United Nations Public Service Awards Case Studies

Before 1989
Prior to 1989, the maintenance of buildings in Singapore was left to the discretion of the building owners. The building authorities stepped in only when there was a building safety issue or problem that compromised public safety.

Collapse
However, in the interest of public safety, this changed with the collapse of a six-storey building called the Hotel New World on 15 March 1986. This collapse killed 33 people and resulted in a major seven-day operation in which 17 people were rescued.

A Commission of Inquiry (COI) was formed on 22 March 1986 to investigate the cause of collapse and to recommend appropriate measures to prevent a similar occurrence.

The COI concluded that collapse was due to the following:
(i) Poor design - The building was under-designed. Moreover, a new water tank, bank strong room and façade tiling were added without any review of the design;
(ii) Poor construction – There was no proper supervision during construction and the building was not constructed according to the design drawings; and
(iii) Poor maintenance – The owner did not seek any immediate professional advice on the propagation of cracks and serious deterioration of the building.

As a result of poor design and poor construction, many of the columns were highly overloaded and cracks developed in the concrete. Over the 15 years that the Hotel New World was in service, these cracks gradually propagated and spread to the other parts of the structure. This subsequently led to large cracks and loud cracking sounds from two columns on the evening before the day of collapse.

However, in spite of these warning signs, the building owner continued not to seek any immediate professional help to attend to the building’s deterioration.

PSI Scheme
Obviously, it was the duty of the building owner to maintain his building properly. However, the COI pointed out that unfortunately not every building owner was too concerned with maintenance, as demonstrated by the case of the Hotel New World. This was a concern as periodic maintenance was critical to public safety (as well as the safety of the building’s occupants) in arresting or mitigating a deterioration of the building. Hence, in the interest of public safety, the COI recommended the Periodic Structural Inspection (PSI) Scheme.

The objective of the Periodic Structural Inspection (PSI) Scheme was to ensure periodic inspections of buildings by professional engineers to detect structural defects and to carry out repairs, where necessary, to keep buildings safe for continued occupation.

What is the initiative about? (the solution)
Implementation of the PSI Scheme The PSI Scheme was implemented under new building regulations in 1989. Key stakeholders: The Building & Construction Authority (BCA) is the building authority that administers the PSI Scheme. Under the PSI Scheme, BCA serves notice on the building owner who is responsible to engage a professional engineer to carry out the inspection. The appointed professional engineer has to carry out the inspection and submit the inspection report to BCA in the manner and timeframe specified by BCA. If there are any structural defects, the building owner is responsible to rectify them as recommended by the professional engineer. Buildings to be inspected: Under the PSI Scheme, all buildings except temporary buildings, detached/semi-detached houses, terraced or linked houses which are solely used by owners or occupiers for residential purposes, are subjected to regular inspections. Frequency of inspections: For non-residential buildings (eg. commercial and institutional buildings), inspections would be required at 5-yearly intervals. For residential buildings (eg. apartments and condominiums), inspections would be required at 10-yearly intervals. Impact of the PSI Scheme The PSI Scheme is a first in the world to mandate a comprehensive structural inspection regime that contributes effectively to public safety through safer buildings, boosts the durability of buildings, reduces environmental burden caused by demolition and reduces housing costs on society. Public Safety. The PSI Scheme has proven its effectiveness as there has been no collapse of existing buildings in Singapore since its implementation in 1989. Rather, the PSI Scheme has helped to uncover many cases of poor design, construction, misuse and environmental effects before they pose any structural danger. Between 2008 and 2010, BCA served PSI notices on the owners of 8700 buildings; subsequent follow-up inspections detected 393 buildings requiring minor structural repairs and 23 buildings which required major repairs. This is proof that the PSI Scheme is effective in surfacing defects early for repair before they deteriorate further. Ultimately PSI ensures public safety through the safety of the building for continued occupation and use. Durability. The PSI Scheme comprehensively tracks about 60,000 existing buildings in Singapore to ensure that they are properly inspected and maintained. Hence, the PSI Scheme boosts the durability of buildings as it results in well-maintained buildings which can extend the useful life of buildings. Environmental sustainability. The extended durability of buildings means that there is more reason for owners to retain existing structures instead of total demolition and reconstruction due to change of use or redevelopment. This helps to reduce the environmental burden caused by demolition waste. Costs. The 2-stage inspection in the PSI scheme allows the cost burden on building owners to be kept low. In effect, the cost is typically only a fraction of the annual rental value of the building (amortised over the inspection period of 5 or 10 years). With the assurance of building structural safety and durability, the PSI Scheme reduces housing costs on society through reduction of housing replacement.

Who proposed the solution, who implemented it and who were the stakeholders?
Who proposed the solution A Commission of Inquiry (COI) was formed on 22 March 1986 to investigate the cause of the Hotel New World collapse, as well as to make recommendations for appropriate measures that can be taken to prevent a similar occurrence. In the interest of public safety, the COI recommended the Periodic Structural Inspection (PSI) Scheme. Who designed the solution Following the COI’s recommendation, a Building Control Working Committee (BCWC) was formed on 15 April 1987 to study the implications and propose a framework of implementation. The BCWC, chaired by the then Director-General of Public Works, and represented by members of various professional, financial and legal bodies, generally supported the COI’s recommendation for the PSI Scheme. A practical framework of implementation was proposed and the PSI Scheme was mandated under new building regulations which came into effect on 1 May 1989. Who implemented the solution The Building & Construction Authority (BCA) is currently the building authority that administers the PSI Scheme. Under the PSI Scheme, BCA serves notice on the building owner who is responsible to engage a professional engineer to carry out the inspection. The appointed professional engineer has to carry out the inspection and submit the inspection report to BCA in the manner and timeframe specified by BCA. If there are any structural defects, the building owner is responsible to rectify them as recommended by the professional engineer.

Describe how and when the initiative was implemented by answering these questions
a. What were the strategies used to implement the initiative? In no more than 500 words, provide a summary of the main objectives and strategies of the initiative, how they were established and by whom.
In implementing the PSI Scheme, the key strategy was to make the Scheme mandatory without making compliance onerous or costly to the key stakeholders. In the interest of public safety, it was necessary to make the PSI Scheme mandatory. Prior to 1989, some building owners do engage professional engineers to carry out inspections of their buildings. However, such inspections are usually carried out on an ad hoc basis. Therefore, it was felt that the building authority (BCA) should have some means to compel building owners to comply with the requirement if necessary. Under the current Building Control Act, BCA now has the power to institute court action against those who contravene it. To ensure that compliance is not too onerous or costly, the frequency and scope of PSI were carefully considered. Frequency of inspections: Since the purpose of the PSI was to detect the presence of structural deterioration or defects, inspections at 5-yearly intervals was deemed to be a sensible timeframe. This timeframe would allow any defects to become evident. At the same time, a 5-yearly timeframe would not be too frequent and hence, not too onerous or costly to the building owners. (i) For non-residential buildings (eg. commercial and institutional buildings) which have greater impact on public safety as they are accessible to the public), inspections were required at 5-yearly intervals ; (ii) However, for residential apartments and condominiums, inspections were set at a longer timeframe of 10-yearly intervals. This longer timeframe is more appropriate as most apartment and condominium owners live in these buildings and will generally act responsibly in the maintenance of their buildings. Moreover, the occurrence of alterations and additions affecting structures are less likely in residential premises than commercial premises. Scope of inspections: In setting out the scope of inspections, a key consideration was to minimize additional costs to building owners without compromising public and building safety. In most cases, it was determined that a visual inspection would suffice. Hence, inspection requirements were set to cover two stages: (i) Visual inspection: The PSI Scheme commences with the issue of a notice by BCA to the owner requiring him to appoint a professional engineer to carry out a visual inspection. If the visual inspection shows no signs of major defects, the PE will certify so and there is no need to proceed to full structural investigation. In general, more than 90% of the buildings would only require the first stage of a visual inspection. (ii) Full structural investigation: If the visual inspection shows up major defects, deformation or deterioration in the structure and the PE is of the opinion that a full structural investigation be carried out, the professional engineer will recommend to BCA for endorsement before proceeding with the full structural investigation.

b. What were the key development and implementation steps and the chronology? No more than 500 words
15 March 1986: The Hotel New World collapsed. 22 March 1986: A Commission of Inquiry (COI) was formed to investigate the cause of collapse, as well as to make recommendations for appropriate measures that can be taken to prevent a similar occurrence. In the interest of public safety, the COI recommended the Periodic Structural Inspection (PSI) Scheme for the maintenance of existing buildings. The COI’s view was that regular periodic inspections of buildings by professional engineers was highly necessary as these inspections provided a means of surfacing tell-tale signs of poor design, construction, misuse and abuse. This will enable remedial actions to arrest deterioration and to ensure that buildings remain safe, serviceable and durable. 15 April 1987: Following the COI’s recommendations, a Building Control Working Committee (BCWC) was formed on 15 April 1987 to study the implications and propose a framework of implementation for the PSI Scheme. The BCWC was chaired by the then Director-General of Public Works and represented by members of various professional, financial and legal bodies 15 September 1987: The BCWC submitted their report. In their report, the BCWC generally supported the COI’s recommendation for the PSI Scheme and proposed a practical framework of implementation. 1 May 1989: The PSI Scheme became mandated under new building regulations on 1 May 1989. The Building & Construction Authority (BCA) is the building authority that administers the PSI Scheme. Under the PSI Scheme, BCA serves notice on the building owner who is responsible to engage a professional engineer to carry out the inspection. The appointed professional engineer has to carry out the inspection and submit the inspection report to BCA in the manner and timeframe specified by BCA. If there are any structural defects, the building owner is responsible to rectify them as recommended by the professional engineer. 2003: To ensure a more consistent and standardized coverage of the inspections and reports by the professional engineers, BCA issued a comprehensive “Guidelines for Structural Engineers” in 2003. This set of guidelines, which also includes a checklist, clearly sets out the scope of inspections, format of the inspection reports (eg. observations, findings, assessments and certification of structural safety) and the procedures for repair works. These guidelines and checklist have improved and speeded up the acceptance of the PE’s comprehensive inspection report by BCA. 2006: The PSI database was enhanced with the interfacing of building records with the relevant departments to enable new buildings subjected to PSI to be automatically created in the PSI processing system in real time. This did away with manual extraction of building records. 2007: The PSI Scheme was expanded to include checks on any aggressive environment on structures and slopes/slope protection structures.

c. What were the main obstacles encountered? How were they overcome? No more than 500 words
In implementing the PSI Scheme, the following key aspects had to be addressed: (i) the comprehensiveness of BCA’s PSI database to ensure that all relevant buildings for PSI are captured; (ii) the scope and extent of inspections; and (iii) the buy-in from building owners to carry out PSI; Comprehensiveness of BCA’s PSI database: To ensure that all relevant buildings requiring PSI were captured in our database, BCA worked with the Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore (IRAS), Singapore Land Authority (SLA) and government agencies. For private buildings, BCA methodically sieved through the property taxes paid by private buildings owners (to IRAS) to identify buildings that require PSI. For public buildings, BCA worked with SLA and government agencies to identify public buildings that required PSI. Next, it was important to ensure that building owners and professional engineers were aware of the scope and extent of inspections. To address this issue, BCA has carried out regular briefings, seminars and issued numerous guidelines over the years to educate owners and professional engineers on how to comply with the PSI requirements eg. “Building Owner’s Guide” and “Leaflet on Periodic Inspection of Buildings”. Basically, the PSI Scheme commences with the issue of a notice by BCA to the owner requiring him to appoint a professional engineer (PE) to carry out a visual inspection. If the visual inspection shows no signs of major defects, the PE will certify so and there is no need to proceed to full structural investigation. In general, more than 90% of the buildings would only require the first stage of a visual inspection. If the visual inspection shows up major defects, deformation or deterioration in the structure and the PE is of the opinion that a full structural investigation be carried, the PE will recommend to BCA for endorsement before proceeding with the full structural investigation. For full structural investigations, assessments on structural adequacy will have to be made based on available design drawings together with on-site measurements and materials testing. In the event that design drawings are not available, the PE may have to reconstruct the drawings from detailed on-site investigation. The PE is required to recommend corrective actions after the full structural investigation. Last, but not least, another key issue was to ensure buy-in from building owners to carry out PSI. The Building Control Working Committee (BCWC), which was initially set up to review the COI’s recommendation for the PSI Scheme, consisted of key industry stakeholders. This enabled the BCWC to address the concerns and views of the key stakeholders directly in designing the implementation of the PSI Scheme. Thereafter, BCA has continued regular dialogues with these key stakeholders to address further concerns. BCA has also worked closely with the various government agencies, which own and maintain the bulk of the buildings in Singapore, to address their concerns and seek their cooperation to carry out PSI.

d. What resources were used for the initiative and what were its key benefits? In no more than 500 words, specify what were the financial, technical and human resources’ costs associated with this initiative. Describe how resources were mobilized
The initiative involved financial, technical and human resources. Financial resources Most of the financial costs were due to technical and human resources. Technical resources Initially, the database was a manual Excel-based system. Over the years, this was upgraded to various electronic systems (eg. BIMS, BSPS) and since 2003, a web-based Integrated Submission Processing System (ISPS) has been in place. ISPS is BCA’s internal system which processes online electronic submissions of all types of applications to BCA, including PSI reports from the professional engineer. Human resources As mentioned earlier, a main obstacle in the implementation of the PSI Scheme was to ensure that all relevant buildings are captured in BCA’s PSI database. In the early stages of implementation, BCA officers had to comb through many streets on foot to painstakingly locate and inspect many of the buildings to check whether they require PSI. Over the years, this has resulted in a comprehensive database that captures all the buildings that require PSI.

Is the initiative sustainable and transferable?
Sustainability of initiative Over the years, the PSI Scheme has been regularly reviewed and enhanced as part of BCA’s Rules Review Programme. This review covers the regulation, compliance processes and internal procedures. The objective is to ensure the relevance, pro-business approach and customer friendliness of the PSI Scheme, while ensuring that public safety is not compromised. The method of review includes: (i) A condensed 3-step Smart Regulation Checklist is used to update or simplify the PSI Scheme, explore self regulation and identify sunset clauses, where applicable. (ii) Comparative studies are made with other countries to ensure that the PSI Scheme is relevant, taking into account different regulatory systems across the countries. (iii) Consultations and Dialogues with industry stakeholders and industry professionals are conducted with relevant government bodies and industry stakeholders via platforms such as feedback and dialogue sessions. (iv) Comparison and review of cost is also done to review impact to key stakeholders. Over the years, the enhancements to the PSI Scheme include: (i) The enhancement of the PSI to also include checks on any aggressive environment on structures, and slopes/ slope protection structures; (ii) The enhancement of the interfacing of building records with the relevant departments to enable new buildings to be automatically created in the PSI processing system in real time. This did away with manual extraction of building records; and (iii) The introduction of batch notices to streamline the number of PSI notices to building owners who own multiple buildings. Replication of initiative at international levels The PSI Scheme can be replicated at international levels as it is applicable for any country with existing buildings stock. In Singapore, there has been no collapse of existing buildings since the implementation of the PSI Scheme in 1989. This is proof that the PSI Scheme ensures public safety through the safety of the building for continued occupation and use. Sadly, collapses of existing buildings continue to occur in many countries - including those in developed countries such as Hong Kong, China, USA and Europe. These collapses usually result in significant property damages and frequently results in lives lost. Such losses may be prevented or minimized through regular inspections. These inspections will help to detect defects and problems which do not always manifest themselves early and may take many years to show up or reach a stage requiring repairs. These defects could be related to poor design, construction, material deficiencies, misuse and environmental effects. Over the years, BCA has actively shared information on its PSI Scheme with overseas countries, including China, Hong Kong, USA, Australia, Malaysia, Middle East and Africa. There has been much positive feedback on its PSI Scheme from these countries. In fact, Hong Kong has recently announced that it intends to adopt a similar scheme and is in the process of implementing the Mandatory Building Inspection Scheme now. This is further validation that Singapore’s PSI Scheme is effective in ensuring public safety through safer buildings.

What are the impact of your initiative and the lessons learned?
The following are the key elements that have made the PSI Scheme a success in Singapore: (i) Buy-in from key stakeholders (ii) Education & Awareness Buy-in from key stakeholders The Building Control Working Committee (BCWC) was initially set up to review the recommendation for the PSI Scheme. The BCWC consisted of key industry stakeholders who included the Institution of Engineers Singapore, Singapore Contractors Association Ltd, Association of Consulting Engineers, Singapore Institute of Architects and the Real Estate Developers Association of Singapore. This enabled the BCWC to address the concerns and views of the key stakeholders directly in designing the implementation of the PSI Scheme. Over the years, BCA has continually sought to have regular dialogues with the key stakeholders to address further concerns. BCA has also worked closely with the various government agencies which own and maintain the bulk of the buildings in Singapore, to address their concerns and seek their cooperation to carry out PSI. Most importantly, the success of the PSI Scheme in preventing collapses of existing buildings since its implementation, has spurred greater buy-in from key stakeholders. Education & Awareness Over the years, BCA has carried out regular briefings, seminars and issued numerous guidelines to educate owners and professional engineers on the PSI Scheme. This includes how to comply with the PSI requirements as well as sharing on the repercussions of not carrying out adequate inspections and maintenance. From the feedback received over the years, an important lesson learnt is to have clear guidelines on the PSI Scheme. To this end, BCA continually informs and updates the key stakeholders on relevant issues through detailed guidelines such as the “Building Owner’s Guide” and “Leaflet on Periodic Inspection of Buildings”.


Institution Name:		Building and Construction Authority
Institution Type:		Government Agency
Contact Person:		Chiou Peng, Raymond Tay
Title:		Deputy Director
Telephone/ Fax:		65-6325-5088
Institution's / Project's Website:		65-6325-4800
E-mail:		tay_chiou_peng@bca.gov.sg
Address:		5 Maxwell Road #17-00 Tower Block MND Complex
Postal Code:		Singapore
City:		Singapore
State/Province:		Singapore
Country:		Singapore

The Problem

Solution and Key Benefits

Actors and Stakeholders

(a) Strategies

(b) Implementation

(c) Overcoming Obstacles

(d) Use of Resources

Sustainability and Transferability

Lessons Learned

Contact Information