Pas Steven’s announcement over the pulpit yesterday morning on the Calvary Convention Centre (CCC) situation was brief and general. But what he said was misleading and a gross misrepresentation of the seriousness of the situation affecting the extravagant project. He said that the main contractor, Nam Fatt Bhd had defaulted on the contract to complete the CCC by 14 October 2009 and consequently, the Church had issued them a Notice of Default. He went on to say that the deacons are now studying various options and as a result, the completion of the CCC has been moved to 2011.
Pas Steven and Pas Guneratnam (PG) and his deacons probably thought Calvarites are little kids who can be easily fooled.
The news of the failure of Nam Fatt to complete the project on schedule did not shock anyone because most of the members already know that work at the site stopped months ago. The rest are probably simply blinded by the pastors' charm to recognise the truth. And now, this announcement comes just 4 months after our recent AGM, during which, ex-deacon Han assured the members that work at the site is progressing and has not stopped. It is obvious now that Bro Han and the Board of Deacons lied through their teeth at the AGM.
What irk most members was that Pas Steven could nonchalantly announce that the completion of the project is now moved to 2011. Anyone with some knowledge of the construction industry or even some common sense can tell you that in a situation like this, it takes months and sometimes, years to resolve the many issues and disputes that arise with such stoppages. Unless, of course, the Church is willing to throw extra millions to clear the claims by Nam Fatt and or the sub-contractors and to induce a new contractor to quickly re-commence and complete the abandoned project without going through the rigmarole of project due diligence, engineering surveys and valuation.
Just like PG’s past failed visions for Calvaryland, a 5,000-seat church in Sri Hartamas and a redevelopment of the existing Damansara Heights sanctuary into a multi-storey horse-shoe design church, his vision of the RM200 million 5,000- seat CCC now appears to be heading the same direction of another failure.
With the impending CCC Fund-raising Carnival that will be held later this month, we wonder what propaganda would be churned out to mitigate this damaging news. Be prepared to hear comments like "It's not that serious", "Just a slight delay only", "Don't listen to the devil", "Trust God" and all those 'feel good' factors, the 'Calvary Boleh" and 'all is well' messages.
BY God's divine wisdom and guidance, CT received the following article just 3 days ago from a member. CT wanted to verify the statements therein before publishing it. Yesterday’s announcement has confirmed that the CCC project has indeed stopped. There are many interesting questions raised by the author, which only PG and his deacons can answer. With what has happened, the situation now demands that PG and his deacons come out openly with truthful answers. No more lies, Pas Prince Guneratnam!
(The following article was contributed by a long-serving member)
ABRAHAM WAS LOOKING FORWARD TO THE CITY……
Received ‘very reliable’ confirmation that construction works for CCC had stopped due to non-payment to the Sub-Contractors (SC). Sources revealed that
the church had been paying, but the problem is on the Main Contractor’s (MC) side. Another interesting revelation is that, 14th. Oct. 2009 is the official Date of Completion for the project.
Pertinent questions are begging for answers now.
1) Was there any proper due diligence done in selecting the MC; such as:-
i) Pre-tender qualifications,
ii) Tender interview conducted after submission of tender with such questions as to the ability & capability of the MC to take on a project of this magnitude with regards to financial, technical, human resource & job commitment.
iii) What was documented in the tender reports?
2) If the church decides to determine the contract, we still have to pay the MC for all the work done as per the certification of the QS, & then we are saddled with a host of problems;
i) What happened to the warranties to the work executed by the MC & his SCs, bearing in mind, whosoever tenders for the remaining portion of the work would put in a premium for this warranties as well as responsibilities for all the works previously executed.
ii). What about the defects, whether discovered earlier and documented and waiting to be rectified or yet to be discovered as well as latent defects (defects appearing in later stage). Who will be responsible, do we pay extra to the next MC to undertake the rectifications.
iii). Would the contracts of the existing SCs be determined as well, would the new MC have to work with the existing SCs, can he get along with them, or get his own SCs, what about warranties & responsibilities of the existing SCs?
All these problems have a weightage to the amount the new tenderer would bid for the job and notwithstanding that, the current cost of materials & labour.
3) What happened to our rights and remedies under the contract?
Contractually, if the MC fails to complete the project on time and if he had exhausted all avenues for application for Extension of Time, Certificate of Non-Completion would be issued and then Liquidated & Ascertained damages would be recommended by the QS, giving the client the prerogative to deduct whatever monies due to the penalty for every Certificate of Payment presented by the MC. Could the MC still continue when monies are deducted, when even he had difficulty paying his SCs when money was not deducted.
Question is, does the MC have any application of time pending, as we have heard of ‘numerous changes’ being made. If these changes are caused by the client & consultants, the MC has valid grounds.
In the light of the MC non-performance in paying the SCs & his failure to complete the project on schedule, why did the church accept the Performance Bond in the form of ‘Corporate Guarantee’(on hindsight). The church has never been in the construction business & do not know the reputation and background of contractors, why did it trust the MC to the extent of accepting a ‘Corporate Guarantee’.
‘Corporate Guarantee’ is an exception rather than the norm, as most Performance Bonds are in the form of ‘Bank Guarantee’ or at worse, ‘Insurance Guarantee’. What recourse do we have, besides determining the contract. We have to console ourselves with the tattered reputation of the MC as Performance Bond. Normally, even when the MC have submitted a Bank Guarantee as Performance Bond, the client still will be on the losing side, should the contract be determined prematurely, due to non-performance of the MC. More so in this case.
The church lost out in terms of time & money as the new premises would not ready for occupation for quite a while, should the contract of the current MC be determined.
Two examples of the ‘feel good factors’ :-
1) When the church bought the land at Bukit Jalil, it highlighted that it had got a discount for the commercial portion of the land. Even though it was at a discounted price, the church is not putting up a commercial building, for all intent & purposes, it’s a church building, so, we paid extra for a commercial land to build a church building; it is akin to buying a piece of commercial land, even though at a discounted price, but building a residential building on it. This was not made known, only a half-truth was disseminated that we got the land at a discounted price…and everyone was so happy.
2) When the construction price shot up to RM150 million, they told us that there was a reduction in the ‘contingency sum’. Now a ‘contingency sum’ is for the purpose of….A CONTINGENCY. It is prudent for any project to allocate a 5% of the total construction cost for ‘contingency sum’. However you might not have to utilize this sum. So, for them to increase the cost from RM50 million and then throw in a feel good factor that the contingency sum is being reduced is a deception. You might as well jack up the construction cost to include in the contingency sum and tell all and sundry that this project is so well planned, that there is no need of a contingency sum.
Going back a little bit further, Calvarites have all along been led by the nose in accepting the building of a 5000 seating capacity 'church', it's "God's vision" and it had to succeed come what may. Wonder whether this so-called "God's vision" encompassed the following :-
1) A RM100 million mistake. This was acknowledged by the renowned architect who wants to build a signature building. Has the BOD practiced due diligence with our money and questioned how and why this RM100 million mistake was committed.
i) Has anyone thought of filing a 'professional negligence' suit against the architect or at least lodging a complaint with Lembaga Akitek Malaysia or Pertubuhan Akitek Malaysia to suspend his practice?
ii) After all, has anyone ever heard of a RM100 million mistake?
iii) Was the decision to award to him, even after knowing his religious leaning, with consensus & above board?
2) During the 2007 AGM, HJK challenged the congregation by saying that "God asked, am I not worth that much?". Yet during the 2008 AGM, he spinned a tale that 'by value engineering (which actually is another name for cost-cutting, albeit a better sounding name), the church saved RM40 million, without compromising on design intent and quality. When questioned how did he managed to do that, he was dumbfounded and had to be 'rescued' by the Project Manager who said that they changed the material for the roof from 'enamel' to 'alucobond'.
i) Is that not a compromise for quality?
ii) The question is still ringing in my ears, "Am I (God) not worth more than that?", why need to cost-cut?
If you can saved RM40 million by cost-cutting and without having to compromise on the design intent and the quality, it means in the first place, you have jacked up the actual figure and then bringing it down to look good. HJK might now clarify that he was wearing different shoes when he spoke up during the different AGMs, remember how he said that he spoke in the capacity of a life-group leader & not a deacon, when promoting Calvary Kini. Anyway, I have never trusted people with multiple personalities.
3). The building had to be scaled down due to the exorbitant cost and yet with a lower construction cost, the MC could not performed and did not pay his SCs.
i) What would have happened had the cost not be scaled down, would the stoppage happened earlier?
ii) Was the decision to award to the MC done above-board?
iii) Was there a pre-determined plan to award to the current MC despite and in spite of whatever adverse reports?
Your guess is as good as mine. Most of us have not seen the drawings, specifications & documents pertaining to CCC, much less the tender reports. There are no monthly or bimonthly updates on the building, how much was paid out, what stage had the building been up to, whether the progress of construction is ahead or delayed, nothing, zilch. The whole project is shrouded in secrecy, more stringent than the official secrets act. You only give and don't question is the mantra not only applicable to tithes & offerings but also to CCC.
iv) How long had the MC not been paying the SCs and when was this brought into the open? It surely cannot be an overnight affair.
v) What has the consultants, especially the architect been advising, since he is the superintending officer of the project and would have known all this, or is he still busy looking at his design, first thing in the morning & the last thing at night that he had forgotten to administer the contract professionally or is there another RM100 million mistake in the making?
vi) What actions have been taken by the project team and the client to resolve the situation, like making direct payments to the SCs, so that the project can continue?
vii) Why is the church still paying the MC until now, is there something you & I don't know?
Anyway you look at it, the church members will have to bear the brunt of this fiasco.
SOMEBODY, PLEASE HELP……… ANYBODY……….. P L E A S E ……
“ Abraham was looking forward to the city with foundations, whose architect and builder is God” (Heb 11:10) ; Calvarites are forced to look forward to a building without foundations of Truth, Transparency & Godly Governance, whose architect is a Free Mason and the builder is a default-paying MC.
“Abraham believed in God and it was imputed to him as righteousness” (Rom 4:3); Calvarites were made to believe in a Tan Sri/Dato’/Dr but it can only be imputed to them as blind or misguided faith.
