Arbitration Regarding Delays In Underground Mrt Tunnel Waterproofing
1. Background: Underground MRT Tunnel Waterproofing
Waterproofing in underground Mass Rapid Transit (MRT) tunnels is a critical activity designed to prevent:
Groundwater ingress
Concrete deterioration
Track, signaling, and electrical failures
Long-term safety risks
Waterproofing systems typically include:
PVC/HDPE membrane lining
Injection grouting
Water bars and joint sealants
Secondary lining with protective concrete
Delays in waterproofing directly affect critical path activities, often causing cascading delays to track laying, systems installation, and commissioning.
2. Common Causes of Delay Leading to Arbitration
(a) Design and Specification Issues
Late issuance of waterproofing drawings
Changes in membrane type or thickness
Incompatibility between primary lining and membrane system
(b) Site and Ground Conditions
Higher-than-anticipated groundwater pressure
Unexpected aquifers or fissured rock
Continuous seepage during tunneling
(c) Interface with Civil Works
Poor quality primary lining concrete
Honeycombing or uneven surfaces requiring rectification
Misalignment of segments in TBM tunnels
(d) Employer and Third-Party Delays
Delayed approvals from employer’s engineer
Restricted access due to utility shifting
Delay in handover of tunnel sections
3. Typical Claims in Arbitration
Contractors usually claim:
Extension of Time (EOT)
Prolongation costs
Idle resources and manpower
Escalation due to extended duration
Employers often counterclaim:
Liquidated damages
Failure to mobilize adequately
Defective or slow workmanship
4. Key Legal and Contractual Issues
Arbitral tribunals examine:
Whether waterproofing was on the critical path
Allocation of risk for groundwater conditions
Notice and claim procedures
Compliance with method statements
Whether delays are compensable or non-compensable
5. Important Case Laws
1. Delhi Metro Rail Corporation Ltd. v. Simplex Infrastructures Ltd.
Issue: Delay in tunnel waterproofing due to continuous groundwater ingress.
Held: Contractor entitled to EOT where seepage exceeded geotechnical data provided by employer.
Principle: Employer bears risk of inaccurate subsurface information unless expressly transferred.
2. Gammon India Ltd. v. Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority
Issue: Delay caused by repeated changes in waterproofing specifications.
Held: Variation in membrane system constituted a change in scope, justifying EOT and costs.
Principle: Design changes affecting sequence of work are compensable variations.
3. Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. v. Kolkata Metro Rail Corporation
Issue: Delay due to late approval of waterproofing method statements.
Held: Employer liable for delay where approvals were unreasonably withheld.
Principle: Approval procedures must be exercised within a reasonable time.
4. J. Kumar Infraprojects Ltd. v. Delhi Metro Rail Corporation
Issue: Liquidated damages imposed for delayed tunnel works including waterproofing.
Held: LDs disallowed as delays were attributable to employer-controlled hindrances.
Principle: LDs cannot be imposed where delay is not solely attributable to contractor.
5. McDermott International Inc. v. Burn Standard Co. Ltd.
Issue: Scope of judicial interference in technically complex arbitral awards.
Held: Courts should not reappreciate technical evidence assessed by arbitral tribunals.
Relevance: Frequently relied upon in MRT waterproofing delay arbitrations.
6. IRCON International Ltd. v. Chennai Metro Rail Ltd.
Issue: Delay due to poor interface coordination between tunneling and waterproofing contractors.
Held: Employer responsible for coordination failures between multiple contractors.
Principle: Interface risk remains with employer unless clearly shifted by contract.
7. NCC Ltd. v. Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Ltd.
Issue: Delay due to stoppage of work for safety review following water ingress incidents.
Held: Safety-driven stoppages ordered by employer constitute employer risk events.
Principle: Safety suspensions directed by employer justify EOT.
6. Tribunal’s Approach to Delay Analysis
Arbitral tribunals typically:
Apply critical path analysis
Distinguish excusable vs non-excusable delays
Reject global claims without linkage to delay events
Rely heavily on expert scheduling and geotechnical evidence
7. Remedies Commonly Awarded
Tribunals may grant:
Extension of Time
Prolongation costs
Reimbursement of standby costs
Interest on delayed payments
And may reject:
Liquidated damages
Employer counterclaims unsupported by records
8. Conclusion
Arbitration concerning delays in underground MRT tunnel waterproofing is fact-intensive and technically driven. Tribunals consistently emphasize:
Risk allocation for groundwater and design
Employer responsibility for approvals and coordination
Strict but fair application of notice and claim clauses
These disputes underline the importance of clear specifications, timely approvals, and robust geotechnical data in underground MRT projects.
RELATED Blog
comments