# Worked application: Kim Pong Engineering, Jarvis-assisted integrated ERP

**Refined draft for discovery and review, 2 October 2026; sources reviewed 1 October. Not submitted or approved.**

This packet demonstrates a substantive application structure for EDGE Integrated ERP using a non-pre-approved vendor. Kim Pong's business description is public. Every operating assumption and budget is illustrative. The packet cannot be submitted as factual until the applicant replaces assumptions, confirms the approved-package gap, obtains real quotations and completes its eligibility documents.

Official activity: [Integrated Enterprise Resource Planning](https://www.enterprisesg.gov.sg/financial-support/edge-grant/automation-and-digitalisation/integrated-enterprise-systems/integrated-enterprise-resource-planning). Published assessment time: ten weeks for a non-pre-approved vendor. Publication of that time does not guarantee this application will be approved within it.

Before choosing this route, check Kim Pong's eligibility for the still-open BCA Built Environment PSG and suitable approved packages. BCA's transition to EDGE is scheduled for December 2026. This packet demonstrates the EDGE route; it does not establish why it is preferable to a currently available sector route. [BCA notice](https://www1.bca.gov.sg/grants-and-funded-programmes/built-environment-productivity-solutions-grant/)

## A. Applicant and project identity

| Field | Draft entry / evidence needed |
|---|---|
| Applicant | Kim Pong Engineering Pte Ltd — confirm exact ACRA name |
| UEN | Missing: obtain current business profile |
| Singapore deployment location | Missing: current operational address and tenancy evidence |
| Ownership | Missing: ultimate individual ownership, at least 30% qualifying local ownership |
| SME classification | Missing: group turnover/employment evidence |
| Applicant sponsor | Missing: director and named authorised BGP personnel |
| Process owners | Missing: sales, service operations and finance leads |
| Vendor | CyberG7 Technologies LLP — real quote and capability evidence required |
| Vendor independence | Missing: declare and verify relationships; a commercial client relationship alone must not conceal common ownership/control |
| Prior support and available balance | Missing: confirm no prior application for the same solution and current grant balance |
| Financial readiness | Missing: full project funding, ongoing costs and contingency |
| Project commencement/payment | Confirm neither occurred before submission |

Project title: **Integrated enquiry, service operations and finance platform for ACMV service delivery.**

## B. Applicant-authored business narrative

> Kim Pong Engineering provides ACMV design, installation, maintenance and related commercial services. We propose to integrate customer engagement and sales, core service operations, and finance on one ERP platform. Jarvis will assist staff with intake, draft preparation and follow-up under defined permissions; the ERP will retain the authoritative transaction records.
>
> Our current workflow and handling-time measurements are attached in the baseline schedule. The project will link an enquiry to an approved quote, accepted service order, scheduled job, completion record and invoice draft. The same customer and job identifiers will follow the transaction, reducing repeated entry and allowing the owner to see incomplete work and billing exceptions.
>
> We seek assessment of the selected non-pre-approved solution because the attached comparison establishes that suitable pre-approved packages cannot meet the required functions. Our cost-saving projection identifies its assumptions and supporting records. We will validate the deployed workflow through representative transactions, staff training and documented acceptance before submitting a claim.

The final paragraph is **conditional drafting**. Remove it or change vendor route if discovery does not establish the package gap. Do not assert the baseline is attached until it exists.

## C. Three modules and shared data

| Module | In scope | Data exchanged | Approval owner |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Customer engagement and sales | Approved FAQ response; enquiry intake; customer/opportunity records; quotation drafts; order status | Accepted quote creates a service order and passes customer, site, scope and approved price | Sales lead approves quotes and exceptional promises |
| 2. Core service operations | Asset/site register; maintenance schedule; job allocation; technician completion checklist; service history | Scheduling reads the order; completion passes authorised billable items and evidence to finance | Service lead approves dispatch/exception policy and job completion |
| 3. Finance | Invoice drafts; receivables; payment-status records; management summary | Invoice links to the customer, order and completed job; payment status updates customer-service visibility | Finance owner approves invoice issue and financial treatment |

The platform foundation and licences are **to be selected after discovery**. Supply its product/version, deployment plan, module configuration and data model in the real vendor proposal. The design must genuinely run these three functions on a single ERP platform. A diagram over disconnected applications is insufficient evidence.

WhatsApp is an intake/status channel. Jarvis is the workflow assistant. Neither is counted as a fourth core module to inflate the application. Existing GHL may remain the external lead entry layer if required, with tested reconciliation; only one authoritative ERP customer/order record is used.

Integration specification:

```text
Customer enquiry
 → verified intake and approved knowledge
 → customer + opportunity
 → human-approved quotation
 → accepted order
 → scheduled service job
 → authorised completion evidence
 → invoice draft
 → finance approval and issue
 → payment/exception status for authorised staff
```

## D. Required-function gap: complete before choosing this route

Use the current [SMEs Go Digital ERP listing](https://smesgodigital.gov.sg/web/integrated-enterprise-resource-planning-erp). Obtain written vendor answers wherever a feature is uncertain.

| Necessary requirement | Approved package A | Approved package B | Evidence and consequence |
|---|---|---|---|
| Commercial ACMV site/asset history tied to maintenance orders | Missing | Missing | Vendor response and demonstration required |
| Quote → job completion → invoice with one traceable ID chain | Missing | Missing | Demonstrate actual transaction support |
| Technician completion evidence drives the billable-item draft | Missing | Missing | Avoid manual reconstruction by finance |
| Scoped WhatsApp intake tied to the same ERP record | Missing | Missing | Confirm supported integration and actual boundaries |
| Owner approval tied to the final quoted/invoiced values | Missing | Missing | Show approval model and audit evidence |

These are candidate discovery requirements, not established deficiencies in any approved product. Retain the package names, dated listing, quotations, capability demonstrations and correspondence. If a suitable approved vendor satisfies them, select that route. “CyberG7 has more agents” and “we want a bespoke AI OS” do not establish necessity.

## E. Itemised quotation model

| Proposed line | Quantity / period | Illustrative S$ | Conservative grant model |
|---|---|---:|---|
| Sales/customer engagement software access | Applicant tenant, 12 months | 6,000 | Candidate eligible |
| Core service operations software access | Applicant tenant, 12 months | 8,000 | Candidate eligible |
| Finance software access | Applicant tenant, 12 months | 4,000 | Candidate eligible |
| Deployment, adapter configuration and migration | Defined one-off scope | 6,000 | Exclude pending assessment |
| Training, operating procedures and handover | Defined sessions/deliverables | 2,000 | Exclude pending assessment |
| Maintenance and support | 12 months | 2,400 | Exclude |
| Messaging and model usage allowance | 12 months | 1,200 | Exclude pending assessment |
| Total | | **29,600** | |

Assessed software basis assumed: S$18,000. At an assumed awarded rate of 50%, illustrated support = S$9,000. Client's cost after reimbursement = S$20,600, before GST and other unpriced costs. The usage allowance is an estimate, not an unlimited commitment. Require full upfront capacity; the grant is not a supplier advance.

These figures are a pricing model for discussion, not an offer or platform list price. The vendor quote must explain the actual product entitlement, number of users, usage limits, service term, ownership, hosting allocation and renewal price. Free underlying software must be identified honestly. Do not rename labour, hosting or maintenance to make it appear eligible. Recalculate grant support from the accepted Letter of Offer, and recalculate affordability if support is zero.

## F. One-year benefit worksheet

Required official projection: expected cost savings for one year after completion. The following is a provisional, assumed calculation to demonstrate method.

| Task | Assumed monthly volume | Active minutes before | Active minutes after | Hours recovered/month |
|---|---:|---:|---:|---:|
| Quote and follow-up administration | 400 events | 7 | 3 | 26.67 |
| Scheduling and completion administration | 160 events | 20 | 8 | 32.00 |
| Invoice preparation/reconciliation | 160 events | 15 | 5 | 26.67 |
| Total | | | | **85.33** |

Formula: volume × (before − after) ÷ 60. Use unrounded totals for calculations.

At an assumed loaded S$28/hour: **S$28,672/year of capacity value**. No payroll reduction is assumed. This must not be submitted as cash cost savings without a real cost reduction or defensible productive redeployment.

Example realisation plan, **only if evidence supports it**:

| Use of recovered hours | Assumed use | Annual effect | Evidence needed |
|---|---|---:|---|
| Avoid overtime already being incurred | 40 hours/month × S$35/hour | S$16,800 cost avoided | Payroll/time records and director's staffing plan |
| Fulfil existing unserved work with freed staff capacity | 16 hours/month × S$75 contribution/hour | S$14,400 incremental contribution | Actual backlog, staffing capacity and contribution calculation |
| Remaining capacity | 29.33 hours/month | No monetary claim | Named process improvement tasks |

The realised-benefit scenario totals S$31,200/year; it is **not additive to S$28,672**. They are alternative valuations of the same hours. Revenue/contribution is separate from the required cost-saving figure. Do not count overtime avoided if it was never paid, or backlog contribution if demand does not exist.

Software, maintenance and usage renewal in this example is S$21,600/year. Compare that to evidenced recurring benefit. At S$31,200 realised annual benefit, the 24-month no-grant surplus is S$11,200 and steady-state recovery of S$8,000 implementation is ten months, excluding delays and financing. A 50% haircut to realised benefit gives S$15,600/year and a S$20,000 two-year shortfall; a 50% haircut to time savings produces only S$14,336 capacity value/year. Both stress scenarios fail renewal economics. This sensitivity should change scope or pricing rather than disappear from the proposal.

Required baseline evidence: two representative weeks of timestamps and time studies, sample quote/job/invoice chains, rework log, volume reconciliation, loaded-rate basis and the applicant's endorsed realisation plan. Treat waiting time and active labour separately. Do not extrapolate peak-week volumes uncritically.

## G. Implementation after the funding decision

Illustrative eight-week delivery after approval, within the awarded project period:

| Milestone | Weeks | Deliverables and acceptance |
|---|---|---|
| Validate detailed process and clean data | 1–2 | Owners sign data fields, approval limits and migration totals |
| Configure three ERP functions | 3–4 | Module walkthrough and connected sandbox transactions |
| Integrate WhatsApp/Jarvis | 5 | Scoped intake, action approval, retry and error handling |
| Pilot and train | 6–7 | Representative jobs; staff attendance; baseline comparison |
| Stabilise and hand over | 8 | UAT sign-off, deployment identifier, operator runbook and recovery drill |

No project work/payment before submission. This example waits for approval before implementation. The official ERP completion window is eighteen months from approval; supported software is capped at twelve months. Final Letter of Offer dates govern. Scope/vendor changes are not casually interchangeable: this ERP page only permits changes to project-end and claim-due dates. [Integrated ERP terms](https://www.enterprisesg.gov.sg/financial-support/edge-grant/automation-and-digitalisation/integrated-enterprise-systems/integrated-enterprise-resource-planning)

## H. UAT and business acceptance

1. Twenty representative transactions traverse sales, service completion and invoice draft with matching identifiers and amounts.
2. Repeat, delayed and failed webhook tests create no duplicate billable records; errors remain visible and recoverable.
3. Unapproved quotations/invoices remain drafts; the final action is bound to the approved values.
4. Customer status views reveal only authorised records; role tests prevent cross-client and inappropriate finance access.
5. All agreed unknown-price, complaint and safety cases reach a named human; human takeover suppresses further automated replies.
6. At least 80% of eligible pilot jobs use the process in the final two weeks, with at least 20% reduction in active handling time against the matched baseline.
7. Backup restoration, automated-reply shutdown and human fallback are demonstrated without losing transaction history.

The thresholds above are proposed CyberG7/client acceptance criteria, not official guaranteed-award thresholds. Go-live requires sign-off by sales, service operations, finance and the authorised client sponsor. Any critical factual, financial or access-control failure blocks it.

## I. Submission and claim evidence index

The ERP claim is a single final claim after all approved deliverables are complete and paid in full. The portal accepts ERP claims from 1 November 2026; this project's own readiness depends on its awarded timeline. Payment follows claim assessment and approval. [EDGE FAQ](https://www.enterprisesg.gov.sg/resources/all-faqs/edge-grant)

| Document | Status | Owner |
|---|---|---|
| Applicant eligibility/location/relationship documents | Missing | SME |
| Vendor quotation, detailed scope and costs | This model; actual signed quote missing | CyberG7/vendor |
| Three-module deployment/integration proposal | Design draft; platform/configuration confirmation missing | CyberG7 |
| One-year cost-saving projection | Assumed worksheet; baseline evidence missing | SME with CyberG7 support |
| Approved-package comparison | Empty; required-function gap unverified | SME/CyberG7 |
| Data processing, security, approvals and support terms | Missing | Both parties |
| Final application and declarations | Not submitted | Authorised SME BGP personnel |
| Letter of Offer and accepted conditions | Not issued | SME |
| Deployed-system image and unique identifier | Future completion evidence | Both parties |
| UAT/training/benefit evidence | Future completion evidence | Process owners |
| Itemised invoices and full payment records | Future claim evidence | SME finance |

CyberG7 supplies a defensible delivery proposal; it does not apply, pay or claim on the SME's behalf. The applicant keeps the funding decision, authorised access and declarations. A complete, accurate dossier gives the assessor something concrete to evaluate. It cannot substitute for eligible facts or an approved Letter of Offer.