The company Lois Builders Ltd in a statement expresses its strong displeasure "for the unprecedented development of a termination notice for both the Contractor and the Engineer in the project "Reformation of the Fishing Shelter and the River in Liopetri".
He also states that "the unfolding events are considered unprecedented for the construction industry and raise reasonable questions".
This announcement:
The company Lois Builders Ltd, is positioned as follows in relation to the above notice of termination and the events occurring which are unprecedented and unheard of.
Never before has the Contractor received a termination notice 5 months prior to the Project completion date as assessed by the Project Engineer. It is noted that the revised delivery date of the Project for which the Employer gave his consent is 15/01/25 and additionally the Engineer suggested granting an extension of time of an additional 2.5 months given that the Employer has not managed the financial issues pending from him with the result that the Contractor is not paid for the work performed.
It is also unheard of, that one or two people in an agency, with their actions, can drag the Department of Urban Planning and Housing and by extension the State into endless problems and controversies. A Department with a history of 85 years and an undeniably admirable project and a construction company with a history of almost 50 years with projects that the state itself and the wider public sector proudly promotes, are divided and led into conflict by undocumented, disciplinary and not only variable manipulations and unprecedented misinformation and misleading of the competent authority.
Anyone can appreciate whether it is unprecedented or not, when the Employer proceeds to terminate the contract of the Engineer he employed to supervise the Project, last Thursday night just literally hours before the Contractor was terminated on Friday morning. Given that the Engineer categorically refused to certify as the Employer desired that the Project was not progressing at a satisfactory pace due to the Contractor's fault, after repeatedly, unequivocally and categorically stating that the Employer was responsible, he proceeded to terminate the Engineer. It is obvious that the impartial attitude of the Engineer was not to the liking of a small number of employees of the Employer, so he resorted to the absolute and flagrant violation of the Engineer's Contract, considering that in this way he is justified in terminating the Contractor.
It is questionable that the Employer allows his Coordinator to ignore the express provision of the Contractor's Contract which no doubt provides that the only way to terminate the Contractor's Contract is to be certified only by the Engineer (and not by the Employer himself) within 28 days from the 1st notice sent to the Contractor on 05/03/24, i.e. 8 months before, that the Contractor continues to not take measures to meet the schedule.
A referral to the General Prosecutor's Office could easily convince the Employer's leadership and the competent authority, namely the Ministry of the Interior, that the Contractor's solution is entirely unconventional.
It is also unprecedented to use the sacred concept of public interest on the basis of which government departments are misinformed and misled and the Engineer and the Contractor are blackmailed by the Project Coordinator.
Specifically and just as an example:
It has never been recorded by the Coordinator that their Contractor as of March 2024, was paid 6 months late for his completed work to the tune of 550,000.
It has never been recorded by the Coordinator that the Engineer has recommended the certification of an additional €250,000 for work carried out in the last 2 years and which the Contractor has repeatedly claimed.
It has never been recorded by the Coordinator that the Contractor has since 17/09/24 (i.e. 2 months ago) submitted a certificate of completion of work of 320,000.
The last one is also unheard of. Why did the Coordinator never inform the competent authorities and his supervisors that the Project could not work if it was currently delivered. He did not inform that the depth of the river is such that the fishermen cannot be served and therefore non-functional as a fishing shelter. He persistently kept it out of the picture until the illegal termination methods he did were done.
This announcement is addressed both to technicians in the engineering profession and the wider construction sector, as well as to the world directly affected by the aforementioned manipulations. So it is also critical to clarify the following.
He also responds to the positions of the Ministry of the Interior:
Both time extension approvals and certification of additional work must be reviewed and approved within a short period of time after their execution by the Contractor. In this particular project, these approvals were granted gradually, very late (from 9-12 months later) while the duties of the Coordinator are defined in the relevant circular of the General Accounting Office KEAA 1. It is therefore logical and expected to cause a delay in the Project.
Additionally, a sample of misinformation is the reference recorded in the Press Release of the Ministry of the Interior that a year ago the completion rate was 50% and now it is 55%. In fact and according to the issued payment certificates, between the period 15 June 2023 and 31 August 2024 (which concerns the last certificate issued) always in relation to the contract amount, the completion rate increased by 20%, so that it was from 50% to 55%.
Regarding the position of the Audit Service, we are surprised by the report referred to in the Press Release since a representative of the Audit Service in two monthly progress meetings repeatedly urged the Employer to certify the work and additional work regardless of whether it has received approvals from the KEAA since liquidity for the Contractor is like blood in the body, a position recorded by industry authority Lord Denning and then Sir Michael Latham ("Cashflow is the lifeblood of the construction industry")
After his recent payment, the Contractor, as stated in writing to the Coordinator, is progressing the Project normally and according to the schedule, a fact that was completely ignored by the Project Coordinator.
The company is obliged based on its principles to operate protecting its reputation as well as the efforts of the people of our company and the subcontractors who support it over time. Regardless of the above findings, he will do what is required to prevent this case from leading to labyrinthine procedures. He expresses the humble opinion that the Employer, i.e. the Department of Town Planning and Housing should also aim at the same point, so as to avoid increased construction costs, multiple delays and resources of both parties in legal disputes.