142
1
26.11.86
8.30 - 12.15 p.m.
Date:
Time:
Reporter:
MEP
CHAIRMAN:
Additional or
2
3
4
5
6
D of Ar. S :
Additional, so we are talking about a
saving, you know, comparing like with like, waterproofing, a saving of $2.8 million. It is not $2 million wasted, but it is $2.8 million
we save. You could look at it that way.
7
8
CHAIRMAN:
I cannot understand that logic at all.
9
We have had the problem for six years.
10
11
D of Ar. S:
Sorry. We have to
1
can I go back. If
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
223
22
23
24
25
2 2 2 2 2
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
we decided to build the basement with rock asphalt tanking, the project would have been $4.8 million extra. More than what it should have been, but this is bringing the cost level up to the cost up to the time of the cost we spent on the remedial work. All right. takes longer to build. It takes at least six months longer to build to complete the whole project, and you lose 325 sq. metres space in the building. I mean that is the situation.
It
CHAIRMAN:
Well, if what you are saying is right
D of Ar. S: I think it is right.
CHAIRMAN:
what do you call it
without leak or not, you put it inside this internal waterproof tanking system.
D of Ar. S : It would have been inside remedial work.
--
I have to agree
I have to admit but on the other hand, had we gone for the tanking, it would have cost Government more money; it takes longer; it has less space and it doesn't also leak might still be coming in because we have experience of other basements. Now with tanking this is another technical point with tanking when the basement with tanking leaks, more problem, because you don't know where the leak comes from with tanking. The leak may appear at one corner of the building and it would appear in another corner of the building, whereas with waterproof concrete you know exactly where
-
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.