AGENDA 3.1.2 - Board of Engineers Malaysia

RECOMMENDATION 

BY THE INVESTIGATING COMMITTEE TO THE BOARD 

CASE : Cadangan Projek Penjara Reman (Tegar) Fasa 2 di Mukim Pulai Daerah 

Johor Bahru, Johor Darul Takzim 

COMPLAINANT 

: AHAR Consultants Sdn Bhd 

RESPONDENT : AYA Engineers Sdn Bhd 

INVESTIGATING 

COMMITTEE 

FACT OF THE 

CASE 

: Ir. Fong Tian Yong (Chairman) 

YBhg. Dato’ Ir. Kok Soo Chon 

Ir. Rocky HT Wong 

AGENDA 3.1.2 

: Background 

The complainant AHAR is the M&E consultant for phase 1 of the above 

project appointed by the D&B Contractor ISTS-JV on 2007. Before the 

construction works for phase 1 ended on April 2011, they claimed to have 

received instruction from JKR, the project Director to proceed with phase 2 

M&E design on June 2010. They claimed to have completed the design 

and tender documentation by Dec 2010 and submitted to JKT HODT 

(Head of Design Team). 

However, on Mac 2011, they were informed that phase 2 project was 

awarded to the same Contractor as D&B contract and the contractor has 

submitted new M&E consultant, AYA as the M&E consultant. 

As such, AHAR regarded that such appointment as supplanting as they 

are sure that AYA would have known AHAR involvement during phase 1. 

They regard such action as supplanting and/or attempt to supplant and this 

has contravened the BEM professional etiquette. 

IC’s findings 

a) There was no dispute that the D&B contractor has only appointed one 

M&E consultant for phase 2 i.e. AYA. AYA has also sought the 

reconfirmation from D&B contractor that they are the only M&E 

consultant appointed for phase 2 of the project in writing before 

accepting the appointment. 

b) JKR pro-active step in assuming the method of future contract (phase 

2) and requesting informally the Complainant in performing some the 

M&E design works for phase 2 may have mis-led them into thinking that 

they will be appointed eventually. The Complainant admitted that they 

assumed some risk when they perform the design works before any 

official appointment. 

c) It is very clear from the above that the element of supplanting does not 

exist at all since the client has not appointed any one before appointing 

the Respondent AYA for M&E works for phase 2. Appointment of phase 

1 cannot be linked to Phase 2 as far as design works is concerned as 

they are separate matter. 

____________________________________________________________________________ 

IC’s RECOMMENDATION 

The IC recommended that there shall be no charge to be taken against the Respondent, 

namely AYA Engineers Sdn Bhd.

Page 1 of 22

AGENDA 3.1.2 - Board of Engineers Malaysia

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?