On TOILETS UPGRADING ISSUE
- The Toilet
Upgrading proceed even when 2 SP wrote in protest
- The Canteen Toilets were upgraded without calling for quotations
- There were no comparable quotations for the toilets except Quotations to upgrade ALL the Toilets.
- The contractor started upgrading of Toilets upon instruction by a
- member. There was no contract signed between the MC & the contractor
- The Upgrading of Toilets were awarded to LBC ( it was discovered that their company was not registered )
- The work
commenced on 1st Oct 2007 and the contract was signed on 26th
Oct 2007 back dating it to
- The Total amount spend was $100,265.00
Canteen toilets - $14,230.00
1st & 2nd Level toilets - $44,000.00
Repairs /Tiling to other toilets - $40,995.00
Basins (Blk 625 Level 2 - Gents Only) - $ 1,040.00
Total Paid = $100,265.00
Extract of Notes from Management Council Meetings and Information
4 May 2007 10th Council Meeting of 22nd Management Committee
Item
3.5
2
more quotations were submitted for toilet upgrading works
1. Valve Consultancy quoted a Lump Sum cost of $980,539.00 for the entire project
2. LBC Interior Design & Renovation quoted a unit rate of $5,981 (per Type A Toilet)
$6,239 (per Type B Toilet) and $7,530 (per ground floor Toilet)
Comparing to the previous quotations, LBC quoted the lowest price
Locations
Mr. R Ong 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.
Chairman knew it was not fair to upgrade toilets
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.
25 June 2007 - 1st Quotation
C07/2410 amounting to $81,852 for toilet Type A
C07/2411 amounting to $64,430 for toilet Type B
C07/2412 amounting to $283,503
Item 3.5
The renovation work for both male and female toilets had been completed at the cost of $14,230. The council is pleased with the overall design and appreciates Mr R Ong’s effort
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.
Members Objection
Mr Kuah mentioned that some areas of the car park lots have sunken badly and it was recommend repairing soon. Mr Lee further added that there was a resolution passed in the past AGM of a limited spending to the Maintenance fund for the Management Council. The cost to either upgrade the toilets or road surface was relatively high. It was not possible to execute both works together because it would result to insufficient maintenance funds. The Chairman proposed to appoint building sub committee to discuss and prioritized the importance of the work before the next council meeting.
31 July 2007 2nd Council Meeting of 23rd Management Committee
Item 3.3
MA presented to the meeting a maintenance & sinking fund forecast over the next 3 years. It showed that the funds were insufficient if all the important repair works had to carry out. The Council was quite concerned over this matter. MA suggest that the toilet & piping upgrading and car park upgrading work should be carried out together singe both were important ------
EOGM Needed
Also,
Mr Lee 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
07 Aug 2007 Council Meeting
Item 2.0
Opinion from Owners.
Chairman
presented to the council with 2 letters from 2 Subsidiary Proprietors.
The owners felt strongly against the decision to upgrade the
toilets because of
the cost involved.
Chairman Treat letter as feedback
However the letter will be treated as informal feedback from the owners
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
1'° 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
Insists to Do
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 execuate the work.
Chairman instruction 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.
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 safisfied 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. Leow felt that the council should come to a compromise ---------
Mr 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.
4
Aug 2007 Requote 1st Quotation
Amended Quotations
LBC Interior & Design & Renovation
Upgrade 1st & 2nd floor toilets $44,784
Addition items per toilets $ 650
Other Floor Toilet repairs $52,000
28 Aug 2007 - 3rd Council Meeting of 23rd Management Committee
Only 2 quotations received
Item 3.3
2 contractors
reverted their toilets upgrading work quotations as follows;
1. T&T Builidng $100,100.00
2. LBC Interior $ 96,784.00
Only 1 & 2 level toilets click ex Chairman Reply to BCA
The scope of work consisted of full renovation level 1 & 2 toilet according to level8 canteen toilets and spot repair for the remaining toilets. After evaluating the quotations, the Council decided to choose LBC Interior Design & Renovation, being the lowest quote and previous contractor for renovating level 8 canteen toilet as the contractor .The Council also budgeted the amount within the range of $ 93,000 to $95,000. The building sub-committee would proceed to negotiate the price with LBC and confirm the scope of work in detail -----
Mr Lee proposed MA to ensure what need to be repaired and mark the defective tiles and fittings and produce the quantity list and to identify what need to be replaced and the number of units of toilets before the contract is given.
28 Sept 2007 4th Council Meeting of 23rd Management Committee
Item 3.3
After deliberating on toilet renovation and repair works, the committee felt that it would be very costly to upgrade toilets and Management Corporation did not have the necessary funds to do so now.
Para 3
The building sub-committee should negotiate the contract sum with LBC Interior Design and finally the price was agreed at contract sum of $95,000. The work scope included full renovation of 1st & 2nd Toilets and sport repair for the rest of the toilets.
LBC requested for 30% down payment ($28,500) before commencement of the toilet upgrading work. The council expressed concern over the large amount of down payment to LBC. Before they could even commence work. As a result, the council decided to release 15% down payment ($14,000) to LBC and the remaining $14,500 would be payable upon arrival of all material.
No relevant authorities' letter
The council also 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
1st
Oct 2007
Remarks : Commenment of work was instructed by Mr R Ong (according MA Mr Edward Foo)
22nd Oct 2007 Sub Committee Meeting
Item 2.0
Acting on behalf of Contractor
Para 5
Mr R Ong 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 LBC and LBC's commitment was in doubt. Mr R Ong claimed that he would take personal responsibility if LBC failed to carry out the work.
Mr
D 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 $69,000.
LBC claimed $28,500 (previously) and $38,000 (now).
So far, the total amount was $66,500.
In fact MC was still holding $2,500
Mr R Ong agreed to undertake responsibility if LBC failed to carry out work
26 Oct 2007 5th Council meeting of the Management Committee
Speaking on behalf of Contractor
Item 3.3
Mr R Ong raised the concern that it was discussed and agreed in the last council meeting to pay the contractor upon the completion of work at individual stage. The reason that the contractor chased the payment was his price was low.
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 cheque. Mr R Ong trusted LBC and would honors
personal guarantee to MC.
Mr Lee
added that Mr Lim did not sign on the payment voucher and therefore
office bearers were not willing to sign the payment.
Commencement of Work was Unauthorized
Para 8
Mr Lim 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 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
Agreement signed on 26th Oct 2007 with Agreement backdated to14 Sept 07
Para 11
Mr Lim 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
Notes: (the members who sign
the backdated contract were Mr. R Ong, Mr Yep & Mr Chua H & Mr Poh ). None of Office bearers wants to initial the contract.
Treasurer signed cheque payment $41,700 under of duress
26 Oct 2007
Treasurer, wrote a letter to Mr Lim, 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, without any attached documents and on Lim HL 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
27 Nov 2007 - 6th Council Meeting of 23rd Management Committee
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 realise that the toilet upgrading work did not execute with proper procedure and contract document
Explanation to Mr Richard why payment cannot be made
The second payment payment of $38,000 to LBC progress payment was signed by Mr D Poh with his understanding from MA that about 70% of the work had to be completed. After which, there was no other signatories and payment was not made to contractor. Mr Lee also added that there was no recommendation by the MA on the payment voucher, hence no office bearer was willing to approve the payment.
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.
11 Jan 2008 - Sub Committee Meeting
Members at Block 625 - 2nd level admitted giving Instructions
Item 2.2
Mr R Ong informed that Mr Yep, Mr Chua and himself approved the installation of 4additional basins installed in the toilets at level 2. The cost of the basin was $2080. Mr R 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 D 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
29 Jan 2008 - 7th Council Meeting; of 23rd Management Committee -
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chairman decision to pay
Para 3
Chairman explained to the meeting that Mr D Poh and himself released the payment of $4,400 (phase 1 retention) and $6,295.50 (phase 2,3 progress payment)
Mr Ong insists to pay dispute amount to the contractor.
Mr R 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, Mr Chua 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
Chairman to establish responsibilities
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.
