SAPMT has reviewed the subject letter dated April 16, 2014 and has rejected with the following comments:
1.	IC is urged to refer to IFB where it is clearly mentioned in 1.2.1 that "This project will be designed in accordance with the respective government agencies standards including MOWE and SEC. Also, industrial standards will be used for scope elements that are not covered under the respective Government agencies standards. Only current Saudi Aramco standards for Loss Prevention, Safety and Security and Environmental Protection will be applied for this project." IC shall understand that an Aramco contract does not necessarily mean that only Aramco standards shall be followed, especially if the legal document such as a contract mentions it clearly.
2.	Keeping the above-said option to waive from standards in mind as mentioned in the IFB, the MOM attached by IC shows a generalised comment for guidance and not specific to the issue at hand. A project with multiple disciplines and interfaces has to have a base for standards, which is Aramco standards. IC shall avoid from creating a confusion where none exists. It also does not mean that SAPMT did not know as to why a deviation from Aramco standards was made in IFB for package substations. PMT had acquired a formal waiver internally already. As an example KAUST has been developed with only packaged substations in the past.
3.	The IFC drawings were issued by IC in parts due to lack of coordination within IC; and were partly accepted via PMT letter # K&TPD/KRP&SFPD/SF/L-433/14 dated January 21, 2014. PMT acceptance of a submittal from IC does not relieve the contractor from its contractual obligations as mentioned in the IFB. It can be ascertained that IC deliberately tried to create a confusion by providing wrong technical specifications not concurring with the requirements of the contract.
4.	The contract clearly mentions which standards are to be followed as mentioned in line 1 and IC is obligated to follow them.
5.	IC has shown lack of technical know how by using wrong gauge cables with wrong type of equipment. Even though the terminology has varied in the IFB for the desired equipment, the intention has been clear that packaged substations are required. The same term "Packaged substations" has been used in the SCH – C against which IC has provided its rates during bidding. It is clearly mentioned in the IFB that, "3.1.3 In the event of any conflict between the provisions of this Construction Scope of Work and the CONTRACTOR Obligations as set forth in the Contract Documents, the Conditions of Contract shall govern.
6.	The IFB also clearly mentions that, "2.2 Promptly after this Contract's effective date, review and evaluate the SAUDI ARAMCO-provided Preliminary Design to ensure that it does not conflict with another drawing, specification or standard referenced in this Contract. IC is advised to read Contractor’s obligations in details as mentioned in the contract, before creating such confusions.
Should you have any questions, please contact Sohail Moughal, Project Engineer at Tel No. +966 2 422-4570.
