Welcome to MCO 04 from 28.04.2020 to 12.05.2020. Having gone through the 3 phases everybody in the construction industries are looking at the ‘crystal ball’ to see ‘when it is going to end’, what is the ‘exit plan’ and more importantly, how to face the ‘new normal’. While some is in ‘consolidation’, ‘downsizing’, ‘closing shops and claim frustration’ or ‘forge ahead’, it is no longer a question of ‘extension of time’, but who is going to pay for the ‘extra costs’ of ‘moving ahead’, while some contract provided the provision of ‘mitigation of delay’ vested upon the contractor to ‘forge ahead’, at whose costs? That is a question…

The PAM Form 2006 provided at least 4 routes to go about, or it could be more, but let’s look at this 4 possible ways to maneuver the delirium of post-MCO ‘new normal’…

Foremost, the force majeure exit plan. Everyone is chanting force majeure, from the President of PAM to our minister. What is this force majeure? Unlike other standard forms of contract, the PAM2006 has been very explicitly defined force majeure to include epidemic[1]. A question may arise, what is the different between an epidemic and a pandemic. Covid-19 was declared a pandemic. Does it automatically qualify as a force majeure? If the minister says so, where is the ‘gazette’? Sorry, forgot, the parliament too is in ‘lock down’. So, it remains a theoretical question at the moment. Having said that, based on an advisory from the President of PAM to the Architect to render and only to ‘recognize’ any EOT application under this force majeure while omitting the rest of the ‘other possibilities’ in the absent of a ‘national gazette’ automatically classifying the MCO as a force majeure, regardless of how the ‘contract is formed’, would any rational mind construe such as being ‘just’? Notwithstanding that the next, possible event to take place is to instruct the contractor to ‘mitigate delay’ by applying to MITI to resume work during MCO. The next logical question is, who is going to pay for the extra-costs and expenses incurred to fulfill MITI’s ‘strict conditions’, having to note that a force majeure is a ‘neutral event’ not due to anyone’s fault yet, the contractor may have to absorbed all costs and risk arising from its action of ‘mitigating delay’ to work during MCO, for all purpose that the contractor is still liable to indemnify against the employer for any breach[2].

Second, the ‘changes to the law’ exit plan. There are possibility to rely on a change in the ‘law governing the construction industry’ as an exit plan to forge ahead with a view to be compensated[3] for loss and or expenses arising from this ‘changes to the law’.[4] Reminded by the fact that MCO was invoked under two existing legislation namely the Prevention and Control of Infectious Diseases Act 1988 and the Police Act 1967, where is the ‘changes to the law’? The respective Local Authorities PBT is still relying on the power and jurisdiction under the Street Drainage and Building Act 1974 for administration of the MCO. Unless otherwise via an Act of Parliament such as those mirrored against our neighboring Singapore’s the COVID-19 Act 2020, such can be construed as ‘changes to the law’ exit plan with a view to be compensated for loss and or expenses besides EOT.

Third, the ‘Stop Work Order’ Architect’s Instruction AI exit plan. This is a ‘novel idea’ that some Architect friends actually say, “[…] you need a ‘spine’ or alternatively, a ‘steel ball’ to issue such an AI for such, you may not get another project from your Client, post-MCO” Acknowledging the fact that by virtue of this simple AI, it has placed upon the shoulder of the Architect that arising from this act, alone, he has caused the contractor to ‘stop work’[5], ‘discontinue work’ or ‘temporary halt work’ on site, for reasons only best known to the architects, thus the notion of the ‘satisfaction of the architect’. Under such circumstances, the PAM2006 form allows the contractor to be compensated[6] with loss and or expenses together with the relevant EOT, subject otherwise to any ‘mitigation of delay’ required by the contractor. At least such appear to be ‘fair’ to both parties and the most ‘noble act’ to have been performed by the Architect, without ‘fear and favor’, avoiding dispute in any manner foreseeable. Sorry, how many Architects actually do so?  

Finally, the ‘Government’s Stop Work Order’ exit plan. Having to ‘toe the line’ some Architects may be ‘smart enough’ to circumvent the ‘conundrum’ by issuing a rather ‘vague’ AI such as “You are herewith instructed to comply with the Government of Malaysia’s Order for MCO” In other words, the Architect has instructed the contractor to ‘follow government’s instruction’ not its ‘instruction to stop work’, brilliant! For obvious reasons, now the contractor has been placed in a ‘doubtful situation’ as can such AI be construed as a ‘stop work order’ enabling them to claim EOT and ultimately, loss and or expenses? It appears to be that the contractor is ‘statutory bound’ to comply with the government’s instruction and thus entirely and mandatory ‘self voluntarily’ that has nothing whatsoever to do with the ‘employer or its agent’. Another facet is to look at arising from the MCO, the contractor cannot carry out its work and not the force majeure arising from the pandemic as the MCO is the causa causans to the course of the ‘damages’ in the entire ‘matrix of causation’. However, it is interesting to note that the PAM2006 allows for loss and or expenses arising from a delay due to a ‘stop work order’ from the government, subject otherwise that such is due to the ‘omission by the employer or its agent’[7]. Having said that, the ‘burden of proof’ falls squarely upon the shoulder of the contractor and the ‘sufficient of proof’ is on balance that the Architect has ‘failed to discharge’ its duty, thus the omission. Voila! Under the ‘strict liability rule’ and having a ‘close proximity’ in terms of reasonable ‘duty of care’ for the Architect towards the contractor, it is easily for the contractor just to mount a claim that the architect ought to have issue an AI for ‘stop work’ but it didn’t thus the omission of a reasonable ‘duty of care’ that has violated their rights under the contract.       

When the dust settles, we are able to see more clearly and rationally the entire spectrum of the effects of the MCO towards the continuity of work in the ‘new normal’ society. The legal construct of the ‘standard forms’ may have been ‘blinded’ by so many possibilities that has not been taken into consideration when the parties sealed the contract. The best possible way is a call to the government, instead of reliance on the obscure version of force majeure that only the ‘Frenchman’ knows what it truly meant, to pass an Act of Parliament mirrored  the Singapore’s COVID-19 Act 2020 and ‘ctr-alt-del’ any ‘contractual omissions’ for a ‘level playing field’ for a ‘new normal’ future.
​
Having wrote these as a personal reflection or opinion, not as a ‘lawyer’ or a legal counsel, as disclaimer, never take this writing of mine, to be your ‘legal advice’. You should seek appropriate ‘legal advice’ for your own situation. I am not liable for the accuracy of facts and representation on this writing.        

--------------------------------------------

[1] Art7(ad)PAM2006
[2] Cl.18.PAM2006
[3] Cl.4.3PAM2006
[4] Cl.4.1.PAM2006
[5] Cl.21.4.PAM2006
[6] Cl.24.3(c)PAM2006, “Compliance to a written AI in regard to the postponement […] to be executed under Cl21.4”
[7] Cl.24.3(n)PAM2006, “[…] provided always the same is due to negligence or omission on part of the employer […]”

Having to term with the 3rd installments of the extended[i] MCO[ii] with certain services sectors such as the “professional services related to the construction industry including architects […]” allowed to conditionally operate, under a statutory-undertakings to “comply strictly to all requirements from MITI[iii], KKM[iv], MKN[v] and relevant agencies and applicable laws and regulations in this nationwide MCO and Covid19 public health and safety crisis period” In other words, it is important for architects to understand the liabilities annexed to these undertakings while keeping ‘your finger crossed that nothing bad actually happened while in operation’. When such ‘undertakings’ are required, it simply means to say, ‘you are on your own and whatever you do in the contrary will be against the public policy’ as in the advisory, “ACPs are cautioned that should any of the staff gets infected by Covid-19 during work, MITI shall require for the whole office operations to be shut down immediately. The company will be responsible to bear all costs related to addressing the infection. It may involve the costs of testing and to quarantine the staff in contact with the infected person as directed by KKM, and other relevant government authorities.” The same is applied to the contractor, while the developer is ‘off the hook’, due to the ‘indemnity clause’ in most Building Contract, notably the PAM Form[vi].  

The recent issuance of PAM advisories[vii] are interesting on twofold. Foremost, “PAM would advise that individual Architectural Consultancy Practices (ACP) shall carefully make their own decision to consider the urgency and readiness of their practice to re-commence work”, the question most ACP would have asked, since when did PAM given a ‘statutory might’, unlike the Board of Architects LAM, to sanction ACP when to commence, halt and re-commence work? The onus is for PAM to collectively obtain a ‘blanket permit’ from MITI for its member to re-commence work. Whether the respective ACP would actually do so are entirely their choices, since a majority of the ACP are ‘small fries’ sole proprietors[viii] that do not employ a huge battalion of workers. Second, “PAM Council wishes to reiterate and emphasize our advice to continue to ‘Work From Home’ as far as possible if there is no urgent and/or essential work that are needed to be performed in the office and/or site”, in contrast to the first advisory, a ‘firm stand’ by saying, ‘no thank you, Mr. PM’, should have been taken, not to say that ‘Work From Home’ is a choice, rather a necessity.

Assuming that the choice of ‘readiness of their practice to re-commence work’ has been made by reasons of ‘pressures’ from ‘whosoever with vested interest’, the recommended guidelines from PAM are rather ‘interesting’ with significant impact to the building construction contract with particular, the PAM Form with regard to additional cost, loss and expenses L&E, regardless if the “Construction works below the value of RM500,000 whereby the main contractors are G1-G2 as certified by CIDB”. The contractor has to remodel the entire construction site with ‘Clean’ and ‘Unclean’ zones. ‘Disinfection Bay’ would have to be considered. Such remodeling of the entire site is no easy task.

Another interesting aspect of the advisory is “PAM reiterates that unless absolutely necessary, the Architect or Principal Submitting Person PSP, Resident Architect and Clerk-of-Work should monitor the project site remotely as much as possible”, application of CCTV and drone for supervision have to be in place and to be provided by the contractor, at whose cost, since these were not reflected in the preliminaries nor the contract? Remember, it was also PAM’s advisory for architects to consider such MCO as force majeure in the evaluation of EOT, having it as ‘neutral event’ that does not entitle the contractor to L&E. Wonder what happened if the area has no or weak WiFi coverage? Wonder if ‘remote supervision’ correspond to the purpose or intention of the UBBL 1984[ix] or s.70(21) SBDA 1974[x] such as “supervise the erection of the building to ensure that the erection is in conformity with the approved plans and the requirements of the provisions of this Act or any by-laws made thereunder”? How is such ‘remote supervision’ works out in terms of ‘professional negligence’ and ‘indemnity insurance coverage’ have yet to be ascertained? Remember, architects can be sued for many reasons.

Assuming that all the additional SOP[xi] is in place and the site has been remodeled with clean/unclean zones with disinfection bays in placed and all workers had to be placed in site with proper designated workers quarters, how are these workers going to don the PPE[xii] against ‘bio hazard’ with PPE against ‘construction hazard’, having to work under the ‘most unforgiving’ environment of the construction site and at the same time, observing the ‘social distancing’? What happen if the cause of the accident is the use of the PPE itself?

While most of the ACP would be having trouble logging into MITI’s webpage[xiii] to apply for the permit, in the absent of CIDB[xiv] clear guidelines and architect’s busy giving ‘instruction’ via ‘social media’, an obvious observations are these ‘written messages’ can be construed as ‘instruction[xv]’ in the eye of the law and any ‘well informed’ contractor will just have to ‘write back[xvi]’ to confirm such instruction.
While considering PAM’s advisory to be worthy, a note of thank had to be accorded to the PAM’s President’s Advisory[xvii], namely “[…] Like our civil servants […] working late into the night and through weekends to address this Covid-19 public health crisis and imminent economic challenges, PAM is also working hard to help our Architects to prevail through these difficult times”.
​
Having wrote these as a personal reflection or opinion, not as a ‘lawyer’ or a legal counsel, as disclaimer, never take this writing of mine, to be your ‘legal advice’. You should seek appropriate ‘legal advice’ for your own situation. I am not liable for the accuracy of facts and representation on this writing.  

-------------------------------------------

[i] Announcement by YAB Prime Minister Tan Sri Muhyiddin Yassin on Friday 10 April 2020 to extend the MCO to 28 April 2020.
[ii] Movement Control Order MCO
[iii] Ministry of International Trade and Industry MITI
[iv] Ministry of Health KKM
[v] National Security Council MKN
[vi] Cl.7.1 PAM 2006
[vii] < https://mcusercontent.com/0f61e9c943c635f9ec3649f2a/files/c1507238-7e9f-4084-a23f-2b923b1d5a2e/PAM_Advisory_for_ACPs_on_operating_permit_to_resume_work_FINAL.pdf>
[viii] <https://drive.google.com/file/d/1M-eizVAmjNmWhgx8L4Xf7YF_GTBnEE4v/view?ts=5e853341>
[ix] Uniform Building ByLaws 1984
[x] Street Building and Drainage Act 1974
[xi] Standard Operating Procedure SOP
[xii] Personal Protection Equipment PPE
[xiii] <www.miti.gov.my>
[xiv] Construction Industry Development Board CIDB
[xv] Cl.2.0 PAM 2006
[xvi] Art.7(0) CAI, Cl2.2(a) PAM2006
[xvii] < https://mcusercontent.com/0f61e9c943c635f9ec3649f2a/files/12cdc8a9-c336-4315-ac54-137ac3c33402/PAM_Advisory_cover_ltr_PAM_President_14Apr2020.pdf>