Working Beyond Compliance: A Practical Integration of QLASSIC and CONQUAS in Malaysian Apartment Projects - By Nik Zafri

 

I have been practising as a consultant and CONQUAS 21 assessor since 2001 (including the latest, updated edition is CONQUAS 2022, which took effect for projects called for tender from 1 July 2023 focussing on enhancing building quality through comprehensive assessments of Structural, Architectural, and Mechanical & Electrical (M&E) works, featuring updated standards for modern construction techniques .

After studying and applying the QLASSIC assessment framework, I found that adopting a combined awareness of both systems offers a more comprehensive and practical view of workmanship quality, especially for projects delivered in Malaysia.

Disclaimer

This article reflects general professional observations and personal experience within the construction industry. It does not represent an official position, requirement, or endorsement by any authority, agency, or assessment body. All projects should comply with their respective contractual obligations and refer to the latest published guidelines issued by the relevant authorities.

Introduction

Quality assessment frameworks play a critical role in shaping construction outcomes. In Malaysia, the CIDB Malaysia QLASSIC system has long served as a structured and measurable benchmark for workmanship quality, supporting national objectives for consistency, accountability, and improvement within the industry.

At the same time, some project teams, particularly those involved in high-density residential developments, cross-border investments, or projects with international stakeholders are also familiar with the BCA Singapore CONQUAS assessment methodology. CONQUAS is widely recognised for its emphasis on visual workmanship, dimensional tolerance, and finish uniformity.

In practice, these two frameworks are often perceived as separate or mutually exclusive. Through my experience on Malaysian apartment projects, I have adopted a dual-awareness approach, using CONQUAS-style criteria internally to guide workmanship, while remaining fully compliant with QLASSIC for official assessment and certification. This approach has proven practical, effective, and widely appreciated by project teams.

Note : Many Malaysian projects already work to CONQUAS standards informally, but are officially assessed only under QLASSIC. That’s not a flaw. That’s professional instinct.

Understanding the Different Roles of Each Framework

QLASSIC is designed as a formal assessment and certification tool, aligned with Malaysian regulatory and industry expectations. Its pass/zero scoring logic provides clarity, objectivity, and enforceability, particularly in contractual, compliance, and reporting contexts.

CONQUAS, on the other hand, functions effectively as a quality management reference tool, guiding workmanship control through visual inspection standards, tolerance checks, and consistency requirements. Its strength lies in training the eye, enforcing discipline during execution, and identifying workmanship risks early, well before formal assessment stages.

Applying CONQUAS-style criteria internally does not require altering contractual obligations or official certification pathways. As I have implemented on several projects, the project remains formally assessed under QLASSIC, while CONQUAS principles serve as an internal benchmark to manage quality proactively.

Why Informal Integration Occurs on Site

Many Malaysian projects already operate this way, often without explicitly labelling it as “integration.” Based on my personal practice:

• QLASSIC establishes the minimum acceptable standard, while
• CONQUAS-style checks help prevent visible defects that, although sometimes marginal under scoring systems, directly affect user perception, defect liability exposure, and professional reputation.

Rather than increasing workload, this dual awareness often reduces late-stage rectification, avoids cosmetic over-patching, and improves coordination between trades at the finishing stage.

Managing Risk Without Creating Conflict

A key principle in integrating both frameworks is role clarity:

• QLASSIC remains the official assessment and certification system
• CONQUAS criteria are applied internally as a workmanship control reference
• No claims of equivalence, replacement, or superiority are made

In this way, project teams can benefit from higher internal standards while remaining fully aligned with local requirements. From my experience, this approach also helps less experienced teams develop an eye for quality and reduces surprises during formal inspections.

I’ve aligned the example below to finishing stage for apartment projects, with pass/fail logic reflecting both systems (QLASSIC’s zero-tolerance + CONQUAS visual standards)

Tips : How to Use This Checklist (Best Practice)

One row = one scoring risk, If QLASSIC fails, treat as MUST FIX, Fix sample units perfectly, not all units halfway, reinspect with torchlight + water test

Sheet 1 – Unit Internal Finishes (Architectural)

Sheet 2 – Doors, Windows and Ironmongery

Sheet 3 – Wet Areas (Bathroom, Toilet/Yard, Balcony)

Sheet 4 – M&E Finishes (Internal Units)

Sheet 5 – Common Areas & External

Sheet 6 – Housekeeping and Protection (Do NOT Ignore)

Annex A: Combined CONQUAS–QLASSIC Pre-Assessment Checklist (Finishing Stage)

The following example checklist illustrates how both frameworks can be aligned into a single, practical site tool for apartment projects. It is intended for pre-assessment and internal QA/QC, not as a substitute for official inspection protocols.

1. Internal Architectural Finishes

• Walls and ceilings visually flat under normal lighting (no waviness or visible joints)
• No visible cracks, including hairline cracks at beam–wall junctions
• Uniform paint colour and texture (no patchiness or roller marks)
• Floor finishes aligned with consistent joints and no lippage beyond tolerance
• No hollow tiles detected through tapping tests
• Skirting joints tight, aligned, and free of gaps

2. Doors, Windows, and Ironmongery

• Door leaves free from scratches, dents, or swelling
• Doors open and close smoothly with even perimeter gaps
• Locks, hinges, and closers operate smoothly without binding
• Window glass free from scratches or stains
• Sealant neat, continuous, and properly tooled
• No water leakage at window sills or frames

3. Wet Areas (Bathrooms, Yards, Balconies)

• Proper floor gradient with no water ponding
• Floor traps firm, centred, and functional
• Tile alignment consistent on walls and floors
• Grout colour uniform and free from staining
• Thresholds dry with no water seepage to adjacent areas

4. M & E Finishes

• Switches and sockets aligned horizontally and vertically
• Faceplates free from cracks, discolouration, or scratches
• Distribution boards properly labelled and accessible
• No leakage at basins, sinks, or sanitary connections
• Sanitary fixtures firmly installed with neat sealant application

5. Common Areas and External Works

• Corridor and lobby finishes consistent and uniform
• Railings straight, secure, and properly anchored
• External finishes free from visible patch repairs
• Sealant at movement joints intact and crack-free

6. Housekeeping and Protection

• No cement stains, paint splashes, or debris on finished surfaces
• Glass, tiles, and sanitary ware clean and undamaged
• No scratches caused by subsequent trades

Practical note: Under QLASSIC, many of the above defects result in a zero score for the assessed item. Under CONQUAS-style inspection, visible or functional defects lead to deductions or failure of the relevant element. Items that trigger QLASSIC zero scores should always be prioritised for rectification.

Annex B: Pre-Assessment Checklist with Discipline WEIGHTAGE

Purpose: This example is meant to help project teams prioritise rectification works by discipline, focusing effort where score impact and risk are highest. Exact scoring may vary by project and sampling size. This matrix is for internal prioritisation.

Tips : How to Use This Weightage Practically

Fix in this order

• QLASSIC zero-score items
• Any row ≥ 3% weight
• Buyer-visible items

Don’t over-fix

• Items < 1% weight + non-visible → document, monitor

One trade, one zone, one finish

• Avoid multiple touch-ups (creates new defects)

Weightage Reference (Typical Apartment Project – Finishing Stage)

B1. Internal Architectural Finishes (Highest Impact)

Rule of thumb: If Architectural weight ≥ 3% per item, treat as must-fix before pre-assessment.

B2. Doors, Windows & Ironmongery (Architectural + Functional)

B3. Wet Areas (Architectural + M&E Critical Zone) - Highest zero-score risk

Practical note: Any item with combined Arch + M&E ≥ 4% is a red-flag item.

B4. Mechanical & Electrical (Internal Units)

B5. External and Common Areas

Note : In my own practice, introducing discipline-based weightage into a combined CONQUAS–QLASSIC pre-assessment checklist has helped site teams focus effort where it matters most reducing unnecessary rework while protecting both formal scores and end-user perception.

Conclusion (again...for now)

Integrating awareness of both QLASSIC and CONQUAS reflects a maturing approach to quality management, where formal assessment systems are supported by robust internal controls. Based on my personal experience, applying this approach internally:

• Helps project teams anticipate potential defects
• Reduces last-minute rectifications
• Improves coordination between trades
• Raises overall delivery standards

When applied thoughtfully, it allows teams to deliver more consistent, durable, and user-focused construction outcomes - without increasing conflict, cost, or contractual risk.

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

In response to a question from a QLASSIC Certified Inspector:

Encik Nik, I have been a long-time follower of your articles, and this particular piece is especially interesting.

Q: If both systems are applied within the Malaysian context, which one should prevail from a certification perspective?

A:

I would like to address this question openly. For context, this project marked my pioneering effort in applying both CONQUAS and QLASSIC methodologies concurrently. The exercise involved two certified QLASSIC Inspectors and one CIDB official in a supervisory role.

We undertook a joint assessment by combining our expertise, which proved to be a highly constructive and insightful exercise. It generated meaningful technical discussions at the site office and offered valuable comparative perspectives.

That said, the dual application was conducted strictly for reference and research purposes. As this was not an official assessment, the prevailing and valid certification for the actual project remains QLASSIC, with submission made through the CIDB QLASSIC Portal. The materials and observations shared here are purely for research and academic discussion, and do not represent official checklists or certified results.

I acknowledge that this initiative is ambitious. Nevertheless, I remain hopeful that such integrative efforts will one day be formally recognized for their potential contribution to improving construction quality practices.