PWSC(97-98)84
For discussion
on 26 November 1997
ITEM FOR PUBLIC WORKS
SUBCOMMITTEE OF FINANCE COMMITTEE
HEAD 708 - CAPITAL SUBVENTIONS AND MAJOR SYSTEMS AND EQUIPMENT
Universities
The Chinese University of Hong Kong
36EF - Stabilisation of slopes within the university campus, phase III
Members are invited to recommend to Finance Committee to approve a new commitment of $75.3 million in money-of-the-day prices for repairs to sub-standard slopes served with Dangerous Hillside Orders and slopes associated with landslips within the campus of the Chinese University of Hong Kong.
PROBLEM
The Chinese University of Hong Kong (CUHK) requires financial assistance to carry out stabilisation works to sub-standard slopes within its campus.
PROPOSAL
2.On the advice of the Director of Architectural Services (D Arch S), and with the support of the Secretary Education and Manpower, the Secretary-General, University Grants Committee (SG, UGC) proposes to create a new
commitment of $75.3 million in money-of-the-day (MOD) prices for CUHK to carry out stabilisation works to sub-standard slopes under its maintenance responsibility.
PROJECT SCOPE AND NATURE
3.The proposed project comprises stabilisation works to ten sub-standard slopes for which CUHK has received Dangerous Hillside Orders (DHOs) from the Building Authority (BA) under the Buildings Ordinance (BO), and stabilisation works to six other slopes which have suffered from minor landslips.
4.With regard to works required under a DHO, CUHK has to appoint an Authorised Person registered under the BO and a qualified geotechnical consultant to prepare proposals for the required stabilisation works, including an investigation report and the landslip preventive work plans, for approval by BA. CUHK will also submit consultancy agreements, tender documents and tender recommendations for the topographical survey, ground investigation and stabilisation works to BA. Upon BA'sapproval of the above, the institution will engage contractors to carry out the stabilisation works as soon as possible.
5.As regards the other six sub-standard slopes, CUHK has to conduct ground investigation and analysis and submit the proposal for stabilisation works to BA for approval. Upon BA'sapproval of the above, the institution will engage contractors to carry out the necessary repair works.
JUSTIFICATION
6.The Government has the responsibility to provide capital grants to UGC-funded tertiary education institutions to carry out remedial works to the sub-standard slopes which are under the maintenance responsibility of these institutions.
7.To ensure the safety of students and staff, it is important that necessary remedial works are carried out as soon as a slope is found to be sub-standard. The approval of this proposal will ensure that financial resources are available for the CUHK to engage the necessary services as soon as possible.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS
8.We estimate the capital cost of the project to be $75.3 million in MOD prices (see paragraph 15 below), made up as follows -
|
|
$ million |
|
| (a) |
Topographical survey and ground investigation
|
|
6.0
|
| (b) |
Stabilisation works
|
|
41.4
|
| (c) |
Consultants' fees on the design and supervision work
|
|
10.2
|
|
(i) Stability study including supervision of site investigation works
|
2.8
|
|
(ii) Detailed design for sub-standard slopes
|
2.2
|
|
(iii) Preparation of tender documents for sub-standard slopes
|
0.6
|
|
(iv) Assessment of tenders
|
0.4
|
|
(v) Site supervision by resident site staff employed by the consultants
|
4.2
|
| (d) |
Landscaping works
|
|
1.2
|
| (e) |
Contingencies
|
|
4.1
|
|
Sub-total | 62.9
| (at
December
1996
prices)
|
| (f) | Inflation allowance
| | 12.4
|
| Total | 75.3
| (in
MOD
Prices)
|
9.Paragraph 8(a) above represents the total cost for topographical survey and ground investigation of sub-standard slopes and laboratory testing of soil samples.
10.Paragraph 8(b) above represents the total cost for stabilisation works to sub-standard slopes.
11.The topographical survey, ground investigation and stabilisation works included in the works contracts are subject to competitive tenders. We will determine the actual cost of the works when a precise basis for remeasurement is available following more detailed studies of the individual slopes.
12.Paragraph 8(c) above represents the total fees for Authorised Persons and qualified geotechnical engineers to prepare proposals for topographical survey, ground investigation and landslip preventive works plans. The professionals will also prepare tender documents and tender recommendations for the ground investigation and stabilisation works for consideration by the SG, UGC in consultation with the D Arch S, and will supervise the topographical survey, ground investigation, stabilisation and landscaping works undertaken by contractors. A detailed breakdown by man-months of the estimate for the consultants' fees is at Enclosure 1.
13.Paragraph 8(d) above represents the total cost for landscaping and other environmental improvement works to the 16 slopes as only hydroseeding or rigid surface protection will be provided for the upgraded slope surface.
14.Paragraph 8(e) above represents the contingency sum for the actual slope works.
15.Subject to approval, the CUHK will phase the expenditure as follows -
| Year |
$ million
(Dec 1996) |
Price
adjustment
factor
|
$ million
(MOD)
|
| 1997-98 |
2.2 |
1.06750 |
2.3
|
| 1998-99 |
38.4 |
1.16358 |
44.7
|
| 1999-00 |
22.3 |
1.26830 |
28.3
|
|
62.9 | | 75.3
|
16.We have derived the MOD estimates on the basis of the Government'sforecast of labour and construction prices for the period 1997 to 2000. A comparison of the project estimates proposed by CUHK and the estimates recommended by UGC, on the advice of the D Arch S, is at Enclosure 2.
17.The proposed project has no annually recurrent financial implications.
PUBLIC CONSULTATION
18.We consider public consultation unnecessary because the proposal involves public safety and should be welcomed by the public.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPLICATIONS
19.The consultants employed by CUHK completed and the Director of Environmental Protection vetted the Preliminary Environmental Review (PER) of the proposed project in September 1997. The PER concluded that the project would have no long-term adverse environmental impact. The CUHK will control noise, dust and site run-off nuisances during construction to comply with established criteria through the implementation of mitigation measures in the relevant contracts.
LAND ACQUISITION
20.The project does not require land acquisition.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
21.Under the Accelerated Landslip Preventive Measures Programme, GEO conducts preliminary studies for pre-1977 man-made slopes to select sub-standard slopes which will require further studies. On the recommendation of GEO, and in accordance with the BO, BA will issue a DHO for a private sub-standard slope to the person or institution who is responsible for maintaining it.
22.Normally, an institution will need 18 months to complete the investigation and stabilisation works to a sub-standard slope. BA has the statutory power to take prosecution action against the institution if it fails to comply with the requirements of the DHO. In case of emergency, BA is also empowered to carry out works deemed necessary to obviate any imminent danger of slope failure, and seek recovery of the full costs from the institution responsible.
23.CUHK plans to start site investigation and stabilisation works in January 1998 for completion by December 1999.
Education and Manpower Bureau
November 1997
Enclosure 1 to PWSC(97-98)84
DETAILS ABOUT CONSULTANTs' FEES
Breakdown of estimates for consultants' fees
Consultants'
staff costs |
|
Estimated
man
months
|
Average
MPS
salary
point |
Multiplier
factor |
Estimated
fee
($ million)
|
| (a) Stability study including supervision of site investigation works
|
Professional
Technical
|
12
15 |
40
16
|
3.0
3.0 |
1.99
0.84
|
| (b) Detailed design for sub-standard slopes
|
Professional
Technical
|
10
10 |
40
16
|
3.0
3.0 |
1.66
0.56
|
| (c) Preparation of tender documents for sub-standard slopes
|
Professional
Technical
|
2
4 |
40
16
|
3.0
3.0 |
0.33
0.22
|
| (d) Assessment of tenders
|
Professional
Technical
|
2
2 |
40
16
|
3.0
3.0 |
0.33
0.11
|
| (e) Site supervision by resident site staff employed by the consultant
|
Professional
Technical
|
24
36 |
40
16
|
2.1
2.1 |
2.79
1.41
|
|
Total consultants' staff costs | 10.24
|
Notes
1.A multiplier factor of 3 is applied to the average Master Pay Scale (MPS) to arrive at the full staff costs including the consultants' overheads and profit, as the staff will be employed in the consultants' offices. (As at 1.12.1996, MPS pt. 40 = $55,390 per month and MPS pt. 16 = $18,595 per month). A multiplier factor of 2.1 is applied in the case of site staff supplied by the consultants.
2.The figures given above are based on estimates prepared by the UGC in consultation with D Arch S. We will only know the actual man-months and actual fees when we have selected the consultants.
Enclosure 2 to PWSC(97-98)84
A comparison of project estimates requested by CUHK with the estimates recommended by UGC
| Slope No |
Amount
proposed
by CUHK
|
Amount
recommended
by the UGC |
Amount of
reduction |
See
Note
|
|
$ |
$ |
$ |
|
|
|
(at Dec
1996 prices) |
|
|
|
Ten slopes served with DHOs -
|
| 7NE-C/C42 | 6,250,000 | 6,016,400
| 233,600 | (1)
|
| 7NE-C/C9 | 5,538,000 | 2,125,100
| 3,412,900 | (2)
|
| 7NE-C/C56 | 5,887,000 | 5,597,400
| 289,600 | (3)
|
| 7NE-C/C1 | 2,703,000 | 2,310,500
| 392,500 | (4)
|
| 7NE-C/F53 | 5,217,500 | 3,628,500
| 1,589,000 | (5)
|
| 7NE-C/F77 | 5,627,500 | 3,506,400
| 2,121,100 | (6)
|
| 7NE-C/CR49 | 7,552,500 | 6,207,300
| 1,345,200 | (7)
|
| 7NE-C/C55 | 6,060,500 | 6,628,400
| -567,900 | (8)
|
| 7NE-C/C14 | 9,005,500 | 7,769,000
| 1,236,500 | (9)
|
| 7NE-C/C17 | 3,923,000 | 3,871,700
| 51,300 | (10)
|
| Eight landslip incidents -
|
| Incident No.1 | 6,463,000 | 3,169,800
| 3,293,200 | (11)
|
| Incident No.2 | 3,290,000 | 3,221,400
| 68,600 | (12)
|
| Incident No.3 | 6,032,500 | 2,694,800
| 3,337,700 | (13)
|
| Incident No.4 | 2,383,000 | 565,700
| 1,817,300 | (14)
|
| Incident No.5 | 7,466,000 | 1,665,300
| 5,800,700 | (15)
|
| Incident No.6 | 3,350,000 | 2,741,800
| 608,200 | (16)
|
| Incident No.7 | 4,115,500 | -
| 4,115,500 | (8)
|
| Incident No.8 | 3,215,000 | -
| 3,215,000 | (17)
|
| Landscaping | 2,500,000 | 1,200,000
| 1,300,000 | (18)
|
| Total | 96,579,500
| 62,919,500 | 33,660,000
|
Notes
1.The reduction of $0.23 million is mainly due to an allowance of 10% instead of 15% as contingencies ($0.21 million).
2.The reduction of $3.41 million is due to the adjustment of construction cost ($2.21 million), adjustment of the Geotechnical consultants' fee ($0.37 million), adjustment of the deletion of item of filling and compaction, cost for topographic survey ($0.07 million) and ground investigation works ($0.35 million) are not supported as the detailed design for the Slope No. 7NC-C/C9 has been completed and the adjustment of allowance for contingencies ($0.41m).
3.The reduction of $0.29 million is mainly due to an allowance of 10% instead of 15% as contingencies ($0.20 million).
4.The reduction of $0.39 million is due to the adjustment of construction cost ($0.27m) and the adjustment of allowance for contingencies ($0.12m).
5.The reduction of $1.59 million is due to the adjustment of construction cost ($1.29 million) and the adjustment of allowance for contingencies ($0.299 million).
6.The reduction of $2.12 million is due to the adjustment of construction cost ($1.75 million) and the adjustment of allowance for contingencies ($0.37 million).
7.The reduction of $1.35 million is mainly due to the adjustment of construction cost ($0.98 million) and the adjustment of allowance for contingencies ($0.36 million).
8.Slope No. 7NE-C/C55 is the subject of the DH Order No. 28/NT/97C where most of the Incident No.7 lies with the boundary of this slope. We propose to carry out the remedial works for these two slopes with a slight increase in the cost proposed.
9.The reduction of $1.24 million is due to the adjustment of construction cost ($0.84 million) and adjustment of allowance for contingencies ($0.40 million).
10.The reduction of $0.05 million is due to an allowance of 10% instead of 15% as contingencies.
11.The reduction of $3.29 million is due to the adjustment of construction cost ($2.33 million), adjustment of allowance for contingencies ($0.44 million) and adjustment of topographical survey and ground investigation cost ($0.32 million) and reduction of consultants' fees for the latter ($0.2m).
12.The reduction of $0.069 million is mainly due to the adjustment of ground investigation cost ($0.10 million), increase of construction cost ($0.124 million) and adjustment of allowance for contingencies ($0.093 million).
13.The reduction of $3.34 million is due to the adjustment of construction cost ($2.63 million), adjustment of allowance for contingencies ($0.483 million) and deletion of cost for topographical survey ($0.01 million) and cost for ground investigation ($0.1 million) and cost for goetechnical consultant, Authorised Person and supervision ($0.112 million).
14.The reduction of $1.82 million is mainly due to the adjustment of construction cost ($0.833 million), adjustment of allowance for contingencies ($0.144 million) and the deletion of cost for topographical survey ($0.04 million) and cost for ground investigation ($0.25 million) and reduction of consultants' fees for the latter ($0.55m).
15.The reduction of $5.8 million is due to the adjustment of construction cost ($4.53 million), adjustment of allowance for contingencies ($0.723 million), adjustment of geotechnical consultants' fee ($0.2 million) and adjustment of ground investigation cost ($0.3 million).
16.The reduction of $0.61 million is mainly due to the adjustment of ground investigation cost ($0.2 million), adjustment of construction cost ($0.26 million) and adjustment of allowance for contingencies ($0.14 million).
17.It is noted that Incident No.8 is essentially overlapping with slope No.
7NE-C/CR49. Separate funding is not recommended.
18.As it is noted that only hydroseeding or rigid surface protection will be provided for the upgraded slope surface, minimum allowance is made for landscaping requirements. Therefore only $1.2 million is supported.
