Conversion of Filter Presses to Vacuum Filter Dryers at VEAS Arbitration Report

NIVA represented by Mr. T. Damhaug has been appointed to act as arbitrator in the dispute between VEAS and DryVac in connection with a contract regarding conversion of three conventional filter presses to vacuum filter dryers at the VEAS sewage treatment plant. NIVA's approach to this task invo...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Damhaug, T.
Other Authors: Damhaug, T. - Project manager
Format: Report
Language:unknown
Published: Norsk institutt for vannforskning 1998
Subjects:
Online Access:http://hdl.handle.net/11250/210071
Description
Summary:NIVA represented by Mr. T. Damhaug has been appointed to act as arbitrator in the dispute between VEAS and DryVac in connection with a contract regarding conversion of three conventional filter presses to vacuum filter dryers at the VEAS sewage treatment plant. NIVA's approach to this task involved: (i) examination of the contract and background documentation provided by the parties, (ii) implementation of a test program to verify the scope of delivery, condition and quality of supplied equipment, mechanical functions, capacity and the efficiency of the retrofitted press and (iii) give a statement concerning the key issue, whether or not DryVac has met the terms of the contract. NIVA represented by Mr. T. Damhaug has been appointed to act as arbitrator in the dispute between VEAS and DryVac in connection with a contract regarding conversion of three conventional filter presses to vacuum filter dryers at the VEAS sewage treatment plant. NIVA's approach to this task involved: (i) examination of the contract and background documentation provided by the parties, (ii) implementation of a test program to verify the scope of delivery, condition and quality of supplied equipment, mechanical functions, capacity and the efficiency of the retrofitted press and (iii) give a statement concerning the key issue, whether or not DryVac has met the terms of the contract. The arbitrator's conclusion regarding the principal question is that DryVac has not met its terms and conditions of the contract. Some particular arguments have been made in the main document support this statement. Vestfjorden avløpsselskap (VEAS)