KLIA2 REVIEW - PART 3 ADDENDUM

Flaws delayed klia2 

By SHAREN KAUR AND NAJMUDDIN NAJIB | news@nst.com.my

Read more: Flaws delayed klia2 - Top News - New Straits Times http://www.nst.com.my/top-news/flaws-delayed-klia2-1.318510?cache=03d163d03edding-pred-1.1176%2F%3Fpfpentwa%3Fkey%3Dkuala+lumpur%2F7.181951%2F7.308059#ixzz2Yy3z0tjb


Deputy Transport Minister Datuk Abdul Aziz Kaprawi said 

[QUOTE]

"klia2 would no longer be a dedicated low-cost terminal, but the country's first hybrid airport, with upgraded business class services and international passenger segregation.


"He said klia2 would have a business class lounge as requested by AirAsia. The budget carrier is expanding its services to include business class via AirAsiaX.

"Aziz said klia2 would also have international passenger segregation between arrival and departure sections to address human trafficking.

[UNQUOTE]

The Deputy Transport Minister has now openly admitted that the Proposed LCCT called klia2 is no longer a dedicated LCCT Buildings and Facilities as were tendered and awarded to UEMC-Bina Puri JV.

Datuk Aziz, after being briefed by the Independent Project Auditor concluded hereof that MAHB and his Project Administrators, i.e. the Concept Design Consultant, had made such substantive changes to the original design and the ultimate product is - it is no more a dedicated LCCT, but a "Hybrid Airport" - Malaysia's first Hybrid Airport, with upgraded business class services and business class lounge and international passenger segregation sections.

The Essence - the govt wanted an LCCT;the project was tendered and awarded to a consortium at a fixed lump sum price of RM997 million to "Design and Build" the LCCT; but the project administrators forced unto the contractor to build an "International Business Class Airport".

So, do you see the main problem? Do you now know why the project is delayed? Are you able to comprehend why the contractors are suffering and kept their "Elegant Silence" because UEM is a GLC under Khazanah and MAHB is also owned by Khazanah? Do you know that the Baggage Handling System Contractor has become insolvent and is re-structuring their organization to remain solvent? Do you know why almost all the contractors suffered massive losses including UEM, Bina Puri, KUB Builders except, maybe, WCT and Gadang (because theirs are not design and build contracts; exception is gateway@klia2 which is a JV btw MAHB & WCT)? Do you know why?

Because:

MAHB paid contractors to build LCCT;
They then conduct Value Engineering and omitted and reduced substantial facilities and elements in the tendered specifications and design;
On award, the CDC forced the contractors to comply to the "Need Statement" and "Employer's Requirement" documents as per Pre-tender specifications and design concept;
During execution, the consultants appointed by CDC tried to impress the client with their zealousness by insisting on product specifications that are beyond the contracted scope and definitions;
During construction stage, tons of changes and modifications, additions and alterations were made and even until May 2013, there were still substantial changes and modifications.
So, will the airport be completed by June 15, 2013 if changes is still being made in May 2013?

I was wondering: in construction projects, we have a sub-system to manage non-comformance and such sub-system tracks all kinds of non-conformance (we called "NCRs") that include: safety misconduct or non-compliance, defects or defective works, design non-compliance and inadequacy, and all kinds of quality control enforcement issues. At the MAHB Corporate HQ project, there were more than 200 NCRs and the project is approx RM40 million; during the construction of first KLIA, KLIACS, the consultant PMC issued more than 1,000 NCRs (asked Uncle Jamilus); at Kuching Airport we had more than 500 NCRs and at Sibu Airport we also had more than 200 NCRs. All these NCRs are records needed for managing and tracking non-conformance so that the contractors will be obliged to make good those non-conformance within a specified time. Some, and in fact, quite many NCRs are in regards to workers who did not follow safety and/or health procedures; some are with regards to late material submissions, and quite many are non-substantive issues. There are also some NCRs that are critical and some that are records of defective works - all these are part and parcel of construction management. Please go to Shah Alam hospital project and check how many NCRs are issued ... asked JKR engineers about their project NCRs and you will be told there are usually more than a few hundreds. Would this airport project be 90% completed today if the NCRs are the substantive reasons of delay? The delay at klia2 is more than 18 months ...

Some of NCRs issued

Did the Project Auditor engaged by MOT analyzed the soil conditions and the substantive contributions to the settlement of the ground, unexpected soil conditions that forces the contractor to modify and re-design the structural works? Did the Auditor inform the minister that RC Piles had to be driven to support the drains, sewerage pipes and culverts? Did you know that hundreds of thousands of piles have to be added to support the structural works and external services because the soil condition was horrible and in fact this piece of land is not suitable for an airport?

More information of the soil conditions and databases inclduing forensic engineers report will be publish soon. Wait for PART 4!

KLIA2 REVIEW (PART 3)

'Main terminal hitch to blame'  
(Pg B2, Business Times, NST, 8 July 2013)



[QUOTE]


MALAYSIA Airports Holdings Bhd (MAHB) could have accelerated the remaining works at the low-cost terminal building (klia2) in Sepang, if the main terminal had been completed on time.

A company official, who declined to be named, said KLIA2 could have been opened on June 28 2013.

"Had the terminal been ready, MAHB and the other contractors would have accelerated work on the remaining packages to complete on time. This means klia2 could have been opened last month," the official told Business Times.

[UNQUOTE]

 (Read more: Main Terminal Hitch To Blame)

Many asked me when will Part 3 be released? Today! Because, I love more statements from MAHB officials. I wanted to let the public hear from the press release from MAHB and let the public grasps the story from MAHB officials. Then I will tell my story, one at a time.

Before I start Part 3, I may also be writing Part 4 to Part 8 - another 5 more installments - in stages. Part 3 will continue on the Main Terminal & Satellite Building. In Part 4, I will write about the soil conditions, the marine clay profile, the soil improvements carried out and what was the soil consolidation at the time of commencement of the new Runway construction and the impact of the soil strata on the Main Terminal Building and Satellite Building. Part 5 is a "Secret" ... (I need to seek Don Khaza's permission & get his consent).  In Part 6, I will write on the AGL System - Airport Ground Lighting System and System review of the AGL between current KLIA system, Subang Airport AGL, other airports in Malaysia and what to expect from KLIA2 and ... reveal some letters to the Prime Minister & Transport Minister (I also need to get the green light from Tingkat 4). Part 7 & 8, I have not defragment my information system as yet; will collate the facts and figures.

Ok, let me digress about the article reported on 8 July in Biz Times (NST, pg B2) as quoted above. Before I talk about the scenario, let me show you some pictures below:

Culvert & Drainage Works in Progress (photo dated: 4th July 2013)

Remarks: did you see the RC Piles at the far end?

Box Culvert construction in progress (photo dated: 4th July 2013)

Remarks: why was these drainage systems  not carried at the earlier phase, i.e. during the Infrastructure construction phase, prior to the commencement of terminal building works? Why only constructing now when the Terminal Building is already 93% completed?

Piled foundations for the drainage system in progress (photo dated 4th July 2013)

Photo shows the roof of Gateway@klia2 roof (the building at the far end is the Main Terminal Building & Satellite Building together with the Link Bridge). Gateway@klia is carried out by WCT and is jointly owned by MAHB and WCT (30:70 equity). How come you didn't hear anything about this work progress? Why is MAHB silent on this works?

Remarks: see the roof top of Gateway@klia2 and guess whether it is completed?

RC Ramp linking Main Terminal Building & Gateway@klia2

Remarks: Not yet complete, my dear (photo dated: 4th July 2013)

Drainage System at the Taxi Way connecting to New Runway - Not yet complete, my dear!
(photo dated: 4th July 2013)

Taxi Way connecting to New Runway in progress
(photo dated: 4th July 2013)

Taxi Way connecting to New Runway
(photo dated 4th July 2013)

"Had the terminal been ready, MAHB and the other contractors would have accelerated work on the remaining packages to complete on time. This means klia2 could have been opened last month," MAHB official told Business Times.

Dear Commander Zai and Datuk Azmi Murad and Dato Hamid, I am not sure who that official from MAHB is, but Zai, that statement wouldn't have been said without your consent.

Other contractors? They are facing material shortages problem - drainage layer and quarry products - (if you need their letters, I can publish ...) Ask Swee Kuari; asked Perkasa Jauhari; asked KUB Builders ... and dear Zai, can you tell us whether the AGL cabling works have commence? Or, have all the ducting works  for the AGL  completed by now? 

Dear Zai, can you brief us on the timeline and/or durations required by Customs & Immigration Department for them to install their network system including data cables and system integration?

Dear Zai and Datuk Hamid, can you tell the public about the ATH (Air Transit Hotel) construction and when they will complete? If their works are situated at Satellite Building, how can you expect the Terminal Building contracts to be completed when your third party contractors have yet to complete their works which affects the Certificate of Completion (CCC application)? Also take note that the Interior Design works and Retail Outlets currently in progress (i.e. works by third parties) will also affect the CCC application and Bomba Inspection and certification before CCC can be issued. If CCC cannot be achieved because of third party works, can you impose LAD??? Did your Legal Department brief you on the laws and principles of Contract? Do you know that your Contract Administrator is ignorant of the Law of Contracts when he issued the CNC without exhausting all the events of delay caused by the Employer and/or his Representatives (i.e. CDC) and the failure to consider the delay events caused by the Employer, consequently, the failure to grant EOT for such delay will render "time-at-large"? (Example: S.I. issued on VO works during the period from March to June 2013 where works were delayed due to the additional VO works instructed by the Employer?

Dear Zai, please read Clause 20.4(g) and Clause 20.5 of your Conditions of Contract pertaining to Clause 20.2(c) on Exceptions to Risks that result in "Damages to property and/or Works which the unavoidable result of the Design or Execution of the Works in accordance with the Contract …" Did you know that the Forensic Engineers' report states that the "Soil Consolidation" and "Vertical Drains" installed previously by your Infrastructure Contractors (and subsequently removed prior to achieving the consolidated shear force together with the Surcharged soil strata) was the critical element that create the "forces of nature" and to the extend that sheetpiled shoring system could not withstand the lateral forces acted upon?

Abdul Aziz Kaprawi will be briefed by the forensic experts ... get ready to brief Aziz as he is new to klia2 (oh, Don will also like to have a breakfast meeting)

WAIT FOR PART 4 ...

***

(p/s: a Voice, you should visit KLIA2 together with Bro Dato Rocky.)

KLIA2 - REVIEW (PART 2)

Front Page News Report by The Star on 2nd July 2013

I was driving to Penang this morning when I was alerted to another article published by The Star today about KLIA2.

The news captioned title: "New deadline another flight of fancy?"

I pondered and many asked me the same... I answered: 'Do you know what you are asking?'

Let me try to answer this question posed:

(1) The KLIA2 Project is a Program consisting of many projects - Main Terminal Building and Satellite Building & Associated Works by UEMC-Bina Puri JV,

(2) Runway & Taxiway by KUB Builders;

(3) Gateway@klia2 building by WCT;

Other packages include Control Tower, Earthworks, AGL Systems, etc, etc.

UEMC-Bina Puri's contract is about RM997 million only. The total airport cost as reported by MAHB is about RM4 billion. So, do not talk as if this project is only RM1 billion or as if it is UEMC-Bina Puri project.

To commission this project we need all contractors to complete their works, including those who are not appointed yet (if any, and I think there are ... ask Uncle Jamilus and he can tell you)

I was asked by Don Khaza: 'What is your opinion of the delay to this project?'

I asked back: 'Do you want the truth or half-truth?'

Of course he wanted to know the TRUTH ... (i wonder...)

Ok, Let me tell you what I said, which he is now pondering whether I said the half-truth:

My opinion - there are many reasons which was never contemplated by those managing the project, including MAHB and UEMC and also Bina Puri (and I don't think they do at all)

(1) The Main Terminal Building & Satellite Building Package was tendered as a LCCT - i.e. Low Cost Carrier Terminal Buildings and the potential contractor must "Design-and-Build" (D&B) this LCCT based on the Need Statement, Employer's Requirement & Concept Drawings issued by MAHB and complete the project within 20 months (Date of Commencement: 16 Aug. 2010 and Date for Completion: 15 April 2012). So, in such a fast-track type of project, there are some fundamentals that must be adhered strictly if it is to be successfully completed within the time period awarded:

(a) The design by the Contractor's Consultants must be done and approved within 6 months and the such design submission & approval must be frozen within that short period,(i.e. no more changes); however, massive alterations, additions, modifications and substitutions took place since 2010 and up till the month of May 2013 we still have substantial design modification, alteration, substitution and addition.

(b) The designs were to be carried out by consultants appointed by the Contractor and the Concept Design Consultants (CDC) employed by MAHB were to be merely Design Checker/Auditor - but they performed their duties over and above that they were contracted to do (we called "Bo Derek-ers" or "Bo 10"); their duties were only to audit & check the engineering & architectural designs submitted by the D&B Contractor to ensure that the relevant standards and codes are adhered, i.e. compliance to the Need Statement and Employer's Requirement (as stated in the Contract) but they do more than their scope - they impose their discretion and preferences with regards to the type and brand of products and specifications, their choice of project site personnel (they ordered the Contractor to remove qualified staff for esoteric reasons), they challenge the Contrator's Design and Contractor's Design Consultants' design standards, etc, etc. Rightly or wrongly, the CDC should have been the Design Consultant if you observed the phenomena ... that would have speeded up the works!!!

(c) The Contractor was given a Concept Design (produced by CDC) by MAHB together with the Need Statement and Employer's Requirement (ER) documents during the tender. Thereafter, the Contractor is suppose to engage their own design consultants to present their design for approval which was supposed to be "Design that complies to the AITA, NACO & ICAO Standards for LCCT Airport. However, during the tender negotiation stage, the CDC and MAHB were overzealous to conduct "Value Engineering" (VE) exercise by resizing and downsizing and modifying the tender submissions made by the Contractors (who had priced it in accordance with the Concept Design). Finally, UEMC-BP JV were awarded the project (tho' they tendered as separate entity and due to MAHB innovative idea, UEM married Bina Puri contractually). What the CDC did not know at that point in time when doing the VE exercise was that they had downsized or "right-sized the scope of works that runs contrary to AITA, NACO & ICAO Standards (ANI). So, when the Contractor was asked to submit an audit report based on the ANI Standards, the discrepancies were exposed and had to be rectified subtly, and must be subtle ... ; (Another puzzle: how could a VE exercise be carried out during the conceptual stage where there were no design drawings? What was VE-ed were the contents and elements that constitute a complete LCCT as envisaged during the concept stage. Once the VE-ed concept was awarded, the CDC continue to insist on the original Need Statement & ER which was modified & addressed in the Tender Clarification documents - that the ER had been VE-ed (reduced/modified/omitted/changed/excluded); so how would you get the contemplated airport that was VE-ed? Added to the puzzle is that this LCCT has now an automatic baggage system and link bridges that was not what LCCT is about - so we got "low cost apartments that resembles condominium facilities"; however, thereafter, the contractors would have to start managing and/or massaging the variation orders to recoup the cost overrun)

(d) Interestingly, (not many knows this, including Pua Chu Kang's cousin, Tony P, Uncle Bashir and Don Khaza too; oh, general Hamid &  commander Zai knows!), works which were excluded from the original contracts as awarded to UEMC-BP JV and were suppose to be "Future Development" works were added (example: Airside Terminal Hotel, we call it ATH Hotel, and various others, such as retail outlets, I.D. works, etc);

(e) More interesting facts: The buildings, i.e. Main terminal and Satellite Buildings including the State-of-the-Art steel link bridge, were to be constructed on a piece of land called "Mangroove Swamp" that was rehabilitated a year before the award and during the month of August 2010, where UEMC-BP JV was to start work, on "Fast-Tracking Processes", the land was still under "Surcharge" and the surcharge was yet to be removed. Consolidation of the soil, which is "Marine Clay" had yet to achieve the "shear force" value as indicated in the tender document. And the contractor has to start excavation and piling works on a soil condition that had yet to achieve the required consolidation ... what a great engineering!!! Did Uncle Bashir knows this? Don Khaza was shock when he heard this (luckily he didn't faint or suffer heart attack.)

(f) I can't find enough space to write more phenomena; maybe, I will write a book entitled "The Success & Failure Factors of KLIA2" and dedicate this book to Uncle Henry (luckily he doesn't know me ... hope so!!!)

SO HOW DO YOU COMPLETE A 20 MONTHS PROJECT WITH SO MUCH COMPREHENSION - VALUE ENGINEERING (SAVE COST),  TRIPLICATED CONSULTANTS MANAGEMENT, GREEN BUILDING INDEX COMPLIANCE AND COMPLEX BUREAUCRACIES? OH, I MAY FORGET, OVERZEALOUS CDC EXPERTS!!!

What may be unknown to Don Khaza and Uncle Bashir is that, volumes of documents, facts sheet, evidences, photographs and forensic engineering reports were being compiled and stored in strong room awaiting to be commission if MAHB decides to go ahead with the LAD - we will get Desert Storm 2 reactivated! The artillery and ammunition are procured, subtly, in the bunkers; awaiting to be unleashed!

And lastly, we have the Law of Tort to deal with professional negligence... the QCs are waiting to jump into the bandwagons and get fees in millions!!!

Wait for PART 3 ...

KLIA2 - Review

Below was the news report published by The Star on Saturday June 29, 2013 entitled:

The blame game of KLIA2

The Star Online > Business

Saturday June 29, 2013

By CHOONG EN HAN
han@thestar.com.my 

I like to make a few comments on some of the facts and statements that was made by Datuk Azmi Murad, the General Manager of MAHB.

[QUOTE from Para 5-7 ]

According to MAHB operations senior general manager Datuk Azmi Murad, the last-minute instructions are just minor changes needed by stakeholders, and this doesn't affect the completion date of the seven sectors of the terminal itself.

Among the requests are the addition of 45 more immigration counters, and additional ticket booths and counters.

“The instructions for the immigration counters are a valid point, and the contractors can apply for extension of time (EOT) to justify the extension. This may take only a further two to four weeks to complete, but does not justify an EOT for one year. The JV (referring to UEMC-Bina Puri JV, who is the Main Contractor for the Main terminal Building and Satellite Building & Associated works) already has enough time to complete the works before June,” he says.

[UNQUOTE]

My remarks:

As reported, Datuk Azmi acknowledged that “the instructions for the immigration counters are a valid point and the Contractors can apply for EOT to justify the extension.” (ibid) 

But what was puzzling is: Datuk Azmi had acknowledged the VO works for the extra 45 immigration counters and that such additional works (or what we call, 'Variation Order' works) may take 2 to 4 weeks to complete. This statement in itself means that the Contractors are contractually entitled to EOT. The fact is, this VO Instruction was issued on 29th May 2013 and the Contract Completion Date is 15th June 2013. So, would MAHB still expects the Contractor to complete the works by 15th June 2013? And if Datuk Azmi admitted that it may only take 2 to 4 weeks to complete, then the Contract Administrator (CA) must perform his fiduciary duty by granting the Extension of Time (EOT) accordingly. However, the CA failed to do so, and instead chose to issue the Certificate for Non Completion on 16th June 2013 and thereof imposed the LAD. From the presentations made at the press conference on 28th June 2013 at the KLIA2 site, there were quite many instructions issued by MAHB for additional works and modification of designs during the period between March to June 2013. The period between March to June was significant as the earlier EOT granted was made on 15th March 2013. As such, it was imperative that the CA would have to assess the EOT fairly and reasonably.


It is trite construction law that there will be implied into every construction contract terms whereby the owner shall cause the Contract Administrator (CA) to act fairly, impartially and within the times required by the contract conditions. It is also understood that the CA has a legal obligation to so act, using his 'professional skills' and 'best endevours' to reach the correct decision rather than necessarily deciding in the owner's favour.

On the legal perspective, the Employer and/or his Contract Administrator (CA) had wrongfully issued the Certificate for Non Completion (CNC) because it is trite law that the CA is duty bound, before issuing the CNC, to act fairly and reasonably, by assessing and exhausting all the events of delay caused by the Employer before he forms his opinion, and that the Contractor has no more valid entitlement to any EOT. However, the Variation Order instruction to add 45 extra immigration counters was issued only on May 29, 2013 while the CNC was issued on 16^th June 2013, i.e. 2 weeks later.

Clearly, the Contract Administrators are ignorant of the law of contracts. What is puzzling is the fact that MAHB has a legal department filled with legal experts.

In Peak Construction (Liverpool) Ltd v McKinney Foundations Ltd (1970) the Court of Appeal held that Peak Construction was not entitled to recover Liquidated Damages from McKinney. The Court of Appeal found that at least part of the 58-week delay had been caused by the corporation itself, and no attempt had been made by the corporation to extend time. Accordingly, there was no date from which Liquidated Damages under the main contract could begin. Lord Salmon held “If the failure to complete on time is due to the fault of both the employer and the contractor, in my view, the clause does not bite. I cannot see how, in the ordinary course, the employer can insist on compliance with a condition if it is partly his own fault that it cannot be fulfilled.”

The Court had held that:

'Notwithstanding that the Contractor is not entitled to or has not claimed an extension of time, the Superintendent Officer (SO) or CA may at any time and from time to time before the issue of the Certificate for Non Completion (CNC) by notice in writing to the Contractor extend the time for practical completion for any reason.'

In such a case where MAHB and his CA has issued the CNC and LAD notice, Edmund Davies has this advice: 

“The stipulated time for completion having ceased to be applicable by reason of the employer’s own default and the extension clause having no application to that, it seems to follow that there is in such a case no date from which liquidated damages could run and the right to recover them has gone.”

Importantly, common law courts have construed extension of time clauses narrowly when determining their application to events of owner-caused delay. By way of example, courts have held that clauses providing general grounds for delay, including the catch all 'other causes beyond the contractor's control' and 'for any cause not under the control of the builders', will not cover specific acts of prevention by an owner. As stated by Professor Wallace QC as editor of the 11th edition of Hudson's Building and Engineering Contracts, it is likely courts interpreted these clauses narrowly because of their dislike of, and willingness to invalidate, liquidated damages provisions for any event not expressly provided for in a contract or within the contractor's scope of responsibility. 

A well-known example of the prevention principle is the 1971 English Court of Appeal judgment, Peak Construction (Liverpool) Limited v McKinney Foundations Limited.

In Summary, it can be observed that MAHB had shot their own feet by issuing the CNC and invoking the LAD while at the same time, they acknowledged that they had knowledge of the delay events caused by the issuance of Written Instruction for Variation (legally classified as Employer’s Delay) whereof MAHB and his CA had failed to grant the necessary EOT to the Contractor. In this circumstances, the Contract will become time at large and any wrongful deductions enforced unto the contractors’ payment will be construed as an Act of Prevention to Completion and a Fundamental Breach of Contract that activates Section 56 and Section 74 of the Contracts Act 1950.

PARA 11 of the News report

[QUOTE]

Besides the incomplete terminal, the taxiway and the new Runway 3 are also unfinished, which according to MAHB would not prevent KLIA2 from a delayed opening as it can direct air traffic to KLIA2 via the existing Runway 2, assuming if the terminal was operational.

[UNQUOTE]

REVIEW & LEGAL OPINION ON PARA 11

According to the report, MAHB states that “the taxiway and new Runway 3 (contracted to other corporations) which are unfinished till today (where EOT was granted until August 2013) would not prevent KLIA2 from a delayed opening (in reference to June 15, 2013 completion date for Main Terminal Building & Satellite Building Contract) as it can direct air traffic to KLIA2 via the existing Runway2, assuming if the terminal was operational.”

I am puzzled and flabergasted! How is it possible for MAHB to assume that the terminal can be operational without the planned taxiway at the Main Terminal Building and Satellite Building? The taxiway and runway has not been completed and will not complete till probably September 2013. So how do the airplanes get to the link-bridge to allow the passengers disembark? And would DCA permit the airplane to land at the airport where construction works and heavy machinery and equipment are still plying and working at the airport sites? What are the safety compliance standards and requirements specified by ICAO, IATA and NACO for this LCCT? The photographic proof and evidence of the existing site conditions will convince any judges to dump this argument. MAHB prides itself of their international standards of Management of Airports and such statement will be embarrassing to potential airport owners.

PARA 12 [QUOTE]

First envisioned to become a low cost carrier terminal (LCCT) with a price tag of RM1.9bil, it has ballooned to RM4bil featuring state-of-the-art specifications. It is a LCCT but definitely not a low cost terminal. 

[UNQUOTE]

REVIEW & OPINION ON PARA 12

Rightly said, this KLIA2 is not a “Low Cost Terminal” as envisaged in the tender document. The design was intended and tendered out to the Contractors as LCCT but the enforcement of the Concept Design Consultants (CDC) who forced unto the Contractors to deliver a detailed design that encompasses high state of the art specifications that ultimately produced a High Cost Terminal (similar or of much higher standards and specification compared to the current KLIA Terminal) for a Low Cost Carrier Terminal Design-and-Build Contract which may be arbitrated in a legal forum at a later date.

Related Story:

MAHB adamant about LAD fine

 

The Blame Game of KLIA2

Main contractor of KLIA2 to appeal fine for delay