145
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
Date:
Time:
Reporter:
26.11.86
8.30 12.15 p.m.
MEP
any compensation from the contractor?
D of Ar. S: As in paragraph 144, the response to Director of Audit, we already explained that there have been
mitigating circumstances as far as the contractor is concerned,
(a) because he requested guidance with negative responses as it were and also he is allowed to proceed without challenge, and in the circumstances, it was therefore considered that the proceeding against the contractor would be very difficult to be successful. Nevertheless, the contractor is deducted part of in other words agreed to share
--
part of the blame and money deducted from them, and don't forget
at the time, the sub-structure contractor
——
we are dealing with
the sub-structure contractor we already had the super-structure contractor on site. Work was progressing and we have to deal with the situation as quickly, as practically, as cheaply as possible, so that we don't get ourselves into a more difficult situation
with the super-structure. I think this is
MR CHUNG:
To take action is one matter, to have mitigating factors is another. I don't know whether the deduction of money
from the contractor would be sufficient to cover all the losses
suffered by the Government.
23
24
D of Ar. S:
That is true, but the only way to pursue
25
that situation is to go to arbitration.
26
27
MR CHUNG:
Yes. There is another question about
28
29
whether the waterproofing works scheduled to start in the late 1986 will resolve the water leakage problem in the future.
30
31
D of Ar. S:
It will. It will resolve the water
32
leakage problem in the future.
33
34
MR CHUNG:
But you mentioned that there is no
35 guarantee and further public funds may be expended in this connection.
36
Page 210Page 211
146
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.