Putra Heights Blaze - From Tragedy to Transformation - Suggested Preventive Measures by Nik Zafri

Photo Credit : Adam Amir Hamzah/The Sun - News : Bernama

The Putra Heights pipeline explosion on April 1, 2025, left deep emotional and physical scars in its wake. Though miraculously no lives were lost, 150 people suffered injuries, many severely, and 538 residents were displaced, with homes, vehicles, and a sense of safety devastated in seconds. We extend our deepest sympathies to the victims and affected families, whose courage and resilience have been nothing short of inspiring.

While no single party is at fault, the incident has brought to light systemic gaps in how we plan, monitor, and protect critical infrastructure especially in light of climate shifts and urban development. It is now our collective responsibility to ensure that such an incident does not happen again.

Official Findings (What we know)

1) Cause of Explosion

A multi-agency technical report led by the Department of Occupational Safety and Health and supported by the Department of Minerals and Geoscience confirmed that soil subsidence directly beneath the pipeline caused the engine to shift over time (about 15.9 cm displacement), resulting from weak, waterlogged ground accumulated since installation in 2000. This led to stress fractures and ultimately a rupture, igniting the explosion and fire 

2) No Sabotage or Negligence

Selangor police affirm that investigations found no evidence of sabotage or deliberate negligence 

3) Timeline and Investigation

The executive summary and police review were finalized by June 26, and publicly released today June 30 after Cabinet review

4) Impact and Aftermath

• Initial Explosion (April 1, 2025)
• Occurred at 08:08 am (MST); flames reached up to 30 m and temperatures exceeded 1,000 °C

5) Casualties and Damage

• No fatalities reported
• 150 injured (some with severe burns or smoke inhalation) 
• 538 people displaced; approx. 81 homes destroyed, 81 partially damaged, 57 affected, with others inspected for safety. Around 399 vehicles were damaged

6) Emergency Response

Firefighters fought the blaze for about 7.5 hours; Petronas remotely shut off valves to halt gas flow 

7) Air Quality

Air quality remained safe according to Dept. of Environment monitoring 

8) Preventive Measures

A special committee, including federal and state representatives, Petronas, and technical experts, will frame long-term regulations and remediation strategies to prevent recurrence 

The explosion was a technical failure caused by prolonged ground subsidence not due to sabotage or human neglect. Authorities are now focusing on prevention through enhanced monitoring and regulation.

MY SUGGESTED PREVENTIVE MEASURES

1. Enhanced Geotechnical Monitoring

• Soil Movement Sensors: Install long-term geotechnical instrumentation (e.g., inclinometers, piezometers, settlement plates) along pipeline corridors—especially in soft or reclaimed soils.
• Frequent Soil Surveys: Require periodic subsurface soil investigations in flood-prone or clayey areas to detect early signs of subsidence or liquefaction risk.
• Slope Stability Checks: Especially at elevated or hilly routes where stress transfer from terrain shifts may affect pipeline integrity.

2. Stricter Pipeline Design and Installation Standards

• Flexibility in Joints: Introduce expansion joints or flexibility loops in design for pipelines in unstable ground to accommodate minor ground movement.
• Deeper Embedment and Backfilling Standards: Mandate proper trench design, compacted backfilling, and waterproofing to prevent erosion or waterlogging.
• Use of Corrosion-Resistant and Fatigue-Resistant Materials: Upgrade material standards for pipelines passing through high-risk zones.

3. Improved Risk Mapping and Zoning

• Integrated Pipeline Risk Mapping (IPRM): Combine geological, hydrological, and construction data to map pipeline risks across Malaysia’s network.
• Buffer Zones and No-Build Areas: Enforce regulated setback distances from pipelines, especially in residential or high-activity areas.
• Real-Time GIS-based Alerts: Implement GIS-linked monitoring with AI-based anomaly detection for pipeline behavior and surrounding soil conditions.

4. Regulatory and Planning Reforms

• Revise Existing Standards: Update Malaysian Standards (MS) or PETRONAS Technical Standards (PTS) related to pipeline structural safety and ground stability. (Important)
• Mandatory Reevaluation: Require existing pipeline operators to reassess their old networks, especially pipelines over 20 years old.
• Third-Party Audits: Enforce independent audit and certification of pipeline integrity at defined intervals (e.g., every 5 years).

5. Community Engagement and Emergency Preparedness

• Public Awareness Campaigns: Educate residents and local governments near pipelines on signs of danger (e.g., ground cracks, gas smell, water seepage).
• Evacuation and Fire Drill Protocols: Standardize rapid response SOPs for towns located within 300–500 m of major pipelines.
• Community Alert Systems: Use SMS, sirens, and apps to broadcast real-time updates in case of pipeline incidents.

6. National Database and Pipeline Integrity Management System (PIMS)

• Digital Registry of Pipelines: Centralized data on location, installation date, soil profile, maintenance history, and inspection logs.
• Machine Learning for Failure Prediction: Use AI to assess failure probabilities based on age, terrain, and historical stress records.
• Annual Reporting Obligations: Pipeline owners to submit condition reports annually to DOSH or the Energy Commission.

7. Climate Resilience Integration

• Hydrogeological Resilience: Ensure pipelines are designed to withstand increasing rainfall, flooding, or underground water table rise due to climate change.
• Green Infrastructure: Promote drainage upgrades, rain gardens, or dewatering measures to manage moisture near buried pipelines.

CONCLUSION

The Putra Heights incident was more than an explosion it was a wake-up call. One that reminds us that beneath every pipeline, every system, are lives, homes, and communities. Let this tragedy not be remembered for its flames, but for the reforms it sparked.

We stand in solidarity with every victim and every family affected. May their experience not be in vain, but serve as the foundation for a safer, more resilient Malaysia. Let us turn sorrow into resolve and ensure that from this painful moment, lasting safety, compassion, and accountability emerge.

THOUGHT FOR THE DAY, SHOULD TECHNICAL STANDARDS ADAPT TO CERTAIN COUNTRY'S CLIMATE?

I had a query from someone of professional engineering position which I am familiar with the topic. It's about technical standards/codes of practice for construction where some references need also to suit a specific country's environment to avoid miscalculation and errors.

For example :  For concrete in cold climate - Concrete temperatures should be maintained between 50°F (10°C) until the expected strengths have been reached after the finishing process. If concrete freezes prior to reaching an initial strength of 500 psi (3.5 MPa), it will not achieve its intended strength.

The same however cannot be applied fully to the Malaysian environment/climate.

I agree totally that standards and codes of practice must adapt to the country's environment. These can be done by assessing the environmental factors - understand the unique conditions of the country - climate, geology, natural hazards etc. (Consider the absence of snow or the prevalence of tropical weather, seismic activity, etc.)

In order to make this happen, we need to engage local experts, engineers, architects, and environmental scientists to gather insights about the specific challenges and requirements in that environment.

Adapting technical standards requires a comprehensive understanding of local conditions, collaborative efforts among experts, and a commitment to ensuring safety and efficiency in construction practices within the country's specific environment.

DRAFT METHOD STATEMENT FOR STEEL BRIDGE CONSTRUCTION- WHAT AM I GOING TO DO TODAY - 15 NOVEMBER, 2023

Drafting the method statement for the construction of a steel bridge is an ongoing process, with significant milestones ahead, including incorporation of relevant codes of practice and identification of suitable materials. We are currently awaiting input from the Quantity Surveyor (QS), calculations from the Engineer, and subsequent approval from the Professional Engineer (PE), all aligned with the design plan and specifications. Our goal is to present an exemplary sample today and make a lasting impression on our audience.

TODAY'S FOOD FOR THE THOUGHT

Many special awards are being offered to foster goodwill and to inspire others. Unfortunately, some of these special awards; which I feel strongly; have been given to the WRONG person who knows NOTHING about the field. Trust me, we are fully aware those who are actively involved. I won't name the recipients but I think the juries should reconsider a proper standard/code of practice in their selection - otherwise they will be deemed as partial and risk losing respect. Nik Zafri - 18/0/2023 - 11:28 am

PIAWAIAN SUMBER TENAGA DAN KAWALAN EMISI KARBON

Oleh Nik Zafri Abdul Majid - Januari, 2010

Seluruh dunia kini sedang memberikan perhatian yang serius kepada isu emisi karbon. Secara rambang hampir seluruh premis di dunia menyumbang kepada 50% penggunaan tenaga - ini termasuklah Malaysia. Isu emisi karbon dijangka akan mencetuskan pula fokus kepada kod dan piawaian tenaga - ini bermakna jika kita tidak mempunyai kod/piawaian atau ada kod piawaian tetapi tidak mencukupi, maka usaha untuk menaikkan taraf kod/piawaian yang sedia ada atau mewujudkan kod/piawaian yang lebih komprehensif perlu diadakan.

Mewujudkan atau menaiktaraf kod/piawaian adalah selaras dengan cadangan YB Dato' Seri Ong Ka Ting, Menteri Sumber Asli dan Alam Sekitar dalam Mesyuarat ke 3, Penggal 2, Parlimen 12 yang meminta satu pelan induk perlu digariskan oleh Kerajaan Malaysia untuk memastikan paras pengeluaran karbon di Malaysia benar-benar tidak menaik dan dapat dikawal sehingga ianya tidak lebih daripada paras tahun 2005 menjelang satu tempoh masa daripada sekarang.

Setakat artikel ini ditulis, saya mendapati satu standard (pada asalnya diterbitkan pada tahun 2004) dikenali sebagai 90.1 iaitu piawaian ASHRAE memberikan satu panduan untuk mencapai 30% penjimatan tenaga (draf standard ini dijangka terbit pada bila-bila masa dalam tahun 2010. Selain itu, standard seperti LEEDS (Green Building) and EMS ISO 14000 juga boleh dijadikan panduan kepada kawalan emisi karbon menerusi penjimatan tenaga.

Standard ini begitu penting pada Malaysia sebagai langkah awal mengawal pembaziran tenaga di samping emisi karbon. Jabatan Alam Sekitar, Jabatan Keselamatan dan Kesihatan Pekerjaan, Suruhanjaya Tenaga dsb. juga boleh bekerjasama dalam mewujudkan standard yang dimaksudkan.

Antara perkara-perkara yang boleh diambilkira ialah :

a) Keperluan penggunaan peralatan penyejuk (cooling/refrigeration) dan pemanas (heater/heating equipments) dalam semua jenis industri termasuk rumah kediaman yang mungkin berbeza mengikut cuaca/iklim negara berkenaan. Justifikasi cadangan saya ini ialah menghala kepada kesan ekonomi penggunaan peralatan berkenaan serta cara-cara penjimatan boleh dilakukan ke atas peralatan contohnya mengadakan alat penjimat tenaga secara 'built-in' kepada peralatan yang dimaksudkan.

b) Perkara-perkara yang kompleks seperti syarat-syarat untuk mendapat Sijil Layak Menduduki sesebuah bangunan juga perlu diambilkira - contohnya memberikan kelulusan kepada mereka yang mengutamakan penjimatan tenaga dan penjagaan alam sekitar atau konsep 'bangunan hijau' mengikut standard yang berkaitan.

c) Latihan, siri-siri ceramah dsb. bagi memastikan kefahaman atau mencetuskan kesedaran masyarakat atau kakitangan betapa pentingnya tahap emisi karbon dan penjimatan tenaga kepada mereka dalam bentuk wang ringgit.

Saya berharap agar standard/piawaian tenaga yang bakal dikeluarkan akan mengketengahkan syarat-syarat yang agak ketat supaya ianya dipatuhi demi trend semasa pasaran global dan suasana ekonomi yang sedang mengalami perubahan dalam konteks pembekalan tenaga.

Carbon Emission/Standards Malaysia need to come out with Master Plan and Codes of Practice on Carbon Emission/Energy Savings Agree but all parties must cooperate with the Government Disagree - our country is not at the critical level yet view results

The Star Global Malaysian Forum - 24 October, 2007

corpbabes wrote:

Greetings! I stumbled across this website and thought it's really fantastic that people can discuss and get information here. I'm a newbie and I'm just wondering if anyone can help me. My question is : is there any statutory prescriptions in relation to warranty periods for construction works buildings, designs etc for theme park related works. Also what if personal injury and death, can warranty period and exclusion of liability help reduce liability ? I would be glad if someone can explain these issues to me. Thank you in anticipation.

------------------------------------
Ahvincent's Response

The statutory limit is normally six years. However, it can sometimes be extended to 12 years.

In the construction business some defects are latent i.e. it cannot be readily identified by a competent engineer for example concrete cancer which can take years to become evident.

In such cases the six years may start from the date that circumstances that could lead to a claim was first identified.

Exclusions can sometimes help but remember you cannot contract out of the law. You may exclude certain things but you definitely cannot exclude death or injury due to you negligence, error or omission.

In simple words you can have a sign on the front door to say "Enter at your own risk - no liability accepted." But if I was killed because you did not install the sign properly and it fell down and bang me on the head, you will be liable for damages. Or if your roller coaster ride fell off it's tracks due to poor maintenance or neglect than you can be sued for damages under the law of tort.

But having say all that - Yes, a limitation clause is good to have. It is better than nothing and gives your lawyers something to work with in the event of a claim.

However, the difficult thing in design and construction is "how to get the other party to agree and sign the contract that contains clauses that potentially decreases your liability. Unless that other fellow's lawyer cannot read.
-----------------------------
Nik Zafri's Response

corpbabes wrote:

Greetings! I stumbled across this website and thought it's really fantastic that people can discuss and get information here. I'm a newbie and I'm just wondering if anyone can help me.

Welcome corpbabes...that is why GMN is my first choice!

corpbabes wrote:

My question is : is there any statutory prescriptions in relation to warranty periods for construction works buildings, designs etc .

Depending on which stage that you're referring to - pre-construction, during construction and post construction? You see, different countries may adopt different practices, terminologies and timeframe. (which will affect the contract)

If you care to delve further in this very same topic, you will see that we've been discussing 'heavily' about Defect Liability Period, Warranty Period, Developer's Warranty etc. Try to have a look, probably it would help you and us further to understand the issue. (I'm sure you've heard the Govt is planning to revise and standardize these practices - but I'm unsure when)

corpbabes wrote:

for theme park related works

Or perhaps you may be referring to 'during the theme park already in operation - if so, which target group? 'the theme park workers?'? The theme park visitors? The 'entertainment machines'? (roller coaster, merry-go-round etc.)

corpbabes wrote:

Also what if personal injury and death, can warranty period and exclusion of liability help reduce liability ?

Again, depending on which stage...and as ahvincent said - something like- this case should be mentioned in the contract to avoid future ambiguity and 'conflict'.

corpbabes wrote:

I would be glad if someone can explain these issues to me. Thank you in anticipation.

Don't worry, GMN has a handful of helpful hands (3H)...ahvincent is definitely one of them...
-------------------------------
Response from corpbabes - 26/10/2007

Hello again!

Thanks so much for such prompt reply! Really appreciate it. I know my questions were not really specific and vague, hence Im trying to get more information regarding that before enquiring further.

Sorry for being so ignorant, coz Im really new in this field,Im just a pupil doing a research in this area. So forgive me if I sound so blur!

Im just wondering what happens if the defects occur after the warranty period, who will be liable and is there any legislations regarding this? As for the owner of the building for example, is his liability reduced if anything happens after the warranty period is over?

Also, can I give an anology: Say in a high rise building in genting, a disaster happen due to a design defect ; Contractually we exclude design defects and say construction defects, in death or personal injury, therefore can we say that in this scenario that the project owner be liable? What if we have designer and builder ... To what extent can we pass the buck to them?

Thanks in advance for all the assistance
-----------------------------------

ahvincent wrote:

Your question is many questions in one. Without being specific it is very difficult to answer. Firstly, if you identify a defect after the defects liability period then you don't stand much of a chance of a successful claim. If I bought an apartment from you (the owner) and I identify a defect within the warranty period, of course I will sue you. The contract of sale is between me and you. It has nothing to do with the builder who may have designed and constructed the apartments. I, the buyer do not have a contract with the builder, the owner does. The builder does not owe me a duty. I did not hire him and neither did I pay him, so how can I hold him responsible. I can only sue the owner who sold me the faulty apartment. However, the owner may join the builder as a co-defendent on the basis that as a result of his (the builder's) negligence he is now being sued and the builder should be held responsible. I guess one of your questions is "the owner has stated in the contract that he is not responsible for design and construction faults" thus trying to avoid any liability. I am afraid that attempt will fail. I, as the buyer can expect that the apartment is "fit for it's intended purpose." So, regardless of what you the owner try to do you will still be liable. Remember what I said before "you cannot contract out of the law." The law of tort will be on my side (the buyer). I have every right to enjoy my purchase. If you sold me an apartment and the roof falls down in 6 months and the walls start to crumble and the floor starts to sink, I will ask the court "what did you sell me?" I tell the court that you the owner sold me a faulty product and I want my money back !!!. You did not sell me an apartment that is fit for it's intended purpose i.e. as a place of residence. I will strongly suggest that a good lawyer for the owner will not try to get out of it by simply denying liability because the case is so obvious. He, the owner can quickly run away, change his name and go into hiding or he will quickly join the designer and constructor as co-defendants and seek proportional liability. Anyway, your questions sounds very unethical by trying to pass the buck. Forget it !!! No lawyer worth his salt will let you get away with putting such irresponsible "get-out of jail free" clauses. The text books tell us that the law is fair. Therefore you can try to be smart and put in lots of sneaky clauses but since the law is potentially fair it will rule any unreasonable clauses to be null & void and find you liable. There are plenty of fish in the sea. I always advise my clients if the other party wants everything in their favour - walk away from the deal. You don't want to do business with such unreasonable people. Unless of course he makes you an offer too good to refuse. But again - nobody gives away something for nothing.

----------------------------------------
Nik Zafri's response

Good one ahvincent!!

My turn :

corpbabes wrote:

Im just wondering what happens if the defects occur after the warranty period, who will be liable and is there any legislations regarding this? As for the owner of the building for example, is his liability reduced if anything happens after the warranty period is over?

That's why looking into SPA (sales and purchase agreement) is very important before signing them - (that goes to everyone..not only housebuyers but property buyers as well) we don't want to end up in sticky situations like this one. I BET no party (developers, builders, bankers, lawyers) would tell you of your RIGHTS (esp. implied ones) since their interest in ONLY to sell and attempted to their best 'intellectual' knowledge NOT to be accountable.

These parties make you look merely into the 'expressed' terms but somehow they failed or ignore/deny your rights to know the 'implied' ones.

One example - You may or may not know that even during DEFECT LIABILITY PERIOD (DFL), the purchaser/buyer has implied RIGHTS to know what's going on - otherwise, how would we know of the final quality? How 'd heck' CMGD or CF (they keep changing the terms - now they call it "Certificate of Fitness for Occupation (CFO) be issued on the first place and suddenly we buyers found out that we have been 'had' when 'leaks' are discovered in our so-called newly bought houses or buildings?

Here's another 'masterpiece' :

http://www.nst.com.my/Weekly/PropertyTimes/News/Viewpoint/20030305105233/Article/

The waiting game


Many house buyers complain of having to take over of vacant possession (VP) of their new houses when they are not ready for occupation.

One of the reasons for this is that prior to amendment, the Housing Developers Act allowed developers to hand over VP upon application for the Certificates of Fitness for Occupation (CF). Many developers exploited this tenet of the Act by rushing to hand over the properties the minute the architect declared “practical completion”.

Problems for buyers

The hand over of VP without a confirmed date for occupancy has created numerous problems for house buyers. First, the new owners would have to make all outstanding payments as stipulated in the Third Schedule of the Sale and Purchase Agreement (SPA) upon taking VP. Next, the 18-month defect liability period would start to run 14 days from the date of notification of the hand over of VP, and third, the buyers would have to take over the responsibility for the security of their properties.

This state of affairs is grossly unfair to buyers. Imagine not being able to stay in your property after you’ve made all the outstanding payments, including maintenance charges. And if you’re not able to stay in your house, how will you identify and rectify faults that may be caused by the developer? Supposing the CF is issued six months after you receive your keys; this means six months of the defect liability period would have been wasted. Another point is that if you cannot stay in your home, how can you prevent vandalism and theft of your fittings, short of hiring a security guard, which many cannot afford?

Besides these, the house Buyers Association has come across other complaints from buyers who have been shown CFs from other projects that have been presented as theirs or CFs with falsified endorsements! Some buyers have taken VP, only to find that the developers have financial difficulty in fulfilling their obligations to apply for the CF!

Developers’ responsibility

The application for CF is governed by the Building By-laws Act. As the name implies, the CF is an official document issued by the local authority to acknowledge that a building is safe for occupation.

It is the responsibility of the developer through its appointed qualified professionals, chiefly the architect, to make the application according to the Building By-laws and other conditions imposed by the appropriate authorities.

When complaints surface, both developers and the appropriate authorities point fingers at each other. As explained by Ministry of Housing and Local Government legal adviser Shamsulbahri bin Ibrahim, and advocate and solicitor Toong Gek Fong, in an article on the Malaysian Law Journal website (http://www.mlj.com.my/free/index.asp): “The crux of the problems relating to delay in issuance of CFO could be because:

1. The developer’s application for CFO is incomplete or not in compliance with all the requirements necessary for the issuance of CFO, resulting in the application being rejected by the appropriate authority. For instance, some developers fail to submit the Form E together with copies of all letters of clearance or approval (surat sokongan) from the relevant technical agencies, which are required by the appropriate authority for issuance of CFO, or

2. The delay or inefficiency of the appropriate authority issuing the CFO.”
To exonerate the local authorities from blame, the Ministry of Housing has issued directives to the effect that:
• All applications for CF submitted by developer are to be checked and confirmed to be in compliance with all requirements for issuance of CF before such applications shall be accepted by the appropriate authority;
• Upon acceptance of the Form E, the appropriate authority is to issue its written confirmation that the Form E submitted by the developer has been duly checked and accepted by the appropriate authority;
• Once such applications have been duly checked and accepted by the appropriate authority, the CF shall be issued or deemed to be issued within 14 days from the date such applications are accepted by the appropriate authority; and
• The appropriate authority will submit a written report/explanation to the Housing Ministry in respect of such cases where the CF is not issued within 14 days from the date the relevant application is accepted by the appropriate authority and in any other cases of undue delay in the issuance of the CF by the appropriate authority.

By-law 25 of the Uniform Building By-Laws 1984 was amended to provide for the issuance of the CF by the appropriate authority within 14 days from the date of acceptance of Form E, failing which the CF shall be deemed to be issued to the owner of the building.

Under the amended Housing Development Act, developers’ responsibility with regard to VP and the CF has been expanded to include the following:

1. Conditions for delivery of vacant possession
It must submit a supporting certificate signed by its architect certifying that the building has been duly constructed and completed in accordance with all relevant Acts, by-laws and regulations and that all conditions by the appropriate authority in respect of the CF have been duly complied with and a supporting letter of confirmation from the appropriate authority certifying that the Form E (the application form for CF) has been duly submitted by the developer and checked and accepted by the appropriate authority.

• Duties to the Controller of Housing:
It must inform the Controller of the handing over of VP to the buyers and submit a certified true copy of the architect’s completion certificate and that water and electricity supply are ready for connection. It must also inform the Controller if the appropriate authority has refused to accept the submission of any document relating to the issuance of the CF and submit the refusal letter from the appropriate authority.

With the amendments to the Housing Development Act and the Building By-laws, it would seem that when house buyers receive notice of hand over of VP, they can assume safely that the occupancy of the property can be confirmed within 28 days of the notice. If not, the hand over of vacant possession can be considered premature, and the house buyer has every right to challenge the notice and asked the developer to withdraw it.

With the amendments too, the HBA sees no cause for local authorities to issue temporary certificates of fitness as it is not to the house buyers’ advantage to occupy a home based on such a certificate.

We hope the Ministry of Housing is confident enough to implement further amendments of the Act, such as imposing that the delivery of VP comes with the CF. It is only right that a buyer should be able to take vacant possession of a home that is certified fit for occupation.

The National House Buyers Association is a non-profit, non-governmental, non-political organisation manned by volunteers. Our website is www.hba.org.my. E mail: info@hba.org.my

- Property Times 1st March 2003 issue -

Which also may shed the light on your next analogy

Corpbabes : Also, can I give an anology: Say in a high rise building in genting, a disaster happen due to a design defect ; Contractually we exclude design defects and say construction defects, in death or personal injury, therefore can we say that in this scenario that the project owner be liable? What if we have designer and builder ... To what extent can we pass the buck to them?

Perhaps I didn't understand the question. But somehow, I doubt that this clause (design defect) is excluded in the contract - again depending on which stage you're talking about but typically in the 'design and build' mode, it's very irregular if a contract exclude such clause cos' it is regulated in Uniformity Building By-Laws 1984 (+ The Engineers Act as well) Even if there is NO such clause, the law prevails over 'deficiency' of such clause in a contract.

Remember, when a contract doesn't favour the law (where the latter being the former's umbrella), then the law shall prevail - e.g. clause ambiguity, or 'something that should be included but excluded - yet the law states clearly that it should be included'

But alas, despite of my explanation here, you should know that ahvincent is talking about the 'ugly REALITY of the construction industry' (which I must admit..it's TRUE) and you should take his suggestions into account as well.

and corpbabes (what's your real name..or at least a short one) - don't have to apologise profusely or being humble, you should be proud to pose such difficult question amidst a topic that not many want to be participating