3.16 While Laser experienced mounting problems in meeting the most stringent requirements for controlling temperature, it also found that the Department disputed Laser's interpretation of the volume of space that had to be controlled. The parties agreed to put two issues fundamental to the specification to adjudication, which took place in March and April 2000 (Appendix 3). The adjudicator awarded in Laser's favour for the first issue. On the second issue, the Department argued that Laser's interpretation was not correct. The Adjudicator found that he was not in a position to say that the interpretation presented by Laser was correct and so concluded that it had not put forward the correct meaning.
3.17 In the light of the adjudicator's award, the Department and Laser agreed to negotiate a supplementary agreement. Negotiations began in spring 2000. The Department and Laser concluded a technical arrangement in April 2001 that went beyond the adjudicator's award by including further reductions in the volume of space that had to meet the most stringent temperature control requirements. However, the parties never concluded their negotiations for a supplementary agreement. As a result, they did not settle other associated outstanding matters, including whether Laser might be entitled to an extension of time to the contract.