Page 172 of 498
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
I would like to respond to Mr. WONG King-cheung's observation that private contractors nowadays are only as efficient as the ASD. That is a fact. As we now contract out indirectly instead of directly, the completion time for projects is fixed by the ASD for contractors so that the speed for completion of projects is pretty much the same. The ASD may have a certain sum or a commission from projects contracted out whereas we have to pay the same level of on-cost. I think this can be changed and it is a subject for further discussion.
I agree that if we keep a works division of our own, we have to recruit professionals on contract. I stress the word 'professionals' because at present, we have Administrative Officers who are experts in administration, co-ordinating projects for us; as for project management, we actually need professionals. I think this is something we can achieve. In the event we cannot achieve this in the short term, we can commission the ASD as our works adviser. For example, the case of a Tang style structure for the Chilin Nunnery which will be handed over to the Urban Council for management, the ASD is charging us 1% on-cost as consultant fee. In fact, the construction work is taken up by Chilin Nunnery. From this example, we can see that before we have project staff of our own, we can adopt this pattern of paying 1% on-cost to the ASD and contracting out projects directly to outside architect firms.
Secondly, I agree that 16% is not value for money. An outside architect firm will make use of beautiful models in presenting designs to clients. Say for the KCR project, some pretty layout designs were produced. It is the current trend to present clients with computerized mock-up videos for projects exceeding $500 or $600 millions. For instance, computerized videos and animated drawings were presented in the case of the new airport project. We often contract out many projects exceeding $500 million or $600 million. Take the Central Library for example, Members were shown a very simple one dimensional layout plan and asked to make a decision. We did not even see any model until the decision has been made. If we have to pay 16% on-cost for this kind of service, it is definitely not value for money.
I also agree with many Members that we have to conduct a complete review for the long term. We have to review the fees for services provided by other government departments as governed by the Memorandum of Administrative Arrangement. My motion today deals with one department only, but it does not mean we don't have our views on service fees charged by other departments. We do have our views, only we want to proceed step by step in reforming the system. Mr. Chairman, these are my remarks.
The question was put.
The motion was carried unanimously.
Page 172 of 498
Page 172 of 498
Page 172 of 498
Z of 498
168
HONG KONG URBAN COUNCIL
I would like to respond to Mr. WONG King-cheung's observation that private contractors nowadays are only as efficient as the ASD. That is a fact. As we now contract out indirectly instead of directly, the completion time for projects is fixed by the ASD for contractors so that the speed for completion of projects is pretty much the same. The ASD may have a certain sum or a commission from projects contracted out whereas we have to pay the same level of on-cost. I think this can be changed and it is a subject for further discussion.
I agree that if we keep a works division of our own, we have to recruit professionals on contract. I stress the word 'professionals' because at present, we have Administrative Officers who are experts in administration, co- ordinating projects for us; as for project management, we actually need professionals. I think this is something we can achieve. In the event we cannot achieve this in the short term, we can commission the ASD as our works adviser. For example, the case of a Tang style structure for the Chilin Nunnery which will be handed over to the Urban Council for management, the ASD is charging us 1% on-cost as consultant fee. In fact, the construction work is taken up by Chilin Nunnery. From this example, we can see that before we have project staff of our own, we can adopt this pattern of paying 1% on-cost to the ASD and contracting out projects directly to outside architect firms.
Secondly, I agree that 16% is not value for money. An outside architect firm will make use of beautiful models in presenting designs to clients. Say for the KCR project, some pretty layout designs were produced. It is the current trend to present clients with computerized mock-up videos for projects exceeding $500 or $600 millions. For instance, computerized videos and animated drawings were presented in the case of the new airport project. We often contract out many projects exceeding $500 million or $600 million. Take the Central Library for example, Members were shown a very simple one dimensional layout plan and asked to make a decision. We did not even see any model until the decision has been made. If we have to pay 16% on-cost for this kind of service, it is definitely not value for money.
I also agree with many Members that we have to conduct a complete review for the long term. We have to review the fees for services provided by other government departments as governed by the Memorandum of Administrative Arrangement. My motion today deals with one department only, but it does not mean we don't have our views on service fees charged by other departments. We do have our views, only we want to proceed step by step in reforming the system. Mr. Chairman, these are my remarks.
The question was put.
The motion was carried unanimously.
£498
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.