For 2018 Training Programme on Practical Construction Contract Administration/Management series, there will be nine (9) comprehensive training sessions, covering a wide spectrum of construction contract administration and management topics, including updates related to construction case law, which affect and are of interest to the various industry players. In addition, at the end of each session, there will be a Workshop/Q&A discussion relating each topic presented.
Most sessions are stand-alone session, based on BK Entrusty series of construction contract and management articles in areas of project, commercial, contracts, risks, quality, value and the like, published in MBAM Journal since 2002 until 2017. Primary reference will be made to the Malaysian standard forms of contract i.e. PAM, IEM, JKR, CIDB, with peripheral reference to the new Malaysian contract, AIAC Standard Form of Building Contract 2018 Edition and a common international contract, the New Engineering Contract (NEC).
Training topics include:
- Subcontracting & Health and Safety at Work (Thursday, 19 Apr 2018) – Completed;
- Instructions and Variations & Practical Completion and Defects (Wednesday, 27 June 2018);
- Payments, Final Account and CIPAA (Thursday, 26 July 2018);
- Extension of Time (Wednesday, 29 Aug 2018);
- Loss and/or Expense (Thursday, 27 Sep 2018);
- Termination and Determination & Dispute Resolution/Avoidance (Thursday, 25 Oct 2018);
- Construction Contract Law Principles & Procurement Systems and Contractual Arrangements (Thursday, 29 Nov 2018)
- Tender and Contract Documentation and Obligations, Principles of Measurement and BQ Preparation & Value Management (Thursday, 20 Dec 2018); and
- Effective Project and Risk Management & Bonds and Insurances (Thursdays, 24 Jan 2019).
For further information, please download the brochure here.
This training course is endorsed and recognized by ICES. Participants who attend at least six of the nine sessions will be eligible for advice from BK SURCO as to their potential for ICES membership and guidance with their applications for membership, subject to meeting the requirements for particular membership grades.
In the construction industry, a construction project is usually awarded by a employer to a suitable contractor through tendering process, which may involves several tenderers who have been prequalified by consultant/s. Often, the successful tenderer or contractor is usually the lowest, if not second lowest in tender price, which is derived from a breakdown of priced items, usually in a bills of quantities (BoQ), which formed part of the tender documents.
The common notion in the industry, is that the tender price when agreed between an employer and a contractor, which forms the awarded contract price, is a reasonable and feasible sum. However, competitive pricing and uncertainties in resources, economy and other risks, often make it difficult for the successful contractor to carry out and complete the construction project profitably. Consequently, some contractors resort to relying upon pricing strategy, variations and/or loss or expenses claims, to maintain and/or enhance profitability of their construction projects.
In order to ensure a fair and reasonable pricing regime and practice, many employers employ consultants, usually quantity surveyors, to prepare tender documents and conduct tender exercises. Thereafter, they undertake to review and rationalise or adjust prices and rates contained therein, normally without changing the tender/contract sum, prior to awarding the construction project to the successful contractor. Such rationalised or adjusted prices and/or rates can then be appropriately applied to corresponding variation works during progress of the construction project.
In this article, BK Entrusty aims to provide readers with a better understanding of the practice of rationalisation of prices and/or rates in the construction industry by the following contents:-
- Definition of rates rationalisation;
- Importance of rates rationalisation;
- Timing and criteria for rates rationalisation;
- Standard forms of contract (relevant clauses);
- Case Law;
Read more in PDF
“Global claim” or “composite claim” or “rolled-up claim”, as is often called is used to describe a claim for time extension, loss and/or expense or damages arising from a number of different causes, which may be interrelated and/or difficult to isolate or particularise into their respective cause and effect.
In the past, such claims seldom succeed due to the interrelated events, usually with only few or no contemporaneous records available to support them. In the assessment of any entitlement to any claims, whether additional time and/or money, it has always been grounded on “cause and effect” principle by establishing the causal linkages, supported by the relevant documentary evidence, which global claims often lack.
In order to succeed, the claimant or Contractor, in making such claim against the Employer, must be able to show the connection between the events for which the Contractor is neither responsible nor culpable for but was made to suffer or incur additional time, loss and/or expense or damages as a consequence of the events concern.
Since global claims often lack the causal linkages and relevant supporting documents, many such claims have ended up in tribunals or courts for their review and decision. In the past, the paths to such legal recourse have been rather bumpy and uncertain, until lately.
In this article, BK Entrusty aims to provide readers with an appreciation and understanding of global claims by eliciting the past and recent case law and decisions concerning such claims, including the recent landmark case of Walter Lilly v MacKay as decided by Justice Akenhead, the judge in charge of Technology and Construction Court (“TCC”) in London, who had provided some interesting and important ruling on several pertinent issues in construction law.
Read more in PDF
In the construction industry recently, the issues of “fit for purpose” and “suitability” have become increasingly controversial and are subjects of dispute between the contracting parties. Unfortunately, many contractors and sub-contractors have either misunderstood or did not appreciate the contractual and/or legal implications of such undertaking and liability when they enter into a contract with such term/s, either expressly stated or implied into the contract when they choose to propose alternative design under traditional/conventional contracting method or system.
In common law, there is an implied warranty that the goods shall be fit for such purpose for which they are required and that the buyer had relied on the seller’s representation of the goods suitability, unless expressly disclaimed, excluded or modified.
Such warranty of fitness for purpose, whether implied or expressly stated, can be found in some construction contracts that require the Contractor to undertake some form of design liability such as in Design and Build contracts and those contracts with optional or alternative design provision.
In this article, BK Entrusty aims to provide readers with a better understanding of the terms Fitness for Purpose and Suitability, by answering the following:-
- What is Fit for Purpose?
- What is the difference between Fit for Purpose and Suitability for Purpose?
- Is fit for purpose and/or suitability stated in Malaysian forms of building/construction contract?
- Is Fit for Purpose applicable to contractors who undertake shop or production drawings?
- Is the Contractor responsible to ensure that the nominated sub-contract works are fit for its purpose?
Read more in PDF