News Stories:

Click-on these handy "jump links" to quickly access the news item
you're looking for.

1. Tamar lobbyists plan Legco motion

2. Court sees no wrong in award of harbour contract

1. Tamar lobbyists plan Legco motion
Leslie Kwoh , The Standard 7 March 2006

Frustrated lawmakers and activists plan to ratchet up the heat at a Legislative Council meeting today due to the administration's "dissatisfactory" response to request for studies on the Tamar government headquarters plan.

Replying to a Legco subcommittee motion last month, the government over the weekend released 11 studies on the project, but not the one sought by legislators that purportedly disputes the need for the HK$5 billion waterfront development.

Lawmaker and Action Group on Protection of the Harbour convenor Kwok Ka-ki, who moved last month's motion, called the response "disrespectful" and a way of "cheating." He said he has already prepared a "stronger motion" to specifically request the document at today's meeting.

At least one of the studies in question was conducted by property surveyor Margaret Brooke, who earlier told the subcommittee she and her husband Nicholas were involved in a feasibility study that concluded that redevelopment of the existing Central Government Offices at Lower Albert Road and the Murray Building "was feasible on a phased basis and with a significant increase in floor area."

Brooke, who no longer has a copy of the study commissioned by the government, called the response inadequate. "I can't understand why that report would be different from other reports," she said. "Why should Legco have to ask specifically for it?"

The convenor of Designing Hong Kong Harbour District Paul Zimmerman also expressed disappointment and said he would continue efforts to increase public awareness about the "core issue."

He said: "It's not just about a government office versus a park at Tamar. People have to understand that issue is not just about Tamar, but about urban planning for Central."

Since the relaunch of the Tamar project by Chief Executive Donald Tsang last October in his policy address, the government has maintained that moving headquarters to Tamar would be a "better choice" than in-situ redevelopment, which it estimated could take up to four years longer.

nother factor spurring Tsang's decision is the high rate of unemployment in the construction sector, which could be temporarily relieved by the new project. Tamar would create about 2,700 new construction jobs, according to the government's estimate.

2. Court sees no wrong in award of harbour contract
NICK GENTLE , SCMP 7 March 2006

The government did not act unfairly when it awarded the contract for the Central and Wan Chai harbour reclamation to a firm that did not meet one of the conditions of the tender documents, a court ruled yesterday.

Mr Justice Michael Burrell in the Court of First Instance dismissed a claim for damages by China Harbour Engineering arising from the awarding of the contract to a joint venture involving Leighton Contractors, China State Construction Engineering ( Hong Kong) and Dutch marine works firm Van Oord ACZ.

China Harbour was one of five tenderers who had qualified to bid for the reclamation works.

The tenders were required to cover three specific items: the reclamation of 18 hectares of the harbour between Central and Wan Chai; construction of a 500-metre tunnel known as the Central-Wan Chai bypass; and a 40-metre extension tunnel for the Airport Railway Station.

As there was some doubt if the second and third items would go ahead, the government, to prevent price manipulation, included a clause that specified the tunnel for the bypass should constitute at least 33.7 per cent of the total bid price.

As it turned out, China Harbour was the only firm to do this, with the price of the tunnel accounting for 34.21 per cent of the total. It argued the price stipulation was binding and it should have been awarded the contract. The company was seeking damages for breach of contract as a result.

China Harbour 's bid was worth $3.786 billion, while Leighton's was $3.788 billion. The latter, while slightly more expensive, was evaluated at the time to be the better bid.

In November 2003, a panel set up to ensure the tender complied with World Trade Organisation requirements found the government had not acted fairly or transparently when it chose to accept a bid that did not comply with the price stipulation. It then recommended the contract be retendered.

But Mr Justice Burrell affirmed that the panel's decision was not binding on Hong Kong courts and that the two hearings were entirely different in nature.

Mr Justice Burrell ruled that China Harbour had been treated fairly and that the condition placed on the price of the tunnel was non-binding. He noted that there were many other such clauses throughout the tender documents that were similar in construction.

To argue that China Harbour was misled and was not allowed to play on a level playing field is, in my judgment, somewhat disingenuous," the judge said.