Adresse https://gelex.eu/eli/DK/decision/retsinfo/1998/60532@1998-08-03/da

Indhold

1. Indledning

1) Indledende bemærkninger.

Ved entreprisekontrakt af 6. december 1993 blev det efter afholdt licitation overdraget klageren som hovedentreprenør at udføre en kloakerings- og rensningsanlægsentreprise i Bhutan med indklagede som bygherre. Entreprisen omfattede flere lokaliteter i Bhutan, herunder en sydligt beliggende by her kaldet område A på grænsen til Indien, hvor arbejdet omfattede bl.a. udførelse af floddiger og rensningsanlæg ved en flod. Ved arbejdets påbegyndelse i januar/februar 1994 blev det opdaget, at den kraftige monsun i 1993 havde bevirket, at flodens løb var ændret siden udarbejdelsen af udbudsprojektet, hvilket efter klagerens opfattelse havde til følge, at man for flodarbejdets vedkommende måtte udføre et helt andet projekt af anden karakter og med væsentligt forøgede mængder på kortere tid, således at man som udgangspunkt er berettiget til afregning med nye enhedspriser, herunder også for udført ekstraarbejde, hvad indklagede bestrider.

Ved et klageskrift, der er modtaget i Voldgiftsnævnet for bygge- og anlægsvirksomhed den 13. marts 1996, har klageren herefter indbragt tvisten herom for en af nævnet nedsat voldgiftsret, bestående af direktør, civilingeniør Torben Sørensen, direktør, civilingeniør Jørgen H. Spliid og højesteretsdommer Palle Kiil, sidstnævnte som voldgiftsrettens formand.

2) Parternes påstande.

For voldgiftsretten, hvor sagen efter forberedende retsmøder den 16. og 17. november 1997 er blevet forhandlet - med forevisning af en videofilm fra byggeområdet - i dagene den 1., 2. og 3. juli 1998 med efterfølgende votering den 4. s.m., har klageren påstået indklagede tilpligtet at betale til klageren 19.449.600 kr. tillige med renter - diskontoens plus 3 % - af 19.385.074 kr. fra den 5. juli 1995.

Indklagede har påstået frifindelse.

Påstandsbeløbet, for hvilket der er redegjort nærmere nedenfor i punkt 12, indeholder følgende hovedposter:

Generelt krav: 16.825.199 kr.

Enkelt krav: 2.559.875 kr.

Rentekrav: 64.526 kr.

I alt: 19.449.600 kr.

Beløbet skal ikke tillægges moms.

3) Udbudsprojektet.

3.1. Udbudsprojektet var udarbejdet af et firma, der tillige havde tilsyn med arbejdets udførelse og var den af indklagede udpegede "Engineer", jf. definitionen heraf i artikel 1.1. i Fidic (Fédération Internationale Des Ingénieurs - Conseils), der var gældende for entreprisen. Dette firma - i det følgende CBI - indbød i skrivelse af 29.marts 1993 på indklagedes vegne klageren "to tender for the projects in Bhutan" og oplyste i skrivelsen, at "pretender site visits" var planlagt til afholdelse den 5. maj 1993, dvs. inden monsunperioden ca. 1. juni til ca. 1. oktober 1993.

3.2. I udbudsprojektets "Instructions to tenderers" fra april 1993 hedder det bl.a.:

1 DESCRIPTION OF WORKS

The project compromises the Sewerage and Sewerage Treatment hereinafter referred to as the "Works".

The project shall be tendered for on the basis of the principles of measured works.

The Tenderer shall in his rates include all services, materials, equipment and plant necessary for a successfull completion and functioning of the Works, whether or not such service, materials, equipment and plant are specifically indicated in the specifications or on the drawings.

5 SITE VISIT

5.1. The Tenderer is recommended to visit and examine the Site of Works and its surroundings and obtain for himself on his own responsibility all information that may be necessary for preparing the Tender and entering into a contract. The cost of visiting the Site shall be at the Tenderers own expense.

6 CONTENTS OF TENDER DOCUMENTS

6.1. The set of Tender Documents issued for the purpose of Tendering includes the volumes, drawings and invitations stated below, together with any Addenda thereto issued in accordance with Clause 8:

Volume Section Subject

- 0 Invitation to Tender (under seperate cover)

I 1 Instructions to Tenderers

2 Conditions of Contract Part I: General Conditions

3 Conditions of Contract Part II: Conditions of Particular Application

4 Appendix to Tender

5 Various Contract Forms

6 Bill of Quantities

7 Schedules of Supplementary Information

II Technical Specifications

III Drawings

It shall be emphasized that no reservations to the Conditions og Contract will be accepted. If, in special cases, clarifications are required, the Tenderer shall request for the calling of a Pre-tender Meeting where the issues shall be discussed, and the changes agreed upon. The engineer shall conduct the meeting and prepare the minutes of the meeting, which will be sent to all Tenderers in accordance with the procedures laid down in Clause 8 below.

..

..

10 DOCUMENTS COMPRISING THE TENDER

10.1 The Tender to be prepared by the Tenderer shall comprise the following:

The completed Volume I including:

- Form of Tender,

- Appendix to Tender,

- Bill of Quantities,

- Schedules of Supplementary Information,

- Tenderers Proposed Time Programme,

..

26 DANISH AND LOCAL ASSOCIATION

26.1 The Tenderer shall note that the contractual model envisaged is that the body of the Works are to be executed by Bhutanese Associates under the management direction, planning and responsibility of a Danish Contracting Company, being the "lead" Associate in the contractual arrangement. All administrative matters and Contract correspondence, pertaining to the Contract, will be through the Danish Associate. The Tenderer shall state in the Tender the name(s) of his Bhutanese Associate(s) and provide a Letter of Association, which shall be binding.

26.2 The Tenderer shall specify in the Tender the parts of the Works (if any) to be executed by Sub-contractors (engaged by eighter of the Associates) and the value of the works to be executed by the said Sub-contractor with reference to the Bill og Quantities.

If parts of the Work are thus subcontracted then the work shall be undertaken by eighter a Danish or a Bhutanese sub-contractor."

3.3. Udbudsprojektets tegningsmateriale viste pladsen for permanente arbejder beliggende på et tørt område, men indeholdt i øvrigt ingen oplysninger om vandstandsforholdene, bortset fra vandstande observeret under en opmåling optegnet på tegninger dateret den 3. august 1992. Datoen for udførelsen af opmålingen er ikke oplyst på tegningerne.

3.4. I udbudsprojektets "Conditions of contract" april 1993 hedder det bl.a.:

" 16.1 Contractors Employees

..

The Contractor shall execute the Works in association with a Bhutanese contractor. The local contractor shall be identified in the Tender, submitted by the contractor, along with supporting documentation of the local contractors previous experience and available resources.

The association declared by the main contractor in the Tender shall be binding.

SETTLEMENTS OF DISPUTES

67.3 Arbitration

The following shall be added to clause 67.3 of the general conditions:

Arbitration shall take place in Copenhagen and be in accordance with the danish rules of consiliation and arbitration by one or more arbitrators appointed by "Voldgiftsretten for bygge- og anlægsarbejder".

The ruling language for arbitration shall be danish.

.."

3.5. I udbudsprojektets "Technical Specifications" hedder det bl.a.:

"b. Area A

(i) Construction of river training

(ii) The execution of all necessary excavation and backfilling work, access road work, landscaping and other associated work to construct the Treatment Plant consisting og totally 5 ponds.

..

In addition the Contractor shall undertake such additional work which may be required or ordered by the engineer under the contract.

..

1.23 Works to be kept free from water

The Contractor shall allow in his price rates for all necessary provision for keeping the whole of the works thoroughly drained and clear of water, from any source whatsoever, below the lowest level of any part of them so long as may be required (and if considered necessary by the engineer, continuously night and day) by means of mechanical, electrical or hand pumps or other mechanical appliances, pipes, chutes, dams, diversions or other means necessary for that purpose.

Where ditches are utilised for conveying the water pumped from trenches, the contractor shall clean out, buttom up and maintain the ditches.

Water from excavations will be discharged to locations approved by the engineer.

..

3.5 Drainage of the works

1. The contractor shall arrange for the rapid dispersal of water shed on to or entering the works from any source.

..

5. The cost of all temporary drainage works is to be included in the rates for the earthworks

..

3.7 Excavation for structures

1. Excavation for foundations for structures will be carried out to the levels and dimensions shown on the drawings or as directed.

..

6. Excavations will be kept free from water and the contractor shall make all necessary arrangements to dispose of any water which enters the excavation.

..

3.8 Backfilling of excavations and to structures

1. Backfilling of excavations and to structures will be done with suitable normal material. The material will be deposited in loose layers not exceeding 200 mm thick. The material is to be brought to within the specified moisture content limits in the same manner as for general earthworks and compacted as specified in Table 300 A.

3.6. Af et "appendix to tender" fremgår, at "time for completion" var 730 dage svarende til 2 år fra starttidspunktet, og - som et appendix til FIDIC artikel 60.10 - at rentesatsen skulle være diskontoen plus 3 %.

3.7 . Udbudsprojektet henviste i øvrigt som udgangspunkt generelt til FIDIC´s Conditions of Contract for Works of Civil Engineering Construction, 4 th edition 1987, hvori det bl.a. hedder:

Suspension of work 40.1 The contractor shall, on the instructions of the engineer, suspend the progress of the works or any part thereof for such time and in such manner as the engineer may consider necessary and shall, during such suspension, properly protect and secure the works or such part thereof so far as is necessary in the opinion of the engineer. Unless such suspension is ..

(c) necessary by reason of climatic conditions on the site, or

(d) necessary for the proper execution of the works or for the safety of the works or any part thereof ..

Sub-clause 40.2 shall apply.

Engineers determination following suspension 40.2 Where, pursuant to sub-clause 40.1, this sub-clause applies the engineer shall, after due consultation with the employer and the contractor, determine

(a) any extension of time to which the contractor is entitled under clause 44, and

(b) the amount, which shall be added to the contract price, in respect of the cost incurred by the contractor by reason of such suspension,

and shall notify the contractor accordingly, with a copy to the employer.

..

Variations 51.1 The engineer shall make any variation of the form, quality or quantity of the works or any part thereof that may, in his opinion, be necessary and for that purpose, of if for any other reason it shall, in his opinion, be appropriate, he shall have the authority to instruct the contractor to do and the contractor shall do any of the following:

(a) increase or decrease the quantity of any work included in the contract,

(b) omit any such work (but not if the omitted work is to be carried out by the employer or by another contractor),

(c) change the character or quality or kind of any such work,

(d) change the levels, lines, position and dimensions of any part of the works.

(e) execute additional work of any kind necessary for the completion of the works,

(f) change any specified sequence or timing of construction of any part of the works.

No such variation shall in any way vitiate or invalidate the contract, but the effect, if any, of all such variations shall be valued in accordance with clause 52. Provided that where the issue of an instruction to vary the works is necessitated by some default of or breach of contract by the contractor or for which he is responsible, any additional cost attributable to such default shall be borne by the contractor.

..

Valuation of variations 52.1 All variations referred to in clause 51 and any additions to the contract price which are required to be determined in accordance with clause 52 (for the purposes of this clause referred to as "varied work"), shall be valued at the rates and prices set out in the contract if, in the opinion of the engineer, the same shall be applicable. If the contract does not contain any rates or prices applicable to the varied work, the rates and prices in the contract shall be used as the basis for valuation so far as may be reasonable, failing which, after due consultation by the engineer with the employer and the contractor, suitable rates or prices shall be agreed upon between the engineer and the contractor. In the event of disagreement the engineer shall fix such rates or prices as are, in his opinion, appropriate and shall notify the contractor accordingly, with a copy to the employer. Until such times as rates or prices are agreed or fixed, the engineer shall determine provisional rates or prices to enable on-account payments to be included in certificates issued in accordance with clause 60.

Power of engineer to fix rates 52.2 Provided that if the nature or amount of any varied work relative to the nature or amount of the whole of the works or to any part thereof, is such that, in the opinion of the engineer, the rate or price contained in the contract for any item of the work is, by reason of such varied work, rendered inappropriate or in applicable, then, after due consultation by the engineer with the employer and the contractor, a suitable rate or price shall be agreed upon between the engineer and the contractor. In the event of disagreement the engineer shall fix such other rate or price as is, in his opinion, appropriate and shall notify the contractor accordingly, with a copy to the employer. Until such time as rates or prices are agreed or fixed, the engineer shall determine provisional rates or prices to enable on-account payments to be included in certificates issued in accordance with clause 60.

Provided also that no varied work instructed to be done by the engineer pursuant to clause 51 shall be valued under sub-clause 52.1 or under this sub-clause unless, within 14 days of the date of such instruction and, other than in the case of omitted work, before the commencement of the varied work, notice shall have been given eighter:

(a) by the contractor to the engineer of his intention to claim extra payment or a varied rate or price, or

(b) by the engineer to the contractor of his intention to vary a rate or price.

Variations exceeding 15 per cent 52.3 If, on the issue of the taking-over certificate for the whole of the works, it is found that as a result of:

(a) all varied work valued under sub-clause 52.1 and 52.1 and

(b) All adjustments upon measurement of the estimated quantities set out in the bill of quantities, excluding provisional sums, dayworks and adjustments of price made under clause 70, but not from any other cause, there have been additions to or deductions from the contract price which taken together are in excess of 15 per cent of the "effective contract price" (which for the purposes of this sub-clause shall mean the contract price, excluding provisional sums and allowance for dayworks, if any) then and in such event (subject to any action already taken under any other sub-clause of this clause), after due consultation by the engineer with the employer and the contractor, there shall be added to or deducted from the contract price such further sum as may be agreed between the contractor and the engineer or, failing agreement, determined by the engineer having regard to the contractors site and general overhead costs of the contract. The engineer shall notify the contractor of any determination made under this sub-clause, with a copy to the employer. Such sum shall be based only on the amount by which such additions or deductions shall be in excess of 15 per cent of the effective contract price.

Daywork 52.4 the engineer may, if in his opinion it is necessary or desirable, issue an instruction that any varied work shall be executed on a daywork basis. The contractor shall then be paid for such varied work under the terms set out in the daywork schedule included in the contract and at the rates and prices affixed thereto by him in the tender.

..

Notice of claims 53.1 Notwithstanding any other provision of the contract, if the contractor intends to claim any additional payment pursuant to any clause of these conditions or otherwise, he shall give notice of his intention to the engineer, with a copy to the employer, within 28 days after the event giving rise to claim has first arisen.

..

Time for payment 60.10 The amount due to the contractor under any interim certificate issued by the engineer pursuant to this clause, or to any other term of the contract, shall, subject to the clause 47, be paid by the employer to the contractor within 28 days after such interim certificate has been delivered to the employer, or, in the case of the final certificate referred to in sub-clause 60.8, within 56 days, after such final certificate has been delivered to the employer. In the event of the failure of the employer to make payment within the times stated, the employer shall pay to the contractor interest at the rate stated in the appendix to tender upon all sums unpaid from the date by which the same should have been paid.

..

Engineers decision 67.1 If a dispute of any kind whatsoever arises between the employer and the contractor in connection with, or arising out of, the contract or the execution of the works, whether during the execution of the works or after their completion and whether before or after repudiation or other termination of the contract, including any dispute as to ant opinion, instruction, determination, certificate or valuation of the engineer, the matter in dispute shall, in the first place, be referred in writing to the engineer, with a copy to the other party. Such reference shall state that it is made pursuant to this clause. No later than eighty-fourth day after the day on which he received such reference the engineer shall give notice of his decision to the employer and the contractor. Such decision shall state that it is made pursuant to this clause.

..

If either the employer or the contractor be dissatisfied with any decision of the engineer fails to give notice of his decision on or before the eighty-fourth day after the day on which he received the reference, then either the employer or the contractor may, on or before the seventieth day after the day on which he received notice of such decision, or on or before the seventieth day after the day on which the said period of 84 days expired, as the case may be, give notice to the other party, with a copy for information to the engineer, of his intention to commence arbitration, as hereinafter provided as to the matter in dispute. Such notice shall establish the entitlement of the party giving the same to commence arbitration, as hereinafter provided, as to such dispute and, subject to sub-clause 67.4, no arbitration in respect thereof may be commenced unless such notice is given.

..

Arbitration 67.3 any dispute in respect of which:

(a) the decision, if any, of the engineer has not become final and binding pursuant to sub-clause 67.1, and

(b) amicable settlement has not been reached within the period stated in sub-clause 67.2, shall be finally settled, unless otherwise specified in the contract, under the rules of consiliation and arbitration of the international chamber of commerce by one or more arbitrators appointed under such rules. The said arbitrator/s shall have full power to open up, review and revise any decision, opinion, instruction, determination, certificate or valuation of the engineer related to the dispute."

3.8. I udbudsprojektets "Bill of quantities" hedder det bl.a.:

The bill of quantities shall be read in conjunction with the instructions to tenderers, general and special conditions of contract, technical specifications, work schedule and drawings.

The quantities given in the bill of quantities are estimated and provisional, and are given to provide a common basis for bidding. The basis of payment will be the actual quantities of work ordered and carried out, as measured by the contractor and verified by the engineer and valued at the rates and prices tendered in the priced bill of quantities, where applicable, and otherwise at such rates and prices as the engineer may fix within the terms of the contract.

The rates and prices tendered in the bill of quantities shall, except insofar as it is otherwise provided under the contract, include all constructional plant, labour, supervision, materials, erection, maintenance, insurance, profit, taxes and duties, together with all general risks, liabilities and obligations set out or implied in the contract.

The rates and prices shall be quoted entirely in Danish kroner.

7) General directions and descriptions of work and materials are not necessarily repeated or summarised in the bill of quantities. References to the relevant sections of the contract documentation shall be made before entering rates or prices against each item in the bill of quantities.

General

1. References should be made to sub-clause 52(4) of part 1 of the conditions of contract. Work shall not be executed on a daywork basis except by written order of the engineer. Bidders shall enter basic rates for daywork items in the schedules. These rates shall apply to any quantity of daywork ordered by the engineer. Nominal quantities have been indicated against each item of daywork, and the extended total for daywork shall be carried forward as a provisional sum to the summary total bid amount.

I flere af positionerne for angivelse af enhedspriser - som kravet i denne sag vedrører - er om arbejdet anført: " dealing with water or working under water".

3.9. Som oplyst i CBI´s skrivelse af 29. marts 1993 afholdtes den 5. maj 1993 pretender site visit med deltagelse af byens borgmester og af repræsentanter fra fire danske entreprenørselskaber, heriblandt klageren, samt fra bhutanesiske entreprenører og CBI. I et af CBI´s repræsentant udarbejdet referat fra mødet hedder det bl.a.:

"2.2 The site visit:

Prior to the site visit CBI outlined that the main trunk lines, the river crossing site, the treatment plant site and the river training works would be visited. Also to be included were potentially difficult areas (for example restricted access) and house/sullage connection sample areas. The tenderers would have opportunity to view the physical conditions to be encountered. The meeting was adjourned and was to be reconvened after the site visit. All those attending the meeting participated in the visit.

2.3 Question and answer session:

The tenderers were informed that the questions received to date and the questions raised at the meetings would be listed and issued along with the minutes of both meetings as an addendum.

All the queries raised are listed in appendix A.

..

Appendix A

..

C. Queries raised at the Phuntsholing visit.

..

46 The tenderers enquired if there were any soil investigation reports or records of water levels for the area?

Answer: We will investigate and provide if available.

.."

Oplysninger herom fremkom ikke.

Af fremlagte fotos optaget under pretender visit i maj 1993 fremgår, at det areal øst for floden, hvor rensningsanlægget var tænkt placeret, var et fladt, græsbevokset og stenet areal uden synlig vandforekomst. Oplysninger om vandforholdene forelå i øvrigt kun som tabeller over "Daily discharge - vandføring", fra en kraftstation beliggende 70 km. Sydligere i Indien. Tabellen dækkede årene 1978-87 og et beregnet gennemsnit på grundlag af disse år.

4) Klagers tilbud.

4.1. Klagers tilbud, der omfattede såvel arbejderne i hovedstaden Thimbu som i Phuntsholing, blev fremsendt til indklagede den 15. juni 1993. I fremsendelsesskrivelsen hedder det bl.a.:

"We are pleased to submit our offer to carry out all works in connection with the furnishing of the necessary materials, labour, plant, equipment and services for the construction of the subject project for the sum of

..

Basis of Tender

This Tender compromises the following documents, valid in order of precendence:

The present letter

Form of Tender and Appendix to Tender

Bill of Quantities

..

Time Schedule

We have planned to execute the whole work in a 24-month construction period and as outlined in the enclosed preliminary time schedule based upon a commencement period of 56 days after award of Contract.

..

Clarifications

With reference to paragraph 26 of Instructions to Tenderers, klager has during the month of May 1993 visited a number og Bhutanese contractors and discussed the content of the project and subsequently exchanged information of a technical and commercial nature with them for the purpose of executing the works in association cum subcontract with one or several of those mentioned below:

Bhutan Engineering Company Pvt. Ltd.

Yarkay

Gaseb Construction Company

Karma Group Organisation

Singye Industries (Pvt.) Ltd.

For details of potential Bhutanese contractors, see enclosures in seperate section.

Initially it is planned to divide the works in Thimbu and Phuntsholing each in a suitable number of subcontracts covering river works and pipelaying respectively.

This planning and subsequent finalising of agreements is taking place after negotiations and careful evaluation of capabilities.

..

Wire mesh for gabions is anticipated purchased in conformity with the technical specifications, ref. Clause 8.2. In case local manufactured wire meshing may be accepted a reduction in tender price may be envisaged. .."

Som lokal underentreprenør vedrørende arbejderne i område A valgte klageren et bhutanesisk A-klasse entreprenørfirma, i det følgende betegnet underentreprenøren.

Af den med tilbudet fulgte Bill of Quantities som ændret i november 1993 fremgår, at arbejderne i område A var prissat til i alt 21.286.948 kr., heraf til River training 3.062.690 kr. Det samlede beløb inkluderede et tillæg på 15 % svarende til 8.058.693 kr. "as Contingencies".

4.2. Tilbudet blev drøftet ved to møder mellem parterne den 20. og 24. september 1993. dagen efter det første møde - den 21. september 1993 - fremsendte klageren en skrivelse med kommentarer til de punkter, man havde drøftet. Det hedder heri bl.a.:

"6. regarding your request for extended validity of our tender we have the following comments.

We presume that klager within the coming week receives letter of acceptance, however, with defined conditions. Further, we have been informed that contract is planned to be formally signed towards the end of November 1993.

Consequently, klager can enter into binding agreements with suppliers and subcontractors only early December 1993, whereby the effective "working period" before the rainy season is reduced by approximately 2 month.

In order to maintain the original planned 24 months construction period it is conditional that the order to commence is issued not later than one week after signing the contract.

.."

5) Indklagedes accept af tilbudet.

I skrivelse af 27. september 1993 accepterede indklagede klagerens tilbud med ganske få ændringer, der beløbsmæssigt er uden betydning. I skrivelsen hedder det bl.a.:

"Letter of Acceptance

We are pleased to inform you that we hereby accept your Tender of 15. June 1993 for the above project on the conditions in the said tender and amended in accordance with the enclosed "Agreed Minutes of Contract Negotiations", dated 27 September 1993 for the sum of

..

Please note that acceptance is given subject to the following conditions, namely

The approval by the Danish Financial Authorities of a grant for the water and sewerage projects and

2) The signing of the government agreement between Bhutan and Denmark.

The present "Letter of Acceptance" shall be valid only upon the fulfilment of these two conditions.

The commencement of the works shall be the date of receipt by yourself of the Engineer´s "Notice to commence the Works" which date shall be no later than 7 th December 1993, .."

6) Entreprisekontrakten.

Som nævnt indledningsvis blev entreprisekontrakten herefter underskrevet af indklagede den 6. december 1993. Den følgende dag - den 7. s.m. - fremsendte CBI "notice to commence the Works". I perioden forud for denne "notice" havde klageren nogle gange rykket såvel CBI som indklagede for myndighedernes tilladelse til at opnå adgang til byggepladsen med henvisning til, at det ellers ville blive for sent at udføre de nødvendige flodarbejder inden den kommende monsun i maj 1994. Tilladelsen kom i en skrivelse af 26. januar 1994 fra borgmesteren i område A, hvori det hedder:

"Sub: - Handing over of site.

Dear Sirs,

We are pleased to allot the site on the left bank of the river below the existing slaughter yard for the proposed Sewerage Treatment Plant and River Training works. Please note that the plot in question is available 20 mtrs. Approximately short of Indo-Bhutan boundary on the Bhutanese territory."

7) De ændrede forhold efter monsunen 1993.

7.1. Allerede den 7. januar 1994 havde klageren til CBI fremsendt tidsplaner for udførelsen af arbejderne i område B og A, planer, som var afhængige af starttidspunkter, men som CBI i øvrigt ikke fandt at kunne acceptere. Af planen for flodarbejderne i område A fremgår bl.a., at man påregnede at begynde sådanne arbejder i perioden februar - maj 1994 for derefter at indstille arbejderne i den kommende monsunperiode i juni - september 1994 og afslutte disse inden næste års monsunperiode.

Ved mobiliseringen af arbejdspladsen i område A i slutningen af januar/begyndelsen af februar 1994 konstaterede klageren imidlertid, at flodens løb var ændret, således at en delaf det areal, der var planlagt anvendt til rensningsanlægget, nu var oversvømmet. Ændringen, der skyldtes den ekstraordinære monsun i 1993, var af borgmesteren i område A meddelt Public Works Division i et brev af 13. august 1993, som både klageren og indklagede imidlertid bestrider at have set før på et senere tidspunkt. I brevet hedder det:

"Further to the wireless message DT. 10.8.93 regarding the left bank erosion of the river, please find below a plan showing the present course of the river in the lower reaches towards the international boundary. It is at this area that the treatment plant of the Sewerage Project is proposed and RT works are envisaged. When the tender drawing of the proposed protection works was referred, it was revealed that the river now actually flows through the treatment plant area encroaching well into the land from the former river bank existing last year 1992. It may be necessary to bring to the knowledge of the consultant concerned with the Sewerage Project so that any needful action may be felt necessary to be taken up. However, for the present the river is still swollen and has come further into the left bank. In this connection, some emergency protection works is necessary for which allocation of funds is urgent in order to carry out the precautionary works/measures.

This is for your honours kind information and further advice please.

7.2. De ændrede forhold på den planlagte byggeplads gav anledning til afholdelse af et møde med CBI den 4. februar 1994. I et af klageren udarbejdet notat fra mødet hedder det:

"Subject: Area A river works.

The engineer presented a drawing to show that the river or a branch had shifted position to a course running directly across the pond area leaving one spur dike (no.1) in the middle of the river and 4 remaining on the opposite banks.

CBI suggests that we carry on the works for the 4 spurs before the monsoon season. No additional work to be paid for. It is up to the contractor to make own temporary works if needed.

Klager claimed that this situation with a catastrophe flood in July 1993 washing 3 bridges in India downstream course of the river be considered unforeseeable by the contractor and therefore on employers risk.

CBI claims that klager accepted to do the works by signing the contract even when we know that the pre-monsoon period was shortened to 50 %. We also saw the situation in December without reacting.

Klager say that in December we had no ref. Points and could not verify the position of spurs. Klager claim that in a river like this the original idea was to make the whole river training in an intermediate period. We cannot do this now, therefore we eighter start if the Engineer will take the risk for the structures or we wait and claim time extension.

CBI will not grant time extension at present and will not take the risk for unfinished works. Building 4 spurs now at the contractors risk is the same as we suggested when we believed that the spurs were situated on dry land. Nobody can foretell the further courses of the river.

CBI admits that the situation is more difficult now than last year, but claim that it is purely the contractors risk. CBI asks klager how we will go about the start of works.

Klager will reply next week after having visited the site."

7.3. I den efterfølgende korrespondance mellem klageren og CBI om følgerne af det ændrede flodløb gjorde klageren bl.a. gældende, at "the dramatic change of location of the river since the drawings were made will require replanning of the works", et standpunkt, som CBI - efter oprindeligt at have indtaget en vis afvisende holdning hertil - accepterede og i skrivelse af 10. marts 1994 til klageren instruerede denne om at suspendere flodarbejderne indtil videre. I skrivelsen hedder det:

"In accordance with the Conditions of Contract, Clause 40.1 you are instructed to suspend the excavation of the spurs and dyke pending a review of the structural design. The review has been called to investigate whether any potential negative effects have arisen to the structural design from the extensive scouring, between Points A - C, resulting from the exceptionally severe monsoon of 1993.

On receipt of the review findings an instruction, if required, shall be issued regarding subsequent amendments/additional works to be carried out.

Any extension of time and additional cost to be added to the Contract Price attributed to the suspension shall be determined in accordance with Conditions of Contract, Clauses 40.2 and 44.1.

We consider that activities such as the collection, sorting and stockpiling of gabion boulders and filter material to be used in any works may proceed in the interim period."

Af referatet fra et møde den 9. marts 1994 mellem klageren og underentreprenør Y fremgår, at der på suspensionstidspunktet var mobiliseret med en stab på 9 mand samt 21 faglærte og 32 ufaglærte, hvortil kom 2 dozers, hvoraf den ene var "out of order".

7.4. I en skrivelse af 25. marts 1994 til CBI henviste klageren til afholdte drøftelser om de nødvendige projektrevisioner som følge af det ændrede flodløb og opsummerede sin opfattelse af resultaterne således:

"With reference to our previous correspondence and discussions on the subject matter, we thank you for our recent meetings in area A with participation of your design specialist. We want to recollect the outcome of our discussions as follows:

CBI accept that the river has changed its course since the execution of drawings and tender material, and that it is presently passing right through our allocated site in a manner which forces the contractor to execute the work according to the present design in a manner which could not have been foreseen by an experienced contractor.

CBI will modify the Project to reduce the extra costs due to this changed site condition.

A preliminary sketch showing the relocation of the river dyke to a position on the dry side of the left bank of the new river course was handed over to the contractor. This new dyke is gaining extra land both to the north and to the south of the treatment plant area for the ponds. Furthermore the government land made available by the City Corporation on the elevated level at and in front of the helipad will provide the contractor with filling material for the river dyke core. 7 or 8 spur dykes are to be foreseen in stead of originally 5. CBI will issue revised drawings shortly after Easter.

The river dyke shall not extend more than 5 metres below reference level. Therefore the note saying that the depth shall also respect the criteria of being at least 2 metres below existing ground level shall be modified.

The diversion work already executed on a day work basis by the contractor shall be considered extra work. The cost of this shall be informed to CBI by Tuesday the 29 th March 1994.

Any further diversion of the river required to execute the works shall be considered extra work.

The extra cost of protecting the existing shore line of the new lay out of the Treatment Plant by dozing river bed material from the island in the river outside the plant area and placing in a dam along the line of the dyke shall be estimated by the contractor for the 29 th March, 1994. This extra work can start right away upon acceptance of the budget estimate by CBI. Any protection work suggested by CBI to protect the shoreline upstream of the point A shall be considered extra work.

As the contractor is fully mobilised for the contract works, these can start immediately upon receipt from CBI of the revised drawings for the Treatment Plant. The contractor shall however endeavour to start excavation works for the dyke upon receipt from CBI of the co-ordinates of the new point A of the dyke together with revised crest levels."

7.5. I skrivelse af 30. Marts 1994 til klageren "bekræftede" CBI, at suspensionen var ophævet den 24. s.m. Det hedder i skrivelsen:

"We refer to our letter ..dated 10 March 1994 instructing you to suspend the excavation of the spurs and dyke.

Following the review carried out by our design specialist and the discussions held at our meetings in area A on the 23/24 March we confirm that the suspension of the works was lifted on the 24 March 1994 by the issuance of a Preliminary Profile of the revised Dyke Wall.

In addition we record that at the meeting held in area B, on the 29 March 1994, the co-ordinates of the revised profile, revised spur and dyke details and working sketches of the spurs were handed over for your information and action. As discussed detailed working drawings of the said sketches, including the revised layout of the stabilisation ponds, and a revised Bill No 2, Section 2 and 3 will be prepared in CBI Head Office by week 15.

With reference to your letter .dated 25.3.1994;

Point 5 we confirm that the diversion work already executed shall be paid on a daywork basis

Point 7 we confirm that the protection works to the shoreline of the new profile shall be paid as additional work. The work required shall be quantified and paid at rates to be agreed. (Refer attachment A).

In accordance with the Conditions of Contract, Clause 51.1 you are instructed to proceed with the protection works as mentioned above and as shown in the Attachment A."

I teksten i Attachment A siges bl.a.:

"1. Background

Following last year's heavy monsoon the course of the river has been altered resulting in the river flowing, in the dry season, through the original site. Moreover the flooding had eroded a considerable quantity of fill material from the site.

CBI considered that a review of the dyke design, of the effects caused by the changed conditions should be carried out and a site visit was arranged for their river training expert.

..

2. Temporary/Protection Works

..

Joint discussion was held to establish what extent of work could be reasonably carried out prior to the monsoon based on the revised details. Various options of protection were discussed and the final scheme selected is shown on the Protection Works Plan and Sketches A and B (attached).

The contractor considered that the protection works as detailed could be completed by the end of the dry season. The question of protection works next year was also discussed CBI considered that the revision to the dyke profile coupled with the proposed protection works would, as near as possible, return the site back to the original conditions as foreseen by the contractor. Therefore as the site had now been revised to cater for the changed conditions then the contractor should plan accordingly and the protection of the works were his responsibility. CBI stated that only in the event of the occurrence of another extremely heavy monsoon would payment for diversion works in the second year be considered.

Protection Works:

Strongpoints comprising of large dumped boulders could not be constructed as the contractor reported that equipment to lift/cart the large boulders (circa 1/2 ton) was not available. An alternative of two temporary spurs, using local wire mesh for cages was agreed upon. These would be constructed just above spur B and immediately below spur C. The approximate volume in each would be circa 260 cubic metres. Sketch B refers. It was recommended that random boulders should be placed on the embankment at the spur locations as additional strengthening.

A temporary dyke extending from below spur D to the existing island shall be constructed consisting of a boulder layer at the front and strengthened by embankment material. Sketch A refers. This would afford protection to the shoreline and prevent further erosion and loss of material. In addition it would also permit the Contractor to work behind the dyke, for example gaining material from the island. The front boulder layer should contain approx. 10-15 cu.metre/linear metre of boulders and built to the dyke crest elevation. The embankment behind shall be built up to the same height and extend to the existing plateau shoreline or to a total minimum width of 20.0m where it crosses the river. The length of the dyke to be determined by the contractor but should be between 120m to 150m from the spur D location.

.."

Af referatet fra "Technical site meeting nr. 14 dated 26 May 1994" fremgår bl.a., " that the protection work is completed". Arbejdet omfattede som beskrevet i Attachment A to midlertidige høfder og et midlertidigt dige.

7.6. Den 3. maj 1994 fremsendte klageren "our rates for the extra protection works at area A" og bad CBI om en hurtig godkendelse af følgende enhedspriser:

"1.1 Formation of initial dam with stone boulders. DKK 65.60 /m3

1.2 Formation of temporary bund/dam with river bed materials. DKK 9.70 /m3

1.3 Excavation for temporary spur dykes in main flow of the river. DKK 29. - /m3

1.4 Construction of gabion spur with boulders carried from outside. DKK 162.75 /m3

As documentation for our unit prices we enclose our breakdowns of these."

Med henvisning til FIDIC artikel 52.2 meddelte CBI den 20. maj 1994, at priserne fandtes for høje, og fastsatte i stedet følgende priser:

"1.1 Formation of initial dam with stone boulders. DKK 31.27 /m3

1.2 Formation of temporary bund/dam with river bed materials. DKK 17.00 /m3

1.3 Excavation for temporary spyr dykes in main flow of the river. DKK 8.90 /m3

1.4 Construction of gabion spur with boulders carried from outside. DKK 100 /m3

The above rates have been based on the rates and prices set out in the contract and are in the opinion of the engineer fair and reasonable."

7.7. Om bl.a. de foretagne tegningsrevisioner foranlediget af det ændrede flodløb hedder det i et notat, udarbejdet af CBI i maj 1994:

"4. Review of 1993 monsoon

Limited data was available for the original design, .. The most reliable data was considered to be the data from a Power Station in India, where 10 years of records were available, ..

A peak larger than the experienced 1979 peak of 3,418 m3/s but with a return period of 50 - 200 years results, from only applying the lower part of the extreme distribution, results in a discharge of 3,500 - 4,500 m3/s. Accordingly, the bad experiences in India may have been a result of such a discharge. The conservatism being applied in the original design seems to have resulted in the design assumptions not being exceeded by the experienced flood.

The scarce and relatively unreliable water level recordings in the river in area A have been reviewed and compared with the few simultaneous measurements at the Power Station. The relationships are very uncertain so only very rough indicative values may be extracted. They indicate less than 3,000 m3/s were experienced in august 1993.

Until now it has not been possible to obtain more reliable data from India. Not even the recent data from the Power Station.

In conclusion it may be stated that although the august 1993 event in general was considered an extreme event, the conservatism applied for the present design implies that the assumed design conditions were not exceeded during august 1993. Accordingly, the redesign of the river training may be based on the original design water level without other modifications than those being a consequence of the changed layout.

7.8.) Redesign

7.8.1.) The principal design changes

The principal design changes include:

Revised river training alignment to maintain minimum changes to contractors work method and to avoid delay due coming monsoon period.

Revised spur design location and spur length as a consequence of new alignment including the need for a spur upstream to the river training, for longer spurs in certain cases, and for shorter distance between the spurs.

Safer spur design as a consequence of recent experiences with spurs, ..

New layout of sewage plant as a consequence of revised river training alignment.

..

7.9.) Cost estimate

..

The main changes as a consequence og the redesign may be summarised as follows:

..

Total DKK 1,630,000"

7.10. Den 30. maj 1994 fremsendte CBI en revideret mængdefortegnelse til klageren, der gør gældende, at fortegnelsen var forkert og angav alt for små udgravningsmængder. I replikken har klageren underbygget dette med en henvisning til tallene i følgende til brug for sagen udarbejdede skema, hvis tal indklagede ikke bestrider:

" 1 2 3 4

Opr. kontrakt (bilag 2.9) CBI 30/5-94 (bilag K) CBI 23/11-94 (bilag 6.50 ) Faktiske mængder

2.21.01 Excavation river dykes 6.700 m3 6.700 m3 10.000 m3 26.269 m3

2.21.02 Excavation spurs 14.300 m3 36.600 m3 50.000 m3 73.257 m3

2.21.04 Gabions 5.226 m3 13.677 m3 13.697 m3 13.518 m3

2.22.01 Dumped rip rap 5.300 m3 8.300 m3 11.901 m3 m3"

8) Monsunperioden 1994.

8.1. Efter afslutningen af de midlertidige beskyttelsesarbejder fremsendte klageren den 25. maj 1994 - kort før begyndelsen af monsunperioden - følgende skrivelse til CBI:

"We want to put on record that the additional protection work to the shoreline of the new profile of the treatment plant as described in your letter dated 30 th March, 1994, has been completed for some days.

Kindly note that you in your above mentioned letter promised to forward drawings of the revised spur dykes and ponds with revised Bill of Quantities by week 15 i.e. 6 weeks ago. Therefore kindly forward these drawings and documentation at your earliest.

We want to mention that our work force including equipment and manpower is actually practically idling and waiting for the detailed working drawings permitting us to plan the work in the pond area to be carried out behind the temporary protections. As you will appreciate it is not and has not been possible to start permanent work on the spurs and training dyke on this side of the monsoon.

With reference to clause 53.1 we shall give notice of claiming for time extension for this delay with reimbursement of extra cost."

I svaret herpå af 27. maj 1994 hedder det:

"We attach for your information and action the preliminary layouts for the treatment plant. The drawings provide you with sufficient information to proceed with the work.

With respect to your claim regarding the subcontractor standing idle, we shall note for the record that the reference line and dyke elevations of the new river training were issued to you early April 1994, therefore the site boundary is clearly defined and known to you. Consequently there is no reason why work, such as site clearance or soil stripping, can not commence. In addition we appreciate that albeit you may not be able to commence work on the spurs, however, there is no reason why you can not start work on the formation of the dyke, behind the protection works which you have recently completed. This issue was discussed at our meetings held at the end of March 1994 and was one of the reasons for the protection works being instructed. Thus the fact is that you "choose not to start" the dyke work, and not, that you "cannot start".

We would prefer that the contractor concentrates more on attempting to execute the works instead of idly standing by, and making claims for delay."

I en skrivelse af 30. juni 1994 orienterede klageren CBI om skader på det midlertidige dige og om den deraf følgende risiko ved at udføre mere omfattende permanente arbejder bag diget i monsunperioden. I skrivelsen hedder det:

"We want to put on record that during the heavy rains for the last few days we have seen the water level and water velocity of the river rise dramatically. Water levels have not yet toppled the temporary dyke which has been completed according to your prescriptions (water levels are measured to approx. 190.0 where the dyke has been built up to 191.0 at point A). However not yet toppling the dyke, the waters have yesterday eroded (washed away) 120 m stone protection between point A and C and started washing away the sand dyke behind the stone protection thus threatening to break through the dyke and into the site.

Your representative and one delegate witnessed on site this situation, and witnessed the efforts administered by us and our subcontractor to prevent the river from breaking through, by throwing boulders stocked for the works into the river in front of the eroded part of the dyke.

We want to put on record that the dumped boulders as ordered by you in the quantity of 10 m3 per running metre dyke have been washed away before the river even overtoppled the dyke, thus starting to wash away the fill materials behind the stone protection.

We shall in this respect refer to your letter ..dated 9.04.94 in which we warn you about this situation and make it clear that we can not take responsibility for consequences of a wash away of the dyke.

We shall also remind you of our discussions preceding the issuance of your drawing of the temporary protection dyke in April, concerning the necessity of constructing protection works (spurs) upstream of the site to prevent the river to erode upstreams and thus break through behind the dyke. It seems that if these had been carried out together with the temporary spurs then the river might not have been able to erode between point A and C.

We have noted your instructions during today's meeting that instead of filling loose boulders into the river as we have been doing in agreement with your resident engineer, we shall fill gabion baskets 1x2x1 m with boulders and gently push these into the river in front of the eroded part of the dyke starting at spur no. 2 and moving upstream towards spur no. 1 and then continue at no. 2 moving upstream again until the line is secured. This extra work shall be carried out at the contractual rates for gabion baskets (Item 1.21.04) with stones brought in from outside (Item 1.23.1).

Simultaneously we shall build a protection with apron baskets 2x7x0.8 m in a 45 degrees slope behind the river shoreline upstream of spur no. 1 for as far as you will instruct us to do. Contractual rates shall apply for this work as well.

We have noted a verbal exchange of views on site during which your representative admitted that under the circumstances he could not decide whether or not to instruct the contractor to do permanent works behind the dyke.

It has after the floods yesterday been proven that the decision taken during the stay of your design specialist in April that no permanent works on the river training could be started before the monsoon was right. No permanent works in the river could have been completed to a sufficient degree before these floods.

We maintain that it may be possible to do some permanent works behind the temporary dyke during the monsoon without however taking the responsibility for the consequences in case of a break through of the river through or behind the temporary dyke.

We shall shortly convey to you a planning of the possible works based upon the latest drawings received from you and the latest clarifications of these received during a meeting with you in area A on the 19 th June, 1994."

8.3. Situationen i monsunperioden 1994 er ligeledes beskrevet i et brev af 6. oktober 1994 fra underentreprenøren til klageren. Det hedder heri bl.a.:

"And for your kind information, we would like to bring to your notice that on October 3, 1994, there was heavy rain at site followed by flash flood in the river (shown to your representative) and spur no. E, F and part of G were under floodwater, besides to that a portion of spur dyke E is also falling with existing temporary dyke/bund. Keeping in view late rainy season and high discharge in the river, we therefore again suggest you to reconsider for extending the existing temporary dyke/bund up to downstream of point G so that the river course is changed, since the river flow is now flowing through point E, F and G. .."

9) Perioden efter monsunen 1994.

9.1. Det reviderede projekt fulgtes op af CBI´s reviderede Bill of Quantities for bl.a. flodarbejderne i område A, udvisende en betydelig stigning i det antal m3, der skulle udgraves. Projektet var blevet fremsendt med CBI´s skrivelse af 31. maj 1994, hvori det bl.a. hedder:

"We hereby forward final report including the redesign of the river training and the treatment plant in area A.

..

Further, the cost estimate has been revised on the basis of a detailed revision of the bill of quantities (BOQ), which due to the urgency of finalising the draft report was not possible at that stage.

The main changes as a consequence of the redesign works is now an estimated increase in cost of 1.6 million DKK instead of 1.3 million DKK in the draft report. ..

The conclusion from the draft report remains unchanged:

The redesign allows the ponds and part of the river training to be constructed on an area elevated and protected from all but the maximum monsoons.

The additional cost (1.6 million DKK) is still much less than if an unmodified design was maintained (4.5 million DKK), and the redesign does not include overall project delay.

The additional costs, which may be extracted from the contingency's included in the contract, are very nearly the same as that which a redesign after tendering but before contract signing most probably would have led to."

9.2. Med skrivelse af 8. august 1994 fremsendte klageren til CBI en revideret tidsplan for arbejderne i område A, som ifølge klageren blev godkendt af CBI. Planen angav bl.a., at der i perioden september 1994 - januar 1995, begge måneder medregnet, skulle udgraves 36.600 m3 "for spur dykes" og i perioden september 1994 - april 1995, begge måneder medregnet, skulle udgraves 6.700 m3 "for river dyke".

I en efterfølgende skrivelse af 2. september 1994 fremkom klageren med følgende bemærkninger til tidsplanen:

"With reference to the time schedule for the Treatment Plant Works as submitted with our letter dated 8.08.94, we want to confirm our discussion during Progress Meeting no. 7 dated 26.08.1994, during which we informed you that the subject schedule is to be considered our tentative work program. This program shall not be considered identical to our contractual work program as such program shall be presented to you with our total claim for time extension due to the changed site conditions and revised layout of the plant."

9.3. I en skrivelse af 6. september 1994 til klageren fremkom underentreprenøren med bemærkninger til det reviderede projekt og til det hidtidige hændelsesforløb, for hvilket man krævede tidsfristforlængelse. I skrivelsen hedder det bl.a.:

"Regarding completion of the work and planning to be followed as per program prepared by you and shown to us by your site representative, we may bring the following to your kind notice.

The scope of work has substantially changed from what we had been envisaged in the sub-contract agreement.

Due to changed site conditions than what had been shown originally while inviting offers from the sub-contractor it became necessary for the Client to redesign the structures and as such, the excavation work of training dyke between point A and B was in progress on receipt of contract drawings from you but had to be suspended as per instructions, till issue of revised drawings.

Suspension of work.

Increase in quantities of River Training work by 2.5 times more than what had been provided in the B.O.Q. incorporated in sub-contract agreement.

Delay in issue of revised drawings.

In view of the above, we have to request you to accept the program as submitted by us with extension of time."

9.4. I en tilsvarende skrivelse af 16. september 1994 fra klageren til CBI hedder det bl.a.:

"Construction of the new River Training can start beginning of October, approximately 4 month after the contractual schedule.

Scope of work for spurs and dyke have increased considerably and consequently the construction period will be extended by approximately 4 month.

Completion period for the Treatment Plant remains unchanged, therefore with the resources as foreseen for the original scope of contractual work, we estimate a required time extension of 8 month in total.

With reference however to our letter with our internal working program dated August 1 st , 1994, we have requested the subcontractor by allocation of additional resources to complete River Training and Treatment Plant by end of 1995. This additional mobilisation of equipment and manpower will lead to a request for extra and additional payment.

We are entitled to extra payment for eighter our additional cost due to extension of time, or for our extra and additional mobilisation. We are at present evaluating the implications of this claim and shall revert shortly."

I CBI´s svar af 21. september 1994 hedder det bl.a.:

"We do not accept your statement that the new River Training cannot start until the beginning of October, approx. 4 month after the contractual schedule for the following reasons;

Refer EWM/84 - data for the revised dyke was issued to you early April 1994.

Dyke work below the temporary dyke, which was completed in mid-May 1994, could have commenced. Refer attachment "A". It can be seen that spurs E, F and G and dyke construction from D - H and H - I could have been carried out at that time.

Moreover your paragraph 6 states that the scope of work for spurs and dyke have increased considerably. We would point out that the dyke was initially 720 m (main dyke) and down section 300 m. It is now 630 m and 220 m respectively, namely a reduction of 12.5 % and 27 %. Therefore your claim for an additional 4 months, for what is effectively a reduction in work content is not substantiated. We acknowledge that 2 nos. additional spurs were added, however, this also does not substantiate an additional 4 months "

Svaret blev kommenteret af klageren i en skrivelse af 28. september 1994, hvori det bl.a. hedder:

"Point 1: Our reasons for not starting the new River Training works before the beginning of October is quite the same as that foreseen in the contractual planning, in which no work was foreseen in the river during the 4 months of monsoon period.

To start the deep riverbed excavations for spurs and dyke in the monsoon period or just before the start of the monsoon period would have been far too risky and irresponsible considering the ferocity of the river. Your river expert from Copenhagen has also acknowledged this during his visit here in April.

Construction of the temporary protection dyke does not change this fact as the river training wall and the spur dykes are located either in this dyke or in front of the dyke in the river itself. The intention with the construction of the dyke was to secure the site from being further eroded by the river during this monsoon period.

..

Therefore we maintain our statement that the River Training can start beginning October, when the monsoon is ending and when the risk of floods have ended.

Point 2: Regarding your comments to the scope of work, we are aware of the fact that the length of the down section dyke has been reduced by 27 %. However this work represents approximately 3 % only of the cost of the River Training Works, and is as such insignificant.

The length of the River Dyke has been reduced by 12 %. However the removal of the temporary dyke has caused quantities of excavation to increase considerably.

By far the most important of the works of River Training is contained in the construction of spurs. The number of spurs has increased from 5 nos. to 8 nos. i, e, 3 additional spurs and not 2 as you mention in your letter no. 00180. And you will appreciate that the sizes of these additional spurs are considerably greater than the sizes of the 5 original spurs.

We have made an approximate estimate of the quantities for the total of the River Training Works.

Excavation 40,000 m3 i. e. An increase of 90 %

Gabion boxes 7,460 m3 i. e. An increase of 40 %

Filters under spurs 3,600 m3 i. e. An increase of 250 %

The total increase of River Training Work measured with cost of work is 35 % to 40 %.

This will clearly appear when you submit to us the awaited revised Bill of Quantities.

Therefore we maintain our claim of 4 months time extension due to the increased scope of work. Refer FIDIC clause 44.1 sub clause (a).

..

Point 4: Our discussions with our subcontractor regarding payment for some works have no influence on progress of the works.

We hope that you with the above clarifications will accept that we maintain our claim for 8 months time extension as a result of the changed site conditions and revised design. As mentioned in our previous letter we shall revert shortly with the corresponding cost implications of this time extension."

I skrivelse af 11. oktober 1994 fastholdt CBI imidlertid afvisningen af den krævede tidsfristforlængelse på 8 måneder.

9.5. I den følgende tid korresponderede klageren og CBI om bl.a. reviderede Bill of Quantities og om arbejdets fremdrift, herunder om underentreprenørens indsats af arbejdere. Som svar på CBI´s kritik af det langsomme arbejde fremkom fra klageren følgende skrivelse af 18. november 1994.

"We are aware of the fact that our subcontractor could employ more people on the site. We are however not so worried about the progress of the clay core. We are confident that this work will be completed before onset of the next monsoon.

We are however concerned with the progress of the spurs, which have increased in scope considerably due to the changed site conditions. Apart from the insufficient manpower at this moment, where another 50 -100 labourers will be employed on the collecting of filter stones and gabion boulders, such as we have instructed the subcontractor, it seems that one restraint is the time consuming operation of finding, collecting and placing the filter stones as specified.

To speed up the work and save time on the spur construction we ask you for your approval of a modified and simpler filter material under and inside the spurs. We enclose a sketch, which shows how to reduce the quantity of filter material and how to simplify the production of this filter material.

Instead of the filter material of 0.5 to 10 kg. stones we propose to produce a material of 50 to 150 mm stones under the apron gabions and inside the spurs between the boxes and the core of existing riverbed as shown.

In the meantime we shall renew our request that the subcontractor will employ more labour and bring in more means for excavation of the spurs."

Af fremlagte mødereferater fra afholdte "Progress Meetings" fremgår, at arbejdsstyrken i løbet af 1994-1995 voksede fra ganske få til flere hundrede arbejdere.

9.6. En fremlagt skitse viser, at der også i perioden efter 1994- monsunen blev udført midlertidige arbejder med henblik på bortledning af flodvandet fra de forskellige anlægsområder. I november - december 1994 blev der således lavet et dige beregnet for "local diversion", ligesom der i december blev lavet 3 små diger "upstreams of pump building". I januar - februar 1995 afspærrede man en af flodens forgreninger og genåbnede i februar en kanal, her kaldet D-kanalen med samtidig afspærring af den forgrening, vandet indtil da var løbet igennem. De nødvendige midlertidige arbejder afsluttedes i marts 1995 med afspærring af endnu en forgrening af floden og etablering af et ændret løb for en biflod, her kaldet D-bifloden.

9.7. Den 4. februar 1995 indgik klageren og dennes underentreprenør en aftale, hvis formål var at søge flodarbejdets fremdrift og rettidige afslutning inden næste monsunperiode sikret gennem en øget indsats fra underentreprenørens side honoreret med tillægsbetaling. Om aftalens tilblivelse og indhold hedder det i et notat fra klageren, dateret den 21. februar 1995:

"Rejse til Bhutan den 28.01. - 15.02.1995

Indhold

31.01:

Start på forhandlinger med underentreprenøren om ændrede forudsætninger og ændret design af især River Training arbejderne.

Forhandlingerne sluttede 04.02. med underskrift af vedlagte Amendment 1 til kontrakt mellem klager og underentreprenør dateret 02.02.1993 Det nævnte Amendment bilægger alle uoverensstemmelser mellem underentreprenøren og klager baseret på det i dag kendte projektmateriale og fastlægger en troværdig afslutning på River Training arbejder før monsunen 1995 i et nært samarbejde mellem klager og underentreprenøren.

Underentreprenøren afslutter deres kontraktuelle arbejder senest den 31.03.1996 med start på Pondliner ikke senere end 31.01.1996.

Underentreprenøren modtager betalinger efter udførte og opmålte mængder i henhold til kontraktens rater + 16 mio. Nu. relateret til fremdrift af River Training arbejderne. Underentreprenøren accepterer omlægning af floden udført i dagarbejde sammen med nye aftale rater for,

Klager leverer 2 gravemaskiner, 1 dozer, 1 frontlæsser inkl. 2 - 3 dieselgeneratorer og 20 stk. 5" dieselpumper.

Underentreprenøren leverer yderligere 4 lastbiler med tippeanordning samt den nødvendige tillægsarbejdskraft (ca. 350 arbejdere).

..

05.02:

Afrejse fra område A til Calcutta (bil 17 timer).

To hjælpere fulgte med klager til Calcutta og var behjælpelige med indlejning/indkøb af materiel.

Forholdet til underentreprenøren er forbedret, og der er begrundet tillid til, at underentreprenøren nu færdiggør River Training arbejderne i område A forud for monsunen 1995. ..

06.02:

Start på forhandlinger med forskellige udstyrsudlejere, der blev afsluttet med en aftale med et lokalt firma, herefter kaldet firma CIS, den 08.02.1995 om leje af,

2 stk. Poclain 90 gravemaskiner

1 stk. Catapillar D7 dozer

1 stk. Hindustan frontlæsser

Inkl. operatører, vedligeholdelse og brændstof, .."

9.8. I referatet fra "Progress Meeting" nr. 15 af 29. maj 1995 kunne det herefter konstateres, at flodarbejdet stort set var gjort færdigt før monsunen 1995. I referatet hedder det bl.a.:

"2 Work Progress

The contractor reported the following progress as below;

Area A

klager recorded that the River Training Works including 8 spurs and the river training wall of 700 metres, however excluding the part of the down section dyke, have been completed according to CBI´s drawings and specifications before the start to the monsoon.

CBI clarified that the river training on the riverside had been completed before the flash flood of the 17 may 1995. The river training dyke on the treatment plant side and along the top of the dyke remains to be completed. In addition CBI requested klager to provide the documentation (i.e. the Inspection Request Forms) to ascertain whether the backfill around the 8 spurs had indeed been carried out as per CBI´s instructions. Klager will check with their area an office and submit the forms.

.."

10) Engineer´s Decision

10.1. Med henvisning til FIDIC artikel 67.1 rejste klageren den 5. juli 1995 overfor CBI som "Engineer" krav om genprissætning af bl.a. flodarbejderne, hvis udførelse ifølge klageren var blevet forsinket og besværliggjort som følge af det ændrede flodløb med deraf nødvendiggjorte midlertidige ekstraarbejder og stærkt forøgede udgravningsmængder. I skrivelsen til CBI hedder det bl.a.:

Area B and A Sewerage Project

Attached please find claim concerning revised design of the river training works in area A caused by changed conditions in connection with the changed course of the river. The circumstances related hereto have been under dispute with your local Representative for more than a year.

We consider the situation under dispute and now request the decision of the engineer in accordance with the General Conditions of the Contract, Clause 67.1.

The claim is purely related to the conditions caused by the changed course of the river, and as a matter of regularity we wish to inform you of a number of other issues, among these

.."

10.2. Engineer´s Decision blev fremsendt til parterne med CBI´s skrivelse af 27. september 1995. Beslutningen, der med indholdsfortegnelse omfatter 60 sider og henviser til en lang række vedhæftede bilag, indeholder en detaljeret beskrivelse af tvistens baggrund med præsentation af klagerens krav, af forløbet af det udførte arbejde og af begrundelserne for de enkeltbeslutninger, Engineer traf vedrørende de fremsatte krav. Fra beslutningen gengives følgende:

"1 INTRODUCTION

This report constitutes the Engineer´s Decision according to Clause 67.1 of the contract following the claim submitted by the Contractor, on 5 July 1995.

The Sewerage Treatment Project compromised two seperate projects in the towns of area A and B.

Upon mobilisation on the site in area A it appeared that the river during the monsoon in the summer 1993 had changed its course and the main stream of the river was now running through the designed site for the treatment plant.

The change in the course of the river had occurred after the pretender visit to the site in May 1993, and the occurrence was unknown to both the Engineer, the Contractor and indklagede until the mobilisation in January/February 1994.

The Contractor has in due time given notice of his intention to submit a Claim for the extra work involved. However, until now the Contractor has not submitted a substantiated claim for the Engineers evaluation.

Instead of submitting the claim in accordance with the normal Claim procedure outlined in Clause 53 of the Contract, the Contractor has on 05.07.95 submitted their Claim with reference to Clause 67.1 of the Conditions of Contract requesting the Engineer´s Decision in the matter.

The Claim consists of two binders (part I and part II) containing the material substantiating the Claim.

This decision prepared by the Engineer is structured as follows:

Introduction

Project Background

Presentation of the claim

Conclusion of the Engineer´s Decision

The sequence of events, December 1993 - June 1994

Summary of the individual claims

Detailed response to the Contractors submission.

Chapter 1 - 6 gives an overview of the Claims and the Engineer´s Decision and chapter 7 gives a detailed response to the individual sections of the Contractors Claim.

..

3) PRESENTATION OF THE CLAIM

The Contractors claim consists of the following individual Claims with reference to the relevant sections in the Contractors Claim:

A General Claim for revised unit rates for the River Training Work in area A based on the changed design and delay, ref. Section 5, 6, 8, 10 and 11.

Claim for payment of Temporary Dyke, ref. Section 7.

Claim for payment for Diversion Work of the river, ref. 9.

Additional cost for paved gully, ref. Exhibit 1.1.

Payment for 1200 mm sewer pipe, ref. Exhibit 1.2.

Payment for additional riprap, Exhibit 1.3.

All the claims derive from the change in the course of the river during the monsoon in 1993.

The essence of all the claims is that the Contractor maintains the view that the project has changed character and nature to an extent that renders the unit rates of the Contract inappropriate or inapplicable in accordance with Clause 52.2 of the Conditions of Contract.

4) CONCLUSION ON THE ENGINEER´S DECISION

The dispute in this case is solely about the valuation of the variations arising from the revised design of the river training work and treatment plant in area A. There is no dispute between the Contractor and the Engineer regarding the quantities involved in the variations.

Claims 1-3 are not based on specifically identified extra cost but on the Contractors allegation that design, scope of work and time schedule for the project has changed, resulting in an "entirely different project of a different nature " which renders the unit rates in the Contract inapplicable or inappropriate according to Clause 52.2 of the Contract. Consequently the Contractor has claimed for the work carried out at new rates.

In claim 4-6 the dispute is which rates in the Contract were applicable to form basis for the valuation.

According to Clause 52.1 additions to the Contract Price " shall be valued at the rates and prices set out in the Contract if, in the opinion of the Engineer, the same shall be applicable. If the Contract does not contain any rates or prices applicable to the varied work, the rates and prices in the Contract shall be used as basis for valuation so far as may be reasonable,"

In the engineers opinion the rates set out in the Contract are applicable for valuation of the variations or appropriate as a basis for the valuation and this Engineers Decision is based on this opinion.

In the general claim the Contractor has included an amount for covering general costs in a 5,5 months extension of the time schedule.

The Engineer decides that firstly the delay in the implementation of the project is due to the Contractors slow progress on the Contract from the time that the new design was known. Secondly the Contractor states that the Agreement made with indklagede on 11 August 1994 gives the Contractor an extension of ten months for the whole project. This agreement clearly states "that no further claim can be made".

Consequently it is the Engineers opinion that the Contractor is not entitled to payment for general costs in the prolonged period.

The payment under the Claim and this Engineers decision are summarised below.

Price Paid Claim Extra payment Dispute

1. General claim 22,616,375 5,094,673 17,521,703 978,330 16,543,373

General cost 281,826 281,826 281,826

2. Temporary dyke 1,242,622 503,168 739,454 95,550 643,904

3. Diversion work 1,176,099 386,850 789,249 42,010 747,239

4. Paved gully 458,000 168,000 290,000 16,280 273,720

5. 1200 mm pipe 753,000 256,000 497,000 137,500 359,500

6. Riprap 645,263 645,263 85,012* 560,251*

27,173,186 6,408,691 20,764,495 1,354,682** 19,409,813**

* I skrivelse af 20. december 1995 fra CBI ændret til henholdsvis 109.751 kr. og 535.512 kr.

** Skal herefter være henholdsvis 1.379.421 kr. og 19.385.074 kr.

..

7.14.) Summary of Claims

The Engineer concludes that the Contractor are not entitled to new rates for the whole of the River Training Work for the reason stated earlier in this Report. Where new rates were required these have been adjusted. Therefore the Contractors Exhibit 8.1. is not accepted as valid.

The Contractors claim for loss of income due to the Engineer certifying payment for all the works carried out on a daywork basis in the period before the monsoon is not acceptable as the Contractor never submitted any alternative rates for the Engineers consideration. The request for a Lump Sum payment has only just been forwarded in the Contractors Claim, dated 5 July 1995.

The Contractors claim for payment for the extended period of management of five months is not considered as acceptable as in the opinion of the Engineer the Works which are causing delay are the treatment plant works. As shown in this response the works could have been completed as per the Contractors submitted programmes. With respect to the contractual program submitted by the Contractor on the 18 April 1995 this shows completion of the treatment plant works by the end of March 1996, i e four months (not five).

In addition the Engineer (Att. 57) has granted an extension of time of ten months for the Contract. Point (d) of the agreement states;

"The Engineer will waive their right to liquidated damages for a period of ten months by extending the contract period by 10 months without any further payments to the contractor in this respect".

1. General Claims

1.1 Re-rating of river training works nil

1.1.1 Spur construction Attachment A2 DKK 198,330

1.1.2 Additional backfill at Spurs Attachment A1 DKK 780,000

1.2 All costs related to General Items nil

Sub total DKK 978,330

2. Seperate Claims

2.1 Construction of Temporary Dyke prior to monsoon 1994 DKK 95,550

2.2 Diversion works after the monsoon 1994 DKK 42,010

2.3 Additional costs for paved gully DKK 16,280

2.4 Additional costs for 1200 mm diam sewer pipe DKK 137,500

2.5 Riprap, area A (som rettet 20.12.1995) DKK 109,751

Sub total (som rettet 20.12.1995) DKK 401,091

Grand total (som rettet 20.12.1995) DKK 1,379,421

7.15.) Conclusion

The change in the course of the river, which was neither foreseen by the Consultant nor the Contractor, occurred before both parties arrived in Bhutan in January 1994. The main difference occurring was the river now flowed through the proposed site instead of adjacent to the planned works. It is unfortunate that the change in the river course, were not reported to indklagede or CBI otherwise a review could have been carried out in advance.

Notwithstanding the above, the Engineer considers that the interference to the works was identified, evaluated and resolved in a timely manner. The interruption to the Contractors planned work (whether it was 3 or five spur base) post monsoon 1994 was in the opinion of the Engineer minimal as the Contractor had planned to commence the main body of the works after the monsoon, circa September 1994. As shown on his program spur construction, dyke construction and the treatment plant construction all were to run concurrently.

The works were revised and the drawings and instructions given to the Contractor prior to his planned start date for the main works, namely September 1994. Therefore more than sufficient time to allow a replanning of the resources to undertake the additional works involved. There is no dispute with regard to the increase in number of spurs to be constructed, changed from 5 to 8. Nevertheless the Engineer considers that the other two components namely the dyke construction and the treatment plant were not significantly changed.

The main point in dispute is whether the project changed in nature, complexity and character as alleged by the Contractor and thus entitling a re-rating of all work items for the River training component. The Contractor base their case on the premise that the working conditions, which they foresaw at the tender stage and on which they based their contract rates were, in the main dry, with only minimal pumping.

The Engineer contends that the nature and complexity of the works did not alter as the Contractor was constructing the same components before and after the change. The works were, quite simply, shifted. The Engineer contends that the Contractor seriously misread the initial complexity and nature of the work to be undertaken in the first instance as has been clearly demonstrated in chapter 7.2.2 that the works were initially to be carried out in and under water and it was not as the Contractor purported as just "basic equipment" required.

The Contractors assumptions are clearly stated in their claim that the work was in dry land and under dry conditions. Therefore it is clear why they now consider that the nature of work has changed.

As the work has been revised the Contractor cannot use the revision as an opportunity to re-rate the work which he previously priced for under the wrong assumption.

Further, the Engineer maintain that after the diversion work and temporary dyke were constructed the site was brought back to a condition similar to or "more dry" than in the Tender Documents.

The Engineer does not consider, on the information presented by the Contractor, that the revision to the works, which were dealt with and resolved within six weeks after the planned mobilisation and five months before the main body of the works were due to commence, can give rise to the cost of the works escalating from DKK 3 million to DKK 22 million for the river training component only.

The Engineer maintains that an experienced and reputable contractor, such as these contractor, can be expected to have the necessary resources and the capability to plan for the additional work and that the ultimate responsibility for the execution of the work and the subcontractors performance rest with the Contractor.

The revision of the works has brought about an additional cost of DKK 2.00 million in measured work and DKK 1.35 million arising from the claim. The addition of the three spurs and the diversion works of the river, in order that the Contractor could work in similar conditions to the tender stage, have brought about an increase of circa 100 % to the river training component. The Engineer considers said increase reflects more reasonably the changes that were made in comparison to the increase of circa 740 % as claimed by the Contractor, which is considered wholly unreasonable.

The Engineer, as stated in the report under the relevant sections, does not consider that Contractor is entitled to re-rate the works for the reasons stated in their claim presented on the 5 July 1995."

11) Forklaringer for voldgiftsretten.

Til belysning af grundlaget for det rejste krav er der afgivet forklaring af følgende:

11.1 Project Manager fra klager har forklaret bl.a., at han er uddannet som bygningsingeniør og tidligere har udført vandbygningsarbejder, dog intet svarende til projektet i Bhutan. Han deltog i sitebesøget i område A i maj 1993. Arealet, hvor rensningsanlægget skulle ligge, var et pænt plant areal, beklædt med græs, der voksede i muldjord, og det blev bekræftet, at arealet ikke havde været under vand i mange år. Der blev intet sagt om, at floden kunne flytte sig. Fra byggearealet var der en brink ned til floden, der løb lidt lavere end arealet. Under mødet blev der stillet spørgsmål om vandstandsforholdene. Ca. 14 dage senere modtog entreprenørerne data om vandføringen hidrørende fra den en indisk kraftstation ca. 70 km. Sydligere. Geotekniske undersøgelser forelå ikke. Det fremgik, at der var store variationer i vandføringen, der under monsunen kunne stige til det dobbelte eller endog det tredobbelte med få dages mellemrum. Der forelå imidlertid ikke tal for vandføringen for de seneste 5 år. Uden for monsunperioderne var vandføringen langt lavere. Det blev derfor besluttet, at deres tilbud skulle baseres på, at der intet skulle laves i monsunperioderne. Hvis man så fik entreprisen rimeligt hurtigt efter tilbuddet, kunne man påregne at lave flodarbejderne inden den første monsunperiode. Udgravningerne til høfder kunne i så fald foregå på tørt land, således at det alene ville være nødvendigt at pumpe for at få eventuelt indsivende flodvand fjernet. Der fremkom ikke på det tidspunkt indvendinger mod, at man fra klagers side påregnede at indstille arbejdet i monsunperioderne. I tilbuddet havde man regnet med kun at skulle bruge 6 pumper, 5 eller 6 tommer. Med flodens ændrede løb var det nødvendigt at udføre afskærmende volde omkring udgravningerne til 5 eller 8 af de høfder, som det ændrede projekt indeholdt. Ellers ville der hele tiden være strømmet flodvand ned i udgravningerne. Alle høfder blev bygget uden for det midlertidige dige og i dybere udgravninger end oprindeligt projekteret, hvilket gjorde udgravningerne både besværligere og bekosteligere, fordi det på grund af den større vandindsivning var nødvendigt at pumpe mere.

11.2 Project Manager 2 fra klager har forklaret bl.a., at han er uddannet som civilingeniør og har nogen kendskab til vandstande i floder under monsunen. Han var projektleder på arbejdspladsen i Bhutan og havde fast kontor i område B, medens to mand var stationeret i område A. Det første, man foretog sig ved opstarten i område A, var at afsætte referencepunkterne for diget og de 5 høfder i det oprindelige projekt. Arbejdet hermed gav anledning til en alvorlig forskrækkelse, da det viste sig, at floden havde flyttet sig med den følge, at diget og høfderne ville komme til at ligge ude i floden. CBI sagde i første omgang, at de blot kunne gå i gang, men stoppede så arbejdet for at lave et revideret projekt. Efter dette skulle der som midlertidig foranstaltning laves et dige og to høfder for at undgå, at resten af byggearealet skulle blive oversvømmet. Det meste af diget blev lavet på land, idet det kun var den del af diget, der gik ud til en "stony island", der blev bygget i vand. Der opstod tvist med underentreprenøren om betalingen for dette arbejde, fordi underentreprenøren mente, der var tale om et helt nyt arbejde eller arbejde af en helt anden type, som man ville have nye priser på. Det var de nødt til at acceptere, også fordi de for så vidt var enige i, at der var tale om en anden type arbejde end det, man havde kontraheret om. som situationen var, var det håbløst at prøve at skifte underentreprenøren ud med en anden underentreprenør. Resultatet blev, at de måtte acceptere priser, der oversteg de aftalte enhedspriser. I monsunperioden 1994 var alt flodarbejde indstillet, idet det ville have været uforsvarligt at arbejde i floden i denne periode. Det ville have indebåret en risiko for, at alt blev skyllet væk, således som det var sket i Indien i august 1993, da 3 broer blev ødelagt. Fra CBI´s side ønskede man, at de skulle arbejde på opførelsen af rensningsanlægget på det tørre område bag det midlertidige dige, men det afviste man på grund af risikoen for, at alt i tilfælde af et digegennembrud ville forsvinde. De havde undersøgt, om der kunne tegnes all risk-forsikring, der dækkede i en sådan situation, men det kunne der ikke, og fra CBI´s side afslog man at bære risikoen. Inden afslutningen af monsunperioden lavede de et program for det videre arbejde, således at de kunne komme i gang straks efter afslutningen. Det var et forsøg på at få underentreprenøren i gang så hurtigt som muligt. også på det tidspunkt opstod der problemer med underentreprenøren om betaling for arbejdet, idet man ikke havde regnet med, at man skulle arbejde ude i floden med at bygge høfder og diger. Hertil kom, at udgravningsarbejdet kom til at omfatte væsentligt større mængder end oprindeligt påregnet.

11.3 Entreprenørformanden fra klager har forklaret bl.a., at han i hele byggeperioden virkede som formand på arbejdspladsen i område A. Ved hver udgravning måtte de lave volde omkring udgravningen for at hindre tilløb af overfladevand. Arbejdet var i det hele mere ressourcekrævende og dermed også mere bekosteligt end oprindeligt planlagt. De dybere udgravninger bevirkede større vandindsivning. Planen havde været, at de inden den første monsun i 1994 ville lave fundamenter til så mange høfder som muligt og så dække dem til, så de ikke blev ødelagt i monsunperioden.

11.4 Civilingeniør fra klager har forklaret bl.a., at afslutningen af monsunen i 1994 trak ud, og at underentreprenøren derefter måtte lave en del midlertidigt afledningsarbejde for at få vandet væk fra de områder, hvor de skulle i gang. Afhørte forudså derfor, at de ikke uden forcering kunne nå at blive færdig med det planlagte arbejde inden næste monsun. Da breve til indklagede og CBI om de opståede problemer ikke blev besvaret, besluttedes det at han og en anden samarbejdspartner rejste til Bhutan for at forhandle med underentreprenøren. Som beskrevet i notatet af 21. februar 1995 resulterede forhandlingerne i, at underentreprenøren godt ville være med til at løse problemerne i fællesskab. Aftalen blev så, at underentreprenøren fik penge for at leve op til nogle programmæssige milepæle, således at flodarbejdet kunne afsluttes inden næste monsun, hvilket man nåede. For klageren var det imidlertid vigtigt, at pengene til forcering af arbejdet ikke blev brugt til andre formål. De valgte derfor selv at skaffe det fornødne maskinelle udstyr og rejste med henblik herpå straks efter aftalen med underentreprenøren til Indien, hvor de i løbet af få dage fik en aftale med et maskinudlejningsfirma.

11.5 Chief Resident Engineer hos CBI har forklaret bl.a., at han er uddannet civilingeniør og har været involveret i det omhandlede kloakerings- og rensningsanlægsprojekt siden 1990. Under det besøg på stedet, der fandt sted i maj 1993, var plateauet, hvor rensningsanlægget skulle bygges, ca. 220 m bred og nåede ikke helt ud til floden. Under monsunen i 1993 blev arealet ca. 100 m smallere. Afhørte, hvis kontor var i område B, besøgte regelmæssigt område A med 4-6 ugers mellemrum, og det var hans indtryk, at klageren og dennes underentreprenør hverken før eller efter suspensionen i marts 1994 havde mobiliseret tilstrækkeligt til at klare arbejdet. Man kunne udmærket have arbejdet med de permanente installationer på arealet bag det midlertidige dige. Var der sket skader som følge af brud på diget, ville indklagede have erstattet disse. Det reviderede projekt bevirkede ikke, at arbejdet skiftede karakter. Selv om høfderne var både større og højere, var arbejdet med dem nøjagtig det samme som det oprindeligt projekterede, når først udgravningen var tørlagt. Under arbejdet med det permanente dige og de 8 høfder blev der næsten ikke arbejdet på rensningsanlægget. Under site visit blev der efterlyst geoteknisk information. Monsunen bevirker, at der hvert år er forskel på, hvor de forskellige grene af floden løber, når monsunregnen er overstået. Under monsunen er hele floddalen dækket af vand.

11.6 Civilingeniør fra CBI har forklaret bl.a., at han som vandbygningstekniker var involveret i projekteringen af det omhandlede kloak- og rensningsanlæg og forestod de nødvendige undersøgelser. Det var dog en anden end afhørte, der var ude på stedet for at undersøge vandmængder og omgivelserne. Der blev lavet forsøg på et institut til brug for projekteringen af dige og høfder. Forsøgene resulterede i, at det oprindelige projekt var med 5 høfder. Der var tale om en flod med højhastighedsflow med et fald på 7 0/00 eller 7 m pr. km. Første gang, afhørte fik kendskab til de ekstraordinære forhold efter monsunen i 1993, var i marts 1994, da blev faxet skitser hjem til brug for en revurdering af situationen. I første omgang regnede afhørte med, at det kunne klares ved at rykke yderkanten noget ind, men han blev klar over, at det ikke var løsningen, da han kom derud og så forholdene på stedet. I stedet for var der et ekstra område, som byen havde til rådighed, men som man fik mulighed for at anvende. Det gjaldt om at komme mest muligt i læ. Under besøget drøftede man også de midlertidige beskyttelsesarbejder, og afhørte blev bedt om at lave skitser, så folkene kunne komme i gang. Afhørte var bekendt med, at floden kunne skifte mellem flere flodlejer. Det er en kendt risiko, men han kan ikke sige, om det er reflekteret i udbudsmaterialet. Den kraftigt faldene flodvandstand fra nord mod syd må have bevirket, at der ikke kan være løbet vand tilbage i arbejdsområdet efter udførelsen af de midlertidige arbejder efter 1994-monsunen. En hydraulisk-geometrisk beregning viser, at der ikke er den store forskel på der oprindelige og det reviderede projekt.

11.7 Civilingeniør fra indklagede har forklaret bl.a., at han er uddannet som maskiningeniør og har været ansat hos indklagede siden 1984. han har haft med projektet at gøre under besøg på stedet i to omgange, første gang i november/december 1994 og anden gang medio marts 1996. Under første besøg var projektet endnu ikke rigtig kommet i gang. De midlertidige beskyttelsesarbejder var afsluttede, og byggepladsen bagved i hele sin udstrækning tør. Der var kun vand i de huller, man foretog udgravning i. problemet var tilsyneladende dengang den utilstrækkelige pumpekapacitet. Han fik at vide, at entreprenøren havde problemer med underentreprenøren, der på sin side havde problemer med sin indiske underentreprenør, der var den reelle udførende entreprenør. Ved besøget i marts 1996 undersøgte afhørte baggrunden for det krav, som klageren har rejst, og som efter indklagedes opfattelse er udtryk for nogle helt enorme prisstigninger - også sammenlignet med priserne på tilsvarende arbejder i samme periode i andre byer i Bhutan. Der er tale om 4 gange så høje priser som andetsteds.

12) Opgørelsen af klagers krav.

12.1. Klagerens påstand er i klageskriftet specificeret således:

1 Generelt krav

1.1 Floddige arbejdet baseret på nye priser med fradrag af priserne betalt til klager (bilag 8.1) DKK 17.521.703

Fradrag for beløb betalt af indklagede i.h.t. Engineer´s Decision DKK 978.300 16.543.373

1.2 Alle omkostninger i forbindelse med "General Items", kontrakt

Forsikring BOQ 2.11.01 + 2.11.02 + 2.11.03 + 2.11.04. DKK 380.000x1/2x5/23 DKK 41.304

Vedligeholdelsesfaciliteter BOQ 2.12.03 DKK 93.600x1/2x5 DKK 234.000

Udstyr/Ydelser til Engineer Staff BOQ 2.12.08 DKK 60.000x1/2x5/23 DKK 6.522 281.826

Subtotal DKK 16.825.199

Enkeltkrav

Udover ekstrabetaling i form af nye enhedspriser er klager berettiget til betaling af følgende enkeltkrav.

a. Udførelse af midlertidigt dige før monsunen 1994 med fradrag af rater betalt til klager, jf. afsnit 7 ovenfor og opgørelsen vedlagt som bilag 8.2. DKK 739.454

Fradrag for beløb betalt af indklagede i.h.t. Engineer´s Decision DKK 95.550 643.904

b. Omlægningsarbejder efter monsunen 1994, jf. afsnit 9 ovenfor med fradrag af rater betalt til klager, jf. opgørelsen vedlagt som bilag 8.3 DKK 789.249

Fradrag for beløb betalt af indklagede i.h.t. Engineer´s Decision DKK 42.010 747.239

c. Ekstra omkostninger til stenbelagt grøft, jf. særskilt notat (bilag 1.1) DKK 290.000

Fradrag for beløb betalt af indklagede i.h.t. Engineer´s decision DKK 16.280 273.720

d. Ekstra omkostninger til stenbelagt grøft 1.200 mm diameter kloakledning, jf. særskilt notat (bilag 1.2) DKK 497.000

Fradrag for beløb betalt af indklagede i.h.t. Engineer´s Decision DKK 137.500 359.500

e. Stensætning, område A, jf. notat (bilag 1.3) DKK 645.263

Fradrag for beløb betalt af indklagede i.h.t. Engineer´s Decision DKK 109.751 535.512

Subtotal, enkeltkrav DKK 2.559.875

Subtotal, generelle krav DKK 16.825.199

I alt DKK 19.385.074

Til dette beløb skal lægges et - ikke bestridt - rentebeløb på 64.526 kr., hvorefter påstandsbeløbet udgør i alt 19.449.600 kr. Rentebeløbet udgør forrentning af det ved Engineer´s Decision tilkendte beløb på i alt 1.379.421 kr. fra kravets fremsættelse den 5. juli 1995 til betalingen af beløbet den 8. februar 1996.

12.2. Som det fremgår, er påstandsbeløbet - bortset fra rentebeløbet - en gentagelse af kravet fremsat overfor Engineer med fradrag af de ved Engineer´s Decision tilkendte beløb. Kravet er for det enkelte kravs vedkommende i første række baseret på en genprissætning af de udførte arbejder med nye enhedspriser og for enkeltkravenes vedkommende på en rimelig enhedspris, jf. i det hele princippet i købelovens § 5 og FIDIC artikel 52.2. I anden række baseres en - reduceret - påstand på en tabsopgørelse, der indeholder følgende poster:

Tabsopgørelse vedrørende omprojektering og forcering af River works, område A.

Projektrapport pr. 31.12.96 (1 DKK = 4.73 BTN)

1. Merudgifter til underentreprenør, jf. skema 1 DKK 8.335.959

2. Meromkostninger til tilsyn med underentreprenør, jf. skema 2 DKK 3.065.640

3. Kursregulering, jf. skema 3 DKK 145.135

Produktionsudgifter DKK 11.546.734

Generelle omkostninger til hjemmekontor (ekskl. planlægning) 8 % af DKK 11.546.734 DKK 923.739

Subtotal DKK 12.470.473

Finansieringsudgift 1/4/94 til 5/7/95 8 % af DKK 12.470.473 i 455 dage DKK 630.452

Forrentning af Engineer´s Decision 5/7/95 til 8/2/96 (fakt. 1022 af 27/2/96) DKK 64.526

Total DKK 13.165.451

De til opgørelsen hørende skemaer er udeladt.

I en skrivelse af 23. maj 1997 fra klagers revisionsfirma hedder det som resultat af firmaets gennemgang af tabsopgørelsen:

"Konklusion

På baggrund af gennemgangen kan vi bekræfte, at tabsopgørelsen er udarbejdet i overensstemmelse med klagers bogføring, foreliggende dokumentationer og de skøn, som er oplyst i bilagene til opgørelsen.

Vi anser de foretagne skøn for rimelige og kan supplerende oplyse, at det anførte tillæg for generelle omkostninger til hjemmekontoret på 8 % er i overensstemmelse med det, der normalt lægges til grund ved opgørelsen af den skattepligtige indkomst fra udlandet.

Vi har ved gennemgangen af de enkelte poster konstateret mindre afvigelser. Samlet andrager afvigelsen en mindre udgift på ca. 25.000 kr., hvilket er uden beløbsmæssig betydning for tabsopgørelsen.

Vi anser, at opgørelsen med tilhørende skemaer, noter og supplerende oplysninger er egnet som grundlag for den videre drøftelse af klagers tab på entreprisen."

12.3. For voldgiftsretten har Quantity Surveyor forklaret bl.a., at arbejdet som følge af flodens ændrede løb og den heraf nødvendiggjorte omprojektering blev ændret i en sådan grad, at de kontraherede enhedspriser ikke længere er anvendelige. Man kunne ikke blot foretage en "omregning", men måtte beregne helt nye priser baseret på de ændrede forhold, herunder de stærkt forøgede mængder, som skulle udgraves under vanskeligere forhold end påregnet, og nødvendigheden af at forcere arbejdet af hensyn til den forestående monsunperiode. Det udregnede, langt større beløb undrer ikke afhørte og må primært tilskrives store pumpeomkostninger og brugen af flere maskiner under forceringen.

13) Parternes procedure.

13.1 Klageren har til støtte for påstanden anført, at bedømmelsen af det rejste krav må ske med udgangspunkt i udbudsprojektet. Floden er under sagen karakteriseret som en højhastighedsflod, der kunne skifte leje, hvad CBI var klar over. Alligevel indeholdt udbudsmaterialet ingen oplysninger herom, heller ikke om de geotekniske forhold. Projektet blev endvidere udbudt på grundlag af relativt gamle oplysninger om vandforholdene, hvilket man imidlertid valgte ikke at oplyse noget om i udbudsmaterialet. Ved besøgene på pladsen i maj 1993 så alt tilforladeligt ud. Som forklaret var der tale om et fladt, græsdækket plateau, som ikke kunne give de deltagende entreprenører anledning til særlige betænkeligheder. I nogle af posterne i Bill og Quantities tales der nok om vand, men det siges ikke, at der er tale om vand i forbindelse med udgravningerne tilhøfder. Der måtte nok forventes en vis tilstrømning af grundvand på grund af jordstrukturen, men ikke, at grundvandet ville stå højere end "ground level". Klageren kunne derfor gå ud fra, at der alene ville være tale om et pumpeproblem, som kunne klares med lidt flere eller færre pumper. Hvad klageren derimod ikke kunne regne med, var, at man skulle arbejde direkte i vand. Klageren har ikke overtaget risikoen for flytningen af flodløbet.

Entreprisekontrakten forpligtede klageren til at anvende bhutanesiske underentreprenører. Selv om en entreprenør under normale omstændigheder er ansvarlig for sine underentreprenører, kan dette ikke ubetinget være gældende i en situation som denne, hvor valget af underentreprenører ikke var frit, og hvor der derfor kun var ganske få at vælge imellem i et tilbagestående samfund. I en sådan situation er det vel etspørgsmål, om ikke bygherren må overtage risikoen for underentreprenørerne helt eller delvist, i hvert når situationen udvikler sig så ekstremt, at der på begrænset tid skal udføres et 5 gange så stort arbejde som oprindeligt planlagt og prissat. Det er vel en betragtning, som ikke er nødvendig at fremføre for at begrunde kravet, men en betragtning, som støtter dets berettigelse og således må indgå i den samlede bedømmelse. Tilbudene fra de indbudte entreprenører lå stort set på samme niveau, hvilket indikerer, at de alle har baseret deres tilbud på de oplysninger, som også klageren har lagt til grund for sit tilbud. Det er med andre ord ikke godtgjort, at klageren fra starten har beregnet sit tilbud for lavt.

Ved planlægningen af arbejdet måtte man tage hensyn til monsunperioderne, et forhold, som ikke fremgår direkte af den oprindelige tidsplan, da man ved udarbejdelsen af denne ikke vidste, hvornår arbejdet skulle påbegyndes. Klageren rykkede flere gange for kontrakten og for en startdato for at få de indledende arbejder færdige inden monsunen i 1994 og tilkendegav således, at man ikke regnede med at arbejde i monsunperioderne. Den risiko, der ville have været forbundet hermed, var CBI ganske klar over. Der er derfor tale om en efterrationalisering, når indklagede nu gør gældende, at enhver fornuftig entreprenør ville have arbejdet i monsunperioden.

Ved arbejdets start i slutningen af januar/begyndelsen af februar 1994 var flodens løb ændret som følge af monsunen i 1993. det fremgik af borgmesterens brev af 13. august 1993, et brev som klageren imidlertid først blev bekendt med langt senere. Klageren fik således først kendskab til de ændrede forhold ved mobiliseringen. I den første tid derefter afviste indklagede, at en omprojektering skulle være nødvendig, en afvisning, der ledsagedes af sarkastiske bemærkninger og viste, at indklagede slet ikke levede op til det krav om samarbejde om løsningen af opståede problemer, som er fastslået i flere tidligere voldgiftskendelser, i første række i kendelsen af 1. september 1981, gengivet i KFE. 1982.280. Omprojekteringen resulterede i væsentligt større dimensioner, hvilket indikerer, at det oprindelige projekt var underdimensioneret. Selv om indklagede afviste et allerede dengang fremsat krav om ekstrabetaling og tidsfristforlængelse, gik klageren - på eget initiativ - i gang med de nødvendige midlertidige arbejder, bl.a. med udgravning af D-kanalen, anlæg af de midlertidige høfder og etablering af det midlertidige dige som sikring under den kommende monsun i 1994. Med disse arbejder sikrede klageren, at arealet til rensningsanlægget ikke var skyllet væk, når monsunperioden var ovre. Udførelsen af disse arbejder måtte nødvendigvis ske til den betaling med højere satser, som underentreprenøren krævede. Uden deltagelse i forhandlingerne herom fra CBI´s side var klageren bragt i en urimelig situation, som det i virkeligheden er bygherren, der må bære risikoen for. Når klageren var påtvunget en lokal entreprenør, burde CBI have involveret sig og ikke blot overlade forhandlingerne med denne til klageren, der i hvert fald foreløbig kom til at finansiere hovedparten af omkostningerne til de midlertidige ekstraarbejder. Omprojekteringen havde herudover til følge, at klageren mistede 4 måneder af byggeperioden på de 2 år.

Denne forsinkelse, der skyldtes bygherrens forhold, kunne ikke indhentes ved at udføre de forudsatte permanente arbejder under monsunen i 1994. Det havde vist sig umuligt at tegne en all-risk forsikring for sådanne arbejder i den risikofyldte monsunperiode, og CBI havde i et brev den 31. marts 1994 tilkendegivet, at ansvaret for beskyttelsen af "the works" efter færdiggørelsen af de midlertidige beskyttelsesarbejder var klagerens. Den foregående monsunperiodes ændring af flodens løb og de i denne periode forvoldte skader på 3 broer i Indien havde tydeligt vist, hvor ødelæggende floden kunne være i en monsunperiode. Det var således en teknisk forsvarlig vurdering, der lå til grund for beslutningen om at undlade at gå i gang med de store udgravninger under monsunen i 1994.

efter afslutningen af monsunperioden var det igen nødvendigt at iværksætte en række midlertidige foranstaltninger for at få vandet ledet væk, hvilket haves i erindring ved bedømmelsen af behovet for at accelerere. For 5 af de 8 høfder måtte der bygges volde uden om udgravningerne for at undgå overfladevand. Sammen med den omstændighed, at udgravningerne skulle være dybere end efter det oprindelige projekt, bevirkede det, at der skulle indsættes flere pumper, og at arbejdet blev besværliggjort. Det var derfor med rette, at underentreprenøren var utilfreds med enhedspriserne, som klageren herefter måtte genforhandle med denne for at sikre sig, at de nødvendige arbejder blev færdige inden monsunen 1995. De langt større udgravningsmængder gjorde, at det var vanskeligt at planlægge det videre arbejde. Havde der alene været tale om udgravning af de oprindelig planlagte mængder, havde der ikke været behov for yderligere mobilisering. Det var derfor forståeligt, at underentreprenøren ikke mobiliserede yderlige folk, før mængdestigningerne havde vist sig. I stedet for at medvirke til at løse problemerne opfordrede CBI blot klageren til at accelerere arbejdet foregen regning. Som tidligere forelå der et problem, som burde være løst i fællesskab, men som CBI blot forholdt sig passivt til. Det var et problem, som skulle løses og løses hurtigt, da det var nødvendigt at få arbejdet lavet inden næste monsunperiode. Aftalen med underentreprenøren om betalingen for forcering var derfor både hensigtsmæssig og nødvendig. Ansvarsgrundlaget for så vidt angår kravet om godtgørelse for disse betalinger er, at kravet om tidsfristforlængelse var et berettiget krav, som bygherren ikke imødekom. Det var derfor berettiget at accelerere på bygherrens regning. Det er tilstrækkelig begrundelse for kravet. Hertil kommer så de væsentligt større udgravningsmængder og de vanskelige arbejdsforhold, der også - isoleret set - er tilstrækkelige til at gøre kravet berettiget.

Det krav, der er rejst, er baseret på en genprissætning efter FIDIC artikel 52.2. Det blev afvist af Engineer, der kun tilkendte klageren i alt 1.379.421 kr. Klageren er imidlertid berettiget til en rimelig fortjeneste og en rimelig dækning for den med entreprisen forbundne risiko. Der er derfor lavet en tabsopgørelse, der indeholder en sådan rimelig fortjeneste. Under forudsætning af, at klager får medhold, bliver resultatet, at klager faktisk har betalt ca. 8,3 mio. kr. mere til underentreprenøren, end klager får godtgjort. Det bestrides, at entreprisen fra starten var tabsgivende.

For så vidt angår enkeltkravene er forholdet det, at der alene er uenighed om de priser, hvortil arbejdet skal afregnes. Det er priser, som ikke kan fastsættes ensidigt af Engineer. De krævede priser er rimelige og bør derfor lægges til grund, jf. princippet i købelovens § 5. Renter af det tilkendte beløb må løbe fra kravets fremsættelse over for Engineer den 5. juli 1995.

13.2. Indklagede har indledningsvis anført, at klager med det af Engineer tilkendte beløb på 1.379.421 kr. og betalingen for enkeltkravene har fået, hvad der er berettiget. Sund fornuft må tilsige, at et arbejde, der som flodarbejdet i denne sag var prissat til godt 3 mio. kr., ikke pludselig kan kræves betalt med 16-17 mio. kr. Der var tale om et ganske enkelt ingeniørarbejde, hvortil der ikke kræves særlige tekniske forudsætninger. Materiellet til arbejdets udførelse var ganske enkelt, og alt det øvrige arbejde skulle udføres af almindelig menneskelig arbejdskraft. Samtlige arbejder, herunder også ekstraarbejderne, er opgjort mængdemæssigt og uomtvistet. De er betalt med de kontraherede enhedspriser, hvoraf enkelte er blevet forhøjet af Engineer. Alt i alt er der således betalt over 6 mio. kr. på grund af øgede mængder og ekstraarbejde. Herudover forlanger klageren så de mange millioner kroner, et krav, som man kun i fantasien kan forestille sig skulle blive imødekommet. De egentlige permanente arbejder er i alt væsentligt uændrede, blot er der tale om større mængder, og de udførte ekstraarbejder er arbejder af ganske samme type eller om muligt arbejder, der er endnu mere simple at udføre. Det midlertidige dige blev således lavet blot ved at skubbe digematerialet sammen med en dozer og efterfølgende placere sten ovenpå. Man må derfor spørge sig selv, hvorfor det nu påstås at være blevet så dyrt. Den eneste grund hertil må være, at klageren ikke har involveret sig tilstrækkeligt i projektet og ikke har underrettet sine underentreprenører tilstrækkeligt om vilkårene for arbejdets udførelse. Først da man for alvor involverede sig i arbejdet i januar 1995 og fik sat flere folk på, viste det sig, at der teknisk ikke var noget til hinder for at få lavet både høfderne og diget i rette tid inden monsunen. Det er naturligvis beklageligt, hvis klager får tab på kontrakten, men skylden herfor er i givet fald ikke indklagedes, men klagerens underentreprenør eller dennes indiske underentreprenør, der muligvis har "snøret" klageren. Klageren måtte være klar over og selv bære risikoen herfor.

Indklagede er i øvrigt ikke enig i, at det ændrede flodløb og den ændrede placering af beskyttelsesdige indebar, at der skulle arbejdes under vådere forhold, end hvad der rimeligt kunne forventes og forudses på baggrund af udbudsmaterialet. En del af arbejdet var netop at lave beskyttelse mod flodvandet ved bygning af diger og høfder. Klageren måtte således alene på grund af projektets karakter kunne forudse, at der ville strømme vand til. Det fremgik også af flere af positionerne i Bill of Quantities. Af kontrakten fulgte, at også eventuelt nødvendige beskyttelsesdiger som det midlertidige dige og de to midlertidige høfder skulle betales med de aftalte enhedspriser. Klageren vidste eller burde i hvert fald have vidst, at flodens løb ændrede sig og var uforudsigeligt fra år til år. Det kunne klageren have undersøgt nærmere hos lokalbefolkningen, inden man afgav sit tilbud. Et studium af udbudsprojektets tegninger ville ligeledes have vist klageren, at arbejdet skulle foregå i et delvist vådt område, gennemstrømmet af flere flodforgreninger. Klageren lægger nu i stedet afgørende vægt på, hvad man så under sit visit i maj 1993. Her blev der stillet spørgsmål, som ikke kunne besvares, fordi der ikke forelå nødvendige oplysninger til besvarelsen. Det har klageren accepteret og har altså med åbne øjne påtaget sig en risiko. Det afgørende er, hvad udbudsmaterialet indeholder af oplysninger, ikke hvad man ser under et site visit.

Om klagers generelle krav har indklagede herefter anført, at kravet vedrører arbejde, som nøjagtig svarer til det arbejde, der er omhandlet i udbudsmaterialet. Det er derfor vanskeligt at forstå, hvorfor de aftalte enhedspriser skal ændres. Strategien fra klagers side er tilsyneladende, at flytningen af flodens løb og den heraf følgende revision af projektet må føre til, at enhedspriserne må tilsidesættes og erstattes af priser, som efter klagerens opfattelse er rimelige. Af FIDIC artikel 51.1 fremgår imidlertid, at klageren var forpligtet til at tåle ændringer af projektet, i givet fald med en af Engineer fastsat kompensation efter artikel 52. Det er således ikke i sig selv ansvarspådragende, at projektet måtte revideres og arbejdet udføres efter det reviderede projekt. Det bestrides ikke, at revisionen bevirkede en vis forsinkelse objektivt set. De midlertidige beskyttelsesarbejder forhindrede imidlertid floden i at komme ind på det planlagte anlægsområde. Klageren kunne derfor have udnyttet monsunperioden 1994 - hvor der oprindeligt ikke var planlagt udført noget arbejde - til at indhente forsinkelsen.

Den senere forcering havde været unødvendig, hvis man havde udnyttet monsunperioden og i øvrigt havde "mandet op" allerede i efteråret 1994 i stedet for at vente til januar - februar 1995. Økonomisk set er resultatet det samme, hvadenten arbejdet udføres hurtigere med flere folk eller langsommere med færre folk. Der blev på grund af manglende direktionsindsats hos klageren skabt en situation, som blev udnyttet af underentreprenøren, med hvem klageren derfor måtte indgå en aftale om forhøjet betaling for forcering af arbejdet, en betaling, som klageren nu uberettiget kræver refunderet af indklagede.

Renter af et eventuelt tilkendt beløb kan tidligst løbe fra 28 dage efter Engineer´s Decision, der blev fremsendt til parterne den 27. september 1995, jf. FIDIC artikel 60.10.

14) Voldgiftsrettens bemærkninger:

14.1. Indledningsvis bemærkes, at det af FIDIC artikel 67.3 sammenholdt med entreprisekontraktens "Conditions of particular application" fremgår, at voldgiftsbehandling af det ved "Engineer´s Decision" foreløbigt afgjorte krav "Shall take place in Copenhagen and be in accordance with the Danish Rules of Conciliation and Arbitration by one or more Arbitrators appointed by" Voldgiftsretten for bygge- og anlægsarbejder"." Det er i overensstemmelse hermed ubestridt, at voldgiftsretten har kompetence til at afgøre den foreliggende tvist, og at voldgiftsretten ved denne afgørelse med FIDIC´s ord "Shall have full power to open up, review and revise any decision, opinion, instruction, determination, certificate or valuation of the Engineer related to the dispute". På denne baggrund afgøres tvisten med udgangspunkt i danske entrepriseretlige regler og praksis.

14.2. Kravene til udbudsmaterialets indhold, der nu fremgår af AB 92 § 2, er - som anført af Hørlyck: Entreprise og licitation (4. udg. 1993) s. 37 - baseret på lang tids voldgiftspraksis. De bydende skal herefter kunne udarbejde deres tilbud på grundlag af de oplysninger, som indeholdes i udbudsmaterialet, og dette skal være "entydigt og således udformet, at der er klarhed over ydelsernes omfang og indhold". Bestemmelsen og den til grund herfor liggende voldgiftspraksis er vel i første række af betydning ved fastlæggelsen af grænsen mellem kontraktarbejde og ekstraarbejde, men må antages også at være afgørende for de bydendes udregning af enhedspriser, hvor disse indgår i tilbudet.

Af AB 92 § 15, stk. 4, fremgår endvidere, at udbudsmaterialet skal indeholde oplysninger bl.a. vedrørende grundvands- og jordbundsforhold. Indeholder udbudsmaterialet ikke fyldestgørende oplysninger herom, skal foranstaltningerne herimod og ulemperne herved betales som ekstraarbejder. Som eksempel på manglende iagttagelse af dette krav til udbudsmaterialets indhold nævner Mogens Hansen m.fl.: AB 92 for praktikere (1993) s. 62, at "en angivelse af grundvandsspejlets beliggenhed i en geoteknisk rapport (ikke vil) være en fyldestgørende oplysning, med mindre det i øvrigt fremgår, af den geotekniske rapport, hvor stor vandtilstrømning der kan regnes med ved en udgravning".

14.3. Ved bedømmelsen af udbudsprojektet i den foreliggende sag må udgangspunktet herefter være, at indklagede som bygherre og som den, der anviste det område, hvor entreprisen - herunder flodarbejderne - skulle udføres, må være ansvarlig for, at alle nødvendige informationer for udførelsen af projektet blev meddelt de bydende som grundlag for deres tilbud. Disse informationer måtte omfatte ikke blot oplysninger om udgravningsmængder m.v. samt topografiske og geografiske forhold, men tillige - og først og fremmest - oplysninger om vandstandsforholdene i floden. Oplysningerne herom sammenholdt med oplysningerne om de topografiske forhold ville efter voldgiftsrettens opfattelse have været af væsentlig betydning for klagerens prissætning af flodarbejderne. Ved besøget på stedet inden tilbudsgivningen - et besøg, hvor det efter bevisførelsen må lægges til grund, at forholdene ikke umiddelbart kunne give de bydende anledning til særlige betænkeligheder - forblev et spørgsmål om vandstandsforholdene imidlertid ubesvaret, idet der alene fremkom oplysninger om vandstrømsforholdene ved en kraftstation i Indien ca. 70 km. Sydligere, d.v.s. oplysninger, der ikke kunne omsættes tiloplysninger om vandstandsforholdene på byggepladsen.

Voldgiftsretten finder herefter, at udbudsmaterialet har manglet afgørende oplysninger for klagerens udregning af de tilbudte enhedspriser, hvilket fører til, at disse tilbudspriser for så vidt angår flodarbejderne ikke fuldt ud kan fastholdes som grundlag for afregningen af flodarbejderne, der efterfølgende - også på grund af flodens ændrede løb - viste sig at være ikke blot væsentlig mere omfattende, men også både besværligere og bekosteligere, bl.a. på grund af øgede pumpeudgifter som følge af tilstrømmende vand ved udførelsen af de midlertidige beskyttelsesarbejder inden monsunen i 1994.

14.4. Voldgiftsretten finder af de grunde, der er anført af klageren, at det ikke med rette kan bebrejdes denne, at det egentlige anlægsarbejde - som oprindeligt planlagt - var indstillet i monsunperioden 1994. Efter dennes afslutning kan de af klageren påberåbte vandproblemer efter voldgiftsrettens opfattelse imidlertid ikke have været til væsentlig gene for arbejdets fremdrift på et tidligere tidspunkt end sket. Det samme gælder de væsentligt øgede udgravningsmængder, som fremgik af det reviderede projekt. De øgede omkostninger for klageren som følge af dennes aftale med underentreprenøren i februar 1995 om forcering af arbejdet kan derfor kun i begrænset omfang tillægges betydning ved afgørelsen af, i hvilket omfang de i entreprisekontrakten aftalte enhedspriser skal fraviges. Der er dog ved afgørelsen heraf taget hensyn til dels den forsinkelse, som det ændrede flodløb og den heraf nødvendiggjorte omprojektering tidligere havde givet anledning til, dels til det forhold, at klageren kontraktlig var forpligtet til at anvende lokale underentreprenører og dermed befandt sig i en situation, hvor man - også i indklagedes interesse - var tvunget til at indgå aftale med underentreprenøren om tillægsbetaling for at sikre, at flodarbejdet blev gjort færdig inden monsunen 1995.

14.5. Efter en helhedsbedømmelse finder voldgiftsretten, at der er grundlag for en vis regulering af priserne for flodarbejdet ud over den regulering, der er sket i og med "Engineers Decision". Ved denne regulering kan voldgiftsretten imidlertid ikke følge hverken satserne i den af klageren krævede genprissætning - satser, der for nogles vedkommende forekommer forhøjet urimeligt henset til arbejdets art - eller beløbene i klagerens tabsopgørelse. Som anført af indklagede ville resultatet i begge tilfælde blive urimeligt. De foreliggende oplysninger giver heller ikke voldgiftsretten et rimeligt grundlag for selv at prissætte de enkelte arbejder som grundlag for udregning af den tillægsbetaling, der tilkommer klageren. Tillægsbetalingen fastsættes derfor - i hvert fald delvist - skønsmæssigt, således at der tilkendes klageren følgende beløb, hvoraf rentebeløbet som nævnt foran ikke er omtvistet:

1. Generelt krav:

1.1 7.000.000 kr.

1.2 281.826 kr.

2. Enkeltkrav: 1.800.000 kr.

3. Rentekrav: 64.526 kr.

I alt: 9.146.352 kr.

med renter som påstået af 9.081.826 kr. fra den 5. juli 1995, jf. FIDIC artikel 60.10.

Indklagede skal inden 14 dage efter denne kendelses modtagelse til klageren betale 9.146.352 kr. tillige med renter - diskontoen plus 3 % - af 9.081.826 kr. fra den 5. juli 1995.

I sagsomkostninger skal indklagede inden samme frist betale 125.000 kr. til klageren.

Voldgiftsrettens omkostninger skal betales af klageren med 1/3 og af indklagede med 2/3.

Versioner

1. 1998-08-03