SPEECH BY SIRS Y CHUNG, Chairman of the Council,
The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology (HKUST),
at a Lunch Meeting of Peninsula Rotary Club
at Omni Hong Kong Hotel on 21 January 1992
MYTH OF HKUST "COST OVERRUN"
I
am grateful to the Chainnan of the Peninsula Rotary Club ·for giving me this opportunity to speak to his Members on a subject which has attracted great attention in the media and has caused much concern in the community.
Since the publication of the Director of Audit's Report and the subsequent public hearing of the Public Accounts Commit-tee (PAC) about the so-called "cost overrun" in the building of the University campus, much damage is being done to the University by the public perception that the construction cost is unreasonably high due to its lavishness and lack of control of the project. This speech, it is hoped, will answer the widespread criticism and put the record straight.
I have engaged in public service in Hong Kong for over thirty years and a greater part of this time was devoted to the develop-ment of high-level ·technological education. I was personally involved with the establishment of three major tertiary educa-tional institutions, namely, the Hong Kong Polytechnic in 1972, the City Polytechnic in 1982, and the University of Science and Technology in 1991. I was firstly responsible for their planning and subsequently have been the first Chainnan of their respec-tive Councils.
At present, I am Chairman of the HKUST Council. I like to think that all three of them are my children, in various stages of development. When fully matured, the three together will provide advanced tecbl)ological education to a combined stu-dent population of about 80,000 persons in various modes of study. It will be a major contributing factor in the continual eco -nomic prosperity of Hong Kong and its neighbouring territories such as the Pearl River Delta.
The HKUST story begins with the late Governor, Sir Edward Y oude. In a recent publication, Lady Pamela Y oude recalled the thoughts of the late Governor and said, "He felt that Hong Kong was lacking in the area of advanced science and technology and that kind of expertise was necessary to make Hong Kong more
of a powerhouse and more of a leader for China." This was the
very inception of the idea of a technological university in Hong Kong.
The building of a modem technological research university in Hong Kong was therefore seen as the way to provide new scientific concepts, advanced technologies and modern manage -ment to develop and support technology-based economy and to bring ideas out of the laboratories into the market places as innovative products, processes, and services. It is a long term investment for the continual economic prosperity of this com-munity.
Having considered the advice of the University and Poly-technic Grants Committee (UPGC), the Executive Council on 18 March 1986 approved the establishment of the ThiJ;d Univer-sity specializing in science, technology, and management stud-ies with an ultimate student target of 10,000. The Governor- in-Council appointed a Planning Committee in mid-1986 and ordered that the University should have its first student intake no
later than the 1994-97 triennium.
It is the wish of the Executive Council that the University should be open to students as early as possible and in a tribute to the late Governor in the Legislative Council on 10 December 1986, the Acting Governor, Sir David Akers-Jones, said," ... he gave wholehearted support to the concept of building a third university ... and that it should be built as quickly as possible, .... We have that legacy to carry out."
The Planning Committee paid serious attention to this Government's wish and accepted the challenge to bring forward the opening date by three years to October 1991. This new opening date, endorsed by the UPGC, would shorten the lead time to five years for the Planning Committee to design and build the campus, to recruit the Vice-Chancellor and his supporting academic and administrative staff, and to decide, procure, and instal complicated and sophisticated teaching and research equip-ment At one stage it had looked as if it was a "mission impossible".
In early 1987, the Planning Committee was informed that the
Royal Hong Kong Jockey Club
(RHKJC)was considering
making a substantial donation to, and acting as project manager for, the campus construction on a turnkey basis. The Club's
2
track record in managing large scale capital projects was well recognised. This development gave the Planning Committee a fresh impetus to move forward. It was the best means to ensure that the HKUST project would be completed in time and within budget I do not see the Executive Council, at that time or even today, had any better choice. You may not agree with me now but I am certain that after hearing my full speech, you will be convinced.
Following the recent successful pattern of the City Polytech-nic, the HKUST Planning Committee sponsored an architec-tural competition for the overall design of the campus. Unfor-tunately, the Assessment Panel of five members could not come to a unanimous decision on the winner, with only the three local members voting for the winner. Neither the famous architec-tural professor from Japan nor the former president of a techno-logical university from Australia voted for the winner.
As a result, the Panel through its chairman recommended to the Planning Committee both the winner and the runner-up for its consideration as to which design it would use for the campus development May I mention in passing that there was no significant difference in the total three-phase cost between the two. To be exact, one of the designs was estimated at $4,500 per square mette and the other at $4,564, showing a difference in unit cost ofless than 2%.
I
Illlilll!l,91-
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::\.:.:·:·:·:·:·: ·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·:·.·,•,·,·. ;:;:;:;:;:t::::::::: ::::::::::::::::;:::: ·.·.·.·.·.··;:1
;:r-· It is necessary to point out, at this stage, that the rules of the competition did not commit the sponsor to using the winner or, indeed, any of the designs entered in the competition. The Planning Committee had spent three long meetings within a week to discuss the matter and at the end a secret ballot was taken in which representatives from four other local tertiary institutions took part In the one and only ballot taken, all the 15 members present (including 4 from local tertiary institutions, 7 community leaders, 2 from overseas tertiary institutions, 1 from the Jockey Club, and 1 from the Secretariat of the HKUST Planning Committee) voted unanimously for the runner-up design presented by Simon Kwan and Associates in association with Percy Thomas Partnership.It was a pity that the selection of the runner-up design had attracted some unfavourable comments from certain quarters. I must emphasize, however, that the decision was taken in accor-dance with the published rules for the competition and was made in good faith. Judging from the praises heard on the design of the campus since the opening of the University in October 1991, there is no doubt that the 15 members who voted unani-mously had picked the right design.
After the Planning Committee selected the design model in November 1987, the whole campus project was transferred to the Jockey Club as a turnkey project. The Jockey Club, then, based on this selected model conducted a very preliminary review of the initial capital cost and presented it to the Govern-ment. In May 1988, the Finance Committee of the Legislative
January 1992
Council took note of this estimate of $1,930 million, which consisted of $1,620 million base cost at 1987 prices (at TPI 430 and BSI 239) plus $310 million for inflation at 7% per annum. It should be emphasized here that this figure of $1,930 million was an estimate, not a budget.
Since 1987, Hong Kong has experienced an unprecedented rate of high inflation in building costs, and in particular, the building services cost which rose by more than 150% in three years. Take for example, the three-year period immediately after the foregoing estimate was made. The building services cost index compiled by the Government rose from 239 in the 4th quarterof 1987to612in the 4th quarter of 1990,ariseof 156%. The Jockey Club discovered this rapid inflation from the tender prices received for Phase I and promptly notified the Government In June 1990, the Finance Committee of the Legislative Council accepted the now famous budget of $3 ,548 million, which comprised a base cost at 1987 prices (at TPI 4 30 and BSI 239) of $2,340 million and an allowance of $1,208 million for inflation. Since then, this 1990 budget has not changed.
Comparing the estimate of $1,930 million and the budget of $3,548 million, there has been an increase of 84%
and
this is branded as a huge "cost overrun", resulting from mismanage-ment and lack of Governmismanage-ment control. This case is emotionally judged and condemned in isolation, as if the rapid cost inflation in building construction had never occurred or, even if so, had occurred in the HKUST project alone.The tertiary institutions in Hong Kong have many common memberships. Until the end of 1991, the Deputy Chairman of HKUSTCouncil was the Chairman of City Polytechnic Council. We now have obtained from the Government's Architec-tural Services Department some useful information for the current construction of City Polytechnic of Hong Kong (CPHK) campus. As a result, it is discovered that the budget unit construction cost for the CPHK campus had increased from $4,592 per square metre Gross Floor Area (sqm GFA) for its phase I in first quarter 1987 drastically to $11,001 per sqm GFA forits phase II in first quarter 1991, giving an increase of 140% in four years.
This result confmns that there was indeed rapid inflation in building construction cost during those years and that such high inflation was not confined to HKUST in isolation. It should be noted that, contrary to the way and speed with which the
HKUST campus is built, the construction of the CPHK. campus is being carried out in accordance with the nonnal UPGC procedure and under the control of both the UPGC and the Government's Architectural Services Department. Why then is
the HKUST condemned for its so-called "cost overrun"?
Let me go a step further to compare the overall unit cost for the HKUST campus with that for the CPHK. campus phase II, which is being built concurrently with HKUST. The total budget for the construction of HKUST campus, phases I and II, as approved by the Legco Finance Committee, is $3,548 million for 279,266 square metres Gross Floor Area (sqm GFA), giving a budget unit cost of $12,705 per sqm GFA.
According to the list of adjustment factors published by the Government's Architectural Services Department for tender price comparison at different site locations, prices for construc-tion contracts in Sai Kung area, because of its remoteness and inaccessibility, are to be discounted by 10%. Hence the adjusted budget unit cost for HKUST campus in accordance with the Government's own formula and practice is $11,434 per sqm GFA. The University's unit cost is merely 4% higher than that of CPHK., Phase II. For a more detailed analysis and reasons for this
higher unit cost, you may wish to study the handout titled, "It is
cost underestimate, not cost overrun".
It is likely that some people might comment that the CPHK. Phase II and HKUST campuses could have different proportions of academic building and senior staff housing, and therefore we are not comparing like with like. Well, it is a good point.
Academic Staff
Building Housing
HK UST 111% 90%
CPHK 100% 100%
We have also received from the Architectural Services Department, information on the unit costs compiled from actual tender prices on the two major types of building at CPHK. and
HK.UST. The result is that, as far as academic building is concerned, HK.UST is about 11 % more expensive; but in the case of senior staff housing, even when all the lodges and town houses are included in the calculation, HK.UST is still some 10% cheaper than CPHK..
It is now very clear that HK.UST is not being built lavishly. The University certainly does not agree with the allegation that a "Rolls Royce" campus is being built Nonetheless, if it is still believed that it is, then we would say that we are acquiring a Rolls Royce for the price of a Ford.
To conclude, may I say that in this unfortunate incident, there have been two innocent victims condemned by misguided public opinion. First, since November 1987 when the selected design model was handed over to the Jockey Club, the Club became the sole project and financial controlling authority and the HKUST was only involved
as
the end user of the campus. Despite this, the HK.UST has been by association, held responsible for cir -cumstances without its control.Secondly, the Jockey Club has made an unprecedented dona -tion of almost $2 billion and has been doing its best to manage a large and complex turnkey project in a rapidly inflationary period and under a fast track construction programme. In return, the Club was seriously criticized for overspending and misman-aging public funds to the orderofhundreds of millions of dollars. Yet it has now been proven that the Club has produced an excellent campus for the 21st Century, at a unit cost which is 4% more expensive than that of the City Polytechnic, Phase II.
In my humble view, both HK.UST and RHKJC have been wrongly judged and condemned in isolation by misguided public opinion. It is high time indeed that this case of miscarriage of justice for these two organizations be overturned, so that they can all concentrate fully on the more productive business of strength-ening Hong Kong's technology base and economic develop -ment
As a person who has been long in public service, I can fully understand the public's desire for more accountability in spend-ing public funds. We are now in a period of transition, transition to a more democratic and open society that we all hope will be better. Let us all work towards that goal constructively. O
4 January 1992
The
Hong Kong
University of Science and Technology (HKUST)
Clear Water Bay Campus Construction
IT IS "COST UNDERESTIMATE" NOT "COST OVERRUN"
Construction Cost for City Polytechnic (CPHK)The first indicative capital cost for the construction of HKUST campus was made in 1987 by the Planning Committee. It was $4,592 per square metre of Gross Floor Area (sqm GFA) and was takendirectlyfrom the budget approved by the University and Polytechnic Grants Committee (UPGC) in the first quarter 1987 for the construction of City Polytechnic campus, Phase I. This budget unit cost, $4,592, included 12% for professional fees and the cost of site fonnation at Kowloon Tong.
In thefirstquarter 1991 the UPGC approved another budget for the City Polytechnic campus, Phase II, construction at a budget unit cost of $11,001 persqm GFA. This rate was derived from $484,490,000 plus 12% professional fees and spread over 49 ,324 sqm GFA. It is 240% of that for Phase I.
The construction of the City Polytechnic campus is being carried out in accordance with the nonnal procedure and under the control ofUPGC. Despite this, the budget unit cost for Phase II has gone up by 140% when compared to that for Phase I approved 4 years ago. This confmns the tremendous inflation in construction cost during the past few years.
Construction Cost for HKUST
The total budget for the construction of HKUST campus, Phases I and II, as approved in June 1990 by the Finance Committee of .the Legislative Council, is $3,548 million for 279,266 sqm GFA, giving a budget unitcostof$12,705 per sqm GFA. According to the list of adjustment factors published by the Govenunent's Architectural Services Department for ten-der price comparison at different site locations, prices for con-struction contracts in Sai Kung area are to be discounted by
10%. Hence the adjusted budget unit cost for HKUST campus in accordance with the Govenunent' sown fonnulaand practice is $11,434 per sqm GFA.
The Bottom Line: Comparison between CPHK and HKUST Comparing with City Polytechnic campus, the bottom line shows that the budget unit cost for constructing the HKUST campus is about 4% higher than that for the City Polytechnic, Phase II, which is being built concurrently with HKUST. It should be noted that the CPHK campus Phase I was completed before HKUST started construction.
There are four basic reasons for a more expensive campus at HKUST:
1. Site Specific Factors
*
The site was steeply sloping, requiring substantial substructure works and there were unforeseen geotechnical difficulties.*
Major underground utility installations were required to connect the campus to the surrounding infrastructure; as well as environmental considerations resulting in the construction of a major sewage tunnel to Junk Bay.2. Long Term Cost Optimisation
*
Life cycle costing techniques required capital and recur-rent costs to be considered together. The incorporation of items at a higher capital cost to reduce recurrent costs gave overall cost optimisation.*
One typical example: by expanding the infrastructure to pennit more staff housing to be built on campus, the ad-ditional capital cost of $30.2 million brought a net saving of land cost by at least $400 million.3. Building a Highly Sophisticated Research University
*
HKUST is a technological research university where allcourses are degree-granting. In addition, some 30% of HKUST students will be postgraduate.
*
Special environments and structures were necessary for sophisticated research laboratories and workshops; and all utilities and services were comprehensive, and built to respond to changing technological needs.4. Fast Track Programme
*
Advancing the opening date by 3 years, as approved and urged by the Government, allowed many more young people to receive a university education and take part in Hong Kong's economic development.*
It avoided 3 extra years' rapid inflation. ConclusionsThe construction of the HKUST campus should not be viewed in isolation. By exercising very strong project management and financial control, the Jockey Club's campus management team was able to limit its unit cost to about 4%
above that of the City Polytechnic Phase II, which is being built concurrently with HKUST, despite all the unfavourable factors listed above .
•.•. 1.•.•.1.1.1.•.:.· .•.. •:.i.i.~.11e .•.•.•.•. · .•.
1
.
1
.: .•.•. :.·.J.: .•. ' .•. ' .•. :.'.' ..•..
'.'.
u
.:
.
:·i1111Jflftf•r•11;:r1t~illl!Rl¢R!¢llr@
:·:·:·:·:·:·:·:·:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:-:·:·:-:-: :::::=:::::::=:::::: ... ·,·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·. ;:::::::::::::::;:;:;:::::: :;:;:;:;:;:;:;:::::::::::::::: .... ·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·.·...-.·.·.·.···· The above article was prepared for the Public Accounts Committee of Legislative Council
香港科技大學校筆會主席 鍾士元爵士
香港科大建築費用「超支」的神話
很感謝半島技輪社的主席給說道個攝會，向各位會員鼓 鼓這個近日備受傳媒和公眾關注的題目。 自從根數署署畏的報告發表，與及公共l惜自委員會開始 聆訊以來，所請香港科技大學校園建費「超支 J 的問題己對 大學做成很大的損害。公最誤以為科大太奢華，造價不合理 地高昂，政府對建築缺之管制。我今天發表的演講，希望能 澄清有關問題，以正棍髓。 我在香港從事公眾服務過三十年，一大部的時間用於專 上科技教育的發展。我個人奮與 7 番措三間主要的專上教育 磁槽的創立工作，這三間院校包括：一九t 二年開學的香港 理工學院，一九八二年成立的城市理工學院，及一九九一 年開諜的香港科投大學。說奮與了它們的策劃工作，并措任 了它們首任校董會主席。 目前，我是香梅科技大學校董會主席。我把三間院校都 看成好像是自己的張子，他們正處於不同的發育階段。當他 們完全成長，可以為全浩八萬多人一起提供多種不同模式 的科按教育。它們將為番措以及鄰近地區如珠江三角洲的持 續繁榮作出重要賈獻。 香港科技大學的創立，要從已故的尤摺爵士談起。尤權 爵士夫人在最近出版的文章中，固體尤值爵士當日的想法， 她說：「他感到香梅缺乏先進科技，而只有這方面的專業知 識，才可使香港成為中國的帶動力和火車頭。」為番惜創立 一所科技大學的意念，就是這樣孕生的。因此，在香港興建 一所現代化的科技研究大學，被看成可以提棋創新的科學概 念，先進的技術及現代化的管理，從而支持并但進香港發展 技術密集的經濟基薩，把實驗室的意念帶進市唱，創新產品 、製造新怯和服務。香港科技大學的創立，乃為本港保持經 濟繁榮的長遠投資。 行政局在擎考大學及理工教育資助委員會的意見後，于 一九八六年三月十八日批准第三間大學的成立，道所大學將 專注於科技及管理學的教學及研究，學生規模將達一萬人。 作為行政局主席，福管在一九八六年中委任了科大的籌備委 員會，并規定科大在不運於一九九四至九t 年度岐取第一批 學生。 行政局希望科大能盡早把收學生。一九八六年十二月十 日，當時的代港督鐘過傑爵士在立法局會議上向已故的福 督尤摺爵士致贊詞時說：「他全心全意支持第三間大學的興 建．．．它血從速興建，﹒．．我們有責任去完成他的遍關 。」 科大的籌備委員會對政府的意願十分重棍，并願意接受 批戰，同意政府把開頭日期提前三年，在一九九一年十月正 式開課。這個為大學及理工教育資助委員會認可的新聞課日 期，把大學的留學創時間縮短為五年。在這五年間，籌委會須 進行大學校園的設計和興建，把聘校畏和支持他開展工作的 教學和行政人員，購置和安裝各種模雜和精密的教學及研究 設備。工作的繁重程度，這使命當一度被認為是不可能及時 實現的。 －九八t 年初，籌委會撞得政府知會，香港賽馬會正考 盧對科大作出一筆可觀的捐贈，并借任興建工程的管理經理 。賽馬會在管理大型建築項目方面的業績是公認的，因此 ，這個新發展，為我們注入新的前進動力。馬會的擎與，也 是科大工程能保持在預算肉，且能及時完成的最可靠辦法。 我不認為行政局在當日以至現在，有其他更佳的選擇。你們 也許尚未同意，但當你聆聽完畢我令天全部的講話，大家就 會明白。按數署署長對行政局文件的批評，不影響事實。 根攝理工學院的成功經驗，科大的籌晏會舉辦了一個校 園設計比賽。可惜設計 H：.賽的評估委員會的五位委員并未能 就最佳設計取得統一意見：三位本地評審委員投票選出了得 獎作品，並未得其他兩位海外評審養員的同意。此二位海外 委員，一是東自日本的著名建築教授，一是來自澳洲一所科 投大學的前任校畏。 最後，評審委員會經其主席向科大籌委會推荐冠軍和亞 軍作晶，作為設計校園的學考。我要指出：這兩組包括三期 工程的設計，在成本估算方面并無多大分別。其中一組估算 為每平方公尺四千五百元，男一組估算為四千五百六十四元 ，二者相差少於百分之二。 在這裡我還想指出，設計 ti：；賽的章程并無規定主辦人一 定要掃用撞獎作品，甚至任何一個擎賽作品。科大籌委會在 一星期內連續舉行了三次畏時間的會議，詳細討論有關問題 。最後，籌委會舉行了一次不記名投票。結果，十五位出席 委員，包括四位本港專上院校的代表、 t 位社會知名人士、 兩位海外學者、一位馬會代表及科大轉委會的秘書畏，僅﹛乍 7 一次不記名投票，就以全數通過，選擇 7 亞軍作品，即開 聲明建築師樓及善蠶士建築師樓的設計。 智昏委會選擇了亞軍的設計，在某些地方把來了一些非議 ，誠為可惜。我要強調：在選擇校園設計的過程中，我們完 全按照日公佈的比賽規則，進行了真誠的抉擇。科大於一九 九一年十月開學以來，校園設計不斷得到來自各方面的讀 譽。可見當天十五位籌委會委員一致的投票作出了正確的選 擇。 籌委會在－九八t 年十－月就校園設計作出決定後，整 個校園興建計劃便提攝政府指示，交由馬會全權主理。馬會 根攝設計模型，對建築成本作出了一個初步的估計，然後呈 交政府審閱。一九八八年五月，立法局的財務委員會得到這 個初步估計的數字，就是十九億三千萬元，其中十六億二6 January 1992 千萬元是按一九八t 年價格估算的基準費用，（根攝政府建 造投標價格指數即 TPI 為 4 3 0 及政悶棍電工程成本價格指 數闊的 l 為 2 3 9 計算）。根攝每年通服率百分之t 計算， 再加上三倡一千萬元的通服。這是極數署畏所引用的兩個數 字的第一個。值得在此注意的，便是此十九億三千萬元的數 字，只是一個初步估計，並不是一個正式成本預算案。 自從一九八t 年以來，番惜的建築成本經歷了史無前例 的急劇通服，尤其是在建築服務（攝電工程）行業方面，三 年間漲幅連百分之－百五十。香渚政府的攝電工程價格指數 亦由一九八t 年第四季度的 2 3 9 增至一九九 0 年第四季度 的 6 1 2 ，報帽達到百分之一百五十六。 賽馬會在l搜集科大第一期工程投標之後，馬上就發現了 這種高通服現象，於是他們及時知會香港政府當局。正因為 如此，在一九九 0 年六月立法局尉務委員會會議裡，接受了 科大興建的預算案三十五值四千八百萬元。這裡面包括了以 一九八t 年基準費用（以 τPI 為 4 3 0 及 BSI為 2 3 9 計算 ）二十三億四千萬元，再加上＋二愷零八百萬元通服預算。 有人根攝十九值的估計和三十五值預算的數字差距（二 者增幅為百分之八十四） ，臨下結論，說這是興建管理不當 和政府監管不足的後果。此種結論，但如不是忽略了這些年 來建築成本急遍遍服的因素，就是認為過服只局限於科大校 園工程。此種看法，是不公平的。 香諧的專上院校有許多共同的委員。直至一九九一年底 ，番浩科技大學校董會的副主席同時亦措任攝市理工學院的 校董會主席。 香港政府建築害最近提怯了一些值得擎考的資料。其中 一項有關城市理工校園的建造費用，實在是一個很好的例子 。根撮資料，一九八t 年首季，城市理工第一期的建造成 本預算是每平方米四千五百九十二元。而在一九九一年首季 ，城市理工第二期的建造成本預算劇增至每平方米一萬一千 零十一元。增幅達百分之一百四十。 可見過服的受害者，并不只局限於科大。這裡一併指出 ，城市理工校園建造的手續及過程，全部按照大學及理工教 育資助委員會正常程序進行，一切運作亦由委員會及政府建 築署全面監管。在同樣的通服情況下，科大超速完成，反而 單獨承借了誤導性的「超支」罪名，實屬不幸。 讓我進一步詳盡tc較科大工程和同期間進行的識市理工 第二期工程。立法局財務委員會所批按三十五億四千八百萬 元科大的預算，包括了第一期及第二期工程，組建造面積為 二十t 萬九千二百六十六平方米。計算下來每平方米價格是 一萬二千 t 百零五元。 政府建築署在此較不同地區的投標價樁，使用一份價格 調整衰，西賣地區建築合約價樁，困地處偏僻，交通及運輸 不價，按政府確定的公式和慣例，須以九折計算。因此，自十 算下來每平方米價格為一萬一千四百三十四元。僅 tc 城市理 工第二期工程高出百分之四。 教學樓宇 教職員宿舍 科技大學 111% 90% 城市理工學院 1帥% 100% 有人或許會提出這樣 tc 較不夠全面，因為科大和城市理 工校園內的教學樓字和教職員宿舍的比例或許不同。這點值 得看看。 政府建築署提哄的男一的數損，分別比較兩所大專院校 的兩類樓宇投標價格，作為此鞭。科大的教研樓宇此被市理 工貴約百分之十一，而教職員宿舍方面，包括各種寓所在肉 ，科大 tc城市理工便宜了的百分之十。 現在，我們很清楚地看到，香港科技大學的興建并不奢 箏。大學校方不同意它擁有「勞斯策斯」式的校舍。但如果 的然有人這樣說的話，則我們大可告訢他們：我們以一輛福 特車的價格，買來了一輛拷斯萊斯。 最後我想指出，在這件不幸的事件中，有兩位無辜者， 接受了輿論誤導的偈害。其一是科技大學。自一九八t 年十 一月撞遷的科大校舍模型送交賽馬會之日始，賽馬會就成為 這項工程的唯一管理犧禍。科技大學抵不過是這座校舍的最 終使用者。蹤使這樣，輿論仍叫科技大學承惜它權限所不及 的責任，實令人費解。 其二是賽馬會。馬會提棋了一筆為數達二十億元的捐款 ，數目之大在香港前所未有。並且在一個高通服的璟境中， 盡了最大的努力來管理一個全面高速推進的、龐大而複雜的 建築工程。然而到頭來卻被嚴厲指責為虛耗十數億元公蒂和 超支。現在事實證明，它建成了一座卓越的廿一世紀校舍 ，單位造價僅此城市理工高出百分之四。 愚見認為，科技大學及賽馬會受到誤導的輿論，而致被 錯誤批評，實為不公。經此澄清後，現在應是合適的時候， 糾正加諸他們身上的不公平的指控，讓他們繼續把精力集中 於加強香港科技基礎和但進經濟發展這件更有意義的事。 作為一個長期為公眾服務的人，我充分理解公眾對使用 公幣，有更多監管的願望。我們現在正處於一個過渡期，大 家都希望過渡到一個更民主和更開放的社會。讓我們攜手， 以建設性的態度為達致這目標而努力。 鬥口 十社 二幟 月缺 一島 年半 二店會 九酒密 九浴缸， 一香午
香港科技大學清水灣校舍建築費用問題
是「低估」
，不是「超支」
城市理工學院的建築成本 香浩科技大學留學備委員會最初撞出的指標性校舍建築費 用估計，是在一九八t 年﹔當時以建築面積每平方公尺四千 五E九十二元計算。四千五百九十二元這個數字，直接取材 於城市理工學院第一期校舍建築費用預算案，而遁的預算案 在一九八t 年初撞大學及理工教育資助委員會批准，四千五 百九十二元的預算單位成本中，有百分之十二用於專業諮詢 ，並包括在九龍塘闢建工地的費用。 一九九一年初，大學及理工教育資助委員會又批准了揖 市理工學院第二期校舍建築費用預算案，預算賽中的單位成 本是每平方公尺－萬一千零一元。這個數字的計算方法，是 在四值八千四百四十九萬元上加百分之十二的專業話詢費用 ，然後除以組建築面積四萬九千三百二十四平方公尺。第二 期預算裡，單位成本高速第一期的百分之二百四十。 城市理工學院的校舍建築工程是在大學及理工教育資助 委員會監管下依照正常步贖進行的。即使如此，第二期校舍 建築工程的單位預算成本 H：四年前第一期的單位預算成本還 是高出了百分之一百四十。這證明過去幾年來建築成本由於 通貨膨服急劇上升的事實。 香港科技大學的建築成本 立法局財務委員會在一九九零年六月批准了香港科技大 學校舍第一、二期的組建築費用預算，是三十五值四千八百 萬元，組建築面積是二十t 萬九千二百六十六平方公尺，平 均單位成本是每平方公尺一萬二千t百零五元。政府建築署 訂有投標價格調整衰，不同地區工地的投標價格須按一定他 率調整後才可以互相比較，而西賈區建築合約價格按政府規 定須以百分之九十計算。聽吉之，如要 H：較科大和城市理工 的校舍建築成本，科大校舍的單位成本，必須先依照政府沿 用的公式調整，所得的結果是每平方公尺一萬一千四百三十 四元。 實際數字：科大和城市理工校舍單位成本的 比較 以上實際數字顯示，科大校舍的單位預算成本上七城市理 工學院第二期校舍的單位預算成本高了百分之四左右。 科大校舍建築費用比較高，有四個基本因素： （一）地盤困難問題-
建築地盤陡斜，必須展開龐大的底層工程。同時，地質 技術上不少困難，事先無法料到。-
必須安裝大量地下水電液氣管線，才能把科大和都 近地區的地下基層設備接連起來。同時，為了著重 璟攪保護，興建了大型污水隧道，在山脊下通往將 軍潰。 （二）重視畏連經濟效益 自 根攝耐用成本計算法，基本建設費用和經常費用是 必須兼顧的。增加－些基本建設，往往可以節省經 常費用，大量械﹛民畏連總成本。-
每一個例：投資了三千零二十萬元基本建設費用來 攝建底層結槽，使科大在校園內可以興建更多教職 員宿舍，節省了至少四愷元在校外求取宿舍的土地 成本。 （三）精良的科研大學-
科大是著重科技研究的大學，所辦課程全部是學位 課程﹔同時，研究生的比數將高達百分之三十。-
精密的研究實驗室和車間工塌都需要特別設計的環 境和建築結構。同時，校內的水電液氣排污裝置必 讀全面，設計和建築時必須靈活配合科技日新月異 的需束。 （四）提早開課-
科大在政府批准及教但之下，提早三年收生，讓更 多本措青年有攪會接受大學教育，發展本地經濟。-
校舍提早落成，避兒了今後三年間急庫l]J車版的打擊 。 結論 討論科大校舍建築費用，不能不考盧本港在問時期 內其他建築的費用。香港賽馬會校舍興建管理隊伍憑著 嚴謹的工程管理和財務控制，雖面臨各項批戰’的能使 科大校舍的單位成本 H：.同時興建的城市理工學院校舍第 二期高出僅百分之四，那是很難能可貴的。 所謂校舍建築費用「超支」實是無稽之談。聽該說最初 1 大大「低估」了工程的困難度和急劇通脹的成本。這提 哄的實際比較數字當可為大眾釋疑。 （以上文件己提交立法局財務委員會）8
機：1：﹔
假設蓮波。翩翩！！她
=ii
1
i1i
:1l1i1111
1
1
!1llt
Janua可 1992This special issue is published to clarify misunderstandings req凶redin the early phases to save cost in Phase III. Such
on 血eso-called
“
cost overrun”
in HKUST's construction cost. incre值的 co叫“otbe assessed wi血 anydegr臼 ofcertainty until In the Chairman活中eechconcrete evidence w品 giventoshow 也at there was rapid cost inflation 扭曲econstruction ind us甘yin Hong Kong, and in particular 曲e b凶Iding 田rvices costd叮ing 血ey個rsof1988to 1991 and 出atsuch high inflation
W品 notconfined to the HKUST project alone.
Since the publication of the 旬的chpeople have generally accepted the explanation on 血e addi位onalinflation of $898 million but there are still questions on 也e incr，閉路 of$720 million (to凶 increase w祖訓，618）油 the b品ecost 甘1ereis a reluctance to accept the increase of $720 million 甜、nder
es血nate” in the preliminary estimate given to the LegCo' s Finance Committee in May 1988.
In the paper submit削 toLegCo
’
s Finance Committee in June 1990 when the budget of 蹈，548million w品 approv叫， itW品 explained to 也eFinanceComm卸的自atsuchincre品e扭曲e basecostw品 due 的 the original 自由nateha討ngbeen based on
ve可 preliminary designs which had not taken 油to account a number of site and 詛貨值tructuralfactors, the p紅tic叫arrequire
ments of a high technology resear℃h univ仿si旬， the fast 甘ack
construction progranu帥， and the neces甜可 additional work
美111:111心
為澄清所謂香描科拉大學建費「超支」的誤解，我們特 別出版 7 這個特刊。 校董會主席鍾士元爵士在發吉中引述了確切的數妞，說 明番擋的建築業尤其是建築服務行業的成本，從一九八八年 至一九九一年間經歷了急遁的通貨膨服。而受高通服影響的 建築計劃，并不局限於香油科大。 自從該演講發表後，人們一般都接受基準費用額外增加 的八億九千八百萬元的通服數字。但對多增加的t 體二千萬 元（共增＋六億一千八百萬元）的難理解。少數人仍懷疑這 個較一九八八年五月握交與立法周財委會的初步估計增多t 億二千萬的數字是由於「低估」而不是「超支」。 一九九 0 年六月期間，在呈交立法局尉委會通過的三十 五億四千八百萬元的預算案解釋文件中，指出這項增加是由 於原來的估計數字是基於十分初步的設計，儷投考盧許多地 盤和基建的因素，更沒考盧－所高科技研究大學的特殊需要．．．犬
。絢iijffl
p:ti.
tfil::
anumberof tenders had been received. Theses explanations were accepted by the members of the Finance Commit紀ewhen they
approved 也ebudget in June 1990.
By approving this budget Legco's Finance Committee 品－ sumedre叩onsibilityfor the spending of funds on Phases I and II
of 血e university 臼mpusupto 出islevel, i.e., $3,548 million. As
long 扭曲isbudget is not exceeded, there is no “0阿拉阻”．
As to the questions of the ex住a20,508 square me住esraised by the Director of Audit in his report, the UPGC had advised the
Director 血atsuch areas are not covered by the normal space norms, and that they would be approved on the basis of individual merits. During the public hearing on 19 December 1991 the Chief Executive of the Jockey Club responded 也at “d the 訂閱S
mentioned had been included in the brief for the archi包ctural
competition and became part of the original master plan with the full knowledge and agreement of Government and the UPGC.
”
The remaining ques位onsraised after the Chairm血，sspeech all dealt with the Government’
s internal opera血1gproced區臼.ItW部notproper for 血eChairman to address 血oseissu臼 sincethey
concerned neither the University nor the Jockey Club.
、加上超速完成計劃的要求，與及為長遠的節省需要而提早 完成部的第三期的準備工程等所需要的費用。 立法局財委會通過這項預算案，等於它會象擔科大校園 第一、二期的前政支出的責任。即是說，抵要開支不超出這 個預算數字，便不是「超支」。 至於按數署署畏在報告中提出有關科大額外的建築面積 二萬零五百零八平方米的問題，大學及理工教育資助養員會 曾向接數署署長表示，這些面積不應計算在正常的面積標準 之肉，須根攝個別需要給予批准。在一九九一年十二月十九 日，香港賽馬會的行政總裁在出席公共I眼目委員會的公開聆 訊時指出：「所有提及的建築面積，已放在設計 tc 賽的提要 中，從而成為組設計方案的一部份，而政府及大學及理工教 育資助委員會已知悉并同意此方案。」 回瞳校董會主席演講而提出的其他問題，均屬政府內部 運作程序。由校重會主席回答這些問題并不適當，因為它們 眼與科大總闕，亦與馬會總涉。
