SAPMT has reviewed the subject letter no. KPSS/SA/B/AKR/14/0714 dated July 07, 2014 and has rejected with the following comments:
1.	IC has to reconsider the notices for claim when the current progress on buildings is only 5% as compared to the planned 48% according the current schedule.
2.	IC shall provide an alternative/ solution being the designer of this LSTK contract and fulfill the requirements of the IFB.
3.	The IFB says that, "Drawing PA-000104 sheet 002 shows just the conceptual connectivity of the proposed systems at the vehicle inspection center. With due justification and with PMT approval, the detailed engineering design may elect to establish a separate security control shelter dedicated to functions related to the vehicle inspection center. It means that IFB includes the construction of a Vehicle inspection center and if not constructed shall be considered as a negative change order.
4.	The detailed design of a gatehouse was an integrated effort between shape, form, mobility, strategy, security and functions, where during the design phase decisions were made by shuffling the buildings left, right and center, security systems were re-arranged to acquire the best possible result and get an economically viable design. Some roads, walls, pathways, parking spaces, signs, lights, barriers, alignments, walls, bollards and related security infrastructure etc. were adjusted and shifted to gain the ultimate result and thus the subject room was added as a part of the integrated design. The other option was to totally automate the intersection after the subject operator room by adding features that would direct the visitors where to go, without the operator and such option was not included during the review by team consisting of IC, SAPMT and KAUST. Thus the operator room cannot be considered as in isolated instance for a change order.
Should you have any questions, please contact Sohail Moughal, Project Engineer at Tel No. +966 2 422-4570.
