The authority that oversaw tender applications for the renovation work at the fire-hit Wang Fuk Court had not considered the risks of illegal tendering practices, a case manager has told an inquiry into the deadly blaze.

Testifying on Thursday, Matthew Chan, a case manager for the Urban Renewal Authority (URA), said the semi-government body had not considered the risks of bid-rigging in the tendering process for the large-scale renovation at Wang Fuk Court, a government-subsidised housing estate in Tai Po.

In a typical bid-rigging scheme, a consultancy firm usually offers a low price to oversee renovation or construction work at a fraction of the market rate.

In the case of Wang Fuk Court, where the massive fire in November killed 168 people and displaced thousands of residents, Will Power Architects was chosen to oversee the renovation project after offering a HK$308,000 consultancy fee and another HK$220,000 to inspect the entire estate.

The consultancy firm then had the opportunity to “rig” the tendering process in favour of Prestige Construction & Engineering, an affiliated contractor and carried out ineffective “rubber-stamp” inspections, the independent committee investigating the cause of the fire heard last month.

Despite being aware that there was a significant range of prices submitted for the renovation contract – with deceptively cheap consultancy fees at the lower end – the URA did not intervene in the bidding procedure, Chan told Victor Dawes, the lead counsel for the committee.

‘We wouldn’t intervene’

The URA case manager said that price discrepancies were common for various reasons, such as when a newcomer in the field wanted to gain experience by offering lower prices.

Chan told Dawes that he did not analyse whether the prices were reasonable.

“We wouldn’t intervene in the decision-making process of the owners’ corporation,” Chan said.

Dawes asked Chan whether he had thought Will Power’s price seemed “suspiciously cheap.” The case manager said that it did, “in terms of the number,” but added that he did not dwell on any possible wrongdoing involved.

Chan also said that the URA had “no role” in hiring the registered inspector and consultancy firm for Wang Fuk Court’s renovation work despite the service contract stipulating that it should have done so.

When Dawes presented a 2016 Competition Commission report on the prevalence of bid-rigging in Hong Kong’s building maintenance industry, Chan said that the URA did not take such risks into account despite being aware of rampant collusive tendering.

Chan also said that the URA “would not comment on [Will Powers’] professionalism,” as the authority trusted the consultant’s experience and would want to avoid appearing biased.

He also told the hearing that the URA receives more than 10,000 tenders every year and has no ability to scrutinise every application in detail.

Chan added that the URA’s “Smart Tender” platform, which anonymises the bidding procedure and arranges third-party price estimates to provide a fairer tendering process, could not address risks “with 100 per cent certainty.”