          !"                  !   " # $ !  %&’# ( ! ) % *#  + +", - Centre for Project and Facilities Management (CPFM), Faculty of the Built Environment, University of Malaya. Malaysia Corresponding authors: msuhaimi@um.edu.my 1 , ehsan@um.edu.my 2 , arhamzah@um.edu.my 3 , saipolbari@um.edu.my, lpliew@yahoo.com %./0/ Under the contract and at common law, the Superintendent generally has two duties, firstly, as an agent to the employer and secondly, as a certifier. In construction contracts there is (at least) an implied term that even though the Superintendent is usually appointed and paid by the Employer, the Superintendent will act fairly and independent when exercising his duty as a certifier. This paper aims to investigate the Contractors’ perception towards the impartiality of superintendent when performing his or her duties as certifier. In order to investigate this issue, a questionnaire study was conducted on a sample of Contractors. From the findings, superintendent’s failure to act fairly and impartially in performing his or her duties is mainly attributed to undue influence by the Employer. This paper also includes findings on area of claims which superintendent usually finds difficult to arrive at a fair decision. This paper suggests some recommendations to improve the current practice in relation to the employment of superintendent.      