Client Testimonials

WHAT CLIENTS SAY

Accounts drawn from construction contract, adjudication, and infrastructure advisory engagements across Malaysia.

Rizwan Hakim

Project Director · Kuala Lumpur

"We engaged Satria Firm to review a PAM 2018 main contract before signing on a commercial development in Cheras. The team picked up several payment certification provisions that didn't reflect what was actually agreed during tender. Those changes mattered considerably once construction began."

Construction Contract Advisory · February 2026

Lim Kah Weng

Managing Director · Selangor

"Our company faced a CIPAA adjudication from a subcontractor claiming unpaid progress payments. Satria Firm handled the response submission and statutory timelines carefully. The outcome was a reduction in the disputed sum that we considered fair given the site circumstances. The process was explained at each stage."

Construction Dispute Adjudication · January 2026

Nor Rahayu Bt Alias

Infrastructure Manager · Putrajaya

"We needed legal support for a public-private partnership arrangement involving a government concession. The Satria Firm team was familiar with the relevant land acquisition procedures and helped us navigate the engagement with the relevant authorities. There were no surprises in the documentation phase."

Infrastructure Project Legal Advisory · January 2026

Selvakumar Pillai

Quantity Surveyor · Penang

"When our contractor client was on the receiving end of excessive liquidated damages deductions, we brought Satria Firm in to review the EOT entitlements under the CIDB standard form. Their analysis of the extension of time provisions gave the client a proper basis to respond to the employer's deductions."

Construction Contract Advisory · December 2025

Azwan Zulkifli

Contractor Director · Johor Bahru

"We initiated a CIPAA claim for unpaid interim certificates after six months of non-payment. Satria Firm prepared the adjudication claim documentation and guided us through the timeline requirements. The adjudicator's decision came within the statutory period and reflected the sum we had properly certified."

Construction Dispute Adjudication · December 2025

Yap Chee Keong

Developer · Kuala Lumpur

"Our infrastructure project required coordination across land acquisition, EIA legal compliance, and construction financing. Satria Firm worked alongside our project consultants throughout and kept the legal dimension aligned with our project schedule. Communication was consistent and we were never left waiting for clarity on a legal point."

Infrastructure Project Legal Advisory · January 2026

CASE STUDIES

Selected Engagement Outcomes

Three client engagements, summarised with the challenge presented, how the matter was addressed, and the outcome achieved.

ENGAGEMENT · CIPAA PAYMENT CLAIM

Unpaid Interim Certificates — Subcontractor CIPAA Claim

01 · Challenge

A mechanical and electrical subcontractor had not received payment for five interim certificates totalling RM 340,000. The main contractor disputed the certified sums and issued a purported set-off notice citing defective works. The subcontractor faced expiry of the CIPAA limitation period.

02 · Approach

Satria Firm prepared the Payment Claim documentation under CIPAA 2012, addressed the set-off assertions by examining whether the contractual right to set-off was properly reserved in the sub-contract, and compiled payment certification records and site progress reports as supporting evidence.

03 · Outcome

The adjudicator found in favour of the subcontractor for RM 298,000, determining the set-off was procedurally defective. The adjudication decision was enforced without challenge. The client recovered payment within the statutory timeline.

ENGAGEMENT · CONTRACT REVIEW

Variation Clause Dispute — Commercial Tower Development

01 · Challenge

A property developer entered into a PAM 2018 contract without adequate advice on variation valuation provisions. When the architect issued several variation orders mid-project, a dispute arose over the applicable pricing basis — whether varied works were to be priced at BQ rates or at fair market value.

02 · Approach

Satria Firm reviewed the contract against the PAM 2018 variation valuation provisions, examined the BQ pricing structure, and prepared a legal position paper addressing the contractual basis for pricing disputed variation items. This was used in direct negotiations with the contractor's legal representatives.

03 · Outcome

A negotiated settlement was reached under which variation items were priced using BQ analogous rates, resulting in a saving to the client compared to the contractor's initial claim. The parties avoided adjudication proceedings and the project continued on schedule.

ENGAGEMENT · INFRASTRUCTURE ADVISORY

Land Acquisition and EIA Legal Support — Highway Project

01 · Challenge

A highway concession company required integrated legal support covering land acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act 1960, coordination with the DOE on environmental impact assessment approvals, and review of the concession agreement and financing documentation ahead of financial close.

02 · Approach

Satria Firm coordinated the legal workstreams across land, environment, and financing. The team liaised directly with the relevant state land offices, reviewed the DOE correspondence for legal implications, and advised on conditions precedent in the financing documents that were tied to regulatory approvals.

03 · Outcome

Financial close was achieved within the agreed longstop date. Land acquisition forms were submitted on schedule, DOE approval conditions were incorporated into the project legal framework, and the concession agreement was executed without deferred conditions affecting the financing structure.

Heard from Those
Who Worked With Us