'4. Admissibility of the claim

Before the individual claims of the Parties are examined some further issues have to be dealt with concerning the admissibility of the individual claims.

. . . . . . . . .

4.2 Admissibility of [Claimant]'s Third Claim

[Respondent] is further of the opinion that [Claimant]'s Third Claim is not admissible / receivable because it alleges that it is a new claim, which is not included in the Terms of Reference.

Although it is correct that the calculation of [Claimant]'s Third Claim was only presented by [Claimant] on 30 November 2001, the Third Claim of [Claimant] is not a new claim falling outside the Terms of Reference (Art. 19 Rules of Arbitration). [Claimant] already made it clear in the Request for Arbitration that it would claim "contributions to company overheads which should have been paid on account of the prolongation and increased commitments to the Project" (Request for Arbitration page 18 point 30). Also the amount of the claim submitted on 30 November 2001 remained the same as the amount originally claimed. The only new element which was presented on 30 November 2001 was the method of calculation of the Third Claim. This calculation has been presented after respective questions by the Sole Arbitrator could not be answered by [Claimant] during the hearing from 12 to 15 November 2001 . . .

For the same reason it is also not correct that the expert exceeded his terms of reference when he examined the method of evaluation of the Third Claim of [Claimant].

4.3 Request for time extension

In its submission of 27 March 2002 [Claimant] raised for the first time as formal request for relief a claim for time extension until 30 September 1996.

This claim was only raised after submission of the Final Expert Report. It had never been raised before as a separate claim. Therefore this claim is considered as a new claim, which is not admitted at this late stage of the proceedings.'