Wednesday, 12 August 2026

STORY 1114 A Bowl of Lontong in a Foreign Land

I had been living away from home for almost half a year before I finally found the courage to have breakfast at a small roadside stall just next to my house.

Every morning, at around 6:30 a.m., a husband and wife would arrive on a small three-wheeled cart. They would set up their modest stall and begin selling their specialty: lontong with pakis and young jackfruit curry.

A little later, several suppliers would arrive, delivering various traditional cakes and kuih to be sold at the stall.

There were only four small tables.

Yet, somehow, their food was always gone by around 10:00 a.m.

Every morning, I watched motorcycles and cars stopping in front of the stall. Some people would sit down for breakfast, while others would buy food to take home or bring to work. Many of them were clearly regular customers.

After getting ready for work, I would lock the gate of my house and walk over to the stall for breakfast. My usual order was simple: a plate of lontong with pakis curry, one boiled egg, and a cup of black coffee without sugar.

I have always liked pakis, especially here, where wild ferns grow almost everywhere. The curry can be quite spicy, but the combination of compressed rice cakes, pakis curry and crackers makes a satisfying breakfast. Add a boiled egg and a cup of unsweetened coffee, and it is enough to keep me going until lunchtime.

One morning, I finally started a conversation with the couple.

I discovered that they were Minangkabau, originally from Batu Sangkar, the town famous for the magnificent Istano Basa Pagaruyung.

Suddenly, my simple breakfast felt a little different.

As I enjoyed my lontong, I occasionally watched the customers come and go. Some were old customers who seemed to know the couple well. There was a certain warmth in the way they greeted one another—a small community gathering around four little tables and a humble breakfast stall.

Meanwhile, I sat quietly, waiting for the vehicle that would pick me up and take me to work.

There was nothing extraordinary about that morning.

Just a bowl of lontong, a boiled egg, a cup of black coffee, two hardworking people from Batu Sangkar, and a small roadside stall that came alive every morning.

But sometimes, when you are far from home, the simplest things are the ones that make a foreign place slowly begin to feel like home.

That is my little story today.

Tuesday, 11 August 2026

STORY 1113 CONFINED SPACE


STORY 1113 CONFINED SPACE

Three Lives Inside a Palm Kernel Bunker

Almost three years after I had moved away from the mill, I received some shocking news.

There had been a fatal accident at a palm oil mill in 2009.

Three people had died.

What made the news even more painful was that all three were people I knew closely.

They were not strangers.

I had worked with them.

I had seen them doing their jobs.

I had spoken to them.

I had shared the same workplace with them.

But on one particular day, three ordinary workers went to work for what appeared to be a routine task.

They never came home.

It Started With a Quality Problem

The story began with a quality issue involving palm kernel.

A consignment delivered to a refinery was found to contain an unusually high level of *dirt*.

It was almost 10%, while the specified limit was around 6%.

For the mill management, this was a problem that needed to be investigated.

Where had the dirt come from?

Was it introduced during collection?

Transportation?

Storage?

Or was there a problem inside one of the bunkers?

The manager gave an instruction:

Inspect Palm Kernel Bunker No. 3.

Take samples.

Check the quality.

The instruction sounded simple.

But one important question had not been properly addressed:

Where should the sample be taken from, and how should it be taken safely?

THE YEAR WAS 2009

At that time, confined-space awareness in many workplaces was not what it is today.

Entering a bunker, silo or storage space for inspection or sampling could sometimes be regarded as part of normal work.

It had been done before.

It had been done many times.

And when something has been done repeatedly without an accident, people can easily begin to believe:

“It must be safe.”

That is one of the most dangerous assumptions in workplace safety.

A task being completed safely one hundred times does not guarantee that the 101st time will be safe.

Risk does not care about routine.

BUNKER NO. 3

That day, a Lab Assistant and a fellow worker went to Palm Kernel Bunker No. 3.

The bunker was still approximately 40% full of palm kernel.

One of them entered the bunker to collect a sample.

The Lab Assistant remained above the bunker.

Everything appeared normal.

It was simply another work assignment.

Another sample.

Another routine inspection.

A few minutes passed.

Then the worker collapsed.

He became unconscious.

Everything changed in an instant.

A routine quality inspection had become an emergency.

The young Lab Assistant panicked.

He immediately called for help.

THE SECOND MAN

An Assistant Supervisor arrived.

Inside the bunker was a worker who was unconscious.

There was no time to think.

His instinct was simple:

Save him.

He entered the bunker.

But moments later—

he collapsed too.

Now there were two unconscious men inside the bunker.

THE INSTINCT TO SAVE A FRIEND

The Lab Assistant saw what was happening.

He wanted to help.

He started to climb down.

But halfway into the bunker, his body began sending him warnings.

He felt dizzy.

He felt nauseous.

Something was wrong.

His instincts told him to stop.

He turned back and climbed out.

But by then, the exposure had already affected him.

Not long afterwards—

he too became unconscious.


THREE MEN

Other workers finally realized what was happening.

Emergency action was taken.

All three men were eventually brought out of the bunker.

But it was already too late for two of them.

Two lives were lost.

The Lab Assistant was rushed out for emergency medical treatment.

But the mill was far from the nearest medical facility.

Approximately 90 kilometres away.

The vehicle moved as quickly as possible.

But time was running out.

Sadly—

the third victim also died on the journey.

Three deaths.

One bunker.

One work instruction.

One routine sampling activity.

And three families lost someone they loved.

WHAT REALLY HAPPENED?

Years later, when I looked back at the tragedy, one question remained in my mind:

Why did this happen when workers had entered palm kernel bunkers before?

Wasn't entering the bunker something that had been done routinely?

Why did this particular bunker suddenly become so dangerous?

The answer may have been hidden in something that appeared relatively minor—

a change in the bunker design.

ONE WALL THAT CHANGED THE AIRFLOW

At the top of the bunker, there was a vent line.

However, there had been a significant modification around the upper section of the bunker.

An additional wall had been constructed around the top area.

The original purpose was reasonable:

to prevent rainwater from entering the transfer conveyor connecting the bunkers.

But every engineering modification can have unintended consequences.

In this case, the additional structure significantly restricted natural airflow around the bunker.

Ventilation became less effective.

And when ventilation is inadequate, hazardous gases can accumulate.

What looked like an ordinary palm kernel bunker from the outside—

could become a completely different environment inside.

A space that had previously been considered routine had become a potential death trap.

THIS IS THE REAL DANGER OF A CONFINED SPACE

A confined space does not necessarily look dangerous.

It can be a:

bunker.

tank.

silo.

manhole.

pit.

sewer.

vessel.

process chamber.

The greatest danger may not be visible.

It may not be felt.

And sometimes—

it may not even be detected by our senses before it is too late.

A hazardous atmosphere can cause a person to collapse before he has enough time to call for help.

That is why confined-space work cannot depend on experience alone.

Saying:

“I have entered this place many times before.”

is not evidence that it is safe today.

MALAYSIA'S JOURNEY TOWARDS CONFINED-SPACE SAFETY

The tragedy happened in 2009.

At that time, Malaysia already had the Occupational Safety and Health Act 1994, which established broad responsibilities for employers to protect the safety, health and welfare of workers.

But Malaysia's specific confined-space safety system was still developing.

In 2008, the Department of Occupational Safety and Health, JKKP/DOSH, had already established guidelines relating to confined-space worker training, training-centre registration and the conduct of confined-space safety and health courses.

Then came a major milestone.

On 20 September 2010, JKKP published the:

Industry Code of Practice for Safe Working in a Confined Space 2010.

This became an important reference for controlling confined-space work in Malaysia.

The philosophy of confined-space work increasingly changed from:

“Enter and do the job.”

to:

Risk Assessment.

Isolation.

Atmospheric Testing.

Ventilation.

Permit to Work.

Competent Personnel.

Standby Person.

Communication.

Rescue Planning.

Emergency Response.

That was a major change in safety culture.

DO NOT ENTER TO RESCUE

There is another painful lesson contained within confined-space tragedies.

When somebody collapses inside a confined space, the natural human reaction is:

“Go in and save him!”

But in a confined space, an unplanned rescue can create another victim.

One person collapses.

Another person enters.

The second person collapses.

A third person enters.

The third person collapses.

Within minutes—

one victim can become two.

Two can become three.

And a single accident becomes a multiple-fatality tragedy.

That is why modern confined-space safety places so much emphasis on:

planned rescue.

Not spontaneous rescue.

Not bravery alone.

Not entering blindly because someone is your friend.

But rescue based on:

procedure, training, equipment and competent personnel.

ALMOST 17 YEARS LATER

Today, almost 17 years have passed since that tragedy.

Can we say that the same thing can never happen again?

No.

As long as confined spaces exist—

the risk remains.

As long as people work—

human error remains possible.

As long as industrial processes operate—

conditions can change.

And as long as people assume that a familiar job does not need to be reassessed—

accidents can happen.

Today we have better knowledge.

More training.

Better equipment.

More detailed procedures.

More competent personnel.

But all of these controls are only effective if people actually use them.


DO NOT LET THEIR DEATHS BE IN VAIN

We cannot bring those three men back.

But their deaths can become a lesson for the generations that follow.

Every time we see a bunker—

remember them.

Every time we open a manhole

remember them.

Every time someone prepares to enter a tank

remember them.

And whenever someone says:

“Don't worry. I've done this many times before.”

Stop.

Think.

Ask again:

“Have we proved that this space is safe today?”

SAFETY IS MORE THAN A DOCUMENT

At every workplace, the confined-space requirements and safe-working practices must be implemented seriously.

Workers must receive appropriate training.

Gas detectors must be available, suitable and properly maintained.

Rescue equipment must be available.

Permit systems must actually control the work.

Isolation must be verified.

The atmosphere must be tested.

Standby personnel must understand their responsibilities.

And the rescue plan must be practical—not simply a document sitting inside a file.

Because when someone collapses inside a confined space—

we may have only minutes to save a life.

THE LESSON

When I received the news about the deaths of those three colleagues almost three years after I had moved away, I never imagined that one incident inside a palm kernel bunker would stay with me for so long.

Looking back today, I realize that the tragedy was not simply about three people making mistakes.

It was about:

limited awareness,

immature procedures,

changes in the physical environment,

an unknown hazardous atmosphere,

and perhaps most importantly—

the assumption that a routine job must therefore be a safe job.

That is what we must change.

Because safety is not about how many times we have completed a task without an accident.

Safety is about making sure—

the next time is safe too.

Those three colleagues are gone.

But their story still has a purpose.

It can remind us that every bunker, tank, vessel, pit and manhole deserves respect.

Every confined space deserves assessment.

Every entry deserves proper control.

Every worker deserves to go home.

Because as long as the hazard exists—

the possibility of an accident exists.

Never become complacent.

Never assume that routine means safe.

Never enter without establishing that the space is safe.

And above all -

NEVER SACRIFICE A HUMAN LIFE FOR A JOB THAT CAN BE STOPPED.

That is my story today.

Sunday, 9 August 2026

BEM Form of Contract & Scale of Fees

The Board of Engineers Malaysia (BEM) Form of Contract and Scale of Fees set the mandatory professional rules, service scopes, and minimum payment percentages for consulting engineers. You can access official regulatory guidelines and documents directly via the Board of Engineers Malaysia portal. 

Structure of the Scale of Fees
  • Part A (Professional Services): Outlines core engineering duties like design, planning, and supervision.
  • Part B (Scale of Fees): Provides calculation tables and percentage fees based on total project and construction costs.
  • Part C (Other Payments): Covers reimbursements, specialized site staff, and extra consultative expenses. 
Key Principles
  • Cost Brackets: Fees scale proportionally using maximum and minimum percentages tied to total construction value.
  • Complexity Classes: Different engineering works are categorized by technical difficulty rather than a single flat rate.
  • Public Protection: Designed to prevent severe undercutting that risks public safety and structural integrity. 

Engineering Consultancy Practices (ECPs)

Under the Registration of Engineers Act 1967 (REA) in Malaysia, an Engineering Consultancy Practice (ECP) must be registered with the Board of Engineers Malaysia (BEM) to supply professional engineering services. ECPs can be formed as a sole proprietorship, partnership, or body corporate under Section 7A (single discipline) or Section 7B (multi-disciplinary practice). 

Formation & Structure
  • Sole Proprietorship: The sole owner must be a Professional Engineer with a Practising Certificate (PEPC). No minimum paid-up capital is required. 
  • Partnership: All partners in the firm must be registered Professional Engineers with a Practising Certificate (PEPC). 
  • Body Corporate (Company): Must maintain a formal corporate structure with a minimum paid-up capital of RM50,000. Equity restrictions requiring a minimum percentage of shares to be held by PEPCs were lifted in 2022, allowing shares to be held by any person or corporate body. 
Board Composition & Requirements
  • Director Control: At least two-thirds (2/3) of the members of the Board of Directors must be Professional Engineers with a Practising Certificate (PEPC). 
  • Authorized Decision Maker: At least one director must be explicitly authorized by a board resolution to make all final engineering decisions on behalf of the body corporate. 
  • Scope of Authority: Only a registered ECP or a resident PEPC is legally entitled to submit engineering plans, drawings, designs, or reports to public authorities and clients in Malaysia. 

Letter of Release

The Letter of Release is an essential ethical and legal document under Malaysian engineering practice, preventing professional supplanting, resolving fee disputes, and ensuring smooth project handovers. It is governed by the Board of Engineers Malaysia (BEM) under the Registration of Engineers Act 1967 regulations. 

Purpose and Legal Context
  • Regulation Compliance: It acts as written consent under Regulation 31 of the Registration of Engineers Regulations, stopping a second engineer from taking over ongoing work without clearance. 
  • Anti-Supplanting: It protects a registered engineer's professional territory and reputation from unethical replacement by peers. 
  • Statutory Overriding: Statutory rules enforced by BEM override any conflicting private contract terms attempting to force automated releases. 
Handling Fee Disputes and Handover Procedures
  • 14-Day Rule: The first engineer must reply or issue the release within 14 days of a formal request from the second engineer. 
  • Stakeholder Mechanism: If unpaid fees are disputed, the client can use a BEM Form SH to deposit a stakeholder sum with BEM, prompting the board to authorize the handover. 
  • BEM Intervention: If the first engineer fails to respond, BEM can issue a confirmation letter making the release unnecessary so the project can proceed safely. 

UBBL & Street, Drainage & Building Act (SDA)

For Malaysian building regulation, these topics are closely connected: Street, Drainage and Building Act 1974 (Act 133) provides the statutory framework, while the Uniform Building By-Laws 1984 (UBBL) provides the detailed building-control requirements. Section 70 of Act 133 is particularly important because it establishes the legal basis for building-plan approval and the CCC system. (Jabatan Perkhidmatan Awam)

1. Borang G and Borang F

A. What is Borang G?

Borang G is the 21-stage certification system used as part of the Certificate of Completion and Compliance (CCC) process.

Each Form G certifies that a particular stage or component of construction has been properly completed and complies with the approved plans and applicable requirements. Examples include:

  • site preparation

  • setting out

  • foundation

  • structural framework

  • electrical installation

  • sanitary installation

  • fire-fighting requirements

  • drainage

  • roads and external works

  • completion of building works

The Form G system is important because the CCC is not simply based on a final inspection. Instead, compliance is demonstrated progressively through the required stage certifications. (IPM)

B. Why is Form G important?

Think of it this way:

Form G = evidence of compliance at individual construction stages

Form F = final CCC

Therefore:

G Forms → verification/certification of individual stages → PSP satisfied → Form F/CCC

The PSP must ensure that the required certifications are properly completed before issuing the CCC.

C. What is Borang F?

Borang F is the Certificate of Completion and Compliance (CCC).

It confirms that the building:

  1. has been completed;

  2. complies with the approved building plans;

  3. complies with the relevant provisions of Act 133 and UBBL;

  4. satisfies the technical conditions imposed by the local authority; and

  5. is safe and fit for occupation.

Importantly, under Section 70(20) of Act 133, the CCC can only be issued by the Principal Submitting Person (PSP). (National House Buyers Association)

Simplified process

Approved Building Plans
Construction starts
Required Form G stages completed
Relevant qualified persons certify their work
PSP checks overall compliance
All technical conditions satisfied
Borang F / CCC issued by PSP
Building may be occupied

2. Section 70 of the Street, Drainage and Building Act 1974

Section 70 is one of the most important provisions for building control in Malaysia.

Section 70(1)

The fundamental rule is:

No person shall erect a building without prior written permission from the local authority.

In other words:

Do not construct first and seek approval later.

Building approval must be obtained from the relevant Local Authority (PBT) before construction. (mylaw.my)

Section 70(2)

A person intending to erect a building must have the required plans and specifications submitted by the:

  • Principal Submitting Person (PSP); or

  • Submitting Person (SP)

to the local authority and, where applicable, relevant statutory authorities. (mylaw.my)

For example, depending on the project, submissions may involve technical agencies such as:

  • TNB

  • water authority

  • sewerage authority

  • fire authority

  • other relevant statutory bodies.

Section 70(9) — Notice to commence work

Before construction begins, the required Borang B notification must be submitted.

A commonly tested requirement is that notice is given before commencement of building work, with the statutory timing requirements applying to the approved plans and commencement of work. JKR's CCC guidance identifies the requirements as including the 12-month period from approval of plans and four days' notice before commencement. (EPSMG)

Section 70(18)

If the local authority does not approve, reject, or issue written requisitions concerning the plans within the statutory three-calendar-month period, the PSP/SP may apply to the State Authority under the circumstances provided by the Act. (National House Buyers Association)

Section 70(19)

Plans, specifications, calculations, particulars, documents and reports required under Section 70 must be:

  • prepared/certified by the PSP or SP; and

  • signed by the owner or authorised agent and the PSP/SP.

(National House Buyers Association)

Section 70(20) — CCC

This is extremely important:

Only the PSP may issue the CCC.

Therefore, an ordinary contractor, owner, clerk of works or individual Form G signatory cannot independently issue Borang F. (National House Buyers Association)

Section 70(21) — PSP's responsibility

Before issuing CCC, the PSP must ensure:

(a) the building is supervised so that it conforms to approved plans and legal requirements;

(b) the building has been properly constructed and completed in accordance with the approved plans, Act 133, UBBL and technical conditions imposed by the local authority; and

(c) the building is safe and fit for occupation. (National House Buyers Association)

This is why the PSP has a very significant professional responsibility.


3. Submitting Person (SP) vs Principal Submitting Person (PSP)

This distinction is very important for examinations.

ItemSubmitting Person (SP)Principal Submitting Person (PSP)
Main functionSubmits particular plans/documentsTakes overall responsibility for building submission
Building plan submissionCan submit relevant plansPrincipal person responsible for building-plan submission
Technical disciplineUsually discipline-specificCoordinates overall building compliance
Form GMay be involved in certification of relevant workEnsures required certifications are obtained
CCC / Form FCannot issue CCCCan issue CCC
Overall responsibilityLimited to relevant scopeOverall responsibility for CCC
Legal basisAct 133 / UBBLAct 133 / UBBL

Act 133 defines the PSP as a qualified person who submits building plans to the local authority, including a qualified person who takes over the duties and responsibilities of the original PSP. The SP is a qualified person who submits plans other than building plans to the local authority or relevant statutory authority. (Jabatan Perkhidmatan Awam)

Easy way to remember

PSP = Principal + overall building responsibility + CCC

SP = Specialist submission responsibility


4. Who can be a Submitting Person?

This area needs some care because "qualified person" under Act 133 is not the same thing as saying that every registered construction professional can automatically sign every Form G.

Act 133 defines a qualified person generally as a:

  • Professional Architect;

  • Professional Engineer; or

  • registered building draughtsman,

registered under the relevant written law. (AnyFlip)

For modern practice, the relevant professional registration/practising requirements also matter.

PEPC

For engineers, the important concept is:

Professional Engineer + Practising Certificate = PEPC

A PEPC can undertake the professional functions permitted under the relevant legislation and UBBL, including acting as PSP/SP where the applicable requirements are satisfied.

Similarly, qualified architects and other persons recognised under the applicable legislation may perform the relevant roles.


5. What about Registered Wiremen and other personnel signing Form G?

This is where people sometimes confuse "PSP/SP" with "Form G certifier."

A person who is authorised to sign a particular Form G does not automatically become the PSP.

For example, electrical works may involve appropriately qualified electrical personnel. Their certification is relevant to the particular electrical Form G, but the PSP remains responsible for the overall CCC process.

So:

Form G signatory ≠ automatically PSP

The PSP must ensure that the person signing the relevant Form G has the appropriate qualifications/authority for that particular work.

This is particularly important following amendments and professional-board requirements concerning Form G endorsements. For example, Board of Engineers Malaysia guidance has addressed verification of the credentials of persons signing Form G and requirements applicable to professional engineers acting as PSP/SP. (Scribd)

Therefore, I would not write in an exam that:

"Any Registered Wireman can become a PSP."

That would be incorrect.

A safer statement is:

Certain competent/registered technical personnel may be authorised to certify specific Form G stages within their area of competence, subject to the applicable UBBL, statutory and professional requirements. This does not give them the general authority to issue the CCC, which remains the responsibility of the PSP.


6. Relationship between Form G, PSP and Form F

The whole system can be understood as a chain of responsibility:

                 LOCAL AUTHORITY
                       │
                Approves building plans
                       │
                       ▼
             PSP / Submitting Persons
                       │
                       ▼
                  CONSTRUCTION
                       │
        ┌──────────────┼──────────────┐
        ▼              ▼              ▼
   Structure       Electrical      Plumbing/
     Form G          Form G         Drainage
                                      Form G
        │              │              │
        └──────────────┼──────────────┘
                       ▼
              PSP verifies compliance
                       │
                       ▼
              ALL CONDITIONS SATISFIED
                       │
                       ▼
                 BORANG F / CCC
                       │
                       ▼
               SAFE & FIT FOR USE

The important principle is that the PSP does not simply "sign a piece of paper." Section 70(21) places substantive duties on the PSP concerning supervision, compliance with approved plans, technical conditions, and safety/fitness for occupation. (National House Buyers Association)


7. Exam-focused summary

If this comes out as a 10–15 mark question, remember these points:

Borang G

  • 21-stage certification system.

  • Certifies completion/compliance of specific construction stages.

  • Signed by the appropriate qualified/authorised person for the relevant work.

  • Forms part of the evidence required for CCC.

  • PSP must ensure the required certifications are properly obtained.

Borang F

  • Certificate of Completion and Compliance (CCC).

  • Final certification of the completed building.

  • Issued only by PSP.

  • Confirms compliance and that the building is safe and fit for occupation.

Section 70 SDA

  • 70(1): prior written permission required before erecting a building.

  • 70(2): plans/specifications submitted by PSP/SP.

  • 70(9): notice to commence work.

  • 70(18): provision relating to local authority's three-month response period.

  • 70(19): required documents must be prepared/certified and signed as prescribed.

  • 70(20): only PSP issues CCC.

  • 70(21): PSP's duties before CCC—supervision, compliance and safety/fitness.

  • 70(27): offences relating to CCC/non-compliance. (EPSMG)

PSP

Principal person → overall responsibility → supervises/compliance → issues CCC.

SP

Qualified person → specialist/particular plan submission → limited to relevant scope.

Form G signatories

Specific technical certification → must have the appropriate authority/qualification → does not automatically make the person PSP.

Key distinction to memorise:

G Forms prove that the individual stages comply; Form F/CCC confirms the building as a whole is completed, compliant, safe and fit for occupation.

For statutory wording, the current Act 133 should always take precedence over lecture notes or older UBBL summaries, because amendments can change the applicable requirements. (Jabatan Perkhidmatan Awam)

Forms of Contracts (PAM, IEM, JKR D&B, FIDIC)

Contract-administration study guide comparing PAM, IEM, JKR Design & Build, and FIDIC, focusing on the five areas you listed.

Important: Exact clause numbers and response periods can differ by edition and by amendments/Particular Conditions. For an actual project, always check the signed contract documents. PAM publishes material on PAM Contract 2018, while FIDIC 2017 has its own General Conditions and Particular Conditions structure. (Pam)


1. Roles and Powers of Contract Administrator / Superintending Officer

The person administering the contract is important because they certify, instruct, assess, determine and administer the contract, but their powers depend on the particular form.

ContractMain administratorMain function
PAMArchitect / Contract AdministratorAdministers construction contract, issues instructions/certificates, assesses EOT, variations and payment
IEMEngineer / Contract AdministratorAdministers engineering contract, certifies work/payment, assesses claims and EOT
JKR D&BSuperintending Officer (S.O.)Acts for Government/Employer in administering the contract and issuing directions/certificates
FIDICEngineerAdministers contract, gives instructions, determines matters and assesses claims

A. PAM

The Architect normally has a central contract-administration role.

Typical powers include:

  • issue Architect's Instructions;

  • issue certificates;

  • assess variations;

  • assess extension of time;

  • certify payments;

  • inspect and evaluate the works;

  • certify practical completion;

  • administer defects;

  • assess contractual claims.

However, the Architect is not simply the Employer's agent in every matter. Contractual duties must be exercised according to the contract.

B. IEM

Under an IEM-type engineering contract, the Engineer performs many functions similar to the Architect under PAM.

The Engineer may:

  • issue instructions;

  • inspect works;

  • certify payment;

  • assess variations;

  • assess EOT;

  • evaluate claims;

  • administer completion and defects.

The important principle is:

Engineer ≠ Contractor's manager.

The Engineer administers the contract but does not normally take over the Contractor's responsibility for construction.

C. JKR Design & Build

The Superintending Officer (S.O.) has substantial administrative powers because this is a Government contract.

The S.O. may:

  • issue directions;

  • administer the works;

  • certify payments;

  • assess variations;

  • assess EOT;

  • inspect and monitor compliance;

  • certify completion;

  • administer contractual procedures.

JKR itself publishes guidance dealing with issues such as termination, practical completion, final accounts, variation, EOT and contract administration. (JKR Malaysia)

A key difference is that in Design & Build, the Contractor carries significant responsibility for both design and construction. The JKR DB/T form specifically includes provisions dealing with the Contractor's design responsibility. (pdfcoffee.com)

D. FIDIC

FIDIC uses the term Engineer.

The Engineer's role includes:

  1. administering the Contract;

  2. giving instructions;

  3. evaluating work;

  4. certifying payments;

  5. dealing with claims;

  6. making determinations where required.

FIDIC 2017 places considerable emphasis on formal claims, determinations and dispute avoidance. (FIDIC)

Easy exam point

Remember:

PAM → Architect
IEM → Engineer
JKR D&B → Superintending Officer
FIDIC → Engineer


2. Response Timeframes for Key Contract Clauses

This is one of the most important areas because failure to comply with contractual time limits can affect entitlement.

Common contractual notices

Typical matters requiring timely action include:

  • EOT claim;

  • variation;

  • payment certification;

  • claims;

  • notice of delay;

  • termination notice;

  • defects;

  • dispute notification.

FIDIC

FIDIC is particularly strict about formal claims.

Under the FIDIC 2017 system, claims are subject to prescribed notice and submission procedures. The 2017 contracts also apply claims procedures to both Employer and Contractor claims. (Wiley Online Library)

A commonly tested concept is:

28-day Notice of Claim

The Contractor generally needs to notify the Engineer within the contractual period after becoming aware of the event/circumstance giving rise to the claim.

Then:

Notice → particulars/evidence → assessment/determination

This is commonly called a time bar.

Why is the time bar important?

Suppose:

Delay occurs on 1 June.

Contract says notice must be given within 28 days.

Contractor gives notice on 15 July.

Potential consequence:

Late notice → loss/restriction of contractual entitlement, depending on the applicable FIDIC edition and Particular Conditions.

Therefore:

Construction team must identify a delaying event immediately, not wait until the project is already late.


3. Termination Clauses and Procedures

Termination means the contractual relationship is brought to an end before normal completion.

There are generally two broad categories:

A. Termination by Employer

Usually associated with serious Contractor default, such as:

  • abandonment;

  • failure to proceed with the works;

  • insolvency;

  • serious breach;

  • failure to comply with instructions;

  • persistent failure to perform.

B. Termination by Contractor

May arise because of serious Employer default, such as:

  • prolonged non-payment;

  • suspension caused by Employer;

  • serious breach by Employer;

  • other contractual grounds.


Typical termination procedure

A simplified procedure is:

Default occurs

Notice of default

Opportunity/cure period, where required

Failure to remedy

Termination notice

Take-over / securing the site

Measurement and valuation

Final account / damages / costs

The exact procedure varies significantly between forms.

PAM

PAM contains contractual mechanisms for termination for specified defaults. The Architect/Employer must follow the contractual procedure rather than simply saying:

"The Contractor is terminated."

Procedural compliance is critical.

JKR D&B

Termination is particularly important in Government contracts.

The S.O. must follow the applicable contractual requirements before termination. The JKR D&B form contains specific contractual provisions governing the Contractor's obligations and the administration of the contract. (pdfcoffee.com)

FIDIC

FIDIC provides detailed termination mechanisms and distinguishes between different grounds for termination.

Exam point:

Termination is a contractual remedy and must be exercised according to the contract.


4. EOT, LAD and Project Timeline

This is probably the most important relationship to understand.

Extension of Time (EOT)

EOT means:

The Contractor receives additional contractual time to complete the works.

Example:

Original completion date:

31 December 2026

A qualifying Employer-risk delay causes:

60 days delay

Approved EOT:

60 days

New completion date:

1 March 2027 approximately.

Therefore, the Contractor is not late if completion occurs within the revised contractual completion date.


Typical reasons for EOT

Depending on the contract, examples can include:

  • variation instructed by Employer;

  • late information/drawings;

  • exceptionally adverse weather;

  • delay caused by Employer;

  • force majeure / relevant events;

  • changes in statutory requirements;

  • other contractual Relevant Events.

The exact entitlement differs between PAM, IEM, JKR and FIDIC.


LAD — Liquidated Ascertained Damages

LAD is a pre-agreed contractual amount payable for delay, subject to the contract's requirements.

Example:

Contract:

LAD = RM20,000/day

Completion date:

31 December

Actual completion:

10 January

Delay:

10 days

Potential LAD:

RM20,000 × 10 = RM200,000

But there is an important step:

First determine the correct completion date.

If the Contractor is entitled to 10 days EOT:

Original completion:

31 December

EOT:

10 days

=

Revised completion date: 10 January

Therefore:

Actual completion = 10 January

LAD = RM0


EOT and LAD relationship

Think of it like this:

Delay event

Is Contractor entitled to EOT?

Yes → revise completion date

Compare actual completion with revised date

Late?

Yes → LAD may apply

This is why EOT assessment must be done properly before determining delay damages.


5. Dispute Resolution Mechanisms

Disputes occur when the parties disagree about things such as:

  • payment;

  • variations;

  • EOT;

  • LAD;

  • defects;

  • termination;

  • valuation;

  • interpretation of contract clauses.

Different forms use different dispute-resolution structures.


PAM

A typical progression is:

Contract administration

Negotiation / discussion

Adjudication

Arbitration / court

depending on the contract and applicable law.

In Malaysia, statutory adjudication under CIPAA 2012 can also become relevant to construction payment disputes where its requirements apply.


IEM

The IEM form generally provides contractual mechanisms for resolving disputes, potentially involving:

Engineer / Contract Administrator

Negotiation / contractual determination

Adjudication / arbitration

The exact route depends on the particular IEM form and amendments.


JKR D&B

For Government projects, disputes are dealt with according to the contractual dispute mechanism and applicable Malaysian law.

The important principle for examination is:

The Contractor should use the contractual dispute procedure rather than immediately abandoning performance or taking unilateral action.


FIDIC — Important Exam Structure

FIDIC 2017 has a particularly structured dispute system.

The 2017 Red Book includes:

  • DAAB — Dispute Avoidance/Adjudication Board

  • dispute avoidance;

  • DAAB decision;

  • amicable settlement;

  • arbitration.

FIDIC's official description specifically identifies the DAAB and dispute-avoidance mechanisms. (FIDIC)

The sequence can be remembered as:

DAAB → Amicable Settlement → Arbitration

More completely:

Dispute arises

Dispute avoidance / Engineer's determination

DAAB

DAAB decision

Amicable settlement

Arbitration

FIDIC 2017 expressly structures Clause 21 around DAAB constitution, dispute avoidance, obtaining a DAAB decision, amicable settlement and arbitration. (www.slideshare.net)


Overall Comparison

IssuePAMIEMJKR D&BFIDIC
AdministratorArchitectEngineerS.O.Engineer
Contract typeBuildingEngineering/constructionGovernment D&BInternational construction
Design responsibilityUsually Employer's designDepends on formContractorDepends on FIDIC Book
EOTContractual EOT procedureContractual EOT procedureS.O. assesses under JKR conditionsFormal claims procedure
LADYes, if providedYes, if providedYesDelay damages under contract
ClaimsFormal contractual processFormal processFormal Government procedureHighly structured
Notice/time barImportantImportantImportantVery important
DisputeContractual mechanism/CIPAA where applicableContractual mechanismGovernment contractual mechanismDAAB → settlement → arbitration

⭐ Key Exam Concepts to Memorise

1. Contract Administrator

Administers the contract, but does not take over the Contractor's responsibility.

2. Notice

A contractual claim must be notified within the required period.

3. EOT

EOT changes the contractual completion date.

4. LAD

LAD is assessed by reference to the applicable contractual completion date.

5. Termination

Termination must follow the contractual procedure and grounds.

6. Dispute

Use the contract's dispute-resolution mechanism before escalating to arbitration/litigation.

7. FIDIC

DAAB is central to the 2017 dispute mechanism.

8. JKR D&B

The Contractor has major responsibility for both design and construction.


Simple flow to remember for an exam

DELAY

→ Contractor gives NOTICE

→ Contract Administrator/Engineer assesses EOT

→ Completion Date is revised

→ If Contractor still finishes late

LAD may apply

If there is disagreement:

CLAIM

DETERMINATION

DISPUTE RESOLUTION

ADJUDICATION / DAAB / ARBITRATION, depending on the contract.

The biggest practical lesson is that contract administration is time-sensitive: notices, EOT claims, certificates, termination notices and dispute referrals must all follow the particular contract's prescribed procedure. FIDIC, in particular, formalises claims and dispute avoidance in considerable detail. (Wiley Online Library)