134
26.11.86
8.30 am 12.15 pm
appeared that he was responsible, presumably, the contractor,
for the failure of the waterproofing, there were mitigating factors. Now, taking paragraphs 137, 138 and 139 together, there is certainly a very clear case of the lack of performance by the consultants. Now, I simply do not understand why consultants, if they are not performing according to what they are or what they should be performing, that directorate staff like yourself from the PWD or Lands and Works are so afraid of criticising them. Because when Mr Ho was simply saying to you that are you satisfied, on the one hand you are very cagey about the whole thing. That really worries me because we are spending so much money in engaging consultants and even if our directorate staff are afraid of criticising the consultants if they are wrong, then we are in a lot of trouble.
Date:
Time:
Reporter:
CNB
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
D of Ar S: But this is the question: are they 100% wrong?
I mean, we are professionals. This is why we are saying: are they 100% wrong?
MR CHEONG: Mr Lei, professionals is one thing. Fact No 1: the contractors did point out to the consultants that this particular method may not be able to achieve the purpose that it was supposed to achieve. Now, the consultants then said, "Well, no,
it's not in the budget etc, etc."
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
1:
1.
1
1
1
1
25
D of Ar S: No, no, because I think the consultant, from 26 the record, will simply say that this method will work.
27
MR CHEONG: No.
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
Paragraph 137: [Reads]
"The consultants, however, advised the contractor that there was no mention of tanking in either the tender documents or in the drawings and insisted at that stage on the strict adherence to the design and specification
on which the tender was based.
35
D of Ar S: But perhaps this is the consultant he has 36 confidence in his specification, design and specification.