In all construction projects there is bound to be an employer. He would have to engage a main contractor to execute the works under the contract. It is a common feature that is based on the requirements of the New Economic Policy of the government - the tender process could be a closed or an open tender.

Nonetheless, the tender is more often granted to a main contractor where the capital ownership is 100% bumiputera. Whether it is a standard form of building contract or not, there would be a book which is normally prepared by an architect. This person is engaged by the employer , who is the builder.

The duties and responsibilities of the architect, among other mattes, would be to prepare the plans, drawings, the specifications, the contract documents, the Bill of Quantities and generally to supervise the execution of all the works for and on behalf of the employer.

The architect plays a crucial role in any project as he has to ensure that the works are completed in accordance with the provisions of the contract. To ensure that all works are carried out in accordance with the plan, drawings and specifications of the project, he would have the services of a consultant(s), engineer(s) and quantity surveyor(s).

From the start of any project, the role played the consultant engineers such as the structural engineer or the mechanical engineer or the electrical engineer would be rather limited in nature.

This is owing to the fact that their professional knowledge and assistance would only be sought when the progress of work requires their opinion, for drawing a conclusion as to whether the completed work is in accordance with the specifications of the contract, which comes within the preview of their expertise.

Now, having had noted the roles and responsibilities of the various professional actors, it is time now to deal with the progress claims that are submitted by the various contractors. In all construction projects, there would be a committee that would be constituted to verify and approve progress claims that are submitted for payment to be processed.

The committee would normally constitute the employer's site representative, the consultant's representative, the architect's representative and the quantity surveyor. The contractor will prepare and present his progress claim.

It would only be normal and as required and expected that the committee would have to make a site visit with the contractor to determine that the progress claim made has been carried out in accordance with the specifications and the Bill of Quantities.

If the progress verification is approved, it is in compliance with the contract. If it is not approved, the progress claim will be returned to the contractor for corrections to be carried out and the contractor would have to re-submit his claim for review.

If the verification is approved, it will be handed over to the contractor who is present at the meeting. He would then have to proceed to submit the approval according to the set procedure to secure his payment.

Based on the above procedure, which is an established one, and if the architect and the other actors had strictly adhered to the plan, drawings and the specifications, no buildings will collapse by itself.

What prompted the writing of this letter were the remarks made by the director-general of the Public Works Department which appeared on June 8 where Prof Judin Abdul Karim said priority should be given to companies that exhibit capacity and capability.

So, is this an open confirmation that all these years the ‘Ali Baba practice' has been in existence, with no check and balance? Neither has there been transparency or accountability?

After having institutionalised mediocrity in all facets and strata of Malaysian business and commercial life, can you change it by an academic press release? I do not think so.

If the intention is good, you should be the first to admit the fact, that it may take at least one generation or more to bring about the changes, to your academic press release. The degree of all the financial liability has all along been conveniently transferred to the taxpayer.

Why do you not sue the negligent parties in court?