Third-party monitor needed to ensure MTR project safety
Hong Kong’s MTR projects are run on commercial basis. However, control of the construction of such projects is a bit different from those projects undertaken by private enterprises. By virtue of the Mass Transit Railway Ordinance, construction of the railway is exempted from the control of Buildings Ordinance
Such an arrangement is reasonable, since MTR railways are owned by the Mass Transit Railway Corporation. The company has no reason to build substandard structures that would just cause maintenance problems when the railway is in operation. This ties in with the phenomenon that buildings constructed by reputable developers for their own use are generally of better quality than buildings built for sale.
The recent news headlines on shortened steel rods, casting floor and wall not in accordance with the agreed plans and works causing settlements beyond the alert levels have cast doubts on the ability of MTRC to carrying out work that meets safety and quality standards.
The special administrative region government has formed an inquiry commission to investigate what happened. The commission certainly will, upon completion of the inquiry, publish its report detailing the problems and deficiencies that gave rise to the scandal.
Pending such a report, I raise the issue of checks and balances for general discussion.
MTRC was a government-owned company when it was first incorporated. It is believed that the corporation had managed the construction of the earlier railway works in a manner similar to that of government projects. The circumstances may have changed upon privatization of the MTRC in the late 1990s. With privatization, it is possible that delays in the completion of the railway works may have financial implications on the corporation and early completion may attract bonuses for the corporation and its staff. There could also be pressure from politicians and share holders for various reasons.
With the alleged irregularities, it is time to revisit whether the existing checks and balances for the exempted railway works are commensurate with the present-day circumstances including public expectations.
According to press reports, while the Sha Tin-Central Link is exempted from the provisions of the Buildings Ordinance, there are agreed plans. Obviously, the exemption is subject to certain conditions and it is likely that there are consultative processes on the building design and on the measures on safeguarding the safety of adjoining ground and buildings. The aim of the consultative process is to speed up the vetting of the design submissions without compromising safety and standards. It is an appropriate mechanism from a public interest point of view.
A private developer can pick his own contractor, but government and public sector projects must go through the tendering process. While greater weight can be allocated to the various aspects of the technical and administrative capabilities of the tenderers in a “two envelope” system, the tender price remains a key factor in the bid. This is so that there won’t be substantial differences on aspects relating to technical and administrative capabilities among tenderers of similar size and grading. Hence it will not be surprising to find bidders with the lowest or second-lowest tender price winning the contract. Against this background, proper site monitoring is of paramount importance in ensuring that the construction works are up to specifications and standards.
According to media reports, construction at Hung Hom Station is being carried out by a registered contractor whose works are checked by MTR personnel. It is apparent that they are wearing two hats: that of project manager for the owner, and that of the building professionals. As these roles are different, it may not be appropriate for them to be undertaken by the same MTR supervision team. The improper cutting of steel bars on an extensive scale and the casting of walls and floors with a modified design without prior approval show that the current site monitoring mechanism is far from satisfactory.
The current incidents point to the need for a third-party checker to ensure that work is carried out in accordance with the agreed plans and meets statutory standards. Such a third-party checker is not only desirable from functional point of view, its appointment would also help to restore public confidence in the safety and quality of the exempted railway works. This third-party checker should work and exercise judgment independently from both the contractor and the MTR project team. To ensure independence, the engagement of this checker could be under a division independent of the construction branch of MTR or it could be engaged by the Highways Department or Buildings Department with funding from MTRC.
The report on modification of the agreed plans due to difficulty in construction raises an interesting question on whether this type of project should continue to be a designerled one or a new approach should be adopted. For the designer-led approach, the design consultant, being a competent building professional, certainly will take good care of the design in meeting the owner’s specifications on paper and staying in compliance with building codes and standards. However, he may be criticized as being less competent in identifying the practical difficulties during the construction process, especially when the design is new and unconventional. MTRC will need to review and evaluate the options that are available for it to address the issue on build ability of designs produced by its design consultants.