Part 1: Summary

1.1 Audit findings and opinions

1.1.1 The coordination with the user departments regarding to the design of Taipa Central Park

1.1.1.1 Consultations of the user departments

The Land, Public Works and Transport Bureau (DSSOPT) pointed out that, during the design phase of construction of Taipa Central Park, the specifications of the facilities and equipment were mainly defined by the design company and its professional knowledge. DSSOPT would not request the user departments to submit the information of the specifications, unless the user departments had particular specifications to the facilities and equipment. During the design phase, DSSOPT did not properly consult with user departments, some facilities failed to meet the requirements, and ultimately the design had to be changed which resulted additional works. Besides, it also constituted potential safety risks.

For example, regarding to the playing facilities and safety mats for kids which used in Taipa Central Park, due to DSSOPT did not carry out thorough consultations with the user department during the design phase, as a result, after the opening of Taipa Central Park, there were deficiencies of the swings which were not suitable for kids to play with, the climbing ladder was too high and the bulging angel of the safety mats in the kids playing area were easy to stumble the children, all those which led modifications and replacements. Moreover, there were also the similar case being in the signage of the Park, caused the changing of design during the construction period thereafter.

1.1.1.2 The implementation of the users’ suggestions

The audit report found out that, during the design phase, the user departments had requested to add in a zebra crossing with tactile paving, swimming pool broadcasting system and not to use the white painted wood for the veneer of the build-in furniture in Library. The suggestions were accepted by DSSOPT, however these are not included in the final design. DSSOPT expressed that, after the consultations, DSSOPT would only follow up the more particular or significant influence suggestions and these were included in the design plans. Related to other less significant suggestions, DSSOPT would not follow them up and just letting the design company to handle them. DSSOPT did not verify properly whether the accepted suggestions were reflected in the design, therefore subsequent changes in the design and additional works were needed.

1.1.1.3 Change design during the construction period

The design drawings issued by DSSOPT to the user departments during the design stage as well as the tender drawings show the water between the adult’s pool and the kid’s pool should be connected, and the relevant design was also accepted by the user departments. However, based on the reason of finding out pipelines and cables were needed to be laid on the relevant part during the process of construction, the swimming pool of the Park could not be constructed as the original design. As such, without having informed and consulted the user departments, DSSOPT decided to modify the design at its sole discretion, to construct the relevant part of the swimming pool was builtin a close form, which cut the flow of water between the adult’s pool and the kid’s pool. During the provisional acceptance inspection, the user departments found out that the changes in the design of the swimming pool would constitute sanitation and management issues, thus requested installation of drainage gutters on both sides of the partition wall between the two pools to avoid dirt laid on the walls. The additional works included the removal of the completed parts and the construction of new works,cost 1,013,296.00 patacas, and adversely affected the completion time of the swimming pool.

1.1.2 Supervision of implementing the contract

1.1.2.1 Supervision on implementation of monitoring service contract

According to the monitoring service contract, the consultant company have to submit a written report to DSSOPT every single month, and extra reports were needed to submit for the special cases. However, DSSOPT did not rigorously supervise the project management company to fulfill its obligations stipulated in the contract. During the period from April 2010 to December 2012, the project management company missed to submit a total of 33 monthly reports. In addition, in April 2014, DSSOPT requested the consultant company to submit the analysis report on the issue of the structure crack on the rooftop of the pool bar; equally to submit the inspection results of the structure as well as records of the construction of the relevant works, in order to determine the responsible party. Finally, the consultant company had delayed to submit the report for 82 days after the deadline set by DSSOPT, and still the report did not contain the information requested by DSSOPT. Moreover, DSSOPT did not request the consultant company to summit the report with the missing information again thereafter.

1.1.2.2 Supervision on implementation of construction contract

Regarding to the application for the extension of the construction period, the Tender Documents of the construction of Taipa Central Park stipulated that, the contractor has to submit an application request for extension up to 30 days before the deadline of construction and accompanied by an updated working plan. However, the contractor had submitted 3 applications for extension, while the last 2 applications were submitted 292 days and 535 days after the end of deadline respectively, and without being accompanied by any updated working plans required. DSSOPT expressed that, due to the lack of conclusion with the contractor regarding the exact cost and the extended time required to carry out the relevant additional works, it was difficult to determine the specific completion time at that moment, therefore, the contractor did not apply for the extension request during the construction process. The reaction of DSSOPT with regards to the extension request, not only violated the requirements of the Tender Documents, but also highlighted the inappropriateness of the management of DSSOPT, which resulted a lack of control in the progress of construction works, therefore losing the practical meaning of the supervision and management of DSSOPT on the progress of the project .

1.1.3 Provisional acceptance procedure

1.1.3.1 The actual situation of the facilities during the provisional acceptance

In accordance with the Decree no.77/49/M, after a public project is completed, the project owner is required to examine and confirm that there is no construction defects before the project can be provisionally accepted. However, in order to deliver the facilities to the user department as soon as possible, DSSOPT provisionally accept the project as if there were no defects, in spite of the consultant company had reflected that several defects were existed in the car park and air quality monitoring station.

Upon the provisional acceptance of the car park of the garden, a total of 38 items of defects were still unsolved, in addition, the 4 lifts which give access to the car park were not being tested nor being handed over. With respect to air quality monitoring station, there were still 9 defects after it was provisionally accepted. The management of DSSOPT violated the law, and had virtually shorten the maintenance period of the facilities, it harmed the rights and interests of the government, it might further affect the operation and use of the facilities and it might put the users at risk.

1.1.3.2 The provisional acceptance and the delivery of the facilities

In accordance with the Decree no.77/49/M, the public project should be taken a written record for the examination procedure of the provisional acceptance, and signed by all participants in order to confirm that there were no construction defects before the provisional acceptance procedure was completed. In addition, due to the relevant facilities belong to the public properties of Macau SAR government, which should be accepted by the Financial Services Bureau of Macau SAR(DSF) after the examination, and subsequently deliver to the relevant user departments to use. However, DSSOPT delivered the facilities to DSF although some of them were not yet completed with the provisional acceptance procedure.

In spite of a total of 22 items of construction defects of the section of the swimming pool were still unsolved at the second examination conducted on 11 June 2014, DSSOPT delivered the facilities to DSF on 26 June 2014, under the situation of not having any signed examination record confirming no construction defects. DSSOPT expressed that, the third examination and delivery procedure had already been arranged to conduct on 26 June 2014, but due to the user departments were not able to arrange all relevant representative to attend, hence the examination procedure could not be completed. Eventually, the written record was signed and the provisional acceptance procedure was completed 18 days after the swimming pool delivered to DSF. Regarding to the section of the garden, a total of 50 items of construction defects existed at the first examination conducted on 9 November 2012. DSSOPT expressed that, the second examination was conducted on 7 December 2012 and the provisional acceptance could be completed as all the defects were ensure to be repaired, but DSSOPT did not take any examination record which signed by all parties. The above-mentioned case reflected DSSOPT did not conduct the provisional acceptance works in accordance to the law, and lack of a reliable evidence for the status of the facilities delivery.

1.2 Audit suggestions