Wouldn't it be nice if Roads ACT were responsible?

Gungahlin Al said :

CT’s print article talked about the potential additional costs to Roads ACT….

Shouldn’t any additional cost to the project be recovered from the insurance of the person responsible for this hiccup? Or you assuming that blame will never be apportioned?

Gungahlin Al said :

CT’s print article talked about the potential additional costs to Roads ACT. It neglected to consider the additional imposts on Gungahlin residents who now face maybe another 6 months of congested commute.

As I understand it, the duplication is still expected to finish on time. The extra 6 months that will be taken to complete the bridge won’t prevent the connecting roads from being built at the same time. As such, there shouldn’t be any change in the opening date of roads and not additional stress on Gungahlin residents.

PM said :

Tony Gill doesn’t listen to anyone.

I beg to differ. What is your evidence?

I have a lot of time for Tony, and although we disagree on some issues, he always listens and usually acts on what he hears.

I’ve had cause to contact Tony three times in the last two weeks alone on identifying and remedying causes of traffic snarls resulting from the bridge collapse, and the improved commute is witness to tweaks to traffic light adjustments and improved signage that have resulted.

Tony Gill doesn’t listen to anyone.

CT’s print article talked about the potential additional costs to Roads ACT. It neglected to consider the additional imposts on Gungahlin residents who now face maybe another 6 months of congested commute.

The government (and Roads ACT) don’t employ people (though I understand they will now do so) who are able to read and give education opinions on detailed plans for bridge construction.

What they do (and this shouldn’t surprise anyone) is hire people who say that they can do those things. We don’t really need a bridge engineer on the government payroll so that they can check the plans developed by a contractor every few years when we build a new bridge.

There is accountability in this system and it is with the private sector, not the government. Most people understand this to be true, because they believe that there are some things that the private sector does better than the pubilc sector.

Furthermore, because of the arms length relationship with the builders of this bridge, the ACT taxpayers won’t be out of pocket due to this mistake. Had the government been builing it, we would have to pay for the second bridge to be built (though arguably, it wouldn’t have fallen down in the first place).

There are too many cooks in the kitchen. Everyone thinks someone else is going to get the soufflé out of the oven before it sinks, but they’re all too busy keeping their meat separate from their vegetables and sterilising cooking utensils after every dish.

Imagine the outcry there would have been if the unions had insisted on a stop-work, and it turned out later that the formwork was all up to scratch? We wouldn’t have a road closed for two weeks due to demolition works, we wouldn’t have someone in hospital with suspected spinal injuries, we’d just have a union with egg on its face and people looking for more ways to defang the buggers.

When it gets to the point that the workers fear disciplinary action from their employer more than being drowned in concrete, it’s time to wonder if we’ve taken too much power away from the unions.

The days of the Department of Main Roads employing everyone involved right down to the guys mixing the concrete are over.

Government is now just the client on these engagements – setting the high level requirements and paying the bills. They should certainly be making sure that the contractors they’re paying, and any sub-contractors, are appropriately experienced and qualified – but at the end of the day, if you have the necessary skills to ensure that no-one involved is cheating you, then you have the skills to just do the work yourself.

This article shows what little understanding some people have of the arrangements within TAMS for the construction of capital works. Some relevant points based upon information from Roads ACT’s consultants report prepared by SMEC:

• Roads ACT is the client ( not ACT Procurement Solutions)
• ACT Procurement Solutions is the ACT government’s deliverer of capital works and principal’s representative
• ACT Procurement Solutions procures the services of agents (consultants) to design and superintend the works and contractors to construct the works
• Consultants and contractors must be pre-qualified to ACT Procurement Solution’s requirements to be considered for engagement for a project of this value (check out their website at http://www.procurement.act.gov.au/)
• Aecom Australia, the design agent, is prequalified to ACT Procurement Solution’s requirements
• GHD, the superintendent, is pre-qualified prequalified to ACT Procurement Solution’s requirements
• Abergeldie Contractors, the head contractor, is pre-qualified prequalified to ACT Procurement Solution’s requirements
• Sellick Consultants, the design agent for the formwork, is not listed as being pre-qualified prequalified to ACT Procurement Solution’s requirements
• Reynders Constructions, the formwork contractor, is not listed as being pre-qualified prequalified to ACT Procurement Solution’s requirements
• Abergeldie, the head contractor, is responsible for all its subcontractors

What the collapse clearly demonstrates is that there has been a systemic breakdown. If one looks closely at the report there are more safety breaches than just the formwork that have the potential to kill or injure workers AND the public. Everyone in the delivery chain has a case to answer, including the workers who erected the faulty scaffolding. These are also in evidence at other construction sites around the ACT.

The CFMEU protests that it has raised safety issues with the government. However, the workers that it purports to cover also have a duty of care to themselves, fellow workers and the public and if they were aware of the seriousness of the defects then they should have done something about it and not have proceeded with concrete pour. Indeed if they are as diligent as they claim then the formwork should have been rectified.

From looking through the various docs, the fault appears to lie with the engineer who designed the falsework and didn’t spec any bracing for the beams. If I understand correctly (and I may well not), that was a local firm. It doesn’t seem unreasonable nor irresponsible for the Govt./contractors/inspectors/certifiers to defer to the engineering expertise provided.

That said, if the beam bracing had required welding, from the look of the piss-poor attempt at “full penetration” welding performed on the top flanges of the beams, it may still have given way…