NATIONAL COMPANY FOR MOTORWAYS AND NATIONAL ROADS S.A.

Introduction

The meeting commenced at 4:00pm chaired by Eng. Mircea Pop, Deputy Director General, RNCMNR

Strabag A.G.

The Employer asked the Contractor to briefly present the status and problems of the Contract.

The Contractor informed that his financial progress is 48% of the Contract and the physical progress is 75%.

The Engineer explained that the difference is due to non-conformities of the performed works which have not been accepted to payment. The Engineer also informed that up to date the sum certified for payment is of 10,822,119 Euros, and this includes a 2 months difference between the physical and the financial status.

The Employer asked if the problem of 28 days notice is an issue on this Contract as well.

The Engineer stated that the same proposal for EOT has been made to this Contractor: EOT till September 2006, the Contractor pays all supervision costs and drops all rights to claim up to the moment the extension is granted. The response of the Contractor has been negative and he has proposed something different: an IEOT is awarded to allow the Contractor to substantiate and reissue his claims, the Contractor does not pay delay damages, but only the Client's supervision costs. If the claims are accepted in the end, the Contractor will receive back the supervisions costs; if the claims are rejected he will pay delay damages with interest to the Employer. The Engineer advised that based on a bank guarantee (2.3 mil Euros) presented by the Contractor against the delay damages, the Employer could accept waiving of Delay Damages.

The Contractor noted that all they need is a 6 months IEOT to substantiate their claims since indeed there have been delays to the Contract out of Contractor's control. The Contractor also stated that the good name of an international company such as Strabag A.G. should be considered a valuable guarantee and no other bank guarantee be requested.

The Engineer noted that if presented a bank guarantee as stipulated he will make a recommendation to the Employer within the next 10 days.

The Contractor noted that the issue of the 28 days is a disputable subject in front of a court of law; the Client has changed the Design and in 18 months since December 2004 no one single Working Drawing has been approved and given to the Contractor by the Engineer (Claim No. 4).

The Engineer stated that there is no substantiation to Claim no. 4.

The Contractor stated that they have asked for a 6 months extension to reissue the claims. The Engineer observed that the Contractor does not have a working programme.

The Contractor said that after the originally submitted programme he has produced and issued 10 revisions of the working programme.

The Contractor informed that by the 30^th of June the Engineer will receive a new programme of works.

The Employer asked the Contractor to submit a complete documentation presenting the events to the Engineer and the Engineer will make a recommendation to the Employer.

The Engineer observed that in the meantime the Contractor is subject to the delay damages.

The Contractor complained that the Design for final road marking and signalling is still with the RNCMNR Traffic Department and not approved yet.

Closure of Meeting

The meeting was closed at 4:35pm with thanks to all participating.