The Director said that the consultants were no longer on the list of consultants from which appointments were made. 7.10 The Director said that the investigation report had said that there were mitigating circumstances in the case of the substructure contractor. The contractor's requests for guidance had not been met. He had been allowed to proceed with the substructure works without challenge. By the time the need for remedial works had become apparent the superstructure contractor had been on site. The situation had to be dealt with as quickly, practically and cheaply as possible to avoid difficulty for the superstructure contractor. The substructure contractor had agreed to share part of the blame and cost, although the amount of money recovered had not covered all the losses by the Government. It would have been very difficult to take successful legal proceedings against the substructure contractor.
7.11 The Director said that immediately after the problem had occurred, comprehensive procedures had been instituted to deal with similar situations in future. This case had highlighted the need for his Department to be vigilant in checking the performance of consultants and contractors. Their performance was now very carefully assessed and recorded in confidential reports. Disciplinary procedures had also been instituted for use where appropriate.
7.12 The Director said that the remedial works to provide an internal waterproof tanking system were in progress. They were expected to be completed in March 1987. The cost was $1.1 million. The remedial works would keep the facilities dry using an internal shell. However, there could be no guarantee that there would be no leakage. Water could still enter via the structure. However, the remedial works should control the problem. He hoped that expenditure in future would be confined to normal maintenance.
7.13 Discussion on this matter was then adjourned in order to give the consultants an opportunity to appear before the Committee.
7.14 Second hearing. (A written submission was made by the consultants prior to the hearing). The consultants expressed surprise at a statement made by the Director of Architectural Services at the first hearing concerning their exclusion from the approved list of architectural consultants. A consultancy practice of the highest professional standing in Hong Kong for over thirty-five years had been publicly condemned without having been heard. This was an abuse of the Public Accounts Committee's immunity under the Powers and Privileges Ordinance. In view of the consultants' written submission, the Director of Architectural Services should review his statement.
7.15 The consultants said that the water leakage was due to honeycombing in the concrete. This was due to extremely poor workmanship, and not wrong specifications.
7.16 The consultants had always maintained that if their specifications had been followed there would have been no leaks. This kind of waterproof concreting was commonly used in basements of large buildings in Hong Kong. The alternative of tanking proposed by the contractor was unrealistic because it would have been very expensive and the whole building would have had to be redesigned. A change of specification would also have shifted responsibility for the waterproofing workmanship to the consultants since this would have amounted to an admission by the consultants that the original specifications were in some way wrong. When a tender was awarded the contractor was committed totally to producing a building in accordance with the specifications. If the contractor had had doubts at the tender stage he could have put in a proviso suggesting an alternative method. But he had not.
7.17 The consultants had insisted upon a continuous pouring of concrete for the entire height of the perimeter walls. They did not agree that this method of concreting was difficult in practice. It was for the contractor to arrange his work to make sure that the concrete delivery was not interrupted in the middle of a pour. The consultants did not have any record that the Clerk of Works had reported that the contractor had not ensured continuous concrete delivery. Nor did the consultants' records show that any instructions had been issued to the contractor to construct the substructure in a particular manner and sequence.
7.18 The consultants said that they had performed general supervision to the extent required by the conditions of the Royal Institute of British Architects and the regulations of the Hong Kong Government. The consultants had relied on the Government's Clerk of Works to carry out constant supervision on day to day matters. However the consultants had still had an overriding supervisory responsibility to ensure that constant supervision had in fact been carried out. The consultants had employed a senior clerk of works who had carried out occasional supervisory duties on the site. The consultants had also employed a structural engineer and a project architect who had been on call in the event of any problems notified by the Clerk of Works. Regular weekly meetings had been held with the Architectural Office. The site had been quite tightly supervised.
7.19 The consultants said that the Clerk of Works' responsibility had been to record and monitor the progress of the works and to draw to their attention any defects or problems. However, it might have been difficult for the Clerk of Works to observe whether or not the concreting was being properly carried out. Bad concrete work could not be discovered until the formwork had been removed and the job examined. It was at that stage that honeycombing in the concrete had been found. In consultation with the Architectural Office, the consultants had instructed the contractor to take remedial measures to rectify the defective concrete, including the demolition and reconstruction of one of the walls. 7.20 The consultants said that in the building industry by tradition and in law contractors were entirely responsible for workmanship and materials. There should have been no need to seek guidance from the consultants. Consultants had to be very careful when a contractor sought guidance. If they had been too involved later the contractor could have said later that the consultants had taken upon themselves responsibilities which essentially lay with the contractor. The consultants were responsible for the design, for liaison between the contractor and the employer, and for taking a view as to whether or not the job was proceeding along the lines of the specifications. The consultants' responsibility did not necessarily include day to day supervision in circumstances when the employer had supplied a clerk of works. It was the contractor's responsibility to make sure that the finished job conformed to the contract specifications. A certain degree of trust had to be placed on the contractor.
21
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.