About toIlet Costs
TOILETS UPGRADING SAGA
In 2007 Mr. R. Ong, who joined the committee recently, commented that the condition of the toilets at level 1, 2 and canteen were very poor. This was because there highly used by the public. However knowing that the current fund was insufficient for the entire toilet upgrading. Mr R. Ong proposed to upgrade the said 3 locations first. After which, the owners could decide to carry out an entire toilet upgrade and pass a resolution of one-time levy.
The MC discuss it for 1-2 months.
Chairman knew it was not fair to upgrade toilets
(
He also knew that Mr R Ong had not declare his interest in the project
as the project was undertaken by his subcontractor and friend )
The Chairman voice out his concern that the public might not agree with the decision as fair to upgrade the said 3 locations. Mr R. Ong was certain to address the public with the fact that the toilets’ conditions were so poor due to high usage. And being part of the building maintenance work, it was right time after 23 years.
Without the knowledge of the Management Council, he got his contractor to renovate and upgrade the the male & female canteen toilet. That was the show sample, as the MC presumed.
The Canteen's toilet was upgraded without quotations & approval
The cost came up to $14,230.00 (see for yourself photos – 2 small toilets -). The MC was made to pay as the then chairman felt that even as the council have not given any permission for him to proceed, the MC has to pay, since it was completed.
At the 26 June 2007 MC meeting, Mr R Ong proposed to the Council that the rest of the toilets should be upgraded as well. However, in view of the limited maintenance fund, he proposed to upgrade the toilets at one side of each blocks. After which, the Council could upgrade the rest when the maintenance/sinking fund was enough. The cost to upgrade toilets at one side of each block is $298,502.
Most of the MC Members objected and gave the comments
Mr Lee ( MC secretary) suggested that the Council should call for an extraordinary general meeting for those upgrading work to be approved.
The Council decided to call for a vote to select between the following options
Upgrade car park only ---- cost $300,000
Upgrade Toilet and Pipe only --- cost $750,000
No upgrade at all
The result from voting showed 5 votes for upgrading car park,
6 votes for upgrading toilet and pipe and
1 vote for no upgrading at all
Click here to edit this text.
Other Owners or subsidary Proprietors came to know about it and 2 owners wrote 2 letters to voice their concern and felt strongly against the decision to upgrade the toilets because of the cost involved.
In the MC meeting , 07 Aug 2007, the Chairman, confirmed in the minutes that the letters will be treated as informal feedback from the owners and MC will not reply to them.
The chairman seeks the opinions from Council members and the
following was minuted
the extract from the minutes are :-
Chairman Opinion
Para 4.
Chairman visited the toilets on 6th August 2007 with Mr Lee , Mr D Poh and MA. It was agreeable that the toilet condition at 1st & 2nd floor were very bad. The poor condition came from the tiles mainly
1st Member Objection
Mr J Poh visited 4th, 6th and 7th floor male toilets and found that all fittings were still working well. It would put to a waste if they had to be change.
Mr Ow commented the maintenance and repair work should continue as and when necessary. No further comment.
2nd Member Objection
Mr Chow felt that the amount of funds used to upgrade the toilet was huge and it would be sensitive to make decision without the consent from SP. He was also concern that SP would complain to the MC with such decision. Mr Chow suggested to seek SP's opinion on this issue
3rd Member Objection
Mr Chee commented that the toilets with poor condition should be improved. It would spend all the funds if all the toilets were to upgrade. It could raise queries form the SP if the toilets were randomly upgraded. Some SP might not be satisfied because their floor of toilets were not upgraded first. He suggested to conduct a survey from SP with regards to upgrading of toilets.
4th & 5th Member Objection
Mr.Kuah felt that the SP should be aware with the toilet upgrading proposal. This was also because the sinking funds were accumulated for 20 years by the MC. It was over great effort from the MC. The existing fitting-out were newly installed a few years back and it would be a waste to change them. Furthermore, he felt that the SP elected the council to save money and not to spend all.
Mr. D Poh was concerned over the insufficient funds to carry all the works. He also understood that toilet and car park upgrade were important but he preferred to seek more opinions before going ahead.
6th Member Objection
Mr Yeo disagreed that the sub-committee should approve projects involved a hugh amount of money. In fact, it was always the practice to seek the final approval for the MC for all projects.
7th Member Neutral
Mr. Thomas Leow felt that the council should come to a compromise ---------
Mr Thomas Leow added that he suggested to renovate the toilet and named them Executive toilet. The Council disagreed with this idea because it would be sensitive and a form of discrimination.
Mr R Ong was surprised to see the 2
letters from SP. There was a building sub-committee meeting held and decided to
instruct MA to survey the toilets. Then,
it was found that the conditions of 1st & 2nd floor toilets were poor. Mr R Ong also
felt that MC should take up the decision and execute the work. He insisted to
do the toilets upgrading
Chairman instructed all MC members to keep all matters confidential.
Chairman further added that the decision made by MC should be kept confidential and not to discuss with the SP.
At the 28 Sept 2007 MC meeting.The chairman instructed MA to write a circular to all unit owners that the toilets were under repair & maintenance based on relevant authorities' requirement. MA will also make the necessary arrangements for the job to proceed
There we no relevant authorities' letter and Building Control Authority was never notified
According to the MA, Mr Edward Foo – on 1st Oct 2007, Mr Richard Ong instructed, LBC Interior Design (unlicensed company) to proceed with the upgrading works on the 625, 2nd level and 1st level.
There were no other comparsion quotations.
The MC has not given the approval
No contract was signed.
No work order was issued
At the 22nd Oct 2007 Sub Committee Meeting Item 2.0 Para 5
There was a payment issue. Mr Richard Ong, acting on
behalf of the contractor, heard the situation and fully understood the
contractors' position. He agreed that the payment of $38,000 should be made to
LBC soon. However the council was concerned that it would be overpaid to the
LBC and LBC's commitment was in doubt. Mr. Richard Ong claimed that he would
take personal responsibility if LBC failed to carry out work..
Para 9
Mr Derrick Poh evaluated the situation and agreed to sign the cheque because the following criteria was met.
The amount of work completed till date was calculated up to $69,0000
LBC claimed $28,500 (previously) and $38,000 (now). So far, the total amount was
$66,5000. In fact MC was still holding $2,500.
The treasurer and the secretary did not want to sign the chegue as there were no
invoice, contract or payment voucher approval from the MA
2. Mr Richard Ong agreed to undertake responsibility if LBC failed to carry out work.
At the 26 Oct 2007 5th MC meeting the toilets issue were further discussed.
The following notes were minuted
Instruction to Commence work was incorrect
The Chairman addressed the issue. The project was not implemented correctly. There is a fault in the operation procedure. Chairman explained that standard procedure for any project required minimum 3 quotations before considering the award of the contract. MC could overwrite the 3 quotations provided that the price was justifiable and specification was clearly stated. After all, MC had to be prepared to defend if any query arises.
No proper Contract
Chairman continued that, in the event contract was awarded, there must have a proper contract document.
Invoice from LBC only stated the price payable and a general description of work scope. Details such as insurance, workman compensation, scope of works and payments terms were not stated clearly.
Therefore, contract had to be formed before contractor carried out its work. If the above mentioned were all in place, there would not be any dispute.
Further elaboration by
the Chairman, office bearers do not require to conduct site inspection before
payment to contractor, unless they choose to. MA or any appointed consultant
had a duty to check and certify the job done. The lift upgrading work was a
very good example of such practice.
Reason for not paying
In this case, there was no certification by MA. Percentage of work completed was uncertain. MC had no ground to pay the contractor accordingly.
Overall the project did not exercise proper procedure and resulted to Office bearers unwilling to sign the cheques. Mr Richard Ong trusted LBC and would honors personal guarantee to MC.
Mr Lee Kong Seng added that Mr Lim Hong Leong did not sign on the payment voucher and therefore office bearers were not willing to sign the payment.
Commencenent of Work was Unauthorized
Para 8
Mr Lim Hong Leong explained that MA refused to sign on payment voucher because LBC did not declare his work completion on phase 1 and handing over of toilets were not completed.
The Contract Document had to be signed and accepted by both parties and hand over inspection had to be done before MA could recommend the payment
Mr Lim Hong Leong further elaborated that the phase 2 contract was based on job done per unit rate. This was because some existing taps were in good condition and was not recommended to be change. The existing taps had to be returned to MC after changing. Material quality had to be accepted by the MC
Para 11
Mr Lim Hong Leong added that for the entire project, the contractor had to sign the contract document prepared by MA. The contract will spell the scope of work, specification, terms and conditions and payment terms in details After the contractor had completed the work, he had to approach MA for inspection before MA could prepare payment for MC's signatory
LBC was called to the meeting to sign the contract with the Council.
The Agreement signed on 26th Oct 2007 was backdated to14 Sept
2007
Notes: (the members who sign
the backdated contract were Mr. Richard Ong, Mr Yep & Mr Chua H & Mr Poh)
. None of Office bearers wants to initial the contract
The then Treasurer was made to a sign cheque payment $41,700 under of duress
26 Oct 2007
Treasurer, Mr Yeo wrote a letter to Mr Lim Hong Leong, placing on record that he signed, under duress, the Cheque payment of $41,700 to LBC Interior Design & Renovation, based on a payment voucher prepared and authorized by Lim Hong Leong, without any attached documents and on Lim Hong Leong verbal confirmation that all works in phase one has been completed and fifty percent of phase two has been completed Mr Lim was put to note that the job proceeded without proper contract and without proper procedure required to enter into a contract
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ON 27 Nov 2007 – at the 6th Council Meeting of 23rd Management Committee
The following were further discussed and minuted
Chairman Update
Item 3.3
The Chairman updated the meeting and explains all relevant issue relating to the Toilet Renovation & Repair / Maintenance works.
It was realised that the toilet upgrading work did not execute with proper procedure and contract document
Explanation to Mr Richard why payment cannot be made
Chairman called for new quotations
Chairman continued that MA was also instructed to invite 4 companies to quote for the supply & install mirrors, water tap, floor taps and cubicle lock. This is find out if LBC had given MC a reasonable market price
Para 4
After evaluating the 4 quotations, the meeting felt that the cost for the floor trap as quoted by LBC was high. This was based on the average of four quotes obtained for floor traps and not based on the lowest quote. The meeting in deliberation agreed that costs of rest of the items were reasonable. Therefore to address concern that MC had taken prudent measure in awarding the toilets renovation contract to LBC, the meeting agreed that LBC reduce $3,180 from the final payment. Mr Ong did not agree
Decision not to allow any member to interfere with the toilet project
The Council instructed that no any council members were allowed to interfere in this matter outside of council meeting. If LBC did not agree with the $3,180.00 reduction, no payment shall be released until the decision from the Council in the next council meeting in January 2008. The decision was agreed unanimously by all present with no objection. All council members present were requested to raise any objection opinion with regards to this decision. There were none.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
At the 11 Jan 2008 - Sub Committee Meeting
The following issues were further discussed and minutes
Members at Blk 62 - 2nd level admitted giving Instructions
Item 2.2
Mr Richard Ong informed that Mr Yep GK, Mr Chua Hong and himself approved the installation of 4additional basins installed in the toilets at level 2. The cost of the basin was $2080. Mr Richard Ong also reiterated that the council had given the liberty to subcommittee members to approve maintenance works up to $3,000
He requested the council to pay up $4099.50 of the remaining contract sum and $2080 for the additional basin
Free Basin
Mr Derick Poh recalled that MA ever mentioned the additional basins were no
cost to MC. MA certainly remembered that LBC offered the additional basins for free.
Mr Richard Ong felt that MC should pay the contractor promptly and maintain its integrity and reputation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
At the 29 Jan 2008 - 7th Council Meeting; of 23rd Management Committee -
The Chairman made the decision to pay
Para 3
Chairman explained to the meeting that Mr
Derrick Poh and himself released the payment of $4,400 (phase 1 retention) and
$6,295.50 (phase 2,3 progress payment)
But Mr Richard insists to pay dispute amount to the contractor.
Mr Richard Ong mentioned that the council should release the disputed amount of $3,180. He added that the installation of additional basins were under the instruction of Mr Yep Gee Kuarn, Mr Chua Hong and himself. In their opinion, there was no basin for level 2 – toilets and decided for the week of the building occupants. As for the $6,600 worth of additional jobs that were not billed, he felt that MC should take into consideration and release the disputed amount of $3,180 and addition basins of $1,080
In conclusion the Chairman establish the following
Item 3.2
Chairman identified that there were 2 issues after all.
Issue 1 - is to decide whether to pay the disputed amount and additional basins.
Issue 2 - is to identify whose responsible.
In his opinion, there should be proper implementation of the contract and procedure to select the material.
