Adjudication Application Number

SOP/AA051

SOP/AA052

Brief description of the sub-contracts

Package 1 : Civil and structural works to the SG Building, ESG Building, Engineering Workshop, Contractors Building, Reinforced Concrete Driving Piling Works for all buildings and Dismantling and Demolition Works (excludes demolition of piles to 2.0m depth below ground level) for a lump sum price of SGD7,266,049 (Sub-Contract Sum)

Package 2: Generally, to construct the admin building and to carry out the general area/external works for a total combined lump sum price of SGD7,630,277 (Sub Contract Sum).

Adjudication Claims

SGD1,272,119.90 being the balance of the amount owing under Purchase Order No. KS/PO 20190093 dated 11 April 2019 (the “Package 1 Lump Sum Contract”) for the alleged completion of the Package 1 Lump Sum Contract and Variation orders.

SGD2,868,204.96 being the balance of the amount owning under PO20190130 dated 10 May 2019 for the alleged completion of the Package 2 Lump Sum Contract and Variation orders.

Background Facts

KES had paid the Claimants a total of around SGD6,603,478.25 based on the actual work done by the Claimants.

KES had paid the Claimants a total of around SGD5,002,618.60 based on the actual work done by the Claimants.

Conclusion of KES’s Adjudication Response

1. The Respondents denied all the claims of the Claimants for the grounds set out in the Adjudication Response.
2. As a matter of logic, the Respondents could not honour any payment claims without fair and proper substantiation by the Claimants.
3. The Claimants had failed to carry out their obligations under the Lump Sum Contracts as there were extensive defects or rectification works in the punchlist. Further, the Claimants for unknown reasons had chosen to initiate the adjudication application in spite of a mutually agreed procedure for Quantity Surveyor review/valuation for all submitted claims.
4. Further, the Payment Claim and Notice of Intention were invalid or premature as the same did not comply with all the requirements under the SOP Act and SOP Regulations.
5. The Respondents urged the Adjudicator to allow parties to resume the process of further negotiation and discuss the claims that were submitted to adjudication.
6. In the circumstances, the Respondents humbly sought that this adjudication be dismissed with the Respondents’ costs and the costs of the adjudication to be borne by the Claimants.