Sei sulla pagina 1di 46
B E R TA M A B H M U TU GOVERNMENT OF MALAYSIA BERSEKUTU
B
E
R
TA
M
A
B
H
M
U
TU
GOVERNMENT OF MALAYSIA
BERSEKUTU

ELECTRIFIED DOUBLE TRACK PROJECT BETWEEN IPOH AND PADANG BESAR

CONTRACT NO: KP/KTM/17/2007

B E R TA M A B H M U TU GOVERNMENT OF MALAYSIA BERSEKUTU ELECTRIFIED
B E R TA M A B H M U TU GOVERNMENT OF MALAYSIA BERSEKUTU ELECTRIFIED
B E R TA M A B H M U TU GOVERNMENT OF MALAYSIA BERSEKUTU ELECTRIFIED

DIFFERENCES IN INTERPRETATIONS LEADING TO THE GAP IN COSTING (RM) 27 SEPTEMBER 2011

B E R TA M A B H M U TU GOVERNMENT OF MALAYSIA BERSEKUTU ELECTRIFIED
B E R TA M A B H M U TU GOVERNMENT OF MALAYSIA BERSEKUTU ELECTRIFIED

1

CONTENT

CONTENT PAGE 1. INTRODUCTION 3-11 2. RE INTRODUCTION 13-15 3. ISSUES 17-31 4. PURPOSE OF AGREEMENT
CONTENT PAGE 1. INTRODUCTION 3-11 2. RE INTRODUCTION 13-15 3. ISSUES 17-31 4. PURPOSE OF AGREEMENT

PAGE

  • 1. INTRODUCTION

 

3-11

  • 2. RE INTRODUCTION

13-15

  • 3. ISSUES

17-31

  • 4. PURPOSE OF AGREEMENT IN DESIGN AND BUILD 33-45

  • 5. DETAILS

 

47- 50

  • 6. CONCLUSION

52-57

INTRODUCTION

THE ISSUE ON COSTING (RM)

  • 1. CLAUSE 23 and 24 Variations and Valuation of Variations

  • 2. INTERPRETATION to Clause 23 and 24

  • 3. DESIGN CHANGE PROCESS INTERPRETATION

    • i. CONFLICT IN THE INTERPRETATION OF THE FINAL DESIGN / PART OF THE FINAL DESIGN IN ORDER TO ESTABLISH THE CUT-OFF FOR THE DESIGN FREEZE TO ASCERTAIN A VARIATION.

THE ISSUE ON COSTING (RM) 1. CLAUSE 23 and 24 – Variations and Valuation of Variations

ii.

CONFLICT IN WHETHER THE CHANGE IN METHOD OF CONSTRUCTION SHALL CONSTITUTE A VARIATION.

CONFLICT IN WHETHER THE CHANGE IN METHOD OF CONSTRUCTION SHALL CONSTITUTE A VARIATION.

iii.

CONFLICT IN WHETHER MGJV’S CLAIM ADDITIONAL COST IN THE

SYSTEMS WORKS DUE TO REDUCE SCOPE OF WORKS CONSTITUTE A VARIATION.

THE ISSUE ON COSTING (RM) 1. CLAUSE 23 and 24 – Variations and Valuation of Variations
INTRODUCTION THE ISSUE ON COSTING (RM) 1. CLAUSE 23 and 24 – Variations and Valuation of

3

INTRODUCTION

iv.

CONFLICT IN WHETHER THE MOT’S INSTRUCTION FOR REVISED HALT AND MINOR STATION CAPPED AT RM7/10 M IS VALID UPON MGJV’S

CONTENTION THAT IT UNABLE TO COMPLY WITH THE MOT’S

INSTRUCTION.

INSTRUCTION.

iv.

CONFLICT IN THE INTERPRETATION OF THE METHOD OF VALUATION OF VARIATION

CONFLICT IN THE INTERPRETATION OF THE METHOD OF VALUATION OF VARIATION

iv.

OTHERS

OTHERS

DRAWINGS COMMENTS ON DRAWINGS USED FOR PREPARATION OF CLAIMS AND COMPARISONS

50% VALUE OF CSA -COMMENTS ON DESIGN CHANGE PROCESS INTERPRETATION FOR SOIL

IMPROVEMENT, TRACKWORKS AND BRIDGES. DRAWING’S – COMMENTS ON CONTRACTOR PROPOSAL AND DRAWINGS = QUANTITIES = 12.485

QUANTITY DB PERFORMANCE CONTRACT

INTRODUCTION iv. CONFLICT IN WHETHER THE MOT’S INSTRUCTION FOR REVISED HALT AND MINOR STATION CAPPED AT
THE DIFFERENCES 1. CONFLICT IN THE INTERPRETATION OF THE FINAL DESIGN IN MATTERS RELATING TO DESIGN
THE DIFFERENCES 1. CONFLICT IN THE INTERPRETATION OF THE FINAL DESIGN IN MATTERS RELATING TO DESIGN

THE DIFFERENCES

  • 1. CONFLICT IN THE INTERPRETATION OF THE FINAL

DESIGN IN MATTERS RELATING TO DESIGN FREEZE

  • 2. CONFLICT IN MATTER RELATING TO DESIGN CHANGE EG. DOES A CHANGE DURING DESIGN

DEVELOPMENT PROCESS EQUALS TO “CHANGE”?

5
5
EXAMPLE OF DIFFERENCES a) CHANGE IN SHAPE OF PLATFORM ROOF FROM BUTTERFLY TO OVAL/ BUBBLE SHAPE
EXAMPLE OF DIFFERENCES a) CHANGE IN SHAPE OF PLATFORM ROOF FROM BUTTERFLY TO OVAL/ BUBBLE SHAPE

EXAMPLE OF DIFFERENCES

  • a) CHANGE IN SHAPE OF PLATFORM ROOF FROM BUTTERFLY TO OVAL/ BUBBLE SHAPE

  • b) CHANGE FROM DOUBLE STOREY TO SINGLE STOREY STATION

  • c) CHANGE IN ORIGINAL DESIGN IN THE CONTRACTOR’S PROPOSAL

  • d) CHANGE IN EXTERNAL WORKS AND ROAD LAYOUT

  • e) CHANGE DUE TO THE RELOCATION OF STATION

6
6
THE DIFFERENCES 3) CONFLICT IN WHETHER ‘CHANGE’ IN ORIGINAL DESIGN IN THE CONTRACTOR’S PROPOSAL DRAWINGS CONSTITUTE
THE DIFFERENCES 3) CONFLICT IN WHETHER ‘CHANGE’ IN ORIGINAL DESIGN IN THE CONTRACTOR’S PROPOSAL DRAWINGS CONSTITUTE

THE DIFFERENCES

3)

CONFLICT IN WHETHER ‘CHANGE’ IN ORIGINAL DESIGN IN

THE CONTRACTOR’S PROPOSAL DRAWINGS CONSTITUTE A

CHANGE IN THE SCOPE OF WORK OR IT IS A DESIGN DEVELOPMENT PROCESS

4)

CONFLICT IN WHETHER CHANGES IN ORIGINAL DESIGN IN THE SYSTEMS WORKS IS A CHANGE IN THE SCOPE OF

WORKS

7
7
THE DIFFERENCES 5. CONFLICT IN VALIDITY OF THE SO’S INSTRUCTION FOR THE BUDGET LIMIT (7/10M) CONFLICT
THE DIFFERENCES 5. CONFLICT IN VALIDITY OF THE SO’S INSTRUCTION FOR THE BUDGET LIMIT (7/10M) CONFLICT

THE DIFFERENCES

  • 5. CONFLICT IN VALIDITY OF THE SO’S INSTRUCTION

FOR THE BUDGET LIMIT (7/10M)

CONFLICT IN WHETHER CONTRACTOR ACT IS BREACH OF CONTRACT, IF SO WHAT IS THE REMEDY

  • 6. CONFLICT IN THE INTERPRETATION OF THE METHOD OF VALUATION OF VARIATION FOR THE

REDUCE SCOPE

8
8
THE DIFFERENCES 7. CONFLICT IN WHETHER THE CSA VALUE OF OPERATION STATION OF RM250,000 CAN BE
THE DIFFERENCES 7. CONFLICT IN WHETHER THE CSA VALUE OF OPERATION STATION OF RM250,000 CAN BE

THE DIFFERENCES

  • 7. CONFLICT IN WHETHER THE CSA VALUE OF OPERATION STATION OF RM250,000 CAN BE APPLIED FOR NEW STATION OPERATION AT BUKIT MERAH, CHEMOR AND PARIT BUNTAR

  • 8. CONFLICT IN WHETHER THE VALUE FOR THE VARIATION CAN BE PRORATED FROM CSA

  • 9. CONFLICT IN THE INTERPRETATION OF THE CSA

9
9

SUMMARY OF COST (ATTACHMENT 4)

SUMMARY OF COST (ATTACHMENT 4) KSET MGJV Bil. DESCRIPTION ADD. OMM. NET. ADD. OMM. NET. DIFF.
SUMMARY OF COST (ATTACHMENT 4) KSET MGJV Bil. DESCRIPTION ADD. OMM. NET. ADD. OMM. NET. DIFF.
     

KSET

MGJV

 

Bil.

DESCRIPTION

ADD.

OMM.

NET.

ADD.

OMM.

NET.

DIFF.

(Mill)

(Mill)

(Mill)

(Mill)

(Mill)

(Mill)

(Mill.)

1.

OMISSION OF

(240. 26)

 

(133.06)

 

(107.20)

STATIONS/HALTS

2.

OMISSION OF YARD

(132.96)

 

NOT receive from MGJV

-

3.

OMISSION OF

1.44

   

13.93

(12.48)

OPERATION

 

STATION

4.

DESCOPING OF THE STATIONS

(126.50)

 

19.28

(145.78)

5.

SWAPPING OF

(7.70)

 

11.80

(19.50)

KAMUNTING/TAI PING STATION

 

6.

RELOCATION OF

ST.

Under separate exercise NOT VO

13.23

(13.23)

KUALA KANGSAR

KUALA KANGSAR
THE MEANING OF VARIATION IN THE AGREEMENT RISK DESIGN ENTITLEMENT UNDER CLAUSE 23 11
THE MEANING OF VARIATION IN THE AGREEMENT RISK DESIGN ENTITLEMENT UNDER CLAUSE 23 11

THE MEANING

OF VARIATION IN THE AGREEMENT

RISK DESIGN
RISK
DESIGN

ENTITLEMENT

UNDER CLAUSE 23

11

ISSUES

ISSUES 14
ISSUE DESCRIPTION MGJV’S VIEW KSET’S VIEW CONTRACT NO. PROVISION 1. DESIGN CHANGE. a. Changes in platform
ISSUE
DESCRIPTION
MGJV’S VIEW
KSET’S VIEW
CONTRACT
NO.
PROVISION
1.
DESIGN CHANGE.
a.
Changes in platform roof
from butterfly shape to
oval shape.
Constitute a VO
due to changes
between
Procedures for
Submission
Final Design
MGJV’s
Clauses 6(i) (via
“Original”
the MOT’s letter
Design
Drawings
No cost impact.
No additional
costs. MGJV’s
design subject
to design
development
process. At the
ref:
KP/W/0.449/15
(Contractor’s
time the S.O.I.
Jld.10(2) dated
Proposal) and
the Final
Design (AFC)
for stations is
issued, the
design is still in
the conceptual
10 July 2011.
Clause 24.
stage.
15
ISSUE DESCRIPTION MGJV’S VIEW KSET’S VIEW CONTRACT NO. PROVISION b. Changes from 2-storey to 1-storey of
ISSUE
DESCRIPTION
MGJV’S VIEW
KSET’S VIEW
CONTRACT
NO.
PROVISION
b.
Changes from 2-storey to
1-storey of building which
Constitute a VO
due to changes
Procedures for
Submission
resulted changes to infra
between
Final Design
works.
MGJV’s
Clauses 6(i) (via
“Original”
the MOT’s letter
Design Drawings
(Contractor’s
No cost impact.
No additional
costs. MGJV’s
design subject
to design
development
process. At the
ref:
KP/W/0.449/15
Proposal) and
time the S.O.I.
Jld.10(2) dated
the Final Design
(AFC)
for stations is
issued, the
design is still in
the conceptual
10 July 2011.
stage.
ISSUE DESCRIPTION MGJV’S VIEW KSET’S VIEW CONTRACT NO. PROVISION c. Provision of authorized Constitute a VO
ISSUE
DESCRIPTION
MGJV’S VIEW
KSET’S VIEW
CONTRACT
NO.
PROVISION
c.
Provision of authorized
Constitute a VO
No cost impact.
Procedures for
level crossing due to
omission of lift.
due to changes
between
MGJV’s
Submission
Final Design
Clauses 6(i) (via
“Original”
the MOT’s
Design
Drawings
(Contractor’s
Proposal) and
the Final
Design (AFC)
No additional
costs. MGJV’s
design subject
to design
development
process. At the
time the S.O.I.
for stations is
issued, the
design is still in
letter ref:
KP/W/0.449/15
Jld.10(2) dated
10 July 2011.
the conceptual
stage.
17
ISSUE DESCRIPTION MGJV’S VIEW KSET’S VIEW CONTRACT NO. PROVISION d. Provision of additional Constitute a VO
ISSUE
DESCRIPTION
MGJV’S VIEW
KSET’S VIEW
CONTRACT
NO.
PROVISION
d.
Provision of additional
Constitute a VO
No cost impact.
Procedures for
room i.e. Supervisor
due to changes
No additional
Submission
Room
between
MGJV’s
Final Design
Clauses 6(i) (via
“Original”
the MOT’s letter
Design Drawings
costs. MGJV’s
design subject
to design
development
ref:
(Contractor’s
process. At the
KP/W/0.449/15
Proposal) and
the Final Design
(AFC)
time the S.O.I.
for stations is
issued, the
design is still in
Jld.10(2) dated
10 July 2011.
the conceptual
stage.
18
ISSUE DESCRIPTION MGJV’S VIEW KSET’S VIEW CONTRACT NO. PROVISION e. Increase of building area. i.e. Fibrerail
ISSUE
DESCRIPTION
MGJV’S VIEW
KSET’S VIEW
CONTRACT
NO.
PROVISION
e.
Increase of building area.
i.e. Fibrerail Room, Parcel
Room and Freight Room.
Constitute a VO
due to changes
between
MGJV’s
“Original”
No cost impact.
No additional
costs. MGJV’s
design subject
to design
Procedures for
Submission
Final Design
Clauses 6(i) (via
the MOT’s letter
Design
development
ref:
Drawings
(Contractor’s
Proposal) and
the Final
process. At the
time the S.O.I.
for stations is
issued, the
KP/W/0.449/15
Jld.10(2) dated
10 July 2011.
Design (AFC)
design is still in
the conceptual
stage.
ISSUE DESCRIPTION MGJV’S VIEW KSET’S VIEW CONTRACT NO. PROVISION f. Longer disable ramp and platform. Constitute
ISSUE
DESCRIPTION
MGJV’S VIEW
KSET’S VIEW
CONTRACT
NO.
PROVISION
f.
Longer disable ramp and
platform.
Constitute a VO
due to changes
between
MGJV’s
“Original”
No cost impact.
No additional
costs. MGJV’s
design subject
to design
Procedures for
Submission
Final Design
Clauses 6(i) (via
the MOT’s letter
Design
development
ref:
Drawings
(Contractor’s
Proposal) and
the Final
process. At the
time the S.O.I.
for stations is
issued, the
KP/W/0.449/15
Jld.10(2) dated
10 July 2011.
Design (AFC)
design is still in
the conceptual
stage.
ISSUE DESCRIPTION MGJV’S VIEW KSET’S VIEW CONTRACT NO. PROVISION g. Additional service corridor due to building
ISSUE
DESCRIPTION
MGJV’S VIEW
KSET’S VIEW
CONTRACT
NO.
PROVISION
g.
Additional service corridor
due to building layout.
Constitute a VO
due to changes
between
No cost impact.
No additional
costs. MGJV’s
design subject
Procedures for
Submission
Final Design
MGJV’s
Clauses 6(i) (via
“Original”
the MOT’s letter
Design
ref:
Drawings
KP/W/0.449/15
(Contractor’s
to design
development
process. At the
time the S.O.I.
Jld.10(2) dated
Proposal) and
for stations is
10 July 2011.
the Final
Design (AFC)
issued, the
design is still in
the conceptual
stage.
ISSUE DESCRIPTION MGJV’S VIEW KSET’S VIEW NO. h. Changes to the location, layout and formation level
ISSUE
DESCRIPTION
MGJV’S VIEW
KSET’S VIEW
NO.
h.
Changes to the location,
layout and formation level
which resulted changes to
the relocation of utilities,
temporary works, infra
works and external works.
Constitute a VO
due to changes
between
MGJV’s
“Original”
Design
No cost impact.
No additional
costs. MGJV’s
design subject
to design
development
Drawings
process. At the
(Contractor’s
Proposal) and
the Final
Design (AFC)
time the S.O.I.
for stations is
issued, the
design is still in
the conceptual
stage.
22
ISSUE DESCRIPTION MGJV’S VIEW KSET’S VIEW CONTRACT NO. PROVISION 1 .. Changes to the type of
ISSUE
DESCRIPTION
MGJV’S VIEW
KSET’S VIEW
CONTRACT
NO.
PROVISION
1
..
Changes to the type of
GROUND TREATMENT to
suit the site conditions.
Eg, ROB Guar Nanas.
i.e. From pile
embankment to stone
column wise versa
DOES IT CONSTITUTE A VARIATION DUE TO THE
CHANGE ?????.
No Description Direction 1 Lateral shifting of Tasek Merah marine viaduct from approximately 20m to 100m.
No
Description
Direction
1
Lateral shifting of Tasek Merah marine viaduct from approximately 20m
to 100m.
No risk to construct the marine viaduct. Protection/ monitoring of
existing track embankment are no longer required.
Is it a Variation?
Is it not a Variation.
2
Foundation for Padang Besar Depot changed from piles to pad
footings.
Saving in the construction cost.
Is it a Variation?
Is it not a Variation.
3
River bridge construction by TRS Engineers Sdn Bhd
Saving in term of permanent works, temporary track diversion including
temporary ground treatment and temporary bridge across Sg Krian.
Is it a Variation?
Is it not a Variation.
4
Changes to N3-ROB 7 Junun Station ROB from 7 spans to single span
Saving in construction cost
Is it a Variation?
Is it not a Variation.
5
Piled embankment changed to stone column for both Kedah and
Is it a Variation?
mainline lines
Saving in construction cost
Is it not a Variation.
6
Swing bridge
i)
Composite bridge deck (Concrete and steel) changed to steel
ii)
deck
Bored pile changed to precast piles
Is it a Variation?
Is it not a Variation.
iii)
Lighter structure and hence reduction in lifting jack capacity and
iv)
nos. of piles
Precast pile cheaper than bored piles
24
ISSUE DESCRIPTION MGJV’S VIEW KSET’S VIEW CONTRACT NO. PROVISION 1. Change from drop tube to steel
ISSUE DESCRIPTION MGJV’S VIEW KSET’S VIEW CONTRACT NO. PROVISION 1. Change from drop tube to steel
ISSUE DESCRIPTION MGJV’S VIEW KSET’S VIEW CONTRACT NO. PROVISION 1. Change from drop tube to steel
ISSUE DESCRIPTION MGJV’S VIEW KSET’S VIEW CONTRACT NO. PROVISION 1. Change from drop tube to steel

ISSUE

DESCRIPTION

MGJV’S VIEW

KSET’S VIEW

CONTRACT

NO.

PROVISION

1.

Change from drop tube to steel portal to support OCS due to reduce of covered

Change of the method of construction due to change of the

No cost impact. No additional costs. The Contract doesn’t provide

Clause 14.1(a) of the COC.

platform.

design constitute a Variation.

specific method to fix the OCS. The

Contractor’s

obligation is to

design to be ‘fit for

purpose’.

The changes in

method doesn’t

warrant a Variation as there is no

change in scope.

25
25
ISSUE DESCRIPTION MGJV’S VIEW KSET’S VIEW CONTRACT NO. PROVISION 1. Changes in the System Works due
ISSUE DESCRIPTION MGJV’S VIEW KSET’S VIEW CONTRACT NO. PROVISION 1. Changes in the System Works due
ISSUE DESCRIPTION MGJV’S VIEW KSET’S VIEW CONTRACT NO. PROVISION 1. Changes in the System Works due
ISSUE DESCRIPTION MGJV’S VIEW KSET’S VIEW CONTRACT NO. PROVISION 1. Changes in the System Works due

ISSUE

DESCRIPTION

MGJV’S VIEW

KSET’S VIEW

CONTRACT

NO.

PROVISION

1.

Changes in the System Works due

Constitute a VO due to changes between

No cost impact. No additional costs.

‘Original” design

Clause 14.1(a) of the COC.

to changes in the

MGJV’s “Original”

The principle of this

Scope of Works.

scope of Works and the Final Design (AFC)

Contract is based on DB not BQ. The Contract does not

indicate the quantity of the

proposed. The basis

is on scope and ‘fit

for purpose’ and

not BQ Contract.

26
26
ISSUE DESCRIPTION MGJV’S VIEW KSET’S VIEW CONTRACT NO. PROVISION 1. The MOT’s instruction for MGJV to
ISSUE DESCRIPTION MGJV’S VIEW KSET’S VIEW CONTRACT NO. PROVISION 1. The MOT’s instruction for MGJV to
ISSUE DESCRIPTION MGJV’S VIEW KSET’S VIEW CONTRACT NO. PROVISION 1. The MOT’s instruction for MGJV to
ISSUE
DESCRIPTION
MGJV’S VIEW
KSET’S VIEW
CONTRACT
NO.
PROVISION
1.
The MOT’s instruction
for MGJV to construct
MGJV informed
that the
MGJV refused to
comply but at the
MOT’s
instruction
revised halt and minor
predetermined
same time never
for MGJV to
station capped at
RM7/10 M.
/budget limit set
by the MOT is
not achievable
and cannot be
proposed the option
for the Government
to select the design
that could meet the
construct
revised halt
and minor
station
applied in the
budget at
capped at
valuation of
Variation
RM7 M/10 M.
RM7/10 M is
valid.
27
ISSUE DESCRIPTIO MGJV’S VIEW KSET’S VIEW CONTRACT NO. N PROVISION 1. Method of Valuation of Valuation
ISSUE DESCRIPTIO MGJV’S VIEW KSET’S VIEW CONTRACT NO. N PROVISION 1. Method of Valuation of Valuation
ISSUE DESCRIPTIO MGJV’S VIEW KSET’S VIEW CONTRACT NO. N PROVISION 1. Method of Valuation of Valuation
ISSUE DESCRIPTIO MGJV’S VIEW KSET’S VIEW CONTRACT NO. N PROVISION 1. Method of Valuation of Valuation

ISSUE

DESCRIPTIO

MGJV’S VIEW

KSET’S VIEW

CONTRACT

NO.

N

PROVISION

1.

Method of

Valuation of

Valuation of omission

Clause 24.1

Valuation of

omission/omitted works

works, additional works or

of the COC.

Variation.

is based on CSA.

substituted works based

Eg.

on the value of works of

  • a. Reduce

Valuation of new

similar character set out in

scope in

works/additional works

the CSA/CSR.

stations.

and or substituted

  • b. New

works based on re-

Where there is no works of

operation

measure the difference

similar character set out in

station.

between the MGJV’s

the CSA/CSR, a valuation

  • c. Systems

‘Original’ drawing

and

based on re-measure the

Works.

Final Drawing (AFC)

scope (BQ).

28
28
ISSUE DESCRIPTION MGJV’S VIEW KSET’S CONTRACT NO. VIEW PROVISION 1. Conflict in the interpretation of the
ISSUE DESCRIPTION MGJV’S VIEW KSET’S CONTRACT NO. VIEW PROVISION 1. Conflict in the interpretation of the
ISSUE DESCRIPTION MGJV’S VIEW KSET’S CONTRACT NO. VIEW PROVISION 1. Conflict in the interpretation of the
ISSUE
DESCRIPTION
MGJV’S VIEW
KSET’S
CONTRACT
NO.
VIEW
PROVISION
1.
Conflict in the interpretation of the
CSA between MGJV and KSET that
effect the scope of works for
stations.
Item 2 (Field
preparatory),
All item 2, 3,
4, 8, 10, 11
3 (Relocation
of utilities), 4
and 12 is for
Trackworks,
(Earthworks),
Bridges and
- MGJV interpret that cost for
Earthworks, ground treatment, sheet
piling, etc, for the stations is
included in the Station Bill,
8 (Culvert and
Station.
drainage),10
otherwise KSET’s interpret that cost
for earthworks, ground treatment,
sheet piling other than specify in
Item No.9-station of the CSA would
be taken as separate cost based on
the respective item in the CSA.
(Civil and
other works)
and 12
(Maintenance
Works) is for
Trackworks
only.

SUMMARY OF COST (ATTACHMENT 4)

SUMMARY OF COST (ATTACHMENT 4) KSET MGJV Bil. DESCRIPTION ADD. OMM. NET. ADD. OMM. NET. DIFF.
SUMMARY OF COST (ATTACHMENT 4) KSET MGJV Bil. DESCRIPTION ADD. OMM. NET. ADD. OMM. NET. DIFF.
     

KSET

MGJV

 

Bil.

DESCRIPTION

ADD.

OMM.

NET.

ADD.

OMM.

NET.

DIFF.

(Mill)

(Mill)

(Mill)

(Mill)

(Mill)

(Mill)

(Mill.)

1.

OMISSION OF

(240. 26)

 

(133.06)

 

(107.20)

STATIONS/HALTS

2.

OMISSION OF YARD

(132.96)

 

NOT receive from MGJV

-

3.

OMISSION OF

1.44

   

13.93

(12.48)

OPERATION

 

STATION

4.

DESCOPING OF THE STATIONS

(126.50)

 

19.28

(145.78)

5.

SWAPPING OF

(7.70)

 

11.80

(19.50)

KAMUNTING/TAI PING STATION

 

6.

RELOCATION OF

ST.

Under separate exercise NOT VO

13.23

(13.23)

KUALA KANGSAR

KUALA KANGSAR
31
31
31
31
32
32
32
32
33
33
33
33
34
34
34
35
35
35
36
36
36
37
37
37
38
38
38
39
39
39
40
40
40
41
41
41
42
42
42
43
43
43
44
44
44
44
45
45
45
45
46
46
46

46

47
47
47
47

47

70
70
70
70

70