1. According to ICC, the subcontractor FCC has subcontracts for the precast wall, the buildings, the culvert, the street poles already. None of these works had been started at the time of ditch termination. None of these works have been completed as yet and are actually behind the current/approved schedule. The claim by IC or FCC is invalid if many works are pending and not started on time.

2. At the time of termination of ditch, ICC had missed many contractual milestones, contractual obligations,  and had not even planned to start many scheduled/ pending works (buildings/ culvert/ pole foundations/ curbs/ relocation of Kaust fence), despite various requests from SAPMT. IC kept delaying these adminsitrative decisions to start and plan on time becasue of lack of resources and expertise.

3. If ICC or FCC did not have any work to do after the termination of the ditch, and the resources were idling because of no work to do, then why is FCC still on site struggling with pending activities. The precast daily production is behind schedule. Wall erection is behind schedule. The shop drawings for most buildings are still not ready. Shop drawings for culvert are still not ready. The pole foundations are still not started. 

4. The fact that not even a single work activity was on schedule or started on time or timely planned due to lack of resources, the few personnel that ICC or FCC had were already not enough to fulfill the required work and meet with IC contractual obligations.

5. It is a known fact that IC was struggling with relocation of Kaust fence and FCC teams came to help them. Its a known fact that ICC was not able to start the work on buildings and culvert and had no choice but to get it done by FCC. All of this proves that ICC was unable to plan and start work on time and had no resources to start. The termination of ditch came as a blessing in disguise where the staff from FCC could be utilised to start all the pending activities. No FCC staff left the project, they were all redistributed to do many long awaited works, neglected by IC. This shows the idling claimed by FCC is because ICC did not plan its work even though there was a lot of work to do and milestones were slipping. This shows that because of lack of timely decisions from IC management, many workers from FC or IC may have to sit and wait, because IC had not prepared shop drawings, had not cleared sites, had not purchased required items, had not brought tools on site, had not formed subcontracts, had not finalised complete IFC drawings, MEP and Comm drawings were not available. 

6. Attached picture show the lack of tools and equipment and people sitting idly under no supervision from IC. 

7. By saying, "I do not agree" in your letter, to the facts mentioned in SAPMT letter shows how little knowledge IC has of the signed contracts. SAPMT shall refer to the contract again, where many milestones have been neglected by IC. Under such cases where IC is behind schedule and many activities are pending, an idling claim can never be substantiated, unless it can be techncially proven that these allegedly idling resources had no other work to be done in the contract at that time.

8. This will be the last reply on this issue from SAPMT and IC is urged to take its claim on this issue to the Saudi Aramco Claims deptt for further guidance. 

