3.

0 DISCUSSION IN VARIATION ORDER

There are four institutions and organizations in Malaysia that produce standard forms of
construction contracts. These are:

(a) Pertubuhan Arkitek Malaysia (PAM)

(b) Construction Industry Development Board (CIDB)

(c) Jabatan Kerja Raya (JKR)

3.1 Discussion regarding variation order in the form of contract

3.1.1 PAM form

Nature of Variation Order

The nature of a variation order can be determined by referring to both the reasons for
their occurrence and subsequent effects. Arain and Pheng (2005) distinguished two
types of variation orders namely: beneficial and detrimental variation order which is.

Beneficial variation orders

A beneficial variation order is one issued to improve the quality standard, reduce cost,

schedule, or degree of difficulty in a project. A beneficial variation order eliminates

unnecessary costs from a project as a result; it optimizes the client's benefits against the
resource input by eliminating unnecessary costs.

Detrimental variation orders

A detrimental variation order is one that negatively impacts the client's value or project
performance (Arain and Pheng, (2005). For example a client who is experiencing
financial problems may require the substitution of quality standard expensive materials
to substandard cheap materials.
Causes of Variation Order

Variations order arises for a variety of reasons. Some are foreseeable, others are not.
Some result from a genuine change of circumstances and others from the design team’s
own inadequacies. Arain and Pheng (2006) identified four origin agents of variation
orders. These included client, consultant, contractor and other changes.

Client related changes

Client related changes the causes of variations that were initiated by the owner. In some
cases, the owner directly initiates variations or the variations are required because the
owner fails to fulfil certain requirements for carrying out the project. The changes
initiate by client are:

• Change of scope

• Change of project schedule

• Owner's financial problems

• Inadequate project objectives

• Replacement of materials

• Change in specifications
Consultant related changes

In some cases, the consultant directly initiates variations or the variations are required
because the consultant fails to fulfil certain requirements for carrying out the project.
The changes initiate by consultant are as follows:

• Change in design

• Errors and omissions in design

• Conflicts between contract documents

• Inadequate scope of work for contractor

• Design complexity

• Inadequate shop drawing details

• Lack of consultant's knowledge of available materials and equipment

Contractor related changes

In some cases, the contractor may suggest variations to the project or the variations may
be required because the contractor fails to fulfil certain requirements for carrying out
the project. The contractor related changes are as follows:

• Lack of contractor's involvement in design

• Unavailability of equipment

• Unavailability of skills manpower

• Contractor's financial difficulties

• Defective workmanship
Other changes

Other changes refer to the causes of variations that were not directly related to the
participants. These changes are as follows:

• Change in government regulations

• Weather changes

• Change in economic conditions

• Unforeseen problems
Provision of Variation Order According to The “Persatuan Akitek Malaysia”

(PAM1998) Condition of Contract.

Generally construction contracts require the contractor to notify the owner

within a specific period of time of the occurrence event for which the contractor will
seek additional reimbursement in the form of a variation order. Many contracts have
stipulate the various methods by which the contractor will be reimbursed either by pre-
established unit prices, negotiated lump sum, or by time and material. Every contract
has a specific procedure covering the process of handling change to the work. Similarly,
there is also a provision of variation orders stated in the PAM 1998 general conditions
of contract in clause 11, and also clause 2

Many contracts have stipulate the various methods by which the contractor will
be reimbursed either by pre-established unit prices, negotiated lump sum, or by time
and material. Every contract has a specific procedure covering the process of handling
change to the work. Similarly, there is also a provision of variation orders stated in the
PAM 1998 general conditions of contract in clause 11, and also clause 2 summarizes
the clauses related to the variation order as stated in the PAM 1998 standard for of
building contract.
Rajoo (1998) summarizes the related clauses as adapted from PAM 98 form of contract,

Clause 11.0 which is briefly as explain as followings:

• Clause 11: Generally explain on the definition of the term of variation order, instruction
regarding the provisional sum, valuation of variations, rules of variation and also valuation of
variation order claim by the contractor.

• Clause 11.1 (i) - 11.1(vi): Explain in details the definition of variations which intend a tangible
change in the works and also excludes any default and/or breach of contract by the from
contractor being a variation.

• Clause 11.2: Stated the power of architect to issue instruction in regards with the variation
orders. This provision is only applicable as when the employer gives direct instruction to
contractor. It’s also stated that the instruction must be in written and also signed by the
architect.

• Clause 11.3: This clause required the architect to issue instruction for the expenditure of any
prime cost and provisional sum included in the contract bill.

• Clause 11.4: Provides for the measurement and valuations of variations.

• Clause 11.5: Explain the rules for valuation. It set out several method of valuation based on
types of the variations order.

• Clause 11.6: This clause deals with the issue of direct loss and /or expense arising from
variations.

• Clause 11.7: Stated the requirement for the contractor to submit necessary detail for the claim
made by the contractor.
3.1.2 PWD form

Almost all construction contracts have included variation clauses as the standard
provisions in the contract. We can find them in international as well as national standard forms
of contract. We can also find them in different types of procurement such as traditional, design
and build, management contracting, EPC, etc. Even in bespoke or domestic contracts, there
must be variation clauses which entitle the employers to impose the contractors an obligation
to change the scope of the work during construction stage which subsequently cause the contract
sum to be adjusted either up or down by such variation. As are sult, the contractors are entitled for the
variations in their payment certificates
Each standard form of contract gives its own definition on variation. However,
ingeneral ‘ variation ’ can be defined as the alteration or modification to the basis upon which
the contract was let. It is a famous term known to be inevitable inany construction project due
to the changing nature of construction projects.Powell-Smith (1990) mentioned that in the
absence of variation clauses, the employers or architects would have no power to request to the
contractors tomake any changes in the work that they have agreed to do. In other words, without variations
clauses, the employers and his representatives do not have the power to order variations to the
contractors.
Based on the journal can we get to explain clause about variation order at PWD FORM
is like :
24.0 VARIATIONS
24.1 The S.O may issue instruction requiring a Variation in form a Variation Oder. No
variation required by the S.O shall vitiate this contract. Upon the issuance of such Variation
oder, the contractor shall forthwith comply with the Variation Oder issued by the S.O.
24.2 The term ‘Variation’ means a change in the Contract Document which necessitates
the alteration or modification of the design, quality or quantity of the works as described by
the referred to therein and effects the Contract Sum, including
a) Omission or substitution of any work
b) The alteration of the kind or standard of any the materials, goods to be used in
the works
c) The removal from the site of any work executed or materials or goods to brought
thereon by the contractor for the purpose of the Works other than work,
materials or goods which are not accordance with this contract.
25.0 VALUATION OF VARIATION
 25.1 All variations instructed in writing by the S.O in accordance with clause 24 here
of shall be measured and valued bt the S.O. The valuations of variations, unless
previously or otherwise agreed, shall be made in accordance with the following rules:

a) The rates in the Bills of quantities after adjustment if necessary as provide in

clauses 26.6 and 26.7 hee of, shall determine the valuation of work of similar
character and executed under similar conditions as work priced there in,
b) The said rates, where work is not of similar character or executed under similar
conditions as a fore said, shall be the basis of rates for the same, so far as may
be reasonable, falling which a fair valuation there of shall be made by the S.O
c) The rates in the Bills of Quantities shall determine the valuation of items
omitted, provided that if the omission substantaily vary the conditions under
which any remaining items of work are carried out, the rates of such remaining
items shall be valued under rule

25.2 Where work cannot properly b measured or valued the S.O may allow daywork
price as specified in Appendix. Unless otherwise provided in the Bills of Quantities,
the day prices for the purpose of this contract shall be taken to mean the actual net cost
to the contractor of his materials,plant and labour for the work concerned. The
contractor shall be paid daywork prices plus fifteen percent (15%) which shall include
for the cost of all ordinary plant, tools, scaffholding, supervision and profit. Provided
always that as a condition precedent to any right to any payment the contractor shall
produce vouchers, receipts and wage books specifying the time for labour and plant
employed and materials used the S.O not exceeding seven days after the works shall
have been done

25.3 The amount of variations shall be certifiied by the S.O and added to or deducted from the
contract Sum as the case may be and the amount shall be adjust accord

3.1.3 CIDB form

CIDB has to date produced two standard forms; one is CIDB Standard Form of
Contract for Building Works (2000 Edition) and the other is CIDB Standard Form of
 Sub-Contract for Nominated Sub-Contractor.10 It is planned by CIDB that a standard
form of Design and Build Contract and another for Civil Engineering Contract will also
be published. It may be of interest to note that CIDB has also produced a booklet on
“Standard Proforma for Contract (sic) Administration” which is expressly stated to be
used in conjunction with CIDB Standard Form of Contract for Building Works.
The administration of construction contracts in Malaysia is facilitated through
a standard form of contract. The application of each however depends on the type of
project, mode of finance and owner of the project. Public Work Department 203A
(PWD203A), Pertubuhan Akitek Malaysia (PAM) Standards form of contract are
widely implemented in Malaysia. In generally, each standard form of contract aims at
ensuring effective, efficient and non-disputable contract administration. As for the
CIDB Form, the term ’Variation‘ is defined under Clause 1.1, as any change in the
original contract works, including but not restricted to:
(i) Quantity increase and or decrease
(ii) Addition or omission
(iii) Change in character, quality and or nature
(iv) Change in levels, elevations, layout and dimensions
(v) Demolition or removal of any part of the works equipment, materials or goods not
desired by the employer
(vi) Change in contractor’s temporary work, working method and or construction plant
by employer
(vii) Postponement of any part of the works by employer
(viii) Employer’s requirement to complete the works or any part section earlier than its
completion time. Variations also include changes to alter the use to which the Works
will be put, but exclude any instruction to currency Contract tor’s default or breach of
contract. Similar to the other Forms, provisions that allow for variations include Clause
10 – to comply with any change in the statutory requirements, Clause 25- expediting
progress of Works, There are the item of clause in CIDB form for year 2000

CLAUSE 28: VARITIONS

28.1: power to order variation
(a) The superintending officer may at any time issue an instruction in writing requiring a
variation. Provided that no instruction shall be required for increase or decrease in the
quantity of any work where such increase or decrease in not the result of an instruction
 given under this clause 28.1, but is the result of the re-measurement of provisional
quantities stated in the bill of quantities.
(b) No such variation shall in any way invalidate the contract, but the effect, if any, of all
such variation shall be valued in accordance with clause 29. Provided that where the
issue of an instruction to vary the works is necessitated by some default or breach of
contract by the contractor or for which he is responsible, any additional cost
attributable to such default shall be borne by the contractor.
(c) If or to the extent that an instruction does not state that it constitutes a variation but the
contractor considers that it does, then the contractor shall comply with the same but
may request in writing to the superintending officer to specify that the said instruction
constitutes a variation. The superintending officer shall forthwith confirm, modify or
rescind in writing the said instruction.
(d) The contractor shall carry out with due diligence and expedition all variations pending
the valuation of the variation by the superintending officer pursuant to clause 29.

CLAUSE 29: valuation of variations

29.1: Valuation method
Most of the standard forms of building or construction contract provide some basis or rules
for evaluation or valuation of variation works. These rules are often similar, in principle
All variations shall be valued in accordance with the following valuation method:
(a) Where the varied work is of a similar character to, is executed under similar
conditions as and does not significantly change the quantity of the work
described in the contract document, the rates for the works as set out in the
contract shall be used for the valuation
(b) Where the varied work is of a similar character to the work described in the
contract document and or is not executed under similar conditions and or
involves significant changes in the quantity of such work described in the
contract documents, the rates for the works as set out in the contract shall be
basis for the valuation but with a fair allowance for any differences in
conditions and or changes in quantity
(c) Where paragraphs (a) and (b) above do not apply, then by valuation at fair
market rates and prices
(d) Where none of the above methods is applicable or appropriate in the
circumstances of that particular varied work, the valuation shall be based on
day work rates and prices of necessary plant, materials or goods, labour and
any additional construction plant necessary for the execution of the varies
work subject to the following:
(i) As a condition precedent to any right to any payment under this
paragraph the contractor shall have received from the superintending
officer an instruction authorising that the varied work be executed
on day work basis.
(ii) Unless otherwise specified the contractor shall be entitled to
additional 15 per cent on the day work rates which percentage shall
be deemed to compensate adequately the contractor in respect of all
supervision, the use of construction plant (except for additional
construction plant necessary for the execution of the varied work),
overheads, profit and all other loss, expense, costs or damages
incurred in or connected with the execution of the varied work.
(iii) The contractor shall maintain proper daily records specifying the
time spent by each workman of the relevant trade (and if by the
superintending officer, specifying the workmen’s names), any
construction plant employed and equipment, materials or goods used
in the execution of the varied work.
 (iv) Such records together with the relevant vouchers, delivery orders or
receipts shall be delivered to the superintending officer for
verification not later than 7 days after the varied work shall have
been executed. In the case of continuing work, such records shall be
delivered to the superintending officer at weekly intervals for
verification with the final records delivered not later than 7 days after
varied work shall have been completed
(e) The rates for the works as set out in the contract shall be used for the
valuation of work omitted; provided that if the omission varies the
conditions under which any remaining work are carried out, the values for
such remaining work shall be determined in accordance with sub-clauses
29.1(b) or (c) or (d) as the case may be. For the avoidance of doubt, the
contractor shall not be entitled to loss and expense for omission of work
unless such work is carried out by the employer or by another contractor.

29.2: agreement on valuation

(a) The contractor shall provide the superintending officer with such details and particulars
pursuant to clause 29.1 for the purpose of valuing the variation. The superintending
officer shall within 30 days of receipt of such details and particulars make such
 valuation in accordance with clause 29.1 and shall notify the contractor in writing the
value of the variation.
(b) The contractor shall within 30 days of the receipt of the notice of value of the variation,
give notice of any disagreement in writing to the superintending officer and shall at the
same time set out the valuation which he considers should have been made, giving full
details and particulars. If the contractor does not give notice of his disagreement with
the said 30 day period he shall be deemed to have accepted the valuation and such
valuation shall be final and binding on the employer and the contractor and shall not
thereafter be disputed or questioned by either party in any way whatsoever.
(c) Following receipt of the contractor’s notice of disagreement (if any), the
superintending officer shall within a further 30 days notify the contractor of his
decision by either confirming his valuation previously made or amending the whole or
any part of the same.

29.3: inclusion of variations in interim certificates

The superintending officer shall upon notifying the contractor 29.2 give effect to the
valuation of such variation in the following certificate issued by the superintending officer
pursuant to clause 42.
3.2 VARIATION ORDER RELATED TO PREVIOUS CASE

3.2.1 CASE 1

CAPITAL HABITAT BUILDER SDN BHD V

PESONA METRO SDN BHD
HIGH COURT, KUALA LUMPUR
CIVIL SUIT NO: 22C–53–11/2013
DATO’ MARY LIM THIAM SUAN J
3 NOVEMBER 2015
__________________________
[2016] 1 CIDB-CLR 194

The Defendant was the main contractor responsible for structural works in a
condominium construction project (“the project”). The Defendant subcontracted certain works
related to the project to the Plaintiff vide letter of acceptance dated 12 March 2012 (“the
subcontract”). Under the letter of acceptance, the Plaintiff was required to take possession of
the site on 12 March 2012 and to complete the subcontract by 19 November 2012.

The Plaintiff claimed that it had been orally instructed by the Defendant’s
representative to carry out variation and/ or additional works to the value of RM2, 302,493.10;
and 26 variation orders (“VOs”) were cited in support. Following such works, the Plaintiff
made interim or Progress Claim No. 16. The Defendant then issued a draft interim payment
certificate in respect of this interim claim on 12 August 2013, wherein the Plaintiff was back-
charged a sum for labour, which it disputed.

The Plaintiff Subsequently issued Progress Claim No. 17 for the sum of RM2,
315,045.00. The Plaintiff stated that both progress claims were not paid by the Defendant
within the agreed time period of 30 days from the date of presentation of the claims and the
Defendant was consequently in breach of the terms of the subcontract. The Plaintiff’s claim in
the instant case was for that sum in Progress Claim No.17, which was subsequently amended
to RM2, 319,624.49.
 Alternatively, it claimed that it ought to be paid on a quantum meruit basis for the
original and variation works that it had completed. The Defendant contended that the Plaintiff’s
VO claims were improper as they lacked supporting documents and the subcontract required
joint inspections to be made before payments could be approved. It counterclaimed for a sum
as back-charges for materials, labour and penalties. It also claimed for liquidated and
ascertained damages (“LAD”) for the Plaintiff’s alleged delay in the completion of the
subcontract works by some eight (8) months from the contractual completion date of 19
November 2012.

The Plaintiff however argued that Progress Claims Nos. 16 and 17 were supported with
documentation; that the Defendant refused to carry out joint inspections and the Defendant had
acknowledged and admitted to the Plaintiff’s variation work vide draft certificate of payment
in email dated 12 August 2013. It furthermore refuted owing the Defendant charges for labour
on the basis that there was, inter alia, no agreement and argued that the Defendant was not
entitled to the LAD claim as the delay in completion was caused by the Defendant itself when
the Defendant delayed in handing over possession of the relevant floors or project areas to the
Plaintiff.

The four (4) issues for determination were:

(i) Whether the Plaintiff was instructed to carry out the variation works by the
Defendant?
(ii) Alternatively, whether the Plaintiff was entitled to claim for variation works on a
quantum meruit basis?
(iii) Whether there was a delay in handing over a duly completed structure for the
Plaintiff to start work at the relevant time?
(iv) Whether the Defendant was entitled to claim for back-charges from the Plaintiff?
Held, Plaintiff’s claim allowed with costs and Defendant’s counterclaim dismissed

(1) Any instructions from the Defendant to the Plaintiff to do the additional or variation
works were almost all verbal; but they were no less instructions from the Defendant
and the Plaintiff was contractually obliged to carry out such instructions; regardless the
form it was given. Of relevance was the fact that the subcontract did not require orders
for variation work to be in any particular form. It certainly did not require such orders
to be in writing. Clause 15 merely provided for the possibility of variation work to be
done.

(2) Clauses 12 and 16 of the subcontract dealt with the preparation and submission of a
final account and payment. Although these terms required the Plaintiff to submit with
“all particulars, details or information in support thereof for verification”, this was not
the same as saying that the instructions must be in writing.

(3) The want of written instruction had never been an issue for the Defendant. The fact that
the Defendant had already approved and admitted a substantial number of VOs as
shown in the pleadings and at the trial, indicated quite clearly that the lack of written
instruction was actually not an impeding factor. Therefore, the absence of written
instructions on the VO works did not have any material bearing or effect on the
Plaintiff’s claims. There were clear oral instructions given by the Defendant for all the
works which underpin Progress Claims 16 and 17. The parties had a good practical
working relationship where form was not the criteria at all before the Defendant would
pay against the claims made by the Plaintiff.

(4) Oral instructions had furthermore been accepted by the parties as a reality, and that
being practical, was the manner in which the parties instructed and operated. From the
evidence adduced by both sides, the Court was amply satisfied that the Plaintiff was
definitely instructed by the Defendant to carry out the additional or variation works
which were the subject of the present claim.

(5) The Court did not find it necessary to determine the second question on quantum meruit
since the Court found for the Plaintiff by virtue of the first question.
(6) The Court was satisfied that the Plaintiff had in fact proved its claim. There was
sufficient evidence before the Court to prove the amount and value of the work done in
all 26 VOs. The Defendant was invited to conduct joint inspections but the Defendant
had put such inspections off or had thought them unnecessary and it therefore cannot
now complain.

(7) The “normal construction practice” envisaged that the Plaintiff commence its
subcontracted works approximately 30 days after the casting work had been completed
by the Defendant. This meant that although the Plaintiff took site possession on 12
March 2012, it could not get on with its work because the areas for the Plaintiff to work
were simply not available save for some parts of the building. These were the only areas
handed over to the Plaintiff to start work as these were the only areas which had been
erected. The Defendant was therefore guilty of being in delay in handing over the site
for the Plaintiff to carry out its works. As the party at fault, the Defendant was not
entitled to impose any LAD – see Poh Geok Sing v HB Enterprise Sdn Bhd [2006] 1
MLJ 617; Golden Vale Gold Range & Country Club Sdn Bhd v Hong Huat Enterprise
Sdn Bhd (Airport Auto Centre Sdn Bhd & Anor, third party and another appeal) [2008]
4 MLJ 839.

(8) There were no agreements for the Defendant to back-charge labour costs to the Plaintiff.
The Plaintiff had trusted in the accuracy of the information provided in the certified
payments since the Defendant was the party who had the proper and full records of the
materials supplied by them to the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff had paid the sums back-
charged on the understanding that the sums imposed were for the contractually agreed
item of materials. It was not, and, it was never intended to be for the item of labour,
which it had never been consulted at the material time; nor did it ever agree to the same.
Furthermore, the Defendant never back charged for labour in any of the earlier progress
claims (nos. 1 to 15) and the related payment certificates. All certifications were for
materials only, as agreed.
3.2.2 CASE 2

Case : Application to Implement Additional Job Changes Failing to Meet

Functions Requirements

Project Name : Jalan Lingkaran Tengah II, Kuala Lumpur, Pakej 5 - (From
Taman Melati to Ulu Kelang Road)

Date of Site : 01 November 1994

Date of Completion : 31 January 1997

Reference : Mesyuarat Jawatankuasa APK Peringkat KPKR Bil. 1/97 bertarikh

15.1.97

Case Fact:

At the stage of completion, the Consultant has submitted an application for a canopy
roof for the pedestrian overpass. The purpose is to add `aesthetic 'in line with the existing
pedestrian bridge in Kuala Lumpur with a canopy base. This roof can also provide protection
to walkers. Additionally this bridge is used by school children from 3 nearby schools and
adjacent mosques.

JKR's Claims Committee Resolution:

Having examined the environment for the variation work, this application was not
approved as the expected coverage would not be effective because there was no covered way
that connects both sides of the bridge to the nearby bus or building. Also due to the variation
order of this work will result in extension of time to be given to the Contractor.

Lesson:

Application of variation work should be carefully assessed taking into account the
needs in terms of functioning and development of the project environment. The variation order
in the final construction work should be avoided as it will likely result in extension of time. If
this is the case the Contractor may make a claim on any excess expenses incurred due to such
extension. Such change of work should have been tendered separately.

3.2.3 CASE 3

Case : Application for Approval of Temporary Quantity Supplemental Work

to Meet Technical Requirements by Order of Superintendent Officer

Project Name : Building and Completing Sungai Petani Timur Scheme Road, Kedah
(Phase 1: From Federal Route 1 to Kuala Ketil Road)

Date of Site : 05 April 1994

Date of Completion : 15 September 1997

Reference : Mesyuarat Jawatankuasa APK Peringkat TKPKR Bil. 9/98 bertarikh

11 Ogos 1998

Case Fact:

This application is for approval of re-quantification of the quantities found in the Bill
Quantity. The amount of the original value of the interim quantity provided in the Contract is
RM 13,198,135.16 but the final amount of final value after the final measurement is RM
14,737,187.94. With this net amount, the additional value is RM 1,539,052.78. P.P. informs
that a significant increase is due to the total value of earthworks due to the increase in dredging
work. This increase is due to the design change to be made from two `berm 'to seven` berm'.
The design change is due to TNB's 'pylon' and the river is included in the 'pylon' and the river
has not been identified in the original survey work. Some other important information has also
been identified and left behind to be included in the original survey work plan for the project.
This has resulted in some redesigns to be made during the project.
JKR's Claims Committee Resolution:

The Committee agrees to approve this application

Lesson:

A Chairman suggests that long-term survey work should be reviewed before tender
documents are provided to ensure the accuracy of the information. For long-term projects have
been postponed, as well as check survey work should be made on the groundwork information,
designs and other possibly changes or differences of information on the build site. Therefore,
it is recommended that revisions be made to the relevant information in order to conform to the
actual situation at the built site before calling the tender. For such cases as above which resulted
in a significant increase in cost after re-measurement, the Chairman requested the
Superintendent to submit a detailed report on the lack of important information of survey work
by the Surveyor appointed to the Planning Branch so that appropriate action could be taken
against the Surveyor.
3.2.4 CASE 4

Case : Application To Implement Additional variation order To Fulfill

Technical Requirements of Directive P.p.

Project Name : Raising the Brinchang-Lojing Road, Cameron Highlands, Package 2A

- From Kg. Raja Ke Kg.Kuala Terla

Date of Site : 16 October 1995

Date of Completion : 15 August 1998

Reference : Mesyuarat Jawatankuasa APK Peringkat TKPKR Bil. 11/98 bertarikh

24 Ogos 1998

Case Fact:

Application of additional work to supply and build `soil nails complete with
reinforcement to the details as shown 'should be implemented as there is an amendment to the
design due to contradiction to the original ground level measurement and also the variation
order distance of` soil nailing' from 2.0m to 1.5m. The Committee was also informed that land
surveying and survey work was carried out in 1989 and the design was completed in 1991. The
design was revised in 1993 and the project was only feasible in October 1995. The
Superintendent also informed that the design was carried out by the HSSI Consultant while the
project supervision was conducted by the KJP Consultant. In the early stages of the KJP
consultant has identified a contradiction to the ground level benchmark. The design consultant
has reviewed and submitted technical reports for amendments to the design. The report also
identifies several factors that cause some changes in work including the additional work request
above the amount of RM 1,530,000.00.

JKR's Claims Committee Resolution:

The Committee agrees to approve this application.

Lesson:

Chairman suggests that long-term survey work should be reviewed before tender
documents are provided to ensure the accuracy of the information. The Superintendent
informed that there was a problem with the conflict and complexity that arose when different
designated consultants designing and supervising a project.
3.2.5 CASE 5

Case : Application for Implementation of Additional variation order to Meet

Technical Requirements under the Instructions of Superintendent
Officers

Project Name : Proposal to Protect Seremban Road - Senawang Line 1 - Senawang

Interchange) Seremban, Negeri Sembilan

Date of Site : 21 October 1996

Date of Completion : 29 December 1998

Reference : Mesyuarat Jawatankuasa APK Peringkat TKPKR Bil. 15/98 bertarikh

17 Disember 1998

Case Fact:

At the stage of implementation, the Superintendent has instructed the Contractor to

make the following changes Re-designing the barrier in the `exit ramp 'area. Existing designs
in contracts that use `carriage & guardrail 'for security aspects are inadequate. The additional
design requirements of this work are to improve the security of use based on safety odks by the
Road Branch. In accordance with the instructions given by P.P., the Contractor has designated
the construction of `parapet wall '. This additional work has resulted in additional costs.
Although this contract is `design & built 'however the P.P. the latter after agreeing with the
original design of the contractor resulted in the addition of this cost to the Contractor.`Roadside
drain 'conversion to` R.C. Culvert 'at route 1, Jalan Seremban - Tampin. The construction of
this sewer can increase traffic capacity and provide a safer route as the 'roadside drain' is
dangerous to motorcyclists.

JKR's Claims Committee Resolution:

After reviewing the instructions given by P.P. is an additional instruction not provided
for in the contract, the Committee agrees to approve in principle the alteration of the work.
Lesson:

Specifically for the `design & built 'contract, the JKR should carefully review the
required requirements for a project so that it can be clearly defined in the` work requirement'
even for minor items. This is important to avoid any additional costs which should be identified
at the beginning. Work drawings must be certified by an accredited Professional Engineer or
Architect and should be submitted to JKR for written approval prior to commencement of the
work
3.2.6 CASE 6

Case : Application To Implement Additional variation order to Meet

Technical Requirements From Security

Project Name : Pemasangan Elektrik Untuk Lampu Jalan Dual Carriage Di

Gong Kepas, Besut, Terengganu

Date of Site : 02 July 1995

Date of Completion : 23 September 1995

Reference : Mesyuarat Jawatankuasa APK Peringkat TKPKR Bil. 3/98 bertarikh

7.3.98

Case Fact:

Additional work is identified should be implemented immediately at the end of the

project's construction period. However, the application for variation order has been submitted
for approval to the Working Committee on variation order only after completion of work.
Additional wiring systems for signal light are required to be tailored to the additional work for
the installation of signaling lights that have been agreed upon at the construction of the state
JKR level.Such additional work needs to be implemented to meet the technical requirements
in terms of road safety. The Superintendent also informed that the additional works involved
were beyond the scope of the original and outside of the site.

JKR's Claims Committee Resolution:

The Committee agrees to approve the principle of variation order for the wiring system,
giving a warning that changes in work involving additional costs must be prior approval prior
to execution.
Lesson:

Any variation order involving additional costs shall be subject to prior approval prior
to the execution of the work. If additional work is to be made immediately, the party monitoring
the project must ensure that the agreement is obtained from the Superintendent / Supervisor
who is responsible for the avoidance of any inconvenience that may arise later. Additional work
outside the original and out-of-bound scope should be called on a separate contract. Dato
'TKPKR I also warned as follows: - `design review 'especially for` safety audit' needs to be
made. Statements relating to any damage or disturbance to public utilities during construction
are in progress is the responsibility of the contractor. Any planning of design requirements
should take into account the 'historical and generative needs'.
3.2.7 CASE 7

Case : Application To Implement Additional Job Changes to Meet Design R

requirements

Project Name : Menggantikan Jambatan No 181/7 Di Atas Sg Karak Jalan Bentong -

Temerloh dan Menggantikan Jambatan No 182/1, Laluan 2, Di Atas Sg
Telemong, Bentong, Pahang

Date of Site : 16 January 1995

Date of Completion : 19 August 1997

Reference : Mesyuarat Jawatankuasa APK Peringkat TKPKR Bil. 11/97 & 1/98
bertarikh 11.12.97 & 10.1.98

Case Fact:

Additional work identified need to be implemented immediately when the project is in

80% construction. However, the application for variation order has been submitted for approval
to the Working Committee on variation order only after completion of work. Additional
retaining wall structure works need to be adjusted to bridge design changes by Bridge Unit,
Road Branch, and JKR Headquarters. The completed bridge level has been elevated as much
as 3.0m from the original design. This change is due to the large flood events that occurred in
mid-1995 when the project was under construction. The temporary bridge, the road and the
'abutment' to the bridge being constructed has been flooded. Additional work at that time
should be implemented immediately because the road should be open all the time as the road
is the Federal Route 2. The level completed on the original bridge design is based on the
recorded flood level in 1971 by the DID.

JKR's Claims Committee Resolution:

The Committee agreed to approve the principle of variation order for the `retaining wall
structure 'and agreed rates. The Committee also stressed that variation order involving
additional costs should be approved prior to the completion of the work.
Lesson:

Any work changes involving additional costs shall be subject to prior approval prior to the
execution of the work. Should additional work be done promptly, the party monitoring the
project shall ensure that the agreement is obtained from the Superintendent / Supervising
Officer in order to avoid any inconvenience that may arise later. Dato 'TKPKR also provided
some guidance as follows: -

1. Before the design of the bridge, a revision should be made taking into account
additional information on floods including the incredible floods of local residents.
2. Any variation order or additions to the design during construction or at the end of the
contractual completion period should be avoided as it normally involves extension of
time and additional costs.