Advertisement
Advertisement
Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macau Bridge
Get more with myNEWS
A personalised news feed of stories that matter to you
Learn more
China State Construction Engineering (Hong Kong) was contracted to work on the link road section of the bridge project. Photo: Bloomberg

Government urged to explain how firm got go-ahead for work on Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macau Bridge despite failing to submit 10,000 safety inspection documents

  • Thomas Tse of the Hong Kong Construction Association said the incident had cast the city’s industry in a poor light
  • China State Construction Engineering (Hong Kong) was contracted to build HK$8.88 billion link road

The Hong Kong government needs to give a full account of how a contractor working on a cross-border mega bridge failed to submit more than 10,000 safety inspection documents on time but still managed to get the go-ahead for the project, a leading voice in the construction industry said on Monday.

Thomas Tse Che-wah, chief executive of the Hong Kong Construction Association, said the scandal, which was revealed on Sunday, had cast the local industry in a bad light, following the controversy of shoddy work on the city’s most expensive rail project, the HK$97.1 billion (US$12.4 billion) Sha Tin-Central rail link.

China State Construction Engineering (Hong Kong), which was tasked with building an HK$8.88 billion connecting road to the Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macau Bridge, waited two years before finally providing paperwork to Ove Arup & Partners Hong Kong, the engineering consultant on the project.
The Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macau Bridge opened in October. Photo: Edward Wong

Tse called on the government to give a full account of why the project was given the green light despite long-overdue submissions, saying the two incidents inevitably undermined public confidence in the city’s construction sector.

These incidents have shown the overall construction industry in a bad light
Thomas Tse, Hong Kong Construction Association

“These incidents have shown the overall construction industry in a bad light, no matter for the workers, subcontractors, main contractors, and even the project owner, and the MTR Corporation. They have caused the public to cast doubt on the industry’s integrity,” he said.

While Tse insisted it was still too early to pass judgment, he said it was obvious there were loopholes with the execution of the supervisory system.

“For the late submissions, as long as they were signed in good faith, they were still acceptable. It totally depends on the integrity of the responsible engineers and site staff,” he said.

“The government needs to provide more explanations.”

The Highways Department revealed staff from Ove Arup had in July 2018 raised concerns about China State’s failure to submit thousands of Request for Inspection and Survey Checks (RISC) forms.

According to media reports, in a letter written by the engineering consultant to the contractor, which was copied to the department, Ove Arup expressed dissatisfaction with China State in relation to its performance on a project involving 50 separate works for roads connecting the boundary crossing facilities on the bridge.

New fraud allegations against firm mired in fake concrete test scandal

The Hong Kong Link Road began in March 2012, and the bridge opened in October 2018 but, according to Ove Arup, some of the forms were not submitted until two years after construction work was completed. The 12km road links the main bridge at the Hong Kong border with the city’s port facility building at the northeastern side of the airport island.

Those documents accounted for about 28 per cent of this type of form that had to be submitted under the contract for the project.

The failure of China State to submit its documents on time has raised fresh concerns over construction standards in Hong Kong. Photo: Nora Tam

In its statement, issued after Ove Arup’s letter became public, the department said it had immediately requested the engineering consultant submit the site construction records, which were received in August, along with a large number of photo records taken by its staff on-site during the building process.

Separately, the department appointed an independent consultant to examine the records to ascertain whether the engineering consultant had fulfilled its duties of supervising the contractor.

The independent consultant concluded Ove Arup had taken the proper steps in keeping photographic records and fulfilled its supervisory duties.

In addition, the department said there were no concerns over the quality of the building work, rather it was just a matter of China State not submitting documents in time. The department’s quarterly report noted the “unsatisfactory performances” of Ove Arup and China State.

Three contractors fined HK$614,000 for fatal work mishap on mega bridge

A company’s failure to submit RISC forms is not new for major construction projects in Hong Kong.

During the investigation into the scandal surrounding the Sha Tin-Central link, the MTR Corporation and the Hong Kong government discovered that one of the main contractors had not handed in 60 per cent of the paperwork required.
Structural engineer Ngai Hok-yan, a member of the Hong Kong Institute of Engineers and the managing director of Hung Lee Construction & Decoration, said he thought it was unusual for thousands of forms to not have been submitted two years after they were due.

According to Ngai, speaking on a radio show on Monday morning, such mistakes should normally be rectified in a couple of days and that they were not showed “the consultant firm must have failed to perform its duty to a certain extent”.

Meanwhile, Civic Party lawmaker Tanya Chan said the government should consider punishing China State and Ove Arup by banning them from bidding for future work.

“It would be reasonable to put them in a timeout,” she said.

This article appeared in the South China Morning Post print edition as: answers sought in papers scandal
Post