Change order discussion

Person #21: Yeah, can you hear me? Testing, testing. Hello? Person #15: Yes, I can hear you, sir. Loud and clear. Person #18: Yes, I'm here. Audio is fine. Person #21: Good. Okay. So, look, it's Thursday afternoon, we all want to go home, so let's try to keep this tight. Did everyone get the email from the vendor? The one that came through at like, 1:15? Because I was already mentally at the mosque, wallah, and then I saw that. Person #15: Yes, I saw it. The change order request, the one for the HR service portal integration. I've had a chance to go through the PDF, sir. It's... substantial. Person #18: I received it. I did not print it. I read it on the screen, which for a contract of this magnitude, is unusual. But I have read it. Person #21: Okay, good. So, just to recap for the benefit of anyone who missed it—and I know you both read it—the vendor, the one we call the Indian vendor, they've submitted a change order for the TAMM HR integration. They're claiming the scope changed because of the ADERP-HR interface. They want an additional 4.2 million dirhams and a sixty-day extension. They say the original milestone of September twenty-first is not achievable because we changed the data model on them. Person #15: That's their narrative, sir. From a process design perspective, we did adjust the field mappings for the emirate ID validation, but that was communicated in the workshop on the second of August. We have the attendance sheet. We have the minutes. It was an agreed action, not a unilateral change. Person #18: My reading is that we are at the signature stage of a variation, but we haven't signed. We are at the "we have received a request" stage. The contract, under clause 14.2, allows for a change order if the scope has fundamentally altered. The question is whether adding a single data field—even an important one—constitutes a fundamental alteration. I would argue it does not. Person #21: That's what I was thinking. Under the Standards, clause 4, the vendor has a responsibility to flag scope creep at the time it occurs, not at the point of delivery. They didn't say anything at the workshop. They didn't say anything in the weekly stand-up on the ninth. They waited until the Friday before the deliverable to suddenly discover they need more money. Person #15: And more time. Sixty days is not a small ask, na. That takes us to late November. That's past the Q4 planning cycle for the unified HR calendar. We have the Tomouh learning hub rollout scheduled for January, and this integration feeds into that. It's a dependency. If this slips, it's not just a technical delay; it affects the HR digital roadmap for the whole of next year. Person #21: Right. And just for context, because I know we've all been in different silos this week—the total contract value was, what, 18.9 million? Originally? Person #15: Yes, sir. 18.9 million. This is a 22 percent increase. That's not a change order, that's a new project. At that level, it should go back to the tender board. It's a major variation. Person #18: Subject to the approval thresholds in the delegation of authority, yes. If we accept this, it sets a precedent. Every vendor who misses a milestone will try to frame it as a change of scope. And we have fifty-three entities on the ERP rollout. If word gets out that we are amenable to this kind of revisionism, we will have a flood of similar requests. Person #21: Exactly. So, the question is, what do we do? We have a few options. We can reject it outright. We can negotiate. Or we can accept it and look weak. I'm leaning towards a firm rejection with a counter-offer. But I want to hear from you both. Especially you, Doctor—what's the legal risk if we just say no? Person #18: If we say no, and they refuse to deliver, they are in breach. The liquidated damages clause kicks in. It's point five percent per week of the contract value, capped at ten percent. That is significant. It gives them a strong incentive to settle. The risk is that they walk away. But in this market, with this project, and with the prestige of working with the Abu Dhabi government, they won't walk. They will come back to the table. Person #15: I agree, sir. From an operations perspective, we cannot afford the delay. The service catalog is already live on ServiceNow. The HR portal is... well, it's in a state. The employees are complaining about the ticketing system. We need this integration to stabilize the user experience. If we accept a sixty-day slip, the complaints are going to go to the Undersecretary. And then it becomes a political issue, not just a procurement issue. Person #21: Hmm. So, we're all aligned on rejecting, at least initially. But what's our counter? We can't just say no. We need to give them something. Otherwise, it's a stalemate. My instinct is to offer a smaller change order for the emirate ID field, and a shorter extension. Maybe two weeks. Person #15: Two weeks is tight, sir. For the testing cycle, we need at least three. Because we have the data migration from the legacy HRA system, and that's always messy. Even with the field mapping, the data quality is poor. There are duplicates. We have to run the cleansing scripts. Two weeks for the build, plus two weeks for testing, is more realistic. If we push them to two weeks, they will come back and say it's impossible, and we'll have another round of negotiation. Maybe we offer a four-week extension, but with accelerated reporting. Weekly, instead of bi-weekly. Person #18: I would caution against offering a specific number at this stage. We should respond with a formal letter that states our position: we do not recognize the claim of scope change, we hold them to the original milestone, and we invite them to a meeting to discuss a mutually agreeable path forward. The letter should be positioned as a good-faith gesture, not a concession. The numbers can come later. The first move is to set the narrative. Person #21: Okay, but we have a deadline. We have to respond within five working days, right? Under the contract, if we don't respond, it's deemed accepted? Is that right? Person #18: No, that's not accurate. Under the contract, silence is not acceptance. It's only if we issue a payment certificate or an instruction that implies acceptance. A non-response is a non-response. It keeps the matter in limbo, but it doesn't transfer liability. However, it's not a good look. We should respond. I can have a draft letter prepared by Sunday morning. Person #21: Sunday? That's cutting it close, no? The deadline is Monday. Person #18: Sunday is the day before Monday. I can have it to you by the end of Sunday morning. We have the template from the Al Jaber case. It's similar language. I'll adapt it. Person #15: Sir, if I may—there's another angle we should consider. The vendor, the Indian vendor, they're also doing work for the Department of Municipalities. I heard from a colleague in procurement—actually, I saw it on the WhatsApp group—that they missed a milestone there last month for the building permit tracking system. They cited the same reason: a change in the data model. They got a change order approved. Person #21: Did they? How much? For how long? Person #15: I don't know the specifics, sir. It was a message from someone in the procurement office. They just said "the vendor got their change order at DMT, good for them." It was a casual remark. But it suggests they have a pattern. They try this with everyone. And if DMT approved it, they might think we will too. Person #21: That's not going to happen. I don't care what DMT did. We are not DMT. We have a savings target to meet this year. The Undersecretary has set a twelve percent savings target on common categories. If I approve a twenty-two percent change order, I'm blowing my own numbers. I can't justify that. I need to protect the category. Person #18: Perhaps you should speak to your counterpart at DMT. Just to understand the context. Maybe they had a different situation. Maybe the change was more substantial. Or maybe they made a mistake. It's useful intelligence, regardless. Person #15: Actually, I have the message here. Should I read it? It's from Salim. The procurement analyst at DMT. It's a bit informal, but it's informative. Person #21: Go ahead. Read it. We're all friends here. Person #15: Okay, he says: "Yalla habibi, guess what. The Indian vendor finally got their change order approved here at DMT. Boss signed it on Wednesday. 2.8 million and a 45-day extension. They're celebrating. Good for them, I guess. But I'm worried about the precedent, na. Next time, I'm going to ask for a change order for every little thing. 😂 Person #21: 2.8 million? For what? What was the original value? Person #15: He doesn't say. Just that it was approved. But it's less than our 4.2. So maybe they negotiated down. Or maybe their original scope was smaller. Person #18: The fact that it was approved is what matters. It establishes a negotiating position for the vendor. They can say, "See, the government is willing to pay for changes." We need to be careful. But we also need to remember that we are the Department of Government Enablement. We are the ones who set the standards. We don't follow DMT's lead. We are the lead. Person #21: True. But it's annoying. It gives them ammunition. Okay. So, we're all on the same page: we reject the claim, we counter with a smaller offer, we hold firm on the timeline, and we invite them to a meeting. Do we have a date for that meeting? Person #15: I'm free Monday afternoon. After the Friday prayers, it's a quiet day. We could do Monday at 2 PM. That gives us the weekend to prepare the letter and the agenda. Person #18: I can do Monday at 2 PM. I have a compliance review in the morning, but it should be done by 1. I'll bring the draft contract and the clause references. Person #21: Okay, Monday at 2 PM. Let me check my calendar... yeah, that works. I'll send the invite. And I'll have my team prepare a cost breakdown. If we do offer them something, I want to know exactly what it costs us. Not just the money, but the overhead. The project management time. The legal review. The testing. All of it. Person #15: Sir, one more thing. About the ADERP-HR integration—the actual technical issue. I've been thinking about the timeline. If we give them a four-week extension, and they start work on Monday, they can have the build done by the end of October. Then we have the testing cycle, which takes two weeks. That puts us at mid-November. If there are issues, we're looking at the end of November. Person #21: That's the absolute latest. I don't want to be doing this in December. December is for the National Day celebrations and the annual planning. Not for this. Person #15: Agreed, sir. So, the counter-offer should be a fixed end-date, not a duration. We say "we are willing to accept a revised milestone of November 30th, subject to weekly progress reviews and a penalty for any further slippage. Person #18: That's a good approach. A fixed end-date is more concrete than a period. It gives us something to measure against. And the weekly reviews are non-negotiable. We need to see their burndown chart. We need to see the test results. We need to see the actual code, not just their promises. Person #21: Right. Let's draft that. Okay, so we're all agreed on the strategy. I'll draft the initial response email, copying the Undersecretary's office. [inaudible] Not for approval, just for awareness. And we'll schedule the meeting for Monday at 2 PM. Person #15: Should we include the DMT approval in the email? As a reference? Or is that too passive-aggressive? Person #21: Too passive-aggressive. We don't mention it. We act like we don't know. It's better that way. If they bring it up in the meeting, we'll say "we are aware, but we are not DMT." For now, we play dumb. Person #18: I've noted that. So, the letter will not reference the DMT matter, but it will reference the workshop minutes from August 2nd. I'll include the relevant section on the agreed action items, and I'll highlight paragraph 4, where it states "the data model is subject to final validation by the DGE platform team." That's our out. Person #21: Perfect. That's the smoking gun. Good. Okay, anything else? Anyone have any other concerns? Or are we good to wrap up? Person #15: I'm good, sir. I'll prepare the revised timeline and the testing plan over the weekend. I'll send it to you both by Sunday afternoon. Person #21: Appreciate that. And Doctor, the letter by Sunday morning. That's the priority. We need to get that out before they start sending us "friendly reminders" on Monday. Person #18: Understood. I'll have it with you by 10 AM. Person #21: Great. So, we have a plan. We have a deadline. We have a counter. Good. I think we're done here. Unless someone has a final thought? Person #15: Actually, sir, just one small thing. Not about this, but about the GITEX preparation. I know we're not doing that until after this is resolved, but I was thinking about the demo for the HR service catalog. The AI assistant on TAMM—we have a demo slot, and I want to make sure we're showcasing the new self-service features, not just the old ones. I'll send a separate email about that next week. Person #21: Yeah, send it. We'll deal with that next week. This is enough for now. Okay, everyone, have a good weekend. Enjoy the Friday prayers. And let's be ready for Monday. Person #18: Thank you, sir. Have a good weekend. Person #15: Thank you, sir. And to you. I'll be in touch. Person #21: Yeah, take care. Bye. Person #15: Bye, sir. Person #18: Bye. Person #21: Actually, hold on. Before we all sign off—one thing I just remembered. The Undersecretary's office sent a note this morning about the vendor's parent company. Apparently they're in the news cycle now. Person #18: The parent company? Which one are we talking about again? The Indian vendor or the one we just discussed? Person #21: No, no, not the Indian vendor. The service provider we just spent an hour on. The one with the change order. Apparently their group holding is having some… issues in another market. The Undersecretary's office flagged it, saying we should be mindful of any reputational exposure. Person #15: Oh. I see. Sir, I wasn't aware they had a parent company issue. Do you want me to check the news, or should we— Person #21: No, don't check now. I'll forward you the note. It's just a heads-up. I don't want us to react to something before we know the facts. But it does affect the letter, Doctor. We should add a clause about financial stability reporting. Person #18: Understood. I can draft that as an addendum to the letter. Clause 14, perhaps. Or we can make it a separate annex. Person #15: The new ERP module they promised—should we still proceed with the testing plan? I mean, if there's reputational risk, maybe we should pause the testing until the letter is sent and we have their response? Person #21: No, no, don't pause. Testing doesn't commit us to anything. It's data, and they've already given us the sandbox. We test, we learn, we keep the pressure on. Person #18: My reading is that testing can continue without prejudicing our position. It's a standard practice. We'll document everything. Person #15: Okay, good. I'll proceed with the testing plan then. But I'll add a note in the documentation about the parent company, just for our records. Person #21: Fine. Good. Anything else? I think we're truly done now. Person #15: Actually, sir, one more thing. This is slightly unrelated, but I was checking the ADERP integration log this morning, and there's a ticket from ADEK about the HR module. They're saying the employee self-service update isn't reflecting properly. I think it's a data sync issue, not a module issue. Person #21: ADEK? They're always the first to find something. What's the ticket number? Person #15: It's T-48291. They've had it open for two days. The service desk has been trying to resolve it, but it might need a deeper look. I was going to raise it in the next integration meeting, but since we're here— Person #21: Two days is still within the SLA, right? Or am I wrong? Person #15: For a minor incident, the SLA is three business days. So technically we're still okay. But they've escalated it to their IT director, so I thought I should flag it. Person #21: Yeah, flag it in the next integration meeting. Don't touch it over the weekend. Let them wait until Monday. Unless it's critical, and it doesn't sound critical. Person #18: If I could just add, from a legal standpoint, we should be careful about any entity raising a dispute about the ERP rollout. We don't want ADEK to use this as a precedent. I'll note it in my file. Person #21: Good point. Noted. Now, really, is everyone done? I have a call with the Department of Finance in twenty minutes, and I'd like to take a quick break before that. Person #15: Yes, sir, I'm done. I'll send the timeline and testing plan by Sunday afternoon. Person #18: I'll have the letter with the addendum by Sunday morning. I'll also add the financial stability clause you mentioned. Person #21: Perfect. That's settled. Enjoy the weekend, both of you. Inshallah, Monday will be a good day. Person #15: Thank you, sir. Have a good weekend. Take care. Person #18: And to you. Bye. Person #21: Bye. Person #15: Actually, before we go—just to close the loop on the ERP ticket, I think there might be something else we need to look at. The entity mentioned something about a data migration issue on their side, not just the ticket itself. They said the service desk hasn't replicated it, but their IT director is insisting it's an ADERP issue, not a local network thing. Person #21: Hmm. That's the classic one, isn't it? Everyone blames the platform until you prove it's their printer. Person #15: Exactly, sir. That's why I wanted to wait until the integration meeting. If it's a local issue, it stays with them. If it's ADERP, we need to involve the Oracle team before it becomes another "DGE broke our payroll" story. Person #18: My reading is that we're still within our rights to insist on their evidence trail. Under the service agreement, clause 7, any defect report has to be accompanied by a reproduction script. If they can't reproduce it, it's a non-event. Person #21: Right. So we hold the line. Good. And I really do have to go. But—one thing, since you're both here and it's quiet. What's the status on the vendor change order? I know we said we'd handle it before Eid, or after, or whenever. I don't want to sit on it. Person #15: Which vendor are we talking about, sir? The Oracle one, or the Indian vendor on the service center fit-out? Person #21: The fit-out one. The one that missed the milestone on the TAMM customer service center at Reem. They've been quiet for a week, and now they've sent a change order for—what was it—extra electrical works and some aesthetic changes? I saw the email subject line and deleted it, to be honest. Person #18: Actually, I have that in front of me. It's T-48291? No, wait, that's the other one. The change order is reference CO-2026-084. They're claiming the original scope didn't include the raised floor for the server room and the glass partition near the entrance. They're also asking for a six-week extension because of the summer heat affecting the concrete work. Person #21: Six weeks? That pushes us into October. GITEX is the first week. We can't have a half-finished center during GITEX, and I'm not having the Chairman walk into a construction site when he's showing the media around. What's the financial ask? Person #18: They're asking for an additional 1.2 million dirhams, plus the extension. And they've attached a revised payment schedule that front-loads the next two claims. Person #21: One point two million. Nice in theory, maybe, if the work was actually done. But I've seen the progress photos from last week. The electrical conduits are barely started. And the raised floor—that was in the original tender, I'm sure of it. Let me check my notes. Yes, the bill of quantities had the raised floor. They can't claim it as a variation. Person #15: Sir, if I may—the process point. Under the Standards, if the vendor submits a change order after the milestone date, and the entity hasn't approved it in writing, then the original schedule still applies. They can't unilaterally extend their own timeline. That's clause 4.2, I believe. Person #18: Clause 4.2, yes. And their claim about the heat—there's a force majeure provision, but it's narrowly drafted. It covers natural disasters, not seasonal weather. Abu Dhabi in August is not a force majeure event. It's a known condition. Person #21: Exactly. They knew it was August when they bid. We didn't spring summer on them. So what's our move? Do we reject it formally, or do we negotiate them down and give them the extension anyway because we have no other option? Person #18: My recommendation is to reject the variation entirely and put them on notice for the missed milestone. The contract allows us to terminate for convenience if they're more than thirty days late. We're at day thirty-four now, so we have the lever. Person #21: Terminating means re-tendering, and that's four months minimum. We'd miss GITEX regardless. And the Chairman will ask why we didn't see this coming. Person #15: Sir, there's a middle path. We could approve a reduced variation—maybe 400,000—for the glass partition only, and hold the line on the raised floor and the timeline. And we add a penalty clause for the next milestone. That way they have an incentive to finish, and we don't lose the project. Person #21: (laughs) You're the reasonable one, as always. But I'm not sure I want to reward a vendor who waits until the last minute to discover "extra works". That's the oldest trick in the book. They underbid, they know it, and now they're testing us. Person #18: Which is exactly why I'd recommend a firm rejection. If we give them 400,000, they'll come back with another claim in a month. And we'll have set a precedent that late claims get partial sympathy. Person #21: Hmm. Okay. Let's say we reject. Then what? Do we have the capacity to take over the fit-out ourselves? The Public Works team is stretched, and corporate services has no project management muscle left after the merger. I'm not sure we do. Person #15: There's another option, sir. The Indian vendor—the one we used for the security systems at the headquarters—they do fit-outs as well. I can check if they have capacity. Their work on the Musaffah service center last year was decent, and they finished two weeks early. Person #21: The security systems vendor? They're a bit small for a 1.2-million-dirham fit-out, aren't they? I'd worry about their bonding capacity and whether they can handle the electrical certification. The last thing I need is a safety violation on our own project. Person #15: They've done two service centers already, sir. The Musaffah one was actually 800,000 dirhams, and they managed it fine. They're not a big firm, but they're reliable. And they're local, which helps with the local content requirements. Person #18: Local content is a good point. The current vendor is from the Gulf but not Emirati-owned. If we switch, we'd actually improve our score on the Procurement Gate report. But legally, we'd need to be careful about the termination notice. We'd have to give them fifteen days under clause 11, and we'd need to document the failure properly. Person #21: Fifteen days. That means we're in September before we even start the new procurement, if we go that route. And then October is gone. I don't like it. Person #15: Sir, if I can suggest—and I know this is a bit out of my lane—but what if we don't terminate? What if we use the threat of termination to get them to drop the change order and commit to the original schedule, with a small award at the end if they hit the milestone? It's a softer approach, but it might work. Person #21: A completion bonus? That's novel. But I'm not sure we have budget for that. The project already went over because of the change order request. I'd be surprised if the Undersecretary approves any extra spend on this. Person #18: Actually, there is a performance incentive clause in the contract already—clause 15, I recall. It allows up to 2% of contract value for early completion. We could waive the extension and let them use that. It doesn't require new budget. It's already in the framework. Person #21: Ah, I forgot about that. That's... actually clever. So we hold firm, we say no to the variation, we say no to the extension, but we remind them that the incentive clause exists if they finish on time. That's a solution I can sell to the Undersecretary. Person #15: And it doesn't set a precedent, because it's in the contract already. The vendor can't claim we're being generous. They're just getting what was always on offer. Person #18: And if they reject that, we have the termination lever. We'd still have time to bring in the other vendor if we move quickly. Maybe not for GITEX, but for the December opening, which is the real deadline anyway. Person #21: Is the December deadline the real one? I thought the Chairman wanted it for GITEX. Person #18: The Chairman wanted it for GITEX initially, but I've seen the latest communication from his office—it's now December. They want a soft launch before National Day. GITEX is just a preview. So we have more room than we thought. Person #21: Oh. Well, that changes things. If we have until December, then the six-week extension request is even less justified. They're just testing us. They know we're under pressure, and they're trying to exploit it. But if we have room to maneuver— Person #15: Sir, I think we have our answer. We reject the variation, we hold the original timeline, and we point to clause 15. If they push back, we escalate to termination, and we have the local vendor as a backup. I can talk to them today, informally, to see if they're interested, without committing anything. Person #21: (pauses) Okay. I like it. But I want this documented properly. Legal, you'll draft the rejection letter with the clause references? And HR, you'll have the informal conversation with the backup vendor, purely exploratory, no commitments? I don't want to be accused of negotiating with someone else while we're still in dispute. Person #18: I'll have the draft ready by Monday morning. I'll reference clause 4.2 for the scope exclusion, clause 11 for the termination notice, and clause 15 for the incentive. And I'll add a note about the force majeure position, so they know we've considered it and rejected it. Person #15: And I'll make the call today, sir. Just a general "how are you, are you busy" type of thing. No specifics. If they're interested, I'll report back to you next week. Person #21: Good. And I'll brief the Undersecretary tomorrow morning. He should know before he sees anything in the press, though I doubt this will make the news. It's a small fit-out, not a hospital. But still, I like to keep him informed. Person #15: Sir, one more thing—the service desk ticket. I'll still raise it in the integration meeting, but I'll frame it as a local issue pending their evidence. That way we're not seen as dismissing them, but we're also not accepting liability. Person #21: Perfect. That's the right approach. And if it turns out to be an ADERP issue, we deal with it then, with Oracle in the room. Not over the weekend. Person #18: I'll also flag it in my file, just in case it escalates. The entity—is it ADEK? They've been sensitive since the payroll incident in June. Person #15: Yes, it's ADEK. But this is a minor incident, not a payroll issue. Their IT director is just being cautious, I think. Person #21: Cautious is good. As long as it doesn't turn into a complaint to the Executive Council. We don't need another "DGE is not delivering" story in the media. Person #15: I'll keep it contained, sir. Person #21: Okay. So we're settled on two things: the change order rejection, and the ticket management. Anything else? I'm already late for my Finance call, and I promised myself I'd grab a coffee first. Person #18: I think we're done. I'll send the letter draft for your review on Saturday, so you have it before Monday. Person #21: Saturday? I thought you said Monday. Person #18: I said Monday, but I'll try for Saturday. It's a simple letter. The hard part is the tone. I want it firm but not provocative. We're not trying to end the relationship, just to reset expectations. Person #21: Fair. Firm but not provocative. I like that. And you'll cc me on the vendor's response? I want to see their reaction before we decide next steps. Person #18: Of course, sir. I'll keep you in the loop. Person #15: Same for me, on the vendor conversation. I'll send you a short email after I make the call, just a summary of their capacity and availability. Nothing formal. Person #21: Good. And if they say yes, we'll need to have a proper conversation with Legal about procurement rules, because we can't just hand them the contract without a process. Person #15: Understood, sir. It'll be exploratory only. I'll make that clear. Person #21: Alright. I'm going to go. Good work, both of you. This is exactly the kind of issue we should be handling together, not in silos. Enjoy the weekend. And don't work too hard. Person #15: Thank you, sir. Same to you. I'll let you know if anything urgent comes up. Person #18: Have a good weekend, sir. I'll see you Monday. Person #21: Monday, inshallah. Take care. Bye. Person #15: Bye. Person #18: Bye.