Deficiency of Contract Specifications
Why outdated technical specifications in construction contracts create compliance risks, procurement challenges, and costly project disruptions.
We are quite accustomed to—and often saddened by—the practices within the construction industry, where many specifications attached to contracts are outdated. This raises an important question: what is the significance of specifications?
Specifications form part of the contract instructions and establish the standard requirements for accepting completed work as well as guidelines for work in progress. The same applies to contract drawings, which often include general notes that reference obsolete specifications. It is therefore essential to develop an accurate and relevant Inspection and Test Plan (ITP). For government projects, the ITP must comply with the JKR ITP Guideline.
For example, incorrect grading or zoning of coarse and fine aggregates can lead to the rejection of materials—or worse, the dismantling of completed work. In such situations, the entire stockpile of those materials may be rejected for use in the project.
Consider MS 1195:1991, which is no longer applicable because it was based on BS 8110:1991, later superseded by BS 8110:1997 with addendum. Unfortunately, no Malaysian Standard was introduced to replace it in accordance with BS 8110:1997 or later standards such as BS EN 1992 (Eurocode 2). Instead, the current standard governing concrete is MS EN 206:2016, which directly adopts BS EN 206:2013. Even this has evolved further, as the most recent reference is BS EN 206:2016.
Secondly, outdated specifications create procurement challenges. Contractors may struggle to obtain materials that are no longer available in the market.
For instance, older specifications may require HT steel bars with Grade 460, which are now largely unavailable. The market today supplies Grade 500A, 500B, and 500C, which offer improved strength and ductility. Updated standards also indicate that mild steel is no longer suitable as nominal links for structural concrete.
Relevant standards include:
BS 4449:1997
BS 4449:2005
BS 4449:2005 + A2:2009
MS 144:2006
MS 146:2006
MS 144:2014
MS 146:2014
So what happens when outdated specifications appear in a project?
The consequences depend on the form of contract used. For example, in government projects under PWD 203/203A, the Standard Specification for Building Works (SSBW) is typically annexed to the contract.
Where addenda or amendments to specifications exist, parties may raise queries based on the clauses contained within the annexed standard specification. Although the Conditions of Contract may not explicitly state the precedence of specifications, this is clearly addressed within the specifications themselves.
For example:
SSRW Clause 1.3.1(iii) states:
“All standards and Codes of Practice referred to in this Specification shall be deemed to be the editions current at the time of Tender. If the Malaysian Standard exists, which the SO deems to be equivalent to the British or other Standard specified, then the Malaysian Standard shall be followed. In provision within the relevant Standards or Codes of Practice as mentioned in this Specification, then the provision of this specification shall take precedence.”
Similarly, SSBW 2014 Clause 3.1 states:
“Specification together with any addenda issued shall be deemed to be the editions current at the time of Tender. If the Malaysian Standard (MS) exists, which the S.O. deems to be equivalent to the British or other Standard specified, then the MS shall be followed. Other equivalent standards specifying superior material may be used with the approval of the S.O.”
At the same time, clarification must also consider Clause 3.2, which states that in the event of discrepancies between the provisions of the specification and the provisions within the relevant Standards or Codes of Practice (CP), the specification shall take precedence.
Therefore, it is essential for QAQC professionals to review the validity of specifications attached to contract documents. It should also be remembered that any changes or removal of work due to non-compliance are typically borne by the contractor.
Failure to recognize the importance of accurate and current specifications can result in significant project delays, contractual disputes, and operational complications throughout the project’s lifecycle.