32
rent
156. In response to my enquiries, the Director of Territory Development informed me that it was unfortunate in this case that, contrary to normal practice, minutes of meetings had not been taken to establish a clear understanding of decisions taken and it appeared that there was inadequate co-ordination between the engineers dealing with aspects of the contract. The Director also informed me that, owing to a change of staff before tendering, the engineer responsible for vetting the contract documents was not made aware of the true intention of the Government. The Director however expressed the view that had provision been made in the contract documents for the equipment to be removed by the Government, the contractor's tendered sum would probably have been increased by $950,000 but as he would still have been the lowest tenderer, he most probably would have been awarded the contract. The Director stated that in view of the difference between the auctioned value of the equipment ($370,000) and the credit value certified by the consultants ($950,000), he was reviewing the consultants' assessment of the claim. The Director has issued an instruction to remind all project engineers, architects and consultants to pay particular attention to the need for keeping records of meetings and the need for a more precise specification in the contract documents for the disposal of equipment.
Audit Department,
Hong Kong,
15 October 1986.
N. B. STALKER
Director of Audit
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.