Report comment

If, as might be prudent, ZHA was already suing for loss of future and expected profits as part of their outstanding fee claim since they had been thrown off early (although their public statements imply otherwise, talking about it as a fee for "months of work") then one would be talking about a serious amount of money for no return for the client. Whatever the merits of the termination, it appears to me highly disingenuous on the part of ZHA to talk about such things as "humiliation" etc. when it is clear that in a situation like this, both sides are playing hardball.

I would imagine JSC have their ducks well lined up on the question of why a new tender was necessary - how many chances ZHA were given to value engineer the scheme, how ZHA failed to do so, how ZHA's poor track record of budget overrruns on other projects factored in to the unfortunate decision, how ZHA were offered the opportunity to bid again, how ZHA didn't get their bid togther etc. etc. If this were not the case, I'm pretty certain JSC wouldn't have let the situation degenerate to this.

I predict an unhappy ending.