Flyover collapses at Upper Changi, PIE

[kdash]

https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/contractor-and-5-others-charged-over-pie-viaduct-collapse-at-10288018

 

The biggest question is LTA knew this company to be low on the performing score and yet the contract is being awarded to them. Why? What is the reason given? Cheapest among other contractors? Who are the ppl in LTA gave the go ahead? Why are they no where to be seen or even heard?

PQM become PM lo... haha...

[Leo72]

This kind of excuse should not be accepted. If your job requires you to do something illegal then you gotta suck it up and report it or else face the consequences. Same goes for the keppel bribery case.

 

Other people's lives are at stake (in this case).

 the engineer may have reported to his boss but the boss keep quiet and don't do anything. Not being a whistle blower is not doing something illegal. By reporting to his boss, the engineer already did his job.

[Yoongf]

https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/contractor-and-5-others-charged-over-pie-viaduct-collapse-at-10288018

 

The biggest question is LTA knew this company to be low on the performing score and yet the contract is being awarded to them. Why? What is the reason given? Cheapest among other contractors? Who are the ppl in LTA gave the go ahead? Why are they no where to be seen or even heard?

Lowest in the quality score does not mean fail the grade. Simply means they met the minimum grade but was lowest ranking among the other tenderers.

[Discoburg]

Si Bei Heng my company never serve this company. Tried cold calling the PM and was rejected.

[Yoongf]

the engineer may have reported to his boss but the boss keep quiet and don't do anything. Not being a whistle blower is not doing something illegal. By reporting to his boss, the engineer already did his job.

The boss did do something abt the reported cracks. The article mentions that “unauthorised strengthening works” were carried out.

Unfortunately, if the design was doomed from the beginning, any remedial works also no use. There was even an AC checker that double checked the design. Very unusual for a design to fail.

[Kusje]

the engineer may have reported to his boss but the boss keep quiet and don't do anything. Not being a whistle blower is not doing something illegal. By reporting to his boss, the engineer already did his job.

I dunno about the law. But if what you said is true and if he did report to the boss, can we expect him to be acquitted?

[kdash]

The boss did do something abt the reported cracks. The article mentions that âunauthorised strengthening worksâ were carried out.

Unfortunately, if the design was doomed from the beginning, any remedial works also no use. There was even an AC checker that double checked the design. Very unusual for a design to fail.

i have a feeling its more on sub-quality construction rather than inadequate design. ST submission would have been done to BCA and they have to check before approval...

[Citros]

There is also the issue of the person or persons responsible for awarding the contract to OKP, the circumstances of which must be clarified. 

 

[Yoongf]

i have a feeling its more on sub-quality construction rather than inadequate design. ST submission would have been done to BCA and they have to check before approval...

Just read the cna news.

 

Design QP charged for failure to check design assumptions. This is similar to cause of nicholl highway collapse.

 

AC checker failed to perform original calculations.

 

Clearly a design failure. Charges no mention anything about construction shortcuts.

[kdash]

There is also the issue of the person or persons responsible for awarding the contract to OKP, the circumstances of which must be clarified.

this one i think is the standard SOP in garment agencies currently, as long as everything in order in terms of critical criteria, hard for LTA not to award to OKP... the current system needs to be looked into...

[Citros]

There is also the issue of the person or persons responsible for awarding the contract to OKP, the circumstances of which must be clarified. 

https://mustsharenews.com/changi-structure-collapse/

[Yoongf]

This is so weird. The media headlines focus on the contractor’s failures and charges. Clearly the issue lies in the design. Even the best contractor will fail if the design is at fault.

[kdash]

https://mustsharenews.com/changi-structure-collapse/

thanks for sharing. garment needs to relook into their tender process. thats all i can say.

[kdash]

This is so weird. The media headlines focus on the contractorâs failures and charges. Clearly the issue lies in the design. Even the best contractor will fail if the design is at fault.

"The charges faced by the company include failing to conduct an adequate risk assessment of the corbels when it became aware of cracks that appeared on them and failing to stop all works that were taking place on the viaduct section where fresh cracks had appeared. Or, 50, faced similar charges."

Read more at https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/pie-viaduct-collapse-contractor-or-kim-peow-charged-10288018

 

Contractor must take responsibility for the safety of their workers too. cracks were found beforehand yet unauthorised strengthening works were done instead of stopping works and coming up with a proper design.

[Yoongf]

"The charges faced by the company include failing to conduct an adequate risk assessment of the corbels when it became aware of cracks that appeared on them and failing to stop all works that were taking place on the viaduct section where fresh cracks had appeared. Or, 50, faced similar charges."

Read more at https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/pie-viaduct-collapse-contractor-or-kim-peow-charged-10288018

 

Contractor must take responsibility for the safety of their workers too. cracks were found beforehand yet unauthorised strengthening works were done instead of stopping works and coming up with a proper design.

The contractor’s workplace safety culture has its shortcomings. Had the site personnel been more assertive, this could have been prevented.

But my point is, this is not a design and build project. Its the design fault that is the biggest contributor to the incident.

 

We use another example. Imagjne there was a plane crash, and the findings point to a plane design flaw. No matter hw safe the airline is, the plane will still go down. Who carries the bigger burden?

[Carbon82]

Everything voiced down to $$$.

 

- Contract awarded based many in cost (safety and quality are not the top priority according to the matrix)

 

- OKP with low margin / tight budget try to savage situations (cracks) with reinforcement structure

 

- If tear down and rebuild, not only will burst the budget / hit P&L, LD could also make them go into financial difficulties

 

I would say that if Singapore is serious about safety and have a target to meet, then the whole contract awarding criteria need to be revamped.

 

Side track a little, when the company I was working with wanted to start a fit out project in one of the ASEAN countries, knowing that the safety standard there is lacking, place emphasis on EHS, and I have to work out a comprehensive EHS plan for them that is very different from what we had in Singapore.

 

Of course, it comes with additional cost (overhead, equipment, etc.), but to ensure that we have zero incident rate (for protecting the company image), the company bite the bullet and approve the budget (about 10% more), and we got what we want... Company image, good morale, quality fit, etc. etc.

[Kusje]

The contractor’s workplace safety culture has its shortcomings. Had the site personnel been more assertive, this could have been prevented.

But my point is, this is not a design and build project. Its the design fault that is the biggest contributor to the incident.

 

We use another example. Imagjne there was a plane crash, and the findings point to a plane design flaw. No matter hw safe the airline is, the plane will still go down. Who carries the bigger burden?

 

That's not the case here right? What happened is is as if the pilot and airline had found some issue with the plane but continued to fly it.

[kdash]

That's not the case here right? What happened is is as if the pilot and airline had found some issue with the plane but continued to fly it.

you are right. if during routine check before flying, some cracks found on the plane body but pilot knowingly still chose to fly, then he should be responsible.