My 11th question to Zambry – Why did ATP appoint SDGM Design Director as an “independent” architect firm to provide certification on SDGM’s progress claim?

The special Internal Audit Report on MAPS Section 4.2.4 stated that the architect, who provided certification of work completion on SDGM’s progress claim, at the same time also held the position of Design Director of SDGM.

This is a clear conflict of interest as the architect would not be able to provide a credible and independent certification on SDGM’s progress claim.

How can an architect which at the same time holding the design director post in SDGM being appointed by ATP to provide certification on SDGM’s progress claim? This will defeat the whole purpose of appointing an independent architect firm to substantiate SDGM progress claim.

The special internal audit also quoted documentation in the form of invoice. The invoice which was issued to SDGM by its subcontractor for the attention of the architect, which was addressed in the invoice as the General Manager of SDGM.

Yesterday I have exposed that the Quantity Surveyor which was appointed by ATP also provides similar consultancy service to SDGM, which put a huge question mark on its independence.

Zambry must explain why did he allow ATP to appoint Quantity Surveyor and Architect Firm which independence is highly questionable. This huge conflict of interest may potentially lead to claims on uncompleted works at inaccurate value.

Media Statement by Chairman of the Audit Committee Perak Corporation Berhad and Keranji State Assemblyman Chong Zhemin on 3 April 2019.