COST EFFECTIVENESS COMPARISON OF PRE-FABRICATION
WITH CONVENTIONAL CONSTRUCTION METHOD
FOR RMAF GROUND DEFENSE BUNKER
TAN SWEE KOK
UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MALAYSIA
COST EFFECTIVENESS COMPARISON OF PRE-FABRICATION
WITH CONVENTIONAL CONSTRUCTION METHOD
FOR RMAF GROUND DEFENSE BUNKER
TAN SWEE KOK
A project report submitted in partial fulfillment
of the requirements for the award of the degree of Master in Science
(Construction Management)
Faculty of Civil Engineering
Universiti Teknologi Malaysia
APRIL, 2010
I dedicated this to my beloved wife Lydia Nyomek, my dearest father Mr. Tan Teck
Lam and mother Mrs. Gan Eng Sin, and my loving sister Ms Tan Chen Chen for their
everlasting support and encouragement for me in completing this course of studies.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I would give my deepest appreciation and gratefulness to Dr. Rozana Binti Zakaria for
the guidance and knowledge she has gave me with patience in completing my
dissertation.
I would also like to convey my sincere appreciation to RMAF and PWD personnel
who involved in the current bunkers construction for their support and time in helping
me to complete this dissertation.
Finally, to my wife, my parents, i would express my gratitude for your support,
encouragement and endless love for me.
ABSTRAK
Kaedah pembinaan pre-fabrikasi bukannya perkara baru dalam industri
pembinaan Malaysia, namun penggunaannya masih pada tahap yang rendah. Pihak
kerajaan sewajarnya menggalakkan penggunaan pembinaan pre-fabrikasi terutamanya
pada
projek-projek
pembangunan
kerajaan
termasuk
projek
pembangunan
keselamatan negara. Kaedah pre-fabrikasi merupakan kaedah moden yang
diimplimentasikan secara luas di negara-negara membangun dan ia telah dibuktikan
berkesan menjimatkan kos pembinaan, tenaga kerja, tempoh pembinaan, dan kualiti
pembinaan.
Pangkalan Udara Kuantan telah dipilih untuk kajian kes disebabkan ia
merupakan Pangkalan TUDM yang pertama dilengkapi dengan kubu pertahanan
pangkalan. Data-data yang diperlukan telah diperolehi daripada tiga fasa kajian kes
ini,
meliputi tinjauan tapak, temubual, dan perbandingan kos pembinaan antara
kaedah pre-fabrikasi dengan kaedah pembinaan tradisional. Penemuan-penemuan
daripada data yang dianalisis membuktikan kubu-kubu sedia ada tidak memenuhi
speksifikasi dan menimbulkan masalah-masalah kepada TUDM dan JKR sewaktu
perlaksanaan projek. Walau bagaimanapun, kaedah pre-fabrikasi akan menyumbang
kepada penyelesaian masalah-masalah yang timbul dan terbukti dari segi
keberkesanan kos jika digunakan. Kajian ini telah mencadangkan pengagihan kerja
dan tanggungjawab menyeluruh perlu diterapkan kepada semua pihak yang terlibat
dalam projek pembangunan kubu. Kajian juga mengesyorkan ketelusan maklumat kos
pembinaan amat penting diperolehi daripada pihak JKR.
Tujuan utama dan objektif-objektif yang ditetapkan dalam kajian ini telah
tercapai di mana masalah kerosakan yang terjadi kepada kubu-kubu yang sedia ada
serta
masalah-masalah
pengoperasian
pangkalan
harian
telah
dikenalpasti.
Persoalanan berkenaan perbandingan kos pembinaan kaedah pre-fabrikasi telah
dibuktikan dan didaati kos pre-fabrikasi lebih berkesan, Maklumbalas daripada
kebanyakan respondan menunjukkan penggunaan kaedah pre-fabrikasi yang
menyeluruh di semua Pangkalan/ Unit TUDM pada Rancangan Malaysia Ke-10
adalah memungkinkan dan boleh menjimatkan kewangan pertahanan TUDM.
ABSTRACT
Pre-fabrication construction method is not new in Malaysian construction
industry yet the utilization of such method still relatively low. Government should
conduct thorough study of pre-fabrication method aspects and implement it widely
especially for government based projects including national security development
projects as well. Pre-fabrication method is a modern construction method that widely
use by developed countries and it proven that to be more cost effective and cost saving
on the aspect of cost, labor, time, quality and durability.
Pilot project of bunker construction in Kuantan Airbase (KAB) has chosen as
case study for this research. While data required for this case study was generated
from site survey, interview segment and construction cost comparison of prefabrication with conventional bunker construction. The findings showed that none of
defense bunkers were fully complied with specifications. Majority of respondents
agreed that current construction method caused several problems to RMAF and PWD.
Pre-fabrication method was foresees contributed solutions to overcome current
problems and furthermore this study identified that pre-fabrication is cost
effectiveness for implementation. Recommendations suggested to improve current
construction caused problems on site by imposing clear delegations and
responsibilities for stakeholders whereas encourage cost information transparency
provided by PWD.
The primary aim and objectives of this study has been accomplished
successfully in which the findings have eliminated uncertainties and arguments on prefabrication method cost effectiveness. Majority of respondents gave a feedback that
pre-fabricated bunkers implementation are possibility for mass implementation of prefabricated bunkers in 10th Malaysian Plan in all RMAF Bases. This action will save
financial of RMAF defense.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER
1
TITLE
PAGE
TITLE PAGE
i
DECLARATION
ii
DEDICATION
iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
iv
ABSTRAK
v
ABSTRACT
vii
TABLE OF CONTENT
ix
LIST OF TABLES
xv
LIST OF FIGURES
xix
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
xxi
LIST OF APPENDICES
xxiii
INTRODUCTION
1.1
Introduction
1
1.2
Research Background
3
1.3
Research Problem Statement
4
1.4
Aim and Objectives of Research
6
1.5
Scope of Research
6
1.6
Importance of Research
7
2
1.7
Brief Research Methodology
7
1.8
Expected Findings
8
PRE-FABRICATION CONSTRUCTION METHOD
2.1
Introduction
9
2.2
Malaysian Construction Industrialization
12
2.2.1 Conventional Construction Method
13
2.2.2 Cast In-situ Construction Method
14
2.2.3 Pre-fabrication Construction Method
15
2.2.3.1
Industrialized Building
System (IBS)
16
2.2.3.2
IBS Classification
19
2.2.3.3
Comparison of IBS
Classification
20
2.2.3.4
IBS Groups
22
2.2.3.5
Modular Coordination System
24
2.3
Advantages of Using Pre-fabrication Method
2.4
Cost Effectiveness Using Pre-fabricated
Construction Method
25
26
2.4.1 Effectiveness in Protecting RMAF
Safety and Security
2.4.2 Effectiveness in Construction Cost
29
2.4.3 Effectiveness in Time of Completion
31
2.4.4
Effectiveness in Quality of
Construction
2.5
2.6
28
32
2.4.5 Effectiveness in Labor Requirement
33
Building Elemental Cost Comparison
34
2.5.1 Building Design Information
35
2.5.2 Building Cost Information
36
2.5.3 Cost Comparison
36
Failure of Using Pre-fabricated Method
37
3
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
3.1
Introduction
40
3.2
Case Study of Kuantan Air Base
42
3.2.1 Site Survey
43
3.2.2 Interview Segment
43
3.2.3 Construction Cost Comparison
45
Expected Result
46
3.3
4
DATA ANALYSIS AND RESULTS
4.1
Introduction
48
4.2
Phase I – Site Survey
50
4.2.1 Structural Elements and Physical
Appearance Comparison
50
4.2.2 Analysis of Structural Elements
4.3
Dimensions and Physical Appearance
51
Phase II – Interview Segment
58
4.3.1 Analysis of Respondents
Background Information
59
4.3.1.1 Distribution of Respondents
by Position/ Appointment
60
4.3.1.2 Distribution of Respondents
by Rank/ Grade
61
4.3.1.3 Distribution of Respondents
by Field of Expertise
62
4.3.1.4 Distribution of Respondents
by Years of Active Service/
Experience
63
4.3.1.5 Distribution of Respondents
by Branch/ Trade
64
4.3.1.6 Distribution of Respondents
by Academic Qualification
4.3.2 Analysis of Interview Questions
65
66
4.3.2.1 Responses on Bases’
Safety and Security Issue
67
4.3.2.2 Responses on Lengthy
Conventional Bunkers
Construction Period
71
4.3.2.3 Responses on Negative Impacts
Caused by Lengthy
Construction Period
73
4.3.2.4 Responses on Current Bunkers
Not Complying with Specification 76
4.3.2.5 Responses on Incompetency
of Class F Contractors
79
4.3.2.6 Responses on Costly Conventional
Bunker Construction Method
81
4.3.2.7 Suggestions to Improve Overall
Base’s Safety and Security,
Duration, Cost and Quality for
Current Bunkers Construction
83
4.3.2.8 Responses on Pre-fabrication
Implementation to Improve Base’s
Safety and Security
86
4.3.2.9 Responses on Pre-fabricated
Bunkers Require Shorter
Construction Period
89
4.3.2.10 Responses on Pre-fabricated
Bunkers Promote Better Quality
and More Standardized
92
4.3.2.11 Responses on Cost Effectiveness
of Pre-fabricated Bunkers
Construction
95
4.3.2.12 Responses on Feasibility or
Practicality of Pre-fabricated
Bunkers Construction
97
4.3.2.13 Additional Suggestion to Improve
RMAF Defense Bunker
Construction
4.4
99
Phase III – Cost Analysis
102
4.4.1 Elemental Breakdown Cost Analysis
102
for Current Bunkers’ Cost
4.4.2 Estimated Cost for Pre-fabricated Bunkers
104
4.4.3 Cost Comparison between Current Bunkers
with Pre-fabricated Bunkers
104
4.4.3.1 Identical Elements Cost Analysis
105
4.4.3.2 Cost Comparison between Current
Bunkers Construction with Prefabricated Bunkers Construction
4.5
5
Conclusion
110
112
FINDING DISCUSSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1
Introduction
114
5.2
Finding Discussions
115
5.2.1 Findings Discussions for Faultiness
Identification
116
5.2.2 Findings Discussions on
Construction Problems Identification
119
5.2.3 Findings Discussions on Pre-fabricated
Bunkers Cost Effectiveness Identification
5.3
Recommendations for Research Problems
123
126
5.3.1 Recommendations for Clear
Delegations and Responsibilities
126
5.3.2 Recommendations for Transparency in
Cost Information
5.4
6
Conclusion
130
131
CONCLUSION
6.1
Introduction
133
6.2
Summary of Research
134
6.2.1 Summary for Research Objective 1
134
6.2.2 Summary for Research Objective 2
135
6.2.3 Summary for Research Objective 3
136
6.2.4 Summary for Research Aim
136
Recommendations for Future Research
137
6.3
6.3.1 Identify Defense Bunkers
Strength Faultiness
137
6.3.2 Identify Resources and Duration
Cost Effectiveness
6.4
Conclusion
140
141
REFERENCES
143
APPENDICES
147
LIST OF TABLE
TABLE NO.
TITLE
PAGE
Table 2.1
The Ontology of IBS Building System (Part 1)
17
Table 2.1
The Ontology of IBS Building System (Part 2)
18
Table 2.2
Characteristics of IBS Building System (Part 1)
18
Table 2.2
Characteristics of IBS Building System (Part 2)
19
Table 2.3
Comparison of IBS Classification (Part 1)
20
Table 2.3
Comparison of IBS Classification (Part 2)
21
Table 4.1
RMAF Specifications and Completed
Bunkers Comparison
Table 4.2
Bunkers’ Slab Roof Dimensions
Compliancy Percentage
Table 4.3
53
Bunkers’ Metal Door Dimensions
Compliancy Percentage
Table 4.6
52
Bunkers’ Weapon Countertop Dimensions
Compliancy Percentage
Table 4.5
52
Bunkers’ Wall Dimensions
Compliancy Percentage
Table 4.4
51
53
Bunkers’ Metal Window Dimensions
Compliancy Percentage
54
Table 4.7
Bunkers’ Ventilation Openings
Compliancy Percentage
Table 4.8
Bunkers’ Firing Hole I Dimensions
Compliancy Percentage
Table 4.9
56
Bunkers with Earth Barrier
Compliancy Percentage
Table 4.13
56
Bunkers with Roof Turfing
Compliancy Percentage
Table 4.12
55
Bunkers’ Raised Floor Dimension
Compliancy Percentage
Table 4.11
55
Bunkers’ Firing Hole II Dimensions
Compliancy Percentage
Table 4.10
54
57
Bunkers with Earth Barrier
Compliancy Percentage
57
Table 4.14
Overall Bunkers Compliancy Percentage
58
Table 4.15
Position/ Appointment Distribution
60
Table 4.16
Rank/ Grade Distribution
61
Table 4.17
Field of Expertise Distribution
62
Table 4.18
Years of Active Service/ Experience Distribution
63
Table 4.19
Branch or Trade Distribution
64
Table 4.20
Academic Qualification Distribution
65
Table 4.21
Negative Responses for Question 1
68
Table 4.22
Positive Responses for Question 1 (Part 1)
68
Table 4.22
Positive Responses for Question 1 (Part 2)
69
Table 4.23
Percentage of Responses for Question 1
69
Table 4.24
Positive Responses for Question 2 (Part 1)
71
Table 4.24
Positive Responses for Question 2 (Part 2)
72
Table 4.25
Percentage of Responses for Question 2
72
Table 4.26
Positive Responses for Question 3
74
Table 4.27
Negative Responses for Question 3
75
Table 4.28
Percentage of Responses for Question 3
75
Table 4.29
Table 4.30
Positive Responses for Question 4
Negative Responses for Question 4
77
77
Table 4.31
Percentage of Responses for Question 4
77
Table 4.32
Positive Responses for Question 5
79
Table 4.33
Negative Responses for Question 5
79
Table 4.34
Percentage of Responses for Question 5
80
Table 4.35
Positive Responses for Question 6
81
Table 4.36
Negative Responses for Question 6
82
Table 4.37
Percentage of Responses for Question 6
82
Table 4.38
Suggestions for Question 7
84
Table 4.39
Percentage of Suggestions for Question 7
85
Table 4.40
Positive Responses for Question 8 (Part 1)
87
Table 4.40
Positive Responses for Question 8 (Part 2)
88
Table 4.41
Percentage of Responses for Question 8
88
Table 4.42
Positive Responses for Question 9
90
Table 4.43
Percentage of Responses for Question 9
91
Table 4.44
Positive Responses for Question 10
93
Table 4.45
Percentage of Responses for Question 10
93
Table 4.46
Positive Responses for Question 11 (Part 1)
95
Table 4.46
Positive Responses for Question 11 (Part 2)
95
Table 4.47
Percentage of Responses for Question 11
95
Table 4.48
Positive Responses for Question 12
98
Table 4.49
Percentage of Responses for Question 12
98
Table 4.50
Suggestions for Question13
100
Table 4.51
Percentage of Identical Suggestion
Categorization for Question 13
Table 4.52
101
Project Information and Cost for
Completed Bunkers in KAB
103
Table 4.53
Additional Cost for Bunker A1 Rectification
106
Table 4.54
Additional Cost for Bunker A2 Rectification
106
Table 4.55
Additional Cost for Bunker A3 Rectification
107
Table 4.56
Table 4.57
Additional Cost for Bunker A4 Rectification
Additional Cost for Bunker A5 Rectification
107
108
Table 4.58
Additional Cost for Bunker B1 Rectification
108
Table 4.59
Additional Cost for Bunker B2 Rectification
109
Table 4.60
Additional Cost for Bunker B3 Rectification
109
Table 4.61
Additional and Omission Cost for Bunker
Table 4.62
B4 Rectification
110
Cost Comparison between Conventional with
111
Pre-fabricated Bunkers
Table 5.1
Rectification Cost and Actual Construction
Cost for Current Bunkers
Table 5.2
124
Comparison of Actual Construction Cost
With Precast Costing
124
LIST OF FIGURE
FIGURE NO.
TITLE
PAGE
Figure 2.1
Pre-fabricated Houses for Defense Designed by US
10
Figure 2.2
IBS Classification
19
Figure 3.1
Research Methodology Flow Chart
41
Figure 4.1
Figure 4.2
Figure 4.3
61
62
Figure 4.4
Figure 4.5
Figure 5.1
Rank/ Grade Distribution Percentage
Field of Expertise Distribution Percentage
Year of Active Service/ Experience
Distribution Percentage
Branch or Trade Distribution Percentage
Academic Qualification Distribution Percentage
Bunkers’ Faultiness Categorization
Figure 5.2
Percentage of Bunkers Faultiness
118
Figure 5.3
Problems and Problem’s Root Causes
Caused by Conventional Construction Method
Figure 5.4
121
Percentage of Responses on Advantages of
Pre-fabrication Method Implementation
Figure 5.6
120
Percentage of Responses on Problems Caused by
Conventional Construction Method
Figure 5.5
63
64
65
117
121
Advantages of Prefabricated Bunkers
Construction Implementation
122
Figure 5.7
Cost Reduction Using Ezidek and Eastern Pretech
Pre-fabricated Bunkers for Bunkers
Sector A and Sector B
Figure 5.8
Clear Delegations and Responsibilities
of Stakeholders
Figure 6.1
125
129
Additional Testing and Assessments
for Site Survey
140
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
Brig Gen
Brigadier General
Capt
Capten
CCD
Camouflage, Concealment and Decoy
CDD
Chief Deputy Director (PWD)
CIDB
Construction Industry Development Board
CMU
Concrete Masonry Units
C/ NC
Compliance/ Non- Compliance
Col
Colonel
DP&D
Department of Planning and Development
EXO
Executive Officer
IBS
Industrialize Building System
ID
Identification
KAB
Kuantan Air Base
Maj
Major
MC
Modular Coordination
MMC
Modern Method Construction
NBCR
Nuclear, Biological, Chemical, and Radiology
OPP
Outline Perspective Plan
PWD
Public Work Department
QA
Quality Assurance
QC
Quality Check
QS
Quantity Surveyor
RMAF
Royal Malaysian Air Force
Sect A
Sector Alpha
Sect B
Sector Bravo
SO 1
Staff Officer 1
SO 2
Staff Officer 2
SOP
Standard Operating Procedure
LIST OF APPENDICES
APPENDIX
TITLE
PAGE
A
Elemental Breakdown Structure Cost Analysis
147
B
RMAF Defense Bunkers Construction Drawing
158
C
Interview Questions
163
D
Current Bunkers Construction Cost Quotation Bills 169
E
Application for Pre-fabricated Bunkers Costing
from Local Precast Manufacturer
F
Pre-fabricated Bunkers Cost Estimating by
Local Precast Manufacturer
G
180
187
Location Plans for Existing Constructed
Defense Bunkers in Sector A and Sector B
Kuantan Air Base
190
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1
Introduction
Ground defense is part of defense plan for every Royal Malaysian Air Force
(RMAF) bases. In conjunction with the enhancement of RMAF base ground base
defense program, a series of study, planning, design and review has been conducted by
RMAF Department of Planning and Development (DP&P) and its’ selected project
team. A complete RMAF ground defense program proposal had been delivered to the
highest-level management of RMAF for their consent and approval. Among all the
elements in the proposal, one of the important supporting elements is ground defense
bunker.
A great numbers of standardized bunkers will be built throughout all the
RMAF bases in Malaysia for the next Tenth Malaysian Plan. However, before the
mass implementation of bunkers construction in all the RMAF bases, Kuantan
AirBase (KAB) has been selected as the very first base to be equipped with these
2
bunkers. These bunkers are in the budget of Ninth Malaysian Plan. These pilot
bunkers are purposely for design review and feasibility study of the future new
designed bunker.
After two consecutive years of the construction of nine (09) bunkers in KAB,
project design team assigned faced the same repetitive problems such as unstable
yearly costing of bunker construction and no construction standardization in size and
other specifications due to the lack of engineering knowledge and incompetency of
Class-F contractors selected by Department of Public Work (PWD).
.
Furthermore, lack of influential power in contract awarding process and
payment process by RMAF personnel has made it even more difficult to select capable
contractor and reduce unnecessary cost incurred during construction. While contractor
usually tries to gain as much profit as they can and tend to use sub-standard or low
quality materials throughout the construction process. RMAF design team in fact
generalize this problem after found out that all the contractors were using bricks to
assemble the bunker’s ventilation part, instead of using reinforcement concrete as
what stated in method of construction.
Additional, by selecting any random contractor to work inside the base
potentially offer a treat to base in term of information leakage, sabotage, and
espionage, during period of On-site construction activities. Therefore, more work
forces from military have to assign to project site to monitor movement of contractors.
3
1.2
Research Background
Issues of construction cost and specification standardization has raised the
main concerns of the design team to find a better execution plan to mitigate the
existing problems of bunkers development plan. Moreover, potential safety and
security issue also have to take into consideration while implementing the plan.
Design team has to propose the alternative solutions and usage of prefabrication construction method could be one of the alternatives beside conventional
construction method. Comparisons in term of cost effectiveness and specification
standardization are needed in order to justify which alternatives are more reliable.
Prefabrication construction has the advantage of rapid erection and a fast onsite
construction, and the elements are produced in factories, which secures good quality.
But requires a detailed design and connection details are complicated. In the respect of
generation of construction waste, a research conducted (Tam et. Al, 2004) had proved
that prefabrication construction tends to produce less wastage than conventional
construction.
In the RMAF, conventional construction method is the only implementation
for the development of all type construction projects, even though issues of inadequate
contractors, slow productivity, traditional and costly construction method is still
repeating. However, determination to resolve and improve the current problematic
situation, RMAF will be adapting contemporary construction method such as prefabrication system for the beneficial of RMAF organization.
4
1.3
Research Problem Statement
Since the establishment of RMAF in the late 50’s, RMAF organization
Planning and Development Department has been working hand in hand with the
Public Work Department (PWD) for the development of building construction project
in bases. However, RMAF project team only acts as coordinator that responsible for
the planning and designing stages for RMAF development project; where else, PWD
has the obligation to fulfill RMAF’s requirements as required. In this working
environment, RMAF dependence on PWD in contract awarding, monitoring and
commissioning of project eventually create some problems to the RMAF.
Engineering professionalism of selected Class-F contractors is the main
problem facing by RMAF design team since contractors selected are consider
incompetent in the term of knowledge and expertise during construction processes that
resulted to unnecessary construction faultiness.
In addition, review done after the completion of 1st and 2nd phase bunkers
construction in KAB has generalized that all selected contractors are lack of
engineering knowledge while performing engineering-related task. Incompetency
shown relatively is the wrong interpretation of construction drawing that ended up in
wrong construction of bunker size, opening of windows and doors, weapons support
countertop’s size, water proofing system and ventilation system. Moreover,
contractors tend to use sub-standard material during the construction phase and refuse
to comply with specifications and standards given, that eventually resulted to
additional cost for correcting constructions faultiness and reinforcing the bunker
structure.
5
Besides that, another problem that should be taking into consideration is the
base safety and security problem. As a military establishment, requirement of safety
and security is relatively high and tight for any civilian personnel that wish to gain
access into the base. To ensure safety, all contractors should be subject to identity
filtering, vehicle check, issue of temporary access past for contractors and vehicle, and
periodical visual check by military polices at construction site.
Every movement and activity carry out by contractors is recorded due to
military policies to prevent possible criminal offences by civilians in the base, ensure
off limits civilians businesses and establishments not offended, ensure of weapons
safety, access of restricted areas, and photography activities. Therefore, additional
manpower from the military security forces is assigned to carry out additional task
since contractors and their workers is considered as a threats to the overall safety and
security of bases that might lead to problems of classified military information
leakage, sabotage of military facilities and assets and any espionage activities.
Generally, problems of this research could be identified and categorized as
following:
(i)
Safety and security issue;
(ii)
High construction cost;
(iii)
Lengthy construction period; and
(iv)
No compliance to specification and no standardization.
6
1.4
Aim and Objectives of Research
The aim of this research is to verify the cost effectiveness of applying prefabrication construction method compare with conventional construction method in
order to save government budget for RMAF base defense program.
However, the specific objectives of this research are as follow:
(i)
To identify the existing bunkers faultiness;
(ii)
To identify the implications of conventional bunkers construction; and
(iii)
To compare the potential cost effectiveness of using pre-fabrication
method for bunker construction.
1.5
Scope of Research
Scope of research determined to facilitate the literature research, by focusing
on pre-fabrication construction during installation stage in literature research and data
collection process for empirical research from the companies’ manuals documents
study, case studies, and interviews. This research covers:
(i)
Case study in KAB;
(ii)
Observation and record of problems occurred on site;
7
(iii)
Explore Cost effectiveness of pre-fabrication construction method, and
compare to conventional bunkers method.
1.6
Importance of Research
The RMAF Department of Planning and Development is facing challenges in
four aspects; cost, time, quality and safety of bases. Actually, by implementing a
innovative way of construction method such as pre-fabrication system can ensure the
effectiveness in cost, time, quality and safety of any RMAF construction project.
Thus, this research will help to measure the cost effectiveness in pre-fabricated
bunker and the compliance of the Military safety and security regulations coupled with
the engineering knowledge to provide advantages to the selected contractors. Besides
that, it also decreases the cost of construction and the project can be completed with
high quality with faster time.
1.7
Brief Research Methodology
The research methodology of this research is divided into five main stages as
follows:
8
(i)
Identify problem from existing completed project;
(ii)
Identify objectives and scopes for research;
(iii)
Collect data via literature review and empirical review through case
study;
(a)
Site Survey - site visit, record observation;
(b)
Interview – all parties involved in previous bunker construction;
(c)
Cost analysis – actual current construction cost and comparison
cost of pre-fabricated bunkers with current bunkers.
(iv)
Conduct analysis and prepare theoretical and empirical results.
(v)
Provide conclusions and recommendations for overall findings and
propose pre-fabrication method for the repetition construction of another 200
unit bunkers in all RMAF Bases.
1.8
Expected Findings
It is expected that, quantitative and qualitative data collected through three
major phases of data collection from site survey, interview segment or cost
effectiveness comparison between existing construction cost and quotation given by
local precast manufacturer can enable the accomplishment of three main objectives in
this study which inclusive of:
(i)
Identify the existing bunkers physical construction faultiness;
(ii)
Identify the complications caused by conventional method; and
(iii)
Identify the cost effectiveness of pre-fabricated bunkers construction.
CHAPTER 2
Pre-fabrication Construction Method
2.1
Introduction
Pre-fabrication method is not a new concept in the construction industry
because it was practiced even longer back to the 17th century while timber panels were
created and shipped from England to new settlement in America (Shaari, 2003).
However, the use of pre-fabricated method in the military can be observed
through some important event such end of War World II, Soviet Union (USSR) had
been gathering information on construction methods especially from United State
(US) for its country post-war rehabilitation programs. In order to equip its countries’
architects, engineers, and students with adequate knowledge, Soviet Union
government has officially exhibit United State modern construction method in
prefabrication construction, descriptions of plumbing and heating systems, building
materials samples, and proposal of residential construction with the intention of
performing its nationwide rehabilitation program.
Soviet Government foresee by implementing modern method of pre-fabricated
construction in the rehabilitation program can eventually enable the country to
reconstruct the basic need of its citizens and especially for its defense capability. The
US modernization and advance in construction are the reasons that inspired USSR to
implement the same pre-fabrication construction method to rebuild its country. The
modernization of US construction method is shown in Figure 2.1.
Figure 2.1: Pre-fabricated Houses for Defense Designed by United State
(Source: Anderson, 2009)
Integration of knowledge from all construction stakeholders in this radical
rehabilitation program not only successfully rebuild war-destructed areas, aerial and
land bombarded military installations and establishment. Moreover, it also met the
acute need of housing construction that required by millions of people rendered
homeless by war (Anderson, 2009). Furthermore, another observed significance to the
event had demonstrated the first giant step in the great work of rehabilitating
peacetime housing construction all over the world Anderson, 2009). Pre-fabrication
therefore has further developed into steel and precast concrete technology and has
been using until present days.
In Malaysia, pre-fabrication is not a new concept in our Malaysian
Construction Industry. With the evolvement of construction method, pre-fabrication
has been further popularize with the term of Industrialized Building System (IBS)
among the industry stakeholders and manufacturers within the industry had been
industrializing components and structures of building or infrastructure part by part to
meet the requirement of standardization at site.
Nonetheless, the norm of using pre-fabricated method or industrialized
components in Malaysian construction industry is consider relatively low and
especially compare with conventional method. In additional, prefabricated method will
be implemented if contractors have no other choices due to tide schedule and site
condition, and they are preferably to employ relatively cheap foreign workers to create
labour-intensive construction activities (Shaari, 2003).
2.2
Malaysian Construction Industrialization
Construction Industrialization is about the evolution of construction method in
the industry. It is a nonstop improvement to strive for a better solution in management
of cost, time, quality and resources for the construction industry. Malaysian
construction industry for instant has been gone through its construction
industrialization from conventional construction method to cast in-situ method and the
pre-fabrication method.
Malaysian construction industry plays a big role in Malaysia’s development
and expected to be a major contributor towards the realisation of Vision 2020. Thus,
as envisaged in the Third Outline Perspective Plan (OPP3) 2001-2010, the industry is
expected to grow at 6.6% per annum during the period of OPP3 as well as contributing
3.1% to the GDP in the year 2010 (OPP3, 2001).
However, Malaysian construction industry still showing the reluctance of
changing or adopting of new construction methods due to lack of exposure towards
new knowledge in construction techniques. Avoidance and fear of changing eventually
has directly created the culture of using excessive labour force in construction projects
since it is seem to be cheaper solution because of skilled and unskilled foreign workers
are easy to get and cost of employment is comparatively cheap compare with the cost
for researching and manufacturing pre-fabrication components.
Obviously, Government of Malaysia or more precisely the Public Work
Department used to be blamed and accused for being incompetent in performing daily
work for the reason that cause of delay in many government development projects,
while the blame should be placed on the contractors who are responsible to complete
the awarded projects to them. Contractors should respect the contract agreements to
deliver the project according to specify time frame and should have the initiative to
explore alternative construction methods such as pre-fabrication method.
Furthermore, if Malaysian construction industry still continuous to ignore the
importance of construction industrialization and with its current levels of quality,
productivity, safety and excessive reliance on unskilled foreign workers, the state of
the local construction industry is unsustainable and not in line with the future
development of Malaysia (Shaari, 2003).
Government of Malaysia should encourage and promote the use of prefabrication method in conjunction of the modernization of construction industry to
create a simplify work process and lean construction environment to offer a better
quality control, increase of productivity and ensure a just-in-time project completion.
In addition, eliminate unnecessary wastage of materials and work force and provide a
safer or cleaner construction environment that in the long run can lead to lower cost
for better productivity construction.
2.2.1 Conventional Construction Method
Conventional construction has the advantage of easy transportation of the wet
concrete. It is flexible when it comes to geometric shapes, it is relatively easy to do
late changes to the structure, and the structure becomes monolithic. The disadvantage
is it produced in an ‘unprotected’ environment, additional time is required for the
drying out process, and it requires more temporary works.
Conventional building method is defined as components of the building that
are prefabricated on site through the processes of timber or plywood formwork
installation, steel reinforcement, and cast in-situ (Harun et al, 2005). Conventional
buildings are mostly built of reinforced concrete frames (Badir et al, 1998). The
traditional construction method uses wooden formwork. It is much more costly for
construction that includes labour, raw material, transportation and low speed of
construction time (Andres and Smith, 1998).
2.2.2 Cast In-situ Construction Method
Cast in-situ construction method is the implementation of formwork at
construction site whereby this method is technically applicable to all type of building
construction. The objective of an in-situ method is to eliminate and reduce the
traditional site-based trades like traditional timber formwork, brickwork, plastering
and to reduce labour content. A carefully planned in-situ work can maximize the
productivity, speed and accuracy of pre-fabricated construction (Haron et al, 2005).
Industrialization of construction industry enables this industry revolution
process to accommodate the changes and improvements in social-economy,
management process, and human demand. Timber formwork system had been
improvised into steel formwork system which is more cost effective since steel
formwork can be utilized repeatly for different projects rather than traditional
formwork that only applicable for two or three times. Moreover, steel formwork is
easier to erect even with reinforcement bar or concreting work and dismantling of
formwork after concrete achieved its required strength (Haron et al, 2005).
Furthermore, the workers can be easily trained to erect the moulds and set the steel
reinforcement. Its advantages over the traditional construction method include, low
skill requirement, speedy construction, low maintenance, durable structure and less
cost (Badir et al, 1998).
2.2.3 Pre-fabrication Construction Method
Pre-fabrication method is not a new concept in Malaysian construction
industry, but the utilization or implementation is relatively low since our industry still
prefers to use conventional construction method as its primary choice although it is
more labour-intensive and time consumed.
Pre-fabrication method is a manufacturing process to produce industrialized
construction components or precast components in various sizes in factory or off-site
before delivered to construction site for erection purposes.
Generally, definitions given to pre-fabrication construction method and
conventional construction method are as quoted as below:
A fabricated home is one having walls, partitions, floors, ceiling and roof
composed of sections of panels varying in size which have been fabricated in a
factory prior to erection on the building foundation. This is in contrast to the
conventionally built home which is constructed piece by piece on the site.
( Kelly, 1950) or,
Pre-fabrication is a manufacturing process generally taking place at a
specialized facility, in which various material are joined to form a components
part of final installation (Tatum et al, 1986) or,
Pre-fabricated building consists of elements that are manufactured or
fabricated in a location (off site) which is not its final destination. They are
transported to the site, and connected one to another to form a complete
structure. Usually the elements are limited by size of transport vehicles and
lifting equipments (Elliot, 2002)
2.2.3.1 Industrialized Building System (IBS)
Since industrial revolution is a non-stop process, changes of social-economy
and way of life have brought further innovations and improvements to our
construction industry in terms of developing better quality and effectiveness of
construction products. Therefore, pre-fabrication method has further incorporated into
construction process such as Industrialized Building System (IBS) and Modular
Coordination System (MC) in Malaysia construction industry.
IBS is a building system that uses industrialized or pre-fabricated components
that complete manufactured in factory or off-site and later on transferred to
construction site for on-site installation.
IBS definitions is varies depend on authors’ perspectives and philosophy.
Several authors may define IBS as process or as techniques. Table 2.1 below explains
the categories of IBS definition whether as a process or technique (Abdullah et al,
2009).
However, there are a few definitions by authors who studied into this area
previously were found through literature emphasizing on prefabrication, off-site
production and mass production of building components (Rahman & Omar, 2006)
(Warszawski, 1999) (Lessing et al. 2005) (Esa & Nurudin, 1998). IBS is often referred
by the literatures as off-site construction (Pan et al. 2008), off-site production
(Blismas et al. 2006), industrialized and automated construction (Warszawski, 1999),
off-site manufacturing, prefabricated building, pre-assemblies building (Gibb & Isack,
2003), pre-cast building, pre-cast construction, non-traditional building and Modern
Method of Construction (MMC). Table 2.2 below summarized the characteristics of
IBS building system (Abdullah et al, 2009).
Table 2.1: The Ontology of IBS Building System (Part 1)
(Source: Adopted from Abdullah M.R., 2009)
No
Authors
Techniques
Processes
1
Dietz (1971)
X
2
Dickerman (1973)
X
3
Junid (1986)
X
4
Parid (1997)
X
5
Esa and Nurrudin (1998)
X
Table 2.1: The Ontology of IBS Building System (Part 2)
(Source: Adopted from Abdullah M.R., 2009)
6
Badir and Razali (1998)
7
Trikha (1999)
8
Warszawski (1999)
9
CIDB Malaysia (1999)
10
CIDB Malaysia (2003)
X
11
Lessing (2005)
X
12
Marsono (2006)
X
13
Rahman
and
X
X
X
X
Omar
X
(2006)
14
MD Rahim (2006)
X
15
Chung L.P (2006)
X
16
Henry M.A
X
17
(CIB) TG57
X
18
(CIB) W24
X
Table 2.2: Characteristics of IBS Building System (Part 1)
(Source: Adopted from Abdullah M.R., 2009)
Parid, W.,1997
X
Automation Production
Modern Method
Labour Reduction
Standardization
Modular Component Elements
Site Erection and Assembly
Mass Production
Production Techniques
Authors
Factory Base (Off Site)
Characteristics
Table 2.2: Characteristics of IBS Building System (Part 2)
(Source: Adopted from Abdullah M.R., 2009)
Trikha, D.N., 1999
X
X
Gibb, A., 1999
X
X
Warszawski, 1999
X
Ingemar, L and Gylltoft, K., 2000
X
X
X
X
X
X
Kadir, M.R.A., et al., 2005
X
Marsono, et al., 2006
X
2.2.3.2
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
IBS Classification
IBS is classify as a process or technique to utilize or implement pre-fabricated
components to be positioned, assembled, and erected into a complete structure with
minimum site activities whether on-site or off-site (IBS Road Map, 2003). On-site IBS
can be in the form of precast in-situ using steel formwork (CIDB, 2003). While offsite
IBS can define as prescribed components that pre-fabricated remote from project site
prior to installation (Abdullah, M.R., 2009). Figure 2.2 below shows the classification
of IBS for on-site and off-site construction projects.
Industrialized Building System
Off-site Fabrication
Pre-fabricated in Factory
On-site Fabrication
Pre-fabricated off Project Site
Figure 2.2: IBS Classification
2.2.3.3
Comparison of IBS Classification
IBS has different definitions as well as it classification depends on its authors
perspective, philosophy, experience and understanding. Table 2.3 shows that
classification of IBS compares in different view and terminology of the classifications.
Table 2.3: Comparison of IBS Classification (Part 1)
(Source: Adopted from Abdullah M.R., 2009)
Authors
Classification
1. Panel system;
2. Box system; and
Mahjub (1977)
3. Frame system.
1. Conventional building system;
2. Cast in-situ formwork system;
Industrialized System Classification
3. Table or tunnel formwork system;
(Badir, et al., 1998)
4. Pre-fabricated system; and
5. Composite system.
1. Pre-cast concrete frame building;
2. Pre-cast concrete wall system;
3. Reinforced concrete building with preIBS Classification
cast slab;
(CIDB, 2003)
4. Steal formwork system;
5. Steel frame building; and
6. Steel frame roof trusses.
1. Component manufacture and subPre-assembly
and
Pre-fabrication
assembly;
Classification
2. Non-volumetric sub-assembly;
3
Volumetric pre-assembly; and
(Gibb & Isaac, 2003)
4. Modular Housing.
System Classification
Table 2.3: Comparison of IBS Classification (Part 2)
(Source: Adopted from Abdullah M.R., 2009)
1. Volumetric;
2. Panelized;
(Gibb & Pendlebury, 2006), (Ross & 3. Hybrid;
4. Sub-assemblies and components; and
Richard, 2005), and (NOA, 2005)
5. Non-off-site MMC
1. Volumetric system;
2. Panelized system;
Classification on On-site Method
3. Hybrid system;
4. Sub-assemblies and component system;
(Abosad, et al., 2009)
and
5. Modular system.
Modern Method Construction (MMC)
The confusion of classification may lead to difficulties for the clients to make
appropriate choice of construction method. From discussions and explorations of
researchers in this field, a more general classification for IBS based on the above table
can be categorized as below (Abdullah M.R., 2009):
(i)
Frame System
(ii)
Panelized System
(iii)
Cast in-situ formwork system
(iv)
Hybrid System
(v)
Modular System
2.2.3.4
IBS Groups
Pre-fabrication system is also known as Industrialized Building System (IBS)
or Modular Coordination System (MC) that can be applied to all construction
structures from basic residential projects to heavy machinery civil projects.
Application of pre-fabrication system in not only can fulfill the requirement of
providing a sound product or techniques to achieve just in time construction but also
create a lean construction that reduces wastage throughout the construction process as
well as ensuring the quality and specification of construction outcome.
Pre-fabrication system usually involves manufacturing of pre-fabricated
construction elements by factory and later on to be transported to construction site for
assembly or erection. Whilst, there are several of IBS definitions base on structural
aspect of the system and can be divided into five major groups that commonly used in
Malaysia (IBS Road Map, 2003):
(i)
Group 1 - Precast Concrete Framing, Panel and Box Systems.
(ii)
Group 2 - Steel Formwork Systems.
(iii)
Group 3 - Steel Framing Systems.
(iv)
Group 4 - Timber Framing Systems.
(v)
Group 5 - Blockwork Systems.
Group 1 - Precast Concrete Framing, Panel and Box Systems: The most common
IBS are the precast concrete elements - precast concrete columns, beams, slabs, walls,
“3-D” components (eg: balconies, staircases, toilets, lift chambers, refuse chambers),
lightweight precast concrete, as well as permanent concrete formworks.
Group 2 - Steel Formwork Systems: Considered as one of the “low-level” or the
“least prefabricated” IBS as the systems generally involve site casting, thus the
question of structural quality control still arises. Nevertheless, these systems - tunnel
forms, tilt-up systems, beams and columns moulding forms, and permanent steel
formworks (metal decks) do offer high quality finishes, and fast construction with less
site labour and material requirement.
Group 3 - Steel Framing Systems: Commonly used with precast concrete slabs,
steels columns and beams have always been the popular choice and used extensively
in the fast-track construction of skyscrapers. Recent development in these types of IBS
includes the increased usage of light steel trusses consisted of cost-effectively profiled
cold-formed channels and steel portal frame systems as an alternative the heavier
traditional hot-rolled sections.
Group 4 - Timber Framing Systems: Among the products listed in this category are
the timber building frames and timber roof trusses. While timber roof truss systems
are popular, timber building frame systems also have its own niche market; offering
interesting designs from simple dwelling units to buildings requiring high aesthetical
values such as chalets for resorts.
Group 5 - Blockwork Systems: The construction method of using the conventional
bricks has been revolutionised by the development and usage of interlocking concrete
masonry units (CMU) and lightweight concrete blocks. The tedious and timeconsuming traditional brick-laying tasks are greatly simplified by the usage of these
effective alternative solutions.
2.2.3.5 Modular Coordination System
Modular Coordination System (MC) as well as IBS is similar construction
processes that incorporated into pre-fabrication building system that required prefabricated components for on-site installation.
Modular Coordination is essentially based on the use of single module, multimodules and a reference system to define coordinating spaces and zones for building
elements and for the components that form them. There are standard rules to abide by
such as (MS 10064: Part 1-10, 2001):
(i)
Rules for locating building elements within the reference system;
(ii)
Rules for sizing building components in order to determine their work
sizes; and
(iii)
Rules for defining preferred sizes for building components and
coordinating dimensions for buildings.
(MS 10064: Part 1-10, 2001)
2.3
Advantages of Using Pre-fabrication Method
Pre-fabrication Method in construction industry is a building system that
involve of using pre-fabricated components for on-site installation. While IBS and MC
are construction processes that utilize pre-fabrication method, products, or components
in construction.
In the past, there have been few alternatives to on-site construction of large
communications buildings. Today, modular prefabricated buildings of virtually
unlimited size are available to the market. Generally, these buildings offer 3 distinct
advantages over site-built construction (Nokomi, 1991):
(i)
Shorter construction schedules or period.
(ii)
Lower cost on the usage of labours, machineries or plants, and
construction materials.
(iii)
Better quality and promote standardization.
(Nokomi, 1991)
Moreover, by implementing pre-fabrication method for construction projects
can directly enhance the site condition in term of safety, health and welfare for all
construction stakeholders. Generally, construction site is consider a unsafe, dirty,
risky, untidy, and full with potential or hidden hazardous workplace whereby wrong
doing and accidents can be happened at anytime due to carelessness and lack of
awareness. Nevertheless, pre-fabrication method is a recognized method that enables
to promote a better site condition with the advantages such as:
(i)
Increase site cleanliness and tidiness.
(ii)
Provide safer working process for workers.
(iii)
Prepare more organized site environment for workers.
(iv)
Provide more site space for construction activities.
(v)
Decrease usage of certain plants and machineries.
(Nokomi, 1991)
Lastly, benefits of using IBS are more appreciated by clients all over the world
because of its’ characteristics which offer higher quality, faster construction time,
reduction in labour force, higher productivity, reduction in costs and less maintenance.
The development of the building industry in Malaysia towards industrialization and
prefabrication has just picked up speed with the government’s drive for IBS through
CIDB and other channels. With the experience from the rest of the industrialized
world developers, contractors and consultants in Malaysia have no choice but to look
forward and prepare their projects for IBS.
2.4
Cost Effectiveness Using Pre-fabricated Construction Method
Pre-fabrication construction method has chosen for this research for the bunker
construction project since pre-fabrication method is one of the ways to increase
buildability or constructability of construction project in this industry. However, prefabricated components are uncommonly in this industry due to uncertainties of cost
and their ability to meet the aesthetic and other design requirement of developers (Tan,
1997).
Despite of potential advantages that can benefit RMAF in the long run, this
research carried out in order to enable RMAF DP&D to explore a new method for
future RMAF bunker project. This resolution not only in parallel with Malaysian
Government policy to promote modern method construction such as IBS and MC that
could save on labour, cost and time of construction while confer quality and durability
for buildings life (Elias, 2000) as well as develop a better safety and security system
and more cost effectiveness construction method for RMAF establishments. Besides
that, it was declared that all new government buildings required to have at least 50%
IBS content in 2005 Budget announcement in Sept 2004 (9th Malaysian Plan, 2006),
therefore Malaysian Government is very keen to promote usage of prefabricated
components in local construction industry.
Nonetheless, Malaysian Government also continuously enhanced and
encouraged the use of alternative construction material and technology under IBS and
design under MC. The implementation of IBS and MC will provide IBS components
in construction industry for more affordable homes and Government building projects,
and at the same time enforcement of MC concept through Uniform Building By-Laws
by local authorities (IBS Digest, 2008).
Effectiveness of using pre-fabricated construction method as a long-term
option will be reviewed whether it is suitable or feasible to be utilized to resolve
RMAF existing problems. Among all the effectiveness by using pre-fabrication
method for bunker construction can be categorized as below:
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
(v)
Effectiveness in protecting RMAF safety and security;
Effectiveness in construction cost;
Effectiveness in time of completion;
Effectiveness in quality of construction; and
Effectiveness in labour requirement.
(Elias, 2000)
2.4.1 Effectiveness in Protecting RMAF Safety and Security
Royal Malaysian Air Force bases and its installations within, are known to be
straightly prohibited from unauthorized personnel especially civilians and even some
lower rank military personals due to its highly valuable assets. Only by maintaining
absolute closure from potential threat and harm can ensure its safety and security are
well protected during peace and wartime. Therefore, principles of camouflage,
concealment and decoy (CCD) should apply to all military installations in order to
maintain viability and survivability for friendly troops.
However, living in peacetime, decades after the end of World War II and
defense of Malaysian national security forces against Communist era in this country,
application of CCD and enforcement of safety and security had become lesser and
lesser. It is clearly observed that military personnel especially the military police or
provost has taken the easier path by allowing contractors to access and work in
military compound without thorough checking of their background or past records
from the Intelligence Department. This particular problem arose mainly because of the
additional burdens stacked on them in parallel with their primary duties, since security
filtering for contractors in large numbers is a lengthy task and required continuous
monitoring of contractors to prevent any subversive activities.
This research is initial steps to protect the safety and security of our RMAF
personnel and assets during bunker construction period and to achieve the base
defense doctrinal requirement (Field Manual No. 20-3, 1999):
1.
Prevent potential threats of reconnaissance, surveillance, and target
acquisition activities by enemy.
2.
Prevent enemy efforts to access and assess operational patterns,
functions, and capabilities.
3.
Enhance personals survivability by reducing an enemy'
s ability to
detect, identify, and engage friendly elements.
4.
Enhance physical measures such as offensive and defensive
installations as well as protected from nuclear, biological, chemical (NBC)
attacks.
5.
Prevent countermeasures in reach of enemy intelligence and promote
deception countermeasures by disguising information about friendly intentions,
capabilities, objectives, and locations of vulnerable units and facilities
(Field Manual No. 20-3, 1999)
2.4.2 Effectiveness in Construction Cost
The Minister of Housing and Local Government in 1964 identified two pilot
projects in order to try out the industrialized prefabrication system. The first of these
projects was in Kuala Lumpur. 22.7 acres of land along Jalan Tun Razak (Jalan
Pekeliling) were acquired for the construction of seven blocks of 17-storey flats, and
four blocks of 4-storey flats comprising about 3000 units of low costs flats and 40
shop lots. The second pilot project was in Pulau Pinang with the construction of six
blocks of 17-storey flats and three blocks of 18-storey flats comprising 3,699 units and
66 shop lots along Jalan Rifle Range (Din, 1994). Industrialized prefabricated
construction along Jalan Tun Razak project was more expensive than the conventional
system. Its cost was 8.1% higher than a conventional housing project completed
around that time. However, in the case of the Jalan Rifle Range project, the cost was
2.6% lower (Din, 1994).
While some precast project designs typically seek to minimize costs by
limiting the number of precast pieces, trimming of construction time would yield even
greater savings. Instead of following a typical precast design that calls for erection of
large vertical panels, precast components can be constructed horizontally using
slightly smaller pieces but more of them (Schroder, 2009). To take full advantage of
precast benefits, the building needs to have lots of repetition in order to be able to
reuse molds and precast specialty engineer consulted from the very start of the project
to save on pre-design costs, which are critical to overall cost savings (Schroder, 2009).
Therefore, generally precast
construction has significant economical
advantages especially on reducing on-site labour costs, fast and easy construction as
well as has the potentials in terms of energy and raw material savings, waste
reduction, recycling and reuse of building elements (Straatman et al, 2001).
2.4.3 Effectiveness in Time of Completion
The construction period was comparable to the fastest conventional
construction. Thus, industrialized building has the following advantages in terms of
time saving (Haron et al, 2005):
(i)
Saving of time and materials involved in the erection of scaffoldings;
(ii)
Shorter construction time as a result of well planned and coordinated
sequence of construction; and
(iii)
Not affected by weather condition as building components are
manufactured in the factory, and there is no on-site concreting.
(Haron, 2005)
The greatest economy and efficiency of construction can be achieved with a
minimum number of operations on site. This includes minimizing assembling
repetitive components, continuous process and optimizing the start-stop activity.
Hence, a proper construction sequence is required, for not only speeding-up the
construction, but also giving more advantages such as flexible solutions that can help
them to avoid collision in time and space during the realization of a project (Dr.
Fadhil, C.W., 2005). Besides that, one of the inherent advantages of a total precast
building is its efficiency and the "tremendous time savings" that affords the
construction schedule (Schroder, 2005).
Lastly, precast concrete manufacturers are considered highly involved in the
construction industry through the supply of make-to-order products. Their workload is
a complex combination of different and unique designed products, which have various
delivery dates. The production process from design to manufacturing is complicated
and contains uncertainties due to many factors such as multi-disciplinary design,
progress on the construction site, and costly purpose-built moulds. Therefore, an
integrated, comprehensive planning system should propose to improve the efficiency
of the production planning processes in order to speed up the overall construction
period (Haron et al, 2005).
2.4.4 Effectiveness in Quality of Construction
The finished appearance of the buildings was of a much higher quality than
that achieved in comparable conventionally built low cost housing units. In particular,
the finish of interior walls was much superior to that achieved using cement-sand
hollow blocks. There were serious environmental problems and some stresses were
caused as a direct result of the detailing of the system. It should be noted, however,
that these problems can be overcome by changes in the detailing (Haron et al, 2005)
The construction industry considered as inefficient and highly labour intensive
activity. Conventional method using traditional brick and mortar give low and
inconsistency quality since workmanship plays the main role, in which again relying
on the skills of the labour (Vacharapoom and Nashwan, 2005).
A study done by Waleed et al in 1997 stated that, in order to achieve
Malaysian plan target using the present conventional building system, it will require
an excessive workforce, since on average only one house is completed per year per
worker Moreover, the required quality cannot be achieved, because of poor quality
control at the site. In order to overcome the present problems, the mass production of
housing under high quality control is required in which is the termed of IBS (Dr.
Fadhil C.W., 2005).
Lastly, precast concrete system is commonly cast in a factory or casting yard
on site. It is 25 % more productive in terms of labour requirements than the
conventional in situ method of construction (The Hong Kong Polytechnic University,
2002). Additionally, the use of formwork eliminated with the use of precast concrete
units, can ensure the quality and standardization of precast components since human
errors have been eliminated too (Poon et al, 2003).
2.4.5 Effectiveness in Labour Requirement
Industrialized pre-fabricated system enable labour saving of 30%-40% mainly
of skilled labour such as brick-layers, plasterers and carpenters. In Malaysia, skilled
labour in the building industry is scarce and thus expensive. The introduction of
industrialised building system can obviously improve the situation (Haron et al, 2005).
Additionally, labour efficiency in a project is one of the main factors in
productivity. This is because labour efficiency is related to one of the important
elements in a project, which is cost. Loss of labour productivity is equivalent to the
loss of labour cost that paid to the workers. Overall, it can be concluded that loss of
labour efficiency of pre-cast project is less than cast-in-situ project (Dr Fadhil, C.W.,
2005).
Lastly, labour usage represents one of the critical elements in the Malaysia
construction industry due to severe shortage of local workers. The industry relies
heavily on foreign workers can precipitate economic and social problems (Indra,
2005). Therefore, a sound construction method such as pre-fabrication method should
be widely implemented to improve current situations.
2.5
Building Elemental Cost Comparison
Building elemental cost comparison method that can provide empirical
evidence rather than rule-of-thumb is practiced here. It is hoped that there will be
better understanding, which will allow better service to be provided with a greater
level of confidence (Ashworth, 1994).
Cost effectiveness of bunker construction using pre-fabrication method can be
obtained by comparing cost of conventional bunker construction, and it is distinctively
done through several approaches that have been implemented by previous researches
such as:
(i)
Comparison of existing building with new building using the same
design and construction method;
(ii)
Comparison of existing building with new building using the same
design but different construction method; and
(iii)
Comparison of existing building with similar function building.
(Ashworth, 1994)
However, approach of cost comparison of existing building with new building
using the same set of design and drawing but utilizing pre-fabrication construction
instead of conventional construction method is chose as one of the empirical data
collection methods for this research. In addition, better cost representative can be
achieved when utilizing pre-fabrication construction method, certain requirements are
taken into account such as (Bouwcentrum, 1995):
(i)
Building design information;
(ii)
Building cost information; and
(iii)
Cost comparison.
(Bouwcentrum, 1995)
2.5.1 Building Design Information
Prefabricated construction method is combined in a manner that their features
would be applied and demonstrated when composing various work like when putting
up the other temporary facilities and building frame, building and finishing, and
equipment (Badir et al, 1998).
Identical set of design, specification and drawing from previous projects in
KAB is attached in this research in break-down components in order to be used as a
guideline or benchmark for new modification and production of pre-fabrication of
same bunker components.
2.5.2 Building Cost Information
This research is carried out to compare the cost of existing bunkers built in
KAB, which use conventional construction method and pre-fabrication construction
method. The conventional method building cost is based on elemental cost analysis
form from Public Work Department in KAB, where as the pre-fabrication method
building cost is based on estimation from local pre-fabrication manufacturers.
2.5.3 Cost Comparison
RMAF bunker construction cost using conventional constructional method
obtained from PWD for KAB from previous projects. On the other hand, cost of
construction using pre-fabrication construction method is based on quotation of
identical bunker construction from local manufacturer. Latter, both quotations are
compared in order to ensure the cost effectiveness of pre-fabrication method.
2.6
Failure of Using Pre-fabricated Method
Malaysian construction industry is a very competitive industry yet still
considered as a low productivity sector. The dependence toward labours orientate
culture is one of the main reason to cause the ineffectiveness and low productivity of
the industry, if compared with other industries in the country.
Failure to utilize and implement pre-fabricated method and similar non-labourintense methods has caused this industry to continue relying on cheaper foreign labour
supply. Although it is the fact that reliance on labour-intensive method is not the final
solution toward the modernization of construction industry, and more problems could
be arose and brought negative impacts to the nation’s social- economy and culture
development.
Among the essential reasons for pre-fabrication method not being widely
utilize and implement in Malaysian construction industry can classify into two major
categories which are:
1.
Past Failure in Construction System.
2.
Present Failure in Construction System.
Past failure in construction system was due to our industry unsightly attitude
towards acceptance of foreign construction products without questioning its flexibility
and adaptability in our country that is different in climate and culture. The past
mistakes had made this industry reluctantly to accept new method although is proven
more reliable and provide better solution.
Since construction industry is a competitive industry by nature, new
construction method is mainly utilized ‘big players’ and products price within the
industry is controlled with lofty cost, that resulted high set-up cost for new system
(Zainal, 2007). Therefore, middle level and lower level contractors unwillingly to
utilize such method because of the size of project awarded to them. They prefer to
carry out conventional construction method that is in-situ construction methods since
it requires low demand of design and cheaper cost of construction. Therefore, present
failure in construction system has influence that avoidance and ignorance to accept
new construction technologies.
In addition, most of the contractors are lack of exposure and knowledge of prefabrication construction method. Failure of proper exposure and technology transfer
resulted complications for contractors during production and installation phases.
Besides that, products are applied ineffectively caused by the easy-going attitude of
most contractors especially in preparation of adequate planning and proper
documentation (IBS Digest, 2008).
Lastly, Malaysian Construction Industry should take the challenges to mitigate
and resolve the affecting causes for low implementation of pre-fabrication method in
conjunction of government effort to resolve the current conditions by identifying the
problems that lead to delay implementation of IBS or pre-fabrication construction
which inclusive of (Zuhairi et al, 2007):
(i)
No mindset change among construction stakeholders;
(ii)
Worry of costing problem;
(iii)
No private sector adoption;
(iv)
No proprietary systems - making it hard to be adopted by designers;
(v)
Joints are not standardized - making it hard to design as the design will
have to fix to a particular manufacturer;
(vi)
Insufficient push factor;
(vii)
Lack of technical know-how;
(viii) Volume and economy of scale;
(ix)
The monopoly of big boys limiting opportunities to other contractors;
(x)
Low offsite manufacturing of construction components to guarantee
quality, mechanization and standardization;
(xi)
To consider IBS design that promote energy conservation;
(xii)
Sustainability of construction industry;
(xiii) Require onsite specialized skills for assembly and erection of
components;
(xiv)
Lack of special equipments and machinery which hampered work; and
(xv)
Insufficient capacity building for contractors to secure project in
construction.
(Zuhairi et al, 2007)
CHAPTER 3
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
3.1
Introduction
Pre-fabrication construction method is chosen because of it positive
characteristics in this industry. However, practicality and feasibility of utilizing prefabrication for RMAF bunker construction is based on study case on existing problems
occurred in Kuantan Air Base. Although case study methods remain a controversial
approach to data collection, they are widely recognized in many social science studies
especially when in-depth explanations of a social behavior are sought after (Zainal,
2007).
This research is a combination of known facts through exploration and
understanding of current issues, establishment of objectives and scopes of research
and performing activities in a systematic way to gather data for facts verification.
Nonetheless, by applying a logical and holistic way of data gathering from real-life
case as a tool for researching and investigating, data evidence obtained is more
realistic and reliable. Figure 3.1 shows the flow chart of the research methodology and
the arrangement of the stages of the overall research.
Chapter 2
Chapter 1
Start
•
•
•
•
Identify Problems
Safety and Security Issue
Lengthy completion period
High Construction Cost
No Specification & Standardization
Establish Objectives and Scope of Research
•
•
•
Identify Bunker Construction Problems
Identify Bunker Construction Cost Effectiveness
Compare Cost Effectiveness Using Pre-Fabrication Method
•
•
•
•
•
Literature Review
Effectiveness in Protecting RMAF Safety and Security
Effectiveness in Construction Cost
Effectiveness in Time of Completion
Effectiveness in Quality of Construction
Effectiveness in Labour Requirement
Chapter 5
Chapter 4
Chapter 3
Data Collection – Case Study of KAB Bunkers
Phase 1
•
Site Survey – Review of Current Bunkers Faultiness.
Phase 2
•
Interview – Reveal of current construction caused problems
- Obtain approval and consent for pre-fabricated bunkers
implementation.
Phase 3
•
Cost Comparison – comparison of pre-fabricated method with actual
construction cost.
•
•
Analyze Data and Results
Quantitative Data – Graphical and Illustration (Table,
graph, ext)
Qualitative Data – Descriptive Analysis
Findings Discussion and Recommendations
Conclusion
Figure 3.1: Research Methodology Flow Chart
3.2
Case Study of Kuantan Air Base
Kuantan Air Base (KAB) in the state of Pahang is the pioneer base to be
equipped with ground defense bunker in the 9th Malaysian Plan for RMAF Base
Defense Program. The first pilot bunker construction project that consist of five
bunkers were built in the year 2007 and then another four bunkers were built in the
year 2008. However, the same problems especially on the aspect of safety and
security, cost, time and quality that had occurred in the first pilot project, furthermore
have been repeating in the consecutive year of 2008.
This research is carried out to identify the cost effectiveness on the aspect of
quality, cost and time between pre-fabrication method and conventional method before
the RMAF Planning and Development Department decided to utilize and implement it
throughout RMAF bases.
Although there is no readily guideline and benchmark for cost effectiveness
comparison
between
conventional
construction
method
and
pre-fabrication
construction method in this industry, yet this particular research will focus on data
collected from site visit, review of scopes for existing project, interview and
comparison of quotation for literature and empirical review to achieve the main
purpose of this research.
3.2.1 Site Survey
Site visit is carried out at bunker construction sites which are located at
perimeter Section A and B (refer Appendix G). Data of physical construction
faultiness will be observed and recorded (refer Appendix A) in order to compare with
existing set of drawing and design specification (refer Appendix B).
3.2.2 Interview Segment
One set of standardized questions is pre-determined in order to obtain
information of cost effectiveness from the perspective of various parties involved in
the planning stage, designing stage, procurement stage, construction stage and
implementation stage. By using the cost effectiveness data from above reviewed
methods, set of questions considering factor of security and safety of bases, cost of
construction, quality of final products, and time of project completion questioned to
12 selected correspondents for this approach. Correspondents involved are categorized
by departments they served from the initial stage to the completion stage of bunker
construction which are:
(i)
RMAF highest-level management group (1 persons);
(ii)
DP&D Base Defense Program Project Team (2 persons);
(iii)
DP&P Design Team (2 persons);
(iv)
KAB HQ (1 persons);
(v)
KAB Maintenance Office (1 persons);
(vi)
KAB Military Police or Provost (1 persons);
(vii)
PWD HQ – Military Bases Maintenance Department (2 persons); and
(viii) Kuantan District PWD (2 persons).
This approach is chosen because it is more effective and relevant only to obtain
the expertise knowledge from 12 respondents that directly involved in previous pilot
bunker project. Besides that, this approach is chosen for its characteristic as a cheaper
and faster data collection method and data gathered are statistically analyzed.
Although the sampling is only from 12-targeted respondents but their opinions and
approvals carry a high weightage for the future construction of defense bunkers
throughout all the RMAF Bases in Malaysia.
The first section of this interview segment is the background information
survey and followed by the interview questions in Section 2. The background
information of respondents is categorized into following aspect:
(i)
Position/ Appointment;
(ii)
Rank/ Grade;
(iii)
Field of Expertise;
(iv)
Year of Active Service/ Experience;
(v)
Branch/ Trade/ Department; and
(vi)
Academic Qualification.
The 2nd Section is interview segment, which has been chosen instead of survey
questionnaire because of the consideration of direct interview and face-to-face
environment with respondents can create a better atmosphere for respondents to
understand the purpose and importance of this interview segment. Therefore,
respondents were able to point out problems occurred using current construction
method, as well as decide a more effective and viable construction method for RMAF
defense bunker.
3.2.3 Construction Cost Comparison
Theoretically, utilization and implementation of pre-fabrication construction
method for bunker construction could eventually be more cost saving, time saving,
labour saving, better construction quality, compliance of specification and above all is
the enhancement of safety and security condition for RMAF bases.
However, the feasibility and practicality of using pre-fabrication method
instead of conventional method for RMAF bunker construction can be proven by
conducting empirical review whereby data gathered from Building elemental cost
comparison method. Subsequently, comparison of existing building with new building
using the same design but different construction method is conducted in order to
compare the quotation cost between both conventional and pre-fabricated construction
method for RMAF bunker construction.
3.3
Expected Result
An expected result show that pre-fabrication construction method is relatively
brings more advantages than conventional construction method for this study case.
However, the significance of cost effectiveness is more obvious if the magnitude of
bunkers number is greater and it is feasible to be implemented for construction of 200
bunkers.
Furthermore, cost of research and design for new pre-fabricated components in
order to create new mold or formwork is costly in small quantities. Conversely,
RMAF planning to build 200 bunkers throughout all the RMAF bases, can be cost
worthy in the long run and might be utilized for other base defense installations such
as air-raid shelter and wartime command center.
Quality of military installations and constructions can be ensured through the
promotion of construction standardization and specification provided. Pre-fabrication
components can be manufactured large quantities with same size, strength, and
function, and manufacturer expertise can also in-corporate into RMAF base defense
bunker design to enhance the joints of various structure components.
Pre-fabrication components utilized for bunker construction required shorter
period of construction compare with previous identical projects by using conventional
method. This resulted; military police or provost can be more concentrated in
performing primary tasks rather than waste more time to monitor contractors’ daily
movement and activities.
Lastly, through this pioneer research of cost effectiveness of applying prefabrication method compare with conventional construction method is foresee to save
government
budget
for
RMAF
base
defense
program.
CHAPTER 4
DATA ANALYSIS AND RESULTS
4.1
Introduction
This chapter present all the data collected through three phases of data
collection from case study in Kuantan Air Base, RMAF Organization, Public Work
Department, and local precast manufacturers.
Data collected from site survey in Phase I, involved re-measuring of completed
defense bunkers elements’ dimensions in KAB in order to compare with the
requirements and specifications set by RMAF and PWD. At the same time,
inspections was carried out on physical appearance of bunkers in term of concealment
from aerial and ground recognition were reviewed to ensure the idea of camouflage
purpose
was
achieved
for
all
the
defense
bunkers.
49
However, different set of data collection approach was carried out in Phase II
by gaining opinions or responses from 12 selected respondents through interview
segment. Their responses was analyzed to facilitate the purpose of ensuring majority
stakeholders involved in current bunkers construction have reach consensus for
development and implementation of pre-fabricated defense bunkers in future. Besides
that, respondents’ views or opinions on problems were taken into consideration to
identify actual problems occurred at site that caused by current construction method.
On the other hand, Phase III of data collection involved cost analysis
approaches, which inclusive of analysis of elemental breakdown cost of current
bunker construction and cost comparison of two different construction method. Then,
actual elemental breakdown cost obtained was compared with construction cost
contributed by local precast manufacturers.
Subsequently, data obtained from every phases was analyzed thoroughly to
acquire supporting evidence of construction faultiness using conventional construction
method as well as to obtain majority consensus and approval for pre-fabrication
construction technology implementation. Yet, with remarkable results that support
cost effectiveness factor in this research will further support the proposal of replacing
cast in-situ method with precast method for bunkers construction.
50
4.2
Phase I - Site Survey
Site survey was conducted in Kuantan Air Base (KAB), since KAB is the
pioneer base completed with such strategic defense facilities. Site survey conducted
involved inspections of concealment parameters for existing nine defense bunkers in
Sector Alpha and Sector Bravo of base security perimeter (refer Appendix G), and remeasured of structural elements’ and fix installations’ dimensions. Then, measurement
values and physical observations were logged into a pre-defined form as shown in
Appendix A. Additionally, the original set of construction drawings and specifications
for comparison reference are shown in Appendix B.
4.2.1 Structural Elements and Physical Appearance Comparison
By referring measurements logged in Appendix A and original construction
drawing in Appendix B, dimensions of superstructure elements on site were utilized to
compare with original set of specifications pre-described in construction drawings.
Table 4.1 shown is the comparison of structural elements dimensions and physical
appearance between current bunkers with specifications set by RMAF and PWD.
Hypothesis: Quality of defense bunkers is averagely poor since contractors did not
comply with the specifications and requirements given by RMAF and PWD. In
additional, Class F contractors awarded were incompetent to construct defense
bunkers due to lack of technical expertise especially in interpreting construction
drawings and setting out of accurate measurements or dimensions on site.
51
Table 4.1: RMAF Specifications and Completed Bunkers Comparison
Dimension (cm/cm²/cm³)
No
Items
Complete Constructed Defense Bunkers
RMAF
SPEC
A1
A2
A3
A4
A5
B1
B2
B3
B4
1
Slab Roof
(LxW)
230x30
226x8
223x10
223x10
222x10
220x11
203x13
204x17
193x18
192x18
2
Wall
(LxWxH)
209x30x
295
210x32x
279
208x25x
210
207x23x
210
204x40x
221
208x22x
212
147x23x
235
164x30x
227
160x29x
228
163x31x
227
3
Weapon
Counter Top
(LxWxH)
209x30x
110
213x30x
166
208x30x
152
207x37x
150
204x30x
150
208x30x
150
147x30x
95
164x30x
107
160x30x
110
160x30x
130
4
Door
(WxH)
90x210
94x223
97x207
99x210
93x206
95x209
85x228
92x217
90x228
92x226
5
Window
(LxW)
58x33
56x30
64x35
60x36
60x45
64x38
60x36
60x34
54x36
54x35
6
Ventilation
Hole
(LxW)
100x10
x
25x5
25x5
25x5
x
23x6
25x5
25x5
25x5
7
Firing Hole 1
(LxW)
55x30
53x27
59x30
54x32
56x36
56x31
55x30
55x30
49x30
50x30
8
Firing Hole 2
(LxW)
55x18
53x12
58x15
54x13
56x15
56x25
55x19
55x18
48x18
50x18
9
Raised Floor
(H)
5
51
13
9
3
5
5
x
x
5
10
Roof Turfing
x
x
x
x
x
11
Earth Barrier
(LxH)
x
x
x
x
12
Earth
Barrier
Turfing
x
x
x
x
4.2.2 Analysis of Structural Elements Dimensions and Physical Appearance
Analysis: Analysis conducted was based on dimensions differences between
construction specifications with current bunkers’ structural elements’ dimensions and
physical appearance. Detail analysis is as follow:
52
Slab Roof – None of the bunker’ s length and width complied with
(i)
specification. Whereby, lengthwise has been varied from minimum 4cm to
maximum 38cm. Besides that, thickness of slab has been decreased by
minimum 12cm to maximum 22cm. Table 4.2 is the percentage of bunkers’
slab roof dimensions compliance to RMAF specification.
Table 4.2: Bunkers’ Slab Roof Dimensions Compliancy Percentage
Dimensions
Length
Width
(ii)
Compliancy
Bunkers
Compliance
A1, A2, A3, A4, A5,
B1, B2, B3, B4
A1, A2, A3, A4, A5,
B1, B2, B3, B4
Non-compliance
Compliance
Non-compliance
Percentage
(%)
0
100
0
100
Wall – Majority of bunkers’ wall did not comply with length and width
specification, and none of bunkers’ wall height followed the design
requirements. Whereby, length has been reduced by minimum 5cm to
maximum 69cm, width has been decreased by minimum 5cm to maximum
8cm, and height has reduced by minimum 16cm to maximum 85cm. Table 4.3
is the percentage of bunkers’ wall dimensions compliance to specification.
Table 4.3: Bunkers’ Wall Dimensions Compliancy Percentage
Dimensions
Length
Width
Height
Compliancy
Compliance
Non-compliance
Compliance
Non-compliance
Compliance
Non-compliance
Bunkers
A1, A2, A3, A5,
A4, B1, B2, B3, B4
A1, B2, B3, B4
A2, A3, A4, A5, B1
A1, A2, A3, A4, A5,
B1, B2, B3, B4
Percentage (%)
44
56
44
56
0
100
53
(iii)
Weapon Counter Top – Majority of bunkers’ weapon countertop did
not comply with length and height specification, but majority of bunkers’
countertop width followed the design requirement. Length has been reduced by
minimum 49cm to maximum 62cm, width has been increased by 7cm, and
height has been reduced by minimum 16cm to maximum 85cm. Table 4.4 is
the percentage of bunkers’ weapon countertop dimensions compliance to
specification.
Table 4.4: Bunkers’ Weapon Countertop Dimensions Compliancy Percentage
Dimensions
Length
Width
Height
(iv)
Compliancy
Compliance
Non-compliance
Compliance
Non-compliance
Compliance
Non-compliance
Bunkers
A2, A3, A5,
A1, A4, B1, B2, B3,
B4
A1, A2, A4, A5, B1,
B2, B3, B4
A3
B3
A1, A2, A3, A4, A5,
B1, B2, B4
Percentage (%)
33
67
89
11
11
89
Metal Door Panel – Majority of bunkers’ metal door did not comply
with width and height specification. Whereby, width has been varied from
minimum -5cm to maximum 9cm, and height had been varied from minimum
-4cm to maximum 18cm. Table 4.5 is the percentage of bunkers’ metal door
dimensions compliance to specification.
Table 4.5: Bunkers’ Metal Door Dimensions Compliancy Percentage
Dimensions
Length
Height
Compliancy
Bunkers
Compliance
Non-compliance
Compliance
B2, B3, B4
A1, A2, A3, A4, A5, B1
A3,A5
A1, A2, A4, B1, B2, B3,
B4
Non-compliance
Percentage
(%)
33
67
22
78
54
Metal Window Panel – Majority of bunkers’ window panel length
(v)
complied with specification. However, majority of window panel width did not
comply with specification. Whereby, length has been varied from minimum 4cm to maximum 6cm, and width has been varied from minimum -3cm to
maximum 12cm. Table 4.6 is the percentage of bunkers’ metal window panel
dimensions compliance to specification.
Table 4.6: Bunkers’ Metal Window Dimensions Compliancy Percentage
Dimensions
Length
Width
(vi)
Compliancy
Compliance
Non-compliance
Compliance
Non-compliance
Bunkers
A1,A3, A4, B1, B2
A2, A5, B3, B4
A2, B2, B4
A1, A3, A4, A5, B1,
B3
Percentage (%)
56
44
33
67
Ventilation Openings – None of the bunker’ s ventilation openings
complied with length and width specification. Moreover, two of the bunkers
not even equipped with any ventilation openings. Whereby, length has been
reduced
from minimum 75cm to maximum 77cm, and width has been
decreased from minimum 4cm to maximum 5cm. Table 4.7 is the percentage
of bunkers’ ventilation openings’ dimensions compliance to specification.
Table 4.7: Bunkers’ Ventilation Openings Compliancy Percentage
Dimensions
Length
Width
Compliancy
Compliance
Non-compliance
Compliance
Non-compliance
Bunkers
A1, A2, A3, A4, A5,
B1, B2, B3, B4
A1, A2, A3, A4, A5,
B1, B2, B3, B4
Percentage (%)
0
100
0
100
55
(vii)
Firing Hole I – Majority of bunkers’ Firing Hole 1 complied with
length and width specification. Minority of firing holes’ length has been varied
from minimum -6cm to maximum 4cm, and width has been varied from
minimum -3cm to maximum 6cm. Table 4.8 is the percentage of bunkers’
Firing Hole I dimensions compliance to specification.
Table 4.8: Bunkers’ Firing Hole I Dimensions Compliancy Percentage
Dimensions
Length
Width
(vii)
Compliancy
Compliance
Non-compliance
Compliance
Non-compliance
Bunkers
A1, A3, A4, A5, B1,
B2
A2, B3, B4
A2, A3, A5, B1, B2,
B3, B4
A1, A4
Percentage (%)
67
33
78
22
Firing Hole II – Majority of bunkers’ Firing Hole 2 only complied
with length specification, while majority of width measurement did not comply
with specification. Whereby, length has been varied only from minimum -7cm
to maximum 3cm, and width has been varied from minimum
-6cm to
maximum 7cm. Table 4.9 is the percentage of bunkers’ Firing
Hole II
dimensions compliance to specification.
Table 4.9: Bunkers’ Firing Hole II Dimensions Compliancy Percentage
Dimensions
Length
Width
Compliancy
Compliance
Non-compliance
Compliance
Non-compliance
Bunkers
A1, A3, A4, A5, B1,
B2
A2, B3, B4
B1, B2, B3, B4
A1, A2, A3, A4, A5
Percentage (%)
67
33
44
56
56
(ix)
Raised Floor – Majority of bunkers’ raised floor height did not comply
with height specification. Whereby, height has been varied from minimum 5cm to maximum 46cm. Table 4.10 is the percentage of bunkers’ raised floor
dimension compliance to specification.
Table 4.10: Bunkers’ Raised Floor Dimension Compliancy Percentage
Dimensions
Height
(x)
Compliancy
Compliance
Non-compliance
Bunkers
A4, A5, B1, B4
A1, A2, A3, B2, B3
Percentage (%)
44
56
Roof Turfing – Majority of bunkers’ roof turfing requirement did not
comply with pre-defined physical appearance for camouflage purpose. Table
4.11 is the percentage of bunkers with roof turfing that compliance to predefined condition.
Table 4.11: Bunkers with Roof Turfing Compliancy Percentage
Requirement
Roof
Turfing
(xi)
Compliancy
Compliance
Non-compliance
Bunkers
B1, B2, B3, B4
A1, A2, A3, A4, A5
Percentage (%)
44
56
Earth Barrier – Majority of bunkers’ earth barrier requirement is
complying with pre-defined physical appearance for camouflage purpose.
Table 4.12 is the percentage of bunkers with earth barrier that compliance to
pre-defined condition.
57
Table 4.12: Bunkers with Earth Barrier Compliancy Percentage
Requirement
Earth
Barrier
(xii)
Compliancy
Compliance
Non-compliance
Bunkers
A2, B1, B2, B3, B4
A1, A3, A4, A5
Percentage (%)
56
44
Earth Barrier Turfing – Majority of bunkers’ earth barrier planted
with turfing which complied with pre-defined physical appearance for
camouflage purpose. Table 4.13 is the percentage of bunkers’ earth barrier
with turfing that compliance to pre-defined condition.
Table 4.13: Bunkers with Earth Barrier Compliancy Percentage
Requirement
Earth
Barrier’s
Turfing
Compliancy
Compliance
Bunkers
A2, B1, B2, B3, B4
Percentage (%)
56
Non-compliance
A1, A3, A4, A5
44
Result of Data Analysis for Site Survey: Bunkers faultiness percentage derived from
analysis conducted on data collected from site survey. Obviously, none of the existing
bunkers fully complied with specification set by RMAF and PWD. This condition
supported the initial problems statement whereby Class F contractors selected were
lack of integrity and technical knowledge in performing specialist works, besides of
agencies in charge of monitoring and controlling the bunkers construction were lack of
responsibilities and awareness towards current bunkers faultiness. Table 4.14 shown is
the concluded result of current bunkers compliancy percentage with specifications
given.
58
Table 4.14: Overall Bunkers Compliancy Percentage
NO ITEMS
BUNKERS
COMPLIANCY
PERCENTAGE
(COMPLIANCE/ NON-COMPLIANCE)
1
Slab Roof
2
Wall
3
Weapon Counter Top
4
Door
(L (C=33%/NC=67% ) X H (C=22%/NC=78% ))
5
Window
(L (C=56%/NC=44% ) X W(C=33%/NC=67% ))
6
Ventilation Hole
(L (C=0%/NC=100% ) X W (C=0%/NC=100% ) )
7
Firing Hole 1
(L (C=67%/NC=33% ) X W (C=78%/NC=22% ) )
8
Firing Hole 2
(L (C=67%/NC=33% ) X W (C=44%/NC=56% ))
9
Raised Floor
(H (C=44%/NC=56% ))
10
Roof Turfing
(C=44%/NC=56% )
11
Earth Barrier
(C=56%/NC=44% )
12
Earth Barrier Turfing
(C=56%/NC=44% )
(L (C=0%/NC=100% ) X W (C=0%/NC=100% ) )
(L (C=44%/NC=56% ) X W (C=44%/NC=56% ) X
H(C=0%/NC=100% ))
(L (C=44%/NC=56% ) X W (C=44%/NC=56% ) X
H(C=0%/NC=100% ))
Note: L= Length, W= Width, H= Height, C= Compliance, NC= Non Compliance
4.3
Phase II - Interview Segment
In this particular phase, interview questions was formulated base on four
general issues, such as safety and security issue of RMAF bases, duration of bunker
construction issue, quality of bunker issue, and bunker construction cost issue.
Subsequently, 12 personnel from RMAF organization and PWD were approached to
59
obtain views and opinions regarding the past bunker construction and future
development of defense bunker. This interviewee group of was selected due to their
direct involvement whether in planning stage, construction stage or implementation
stage for the construction of defense bunker in KAB.
A set of interview questions that consist of 13 questions were formulated to
suit the purpose of this particular research is as shown in Appendix C. Results of every
answers was analyzed to reveal current problems and roof causes of problems caused
by current construction method. Besides that, percentage of approval or consent to
implement new construction technology was obtained by gathering information about
cost effectiveness and advantages of pre-fabricated defense bunker.
4.3.1 Analysis of Respondents Background Information
All respondents were required to answer set of questions about their personal
background information in Section 1 that inclusive of six aspects such as,
appointment, rank, field of expertise, years of experience, branch, and academic
qualification to show the relevancy of respondents specially chosen in this research.
60
4.3.1.1 Distribution of Respondents by Position/ Appointment
There were two respondents from top management group, while six
respondents belonged to the middle management group and four respondents from
basic management group were selected to be interviewed based on their role and
involvement throughout the implementation of RMAF defense bunker construction.
Table 4.15 and is the distribution of RMAF and PWD respondents in three major
management groups in respective organization of RMAF and PWD.
Table 4.15: Position/ Appointment Distribution
No
Major Management Groups
1
Top Management Group
2
Middle Management Group
3
Basic Management Group
Position/ Appointment
- Policy Planner
- Chief Deputy Director
- SO 1 Infra Bina
- KAB Executive Officer
- SO 2 Safety
- SO 2 Architect
- SO 2 QS
- Deputy Director
- KAB Head of Provost
- KAB Complex
Maintenance Officer
- Engineer
- Assistant Engineer
Frequency
RMAF
1
PWD
1
RMAF
5
PWD
1
RMAF
2
PWD
2
Total: 12
61
4.3.1.2 Distribution of Respondents by Rank/ Grade
Respondents from the category Brig Jen and above or equivalent comprised of
17%, while respondents from the category Major to Colonel or equivalent comprised
of 50%, and respondents from the category 2nd Lt to Capt or equivalent comprised of
33%. Table 4.16 and Figure 4.1 shown are the Rank/ Grade distribution and
distribution percentage of respondents.
Table 4.16: Rank/ Grade Distribution
No
1
2
3
Rank/ Grade
Category
Brig Jen and above/
J54 and above
Major to Colonel/
J44 to J52
2nd Lt to Capt/
J41
Total:
Frequency
Percent
(%)
Cumulative
Percent (%)
2
17.00
17.00
6
50.00
67.00
4
33.00
100.00
12
100.00
Figure 4.1: Rank/ Grade Distribution Percentage
62
4.3.1.3 Distribution of Respondents by Field of Expertise
Respondents from the profession of Engineer comprised of 59%, while
respondents from the profession Architect comprised of 8%. Moreover, RMAF Air
Traffic Controller comprised of 17%, RMAF Pilot/ Aviator comprised of 8%, and
RMAF Fire Safety Officer comprised of 8%. Table 4.17 and Figure 4.2 shown are the
distribution and percentage distribution for field of expertise among the respondents.
Table 4.17: Field of Expertise Distribution
No
Field of Expertise
Civil Eng.
Mech. Eng.
1
Engineer
2
3
4
5
Architect
Aviation
Air Traffic Control
Fire Safety
Total:
Frequency
Percent (%)
5
2
1
1
2
1
12
42.00
17.00
8.00
8.00
17.00
8.00
100.00
Cumulative
Percent (%)
42.00
59.00
67.00
75.00
91.00
100.00
!
"
# $%
$&
#
# ' (( $
!
)
!
Figure 4.2: Field of Expertise Distribution Percentage
*( +
63
4.3.1.4 Distribution of Respondents by Years of Active Service/ Experience
Respondents with working experience less than10 years comprised of 25%,
where else respondents in active services more than 10 years but less than 20 years
comprised of 17%. However, respondents with more than 20 years experience
comprised of 58%. Table 4.18 and Figure 4.3 shown are the distribution and
percentage distribution for year of experience among respondents.
Table 4.18: Years of Active Service/ Experience Distribution
No
1
Years of Experience
Ten years and below
Frequency
3
Percent (%)
25.00
Cumulative Percent (%)
25.00
2
Ten years to twenty years
2
17.00
42.00
3
More than 20 years.
Total:
7
12
58.00
100.00
100.00
!
.
+
,
+
,
+
+
,
Figure 4.3: Year of Active Service/ Experience Distribution Percentage
,
64
4.3.1.5 Distribution of Respondents by Branch/ Trade
Aircrew Trade only comprised of 8%, while respondents from Pure Engineer
Trade comprised of 42%, as well as Administration/ Provost Trade and comprised of
25%. Moreover, respondents from Air Traffic trade comprised of 17%, and Fire
Department only comprised of 8%. Table 4.18 and Figure 4.4 shown are the
distribution and distribution percentage of branch or trade among the respondents.
Table 4.19: Branch or Trade Distribution
1
Air Crew
1
Percent
(%)
8.00
2
3
4
5
Engineer
Administrator/ Provost
Air Traffic Controller
Fire Department
Total:
5
3
2
1
12
42.00
25.00
17.00
8.00
100.00
No
Branch/ Trade
!
Frequency
!
Cumulative
Percent (%)
8.00
50.00
75.00
92.00
100.00
#
-
"
# / ,
0
,
# ' (( $
)
Figure 4.4: Branch or Trade Distribution Percentage
1
/
65
4.3.1.6 Distribution of Respondents by Academic Qualification
Respondents with the academic qualification of Degree and above comprised
of 66%, whereby respondents with academic qualification of Diploma and equivalent
comprised
of
17%,
and
respondent
with
academic
qualification
of
SPM/HSC/SRP/LCE comprised of 17%. Table 4.20 and Figure 4.5 shown are the
distribution and distribution percentage of academic qualification among respondents.
Table 4.20: Academic Qualification Distribution
No
1
2
3
Academic Qualification
Degree and above
Diploma and equivalent
SPM/HSC/SRP/LCE
Total:
Frequency
8
2
2
12
Percent (%)
66.00
17.00
17.00
100.00
Cumulative Percent (%)
66.00
83.00
100.00
1
1
/
3&
*0
22
Figure 4.5: Academic Qualification Distribution Percentage
4*
*50
"
66
4.3.2 Analysis of Interview Answers
In the second part of interview segment, interview questions were utilized as a
tool for respondents to indicate their perceptions of current construction method for
RMAF defense bunkers and negative impacts that directly faced by RMAF
organization and PWD by implementing the method. Nonetheless, respondents were
also required to give their opinions and views about implementation of pre-fabrication
construction method for RMAF defense bunkers in future.
Interview questions in Section B is provided as in Appendix C, respondents
had answered these questions based on their expertise, professional knowledge,
complication faced, and involvement in the development of defense bunker.
Furthermore, respondents were allowed to answer the questions in Malay Language or
give their answers in point form if necessary.
Thirteen questions formulated for respondents in this research through
interview segment were created carefully by considering its relativity and importance
for this research. Additionally, to get the consent from RMAF top management and
PWD Chief of Assistant Director to proceed with pre-fabrication construction method
for RMAF defense bunker in 10th Malaysian Plan throughout all the Royal Malaysian
Air Force Bases in Malaysia. Questions formulated were based on four main concerns,
which inclusive of safety and security aspect; construction duration aspect; bunker
quality and specification aspect; and cost effectiveness aspect. Questions formulated
are summarized as follow:
67
(i)
Responses on Base’ s safety and security issue;
(ii)
Responses on lengthy conventional bunkers construction period;
(iii)
Responses on negative impacts caused by lengthy construction period;
(iv)
Responses on current bunkers not complying with specification;
(v)
Responses on incompetency of Class F contractors;
(vi)
Responses on costly conventional defense bunker construction cost;
(vii)
Suggestion to improve overall base security and safety, duration, cost
and quality for current bunkers construction;
(viii) Responses on pre-fabricated bunker construction method in ensuring
base’ s safety and security;
(ix)
Responses on the erection period of pre-fabricated defense bunkers;
(x)
Responses on quality and standardization of pre-fabricated bunkers;
(xi)
Responses on cost effectiveness of pre-fabricated bunkers construction;
(xii)
Responses on feasibility or practicality of pre-fabricated bunkers
construction; and
(xiii) Additional suggestions to improve base’ s safety and security, duration,
quality and cost of construction for RMAF defense bunkers in future.
4.3.2.1 Responses on Base’s Safety And Security Issue
Question 1: “ Do you think the existing implementation of conventional construction
method for RMAF defense bunker could jeopardize the safety and security of base’ s
daily operation? Why?”
68
Hypothesis Question 1: RMAF and PWD respondents show high level of awareness
on the importance of safety and security for RMAF Bases especially in selecting the
right contractors to perform their works according to specifications and requirements
intended by RMAF and PWD, and to avoid risk of espionage or sabotage activities by
enemy troops towards base daily operation.
Table 4.21 and 4.22 shown are the negative and positive responses for
Question 1, and Table 4.23 shown is the percentage of positive and negative responses
for Question 1.
Table 4.21: Negative Responses for Question 1
Respondent
Negative Responses
R3
“ No, since KAB can monitor the workers activities as they are
doing their works.”
“ Not really, because they have gone through initial security
checking before they started their works.”
“ No, the workers are checked.”
“ They do not know the actual course why the bunkers are
built.”
R4
R6
Table 4.22: Positive Responses for Question 1 (Part 1)
Respondent
R1
R2
R5
Positive Responses
“ Yes, it is because the defense bunker is especially for the last
defense for base operation.”
“ IBS is seems to be the best approach to use rather that the
conventional method.”
“ Yes, cannot control the workers movement inside the base.”
“ Yes, since this is a security area, the contractor must be of
person with high integrity and professionalism.”
69
Table 4.22: Positive Responses for Question 1 (Part 2)
R7
R8
R9
R10
R11
R12
“ If involve technical and classify area, workers will interfere
the daily operation, safety and security of bases.”
“ Yes, more manpower and time is used to monitor
contractors’ activities.”
“ My opinion is doesn’ t matter what ever method of
construction to be adhered, the safety and security of the base
will be jeopardized if the existing base’ s security personnel
are not performing their job accordingly.”
“ Yes, will be involved many personnel at one time, including
provost.”
“ In term of security yes, as small project have no screening of
workers.”
“ Yes, concreting works may extend until night time, and need
additional monitoring by base’ s personnel or Provost.”
Table 4.23: Percentage of Responses for Question 1
No
Responses
1
Positive
2
Negative
Respondent
R1, R2, R5, R7,
R8, R9, R10,
R11, R12
R3, R4, R6
Total:
Frequency
Percent
(%)
Cumulative
Percent (%)
9
75.00
75.00
3
12
25.00
100.00
100.00
Analysis of Question 1: The percentage above indicates 75% respondents perceived
that conventional construction method as one of the reasons that cause negative impact
to the safety and security of base daily operation. Defense bunkers are distinguished
as the last defense facilities for ground defense, therefore IBS is considered as a better
approach than conventional method. Besides that, by allowing large numbers of
contractors and workers gained access into bases daily can cause inefficiency of
Provost Personnel in controlling workers’ movements inside the base. Nonetheless,
contractors selected working in security area and classify area should have high
integrity and professionalism. Furthermore, it is deniable that daily base operation is
disturbed if contractors or workers have to work in technical area and classify area
70
since more workforces not only from Provost Department but also from Maintenance
Department are employed to carry out extra monitoring, and obviously present
organization does not have enough staff to control the movement of workers.
However, 25% of respondents disagree that contractors awarded are threats to
the safety and security of base because they have undergone initial security checking.
Additionally, base’ s personnel are monitoring their works and movements constantly,
and they are clueless for what they are constructing. Moreover, Provost Personnel
should perform their daily tasks no matter in what condition to ensure all contractors
for large projects or for small maintenance works must undergone security screening
without tolerance.
Key Findings of Question 1: Conventional construction method for defense bunkers
is considered not feasible to be implemented and tends to jeopardize base’ s safety and
security due to:
(i)
Excessive numbers of workers workings in base’ s compound at the
same time will affect efficiency of Provost Personnel and Maintenance
Department in carrying out daily tasks.
(ii)
Safety and security of classify area is threaten and unprotected due to
lack of constant monitoring and controlling elements.
(iii)
Class F contractors with high integrity and professionalism are difficult
to select.
(iv)
Provost Personnel should possess positive attitude to stringent the
safety and security policy.
71
4.3.2.2 Responses on Lengthy Conventional Bunkers Construction Period
Question 2: “ Do you think the duration of average three months is too long to
construct a defense bunker? Why?”
Hypothesis Question 2: RMAF and PWD respondents are extremely concern about
the delivery time of projects in RMAF Bases in order to avoid unnecessary burden to
military personnel to perform extra secondary duty that might indirectly affect the
performance of primary tasks. In additional, contractors selected must have high
integrity, adequate skill, sufficient knowledge and professionalism in implementing
the project and should abide by the construction period given by PWD. Table 4.24
shown is the positive responses for Question 2, and Table 4.25 shown is percentage of
positive responses for Question 2.
Table 4.24: Positive Responses for Question 2 (Part 1)
Respondent
R1
R2
R3
R4
R5
R6
Positive Responses
“ Yes, simply because timing and duration of the construction
period is very crucial.”
“ We do not allow any room for any infiltration since the
purpose of the bunker is for our last defense.”
“ Yes, base on size and complexity, the construction can be
decreased to two months only.”
“ Yes, since the work could be done within two months.”
“ Quite long. It should be completed less than three months.”
“ Too long, the contractor must be of sound experience and
financially stable which can lead to better delivery time.”
“ Yes, the weather affects the works.”
72
Table 4.24: Positive Responses for Question 2 (Part 2)
R7
R8
R9
R10
R11
R12
“ Yes, concreting works take longer time to complete. If
precast technology is implemented, duration of construction
can be decreased.”
“ Yes, depends on the size and cost of defense bunker.”
“ Yes, it is too long because from my professional calculation,
the maximum length required is two months and minimum is
one months.”
“ Yes, should be less than that because it just small building.”
“ Yes, the size of the bunker is relatively small.”
“ Yes, bunker design is simple.”
Table 4.25: Percentage of Responses for Question 2
No
Responses
Respondents
Frequency
Cumulative
Percent (%)
1
Agree
R1, R2, R3, R4,
R5, R6, R7, R8,
R9, R10, R11, R12
Percent
(%)
12
100.00
100.00
2
Disagree
-
-
0
100.00
12
100.00
Total:
Analysis of Question 2: The percentage above indicates 100% of respondents agreed
that conventional construction method can lead to a lengthy construction period.
Timing and duration of construction period is very crucial in order to prevent
infiltration activities by enemy troops. Apart from that, size and complexity of work
involved is relatively small in scale and easy to construct. Therefore, construction
duration must not exceed of two months. Contractors selected also must have sound
experience and financially stable which can lead to better delivery time, besides of
implementing precast construction to replace concreting works at site.
73
Key Findings of Question 2: Duration of bunkers construction is considered too long
due to:
(i)
Size and complexity of works involved are small in scale and easy to
construct.
(ii)
Class F contractors selected should have sound experience, skill and
financially stable.
(iii)
Implement precast construction to save time, resources and better
quality.
4.3.2.3 Responses on Negative Impacts Caused by Lengthy Construction Period
Question 3: “ Do you think the lengthy construction period will cause what type of
negative impact to base’ s daily operation? Why?”
Hypothesis Question 3: RMAF and PWD respondents are extremely concern about
the delivery time of projects in RMAF Bases in order to avoid any espionage, sabotage
activities and infiltration of enemy troops. In additional, more work forces were
deployed to monitor and control contractors and workers movements. Eventually,
inconvenience and interference toward nearby offices from construction site will cause
inefficiency in performing daily tasks and cause safety and health problems on RMAF
personnel.
74
Table 4.26 and Table 4.27 shown are the positive and negative responses of
respondents for Question 3, and Table 4.28 shown is the percentage of responses for
Question 3.
Table 4.26: Positive Responses for Question 3
Respondent
R1
R2
R3
R4
R5
R7
R8
R9
R10
R11
R12
Positive Responses
“ Yes, simply because timing and duration of the construction
period is very crucial.”
“ We do not allow any room for any infiltration since the
purpose of the bunker is for our last defense.”
“ Yes, more burden in term of manpower and concentrations
required for monitoring work.”
“ More manpower to ensure cleanliness of construction site.”
“ More manpower to monitor mobilization of construction
materials and workers.”
“ Extra effort to be produced to monitor workers at site.
Whereas they could do some other monitoring work
elsewhere.”
“ Sure, it will give the impact of base as a whole.”
“ Yes, the bunker not e able to use timely.”
“ Yes, interfere with base operation and base security. Require
to limit civilian from gaining access into the base.”
“ Yes, longer the contractors in the base, more opportunity for
them to sabotage or collect intelligence in the base.”
“ Not will, but maybe, it is negative habit where the time
required is longer, the military personnel tend to be flexible
on safety and security matter which this will or maybe giving
the chance to sabotage without we realize it.”
“ Yes, some of base activities to be adjusted accordingly.
Cause by the construction which constructed in base
operational area.”
“ Yes, it will tax the Provost, Complex Maintenance Officer
and staff in charge of the project.”
“ The noise and inconvenience toward nearby offices will also
have negative impacts.”
“ Yes, increase Provost Personnel Workload.”
“ Access of contractors and workers will interfere base’ s daily
operation.”
75
Table 4.27: Negative Responses for Question 3
Respondent
R6
Negative Responses
“ No, the workers are checked at entry and exit points.”
Table 4.28: Percentage of Responses for Question 3
No
1
2
Responses
Respondents
R1, R2, R3,
R4, R5, R7,
Positive
R8, R9, R10,
R11, R12
Negative
R6
Total:
Frequency
Percent (%)
Cumulative
Percent (%)
11
91.67
91.67
1
12
8.33
100.00
100.00
Analysis of Question 3: The percentage above indicates majority of 91.67% of
respondents aware that conventional construction method can lead to a lengthy
construction period and cause negative impacts to the base’ s daily operations. Timing
and duration of construction period is crucial to ensure no infiltration of enemy troops,
since the longer of period given to contractors, the more opportunity for them to
sabotage and collect intelligence in the base. Eventually, base’ s work forces are
deployed to perform extra work to monitor workers movements, site cleanliness, and
mobilization of construction materials or workers accessing the base. Besides that,
noise and inconvenience towards nearby offices will cause safety and health problems
to RMAF personnel. However, less than 10% of respondents do not agree that lengthy
bunker construction period will cause negative impacts to base operations, because of
tight security check at the entry and exit points.
Key Findings of Question 3: Lengthy construction period is seem to cause negative
impacts such as:
76
(i)
Construction period is crucial to prevent espionage, sabotage and
infiltration activities from enemy troops.
(ii)
Provost and Maintenance department have to perform extra works to
monitoring workers’ movements, base cleanliness and mobilization of
materials and workers.
(iii)
Long construction period will cause safety and health problems to
base’ s personnel.
4.3.2.4 Responses on Current Bunkers Not Complying with Specification
Question 4: “ Do you think the quality of defense bunker complies with RMAF predefine specifications? Why?”
Hypothesis Question 4: RMAF and PWD respondents are highly aware of the
construction faultiness and defects occurred during the first and second defense
bunkers construction projects. None of the current defense bunkers complied exactly
with sizes, dimensions and physical appearance for aerial and ground recognition.
Class F contractors selected were generally incompetent, lack of technical knowledge,
and incapable to interpret construction drawing and put into physical construction.
Table 4.29 and Table 4.30 shown is the positive and negative responses of
respondents for Question 4, and Table 4.31 shown is the percentage of responses for
Question 4
77
Table 4.29: Positive Responses for Question 4
Respondent
R6
Positive Responses
“ Yes, PWD are to ensure the quality is met.”
“ Construction of bunker has followed requirements,
specifications that classify by RMAF.”
R7
Table 4.30: Negative Responses for Question 4
Respondent
Negative Responses
R1
“ No, the reason simply because the bunkers being constructed
using conventional method and there is a lot of error in term
of the dimension and quality.”
“ Yes, if properly monitored by JKR.”
“ No, because probably the end user do not take part during
construction.”
“ No, physically is different in dimensions and sizes.”
“ No, the quality of the defense bunker doesn’ t comply with
the RMAF requirements and specifications due to the
differences between as-built compared to every one of the
bunkers constructed.”
“ This differences also due to many different contractors that
construct the bunkers with different skills altogether.”
“ Yes.”
“ No, bunker construction did not consider actual concrete
strength.”
R3
R4
R8
R9
R10
R12
Table 4.31: Percentage of Responses for Question 4
2
Percent
(%)
16.67
Cumulative
Percent (%)
16.67
7
58.33
75.00
3
25.00
100.00
12
100.00
No
Responses
Respondents
Frequency
1
Agree
2
Disagree
3
Not Sure
R6, R7
R1, R3, R4,
R8, R9, R10,
R12
R2, R5, R11,
Total:
78
Analysis of Question 4: Majority of 58.33% respondents perceived that quality of
defense bunker using conventional construction method do not achieve desired
requirements and specifications. This problem was caused due to lack of participation
from end user, lack of monitoring from PWD during construction and different level
of skills demonstrate by contractors. However, 25.00% of respondents do not tender
any opinions because they do not involve in the reviewing and commissioning stage.
Only 16.67% of respondents agreed that quality of current defense bunkers complied
with RMAF specifications, because they believed that PWD had ensured bunkers’
quality as specified by RMAF.
Key Findings of Question 4: Quality of current bunkers did not comply to
specification due to:
(i)
RMAF personnel lack of participation of during construction stage.
(ii)
PWD did not monitor the project properly.
(iii)
Class F contractors lack of technical skills.
4.3.2.5 Responses on Incompetency of Class F Contractors
Question 5: “ Do you think Class-F contractors are competence enough to construct
RMAF defense bunker? Why?”
79
Hypothesis Question 5: RMAF and PWD respondents will strongly agree that Class
F contractors are not competence and do not attain sufficient experience in performing
such work, therefore serious consideration should be taken while selecting or
awarding job to Class F contractors especially for specialist job.
Table 4.32 and Table 4.33 shown are the positive and negative responses of
respondents for Question 5, and Table 4.34 shown is the percentage of responses for
Question 5.
Table 4.32: Positive Responses for Question 5
Respondent
Positive Responses
R3
R6
“ Yes, if they have been selected by JKR which is supposed to
be the “ specialist” in this field.”
“ Yes.”
R9
“ Yes, if they have skill and experience.”
R12
“ Yes, as long as the contractors follow the design.”
Table 4.33: Negative Responses for Question 5
Respondent
Negative Responses
R1
“ No, depend on contractors’ attitude and experience.”
R2
“ No, need specialist work.”
R4
“ No, only some of they have enough experience.”
“ No, this job should be given to more experience
contractors.”
“ Required selection of capable contractors who can ensure the
quality of construction.”
“ No, but also depends on contractors’ experiences.”
“ No, to construct defense bunker you must have knowledge,
experience, and strongly financial.”
“ No, and not enough monitoring from the relevant agency.”
R5
R7
R8
R10
R11
80
Table 4.34: Percentage of Responses for Question 5
No
Responses
1
Positive
2
Negative
Respondents
Frequency
Percent
(%)
Cumulative
Percent (%)
4
33.33
33.33
8
66.67
100.00
12
100.00
R3, R6, R9,
R12
R1, R2, R4,
R5, R7, R8,
R9, R10, R11
Total:
Analysis of Question 5:
Majority of 66.67 % respondents agreed that Class F
contractors are incompetence and do not attain sufficient experience in doing specialist
job such as bunker construction. There are five factors that should be taken into
consideration while selecting Class F contractors, which are contractors’ attitude,
experience and capability, skills and knowledge, and lastly they must be financially
strong. However, only 33.33% of respondents agreed that previously selected
contractors for bunker construction were competent since the selection was done by
PWD.
Key Findings of Question 6: Incompetency of Class F contractors in constructing
defense bunkers is due to:
(i)
Contractors negative attitudes.
(ii)
Contractors lack of experience and capability.
(iii)
Contractors lack of skills and knowledge.
(iv)
Contractors are not financially strong.
81
4.3.2.6 Responses on Costly Conventional Bunker Construction Method
Question 6: “ Average construction cost of defense bunker cost about RM 45,000.00.
Do you think the construction cost is too high for building a defense bunker? Why?”
Hypothesis of Question 6: RMAF and PWD respondents will agree that bunker
construction cost is unstable and too high for a bunker construction since construction
materials prices generally tend to fluctuate drastically due to changes in building
materials market price.
Table 4.35 and Table 4.36 shown are the positive and negative responses from
respondents for Question 6, and Table 4.37 shown is the percentage of responses for
Question 6.
Table 4.35: Positive Responses for Question 6
Respondent
Positive Opinion
R3
“ Yes, it could be reduced if insisted by JKR.”
R4
“ I do agree that the cost is quite expensive.”
R8
“ Maybe, depends on materials market price.”
“ Yes. Depends on the design, total building area only
consisted of 20m². Therefore, construction cost is considered
too high.”
R12
82
Table 4.36: Negative Responses for Question 6
Respondent
Negative Responses
R2
“ No, because at this time, our construction materials is very
expensive and the price followed the PWD Standard Rate.”
“ Depending on material price especially concrete and steel.”
R6
“ No, it is the average cost under open tender by PWD.”
R7
“ Based on cost of construction materials at that year.”
“ Hard to say because it all depends on the price of the
construction materials.”
“ No, small building but use more building materials
especially steel.”
R1
R9
R10
Table 4.37: Percentage of Responses for Question 6
No
Responses
Respondents
Frequency
Percent
(%)
Cumulative
Percent (%)
1
Positive
R3, R4, R8,
R12
4
33.33
33.33
2
Negative
R1, R2, R6,
R7, R9, R10
5
41.67
75.00
3
Not Sure
R5, R11
2
25.00
100.00
12
100.00
Total:
Analysis of Question 6:
Majority of 41.67% respondents did not agree that
construction cost for current bunkers
was too high because costing of bunker
construction followed PWD’ s Schedule of Standard Rate and construction materials
were very expensive in that year. Cost of construction was increased in year 2008 due
to fluctuation of construction materials market price especially steel and concrete.
However, minority of 33.33% respondents agreed that the previous construction cost
for defense bunkers was relatively high compare to its scale and should be reduced by
83
PWD. Another 25% of respondents appear to be not sure in this aspect since they do
not involve in budgeting and cost reviewing for bunker construction stages.
Key Findings of Question 6: Construction cost of current defense bunkers is not
expensive due to:
(i)
PWD preparation of construction costing was based on Schedule of
Standard Rate.
(ii)
Cost of construction is depends on building materials market price.
4.3.2.7 Suggestions to Improve Overall Base’s Safety and Security, Duration,
Cost, and Quality for Current Bunkers Construction
Question 7: “ What would you suggest to improve the overall base security and safety,
duration, cost, and quality of existing defense bunker? Why?”
Hypothesis Question 7: RMAF and PWD respondents will choose a better
construction method for RMAF defense bunker such as pre-fabrication construction
method in order to promote or increase the safety and security level in the base, and at
the same time ensure better products quality and standardization, shorter construction
duration and more cost effective.
Table 4.38 shown is the suggestions from respondents for Question 7, and
Table 4.39 shown is the percentage of similar suggestions for Question 7.
84
Table 4.38: Suggestions for Question 7
Respondent
R1
R2
R3
R4
R5
R6
R7
R8
R9
R10
R11
Suggestion
“ If the quantity of defense bunker is in high volume, we can
use IBS method because the more quantity we used, the price
will be lower.”
“ Precast method is preferable to improve the security aspect
by limiting workers working period in the base through short
construction period.”
“ Construction period can be reduced.”
“ Cheaper construction cost.”
“ Products are more assured with assurance from
manufacturers.”
“ No idea, since I am not an engineer.”
“ From time to time, there must have security checking or
monitoring regularly.”
“ Must consult proper department to oversee the design
review.”
“ The RMAF HQ (DP&D) to select few contractors for
standardization throughout all bases.”
“ Ensure security filtering is carried out towards contractors
and workers that work in technical and classified area.”
“ Implement security filtering although selected workers are
local citizen in order to avoid criminals or imposters to gain
access into base.”
“ In term of time, safety and security and quality control of the
bunker, the fastest method of construction may be for
example, precast concrete defense bunker.”
“ But normally, the fastest method which saves times, safety
and security and quality will cost a bit higher unless it has
been proven that the cost quoted by any developer is cheaper
than the conventional method.”
“ Build the new one which complies with new concept of
operational such as bomb type or aircraft type etc.”
“ Only one construction team will construct the bunker and no
sub-contractors are allowed. More close monitoring by the
relevant agency.”
85
Table 4.39: Percentage of Suggestions for Question 7
No
Suggestion
Respondents
1
Use IBS/ Precast
2
Increase security
3
No comment
Percent
(%)
Cumulative
Percent (%)
R1, R2, R5,
R6, R9, R10,
R11
R4, R7, R8,
7
58.33
58.33
3
25.00
83.33
R3, R12
2
16.67
100.00
12
100.00
Total:
Analysis of Question 7:
Frequency
Majority 58.33% of respondents suggested to implement
IBS or precast construction method to replace conventional cast in-situ method
because the construction cost is relatively cheaper if use in large quantities. It is
predictable that, by implementing precast for RMAF defense bunker can ensure safety
and security of base, limit access of workers, shorter construction duration and
produce more standardize and quality construction product. Moreover, pre-fabricated
bunker elements subjected to quality control and quality assurance by manufacturers,
therefore faultiness during production can be eliminated. Subsequently, pre-fabrication
method is faster and better but lead to extra construction cost, therefore suppliers and
manufacturers quotations should be reviewed before commence of pre-fabrication
method.
However, 25% of respondents suggested that the best way is to ensure the
safety and security system by conducting regular monitoring and security checking,
implementing of security filtering towards foreign and local workers before they gain
access into the base and ensure constant monitoring for workers in technical and
classify areas. Only 16.67% of respondents have no ideas to improve current system.
86
Key Findings for Question 7: Overall aspects of safety and security, construction
duration, construction cost and construction quality can be improved by considering
of:
(i)
IBS or precast method can achieve cost effectiveness if implemented in
large quantities.
(ii)
Precast method can ensure safety and security of base by limiting
workers access, decreasing construction duration, and promote better quality
for bunkers construction.
(iii)
Precast method offer better construction quality since it is subjected to
quality assurance and quality checking to eliminate products’ faultiness.
(iv)
Implementation of regular monitoring and security checking.
(iv)
Implementation of security filtering for local and foreign workers.
(v)
Implementation of constant monitoring for workers in technical and
classify areas.
4.3.2.8 Responses on Pre-fabrication Implementation to Improve Base’s Safety
and Security
Question 8: “ Do you think by implementing pre-fabrication construction method can
ensure the safety and security of RMAF bases? Why?”
Hypothesis Question 8: RMAF and PWD have great interest to replace existing
construction method with pre-fabrication construction method. Therefore, safety and
87
security of base can be ensured by decreasing duration of project and decreasing
numbers of workers enter the base daily.
Table 4.40 shown is the positive responses from respondents for Question 8,
and Table 4.41 shown is the percentage of responses for Question 8.
Table 4.40: Positive Responses for Question 8 (Part 1)
Respondent
R1
R2
R3
R4
R5
R6
R7
R8
Positive Responses
“ If the quantity of defense bunker is in high volume, we can
use IBS method because the more quantity we used, the price
will be lower.”
“ Precast method is preferable to improve the security aspect
by limiting workers working period in the base through short
construction period.”
“ Construction period can be reduced.”
“ Cheaper construction cost.”
“ Products are more assured with assurance from
manufacturers.”
“ Maybe, if it has the strength to withstand small arm fire and
hand grenades.”
“ Yes, because pre-fabrication components gone through QC
inspection.”
“ Ok, provided the constructor must be of good experience.”
“ Yes, if the quality of material is being set.”
“ Better than conventional method because promote better
quality, decrease workers in the base, increase cleanliness and
tidiness at site.”
“ Yes, but have to ensure it meets the specification and
strength before mass production and monitor the installation
process closely.”
88
Table 4.40: Positive Responses for Question 8 (Part 2)
R9
R10
R11
R12
“ In term of time, safety and security and quality control of the
bunker, the fastest method of construction may be for
example, precast concrete defense bunker.”
“ But normally, the fastest method which saves times, safety
and security and quality will cost a bit higher unless it has
been proven that the cost quoted by any developer is cheaper
than the conventional method.”
“ Yes, because half of the construction activities will be taken
outside the base.”
“ If the sizes are standard, the answer is yes.”
“ The pre-fabrication structure will be at the same strength for
all bunkers.”
“ Yes, bunker strength follow design requirement.”
“ Concrete strength test will be carried out and it is assured by
suppliers.”
Table 4.41: Percentage of Responses for Question 8
No
Responses
1
Positive
2
Negative
Respondents
R1, R2, R3, R4,
R5, R6, R7, R8,
R9, R10, R11,
R12
Total:
Analysis of Question 8:
Frequency
Percent
(%)
Cumulative
Percent (%)
12
100.00
100.00
-
0
100.00
12
100.00
100% of respondents from RMAF and PWD agreed to
implement pre-fabrication construction method to ensure the safety and security of
RMAF bases. However, implementation of pre-fabricated bunker should be in large
scale or amount in order to lower the construction cost. Precast method is more
preferable since precast components need less duration and workers for installation.
This situation can directly limit numbers and period of workers accessing base’ s
compound. In additional, precast components are better in quality because components
are fabricated in factory whereby production emphasis of quality control and quality
89
assurance processes. Besides that, constructors have sufficient skill and experience for
erection process. Furthermore, precast construction also promote clean, tidy and safe
working environment since half of the construction activities are completed off-site.
Key Findings for Question 8: Pre-fabrication construction method is preferable to
overcome base’ s safety and security issues during construction due to:
(i)
Precast components need less construction period and workers for
erection process, therefore it can limit duration and number of workers
accessing base compound.
(ii)
Precast method can assure safety of construction site by offering clean
and less wastage site environment, therefore can avoid safety and health
problems from harming base personnel.
4.3.2.9 Responses on Pre-fabricated Bunkers Require Shorter Construction
Period
Question 9: “ If all the bunker structural elements are pre-fabricated or manufactured
in factory before transported to site for erection, do you think the construction period
could be decreased? Why?”
Hypothesis Question 9: RMAF and PWD will strongly agree that implementation of
pre-fabricated bunker construction can reduce overall construction duration at site
90
because pre-fabricated components is prepared in factory before sent to site for
installation.
Table 4.42 shown is the positive responses from respondents for Question 9,
and Table 4.43 shown is the percentage of responses from respondents for Question 9.
Table 4.42: Positive Responses for Question 9
Respondent
Positive Opinion
R2
“ Yes, because we set the date to be erected on site to the
manufacturer.”
“ Yes, but need monitoring during testing and installation.”
R4
“ Yes, because it will eliminate construction period.”
R5
“ Yes, it just like factory made.”
R6
“ Yes, they only need to fix it at the construction site.”
“ Yes, because preliminary work such as earth works can be
done very fast, before installation of precast structures and
elements.”
“ Yes, it just likes ‘Lego’ and only use of a crane and few
workers throughout the installation process.”
“ Sure, because no time need for concrete curing and test
sample as per conventional method.”
“ Sure, contractor can do pre-fabricated component at their
own time without base control.”
“ Yes, because the amount of time taken to make a concrete
structure for the bunker will be reduced.”
“ Yes.”
R1
R7
R8
R9
R10
R11
R12
91
Table 4.43: Percentage of Responses for Question 9
Responses
Respondents
Frequency
Cumulative
Percent (%)
1
Positive
R1, R2, R4,
R5, R6, R7,
R8, R9, R10,
R11, R12
Percent
(%)
11
91.67
91.67
2
Negative
-
0
0.00
91.67
3
Not Sure
R3
1
8.33
100.00
12
100.00
No
Total:
Analysis of Question 9:
Majority of 91.67% respondents from RMAF and PWD
agreed that pre-fabricated bunker construction can reduce construction duration
because pre-fabricated components are sent to site for installation using minimum
machinery and workers. Besides that, preliminary work such as earthwork can be
carried out concurrently during pre-fabrication of bunkers’ components. Furthermore,
pre-fabricated method requires shorter construction period because time for installing
formworks, concreting, curing and testing of sample have been eliminated, while
constructor can prepare precast component off-site without base control. However,
8.33% of respondents had no idea that pre-fabrication method can decrease the
construction period.
Key Findings for Question 9: Pre-fabricated defense bunkers construction will
decrease overall construction period due to:
(i)
Pre-fabricated bunkers only involve of installation period.
(ii)
Earthwork can be carried out concurrently during pre-fabrication of
bunkers’ structural components.
92
(iii)
Pre-fabricated bunker construction requires shorter construction period
because time for installing formworks, concreting works and curing works has
been eliminated.
(iv)
Contractors can carry out fabrication works off-site without controlled
by base’ s regulations.
4.3.2.10 Responses on Pre-fabricated Bunkers Promote Better Quality and More
Standardized
Question 10: “ Pre-fabricated structural elements are more quality and more
standardize in term of strength, size and specification, do you agree with this
statement? Why?”
Hypothesis for Question 10: RMAF and PWD will strongly agree that structural
elements produced through pre-fabrication method is more quality and more
standardize since manufacturing of components has to go through quality assurance
check and quality control check before released to site for installation. Any faultiness
happen to manufactured components will cause additional cost or loss to
manufacturer, therefore manufacturer is more careful during fabrication process.
Table 4.44 shown is the positive responses from respondents for Question 10,
and Table 4.45 shown is the percentage of responses for Question 10.
93
Table 4.44: Positive Responses for Question 10
Respondent
Positive Opinion
R1
R4
“ Yes, pre-fabricated at the yard/ factory shall follow the
quality of production.
“ Yes, if all the precast structure comply with spec and
standard.”
“ Strength, I am not aware. Size and specification – yes, since
it is factory manufactured.”
“ Yes, it is manufacture in factory.”
R5
“ Yes, provided the constructor follow the specification.”
R6
“ Yes.”
R2
R3
R7
R8
R9
R10
R11
R12
“ Yes, because standard specification has been set.”
“ Manufacturers oblige to follow and have QC check.”
“ Yes, because it is manufactured by machine and goes
through QA/ QC check.
“ Yes, because they are produced by one manufacturer and for
sure there is SOP.”
“ ISO certification is normally applied.”
“ Quality of products is being controlled.”
“ Yes, normally they use steel formwork which can give good
result.”
“ Yes, normally a standard factory will have quality control.”
“ Conventional method needs close supervision for the bunker
to be erected as per plan.”
“ Yes, it is assured by suppliers and proven by test results.”
Table 4.45: Percentage of Responses for Question 10
Responses
Respondents
Frequency
Cumulative
Percent (%)
1
Positive
R1, R2, R3,
R4, R5, R6,
R7, R8, R9,
R10, R11,
R12
Percent
(%)
12
100.00
100.00
2
Negative
-
0
0.00
100.00
12
100.00
No
Total:
94
Analysis of Question 10: 100% of respondents agreed that pre-fabricated bunker
elements are better in quality and more standardize in strength, size and dimension,
which complied with RMAF and PWD requirements and specifications. Besides that,
RMAF can fix the installation date depends on base’ s arrangement, so that Provost
Personnel and Maintenance Department have enough time to monitor and control prefabricated bunkers installation and testing. Furthermore, pre-fabricated components
are obligated for quality assurance check and quality control check before delivered to
site.
Key Findings for Question 10: Pre-fabricated components known to be better in
quality and more standardize due to:
(i)
Pre-fabricated
components
have
to
comply
with
customers
specifications and requirements before carry on with mass production in
factories.
(ii)
Provost Personnel and Maintenance Department have more time and
work force to monitor and control installation and testing of pre-fabricated
components, by arranging appropriate installation date for contractors.
(iii)
Pre-fabricated components have little faultiness since products are
obligated for QA and QC checks.
95
4.3.2.11 Responses on Cost Effectiveness of Pre-fabricated Bunkers Construction
Question 11: “ Do you think by implementing pre-fabrication construction method for
RMAF defense bunker is cost effective or cost saving? Why?”
Hypothesis for Question 11: RMAF and PWD strongly agree that production and
installation of pre-fabricated bunker is more cost effective in term of construction cost,
time spent, workers employed, and unforeseen faultiness and damages. In addition,
pre-fabricated bunker is more cost saving because it involves in mass quantity
production, therefore cost of construction using pre-fabrication method will be cheaper
than conventional method.
Table 4.46 shown is the positive responses from respondents for Question 11,
and Table 4.47 shown is the percentage of positive responses for Question 11.
Table 4.46: Positive Responses for Question 11 (Part 1)
Respondent
R1
R2
R3
R4
R5
Positive Responses
“ Yes, pre-fabricated elements is cheaper if produce in large
quantities.”
“ Yes, decrease employment of workers, machineries and
equipment rental and construction period.”
“ It depends on whether pre-fabrication construction can
withstand the blast or fire by small arm and grenade.”
“ It depends on whether it is cheaper than conventional
construction.”
“ Yes, because mass production.”
“ Yes.”
96
Table 4.46: Positive Responses for Question 11 (Part 2)
R6
R11
“ Yes, if the quantity is high.”
“ Depends on quantity ordered, because manufactures of
elements involve fabrication of mold before production that is
considered costly generally.”
“ Maybe, if implemented in large quantities.”
“ Yes, it is cost effective even though maybe the price of one
unit is a little bit higher. But if it is proven that the cost of one
unit is lower than the conventional one, it is cost saving.”
“ Yes, contractors can save time and materials compare if
construct on site.”
“ Yes, the amount of time taken to erect will be reduced.”
R12
“ Yes.”
R7
R8
R9
R10
Table 4.47: Percentage of Responses for Question 11
Responses
Respondents
Frequency
Cumulative
Percent (%)
1
Positive
R1, R2, R3,
R4, R5, R6,
R7, R8, R9,
R10, R11
Percent
(%)
12
100.00
100.00
2
Negative
-
0.00
100.00
12
100.00
No
Total:
Analysis of Question 11 Answers:
100% of Respondents from RMAF and PWD
agreed that pre-fabricated bunker construction is more cost effective or cost saving
since it involves mass production of bunker elements to be supplied to all RMAF
Bases in Malaysia. Besides that, this method can directly reduce cost of construction
by diminish extra spending on workers, machineries, rental of equipments, and
construction duration. Additionally, pre-fabricated bunker should withstand blast and
impacts from all types of firearm and grenade, including others specifications and
requirements provide by RMAF and PWD.
97
Key Findings of Question 11: Implementation of pre-fabricated bunkers construction
is more cost effective and cost saving due to:
(i)
Mass production of pre-fabricated bunkers’ elements to be supplied to
all RMAF Bases.
(ii)
Overall construction cost is reduced, since without extra spending on
workers, machineries, rental of equipments, and long construction period are
diminished.
(iii)
Pre-fabricated bunkers development should consider of bunkers’ basic
characteristic to withstand blast from various type of grenade and bullet
impacts from various firearm.
4.3.2.12
Responses on Feasibility or Practicality of Pre-fabricated Bunkers
Construction
Question 12: “ Do you think pre-fabricated construction method is suitable or feasible
to be implemented for RMAF defense bunker in future? Why?”
Hypothesis of Question 12: RMAF and PWD strongly agreed that pre-fabricated
bunker construction is more feasible and suitable to be implement in future especially
in 10th Malaysian Plan since it meets all the requirements by RMAF and PWD
especially in achieving better safety and security base environment, shorter
construction period, better quality and standardization and cheaper construction cost.
98
Table 4.48 shown is the positive responses from respondents for Question 12,
and Table 4.49 shown is the percentage of responses from respondents for Question
12.
Table 4.48: Positive Responses for Question 12
Respondent
Positive Opinion
R1
“ Yes, since the bunker is only for sentry purposes.”
“ Yes, it is more saving in time, while cost, quality and
specification are easier to monitor.”
“ Depends on whether it could perform the task for protecting
personnel especially the intended threat.”
“ Yes, because it will cut cost especially budget constraint.”
R2
R3
R4
R6
R7
R8
R9
R10
R11
R12
“ Yes, it shortens the duration of work.”
“ If comply with every specifications set by RMAF and
PWD.”
“ Yes, to promote fast, cheap, clean, standardize, robust
bunker construction.”
“ Yes, if the planned precast defense bunker comply with the
RMAF needs and requirement.”
“ RMAF gains in term of time, security and safety, and cost
effective.”
“ Yes, easy to control quality and standardized design.”
“ Yes, cost and time effective compared to conventional
method.”
“ Yes.”
Table 4.49: Percentage of Responses for Question 12
Responses
Respondents
Frequency
Cumulative
Percent (%)
1
Positive
R1, R2, R3,
R4, R6, R7,
R8, R9, R10,
R11, R12
Percent
(%)
11
91.67
91.67
2
Negative
-
-
0.00
91.67
3
Not Sure
R5
1
8.33
100.00
12
100.00
No
Total:
99
Analysis of Question 12: Majority of 91.67% respondents agreed that pre-fabricated
bunkers construction more suitable and feasible to be implemented for RMAF defense
program in future because of its’ characteristics in safety and security aspect,
construction duration aspect, quality and standardization aspect, and cost effectiveness
aspect. Nonetheless, pre-fabricated bunkers must able to carry out its’ primary role as
the defense facilities to protect military personnel during wartime. In addition, prefabrication method will be widely implemented unless it complies with RMAF and
PWD specifications. However, 8.33% of respondents were unsure of the feasibility
and suitability of pre-fabricated bunker implementation in RMAF bases.
Key Findings for Question 12: Pre-fabricated bunker construction is suitable and
feasible to be implemented due to:
(i)
Pre-fabricated bunkers’ characteristic and advantages, will improve
current problems encountered by RMAF and PWD.
(ii)
Pre-fabricated bunkers are design to withstand bullets and bomb
impacts until 100psi (10 bars).
4.3.2.13 Additional Suggestion to Improve RMAF Defense Bunker Construction
Question 13: “ What is your suggestion or recommendation to improve the essential
aspects of defense bunker construction in term of safety and security, duration, quality
and cost in future?”
100
Hypothesis of Question 13: RMAF and PWD strongly agreed that pre-fabricated
bunker construction is a favorable construction technology implementation to replace
cast in-situ method to create a safer base environment, cheaper construction method
and better value to money construction.
Table 4.50 shown is the suggestions of respondents for Question 13, and Table
4.51 shown is the percentage of identical suggestion categories for Question 13.
Table 4.50: Suggestions for Question13
Respondent
Suggestions
R1
“ Well, we should gazette the design to be implemented in
RMAF.”
“ Precast is the best way to improve present security issue by
reducing overall construction period, reducing numbers of
workers or trades, reducing overall construction cost and
ensure more quality construction.”
“ Could be an alternative by using pre-fabricated construction
if this method can be cheaper, same strength at least and
faster to build.”
“ I will suggest that precast because of its characteristics and
benefits to the organization.”
“ RMAF HQ (DP&P) should come up with the standard
design acceptable by all bases.”
“ Precast is considered the best choice compare to
conventional method. Because quality can be controlled, save
time and cost, less workers or outsiders entering base’ s
compound.”
“ Nothing for the moment, but agree and looking forward for
pre-fabrication technology implementation in RMAF Bases.”
“ Maybe there are many other ideas or methods of
constructions which indirectly may improve all aspects of
RMAF defense bunker in the future. However, precast
concrete defense bunker is probably the best at the moment to
be implemented.”
“ Design must be suited to the type of war and weapons.”
R2
R3
R4
R6
R7
R8
R9
R10
101
Table 4.51: Percentage of Identical Suggestion Categorization for Question 13
No
Suggestions
1
Precast
implementation
2
No comment
Respondents
R1, R2, R3,
R4, R6, R7,
R8, R9, R10
R5, R11, R12
Total:
Frequency
Percent
(%)
Cumulative
Percent (%)
9
75.00
75.00
3
25.00
100.00
12
100.00
Analysis of Question 13: Majority of 75.00% respondents were agreed and looking
forward for the implementation of pre-fabrication bunker construction. It is seem as
the best and more favorable option to improve overall problems caused by current
construction. Pre-fabricated bunker construction will be implemented if it is proven
cheaper, same strength and faster to build at site. However, 25.00% of respondents do
not sure about the future implementation of construction technology to improve
essential aspects as mentioned earlier.
Key Findings of Question 13: Pre-fabrication construction method was chosen to
mitigate and resolve problems at site due to:
(i)
Pre-fabricated
bunker
construction
promote
safer
construction
environment, since less workers are employed.
(ii)
Pre-fabricated bunker construction offer cleaner and tidier construction
site, since no wastage at site.
(iii)
Pre-fabricated bunker requires lesser construction period, since it is
faster to erect.
(iv)
Pre-fabricated bunker ensure better quality and more standardize.
(v)
Pre-fabricated bunker is more cost effective if compared with current
practice.
102
4.4
Phase III – Cost Analysis
In Phase III, quantitative data such as cast in-situ bunkers construction cost and
pre-fabricated bunkers estimated cost was collected. Data was analyzed to determine
whether pre-fabrication construction method is more cost effective or cost saving in
long term for RMAF Ground Base Defense Program development. Besides that, cost
analysis approaches carried out was inclusive of elemental breakdown cost analysis
for current bunkers and cost comparison between current bunker construction costs
with pre-fabricated bunker construction cost.
4.4.1 Elemental Breakdown Cost Analysis for Current Bunkers’ Cost
Data of current construction cost was obtained from PWD Kuantan, whereby
quotation bills for previous bunkers construction were requested from PWD for review
purposes. Total amount paid for past bunker projects and price quoted for every
breakdown elements are shown in Appendix D. Breakdown of elements were based on
works performed by contractors until the completion of bunker, which inclusive of:
(i)
Preliminary works;
(ii)
Earthworks;
(iii)
Formworks;
(iv)
Reinforcement bar/ BRC works;
(v)
Concreting works;
(vi)
Brick works;
103
(vii)
Waterproofing works;
(viii) Backfilling/ Turfing works;
(ix)
Painting works;
(x)
Fix installations works; and
(xi)
Site Cleaning works.
Subsequently, costing of every element was provided accordingly and
accurately in order to find out the total cost spent for all the nine completed defense
bunkers before proceeds with the comparison with estimated costing of pre-fabricated
bunkers. Table 4.52 shown is the summary of construction cost for all the completed
bunkers in KAB.
Table 4.52: Project Information and Cost for Completed Bunkers in KAB
No
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Bunker
ID
A1
A2
A3
A4
A5
B1
B2
B3
B4
Year
Built
Contractor’s
Information
Duration
Total Cost (RM)
2007
Kristal Trading
120days
174,007.00
(RM 34,801.40
per bunker)
2008
2008
2008
2008
ZM Sinar Ent.
Nur Maju Construction
Pembinaan Kemas Kini
Nur Maju Construction
95 days
105 days
108 days
120 days
43,800.00
45,435.00
45,660.00
56,465.00
104
4.4.2 Estimated Cost for Pre-fabricated Bunkers
Estimated cost for pre-fabricated bunkers was requested from three local
manufacturers or suppliers companies of precast components in Malaysia, which
inclusive of:
(i)
Eastern Pretech (M) Sdn. Bhd.;
(ii)
Hume Concrete Marketing Sdn. Bhd.; and
(iii)
Ezidek (M) Sdn. Bhd.
Application for cost estimating for pre-fabricated bunkers were sent to all the
local precast companies mentioned above with the intention to get as many estimated
cost as possible to set as a benchmark for pre-fabricated bunker costing. Format and
content of official application letters that sent out to respective companies are as
shown in Appendix E.
4.4.3 Cost Comparison between Current Bunkers with Pre-fabricated Bunkers
Quantitative value of existing bunkers construction cost and estimated prefabricated bunkers cost were utilized to perform cost comparison in order to determine
the more cost effective solution to be implemented by RMAF Ground Base Defense
Program. However, HUME Concrete Marketing Sdn. Bhd. could not provide any
information about pre-fabricated bunker construction cost since Hume manufacturing
105
mainstream only in hollow-core precast components.Therefore, quotation contributed
by Ezidek and Eastern Pretech only involved in the cost comparison process and
analysis to identify pre-fabricated bunkers cost effectiveness.
4.4.3.1 Identical Elements Cost Analysis
Construction cost for nine existing bunkers were listed down. However, in
order to achieve identical bunker condition for current bunkers with pre-fabricated
bunkers, consideration of additional cost or omission cost of nine completed bunkers
were incorporated together with original construction cost since current bunkers did
not comply with dimensions specifications and physical appearance requirements set
by RMAF and PWD. This approach implemented to ensure the criteria of same and
identical elements achieved during comparison process. Table 4.53, Table 4.54, Table
4.55, Table 4.56, Table 4.57, Table 4.58, Table 4.59, Table 4.60 and Table 4.61 shown
are the possible cost added or deducted from every incomplete bunker in order to
rectify their faultiness or shortage in dimensions and camouflage appearance.
106
Table 4.53: Additional Cost for Bunker A1 Rectification
Bunker ID: A1
No
Description
1
Existing bunker construction cost:
Additional Cost for Rectification:
a. Add thickness of slab roof:
i. Formwork ((0.22m x 16.1m) + 36.5m² x RM 32)
ii. Supply and install BRC (36.5m² x RM 19)
iii. Concreting (0.22m x 36.5m² x RM 230)
b. Add brick curb at the edges of slab roof:
i. Brickworks (2.3m x 0.15m x 9nos x RM 38)
ii. Plastering(2.3m x 0.30m x 9nos x RM 20)
c. Reconstruct ventilation hole:
i. Hacking of ventilation opening (7nos x RM 155)
2
d. Adjust weapon counter top:
i. Formwork ((0.3m + 0.15m )x 16.1m x RM 32)
ii. Supply and install BRC (0.3m x 16.1m x RM 19)
iii. Concreting (0.3m x 0.15m x 16.1m x RM 230)
e. Backfill of earth on rooftop and around bunker.
(30m³ x RM 18)
f. Supply and plant close turfing with 25mm thickness
fertilizer.
(75m² x RM 38)
Sub Total for Additional Cost:
Cost (RM)
34,801 40
(RM)
1,281
693
1,846
34
50
90
117
124
99
20
1,085
00
231
91
166
84
77
64
540
00
2,850 00
9,029 09
Total:
9,029
09
43,830
49
Table 4.54: Additional Cost for Bunker A2 Rectification
Bunker ID: A2
No
Description
1
Existing bunker construction cost:
Additional Cost for Rectification:
a. Add thickness of slab roof:
i. Formwork ((0.20m x 16.1m) + 36.5m² x RM 32)
ii. Supply and install BRC (36.5m² x RM 19)
iii. Concreting (0.20m x 36.5m² x RM 230)
b. Add brick curb at the edges of slab roof:
i. Brickworks (2.3m x 0.15m x 9nos x RM 38)
ii. Plastering(2.3m x 0.30m x 9nos x RM 20)
c. Add ventilation hole:
i. Hacking of ventilation opening (7nos x RM 155)
2
d. Adjust weapon counter top:
i. Formwork ((0.3m + 0.15m )x 16.1m x RM 32)
ii. Supply and install BRC (0.3m x 16.1m x RM 19)
iii. Concreting (0.3m x 0.15m x 16.1m x RM 230)
d. Backfill of earth on rooftop of bunker.
(36.5m2² x 0.15m x RM 18)
e. f. Supply and plant close turfing with 25mm thickness
fertilizer. (36.5m² x RM 38)
Sub Total for Additional Cost:
Cost (RM)
34,801 40
(RM)
1,271
693
1,679
04
50
00
117
124
99
20
1,085
00
231
91
166
84
77
64
98
55
1387 00
6,945 94
Total:
6,945
94
41,747
34
107
Table 4.55: Additional Cost for Bunker A3 Rectification
Bunker ID: A3
No
Description
1
Existing bunker construction cost:
Additional Cost for Rectification:
a. Add thickness of slab roof:
i. Formwork ((0.20m x 16.1m) + 36.5m² x RM 32)
ii. Supply and install BRC (36.5m² x RM 19)
iii. Concreting (0.20m x 36.5m² x RM 230)
b. Add brick curb at the edges of slab roof:
i. Brickworks (2.3m x 0.15m x 9nos x RM 38)
ii. Plastering(2.3m x 0.30m x 9nos x RM 20)
c. Reconstruct ventilation hole:
i. Hacking of ventilation opening (7nos x RM 155)
2
d. Reconstruct weapon counter top:
i. Formwork ((0.3m + 0.15m )x 16.1m x RM 32)
ii. Supply and install BRC (0.3m x 16.1m x RM 19)
iii. Concreting (0.3m x 0.15m x 16.1m x RM 230)
e. Backfill of earth on rooftop and around bunker.
(30m³ x RM 18)
f. Supply and plant close turfing with 25mm thickness
fertilizer.(75m² x RM 38)
Sub Total for Additional Cost:
Cost (RM)
34,801 40
(RM)
1,271
693
1,679
04
50
00
117
124
99
20
1,085
00
231
91
166
84
77
64
540
00
2,850 00
8,850 98
Total:
8,850
98
43,652
38
Table 4.56: Additional Cost for Bunker A4 Rectification
Bunker ID: A4
No
Description
1
Existing bunker construction cost:
Additional Cost for Rectification:
a. Add thickness of slab roof:
i. Formwork ((0.20m x 16.1m) + 36.5m² x RM 32)
ii. Supply and install BRC (36.5m² x RM 19)
iii. Concreting (0.20m x 36.5m² x RM 230)
b. Add brick curb at the edges of slab roof:
i. Brickworks (2.3m x 0.15m x 9nos x RM 38)
ii. Plastering(2.3m x 0.30m x 9nos x RM 20)
c. Reconstruct ventilation hole:
i. Hacking of ventilation opening (7nos x RM 155)
2
d. Reconstruct weapon counter top:
i. Formwork ((0.3m + 0.15m )x 16.1m x RM 32)
ii. Supply and install BRC (0.3m x 16.1m x RM 19)
iii. Concreting (0.3m x 0.15m x 16.1m x RM 230)
e. Backfill of earth on rooftop and around bunker.
(30m³ x RM 18)
f. Supply and plant close turfing with 25mm thickness
fertilizer.(75m² x RM 38)
g. Raise floor level.(20.5m²x 0.02m x RM 230)
Sub Total for Additional Cost:
Cost (RM)
34,801 40
(RM)
1,271
693
1,679
04
50
00
117
124
99
20
1,085
00
231
91
166
84
77
64
540
00
2,850 00
94 30
8,945 28
Total:
8,945
28
43,746
68
108
Table 4.57: Additional Cost for Bunker A5 Rectification
Bunker ID: A5
No
Description
1
Existing bunker construction cost:
Additional Cost for Rectification:
a. Add thickness of slab roof:
i. Formwork ((0.19m x 16.1m) + 36.5m² x RM 32)
ii. Supply and install BRC (36.5m² x RM 19)
iii. Concreting (0.19m x 36.5m² x RM 230)
b. Add brick curb at the edges of slab roof:
i. Brickworks (2.3m x 0.15m x 9nos x RM 38)
ii. Plastering(2.3m x 0.30m x 9nos x RM 20)
c. Reconstruct ventilation hole:
i. Hacking of ventilation opening (7nos x RM 155)
2
d. Reconstruct weapon counter top:
i. Formwork ((0.3m + 0.15m )x 16.1m x RM 32)
ii. Supply and install BRC (0.3m x 16.1m x RM 19)
iii. Concreting (0.3m x 0.15m x 16.1m x RM 230)
e. Backfill of earth on rooftop and around bunker.
(30m³ x RM 18)
f. Supply and plant close turfing with 25mm thickness
fertilizer.(75m² x RM 38)
Sub Total for Additional Cost:
Cost (RM)
34,801 40
(RM)
1,265
693
1,595
89
50
05
117
124
99
20
1,085
00
231
91
166
84
77
64
540
00
2,850 00
8,761 88
Total:
8,761
88
43,563
28
Table 4.58: Additional Cost for Bunker B1 Rectification
Bunker ID: B1
No
Description
1
Existing bunker construction cost:
2
Additional Cost for Rectification:
a. Add thickness of slab roof:
i. Formwork ((0.17m x 16.1m) + 36.5m² x RM 31)
ii. Supply and install BRC (36.5m² x RM 35)
iii. Concreting (0.17m x 36.5m² x RM 245)
b. Reconstruct weapon counter top height:
i. Formwork ((0.3m + 0.15m )x 16.1m x RM 31)
ii. Supply and install BRC (0.3m x 16.1m x RM 35)
iii. Concreting (0.3m x 0.15m x 16.1m x RM 245)
c. Reconstruct ventilation hole:
i. Hacking of ventilation opening (7nos x RM 155)
Sub Total for Additional Cost:
Cost (RM)
43,800 00
(RM)
720
717
853
25
50
83
224
169
177
60
05
50
1,085 00
3,947 73
Total:
3,947
73
47,747
73
109
Table 4.59: Additional Cost for Bunker B2 Rectification
Bunker ID: B2
No
Description
1
Existing bunker construction cost:
2
Additional Cost for Rectification:
a. Add thickness of slab roof:
i. Formwork ((0.13m x 16.1m) + 36.5m² x RM 35)
ii. Supply and install BRC (36.5m² x RM 36)
iii. Concreting (0.13m x 36.5m² x RM 245)
b. Adjust weapon counter top height:
i. Formwork ((0.3m + 0.15m )x 16.1m x RM 35)
ii. Supply and install BRC (0.3m x 16.1m x RM 36)
iii. Concreting (0.3m x 0.15m x 16.1m x RM 245)
c. Add ventilation hole:
i. Hacking of ventilation opening (7nos x RM 155)
d. Raise floor level:
i. ii. Supply and install BRC (20.5m² x RM 36)
iii. Concreting (20.5m²x 0.05m x RM 245)
Cost (RM)
45,435 00
(RM)
1350
1314
1162
76
00
53
253
173
177
58
88
50
1,085
00
738 00
251 13
6,506 38
Total:
6,506
38
51,941
38
Table 4.60: Additional Cost for Bunker B3 Rectification
Bunker ID: B3
No
Description
1
Existing bunker construction cost:
2
Additional Cost for Rectification:
a. Add thickness of slab roof:
i. Formwork ((0.12m x 16.1m) + 36.5m² x RM 36)
ii. Supply and install BRC (36.5m² x RM 34)
iii. Concreting (0.12m x 36.5m² x RM 250)
b. Adjust weapon counter top height:
i. Formwork ((0.3m + 0.15m )x 16.1m x RM 36)
ii. Supply and install BRC (0.3m x 16.1m x RM 34)
iii. Concreting (0.3m x 0.15m x 16.1m x RM 250)
c. Add ventilation hole:
i. Hacking of ventilation opening (7nos x RM 155)
d. Raise floor level:
i. ii. Supply and install BRC (20.5m² x RM 34)
iii. Concreting (20.5m²x 0.05m x RM 250)
Cost (RM)
45,660 00
(RM)
1,383
1,241
1,095
55
00
00
260
164
181
82
22
13
1,085
00
697 00
256 25
6363 97
Total:
6,363
97
52,023
97
110
Table 4.61: Additional and Omission Cost for Bunker B4 Rectification
Bunker ID: B4
No
1
Description
Existing bunker construction cost:
Additional Cost for Rectification:
a. Add thickness of slab roof:
i. Formwork ((0.12m x 16.1m) + 36.5m² x RM 35)
ii. Supply and install BRC (36.5m² x RM 41)
iii. Concreting (0.12m x 36.5m² x RM 250)
2
3
Cost (RM)
56,465
00
b. Adjust weapon counter top height:
i. Formwork ((0.3m + 0.15m )x 16.1m x RM 35)
ii. Supply and install BRC (0.3m x 16.1m x RM 41)
iii. Concreting (0.3m x 0.15m x 16.1m x RM 250)
c. Add ventilation hole:
i. Hacking of ventilation opening (7nos x RM 155)
Omission Cost
a. Provide bituminous road from existing main access to
site.
(RM)
1,345
1,496
1,095
12
50
00
253
198
181
58
03
13
1,085
00
5,654
36
(-RM)
(8,865 00)
(8,865
00)
Total:
5,654
36
(8,865
00)
53,254
36
4.4.3.2 Cost Comparison between Current Bunkers Construction with
Pre-fabricated Bunkers Construction
The approach of bunkers rectification not only revealed the exact current
construction cost, but also provided reference for rectification cost budgeting in future.
However, not all faultiness or shortage can be rectified due to the possibility of
weakening the existing structures’ strength.
Subsequently, the exact construction cost for all defense bunkers, which
identically same in dimensions and physical appearance was applied for cost
comparison with pre-fabricated bunkers to identify the cost effectiveness of both
111
method. Table 4.62 shown is the cost comparison between conventional bunkers
construction with pre-fabricated bunkers construction.
Table 4.62: Cost Comparison between Conventional with
Pre-fabricated Bunkers
No
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Bunker
ID
A1
A2
A3
A4
A5
B1
B2
B3
B4
Total:
Precast Manufacturers Costing and Comparison
Conventional
Bunker
Construction
Cost (RM)
Ezidek
Costing
(RM)
43,830.49
41,747.34
43,652.38
43,746.68
43,563.28
47,747.73
51,941.38
52,023.97
53,254.36
421,507.61
41,400.00
41,400.00
41,400.00
41,400.00
41,400.00
41,400.00
41,400.00
41,400.00
41,400.00
372,600.00
(+)Cheaper
/
(-)More
Expensive
(RM)
+2,430.49
+347.34
+2,252.38
+2,346.68
+2,163.28
+ 6,347.73
+10,541.38
+10,623.97
+11,854.36
+48,907.61
Eastern
Pretech
Costing
(RM)
46,500.00
46,500.00
46,500.00
46,500.00
46,500.00
46,500.00
46,500.00
46,500.00
46,500.00
418,500.00
(+)Cheaper
/
(-)More
Expensive
(RM)
-2,669.51
-4,752.66
-2,847.62
-2,753.32
-2,936.72
+1,247.73
+5,441.38
+5,523.97
+6,754.36
+3,007.61
Hypothesis: Pre-fabrication construction method is more feasible, practical and cost
effective for implementation to protect RMAF interests in base’ s safety and security
aspect, value for money in infrastructures development aspect, good quality and
standardization of design or building aspect, and short construction duration aspect.
Analysis of Cost Comparison Outcome: Pre-fabricated bunker construction costing
provided by Ezidek is relatively cheaper than all current bunkers construction cost,
and the cost is cheaper within the range of minimum RM 347.34 to maximum RM
11,854.36. However, costing given by Eastern Pretech is more expensive if compared
with bunkers built in the year 2007 and cost more within the range from RM 2,669.51
to RM 4,752.66. Yet, the same costing given by Eastern Pretech is seem to be cheaper
112
if compared with the remaining bunkers that built in the year 2008 with cost reduction
within the range from RM 1,247.73 to RM 6,754.36.
Key Findings of Cost Comparison Analysis: Pre-fabricated bunkers costing
provided by both local precast manufacturers are more cost effective than current
bunker construction cost. Whereby, costing from Ezidek is cheaper than total
construction cost for current bunkers by RM 48,907.61 and Eastern Pretech costing is
also cheaper by RM 3,007.61 if compared to total current cost.
4.5
Conclusion
Site survey on nine existing bunkers in KAB was conducted in Phase I of case
study in this research and data collected from bunkers construction site through was
using re-measuring method of bunkers dimensions and inspections method on
camouflage appearance. Both methods had facilitated the process to identify faultiness
caused by implementation of conventional construction method.
Interview segments was conducted in Phase II of case study, whereby 12
essential respondents selected from RMAF organization and PWD, had justified all
the problems arose caused by cast in-situ bunkers implementation, whilst at the same
time obtained majority consent and approval to progress with future development of
pre-fabricated bunkers.
113
Moreover, data collected in Phase III of case study in this research was more
on quantitative data of current bunkers construction cost and quotations provided by
local precast manufacturers. However, cost comparison conducted had revealed the
cost effectiveness aspect of pre-fabricated bunkers required in this research. Besides
that, cost analysis carried out can utilize as a reference for future rectification cost
budgeting for current bunkers’ faultiness and defects.
CHAPTER 5
FINDINGS DISCUSSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1
Introduction
This particular chapter is prepared mainly to conclude all the findings from
analysed data that presented in Chapter IV, while the approach of recommendations
presented as a tool to identify the accomplishment of aim and objectives in this
research. Besides that, all the key findings concluded in this research, is highlighted as
below:
(i)
Research has identified the actual faultiness of current defense bunkers;
(ii)
Research has revealed problems caused by conventional construction
method; and
(iii)
Research has identified the cost effectiveness of pre-fabricated bunkers
construction for better RMAF defense bunkers development and construction.
115
Nevertheless, with more integrity in data values deriving of findings and
contribution of constructive and convincing discussions, stakeholders can realize the
benefits and advantages of pre-fabrication construction method towards RMAF and
PWD for implementation of pre-fabricated bunkers throughout RMAF Bases in
Malaysia.
5.2
Finding Discussions
The case study in this research involved three phases of data collection
process, with the aim to acquire related and important information to achieve the aim
and objectives in this research. Through comprehensive data analysis carried out in
Chapter IV, sets of key findings had been attained from every phases of case study,
which inclusive of site survey of current bunkers in KAB, interview segments with
RMAF and PWD personnel, and cost effectiveness analysis between pre-fabricated
bunker costing compared with current bunkers actual cost.
Through key findings achieved in previous chapter, current
construction method is not adequate for defense bunkers implementation, since
defense bunkers are the last defense elements to protect and withstand enemy troop’ s
attacks. Therefore, bunkers construction should be discreet from public knowledge
and bunkers’ specifications and requirements should be in absolute specification
compliancy condition.
116
5.2.1 Finding Discussions for Faultiness Identification
Site survey of current bunkers in KAB was carried out by implying remeasuring method for bunkers’ structural and installation elements, together with
inspections method for bunkers’ physical appearance, to identify level of compliancy
with RMAF Camouflage, Concealment and Decoy (CCD) requirements and PWD
specifications for dimensions.
Surprisingly, none of the existing bunkers constructed fully complied with the
dimensions specification or CCD requirements that acquired by RMAF and PWD.
Eventually, defects that differed from original bunker design can be categorized as
below:
(i)
Measurements faultiness;
(ii)
Appearance faultiness; and
(iii)
Structural faultiness.
Measurements faultiness occurred mostly involved of structural elements’
dimensions that inclusive of wall length, bunker height, roof slab thickness, weapon
countertop height, and ventilation openings size, as well as appearance faultiness
mostly occurred due to incomplete physical condition for CCD requirements and no
curb for slab roof edges. Besides that, structural faultiness identified involved
ventilation openings that appeared to be weak spots of bunkers since they were
wrongly constructed with sand bricks instead homogenously part of concrete walls.
Figure 5.1 shown is the bunkers’ defects categorization under three main faultiness
categories observed in KAB.
117
Measurements
Faultiness
Structural
Faultiness
Appearance
Faultiness
Figure 5.1: Bunkers’ Faultiness Categorization
Additionally, another set of findings concluded from data analysis performed
in Phase I of case study was percentage of faultiness affected every bunker.
Percentage of bunkers’ specification compliancy was based on 10 main elements from
site survey inclusive of:
(i)
Slab roof thickness;
(ii)
Wall thickness;
(iii)
Bunker height;
(iv)
Weapon countertop height;
(v)
Firing hole size;
(vi)
Ventilation openings;
(vii)
Raised floor height;
(viii) Roof turfing;
(ix)
Earth barrier; and
(x)
Earth barrier turfing.
118
Current bunkers could accomplish 100% flawlessness condition if the 10 predefined specifications are met or vice versa. However, allowance of +/- 3cm for
differences in dimensions permitted due to the consideration of contractors’ class, skill
and technical knowledge. Figure 5.2 shown is the percentage of current bunkers
faultiness based on 10 pre-defined specifications or requirements.
!
2
) &
#
#
#
#
,,
#
Figure 5.2: Percentage of Bunkers Faultiness
Eventually, by referring to Figure 5.1 and Figure 5.2, findings concluded show
that bunkers faultiness can be categorised into three major faultiness, which inclusive
of measurement faultiness, appearance faultiness and structural strength faultiness.
Whereby, all the bunkers in Sector Alpha involved in all types of faultiness categories,
and all the bunkers in Sector B only engaged in measurement faultiness and structural
strength faultiness. However, Bunker A1 and A3 are the worst among all bunkers
because engaged with the most faultiness, while Bunker B1 has the less faultiness.
119
5.2.2 Findings Discussions on Construction Problems Identification
Through interview segment, two sets of findings had derived from data
analysis. First set of findings had found out the problems and caused by conventional
method implementation and the second set of findings obtained majority approval and
consent for future development of pre-fabricated bunkers.
Obviously, problems and root causes of problems caused by conventional
construction method had identified easily from respondents.
Experience and
professional opinions from respondents were among the advantages contributed
towards the identification of problems and problems’ roof causes. Figure 5.3 shown is
the root causes and problems caused by conventional method for bunker construction.
120
Root Causes of Safety and Security Problem:
1. Cannot control workers movement.
2. Some contractors lack of integrity and
professionalism.
3. Not enough manpower to monitor contractors’
activities
4. Provost personnel not performing accordingly.
5. No screening of workers’ background.
Jeopardize Base’s
Safety and Security
Root Causes of Poor Quality and
Standardization Problem:
1. Incompetent Class F contractors.
2. Contractors lack of skill and experience.
3. Lack of monitoring by RMAF and PWD.
4. Contractors lack of integrity.
5. Contractors lack of technical knowledge.
Poor Quality & No
Standardization
Current Bunkers Construction Caused Problems
Lengthy
Construction Period
Root Causes of Lengthy Construction Period
Problem:
1. Contractors lack of skill and experience.
2. Contractors not financially stable.
3. Unsound weather condition
4. Not enough monitoring from RMAF and
PWD.
5. Cast in-situ method.
Costly Construction
Root Causes of Costly Construction
Problem:
1. Expensive construction materials.
2. High rectification cost.
3. Contractors lack of integrity.
4. No detail inspection before released
payment.
5. Specialist work.
Figure 5.3: Problems and Problem’ s Root Causes Caused by Conventional
Construction Method
121
Subsequently, second set of findings was relatively important in deciding the
future development of defense bunkers.
Majority of respondents agreed that
conventional method has more disadvantages than pre-fabrication method, but
provided the pre-fabrication construction cost is more cost effective from current
construction cost. In additional, strength of pre-fabricated bunker must withstand the
impacts from various small arms’ bullets impacts and all types of bombs’ blast
impacts. Figure 5.4 shown is the percentage of responses towards the problems caused
by conventional method, and Figure 5.5 shown is the percentage of responses towards
the advantages and practicality of pre-fabrication construction implementation.
!
2
#
1,
$+
,, )
$ ,
*&
9$ /
(
4 %
, &$
,
0
8&
%
, &$
0
6
* ( +7
* $& +
+
:
Figure 5.4: Percentage of Responses on Problems Caused by Conventional
Construction Method
!
2
#
0 $ $
9/
/
*
, "(( $
, *
6
+
:
8&
*%
, &$
0
" ,&
*( +
* $& +
1 ,
Figure 5.5: Percentage of Responses on Advantages of Pre-fabrication Method
Implementation
*&
122
On the other hand, by referring to the second set of concluded findings,
benefits and advantages of pre-fabricated bunkers construction were identified. Figure
5.6 shown is the benefits and advantages of pre-fabricated bunkers construction
implementation.
PRE-FABRICATED
BUNKER
CONSTRUCTION
Quality Assured
Ensure Safety
and Security
Short
Construction
Period
Cost Effective
Practical
Products
obligated to
QA/ QC checks
Limit number
of contractors
and workers
Involve earth
works and
installation
works
Cheaper overall
construction
cost
Cheaper if
demand in large
quantities
Products
comply with
specifications
Prevent safety
and health
issues
Eliminate
unnecessary
construction
processes
Less workers
and machineries
needed
Less resources
and duration for
erection
Products
standardized in
all aspects
Easy to monitor
and control
Majority offsite construction
activities
Same formwork
reused for mass
production
Less duration
for supervision
Manufacturer
responsible to
all components
defects
Clean and tidy
site
environment
Same strength
like cast in-situ
elements
Less
construction
waste
Figure 5.6: Advantages of Prefabricated Bunkers Construction Implementation
123
5.2.3 Findings Discussions on Pre-fabricated Bunkers Cost Effectiveness
Identification
Cost analysis was the last phase of case study in this research, whereby
construction cost of current bunkers was reviewed to obtain bunkers actual cost with
identical elements condition, whereby the most important criteria of cost comparison
analysis have to ensure both bunkers’ elements for comparison are identically same in
term of materials, dimensions, and strength. Therefore, reviewed of current bunkers
actual costing was reasonable to compare with pre-fabricated bunkers costing.
Quotation bills for previous bunkers construction in KAB were requested from
PWD Kuantan, with the intention to identify the breakdown cost for every component
and element for bunkers construction in the year 2007 and 2008. Since there were
inconsistency and faultiness for all the current bunkers, additional cost had
incorporated into the previous construction cost to simulate a condition whereby
current bunkers are fully compliance to specification, before compared to costing
contributed by local precast manufacturers using the same set of specification.
Two sets of findings were obtained by performing cost analysis and cost
comparison towards the collected data. First set of findings consisted of the additional
cost needed by KAB to rectify the present faultiness for current bunkers. Table 5.1
shown is the total additional cost to rectify the existing bunkers’ faultiness and the
actual cost of cast in-situ bunker construction comply with specifications. The second
set of findings consisted of pre-fabricated bunkers costing from local precast
manufacturers. Table 5.2 shown is the cost comparison using original cost (plus
rectification cost) with Ezidek costing and Eastern Pretech costing.
124
Table 5.1: Rectification Cost and Actual Construction Cost for Current Bunkers
No
Bunker ID
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
A1
A2
A3
A4
A5
B1
B2
B3
Original
Construction
Cost (RM)
34,801.40
34,801.40
34,801.40
34,801.40
34,801.40
43,800.00
45,435.00
45,660.00
9
B4
56,465.00
Total:
365,367.00
Rectification Cost (RM)
+9,029.09
+6,945.94
+8,850.98
+8,945.28
+8,761.88
+3,947.73
+6,506.38
+6,363.97
-3,210.64
(+ 5,654.36 – 8,865.00)
+56,140.61
Actual
Construction Cost
(RM)
43,830.49
41,747.34
43,652.38
43,746.68
43,563.28
47,747.73
51,941.38
52,023.97
53,254.36
421,507.61
Table 5.2: Comparison of Actual Construction Cost With Precast Costing
No
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Bunker
ID
A1
A2
A3
A4
A5
B1
B2
B3
B4
Total:
Original
Construction
Cost (RM)
34,801.40
34,801.40
34,801.40
34,801.40
34,801.40
43,800.00
45,435.00
45,660.00
56,465.00
365,367.00
Actual
Construction
Cost (RM)
43,830.49
41,747.34
43,652.38
43,746.68
43,563.28
47,747.37
51,941.38
52,023.97
53,254.36
421,507.61
Ezidek Precast
Bunker
Cost
(RM)
41,400.00
41,400.00
41,400.00
41,400.00
41,400.00
41,400.00
41,400.00
41,400.00
41,400.00
372,600.00
Eastern Pretech
Precast Bunker
Cost (RM)
46,500.00
46,500.00
46,500.00
46,500.00
46,500.00
46,500.00
46,500.00
46,500.00
46,500.00
418,500.00
Finally, the objective of identifying the cost effectiveness of pre-fabricated
bunkers was obviously achieved, whereby pre-fabricated bunkers are more cost
effective and even more cost-saving compared with cast in-situ bunkers. Figure 5.7
shown is the cost reduction using pre-fabrication construction method for bunkers in
Sector A and Sector B.
125
;
<
;
<
!;
<
2;
<
;
<
;
<
"6
=
" , <0
$%
<
;
<
;
<
2;
<
#
#
#
#
#
Figure 5.7: Cost Reduction Using Ezidek and Eastern Pretech Pre-fabricated Bunkers
for Bunkers Sector A and Sector B
By referring to Figure 5.7, it clearly shown that implementation of Ezidek’ s
pre-fabricated bunkers for Sector A and Sector B are cost effective and cost saving
because pre-fabrication construction cost is cheaper for all cast in-situ bunkers.
However, implementation of Eastern Pretech pre-fabricated bunkers only considered
as cost effective if compared with bunkers in Sector A because it still costs more, yet it
is more cost effective and cost saving if compared with bunkers in Sector B since the
pre-fabrication construction cost is cheaper for each bunkers.
126
5.3
Recommendations for Research Problems
In this section, recommendations suggested were based on identification
current bunkers’
faultiness and problems caused during implementation of
conventional construction to formulate a better solution and mitigation to overcome
existing problems occurred at site and improves construction management for RMAF
future development projects. Recommendations for areas to be improved in this
research are:
(i)
Impose clear delegations and responsibilities for stakeholders; and
(ii)
Provide of more transparent cost information.
5.3.1 Recommendations for Clear Delegations and Responsibilities
Four major problems identified during implementation of current construction
method for defense bunkers were base’ s safety and security problem, lengthy
construction period problem, costly construction cost problem and construction not
comply with specification problem. Therefore, responsibility to mitigate or resolve
these problems should not depend solely on certain party but responsibilities of all
stakeholders. Responsibilities of stakeholders identified in this research can be
categorized into three groups, which include of:
127
(i)
RMAF (Client) Responsibilities;
(ii)
PWD (Implementation Agency) Responsibilities; and
(iii)
Contractors Responsibilities.
Recommendations suggested will straightly based on research problems
identified that only conclusive of bunkers’ faultiness and major problems effected the
operation of RMAF and PWD for current construction implementation. Nonetheless,
recommendations proposed will eliminate uncertainties and doubtfulness of RMAF
and PWD to adapt pre-fabrication construction methods for future defense bunkers
development in all RMAF bases.
RMAF organization as the client for any RMAF development projects should
be more alert to issues happened at site and has a great responsibility to mitigate or
resolve any site problems in order to create a sound working environment to
accommodate RMAF needs. Since the initial requirements and specifications provided
by RMAF organization, therefore a robust design and planning should be provided to
PWD before commence to procurement stage. Nonetheless, RMAF should promote
better communication and provide sufficient information to all related parties to
resolve discrepancies immediately at site. Additionally, RMAF should not leave the
responsibility of monitoring and controlling solely to PWD, since monitoring and
controlling during construction stage can avoid unnecessarily changes after works
completed.
Moreover, Provost Personnel should have more stringent security procedures
on every contractors that awarded by PWD by conducting thorough security check and
security filtering on contractors and workers background. Still, contractors and
128
workers are obligated to wear security pass all the time while working in base
compound. Thus, foreign construction workers are strictly prohibited to carry out
works in the base at all time.
PWD, as the implementation agency has the obligation to assist RMAF
organization in every construction stages which involve of planning and feasibility
study, conceptual and actual designing, procurement of contract, construction
implementation, testing and commissioning, and lastly handing over of completed
projects. Therefore, information regarding cost of construction, materials used,
construction methods, discrepancy at site, and payment approved should be more
transparent and appropriate to accommodate RMAF organization needs.
Besides that, PWD should be more responsible while approving claims by
contractors. They should have more stringent payment policy, which they must ensure
the payment based on works performed at site and done correctly. Deductions for
omitted items should carry out without any hesitation. Additionally, PWD personnel
should implement more monitoring and controlling works to ensure the bunkers
construction are done as designed or planned.
Nevertheless, contractors awarded should has high integrity and good
professionalism practice whether in providing the right and quality buildings
materials, constructing the bunkers based on the specifications and requirements or
foremost claiming the payment only according to works performed.
Subsequently, problems arose during the construction stages for defense
bunkers can be resolved based on clear delegations and responsibilities recommended
129
to all stakeholders involved. Figure 6.9 shown is the clear delegations and
responsibilities of involved stakeholders to resolve problems caused by defense
bunkers construction.
Clear Delegations and Responsibilities of Stakeholders
for Bunker Construction
PWD Responsibilities
RMAF Responsibilities
Contractors Responsibilities
More Monitoring and
Controlling of Contractors
Works
Provide More Robust
Design
Integrity in works and
materials supplies
Inspects Thoroughly Works
Done by Contractors
Promote Good
Communication among
All Parties
Implement good
Professionalism Practice
Approved Claims
According to Works
performed and Quantities
Provided
More Monitoring and
Controlling works with
PWD
Claim Based on Works
Performed
More Transparent in
Provide Construction
Information
Provide Sufficient
Information for All
Parties
Conduct Stringent
Security Check and
Security Filtering
Ensure Contractors and
Workers Wear Security
Pass while Working in
the Base
Figure 5.8: Clear Delegations and Responsibilities of Stakeholders
130
5.3.2 Recommendations for Transparency in Cost Information
The overall result obtained from respondents through the interview segment is
very encouraging and supporting towards the usage of pre-fabrication construction
method for RMAF defense bunkers in future. Questions answered by respondents
appeared to be majority voices that supported the pre-defined hypothesis. However,
one particular hypothesis regarding costly cast in-situ bunker construction cost could
not achieve majority support from respondents. Whereby majority respondents agreed
that preparation of quotation bills was based on government standard of rate and high
fluctuation of construction cost was caused by instability of building materials cost at
the year 2008, therefore bunkers’ construction cost that year was not relatively high.
Apart from that, due to price hiked in fuel, building materials prices started to
escalate in May 2008, despite of price control being removed which was supposed to
allow free flow of imports. On average, the price of building materials had increased
around 20% to 30% in the period less than two months (Zulhairi et al, 2007). This
problem had started a chain reaction whereby contractors and suppliers took
advantages on the situation to claim higher construction cost.
The cost estimation for first batch of bunkers in year 2007 was done using
PWD Schedule of Standard Rate 2006 (Publication JKR-20800-0140-06). However,
due to global economy crisis that stroked the nation in the year 2008 had caused high
fluctuation of building materials cost and directly increased the cost of bunker
construction in that year, without utilizing the schedule of standard rate. Since no
evidence of cost reference was provided by PWD for second batch of bunkers
estimating process, therefore it was seem to be unrealistic and not convincing.
131
PWD should conduct special review of materials cost concurrently with any
drastic changes of materials’ market price in future. By reviewing cost of materials
during critical moment, PWD not only can ensure that interests of RMAF are
protected but also can prevent contractors from taking advantage on the situation by
demanding more payment. Additionally, PWD ought to formulate a more conducive
cost reference that can allow RMAF organization to estimate and evaluate cost of
construction effectively for contingency moment.
5.4
Conclusion
This chapter not only discussed all the findings from data analysis but also
provided constructive recommendations for better management and implementation of
bunkers construction method.
Findings from site survey have clearly shown that present defense bunkers are
lack of compliance with specification and requirements. Therefore, future monitoring
should emphasis on construction elements with high defects frequency and used as a
reference for rectification works for defects identified in this research.
In addition, findings from interview segment has identified the problems and
the root causes of conventional construction method implementation, as well as
obtaining majority support towards the implementation of pre-fabrication construction
method for defense bunkers in future.
132
Nonetheless, findings from cost analysis of current defense bunkers and cost
comparison between cast in-situ bunkers and precast bunkers, can guide RMAF and
PWD yearly budget planning for current bunkers rectification and further more
consideration to adapt pre-fabrication construction method for future development of
defense bunkers.
Lastly, recommendations presented intended to resolve and mitigate problems
related in this research. Clear delegations and responsibilities for all stakeholders are
essential before commencement of construction works, in order to create a safe and
secure working environment, and at the same time ensure quality construction works
complete as planned without any additional cost. Additionally, PWD should provide
more transparent cost information to accommodate RMAF needs for cost review and
cost planning activities.
CHAPTER 6
CONCLUSION
6.1
Introduction
This final chapter is to summarize all key findings of this research to highlight
the contribution towards the accomplishment of aim and objectives identification.
Recommendations will be suggested towards the future implementation of RMAF
defense bunkers before finally conclude of this research. The main three phases of the
case study conducted have revealed the faultiness and problems caused by current
construction practice and provided strong evidence of adapting pre-fabrication
construction method for development of RMAF defense bunkers in future.
Nonetheless, this research can be used as a reference point for further development
research for other construction projects in order to provide satisfactoriness and value
for money construction for RMAF.
134
6.2
Summary of Research
Data collected and results analyzed in this research have uncovered the very
existence of problems and issues caused by current construction method
implementation especially towards bunkers construction. Therefore, RMAF Head
Quarters – Planning and Development Department should react accordingly to
mitigate and resolve challenges arose in current practice and should positively accept
new construction method that contributes more practical and feasible implementation
towards future RMAF development projects.
6.2.1 Summary for Research Objective 1
Three major bunkers’ faultiness occurred at site identified as measurement
faultiness, appearance faultiness and structural faultiness, whereby defense bunkers
constructed in Sector A attained more faultiness compared with bunkers constructed in
Sector B because Sector A Bunkers required more rectification cost for faultiness
repair works. Unsound bunkers condition clarified RMAF and PWD perception on
which Class F contractors awarded were incompetent to carry out such specialist
works. Besides that, support the initial problem statement in this research on which
Class F contractors selected were lack of engineering professionalism, lack of integrity
in performing their tasks and lack of technical knowledge and skills.
Moreover, findings from cost analysis of rectification cost showed that
additional cost approximately RM 56,140.61 is needed to rectified existing faultiness
135
on bunkers at Sector Alpha and Sector Bravo of KAB security perimeter support the
problem statement whereby value for money construction was not achieve by RMAF
and PWD.
6.2.2 Summary for Research Objective 2
Four major problems caused by current construction implementation identified
as safety and security problem, lengthy construction period problem, poor construction
quality problem, and costly construction problem. Nonetheless, problems arose at site
identified based on respondents’ perception from interview segment. However, root
causes of problems resulted from unsound conventional construction method
eliminated the uncertainties and doubtfulness of RMAF and PWD on which existing
Provost security system and Maintenance Office monitoring system are sufficient to
ensure above problems from occurring, whereby existing security system and
monitoring system are considered insufficient due to human factor, staffing factor and
excessive workload factor.
However, recommendation suggested should take into consideration whereby
clear delegations and responsibilities should impose for RMAF, PWD and contractors
who
involved
in
RMAF
defense
bunkers
project.
By practicing
above
recommendation in managing RMAF defense bunkers construction can overcome the
existing problems caused by unsound construction method.
136
6.2.3 Summary for Research Objective 3
Findings on cost effectiveness comparison showed that pre-fabricated bunkers
costing provided by local precast manufacturers are more cost effective and even more
cost saving. Besides that, findings provided also indicated that adaption of
prefabrication construction method in future bunkers construction contribute more
advantages in ensuring base’ s safety and security, reducing construction period,
ensuring quality and standardization, and lastly providing value for money
construction desired by RMAF organization. Moreover, findings had eliminated
uncertainties and doubtfulness of costly pre-fabrication construction method from
RMAF and PWD personnel, and at the same time encourage changing of traditional
conception and reluctances for adapting new construction technology.
6.2.4 Summary for Research Aim
The overall cost effectiveness verified, show that aim of this research had been
achieved by costing of pre-fabricated bunkers in proving cost reduction of existing
bunkers construction, and contribute mitigation and solution to resolve current
construction caused problems. Furthermore, majority respondents from RMAF and
PWD agreed that pre-fabrication method contribute more advantages than current
practice and granted majority consent in approving the implementation of prefabricated bunkers development in future.
137
6.3
Recommendations for Future Research
In this section, further research recommended for future RMAF defense
bunkers development will extend the findings to identify current bunkers’ strength
faultiness, and provided empirical evidences on pre-fabricated bunkers construction
cost effectiveness in term of construction resources and construction duration.
Recommendations of objectives for further research are:
(i)
Additional testing for site survey to identify strength faultiness of
current bunkers; and
(ii)
Identify cost effectiveness in term of construction duration and
resources.
6.3.1 Identify Defense Bunkers Strength Faultiness
Methods utilised in site survey for this research only involved re-measuring of
dimensions and inspections of physical appearance of existing bunkers. Both methods
carried out were cost-free methods that only allowed identification of superstructure
elements and visible conditions for bunkers compliance with specification.
Consequently, certain aspects or characteristics of current defense bunkers
remain indefinite, and this situation demand for further testing to prove its strength as
138
indicated by design. Elements that could not measure and inspect during site survey
were included:
(i)
Foundations’ sizes;
(ii)
Ground beams’ sizes;
(iii)
Reinforcement bars’ sizes;
(iv)
Mesh wires’ sizes;
(v)
Arrangement of reinforcement bars and mesh wires; and
(vi)
Waterproofing layers.
Besides that, desired bunkers’ strength designed was up to 100psi (10 bars)
which able to withstand bullets impacts varies from small firearms, rifles, and generalpurpose machine guns. Furthermore, able to endure blast from hand grenades, grenade
launchers, and mortars. However, without proper and specialist equipments, overall
strength of bunkers remains indefinite.
Additional testing or assessments identified can be divided into two aspects,
which inclusive of Standard Testing and Military Testing to indentify the weaknesses
for current bunkers and propose of better design or materials in-corporate in existing
design if necessary.
Standard specification testing suggested can utilize to determine concrete
structural elements in term of strength and defects, which inclusive of visual
inspections and in-situ testing. Visual inspections are similar to physical observations
survey carried out in this research, whereas inspections will emphasis on major defects
such as:
139
(i)
Cracks;
(ii)
Leakages;
(iii)
Water seeping;
(iv)
Settlement; and
(v)
Wearing of finishes.
For in-situ testing, two methods recommended are cube test results and Non destructive Test (NDT). Selection of cube test results involves data collecting and
reviewing of previous cube test results from PWD. Written test results obtained, will
apply as evidence that contractors used specified concrete grade for bunkers
construction. Non-destructive Test is preferable than Destructive Test mainly due to
cost factor and structure strength factor, whereby rebound hammer test will be top
option because of its characteristics, which include:
(i)
Quick implementation;
(ii)
Easy to operate;
(iii)
Lower cost compare with other equipments;
(iv)
Uniformity in measurement for;
(v)
Compressive strength can easily obtain.
(vi)
Equipment required one person to operate; and
(vi)
Small in size and easy to mobilize.
Military Specification Tests are as important as standard tests recommended
and involved of bullet test, bomb test, and fire resistant test, whereby RMAF Special
Force can conduct these tests since they are well equipped and skillfully trained with
related destructive agents. Figure 6.1 shown is the recommendations for additional
testing and assessments for existing bunkers.
140
Additional Testing for Existing Bunkers
Standard Specification
Testing
Visual
Inspections
Cube Test Results
Military Specification
Testing
In-situ Testing
Fire Test
Bullet Test
Bomb Test
Non- destructive Test
Figure 6.1: Additional Testing and Assessments for Site Survey
6.3.2 Identify Resources and Duration Cost Effectiveness
Data obtained from local precast manufacturers in this research only consisted
of overall cost of pre-fabricated bunkers construction. However, information of
deployment of resources and exact duration required to erect pre-fabricated bunkers
are remain indefinite. Therefore, additional data collection should carry out by
approaching current manufacturers and others manufacturers from the same field to
obtain as much information as possible to determining resources types and total
construction duration for off-site and on site activities.
141
6.4
Conclusion
This chapter concluded all the key findings from previous chapters and
identified the accomplishment of aim and three objectives intended for this research.
Moreover, additional recommendations suggested for future research in order to obtain
more data and information about pre-fabricated bunkers implementation.
Primary aim and objectives of this research had accomplished and confirmed
without any contradiction of results whether on faultiness identification, construction
problems identification or cost effectiveness identification. Moreover, evidences and
findings concluded in this research are supporting the implementation of prefabrication construction method for RMAF defense bunkers in conjunction of RMAF
Ground Base Defense Program. Least but not less, three main objectives have also
been achieved successfully and satisfactory by eliminating uncertainties and
arguments before this completion of this research and inclusive of:
(i)
Eliminated uncertainties on which current bunkers construction
complied with RMAF and PWD specification, by identifying the faultiness and
defects happened on current defense bunkers.
(ii)
Eliminated uncertainties and arguments on which current construction
method did not cause any problems to KAB, by identifying problems and root
cause of problems that actually confronted by RMAF and PWD.
(iii)
Eliminated uncertainties of pre-fabricated bunker construction cost
more than conventional method; by identifying the pre-fabricated bunker
construction cost is actually more cost effective and cost saving.
142
Finally, the aim of this research accomplished without any doubtfulness that
pre-fabrication construction method is more cost effective compared with
conventional method and foresee to save RMAF defense budget for the mass
construction of over 200 units of pre-fabricated bunkers.
143
REFERENCES
Abdul Kadir, M.R., Lee, W.P., Jaafar, M.S., Sapuan, S.M., Ali, A.A.A., (2006).
Construction performance comparison between conventional and industrialised
building systems in Malaysia: Structural Survey, Vol24.pp412-424
Abdullah, M.R., Kamar, K.A., Nawi, M.N., Haron, A.T. and Arif, M. (7-9 September
2009). Industrialised Building System: A Definition And Concept. Paper
Proceedings In Arcom Conference 2009, Nottingham, United Kingdom
Anderson, R. (Winter 2009).USA/USSR: Architecture and War. Inc. and
Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Grey Room 34, pp. 80–103.
Andres, C. K., and. Smith, R. C. (1998). Principal and Practices of Heavy
Construction. 5th Edition. New York, Prentice Hall.
Ashworth, A. (1994). Cost Studies of Buildings, 2nd Edition.
Badir, Y. F., M. R. A. Kadir., and A. A. A. Ali. (Oct 1998). Theory of Classification
and Badir-Razali Building Systems Classification. Buletin Bulanan IJM,
JURUTERA: pp.50-56.
Bouwcentrum PRC. (1995).
A Comparison of International Building Costs
Comparisons; A Guide into the “Jungle” of Costsand Price-comparing Studies
for The Nertherlands, Belgium, UK, France and Germany, Bodegraven, The
144
Netherlands. An Extensive Summary Of The Report Is Available In English
And German -37 Pages.
Din, H. (1994). Industrialised Building and its Application in Malaysia , Journal of
Ministry of Housing and Local Government, Malaysia, Vol. 1, p.p 5-10
Dr. Fadhil, C.W., (2005). Realising The Industrialisation Of Malaysian Construction
Industry: Construction It Perspective. IBS Digest (July – Sept 2005)
Economic Planning Unit, Prime Minister’ s Department. The Third Outline Perspective
Plan 2001-2010. http://www.epu.jpm.my.
Elias, I., (2000). Industrialised Building System for Housing in Malaysia. The 6th
Asia-Pasific Science and Technolog Management Seminar, Vietnam.
Field Manual No. 20-3., (August 1999). Headquarters Department of the Army,
Washington, DC, 30
Haron,N.A., Hassim, S., M. R. A. Kadir and Jaafar, M.S. (Dis 2005). Building Cost
Comparison Between Conventional And Formwork System. Jurnal Teknologi,
Vol.43(B): pp.1-11
Haron, N.Z., Ir. Hassim, S., Assoc. Prof. Ir. Dr. Abdul Kadir, M.R., (2005). Building
Cost Comparison Between Conventional And Composite Construction System
In Malaysia: A Case Study Of Single Storey House.
IBS
Digest,
(Jan-Mac
2005).
IBS
Road
Map
2003-2010.
http://ibscentre.com.my/v7/pdf/ibsdigest/IBS Digest 1 2005.pdf
IBS Digest, (01 2008). Malaysian Government Incentives and Directives.
IBS Digest (02 /2008). Weather is unpredictable, but construction shouldn’t be – Use
IBS.
145
Indra, G. (2005). A Productivity Comparative Study Between Precast Buildings with
Conventional Cast In-situ Buildings. IBS Digest (Apr – Jun 2005) Malaysia
University of Science and Technology.
Malaysian Standard. (2001). MS 10064: Part 1 -10:
Ninth Malaysian Plan 2006-2010, (2006). pp 21.36 and 21.37
Nokomi. (Jun 1991). Prefabricated Modular Buildings: Lower Cost, Fewer
Headaches. Communications News, Vol. 28, Iss. 6; pp. 52, 2 pgs.
Paul, B.M. (2005). IBS A Short History. IBS Digest.
Poon, C.S.,
Ann, T.W., Ng, L.H., (2003). Comparison of low-waste building
technologies adopted in public and private housing projects in Hong Kong:
Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management. Vol10.pp.88-98.
Schroder, Hannah., (1 Apr. 2010). Precast All the Way: Building Design &
Construction 50.11 (2009): 119. Academic One File.
Shaari, S.N. (June 2003). Dirty, Difficult and Dangerous? Simplify it....Use IBS.
Institution of Engineers Malaysia (IEM). Jurutera Journal.
Straatman, R., Vambersky, J. N. J. A., (2001). Precast All the Way: Precast
Construction and Environment. Structural Concrete, Thomas Telford Ltd Vol.
2: Iss2: pp.93-98.
Tan, E.P. (1997). Guide to Precast Concrete and Prefabricated Reinforcement for
Buildings. Construction Industry Development Board Report, Malaysia.
Trikha, D. N. (1999). Industrialised Building System Prospects in Malaysia.
Proceeding of the World Engineering Congress (WEC). Kuala Lumpur,
Malaysia.
146
Vacharapoom, B., Nashwan, D. (2005). A Case Study of Artificial Intelligence Planner
for Make-to-Order Precast Concrete Production Planning. ASCE
Zainal, Z. ( June 2007). Case study as a research method. Jurnal Kemanusiaan bil.9.
Faculty of Management and Human Resource DevelopmentUniversiti
Teknologi Malaysia.
Zuhairi, A.H., Mohd, K.G., Hazim, A. R., Kamarul, A. M.,(2007) IBS: Current
Challenges and The Vital Roles of R&D. IBS Digest (02 /2007), Construction
Research Institute of Malaysia (CREAM).
147
APPENDIX A
ELEMENTAL BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE
MEASUREMENT OF PHYSICAL ELEMENTS OF
COMPLETED RMAF DEFENSE BUNKER
This method is used to measure elements of defense bunker and data obtained will be used on
comparable elements from standard set of design and specification.
The findings will be used for research purposes for development of RMAF Ground Base
Defense Program.
148
STANDARD SPECIFICATIONS BY RMAF AND PWD
SECTOR: A,B,C and D
YEAR OF CONSTRUCTION: -
BUNKER: 1 to 20
PREPARED BY: CAPT TAN RMAF
ITEMS
CODE
A
B
C
ELEMENTS
SUPERSTRUCTURE
DIMENSION (cm)
NOS
LENGTH
WIDTH
i. Slab Roof
8
230
45(c)
ii. Wall
10
209
30
295
iii. Weapon Counter Top
7
209
30
110
90
210
Wall FINISHES
i. Door
1
ii. Window
3
4
60
60
35
23
iii. Ventilation
7
180
10
iv. Firing Hole
3
4
55
55
30
18
FLOOR FINISHES
i. Raised Floor
D
HEIGHT
5
ROOF FINISHES
i. Turfing
E
EXTERNAL WORKS
i. Earth Ban
ii. Turfing
130
130
REMARKS
149
PHYSICAL ELEMENTS MEASUREMENT OF BUNKER A1
SECTOR: A
YEAR OF CONSTRUCTION: 2007
BUNKER: 1
PREPARED BY: CAPT TAN RMAF
ITEMS
CODE
A
B
C
ELEMENTS
SUPERSTRUCTURE
DIMENSION
NOS
LENGTH
WIDTH
i. Side of Slab Roof
8
226
8
ii. Side of Wall
10
210
32
279
iii. Weapon Counter Top
7
213
30
166
94
223
Wall FINISHES
i. Door
1
ii. Window
3
4
iii. Ventilation
x
iv. Firing Hole
3
4
30
15
53
53
27
12
51
ROOF FINISHES
i. Turfing
E
56
56
FLOOR FINISHES
i. Raised Floor
D
HEIGHT
x
EXTERNAL WORKS
i. Earth Barrier
x
ii. Turfing
x
REMARKS
150
PHYSICAL ELEMENTS MEASUREMENT OF BUNKER A2
SECTOR: A
YEAR OF CONSTRUCTION: 2007
BUNKER: 2
PREPARED BY: CAPT TAN RMAF
ITEMS
CODE
A
B
C
ELEMENTS
SUPERSTRUCTURE
DIMENSION
NOS
LENGTH
WIDTH
i. Side of Slab Roof
8
223
10
ii. Side of Wall
10
208
25
210
iii. Weapon Counter Top
7
208
30
152
97
207
Wall FINISHES
i. Door
1
ii. Window
3
4
64
64
35
20
iii. Ventilation
28
25
5
iv. Firing Hole
3
4
59
58
30
15
FLOOR FINISHES
i. Raised Floor
D
13
ROOF FINISHES
i. Turfing
E
HEIGHT
x
EXTERNAL WORKS
i. Earth Ban
ii. Turfing
170
70
REMARKS
151
PHYSICAL ELEMENTS MEASUREMENT OF BUNKER A3
SECTOR: A
YEAR OF CONSTRUCTION: 2007
BUNKER: 3
PREPARED BY: CAPT TAN RMAF
ITEMS
CODE
A
B
C
ELEMENTS
SUPERSTRUCTURE
DIMENSION
NOS
LENGTH
WIDTH
i. Side of Slab Roof
8
223
10
ii. Side of Wall
10
207
23
210
iii. Weapon Counter Top
7
207
37
150
99
210
Wall FINISHES
i. Door
1
ii. Window
3
4
60
60
36
19
iii. Ventilation
28
25
5
iv. Firing Hole
3
4
54
54
32
13
FLOOR FINISHES
i. Raised Floor
D
9
ROOF FINISHES
i. Turfing
E
HEIGHT
x
EXTERNAL WORKS
i. Earth Ban
x
ii. Turfing
x
REMARKS
152
PHYSICAL ELEMENTS MEASUREMENT OF BUNKER A4
SECTOR: A
YEAR OF CONSTRUCTION: 2007
BUNKER: 4
PREPARED BY: CAPT TAN RMAF
ITEMS
CODE
A
B
C
ELEMENTS
SUPERSTRUCTURE
DIMENSION
NOS
LENGTH
WIDTH
i. Side of Slab Roof
8
222
10
ii. Side of Wall
10
204
40
221
iii. Weapon Counter Top
7
204
30
150
93
206
Wall FINISHES
i. Door
1
ii. Window
3
4
60
60
45
26
iii. Ventilation
28
25
5
iv. Firing Hole
3
4
56
56
36
15
FLOOR FINISHES
i. Raised Floor
D
3
ROOF FINISHES
i. Turfing
E
HEIGHT
x
EXTERNAL WORKS
i. Earth Ban
x
ii. Turfing
x
REMARKS
153
PHYSICAL ELEMENTS MEASUREMENT OF BUNKER A5
SECTOR: A
YEAR OF CONSTRUCTION: 2007
BUNKER: 5
PREPARED BY: CAPT TAN RMAF
ITEMS
CODE
A
B
C
ELEMENTS
SUPERSTRUCTURE
DIMENSION
NOS
LENGTH
WIDTH
i. Side of Slab Roof
8
220
11
ii. Side of Wall
10
208
22
212
iii. Weapon Counter Top
7
208
30
150
95
209
Wall FINISHES
i. Door
1
ii. Window
3
4
iii. Ventilation
X
iv. Firing Hole
3
4
38
30
55
56
31
25
5
ROOF FINISHES
i. Turfing
E
64
64
FLOOR FINISHES
i. Raised Floor
D
HEIGHT
x
EXTERNAL WORKS
i. Earth Ban
x
ii. Turfing
x
REMARKS
154
PHYSICAL ELEMENTS MEASUREMENT OF BUNKER B1
SECTOR: B
YEAR OF CONSTRUCTION: 2008
BUNKER: 1
PREPARED BY: CAPT TAN RMAF
ITEMS
CODE
A
B
C
ELEMENTS
SUPERSTRUCTURE
DIMENSION
NOS
LENGTH
WIDTH
i. Side of Slab Roof
8
203
10(c)+18(b)
ii. Side of Wall
10
147
37
235
iii. Weapon Counter Top
7
147
30
95
85
228
Wall FINISHES
i. Door
1
ii. Window
3
4
60
60
36
25
iii. Ventilation
28
23
6
iv. Firing Hole
7
55
54
30
19
FLOOR FINISHES
i. Raised Floor
D
HEIGHT
5
ROOF FINISHES
i. Turfing
E
EXTERNAL WORKS
i. Earth Ban
ii. Turfing
160
80
REMARKS
155
PHYSICAL ELEMENTS MEASUREMENT OF BUNKER B2
SECTOR: B
YEAR OF CONSTRUCTION: 2008
BUNKER: 2
PREPARED BY: CAPT TAN RMAF
ITEMS
CODE
A
B
C
ELEMENTS
SUPERSTRUCTURE
NOS
LENGTH
WIDTH
i. Side of Slab Roof
8
204
12(c)+20(b)
ii. Side of Wall
10
164
30
227
iii. Weapon Counter Top
7
164
30
107
HEIGHT
92
217
Wall FINISHES
i. Door
1
ii. Window
3
4
60
60
34
22
iii. Ventilation
21
25
5
iv. Firing Hole
7
55
55
30
18
FLOOR FINISHES
i. Raised Floor
D
DIMENSION
X
ROOF FINISHES
i. Turfing
E
EXTERNAL WORKS
i. Earth Ban
ii. Turfing
180
80
REMARKS
156
PHYSICAL ELEMENTS MEASUREMENT OF BUNKER B3
SECTOR: B
YEAR OF CONSTRUCTION: 2008
BUNKER: 3
PREPARED BY: CAPT TAN RMAF
ITEMS
CODE
A
B
C
ELEMENTS
SUPERSTRUCTURE
NOS
LENGTH
WIDTH
i. Side of Slab Roof
8
193
33(c)
ii. Side of Wall
10
160
29
228
iii. Weapon Counter Top
7
160
30
110
HEIGHT
90
228
Wall FINISHES
i. Door
1
ii. Window
3
4
54
54
36
23
iii. Ventilation
21
25
5
iv. Firing Hole
7
49
48
30
18
FLOOR FINISHES
i. Raised Floor
D
DIMENSION
X
ROOF FINISHES
i. Turfing
E
EXTERNAL WORKS
i. Earth Ban
ii. Turfing
110
30
REMARKS
157
PHYSICAL ELEMENTS MEASUREMENT OF BUNKER B4
SECTOR: B
YEAR OF CONSTRUCTION: 2008
BUNKER: 4
PREPARED BY: CAPT TAN RMAF
ITEMS
CODE
A
B
C
ELEMENTS
SUPERSTRUCTURE
DIMENSION
NOS
LENGTH
WIDTH
i. Side of Slab Roof
8
192
33(c)
ii. Side of Wall
10
163
31
227
iii. Weapon Counter Top
7
160
30
130
92
226
Wall FINISHES
i. Door
1
ii. Window
3
4
54
54
35
22
iii. Ventilation
26
25
5
iv. Firing Hole
7
50
50
30
18
FLOOR FINISHES
i. Raised Floor
D
HEIGHT
5
ROOF FINISHES
i. Turfing
E
EXTERNAL WORKS
i. Earth Ban
ii. Turfing
160
95
REMARKS
158
APPENDIX B
ROYAL MALAYSIAN AIR FORCE DEFENSE BUNKER
CONSTRUCTION DRAWING
This set of construction drawing is strictly confidential as a reference to compare with
the existing completed bunker, in term of dimensions and physical appearance only.
The findings will be used for research purposes for development of RMAF Ground
Base Defense Program.
159
PELANFOUNDA
TAPAK ASAS
TIONS LAYOUT
DI NDIN G KONKRIT
YA NG MENGGUNAK AN
KONKRIT GRED 3 5
X
2 LAPI S BRC A 10
1300
1200
B RC A 8
BRC A 8
1200
TANAH
ARAS TANA H
2 LAP IS B RC A 6
450
350
K ONKRI TGRED 30
10 0MMHARDCORE
K ONKRI T GRED 30
1 LAPI S BRC A 8
100
50
X
PE
LAN
TAPAKASAS
FO
OTING
300
DPM
LIN K KONKRIT 50 MM
1 00MM HARDCORE
1200
KERATAN X-XTAPAKASAS
FOOTING CROSS SECT X-X
160
30 0
X
1 2 50
Tinggi = 3 0 0 mm
Lebar= 5 5 0 mm
400
B
B
250
Tinggi = 1 8 0 mm
Lebar= 5 5 0 mm
1 0 00
dn 1 0 0
Level 1 0 0 mm
Tinggi = 3 0 0 mm
Lebar= 5 5 0 mm
Table Top sekeliling
dinding dalam
bangunan kubu
A
Pint u besi
(t ebal pint u
5 0 mm t ebal
kepingan besi
5 mm)
see det ail A
LALUAN
MASUK
Tinggi = 1 8 0 mm
Lebar= 5 5 0 mm
B
see det ail B
Level 0 0 mm
B
Tinggi = 1 8 0 mm
Lebar= 5 5 0 mm
Tangga besi dipasang
di dinding (3 0 0 mm lebar
dan 2 4 0 0 mm t inggi)
A
X
PELAN
SKALA: 1 : 5 0
Tinggi = 3 0 0 mm
Lebar= 5 5 0 mm
Ket inggian dinding adalah
mengikut ket inggian cerun t anah
Cerun t anah 4 5
FLOOR PLAN
BRC A10, 2 LAPIS,
KONKRIT GRED 35
113MM IKATAN BATA,
TERMASUK 12MM LEPAAN
SIMEN MORTAR.
100
LUBANG PENGUDARAAN BERSERTA
JARING PENGHALANG NYAMUK
TABLE TOP SENJATA
300MM X 150MM (KELILING DALAM KUBU)
180
Y10-200c/c
300
1000
1000
150
225
2400
150
150
300
2 lapis BRC A 10
3Y10
2 LAPIS BRC A 10
KONKRIT GRED 30
45
100
450
100
45
350
1 LAPIS BRC A 8
300
3300
2500
450
1250
726
100
200
150 100
TINDIHAN 60 D, BERSELANGSELI
ARAS TANAH
KONKRIT GRED 30
LINK KONKRIT 50MM
100MM HARDCORE
2 LAPIS BRC A 6
100MM HARDCORE
DPM
KERATAN
X-X
BUNKER
CROSS SECTION
SKALA: 1 : 50
5035
Tinggi = 1 8 0 mm
Lebar= 5 5 0 mm
2086
pandangan
hadapan
kubu
300
A
1200
ARAS TANAH
161
FLAT ROOF WITH
WATER PROOFING
TO BE FILL WITH SOIL
TOAND TO BE TURFED
893
1300
1200
150
450
150
ARAS TANAH
ARAS TANAH
PANDANGAN HADAPAN
KUBUVIEW
FRONT
SKALA: 1 : 50
TO BE FILL WITH SOIL
TOAND TO BE TURFED
150
450
FLAT ROOF WITH
WATER PROOFING
1300
1200
893
ARAS TANAH
ARAS TANAH
PANDANGAN BELAKANG
REARKUBU
VIEW
SKALA: 1 : 50
162
1000
A
225
150
300
150
75
B
225
225
300
450
300
450
B
1000
550
225
75
A
150
KERATAN B-B
150
B-B
SKALA: 1 : 20
BUTIRAN A-pandangan dari luar kubu
FIRING HOLE 1
SKALA: 1 : 20
KERATAN A-A
A-A
SKALA: 1 : 20
1000
1000
C
225
550
225
150
135
D
150
180
450
450
180
D
300
550
135
C
150
150
KERATAN D-D
D-D
SKALA: 1 : 20
BUTIRAN C-pandangan dari luar kubu
FIRING HOLE 2
SKALA: 1 : 20
KERATAN C-C
C-C
SKALA: 1 : 20
70
300
1 50
150
150
150
150
75
70
220
450
180
135
450
135
75
850
600
150
600
150
STYER
AUG DAN
CARBINE
FIRING
HOLE
2
150
FIRING
GPMG HOLE 1
Welded
16
25
1 1 00
25
200
Welded
4mm plate as
stopper
25
4mm plate as
stopper
4mm plate as
stopper
BUTIRAN X
WINDOW
DIMENSIONS
4mm Plate slider
with holder
N.T.S
Penutup Tingkap
lihat butiran X
PENUTUP
TINGKAP
( 3D )
FH1&2
WINDOW
PANEL
N.T.S
PENUTUP
TINGKAP
WINDOW
LOCATION
N.T.S
163
APPENDIX C
Interview Questionnaire on Cost Effectiveness of Pre-fabrication Construction Method
INTERVIEW QUESTIONS
PERCEPTION TOWARDS COST EFFECTIVENESS OF PRE-FABRICATION
CONSTRUCTION METHOD COMPARE WITH CONVENTIONAL
CONSTRUCTION METHOD FOR
ROYAL MALAYSIAN AIR FORCE DEFENCE BUNKER
This interview questionnaire is designed mainly to gather information on or perception of
implementation of pre-fabrication construction method compare with conventional
construction method for RMAF defense bunker construction.
Your responses are strictly confidential.
The findings will be used for research purposes for development of RMAF Ground Base
Defense Program.
164
Section A
Respondent Background Information
Respondent is required to provide the following background information
and TICK ( ) the appropriate answer in the box given.
Direction: Please provide your background information below, and then continue to
Section B for interview segment.
3.
Position/ Appointment
4.
Rank/ Grade
Brig Jen and above
Maj to Col
2nd Lt to Capt
Sgt to Warrant Officer
Cpl and below
5.
Field of Expertise
6.
Years of Active Service / Experience
Years
7.
Branch/ Trade
Aircrew
Engineer
Administrator/ Provost
Air Traffic/ Defense Control
Others
8.
Academic Qualifications
Degree and above
Diploma and equivalent
SPM/HSC/SRP/LCE
165
Section B
Interview Questionnaires
1.
From the year 2006 until 2008, a sum of RMAF defense budget had been used
for the construction of defense bunkers in Kuantan Air Base in conjunction of RMAF
Base Defense Program. Local Class-F contractors selected by PWD Kuantan, by using
conventional construction method (cast in-situ) had carried out the constructions of
bunkers without performing security screening on contractors’ background. Do you
think the existing implementation of conventional construction method for RMAF
defense bunker could jeopardize the safety and security of base daily operation? Why?
… … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … ..
… … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … ..
… … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … ..
2.
Do you think the duration of average three months is too long to construct a
defense bunker? Why?
……………………………………………………………………………………….
……………………………………………………………………………………….
……………………………………………………………………………………….
3.
Do you think the lengthy construction period will cause what type of negative
impact to base’ s daily operation? Why?
……………………………………………………………………………………….
……………………………………………………………………………………….
……………………………………………………………………………………….
166
4.
Do you think the quality of defense bunker comply to RMAF pre-define
specifications? Why?
… … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … ..
… … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … ..
… … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … ..
5.
Do you think Class-F contractors are competence enough to construct RMAF
defense bunker? Why?
…………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………
6.
Average construction cost of defense bunker cost about RM 45,000.00. Do you
think the construction cost is too high for building a defense bunker? Why?
… … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … ..
… … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … ..
… … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … ..
7.
What would you suggest to improve the overall base security and safety,
duration, cost, and quality of existing defense bunker? Why?
……………………………………………………………………………………….
……………………………………………………………………………………….
……………………………………………………………………………………….
167
8.
Pre-fabrication construction method is one of the construction method to
promote shorter construction period, better products quality, clean construction site,
less usage of construction materials and labour on site, and generally more cost
effective if implement in large scale or large amount. Do you think by implementing
pre-fabrication construction method can ensure the safety and security of RMAF
bases? Why?
…………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………
9.
If all the bunker structural elements are pre-fabricated or manufactured in
factory before transported to site for erection, do you think the construction period
could be decreased? Why?
… … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … ..
… … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … ..
… … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … ..
10.
Pre-fabricated structural elements is more quality and more standardize in term
of strength, size and specification, do you agree with this statement? Why?
………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………
………………………………………………………………………………………
11.
Do you think by implementing pre-fabrication construction method for RMAF
defense bunker is cost effective or cost saving? Why?
………………………………………………………………………………………….
… … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … ..
… … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … ..
168
12.
Do you think pre-fabricated construction method is suitable or feasible to be
implemented for RMAF defense bunker in future? Why?
…………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………………………………………………………………………………
13.
What is your suggestion or recommendation to improve the essential aspects of
defense bunker construction in term of safety and security, duration, quality and cost
in future?
………………………………………………………………………………………….
………………………………………………………………………………………….
………………………………………………………………………………………….
Signature of Interviewer: … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … ..
Name: Capt. Tan Swee Kok RMAF
Department: RMAF HQ – Infra Bina
Position/ Appointment: SO 2 Civil
Signature of Interviewee: … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … … …
Name:
Department:
Position/ Appointment:
169
APPENDIX D
QUOTATION BILLS
RMAF DEFENSE BUNKERS CONSTRUCTION COST USING
CONVENTIONAL CONSTRUCTION METHOD
This quotation bill is designed mainly to gather information on construction elemental costing
of RMAF defense bunker in Kuantan Air Base.
Your responses are strictly confidential.
The findings will be used for research purposes for development of RMAF Ground Base
Defense Program.
170
QUOTATION BILL FOR SECTOR ALPHA BUNKERS CONSTRUCTION
(PART 1)
YEAR OF CONSTRUCTION: 2007
SECTOR: A
COMPANY DETAIL: KRISTAL TRADING
BUNKER : 1,2,3,4,5
PREPARED BY:
AZHARUDDIN B. RAWI
JT AWAM
CHECKED BY:
CAPT TAN SWEE KOK
RMAF
COST
LORONG 17031 PERKAMPUNGAN BATU SAWAH
26170 KUANTAN
ITEMS
CODE
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
DESCRIPTIONS
QUANTITY
UNIT
PRELIMINARY
a) Public liability Insurance Policy
L/Sum
b) Workers Social Safety Scheme
L/Sum
c) Workers Compensation Insurance
Policy
L/Sum
EARTHWORK
a) Leveling, excavation and dumping of
earth.
TOTAL
NOS
RATES
RM
400
00
350
00
m2
5.5
5
RM 18
495
00
m2
220
5
RM 32
35,200
00
RE- BAR/ BRC
a) Supply and install BRC A10 or
equivalent
m2
240
5
RM 19
22,800
00
CONCRETE WORKS
a) Supply concrete Grade 30 for
foundations, walls, floor, table top, slab
roof and related location.
m3
50
5
RM 230
57,500
00
BRICKS WORKS
a) Brick laying on top and around bunker
m2
8
5
RM 38
1,520
00
b) Plastering of brick wall.
m2
16
5
RM 20
1,600
00
c) Smoothening surface using plaster
cement (1:3) with thickness 12mm
m2
30
5
RM 18
2,700
00
WATER PROOFNG
a) Supply and lay water proofing layer
with thickness 3mm.
m2
30
5
RM 16
2,400
00
FILLING/ TURFING
a) Supply and compact earth on top and
around bunker
m3
30
5
RM 18
2,700
00
m2
75
5
RM 38
14,250
00
141,915
00
FORMWORK
a) Prepare formwork and related work
b) Supply and plant close turfing with
25mm thickness fertilizer
TOTAL BF:
171
QUOTATION BILL FOR SECTOR ALPHA BUNKERS CONSTRUCTION
(PART 2)
CODE
I
J
K
L
M
ITEMS
DESCRIPTONS
PAINTING WORKS
a) Provide undercoat, and 3 layer of
weather shield paint on plastered surface
UNIT
QUANTITIES
TOTAL
NOS
COST
RATES
RM
m2
160
5
RM 8
6,400
00
METAL WINDOWS
a) Supply and install metal windows
Nos
7
5
RM 405
14,175
00
METAL DOORS
a) Supply and install metal door
Nos
1
5
RM 1465
7,325
00
METAL LADDER
a) Supply and install metal ladder
Nos
1
5
RM 419
2,095
00
2,097
00
174,007
00
CLEARING
a) Provide labours, equipements,
transportation for cleaning of site and
disposal of construction debris and
waste.
L/Sum
TOTAL:
172
QUOTATION BILL FOR SECTOR BRAVO BUNKER 1B CONSTRUCTION
(PART 1)
YEAR OF CONSTRUCTION: 2008
SECTOR: B
COMPANY DETAIL: ZM SINAR ENTERPRISE
BUNKER : 1
PREPARED BY:
AZHARUDDIN B. RAWI
JT AWAM
CHECKED BY:
CAPT TAN SWEE KOK
RMAF
245 BUKIT KUANTAN
26130 KUANTAN
ITEMS
CODE
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
DESCRIPTIONS
PRELIMINARY
QUANTITY
UNIT
a) Public liability Insurance Policy
L/Sum
b) Workers Social Safety Scheme
L/Sum
c) Workers Compensation Insurance
Policy
L/Sum
TOTAL
COST
NOS
RATES
RM
400
00
350
00
EARTHWORK
a) Leveling, excavation and dumping of
earth.
m2
5.5
1
RM 22
121
00
FORMWORK
a) Prepare formwork and related work
m2
220
1
RM 31
6,820
00
RE- BAR/ BRC
a) Supply and install BRC A10 or
equivalent
m2
240
1
RM 35
8,400
00
CONCRETE WORKS
a) Supply concrete Grade 30 for
foundations, walls, floor, table top, slab
roof and related location.
m3
50
1
RM 245
12,250
00
BRICKS WORKS
a) Brick laying on top and around bunker
m2
8
1
RM 55
440
00
b) Plastering of brick wall.
m2
16
1
RM 22
352
00
c) Smoothening surface using plaster
cement (1:3) with thickness 12mm
m2
30
1
RM 23
690
00
WATER PROOFNG
a) Supply and lay water proofing layer
with thickness 3mm.
m2
30
1
RM 23
690
00
a) Supply and compact earth on top and
around bunker
m3
30
1
RM 23
690
00
b) Supply and plant close turfing with
25mm thickness fertilizer
m2
75
1
RM 33
2,475
00
33,678
00
FILLING/ TURFING
TOTAL BF:
173
QUOTATION BILL FOR SECTOR BRAVO BUNKER 1B CONSTRUCTION
(PART 2)
CODE
I
J
K
L
M
ITEMS
DESCRIPTONS
PAINTING WORKS
a) Provide undercoat, and 3 layer of
weather shield paint on plastered surface
UNIT
QUANTITIES
TOTAL
NOS
COST
RATES
RM
m2
160
1
RM 12
1,920
00
METAL WINDOWS
a) Supply and install metal windows
Nos
7
1
RM 505
3,535
00
METAL DOORS
a) Supply and install metal door
Nos
1
1
RM 1630
1630
00
METAL LADDER
a) Supply and install metal ladder
Nos
1
1
RM 550
550
00
2487
00
43,800
00
CLEARING
a) Provide labours, equipements,
transportation for cleaning of site and
disposal of construction debris and
waste.
L/Sum
TOTAL:
174
QUOTATION BILL FOR SECTOR BRAVO BUNKER 2B CONSTRUCTION
(PART 1)
YEAR OF CONSTRUCTION: 2008
SECTOR: B
COMPANY DETAIL: NUR MAJU CONSTRUCTION
BUNKER : 2
PREPARED BY:
AZHARUDDIN B. RAWI
JT AWAM
CHECKED BY:
CAPT TAN SWEE KOK
RMAF
19 JALAN SUNGAI ISOP 7 SG ISOP DAMAI
25150 KUANTAN
ITEMS
CODE
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
DESCRIPTIONS
PRELIMINARY
QUANTITY
UNIT
a) Public liability Insurance Policy
L/Sum
b) Workers Social Safety Scheme
L/Sum
c) Workers Compensation Insurance
Policy
L/Sum
TOTAL
COST
NOS
RATES
RM
400
00
350
00
EARTHWORK
a) Leveling, excavation and dumping of
earth.
m2
5.5
1
RM 22
121
00
FORMWORK
a) Prepare formwork and related work
m2
220
1
RM 35
7,700
00
RE- BAR/ BRC
a) Supply and install BRC A10 or
equivalent
m2
240
1
RM 36
8,640
00
CONCRETE WORKS
a) Supply concrete Grade 30 for
foundations, walls, floor, table top, slab
roof and related location.
m3
50
1
RM 245
12,250
00
BRICKS WORKS
a) Brick laying on top and around bunker
m2
8
1
RM 43
344
00
b) Plastering of brick wall.
m2
16
1
RM 26
416
00
c) Smoothening surface using plaster
cement (1:3) with thickness 12mm
m2
30
1
RM 23
690
00
WATER PROOFNG
a) Supply and lay water proofing layer
with thickness 3mm.
m2
30
1
RM 21
630
00
FILLING/ TURFING
a) Supply and compact earth on top and
around bunker
m3
30
1
RM 22
660
00
b) Supply and plant close turfing with
25mm thickness fertilizer
m2
75
1
RM 35
2,625
00
34,826
00
TOTAL BF:
175
QUOTATION BILL FOR SECTOR BRAVO BUNKER 2B CONSTRUCTION
(PART 2)
CODE
I
J
K
L
M
ITEMS
DESCRIPTONS
PAINTING WORKS
a) Provide undercoat, and 3 layer of
weather shield paint on plastered surface
UNIT
QUANTITIES
TOTAL
NOS
COST
RATES
RM
m2
160
1
RM 13
2,080
00
METAL WINDOWS
a) Supply and install metal windows
Nos
7
1
RM 505
3,535
00
METAL DOORS
a) Supply and install metal door
Nos
1
1
RM 1630
1,630
00
METAL LADDER
a) Supply and install metal ladder
Nos
1
1
RM 550
550
00
2,814
00
45,435
00
CLEARING
a) Provide labours, equipements,
transportation for cleaning of site and
disposal of construction debris and
waste.
L/Sum
TOTAL:
176
QUOTATION BILL FOR SECTOR BRAVO BUNKER 3B CONSTRUCTION
(PART 1)
YEAR OF CONSTRUCTION: 2008
SECTOR: B
COMPANY DETAIL: PEMBINAAN KEMAS KINI
BUNKER : 3
PREPARED BY:
AZHARUDDIN B. RAWI
JT AWAM
CHECKED BY:
CAPT TAN SWEE KOK
RMAF
NO 117 TKT 7 BLOK L LRG SERI TERUNTUM 2
MEDAN WARISAN 25100 KUANTAN
ITEMS
CODE
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
DESCRIPTIONS
PRELIMINARY
QUANTITY
UNIT
a) Public liability Insurance Policy
L/Sum
b) Workers Social Safety Scheme
L/Sum
c) Workers Compensation Insurance
Policy
L/Sum
TOTAL
COST
NOS
RATES
RM
400
00
350
00
EARTHWORK
a) Leveling, excavation and dumping of
earth.
m2
5.5
1
RM 24
132
00
FORMWORK
a) Prepare formwork and related work
m2
220
1
RM 36
7,920
00
RE- BAR/ BRC
a) Supply and install BRC A10 or
equivalent
m2
240
1
RM 34
8,160
00
CONCRETE WORKS
a) Supply concrete Grade 30 for
foundations, walls, floor, table top, slab
roof and related location.
m3
50
1
RM 250
12,500
00
BRICKS WORKS
a) Brick laying on top and around bunker
m2
8
1
RM 44
352
00
b) Plastering of brick wall.
m2
16
1
RM 28
448
00
c) Smoothening surface using plaster
cement (1:3) with thickness 12mm
m2
30
1
RM 23
690
00
WATER PROOFNG
a) Supply and lay water proofing layer
with thickness 3mm.
m2
30
1
RM 22
660
00
FILLING/ TURFING
a) Supply and compact earth on top and
around bunker
m3
30
1
RM 24
720
00
b) Supply and plant close turfing with
25mm thickness fertilizer
m2
75
1
RM 39
2,925
00
35,257
00
TOTAL BF:
177
QUOTATION BILL FOR SECTOR BRAVO BUNKER 3B CONSTRUCTION
(PART 2)
CODE
I
J
K
L
M
ITEMS
DESCRIPTONS
PAINTING WORKS
a) Provide undercoat, and 3 layer of
weather shield paint on plastered surface
UNIT
QUANTITIES
TOTAL
NOS
COST
RATES
RM
m2
160
1
RM 11
1,760
00
METAL WINDOWS
a) Supply and install metal windows
Nos
7
1
RM 500
3,500
00
METAL DOORS
a) Supply and install metal door
Nos
1
1
RM 1655
1,655
00
METAL LADDER
a) Supply and install metal ladder
Nos
1
1
RM 580
580
00
2,908
00
45,660
00
CLEARING
a) Provide labours, equipements,
transportation for cleaning of site and
disposal of construction debris and
waste.
L/Sum
TOTAL:
178
QUOTATION BILL FOR SECTOR BRAVO BUNKER 4B CONSTRUCTION
(PART 1)
YEAR OF CONSTRUCTION: 2008
SECTOR: B
COMPANY DETAIL: NUR MAJU CONSTRUCTION
BUNKER : 4
PREPARED BY:
AZHARUDDIN B. RAWI
JT AWAM
CHECKED BY:
CAPT TAN SWEE KOK
RMAF
19 JALAN SUNGAI ISOP 7 SG ISOP DAMAI
25150 KUANTAN
ITEMS
CODE
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
DESCRIPTIONS
PRELIMINARY
QUANTITY
UNIT
a) Public liability Insurance Policy
L/Sum
b) Workers Social Safety Scheme
L/Sum
c) Workers Compensation Insurance
Policy
L/Sum
TOTAL
COST
NOS
RATES
RM
400
00
350
00
EARTHWORK
a) Leveling, excavation and dumping of
earth.
m2
5.5
1
RM 26
143
00
FORMWORK
a) Prepare formwork and related work
m2
220
1
RM 35
7,700
00
RE- BAR/ BRC
a) Supply and install BRC A10 or
equivalent
m2
240
1
RM 41
9,840
00
CONCRETE WORKS
a) Supply concrete Grade 30 for
foundations, walls, floor, table top, slab
roof and related location.
m3
50
1
RM 250
12,500
00
BRICKS WORKS
a) Brick laying on top and around bunker
m2
8
1
RM 45
360
00
b) Plastering of brick wall.
m2
16
1
RM 26
416
00
c) Smoothening surface using plaster
cement (1:3) with thickness 12mm
m2
30
1
RM 26
780
00
WATER PROOFNG
a) Supply and lay water proofing layer
with thickness 3mm.
m2
30
1
RM 23
690
00
FILLING/ TURFING
a) Supply and compact earth on top and
around bunker
m3
30
1
RM 23
690
00
b) Supply and plant close turfing with
25mm thickness fertilizer
m2
75
1
RM 35
2,625
00
36494
00
TOTAL BF:
179
QUOTATION BILL FOR SECTOR BRAVO BUNKER 4B CONSTRUCTION
(PART 2)
CODE
I
J
K
L
M
ITEMS
DESCRIPTONS
PAINTING WORKS
a) Provide undercoat, and 3 layer of
weather shield paint on plastered surface
QUANTITIES
TOTAL
NOS
COST
RATES
RM
m2
160
1
RM 14
2,240
00
METAL WINDOWS
a) Supply and install metal windows
Nos
7
1
RM 510
3,570
00
METAL DOORS
a) Supply and install metal door
Nos
1
1
RM 1650
1,650
00
METAL LADDER
a) Supply and install metal ladder
Nos
1
1
RM 570
570
00
m2
45
1
RM 197
8,865
00
3,076
00
56,465
00
ROAD WORKS
a) Provide bituminous road from existing
main access to site.
N
UNIT
CLEARING
a) Provide labours, equipements,
transportation for cleaning of site and
disposal of construction debris and
waste.
L/Sum
TOTAL:
180
APPENDIX E
FORMAL APPLICATION TO LOCAL PRECAST COMPANIES
FOR
PRE-FABRICATED BUNKER COMPONENTS COSTING
This formal application to respective companies is mainly to gather information on prefabricated bunker components costing for RMAF defense bunker development and
construction.
Your responses are strictly confidential.
The findings will be used for research purposes for development of RMAF Ground Base
Defense Program.
181
Royal Malaysian Air Force Head Quarters
Planning and Development Department – Infra Bina
d/a Kuala Lumpur Air Base
50460 KUALA LUMPUR
Tel: 03-21171322
Fax: 03-21447959
February 10
MTU/INRABINA/807/1
Refer Distribution
APPLICATION OF PRECAST COMPONENTS COSTING FOR ROYAL
MALAYSIAN AIR FORCE PRE-FABRICATED DEFENSE
BUNKER DEVELOPMENT AND CONSTRUCTION
1.
Refer to above title, RMAF would like to develop a pre-fabrication
construction technology for existing defense bunkers. Therefore, RMAF is requesting
expertise advices and moreover cost estimating on fabrication of defense bunker
components or panels from respective company.
2.
InfraBina on behalf of RMAF Head Quarter that incharge of design and
development of defense bunkers would like to forward our quotation bill (in Appendix
A) for bunker construction to be filled up by respective company.Yet, respective
company can refer to construction drawing attached (in Appendix B) to get a better
view of RMAF requirements and specifications.
3.
Respective company coorperations and attentions to RMAF request are most
appreciated. Thank you.
TAN SWEE KOK
Kapt TUDM
bp Panglima Tentera Udara
Distribution:
External:
182
Action:
Hume Concrete Marketing Sdn Bhd
Level 2 Bangunan Pan Global 1A
Jalan Tandang
46050 PETALING JAYA
(Attention: Noraidah)
Ezideck (M) Sdn Bhd
Lot 76& 77 Jalan TTC 2
Kawasan Perindustrian Cheng
57100 SEREMBAN
(Attention: Steven Loke)
Eastern Pretech (M) Sdn Bhd
No 28 Jalan 7/108
Taman Sungai Besi
57100 KUALA LUMPUR
(Attention: Abrizah)
Internal:
Information:
AKS P&P
Pengarah RANUD
PS 1 InfraBina
183
APPENDIX A
YEAR OF CONSTRUCTION:
SECTOR: -
PREPARED BY:
COMPANY DETAIL:
BUNKER : CHECKED BY:
ITEMS
CODE
A
B
C
DESCRIPTIONS
PRELIMINARY
a) Public liability and Workers Compensation
Insurance Policy
NOS
m2
21.5
1
m3
11.8
1
m3
19.6
1
m2
21.5
1
m3
4.3
1
m3
2
1
a) Supply and compact earth on top and
around bunker
m3
30
1
b) Supply and plant close turfing with 25mm
thickness fertilizer
m2
75
1
m2
160
1
INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL FINISHES
a) Supply and install metal windows
Nos
7
1
b) Supply and install metal door
Nos
1
1
c) Supply and install metal ladder
Nos
1
1
EARTHWORK
a) Leveling, excavation and dumping of earth.
PRECAST REINFORCEMENT CONCRETE
STRUCTURE AND WALL PANELS
a) Supply precast reinforcement concrete
Grade 30 for foundations, beams, columns.
CONCRETING AND REINFORCEMENT BAR
WORK
a) Supply and install BRC A10 or equivalent
for floor slab.
b) Supply concrete Grade 30 for floor and
related location.
E
F
G
H
GROUTING OF ANCHORAGE CONNECTION
a) Grouting of anchorage connection between
structure and wall or between walls.
UNIT
COST
TOTAL
b) Supply precast reinforcement concrete
Grade 30 for walls, tabletop, and slab roof.
D
QUANTITY
RATES
L/Sum
BACK-FILLING/ TURFING
PAINTING WORKS
a) Provide undercoat, and 3 layer of weather
shield paint on plastered surface
TOTAL:
RM
184
APPENDIX B
BRCA10, 2 LAPIS,
KONKRITGRED35
113MM IKATAN BATA,
TERMASUK12MM LEPAAN
SIMENMORTAR.
100
100
LUBANG PENGUDARAANBERSERTA
JARING PENGHALANG NYAMUK
TABLETOP SENJATA
300MMX 150MM(KELILINGDALAM KUBU)
2 lapis BRC A 10
180
2400
150
150
22 5 45 0
300
B-1
Y10-200 c/c
1 000
150
300
10 00
ARASTANAH
3Y10
2 LAPISBRC A10
45
KONKRITGRED 30
45
350
100
4 50
10 0
1 LAPIS BRCA8
300
3300
25 00
1250
72 6
100
150
200
TINDIHAN60 D, BERSELANGSELI
KONKRIT GRED30
LINKKONKRIT50MM
100MM HARDCORE
2 LAPIS BRCA 6
100MM HARDCORE
DPM
KERATABUNKER
N X-X
CROSS SECTION
SKALA: 1 : 50
1200
ARAS TANAH
185
FLAT ROOF WITH
WATER PROOFING
TO BE FILL WITH SOIL
TOAND TO BE TURFED
893
1300
1200
150
450
150
ARAS TANAH
ARAS TANAH
PANDANGAN HADAPAN
KUBUVIEW
FRONT
SKALA: 1 : 50
TO BE FILL WITH SOIL
TOAND TO BE TURFED
150
450
FLAT ROOF WITH
WATER PROOFING
1300
1200
893
ARAS TANAH
ARAS TANAH
PANDANGAN BELAKANG
REARKUBU
VIEW
SKALA: 1 : 50
B-2
186
1000
225
225
150
150
300
450
75
B
A
225
300
300
450
B
1000
550
225
75
A
150
KERATAN B-B
150
B-B
SKALA: 1 : 20
BUTIRAN A-pandangan dari luar kubu
FIRING HOLE 1
SKALA: 1 : 20
KERATAN A-A
A-A
SKALA: 1 : 20
1000
1000
C
225
550
225
150
135
D
150
180
450
450
180
D
300
550
135
C
150
150
KERATAN D-D
D-D
SKALA: 1 : 20
BUTIRAN C-pandangan dari luar kubu
FIRING HOLE 2
SKALA: 1 : 20
KERATAN C-C
C-C
SKALA: 1 : 20
70
300
1 50
150
150
150
150
75
70
220
450
180
13 5
45 0
135
75
850
600
150
600
150
STYER
AUG DAN
CARBINE
FIRING
HOLE
2
150
FIRING
GPMG HOLE 1
Welded
16
25
1 1 00
25
200
Welded
4mm plat e as
st opper
25
4mm plat e as
st opper
4mm plate as
st opper
BUTIRAN X
WINDOW
DIMENSIONS
4mm Plat e slider
wit h holder
N.T.S
Penut up Tingkap
lihat but iran X
PENUTUP
TINGKAP
( 3D )
FH1&2
WINDOW
PANEL
N.T.S
PENUTUP
TINGKAP
WINDOW
LOCATION
N.T.S
187
APPENDIX F
CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATING
FOR
PRE-FABRICATED DEFENSE BUNKERS CONSTRUCTION
This quotation bill is prepared mainly to provide information on elemental breakdown costing
for RMAF pre-fabricated defense bunkers.
Your responses and costing are strictly confidential.
The findings will be used for research purposes for development of RMAF Ground Base
Defense Program.
188
PRE-FABRICATED DEFENSE BUNKER COSTING
BY EASTERN PRETECH (M) SDN BHD
YEAR OF CONSTRUCTION: 2011-2013
SECTOR: -
COMPANY DETAIL: EASTERN PRETECH (M) SDN BHD
BUNKER : -
PREPARED BY:
ABRIZAH
NO 28 JALAN 7/108 TAMAN SUNGAI BESI
CHECKED BY:
CAPT TAN SWEE KOK
RMAF
COST
57100 KUALA LUMPUR
ITEMS
CODE
A
B
C
UNIT
PRELIMINARY
a) Public liability and Workers Compensation
Insurance Policy
L/Sum
EARTHWORK
a) Leveling, excavation and dumping of earth.
F
G
H
NOS
RATES
RM
800
00
430
00
21.5
1
RM 20
m3
11.8
1
RM 1000
11,800
00
m3
19.6
1
RM 1200
23,520
00
m2
21.5
1
RM 38
817
00
m3
4.3
1
RM 238
1,023
40
m3
2
1
RM 40
80
00
a) Supply and compact earth on top and
around bunker
m3
30
1
RM 20
600
00
b) Supply and plant close turfing with 25mm
thickness fertilizer
m2
75
1
RM 28
2,100
00
m2
160
1
RM 10
1,600
00
INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL FINISHES
a) Supply and install metal windows
Nos
7
1
RM 250
1,750
00
b) Supply and install metal door
Nos
1
1
RM 1300
1,300
00
c) Supply and install metal ladder
Nos
1
1
RM 500
500
00
46,500
00
PRECAST REINFORCEMENT CONCRETE
STRUCTURE AND WALL PANELS
a) Supply precast reinforcement concrete
Grade 30 for foundations, beams, columns.
CONCRETING AND REINFORCEMENT BAR
WORK
a) Supply and install BRC A10 or equivalent
for floor slab.
b) Supply concrete Grade 30 for floor and
related location.
E
TOTAL
m2
b) Supply precast reinforcement concrete
Grade 30 for walls, tabletop, and slab roof.
D
QUANTITY
DESCRIPTIONS
GROUTING OF ANCHORAGE CONNECTION
a) Grouting of anchorage connection
between structure and wall or between walls.
BACK-FILLING/ TURFING
PAINTING WORKS
a) Provide undercoat, and 3 layer of weather
shield paint on plastered surface
TOTAL:
189
PRE-FABRICATED DEFENSE BUNKER COSTING
BY EZIDEK (M) SDN BHD
YEAR OF CONSTRUCTION: 2011-2013
SECTOR: -
COMPANY DETAIL: EZIDECK (M) SDN BHD
BUNKER : -
PREPARED BY:
STEVEN LOKE
LOT 76& 77 JALAN TTC 2
CHECKED BY:
CAPT TAN SWEE KOK
RMAF
COST
KAWASAN PERINDUSTRIAN CHENG 57100 SEREMBAN
ITEMS
CODE
A
B
C
DESCRIPTIONS
PRELIMINARY
a) Public liability and Workers Compensation
Insurance Policy
EARTHWORK
a) Leveling, excavation and dumping of earth.
F
G
H
NOS
RATES
L/Sum
RM
800
00
21.5
1
RM 20
430
00
m3
11.8
1
RM 900
10,620
00
m3
19.6
1
RM 1000
19,600
00
m2
21.5
1
RM 38
817
00
m3
4.3
1
RM 238
1,023
40
m3
2
1
RM 40
80
00
a) Supply and compact earth on top and
around bunker
m3
30
1
RM 20
600
00
b) Supply and plant close turfing with 25mm
thickness fertilizer
m2
75
1
RM 28
2,100
00
m2
160
1
RM 10
1,600
00
INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL FINISHES
a) Supply and install metal windows
Nos
7
1
RM 250
1,750
00
b) Supply and install metal door
Nos
1
1
RM 1480
1,480
00
c) Supply and install metal ladder
Nos
1
1
RM 500
500
00
41,400
00
PRECAST REINFORCEMENT CONCRETE
STRUCTURE AND WALL PANELS
a) Supply precast reinforcement concrete
Grade 30 for foundations, beams, columns.
CONCRETING AND REINFORCEMENT BAR
WORK
a) Supply and install BRC A10 or equivalent for
floor slab.
b) Supply concrete Grade 30 for floor and
related location.
E
TOTAL
m2
b) Supply precast reinforcement concrete
Grade 30 for walls, tabletop, and slab roof.
D
QUANTITY
UNIT
GROUTING OF ANCHORAGE CONNECTION
a) Grouting of anchorage connection between
structure and wall or between walls.
BACK-FILLING/ TURFING
PAINTING WORKS
a) Provide undercoat, and 3 layer of weather
shield paint on plastered surface
TOTAL:
190
APPENDIX G
LOCATION PLANS
FOR
EXISTING CONSTRUCTED DEFENSE BUNKERS
The location plans are prepared mainly to provide information on position for RMAF existing
construction defense bunkers.
These location plans will be used for showing the built locations for all the nine pioneer
bunkers using conventional method in Sector A and Sector B of Kuantan Air Base.
191
Location Plan 1: Location of Ground Defense Bunkers in Sector A
Location Plan 2: Location of Ground Defense Bunkers in Sector B