Dear Sir, Parties,

The Employer notes that up to present, all his requests regarding the schedule for
a hearing session regarding the dispute no. 3 have been denied.
The Employer informs that it insists in maintaining the Hearing requirement and
reminds that it is each Partys right to ask for a hearing session if he considers that
its case may be better supported. The Employer fails to see why the DAB member
does not accept taking into consideration that it is according to the General
Procedural Rules which governed the FIDIC Contracts .
We state that as a Contracting Authority that implements Contracts financed by
European and Romanian government funds , the Employer is subject to audit by
may Governmental agencies and, especially the domaine of the disputes implying
large amounts of money are subject to be reported to the National Anticorruption
Directorate.
Therefore, after the release of the document: REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO
THE COUNCIL AND THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT EU ANTI-CORRUPTION REPORT on
3.2.2014 and in order to not allow any kind of suspicious of lack of transparency in
the DAB disputes resolution toward the auditors , the Employer is obliged to ask
Hearings, especially for the Disputes which implies such important amounts.
Other evidence, this time at the technical level is that at the Referral 2 were a
Hearing was held, the Employers case was clearer to DAB as long as at the Referral
no.1 where the entire Dispute was conducted only through the submissions , even
the Employer endeavored to issued all the responses as clearer as possible, it
appears that his case was not well understood , namely the contractual
implication for the calculation of Adjustment for Changes in Costs , the purpose
of the addendum 1, and the illegal character of the overpayment for ACC besides
the procurement law PRAG. The Employers right for that case was fully
confirmed in other similar cases were the hearings have been held.
In the event if the DAB strongly considers that Rebuttal and Rejoinder have to be
maintained for this Dispute , the Employer will comply but he ask Hearing to be
held and also considers that a Brief Responsive Summary Submission is not
necessary and should be removed. be needed and asks the DAB that this stage to
be removed from the procedure.

Therefore, we draw again the kind attention of the DAB member not to put the
Employer in a position where the procedure will look mistrustful because the DAB
refused to hold a hearing session, moreover where the consequences for all parties
involved can turn to an investigation that can be avoided.
The Employer are waiting for the procedural rules amended.
Regards,