In addition, the IEM forms also do not cover construction contracts because there is a desire not to duplicate existing PAM forms (and possibly the new CIDB form). A successful standard contract form would be suitable for managing the day-to-day relationship on a construction site and providing parties, professionals and site staff with a clear and definitive understanding of their roles and responsibilities. Users and practitioners should be aware of the respective standard form of the contractual conditions used. It would therefore be useful to express the commitments of the parties and to set out the scope of the project with appropriate clarity. It is based on the perceived healthy sense of the problems that experience has taught in the context of construction contracts. Precision in the drafting of contracts is crucial to avoid litigation. The main forms of ICE model contract forms used locally are as follows: Alongside the supply route that the public sector took for its work until the mid-eighties, the private sector inevitably developed its own standard forms to meet projects carried out along the traditional route of general contractors. The impetus came from the Malaysian Institute of Architects or Pertubuhan Arkitek Malaysia (PAM) for its core business, i.e. the construction works that led to the publication of the pam/ISM series of standard forms in 1969.
Engineers did not find the right PAM/ISM forms for their engineering and infrastructure applications. Initial attempts to adapt the PAM/ISM and ICE, IMECHE and IEE forms to the respective local applications have not been very successful, as evidenced by the lack of enthusiasm for this use and the litany of disputes generated. This led the Institution of Engineers Malaysia (IEM) to develop its own standard forms in the late eighties and early nineties. Currently, PAM and IEM forms are the main standard forms used in the private sector. where the CIDB made a recent entry. As mentioned earlier, the CIDB has taken the ball rolling by designing and publishing standard contract forms, with the CIDB Standard Form of Contract for Building Works (2000 Edition) being the first form of its kind. This form is attached to the standard contract form for named subcontractors, i.e. the CIDB form.
B(NSC)/2002. For domestic subcontracts, the CIDB has introduced the “Standard Conditions for Contractual Construction Work (Rev 2007)”, while a standard form for design and construction contracts remains in preparation and is to be published in the coming years. Unfortunately, just like JKR, CIDB has still not created standard forms for other types of contracts such as turnkey, management contracts, etc. For more details on the philosophy behind and production of these forms, one can refer to the scientific article entitled The Malaysian Standard Form of Building Contract [2nd Edn]. [13] Here are some of the main types of international/foreign standard contracts used in Malaysia: Although the 1963 JCT form was gradually revised over the years to address its weaknesses and shortcomings, the PAM/ISM form remained relatively unchanged until it was completely revised and replaced by a new standard form in 1998. i.e. the 1998 PAM form. [12] Only five years after the publication of the 1998 WFP form, PAM initiated a review process to create a more balanced standard contract form.
The above resulted in the drafting and publication of the latest revised forms, which include:[14] In general, the engineer is only an arbitrator when he has to resolve a dispute between the contractor and the employer. The contractor often anticipates that the engineer will hear disputes that may arise from time to time. The fact that the engineer has useful expertise and first-hand experience in the field of construction is intended to provide an appropriate means of dispute resolution. On the other hand, the rationale for the appointment of the engineer as a quasi-arbitrator was questioned with respect to the quasi-arbitrator`s duty of impartiality. [33] The contractual relationship between the engineer and the employer is often cited as a reason why the engineer may be biased in his decision, although the engineer`s obligations to the employer as a representative do not affect his duty as a quasi-arbitrator. Contractual practice in Malaysia also appears to be consistent in adapting fidic`s 1999 revisions to the above forms and in using the following new forms, namely: 2.2.9 Below is a brief guide to understanding the contractual context in which the engineer operates in Malaysia under a FIDIC contract: 2.2.6 In the Malaysian aloe vera (M) decision Sdn. Bhd.c. Avacare Inc.[24], the court ruled that it had adopted an exclusive jurisdiction clause contained in a contract. However, the court went on to say that in exceptional circumstances, it would allow a party to bring a lawsuit in Malaysia independently of the agreement. The reason for this was that the court decided that, otherwise, the lawsuit would have to be brought first in the foreign jurisdiction and then in Malaysia. The court considered that this would lead to a duplicity of the procedure and costs, not to mention a significant delay in the execution of the application, which would further prevent the applicant from finally obtaining his appeal. It should be borne in mind that there is currently no standard PAM form for the following contracts:[15] Instead of developing and designing a new standard form for itself, PAM adopted in 1969 in collaboration with the Institute of Surveyors Malaysia (ISM) the 1963: JCT[10] Standard Form of Building Contract (Reprinted 1968)[11] with the necessary modifications as the flagship standard form.
. . .