Common use of GROUNDS OF OBJECTION Clause in Contracts

GROUNDS OF OBJECTION. 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 (Further Information) above or on the ground that the Submitted Item would (on the balance of probabilities) breach any Law but otherwise may raise comments in relation to a Submitted Item only as follows: in relation to any Submitted Item if: Sub-hubco'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 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; in relation to any Submitted Item submitted pursuant to Clause 4.1 (Ancillary Documents) if: the Authority's ability to perform its obligations under this Agreement would be adversely affected by the proposed course of action; the Authority's or a Community Services Provider’s ability to provide the relevant Community 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; 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; the proposed course of action would adversely affect any right of the Authority under this Agreement or its ability to enforce any such right; or Sub-hubco's ability to perform its obligations under this Agreement would be materially adversely affected by the proposed course of action; in relation to Reviewable Design Data submitted pursuant to Clause 12.6: which does not comprise 1:50 scale Room Layout Drawings the Authority's Representative may raise comments, subject to and in accordance with paragraph 4 (Effect of Review) on the ground that the Submitted Item is not in accordance with: the Authority's Construction Requirements; and/or Sub-hubco's Proposals; which comprises a 1:50 scale Room Layout Drawing in respect of which there is a corresponding generic 1:50 scale Room Layout Drawing for the relevant room type (which has previously been reviewed and commented upon by the Authority's Representative in accordance with this Schedule Part 8 (Review Procedure)), the Authority's Representative may raise comments, subject to and in accordance with paragraph 4 (Effect of Review), on the ground that the Submitted Item does not conform to the generic 1:50 scale Room Layout Drawing; and which comprises a 1:50 scale Room Layout Drawing in respect of which there is no corresponding generic 1:50 scale Room Layout Drawing for the relevant room type (which has previously been reviewed and commented upon by the Authority's Representative in accordance with this Schedule Part 8 (Review Procedure)), the Authority's Representative may raise comments, subject to and in accordance with paragraph 4 (Effect of Review), on the grounds that the Submitted Item: is not in accordance with the Authority's Construction Requirements and/or Sub-hubco's Proposals; [or is inconsistent with the guidance contained in any current NHS Requirement which is applicable to a room of that function provided that such guidance has not been superseded by and is not inconsistent with any other provisions of the Authority’s Construction Requirements (including any existing Approved RDD Item);] in relation to a proposal to amend Sub-hubco’s Proposals and rectify (part of) the Works submitted pursuant to Clause 12.8, on the grounds that, following the amendment and rectification proposed: Sub-hubco’s Proposals would not satisfy the Authority’s Construction Requirements; and/or the structural, mechanical and/or electrical performance of the Facilities would not be of an equivalent standard of performance to that set out in Sub-hubco’s Proposals prior to their amendment or rectification (for the purpose of this comparison disregarding the fault which required the amendment or rectification to be made); in relation to Finishes: which have the effect of making a selection from the Range of Finishes (or any alternative range or selection of Finishes submitted by Sub-hubco to the Authority's Representative) pursuant to Clause 12.6.1; or where the Submitted Item does not comply with the relevant provisions of the Authority's Construction Requirements and/or Sub-hubco's Proposals; in relation to the submission of any revised Programme pursuant to Clause 14 (Programme and Dates for Completion) on the ground that the revised Programme would not (on the balance of probabilities) enable the Works to be completed by the Completion Date; in relation to the submission of any Quality Plan or part of a Quality Plan or any changes to any Quality Plan pursuant to Clause 20.4 or Clause 20.7 or any quality manual or procedure in accordance with Clause 20.9 (Quality Manuals and Procedures), on the grounds that such Quality Plans, or parts of or changes to such Quality Plans, quality manuals or procedures, or the quality management systems which they reflect, would not comply with: in the case of the Design Quality Plan and the Construction Quality Plan referred to in Clause 20.8, the requirements referred to in Section 8 (Quality Plans (Design and Construction)) of Schedule Part 6 (Construction Matters); and in the case of the Services Quality Plan referred to in Clause 20 (Quality Assurance), the requirements referred to in Section 3 (Services Quality Plan) of Schedule Part 12 (Service Requirements); in relation to the submission of any proposed revision or substitution for the Method Statements or any part of any Method Statement (as the case may be) pursuant to Clause 22.4, on the grounds that: the proposed revision or substitution is not in accordance with Good Industry Practice; the performance of the Services in accordance with the proposed revision or substitution would (on the balance of probabilities): be materially different from the performance of the Services in accordance with the Method Statement prior to such proposed revision or substitution; or be less likely to achieve compliance with the Service Level Specification; or have an adverse effect on the provision by the Authority or aby Community Services Provider of the relevant Community Services at, or on the safety of any users of, the Facilities; or the proposed revision or substitution would (on the balance of probabilities) result in an inferior standard of performance of the Services to the standard of performance in accordance with the Method Statement prior to such proposed revision or substitution; and in relation to the submission of any Schedule of Programmed Maintenance pursuant to Clause 23.1, any revision to any Schedule of Programmed Maintenance pursuant to Clause 23.4 or any submission of Unprogrammed Maintenance Works pursuant to Clause 23.8, on the grounds that: carrying out the Programmed Maintenance or the Unprogrammed Maintenance Works in the period or at the times suggested would (on the balance of probabilities) interfere with the operations of the Authority [and/or any Community Services Provider] and such interference could be avoided or mitigated by Sub-hubco rescheduling the Programmed Maintenance or the Unprogrammed Maintenance Works; or in relation to the Schedule of Programmed Maintenance the proposed hours for carrying out the Programmed Maintenance are not consistent with the principles set out in Appendix 2, Table B to this Schedule Part 8 (Review Procedure); or the proposed method of performance of the Programmed Maintenance or the Unprogrammed Maintenance Works would not be in accordance with the Service Level Specification; or the safety of users of the Facilities would (on the balance of probabilities) be adversely affected; or the period for carrying out the Programmed Maintenance or the Unprogrammed Maintenance Works would (on the balance of probabilities) exceed the period reasonably required for the relevant works. In relation to the submission of Sub-hubco's proposals for the Handback Works, the Handback Programme and the Handback Amount pursuant to Schedule Part 18 (Handback Procedure), on the grounds that: in the case of the Handback Works, Sub-hubco's proposals will not (on the balance of probabilities) ensure that the Handback Requirements are achieved by the Expiry Date; in the case of the Handback Programme, performance of the Handback Works in accordance with the programme is not (on the balance of probabilities) capable of achieving satisfaction of the Handback Requirements by the Expiry Date; and in the case of the Handback Amount, it does not represent the cost of carrying out the Handback Works according to the Handback Programme and the provisions of Schedule Part 18 (Handback Procedure). EFFECT OF REVIEW Any Submitted Item which is returned or deemed to have been returned by the Authority's Representative endorsed "no comment" (and in the case of Reviewable Design Data, endorsed "Level A - no comment") shall be complied with or implemented (as the case may be) by Sub-hubco. In the case of any Submitted Item other than Reviewable Design Data, if the Authority's Representative returns the Submitted Item to Sub-hubco endorsed "comments", Sub-hubco shall comply with such Submitted Item after amendment in accordance with the comments unless Sub-hubco disputes that any such comment is on grounds permitted by this Agreement, in which case Sub-hubco or the Authority's Representative may refer the matter for determination in accordance with Schedule Part 20 (Dispute Resolution Procedure) and Sub-hubco shall not act on the Submitted Item until such matter is so determined or otherwise agreed. In the case of a Submitted Item comprising Reviewable Design Data, if the Authority's Representative returns the Submitted Item endorsed other than "Level A - no comment", Sub-hubco shall: where the Authority's Representative has endorsed the Submitted Item "Level B - proceed subject to amendment as noted", either proceed to construct or proceed to the next level of design of the part of the Works to which the Submitted Item relates but take into account any amendments required by the Authority's Representative in his comments; where the Authority's Representative has endorsed the Submitted Item "Level C - subject to amendment as noted" not act upon the Submitted Item, amend the Submitted Item in accordance with the Authority's Representative's comments and re-submit the same to the Authority's Representative in accordance with paragraph 4.4; and where the Authority's Representative has endorsed the Submitted Item "Level D - rejected" not act upon the Submitted Item, amend the Submitted Item and re-submit the Submitted Item to the Authority's Representative in accordance with paragraph 4.4,

GROUNDS OF OBJECTION. 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 (Further Information) above or on the ground that the Submitted Item would (on the balance of probabilities) breach any Law but otherwise may raise comments in relation to a Submitted Item only as follows: in relation to any Submitted Item if: Sub-hubcoDBFM Co'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 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; in relation to any Submitted Item submitted pursuant to Clause 4.1 (Ancillary Documents) if: the Authority's ability to perform its obligations under this Agreement would be adversely affected by the proposed course of action; the Authority's or a Community Services Provider’s ability to provide the relevant Community 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; 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; the proposed course of action would adversely affect any right of the Authority under this Agreement or its ability to enforce any such right; or Sub-hubcoDBFM Co's ability to perform its obligations under this Agreement would be materially adversely affected by the proposed course of action; in relation to Reviewable Design Data submitted pursuant to Clause 12.6: which does not comprise 1:50 scale Room Layout Drawings the Authority's Representative may raise comments, subject to and in accordance with paragraph 4 (Effect of Review) on the ground that the Submitted Item is not in accordance with: the Authority's Construction Requirements; and/or Sub-hubcoDBFM Co's Proposals; which comprises a 1:50 scale Room Layout Drawing in respect of which there is a corresponding generic 1:50 scale Room Layout Drawing for the relevant room type (which has previously been reviewed and commented upon by the Authority's Representative in accordance with this Schedule Part 8 (Review Procedure)), the Authority's Representative may raise comments, subject to and in accordance with paragraph 4 (Effect of Review), on the ground that the Submitted Item does not conform to the generic 1:50 scale Room Layout Drawing; and which comprises a 1:50 scale Room Layout Drawing in respect of which there is no corresponding generic 1:50 scale Room Layout Drawing for the relevant room type (which has previously been reviewed and commented upon by the Authority's Representative in accordance with this Schedule Part 8 (Review Procedure)), the Authority's Representative may raise comments, subject to and in accordance with paragraph 4 (Effect of Review), on the grounds that the Submitted Item: is not in accordance with the Authority's Construction Requirements and/or Sub-hubcoDBFM Co's Proposals; [or is inconsistent with the guidance contained in any current NHS Requirement which is applicable to a room of that function provided that such guidance has not been superseded by and is not inconsistent with any other provisions of the Authority’s Construction Requirements (including any existing Approved RDD Item);] in relation to a proposal to amend Sub-hubcoDBFM Co’s Proposals and rectify (part of) the Works submitted pursuant to Clause 12.8, on the grounds that, following the amendment and rectification proposed: Sub-hubcoDBFM Co’s Proposals would not satisfy the Authority’s Construction Requirements; and/or the structural, mechanical and/or electrical performance of the Facilities would not be of an equivalent standard of performance to that set out in Sub-hubcoDBFM Co’s Proposals prior to their amendment or rectification (for the purpose of this comparison disregarding the fault which required the amendment or rectification to be made); in relation to Finishes: which have the effect of making a selection from the Range of Finishes (or any alternative range or selection of Finishes submitted by Sub-hubco DBFM Co to the Authority's Representative) pursuant to Clause 12.6.1; or where the Submitted Item does not comply with the relevant provisions of the Authority's Construction Requirements and/or Sub-hubcoDBFM Co's Proposals; in relation to the submission of any revised Programme pursuant to Clause 14 (Programme and Dates for Completion) on the ground that the revised Programme would not (on the balance of probabilities) enable the Works to be completed by the Completion Date; in relation to the submission of any Quality Plan or part of a Quality Plan or any changes to any Quality Plan pursuant to Clause 20.4 or Clause 20.7 or any quality manual or procedure in accordance with Clause 20.9 (Quality Manuals and Procedures), on the grounds that such Quality Plans, or parts of or changes to such Quality Plans, quality manuals or procedures, or the quality management systems which they reflect, would not comply with: in the case of the Design Quality Plan and the Construction Quality Plan referred to in Clause 20.8, the requirements referred to in Section 8 (Quality Plans (Design and Construction)) of Schedule Part 6 (Construction Matters); and in the case of the Services Quality Plan referred to in Clause 20 (Quality Assurance), the requirements referred to in Section 3 (Services Quality Plan) of Schedule Part 12 (Service Requirements); in relation to the submission of any proposed revision or substitution for the Method Statements or any part of any Method Statement (as the case may be) pursuant to Clause 22.4, on the grounds that: the proposed revision or substitution is not in accordance with Good Industry Practice; the performance of the Services in accordance with the proposed revision or substitution would (on the balance of probabilities): be materially different from the performance of the Services in accordance with the Method Statement prior to such proposed revision or substitution; or be less likely to achieve compliance with the Service Level Specification; or have an adverse effect on the provision by the Authority or aby by a Community Services Provider of the relevant Community Services at, or on the safety of any users of, the Facilities; or the proposed revision or substitution would (on the balance of probabilities) result in an inferior standard of performance of the Services to the standard of performance in accordance with the Method Statement prior to such proposed revision or substitution; and in relation to the submission of any Schedule of Programmed Maintenance pursuant to Clause 23.1, any revision to any Schedule of Programmed Maintenance pursuant to Clause 23.4 or any submission of Unprogrammed Maintenance Works pursuant to Clause 23.8, on the grounds that: carrying out the Programmed Maintenance or the Unprogrammed Maintenance Works in the period or at the times suggested would (on the balance of probabilities) interfere with the operations of the Authority [and/or any Community Services Provider] and such interference could be avoided or mitigated by Sub-hubco DBFM Co rescheduling the Programmed Maintenance or the Unprogrammed Maintenance Works; or in relation to the Schedule of Programmed Maintenance the proposed hours for carrying out the Programmed Maintenance are not consistent with the principles set out in Appendix 2, Table B to this Schedule Part 8 (Review Procedure); or the proposed method of performance of the Programmed Maintenance or the Unprogrammed Maintenance Works would not be in accordance with the Service Level Specification; or the safety of users of the Facilities would (on the balance of probabilities) be adversely affected; or the period for carrying out the Programmed Maintenance or the Unprogrammed Maintenance Works would (on the balance of probabilities) exceed the period reasonably required for the relevant works. In ; or in relation to the submission of Sub-hubcoDBFM Co's proposals for the Handback Works, the Handback Programme and the Handback Amount pursuant to Schedule Part 18 (Handback Procedure), on the grounds that: in the case of the Handback Works, Sub-hubcoDBFM Co's proposals will not (on the balance of probabilities) ensure that the Handback Requirements are achieved by the Expiry Date; in the case of the Handback Programme, performance of the Handback Works in accordance with the programme is not (on the balance of probabilities) capable of achieving satisfaction of the Handback Requirements by the Expiry Date; and in the case of the Handback Amount, it does not represent the cost of carrying out the Handback Works according to the Handback Programme and the provisions of Schedule Part 18 (Handback Procedure). EFFECT OF REVIEW Any Submitted Item which is returned or deemed to have been returned by the Authority's Representative endorsed "no comment" (and in the case of Reviewable Design Data, endorsed "Level A - no comment") shall be complied with or implemented (as the case may be) by Sub-hubco. DBFM Co. In the case of any Submitted Item other than Reviewable Design Data, if the Authority's Representative returns the Submitted Item to Sub-hubco DBFM Co endorsed "comments", Sub-hubco DBFM Co shall comply with such Submitted Item after amendment in accordance with the comments unless Sub-hubco DBFM Co disputes that any such comment is on grounds permitted by this Agreement, in which case Sub-hubco DBFM Co or the Authority's Representative may refer the matter for determination in accordance with Schedule Part 20 (Dispute Resolution Procedure) and Sub-hubco DBFM Co shall not act on the Submitted Item until such matter is so determined or otherwise agreed. In the case of a Submitted Item comprising Reviewable Design Data, if the Authority's Representative returns the Submitted Item endorsed other than "Level A - no comment", Sub-hubco DBFM Co shall: where the Authority's Representative has endorsed the Submitted Item "Level B - proceed subject to amendment as noted", either proceed to construct or proceed to the next level of design of the part of the Works to which the Submitted Item relates but take into account any amendments required by the Authority's Representative in his comments; where the Authority's Representative has endorsed the Submitted Item "Level C - subject to amendment as noted" not act upon the Submitted Item, amend the Submitted Item in accordance with the Authority's Representative's comments and re-submit the same to the Authority's Representative in accordance with paragraph 4.4; and where the Authority's Representative has endorsed the Submitted Item "Level D - rejected" not act upon the Submitted Item, amend the Submitted Item and re-submit the Submitted Item to the Authority's Representative in accordance with paragraph 4.4,

GROUNDS OF OBJECTION. 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 2 132 (Further Information) above or on the ground that the Submitted Item would (on the balance of probabilities) breach any Law but otherwise may raise comments in relation to a Submitted Item only as follows: in relation to any Submitted Item if: Sub-hubcoProject Co'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 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; in relation to any Submitted Item submitted pursuant to Clause 4.1 (Ancillary Documents) if: the Authority's ability to perform its obligations under this Agreement would be adversely affected by the proposed course of action; the Authority's or a Community Services Provider’s ability to provide the relevant Community Authority 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; 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; the proposed course of action would adversely affect any right of the Authority under this Agreement or its ability to enforce any such right; or Sub-hubcoProject Co's ability to perform its obligations under this Agreement would be materially adversely affected by the proposed course of action; in relation to Reviewable Design Data submitted pursuant to Clause 12.6: which does not comprise 1:50 scale Room Layout Drawings the Authority's Representative may raise comments, subject to and in accordance with paragraph 4 134 (Effect of Review) on the ground that the Submitted Item is not in accordance with: the Authority's Construction Requirements; and/or Sub-hubcoProject Co's Proposals; which comprises a 1:50 scale Room Layout Drawing in respect of which there is a corresponding generic 1:50 scale Room Layout Drawing for the relevant room type (which has previously been reviewed and commented upon by the Authority's Representative in accordance with this Schedule Part 8 (Review Procedure)), the Authority's Representative may raise comments, subject to and in accordance with paragraph 4 134 (Effect of Review), on the ground that the Submitted Item does not conform to the generic 1:50 scale Room Layout Drawing; and which comprises a 1:50 scale Room Layout Drawing in respect of which there is no corresponding generic 1:50 scale Room Layout Drawing for the relevant room type (which has previously been reviewed and commented upon by the Authority's Representative in accordance with this Schedule Part 8 (Review Procedure)), the Authority's Representative may raise comments, subject to and in accordance with paragraph 4 134 (Effect of Review), on the grounds that the Submitted Item: is not in accordance with the Authority's Construction Requirements and/or Sub-hubcoProject Co's Proposals; [or is inconsistent with the guidance contained in any current NHS Requirement which is applicable to a room of that function provided that such guidance has not been superseded by and is not inconsistent with any other provisions of the Authority’s Construction Requirements (including any existing Approved RDD Item);] in relation to a proposal to amend Sub-hubcoProject Co’s Proposals and rectify (part of) the Works submitted pursuant to Clause 12.8, on the grounds that, following the amendment and rectification proposed: Sub-hubcoProject Co’s Proposals would not satisfy the Authority’s Construction Requirements; and/or the structural, mechanical and/or electrical performance of the Facilities would not be of an equivalent standard of performance to that set out in Sub-hubcoProject Co’s Proposals prior to their amendment or rectification (for the purpose of this comparison disregarding the fault which required the amendment or rectification to be made); in relation to Finishes: which have the effect of making a selection from the Range of Finishes (or any alternative range or selection of Finishes submitted by Sub-hubco Project Co to the Authority's Representative) pursuant to Clause 12.6.1; or where the Submitted Item does not comply with the relevant provisions of the Authority's Construction Requirements and/or Sub-hubcoProject Co's Proposals; in relation to the submission of any revised Programme pursuant to Clause 14 (Programme and Dates for Completion) on the ground that the revised Programme would not (on the balance of probabilities) enable the Works to be completed by the Completion Date; in relation to the submission of any Quality Plan or part of a Quality Plan or any changes to any Quality Plan pursuant to Clause 20.4 or Clause 20.7 or any quality manual or procedure in accordance with Clause 20.9 (Quality Manuals and Procedures), on the grounds that such Quality Plans, or parts of or changes to such Quality Plans, quality manuals or procedures, or the quality management systems which they reflect, would not comply with: in the case of the Design Quality Plan and the Construction Quality Plan referred to in Clause 20.8, the requirements referred to in Section 8 (Quality Plans (Design and Construction)) of Schedule Part 6 (Construction Matters); and in the case of the Services Quality Plan referred to in Clause 20 (Quality Assurance), the requirements referred to in Section 3 (Services Quality Plan) of Schedule Part 12 (Service Requirements); in relation to the submission of any proposed revision or substitution for the Method Statements or any part of any Method Statement (as the case may be) pursuant to Clause 22.4, on the grounds that: the proposed revision or substitution is not in accordance with Good Industry Practice; the performance of the Services in accordance with the proposed revision or substitution would (on the balance of probabilities): be materially different from the performance of the Services in accordance with the Method Statement prior to such proposed revision or substitution; or be less likely to achieve compliance with the Service Level Specification; or have an adverse effect on the provision by the Authority or aby Community Services Provider of the relevant Community Authority Services at, or on the safety of any users of, the Facilities; or the proposed revision or substitution would (on the balance of probabilities) result in an inferior standard of performance of the Services to the standard of performance in accordance with the Method Statement prior to such proposed revision or substitution; and in relation to the submission of any Schedule of Programmed Maintenance pursuant to Clause 23.1, any revision to any Schedule of Programmed Maintenance pursuant to Clause 23.4 or any submission of Unprogrammed Maintenance Works pursuant to Clause 23.8, on the grounds that: carrying out the Programmed Maintenance or the Unprogrammed Maintenance Works in the period or at the times suggested would (on the balance of probabilities) interfere with the operations of the Authority [and/or any Community Services Provider] and such interference could be avoided or mitigated by Sub-hubco Project Co rescheduling the Programmed Maintenance or the Unprogrammed Maintenance Works; or in relation to the Schedule of Programmed Maintenance Maintenance, the proposed hours for carrying out the Programmed Maintenance are not consistent with the principles set out in Appendix 2, Table B to this Schedule Part 8 (Review Procedure); or the proposed method of performance of the Programmed Maintenance or the Unprogrammed Maintenance Works would not be in accordance with the Service Level Specification; or the safety of users of the Facilities would (on the balance of probabilities) be adversely affected; or the period for carrying out the Programmed Maintenance or the Unprogrammed Maintenance Works would (on the balance of probabilities) exceed the period reasonably required for the relevant works. In relation to the submission of Sub-hubcoProject Co's proposals for the Handback Works, the Handback Programme and the Handback Amount pursuant to Schedule Part 18 (Handback Procedure), on the grounds that: in the case of the Handback Works, Sub-hubcoProject Co's proposals will not (on the balance of probabilities) ensure that the Handback Requirements are achieved by the Expiry Date; in the case of the Handback Programme, performance of the Handback Works in accordance with the programme is not (on the balance of probabilities) capable of achieving satisfaction of the Handback Requirements by the Expiry Date; and in the case of the Handback Amount, it does not represent the cost of carrying out the Handback Works according to the Handback Programme and the provisions of Schedule Part 18 (Handback Procedure). EFFECT OF REVIEW Any Submitted Item which is returned or deemed to have been returned by the Authority's Representative endorsed "no comment" (and in the case of Reviewable Design Data, endorsed "Level A - no comment") shall be complied with or implemented (as the case may be) by Sub-hubco. Project Co. In the case of any Submitted Item other than Reviewable Design Data, if the Authority's Representative returns the Submitted Item to Sub-hubco Project Co endorsed "comments", Sub-hubco Project Co shall comply with such Submitted Item after amendment in accordance with the comments unless Sub-hubco Project Co disputes that any such comment is on grounds permitted by this Agreement, in which case Sub-hubco Project Co or the Authority's Representative may refer the matter for determination in accordance with Schedule Part 20 (Dispute Resolution Procedure) and Sub-hubco Project Co shall not act on the Submitted Item until such matter is so determined or otherwise agreed. In the case of a Submitted Item comprising Reviewable Design Data, if the Authority's Representative returns the Submitted Item endorsed other than "Level A - no comment", Sub-hubco Project Co shall: where the Authority's Representative has endorsed the Submitted Item "Level B - proceed subject to amendment as noted", either proceed to construct or proceed to the next level of design of the part of the Works to which the Submitted Item relates but take into account any amendments required by the Authority's Representative in his comments; where the Authority's Representative has endorsed the Submitted Item "Level C - subject to amendment as noted" not act upon the Submitted Item, amend the Submitted Item in accordance with the Authority's Representative's comments and re-submit the same to the Authority's Representative in accordance with paragraph 4.4134.4; and where the Authority's Representative has endorsed the Submitted Item "Level D - rejected" not act upon the Submitted Item, amend the Submitted Item and re-submit the Submitted Item to the Authority's Representative in accordance with paragraph 4.4134.4,

GROUNDS OF OBJECTION. 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 (Further Information) above or on the ground that the Submitted Item would (on the balance of probabilities) breach any Law but otherwise may raise comments in relation to a Submitted Item only as follows: in relation to any Submitted Item if: Sub-hubcoProject Co'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 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; in relation to any Submitted Item submitted pursuant to Clause 4.1 (Ancillary Documents) if: the Authority's ability to perform its obligations under this Agreement would be adversely affected by the proposed course of action; the Authority's or a Community Services Provider’s ability to provide the relevant Community Authority 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; 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; the proposed course of action would adversely affect any right of the Authority under this Agreement or its ability to enforce any such right; or Sub-hubcoProject Co's ability to perform its obligations under this Agreement would be materially adversely affected by the proposed course of action; in relation to Reviewable Design Data submitted pursuant to Clause 12.6: which does not comprise 1:50 scale Room Layout Drawings the Authority's Representative may raise comments, subject to and in accordance with paragraph 4 (Effect of Review) on the ground that the Submitted Item is not in accordance with: the Authority's Construction Requirements; and/or Sub-hubcoProject Co's Proposals; which comprises a 1:50 scale Room Layout Drawing in respect of which there is a corresponding generic 1:50 scale Room Layout Drawing for the relevant room type (which has previously been reviewed and commented upon by the Authority's Representative in accordance with this Schedule Part 8 (Review Procedure)), the Authority's Representative may raise comments, subject to and in accordance with paragraph 4 (Effect of Review), on the ground that the Submitted Item does not conform to the generic 1:50 scale Room Layout Drawing; and which comprises a 1:50 scale Room Layout Drawing in respect of which there is no corresponding generic 1:50 scale Room Layout Drawing for the relevant room type (which has previously been reviewed and commented upon by the Authority's Representative in accordance with this Schedule Part 8 (Review Procedure)), the Authority's Representative may raise comments, subject to and in accordance with paragraph 4 (Effect of Review), on the grounds that the Submitted Item: is not in accordance with the Authority's Construction Requirements and/or Sub-hubcoProject Co's Proposals; [or is inconsistent with the guidance contained in any current NHS Requirement which is applicable to a room of that function provided that such guidance has not been superseded by and is not inconsistent with any other provisions of the Authority’s 's Construction Requirements (including any existing Approved RDD Item);] ; in relation to a proposal to amend Sub-hubcoProject Co’s Proposals and rectify (part of) the Works submitted pursuant to Clause 12.8, on the grounds that, following the amendment and rectification proposed: Sub-hubcoProject Co’s Proposals would not satisfy the Authority’s Construction Requirements; and/or the structural, mechanical and/or electrical performance of the Facilities would not be of an equivalent standard of performance to that set out in Sub-hubcoProject Co’s Proposals prior to their amendment or rectification (for the purpose of this comparison disregarding the fault which required the amendment or rectification to be made); in relation to Finishes: which have the effect of making a selection from the Range of Finishes (or any alternative range or selection of Finishes submitted by Sub-hubco Project Co to the Authority's Representative) pursuant to Clause 12.6.1; or where the Submitted Item does not comply with the relevant provisions of the Authority's Construction Requirements and/or Sub-hubcoProject Co's Proposals; in relation to the submission of any revised Programme pursuant to Clause 14 (Programme and Dates for Completion) on the ground that the revised Programme would not (on the balance of probabilities) enable the Works to be completed by the Completion Date; in relation to the submission of any Quality Plan or part of a Quality Plan or any changes to any Quality Plan pursuant to Clause 20.4 or Clause 20.7 or any quality manual or procedure in accordance with Clause 20.9 (Quality Manuals and Procedures), on the grounds that such Quality Plans, or parts of or changes to such Quality Plans, quality manuals or procedures, or the quality management systems which they reflect, would not comply with: in the case of the Design Quality Plan and the Construction Quality Plan referred to in Clause 20.8, the requirements referred to in Section 8 (Quality Plans (Design and Construction)) of Schedule Part 6 (Construction Matters); and in the case of the Services Quality Plan referred to in Clause 20 (Quality Assurance), the requirements referred to in Section 3 (Services Quality Plan) of Schedule Part 12 (Service Requirements); in relation to the submission of any proposed revision or substitution for the Method Statements or any part of any Method Statement (as the case may be) pursuant to Clause 22.4, on the grounds that: the proposed revision or substitution is not in accordance with Good Industry Practice; the performance of the Services Service in accordance with the proposed revision or substitution would (on the balance of probabilities): be materially different from the performance of the Services Service in accordance with the Method Statement prior to such proposed revision or substitution; or be less likely to achieve compliance with the Service Level Specification; or have an adverse effect on the provision by the Authority or aby Community Services Provider of the relevant Community Authority Services at, or on the safety of any users of, the Facilities; or the proposed revision or substitution would (on the balance of probabilities) result in an inferior standard of performance of the Services relevant Service to the standard of performance in accordance with the Method Statement prior to such proposed revision or substitution; and in relation to the submission of any Schedule of Programmed Maintenance pursuant to Clause 23.1, any revision to any Schedule of Programmed Maintenance pursuant to Clause 23.4 or any submission of Unprogrammed Maintenance Works pursuant to Clause 23.8, on the grounds that: carrying out the Programmed Maintenance or the Unprogrammed Maintenance Works in the period or at the times suggested would (on the balance of probabilities) interfere with the operations of the Authority [and/or any Community Services Provider] and such interference could be avoided or mitigated by Sub-hubco Project Co rescheduling the Programmed Maintenance or the Unprogrammed Maintenance Works; or in relation to the Schedule of Programmed Maintenance Maintenance, the proposed hours for carrying out the Programmed Maintenance are not consistent with the principles set out in Appendix 2, Table B to this Schedule Part 8 (Review Procedure); or the proposed method of performance of the Programmed Maintenance or the Unprogrammed Maintenance Works would not be in accordance with the Service Level SpecificationSpecification for that Service; or the safety of users of the Facilities would (on the balance of probabilities) be adversely affected; or the period for carrying out the Programmed Maintenance or the Unprogrammed Maintenance Works would (on the balance of probabilities) exceed the period reasonably required for the relevant works. In relation to the submission of Sub-hubcoProject Co's proposals for the Handback Works, the Handback Programme and the Handback Amount pursuant to Schedule Part 18 (Handback Procedure), on the grounds that: in the case of the Handback Works, Sub-hubcoProject Co's proposals will not (on the balance of probabilities) ensure that the Handback Requirements are achieved by the Expiry Date; in the case of the Handback Programme, performance of the Handback Works in accordance with the programme is not (on the balance of probabilities) capable of achieving satisfaction of the Handback Requirements by the Expiry Date; and in the case of the Handback Amount, it does not represent the cost of carrying out the Handback Works according to the Handback Programme and the provisions of Schedule Part 18 (Handback Procedure). EFFECT OF REVIEW Any Submitted Item which is returned or deemed to have been returned by the Authority's Representative endorsed "no comment" (and in the case of Reviewable Design Data, endorsed "Level A - no comment") shall be complied with or implemented (as the case may be) by Sub-hubco. Project Co. In the case of any Submitted Item other than Reviewable Design Data, if the Authority's Representative returns the Submitted Item to Sub-hubco Project Co endorsed "comments", Sub-hubco Project Co shall comply with such Submitted Item after amendment in accordance with the comments unless Sub-hubco Project Co disputes that any such comment is on grounds permitted by this Agreement, in which case Sub-hubco Project Co or the Authority's Representative may refer the matter for determination in accordance with Schedule Part 20 (Dispute Resolution Procedure) and Sub-hubco Project Co shall not act on the Submitted Item until such matter is so determined or otherwise agreed. In the case of a Submitted Item comprising Reviewable Design Data, if the Authority's Representative returns the Submitted Item endorsed other than "Level A - no comment", Sub-hubco Project Co shall: where the Authority's Representative has endorsed the Submitted Item "Level B - proceed subject to amendment as noted", either proceed to construct or proceed to the next level of design of the part of the Works to which the Submitted Item relates but take into account any amendments required by the Authority's Representative in his comments; where the Authority's Representative has endorsed the Submitted Item "Level C - subject to amendment as noted" not act upon the Submitted Item, amend the Submitted Item in accordance with the Authority's Representative's comments and re-submit the same to the Authority's Representative in accordance with paragraph 4.4; and where the Authority's Representative has endorsed the Submitted Item "Level D - rejected" not act upon the Submitted Item, amend the Submitted Item and re-submit the Submitted Item to the Authority's Representative in accordance with paragraph 4.4,