Engineers question MTR Corporation’s claim that missing paperwork was result of construction firm rushing to finish job
- Associate professor Albert Yeung points to stringent processes that are supposed to govern building work
- Civil engineer Simon So puzzled how project could have continued without signed approval
Two engineering experts have challenged the MTR Corporation’s claim that paperwork for Hong Kong’s most expensive rail link was missing because the construction company was in a hurry to finish the job on time.
The railway giant revealed last week that a trove of key documents relating to the troubled Hung Hom station on the HK$97.1 billion (US$12.4 billion) Sha Tin-Central link, could not be found. The papers involved certifying work on two approach tunnels and side tracks for the station.
On Monday, during a phone-in radio programme, Albert Yeung Tak-chung of the Department of Civil Engineering at the University of Hong Kong questioned how that was possible.
The associate professor said there were supposed to be stringent processes in place to ensure work could not continue until other work had been approved and signed off on.
This was contrary to the explanation from Jacob Kam Chak-pui, the MTR Corp’s managing director, who previously said Leighton Contractors (Asia), the lead construction company, had failed to submit more than 60 per cent of inspection documents for works because of the rush in the construction, so managers approved the work on site, but could not get the documentation afterwards.
However, Yeung rejected that suggestion and said the submission of documents was standard industry practice and they had to be countersigned by supervisory staff before workers could continue the next stage of work.
“Each of these forms had five copies for each relevant party, including contractor Leighton and the MTR Corp, which oversees the project.
“They should also be uploaded on to each company’s internal data system, so it would be quite impossible and even astounding to say the papers were never produced,” Yeung said.
Embroiled in controversy, a contractor at the heart of Hong Kong infrastructure
“Let’s say, if, these papers were never there, workers could not have been authorised to move on with the construction.”
Meanwhile, Civil and Structural Engineer Simon So Yiu-kwan said the construction contract should have required the contractor to submit the papers at least 24 hours before concrete was poured on the platform at the heart of the scandal.
“This is the common practice, so I don’t understand how it would have been possible for the workers to have gone on without it,” So said.
Supervisors should conduct inspections at these areas after supporting documents had been submitted, he added.
“So, there’s no question of allowing the forms to be turned in afterwards as the MTR Corp said, because suppliers would not release the necessary materials.”
