Client Feedback
Heard from the
project teams themselves.
Feedback from project directors and contracts managers at Malaysian construction firms who have worked through a Site Process Review, a Drafting Pilot, or the Stewardship Retainer.
← Back to Home40+
Firms advised across Malaysia
4.8/5
Average client satisfaction
18
Active Stewardship Retainers
100%
Human-confirmed document outputs
Client Reviews
What project teams say
Hafizuddin Ismail
Contracts Manager, Shah Alam
"We went into the Site Process Review thinking it would just confirm what we already suspected. It did confirm some things, but it also flagged a pattern in our RFI responses that we had not noticed — submittals for a particular package were generating follow-up queries at a higher rate than others. That alone made the two weeks worthwhile."
Site Process Review · April 2025
Siti Norizan Abdul Wahab
Project Director, Johor Bahru
"The Drafting Pilot took a bit of getting used to in the first couple of weeks — the team had to build a habit of treating the AI draft as a starting point rather than a finished product. But by week four, the contracts team was handling the review step quickly and we could see a real reduction in the time spent on first-pass RFI replies. The bilingual training helped."
RFI Drafting Pilot · March 2025
Krishnan Rajasekaran
QS Principal, Kuala Lumpur
"We have been on the Stewardship Retainer for about eight months now. The monthly brief is something I actually read rather than file and forget — it is written for someone who runs a project, not for an IT department. The CIDB and PAM alignment notes are particularly useful when there are new circulars."
Stewardship Retainer · Ongoing since August 2024
Noor Fadzilah Mohamad
Senior Contracts Manager, Penang
"The brief from the Site Process Review was honest — which I appreciated. It said clearly that two of our document types were not good candidates for AI drafting because our project director tends to write those personally with significant client-specific framing. That kind of specificity is more useful than a generic recommendation to deploy everything."
Site Process Review · February 2025
Tan Hwee Leng
Director, Infrastructure Division, Ipoh
"We manage fourteen active projects at any one time and the monthly retainer has become a normal part of how we manage AI-assisted document work. The audit trail checks are reassuring from a governance perspective, and the yearly summary is something our board now expects to see in the annual report."
Stewardship Retainer · Ongoing since October 2024
Amirul Rahim Zulkifli
Project Manager, Kuantan
"What I valued was that evasionroyales didn't try to oversell the scope. They came in, looked at our documents properly, talked to the team, and wrote a brief that reflected what they actually found. No inflated recommendations. We went ahead with the Drafting Pilot based on that brief and it has been a worthwhile six weeks."
Site Process Review + Drafting Pilot · Jan–Apr 2025
Case Studies
How the engagements played out in practice
Case Study — REF-CS-001 · Residential Development, Selangor
Managing RFI volume on a 400-unit residential project
Challenge
The contracts team was receiving forty to sixty RFIs per week across three building blocks. Response drafting was taking a senior contracts manager two to three hours daily, leaving less time for variation assessment and progress claims. A backlog of unanswered RFIs was beginning to affect package coordination.
What we did
We ran a Site Process Review to confirm which RFI types were appropriate for AI drafting. Six categories were suitable; three were not (design clarification RFIs requiring coordination with the architect). We deployed the Drafting Pilot for the six suitable types with a read-only link to the project document register. The contracts manager reviewed and confirmed each draft.
Result
Daily drafting time for the six RFI categories reduced from approximately 90 minutes to 25 minutes. The contracts manager redirected the freed time to variation assessment. The pilot ended with a CIDB-aligned usage policy and a pattern summary identifying the three sub-packages generating the highest RFI frequency — a finding that prompted a design coordination meeting that had not previously been scheduled.
"The pattern summary at the end of the pilot was the most useful output — it showed us something about our project that we had not seen clearly before."
— Contracts Manager, Selangor
Case Study — REF-CS-002 · Infrastructure Contractor, Sarawak
Stewardship Retainer across twelve concurrent civil projects
Challenge
The firm had introduced AI drafting tools independently across several projects. Different project teams were using them in different ways, with no consistent policy. The board had begun asking questions about document governance and the firm's approach to AI-assisted contract administration — questions the project director could not yet answer clearly.
What we did
We began with a scoping exercise across three of the twelve projects to understand the range of usage patterns. We then established a Stewardship Retainer covering all twelve projects. Each month we sample outputs from three to four projects on a rotating basis, audit document trails, and produce a consolidated brief for the project director.
Result
Twelve months on, the firm has a consistent usage policy across all projects, a document trail that satisfies their internal audit requirements, and a yearly summary that was included in the annual report for the second consecutive year. Two projects were identified in months four and seven as having confirmation procedures that needed tightening — both were corrected before causing a document integrity issue.
"The monthly brief is the kind of document I can hand to our internal audit team and to the board. That matters for a firm our size."
— Director, Infrastructure Division, Sarawak
Case Study — REF-CS-003 · M&E Contractor, Kuala Lumpur
Site Process Review that recommended against deployment
Challenge
A medium-sized M&E contractor had read about AI document tools and engaged us for a Site Process Review on a commercial fit-out project. They expected the review to confirm that a Drafting Pilot would be useful. The project had relatively low RFI volume but complex inter-package coordination that generated a different type of correspondence.
What we found
The RFI correspondence on this project was highly contextual — most queries required reference to ongoing coordination discussions between M&E, main contractor, and architect that were not captured in the document register. AI drafting would produce first-pass replies that were plausible in form but would miss the contextual nuance that the project required.
Result
We recommended against a Drafting Pilot for this project and said so clearly in the brief. We noted two lower-risk uses — submittal tracking and variation order summary memos — where AI could add value without the contextual risk. The client acted on those two recommendations independently and found them useful. They re-engaged for a Site Process Review on a subsequent project with different document characteristics.
"They told us not to proceed with the pilot on that project. That was the honest answer and it saved us from deploying something in the wrong context."
— Project Director, M&E Contractor, Kuala Lumpur
Reach Us
Direct contact for enquiries
Phone
+60 19 384 7261Address
Suite 16-4, Menara TM, Jalan Pantai Baharu,
50672 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Office Hours
Mon–Fri: 8:30 AM – 5:30 PM
Sat: 9:00 AM – 1:00 PM
Start Here
Add your project to the list
The Site Process Review is where most firms start. Two weeks, one project, one clear written brief. Contact us to discuss whether it is appropriate for your current situation.
Book Now