The Bridge that collapsed

About a month ago, I wrote in my blog "Are we building a "reban ayam" here?" about how irresponsible was the developer of the bridge at Dipang that collapsed and claimed the lives of the three (3) schoolchildren. By "developer" I mean the owner of the bridge, the one for whom the Contractor built and handed over the bridge after it was completed. Until now, I don't know who the owner is. Since the bridge was used by the students for the "1Malaysia" activities, I suppose the owner was the Ministry of Education. Otherwise it could be the local Municipal Council, Public Works Department or other Government Department.

It is a normal construction practice that after a building or structure is completed, the Owner takes over and consequently maintains the building or structure after the Defects Liability Period is over. In the case of the bridge, the Owner should also take over and maintain the bridge after it is completed. Certainly the Contractor is not going to do that - he just wants to be paid for the work already done and moves on to another construction job.

It was reported earlier after the collapse-bridge incidence that no plans were submitted by the Contractor to the Authorities for approval before the bridge was constructed.

This report regarding "submission of plans" sounded a bit funny to me now. "Funny" because normally it is the responsibility of the Owner and not the Contractor to submit the plans for approval. The Contractor only constructs what are shown on the plans given to him. The design of the bridge or any structure for that matter is usually undertaken by a registered Professional Engineer. Thus, it was not a Contractor's job to do the design unless of course, the Contractor was apointed on a "design-and-build" basis. Nevertheless, the onus was on the Owner to submit the plans, even if the Contractor that he employed was a "design-and-build" Contractor.

The Star on 2nd December 2009 reported the Director-General of the Ministry Of Education having said "that the bridge did not meet the required engineering codes and specifications."

Now, this is also another funny statement to me because if there were no plans being submitted, where did the Education DG get his information that the bridge did not meet the required engineering codes and specifications?

It was further reported that, "The suspension bridge which collapsed near SK Kuala Dipang in Kampar was capable of taking the weight of eight (8) pupils, each weighing 35kg. There were about 15 pupils on the bridge when it collapsed."

Again, if there were no plans submitted, how did the DG know that the bridge was designed to take the weight of eight pupils, each weighing 35kg?

Even if the Owner of the bridge knew that the bridge was designed to take only eight 35-kg-each students, he would have ensured that a big signboard would be placed at strategic locations at each end of the bridge to warn the students and the teachers especially, not to use the bridge with more than seven or eight students at any one time. Of course, the Owner would only do this if he had the civic-mindedness or concern for the safety of the others.

The DG further stated, “The investigation committee found that the concrete block connection in Pylon A could not handle the uplift force from the back-stayed cable."

Of course, when a structure is subjected to a force greater than what it can take, it will eventually give way or fail.

Finally, the DG stated, "The Education Ministry, he said, will take into account the views of the Public Works Ministry and Department, the Construction Industry Development Board, and the Attorney-General’s Chambers in deciding the appropriate measures to be taken against the involved parties."

Who were the "involved parties?" No doubt it was convenient to blame the Contractor who built the bridge, but he would not have gone ahead and built the bridge if he had not got the approval from the Owner.

The Bernama reported on the same day that the bridge was built "hasil sumbangan pihak swasta" (as a contribution from the private sector). I wonder whether it meant that the Contractor built the bridge for "free" or was paid from the contributions obtained from the private sector. Either way it did not mean that the Owner could forego or ignore the requirement of getting approval for the plans from the relevant authorities.

Whether the bridge was built by the Contractor for free or for a certain sum of money, he would not have gone ahead with the construction of the bridge if he had not received the "blessings" or approval from the Owner himself.