Flyover collapses at Upper Changi, PIE

[Blueray]

Consultant held dual roles in viaduct project

 

The consultant who designed the Pan-Island Expressway (PIE) viaduct that collapsed on July 14 is also the supervisor who checked the construction works, The Straits Times has learnt.

 

While industry experts said it is not uncommon or illegal for the same person to hold two roles, several added they hope the authorities will review this arrangement as it may pose conflicts of interest.

 

A spokesman for CPG Consultants - a subcontractor to the main employer Or Kim Peow (OKP) Contractors in building the viaduct - told ST that the qualified person (QP)is Dr Robert Arianto Tjandra.

 

"CPG Consultants, including Dr Tjandra and other key project stakeholders, have been working closely with the Land Transport Authority (LTA) and the relevant authorities to carry out detailed investigations," said the spokesman.

 

"Dr Tjandra is fully assisting with the investigations and is not involved in other projects presently."

 

In general, design and supervision QPs are responsible for coming up with building plans and checking that construction works are carried out as specified. Supervision QPs also typically direct a team of qualified site supervisors to carry out checks. Typically, the QP's load calculations are double- checked by an independent accredited checker (AC). The AC in the Upper Changi Road East work site is Calibre Consulting Singapore, LTA tender documents show.

 

Building and project management experts told ST it is common for the QP to oversee design and supervision. But this creates possible conflicts of interest, they added.

 

JOH safety consultancy principal consultant Jason Oh said it is not advisable for a QP to be in charge of supervising his own design, especially if a project is complex. "When it is a project that you have done again and again, sometimes, one might just switch off one's sensors to all the possible hazards."

 

The worry about conflicts of interest has long been a "fundamental issue" in the construction industry, noted Dr Goh Yang Miang of the National University of Singapore's Department of Building.

 

After the 2004 Nicoll Highway collapse, found to be due to critical design errors, rules were changed so the supervising QP cannot be a partner, officer or employee of the developer and builder. In the PIE case, the QP is from a subcontractor of the builder, which is allowed.

 

The viaduct collapse two weeks ago killed Chinese worker Chen Yinchuan and hurt 10 others. Corbels holding up horizontal beams gave way, a preliminary investigation found. Two workers were discharged from Changi General Hospital yesterday, bringing the number of workers warded there to four, including one in intensive care, said an OKP spokesman.

 

http://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/transport/consultant-held-dual-roles-in-viaduct-project

 

 

[Watwheels]

Oh great. Ownself design ownself check.

 

See or not, Men in white? Flawed.

[Kusje]

Consultant held dual roles in viaduct project

 

The consultant who designed the Pan-Island Expressway (PIE) viaduct that collapsed on July 14 is also the supervisor who checked the construction works, The Straits Times has learnt.

 

While industry experts said it is not uncommon or illegal for the same person to hold two roles, several added they hope the authorities will review this arrangement as it may pose conflicts of interest.

 

A spokesman for CPG Consultants - a subcontractor to the main employer Or Kim Peow (OKP) Contractors in building the viaduct - told ST that the qualified person (QP)is Dr Robert Arianto Tjandra.

 

"CPG Consultants, including Dr Tjandra and other key project stakeholders, have been working closely with the Land Transport Authority (LTA) and the relevant authorities to carry out detailed investigations," said the spokesman.

 

"Dr Tjandra is fully assisting with the investigations and is not involved in other projects presently."

 

In general, design and supervision QPs are responsible for coming up with building plans and checking that construction works are carried out as specified. Supervision QPs also typically direct a team of qualified site supervisors to carry out checks. Typically, the QP's load calculations are double- checked by an independent accredited checker (AC). The AC in the Upper Changi Road East work site is Calibre Consulting Singapore, LTA tender documents show.

 

Building and project management experts told ST it is common for the QP to oversee design and supervision. But this creates possible conflicts of interest, they added.

 

JOH safety consultancy principal consultant Jason Oh said it is not advisable for a QP to be in charge of supervising his own design, especially if a project is complex. "When it is a project that you have done again and again, sometimes, one might just switch off one's sensors to all the possible hazards."

 

The worry about conflicts of interest has long been a "fundamental issue" in the construction industry, noted Dr Goh Yang Miang of the National University of Singapore's Department of Building.

 

After the 2004 Nicoll Highway collapse, found to be due to critical design errors, rules were changed so the supervising QP cannot be a partner, officer or employee of the developer and builder. In the PIE case, the QP is from a subcontractor of the builder, which is allowed.

 

The viaduct collapse two weeks ago killed Chinese worker Chen Yinchuan and hurt 10 others. Corbels holding up horizontal beams gave way, a preliminary investigation found. Two workers were discharged from Changi General Hospital yesterday, bringing the number of workers warded there to four, including one in intensive care, said an OKP spokesman.

 

http://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/transport/consultant-held-dual-roles-in-viaduct-project

 

 

Ownself check ownself again.

[Hamburger]

Consultant has done nothing wrong.

 

It's part of our system and how it works.

 

From cleaner to consultant and so on.....

[Nonpareil]

Consultant held dual roles in viaduct project

 

 

This article is misleading.

 

Isn't it a conflict of interest once the consultant is under the builder as a subcontractor?

 

Usually, consultants are hired by clients to design and supervise the construction/contractor. But design & build contracts have been more common in recent times, esp with gov contracts, and with this contract the consultants are placed under the contractors payroll which therefore creates an issue where consultants are under the bidding of the main con. Which creates conflict of interest issues on site.

 

Regarding this incident, I will add this:

 

1) I do not think there is any issue with the design.

When it comes to design, locally, it is usually designed with a safety factor of at least 2. So on paper its over designed. There are also checks involved to ensure that its designed correctly. LTA check, BCA check, AC checker checks.... So imho there is no reason to doubt the design of the project.

 

2) The issue is more of a workmanship issue.

I discount the recent ST article which shows cracks on the structure as this might happen during the collapse as the stresses started to build up.

What I won't discount is workmanship..

a) looking at the damage I think the corbel was recently constructed, less than a month, and without it achieving full concrete strength they started loading the corbel with extra weight like a new section.

b) all this stems from tight schedule and rushing a job.

c) the site supervision also lacking but as I have stated above when you are under the payroll of the main con, what can you do if they want to do anything? Complain to BCA? not unless you want to lose your job.

 

3) As to OKP winning tender, I was surprised when I first heard of the winning tender price compared to the losers. A friend in LTA stated that this is all collusion among contractors. As in construction industry, we have favorites and so they would usually be called for in tenders. With LTA, there are usually a few tender packages released in a certain period, so these said contractors wld agree on who will go for what and fix the outcome. Thats why in tender you see such large disparity between winner and losers in price.

 

Personally I nvr agree on D&B contracts, as it relegates consultants to be subservient to the main con removing the supposed checks that a consultant provide. But D&B contracts are everywhere, HDB, LTA, MRT....almost every gov contracts.

 

As the current saying goes, ownself really check ownself.

 

[Carbon82]

PIE viaduct collapse 'a man-made incident that could have been avoided': Lim Swee Say

 

 

 

http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/pie-viaduct-collapse-a-man-made-incident-that-could-have-been-9061448

 

 

Such depth and insight into the matter ... 

 

 

He is absolutely right but he got the root cause completely wrong. The root is right on top where how Singapore govern, set  and control standard and quality. 

 

If we out source everything and just rely on collecting paper documents with rubber stamps, this is the sad story. Not everything is about cheap and fast. A holistic review and having people in the authorities responsible in ensuring works are done that meet international codes. 

 

Whoever said that this is a man-made incident is very unprofessional, just like any Tom Dick and Harry at coffee shop passing casual remarks without any liability.

 

In an incident investigation, we need to nail down the actual root cause, no just wrong doing (i.e. unsafe act or unsafe condition). There are many proven interrogative technique such as 5 Whys Analysis and Ishikawa (fishbone diagram), which help to zoom in to the underlying causes of an incident. From the statement made by LSS, it seems to me more of a system failure, as if proper procedures / check and balance were in-place, the human error would not have occurred.

 

And for the flaw with the current system, I have already state my view in the previous post that the overall owner (i.e. LTA) will still be responsible for any issues, if they did not impose full and effective enforcement throughout the whole construction project. If they rely just on paper work without going through effective review and/or verification, they deserved to receive even heavier punishment. Period!

Edited July 28, 2017 by Carbon82

[Carbon82]

I'm not an expert in this (although some in my family are) nor am I engineering trained but I think it boils down to whether or not you believe that those cracks are the only thing wrong with the structure.

 

I'm hesitant to believe so because the cracks were found by the company responsible (ownself check ownself) and there could be other things being overlooked because they don't even know what to look for. LTA must do the inspection themselves but I'm not sure if they have the technical capabilities to do so.

 

I agreed with you. What I meant in my previous post is that there are no second way out to deal with those  supporting structures found with cracks, they have to be torn down and re-built.

 

As to the integrity of the other load bearing structural elements, it is best to engage a independent party to run through each and every one of them, from design to physical construction and finished product, to confirm that there meet the required design standard (i.e. with sufficient safety factors).

 

And if, the big IF, there are multiple non-conformance (to design / construction standard), the COI / BOI should decide if the same independent assessment should be extended to other similar projects undertaken by the same contractors / QP.

 

 

 

Consultant held dual roles in viaduct project

 

The consultant who designed the Pan-Island Expressway (PIE) viaduct that collapsed on July 14 is also the supervisor who checked the construction works, The Straits Times has learnt.

 

While industry experts said it is not uncommon or illegal for the same person to hold two roles, several added they hope the authorities will review this arrangement as it may pose conflicts of interest.

 

A spokesman for CPG Consultants - a subcontractor to the main employer Or Kim Peow (OKP) Contractors in building the viaduct - told ST that the qualified person (QP)is Dr Robert Arianto Tjandra.

 

"CPG Consultants, including Dr Tjandra and other key project stakeholders, have been working closely with the Land Transport Authority (LTA) and the relevant authorities to carry out detailed investigations," said the spokesman.

 

"Dr Tjandra is fully assisting with the investigations and is not involved in other projects presently."

 

In general, design and supervision QPs are responsible for coming up with building plans and checking that construction works are carried out as specified. Supervision QPs also typically direct a team of qualified site supervisors to carry out checks. Typically, the QP's load calculations are double- checked by an independent accredited checker (AC). The AC in the Upper Changi Road East work site is Calibre Consulting Singapore, LTA tender documents show.

 

Building and project management experts told ST it is common for the QP to oversee design and supervision. But this creates possible conflicts of interest, they added.

 

JOH safety consultancy principal consultant Jason Oh said it is not advisable for a QP to be in charge of supervising his own design, especially if a project is complex. "When it is a project that you have done again and again, sometimes, one might just switch off one's sensors to all the possible hazards."

 

The worry about conflicts of interest has long been a "fundamental issue" in the construction industry, noted Dr Goh Yang Miang of the National University of Singapore's Department of Building.

 

After the 2004 Nicoll Highway collapse, found to be due to critical design errors, rules were changed so the supervising QP cannot be a partner, officer or employee of the developer and builder. In the PIE case, the QP is from a subcontractor of the builder, which is allowed.

 

The viaduct collapse two weeks ago killed Chinese worker Chen Yinchuan and hurt 10 others. Corbels holding up horizontal beams gave way, a preliminary investigation found. Two workers were discharged from Changi General Hospital yesterday, bringing the number of workers warded there to four, including one in intensive care, said an OKP spokesman.

 

http://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/transport/consultant-held-dual-roles-in-viaduct-project

 

I believe many of us, during our school days, has been asked by the teacher / lecturer to mark the assessment on our own, and when we pass the same paper to your classmate to cross check, many a times new wrong answer will pop up. The reason is very simple: We will only see what we think are right and ignore the unknown / wrong answer. If ownself checking is effective, why we need RI, AC, etc.?!

 

 

This article is misleading.

 

Isn't it a conflict of interest once the consultant is under the builder as a subcontractor?

 

Usually, consultants are hired by clients to design and supervise the construction/contractor. But design & build contracts have been more common in recent times, esp with gov contracts, and with this contract the consultants are placed under the contractors payroll which therefore creates an issue where consultants are under the bidding of the main con. Which creates conflict of interest issues on site.

 

Regarding this incident, I will add this:

 

1) I do not think there is any issue with the design.

When it comes to design, locally, it is usually designed with a safety factor of at least 2. So on paper its over designed. There are also checks involved to ensure that its designed correctly. LTA check, BCA check, AC checker checks.... So imho there is no reason to doubt the design of the project.

 

2) The issue is more of a workmanship issue.

I discount the recent ST article which shows cracks on the structure as this might happen during the collapse as the stresses started to build up.

What I won't discount is workmanship..

a) looking at the damage I think the corbel was recently constructed, less than a month, and without it achieving full concrete strength they started loading the corbel with extra weight like a new section.

b) all this stems from tight schedule and rushing a job.

c) the site supervision also lacking but as I have stated above when you are under the payroll of the main con, what can you do if they want to do anything? Complain to BCA? not unless you want to lose your job.

 

3) As to OKP winning tender, I was surprised when I first heard of the winning tender price compared to the losers. A friend in LTA stated that this is all collusion among contractors. As in construction industry, we have favorites and so they would usually be called for in tenders. With LTA, there are usually a few tender packages released in a certain period, so these said contractors wld agree on who will go for what and fix the outcome. Thats why in tender you see such large disparity between winner and losers in price.

 

Personally I nvr agree on D&B contracts, as it relegates consultants to be subservient to the main con removing the supposed checks that a consultant provide. But D&B contracts are everywhere, HDB, LTA, MRT....almost every gov contracts.

 

As the current saying goes, ownself really check ownself.

 

 

Don't discount the design and calculation part, as sometime it might be due to lack of information, and assumption were used instead. In this case, while the load can be calculated, the ground conditions, vibration factors (don't forget that stretch of PIE has very high traffic volume), etc. may have been assumed wrongly.

 

Based on my limited knowledge with concrete structure, I don't remembered corbels need to take more than a couple of days to achieve full strength. If indeed it is a rushed job to beat the date line (i.e. loading additional structure before the stipulated "due" date), it has more to do with non-compliance with construction standard / regulations.

 

For point #3, well, you are not the first one that mentioned this, and you will be the last...

Edited July 28, 2017 by Carbon82

[Vulcann]

Design & Build (D&B) projects are tough for site supervisory staff like Resident Engineers (REs) & Resident Technical Officers (RTOs) as their superior the consultants, Qualified Person (QP), works closely with the main contractor.

 

This is because the builder/main contractor and the consultants bided for tenders together as a team unlike conventional building projects where the consultants are normally engaged by the owner/developer.

 

So when it comes to site supervision duties it is sometimes like some say ownself check ownself i.e. auditing works carried out by your paymaster. Put it simply it is like marking your children's exam papers. You get the idea....

 

D&B projects will work IF there is a proper system where there is separation of duties as far as design and supervision duties are concerned. 

 

Rightfully there is supposed to have a QP (Design) & another a QP (Supervision). These two should not be the same person.

 

QP (Design) is a PE (Professional Engineer) who is the civil & structural designer and he or she will only be concerned if their designs are being constructed correctly on site and F care about the site progress. Once checked by the Accredited Checker (AC) & cleared by BCA, the plans are to be executed as per the submission and known as approved construction drawings issued to the builder or main contractor.

 

QP(Supervision) is  also a PE who on the other hand is in-charge of the REs and RTOs and will be fully responsible for their supervision works. He is supposed to ensure his team checks the site works to follow strictly according to the design but if he is also employed by the builder then yes like some say there can be a conflict of interest issue though he has to uphold the PE code  no matter what.

 

In Singapore unfortunately because of budget constraints QP (Design) & QP (Supervision) are normally the same party and sometimes there is some blurring of their roles.... 

[Playtime]

He is absolutely right but he got the root cause completely wrong. The root is right on top where how Singapore govern, set and control standard and quality.

 

If we out source everything and just rely on collecting paper documents with rubber stamps, this is the sad story. Not everything is about cheap and fast. A holistic review and having people in the authorities responsible in ensuring works are done that meet international codes.

He is specifically pushing responsibilities.

Not looking for causal links.

 

Same as creating AIM saga and revising to hand over properly then ONLY blame WP for accounting problems.

 

Many managers do the same when shit happens.

[Maxus-MIFA9]

Consultant held dual roles in viaduct project

 

The consultant who designed the Pan-Island Expressway (PIE) viaduct that collapsed on July 14 is also the supervisor who checked the construction works, The Straits Times has learnt.

 

While industry experts said it is not uncommon or illegal for the same person to hold two roles, several added they hope the authorities will review this arrangement as it may pose conflicts of interest.

 

A spokesman for CPG Consultants - a subcontractor to the main employer Or Kim Peow (OKP) Contractors in building the viaduct - told ST that the qualified person (QP)is Dr Robert Arianto Tjandra.

 

"CPG Consultants, including Dr Tjandra and other key project stakeholders, have been working closely with the Land Transport Authority (LTA) and the relevant authorities to carry out detailed investigations," said the spokesman.

 

 

http://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/transport/consultant-held-dual-roles-in-viaduct-project

 

 

Just one sentence to describe : Ownself check ownself ....  

[Kb27]

don't you all kpkb, ownself check ownself is cheaper.

[Theobserver]

There is no conflict of interest in this case.  

 

Be it QP design , QP supervision or even the Contractor, nobody wants structures to collapse.  On the subject of saving money, which company will want to go into a business with the intention to make a loss?  A contractor has to pay staff salaries, etc.  For everything, there is a bottom line.  If that bottom line is crossed, eg when taking calculated risks changed to taking blind risks, then it is no more a commercial issue but an ethical issue, for example individuals who intentionally cover up mistakes or ignores apparent risks for self interests, etc.  This has always been the case when big incidents happens in construction project.

 

Coming back to QP.  A QP taking on both design and supervisory role has been in place since "ancient" times.  Many people are forgetting that there are also Resident Engineers and Resident Technical Officers assisting the QP with the supervision, forming the supervision team.  If I'm not wrong, the practice of different QPs started in LTA projects, but in private projects, the QP design and supervision is the same.  

 

Conflict of interest will arise if the QP who design the structure is also the developer or an investor of the project, ie has a financial interest.  This is not allowed and is enforced in the regulations. 

[Wt_know]

do subcontractor "dare" to fck the paymaster?

subcon is at the bottom of the foodchain ... lowest level!

Edited July 28, 2017 by Wt_know

[Victor68]

Design & Build (D&B) projects are tough for site supervisory staff like Resident Engineers (REs) & Resident Technical Officers (RTOs) as their superior the consultants, Qualified Person (QP), works closely with the main contractor.

 

This is because the builder/main contractor and the consultants bided for tenders together as a team unlike conventional building projects where the consultants are normally engaged by the owner/developer.

 

So when it comes to site supervision duties it is sometimes like some say ownself check ownself i.e. auditing works carried out by your paymaster. Put it simply it is like marking your children's exam papers. You get the idea....

 

D&B projects will work IF there is a proper system where there is separation of duties as far as design and supervision duties are concerned. 

 

Rightfully there is supposed to have a QP (Design) & another a QP (Supervision). These two should not be the same person.

 

QP (Design) is a PE (Professional Engineer) who is the civil & structural designer and he or she will only be concerned if their designs are being constructed correctly on site and F care about the site progress. Once checked by the Accredited Checker (AC) & cleared by BCA, the plans are to be executed as per the submission and known as approved construction drawings issued to the builder or main contractor.

 

QP(Supervision) is  also a PE who on the other hand is in-charge of the REs and RTOs and will be fully responsible for their supervision works. He is supposed to ensure his team checks the site works to follow strictly according to the design but if he is also employed by the builder then yes like some say there can be a conflict of interest issue though he has to uphold the PE code  no matter what.

 

In Singapore unfortunately because of budget constraints QP (Design) & QP (Supervision) are normally the same party and sometimes there is some blurring of their roles.... 

Once upon a time we are not like this. We improved over time and now almost every project is D&B. It is the worst system other than for HDB projects maybe.

 

 

[Jusnel]

Ownself check ownself again.

What's new in our country?

 

it's our country system.

[Mustank]

http://m.todayonline.com/singapore/viaduct-collapse-or-kim-peow-won-contract-due-lowest-tender-price-and-good-track-record

 

[Mkl22]

Whoever said that this is a man-made incident is very unprofessional, just like any Tom Dick and Harry at coffee shop passing casual remarks without any liability.

 

In an incident investigation, we need to nail down the actual root cause, no just wrong doing (i.e. unsafe act or unsafe condition). There are many proven interrogative technique such as 5 Whys Analysis and Ishikawa (fishbone diagram), which help to zoom in to the underlying causes of an incident. From the statement made by LSS, it seems to me more of a system failure, as if proper procedures / check and balance were in-place, the human error would not have occurred.

 

And for the flaw with the current system, I have already state my view in the previous post that the overall owner (i.e. LTA) will still be responsible for any issues, if they did not impose full and effective enforcement throughout the whole construction project. If they rely just on paper work without going through effective review and/or verification, they deserved to receive even heavier punishment. Period!

As I always say, what is new from LTA! Everything cock up except collecting $$ from ARF, ERP, COE!

You name it, MRT, bus, roads, CEVS, all have major cock up and will continue to have. Incompetency there runs deep deep

Ownself check ownself again.

This will be the catch phrase for years to come in this little red dot! OCO!

[Victor68]

come oct, you will get the same old answers. MOM not at fault, system not at fault. it was the workers trying to be too hard working. 

this is the result when the authorities contract out all their responsibilities