The RM30,000 Completion Bonus
Ir. Farah is a registered Professional Engineer (Civil) and director of an Engineering Consultancy Practice. She is the engineer for a 12-storey office tower in Petaling Jaya. The main contractor requests a certificate of practical completion so the developer can hand over to a major tenant on Monday. During her inspection, Farah finds the fire pump set has failed its commissioning test twice; the wet riser pressure test held only 4.5 bar against the specified 6.0 bar; and 18 of 42 emergency lights are not connected. The developer's project director says these are 'minor defects' and offers Farah a RM30,000 'success fee' to sign the certificate immediately. Farah also learns that her graduate engineer has been signing daily site inspection forms as 'Engineer's Representative' for three weeks while she was overseas, although the ECP contract requires all inspection forms to be reviewed by the PE.
1. Advise Ir. Farah whether she may issue the certificate of practical completion. Apply the BEM Code of Professional Conduct and explain the reasoning, including the effect of the RM30,000 offer.
Read the worked answer
Conclusion: she must not sign. Practical completion is not a negotiating chip; it is a professional certification that the works are complete except for minor defects that do not affect safety, use or the employer's enjoyment. A failed fire pump, a wet riser at 4.5 bar instead of 6.0 bar and 18 unconnected emergency lights are life-safety defects. They are not minor. Signing would misrepresent the state of the works to the employer, the tenant and the fire authority. Under the BEM Code, the engineer's first duty is to public safety and to act with integrity and objectivity. The RM30,000 'success fee' is an inducement that creates a conflict of interest and, if accepted, could be treated as a bribe or secret commission. She should refuse, record the refusal and the reasons, issue a detailed outstanding-works list with a deadline, and offer to re-inspect. If the employer insists, she should state in writing that she cannot certify and must consider notifying BEM. She should also check whether the contract allows a qualified or partial certificate; if not, she cannot invent one. The risk of losing the appointment is professional and contractual, but it does not justify a false certificate. Disciplinary consequences under the Engineers Act 1967 can include caution, suspension or cancellation of registration.
2. What should Farah do about the graduate engineer's signing of inspection forms? Identify the registration and supervision issues and the steps she must take.
Read the worked answer
The graduate engineer's conduct is a registration and supervision problem, not a clerical issue. A Graduate Engineer may work under a Professional Engineer's supervision but must not hold out as a PE or sign as the 'Engineer's Representative' unless the contract and the ECP authorise that role and the required supervision exists. The ECP contract requires PE review, so the forms signed for three weeks are not properly authorised. Farah must: (1) stop the practice immediately and retrieve all forms; (2) identify every inspection covered and re-inspect the critical items, especially fire, structural and life-safety works; (3) issue corrective instructions and inform the employer and contractor in writing; (4) record the supervision failure and the remedial action; (5) review the ECP's supervision and delegation procedures. If the graduate engineer misrepresented his status or the forms were used to deceive the employer, she should consider reporting the matter to BEM. She should not simply backdate or re-sign the forms as if she had reviewed them. Her own position depends on whether she knew or ought to have known; turning a blind eye is not a defence.