3.  GROUNDS OF OBJECTION4

The expression "raise comments" in this paragraph shall be construed to mean "raise comments or make objections" unless the contrary appears from the context.  The Authority's Representative may raise comments in relation to any Submitted Item on the grounds set out in paragraph 2 above or on the ground that the Submitted Item would (on the balance of probabilities) breach any Legislation but otherwise may raise comments in relation to a Submitted Item only as follows:

3.1.  in relation to any Submitted Item if:

3.1.1.  the Contractor's ability to perform its obligations under this Contract would (on the balance of probabilities) be adversely affected by the implementation of the Submitted Item; or

3.1.2.  the implementation of the Submitted Item would (on the balance of probabilities) adversely affect any right of the Authority under this Contract or its ability to enforce any such right;

3.2.  in relation to Reviewable Design Data submitted pursuant to Clause 15 (Design Development) if:

3.2.1.  the Submitted Item is not in accordance with the Works Requirements; or

3.2.2.  the Submitted Item is not in accordance with the Method Statements;

3.2.3.  the Submitted Item would increase the likelihood of Deductions following the Services Commencement Date.

3.3.  in relation to the submission of any proposed revision or substitution for the Commissioning Plans or any part of any Commissioning Plans (as the case may be) pursuant to Clause 21.2.1 (Testing and Commissioning), on the grounds that:

3.3.1.  the proposed revision or substitution is not in accordance with Good Industry Practice;

3.3.2.  the revised Commissioning Plan would materially increase disruption to the Authority [and/or the WCAs] in respect of Contract Waste deliveries pursuant to Clause 21 (Completion of the Works);

3.3.3.  the proposed revision or substitution would (on the balance of probabilities) result in an inferior standard of performance of the relevant Facility to the standard of performance in accordance with the Method Statement relating to that facility prior to such proposed revision or substitution; and

3.4.  in relation to the submission of any Schedule of Programmed Maintenance, any revision to any Schedule of Programmed Maintenance pursuant to Clause 26.3 (Programmed Maintenance) on the grounds that:

3.4.1.  carrying out the Programmed Maintenance in the period or at the times suggested would (on the balance of probabilities) interfere with the operations of the Authority (and/or the WCAs) and such interference could be avoided or mitigated by the Contractor rescheduling the Programmed Maintenance; or

3.4.2.  the proposed method of performance of the Programmed Maintenance would not be in accordance with the requirements of Clause 26 (Maintenance), the Service Requirements and the Services Method Statements for that Service; or

3.4.3.  the safety of users of the Facility would (on the balance of probabilities) be adversely affected; or

3.4.4.  the period for carrying out the Programmed Maintenance would (on the balance of probabilities) exceed the period reasonably required for the relevant works;

3.5.  in relation to the submission of the Substitute Waste Plan pursuant to Clause 25.2.1 and any subsequent revision thereto pursuant to Clause 25.2.2 on the grounds that:

3.5.1.  the proposed Substitute Waste Plan does not comprehensively address the contents of a Substitute Waste Notice;

3.5.2.  the proposed Substitute Waste Plan does not include potential sources of Waste which would be suitable for treatment at the Facility;

3.5.3.  the Authority is able to identify a source of Waste which would result in a higher overall Substitute Waste Price;

3.5.4.  in respect of the Substitute Waste Plan submitted pursuant to Clause 25.2.1, the plan does not demonstrate justifiable reasons for the departures from the Outline Substitute Waste Plan;

3.5.5.  [the proposed Substitute Waste Plan does not demonstrate that the Contractor will use reasonable endeavours] and

3.5.6.  the Authority does not consider (acting reasonably) that the plan could be implemented and that the Contractor would be able to comply with the provisions of Clause 25.2.4 in the event of a Contract Waste Shortfall.

3.6.  In relation to the submission of new or amended or replacement Sub-Contracts, Off-Take Contracts or Third Party Waste Contracts that the Submitted Item or proposed arrangement does not comply with:

3.6.1.  Clause 51. (Third Party Waste and Off-Take Contracts); or

3.6.2.  Clause 81.2 (Restriction on Contractor) and 81.6 (Refusal of Consent).

__________________________________________________________________________________________________

4 The grounds for objection here are suggested generic provisions and should be considered on a profit specific basis.  Authorities need to be aware that in circumstances where they have a right to review only (i.e. as opposed to a right to consent pursuant to the Contractor Change procedure) they must be comfortable that the grounds for objection are suitable drafted to protect the Authority's interests.