3  Grounds Of Objection

3.1  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 the paragraph above or on the grounds that the Submitted Item would (on the balance of probabilities) breach any Law or not be in accordance with any necessary consent, but otherwise may raise comments in relation to a Submitted Item only as follows:

3.1.1  in relation to any Submitted Item:

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

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

3.1.2  in relation to any Submitted Item submitted pursuant to clause 7.1 (Ancillary Documents):

(a)  the Authority's ability to perform its obligations under this Agreement would be adversely affected by the proposed course of action;

(b)  the Authority's ability to provide the [Fire and Rescue] [Police] Services or to carry out any of its statutory functions would (on the balance of probabilities) be adversely affected by the proposed course of action;

(c)  the proposed course of action would be likely to result in an increase to the Authority's liabilities or potential or contingent liabilities under this Agreement;

(d)  the proposed course of action would adversely affect any right of the Authority under this Agreement or its ability to enforce any such right;

(e)  the Contractor's ability to perform its obligations under this Agreement would be materially adversely affected by the proposed course of action;

(f)  the proposed course of action would reduce any cap on any indemnity in any Sub-Contract; or

(g)  the proposed course of action would be likely to significantly reduce the direct or indirect liabilities of a Key Sub-Contractor to the Contractor.

3.1.3  in relation to Reviewable Design Data submitted pursuant to clause 14 (Design Development):

(a)  the Submitted Item is not in accordance with the Authority's Requirements;

(b)  the Submitted Item is not in accordance with the Construction Proposals; or

3.1.4  in relation to any proposed variation to the Construction Proposals relating to the Works:

(a)  the Submitted Item would increase the likelihood of deductions being made pursuant to clause 37 (Payment Provisions) and Schedule 6 (Payment Mechanism) following the relevant Services Availability Date;

(b)  would result in a decrease or worsening of the quality of the Sites following the relevant Services Availability Date;

(c)  save where such proposed variation is necessitated due to a Qualifying Change in Law a Compensation Event or an Authority Change, would lead to an increase in the Unitary Charge

3.1.5  in relation to the submission of any revised Construction Programme on the ground that the revised Construction Programme:

(a)  would not (on the balance of probabilities) enable any part of the Works to be completed by the relevant Planned Services Availability Date;

(b)  would materially increase the cost or disruption to the Authority of any decanting from or within an Existing Station; [or]

(c)  would materially increase the disruption to the provision of [Fire and Rescue] [Police] Services by the Authority; [or]

(d)  [would render the Authority unable to comply with the Decant Protocol without material additional expense or disruption.]

3.1.6  in relation to the submission of any proposed revision or substitution for the Service Delivery Proposals on the grounds that:

(a)  the proposed revision or substitution is not in accordance with Good Industry Practice;

(b)  the performance of the relevant Services in accordance with the proposed revision or substitution would (on the balance of probabilities):

i.  be less likely to achieve compliance with relevant parts of the Authority's Requirements;

ii.  have an adverse effect on the provision by the Authority of the [Fire and Rescue] [Police] Services or on the safety of any users of the Sites; or

iii.  would cause the Authority to incur material additional expense; or

(c)  the proposed revision or substitution would (on the balance of probabilities) result in an inferior standard of performance of the relevant Services to the standard of performance in accordance with the Service Delivery Proposals prior to such proposed revision or substitution;

3.1.7  in relation to the submission of any Schedule of Programmed Maintenance, any revision to any Schedule of Programmed Maintenance on the grounds that:

(a)  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 or a Station and such interference could be avoided or mitigated by the Contractor rescheduling the programmed maintenance;

(b)  the safety of employees or other users of the Sites would (on the balance of probabilities) be adversely affected; or

(c)  the period for carrying out the programmed maintenance would (on the balance of probabilities) exceed the period reasonably required for the relevant works.

3.1.8  in relation to any submission to defer the replacement of any part of the Stations made pursuant to clause [**                    ].  (Programmed Replacement) on the grounds that:

(a)  the proposed deferral is not in accordance with Good Industry Practice;

(b)  the performance of the relevant Services in accordance with the proposed deferral would (on the balance of probabilities);

i.  .be less likely to achieve compliance with relevant parts of the Authority's Requirements;

ii.  have an adverse effect on the provision by the Authority of the [Fire and Rescue] [Police] Services or on the safety of any users of the Sites; or

iii.  would cause the Authority to incur material additional expense;

(c)  the proposed deferral would (on the balance of probabilities) result in an inferior standard of performance of the relevant Services to the standard of performance in accordance with the Service Delivery Proposals prior to such proposed revision of substitution; or

(d)  would result in a decrease or worsening of the quality of the Sites.