A senior manager from Hong Kong's Urban Renewal Authority (URA) testified that the agency does not consider bid-rigging risks during building maintenance tendering processes, a statement that drew gasps from the public at the Wang Fuk Court fire inquiry. He asserted that despite an electronic platform designed to prevent such practices, the URA's role is not to investigate collusion, leaving that responsibility to law enforcement and other parties.
The Independent Committee in relation to the fire at Wang Fuk Court in Tai Po continued its third round of hearings, focusing on the testimony of Matthew Chan Yat-ho, a case manager for the URA's building rehabilitation department.
Chan, who has been responsible for the Wang Fuk Court major maintenance tender since June 2019, faced intense questioning over the URA's oversight of the bidding process.
The committee's counsel, Victor Dawes, presented a bid summary prepared by the URA which showed wildly divergent prices for the engineering consultant contract, ranging from as low as HK$40,000 to over HK$2 million.
Chan described such large price gaps as common when hiring consultants, suggesting some firms might bid low simply to gain experience. He noted that the winning consultant's bid of approximately HK$500,000 was competitive against the average fee of HK$680,000, and that he could not judge if the price was truly reasonable.
He added that even if the URA identified problematic pricing, it would only highlight this to the owners' corporation and would not interfere with their final decision.
The hearing took a dramatic turn when Dawes asked if the URA considers potential bid-rigging during the tender process.
Chan's frank admission that the agency does not, prompted audible shock from the public gallery. He explained that the URA is not a law enforcement body and that because the owners' corporation was part of a police anti-crime program, any concerns about bid-rigging should be handled by other stakeholders.
Dawes challenged this, pointing out that the URA’s "Smart Tender" platform was created precisely to combat collusion, leading citizens to assume its use would mitigate such risks. While Chan agreed with this perception, he maintained the URA's primary role was simply to provide a summary of bids to the owners' corporation for their own interpretation and decision-making.
The inquiry further revealed that the URA deliberately refrains from commenting on the evaluation criteria proposed by consultants in order to avoid any perception of bias.
Dawes posed a hypothetical scenario, asking if the URA would intervene if a consultant set a criterion that contractors must be "tall and handsome," to which Chan agreed they would not. The counsel argued this represented a significant loophole, as manipulating evaluation standards is a key tactic in bid-rigging schemes.
Furthermore, Chan confirmed that the URA does not use publicly available information to vet bidders for potential conflicts of interest. This was in response to earlier revelations that the director of the company that won the construction contract had connections to at least five other bidding firms.
Chan stated the URA trusts the reports from its consultants and would not scrutinize all 57 companies that placed bids for the project, citing the sheer volume of tenders the agency handles annually, which he numbered between 15,000 and 17,000.
When questioned why the URA did not refer multiple complaints from Wang Fuk Court residents about the engineering consultant to the proper authorities, Chan stated that he believed residents would know to contact the Buildings Department directly.
He added that since other government departments were copied on the complaint emails, he trusted they were aware of the situation.
𝗗𝗼𝘄𝗻𝗹𝗼𝗮𝗱 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗦𝘁𝗮𝗻𝗱𝗮𝗿𝗱 𝗔𝗽𝗽 ↓
