of higher fees does not arise at all for the
CCC regime if the Scale of Fees is adopted
judicially as mandated by the Boards. In fact
the reverse is true when many PSPs have
lamented about their professional fees being
frequently squeezed down by developers.
c. Non-technical issues left unaddressed
Non-technical issues such as Bumiputera
quota fulfilment, should never be used
to cloud the issuance of a CCC for the
sake of other deserving and longsuffering
purchasers. The Government earlier agreed
to take this contentious factor out of the
CCC issuance in order to speed up the
entire process. The PSP should actually be
very relieved for not being held responsible
for resolving non-technical issues, contrary
to what was expected by DPSR. Resolution
of non-technical issues is strictly between
the developer and the LA, with no
involvement of the PSP.
f. Consultants’ Site Supervisors not included
in CCC procedure
The preclusion of Site Supervisors from
the CCC procedure was an initial setback
when the AG chambers removed the Site
Supervisors from the Form Gs as they were
not registered then and could not be held
accountable. However even without their
participation, the Engineers have taken
on the responsibility to vouch for the site
supervision work, with only a few cases
of poor supervision being reported to the
Board. The Registration of Engineers,
Malaysia Act 1967 was amended in 2015
to register the Inspector of Works (IOW)
and the Board is still in the process of
registering IOWs who work as the site
supervisors. Dialogue will be made with
KPKT to include IOW signatories on the
UBBL Form Gs in the near future.
g. Matrix of responsibility not effective
d. No quality control mechanism
The issue of quality of the building
construction is not within the scope of the
CCC regime and neither was it in the CFO
regime. This is a contractual issue to be
resolved by arbitration or litigation by the
relevant affected parties.
e. Lack of flexibility in implementation
The same change of circumstances of a
project will affect the Building Plan approval
process rather than the CCC process which
is also no different from the CFO process.
However, the CCC process allows for partial
completion using Form F1 if the partial
completion is planned early and submitted
in the Building approval process. Any
variation to the phases to be completed can
be changed by resubmitting the Building
Plans for approval. Hence this claim of lack
of flexibility in implementation revealed
the lack of understanding by DPSR on the
whole building approval process.
The Board need not register contractors,
sub-contractors and tradesmen to make
the matrix of responsibility effective. They
are already registered with CIDB, SPAN,
ST, IWK and other bodies regulating them.
When they signed on the Form Gs, their
names and registration numbers are
recorded and they can be held accountable
for their scope of work. Any complaints
can be made to the respective regulating
bodies.
h. Ambiguity in approach
There is no ambiguity in approach
in the CCC regime. The breaches in
understanding the CCC process by certain
LAs are isolated occurrences by wayward
officers who insist on doing it their way.
They have been reminded time and again
by KPKT to toe the line. This is a structural
problem involving the State following
Federal directives on CCC and constant
education on CCC amongst LA officers is
a necessity. KPKT made the ruling that if
the SP has complied with everything the
75