PAM 2018 vs PAM 2006 – Salient Point
Description
2018
2006
Remark
Limit of retention sum
No limit of retention
sum
5% of Contract Sum
Issuance of Contract
document and
drawings
Within 14days after
the award of the
contract.
Immediately after
execution of the
contract.
Additional V.O. clause
Added ground for v.o.
in “execution of
temporary work”
Time frame imposed
No mention “execution
of temporary work” as
a ground for v.o.
No time frame imposed It limit the time for v.o.to
be deliberated with
Employer
Architect only need to
It is limiting the power of
provide reason for
the Architect
work not practically
completed
Imposition of time
frame in valuation of
v.o.
When work not
practically completed in
the opinion of the
Architect
Reason for rejecting
and provide detail for
EOT
When work not
practically completed
in the opinion of the
Architect need to
“specifying the
incomplete work and
the conditions that
have not been
complied with”
Architect must
provide reason when
and rejecting EOT and
provide detail when
issuing EOT within a
time frame
Architect does not
need to provide reason
and detail
There’s no specified limit in
PAM2018, only that
retention sum to be
specified throughout the
Interim Certificate. The
default is 5% if not stated
otherwise. The Employer
will retain less 5% in the
Interim Certificate if using
PAM2018 while PAM2006
allow retention of 10% for
each certificate until a
maximum of 5% of contract
sum.
PAM2018 impose a time
frame for the Architect/QS
to issue the Contract
document& drawings
which burden the
Architect/QS
Risk of additional clause for
the Employer
It is limiting the power of
the Architect and impose
additional liability
EOT ground for delay in
providing contract
document and
drawings
Delay in providing
contract document
and drawings within
the time frame is
ground for EOT
Not a ground for EOT
as no time frame set
Risk of time under
consultant and Employer
Contractor claiming
loss and/or expense
Contractor may claim
loss and/or expense
for delay in providing
contract document
and drawings
Contractor’s consent
needed for omission
and awarding to
others of any PC sum
item
No ground for claim on
this matter
Risk of cost under
consultant and Employer
No such provision
Clearly specify the rights of
the Contractor, while in
PAM2006, contractor can
only commence legal
proceeding on claiming loss
due to omission of work in
PC Sum
Allow part of set-off
amount to be
disputed and other
non-disputed amount
set-offed.
Architect to certify
contractor’s breach is
a condition
precedence.
No provision on part of
the set-off amount
Omission of PC sum
and permission to
award to others
Part of amount under
set-off
Calling of Performance
Bond
Do not need Architect
to certify breach
Employer’s liberty to call
the Performance Bond
curtailed, Architect’s
liability increase
Note: Generally, PAM 2018 imposed time frame and more specific on the operation of the Clauses.