[ad_1]
The ASSOC consortium (with six construction companies from Braga, Casais, DST, ABB, Rodrigues & Névoa, Eusébios and FDO, the latter two already bankrupt) and Soares da Costa asked the Court to enforce two judgments of the Administrative Court, one 3,866 million euros and another 1.1 million. But they ask, in total, 16 years of interest, 6.6 million, which brings the amount claimed to 10.6 million. The orders are related to “higher charges in the execution of the contract works” and higher costs for the shipyard.
In response, the attorney representing the Municipality, Nuno Albuquerque says that the companies do not justify the costs that point, for example, to the case of labor where there are no pay receipts for workers and Social Security. He also questions the increase in the maintenance costs of the shipyards, and does not shy away from saying that “they want to enrich themselves without cause and be paid at the expense of the Municipality.”
It is recalled that the contract between the Chamber and the builders, signed in November 2001, provided for a cost of 43.8 million. The contract term was 295 days, ending in September 2003. But it only ended in April 2004. The final price, given that the consortium of the architect Souto Moura still has to pay another four million, should reach 185 million to 190 millions .
Overtime
In both actions, the lawyers Ricardo Bexiga, from ASSOC and Jorge Alves, from Soares da Costa point out that the contract should have been extended in time, for technical reasons, with the consequent “flexibilization of the workday on site and payment of overtime. – Saturdays, Sundays and holidays – due to the increase in assembly time for steel and also for concrete and reinforcement (plus 87% steel and 16% concrete). Thus, the cost of labor went from 8,898 euros per hour to 13.29 per hour, plus 48 percent, which was also due to annual increases in wages.
It evokes “the values that the subcontractors of these specialties demanded of them and that also resulted from the imposition of the measures and efforts necessary to complete the work in order to enable the stadium’s opening game to be held in December 2003.”
The money requested is, therefore, for the increase in costs of “Maintenance and Operation of the Shipyard”, “Health and Safety”, “Technical personnel of personnel, maneuvers and drivers” and “Equipment related to production”, within the term 174 days. Extension of the contract term.
House contests
In the defense, Nuno Albuquerque begins by requesting the procedural nullity of the executions, since the Chamber was not personally summoned for the settlement incident, as required by law.
Regarding the funds requested, it states that these are “extensions in the final term of the contract, without such extensions being necessarily based on the existence of extra work”.
It highlights that “the construction companies used, to calculate the supposed costs, the commonly called” rule of the three simple ones “, a rule that could not have been used, since it will benefit the authors, who will get rich without cause”.
“This is due to the fact that, it adds, as regards, that is, to the maintenance costs of the shipyard, the greatest economic effort in which a shipyard incurs occurs at the beginning of a work, when it must be installed and put into operation ”.
And he emphasizes: “In the case at hand, this value was obviously included in the value presented with the offer presented.”
It affirms that “this expense has not been repeated (since the shipyard has not been dismantled), so the values taken into account in relation to that part must be disregarded, under penalty of facing a duplication of values and, repeated, an enrichment without cause at the expense of the Municipality ”.
And, proceeding, he points out: “in the course of any work, the maintenance costs of the shipyard are decreasing, because as the specialty works are completed, the companies will dismantle them and reduce the personnel on site”.
To conclude: “Now, although the provisional reception of the work took place on 03/04/2004, the truth is that most of the work ended on 12/30/2003, so it was possible to celebrate the opening match of EURO 2004 ”.
They want to move at the expense of the City Council
Nuno Albuquerque also rejects one of the consortium’s arguments, that he had to work overtime.
And he counterattacks: “there is not even any document / correspondence in that sense and, having in fact happened, ASSOC decided simply and unilaterally to order its workers to work on Saturday and night – or at least say that they ordered, why prove, nothing that try … and the public treasury to pay! ”.
The lawyer also points out that the companies “do not collect documents that show that, in fact, the increase occurred precisely in the supposed amounts, they do not collect or report the salary receipts of the workers in question, nor do they indicate or demonstrate which and how many were the workers “.
It points out that it does not “report or show the registration sheets for overtime / night work, nor the monthly compensation statements sent to Social Security. This is because, let’s say and conclude, they did not exist ”.
In addition, he points out, “they do not indicate the calculation formula they use to arrive at a hypothetical increase of 48% in the cost of labor, which would necessarily have to be translated into account.”
Arbitrariness
The attributed percentage, 48%, is arbitrary and unreasonable, making a point of order, “it is important to remind construction companies that what they are entitled to is to be compensated for the damages they suffered and not to be compensated to coast of the Municipality “. .
And insisting, he emphasizes: “Unless this is the case, that is, not having a translation in the plaintiffs’ accounts, we are not facing a cost, since this only exists if it actually involved an expense, a real outflow of economic resources.”
However, “without the authors demonstrating, economically and accounting, this expenditure / outflow of resources, it is not possible to arbitrate any percentage increase with the costs incurred with the payment of overtime.”
To conclude: “For a certain amount to be paid, it must be sufficiently supported and justified, and the creditor simply does not allege – without proving or substantiating it – that it had higher labor costs. it affects work ”.
[ad_2]
