Regulator did not overpay for MRT doors?
With due respect to the journalist who wrote the article
"Regulator did not overpay for MRT doors" on ST dated 19 Aug 2009...
For an article with a bold and confident conclusion that "recent online gripes...
have proven to be far off track", the mathematics used to reach this conclusion is weak and flawed and leaves this reader with a sense that the writer is trying to pull a hood over the public's eyes by using various irrelevant figures and sweeping statements to confuse the audience.
The comparison table presented, though helpful, was not correctly interpreted.
I'll start with the obvious anamolies.
(1) Even if LTA's statement that "its project is more expensive because it is installing more doors on the platforms" is correct, using the Neihu pricing, LTA's project should not cost more than $105 million. Compared to $126M, that's still a 20% increase over what Taiwan paid. And this is notwithstanding the fact that the Neihu system is full-height, which to a layman, should mean an increase if not double the material costs.
Add to point (1) the other statement in the article that say "the cost of platform screen doors is now lower than before" and the universally accepted principle of economies of scale, there should be even greater savings since LTA had more doors.
(2) If the better apple-to-apple comparison is with the Paris lines 1 and 13, which the later part of the article uses, and a difference of 2 years can save 25% of the project cost, ((126-94)/126 * 100) - then LTA should be asked why they could not defer this decision in view of the high quotations received and implement a substantially cheaper system 2 years later. Based on years of dealing with government procurement, this has been the level-headed approach that the Singapore government has been doing its procurement to stretch its limited budget.
If a wrong decision was made, someone should just come out and say sorry instead of the usual lame reasonings that convince no one and only serves to strengthen the impression of a cover-up.
(3)The example of Taipei's Danshui and Nangang implementations is also unconvincing as an example of higher cost implementations elsewhere because it is something that took place in late 2006. Given falling prices (which the journalist states) and again the fact that vendors should be able to give better pricings for bigger projects, it should not be a surprise that this project was more expensive. But still, that doesn't mean that LTA got the best price.
In fact, the only convincing piece of reasoning I find in the article is the fact that LTA is installing the doors on existing lines (which might mean that workers have to work on night shifts instead of throughout the day so manpower costs may escalate) but no elaborations on what portion of the project costs were due to manpower costs, so again it is difficult to understand why the high cost of $126M.
If I may speculate from years of working in the IT industry in Singapore, I would say that the high pricings is because STE quoted a high price for the project and because of the limited players in this area, LTA accepted their pricing without negotiating for a better deal and stretching the public dollar that they should be held responsible for.
- KT
posted by Get Real! @ 7:17 PM
0 comments
