|
Dear
friends,
As a
preliminary
conclusion
regarding
the
three-line
Bangkok
Transit
System (BTS)
construction,
the
interim
Government
decided
that the
‘design-and-build’
approach
be used,
with the
state
taking
on the
responsibility
of
finding
loans
while
still
allowing
the
private
sector
to make
financial
proposals.
Design
and
Build is
an
approach
whereby
one
single
contractor
is
responsible
for both
design
and
construction—a
relatively
new
approach
increasingly
used
overseas.
However,
this
approach
has both
pros and
cons
compared
to the
conventional
‘design-bid-build’
method.
One good
aspect
of the
design-and-build
approach
is that
state
agencies
are
spared
from the
conflicts
and
disputes
between
the
architect
and the
construction
contractor,
as the
latter
is also
involved
in the
design.
It is
also
flexible
and less
time-consuming,
with
relatively
exact
construction
cost
estimation,
and does
not
require
too many
experts
on the
part of
state
agencies.
However,
the down
side is
that its
bidding
documents
often
lack
details,
with few
clear
criteria
for the
selection
of
winner.
Quality
control
is also
difficult
and
smaller
contractors
are
often
blocked
out.
The
Design-Bid-Build
approach,
on the
other
hand,
requires
that a
design
consultant
is hired
to look
at
project
details
before
the
bidding
process
to
select
contractors
starts.
Hence,
this
approach
has pros
and cons
that are
opposite
to those
of the
design-and-build
approach.
The
selection
of
project
implementation
approach,
therefore,
depends
on the
nature
and
specifications
of each
project,
the
emphasis
given to
different
pros and
cons,
and the
general
political
situation
of the
time the
project
is being
implemented.
After
having
followed
the
progress
of this
project
all
along, I
have
some
observations
on the
design-and-build
approach
used in
this
three-line
BTS
skytrain
project
:
Is it
appropriate
and
suitable?
The most
important
reason
for
using
the
design-and-build
approach
is the
flexibility
of
implementation.
This is
because
this
approach
allows
the
design
part to
go in
parallel
with the
construction
part,
which
makes it
suitable
for
projects
involving
rapid
technological
change.
However,
the
construction
time
proves
to be
rather
long.
This
approach
is
however
usually
conducive
to the
use of
best
technology.
The
question
is
whether
or not
all
parts of
the BTS
project
actually
involve
rapid
change
in
technology.
As a
matter
of fact,
there is
only the
train
system
itself
that
involves
rapidly
changing
technology,
while
other
construction
works,
such as
the
building
of
tunnels
and
skytrain
stations,
are
unlikely
to
involve
rapid
technological
change.
I
therefore
agree
with the
proposal
of the
National
Economic
and
Social
Advisory
Council
that
construction
work be
separated
from the
train
system
work.
My view
is that
the
government
should
use a
combined
approach;
that is,
using
specific
and
detailed
design
for
civil
engineering
work
that has
no
direct
impact
on the
train
system,
while
allowing
more
flexibility
in train
system
work
which
involves
rapid
change
in
technology
and
encouraging
competition
between
different
train
technologies.
However,
the
draft
bidding
document
for all
three
train
projects
turned
out to
be too
loosely
specified,
even
allowing
the
bidders
to
propose
the BTS
routes,
the
details
of which
should
already
have
been
specified
by the
government.
Does it
involve
too much
duplication?
I put up
such an
observation
because
the
Thaksin
I
Government
approved
the
design
specifics
and
construction
details
of the
purple-line
skytrain
(Bang
Yai-Ratburana,
Bang Yai-Bang
Sue) in
2003. To
implement
this
project,
the Mass
Rapid
Transport
Authority
of
Thailand
(MRTA)
used up
to about
300
million
baht in
hiring a
consultant
on
project
details
and
feasibility,
project
design,
and
project
bidding.
The
question
is, as
the
detailed
design
and
bidding
documents
of the
purple-line
train
have
already
been
made
available,
then why
the
Government
still
used the
design-and-build
approach
that
would
duplicate
the work
already
implemented.
Doesn’t
this
constitute
an
unreasonable
waste of
national
budget?
Is it
transparent?
The
bidding
document
outlining
the
terms of
reference
is very
broad
and
allows
bidders
to
propose
specific
details
of the
construction
in an
excessively
flexible
manner.
There
are no
clear
criteria
for the
selection
of
bidders.
The
decision-making,
however,
depends
on the
discretion
of a
committee
set up
by the
Government,
causing
public
concerns
about
the
transparency
of the
entire
process.
Moreover,
the
major
down
side of
the
design-and-build
approach
is that
it may
decrease
the
ability
of
contractor
to
supervise
design
and
quality
control
of the
project.
This
approach
also
allows
very
limited
public
participation
in the
project
design
phase,
thereby
presenting
risks
and
uncertainties
concerning
the
quality
of the
construction
and the
possible
kickbacks
to the
contractor
of the
three-line
mass
transit
project.
Most
importantly,
the fact
that the
Government
decided
to allow
bidding
contest
for the
project
not only
generates
criticism
about
the
propriety
of an
interim
Government
creating
binding
commitment
that
would
impact
on the
next
Government,
but also
accusations
about
the
Government’s
conflicts
of
interest.
Scandals
have it
that the
Government
tried to
implement
the
project
in haste
when
there
was no
functioning
Parliament
to
scrutinize
the
plan,
while
citing
people’s
needs
and the
oil
price to
justify
the
decision.
It
should
come as
no
surprise
that
some
sections
of the
populace
cast
serious
doubts
on the
project’s
transparency.
Although
the
desing-and-build
approach
is based
on good
principle,
the use
of this
method
requires
the
Government
to
consider
each
project
on a
case-by-case
basis.
It also
requires
the
government
to ask
itself
if its
current
status
allows
it to
appropriately
implement
this
project
using
this
approach.
|
