PROJECT COMPLETION ON TIME REPORT (%) JUTASAMA SDN. BHD.

Date : 30/12/2018
30/6/2018 (YEAR : 2018 ) - Page 1 of 1

Cases Causes of Delay

Qty of Delivery On-Time

Qty. of Structural Work

Insufficient of capacity

Qty of Heat Exchanger

Fab Location

Qty of PV (Drum, Tank

DOSH Approval Delay
QUANTITY (Unit / Lot)

Material Delay due to

Qty. of Piping Works

Customer late reply,

Manpower Shortage
Unproper Control of
late approval or add

Short of Resources
(Consumable, Eq &
Mills's Production
Quality & Product
Defect / Rejection
% of Qty On Time

Transportation /
Job No

Documentation
Enginneering /

& experience
Qty of Delay

Production

& Column)
Shipment
changes

Weight

Weight

Weight

Weight
Tools)
TPG JS17006 8 8 0 100 8 124100
TPG JS17007 4 0 4 0 4 4 482000
TPG JS17008 1 0 1 0 1 1 149000
SA JS17009 5 5 0 100 5 343000
TPG JS17011 9 2 7 22.2 7 9 524870
TPG JS17012 10 7 3 70 3 10 46610
TPG JS17016 11 8 3 72.7 1 2 11 137550
TPG JS17017 9 9 0 100 9 126000
SA JS17018 3 3 0 100 3 9600
TPG JS17019 13 12 1 92.3 1 13 36510
SA JS17020 9 9 0 100 9 96800
SA JS17022 2 1 1 50 1 2 21650
TPG JS17023 1 1 0 100 1 5100
SA JS17025 1 1 0 100 1 9880
SA JS17026 1 1 0 100 1 1350
TPG JS17027 1 1 0 100 1 6500
SA JS17029 9 9 0 100 9 25200
SA JS17030 15 14 1 93.3 1 6 184075 9 26500
TPG JS17031 1 1 0 100 1 16500
SA JS17032 1 1 0 100 1 5800
TPG JS17034 2 2 0 100 2 37500
TPG JS17035 2 2 0 100 2 18800
TPG JS17036 1 0 1 0 1 1 2150
SA JS17037 1 1 0 100 1 2350
TPG JS17038 1 1 0 100 1 6500
TPG JS17040 2 2 0 100 2 7300
SA JS18002 12 12 0 100 3 35000 9 34000
TPG JS18003 7 7 0 100 7 168400
SA JS18004 1 1 0 100 1 13000
TPG JS18005 1 1 0 100 1 300
TPG JS18007 3 3 0 100 3 46000
TPG JS18010 1 1 0 100 1 2000
TPG JS18011 1 1 0 100 1 1000
TPG JS18013 3 3 0 100 3 22700
SA JS18014 1 1 0 100 1 850
SA JS18017 1 1 0 100 1 2200
TPG JS18018 1 1 0 100 1 2200
TPG JS18019 1 1 0 100 1 1000
SA JS18020 1 1 0 100 1 320
SA JS18021 1 1 0 100 1 300
SA JS18022 1 1 0 100 1 5000
TPG JS18023 1 1 0 100 1 280
TPG JS18025 3 3 0 100 2 3300 1 4680
SA JS18026 1 0 1 0 1 1 9000
SA JS18027 1 1 0 100 1 300
SA JS18028 1 1 0 100 1 750
SA JS18037 2 2 0 100 2 1200
TPG JS18041 4 4 0 100 4 720
TPG JS18047 146 146 0 100 146 500
TPG JS18049 1 1 0 100 1 650
Overall 319 296 23 92.8 0 1 4 12 0 6 0 0 0 0 77 1718365 84 961380 11 128300 147 800
Description Fabrication at SA Fabrication at TPG
Project Completion On-Time Report (%)
No. of Job Surveyed 21 29
No. of Job Delayed 3 6
100 % (%) of Job Delayed 14.3 20.7
90 (%) of Job On-Time 85.7 79.3
Total Qty Fabricated Equipment 70 249
80
Total Qty of Equipment Delayed 3 20
70 Total Qty of Equipment On-Time 67 229
% On Time

60 (%) of Total Qty On-Time 95.7 92.0

50 Total Weight of Fabricated Equip (ton) 838.8 1980.72

40
Chart Title
30
20 Total Weight of Fabricated Equip (ton)
10
(%) of Total Qty On-Time
0
Total Qty of Equipment On-Time
Total Qty of Equipment Delayed
Job No Total Qty Fabricated Equipment
(%) of Job On-Time
No of Job Surveyed = 50 1 (%) of Job Delayed
No of Job Delay = 9 2
No. of Job Delayed
% of Job Delay = 18 % 3

% of Job On-Time = 82 4 No. of Job Surveyed

Total qty of equipment = 319 5

Total qty delay = 23

6 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
7
Total qty on time = 296 8
Fabrication at TPG Fabrication at SA
Total % of qty on-time = 92.8 %

Summary & Finding on 'Project Completion On-Time Report' for year 2018
1. Project Completion On-Time Percentage is satisfied and imeet Project's Objective as stated in ISO at least 80%.

2. Many new clients developed such as Tecnimont S.p.a (Italy), M+W (Singapore), JNC Engineering (Japan), CTCI 中鼎集团 (Taiwan) / MIE Industrial S/B, Emerson Process Management (Malaysia),
Valqua (Singapore), Petron Refining Company (Malaysia), NRC Engineering S/B (Malaysia).
Certain customer like Meta Engineering Sdn. Bhd., a wholly owned subsidiary by PT Musim Mas (Indonesia) has awarded to Jutasama a small heat exchager after several years of working from
past projects.

3. Summarized table for equipment fabricated in recent years for information as below.

4. From total 9 delayed jobs delayed, out of 5 are the jobs delayed which awarded by Tecnimont HQC. Reasons of delayed may due to the mistake in fabrication, material defects, complicated
equipment to fabricate, improper fabrication planning, etc.
Example: JS17007 - Reactor, mistake on (i) pre-fab external coil rolling and (ii) flatness of agitator mounting flange has seriously jeopardize the fabrication planning as well as huge additional cost
has incurred. Similar to Decanter due to shell dented issue due to insufficient of rotator and unlevelness of foundation at open yard.

5. As comparable between JSB Shah Alam (SA) and Teluk Panglima Garang (TPG) workshop, workshop loading and total equipment fabricated weight at TPG is much more higher. TPG is cater
for more oversize and heavier equipment fabrication.
 CLIENT COMPLAINTS REPORT JUTASAMA SDN. BHD.
(YEAR : 2018 ) Page 1 of 1
SUMMARY OF CLIENT COMPLAINT
CASES CATEGORY OF COMPLAINT

% of Cases with full reply

Client Complaints Cases

Delivery Issue (Packing,

Drawing/Documentation
response within 1 days

response within 1 days

No.of Cases with initial

% of Cases with initial

reply within 5 working

within 5 working days

No. of Cases with full

Customer Services
Delay - Drawing /

Invalid Complaint
Quality - Product

correctness etc.)
Delay - Products

Documentation

Quality-

Others
Q1 (1 Jan - 30 Mar) 4 2 50 2 50 1 2 1
Q2 (1 Apr - 30 Jun) 7 4 57 7 100 4 3
Q3 (1 Jul - 30 Sep) 6 5 83 5 83 5 1
Q4 (1 Oct - 31 Dec) 3 3 100 3 100 3
Overall 13 3 3 1

% of Cases with initial response within 1 % of Cases with full reply response within 5
working days working days

100 100

90 90

80 80

70 70
No. of Cases
No. of Cases

60 60

50 50

40 40
30 30
20 20
10 10
0 0
Q1 (1 Jan - 30 Q2 (1 Apr - 30 Q3 (1 Jul - 30 Q4 (1 Oct - 31 Q1 (1 Jan - 30 Q2 (1 Apr - 30 Q3 (1 Jul - 30 Q4 (1 Oct - 31
Mar) Jun) Sep) Dec) Mar) Jun) Sep) Dec)

Quarter of the Year Quarter of the Year

No. of Overall Complaints To Date No.of Cases of Client Complaints

(Quarterly)
14
13
12
11 8
10
No. of Cases

9 7
8
7
6 6
5
4
No. of Cases

5
3
2
1 4
0
3
Delay - Products

Others
Invalid Complaint
Delay - Drawing /

Delivery Issue (Packing,

Quality - Product

Drawing/Documentation

Customer Services
Documentation

correctness etc.)

2
Quality-

0
Q1 (1 Jan - Q2 (1 Apr - Q3 (1 Jul - Q4 (1 Oct -
30 Mar) 30 Jun) 30 Sep) 31 Dec)

Category of complaints Quarter of the Year

 F-AD-011 (1)
JUTASAMA SDN. BHD.
(Company No.: 095631-H)

CLIENT COMPLAINT SUMMARY

Need Date of Date of
CC Need Date
Date reply to INITIAL FULL Target PIC
F Job No. Client Problem / Defect complained CAR? CAR no. CAR
Received client? replied replied Date of
no. Y/N closed
Y/N to client to client Closure
21st January PTSC Offshore Distorted or seems damaged on lifting N/A
139 JS17015 Y N - Haniffah Closed
2018 Services sling supplied by Jutasama
15th February TOYO Bottom plate for T-120 buckled during 21st Feb 22nd Feb
140 JS15012 Y N - N/A WS Tan Closed
2018 Engineering installation at site 2018 2018

23rd March 31st

23rd March N2 purged for some equipment 4th April Lau Jia
141 JS17011 TecnimontHQC Y 2018 Y CAR-18-001 August Closed
2018 delivered to site was leaked 2018 Kang
(verbal) 2018

Sumitomo
Lim
23rd March Chemical & Internal surface for weighing tanks are 26th March 26th March
142 JS16029 Y N - N/A Ming Closed
2018 Engineering with stains 2018 2018
Jen
Japan
Equipment 3305-3315-E-101A/B are
23rd April 26th April 26th April Lau Jia
143 JS16014 TecnimontHQC unable to correctly fix the anchor bolts Y N - N/A Closed
2018 2018 2018 Kang
due to wrong design by Jutasama
Demister received at site have foreign
TOYO 8th May 11th May
144 5th May 2018 JS15021 material, rust, broken mesh and Y N - N/A WS Tan Closed
Engineering 2018 2018
deformed flat bar

22nd May TOYO Fabrication error of vessel clips for pipe 22nd May 28th May 30th Sept
145 JS15021 Y Y CAR-18-002 WS Tan Closed
2018 Engineering supports and missing clips 2018 2018 2018

Mold/mildew spreading at internal shell

5th June 5th June 9th June Ming
146 JS15045 OUI JV body of vessel 4300-V-401B. Y N - N/A Closed
2018 2018 2018 Jen
8th June Nozzle A1 was not located as per 8th June 12th June 31st Dec
147 JS17019 TecnimontHQC approved construction drawing. Y 2018 Y CAR-18-003 Daphne Closed
2018 2018 2018
As built drawing – TL +3550mm Pang
C-332C,
Actual the position
fabrication – TL of N12 nozzle was
+3100mm
16th June 21st June 22nd June 31st Dec Tung
148 JS17022 JNCE differs from 45 degrees as per specified Y Y CAR-18-004 Closed
2018 2018 2018 2018 Hee
in approved construction drawing.
Lim
JS16007 Ming
29th June Cap Screws supplied without coating 2nd July 3rd July
149 & Gem Water Y Y CAR-18-010 N/A Jen Closed
2018 and vessel material is SS316L 2018 2018
JS17025
 JUTASAMA SDN. BHD.
(Company No.: 095631-H)

CLIENT COMPLAINT SUMMARY

Need Date of Date of
CC Need Date
Date reply to INITIAL FULL Target PIC
F Job No. Client Problem / Defect complained CAR? CAR no. CAR
Received client? replied replied Date of
no. Y/N closed
Y/N to client to client Closure
6th July
5th July Thermowell corroded due to different 5th July 2018 WH
150 JS13015 JJE material used
Y N - N/A Closed
2018 2018 Tuen

12th July Site Installation Issue – missing brackets, 12th July 12th July WH
151 JS17030 JFE supports insufficient length
Y N - N/A Tuen Closed
2018 2018 2018

Lotte 18th July

17th July Support lug elevation was wrong, it 18th July 30th June
152 JS17038 Chemical Y 2018 Y CAR-18-005 Daphne Closed
2018 doesn’t follow the existing lug elevation 2018 2019
Titan

Sliding plate part no. 19, 2mm thk SA240

TecnimontHQ Gr304 (280*180*2) was not welded with 7th Sept 7th Sept 30th April Lau
153 6th Sept 2018 JS17011 Y Y CAR-18-006 Closed
C fixed support for items E-121AB, E- 2018 2018 2019
122AB and E-123AB
2nd 2nd WS Tan
19th Sept Toyo Wrong flange rating was installed and 30th March
154 JS15021 Y October October Y CAR-18-007 Closed
2018 Engineering welded for nozzle H4, item 2100-V-230 2019
2018 2018
Petron Uneven gasket surface on tubesheet’s 15th
21st Sept 21st Sept 21st Sept
155 JS18013 Refining pass partition surface for items E-2148 Y Y CAR-18-008 October Haniffah Closed
2018 2018 2018
Company and E-9026 2018
Thyssenkrupp
Industrial Internal L-shape piping support clip of 26th 26th
26th October 30th April
156 JS18003 Solutions down comer pipe for item 30-T-04 was Y October October Y CAR-18-009 Lau Closed
2018 2019
(Thailand) missing. 2018 2018
Ltd.
12th
Sumitomo
th Vessel 3AV-5A supplied by Jutasama in 6th December
6 December Chemical
157 JS14006 2014 was found welding line crack at Y December 2018 (as N - N/A NK Hiew Closed
2018 Engineering
CW-01 to CW-04. 2018 visited to
Singapore
site)
12th
Sumitomo
6th December
6th December Chemical Support bracket of pulley (rope guide)
158 JS17003 Y December 2018 (as N - N/A WS Tan Closed
2018 Engineering was misaligned.
2018 visited to
Singapore
site)
 JUTASAMA SDN. BHD.
(Company No.: 095631-H)

CLIENT COMPLAINT SUMMARY

CCF No. CORRECTIVE ACTION IN DETAILS REMARK
To further strengthen the pre-delivery checklist, not only to check and ensure the N2 pressure gauge was
filled with N2 before delivery, additional bubble / soap test shall be perform on all flange tightened to ensure
141 there’s no leaking before delivery. CAR-18-001

To amend / incorporate the additional test into pre-delivery checklist.

1. Design shall provide drawing list for a particular item prior to Final inspection, Proj Eng informs for Final
inspection date, inclusive of Design Eng, QCI and QCE in the loop.
145 CAR-18-002
2. During QC inspection of platform/ladder or pipe support clips, details shall be recorded on latest drawing
and kept as internal record.
1. For nozzle on HOLD, subcon do not mark on the vessel. This will prevent wrong nozzle opening after
nozzle confirmed. Subcon shall only mark the nozzle on the vessel after the nozzle is confirmed (size,
147 CAR-18-003
elevation, orientation). If nozzle marking is unavoidable, make more visible 'X' on HOLD nozzle. 'X' can be
either spray or masking tape.
1. For nozzle with elbow 45deg, QC must inspect dimension up to flange face.
148 CAR-18-004
2. Dimension shall be record into Dimensional Report
Position of nozzle & support (support lug, skirt, saddle, etc) for replacement unit is crucial due to the existing
piping and structural at site for the existing unit. CAR-18-005
152
For future project for replacement unit, drawing need to be checked by experienced Design Engineer to
minimize mistakes in important dimensions such as nozzle elevation, support lug elevation and orientation.
1. Sub-contractor and QC inspector shall check all the part in miscellaneous BOM with the completed
equipment during internal final inspection and before delivery in order to ensure all the parts are
153 installed. CAR-18-006
2. QC shall come out a checklist report for miscellaneous part of equipment to report all the part are in
place and documented in the project folder.
1. Design drawing shall have column for flange rating, whereby a row of nozzle details shall be of CAR-18-007
same flange rating. A different flange rating (if any) on same vessel will be shown on different row.
154 2. Revised QC inspection form ‘Dimensional (Nozzle) Fit-Up Inspection Report’ to include a column to
check and identify flange class rating. This form is used during fit-up of nozzles to vessels body,
prior to welding works.
1. To send complaint letter to forging vendor, FNF Co. Ltd. CAR-18-008
155
2. To perform on-site machining to ensure even surface.
 1. For equipment internal part, QC inspector shall check if all the required internal support is installed CAR-18-009
as per latest revision drawing; (1) before final visual inspection and (2) before packing.
156
2. QC shall come out a checklist report for internal part of equipment to report all the part are in place
and compile inside MDR manual.
1. Client request for bolt replacement with suitable cap screw material to avoid further corrosion issue CAR-18-010
149 for 3ACF vessels.
2. JSB shall provide the suitable SA197 GrB8 material to site for the replacement.
Equipment list format was revised and incorporated with more information such as estimated working CAR-18-011
duration in month, equipment information, contractor team, gantt / bar chart, manpower requirement, target
completion and delivery date, etc. The simplified and compacted equipment list shall consider asone of the
Delivery information list to be share with operation team whenever there’s the new project in fortnightly basis. It’s
Analysis more easier for project supervisor to overall monitor and keep tracking the progress for all on-going projects.
Project supervisors identified are referring to Kelvin and Wai Heng.

Weekly operation meeting using equipment list as presentation material will be remained as usual.
 Product Delivery Vs Client Complaint from Year 2005-2018

Year Total Delivery Equip. CCF Base on Delivery

1st half 195 0

2005 2nd Half 237 3

Total 432 3

1st half 45 3

2006 2nd Half 144 8

Total 189 11

1st half 291 5

2007 2nd Half 187 4

Total 478 9

1st half 88 4

2008 2nd Half 131 3

Total 219 7

1st half 177 7

2009 2nd Half 127 6

Total 304 13

1st half 70 2

2010 2nd Half 78 7

Total 148 9

1st half 106 7

2011 2nd Half 124 5

Total 230 12

1st half 146 5

2012 2nd Half 206 10

Total 352 15

1st half 236 4

2013 2nd Half 22 3

Total 258 7
 1st half 254 4

2014 2nd Half 153 3

Total 407 7

1st half 108 6

2015 2nd half 126 4

Total 234 10

1st half 157 4

2016 2nd half 101 5

Total 258 9

1st half 61 10

2017 2nd half 158 3

Total 219 13

1st half 112 11

2018 2nd half 207 9

Total 319 20

Year Total Qty Client Complaint Percentage (%)

2007 478 9 1.88
2008 219 7 3.20
2009 304 13 4.28
2010 148 9 6.08
2011 230 12 5.22
2012 352 15 4.26
2013 258 7 2.71
2014 407 7 1.72
2015 234 10 4.27
2016 258 9 3.49
2017 219 13 5.94
2018 319 20 6.27

Year 2007 Product Delivery Vs Client Year 2008 Product Delivery Vs Client
Complaint Complaint
2% Total Qty Client Complaint Total Qty Client Complaint
3%

97%
98%
Year 2009 Product Delivery Vs Client Complaint Year 2010 Product Delivery Vs Client
Complaint
4% Total Qty Client Complaint Total Qty Client Complaint
6%

96%
94%

Year 2011 Product Delivery Vs Client Complaint Year 2012 Product Delivery Vs Client
Complaint
5% Total Qty Client Complaint Total Qty Client Complaint
4%

95%
96%

Year 2013 Product Delivery Vs Client Complaint Year 2014 Product Delivery Vs Client
3% Complaint
Total Qty Client Complaint 2% Total Qty Client Complaint

97%
98%

Year 2015 Product Delivery Vs Client Complaint Year 2016 Product Delivery Vs Client
Complaint
4% Total Qty Client Complaint Total Qty Client Complaint
3%

96%
97%

Year 2017 Product Delivery Vs Client Complaint Year 2018 Product Delivery Vs Client
Complaint
5% Total Qty Client Complaint Total Qty Client Complaint
10%

95%
95%
Summary of Client Complaint Mode

No Category of Complaint 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Total
Summary of Client Complaint Mode
1 2 1 Delay - Product
1 Delay - Product 0 0 0
0
5 14
2 Delay - Drawing / Documentation 0 2 Delay - Drawing /
Documentation
3 Quality - Product 9 12 15 7 7 6 5 6 13 80
3 Quality - Product
4 Quality - Drawing / Documentation 2 3 5
5 Customer Services 0 4 Quality - Drawing /
Documentation
6 Delivery Issue (Packing, Correctness, etc) 2 4 5 3 14 80
5 Customer Services
7 Invalid Complaint 1 1
8 Others 2 2 6 Delivery Issue (Packing,
Correctness, etc)
Total 9 12 15 7 7 10 9 13 20 102
7 Invalid Complaint

Remark: The highest category of complaint is Quality - Product. 8 Others

Summary of Quality Product In Years

Summary of Quality Product in Years
No Category of Complaint 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Total
1 Leakage
1 Leakage 1 2 0 1 4 4
37
7 2 Wrong Orientation
2 Wrong Orientation 1 1 1 0 4 7
6
3 Rusty 1 1 1 1 0 0 1 1 6 3 Rusty

4 Out of Alignment 1 4 1 3 1 0 3 13 4 Out of Alignment

13
5
5 Welding Quality 2 3 1 0 1 1 2 10
10 5 Welding Quality
6 Installation 1 1 1 0 1 1 5
7 Others 3 6 6 5 3 6 2 4 2 37 6 Installation

8 Total 9 12 15 7 7 8 5 6 13 82 7 Others

Summary of Quality Product In Month For The Year Of 2011

No Category of Complaint Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total Summary of Quality Product In Month For The Year of 2011
1 Leakage
1 Leakage 0
2 Wrong Orientation
2 Wrong Orientation 0
0 00
2 3 Rusty
3 Rusty 1 1 1 1
4 Out of Alignment 2 1 1 1 4 Out of Alignment
5
2
5 Welding Quality 1 1 5 Welding Quality

6 Installation 0 6 Installation
1 5
7 Materials Defects 0 7 Materials Defects
00
8 Painting 1 1 2 8 Painting
9 Missing Components 1 1
9 Missing Components
10 Bolt & Nut out of specification 0
10 Bolt & Nut out of
11 Others 1 1 2 specification
11 Others
12 Total 0 0 1 2 4 0 1 1 2 1 0 0 12
Summary of Quality Product In Month For The Year Of 2012

No Category of Complaint Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total
Summary of Quality Product In Month For The Year of 2012
1 Leakage
1 Leakage 1 1 2
2 Wrong Orientation
2 Wrong Orientation 1 1 2
0 3 Rusty
4
3 Rusty 0 2
2
1 4 Out of Alignment
4 Out of Alignment 1 1 2 2
5 Welding Quality 1 1 0 5 Welding Quality
2
6 Installation 1 1 6 Installation
6 1
7 Materials Defects 6 6 1 7 Materials Defects
8 Painting 1 1 8 Painting
9 Missing Components 1 1 2
9 Missing Components
10 Bolt & Nut out of specification 0
10 Bolt & Nut out of
11 Others 1 1 1 1 4 specification
11 Others
12 Total 1 1 7 2 0 0 1 2 2 2 0 3 21

Summary of Quality Product In Month For The Year Of 2013

No Category of Complaint Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total Summary of Quality Product In Month For The Year of 2013
1 Leakage
1 Leakage 0
2 Wrong Orientation
2 Wrong Orientation 0 0
0 0
3 Rusty 0 3 Rusty
3 0
1
4 Out of Alignment 1 1 0 4 Out of Alignment
0
5 Welding Quality 0 5 Welding Quality
1
6 Installation 0 6 Installation
7 Materials Defects 0
2 7 Materials Defects
0
8 Painting 1 1
8 Painting
9 Missing Components 1 1 2
9 Missing Components
10 Bolt & Nut out of specification 0
10 Bolt & Nut out of
11 Others 1 1 1 3 specification
12 Total 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 7 11 Others

Summary of Quality Product In Month For The Year Of 2014

No Category of Complaint Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total Summary of Quality Product In Month For The Year of 2014
1 Leakage 0 1 Leakage
0 0 2 Wrong Orientation
2 Wrong Orientation 0
0 0
3 Rusty 0 1 3 Rusty
1
4 Out of Alignment 1 1 2 4 Out of Alignment
2
5 Welding Quality 0 1 5 Welding Quality

6 Installation 1 1 6 Installation
7 Materials Defects 1 1 1 1 7 Materials Defects
8 Painting 1 1 8 Painting
0
9 Missing Components 1 1
9 Missing Components
10 Bolt & Nut out of specification 0
10 Bolt & Nut out of
11 Others 1 1 specification
11 Others
12 Total 0 0 0 0 1 3 0 0 0 1 1 1 7
Summary of Quality Product In Month For The Year Of 2015
Remarks: For Year 2015, two categories of complaint was included because noticed that this is the highest complaints categories from client for this year.

No Category of Complaint Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total Summary of Quality Product In Month For The Year of 2015
1 Leakage 0 1 Leakage
2 Wrong Orientation 1 1 2 Wrong Orientation
0
3 Rusty 1 1 2 3 Rusty
1
1
4 Out of Alignment 1 1 4 Out of Alignment
1
5 Welding Quality 0
5 Welding Quality
6 Installation 0 1 6 Installation
7 Materials Defects 0 3
1 7 Materials Defects
8 Painting 1 1
0 8 Painting
9 Missing Components 0 0
0 9 Missing Components
10 Bolt & Nut out of specification 0
00 10 Bolt & Nut out of specification
11 Equipment Internal Cleanliness & Installation ** 2 1 3
11 Equipment Internal Cleanliness &
12 Damaged on Gasket Contact Face ** 1 1 Installation **
12 Damaged on Gasket Contact
13 Others 2 2 Face **
13 Others
14 Total 3 1 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 10

Summary of Quality Product In Month For The Year Of 2016

No Category of Complaint Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total Summary of Quality Product In Month For The Year of 2016
1 Leakage 0 1 Leakage
2 Wrong Orientation 0 2 Wrong Orientation
3 Rusty 0 3 Rusty
0
2
4 Out of Alignment 1 1 1 4 Out of Alignment
1
5 Welding Quality 1 1 2
1 5 Welding Quality
6 Installation 1 1
6 Installation
7 Wrong Material 1 1 1
7 Materials Defects
3
8 Painting 1 1
1 8 Painting
9 Missing Components 0
0 9 Missing Components
10 Bolt & Nut out of specification 0 0
0 10 Bolt & Nut out of specification
11 Equipment Internal Cleanliness & Installation 0 00
11 Equipment Internal Cleanliness &
12 Damaged on Gasket Contact Face 0 Installation **
12 Damaged on Gasket Contact
13 Others 1 2 3 Face **
13 Others
14 Total 1 0 1 2 0 0 0 1 0 3 0 1 9
Summary of Quality Product In Month For The Year Of 2017
Remarks: Due to 'Out of Alignment' is the highest among the years, thus this Category of Complaint shall further breakdown into details for continuous improvement.

No Category of Complaint Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total Summary of Quality Product In Month For The Year of 2017
1 Leakage 0 1 Leakage
2 Wrong Orientation / Projection / Elevation 0 2 Wrong Orientation
0
3 Rusty 1 1 2
1 3 Rusty
1
4 Internal ring or tray mismatch 0 4 Out of Alignment
1
5 Incorrectness of platform bracket / mismatch 0 5 Welding Quality
6 Wrong / Mismatch of anchor bolt hole and location 0 1 6 Installation
3
7 Welding Quality 1 1 7 Materials Defects
1
8 Installation 1 1 0 8 Painting
0
9 Materials Defects 0 0
9 Missing Components
10 Painting 0 00 10 Bolt & Nut out of specification
11 Missing Components 0 11 Equipment Internal Cleanliness &
Installation **
12 Bolt & Nut out of specification 0 12 Damaged on Gasket Contact
Face **
13 Equipment Internal Cleanliness & Installation 2 2 13 Others
14 Damaged on Gasket Contact Face 0
15 Others 1 1
16 Total 2 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 6

Summary of Quality Product In Month For The Year Of 2018

No Category of Complaint Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total Summary of Quality Product In Month For The Year of 2017
1 Leakage 0 1 Leakage
2 Wrong Orientation / Projection / Elevation 1 2 1 4 2 Wrong Orientation
0
3 Rusty 1 1 2
1 3 Rusty
1
4 Internal ring or tray mismatch 0 4 Out of Alignment
1
5 Incorrectness of platform bracket / mismatch 2 2 5 Welding Quality
6 Wrong / Mismatch of anchor bolt hole and location 0 1 6 Installation
3
7 Welding Quality 1 1 7 Materials Defects
1
8 Installation 0 0 8 Painting
0
9 Materials Defects 0 0
9 Missing Components
10 Painting 0 00 10 Bolt & Nut out of specification
11 Missing Components 1 1 11 Equipment Internal Cleanliness &
Installation **
12 Bolt & Nut out of specification 0 12 Damaged on Gasket Contact
Face **
13 Equipment Internal Cleanliness & Installation 0 13 Others
14 Damaged on Gasket Contact Face 0
15 Others 1 1 2 4
16 Total 0 1 0 0 2 2 3 0 2 0 0 3 13
 CUSTOMER SATISFACTION SURVEY REPORT JUTASAMA SDN. BHD.
(YEAR : 2018 ) Page 1 of 2
SUMMARY OF CUSTOMER SATISFACTION SURVEY RATING

Drawing&Document

Client Workstations
Handling Customer
Drawing/Document

Courteousness of

Discussion Room

Internet Facilities
Reducing Quality

Product Delivery

Product Packing
Product Quality

Delivery (as per

Our Initiative In

Correctness of
Promptness In

Promptness In

Promptness In

Friendliness &

Timeliness of
Knowledge &
Timeliness In
ation Quality

Telephone &
Answering

IT Support

Average Point
Technical

Meeting /
Replying

Total
A1

A2

A3

B1

B2

B3

B4

B5

C1

C2

C3

C4

D1

D2

D3

D4
<2
Palm Oleo 3 4 3 3 4 3 3 4 4 3 4 3 3 3 3 3 53 3.31
Emerson Nilai 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 4 5 4 4 4 4 74 4.63
Fuji Filter 3 3 4 5 5 5 5 5 4 4 4 5 4 4 4 4 68 4.25
Thyssenkrupp 4 4 4 5 5 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 66 4.13
PT Musim Mas 4 5 4 4 5 4 4 5 5 5 5 4 4 4 4 3 69 4.31
JJ-Lurgi 4 4 4 5 5 4 5 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 67 4.19
MPI Polyester 4 4 4 5 5 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 66 4.13
Total 27 29 28 32 34 29 30 31 30 28 29 29 27 27 27 26 463 28.94
Average Point 3.38 3.63 3.50 4.00 4.25 3.63 3.75 3.88 3.75 3.50 3.63 3.63 3.38 3.38 3.38 3.25
Rating : Unsatisfactory (1), Poor (2), Average (3), Good (4), Excellent (5)
Customer Satisfaction Survey Chart
(by category)
5.00
4.00
3.00
Point

2.00
1.00
0.00
A1 A2 A3 B1 B2 B3 B4 B5 C1 C2 C3 C4 D1 D2 D3 D4
Average Point
Group

Customer Satisfaction Survey Chart

(by customer)
5.00
4.00
3.00
Point

2.00
1.00
0.00
Palm Oleo

PT Musim
Emerson

Fuji Filter

Thyssenkru

JJ-Lurgi

Polyester
Nilai

MPI
Mas
pp

Group
Below Average (<2) = 0 question(s) Below Average (<2) = 0 customer(s)
Average to Good (2 < x < 3) = 0 question(s) Average to Good (2 < x < 3) = 0 customer(s)
Good to Excellent (= 3 / > 3) = 12 question(s) Good to Excellent ( = 3 / > 3) = 7 customer(s)
Comparison of Customer Satisfaction Survey Report
ANALYSIS OF CUSTOMER SURVEY SATISFACTION

Description Year 2018 Year 2017 Year 2016 Year 2015 Year 2014 Year 2013
No. of feedback from 7 8 10 13 13 12
Customer
No. of Customer, 20 23 25 25 20 20
Surveyed
% of Customer 35.00% 34.78% 40.00% 52.00% 65.00% 60.00%
Feedback
Customer given the Emerson Nilai Synthomer Gemwater (1) Toyo Engineering & (1) JGC Corporation, Toray Plastcis (M) Sdn.
highest average Construction Sdn. Bhd. Japan Bhd.
point (2) Lion Eco Chemicals (2) Toray Plastics (M)
Sdn. Bhd. Sdn. Bhd.
(3) Synerlitz (Malaysia)
Sdn. Bhd.
Highest Rating by 4.63 4.63 4.07 4.25 5.00 5.00
Customer
Customer given the Palm Oleo Sumitomo Chemical Frames & FPG PT Asahimas Chemicals Pall Filtration Pte. Ltd. JJ-Lurgi Engineering
lowest average point Engineering Japan Oleochemical Sdn. Bhd.
Lowest Rating by 3.31 3.08 3.00 3.00 2.58 3.08
Customer
Highest category Promptness In Friendliness & Friendliness & Friendliness & Friendliness & Friendliness &
Answering Courteousness of Courteousness of Our Courteousness of Our Courteouness of Our Courteouness of Our
Telephone Call Our Staff Staff Staff Staff Staff
Lowest category Client Workstations Promptness In Handling Timeliness of Drawing & Timeliness of Drawing & Timeliness of Drawing & Timeliness in Product
Customer Complaint,
Timeliness in Product Document Submission Document Submission Document Submission Delivery
Delivery, Drawing &
Document
Total Average Points 28.94 31.13 32.31 48.75 54.54 48.09

Average Point for the 4.13 3.89 3.51 3.75 4.20 4.01
whole year of survey

Customer Satisfaction Average Points Throughout The Years

3
Point

0
Year 2017 Year 2016 Year 2015 Year 2014 Year 2013

Years
 CUSTOMER SATISFACTION SURVEY REPORT JUTASAMA SDN. BHD.
(YEAR : 2018 ) Page 2 of 2
Summary
No of feedback from Customer = 8 BY CUSTOMER
No. of Customer, Surveyed = 20 Highest Rating = 4.63 Emerson Nilai
Lowest Rating = 3.31 Palm Oleo

Prepared by: BY CATEGORY

WH Tuen Highest Rating = 4.25 Promptness In Answering Telephone Call/

30/12/2018 Lowest Rating = 3.25 Client Workstations

Comments Feedback from Client

No Client Comments
Good management on project and manage to deliver on time. Overall giving
1 Emerson Nilai
fast response on HIPPS Demo Project

We were happy to work with JUTASAMA team. But, it is regrettable that the
drawings needed revisions many times just before shipment because there
were mismatch between the drawing and the product. We hope it wont
2 Fuji Filter
happen again at the time of the next project. Despite this, we appreciate very
much JUTASAMA support and coorporation and hope to work with you again
very near future

Improve design team and manpower. Internet facility cannot connect with
3 Thyssenkrupp
internet wifi block

It was pleasant experience working with Jutasama, a company with dynamic,

4 PT Musim Mas
responsive and technically sounded team