. Discoverability of the errors by an experienced contractor exercising Prudent Industry Practices and due care
5. Is the Contractor entitled to compensation for the increase in price due to a necessary change to the foreplan under Article 1345 of the Civil Code?
6. Is the Contractor entitled to compensation due to the ACP's alleged breach of its duties arising under Panamanian law?
a. The alleged "fundamental datum" regarding the use of the PLE Basalt for the production of concrete aggregates
b. Alleged breach of the duty to plan
c. Alleged breach of the duty to inform
d. Alleged breach of the duty to act in good faith
e. Alleged (gross) negligence
7. Conclusions
XI. FOUNDATION CONDITIONS WITHIN THE BASALT REACH OF THE PLE
A. Claimants' Position
1. Sub-Clause 4.12
a. More adverse conditions
b. Unforeseeability
2. Sub-Clause 4.10 and Panamanian law
3. Additional costs/Damages
4. Notice of Claim and Determination
B. Respondent's Position
1. Sub-Clause 4.12
2. Unforeseeability
a. The Aguadulce Fault Zone, Lock Head 1 fault and West Inlet Wing Wall fault
b. The basalt reach of the PLE
c. Contractor's excavation methods
3. Sub-Clause 4.10 and Panamanian law
4. Additional costs/Damages
5. Notice of Claim and Determination
C. ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL’S DETERMINATION
1. Key contractual provisions
2. Relevant Facts
3. Is the Contractor entitled to compensation under Sub-Clause 4.12 [Unforeseeable Physical Conditions] of the Conditions of Contract?
a. The requirements under Sub-Clause 4.12
(i) Element (v): Did the ACP make a geotechnical characterization or interpretation in the GIR?
1. Scope and purpose of the GIRs
2. The Plates
3. The ACP Soil and Rock Classification Scheme
(ii) Element (vi): "more adverse to the Contactor"
(iii) Element (vii): Were the physical conditions Unforeseeable?
b. The Contractor’s claims
(i) Aguadulce Fault Zone (Claim 50)
(ii) Lock Head 1 Fault (Claim 57)
(iii) Inlet Wing Wall Fault Zone (Claim 47(ii))
(iv) The Basalt Reach of the PLE (Claim 47(i))
1. Shear zones
2. Laminations
3. Smectite in-fill
4. Causation
4. In the alternative, is the Contractor entitled to damages for (i) the ACP's alleged breach of the warranty given under Sub-Clause 4.10 [Site Data] of the Conditions of Contract, and/or (ii) the ACP’s alleged breaches of its duties under Panamanian law?
5. Conclusions
XII. CONCRETE MIX DESIGN
A. Claimants' position
1. The Contract and Employer's Requirements on concrete mix design submittals
2. Technical design specifications for SMC
3. The Contractor's CMD program
4. Concrete Mix Design Submittals
5. The ACP's breaches
a. ACP's rejection of February 2011 Submittal and prohibition against SMC placement
b. ACP's interference with the CMD program
c. ACP's instruction to use silica fume
d. Additional grounds for entitlements
6. Extension of Time and additional costs
7. Notice of Claim
B. Respondent's Position
1. The Contractor's claims are time-barred for lack of Notice
2. The Employer's Requirements concerning concrete mix design
3. The Contractor's CMD program and mix design submittals
4. Alleged breach of Sub-Clause 5.2 [Contractor's Documents]
5. Alleged Variation under Clause 13
6. Other alleged breaches
7. Causation
C. Arbitral Tribunal's Determination
1. Key contractual provisions
2. Relevant Facts
3. Notice and time-bar
4. Did the ACP wrongfully interfere with the Contractor's C oncrete Mix Design program in breach of Sub-Clause 5.2 of the Conditions of Contract?
a. The contractual requirements concerning Final Design submittals
b. Design criteria for Structural Marine Concrete
c. Did the ACP wrongfully interfere with GUPC's concrete development program by requiring additional tests of the Miraflores salinity levels in December 2010 and by not accepting accelerated curing of the concrete samples? Did this amount to a Variation of the Contract under Clause 13?
d. Did the ACP wrongfully interfere with GUPC's concrete development program by prohibiting the start of SMC placement and rejecting the Contractor's February 2011 Submittal in breach of Sub-Clause 5.2, or subsequently with the rejection of the Contractor's submittals in March 2011 and May 2011?
5. In the alternative, was the ACP’s rejection of the Contractor's February 2011 Submittal a Variation under Clause 13 of the Conditions of Contract?
6. Did the ACP instruct the Contractor to use silica fume in its Concrete Mix Design and if so, was such instruction a Variation under Clause 13 of the Conditions of Contract?
7. By its conduct, did the ACP breach the Employer's Requirements concerning the OTS process, as well as the Sub-Clause 3.5 of the Conditions of Contract and its duties of good faith, loyalty and cooperation under Panamanian law?
8. Conclusions
XIII. ON-SITE LABORATORIES
A. Claimants' Position
1. Key contractual provisions
2. The Parties' understanding of the contractual requirements
3. ACP’s change of position and instruction to use third-party subcontractor
4. GUPC’s entitlement
B. Respondents Position
1. Key contractual provisions
2. Interpretation of the contractual requirements
3. Alleged Variation
4. Other alleged breaches
5. Alleged entitlements and counterclaim
C. Arbitral Tribunal's determination
1. The relevant contractual provisions
2. The factual background to the Contractor's claim
3. Was the Contractor required to use a third-party to establish and/or operate its on-Site laboratories?
4. Is the Contractor entitled to compensation for the Variation instructed by the ACP?
5. Did the ACP breach its alleged duty to treat the Contractor equitably and compensate it fairly for the Variation
6. Conclusions
XIV. GUPC'S CLAIM FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME
A. GUPC's Position
1. Ms. Ramey's Delay Analysis
2. Mr. Harvey's Delay Analysis
3. Other delays to Project
4. DAB Extension of Time cannot be reduced
B. Respondent's position
1. Alleged 5-week delay
2. Ms. Ramey's Delay Analysis
3. Mr. Harvey's Delay Analysis
4. Other concurrent delays
5. Extension of Time granted by the DAB
C. Arbitral Tribunal's Determination
XV. RESPONDENTS CLAIM FOR DELAY DAMAGES
A. Respondent's Position
B. Claimants' Position
C. Arbitral Tribunal's Determination
XVI. GUPC'S CLAIM FOR DAMAGES AND RESPONDENTS COUNTERCLAIM
A. Claimants' Position
B. RESPONDENTS POSITION
C. ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL'S DETERMINATION
1. Damages under the Contract and Panamanian law
2. Contractor's claims for indirect costs
a. Overheads on direct costs
b. ITBMS
c. Profit
d. Finance costs
e. Labor escalation
3. Contractor's damages: Foundation Conditions
a. Claim 47
b. Claim 50
c. Claim 57
d. Overheads on direct costs
4. Contractor's damages: On-Site Laboratories
5. Respondent's counterclaim for repayment of amounts awarded by DAB
6. Respondent's counterclaim for interest
7. Respondent's request for declaratory relief
XVII. CLAIMANTS 2-4’S CLAIM FOR DAMAGES
A. Claimants' Position
1. Background to Shareholders' claims
2. ACP's alleged breaches
3. Damages
B. Respondent's position
1. Alleged pre-contractual representations
2. The alleged breaches
3. The alleged damages
C. ARBITRAL TRIBUNAL'S DETERMINATION
1. Jurisdiction and standing
2. Claimant 4
3. The nature of the Joint and Several Guarantee and the ACP's obligations under Panamanian law
4. The alleged breaches
5. Damages
XVIII. COSTS
XIX. OPERATIVE PART

Partial Award

DEFINED TERMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

Abbreviation(s)	Definition(s)
2006 Proposal	ACP's Proposal for the Expansion of the Panama Canal
AAA	Assignment and Acceptance Agreement dated 31 May 2010
ABP	Accepted Baseline Programme
Accepted Baseline Programme	Contractor's Baseline Programme
ACI	American Concrete Institute
ACP	Autoridad del Canal de Panama
Additional Advances	Additional Advance Payments
Advance Payments Arbitration	ICC Case No. 22588
AFZ	Aguadulce Fault Zone
ANAM	National Authority of the Environment
ASCE	American Society of Civil Engineers
ICE	Institution of Civil Engineers
ASTM	Amercian Society for Testing and Materials
ATL	Atlantic
BTM	Consortia Bechtel, Taisei, Mitshubishi Corporation
C.A.N.A.L.	Consorcia C.A.N.A.L.
C-...	Claimants’ Factual Exhibits
CD	Calendar Day
C-EX-1/Hoyos I	First Expert Report of Dr. Arturo Hoyos
C-EX-2/Hoyos II	Second Expert Report of Dr. Arturo Hoyos
C-EX-3/Hart I	First Expert Report of Mr. Timothy H. Hart
C-EX-4.1/Hart II	Second Expert Report of Mr. Timothy H. Hart
C-EX-4.2/Hoyos III	Third Expert Report of Dr. Arturo Hoyos
C-EX-5/Shilston I	First Expert Report of Mr. David Shilston
C-EX-6/Hoyos IV	Fourth Expert Report of Dr. Arturo Hoyos
C-EX-7/Gold 1	First Expert Report of Mr. Greg Gold
C-EX-8/Mindess I	First Expert Report of Professor Sidney Mindess
C-EX-9/Nilsson I	First Expert Report of Professor Lars-Olof Nilsson
C-EX-10/Hunter I	First Expert Report of Mr. Martin Hunter
C-EX-11/Ramey I	First Expert Report of Ms. Marianne Ramey
C-EX-12/Coates I	First Expert Report of Professor John C. Coates IV
C-EX-13/Hart III	Third Expert Report of Mr. Timothy H. Hart
C-EX-14/Awad I	First Expert Report of Mr. Khaled W. Awad
C-EX-15/Coates II	Second Expert Report of Professor John C. Coates IV
C-EX-16/D’Ambrosiavou I	First Expert Report of Dr. Matthew Dominick D’Ambrosiavou
C-EX-17/Gold II	Second Expert Report of Mr. Greg Gold
C-EX-18/Hart IV	Fourth Expert Report of Mr. Timothy H. Hart
C-EX-19/Hoyos V	Fifth Expert Report of Dr. Arturo Hoyos
C-EX-20/Hunter II	Second Expert Report of Mr. Martin Hunter
C-EX-21/Mindess II	Second Expert Report of Professor Sidney Mindess
C-EX- 22/Morales Moreno I	First Expert Report of Dr. Antonio Manuel Morales Moreno
C-EX-23/Nilsson II	Second Expert Report of Professor Lars-Olof Nilsson
C-EX-24/Poston I	First Expert Report of Dr. Randall Poston
C-EX-25/Ramey II	Second Expert Report of Ms. Marianne Ramey
C-EX-26/Shilston II	Second Expert Report of Mr. David Shilston
C-EX-27/Suárez Barrios/Garcia Romero I	First Expert Report of Professor Mercedes Suarez Barrios and Professor Emilia Garcia Romero
C-EX-28/Troyano Peña I	First Expert Report of Mr. José Andrés Troyano Peña
C-EX-29/Wallace/Aimone-Martin I	First Expert Report of Mr. Jerry Wallace and Dr. Catherine Aimone-Martin
C-EX-30/Hoyos VI	Sixth Expert Report of Dr. Arturo Hoyos
C-EX-31/Ramey III	Third Expert Report of Ms. Marianne Ramey
CICP	GUPC's Project Designer
CIQP	Construction and Installation Quality Plan
C-LA-...	Claimants' Legal Authorities
Claimants	Grupo Unidos por el Canal, S.A., Sacyr, S.A., Webuild, S.p.A. (formerly Salini-lmpregilo, S.p.A.) and Jan De Nul, N.V.
Claimants’ First PHB-...	Claimants' First Post-Hearing Brief dated 31 May 2019
Claimants' Reply PHB-...	Claimants' Second Post-Hearing Brief dated 26 July 2019
CMC	Case Management Conference
CMD	Concrete Mix Design
Cofferdam Arbitration	ICC Arbitration Case No. 19962
CONF-R-....	Respondent's Confidential Factual Exhibits
Constitution	Constitution of the Republic of Panama
Contractor	Grupo Unidos por el Canal, S.A.
CPP	Consorcio Post-Panamax
CQAM	Construction Quality Assurance Manager
CQCM	Construction Quality Control Manager
CUSA	Constructors Urbana S.A.
C-WS-1/Möder I	First Witness Statement of Mr. Paolo Möder
C-WS-2/Loureda I	First Witness Statement of Mr. José Manuel Loureda López
C-WS-3/Desiati I	First Witness Statement of Mr. Dino Desiati
C-WS-4/Zaffaroni I	First Witness Statement of Mr. Antonio Maria Zaffaroni
C-WS-5/Desiati II	Second Witness Statement of Mr. Dino Desiati
C-WS-6/Möder II	Second Witness Statement of Mr. Paolo Möder
C-WS-7/Lievens 1	First Witness Statement of Mr. Paul Lievens
C-WS-8/Möder III	Third Witness Statement of Mr. Paolo Möder
C-WS-9/Desiali III	Third Witness Statement of Mr. Dino Desiati
C-WS-10/Lievens II	Second Witness Statement of Mr. Paul Lievens
C-WS-11/Ferrari I	First Witness Statement of Mr. Massimo Ferrari
C-WS-12/Escudero I	First Witness Statement of Mr. Pablo Otero Escudero
C-WS-13/Möder IV	Fourth Witness Statement of Mr. Paolo Möder
C-WS-14/Baz I	First Witness Statement of Ms. Maria Ascensión Baz
C-WS-15/Buffa I	First Witness Statement of Mr. Alberto Buffa
C-WS-16/Marchand I	First Witness Statement of Dr. Jacques Marchand
C-WS-17/Ottsen I	First Witness Statement of Mr. Christopher E. Ottsen
C-WS-18/Pelaez I	First Witness Statement of Mr. José Pelaez
C-WS-19/Schrader I	First Witness Statement of Dr. Ernest K. Schrader
C-WS-20/Valiante I	First Witness Statement of Mr. Nicola Valiante
C-WS-21/Zaffaroni II	Second Witness Statement of Mr. Antonio Maria Zaffaroni
C-WS-22/Gath I	First Witness Statement of Mr. Eldon Gath
C-WS-23/Loureda II	Second Witness Statement of Mr. José Manuel Loureda López
C-WS-24/Möder V	Fifth Witness Statement of Mr. Paolo Möder
C-WS-25/Lievens III	Third Witness Statement of Mr. Paul Lievens
C-WS-26/Baz II	Second Witness Statement of Ms. María Ascensión Baz
C-WS-27/Buffa II	Second Witness Statement of Mr. Alberto Buffa
C-WS-28/Casas I	First Witness Statement of Mr. Alberto Casas
C-WS-29/Corbella I	First Witness Statement of Mr. Claudio Corbella
C-WS-30/Davis I	First Witness Statement of Mr. Andrew Davis
C-WS-31/Desiati IV	Fourth Witness Statement of Mr. Dino Desiati
C-WS-32/Gath II	Second Witness Statement of Mr. Eldon Gath
C-WS-33/Hillebrenner I	First Witness Statement of Mr. Gregory Hillebrenner
C-WS-34/Lampiano I	First Witness Statement of Mr. Mario Lampiano
C-WS-36/Lopez I	First Witness Statement of Mr. Manuel Lopez
C-WS-37/Loureda III	Third Witness Statement of Mr. José Manuel Loureda López
C-WS-38/Marchand II	Second Witness Statement of Dr. Jacques Marchand
C-WS-39/Möder VI	Sixth Witness Statement of Mr. Paolo Möder
C-WS-40/Ottsen II	Second Witness Statement of Mr. Christopher Ottsen
C-WS-41/Pelaez II	Second Witness Statement of Mr. José Pelaez
C-WS-42/Romiti I	First Witness Statement of Mr. Paolo Romiti
C-WS-43/Schrader II	Second Witness Statement of Dr. Ernest K. Schrader
C-WS-44/ Valiante II	Second Witness Statement of Mr. Nicola Valiante
C-WS-45/Van Impe I	First Witness Statement of Mr. Etienne Van Impe
C-WS-46/Versteele I	First Witness Statement of Mr. Pieterjan Versteele
C-WS-47/Zaffaroni III	Third Witness Statement of Mr. Antonio Maria Zaffaroni
C-WS-48/Marchand III	Third Witness Statement of Dr. Jacques Marchand
DAB	Dispute Adjudication Board
DBM	Design Basic Memorandum
EA-...	Respondent's Factual Exhibits of the Response to the Claimants' Emergency Application for Interim Measures
EA-L-...	Respondent's Legal Authorities of the Response to the Claimants' Emergency Application for Interim Measures
EBIT	Earnings before Interest and Tax
ECI	Earth Consultants International

EDL	El Derecho legislation database
Emergency Application	Emergency Application for Interim Measures
EOT	Extension of Time
EPC	Engineering. Procurement and Construction
ER	Employer’s Requirements
EslA	Environmental Impact Study
Extended Period	The extended period of Fall Line's engagement during delays on the Project
FAA	United States Federal Arbitration Act
Fall Line	Fall Line Testing and Inspection Panama, S. de R.L.
FIDIC	International Federation of Consulting Engineers (Fédération Internationale des Ingénieurs Conseils)
First Claimant	Grupo Unidos por el Canal, S.A.
Fourth Claimant	Jan De Nul, N.V.
GAA	Guarantor Arbitration Agreement dated 1 August 2014
GBR	Geotechnical Baseline Report
GDR	Geotechnical Data Report
General Administrative Law	Law 38 of 2000
GIR	Geotechnical Interpretative Report
GR	Geotechnical Report
GSI	Geological Strength Index
GUPC S.A.	Grupo Unidos por el Canal, S.A.
IBA Rules	2010 IBA Rules on the Taking of Evidence in International Commercial Arbitration
IBC	International Building Code
ICC International Court of Arbitration	International Court of Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce
ICC Rules	ICC Rules of Arbitration dated 1 January 2012
Initial Advances	Original Contract Advance Payments
ITBMS	Impuesto a las transferencias de bienes corporales muebles y la prestacion de servicios
ITT	Instructions to Tenderers
Jan De Nul	Jan De Nul, N.V.
JSG	Joint and Several Guarantee dated 31 May 2010
Law 19	Law No. 19 of 11 June 1997
Law 22	Law 22 of 27 June 2007/General Public Contracting Law
LMC	Locks Middle Chamber
LUC	Locks Upper Chamber
MOU	Memorandum of Understanding
MU	Monthly Update
MUs	Monthly Program Updates
MWH	Montgomery Watson Harza
Neutrality Treaty	Treaty Concerning the Permanent Neutrality and Operation of the Panama Canal concluded between the United States and Panama in 1997
New York Convention	New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards
OTS	Over-the-Shoulder
PAC	Pacific
PHB	Post-Hearing Brief
Phone Hearing	Telephone Conference of 21 December 2016
PLE	Pacific Locks Excavation
PLE Basalt	The basalt excavated from the Pacific Locks Excavation
PQA	Patchwork Quilt Analysis
Project	Project for the design and construction of the Third Set of Locks
QA	Quality Assurance
QC	Quality Control
QMS	Quality-Management System
R-...	Respondent's Factual Exhibits
Regulation	Reglamento de Contrataciones de la Autoridad delCanal de Panama of 4 October 1999
REJ-...	Respondent's Rejoinder dated 15 October 2018
Respondent	Autoridad del Canal de Panama
Respondent's First	Respondent's Post-Hearing Brief dated 31 May 2019
Respondent's Reply PHB-...	ACP’s Reply Post-Hearing Brief dated 26 July 2019
R-EX-1/MacGregor I	First Expert Report of Mr. Gervase MacGregor
R-EX-/2MacGregor II	Second Expert Report of Mr. Gervase MacGregor
R-EX-3/Del Moral I	First Expert Report of Professor Octavio Del Moral
R-EX-4/Dance I	First Expert Report of Mr. Adrian Dance
R-EX-5/Del Moral II	Second Expert Report of Professor Octavio Del Moral
R-EX-6/Fuchs I	First Expert Report of Mr. Jeff Fuchs
R-EX-7/Hammond I	First Expert Report of Mr. Charles Hammond
R-EX-8/Harvey I	First Expert Report of Mr. Don Harvey
R-EX-9/Hooton I	First Expert Report of Professor Doug Hooton
R-EX-10/Konya I	First Expert Report of Dr. Calvin Konya
R-EX-11/Kuper I	First Expert Report of Mr. Tom Kuper
R-EX-12/Lewis I	First Expert Report of Mr. Paul Lewis
R-EX-13/MacGregor III	Third Expert Report of Mr. Gervase MacGregor
R-EX-15/McCall I	First Expert Report of Mr. Calvin McCall
R-EX-16/Pauletto I	First Expert Report of Mr. Mike Pauletto
R-EX-17/Rothstein I	First Expert Report of Dr. David Rothstein
R-EX-18/Dance II	Second Expert Report of Mr. Adrian Dance
R-EX-19/Del Moral III	Third Expert Report of Professor Octavio Del Moral
R-EX-20/Fuchs II	Second Expert Report of Mr. Jeff Fuchs
R-EX-21/Hammond II	Second Expert Report of Mr. Charles Hammond
R-EX-22/Harvey II	Second Expert Report of Mr. Don Harvey
R-EX-23/Hooton II	Second Expert Report of Professor Doug Hooton
R-EX-24/Konya II	Second Expert Report of Dr. Calvin Konya
R-EX-25/Kuper II	Second Expert Report of Mr. Tom Kuper
R-EX-26/Lewis II	Second Expert Report of Mr. Paul Lewis
R-EX-27/MacGregor IV	Fourth Expert Report of Mr. Gervase MacGregor
R-EX-28/McCall II	Second Expert Report of Mr. Calvin McCall
R-EX-29/Pauletto II	Second Expert Report of Mr. Mike Pauletto
R-EX-30/Rothstein II	Second Expert Report of Dr. David Rothstein
RFP	Request for Proposals
RFQ	Request for Qualifications
RFV	Request for Variation
R-LA-...	Respondent's Legal Authorities
ROI	Return on Investment
RRSOC	Contractor's Response to the Employer's RSOC
RSOC	Response to Statement of Case
R-WS-1/Pulice I	First Witness Statement of Agenor Correa Pulice
R-WS-2/Miguez I	First Witness Statement of Mr. Francisco Miguez
R-WS-3/Miguez II	Second Witness Statement of Mr. Francisco Miguez
R-WS-4/Quijano I	First Witness Statement of Mr. Jorge Quijano
R-WS-4A/Pulice II	Second Witness Statement of Agenor Correa Pulice
R-WS-5/Aleman I	First Witness Statement of Mr. Alberto Aleman
R-WS-6/Quijano II	Second Witness Statement of Mr. Jorge Quijano
R-WS-7/Miguez III	Third Witness Statement of Mr. Francisco Miguez
R-WS-8/George I	First Witness Statement of Ms. Cheryl George
R-WS-9/Belken I	First Witness Statement of Mr. Loren Belken
R-WS-10/Coronado I	First Witness Statement of Ms. Maurylis Coronado
R-WS-11/Di Pace I	First Witness Statement of Dr, Guillermo Di Pace
R-WS-12/lrving I	First Witness Statement of Mr. Derek Irving
R-WS-13/Lorenzo I	First Witness Statement of Mr. Miguel Lorenzo
R-WS-14/McLean I	First Witness Statement of Mr. Carlos McLean
R-WS-15/Montanari I	First Witness Statement of Mr. Rick Montanari
R-WS-16/Ritter I	First Witness Statement of Mr. Jorge Eduardo Ritter
R-WS-17/Aleman II	Second Witness Statement of Mr. Alberto Aleman
R-WS-18/Quijano III	Third Witness Statement of Mr. Jorge Quijano
R-WS-19/Miguez IV	Fourth Witness Statement of Mr. Francisco Miguez
R-WS-20/George II	Second Witness Statement of Ms. Cheryl George
R-WS-21/Belken II	Second Witness Statement of Mr. Loren Belken
R-WS-22/Coronado II	Second Witness Statement of Ms. Maurylis Coronado
R-WS-23/Di Pace II	Second Witness Statement of Dr. Guillermo Di Pace
R-WS-24/lrving II	Second Witness Statement of Mr. Derek Irving
R-WS-25/Lorenzo II	Second Witness Statement of Mr. Miguel Lorenzo
R-WS-26/McLean II	Second Witness Statement of Mr. Carlos McLean
R-WS-27/Montanari II	Second Witness Statement of Mr. Riziero Montanari
R-WS-28/Thatcher I	First Witness Statement of Mr. Robert Thatcher
R-WS-29/Hall I	First Witness Statement of Dr. Robert Hall
Sacyr	Sacyr. S.A.
Second Claimant	Sacyr, S.A.
SIMCO	SIMCO Technologies Inc.
SMC	Structural Marine Concrete
SOC	Claimants' Statement of Claim dated 19 June 2017
SOD	Respondent's Statement of Defence dated 18 December 2017
SOR	Claimants’ Statement of Reply dated 3 June 2018
The Contract	Contract Agreement of 11 August 2009
The February 2011 Submittal	Submittal No. 03 30 00-023 - Technical Report - Final Concrete Types and Mixes for Pacific and Atlantic Sites dated 4 February 2011
The March 2011 Submittal	Submittal No. 03 30 00-023 rev 2, Technical Report -Final Concrete Types and Mixes for Pacific and Atlantic Sites dated 10 March 2011
The May 2011 Submittal	Submittal No. 03 30 00-139 Technical Report - Report on Final Concrete Types and Mixes for Low Salinity Areas dated 4 May 2011
The Parties' Agreements	The Contract, the AAA, the JSG and the GAA
Third Claimant	Webuild S.p.A. (formerly Salini-lmpregilo, S.p.A)
Tr.	Transcript
TSLP	The Third Set of Locks Project
UFGS	United Facilities Guide Specifications
Unforeseeable	As defined in Sub-Clause 1.1.6.42 of the Conditions of Contract, not reasonably foreseeable by a Contractor exercising Prudent Industry Practices by the date established for submission of Tenders.
Variation	As defined in Sub-Clause 1.1.6.43 of the Conditions of Contract, any change to the Employer’s Requirements or the Works, which is instructed or approved as a variation under Clause 13 [Variations and Adjustments].
VO	Variation Order
WACC	Weighted Average Cost of Capital
WIWW	Western Inlet Wing Wall
WPR	Work Procedure
WS	Witness Statement

I. THE PARTIES AND THEIR REPRESENTATIVES

A. The Claimants

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

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

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

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

The First, Second, Third and Fourth Claimants are jointly and collectively referred to as the "Claimants".

The Claimants are represented in this Arbitration by:

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

Mr. Phillip Capper
Mr. Nicolas Bouchardie
Ms. Alexandra Guilbault
Ms. Angélica André
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
aguilbault@whitecase.com
aandre@whitecase.com

Prof. Antonio Crivellaro
Prof. Andrea Carlevaris
Mr. Giovanni Minuto
Mr. Paolo Daino
Mr. Paolo Di Giovanni
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.carlevaris@belex.com
giovanni.minuto@belex.com
paolo.daino@belex.com
paolo.digiovanni@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. 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. Elliott Geisinger
Mr. Christopher Boog
Schellenberg Wittmer Ltd.
15bis, rue des Alpes, P.O. Box 2088
1211 Geneva 1
Switzerland
Emails: elliott.geisinger@swlegal.ch
christopher.boog@swlegal.ch
SW_GUPC_2_0910@swlegal.ch

B. The Respondent

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:

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. Amir Ghaffari
Tel.: +44 207 065 60 76
Email: aghaffari@velaw.com

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

Ms. Justine Moxham
Tel.: +44 207 065 61 76
Email: jmoxham@velaw.com

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

Ms. Georgina Barlow
Tel.: +44 207 065 60 52
Email: gbarlowvelaw.com

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

Ms. Louise Woods
Tel.: +44 207 065 60 52
Email: lwoods@velaw.com

Ms. Sophia Burton
Tel.: +44 207 065 60 18
Email: sburton@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

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: gfisher@mayerbrown.com

ACP Section for Legal Advice on Contracts, Canal Expansion Program Edificio
739, Corozal Oeste,
Panama,
Republic of Panama
Attention: Agenor Correa
Tel.: +507 276 12 26
Email: acorrea@pancanal.com

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

II. PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On 17 March 2015, the Claimants filed a Request for Arbitration with the Secretariat of the International Court of Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce (hereinafter "ICC"), along with Exhibits C-1 to C-9, and designated Dr. Claus von Wobeser as co-arbitrator (Case N°20911/ASM).

10.

Also on 17 March 2015, the Respondent filed a Request for Arbitration with the ICC, along with Exhibits C-1 to C-9, and designated Dr. Robert Gaitskell QC as co-arbitrator (Case N°20910/ASM).

11.

On 20 March 2015 (Case N°20910/ASM), the ICC Secretariat notified the Request for Arbitration to the First Claimant and invited it to submit its Answer to the Request within 30 days. The First Claimant was informed that the Respondent had submitted that the arbitration agreement provided for English as the language of arbitration and that unless the First Claimant indicated otherwise in its Answer or in any request for extension of time for submitting its Answer then it would be understood that English would be the language of the arbitration.

12.

On 2 April 2015 (Case N°20911/ASM). the ICC Secretariat notified the Request for Arbitration to the Respondent and invited it to submit its Answer to the Request within 30 days. The Respondent was informed that the Claimants had submitted that the arbitration agreement provided for English as the language of arbitration and that unless the Respondent indicated otherwise in its Answer or in any request for extension of time for submitting its Answer then it would be understood that English would be the language of the arbitration.

13.

On 15 April 2015, Respondent requested that consent be sought from all the Parties to have the arbitration case N°20911/ASM consolidated with the related case N°20910/ASM, filed on the same day, in which the Respondent/ACP was claimant.

14.

On 16 April 2015, the ICC Secretariat acknowledged receipt of the Respondent's letter of 15 April 2015 and invited the First Claimant to comment with respect to the Respondent’s request for consolidation by 23 April 2015.

15.

On 21 April 2015 (Case N°20910/ASM), the First Claimant requested a 45-day timeextension until 8 June 2015 to serve its Answer and nominated Dr. Claus von Wobeser as co-arbitrator. The First Claimant also acknowledged the deadline of 23 April 2015 granted by the ICC Secretariat for its comments on the requested consolidation of arbitration cases N°20910/ASM and N°20911/ASM and indicated that it would give its comments once the Respondent had taken position on the nomination of Dr. von Wobeser.

16.

On 30 April 2015 (Case N°20911/ASM), the Respondent requested a 42-day timeextension until 19 June 2015 to serve its Answer and nominated Dr. Robert Gaitskell as co-arbitrator.

17.

On 8 June 2015 (Case N°20910/ASM), the First Claimant submitted its Answer to Request for Arbitration and Counterclaim along with Exhibits R-1 to R-6.

18.

On 11 June 2015 (Case N°20910/ASM), the ICC Secretariat acknowledged receipt of the First Claimant’s Answer to Request for Arbitration and Counterclaim, invited the Respondent to submit its Reply within 30 days, and confirmed that English was the language of the arbitration since both Parties submitted that the arbitration agreement provided for English as the language of the arbitration.

19.

On 19 June 2015 (Case N°20911/ASM), the Respondent submitted its Answer to Request for Arbitration and Counterclaim against the First Claimant along with Exhibits R-1 to R-10.

20.

On 23 June 2015 (Case N°20911/ASM), the ICC Secretariat acknowledged receipt of the Respondent’s Answer to Request for Arbitration and Counterclaim against the First Claimant. The ICC Secretariat noted that the Respondent had raised a plea pursuant to Article 6(3) of the ICC Rules of Arbitration ("ICC Rules") requesting that the decision on such plea be taken by the arbitral tribunal and that such arbitral tribunal would decide any question of jurisdiction or of whether the claims may be determined together after providing the parties with an opportunity to comment.

21.

On 29 June 2015, the Claimants provided their comments on the consolidation of the ICC Cases N°20910/ASM and N°20911/ASM and indicated that the reasons for consolidation pursuant to Article 10 of the ICC Rules were not met and the cases should not be consolidated. According to the Claimants, the discussions between the Parties on the consolidation were ongoing and no agreement had yet been reached. Also, the claims in the arbitrations were not made under the same arbitration agreement nor between the same parties since the Second. Third and Fourth Claimants in Case N°20911/ASM are not parties to Case N°20910/ASM.

22.

On 8 July 2015, the ICC Secretariat invited the Respondent to comment by 15 July 2015 on the Claimants' letter of 29 June 2015 regarding the requested consolidation.

23.

On 9 July 2015 (Case N°20910/ASM), the Respondent submitted its Reply to the Counterclaim and the ICC Secretariat acknowledged receipt thereof the same day.

24.

On 14 July 2015, the Respondent indicated that the arbitrations N°20910/ASM and N°20911/ASM were eligible for consolidation under the ICC Rules and should be consolidated as a mailer of logic and efficiency. The Respondent reserved its rights to make a formal application in the event the Parties ultimately did not agree to consolidation. With respect to the nomination of the president of the arbitral tribunal, the Respondent indicated that the Parties would attempt further discussions and that they would jointly inform the ICC if such discussions were unsuccessful so that it could appoint the president pursuant to the ICC Rules.

25.

On 16 July 2015 (Case N°20911/ASM), the Respondent submitted an Answer to Request for Arbitration and Amended Counterclaim against the First Claimant.

26.

Also on 16 July 2015 (Case N°20910/ASM), the Respondent submitted an Amended Request for Arbitration.

27.

On 17 July 2015 (Case N°20911/ASM), the ICC Secretariat acknowledged receipt of the Respondent's Answer to Request for Arbitration and Amended Counterclaim against the First Claimant dated 16 July 2015.

28.

Also on 17 July 2015 (Case N°20910/ASM), the ICC Secretariat acknowledged receipt of the Respondent's Amended Request for Arbitration dated 16 July 2015.

29.

On 23 July 2015 (Case N°20910/ASM and Case N°20911/ASM), the ICC Secretariat indicated that the International Court of Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce ("ICC International Court of Arbitration") had confirmed Mr.Claus Von Wobeser as co-arbitrator upon the Claimants' nomination and Dr. Robert Gaitskell as coarbitrator upon the Respondent’s nomination and invited the Parties to nominate the president of the arbitral tribunal pursuant to their agreement by 23 September 2015.

30.

On 14 August 2015, the Respondent requested pursuant to Article 10 of the ICC Rules the consolidation by the Court of Cases N°20910/ASM and N°20911/ASM.

31.

On 19 August 2015, the ICC Secretariat invited the Claimants to provide any comments they may have on the Respondent's request for consolidation by 26 August 2015.

32.

On 26 August 2015, the Claimants requested an extension of the deadline for providing their comments on the Respondent's consolidation request until 4 September 2015. On the same day, the Respondent objected to the Claimants' request for an extension until 4 September 2015 to comment on the Respondent's request for consolidation.

33.

On 28 August 2015, the ICC Secretarial granted the Claimants an extension until 4 September 2015 to provide any comments they may have on the Respondent's request for consolidation.

34.

On 4 September 2015, the Claimants submitted their comments on the Respondent’s request for consolidation and indicated that the conditions set out in Article 10 of the ICC Rules were not met and that the arbitrations could not be consolidated.

35.

On 10 September 2015, the Respondent responded to the Claimants' comments on its request for consolidation.

36.

On 17 September 2015 (Case N°20910/ASM), the First Claimant submitted its Amended Answer and Counterclaim to the Amended Request for Arbitration along with Exhibits R1 to R-10.

37.

On 19 September 2015, the Claimants provided their comments to the Respondent's letter dated 10 September 2015 regarding consolidation.

38.

On 22 September 2015 (Case N°20910/ASM), the ICC Secretariat acknowledged receipt of the First Claimant's Amended Answer and Counterclaim to the Amended Request for Arbitration dated 17 September 2015. -

39.

On 22 September 2015 (Case N°20911/ASM), the ICC Secretariat acknowledged receipt of the Claimants' Reply to the Respondent's Answer to Request for Arbitration and Amended Counterclaim against the First Claimant dated 17 September 2015.

40.

On 24 September 2015, the ICC Secretariat notified the decision of the ICC International Court of Arbitration not to consolidate the Cases N°20910/ASM and N°20911/ASM.

41.

On 12 October 2015, the Respondent requested the Court to reconsider its decision not to consolidate the Cases N°20910/ASM and N°20911/ASM.

42.

On 21 October 2015, the Claimants submitted their comments on the Respondent's request for reconsideration of 12 October 2015 and requested that it be dismissed.

43.

On 6 November 2015, the ICC Secretariat notified the decision of the ICC International Court of Arbitration not to reconsider its decision not to consolidate Cases N°20910/ASM and N°20911/ASM.

44.

On 25 January 2016, the Parties informed the ICC Secretariat that they had reached an agreement on a procedure for the selection of the president in the Cases N°20910/ASM and N°20911/ASM and enclosed the Protocol setting out the agreement including a deadline for such nomination.

45.

On 7 March 2016, the co-arbitrators indicated, by email to the Parties in the Cases N°20910/ASM and N°20911/ASM, that the procedure agreed by the Parties had resulted in Mr. Pierre-Yves Gunter being designated to act as President of the Arbitral Tribunal.

46.

On 4 April 2016, the ICC Secretariat confirmed in the Cases N°20910/ASM and N°20911/ASM that pursuant to Article 13(2) of the ICC Rules, the Secretary General of the ICC International Court of Arbitration had confirmed Mr. Pierre-Yves Gunter on 4 April 2016 as President of the Arbitral Tribunal nominated pursuant to the agreement of the Parties and that his confirmation would be reported to the ICC International Court of Arbitration.

47.

On 17 April 2016, the Arbitral Tribunal indicated, by email to the Parties in the Cases N°20910/ASM and N°20911/ASM, that pursuant to Article 23(1) of the ICC Rules, the Arbitral Tribunal would draw up the Terms of Reference and prepare draft Specific Procedural Rules which would be submitted to the Parties for review. The Parties were also informed that pursuant to Article 24(1) of the ICC Rules, the Arbitral Tribunal would convene a Case Management Conference ("CMC"). The Parties' Counsel were invited to inform the Arbitral Tribunal about their joint position or separate positions by 20 April 2016 as to whether the CMC be held by way of a meeting or by way of a telephone conference or video-conference and whether the proposed dates were suitable. Furthermore, the Parties were requested, once the date of the CMC had been agreed upon, to submit to the Arbitral Tribunal one week before the CMC a joint proposal regarding the Procedural Timetable or in case of disagreement separate proposals. The Arbitral Tribunal also indicated that during the Case Management Conference, the Terms of Reference. Specific Procedural Rules and Procedural Timetable would be finalized.

48.

On 19 April 2016, the Arbitral Tribunal, in the context of the drawing up of the draft Terms of Reference, invited the Parties in the Cases N°20910/ASM and N°20911/ASM to submit to the Arbitral Tribunal by 25 April 2016, a two- to three-page summary of their claims and relief sought together with the amount of any quantified claim and to the extent possible an estimate of the monetary value of any other claims (Art. 23.1(c) of the ICC Rules).

49.

On 25 April 2016, the Parties indicated, by email to the Arbitral Tribunal, that they had agreed to consolidate the Cases N°20910/ASM and N°20911/ASM into a single arbitration and agreed that i) Grupo Unidos Por el Canal. S.A., Sacyr, S.A., Salini-Impregilo, S.p.A. (today Webuild, S.p.A.) and Jan De Nul, N.V. would go first in making their submissions in the substantive merits phase, and Autoridad del Canal de Panama would then respond (in accordance with the procedural calendar to be determined), ii) for the administrative purposes of the ICC, the caption for the consolidated arbitration would be: 1. GRUPO UNIDOS POR EL CANAL. S.A. (Panama) 2. SACYR, S.A. (Spain) 3. Salini-lmpregilo, S.p.A. (today Webuild, S.p.A.) (Italy) 4. JAN DE NUL, N.V. (Belgium) vs/ AUTORIDAD DEL CANAL DE PANAMA (Panama) and iii) the jurisdictional issues would be bifurcated and therefore heard and decided before the merits phase of the arbitration. The Parties also agreed to postpone the submission of the summaries of their position, claims and relief until 29 April 2016.

50.

For the detailed procedural history following the Parties' agreement to consolidate Cases N°20910/ASM and N°20911/ASM and bifurcate this issues of jurisdiction and the merits of the dispute, and leading up to the filing of the Parties' Post-Hearing Briefs on Jurisdiction, the Arbitral Tribunal makes reference to paragraphs 50 to 234 of its Partial Award on Jurisdiction dated 22 May 2017, which are incorporated by reference herein.

51.

On 8 July 2016, the Arbitral Tribunal sent the final Terms of Reference and Specific Procedural Rules, duly signed by the Parties and the Arbitral Tribunal, to the Parties.

52.

On 1 6 November 2016, the Claimants filed an Emergency Application for Interim Measures ("Emergency Application") concerning the repayment of certain outstanding Advance Payments that were to come due on 31 December 2016And n 18 November 2016, the Claimants filed a Request for a Confidentiality Order prohibiting the Parties from making any statement regarding the matters addressed in the Emergency Application. The Arbitral Tribunal issued a decision on the Claimants' Emergency Application and Request for a Confidentiality Order in Procedural Order No. 1 dated 20 December 2016. On 27 December 2016, the ICC Secretariat of the ICC Court of International Arbitration informed the Arbitral Tribunal and the Parties that pursuant to Article 30(2) of the ICC Rules, the time limit for establishing the final award in the present arbitration had been extended by the ICC International Court of Arbitration to 31 May 2019.

53.

On 8 March 2017, the Respondent and the Claimants each filed their respective PostHearing Brief on Jurisdiction and Standing.

54.

On 10 March 2017, the Claimants and the Respondent filed their respective responsive submissions on the issues of confidentiality that had arisen in the context of the Claimants' Emergency Application and Request for Confidentiality Order. The Claimants' submissions ("Claimants' Responsive Submissions on Confidentiality dated 10 March 2017") were accompanied by Factual Exhibits C-354 to C-365, Legal Authorities C-LA-181 to C-LA-186, the Third Legal Opinion of Dr. Arturo Hoyos, and the Second Expert Report of Mr. Timothy H. Hart. The Respondent's submissions ("Respondent's Responsive Submissions in Respect of Confidentiality dated 10 March 2017") were accompanied by Factual Exhibit EA-180, Legal Authority E-AL-43, and the Second Legal Opinion of Dr. Molino Mola.

55.

On 13 March 2017, the Respondent objected to the Claimants' filing of an expert report with the Claimants' Responsive Submissions on Confidentiality, stating that such evidence should have been filed with the first round of submissions in order for the Respondent to have an opportunity to respond. The Respondent reserved its rights in this regard. On the same day, the Arbitral Tribunal granted the Claimants a time limit until 14 March 2017 to respond to the Respondent's communication, however the Arbitral Tribunal's email was inadvertently sent only to the Respondent.

56.

On 14 March 2017, the Arbitral Tribunal sent two questions for clarification to the Respondent in the context of the confidentiality issues. As the Arbitral Tribunal responded to the previous emails of 13 March 2017, this communication was also inadvertently sent only to the Respondent.

57.

Also on 14 March 2017, the Respondent provided its responses to the Arbitral Tribunal's questions for clarification.

58.

On 15 March 2017, the Respondent noted that certain emails exchanged between the Respondent and the Arbitral Tribunal had not been copied to the Claimants and attached the relevant correspondence for the Claimants’ information.

59.

On the same day, the Arbitral Tribunal granted the Claimants until midnight to respond to the Respondent's correspondence from 13 and 14 March 2017.

60.

On 15 March 2017, the Claimants submitted their comments on the Respondent's letter of 13 and 14 March 2017. The Claimants requested that the Arbitral Tribunal reject the Respondent's arguments and that the Respondent be ordered to produce certain documents and information relating to the upcoming hearing before the National Assembly.

61.

On 16 March 2017, the Arbitral Tribunal invited the Respondent to produce, by midnight of the same day. certain documents relating to the National Assembly hearing and relevant to the confidentiality issues.

62.

On the same day, the Respondent submitted comments on the Claimants' letter of 15 March 2017, and requested that in light of the contents of the Claimants' letter, that it be permitted to submit a short response. The Arbitral Tribunal granted the Claimants until 6 p.m. Swiss time on the same day to take position on the Respondent's request.

63.

Further on 16 May 2017, the Claimants objected to the Respondent’s "unsolicited message and request" and asked that it be stricken from the record.

64.

Still on the same day. the Arbitral Tribunal dismissed the Respondent’s request to make further submissions and informed the Parties that their additional unsolicited submissions would not be taken into account. As to the admissibility of the Claimants' expert report filed with their Responsive Submissions on Confidentiality, the Arbitral Tribunal indicated that it would decide such matter together with its decision on the confidentiality issues.

65.

Later still on 16 March 2017, the Respondent informed the Arbitral Tribunal that it had no documents to produce in relation to the Arbitral Tribunal's email of earlier that day.

66.

On 17 March 2017, the Arbitral Tribunal issued Procedural Order No. 3 dealing with the confidentiality issues raised by the Parties.

67.

By letter dated 23 March 2017, the Arbitral Tribunal declared the proceedings closed with respect to jurisdiction and standing pursuant to Article 27(a) of the ICC Rules.

68.

On 30 March 2017, in the context of its decision on jurisdiction and without prejudice thereto, the Arbitral Tribunal requested clarification from the Respondent, by 3 April 2017, regarding its delay damages claim allegedly brought in parallel arbitration proceedings.

69.

On the same day, the Respondent responded to the Arbitral Tribunal's request for clarification stating that it "advances its delay damages claim by way of counterclaim in ICC Arbitration Case No. 22466/ASM, but seeks recovery only in the event and to the extent that the Respondent fails to make fully recovery in respect of delay damages in the present [case]."

70.

On 31 March 2017, the Respondent sent the Arbitral Tribunal an updated list of Counsel for the Respondent.

71.

On 1 April 2017, the Arbitral Tribunal requested that the Claimants also provide a full and updated list of Claimants' Counsel.

72.

On 3 April 2017, the Claimants sent the Arbitral Tribunal an updated full list of Counsel for the Claimants,

73.

On 17 May 2017, the Claimants requested an extension of the time limit for submission of their Statement of Claim (due on 26 May 2017) until 23 June 2017. The Claimants gave reasons for their request and submitted that an equal extension of lime could be given to the Respondent for the filing of its Statement of Defence without impacting the date for the Hearing on the Merits. The Arbitral Tribunal Invited the Respondent to take position on the request by 19 May 2017.

74.

On 19 May 2017, the Respondent took position on the Claimants’ request for an extension of time for filing the Statement of Claim. The Respondent objected to the request for a four-week extension which it considered unjustified and indicated that it could agree to a shorter extension of one week, or alternatively two weeks but only in relation to the Second to Fourth Claimants’ claims. The Arbitral Tribunal invited the Claimants to comment on the Respondent’s proposals by COB (U.S. East) on the same day.

75.

On the same day, the Claimants responded to the Respondent's proposals and maintained that they needed a four-week extension as requested.

76.

On 22 May 2017, the Arbitral Tribunal issued its Partial Award on Jurisdiction and Standing, in which the Arbitral Tribunal:

(i) affirm[ed] that the First Claimant and the Respondent have standing to bring their claims under the Contract;

(ii) acknowledge[d] that, at present, the Second to Fourth Claimants do not make claims under the Contract;

(iii) acknowledge[d] that the Second to Fourth Claimants reserve the right to do so at a later stage;

(iv) affirm[ed] that if the Second to Fourth Claimants were, at a later stage, to raise claims under the Contract, they would need to satisfy the requirements of Article 23(4) of the ICC Rules pertaining to new claims and the Respondent would be entitled to raise jurisdictional objections to such claims;

(v) acknowledge[d] that, at this time, the Second to Fourth Claimants do not make claims under any agreement other than the JSG;

(vi) affirm[ed] that the Second to Fourth Claimants and the Respondent have standing to bring their claims under the JSG.

(vii) affirm[ed] that the Arbitral Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear the Second to Fourth Claimants’ claims under the JSG as presently pleaded;

(viii) affirm[ed] that the issue of whether Panamanian law is incorporated into the JSG and, more generally, the application of Panamanian taw to the dispute, are issues of substantive law that shall be addressed by the Arbitral Tribunal at a later stage when dealing with the merits;

(ix) affirm[ed] that the Arbitral Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear the Respondent's delay damages claim;

(x) dismisse[d] any other prayer of the Parties relating to jurisdictional issues;

(xi) decide[d] that the costs and expenses related to this Partial Award on Jurisdiction and Standing will be dealt with at a later stage: and

(xii) declare[d] that all further decisions [were] reserved for future award(s).

77.

On 23 May 2017, the Arbitral Tribunal granted the Claimants' request for an extension of time to file their Statement of Claim but only until 14 June 2017. An equal extension was applied to the Respondent's time limit for filing its Statement of Defence and the Arbitral Tribunal sent the Parties a Revised Procedural Timetable reflecting those changes.

78.

The Secretariat notified the Partial Award on Jurisdiction and Standing to the Parties on 24 May 2017.

79.

On 1 June 2017, the Court readjusted the advance on costs and increased it from USD 650,000 to USD 1,330,000, subject to later adjustments (Article 36(5) ICC Rules).

80.

On 2 June 2017, the Secretariat requested that the Claimants and the Respondent each make a further payment of USD 340,000 toward the advance on costs by 3 July 2017.

81.

On 7 July 2017, the Secretariat acknowledged receipt of USD 340,000 from the Respondent as well as a partial payment from the Claimants, and granted the Claimants a further time limit until 24 July 2017 to pay the remainder of their share of the advance on costs.

82.

On 13 July 2017, the Secretariat acknowledged receipt of USD 193,000 from the Claimants and provided the Parties and the Arbitral Tribunal with an updated Financial Table, noting that the increased advance on costs had been paid in full.

83.

Also on 13 June 2017, the Claimants informed the Arbitral Tribunal that they were unable to file their Statement of Claim by 14 June 2017 and that they anticipated being able to do so during the week of 19 June 2017. The Claimants proposed that they discuss any further impact that such delay might have on the procedural timeline, such as a postponement of the merits hearing, with the Respondent after the filing of the Statement of Claim. The Arbitral Tribunal invited the Respondent to take position on the Claimants’ email by COB on 14 June 2017.

84.

Still on 13 June 2017, the Respondent objected to the Claimants' "failure to comply with the Tribunal's revised timetable" and took the position that the Claimants were clearly trying to delay the entire arbitration by their reference to postponing the merits hearing. The Respondent requested that the Arbitral Tribunal order service of the Statement of Claim no later than 16 June 2017 and stated that it would take position on the impact of the late service once the submission was received.

85.

On 14 June 2017, the Arbitral Tribunal decided to grant an additional but non-extendable extension of time for the filing of the Statement of Claim until 19 June 2017, and to extend the deadline for the Statement of Defence until 18 December 2017, and noted that the remaining dates including the hearing dates remain unchanged.

86.

On 16 June 2017, the Arbitral Tribunal sent the Parties a Revised Procedural Timetable.

87.

On 20 June 2017, the Claimants filed their Statement of Claim (dated 19 June 2017). along with Factual Exhibits C-0369 to C-1000, Legal Authorities C-LA-0187 to C-LA-0270, and the following witness statements and expert reports:

First Witness Statement of Ms. Maria Ascensión Baz (C-WS-14);

First Witness Statement of Mr. Alberto Buffa (C-WS-15);

First Witness Statement of Mr. Eldon Gath (C-WS-22);

Second Witness Statement of Mr. José Manuel Loureda López (C-WS-23);

First Witness Statement of Dr. Jacques Marchand (C-WS-16);

Fifth Witness Statement of Mr. Paolo Möder (C-WS-24);

First Witness Statement of Mr. Christopher E. Ottsen (C-WS-17);

First Witness Statement of Mr. José Pelaez (C-WS-18);

First Witness Statement of Dr. Ernest K. Schrader (C-WS-19);

First Witness Statement of Mr. Nicola Valiante (C-WS-20);

Second Witness Statement of Mr. Antonio Maria Zaffaroni (C-WS-21);

First Expert Report of Professor John C. Coates IV (C-EX-12);

First Expert Report of Mr. Greg Gold (C-EX-7);

Second Expert Report of Mr. Timothy H. Hart (C-EX-13);

Fourth Expert Report of Dr. Arturo Hoyos (C-EX-6);

First Expert Report of Mr. Martin Hunter (C-EX-10);

First Expert Report of Professor Sidney Mindess (C-EX-8);

First Expert Report of Professor Lars-Olof Nilsson (C-EX-9);

First Expert Report of Ms. Marianne Ramey (C-EX-11); and

First Expert Report of Mr. David Shilston (C-EX-5).

88.

On 22 June 2017, the Claimants informed the Arbitral Tribunal that they were having difficulty uploading the electronic, hyperlinked version of their Statement of Claim and that they were dispatching the full version to the Respondent on USB keys. The Claimants also noted that a number of clerical errors were contained in the Statement of Claim filing, including an error in numbering the Factual Exhibits which ended with C-1027 and not C-1000. The Claimants further noted that they were filing an additional witness statement of Mr. Paul Lievens that was not able to be filed earlier (C-WS-25).

89.

Later on the same day, the Claimants informed the Arbitral Tribunal that the full electronic, hyperlinked version of the Statement of Claim was available on the secure FTP site.

90.

On 30 June 2017, the Claimants informed the Arbitral Tribunal that a hard copy of the Statement of Claim (Main Documents and supporting documents), as well as a USB key containing the same, had been dispatched to the Respondent and Arbitral Tribunal on 28 June 2017.

91.

On 3 July 2017, the Respondent wrote to the Arbitral Tribunal regarding the late and incomplete submission of the Claimants' Statement of Claim and requested that the Arbitral Tribunal order the Claimants to immediately produce the supporting documents that had not yet been made available. The Respondent reserved its rights regarding the time and cost impact of the "Claimants' failure to comply with the Tribunal's not extendable deadline for service of the SOC and supporting documents".

92.

On the same day, the Arbitral Tribunal ordered the Claimants to produce the documents that had been identified by the Respondent as missing.

93.

On 4 June 2017, the Claimants clarified the position regarding the supporting documents identified by the Respondent, noting that some of these documents had in fact been filed during the jurisdiction phase of the proceedings, and that in any case the documents were all being made available immediately on the FTP site (except for Exhibit Ramey(I)-60 which in fact was an erroneous reference).

94.

On the same day, the Arbitral Tribunal acknowledged receipt of the Claimants’ clarifications and noted the Respondent’s reservation of right.

95.

By letter dated 19 July 2017, the Claimants submitted an application to have additional claims, namely the "concrete disruption" element of Contractor's Claim 78 that was the subject of ICC Arbitration Case No. 22466/ASM/JPA, added to the present arbitration (hereinafter the "Claim 78 Application"). The Claimants also requested that a Case Management Conference be held for the purpose of incorporating the "concrete disruption" element of Claim 78 into the Procedural Timetable as well as to "allow the Tribunal and the Parties to consider whether it would be efficient to include further claims that are closely related to the issues currently before the Tribunal in this Arbitration".

96.

On the same day, the Arbitral Tribunal granted the Respondent until 24 July 2017 to respond to the Claimants’ Claim 78 Application.

97.

On 20 July 2017, the Respondent requested that the time limit for its response be extended to 28 July 2017 at the earliest, in light of the Claimants' "voluminous and extensive" request. By separate email of the same day, the Claimants indicated that they did not object to the Respondent’s request for an extension of the time limit.

98.

On the same day, the Arbitral Tribunal granted the Respondent's requested extension of the time limit to respond. The President of the Arbitral Tribunal also indicated his availabilities for a potential CMC and stated that, without prejudice to the Respondent's position and the Arbitral Tribunal's ultimate decision on the Claimants' requested CMC, that such CMC would likely have to be held by telephone.

99.

On 28 July 2017, the Respondent submitted its response to the Claimants' Claim 78 Application. The Respondent objected to the Claimants' request and took the position that a CMC was not necessary, but indicated that if the Arbitral Tribunal considered a CMC necessary the Respondent would be available for a CMC by telephone on 13-14 September 2017.

100.

On 1 August 2017, the Claimants wrote to the Arbitral Tribunal stating that the Respondent's letter of 28 July 2017 contained "numerous errors, misrepresentations and unsupported allegations" and that they therefore wished to have an opportunity to respond in full to said letter. The Claimants also confirmed their availability for a CMC on the dates proposed by the Respondent (13-14 September 2017).

101.

Also on 1 August 2017, the Arbitral Tribunal invited the Parties to clarify by 2 August 2017 whether, in the event a CMC would be organized, such CMC would be held by phone or in person.

102.

Still on 1 August 2017, the Respondent wrote to the Arbitral Tribunal and indicated that the Claimants had taken measures that the Respondent had only become aware of after having finalized its letter of 28 July 2017, namely that the Claimants had submitted a new request for arbitration on 19 July 2017 (ICC Case. No. 22967/JPA) that included the same matters that the Claimants were requesting to have added to the present arbitration. The Respondent stated that the Claimants' actions "further highlight the fact that the consideration of these issues will necessitate a close scrutiny of (the Claimants]' procedural failings, which will inevitably impact and disrupt the timetable of this arbitration."

103.

By email of the same date, the Arbitral Tribunal granted the Claimants a time limit until 4 August 2017 to take position on the Respondent's 1 August 2017 letter.

104.

On 2 August 2017, the Claimants indicated that they considered an in-person CMC would be the most efficient option and proposed that such meeting take place in London.

105.

On the same day, the Respondent indicated that its primary position was that a CMC was unnecessary, but that in the event the Arbitral Tribunal considered that further discussions were needed, then a CMC by telephone would be preferable, especially considering the difficulty that the Respondent’s representatives in Panama would face in travelling to attend a CMC in person.

106.

On 3 August 2017, the Arbitral Tribunal informed the Parties that a CMC by telephone would be held on 15 September 2017 at 10:00 (EST)/16:00 (CET). The Arbitral Tribunal invited the Parties, in the event they considered it necessary to make any additional filings and/or to file written presentations on the Claim 78 Application, to make proposals by 4 August 2017 regarding the sequence and timing of such submissions. The Arbitral Tribunal instructed the Parties to, in the meantime, refrain from making any further submissions, and requested that the Parties submit by 8 September 2017 their (i) lists of attendees and (ii) proposals for the structure and agenda of the CMC.

107.

By email of the same day, the Claimants informed the Arbitral Tribunal that the Parties were in discussions regarding a joint proposal for further briefing steps and requested that the Parties have until 11 August 2017 to provide their joint, if possible, proposal to the Tribunal. The Arbitral Tribunal granted the Parties’ requested extension.

108.

On 11 August 2017, the Claimants informed the Arbitral Tribunal that the Parties had agreed to have two rounds of further written submissions on the Claimant's Claim 78 Application and that such submissions could be accompanied by new factual exhibits but no new witness statements or expert reports. The Parties also agreed that slides could be used in support of their oral arguments during the CMC and that such slides would be limited to the content already in the written submissions, would not exceed 25 slides, and would be exchanged on 15 September 2017 at least four hours prior to the CMC.

109.

On 16 August 2017, the Claimants submitted their further submissions on the Claim 78 Application, entitled "Claimants' Application to Add a Tranche to the Arbitration".

110.

Also on 16 August 2017, the Claimants informed the Arbitral Tribunal that some errors and corrupted files had been identified in the hyperlinked version of the Claimants' Statement of Claim and that the corrected documents had been provided to the Respondent and uploaded to the secure FTP site.

111.

On 1 September 2017, the Respondent submitted the "ACP's Response to GUPC's Application to Add New Claims to the Arbitration", along with Factual Exhibits R-0057 to R-0068.

112.

On 7 September 2017, the Claimants submitted the "Claimants' Rejoinder in Respect of their Application to Add a Tranche to the Arbitration".

113.

On 8 September 2017, the Claimants submitted the Parties' agreed agenda for the CMC to be held on 15 September 2017, along with their list of attendees and speakers. By separate email of the same day, the Respondent submitted its list of attendees and speakers for the CMC.

114.

On 12 September 2017, the Respondent submitted the "ACP’s Sur-Rejoinder to GUPC’s Application to Add New Claims to the Arbitration".

115.

On 15 September 2017, a CMC was held via telephone conference. Prior to the CMC, PowerPoint presentations were provided to the Arbitral Tribunal by the Claimants and the Respondent, respectively. At the CMC, Mr.Phillip Capper presented oral arguments on behalf of the Claimants and Mr. Manus McMullan presented oral arguments on behalf of the Respondent. Oral arguments were followed by questions from the Arbitral Tribunal.

116.

A transcript of the CMC was circulated shortly after the close of the CMC on 15 September 2017, and an amended version of the CMC transcript was provided on 22 September 2017.

117.

On 3 October 2017, the Arbitral Tribunal issued Procedural Order No. 4, by which it dismissed the Claimants' Claim 78 Application and declared that a decision as to the costs associated therewith would be decided at a later stage.

118.

On 17 October 2017, the Claimants filed a request for consolidation of ICC Case Nos. 22967/JPA and 22466/ASM/JPA into the present arbitration, or in the alternative, the consolidation of ICC Case No. 22466/JPA/ASM into the present arbitration. The Claimants also requested that in deciding upon the request, the Court communicate its reasons.

119.

On 20 October 2017, the ICC Secretariat invited the Respondent to provide its comments on the Claimants' consolidation request and request that the Court communicate its reasons by 27 October 2017, following which the Court would be Invited to take a decision pursuant to Article 10 of the ICC Rules.

120.

On 23 October 2017, the Respondent requested an extension of the time limit to take position on the Claimants’ consolidation request, as well as the Claimants' request that the Court communicate its reasons, until 10 November 2017.

121.

On 24 October 2017, the ICC Secretariat granted a preliminary extension of the Respondent's time limit until 3 November 2017, and invited the Claimants to comment upon the Respondent’s request for an extension until 10 November 2017 by 26 October 2017

122.

On 26 October 2017, the Claimants indicated that they did not object to the Respondent's request for an extension until 10 November 2017.

123.

On 27 October 2017, the ICC Secretariat granted the Respondent a further extension until 10 November 2017 to take position on the Claimants' consolidation request, as well as the Claimants' request that the Court communicate its reasons.

124.

On 10 November 2017. the Respondent submitted its response to the Claimants' consolidation request to the ICC Secretariat.

125.

On 23 November 2017. the Claimants submitted further comments on their consolidation request to the ICC Secretariat. The ICC Secretariat invited the Respondent to provide its comments on the Claimants' additional submission, if any, by 28 November 2017.

126.

On 28 November 2017, the Respondent provided its comments on the Claimants' additional submission of 23 November 2017 to the ICC Secretariat. On the following day, the ICC Secretariat acknowledged receipt and informed the Parties that their submissions would be provided to the Court shortly.

127.

On 6 December 2017, the ICC Secretariat informed the Parties that, at its session of 30 November 2017, the Court had decided not to consolidate ICC Case Nos. 22967/JPA and/or 22466/ASM/JPA into the present arbitration. The Court accepted the Claimants' request that it communicate its reasons for its decision, which were set out in the Secretariat's letter.

128.

On 18 December 2017, the Respondent filed its Statement of Defence, along with Factual Exhibits R-0001 to R-1089, Legal Authorities RLA-0001 to RLA-0142, and the following witness statements and expert reports:

First Witness Statement of Mr. Alberto Aleman (R-WS-5);

Second Witness Statement of Mr. Jorge Quijano (R-WS-6);

Third Witness Statement of Mr. Francisco Miguez (R-WS-7);

First Witness Statement of Ms. Cheryl George (R-WS-8);

First Witness Statement of Mr. Loren Belken (R-WS-9);

First Witness Statement of Ms. Maurylis Coronado (R-WS-10);

First Witness Statement of Dr. Guillermo Di Pace (R-WS-11);

First Witness Statement of Mr. Derek Irving (R-WS-12);

First Witness Statement of Mr. Miguel Lorenzo (R-WS-13);

First Witness Statement of Mr. Carlos McLean (R-WS-14);

First Witness Statement of Mr. Rick Montanari (R-WS-15);

First Witness Statement of Mr. Jorge Eduardo Ritter (R-WS-16);

First Expert Report of Mr. Adrian Dance (R-EX-4);

Second Expert Report of Professor Octavio Del Moral (R-EX-5);

First Expert Report of Mr. Jeff Fuchs (R-EX-6);

First Expert Report of Mr. Charles Hammond (R-EX-7);

First Expert Report of Mr. Don Harvey (R-EX-8):

First Expert Report of Professor Doug Hooton (R-EX-9);

First Expert Report of Dr. Calvin Konya (R-EX-10);

First Expert Report of Mr. Tom Kuper (R-EX-11);

First Expert Report of Mr. Paul Lewis (R-EX-12);

Third Expert Report of Mr. Gervase MacGregor (R-EX-13);

First Expert Report of Mr. Calvin McCall (R-EX-15);

First Expert Report of Mr. Mike Pauletto (R-EX-16); and

First Expert Report of Dr. David Rothstein (R-EX-17).

129.

On 20 December 2017, the Respondent informed the Arbitral Tribunal that it had uploaded to its secure FTP server all Main Documents with all supporting documents and that the Statement of Defence had been hyperlinked to the relevant supporting documents, witness statements, legal opinions and expert reports.

130.

On 21 December 2017, the Respondent informed the Arbitral Tribunal that a printed hard copy of the Statement of Defence, as well as an encrypted hard drive containing the same, would be couriered on the same day.

131.

On 27 December 2017, the Respondent provided the Claimants and the Arbitral Tribunal with the curriculum vitae’s for some of the Respondent's witnesses, as well as one annexure to the witness statement of Mr. Belken that had been omitted from the documents provided the week before.

132.

On 6 January 2018, the Respondent provided the Claimants and the Arbitral Tribunal with a revised Appendix J to Mr. Hammond's First Expert Report.

133.

On 11 January 2018, the Arbitral Tribunal requested the Respondent to resend some of the Factual Exhibits of the Statement of Defence which it could not open.

134.

On 12 January 2018, the Respondent replied to the Arbitral Tribunal's email of 11 January 2018 informing that all the exhibits identified by the Arbitral Tribunal in its email could be opened in the proprietary software to which they related.

135.

Also on 12 January 2018, the Respondent provided the Arbitral Tribunal with an updated list of counsel to include in formal communications.

136.

On 24 January 2018, the Claimants provided the Arbitral Tribunal with an updated list of the Claimants' counsel.

137.

On 20 February 2018, the Respondent provided the Arbitral Tribunal with an exchange of emails between the Claimants’ and the Respondent's Counsel with regard to the document production required by the Revised Procedural Timetable dated 23 May 2017. The Respondent sought an immediate order from the Arbitral Tribunal that the Claimants produce the documents which should have been produced by 16 February 2018, and to which no objection to production had been made, by COB on the same day. The Respondent also requested that, in the meantime, the Claimants and their witnesses and experts be restrained from reviewing the Respondent's document production until the Claimants had themselves fully complied with the procedural timetable.

138.

On the same day, the Arbitral Tribunal acknowledged receipt of the Respondent's email and offered the Claimants the opportunity to take position by 6:30pm Swiss time.

139.

Still on the same day, the Claimants commented on the Respondent's email, rejecting the Respondent's allegations. The Claimants requested that the Respondent confirm that its searches for responsive documents were still ongoing, in particular for the 25 requests for which documents had apparently been produced.

140.

Later still on 20 February 2018, the Respondent confirmed that the document production was ongoing and repeated its request for an immediate order on this issue.

141.

On 21 February 2018, the Arbitral Tribunal wrote to the Parties with regard to their respective correspondence of 20 February 2018. The Arbitral Tribunal dismissed the Respondent's requests and clarified that it expected to be provided with the Redfern Schedules by 2 March 2018.

142.

On 2 March 2018, the Respondent submitted its "Replies to the Claimants’ Objections to the ACP's Document Requests", as well as the Veeder Codes for Objections to Requests under IBA Rules.

143.

On the same day, the Claimants submitted their "Reply to ACP's Objections to GUPC's Document Requests".

144.

On 7 March 2018, the Claimants wrote to the Arbitral Tribunal requesting that a hearing be convened to address certain issues arising from the Parties' Redfern Schedules.

145.

On the same day, the Arbitral Tribunal acknowledged receipt of the Claimants' email and invited the Respondent to take position on the Claimants’ request by 9 March 2018.

146.

On 9 March 2018, the Respondent responded to the Arbitral Tribunal's invitation to take position on the Claimants’ request for a short oral hearing. The Respondent informed that it did not have the capacity to prepare for and attend a hearing before the 29 March 2018. The Respondent also replied to the Claimants' email dated 2 March 2018 serving the Redfern Schedule and stated that the Claimants' statements concerning the Respondent's approach to the Redfern Schedules were "prejudicial and largely incorrect". The Respondent confirmed that it withdrew the additional Redfern Request No. 239 included in its Redfern schedule.

147.

On 13 March 2018, the Claimants indicated that the Parties had exchanged a couple of additional document production requests after their submission of document production requests to the Arbitral Tribunal on 2 March 2018. The Claimants provided the Arbitral Tribunal with the calendarfor the additional production requests on which the Parties had agreed.

148.

On the same day, the Arbitral Tribunal acknowledged receipt of the Claimants' email and requested the Claimants to indicate the number of additional production requests.

149.

Still on the same day, the Claimants indicated that they had made two additional document requests and the Respondent had made one.

150.

Still on 13 March 2018, the Arbitral Tribunal wrote to the Parties regarding the Claimants’ request of 7 March 2018 and the Respondent's answer of 9 March 2018 and dismissed the Claimants' request to organize a meeting or video/telephone conference to discuss "issues of principle".

151.

Later still on 13 March 2018, the Arbitral Tribunal informed the Parties that it agreed with their approach and calendar regarding the additional document production requests.

152.

On 23 March 2018, the Respondent submitted its "Reply to the Claimants' Objections to the Additional Document Request No. 239".

153.

On the same day, the Claimants submitted their "Reply to ACP’s Objections to GUPC’s Additional Document Requests Nos. 61.A and 65.A".

154.

On 28 March 2018, the Arbitral Tribunal issued its Decisions on the Parties' Document Production Requests. In addition to its specific decisions on each Request, the Arbitral Tribunal also made general observations.

155.

By letter dated 8 May 2018, the Respondent set out its position on its claim for legal professional privilege and confidentiality in respect of the Claimants' Document Request 30 and Document Request 224 granted by the Arbitral Tribunal in its Decision dated 28 March 2018. The Respondent invited the Arbitral Tribunal to make an order preserving the confidentiality of the Settlement Agreements such that un-redacted copies were not to be produced in the present arbitration.

156.

On 9 May 2018, the Arbitral Tribunal acknowledged receipt of the Respondent's letter dated 8 May 2018 and invited the Claimants to take position by 11 May 2018.

157.

On 11 May 2018, the Claimants wrote to the Arbitral Tribunal regarding the Respondent's letter dated 8 May 2018 and requested that the Arbitral Tribunal order the Respondent immediately to address the deficiencies, the full extent of which the Claimants set out in Annex 1 of their letter. The Claimants further requested that the Arbitral Tribunal order the Respondent to produce "the emails it wrongfully withheld (in whole or in part), which are responsive to Request 30", "the full un-redacted versions of the Settlement Agreements covered by Request 224" and "all other withheld and/or improperly redacted comments listed in Annex 1" of the Claimants' letter.

158.

On 12 May 2018, the Respondent sought permission to respond to the Claimants' application of 11 May 2018.

159.

On 13 May 2018, the Arbitral Tribunal acknowledged receipt of the Respondent's email of 12 May 2018 and granted the Respondent’s request. The Arbitral Tribunal instructed the Respondent to file its position by 14 May 2018. The Arbitral Tribunal indicated that the Claimants would have then the opportunity to comment on the Respondent's position until 16 May 2018.

160.

On 14 May 2018, the Respondent submitted its response to the Claimants' letter of 11 May 2018, along with annexes. The Respondent requested that the Arbitral Tribunal deny the three orders set out in the final paragraph of the Claimants' letter of 11 May 2018

161.

On 16 May 2018, the Claimants wrote to the Arbitral Tribunal regarding the Respondent's letter of 14 May 2018. The Claimants repeated their request that the Arbitral Tribunal order the Respondent to produce without delay "the emails it wrongfully withheld (in whole or in part), which are responsive to Request 30". "the full un-redacted versions of the Settlement Agreements covered by Request 224" and "all other withheld and/or improperly redacted comments listed in Annex 1" of the Claimants' letter.

162.

On 17 May 2018, the Arbitral Tribunal acknowledged receipt of the Claimants' email of 16 May 2018 and invited the Parties to refrain from making further submissions.

163.

On 18 May 2018, the Respondent submitted an "Application on the Claimants' Deficient Document Production". The Respondent requested that the Arbitral Tribunal grant the orders sought in relation to the document requests outlined in Annex 1 of the letter.

164.

On 20 May 2018, the Claimants wrote to the Arbitral Tribunal with regard to the Respondent’s application of 18 May 2018 denying the Respondent's allegations in their entirety and reserving all rights accordingly. The Claimants requested that the Arbitral Tribunal allow them to respond to the Respondents’ application until 11 June 2018.

165.

On the same day, the Respondent responded to the Claimants' email and requested that the Arbitral Tribunal set the same or similar time lines for the Respondent’s application as it did for the Claimants'.

166.

On 20 May 2018, the Arbitral Tribunal invited the Claimants to take position on the Respondent’s application of 18 May 2018 by 8 June 2018. The Arbitral Tribunal informed the Parties that once the Claimants had taken position on the Respondent's application, the Respondent could file a reply submission by 15 June 2018 and, in such case, the Claimants could file a rejoinder submission on Respondent's application by 22 June 2018.

167.

On 22 May 2018, the Arbitral Tribunal wrote to the Parties with regard to their respective correspondence of 8 May 2018, 11 May 2018, 14 May 2018 and 16 May 2018. The Arbitral Tribunal issued its decisions regarding Document Requests 30 and 224 and Claimants’ Annex 1, ordering the Respondent to produce all remaining responsive documents and any modified redactions in line with its decisions by 25 May 2018. The Arbitral Tribunal found that the Settlement Agreements should not be produced.

168.

On 25 May 2018, the Respondent provided the Arbitral Tribunal with a letter dated 25 May 2018 sent to the Claimants where it outlined its position on the Arbitral Tribunal's order of 22 May 2018 and it indicated that it had produced further responsive documents in relation to Requests 43(b), 48(b) and 93. The Respondent indicated that it did not agree that the Claimants set out the correct position on privilege and reserved fully the right to argue the position on privilege in the future.

169.

On 30 May 2018, the Arbitral Tribunal wrote to the Parties concerning the Respondent's email and letter dated 25 May 2018. The Arbitral Tribunal indicated that it did not consider that there was any reason for it to take the initiative to invite a third round of submissions on the alleged privilege issue before issuing its decision on 22 May 2018, as both Parties had been given ample opportunity to state their position and as the Respondent did not seek leave to file a third round submissions.

170.

On 1 June 2018, the Claimants requested an extension of the deadline for filing the Statement of Reply until 3 June 2018. On the same day. the Respondent commented on the Claimants’ request for an extension to file the Statement of Reply.

171.

On 2 June 2018, the Arbitral Tribunal granted the Claimants a time-extension to file the Statement of Reply until 3 June 2018.

172.

On 4 June 2018, the Claimants filed their Statement of Reply (dated 3 June 2018), along with Factual Exhibits C-1028 to C-1676, Legal Authorities C-LA-0101 to C-LA-0436, and the following witness statements and expert reports:

Second Witness Statement of Ms. Maria Ascensión Baz (C-WS-26);

Second Witness Statement of Mr. Alberto Buffa (C-WS-27);

First Witness Statement of Mr. Alberto Casas (C-WS-28);

First Witness Statement of Mr. Claudio Corbella (C-WS-29);

First Witness Statement of Mr. Andrew Davis (C-WS-30);

Fourth Witness Statement of Mr. Dino Desiati (C-WS-31);

Second Witness Statement of Mr. Eldon Gath (C-WS-32);

First Witness Statement of Mr. Gregory Hillebrenner (C-WS-33);

First Witness Statement of Mr. Mario Lampiano (C-WS-34);

First Witness Statement of Mr. Manuel Lopez (C-WS-36);

Third Witness Statement of Mr. José Manuel Loureda López (C-WS-37);

Second Witness Statement of Dr. Jacques Marchand (C-WS-38);

Sixth Witness Statement of Mr. Paolo Möder (C-WS-39);

Second Witness Statement of Mr. Christopher Ottsen (C-WS-40);

Second Witness Statement of Mr. José Pelaez (C-WS-41);

First Witness Statement of Mr. Paolo Romiti (C-WS-42);

Second Witness Statement of Dr. Ernest K. Schrader (C-WS-43);

Second Witness Statement of Mr. Nicola Valiante (C-WS-44);

First Witness Statement of Mr. Etienne Van Impe (C-WS-45);

First Witness Statement of Mr. Pieterjan Versteele (C-WS-46);

Third Witness Statement of Mr. Antonio Maria Zaffaroni (C-WS-47);

First Expert Report of Mr. Khaled W. Awad (C-EX-14);

Second Expert Report of Professor John C. Coates IV (C-EX-15);

First Expert Report of Dr. Matthew Dominick D’Ambrosia (C-EX-16);

Second Expert Report of Mr. Greg Gold (C-EX-17);

Fourth Expert Report of Mr. Timothy H. Hart (C-EX-18);

Fifth Expert Report of Dr. Arturo Hoyos (C-EX-19);

Second Expert Report of Mr. Martin Hunter (C-EX-20);

Second Expert Report of Professor Sidney Mindess (C-EX-21);

First Expert Report of Dr. Antonio Manuel Morales Moreno (C-EX-22);

Second Expert Report of Professor Lars-Olof Nilsson (C-EX-23);

First Expert Report of Dr. Randall Poston (C-EX-24);

Second Expert Report of Ms. Marianne Ramey (C-EX-25);

Second Expert Report of Mr. David Shilston (C-EX-26.1; C-EX-26.2; C-EX-26.3; C-EX-26.4; C-EX-26.5; C-EX-26.6);

First Expert Report of Professor Mercedes Suarez Barrios and Professor Emilia Garcia Romero (C-EX-27);

First Expert Report of Mr. José Andrés Troyano Peña (C-EX-28); and

First Expert Report of Mr. Jerry Wallace and Dr. Catherine Aimone-Martin (C-EX-29).

173.

On the same day, the Claimants informed the Arbitral Tribunal that the noted confidential portions of the Statement of Reply might not be forwarded by Counsel for the Respondent beyond their client nor might they be forwarded to the Claimants (other than counsel), unless the redacted versions of documents were utilized.

174.

On 8 June 2018, the Claimants informed the Arbitral Tribunal that the hyperlinked Statement of Reply, along with witness statements, expert reports, appendices, exhibits and legal authorities could be downloaded from their secure site.

175.

By letter dated 8 June 2018, the Claimants wrote to the Arbitral Tribunal in response to the Respondent's application of 18 May 2018. The Claimants submitted that the Respondent's application be dismissed in its entirety, as explained in Annex 1 of the letter.

176.

On 12 June 2018, the Claimants wrote to the Arbitral Tribunal concerning the procedural Timetable and enclosed emails exchange between Counsel for the Respondent and Counsel for the Claimants in this regard. The Claimants submitted that the Respondent should be allowed to file its Main Documents until 8 October 2018 at midnight Miami time and to file its hyperlinked and full Statement of Rejoinder (with exhibits and legal authorities) until 10 October 2018 at midnight Miami time.

177.

On the same day, the Respondent wrote to the Arbitral Tribunal regarding the Claimants' email. The Respondent requested that it be permitted additional time for filing its Statement of Rejoinder, namely until 11 October 2018 for the Main Documents and until 15 October 2018 for the full Statement of Rejoinder.

178.

On 14 June 2018, the Claimants informed the Arbitral Tribunal that they disagreed with the Respondent’s email of 12 June 2018 and requested leave to submit a reply.

179.

On the same day, the Arbitral Tribunal granted the Claimants leave to reply to the Respondent's email of 12 June 2018.

180.

By letter dated 15 June 2018, the Respondent wrote to the Arbitral Tribunal concerning the Claimants’ letter of 8 June 2018. The Respondent requested an order that the Claimants provide the Respondent’s quantum experts with the data and system access as requested in the Respondent’s schedule.

181.

On 18 June 2018, the Claimants informed the Arbitral Tribunal that they objected to the Respondent’s email of 12 June 2018 and indicated that the fair solution would be to give the Respondent until 8 October 2018 at midnight Miami time to file its Main Documents and until 10 October 2018 at midnight Miami time to file its hyperlinked and full Statement of Rejoinder (with exhibits and legal authorities).

182.

On 22 June 2018, the Claimants served their Rejoinder Submission on the Respondent's Document Production Application, along with annexes. The Claimants submitted that the Respondent's application be dismissed In its entirety, as explained in Annex 1 of the letter.

183.

On 3 July 2018, the Respondent provided the Arbitral Tribunal with an email from Claimants dated 26 June 2018, which enclosed two annexes to the report of Mr. Hoyos on Panamanian law. not previously provided to the Respondent at the time of filing the Statement of Reply but provided on 26 June 2018. The Respondent indicated that "also provided on 26 June 2018 were 56 further exhibits to the Claimant's SOR not previously provided (although they were indexed in the list of Exhibits)".

184.

On the same day, the Arbitral Tribunal acknowledged receipt of the Respondent's email and offered the Claimants the opportunity to comment on this email by 5 July 2018.

185.

On 5 July 2018, the Arbitral Tribunal issued its decision on the extension of the time limit for filing the Statement of Rejoinder and on the Respondent’s request dated 18 May 2018 regarding alleged deficiencies In the Claimants' production of documents following the Arbitral Tribunal's order on the Respondent's Document Production Requests. The Arbitral Tribunal granted the Respondent an extension until 8 October 2018 for the filing of the Main Documents of its Statement of Rejoinder and until 12 October 2018 for the filing of the full electronic version.

186.

Also on 5 July 2018, the Claimants commented on the Respondent's email of 3 July 2018 and indicated that the said documents had been made available to the Arbitral Tribunal by courier sent on 2 July 2018.

187.

On 6 July 2018, the Respondent wrote to the Arbitral Tribunal regarding the Arbitral Tribunal's decision of 5 July 2018 on the Respondent’s Document Production Application of 18 May 2018. The Respondent indicated that it wished the President to review the unredacted versions and listed the documents which it believed the Claimants had over redacted.

188.

On the same day, the Arbitral Tribunal acknowledged receipt of the Respondent’s email and offered the Claimants the opportunity to comment on this email by 9 July 2018 or to provide the Arbitral Tribunal within the same time limit with the un-redacted version of the relevant documents.

189.

On 9 July 2018, the Claimants requested an extension until 11 July 2018 to take position on the Respondent's email of 6 July 2018.

190.

On the same day, the Arbitral Tribunal granted the Claimants an extension until 11 July 2018 to take position on the Respondent’s email of 6 July 2018.

191.

On 11 July 2018, the Claimants wrote to the Arbitral Tribunal concerning its emails of 6 and 9 July 2018. The Claimants provided the Arbitral Tribunal with the un-redacted version of the three relevant documents and explained why these documents did not need to be disclosed to the Respondent.

192.

On 12 July 2018, the Arbitral Tribunal informed the Respondent about the email it received from the Claimants on 11 July 2018.

193.

On 16 July 2018, the Respondent wrote to the Arbitral Tribunal concerning the Claimants' Statement of Reply and provided the Arbitral Tribunal with a preliminary list of matters raised in the Statement of Reply that, according to the Respondent, should had been raised in the Statement of Claim.

194.

On the same day, the Arbitral Tribunal acknowledged receipt of the Respondent’s email and offered the Claimants the opportunity to comment on it until 23 July 2018.

195.

On 17 July 2018, the Arbitral Tribunal wrote to the Parties concerning the Respondent’s request dated 6 July 2018 and the Claimants' email dated 11 July 2018 and ordered the Claimants to produce page 5 of document GUPC-REQ_032_00036977.pdf and the full, un-redacted version of document GUPC-REQ_058_00037185.pdf. For the rest, the Arbitral Tribunal dismissed the Respondent's request.

196.

On 18 July 2018, the Claimants informed the Arbitral Tribunal that the documents had been provided to the Respondent as per the Arbitral Tribunal's instructions of 17 July 2018.

197.

By letter dated 23 July 2018, the Claimants wrote to the Arbitral Tribunal in reply to the Respondent's letter of 16 July 2018 and objected to the Respondent's allegations.

198.

On 25 July 2018, the Claimants, due to an error identified by AME - Material Engineering (the laboratory which had carried out certain tests on basalt samples at the request of the Claimants' expert Mr. Shilston) in two of the test results provided, submitted an updated version of Exhibit C-1164. The Claimants attached a letter from Mr. Shilston relating to the impact of this error.

199.

On 31 July 2018, the Respondent wrote to the Arbitral Tribunal concerning the Claimants' letters of 23 and 25 July 2018 and reserved its position.

200.

On 18 August 2018, the Respondent informed the Arbitral Tribunal that a disagreement had arisen between the Parties in respect of the interpretation of an order for the production of documents made by the Arbitral Tribunal in its letter of 5 July 2018 and sought an order from the Arbitral Tribunal in respect of this issue.

201.

On 21 August 2018, the Arbitral Tribunal acknowledged receipt of the Respondent's request of 18 August 2018 and offered the Claimants the opportunity to take position by 24 August 2018.

202.

On 24 August 2018, the Claimants requested an extension until 27 August 2018 to reply to the Respondent's letter of 18 August 2018.

203.

On 25 August 2018, the Respondent wrote to the Arbitral Tribunal seeking an order from the Arbitral Tribunal in respect of the disclosure of further PECO Reports for additional WBE Codes identified by the Respondent's independent experts. Delta, within the documentation produced in response to the Arbitral Tribunal's order of 5 July 2018.

204.

On 26 August 2018, the Arbitral Tribunal granted the Claimants an extension until 27 August 2018 to reply to the Respondent's letter of 18 August 2018.

205.

On 27 August 2018, the Arbitral Tribunal invited the Claimants to take position by 30 August 2018 on the request filed by the Respondent on 25 August 2018.

206.

Also on 27 August 2018, the Claimants responded to the Respondent's application for an order for the production of additional documents dated 18 August 2018 and requested that the Arbitral Tribunal dismiss the orders sought by the Respondent.

207.

On 30 August 2018, the Claimants responded to the Respondent's application dated 25 August 2018 for an order for the production of PECO Reports for the additional WBE Codes listed in the enclosure to the Respondent's letter of 11 August 2018. The Claimants requested that the Arbitral Tribunal dismiss the orders sought by the Respondent.

208.

On 7 September 2018, the Arbitral Tribunal issued its decision on the Respondent's application dated 18 August 2018 and the Claimants' response of 27 August 2018 and on the Respondent's application dated 25 August 2018 and the Claimants' response of 30 August 2018. The Arbitral Tribunal dismissed the Respondent's requests of 18 August 2018 and, regarding the Respondent's application of 25 August 2018, ordered the Claimants to produce "(i) 'Forecast' reports for the Tender Reorganization (1st budget 01 Jun 2009) and the period from inception to the end of the Activity Period; and (ii) 'Achieved' reports for the quarters ended March / June / September / December during the Activity Period" for the WBE codes identified in the attachment to the Respondent’s letter dated 11 August 2018.

209.

On 10 September 2018, the Respondent sent the Arbitral Tribunal an updated list of counsel for the Respondent.

210.

On 12 September 2018, the Claimants sent the Arbitral Tribunal an updated list of counsel for the Claimants.

211.

On 3 October 2018, the Respondent requested an extension of time for the filing of its Statement of Rejoinder until 15 October 2018.

212.

On the same day, the Arbitral Tribunal acknowledged receipt of the Respondent's email and invited the Claimants to take position by COB on 4 October 2018.

213.

On 4 October 2018, the Claimants informed the Arbitral Tribunal that they did not object to the Respondent’s request for a time extension provided that the full Statement of Rejoinder (including all exhibits and annexes) be filed electronically on 15 October 2018 and the deadline for submission of the Claimants’ Statement of Rejoinder on Counterclaims be extended until 10 December 2018.

214.

On the same day, the Respondent confirmed that it would file its Statement of Rejoinder (including all exhibits and annexes) on 15 October 2018. The Respondent indicated that it was prepared to consent to an extension to the date for the filing of the Claimants' full Statement of Rejoinder on Counterclaims (including all exhibits and annexes) until 7 December 2018.

215.

Still on the same day, the Claimants sought leave to submit an answer to the Respondent’s email of 4 October 2018.

216.

On 5 October 2018, the Arbitral Tribunal granted the Claimants leave to respond to the Respondent’s email dated 4 October 2018 regarding the extension of the time limit for the submission of the Claimants’ Statement of Rejoinder on Counterclaims.

217.

On the same day, the Claimants wrote to the Arbitral Tribunal in response to the Respondent's email dated 4 October 2018. The Claimants indicated that the most that they could do at this stage, without having reviewed the Respondent's Statement of Rejoinder, was to endeavor to do their best to file the full Statement of Rejoinder on Counterclaims as soon as possible after 10 December 2018.

218.

Still on the same day, the Arbitral Tribunal instructed the Respondent to file by 15 October 2018 its full Statement of Rejoinder and the Claimants to file by 10 December 2018 their full Statement of Rejoinder on Counterclaims.

219.

On 11 October 2018, the Claimants wrote to the Arbitral Tribunal and requested leave to make additional document production requests relating specifically to aggregate production and geological issues encountered by the PAC-4 contractor. The Claimants indicated that they had raised the additional document production requests with the Respondent by letter dated 10 September 2018 and that the Respondent had rejected such requests in their entirety by letter dated 19 September 2018.

220.

On the same day, the Arbitral Tribunal acknowledged receipt of the Claimants' request and invited the Respondent to take position by 19 October 2018.

221.

Also on 11 October 2018, the Arbitral Tribunal provided the Parties with the revised Procedural Timetable and with suggestions regarding the dates of the four procedural steps before the Hearing. The Arbitral Tribunal invited the Parties to indicate by 19 October 2018 whether they agreed with those dates or to jointly propose alternative dates.

222.

On 15 October 2018, the Respondent filed its Statement of Rejoinder, along with Factual Exhibits R-1090 to R-1618, Confidential Factual Exhibits CONF-R-0001 to CONF-R-1649, Legal Authorities RLA-0143 to RLA-0208, and the following witness statements and expert reports:

Second Witness Statement of Mr. Alberto Aleman (R-WS-17);

Second Witness Statement of Mr. Loren Belken (R-WS-21);

Second Witness Statement of Ms. Maurylis Coronado (R-WS-22);

Second Witness Statement of Dr. Guillermo Di Pace (R-WS-23);

Second Witness Statement of Ms. Cheryl George (R-WS-20);

First Witness Statement of Dr. Robert Hall (R-WS-29);

Second Witness Statement of Mr. Derek Irving (R-WS-24);

Second Witness Statement of Mr. Miguel Lorenzo (R-WS-25);

Second Witness Statement of Mr. Carlos McLean (R-WS-26);

Fourth Witness Statement of Mr. Francisco Miguez (R-WS-19);

Second Witness Statement of Mr. Riziero Montanari (R-WS-27);

First Witness Statement of Mr. Robert Thatcher (R-WS-28);

Third Witness Statement of Mr. Jorge Quijano (R-WS-18);

Second Expert Report of Mr. Adrian Dance (R-EX-18);

Third Expert Report of Professor Octavio Del Moral (R-EX-19);

Second Expert Report of Mr. Jeff Fuchs (R-EX-20);

Second Expert Report of Mr. Charles Hammond (R-EX-21);

Second Expert Report of Mr. Don Harvey (R-EX-22);

Second Expert Report of Professor Doug Hooton (R-EX-23);

Second Expert Report of Dr. Calvin Konya (R-EX-24);

Second Expert Report of Mr. Tom Kuper (R-EX-25);

Second Expert Report of Mr. Paul Lewis (R-EX-26);

Fourth Expert Report of Mr. Gervase MacGregor (R-EX-27);

Second Expert Report of Mr. Calvin McCall (R-EX-28);

Second Expert Report of Mr. Mike Pauletto (R-EX-29); and

Second Expert Report of Dr. David Rothstein (R-EX-30).

223.

On 17 October 2018, the Respondent informed the Arbitral Tribunal that the full hyperlinked version of the Statement of Rejoinder could be downloaded from the Respondent's secure FTP server.

224.

On 19 October 2018, the Respondent wrote to the Arbitral Tribunal with regard to the Claimants' letter of 11 October 2018 and requested an extension until 22 October 2018 to respond to this letter.

225.

On the same day, the Arbitral Tribunal acknowledged receipt of the Respondent's email and granted the Respondent an extension until 22 October 2018 to respond to the Claimants' letter of 11 October 2018.

226.

On 22 October 2018, the Respondent informed the Arbitral Tribunal that a printed hard copy of the Statement of Rejoinder, as well as an encrypted hard drive containing the same, had been dispatched to the Arbitral Tribunal on 19 October 2018 and that two encrypted hard drives had also been sent to the Claimants. The Respondent also attached Confidential Appendix B-1-3-1 to Mr. Fuchs' Second Expert Report which had been omitted.

227.

Also on 22 October 2018, the Respondent wrote to the Arbitral Tribunal concerning the Claimants' letters of 10 September 2018 and 11 October 2018 and requested that the Arbitral Tribunal dismiss the Claimants' seven new document requests.

228.

On 24 October 2018, the Claimants informed the Arbitral Tribunal that Mr. Elliott Geisinger and Mr. Christopher Boog of Schellenberg Wittmer Ltd had been added to the Claimants' Counsel Team.

229.

On 25 October 2018, the Claimants sought leave to submit a response to the Respondent's letter of 22 October 2018 regarding the additional document requests by the Claimants.

230.

On the same day, the Arbitral Tribunal granted the Claimants leave to submit a response to the Respondent's letter of 22 October 2018 regarding the additional document requests by the Claimants. The Arbitral Tribunal instructed the Claimants to submit their additional position by 29 October 2018 and the Respondent to take position by 1 November 2018.

231.

By letter dated 29 October 2018, the Claimants wrote to the Arbitral Tribunal in response to the Respondent's letter of 22 October 2018 regarding the additional document requests submitted by the Claimants. The Claimants indicated that they were not in a position to submit their new document requests during the document production phase of the present arbitration and maintained their request that the Arbitral Tribunal order production of documents covered by the additional document requests, as well as production of un-redacted copies of all of the documents referred to by Mr. Fernandez in his witness statement.

232.

On 1 November 2018, the Respondent submitted its response to the Claimants' letter dated 29 October 2018. The Respondent requested that the Arbitral Tribunal dismiss the Claimants' seven new document requests and the requests for the disclosure of the six documents relating to the witness statement of Mr. Fernandez.

233.

On 2 November 2018, the Claimants provided the Arbitral Tribunal with the Parties' agreed dates for the next procedural steps.

234.

On 5 November 2018, the Arbitral Tribunal informed the Parties that it agreed with the suggested dates for the next procedural steps, which were set as follows: 21 December 2018 for the cut-off date; 30 November 2018 for the list of witnesses/experts being called; 7 December 2018 for the Pre-Hearing Conference Call and 21 December 2018 for agreed hearing bundle. The Arbitral Tribunal invited Messrs Elliott Geisinger and Christopher Boog to provide the Arbitral Tribunal by 12 November 2018 with the Power of Attorney.

235.

On 6 November 2018, the Arbitral Tribunal invited the Parties to provide the Arbitral Tribunal by 5 December 2018 with a draft Hearing Timetable.

236.

Also on 6 November 2018, the Respondent submitted its proposal regarding the organization and format of the merits Hearing.

237.

Still on 6 November 2018, the Claimants wrote to the Arbitral Tribunal regarding the Respondent's letter of 1 November 2018 and clarified their position regarding the use of the PAC-4 basalt during the Project.

238.

On the same day, the Arbitral Tribunal acknowledged receipt of the Claimants' addition written position and offered the Respondent the opportunity to comment by 9 November 2018. The Arbitral Tribunal also indicated that no further written submission would then be allowed.

239.

Later on 6 November 2018, the Arbitral Tribunal invited the Claimants and the Respondent to provide the Arbitral Tribunal by 14 November 2018 with their proposals regarding the organization of the Hearing.

240.

On 7 November 2018, the Respondent sought an order from the Arbitral Tribunal pertaining to expert evidence in the present arbitration. The Respondent requested that the Arbitral Tribunal order a meeting between Mr. Hunter and Mr. Fuchs to discuss the quantum of the Claimants' claim and the Respondent's counterclaim and a meeting between Mr. Ramey and Mr. Harvey to discuss the programming issues. The Respondent further requested that the Arbitral Tribunal order the experts to subsequently submit joint statements.

241.

On 8 November 2018, the Arbitral Tribunal acknowledged receipt of the Respondent's email of 7 November 2018 and invited the Claimants to take position by COB on 12 November 2018.

242.

On 10 November 2018, the Respondent submitted its position regarding the Claimants’ additional written position of 6 November 2018 concerning the additional PAC-4 document requests. The Respondent requested that the Claimants' seven new document requests and the requests for the disclosure of six documents relating to the witness statement of Mr. Fernandez be dismissed.

243.

On 12 November 2018, the Arbitral Tribunal issued its decision regarding the Claimants' letter dated 11 October 2018 relating to their requests for the production of additional documents, the Respondent's response dated 22 October 2018, the Claimants' further submission dated 29 October 2018, including their six further requests for the production of documents, the Respondent’s further response dated 1 November 2018 and the Parties' respective emails of 6 and 10 November 2018. The Arbitral Tribunal dismissed the Claimants' requests of 11 October 2018 but ordered the Respondent to produce certain documents relating to the Claimants' requests of 29 October 2018.

244.

Also on 12 November 2018, the Respondent informed the Arbitral Tribunal that there was an incorrect reference to an "Appendix K" at paragraph 135 of the Second Expert Report of Mr. Jeffrey Fuchs and that the correct reference was Appendix D-1-4. The Respondent attached a corrected copy of the report.

245.

Still on 12 November 2018, the Claimants commented on the Respondent's letter of 7 November 2018, in which the Respondent sought an order from the Arbitral Tribunal pertaining to the preparation of joint expert statements. The Claimants objected to the Respondent's request.

246.

On 14 November 2018, the Parties set out their respective proposal for the format and organization of the merits Hearing.

247.

On 15 November 2018, the ICC Secretariat informed the Parties that the Court had readjusted the advance on costs and had increased it from USD 1,330,000 to USD 2,200,000, requested that the Claimants and the Respondent each make a further payment of USD 435,000 toward the advance on costs by 14 December 2018 and enclosed an updated Financial Table.

248.

On 16 November 2018, the Arbitral Tribunal wrote to the Parties concerning the Respondent's letter dated 7 November 2018 and its request for an order from the Arbitral Tribunal that meetings be held between the Parties' quantum and delay experts with the aim of issuing joint statements and the Claimants' letter dated 12 November 2018 and their objections to the Respondent's request. The Arbitral Tribunal dismissed the Respondent's request.

249.

On 22 November 2018, the Arbitral Tribunal wrote to the Parties with regard to their respective positions of 14 November concerning the format and organization of the merits Hearing and indicated its position on this matter. The Arbitral Tribunal requested that the Parties inform it by 17 December 2018 in the event they considered necessary to update the list of witnesses/experts to be called for the examination. The Arbitral Tribunal further requested that the Parties attempt to agree on a revised Hearing Agenda by 20 December 2018. The Arbitral Tribunal enclosed the Updated Procedural Timetable.

250.

Also on 22 November 2018, the Arbitral Tribunal invited the Claimants' Counsel to clarify by 23 November 2018 whether they were still Counsel on record for Jan de Nul in the present arbitration.

251.

On 27 November 2018, the Claimants’ Counsel indicated that the counsel of record listed in the Terms of Reference were still representing Jan de Nul in the present arbitration. The Claimants' Counsel indicated that Jan de Nul adopted and ratified the Statement of Reply and all communications and submissions by the Claimants since the filing of the Statement of Reply and that Jan de Nul repeated and maintained its claim in the present arbitration as set out and quantified in the Statement of Claim and the Statement of Reply.

252.

Also on 27 November 2018, the Respondent indicated that the source data for the test results shown in the « Database » tab to Appendix J of Mr. Hammond’s report had been inadvertently omitted from the factual exhibits served with the Respondent's Statement of Rejoinder and that the replacement Appendix J to Mr. Hammond's Second Expert Report and the accompanying new factual exhibits (R-1619 to R-1627) had been uploaded to the secure FTP site.

253.

On 28 November 2018, the Arbitral Tribunal acknowledged receipt of the Claimants' Counsel's email of 27 November 2018 and informed the Respondent that it had the opportunity to comment on this email by COB on 29 November 2018.

254.

On 29 November 2018, the Respondent commented on Claimants' Counsel's email of 27 November 2018 stating that the fourth Claimant was "unable to "repeat and maintain" any claim, whether in the Statement of Claim or the Statement of Reply".

255.

On 30 November 2018, the Parties submitted their respective list of witnesses and experts to be called for examination.

256.

On 5 December 2018, the Arbitral Tribunal provided the Parties with the dial-in details for the Pre-Hearing Conference Call on 7 December 2018 and requested the Parties to indicate the names of the persons who would speak during the Pre-Hearing Call.

257.

Also on 5 December 2018, the Secretariat acknowledged receipt of USD 435,050 from the Respondent and enclosed an updated Financial Table.

258.

Still on 5 December 2018, the Claimants provided the Arbitral Tribunal with a first draft Hearing Schedule.

259.

On the same day, the Respondent commented on the Claimants' email regarding the schedule for the Hearing and set out a chronology of the key recent interactions between the Parties on this issue.

260.

Later still on 5 December 2018, the Claimants commented on the Respondent's email of 29 November 2018 arguing that it contained "several incorrect statements" and reserving all rights.

261.

On 6 December 2018, the Claimants wrote to the Arbitral Tribunal with regard to the Arbitral Tribunal's letter of 12 November 2018 and the Respondent's production of responsive documents on 16 November 2018. The Claimants requested that the Arbitral Tribunal order the Respondent to produce certain documents which should had been produced in response to the Arbitral Tribunal's order of 12 November 2018.

262.

On the same day, the Arbitral Tribunal acknowledged receipt of the Claimants' request and invited the Respondent to take position by 10 December 2018.

263.

Also on 6 December 2018, the Respondent set out a list of issues which it considered it would be useful to discuss during the Pre-Hearing Call on 7 December 2018.

264.

On 7 December 2018, the Parties indicated the names of the persons who would be addressing the Arbitral Tribunal at the Pre-Hearing call.

265.

Also on 7 December 2018, the Claimants set out their position on the organization of the merits Hearing and responded to the issues raised in the Respondent's email of 6 December 2018.

266.

Still on 7 December 2018, the Arbitral Tribunal informed the Parties that it decided that the Concrete Aggregates and Foundation Conditions should be heard separately during the Hearing. Moreover, the Arbitral Tribunal indicated that if a Party wished to hear a witness or expert on more than one topic, that witness or expert should be called separately for each subject and could not be examined on other topics during its evidence on a particular subject (except in regard to the Concrete Mix Design and Delay). The Arbitral Tribunal invited the Parties to attempt to agree on a Hearing Timetable and to provide the Arbitral Tribunal with their agreed (or in case of disagreement, individual) proposed timetable by 14 December 2018. The Arbitral Tribunal then summarized the other points that were discussed during the Pre-Hearing Call and reminded that the Parties would provide the Arbitral Tribunal with their list of attendees for the Hearing by 14 January 2018 and revert to the Arbitral Tribunal with a proposal regarding the hearing bundle of documents also by 14 December 2018.

267.

By letter dated 10 December 2018, the Respondent wrote to the Arbitral Tribunal in response to the Claimants' letter of 6 December 2018 seeking disclosure of the confidential PAC-4 settlement agreements, and alleging that the Respondent's production in compliance with the Arbitral Tribunal's order of 12 November 2018 was "deficient in a number of respects". The Respondent sought an order that the Arbitral Tribunal reject the Claimants' additional document requests in the Claimants' letter of 6 December 2018, including in relation to the confidential PAC-4 settlement agreements.

268.

On 10 December 2018, the Claimants served their Statement of Rejoinder on the Respondent's Delay Damages Counterclaim, along with Factual Exhibits C-1677 to C-1697, Legal Exhibits C-LA-0437 to C-LA-0450 and the following witness statement and expert reports:

Third Witness Statement of Dr. Jacques Marchand (C-WS-48):

Sixth Expert Report of Dr. Arturo Hoyos (C-EX-30); and

Third Expert Report of Ms. Marianne Ramey (C-EX-31).

The Claimants indicated that the submission could be downloaded from their secure site.

269.

On 11 December 2018, the Arbitral Tribunal requested the Respondent to clarify by 15 December 2018 certain issues relating to the confidential exhibits and confidential appendices to Mr. Fuchs' Second Expert Report.

270.

Also on 11 December 2018, the Respondent, upon request of the Arbitral Tribunal, provided the Arbitral Tribunal with the legal material referred to in the Respondent's letter of 10 December 2018.

271.

On 12 December 2018, the Respondent provided the Arbitral Tribunal with the list of the attendees for the Respondent at the Pre-Hearing Conference Call on 7 December 2018.

272.

Also on 12 December 2018, the Claimants provided the Arbitral Tribunal with the transcript of the Pre-Hearing Conference Call on 7 December 2018.

273.

Still on 12 December 2018, the Claimants, upon request of the Arbitral Tribunal, provided the Arbitral Tribunal with the legal material referred to in the Claimants' letter of 6 December 2018.

274.

On 14 December 2018, the Claimants provided the Arbitral Tribunal with the list of the attendees for the Claimants at the Pre-Hearing Conference Call on 7 December 2018.

275.

Also on 14 December 2018, the Respondent responded to the Arbitral Tribunal’s email dated 11 December 2018 regarding the confidential documents and gave some clarifications. The Respondent provided the Arbitral Tribunal with the confidential documents referred to in its email.

276.

Still on 14 December 2018, the Claimants provided the Arbitral Tribunal with the Hearing Schedule agreed by the Parties.

277.

On 15 December 2018, the Arbitral Tribunal wrote to the Parties concerning the Claimants' letter dated 6 December 2018 and the Respondent’s response dated 10 December 2018. The Arbitral dismissed the Claimants' requests for additional production.

278.

On 17 and 18 December 2018, the Arbitral Tribunal provided the Parties with its comments on the draft Hearing Agenda.

279.

On 18 December 2018, the Claimants informed the Arbitral Tribunal that a hard copy of the Statement of Rejoinder on the Respondent's Delay Damages Counterclaim, as well as a hard drive containing the same had been dispatched to the Arbitral Tribunal and that "some minor, non-substantive changes" had been made to the witness statement of Dr. Jacques Marchand.

280.

By letter dated 19 December 2018, Claimants wrote to the Arbitral Tribunal concerning the Arbitral Tribunal's communication of 17 December relating to the Hearing Agenda. The Claimants proposed that all cross-examinations of Messrs Quijano and Miguez conclude by 25 January 2019 and 8 February, respectively, and requested leave from the Arbitral Tribunal to conduct a 20-minute direct examination of Mr. Möder during the ROI issue-segment in order to rebut issues raised by the Respondent in its Statement of Rejoinder.

281.

On 20 December 2018, the Arbitral Tribunal acknowledged receipt of the Claimants’ letter of 19 December 2018 and invited the Respondent to take position by COB on the same day Miami time.

282.

On the same day, the Respondent indicated its position regarding the Claimants’ letter of 19 December 2018 relating to the evidence of Messrs Quijano and Miguez of the Respondent, and Mr. Möder of the Claimants, at the Hearing.

283.

On 22 December 2018, the Claimants submitted additional Factual Exhibits C-1698 to C-1869 and additional Legal Authorities C-LA-0451 to C-LA-0471, together with updated Legal Authorities C-LA-12, 92, 144, 193 and 227.

284.

On the same day, the Respondent submitted additional Factual Exhibits R-1628 to R1684 and additional Legal Authorities R-LA-0209 to R-LA-0216.

285.

On 25 December 2018, the Arbitral Tribunal wrote to the Parties regarding their respective correspondence concerning the issue of hearing bundles and indicated that each side was free to organize the exhibits that it wished to show to the witnesses and experts and that there would be no agreed bundles of core documents. The Arbitral Tribunal also indicated its position regarding the testimony from Messrs Quijano, Miguez and Möder. The Arbitral Tribunal instructed the Parties to provide, by 9 January 2019, an updated Hearing Agenda.

286.

On 27 December 2018, the Respondent informed the Arbitral Tribunal of a possible problem with the appearance in Miami of one of its witnesses, Ms. Coronado, due to a possible lack of visa to enter the United States.

287.

On 9 January 2019, the Parties requested that the Arbitral Tribunal approve the use of a live audio feed during the Hearing.

288.

On the same day. the Arbitral Tribunal confirmed its consent to use a live audio feed during the Hearing.

289.

On 11 January 2019, the Arbitral Tribunal wrote to the Parties with regard to its email of 25 December 2019 and requested the Parties to clarify by when they planned to submit the updated Hearing Agenda.

290.

On 14 January 2019, the Respondent provided the Arbitral Tribunal with the list of the Respondent's attendees at the Hearing.

291.

Also on 14 January 2019, the Arbitral Tribunal invited the Parties to submit the updated Hearing Schedule by 17 January 2019 and to inform the Arbitral Tribunal within the same time limit of any pending procedural incident.

292.

On 15 January 2019, the Claimants provided the Arbitral Tribunal with their list of attendees at the Hearing.

293.

On the same day, the Respondent provided the Arbitral Tribunal with an updated list of the Respondent's attendees at the Hearing.

294.

On 18 January 2019, the Claimants provided the Arbitral Tribunal with the updated Hearing Schedule as agreed between the Parties.

295.

Also on 18 January 2019, after several emails on this subject, the Claimants provided the Arbitral Tribunal with the Schellenberg Wittmer Ltd's Power of Attorney.

296.

On 19 January 2019, the Claimants requested that the Arbitral Tribunal confirm the Claimants’ right to use a demonstrative video "as parts of their General Opening Statement on 21 January 2019; or, in the alternative, admit the additional, publicly available ACP YouTube videos to the record".

297.

On the same day, the Arbitral Tribunal acknowledged receipt of the Claimants' letter and gave the Respondent the opportunity to comment on it by 6pm Miami time.

298.

Also on 19 January 2019, the Respondent provided the Arbitral Tribunal with an updated list of attendees for the Respondent at the Hearing.

299.

Still on 19 January 2019, the Respondent set out its comments on the Claimants' tetter of the same day relating to their proposed use of a demonstrative video during their Opening Statement in the Hearing, The Respondent requested that the Claimants' applications be rejected.

300.

On 20 January 2019, the Claimants wrote in response to the Respondent’s email of 19 January 2019 regarding the use of a demonstrative video during their Opening Statement in the Hearing and sought a decision of the Arbitral Tribunal on this matter.

301.

On the same day, the Arbitral Tribunal gave the Respondent the opportunity to reply to the Claimants' email of 20 January 2019 by 9.30pm Miami time.

302.

Still on the same day, the Respondent commented on the Claimants' email of 20 January 2019 and reaffirmed its position on the use of the demonstrative and reserving its rights.

303.

Later still on the same day, the Arbitral Tribunal wrote to the Parties regarding the Claimants' application of 19 January 2019 to use videos as part of their Opening Statement, the Respondent's answer and objection received on 19 January 2019, the Claimants' further position received on 20 January 2019 and the Respondent's final position also received on 20 January 2019 and issued its decision on this matter. The Arbitral Tribunal allowed the Claimants to use videos as part of their Opening Statement but only to the extent that such demonstrative strictly complied with the conditions of Section 13 of the Specific Procedural Rules. The Arbitral Tribunal instructed the Parties to indicate during their Overall Opening whether there remained any pending procedural issues and to clarify whether the reservations of rights were still on record and to identify them precisely at the latest at the end of the Hearing. The Arbitral Tribunal further invited the Parties to discuss in due course of the Hearing whether they could reach agreement on the next steps and dates. Finally, the Arbitral Tribunal informed the Parties that it accepted the Parties' proposal that the Secretary to the Arbitral Tribunal would keep a record of the cumulative time used by each Party and by the Arbitral Tribunal and send it by email to the Parties following the end of each hearing day.

304.

From 21 January 2019 to 15 February 2019, the Hearing on the Merits was held in Miami, Florida. At the end of each hearing day, the Administrative Secretary to the Arbitral Tribunal sent an email to the Parties with the record of the cumulative time used by each Party and by the Arbitral Tribunal.

305.

On 24 January 2019, the Respondent submitted the errata sheet to the second witness statement of Mr. Lorenzo, since he was not being called by the Claimants to be crossexamined.

306.

On the same day, the Claimants submitted the errata sheets for the witness statements of Messrs Zaffaroni, Buffa and Lampiano.

307.

On 27 January 2019, the Claimants informed the Arbitral Tribunal that they had decided no longer to call Ms. Coronado for cross-examination.

308.

On 29 January 2019, the Respondent submitted the errata sheet for Ms. Coronado.

309.

On 31 January 2019, the Respondent confirmed that due to constraints on time it no longer intended to call Mr. Pelaez for cross-examination.

310.

On 1 February 2019, the Claimants confirmed that they would be showing confidential documents during the cross-examination of Mr. Dance.

311.

Also on 1 February 2019, the Claimants wrote to the Arbitral Tribunal with respect to the timing and schedule for the Hearing. The Claimants requested that the Arbitral Tribunal direct that the Hearing be split, and that the Claimant 1 Quantum, and Claimants 2-4 issues be conducted during the period of 30 April - 3 May 2019, and that the Parties be permitted to present closing submissions on 15 February 2019.

312.

On 3 February 2019, the Respondent informed the Arbitral Tribunal that it had notified the Claimants that due to the shortness of time it no longer intended to cross-examine Mr. Lopez or Mr. Möder.

313.

Also on 3 February 2019, the Respondent informed the Arbitral Tribunal that a potential issue had arisen between the Parties concerning a request made by the Claimants' Counsel to the Respondent's Counsel on 30 January 2019 "to introduce as a supposed demonstrative, a test kit to be performed on various basalt samples" which were not in the evidential record. The Respondent proposed that the Claimants should clarify by return whether they maintained their proposal and whether and when they intended to make such application, or if such application was to be made, that the Tribunal should proceed to decide the application in writing as soon as practicable, and preferably by close of play on 4 February 2019.

314.

On the same day, the Claimants informed the Arbitral Tribunal that Mr. Shilston would not use any demonstrative relying on Exhibits C-1776, C-1777 and C-1778 in his direct presentation.

315.

On 4 February 2019, the Respondent informed the Arbitral Tribunal that due to the shortness of time it no longer intended to cross-examine Mr. Davis.

316.

Also on 4 February 2019, the Claimants informed the Arbitral Tribunal that in the interests of time they no longer intended to cross-examine Mr. McLean.

317.

Still on 4 February 2019, the Claimants confirmed that they would perform a short direct examination of Mr. Davis.

318.

On 5 February 2019, the Claimants provided the Arbitral Tribunal with the errata sheet for Mr. Pelaez.

319.

Also on 5 February 2019, the Claimants provided the Arbitral Tribunal with a revised Hearing Schedule of Week 3 of the Hearing, which had been agreed on by the Parties.

320.

On 6 February 2019, the Claimants informed the Arbitral Tribunal that they had learned on the previous day that Mr. Casas could not travel to Miami due to an instruction of his employer to conduct a due diligence without delay and that the Claimants had immediately notified the Respondent and proposed to organize a video-conference on 8 February 2019, which was accepted by the Respondent.

321.

On 7 February 2019, the Respondent informed the Arbitral Tribunal that due to pressure of lime it no longer intended to cross-examine Ms. Baz.

322.

On 8 February 2019, the Respondent informed the Arbitral Tribunal that due to shortness of time it no longer intended to cross-examine Mr. Versteele.

323.

On 9 February 2019, the Claimants provided the Arbitral Tribunal with an updated Hearing Schedule for the final week of the Hearing.

324.

On 10 February 2019, the Arbitral Tribunal reminded the Parties that they should attempt to agree on the suggested next procedural steps (including dates and the Cost Submissions) and communicate their (ideally) common or as the case might be individual positions by 13 January 2019 in the evening (Miami time). The Arbitral Tribunal instructed the Parties to clarify what they intended to do regarding the numerous reservations of right contained in their written submissions and to express preliminary views as to the expected (reasonably) limited length of the Post-Hearing Briefs also by 13 January 2019. Finally, the Arbitral Tribunal requested the Parties to clarify, within the same time limit, their position regarding Jan de Nul and its status in the present arbitration.

325.

On 12 February 2019, the Arbitral Tribunal provided the Parties with its expectations for the Post-Hearing Briefs and preliminary thoughts, which would be further discussed during the administrative part of the Hearing on 15 February 2019.

326.

Also on 12 February 2019, the Claimants informed the Arbitral Tribunal that they had proposed to introduce twelve new exhibits onto the arbitral record (Exhibits C-1870 to C-1881), which was accepted the Respondent.

327.

On 13 February 2019, the Parties set out their respective position on the length and dates of the Post-Hearing Briefs and of the oral closings.

328.

On 16 February 2019, the Arbitral Tribunal wrote to the Parties regarding the discussions during the administrative part of the Hearing and indicated the next procedural steps, which were set as follows: 31 May 2019 for the simultaneous filing of the Post-Hearing Briefs (expected length : no more than 350 pages) and the simultaneous filing of separate submissions on the reservations of rights contained in the written submissions; 26 July 2019 for the simultaneous filing of the Rebuttal Post Hearing Briefs (expected number of pages: no more than 250 pages) and the simultaneous fifing of separate rebuttal submissions on reservations of rights contained in the written submissions; 27 September 2019 for the submission by the Arbitral Tribunal of its list of questions for the Closing Oral Arguments; 12-13 October 2019 for the Closing Oral Arguments in London; 31 October 2019 for the Simultaneous filing of Cost Submissions and 29 November 2019 for the simultaneous filing of Comments on Cost Submissions. The Arbitral Tribunal requested the Claimants to confirm by 19 February 2019 COB Miami time that they did not have any objection regarding the manner in which the Arbitral Tribunal had conducted the procedure up to, and including, the procedural Hearing.

329.

By letter dated 19 February 2019, the Claimants responded to the Arbitral Tribunal’s email of 16 February 2019 and indicated that they did not object to the manner in which the Arbitral Tribunal had conducted the procedure up to, and including, the merits Hearing, but did have concerns with the Respondent's conduct. The Claimants requested that the Arbitral Tribunal seek confirmation from the Respondent that it also had no objection to the Arbitral Tribunal's conduct of the procedure up to, and including, the Hearing.

330.

On the same day. the Arbitral Tribunal acknowledged receipt of the Claimants' letter and invited the Respondent to take position by 22 February 2019 COB Miami time.

331.

On 22 February 2019, the Respondent informed the Arbitral Tribunal that it had no objection regarding the manner in which the Arbitral Tribunal had conducted the proceedings up to, and including, the Hearing.

332.

On 25 February 2019, the Arbitral Tribunal wrote to the Parties concerning their respective letters dated 19 February 2019 and 22 February 2019 and invited the Claimants to state their position (including possible requests) regarding their concerns with the Respondent's conduct during the Hearing by 7 March 2019 and the Respondent to file its reply position by 14 March 2019.

333.

On 26 February 2019, the Respondent sent to the Arbitral Tribunal an encrypted hard drive containing its Opening Presentations, the presentations given by its experts, the errata to its witness statements and expert reports and its demonstratives.

334.

By letter dated 26 February 2019, the Claimants informed the Arbitral Tribunal that they had dispatched encrypted USB drives and confirmed that they had uploaded to Magnum the electronic versions of the errata to their witness statements and expert reports, their opening and expert presentations and their demonstratives.

335.

On 27 February 2019, the Tribunal Arbitral provided the Parties with an updated procedural Timetable containing the next procedural steps and requested the Parties to inform the Arbitral Tribunal, by 7 March 2019, whether there had been any discussions or arrangements agreed between the Parties' Counsel regarding corrections to the transcripts from the merits Hearing.

336.

On 7 March 2019, the Claimants responded to the Arbitral Tribunal's email of 25 February 2019 and stated their position regarding their concerns with Respondent's conduct during the Hearing and reiterated that they did not raise any issues concerning the Arbitral Tribunal's conduct of the Hearing. The Claimants indicated that no further decision was required on this matter.

337.

On 14 March 2019, the Respondent wrote to the Arbitral Tribunal in response to the Claimants' letter of 7 March 2019, which was sent in response to the Arbitral Tribunal's email of 25 February 2019, requesting that the Claimants state their position (including possible requests) regarding their concerns with the Respondent's conduct. The Respondent reserved its rights as regards the Claimants' allegations as to the Respondent’s conduct.

338.

On 15 March 2019, the ICC Secretariat informed the Parties that the Court had readjusted the advance on costs and had increased it from USD 2,200,000 to USD 3,200,000, requested that the Claimants and the Respondent each make a further payment of USD 500,000 toward the advance on costs by 15 April 2019 and enclosed an updated Financial Table.

339.

On 15 March 2019, the Arbitral Tribunal requested the Parties to indicate, by 18 March 2019, whether they had made any arrangements concerning corrections to the Hearing Transcript and if so, when such corrections could be expected to be received.

340.

On 18 March 2019, the Respondent informed the Arbitral Tribunal that the Parties had agreed a process regarding the corrections to the Hearing Transcript whereby the Claimants would provide their comments on the transcripts for the Respondent's review and comment, which the Claimants would in turn review.

341.

On 23 April 2019, the Secretariat acknowledged receipt of USD 500,000 from the Claimants and enclosed an updated Financial Table and a Payment Request in which it granted additional time until 10 May 2019 to the Respondent to pay the amount set forth therein,

342.

On 7 May 2019, the Secretariat acknowledged receipt of USD 500,000 from the Respondent and enclosed an updated Financial Table.

343.

On 31 May 2019, the Secretariat indicated that the Court had extended the time limit for rendering the final award until 31 January 2020.

344.

Also on 31 May 2019, the Respondent served its First Post-Hearing Brief, as well as an appendix addressing the Respondent's reservation of rights. The Respondent indicated that its First Post-Hearing Brief could be downloaded from its secure FTP server.

345.

On the same day, the Claimants submitted their First Post-Hearing Brief, along with a letter concerning the reservation of rights contained in their previous written submissions. The Claimants indicated that their First Post-Hearing Brief was produced via a secure FTP site.

346.

On 1 June 2019, the Respondent served an errata sheet to the Fourth Expert Report of Mr. MacGregor, which had been prepared following receipt of Mr. Hart's updated valuation of Claimants 2-4's ROI Claim to 31 May 2019.

347.

On 4 June 2019, the Respondent informed the Arbitral Tribunal that the full hyperlinked version of its First Post-Hearing Brief could be downloaded from its secure FTP server.

348.

On 5 June 2019, the Claimants indicated that the hyperlinked version of their First Post-Hearing Brief, along with appendices, exhibits and legal authorities (including a demonstrative showing a timeline specifically dealing with the evolution of the key provisions) could be downloaded from their secure site.

349.

On 6 June 2019, the Respondent indicated that it had couriered to the Arbitral Tribunal a printed hard copy of its First Post-Hearing Brief, as well as an encrypted hard drive containing the same.

350.

On 8 June 2019, the Claimants informed the Arbitral Tribunal that hard copies of their First Post-Hearing Brief, as well as password-protected hard drives, had been sent out on 7 June 2019.

351.

On 9 June 2019, the Respondent wrote to the Arbitral Tribunal concerning two issues arisen from the Claimants email of 5 June 2019 and their First Post-Hearing Brief. The Respondent sought permission to provide responsive authorities with its Second PostHearing Brief and sought an order that no Party should serve additional new authorities without the prior permission of the Arbitral Tribunal. The Respondent requested that the demonstrative submitted with the Claimants' First Post-Hearing Brief be not considered by the Arbitral Tribunal, or. In the event the Arbitral Tribunal intended to consult the demonstrative, the Respondent sought permission to provide its own additional demonstrative with its Second Post-Hearing Brief.

352.

On the same day, the Arbitral Tribunal acknowledged receipt of the Respondent's email and invited the Claimants to take position by 11 June 2019.

353.

On 11 June 2019, the Claimants wrote to the Arbitral Tribunal regarding the Respondent’s email of 9 June 2019, objecting to the Respondent's allegations.

354.

On 12 June 2019, the Respondent wrote to the Arbitral Tribunal in response to the Claimants' email of 11 June 2019 and maintained its position regarding the introduction of new legal authorities and the use of the demonstrative by the Claimants.

355.

On the same day. the Arbitral Tribunal acknowledged receipt of the Respondent's email and offered the Claimants the opportunity to take position by 13 June 2019. The Arbitral Tribunal indicated that no further submission on this procedural incident would then be admitted.

356.

On 13 June 2019, the Claimants responded to the Respondent's email of 12 June 2019. The Claimants informed the Arbitral Tribunal that they were ready to accept that the Respondent be allowed to complete its First Post-Hearing Brief on the matters of burden of proof, weighing of evidence and adverse inferences by 19 June 2019 with an addendum of up to five pages and the legal authorities, on which the Respondent would rely. The Claimants requested that the Respondent be not allowed to produce its own additional demonstrative with its Second Post-Hearing Brief but indicated that the demonstrative could be a joint demonstrative of the Parties, and the Respondent might, if it so wished, complete it with the evolution of other relevant clauses found in Exhibit R-0778.

357.

On 14 June 2019, the Claimants informed the Arbitral Tribunal about changes in their Counsel Team.

358.

On 18 June 2019, the Arbitral Tribunal issued its decision concerning the Respondent's email of 9 June 2019 regarding documents filed with the Claimants' First Post-Hearing Brief, the Claimants' response dated 11 June 2019, the Respondent's further reply comments received on 12 June 2019. and the Claimants' further rejoinder comments received on 13 June 2019. The Arbitral Tribunal granted the Respondent the opportunity to file any legal authorities on the issues raised by the Arbitral Tribunal, along with an addendum to its First Post-Hearing Brief of up to five pages, by 28 June 2019. The Arbitral Tribunal indicated that the Parties would then have the opportunity to file any responsive legal authorities - specifically in response to the opposing Party's submissions on these newly-raised issues - in their second round of Post-Hearing Briefs. The Arbitral Tribunal then dismissed the Respondent's request that the Claimants’ demonstrative be disregarded, and granted the Respondent's request to file its own additional demonstrative (or, as the case might be, add to the Claimants' demonstrative) with its Second Post-Hearing Brief, within the limits set out by the Arbitral Tribunal in its email.

359.

On 21 June 2019, the Claimants informed the Arbitral Tribunal that there were three remaining points of disagreement regarding the testimonies provided in Spanish, provided the Arbitral Tribunal with the Parties' respective position on the three outstanding issues and requested the Arbitral Tribunal to issue a decision in this respect.

360.

On 28 June 2019, the Arbitral Tribunal issued its decision on the pending disagreement on the Hearing Transcript.

361.

On 29 June 2019, the Respondent submitted the Addendum to its Post-Hearing Brief, along with an Index of the Additional Legal Authorities cited in the Addendum (R-LA-0217 to R-LA-0229).

362.

On 1 July 2019, the Respondent confirmed that the full hyperlinked version of the Addendum to its Post-Hearing Brief could be downloaded from its secure FTP server.

363.

On the same day, the Claimants requested that paragraphs 2.1 to 2.4 of the Addendum to the Respondent's Post-Hearing Brief be immediately stricken from the record, along with exhibit R-LA-0217.

364.

On 2 July 2019, the Arbitral Tribunal acknowledged receipt of the Claimants' email of 1 July 2019 and invited the Respondent to take position by 3 July 2019 COB.

365.

On 3 July 2019, the Respondent objected to the Claimants' email of 1 July 2019 regarding the paragraphs 2.1 to 2.4 and R-LA-0217 of the Addendum to the Respondent's PostHearing Brief.

366.

On the same day, the Claimants sought leave to submit a reply to the Respondent’s email of 3 July 2019.

367.

On 4 July 2019, the Arbitral Tribunal granted the Claimants leave to submit by 5 July 2019 a reply to the Respondent's email of 3 July 2019 and offered the Respondent the opportunity to file then a rejoinder position by 9 July 2019.

368.

On 5 July 2019, the Respondent indicated that it had couriered to the members of the Arbitral Tribunal a printed hard copy of the Addendum to its First Post-Hearing Brief with the additional legal authorities, as well as an encrypted hard drive containing the same.

369.

Also on 5 July 2019, the Claimants submitted a reply to the Respondent's email of 3 July 2019. The Claimants maintained their request that the paragraphs 2.1 to 2.4 of the Addendum to the Respondent's First Post-Hearing Brief and R-LA-0217 be excluded from the record.

370.

On 9 July 2019, the Respondent filed its rejoinder position on the Claimants' email of 5 July 2019. The Respondent maintained its position that the Claimants' request should be denied.

371.

On 13 July 2019, the Arbitral Tribunal issued its decision regarding the Claimants' application dated 1 July 2019, the Respondent's response dated 3 July 2019, the Claimants' reply dated 5 July 2019, and the Respondent’s rejoinder dated 9 July 2019. The Arbitral Tribunal dismissed the Claimants' application to strike paragraphs 2.1 to 2.4 of the Addendum to the Respondent's Post-Hearing Brief and exhibit R-LA-0217 and stressed that any new legal authorities filed by the Parties with their second Post-Hearing Briefs must be specifically in response to a new legal authority filed by the opposing Party/Parties with the first Post-Hearing Briefs, and clearly identified as such.

372.

On 26 July 2019, the Respondent served its Reply Post-Hearing Brief, together with a Rebuttal Appendix regarding the reservations of rights, which could be downloaded from its secure FTP server.

373.

On the same day, the Claimants submitted their Second Post-Hearing Brief, which was produced via a secure FTP site,

374.

On 30 July 2019, the Respondent confirmed that the full hyperlinked version of its Reply Post-Hearing Brief could be downloaded from its secure F

GUPC v. ACP (II) (Concrete Arbitration)

Documents de l'affaire

Avocats, autres représentants, expert(s), secrétaire du tribunal