Audit: Lebuhraya Senai-Desaru gagal ujian jalan

Hafiz Yatim-mkini


Laporan Ketua Audit Negara 2010, berhubung pengauditan Lembaga Lebuhraya Malaysia (LLM) mendapati beberapa kontraktor telah membina lebuhraya Senai-Desaru di beberapa bahagian dengan turapan Dense Bituminous Macadam (DBM) yang kurang daripada ketebalan minimum 95 mm.

“Lawatan Audit pada bulan Oktober 2010 juga mendapati kualiti kerja pembinaan lebuh raya kurang memuaskan.

“Mengikut spesifikasi kontrak, ketebalan minumun turapan DBM yang dibenarkan adalah 95 mm manakala ketebalan turapan DBM mengikut lukisanApproved Detail Design adalah 100 mm,” petik laporan itu.

Menurutnya laporan itu lagi, ketebalan paling rendah yang dicatatkan adalah 72 mm manakala bacaan tiga lagi ujian yang dijanlankan menunjukkan ketebalan - 81 mm, 89 mm dan 79 mm.

“Permukaan jalan didapati beralun dan tidak rata di sepanjang lebuh raya bagi Pakej 1 dan 2. Selain itu, beberapa bahagian permukaan lebuh raya telah rosak, kasar dan berlubang walaupun baru setahun dibuka kepada pengguna.”

Ia juga mencatatkan bahawa Pakej 3 iaitu pada kilometer 77, tidak siap mengikut masa pada 18 Julai 2008 dan terpaksa dilanjutkan sebanyak tiga kali sehingga 31 Disember, 2010, kerana kontraktor utamanya menghadapi masalah kewangan, kenaikkan harga barangan yang digunakan dan masalah cuaca.

Bagi Pakej 3 juga, kontraktor sepatutnya membina ‘pelindung sungai’ atau river protectionbagi menghalang hakisan kerana projek itu merentasi lima batang sungai.

“Bagaimanapun, pihak Audit mendapati river protection di tebing jambatan lima sungai tersebut masih belum dibina. Keadaan tebing jambatan yang belum dibina river protection adalah di Sungai Layau dan Sungai Papan.

“Reventment Protection perlu dibina bagi mengelakkan hakisan tanah di kawasan yang telah ditentukan di sepanjang lebuh raya. Pihak Audit mendapati syarikat konsesi belum membina reventment protection di kedua-dua arah lebuh raya,” kata laporan itu lagi.

Aidila Razak-mkini

Projek pembinaan Kem Muara Tuang, Sarawak yang eslesai pada Februari tahun lalu, masih belum lengkap dan beberapa kecacatan serta kepincangan mula terserlah, kata Laporan Ketua Audit Negara 2010.

Menurut laporan itu, hanya 95.7 peratus berjaya disiapkan meskipun kerajaan telah membenarkan tiga kali lanjutan tarikh akhir untuk projek bernilai RM214.43 juta.

Pasukan audit juga mendapati kerja-kerja dijalankan tidak mengikut spesifikasi yang ditetapkan.

Antaranya, kayu yang tidak berkualti digunakan, kecaccatan kerja-kerja konkrit, kerja lepaan simen yang nipis dan bahan-bahan kalis air mula tertanggal.

“Berdasarkan pemerhatian tersebut, pihak Audit telah memberi teguran kepada perunding/kontraktor dan pada bulan Mac 2011, Tim Projek memaklumkan bahawa tindakan telah diambil oleh kontraktor untuk membaiki kerja tersebut.

“Sekiranya kerja yang tidak mengikut spesifikasi/tidak berkualiti yang dibangkitkan tidak diperbaiki, pihak Audit akan mengesyorkan kepada Kementerian supaya nama perunding dan kontraktor ini disenaraihitamkan,” petik laporan itu.

Kontraktor berkenaan Konsortium Jendela Hikmat Sdn Bhd (JHSB) juga didapati belum  membayar bon pelaksanaan RM10.72 juta, seperti yang dikehendaki oleh Kementerian Kewangan untuk projek-projek yang bernilai melebihi RM200, 000.

JHSB, yang telah dianugerahkan kontrak berkenaan pada Mei 2006, memberi alasan seperti kenaikan kos bahan-bahan pembinaan akibat perkembangan ekonomi yang tidak menentu memberi kesan kepada nilai tanah yang dibangunkannya.Kos penjara naik tetapi saiz jadi kecil

Di Sarawak pula, pasukan Audit mendapati pemnbinaan penjara baru Kuching, yang bertujuan menggantikan penjara uzur di Jalan Penrissen yang dibina pada tahun 1882, hanya siap kira-kira lapan tahun selepas tarikh permulaan projek itu pada 6 Mei 1997.

“Pelaksanaan projek pembinaan penjara baru Kuching adalah tidak memuaskan kerana projek yang sepatutnya siap dalam tempoh 3 tahun 3 bulan telah mengambil masa 11 tahun 2 bulan.

“Selain daripada kelewatan pelaksanaan projek oleh kedua-dua kontraktor, proses pelantikan kontraktor kedua untuk membaik pulih dan membina semula penjara baru telah mengambil masa 2 tahun 7 bulan,” kata laporan itu lagi.

Walaupun membabitkan kos lebih tinggi, namun saiz penjara telah dikurangkan daripada 103 blok ke 65 blok dan hanya mampu menampung 1,366 nbanduan dan kakitangan penjara serta bukannya, 2,665 seperti mengikut perancangan asal.

Laporan itu membidas kelewatan dalam pelantikan kontraktor kedua, sebagai antara punca kenaikan kos.

Proses untuk melantik TSR Bina mengambil masa dua tahun dan tujuh bulan, dan sepanjang tempoh itu struktur bangunan termasuk besi dan kayu yang digunakan mulai karat dan reput.

Gagal patuhi spesifikasi punca stadium runtuh

Gagal patuhi spesifikasi punca stadium runtuh

Jan 7, 10 6:56pm

Bahan dan kualiti hasil kerja yang tidak memenuhi spesifikasi dikenal pasti antara punca utama struktur bumbung kerangka Stadium Sultan Mizan Zainal Abidin, Terengganu, runtuh Jun tahun lepas.

Menurut laporan jawatankuasa siasatan kejadian itu, faktor reka bentuk yang tidak memadai, bumbung yang tidak dibina dengan sempurna dan kawalan kualiti yang tidak dilaksanakan di tapak projek turut menyumbang kepada kejadian tersebut.

Menteri Kerja Raya Datuk Shaziman Abu Mansor yang mendedahkan laporan jawatankuasa siasatan itu hari ini berkata, siasatan juga mendapati pengawasan yang agak kurang ketika kerja-kerja pembinaan selain dilakukan secara tergesa-gesa turut menjejaskan kualiti stadium berkenaan.

Mengulas perkara itu, Shaziman berkata laporan itu telahpun dibentangkan dalam mesyuarat Jemaah Menteri semalam yang juga bersetuju supaya laporan itu diserahkan kepada kerajaan negeri Terengganu, manakala satu lagi salinan dikemukakan kepada pejabat peguam negara, katanya kepada pemberita di Kuala Lumpur.

Shaziman, yang ditemui ketika mengadakan lawatan kerja ke Hubungan Kerinchi Arah Utara Lebuhraya Skim Penyuraian Trafik KL Barat (Sprint) dekat sini, berharap kerajaan negeri Terengganu dapat menggunakan hasil laporan itu untuk mengambil langkah susulan.

"JKR juga telah memaklumkan kepada kerajaan Terengganu supaya kerja-kerja mengubah runtuhan yang ada di kawasan stadium itu boleh dilakukan dan kerja-kerja pembaikan boleh dimulakan," katanya.

Dalam kejadian pada 2 Jun tahun lepas, bumbung stadium berkenaan di Gong Badak yang berharga RM300 juta dan siap dibina pada Mei tahun yang sama untuk Sukan Malaysia (Sukma) ke-12, runtuh secara tiba-tiba.

Ekoran kejadian itu, sebuah jawatankuasa siasatan terdiri daripada 10 wakil daripada pelbagai agensi kerajaan dan badan profesional berkaitan diberi masa enam bulan untuk melaksanakan penyiasatan dan menyiapkan laporan akhir ekoran kejadian keruntuhan bumbung utama stadium berkenaan.

Jawatankuasa itu dipertanggungjawab antara lain untuk mengenal pasti punca kejadian, mengesyorkan langkah-langkah pencegahan bagi mengelakkan kejadian itu berulang dan mengemukakan cadangan pembinaan semula stadium.

- Bernama

HUMIDITY AND ARCHITECTURAL WORKS

example of skim coating works under high humidity level. Note the water ponding on the floor which contibute high humidity to the working area.

Humidity is a very sensitive issue on some architectural works i.e painting and skim coating because it will affect the final result of the works.
It is very 'common sense'. If the environment is wet (high humidity level), the wet air will interact with the material (eg. skim coat and paint). The result will not be seen instantly but as time pass by, it will appear. Normally the yellowish water mark or in worst condition it will create water soak layer. this water soak layer will peel off later on and rectification have to be made.

Therefore, humidity level must be checked before the works started. Normally the manufacturer of the product have already set the humidity level allowed to work in. Its no point of speed up your work but later on you have to rectify it. So, to avoid double handling, just follow the manufacture's instruction which is also (normally) included in the Work Method of Statement,

Quality Assessment System in Construction (QLASSIC)

Quality Assessment System in Construction (QLASSIC)

Quality Assessment System in Construction (QLASSIC) is a system or method to measure and evaluate the quality of workmanship of a construction work based on the relevant approved standard. QLASSIC enables the quality of workmanship between construction projects to be objectively compared through a scoring system.

Objective of QLASSIC

• To benchmark the quality of workmanship of the construction industry.
• To establish a standard quality assessment system on quality of workmanship of construction work.
• To assess the quality of workmanship of a construction project based on the relevant approved standard.
• To be used as a criterion to evaluate the performance of contractors based on quality of workmanship.
• To compile data for statistical analysis.

“ASSESS QUALITY OF WORKMANSHIP USING QLASSIC”

Scope of QLASSIC

QLASSIC sets out the standard on quality of workmanship for various construction elements of building and infrastructure construction work. The quality of workmanship of a construction work is assessed according to the requirement of the relevant standard, and marks are awarded if the workmanship complies with the standard. These marks are then summed up to calculate the QLASSIC Score (%) for a construction project.

QLASSIC assessments are carried out through site inspection and use the principles of first time inspection. Construction works that are rectified after an assessment will not be re-assessed. The objective of this principle is to encourage the contractor to “Do Things Right the First Time and Every Time”.

QLASSIC Assessors

QLASSIC assessment on a construction project shall be carried out by assessors that have no interest and any relationship with that project.

All assessors shall fulfil requirements and undergo training set by CIDB. Only assessors that pass the training will be registered with CIDB as qualified QLASSIC assessors.

Assessment Approach and Sampling Process

Prior to carrying out the assessment, construction elements that need to be assessed are determined through a sampling and statistical approach. These samples shall be distributed evenly throughout the project or various construction stages. Assessment samples are selected from drawings and plans of the relevant construction project. All locations in the construction project shall be made available for the assessment. This is to ensure that the selected samples adequately represent the entire construction project.

Construction Industry Standard (CIS 7:2006) on Quality Assessment System for Building Construction Work

This CIS 7 was developed in November 2006 by CIDB’s Technical Committee (TC) that comprises of representatives from Public Works Department (PWD), Jabatan Perumahan Negara (JPN), Real Estate and Housing Developers Association (REHDA), Pertubuhan Akitek Malaysia (PAM), Master Builders Association Malaysia (MBAM), National House Buyers Association (HBA) and other relevant organizations. This standard specifies requirements on quality of workmanship and assessment procedures for building construction work. The requirements in this standard are divided into four main building components:

a) Structural Works

Assessment is carried out throughout the various construction stages. The numbers of samples are determined based on the gross floor area (GFA) of the building, with a minimum and maximum number of samples.

Structural work assessment comprises of the following building elements:

• Reinforced concrete structure (formwork, pre-cast specific requirements, finished concrete, structure quality and NDT).
• Structural steel work.
• Pre-stressed concrete.

b) Architectural works

Assessment is carried out upon project completion with Certificate of Practical Completion (CPC) and prior to handing over. The numbers of samples are determined based on the gross floor area (GFA) of the building, with a minimum and maximum number of samples.
Architectural work deals mainly with the finishes. This is the part where the quality and standards of workmanship are most visible.

Architectural work assessment comprises of the following building elements:

• Ceiling
• Floor
• Internal wall
• External wall
• Roof
• Perimeter drain and apron
• Door and window
• Internal and external fixture

c) Mechanical and Electrical (M & E) works

The numbers of samples are determined based on the gross floor area (GFA) of the building, with a minimum and maximum number of samples.

Assessment is carried out throughout the various construction stages or upon project completion with Certificate of Practical Completion (CPC) and prior to handing over.

M & E work assessment comprises of the following building elements:

• Electrical work
• Air-conditioning and mechanical ventilation work (ACMV)
• Fire protection work
• Sanitary and plumbing work
• Basic M & E fitting.

d) External works

Assessment is carried out upon project completion with Certificate of Practical Completion (CPC) and prior to handing over. The numbers of samples are determined based on 10m length section or per location, with a minimum number of samples.

External work assessment comprises of the following building elements:

• External drain
• Road work and car park
• Link-way or shelter
• Footpath and turfing
• Playground
• Court
• Fence and gate
• Swimming pool
• Electrical substation

CIS 7 also specifies the sampling guideline and the weightage allocated according to component and building category (see Table below).

Table allocation of weightage according to component and building category

Component	Category A Landed Housing	Category B Stratified Housing	Category C Public Building	Category D Special Public Building
Structural work (%)	25	30	30	30
Architectural work (%)	60	50	45	35
M&E work (%)	5	10	15	25
External work (%)	10	10	10	10
Total score (%)	100	100	100	100

The weightage system, which is aimed at making the score quantitative in representing the quality of workmanship of a building. It has taken into consideration the distribution between the cost proportions of the four components in the various buildings and their aesthetic considerations.

Each building category comprise as follows:

1. Category A (Landed Housing) – Detached, Semi-Detached, Terrace and Cluster House.
2. Category B (Stratified Housing) – Flat, Apartment, Condominium, Service Apartment and Town House.
3. Category C (Public Building) – Office Building, School and other related facilities/ buildings intended for public use.
4. Category D (Special Public Building) – Hospital and Airport only.
   

QLASSIC Assessment Process flow

Why apply for QLASSIC assessment ?

• No processing fee and no charges for the assessment for the time being.
• Enables you to benchmark the quality of workmanship of your construction project.
• Provides you a standard quality assessment system on quality of workmanship of construction works.
• Enhances quality control in construction works.
• Specified as a quality criterion for contractors performance scorecard.
  
  

  Checking the evenness of surface and hollowness for internal walls.
  Checking the straightness of the edge or angle for internal walls. Checking the angle for a door frame.
  Inspecting falls in wet areas and hollowness for floor.

Distribution Chart of QLASSIC Scores From 2006 to Nov 2007

Interested? Download and complete the following documents:

Application Form	Terms & Conditions	Confirmation Letter

Please contact us should you need further clarification:

Construction Industry Development Board (CIDB) Malaysia
Construction Technology Development Division
Ibu Pejabat CIDB,
Tingkat 7, Grand Seasons Avenue,
No. 72, Jalan Pahang
53000, Kuala Lumpur.

Tel : 03-2617 0360 (Ir. M. Ramuseren)
03-2617 0352 (Mohammad Faizal b. Abdul Hamid)
03-2617 0200 (GL)
Fax : 03-4045 1808

Email : mdfaizal@cidb.gov.my

artikel ini ddiambil dari http://www.cidb.gov.my/cidbweb/information/tech/qlassic-en.html