31 July 2013

JKR Site Investigation Schedule of Rates_2012

JKR's Bahagian Perolehan & Khidmat Kos, Cawangan Kontrak & Ukur Bahan IPJKR has the news. "KLJKHSI 2012 telah pun mendapat kelulusan treasury dan telah diupload ke laman web CKUB pada sekitar awal tahun ini" The link is at http://www.jkr.gov.my/ckub/penerbitan.asp and refer to the item 4 'Jadual Kadar Harga Penyiasatan Tapak' for the published Site Investigation Schedule of Rates.

24 September 2009

MSIA Members Ethic 101 - 1st Scenario

Submitted by KA Ang based on feedbacks from friends in our community for all to read and perhaps comment on what Ethics is all about.

Subject: MSIA Members Ethic

Dear Friends,

Is there such a word call Ethic among all of the MSIA members? Yes, I believe there is BUT it will be on probably various degree of scale of lets say 0 to 100 lah.......depending on individual member’s perception. I do not believe that any of our MSIA members fall in the "0" ethic category but some of our members may argue that some other members are "0" ethic but that is not what I want to argue about today...Please bear in mind that we are all just the same human beings and each one of us some how and some where along the passage through live path will always does it utmost not to cause unnecessary harm – materialistic, physically or emotionally….of course some times things are done inadvertently and causing unnecessary anxiety to others…..but that is probably I guess human nature lah……

In the current competitive market, price cutting well below the MSIA Schedule of Rates to get a project is normal and no one can say the lowest price winning bidder is unethical. MSIA has no tooth and power to enforce the Schedule of Rates but this Schedule of Rate is an established goal for MSIA to bring forward the member friends to move ahead in this Site Investigation business in a more professional manner and to improve further on the quality of work. Nevertheless, among all of our member friends, we should be able to share information among our member friends on those Poor Pay Master Contractors, Frequent Defaulter Contractors and Bad Hat Workers. I strongly believe that none of us would like to see our member friends suffer the fate for not getting paid by the “lousy contractors”. I honestly believe that it is not our normal human instinct to be in joyful mood and clapping hands when we noticed our member friends have suffered for not getting paid by the “lousy contractors”. Of course if our member friend was being fore warned but still proceed to carry out the project given by the “lousy contractor”, then all of us can only feel sorry for him when he was not getting paid… what can u do when someone is brave enough to commit “kamikaze” by picking up the supposed risky job.

In the last few months, there were some instances that were probably related to our member friends in the so call ethical issue. I am just outlining the one scenario for friends to share and hopefully we can be more cooperative in the near future on how one member’s action may affect another member’s well being. To be frank, none us of would like to be the sufferer…. I am a very simple minded person, I always believed that what’s goes around comes around…… I hope the following scenario serve as an example for all of us to share and I honestly hope that this kind of event will not happen. But I guess it will continue to happen – just hope that the frequencies can be reduced if not totally stop….

Scenario No.1

Firm A did a large grouting/lab/instrumentation work for close to RM2.x millon contract for “Lousy Contractor” and gotten progressive payment RM1.x million and the “Lousy Contractor” refused to make further payment upon completion of works. Upon repeated request for progress payment but not forthcoming for months, Firm A took the necessary action by stopping the instrumentation monitoring program work and severing the instruments’ cabling but with special coding (just in case when they were paid, they can make good the instruments)– since the instruments and monitoring works were not fully paid. I guess that was the last measure taken by Firm A…I am sure none of us would like to do such a thing…. Firm B was contacted by “Lousy Contractor” to investigate the “faulty instruments” that were severed by the Firm A and “DO GOOD” the instruments at site for further monitoring works. As soon as Firm A got hold of information that Firm B is being engaged by the “Louzy Contractor” to assess the “DO GOOD” works, Firm A immediately call Firm B and over the phone explaining to Firm B the scenario on why the instruments at site were severed. Firm B informed Firm A that he has already quoted the “DO GOOD” job to the “Louzy Contractor” and he has gotten the Purchase Order of about RM2xx K from the “Louzy Contractor” and he has to honor the Purchase Order of RM2xx K. Currently Firm A is suing the “Louzy Contractor” and most probably can’t get any more payment as the company is a “shell” company which will probably be sued to be winded up eventually and get nothing out of it. What I would like to highlight the following : The BLOODY “Louzy Contractor” may be is taking Firm A for a ride….and pocketed the RM8xx K.....The “Louzy Contractor” get away with the continuing monitoring of the instruments by engaging Firm B “DO GOOD” the instruments at site that required to be submitted to the consultant before the “Louzy Contractor” can claim his retention sum. Firm B knew very well it was a payment problem site for Firm A upon receiving call from Firm A but still proceed to carry out the work due to the “committed” business ethic integrity of doing business when quoted and accepting the purchase order from client. Firm A and Firm B friendly parties? I do not know….But I believed they were BUT not now….. Firm B may not feel he did anything wrong in this case. He quoted and honored the quote and carried out the work. Firm B must be a very proud contractor as he completed his works and get paid for RM2xx K. Firm A treated Firm B like enemy no. 1 now……because of Firm B continued to DO GOOD the instruments and ended up the “Louzy Contractor” refused to make any more payment to Firm A. I would like to add the following comment to the above scenario….In this part of the world, there are only very limited contractors that carrying out the instrumentation works and when one see the “brand” of the instruments being used at site, one would be able to easily identify the contractor that carrying out the instrumentation work. So, the main CULPRIT is the “Louzy Contractor” and Firm B became a “none volunteering” or “volunteering” accomplice?

So, I would just want to post 1 simple question: If you are in Firm B’s shoe, what would you do when Firm A call you up and informing you about the back ground in regards to the “DO GOOD” work that you have yet to start the works? There is no right or wrong answers to me lah…..basically every single one of us perceived things differently and we have to accept the differences BUT we can reduce the “gap” of the differences……That’s the whole idea of setting up of MSIA to help the members to weather the storms created by those “Louzy Contractors”.

Will continue with Scenario 2 next week……Cheers….

02 March 2009

MSIA 2007 Rates Download

Click on the links to download:

The pdf version of MSIA Schedule of Rates 2007 (without advertisement) can be downloaded at http://msia.com.my/downloads/MSIA2007_Rates.pdf (3146kB)

The MS excel format can also be downloaded at http://msia.com.my/downloads/MSIA_Rates.xls (143KB)

23 February 2009

Workers absconded with lorry and equipment


We are looking for the following men who on a contract from Subsurface Engineering SB have disappeared with company lorry and other equipment. They last contacted the office about 2 weeks ago:

Mohd Hasnur Hisham Bin Mat Dagang
IC: 790122-06-5507

Mohd Safaruddin Bin Mat Dagang

Ng Chak Ngoon
Subsurface Engineering SB

After the MSIA-IEM Seminar, the JKR slope section under Dr. Aziz formed a committee to evaluate the performance of top-drive and spindle-drive machines and also how the quality of SI (boring) is affected by the wash-boring as compared to the method advocated by Mr. AW Shaik.
MSIA was represented in the committee by PK Choong, Safaruddin, and Ng CN. After one committee meeting, we were sent via email from Mr. Devagaran Samugavelu of JKR the description of the six test holes would be drill. It was clear that the testing was not properly thought out. Here was my response to this email. It was not responded to and the trials went ahead as planned. Till now, we have not received any report from JKR on this matter which I assume is a failure because of the absence of any logical basis for the trials to be carried out:

Dear Mr. Devagaran Samugavelu

To the best of my understanding of what has been written, my comments are asfollows:

The two documents together, especially that titled "Drilling With TopDrive" seem to be an attempt to compare three different methods of drilling:

  • Using the top drive machine
  • Using the water jetting method
  • Using the rotary method.

The confusion between methods and machines is clear. Is it not possible to use both a top drive machine (tcm) and spindle drive machines (sdm) for bothwater jetting AND the rotary method? It will be too long to go into the comparison of different types of drilling machines here but unfortunately this is basis of this whole exercise which is to verify two separate claims proffered without any justification orsupporting evidence:

  • The use of tcm is superior to sdm for site investigation.
  • The use of water jetting (or washboring) disturbs the soil and therefore, rotary boring is the method that should be used.

The obvious danger here is that we seem to be going into this exercisewithout being clear on the issues which we are trying to resolve. The comparison of drilling machines and drilling methods would be better if we tabulate the essential features of drilling machines and drilling methods. I have tried to do exactly that by rearranging the document"Drilling With Top Drive" into a table. Unfortunately, I find that the defining or essential characteristics of one(machine / method) are not accompanied by the equivalent of the other. Furthermore, when I did this, it also became clear that not only machine is compared against machine but method as well, the flaw in logic which I attempt to highlight in the earlier point.

Ng Chak Ngoon