Water ingress, debonded tiles, drainage problems and recurring cracks can quickly lead to disagreements over responsibility, cost and the adequacy of repairs.
I think this stage deserves as much attention as construction itself. It tests the quality of the work, the effectiveness of contract administration and the willingness of everyone involved to resolve problems fairly.
1.0 UNDERSTANDING CPC, DLP, CMGD AND CCC
The Certificate of Practical Completion (CPC) generally marks practical completion under the construction contract. Under many conventional arrangements, it starts the Defects Liability Period (DLP) and triggers specified consequences concerning possession and retention.
The DLP provides a contractual mechanism for reporting and rectifying defects for which the contractor is responsible. Its duration and procedures depend on the contract.
The Certificate of Making Good Defects (CMGD) confirms that the applicable contractual requirements for making good defects have been satisfied. Under PAM arrangements, it is linked to release of the remaining retention and the process towards final certification. DLP expiry alone does not establish that rectification is complete.
The Certificate of Completion and Compliance (CCC) serves a statutory purpose. It replaced the earlier Certificate of Fitness for Occupation, commonly called CF or CFO, for projects covered by the system introduced in April 2007. Unlike the former local authority certification system, CCC is issued by the authorised Principal Submitting Person (PSP).
These certificates address different responsibilities. They should not be treated as interchangeable.
2.0 IS THE CONSULTANT OUT OF THE PICTURE?
A common assumption is that the consultant’s involvement ends at handover. Generally, under conventional arrangements, that is incorrect.
Site attendance may reduce, but the appointed architect or contract administrator may still have duties involving defects inspections, instructions, assessment of rectification and certification. Engineers and other consultants contribute within their respective appointments.
Under PAM 2018, for example, the architect has a defined role in responding to the contractor’s notification that defects have been made good, either issuing CMGD or stating reasons for non-issuance.
I feel that uncertainty over these continuing roles can itself become a project risk. Before the site team disperses, the client should establish who receives complaints, who investigates, who instructs repairs and who verifies closure.
If a consultant’s appointment has ended, the remaining functions need an appropriately authorised arrangement. The consultant’s appointment, statutory role as PSP and potential responsibility for earlier professional services are separate matters.
3.0 INVESTIGATE THE CAUSE BEFORE ALLOCATING RESPONSIBILITY
A complaint identifies a symptom, BUT it does not necessarily establish who is responsible.
A leaking ceiling could arise from waterproofing workmanship, an unsuitable design detail, a pipe connection, subsequent alterations or inadequate maintenance.
PAM’s guidance emphasises investigating the category and root cause of defective work before attributing responsibility, including distinguishing workmanship, design and misuse.
Based on my experience, a repair can appear satisfactory during inspection yet fail again under rain, operating loads or normal occupancy. Verification should therefore reflect the conditions that caused the failure.
Repainting a damp wall, for example, should not close a water-ingress complaint unless the source has been addressed and the repair appropriately verified.
4.0 THE COMMERCIAL IMPACT ON BOTH PARTIES
For the client, unresolved defects can disrupt operations, damage property, increase maintenance costs and affect occupants’ confidence. Poor records also make responsibility and recovery of costs harder to establish.
For the contractor, repeated mobilisation, subcontractor attendance, unavailable replacement materials and repairs within occupied premises create additional costs. Delayed CMGD can prolong account closure and delay release of remaining retention.
Fair administration protects both parties. Premature certification may weaken the client’s practical protection, while withholding certification or money without proper contractual grounds can expose the client to disputes.
Where the contractor fails to rectify defects for which it is responsible, the contract may allow others to undertake the repairs and appropriate costs to be recovered. The prescribed notices and procedures remain important.
5.0 RISK ASSESSMENT : PRIORITISING THE RIGHT DEFECTS
I think defects should be prioritised by their consequences and likelihood of further harm, rather than simply by the order in which complaints arrive.
A practical assessment should consider:
- Safety and health consequences.
- Effects on essential services and building operations.
- Likelihood of recurrence or deterioration.
- Potential damage to adjoining areas or property.
- Risks created by the rectification work itself.
This approach is consistent with the risk management principles in ISO 31000:2018, which provides guidelines rather than a certifiable management system standard.
For example, a suspected loose façade component requires a different response from a minor paint blemish. Temporary protection, isolation or specialist assessment may be necessary before permanent repairs.
Repairs in occupied buildings also need suitable task risk assessments and, where applicable, elements of CONQUAS/QLASSIC should be considered and perhaps HIRARC, access controls and coordination with building management.
6.0 ABMS : INTEGRITY DURING DEFECTS CLOSURE
The defects stage also creates opportunities for improper influence: pressure to overlook incomplete repairs, inducements linked to certification, undisclosed interests in replacement contractors or unjustified deductions.
An Anti-Bribery Management System (ABMS) based on ISO 37001:2025 provides a framework for preventing, detecting and responding to bribery.
Applied to defects management, useful controls include declarations of conflicts of interest, appropriate due diligence on rectification contractors, transparent approval of repair costs, independent verification where warranted and accessible reporting channels.
I feel that integrity is particularly important when financial pressure meets technical judgement. Certification should be supported by evidence and the applicable requirements. ABMS controls support that discipline; they do not replace engineering assessment or contractual procedures.
A disputed defect or delayed certificate does not, by itself, establish bribery. Concerns require evidence and fair investigation.
7.0 CODES OF PRACTICES AND STANDARDS : ESTABLISHING ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA
Defect assessment should refer to the approved drawings, specifications, contractual requirements, applicable legislation, relevant Malaysian Standards and codes of practice, and manufacturers’ installation requirements.
Acceptance criteria should be identified before repairs begin, including any necessary testing.
CIDB’s CIS 7:2021, used for QLASSIC, provides a framework for assessing workmanship quality. However, its application to a particular defects dispute must be considered against the contract and the assessment’s intended purpose. A QLASSIC score should not be treated as conclusive proof that every element is defect-free.
Standards should be applied within their proper scope, using the edition required by the contract or applicable regulatory requirements.
8.0 HOW DO DEFECTS AFFECT CCC
This is an important distinction.
Based on my experience, some clients suggest that outstanding defects could invalidate the CCC (very funny), sometimes using this as leverage against the contractor. Such statements require care: outstanding defects do not, by themselves, invalidate CCC, although defects affecting safety or statutory compliance warrant prompt investigation and appropriate action.
Jabatan Kerajaan Tempatan (JKT) distinguishes between non-critical defects that can be repaired during DLP and critical defects affecting safety or health that should prevent CCC issuance.
Minor finishing defects can usually proceed through the contractual defects process. Suspected structural instability, unsafe electrical installations or failed fire-safety provisions require prompt assessment and appropriate protective action.
An existing CCC should never be used to dismiss evidence of a dangerous condition.
JKT’s published FAQ states that an issued CCC cannot simply be withdrawn administratively. However, improper issuance, false certification or non-compliance can lead to enforcement or professional disciplinary action, while disputed validity may be referred to court.
9.0 MEANINGFUL CLOSURE REQUIRE EVIDENCE
DLP expiry and CMGD do not necessarily extinguish every subsequent liability. Latent-defect claims may remain possible, depending on the facts, contract, applicable law and limitation periods.
For housing projects, the developer’s obligations to purchasers also need separate consideration from its arrangements with the main contractor. Closing the contractor’s defects account does not automatically settle purchasers’ rights.
In my view, meaningful closure requires a clear record of the defect, its cause, responsibility, repair method and verification results. Repeated failures should prompt further investigation.
The objective is to restore the required performance of the work and give all parties a defensible basis for closure. That is where technical competence, risk awareness and professional integrity come together.
