platform by the Railway Division and the same extent of site investigation was carried out for each project. The Universi tion was the only project which required a redesign and this was caused by the exceptionally heavy rain during construction.
With regard to the failure to comply with the prescribed procedures requiring the submission of the design of civil works for geotechnical checking, I have been informed by the Railway Division that virtually no railway work was submitted to the Geotechnical Control Office at that time because of pressure of work and staff shortages and the Director of Engineering Development has also explained that in this particular case the works involved in the raising of the platform level were considered to be of a very minor nature, that the works had to be completed within a very tight schedule and that the staff concerned had a heavy workload. The Director has agreed with the validity of my recommendation that submission of design proposals for geotechnical checking in accordance with prescribed procedures should be carried out at the earliest possible opportunity to prevent possible abortive works and the necessity to carry out remedial works, and that the prescribed procedures should be amended to state explicitly the timing of submissions to enable necessary geotechnical checking to be carried out before tendering. The Secretary for Lands and Works has recently advised me that the technical circular on geotechnical submissions is currently under review.
201. Head 705 – Engineering. Subhead 5015 DR. Incinerator and departmental quarters at Kwai Chung. The final account for the civil works contract for the Kwai Chung incinerator plant which included claims amounting to $4.2 million arising primarily from delays was settled in March 1984. Delays also occurred in the plant contract completed earlier, and claims from the plant contractor were settled at $2.9 million. An audit review to ascertain the reasons for the delays in completion of the contracts and for the contractors' claims revealed that there were deficiencies in the project management, in the co-ordination of the plant and civil works and in the contract documentation.
202. The Electrical and Mechanical Services Department (previously the Electrical and Mechanical Office of the Engineering Development Department) was responsible for the overall financial control of the project and for the administration of the contracts for the incinerator plant and building services, whilst the Civil Engineering Office of the Engineering Development Department, through its consultants, was responsible for the design and management of contracts for the associated civil engineering and building works. The plant contract was awarded to an overseas contractor on a turnkey basis and provided for the design, manufacture, delivery, erection and commissioning of the plant. The civil works contract was awarded to a local contractor. The overseas contractor carried out the design work in his office in the United Kingdom and normally liaised with the Civil Engineering Office in Hong Kong through the consultants' office in the United Kingdom. The nature of these arrangements required good co-ordination through all stages of the project, in particular during the construction stage as the erection of the plant could not commence until the civil works directly associated with the plant were completed. Unfortunately the co-ordination was less than satisfactory. There was a total delay of 37 months in the completion of the project and a substantial part of the claims totalling $7.1 million resulted primarily from the less than satisfactory co-ordination.
203. Following the audit review I made a number of recommendations to the Director of Electrical and Mechanical Services and the Director of Engineering Development, highlighting in particular the problems of co-ordination in the Kwai Chung incinerator project. I suggested that the project management for similar projects undertaken in future should be reviewed and that the responsibility for project management and co-ordination of the various activities should be clearly defined and agreed at the outset, and in so far as practicable be vested with one single office. I expressed the view that the appointment of a "lead" office as the project manager to oversee the whole project should provide much better co-ordination and avoid unnecessary delays and resultant claims. I quoted as an example the practice adopted by the Water Supplies Department which is a multi-disciplined department where a Chief Engineer normally assumes the role of project manager (and Engineer under the terms of each contract) for a project such as a treatment works project which involves both civil and plant contracts. I pointed out that the Kwai Chung incinerator project was the type of case the Technical Audit Unit of the Public Works Department was referring to when it made a recommendation as far back as 1968 concerning the building up of a special "Team" or "Section" for projects involving multi-engineering or multi-works disciplines. I also pointed out that this was another example which justified the concern expressed by the Public Accounts Committee in their general conclusions and recommendations at paragraph 7.1 of their Seventh Report, over the problems of co-ordination which could arise where several departments or agencies were involved in a single project or programme area. The Committee stressed the need in such cases for a "lead" department to be designated, and for financial responsibility to be aligned with administrative and executive responsibility as it seemed to the Committee that this was the only way to ensure both effective management and proper accountability.
204. In reply, the Director of Electrical and Mechanical Services has stated that he has noted my suggestions which will be taken into account in managing future projects. The Director of Engineering Development has however expressed reservations as to whether the appointment of a single office as the project manager would be of much benefit because, in the case of the Kwai Chung incinerator project, this would not have affected the differences in opinion held by the different offices which caused some delays. The Director expressed the view that the solution lies in better contract documentation and regular inter-departmental meetings at both planning and construction stages, which the Director states the works departments now have. The Director also expressed the view that the question of the appointment of a "lead" office or department is primarily a policy issue. I have accordingly referred the matter to the Secretary for Lands and Works for his comments and a reply is awaited.
37