CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION FOR SITE PERSONNEL
Role of Site Personnel
 

by Gursharan Singh C.M.I.I.A.

 

1.0   Introduction

 

1.1 All construction contracts normally have Site Personnel [‘SP’]   to supervise the implementation of the works being contracted. There are two sets of ‘SP’ at each construction site. The first set is appointed by the Client whose leader is referred to as the Superintending Officer [‘SO’]. The second set is appointed by the Main Contractors [‘Contractor’] whose leader is referred to as the Site Agent [‘SA’]. The term ‘Contractor’ will include appointed Sub-Contractors and Suppliers.

 

2.0 Position of Site Personnel

 

2.1 It is the responsibility of the ‘SP’ to protect the interest of their employers .Thus the ‘SP’ appointed by the Client is referred to as ‘SO’ and those appointed by the ‘Contractor’ is referred to as ‘SA’. They both represent their respective employers and are vested with powers as prescribed by them. Both have wide powers on site except for aspects/matter where it may involve serious financial/legal implications to their respective employers and need to be referred to them before any action can be implemented.

 

3.0 Responsibilities of Site Personnel

 

3.1 Both the ‘SP’s have the same objective on site and that is to ensure that the contract is being implemented as per agreed terms & conditions, Drawings and Specifications as contained in the signed contract document. In addition the responsibilities relevant to site conditions and site records that need to be maintained to document the progress of implementation of works and others aspects relevant to the site conditions such as safety and security. The more important of these aspects that should be recorded in the Site Records is as below:

 

  • Site conditions

  • Site diaries

  • Measurement books

  • Facilities at site

  • Security and Safety measures

  • Weather conditions

  • Site workers and supervisors

  • On-site trainees

  • List of plant, machinery & equipment on site

  • Acceptable materials received, used and balance with rejects being recorded separately

  • Materials tested, approved and rejected

  • Site visits by ‘SO’ & technical professionals

  • Site inspections by regulatory authorities and others

  • Work program and progress charts

  • ‘SO’ Instructions

  • Contractor’ enquiries/requests & response

  • Projects adjoining the construction site

  • Reports of accidents or near accidents, thefts, damages, penalties

 

[Detailed articles in respect of each of the above listed aspects included in the article on ‘Site Records’ have been written and can be downloaded free from the Internet website www.auditnet.org ‘Monthly Newsletter’ Section in June 2006 issue. The article provides the objective, scope and other aspects that are explained in great detail to enable readers to easily understand the financial/legal implications in the event of neglect on non-compliance of the aspects. Further it also provides guidance on its usage by other professionals that include Board of Directors, Audit Committee Members, Technical/Financial/Audit/Legal/Others and benefit that can be obtained to assist in the cost-effective and cost-efficient management and monitoring of the implementation processes. It also provides information as to how the Site Records can be used as internal controls to prevent, minimize and mitigate mismanagement, fraudulent and corrupt opportunities and possibilities.]

 

4.0 Additional Responsibilities of the ‘SP’’

 

4.1 ‘SP’ are in a unique position to observe the surroundings as they can have adverse effects on the Clients and Contractors directly or indirectly. The surrounding site conditions and existing and future works therein can adversely effect during the current and future the safety of the works being constructed. Also the contract being implemented can adversely affect the safety of existing building/infrastructure works belonging to others. ‘SP’ should not just do what is specifically prescribed in their list of duties but should add value to their services by being observant and report to their respective employers if they observe something that can pose a threat during construction or at some future date. Some examples are detailed here.

 

[A] Highland Towers Collapse

 

4.2. The collapse in December 1993 of one tower of the Highland Tower [‘HT’] investigation committee attributed the collapse to insufficient piling for building of that height. It is possible that the underground water from the site a project under construction on ground higher than the level at which the ‘HT’ was located could have contributed to the collapse. The ‘SP’ could have observed that the underground water flow could have been contributory factor to the collapse. The liability apportionment of the owner and manager of the project was stated to be 30% and 20% respectively for which it is understood that RM52.0 million subsequently paid as compensation to the victims of the ‘HT’. Another loss was the declaration of the two other towers as unsafe. The towers were evacuated and remain so to this day to be vandalized and claimed by vegetation. The ‘SP’ of the project could have observed and informed of the danger to his superiors who could have taken mitigating factors to prevent the collapse and saved the owner from losses.

 

4.3 The ‘SP’ of the ‘HT’ was also held liable with 10% apportionment for being negligent in his site supervision duties. The ‘HT’ collapse case was a bench mark legal decision where the *Court apportioned the percentage of liability for construction failures.

 

i.     project owner – 15%   

ii     consulting engineer – 10%

iii    on-site supervisor – 10%    

iv    adjoining project owner – 30%

v     adjoining project owner/ manager – 20%

vi    approving authority [@] - 15%    [[@] immune from legal action]]

[*As was reported in the Star dated 12.8.2000]

 

[B] Jaya Supermarket Collapse during Demolition4.4

The collapse of the Jaya Supermarket building while being demolished on 28 May 2009. The media reported the Deputy Housing and Local Government as saying that initial investigation indicated that overloading caused by heavy machines used in demolishing may have triggered the collapse as eight heavy demolition tractors were in the building when the incident occurred. [The Star dated 29 May 2009 Bernama report refers. In addition a report and photographs published in the Malay Mail dated 25 6. 09 refers as it showed the number of excavators working on the upper floors prior to its collapse.]

 

4.5. The National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health stressed the importance of carrying out risk assessments before construction work was done and that the collapse highlights once again the consequences of not implementing good occupational safety and health practices at the workplace.

 

4.6 The action taken by the relevant Local Authority was reported as issuing of a ‘Stop Work’ Order, blacklisting the involved parties that included the owner, consultants, project managers and contractors. In addition to the direct losses to the parties involved there are other indirect losses which will have to be borne as several houses owners were directed to vacate their houses as they were deemed to be unsafe and their occupants were housed in hotels and their costs to be borne by whoever is to be held liable. It is also yet to be confirmed whether the insurance policy will fully compensate for all the direct and indirect losses or they may decline liability in full or part for any infringements in the demolition processes.

 

4.7 It is a possibility that the ‘SP’ may be deemed to be partly responsible as he could have been the person on site to have been able to notice the excessive load of the heavy machineries working on upper floors and not informing his superiors. It is also possible that he may claim of having reported his views to his superiors but might not be able to substantiate his claims with any documentary evidence. Thus the position of an ‘SP’ can be very vulnerable to negligence accusations by those in positions of seniority. 

 

[C] Sultan Mizan Zainal Abidin Stadium – Contract Valued RM300.0 million

4.8 The Sultan Mizan Zainal Abidin Stadium [‘Stadium’] is a new multi-use stadium in Kuala Terengganu that holds 50,000 people and was open in 2008 and built to host the 2008 Sukma Games. The roof of the stadium collapsed on 2 June 2009 at 9.40 a.m. It was reported that the Partial Temporary Certificate of Fitness [‘CoF’] was for sections that did not include the roof which collapsed was still under warranty. The Temporary ‘CoF’ that was issued by the State PWD based on the report of an independent examiner and evaluation by a local consultant commissioned to evaluate the safety of the roof even though it is held that Government buildings are exempted from ‘CoF’. The architect has also commented that he had highlighted several times the problems regarding the roof structure.

                                                                                                                                               

 

4.9 The reported actions to date include proposed probes by the MACC, Public Accounts Committee, NIOSH, and the State Government who had in addition ordered inspections of other Projects in the State some of which showed defects as in the roof of Sultan Mahmud Airport for which independent consultants were to be appointed. However all will have to wait until the investigations by the several authorities are finalized and report issued and its availability to public if approved if it is not subjected to Official Secrets Act. Nevertheless it is going to be a long wait if the past reports are to be used as a bench mark.

 

4.10 Here again it is possible that all will be looking for evidence whether the ‘SP’ observed the defects and other weaknesses and reported them to his superiors. This is another example where the ‘SP’ should document their provided views and comments in respect of any cases of weaknesses, shortcomings and defects to ensure that they had done their duties as expected of them. 

 

4.11 Furthermore, it was reported that the ‘Stadium’ roof construction defects were discovered one year prior to its collapse but not given due attention by the professionals of the Client.

 

5.0 Conclusion

 

5.1 Investigations into construction flaws and accidents almost always lead to the discovery that specifications and safety procedures have been compromised in the interest of profit and speed.
Safety standards on building and construction materials are imposed and perceived to be implemented fairly well by regulators and government agencies at the Federal level the position may not be that well regulated at Local Authorities and State level. Here the blame could rest with the professionals.

 

5.2 It is important for the Contractors to ensure that their ‘SP’ possesses the relevant expertise not only in the best construction methods but also to be well versed and experienced in the safety aspects during the implementation. The contents of Site Records as listed in paragraph 3.1 above can serve as a guide for the ‘SP’ regarding the aspects in which he should be conversant and to ensure their compliance. The ‘SP’ should not limit his duties just to construction implementation methods but add value to his duties for effective and safe implementation of construction works. The ‘SP’ should not limit the scope of his duties even with the presence of the Client’s ‘SO’. The ‘SP’ should protect himself from any allegations of neglect of duties as the ‘SP’ is generally at a disadvantage as the Client’s ‘SO’ and the others involved are deemed to be high level professionals with relevant technical professionals who may be easily protect themselves and holding the ‘SP’ responsible. 

 

 6.0 Recommendations

 

6.1 The construction industry in Malaysia is perceived as one of the most important contributors to the country's economic growth and also among the most dangerous to work in with high fatality rate. There have been reports of fatalities, injuries and serious flaws in the quality of construction and materials used in construction works every year. In all these cases the ‘SP’ as the person responsible on site can be blamed as he if well trained in safety measures and experienced could have observed the risks and dangers and thus prevented them. Unfortunately in most cases the ‘SP’ may not be provided with opportunities to acquire the relevant training and/or his advice may be ignored by the professionals in authority.

 

 

SITE PROFESSIONALS CAN PLAY A POSITIVE ROLE IN THE SUCCESSFUL IMPLEMENTATION OF CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS

But

Site Professionals must equip themselves with relevant Expertise

By

Acquiring Knowledge and Expand their Scope of Duties

 

 

 

 

GSK/July 09

Please provide feedback on this article below

Name:
Email:
Your message:

The opinions, beliefs and viewpoints expressed by the various authors and forum participants on this web site do not necessarily reflect the opinions, beliefs and viewpoints of AuditNet®