Philip Booth (Artelia employer's agent) gives evidence on project reprocurement. Explains 'political lubrication' email where Artelia changed advice to justify TMO going against original recommendation. Details contractor selection process leading to Rydon appointment despite scoring lowest on PQQs.
00:00:13 good morning everyone welcome to today's hearing today we're going to begin by hearing further evidence from Mr boo of Aria so could you ask Mr boo to come in please
00:00:40 good morning Mr Booze good morning uh ready to carry on yes good thank you very much yes M gring good morning yes good morning Mr Booze morning so I want to start this morning by asking you some
00:00:53 to start this morning by asking you some uh questions about the decision to repure the project that happened in 2013 um now we know you when you started on the project um you started in April
00:01:04 on the project um you started in April 2013 um were you aware that Aria's cost estimates at that stage were in excess of the TMO budget yes I was and were you aware that lead but's cost estimates were even further in excess of the TMO
00:01:17 were even further in excess of the TMO budget yes I was now if we just look at um paragraph 45 of your first witness statement if we can go art 4 8527
00:01:30 statement if we can go art 4 8527 on page
00:01:34 10 you you say this you say although I had limited direct interaction with lead bitter my impression of them as a contractor was that they were not open or transparent about how they had built up their figures in their cost estimate
00:01:46 up their figures in their cost estimate for the project so you say that there now but is it right and and did you understand at the time that Miss Lim the quantity surveyor for Aria was working closely with lead better at this time
00:01:58 closely with lead better at this time yes and is it right that as a result of her work the gap between Aria's cost analysis and Lead bitter's costs was narrowing it was yes yeah when you joined the project you you
00:02:11 yeah when you joined the project you you said you were aware of these discrepancies between the budget and Lead bet and arus cost estimates did you think that the TMO could afford the project as things stood at that
00:02:23 project as things stood at that time
00:02:25 time um well no cuz at that time the estimate was in in excess of what the budget was so something needed to be changed yeah now can we go then to the
00:02:40 changed yeah now can we go then to the status report for the TMO that Aria produced in April 2013 this is art4
00:02:48 9101 now bearing in mind the date of the 23rd of April 2013 is it right that this was produced pretty much at the moment you were joining the project yes it was
00:02:59 you were joining the project yes it was but are you familiar with this uh status report I am can you help us who drafted it Robert pow right and can you recall
00:03:10 it Robert pow right and can you recall when you first read it um it was uh when rob you at around the time it was issued it was part of the um it was a good document actually
00:03:22 the um it was a good document actually for bringing me up to speed as to where the project was because it articulated you know the position of where you know it's what was a status report as of the
00:03:33 it's what was a status report as of the status of the project as of April 2013 so yeah if we turn on to page five in the second paragraph we can see um why the report's
00:03:47 paragraph we can see um why the report's been created it says that it's been generated because progression of the scheme has been extremely slow since before the beginning of 2013 and there are obvious indications that the scheme as it stands remains outside the
00:03:58 as it stands remains outside the parameters set for the project relating to time and cost and that continues to hamper progress so we get that there and then in the middle of this page we see it in bullet point form um a summary of
00:04:11 it in bullet point form um a summary of the contributory factors to that situation and we can see there client brief has been allowed to develop in a peac me fashion over time absence of a controlled and managed scope for the
00:04:22 controlled and managed scope for the project late commitment to a defined construction budget Etc and there are a number of factors there that are mentioned um did you have any View at this time that
00:04:33 did you have any View at this time that you read this about those contributory factors did you agree with them uh well I obviously I was just coming on to the project and so um I had
00:04:46 coming on to the project and so um I had no reason to not believe them because I had no experience of anything other than what was being presented yeah I understand then if we go on to page 18 of this report
00:05:00 at the bottom of the page immediately above the numbered list we can see that it says um so whilst it says whilst it is
00:05:11 um so whilst it says whilst it is expected two paragraphs are whilst it's expected that prices to be received from either Higgins or lake house may improve upon those submitted to date by leadbitter there would need to be some significant work to align all the
00:05:22 significant work to align all the figures and determine if this course might give better value and then it says whilst this exercise is still underway Apple yards would suggest that is not a viable option for the following reasons
00:05:33 viable option for the following reasons and then if you can see a number of reasons are given as to why in this report it was said it was not a viable option to effectively get others to to pitch in for the project or Tender for
00:05:45 pitch in for the project or Tender for the
00:05:45 the project and we can see at one the project Qs project costs maintain that the overall cost of the scheme is an excess of the budget which would indicate more fundamental action is
00:05:57 indicate more fundamental action is required rather than to just just change the
00:06:01 the contractor and then there are other factors including throwing up legal questions and then at three replacing the principal contractor at this stage would incur additional time and expense
00:06:12 would incur additional time and expense without the guarantee that the TMO would be any better served by the replacement so we can see that's um very clear advice from Aria at this stage and then if we can go to page
00:06:25 if we can go to page 25 and look at the conclusions and recommendations of this report and I want to start looking at the second paragraph down it says there the project is currently over budget with
00:06:36 project is currently over budget with little expectation that if left to iterative reviews with the contractor giving diminishing returns the costs will be aligned or reduced sufficiently to make the scheme affordable and then in the third
00:06:48 affordable and then in the third paragraph it says the TMO has advised that it is desires to change the overall scheme to accommodate a change in brief and the proposed ve options to afford these proposed changes may be consumed
00:06:59 these proposed changes may be consumed simply to bring the existing scheme within the Realms of affordability do you see that there yes I do and then if we look um Within These conclusions at the third paragraph from the bottom of
00:07:11 the third paragraph from the bottom of this
00:07:18 page we can see it says there so it's two up from the the number paragraphs it says accordingly it is Apple yard's opinion that unless the project in its current
00:07:30 that unless the project in its current guise is stopped and a fundamental review embarked upon to redefine the scope program and cost it will fail so we can see that that was the advice being given by your by your colleagues
00:07:41 being given by your by your colleagues in this report at that stage is that correct that's
00:07:46 right and then there are some numbered recommendations at the bottom of this paragraph in the conclusions um and we can see those recommendations there is it fair to say
00:07:59 recommendations there is it fair to say therefore that Aria's primary recommendation was to stop the project and fundamentally review the Project's scope program and cost yes the I think the purpose of this
00:08:10 cost yes the I think the purpose of this was to say well look something needs to change and this was a sort of drawing a Line in the Sand and saying this is where we've got to what do we want to do to make this uh um project of success
00:08:25 to make this uh um project of success and there there going to have to be some um decisions made and so this was produced um and then um Apple yards produced a near-term action plan that
00:08:37 produced a near-term action plan that was off the back of this to bring the project back into um a procceed project yeah and it's right isn't it that at this stage artia
00:08:48 right isn't it that at this stage artia was advising against reoccuring the main contractor because it was thought that changing contractor would not address the fundamental problems that had been identified here we wanted to make it
00:08:59 identified here we wanted to make it clear I think Robert wrote this report but I think the answer to it wasn't just getting another contractor U my experience at the time I did have limited in dealings with lead
00:09:10 did have limited in dealings with lead bitter is that whilst we were narrowing the Gap they were very much um busy on the Kensington and Chelsea um Academy project at the back yeah
00:09:23 project at the back yeah and I think the procurement decision at the beginning was um the sites of very close to each other there will be economies of scale that can be gained by having the same contractor do both and there won't be
00:09:35 contractor do both and there won't be any sort of difficulties with logistical Arrangements um contractually already relationship set up but as sort of that
00:09:46 relationship set up but as sort of that that had almost run its course there had been a number of iterations between Tre Chen and um and Le B and it was obvious that it wasn't getting any further I see
00:09:57 that it wasn't getting any further I see um down that course yeah now if we move forward with the chronology if we can now go to Art
00:10:09 46252 this is an email from Robert po to you you're the main recipient of this email Simon cash is then copied in and it's on the 21st of
00:10:21 then copied in and it's on the 21st of May
00:10:22 May 2013 um and we can see it says philli interesting meeting this am exclamation mark basically Peter Madison has been overruled by Laura Johnson she wants to
00:10:33 overruled by Laura Johnson she wants to keep the works for the boxing club and nursery and doesn't want to progress the kitchens and bathrooms at this stage necessarily also PM is that Peter Madison that's what I understood it to
00:10:45 Madison that's what I understood it to be not keen on progressing with lead better and then our our report kicking this all off was based on the objective of preserving program this is now not this now not so important value for
00:10:57 this now not so important value for money is according we are likely to repure scheme via oju and then we're planning a status update meeting on the 6th of June and we'll look in Du course of what happened
00:11:08 we'll look in Du course of what happened at
00:11:08 at that um so you're getting this email on the 21st of May um just taking this in stages what did you understand Robert pal to be saying to you when he uses the
00:11:20 pal to be saying to you when he uses the phrase overruled Peter Madison has been overruled by Laura Johnson um so Peter M Peter Madison I believe reported into Laura Johnson at
00:11:33 I believe reported into Laura Johnson at uh well bar Kensington Chelsea and um we had been um reporting into Peter Madison as artelia and the project
00:11:44 Madison as artelia and the project driver um when we started was um a desire to ensure that Greenfield Tower um was um included as a project at
00:11:57 um was um included as a project at similar times to the Kensington Chelsea Leisure Center and AC and Academy behind and I believe the driver from the TMO on that was there was a lot of um um
00:12:10 that was there was a lot of um um political pressure to to demonstrate that GFI Tower wasn't being forgotten yeah that they were there were still going to be money spent on the tower and not just a shiny new Academy and Leisure
00:12:21 not just a shiny new Academy and Leisure Center behind but also that the tower would be built and I know that there was um concern because a lot of residents were
00:12:29 were um um complaining like what's happening you're not going to you know you're not going to improve our Tower we're going to get forgotten so there was I think the TMO were very um aware that they wanted this
00:12:43 very um aware that they wanted this project to proceed and so program was really important to them as in doing it uh not quickly but that was their primary driver that informed obviously
00:12:55 primary driver that informed obviously that status report that we originally wrote and if program is the primary driver then um negotiating with an existing contractor saves program but it
00:13:07 existing contractor saves program but it may in in general project management terms um it may well cost you more because you're negotiated one contractor yeah I understand that and I understand
00:13:18 yeah I understand that and I understand here you're being told now programs not so important and that value for money is but we've seen that Aria's written advice was that the biggest problem the most fundament mental problem was that
00:13:31 most fundament mental problem was that uh the the budget was too low well I think all yes also you can see that we were we'd been talking to them about what is going to change to
00:13:42 them about what is going to change to the actual scope of the project so it's not just about changing the um changing the contractor so you see there she wants the works the boxing club and Nursery we were talking at that time and
00:13:54 Nursery we were talking at that time and go well maybe if we got to bring it back into budget here are some of your choices you can exclude doing the boxing club or you can exclude doing Works to the garages or you can exclude doing um
00:14:07 the garages or you can exclude doing um you know some words that's how you going to bring it into budget and um and at the same time they were saying actually we would like to improve the kitchens and bathrooms in the residents so there
00:14:19 and bathrooms in the residents so there was our status report did uh enact the TMO into considering Alternatives not just changing the contractor but also looking at what what could also change
00:14:30 looking at what what could also change in the project to bring it into into budget I see yeah so what you're saying I think to us is that you still thought that fundamentally revisiting the scope
00:14:41 that fundamentally revisiting the scope of the project was also a necessary Next Step
00:14:48 Step yes in terms of value for money and the diff the difference between going from program to value for money was that a polite way of saying that rbkc and TMO were now interested in doing the works
00:14:59 were now interested in doing the works as cheaply as possible even if that took
00:15:03 longer um so value for money is a often something that um clients ask for and in
00:15:14 something that um clients ask for and in there's there's three primary drivers in in projects price quality and time and and which ones the most important to you
00:15:25 and which ones the most important to you will make your decision you know help you make decisions doesn't mean you the others out but yes if you want to bring the price down then it might take a bit longer and that's what was being
00:15:36 longer and that's what was being requested here we're not so precious about the time we want to make sure that we're getting the best value for the money we're spending I see and that's quite particularly public sector funding
00:15:47 quite particularly public sector funding value for money is exceptionally important and Order being able to demonstrate and audit that can we now go to the addendum status report that was produced in May 201 13 by artia this is
00:16:00 produced in May 201 13 by artia this is Art 40
00:16:05 6232 we can see um that this is dated May 2013 and if we go on to page three of
00:16:14 of it we can see that it was authored by Robert
00:16:18 Robert Powell and checked and approved by Robert poell as well and then it's issued on the 24th of May 2013 do you see that there yes and did you read this report report when it was produced yes I
00:16:30 report report when it was produced yes I did were you aware that that the advice that artia was giving in it had changed yes and it's right isn't it that Aria had um completely changed its position
00:16:43 had um completely changed its position given the change in the client's requirements in terms of reprocurement of the project that's correct
00:16:52 correct now you say in your first witness statement at paragraph 50 in the first part of paragraph 50 you say you agreed with the conclusion reached in the original report to stick with lead better and avoid delay going down a
00:17:03 better and avoid delay going down a longer procurement route did you agree with the change of advice given in this addendum report I yes I still did
00:17:14 report I yes I still did because you know there have been a change of um primary focus of what the client wanted um and depending you know the client um primary driver does affect
00:17:27 the client um primary driver does affect um the procurement decision it's often one of the things we do talk about on projects you know what's most important to you and different projects will have different levels of importance let's
00:17:38 different levels of importance let's just look at the bottom of page six and on to page seven just so we can see that change of
00:17:46 advice if we look at the bottom it said there uh above the bullet points in light of the changed emphasis of the project brief we seek to amend our recommendation to the TMO as follows and then what we can see is is
00:17:59 follows and then what we can see is is basically you're saying cease design activity on anything other than reconfiguring the scope of the project conduct options of appraisal reprogram the project revise the planning
00:18:10 the project revise the planning submission and then review options to replace the contractor with the target of improving value for money and then either a framework agreement or an oju option to be considered we can see that
00:18:22 option to be considered we can see that there so you set out the stages with this changed advice yes and we're continuing to say it's not just about in the contractor there still needed to be reconfiguration of the
00:18:33 reconfiguration of the scope so just to be clear you felt that this was the correct advice to be giving at the time did you I supported it yes what Robert was proposing so if we can now go to Art
00:18:51 46418 this is an email from Robert pal to you and Simon cash on the 22nd of May 2013 where he's attaching this uh
00:19:03 2013 where he's attaching this uh addendum report that we just looked at and and he says um in the first line he attached my draft addendum to our April report to the TMO and then he says this fundamentally this is a bit of
00:19:15 this fundamentally this is a bit of political lubrication to give the TMO justification to go against the recommendation in our original report which which suggested they keep leadbitter involved with the project and
00:19:26 leadbitter involved with the project and then he talks about when he would like to be issuing the report um
00:19:31 report um now this email was sent to you but you don't mention it anywhere in your witness statement can you help us as to why that might be
00:19:40 be um I didn't think it was U particularly um pertinent I received many many emails on yeah I think you exhibit over 450
00:19:51 on yeah I think you exhibit over 450 documents but this one wasn't one of them what did you understand the phrase political lubrication to mean there in that second paragraph um I didn't really give it a
00:20:05 paragraph um I didn't really give it a great deal of thought um I'm not sure what Robert meant by that I mean I can he was quite flamboyant with his language sometimes Robert as an
00:20:16 language sometimes Robert as an individual um my impression was simply this was the client had a report by their professional team telling them to do one thing they changed their project Drive
00:20:29 thing they changed their project Drive so they needed before they went to the board you know the new advice that was appropriate to the new driver that's you know the TMO following their
00:20:42 know the TMO following their professional advice I see and and you were entirely comfortable with that were you in the circumstances I I didn't didn't cause me any
00:20:52 any concern if we can now go to art 49020
00:20:58 and look on page two we can see an email of the 24th of May 2013 yeah 1627
00:21:09 email of the 24th of May 2013 yeah 1627 this is from Robert pal to Peter Madison and Paul Dunton and you and Simon cash are both copied in and we can see it says um please find attach the addendum to our report we discussed this should
00:21:21 to our report we discussed this should now give you the comfort you are looking for to proceed with looking to brocure the construction against our earlier recommendation which was based on obsolete information so we can see that there and then if we go up to the top of
00:21:34 there and then if we go up to the top of page
00:21:35 page one we can see David Gibson's response you're still copied into to this his response to Robert pow and he thanks him for it and then in the second line lines
00:21:47 for it and then in the second line lines he says the recommendations within the addendum are in line with our discussions of last week and allows us to progress towards reoccuring the construction now those discussions where
00:21:59 construction now those discussions where he says in line with our discussions last week do you know what he's referring to there who were those discussions between I don't know you don't know I mean were you present during any
00:22:10 mean were you present during any discussions in which this change of advice and this addendum was discussed no okay but I assume it was because like the emails or so before that you said
00:22:21 the emails or so before that you said which you the the change of driver means the change of strategy yeah now moving forward again again um we saw in an earlier email that there there was a proposal to discuss this actually we see
00:22:33 proposal to discuss this actually we see it here in this email proposal to meet again on Thursday the 6th That's Thursday the 6th of June if we can go to the minutes of that meeting this is Art
00:22:47 49106 and we can see this is a called a meet a TMO meeting and you offered the minutes for this meeting and took the minutes is that correct yes it is
00:23:00 minutes is that correct yes it is and then if we look at the bottom of the first page at Point 2.1 under contract procurement the minute reads um PM is that Peter
00:23:12 that Peter Madison I think so yes so it's it'll be in the brackets a little bit I think this is Peter mson PM requested Apple yards to review the previous addendum report to in include greater detail on
00:23:24 report to in include greater detail on program and costs to demonstrate that tendering the contract will will deliver greater value for money the main project driver do you see that there I do and
00:23:35 driver do you see that there I do and then program implications of the oju versus London housing Consortium framework LHC framework to be issued to PM by the 11th of June so by that do we understand that
00:23:47 June so by that do we understand that the TMO requested a further revision of Aria's addendum report uh my my memory on that was that um what they were interested in was was
00:23:59 um what they were interested in was was um what were the timing issues so we'd advise that it would take them longer to repure than um the previous strategy of negotiating with lead
00:24:10 negotiating with lead better and there was a decision to be made between um going with an oou uh procurement process or the the other
00:24:21 procurement process or the the other framework and they wanted us to do a bit more work to be more detailed in what are the two program implications of those two options to see if one was a bit quicker or one was a bit bit slower
00:24:34 bit quicker or one was a bit bit slower and which I did just going back to the the PM requested Apple yards to review the previous addendum report was Peter Madison telling Aria that the report had to demonstrate that tendering the
00:24:46 to demonstrate that tendering the project would deliver greater value for money uh no I think it was mainly he wanted more detail on uh the program to
00:24:58 wanted more detail on uh the program to of of one of these um procurement rots well the minute does record that he wanted greater detail but then it says to demonstrate that tendering the contract will deliver greater value for
00:25:09 contract will deliver greater value for money the main project driver was that your view that tendering would deliver greater value for money uh you don't know until you tender
00:25:20 money uh you don't know until you tender it but you can it's evidently demonstratable if you've gone to the market and tendered the world that's how much it costs so that is what it costs
00:25:33 much it costs so that is what it costs prior to that an estimate by professionally qualified quantity of surveyor like Tre Chen or even an estimate by a lead better is just that an estimate so open procurement of
00:25:47 an estimate so open procurement of whichever way we went on here would demonstrate that is that is what it cost to do this so value for money would be demonstrated I think what you're saying is can it be demonstrated that it would
00:25:58 is can it be demonstrated that it would be
00:25:59 be cheaper than what we had on the table for lead better at that time yes would tendering it deliver greater value for money was that Aria's opinion that tendering it would it would demonstrate
00:26:10 tendering it would it would demonstrate that that is the that is the greatest value for money that you can achieve it because Market rates will determine what the actual cost is right you can't demonstrate value you don't necessarily
00:26:22 demonstrate value you don't necessarily demonstrate that it was greater value for money will they depending on how the tender results come in you it might not um depending on market conditions Etc but
00:26:32 but generally uh my experience of every project if you're negotiating with a single contractor versus a a competitive and process the competitive process will
00:26:44 and process the competitive process will um Leverage The the greatest value for money compared to a nego you pay a premium for negotiating with a single contractor was the quality of the works and the safety of The Works ever
00:26:56 and the safety of The Works ever discussed at this meeting not that I recall no can we then go to um art
00:27:06 46473 this is an email from you to Peter Madison on the 11th of June 2013 and I want to look at the um fourth paragraph down beginning I understand
00:27:19 paragraph down beginning I understand you say I understand you have spoken to Simon cash today about Apple yard's report produced in April and the addendum we had agreed at our meeting last week to issue a revised addendum to the report by Thursday recommending the
00:27:31 the report by Thursday recommending the best value for money procurement route however following your conversation to Simon it appears that more adjustments may be required delaying our delivery to you Simon is looking at arranging a time
00:27:42 you Simon is looking at arranging a time with you to enable a full review of the report to ensure it meets your requirements I wanted to raise this here so you were aware we are unlikely to meet our Thursday deadline now I want
00:27:53 meet our Thursday deadline now I want want to ask you about the part second paragraph from the the end of that where say um Simon is looking at arranging a time with you to enable a full review of the report to ensure it meets your
00:28:05 the report to ensure it meets your requirements what did you mean by Peter Madison's requirements in that in that sentence so um I wasn't altering the
00:28:17 sentence so um I wasn't altering the report um Simon and uh and Roberts were um and I think at this time of writing this email I'd taken away the action of doing the comparison of program between
00:28:29 doing the comparison of program between the two procurement options but we'd made a promise to deliver an ended report clearly and it looked like we were going to miss that deadline and I and and it was I wasn't doing it but
00:28:40 and and it was I wasn't doing it but Simon was doing it I see and I think he asked me look I want to make sure we get this really right because we've you know these aren't short reports they're
00:28:51 these aren't short reports they're detailed and and um I think Simon just wanted some more time to talk to uh Peter make sure we got right this time I see so that's what I I think that's what
00:29:02 see so that's what I I think that's what I was saying yeah so is it your evidence that those that really were involved in amending this report was Simon cash and and Robert is that right yes remind me
00:29:14 and Robert is that right yes remind me who that is Robert Robert pal yeah he'd written the original my previous employe I took over from him as employes agent so Robert Pal's still involved yeah uh so and did did you get involved in the
00:29:27 so and did did you get involved in the the detailed discussion question s about the changes to the adendum report or was it Simon cash and Robert Powell who was doing that I think they were mainly leading on it I was aware of what was what was going on were you aware that
00:29:38 what was going on were you aware that artia changed the wording of that report so that it read more favorably for the TMO
00:29:46 TMO um um I wasn't particularly aware of that I think I don't know the specifics of what changes were made I think the overall recommendations were the same as I recall I see I think Mr Cash agreed
00:29:59 I recall I see I think Mr Cash agreed that artia had been strong armed into amending the report to read more favorably taking out certain parts that were slightly negative for the TMO and putting in other passages were you
00:30:10 putting in other passages were you involved in that uh I wasn't present at those things he'd be best to advise on that let's turn to another uh topic now so the oju process itself for the
00:30:22 so the oju process itself for the selection of the main contractor um what was your role in the oju process yes what role did you play so I remained as the uh employes
00:30:35 play so I remained as the uh employes agent uh I was administering the overall process of tendering via the oju so it's a very um it's it's a European process
00:30:48 a very um it's it's a European process it's very regimented and uh um precise and so I was doing the administration of making sure that we got got all the documents together from the Prof team the notice was published on the
00:31:00 the notice was published on the website um coordinating okay the administration and can you help us how did your role sit with that of Jenny Jackson who was I think the tmo's lead
00:31:11 Jackson who was I think the tmo's lead on procurement did you work closely with her during this procurement process I did I describe it as um she she was a procurement expert that's how she was
00:31:23 procurement expert that's how she was introduced to us so she was very familiar with doing these sort of exercises and I wanted to respect her position so I you know if I drafted something I'd share it with her um but I
00:31:36 something I'd share it with her um but I was very much um LED um by her as the client procurement expert yeah now we know that that oju notice was published on the 20th of August
00:31:48 on the 20th of August 2013 and that there were a number of expressions of interest but only five biders returned what are known as pre-qualification questionnaires known as pqqs
00:31:58 as pqqs is that your recollection that is is that a low number of returns for this sort of contract five five returns um it's not high but it's not
00:32:11 returns um it's not high but it's not low I mean we the point is you only want people that really can do the job and are interested in it to to return it there is fair bit of work in returning a pre-qualification questionnaire so that
00:32:23 pre-qualification questionnaire so that drop is not uncommon because it's quite easy to request information about a project sometimes people go well I just don't I I won't qualify cuz I don't have the experience to to put a
00:32:35 the experience to to put a pre-qualification together and that's that's definitely the point we only want people that are likely to be uh proced as contractors now all five of the biders at this stage were invited to
00:32:46 biders at this stage were invited to Tender for the contract is that right that is correct and of the five biders is it right that Ryden scored substantially below the others in the pqqs the pre-qualified qu questionnaires
00:32:59 pqqs the pre-qualified qu questionnaires yes they didn't score so well in the pre-qualification herdle to get into tender yeah I think we can see uh on the overall scores Ryden was uh down at 51
00:33:10 overall scores Ryden was uh down at 51 and some of the other contractors in in the 60s malali was 69.5 Dean 66.7 five so would you agree that was substantially below the others
00:33:21 that was substantially below the others at the pqq stage they scored lower yes yeah just to explain though pqq is like a qu you know to qu to get in to um sift
00:33:34 a qu you know to qu to get in to um sift out those contractors that are not appropriate they don't have they're not the right size of contractor they don't have the appropriate experience so it's um scoring highly in a pqq doesn't mean
00:33:46 um scoring highly in a pqq doesn't mean um well they may well have put done a bet they've clearly done a better submission at a pqq stage yeah but scoring low doesn't mean that they're not um appropriate to proceed just they
00:33:58 not um appropriate to proceed just they didn't answer perhaps the questions as well as their competitors but it still deemed all of those that were taken through were of sufficient you know experience site all
00:34:10 sufficient you know experience site all those sort of General qualities that were needed to be invited to Tender yeah I see now we can see in the oju notice um just want to ask you if you remember
00:34:21 um just want to ask you if you remember this and if not we can turn it up um the notice of the 20th of August 2013 that it envisaged a minimum number of of tenders of five can you remember that
00:34:33 tenders of five can you remember that let's let's look at it art 4
00:34:41 8871 this is the oju notice of the 20th of August 2013 and if we go on within it to page
00:34:50 to page eight and we look under section four procedure in the middle of the page we can see uh it's right at the bottom of that page there's a heading
00:35:02 of that page there's a heading limitations on the number of operators who'll be invited to Tender or participate and then just a few lines down it says envisage minimum number five and if applicable maximum number
00:35:13 five and if applicable maximum number eight do you see that there yes so five was the envisaged minimum that's correct isn't it yes you this is put forward because you're advertising to the the
00:35:24 because you're advertising to the the world if you want to bid and one of the decision criteria that bidding contractors will be interested in is how many people am I going to be up against at tender stage yeah so if you put a
00:35:35 at tender stage yeah so if you put a mass big number in there it may turn off contractors because they might think well even if I get through the pqq stage I've still only got maybe a one in 10 chance of winning yeah um but we did that's the range that we agreed to go
00:35:47 that's the range that we agreed to go for on this yeah was the Reon reason that Ryden was invited to Tender because the TM preferred to have five bidders did you ever have that discussion with them no both TMO and ellia independently
00:36:01 them no both TMO and ellia independently scored the pqq process it was diligent we went through it all and both came to a similar conclusion that all five were quality enough to be invited to Tender
00:36:12 quality enough to be invited to Tender they passed the pqq stage were you aware at the time that TMO guidance was to have at least six biders I was not aware of
00:36:24 biders I was not aware of that now of the five biders that were invited to Tender we know that one that's weights pulled out in December 2013 another one keep Mo pulled out on
00:36:36 2013 another one keep Mo pulled out on the 15th of January 2014 so that left three bidders is that right that's correct were you ever concerned that there would not be sufficient competition with only three biders uh it was a concern yes at one
00:36:50 biders uh it was a concern yes at one point we wanted to make sure that we could demonstrate competition um so we took steps when when we um heard that some were pulling out because when they got into the
00:37:02 out because when they got into the detail they they they made their decisions to pull out that we wanted to be reassured that the others were still going to be submitting yeah three would be my minimum uh really that you would
00:37:14 be my minimum uh really that you would want to compare as a fully detailed uh tender exercise was there ever any consideration given to recommending the recommencement of the
00:37:25 process um
00:37:29 got that would have been an option potentially but because we still we were still had biders that were going through the process and were U you saying that they were going
00:37:43 were U you saying that they were going to submit their returns and we did get three returns that um it wasn't something that we considered in great detail I think if we' got down to maybe
00:37:54 detail I think if we' got down to maybe two or one then there there would have definitely been a like what are we going to do now let's let's think again let's look at an email now this is art4
00:38:05 look at an email now this is art4 8976 this is an email from Peter
00:38:09 blie on the 17th of February [Music]
00:38:16 [Music] 2014 and you're I think you're copied into
00:38:19 into this yeah you're copied into this and we can see that Peter blly is providing a list here of the three remaining bidders and their
00:38:30 and their prices do you see that there yes and then um in the second paragraph So underneath the bullet points he says this we are now busy checking the quality returns as well as checking that
00:38:43 quality returns as well as checking that the contractors have priced for everything correctly do you see that there yes I do now so we can see that Peter blle here is circulating the prices before the quality has been
00:38:54 prices before the quality has been assessed is that right yes is that standard practice practice uh in your experience to share the price of the bids with the team before the quality has been evaluated yes it is we usually
00:39:05 has been evaluated yes it is we usually have a tender opening form that U records what when the tenders are opened to make sure it's an open and transparent process it's usually opened by a couple of independent people to
00:39:17 by a couple of independent people to make sure that it's fair and reasonable and then there's a form that signed and it just records literally what are the the tender returned prices that's that's what we sharing here now those prices
00:39:29 what we sharing here now those prices May well change as we dig into the detail and check that everything's been added up correctly everything's been included but we do record uh diligently when we opened the tenders these are
00:39:41 when we opened the tenders these are what the the prices are and then we go into the assessment of the quality and checking all the prices is it possible but that by doing that the scores given for Price might have influenced the
00:39:53 for Price might have influenced the scores for Quality uh I I don't think so this this process um was a very diligent uh
00:40:04 process um was a very diligent uh process that we went through uh particularly uh all the all the quality questions were spelled out the what scores were going to be um um given were
00:40:17 scores were going to be um um given were was all agreed before we even got the tenders back both the TMO team and arellia team marked it independently and scored the quality criteria so um I
00:40:30 scored the quality criteria so um I think it was a thorough process and that the the quality scores I do not believe were influenced by the okay knowledge of the price can we just look at your first statement at paragraph 32 this is art4
00:40:43 statement at paragraph 32 this is art4 8527 page
00:40:45 8527 page 32 and I want to look at what you say paragraph
00:40:55 113 so say following receipt of Chin's email both Studio e and Max foron provided comments on Ryder's tender submission from a technical perspective on 19th and 20th of February 2014 Bruce
00:41:09 on 19th and 20th of February 2014 Bruce soones of Studio e commented in his email that he was concentrating on riding as the others are so far behind I understood this to mean that Bruce soon had concentrated his efforts on assessing the ride and tender submission
00:41:21 assessing the ride and tender submission because it was the lowest prize and believed it was significantly stronger than durken and malali tender submissions so we can see what you say there and just for the transcript that email where s soon says he's
00:41:34 email where s soon says he's concentrating on Ryden is at Art 4 8832 now is it normal in your experience to concentrate most attention on the cheapest
00:41:45 cheapest bid so um Bruce son's role in this what he didn't score any of the quality criteria he wasn't part of the scoring team but he was the uh lead lead um
00:41:58 team but he was the uh lead lead um designer and architect so the propos he was looking at uh the proposals or he should have looked at all of them and I think he was saying here that he concentrated on Ryden first because he
00:42:10 concentrated on Ryden first because he had made the assumption that they were most likely to win I think it was just prioritizing his workload um okay but he and and we were seeking his comments
00:42:23 he and and we were seeking his comments on you know is there anything in their tender submission from you as the architect that you know you should be raising to us as causing a concern is it look appropriate and that's what I took
00:42:35 look appropriate and that's what I took from
00:42:36 from that would it be fair to say that those assessing the bids were most concerned about
00:42:42 about price uh so before we started the tender process we'd agreed what how we were going to score it and how it was going to be orchestrated and
00:42:54 to be orchestrated and managed uh and so price was deemed as 40% of the overall Mark and quality was deemed as 60% and that was broken down into various different um Quality
00:43:05 into various different um Quality criteria so so 40% of the score to determine who would win was based on price that's not an unusual um ratio yeah um and we discussed that with the
00:43:17 yeah um and we discussed that with the client at the beginning of any tender exercise depending on how price sensitive they are and how quality sensitive they are I mean that's actually quite quality like focused 60% of the score
00:43:29 quality like focused 60% of the score towards I'm interested that the architect you say the architect and we know they were the lead consultant uh didn't contribute into the the the quality assessment again is that normal
00:43:41 quality assessment again is that normal on a project like this to not have your lead architect or lead consultant contributing into the quality scores uh so he was involved but he didn't actually Mark the um the the the
00:43:55 didn't actually Mark the um the the the quality response questions most the questions are around um I forget all of them but they're around um procedure and process um which is best placed between
00:44:06 process um which is best placed between the client and us as Employer agent and the quantity of surveyor to to do to do scoring um Bruce was rep you know representing his role as the the
00:44:17 representing his role as the the architect and so commented on architectural aspects I see in your view did all the bids get an equal amount of attention and and specifically did the more expensive
00:44:28 specifically did the more expensive contractors have the quality of their submissions assessed with the same amount of care absolutely this is actually one of the most diligent procurement exercises I ever been involved in we scored all of
00:44:40 involved in we scored all of them um very um um diligently uh we had we we scored them independently we we uh got together with a TMO we compared our scores reviewed
00:44:52 a TMO we compared our scores reviewed the comments um it was um a very thorough procurement exercise from my point of view can we now go to art4 2197
00:45:03 point of view can we now go to art4 2197 this is Aria's final tender report dated the 12th of March
00:45:09 2014 and if we look at page four of this we can see that you checked and approved this report you see that there the author is twe in Lim and you have
00:45:21 author is twe in Lim and you have checked and approved it and then if we go on to page 12 within this we see the prices
00:45:27 prices that were bid so we've got a table simplified table of the prices in the major categories and perhaps if we can start by just looking at the bottom of
00:45:38 start by just looking at the bottom of the
00:45:40 the page there we can see the respective uh prices
00:45:47 prices now the first sum we see it's not easy because we can't see the tops of the columns but I'll explain the first sum of 10 million pound there is the Aria estimate
00:45:57 estimate and then the next price is Ryden at 9.2 million then we have deran at 9.94 and then we
00:46:07 have malali at I think malali is then at 9.89 is that correct we can just scroll back to the top I'm just checking my notes are correct no no M sorry there's
00:46:21 notes are correct no no M sorry there's a typo in my notes if we go back to the bottom malalia 10.4 so we can see from that that the 9.2 there for Ryden is substantially
00:46:32 9.2 there for Ryden is substantially lower in price than the other biders do you
00:46:36 you agree uh there's a range and they are the lowest yes substantially lower uh I mean the next tender is 9.9 and the others are all above 10 so there's 700,000 between 1 and two and
00:46:49 there's 700,000 between 1 and two and then yeah 500 from 2 to three did the ride intended sum strike you as abnormally low uh I um did not get that impression but
00:47:03 uh I um did not get that impression but the Qs is really the so Tre Chen would have been the one that would have really dived into the detail of assessing whether or not um this was abnormally low or not and I think she makes comment
00:47:14 low or not and I think she makes comment in this report um on that from her professional capacity as a Qs she'd be best place to highlight if things were being undervalued or
00:47:25 being undervalued or missed I see I think she says that I think she does comment somewhere in there yeah I think we ought to note here as well In fairness to Ryden that if we look at external facade the B8
00:47:38 if we look at external facade the B8 line there we've got the artilla 10 the artia estimate is at 2.6 million and and Ryden are coming out at 3.8 and then the other contractor 3.6
00:47:50 3.8 and then the other contractor 3.6 4.1 do you see that there yes I do yeah
00:47:57 and if we go over the page to page 13 in the sixth paragraph down so just before the table in the bottom half of that
00:48:07 that page we can see that Aria have said overall the table on page seven reveals broadly consistent pricing a sustainable level so would you agree that that was
00:48:18 level so would you agree that that was the advice that artia was giving at this point
00:48:24 yes now I want to ask you a little bit now about Resident involvement in uh the oju process um can we just look at paragraph 89 of your first witness
00:48:35 paragraph 89 of your first witness statement this is Art 4
00:48:40 8527 and I want to look at page
00:48:45 23 yeah so there you say on the 9th of October 2013 Jenny Jackson of the TMO sent me the results of the evaluation undertaken by the TMO of the subjective pqq question
00:48:58 pqq question and then you say this question 10.3 of the pqq which related to communication and coordination with residents during The Works was evaluated in a meeting attended by two residents of gremi Tower
00:49:10 attended by two residents of gremi Tower and David Gibson Jenny Jackson and CLA Williams of the TMO the remaining questions were evaluated by Jenny Jackson and CLA Williams Peter blly and I markk the subjective questions on behalf of artia the scores were added
00:49:22 behalf of artia the scores were added together and an average computed do you see that there yeah yes now did you or anyone else at Aria
00:49:33 yes now did you or anyone else at Aria advise the TMO on um who should be scoring which questions was that something the TMO decided for itself the TMO wanted to um have some
00:49:45 itself the TMO wanted to um have some resident input to the selection of the contractor and um it was their assessment as to you know what was a what was fair and reasonable to ask uh a
00:49:58 what was fair and reasonable to ask uh a resident to engage in and I think they made the assessment to um ask some residents to represent and score the uh parts of the pqq that are around
00:50:11 parts of the pqq that are around resident Lea on yeah I think that's what happened let's have a look at the scoring Matrix for the pqq this is a art 48909 page three
00:50:27 and we can see question 10.3 there which we know is the question that the two residents had some input into marking uh it said greml Tower will be occupied during the construction
00:50:39 be occupied during the construction works and working effectively with residents is essential to the success of the project using an example from one of the projects listed in question 10.1 above please confirm how your organization managed communication and
00:50:50 organization managed communication and coordination with residents during the work so we can see that question there now underneath it you see it question 10.4 there's a question about potential disruption to Residents if the
00:51:01 disruption to Residents if the contractor doesn't keep to program so it says the timetable for completion of this project is challenging and to minimize disruption to Residents it's important that the project is delivered to the agreed time scales and then using
00:51:14 to the agreed time scales and then using examples how your organization aded now would you accept that that would also be relevant to the residents wouldn't it disruption to the residents due to program overrun I think it was well it
00:51:28 program overrun I think it was well it was referenced in um this was more around timetable yes could disrupt residents um I it was the tmo's decision which
00:51:41 um I it was the tmo's decision which questions they engaged the residents in I think there were also what's What's um you know what's what's What's um you know what's the right thing to engage
00:51:52 know what's the right thing to engage them in you know it that that that's that question may well have got got uh sort of detailed you know project Gant chart
00:52:00 chart information I don't know I didn't make the decision as to which one I just want to show you one more question um over the page page five question 10 10
00:52:12 10.10 it's about um long-term benefits to the community using examples from the projects listed above pleas give examples of three initiatives um now again but would you
00:52:23 initiatives um now again but would you agree that that would be something relevant to residents that residents could have scored on yeah I mean again I'm not I didn't choose which ones residents were engaged
00:52:38 with um now it's right isn't it that residents weren't involved in scoring the biders on program or quality is that right
00:52:50 right so any Resident um engagement during the pro during the assessment process was within tmo's um gift they they decided
00:53:02 within tmo's um gift they they decided how much to engage them or not in the assessment process we didn't we didn't we didn't advise them or suggested what what was right or not we agreed the
00:53:13 what was right or not we agreed the criteria that we're going to score the tenderers against the weight in the score in um and um resident level of uh interaction was a TMO decision okay I was open to
00:53:27 a TMO decision okay I was open to whatever they wanted really yeah I see now we know that the bidder interviews took place on the 7th of March 2014 um and that's addressed in your first witness statement and and we know
00:53:40 first witness statement and and we know also that the interviews formed 5% of the overall score is that right that's correct can you help us why so low why would those interviews uh only have
00:53:51 would those interviews uh only have contributed 5% to the overall score um
00:53:57 score um that was what we um assessed that that's not a low um percentage sometimes um interviews are purely a clarification exercise I don't score anything um and other uh tenders
00:54:10 score anything um and other uh tenders that I do that's that's appropriate um us um but isn't isn't that the opportunity to test for example what the contractor said about the quality about
00:54:23 contractor said about the quality about the competence of the team the expertise of the team given that again why why so low in this in this instance um I think you can
00:54:34 in this instance um I think you can assess all of those things you just mentioned in written submissions um in the interview um was um put forward and
00:54:45 the interview um was um put forward and it was very much the actual format of what that interview was going to be was you know 100% driven by Jenny Jackson she was uh adamant that we wanted to use some examples of a sort of a role play
00:54:59 some examples of a sort of a role play um at that session and um she um dictated what the questions were going to be there was there was also um a real
00:55:10 to be there was there was also um a real desire through this entire procurement process to make sure that um it was done thoroughly fairly equitably yeah and that every contractor was given the same
00:55:21 that every contractor was given the same opportunity to answer every questions um and that is much easier done in the written format of question and answer and in the intervie when we got to the interview actually Jenny was
00:55:33 interview actually Jenny was particularly concerned to make sure that every contractor was given the same question so there's no opportunity for discussions going off um on down a particular tangent that one contractor
00:55:44 particular tangent that one contractor talked about that another didn't yeah but to give you an example that we are now aware of for example some of the Ry and CVS that were put forward uh we now know that there was some inaccuracy in
00:55:56 know that there was some inaccuracy in those TVs in terms of people's experience isn't the interview a potential chance to test some of that and get a better feel for who is going
00:56:07 and get a better feel for who is going to be on this project in fact and what their experience had been in fact so yes interviews are a great opportunity to get to meet the
00:56:19 opportunity to get to meet the individuals and the team that are going to deliver the project my memory of the interviews that we had the scenario that we played was particularly resident Focus like how are you going to deal
00:56:30 Focus like how are you going to deal with something that had gone wrong and on the construction and you needed to um you know the with residents and things like that so it was a deliberate role play to see those team members how they
00:56:42 play to see those team members how they would react perhaps in in the real life so I think the interview was doing exactly that checking and seeing the team that would be on the job you know how they would um react to you know the
00:56:55 how they would um react to you know the light possible events that would happen on gfell re so I think it did that happened was that a question you ever thought to ask here's the people that have been proposed in your CVS can you
00:57:06 have been proposed in your CVS can you reassure us that in fact those people will be on the project
00:57:13 project um so we asked them to put forward their proposed team that proposed team was asked to come to the interview they did I remember seeing the people that then
00:57:26 I remember seeing the people that then ultimately did deliver the project from Ryden resident liaison lady and the um you know contract representative so okay yes we did ask the people that
00:57:39 so okay yes we did ask the people that are going to do the job to come to the interview I see so you assumed that therefore those people would in fact be doing the
00:57:47 doing the project yes it was asked that I believe we are and that's a normal thing on a lot of tenders don't send the sales team we want to meet the people people that are actually going to do the job and I I
00:57:58 are actually going to do the job and I I believe that's what happened here okay now um just some short questions about the scoring for the interviews is it right that the resident scores would be averaged with the TMO
00:58:11 averaged with the TMO scores they were doing it together yeah the residents and the TMO and is it right that in turn those scores would then be averaged with Aria scores we both so TMO and the residents
00:58:26 scores we both so TMO and the residents did their assessment yeah we did ours we came together and we compared notes and compared scores and then we collectively agreed if we you know scored a three and
00:58:37 agreed if we you know scored a three and they scored a four did we go 3.5 and we debated it and yeah yeah but in Broad terms is what I've just described the process you followed I think so yes
00:58:49 process you followed I think so yes yeah would you agree that that would mean potentially that the resident schooles were being watered down in the school ing process um I I don't agree that they've
00:59:01 process um I I don't agree that they've been watered down I think they've been the TMO decided what the residents would be involved in and they scored the elements that were involved with them I again I didn't really get involved in
00:59:14 again I didn't really get involved in the how much the residents would or wouldn't be involved in the tender scoring okay can we look at the agenda for the meeting on the date of the contractor interviews art 4's 8870
00:59:31 this is the agenda for the greml contractor session Friday the 7th of March 9:15 to 10: a.m. um is it right that this is an agenda for a pre-
00:59:42 that this is an agenda for a pre- meeting before the first contractor was to be
00:59:47 interviewed I think that's right yes yeah and was the purpose of this meeting to make sure that everyone understood what was happening at these meetings like a briefing before you conduct the interview
00:59:56 interview use yes and making sure everybody knew where did we got to so far on the tender scoring process so it was just amongst T TMO um people I think that this was a
01:00:09 TMO um people I think that this was a headed on TMO head headed paper is it and we can see at item four that you doing a briefing there on the tender quality
01:00:17 quality questions do you see that there yes can you briefly remember what that involved I think it was just to update the attendees to the meeting that where
01:00:29 the attendees to the meeting that where we'd got to on scoring the other tender quality questions yeah progress update now if we can go now to an email Art
01:00:41 now if we can go now to an email Art 48969 this is an email from CLA Williams of the 6th of March 2014 to
01:00:49 you and uh the subject is going through GRL quality evaluation and it says Phillip Peter M has asked that you present this in a way that you get residents to buy into the various topics
01:01:02 residents to buy into the various topics and understand what we are looking for I think this means that you need to be very clear on why some answers were better than others do you see that there I
01:01:12 I do and was that email in relation to the briefing that you were going to be giving in this premat that we just looked at a moment ago um I'm I'm I'm not sure I don't
01:01:26 ago um I'm I'm I'm not sure I don't recall this email um was it before TimeWise I think it was day before yeah um it's the day before the interviews they're on the 7th of March
01:01:38 interviews they're on the 7th of March this is on the 6th of March I wonder whether you can help us as to what you understood this to mean Peter Madison has asked that you present this in a way that you get residents to buy into the various topics and
01:01:50 buy into the various topics and understand what we are looking for I think this means that you need to be very clear on why some answers were better than others what did you take that to
01:01:58 that to mean
01:02:00 mean um I think um I I think it was around explaining to perhaps the residents that were there why we might
01:02:12 residents that were there why we might have scored one quality return answer a four say and why we scored another a two and just being clear on the process and that we had a agreed
01:02:24 the process and that we had a agreed scoring criteria before befor hand and and what you needed what we were expecting in terms of answers to score um a higher score than the other we were about to score if I think about this now
01:02:37 about to score if I think about this now if we were about to um score the um actual interview so it would be appropriate for us to sort of take the residents through like this is this is
01:02:48 residents through like this is this is how we are scoring it so we all take a similar approach and realizing that residents you know wouldn't necessarily been involved D in an exercise like this before so we just needed to explain how
01:02:59 before so we just needed to explain how it was going to work and what was expected of them I think that that was what I I took from that yeah there's reference in that first line to um you getting residents to buy into the
01:03:11 getting residents to buy into the various topics so far as you were aware had there been any problem with resident buyin for the tender process more
01:03:20 generally
01:03:24 um I I don't know if there have been issue with buying into the tender generally I know um the TMO would trying to um engage with the residents and
01:03:37 to um engage with the residents and reassure them that these Works were going to happen and and we wanted to listen to them and involve them in uh as best they could I see now I now want to discuss um some events which took place
01:03:50 discuss um some events which took place at the time when Ryden was appointed um and just to recap on some relevant dates on the 18th of May 2014 Ryden was notified it was the preferred contractor and then there was a
01:04:02 contractor and then there was a standstill period while other biders were notified and then on the 25th of March 2014 Ryden and the TMO entered into a pre-contract agreement before the building contract was then finalized in
01:04:14 building contract was then finalized in July 2014 do you recall that broad chronology yes now can we go to art 46433
01:04:31 and I want to this is an email chain between Simon cash and Jenny Jackson of the TMO and I want to look at the bottom of the page where we see Simon Cash's email to her you're not copied in here
01:04:44 email to her you're not copied in here it's on the 3rd of March 2014 and you state I agree with and sorry Simon cash says I agree with you in terms of placing the contract at the
01:04:55 in terms of placing the contract at the submitt to Tender value and an offline discussion with the preferred contractor particularly to set out the intent once a contract has been entered into there is absolutely nothing to say that once
01:05:06 is absolutely nothing to say that once in contract the TMO cannot look for ways of making savings and as part of the informal discussion the intention can be made clear and although not binding the
01:05:17 made clear and although not binding the contractor's agreement sought to work with TMO to achieve the required savings some savings have already been identified in the contractor May well put forward others for consideration
01:05:28 put forward others for consideration during the discussions that can be investigated prior to entering into contract now you see that there and and you do mention this Exchange in your first witness statement uh for the
01:05:39 first witness statement uh for the transcript that's at paragraph 119
01:05:44 119 um I said you weren't copied in but if we look at the CC list we can see that there's reference to a a number 11 1833 greml Tower do you see that there I do
01:05:55 greml Tower do you see that there I do was was that Aria's General mailbox address for the GRL project I think it was yes does that mean that you're likely to have received a copy of this email during your time on the project
01:06:07 email during your time on the project yes is it common in your experience to discuss savings to the tender price of a bidder before they are
01:06:16 selected um so in the tender itself we did ask for sort of alteration uh alternative prices um so pre even in all of the tenderers came you were asked
01:06:28 of the tenderers came you were asked that um is it is it common to discuss savings to the tender price of a bidder before they're selected and here I'm really talking about doing it with one bidder
01:06:40 talking about doing it with one bidder and not with the others uh no did you have do you have any recollection of seeing this email at the time it would have been through the 11833 email address do you recall seeing
01:06:52 11833 email address do you recall seeing it at the time yes and did you have any reservations about the advice Simon cash was giving in that email including the reference to an offline discussion did that concern you at all what I
01:07:03 that concern you at all what I interpreted from this was um this was at a time where we had nearly nearly completed the entire tender process and we recognized that um even the
01:07:16 we recognized that um even the lowest priced tender was in excess of the tmo's
01:07:23 the tmo's budget I believe Jenny Jackson in particular was wanting to uh diligently understand what the next stages would be in the procurement process because normally you would just say you are the
01:07:36 normally you would just say you are the win we've done the order of the assessment criteria you are the selected bidder here is a contract uh please build what we want to build but she recognized that couldn't just say here
01:07:48 recognized that couldn't just say here is a contract for 9 whatever million 10 million because they didn't have that money um so they couldn't commit to a contract in that way so this was a
01:07:59 contract in that way so this was a precursor well how are we going to manage that make sure that we delivered an O du compliant tender but um that we um also recognized that we needed to do
01:08:12 um also recognized that we needed to do some sort of change to the uh whoever we selected to make sure it was brought back into budget and I think that that was what was being talked about here so
01:08:23 was what was being talked about here so it wasn't to do it that would impact on who won the tender I think it was we'd know who won the tender we'd need to enter into perhaps some other um agreement with the selected contractor
01:08:35 agreement with the selected contractor to then work how to get it back into the budget sorry just pausing there you said it wasn't going to impact on who won the won the tender I think you then say I think we know who won the tender but
01:08:46 think we know who won the tender but this is the 3rd of March 2014 and you haven't had the contractor interviews yet yeah so this is prejudge this is our sort of interpreting we knew all three
01:08:57 sort of interpreting we knew all three tenders were above the contract PRI the the budget that the TMO had so regardless I think sorry I'm going to interrupt I think you just said that we knew who'd won the tender do you mean
01:09:08 knew who'd won the tender do you mean that no if I said that I'd apologize we didn't know we had scored um that's incorrect we had gone through most of the scoring process I Believe by that time okay we hadn't decided who had won
01:09:21 time okay we hadn't decided who had won we hadn't completed it and we hadn't notified anyone this was a journey knowing that um we whichever contractor won it was going to be more
01:09:34 contractor won it was going to be more than their budget so how are we going to um take the next steps forward once we've concluded the tender in process my original question it's a short question
01:09:46 original question it's a short question was did you have any concerns when you read this email yes or no no now can we go to ryd 433 3 10 and I want to look at the bottom of
01:09:58 10 and I want to look at the bottom of page one and over onto page
01:10:03 two this is an email right at the very bottom is what I want to start with is from David Gibson to Steve Blake this is the 13th of March 2014 and um if we go over the
01:10:17 2014 and um if we go over the page we can see that CLA Williams and Peter Madison are cced in but nobody from Aria is copied in here um and if we just quickly scan down the
01:10:29 um and if we just quickly scan down the email this is Steve sorry David Gibson to Steve Blake saying Peter Madison of the TMO has given your contact details I understand you're currently in a meeting I've
01:10:40 you're currently in a meeting I've attached a simple spreadsheet indicating the areas we would like you to look at in relation to possible savings our Target is around 800,000 which included the cladding
01:10:51 800,000 which included the cladding savings already priced can you come back to as early Monday so that's that email um were you aware of of this email exchange or these email exchanges going on in March 2014 no I've not not seen
01:11:04 on in March 2014 no I've not not seen that email before were you aware at the time that R the TMO had asked Ryden to find Savings of around 800,000
01:11:13 800,000 no now a meeting is set up for the following um Tuesday in fact because although it says Monday in this email if we scroll up to page one
01:11:26 we scroll up to page one we can see that those on the email chain then say your spreadsheet says a Tuesday PM meet rather than Monday p.m. and I think in the very top email it's then
01:11:37 in the very top email it's then confirmed that the the meet will be on Tuesday p.m that's Tuesday the 18th of March by our calculation were you aware at the time
01:11:48 calculation were you aware at the time of a meeting being set up between Ryden and the TMO on the 18th of March 2014 uh if I wasn't wasn't there no I don't know I don't know about that were you actually at that meeting on the 18th
01:12:00 you actually at that meeting on the 18th of March 2014 I remember a meeting where we introduced um them both post tender selection I don't think it I think that was much later yeah so no I I don't
01:12:11 was much later yeah so no I I don't think I was there I'm surprised that that about this because
01:12:17 because um you know we were very thorough in the um uh how we organized the tendering process is it within the procurement
01:12:29 process is it within the procurement rules to seek a reduction in price from one contractor during the tender evaluation process no not not I'm aware of I then want to look at the letter that's sent to Ryden in mid-march 2014 we go to TMO
01:12:43 to Ryden in mid-march 2014 we go to TMO 130
01:12:50 5474 we can see at the top that it's dated the 17th of March 2014
01:12:57 and it's telling Ryden that they're the preferred bidder and if we look on page two we can see that you've signed this letter do you see that there that's right but it looks from what we can see
01:13:08 right but it looks from what we can see on the documents that there came a time when Jenny Jackson made some comments and amendments to this document do you have a recollection of that um not specifically but I did often
01:13:21 that um not specifically but I did often send formal uh you know letters and things to her for her review and she often made comments particularly on this letter there's lots of feedback yeah um
01:13:33 letter there's lots of feedback yeah um so that that was you collectively Collective feedback between both TMO and arellia and when you sent a letter to Jenny Jackson like that would with a with a draft effectively for her to look
01:13:45 with a draft effectively for her to look at would your signature have been in that letter at that stage or would that be added only in the final version um I don't know you don't know okay if we can go to Art
01:13:59 okay if we can go to Art 42210 this shows some comments on the
01:14:05 document uh if we go to page
01:14:11 eight sorry let's go back to the document I think that's just showing that there's been some changes made um what we can see is this is the version of the letter dated the 17th of March
01:14:22 of the letter dated the 17th of March and then we can see um and we believe it's Jackson based on the author of the changes that you see later in the document has made some comments on it and some suggested additions to the
01:14:34 and some suggested additions to the letter do you see that yes and can you remember that okay yes I can see that and we see for example that she's inserted some capital letters uh below the first um bold text there if we look
01:14:49 the first um bold text there if we look at the version sent out to Ryden this is art 48632
01:14:59 we can see that this version to Peter Arnold at Ryden is dated the 18th of March
01:15:07 March 2014 and again if we look on and we can see sorry before we look at page two in your signature that we can see some of Jenny Jackson's changes have gone into this final version that's correct isn't it yes and then if we look on page two
01:15:21 it yes and then if we look on page two we can see there's your signature so that that appears to be the final version that's sent
01:15:31 out can we then go to Art
01:15:40 48755 this is an email from Peter blide to Ryden attaching the letter of the 18th of March and we can see from that that it's sent at 5:55 p.m. do you see that
01:15:52 sent at 5:55 p.m. do you see that there yes do you know how Peter blle would have received the instruction to send these out would someone at the TMO tell him right now you can send these out and then he would do that
01:16:05 out and then he would do that job um maybe or it might to be probably me telling him to that yes the Letter's been agreed please send and so we now know that the TMO had
01:16:16 send and so we now know that the TMO had a meeting with Ryden in the afternoon of the 18th of March that was on the Tuesday the 18th of March this day uh did you know anything about that meeting
01:16:29 no were you ever made aware that Ryden got the job because it was prepared to reduce its its tendered price
01:16:39 no as I said I thought we we we absolutely did a very thorough process this is news to me um I think R Ryden went through we we orchestrated the
01:16:51 went through we we orchestrated the whole tender and they scored and we followed the rules as far as I was aware yeah I didn't know anything about that Mr chairman I think that might be a good time for a break I'm doing well with this witness I've got another couple of
01:17:03 this witness I've got another couple of topics to do but um I would hope that we'll get to the other witness before lunchtime well that would be good yes right thank you well Mr boo we'll have a short break now we'll come back at uh 25
01:17:14 short break now we'll come back at uh 25 to 12 please uh okay and please remember not to talk to anyone about your evidence while you're out of the rules thank you
01:17:32 yes 25 to 12 pleas thank
01:17:53 you
01:18:23 e
01:18:53 e
01:19:23 e
01:19:53 e
01:20:23 e
01:20:53 e
01:21:23 e
01:21:53 e
01:22:23 e
01:22:53 e
01:23:23 e
01:23:53 e
01:24:23 e
01:24:53 e
01:25:23 e
01:25:53 e
01:26:23 e
01:26:53 e
01:27:23 e
01:27:53 e
01:28:23 e
01:28:53 e
01:29:23 e
01:29:53 e
01:30:22 e
01:30:52 e
01:31:22 e
01:31:52 e
01:32:22 e
01:32:52 e
01:33:22 e
01:33:52 e
01:34:22 e
01:34:52 e e
01:35:29 [Applause]
01:35:34 right we do ask Mr boo to come back in
01:35:51 please right Mr Bo ready to carry on yes of course thank you very much yes Mr gr yes thank you yes Mr be just a few short questions now about the value engineering exercise that was undertaken
01:36:02 engineering exercise that was undertaken after uh a contract was entered into with Ryden can we go to R yd
01:36:17 44154 this is an email from Simon Lawrence
01:36:24 to CLA Williams Mark Watson and you and Peter blly on the 6th of May 2014 and it's about a meeting with the planners which was to be held on the 8th
01:36:36 planners which was to be held on the 8th of May
01:36:37 of May 2014 and it appears that this discussion is against the backdrop of whether the planners would accept ACM as the exterior material for the rain screen cladding system do you agree
01:36:48 rain screen cladding system do you agree with that yes this was um meeting with the planning officers to talk about about um some how we were going to discharge the um some of the conditions
01:36:59 discharge the um some of the conditions and one of them was the facade yes and under Simon Lawrence's agenda points there the first bullet it says this proposal of material change to the facade from zinc to aluminium composite
01:37:12 facade from zinc to aluminium composite ACM put forward our case that ACM is not an inferior product to zinc do you see that there I do and um you mentioned this email in
01:37:23 do and um you mentioned this email in your first witness statement if we can go to that art 4's 8527 at paragraph 133 on page
01:37:38 38 and if I pick it up right at the bottom of that page you say um I recall that at this time the entire discussion between Studio e IBI Taylor Young and the L LPA surrounding the cladding
01:37:51 the L LPA surrounding the cladding related to its appearance and whe the ACM if we go over the
01:38:00 page yeah whether ACM looked of a cheaper or lesser quality than zinc so that's what you've said about in your uh witness statement and when you
01:38:11 your uh witness statement and when you say there lesser quality what do you mean by that do you mean whether it looked like a a lesser quality product or that it was in substance Le lesser quality can you
01:38:23 substance Le lesser quality can you helpers so all of the discussions are around aesthetic appearance and what it would look like um changing the facade of greld tower was obviously a
01:38:35 of greld tower was obviously a significant visual change and the planners were particularly uh wanting reassurances uh that what we were proposing would you know look
01:38:47 proposing would you know look appropriate and the quality and would last so all all of the discussion was around what color it might be um how it was going to be fixed to the building whether or not the fixings would be
01:38:59 whether or not the fixings would be visible or hidden fixings cassette fixings okay it was that do you recall ever being party to any discussions where the fire performance the fire safety performance of the cladding was
01:39:11 safety performance of the cladding was discussed it was never discussed with me fire you know compliance was you know it's not a debatable thing to have it's
01:39:22 it's not a debatable thing to have it's implicit it absolutely must so no at no point in any of the discussions and reviews of what the clading was going to be was there any is this going to be
01:39:33 be was there any is this going to be fireproof or anything like that that never happened okay look that Segways nicely into um a query that was raised by CLA Williams in November 2014 that I now want to ask you about
01:39:44 now want to ask you about um can we go to a 48794
01:39:57 this is an email chain between you and CLA Williams and I want to pick it up on the second page we can see an email date of the 12th of November at
01:40:08 November at 10:36 y there so this is from CLA Williams to you and Nick Valente 12th November 2014 and it's under the heading greml
01:40:21 2014 and it's under the heading greml windows and she says this chaps um and under Windows she said when I delivered the building contract to site yesterday I met up with Ryden and Matt Smith yesterday and had a window discussion
01:40:33 yesterday and had a window discussion I'm looking to take this report to Peter Madison and David Gibson but I'm waiting for Ryden to verify that the proposed windows will meet building regulations and then Under The Heading cladding she says I've just been looking
01:40:46 cladding she says I've just been looking at the cladding as our database is asking for costs I have put something together however I do do not know if any issue of flame retardance requirement I know at lachel house one issue was that
01:40:59 know at lachel house one issue was that the replacement paneling for the asbestos cladding was not flame retardant I don't know if this is in the specification but want to make sure it is raised please advise thanks so can
01:41:10 is raised please advise thanks so can you see there she's seeking your advice on these two issues yes before this email were you aware of the fire at Lael house in
01:41:21 the fire at Lael house in 2009 I wasn't no so does it follow that you didn't know what she was referring to in that cladding
01:41:30 cladding paragraph well I I um I could work out what what it was probably referring to from reading it that there was something a fire happened
01:41:41 that there was something a fire happened at lnel house and since then I've looked into it at the time did you go and look it up and um put that into Google and see what you could find out about that incident no at the time of receiving
01:41:53 incident no at the time of receiving this this was um one of the many sort of design queries that I'd received from um uh CLA and um I think you see my reply
01:42:05 uh CLA and um I think you see my reply above that um I didn't know the answer to you know what was all the specification everything so what I did to try and be helpful is pointed to to
01:42:18 to try and be helpful is pointed to to some of the um references in the tender uh yes yes I'll take you to that in just a moment just just thinking back to your knowledge at the time were you aware of
01:42:30 knowledge at the time were you aware of um other cladding fires having occurred at the time you worked on the Grandfield project whether in the UK or internationally I mean I have a light understanding that that obviously
01:42:41 understanding that that obviously happens but I'm not an in-depth knowledge of all of them and did you have that understanding at the time did you know that that was a potential risk with cladding that you could get rapid
01:42:52 with cladding that you could get rapid external flam spread a cladding system you knew that
01:42:59 yeah now as you say you then respond to this email if we go up to your response on page one of this
01:43:09 document um and we can say we can see you say I'm you're delighted to hear she's delivered the contract big p they achieved and then the second paragraph you're dealing with Windows you say I
01:43:20 you're dealing with Windows you say I would be very surprised if there's any issue with building regulations with the windows so I hope that you're not holding up getting approval from Peter and David while you wait for Ryden to confirm now now just pausing there and
01:43:33 confirm now now just pausing there and just looking at that what you wrote when you wrote that how familiar were you with the building regulations well I'm not an expert in them I know they need to be achieved and
01:43:45 them I know they need to be achieved and as I said there you know wind there were new windows being supplied and I would anticipate all new windows to comply with building regulations I see as a you
01:43:56 with building regulations I see as a you know that's a standard that all new windows have to achieve so I just wanted to make sure she wasn't um holding anything up for that confirmation that
01:44:07 anything up for that confirmation that that was my was there any part of your role as employer's agent to advise on the building regulations no and I think you've explained why you said what you've said about the building
01:44:19 said what you've said about the building regulations um returning then to to the response and looking at what you say in the third paragraph you say I had a quick review of the mvs spec in the tender dogs for cladding and it does
01:44:30 tender dogs for cladding and it does specify the cladding must comply with the following standards one of which I would anticipate requires flame retardance however as client I suggest you seek clarification from Ryden and
01:44:42 you seek clarification from Ryden and then we can see what you've done is set out various compliant standards from the NBF specification is that correct that's correct did you you actually check those
01:44:54 correct did you you actually check those standards yourself to see whether in fact any of them did have a flame retardance requirement no I didn't write the NBS spec I don't know what those standards I was just trying to be helpful because
01:45:05 was just trying to be helpful because you asked me you know is it or is it not and I as I said there anticipated that you know one of those standards because a quality standards
01:45:18 standards because a quality standards would cover um fire arrangements and I guided her towards talking to Ryden who were responsible for the design to get further clarification so I wasn't trying
01:45:29 further clarification so I wasn't trying to tell
01:45:30 to tell her anything more than that's what we put in the tender um and here are some standards please check with Ryden yeah did you know that the cladding would
01:45:41 did you know that the cladding would have to meet certain requirements including that the external wall needed to adequately resist the spread of fire were you aware of that at the time yes that would be one of many safety
01:45:52 that would be one of many safety standards it would have to the building would' have to comply with yes and did you specifically know that that was a key part of the building regulations or was that just an assumption you made that that must be the case well
01:46:07 that that must be the case well um in my role as employers agent you know I don't know the intricate details of I'm not a designer so I don't know the intricate details of all the building RS and all um all of the other
01:46:18 building RS and all um all of the other safety requirements for all the component parts to go into a building but I know know that um we need to get building control sign off at the end of the project and I know that um we have
01:46:29 the project and I know that um we have designers that have to design to order the necessary standards yeah um did this email from CLA Williams at this time raise any concerns in your mind as to whether proper checks had been carried
01:46:40 whether proper checks had been carried out on the fire performance of the cladding
01:46:43 cladding materials it didn't but I mean in you know coming back to it now in hindsight you can sort of see why this is you know of um of high importance but and and
01:46:54 of um of high importance but and and right so but this this was one of you know lots of queries I'd got from CLA and I replied and directed her towards Ryden so I didn't at the time sit there
01:47:07 Ryden so I didn't at the time sit there with a concern that there would be um a a fra a flame or a fire issue with the cladding because we'd ask for the standards to be met yeah we had uh an
01:47:20 standards to be met yeah we had uh an experienced contractor on board that done this before we talked to supply chain that um you know they were designing it but you knew that there had been a change as part of the value
01:47:31 been a change as part of the value engineering exercise to the external cladding you knew that didn't you we' been talking about options on the clading yes for some time did you also know that the insulation product had changed into in in the external wall I
01:47:44 changed into in in the external wall I didn't know that no did you know that the cavity barrier placement had changed from Studio e designs to what hard ended up installing no all my in involvement
01:47:56 up installing no all my in involvement in the um sort of change of cladin was purely around um Aesthetics purely around how it was being fixed to the building and around um you know planning
01:48:07 building and around um you know planning approval and how much it was going to cost now we can see that you recommend and you've just been talking about it you recommend to her that she should approach Ryden can you just help us why didn't you approach Ryden at this time
01:48:20 didn't you approach Ryden at this time as Employer agent why leave that for her to do because it was um that was her role I was facilitating she was um it was a design
01:48:34 facilitating she was um it was a design query and I I wasn't part of the design team at that time I said to go talk to Ryden they're the designers um you've got a client query
01:48:45 designers um you've got a client query so that was the appropriate response I thought I appreciate you're not part of the design team that that's entirely understood but as you just said you were facilitating you were the employer's uh
01:48:56 facilitating you were the employer's uh agent and your uh employer has raised a direct query about the fire resistance requirement of the cladding why didn't you think it was part of your role to go and bottom out that query and check and
01:49:09 and bottom out that query and check and get back to her with a full answer uh because it was a design query and I was it was for the there were lots of design queries going on my role was administering the contract as employers
01:49:21 administering the contract as employers agent is once contractor's proposals have been you know a change happens then I will instruct it and alter the the contract okay if I had got involved in all the
01:49:32 okay if I had got involved in all the design queries I would have mudded the waters and as I showed yesterday the clear process chart that I'd put in place as to how changes were going to be reviewed it was for the TMO as client to
01:49:45 reviewed it was for the TMO as client to the a with uh the designer Ryden as to changes did you think to yourself at the time this is an important query that's been raised by my client I better keep an eye on this and make sure Ryden do
01:49:57 an eye on this and make sure Ryden do get back to her so I saw that she I think later that day she forwarded on my bits that I'd hear to Ryden so I'd seen that she'd approached Ryden and um and I
01:50:11 that she'd approached Ryden and um and I um anticipated that all something must have happened it got sorted because that's what generally happen as a customer practice on the job I'd get a query around what was maybe in the
01:50:22 query around what was maybe in the sender a director she'd go and talk to the designers they resolve it and if it needed me to instruct it or change the contract then then I would and and after
01:50:33 contract then then I would and and after this this this it was never brought back to my attention nobody said oh there's a problem I'm concerned if somebody had said to me there's a you know there a risk or problem then obviously I would
01:50:44 risk or problem then obviously I would have taken that really seriously so let's look at what you were just describing if we go art4 8974 we can then see the email that CLA
01:50:55 we can then see the email that CLA Williams sends to Simon Lawrence on the 12th of
01:50:59 12th of November 2014 and you are copied into that you're the only person copied into that subject grenal cladding and she says I'm just writing to get clarification on the fire retardance of
01:51:10 clarification on the fire retardance of the new clading I just had a lachel moment and you can see she's cut and paste from your email it would appear the standards that you'd sent her is that correct that's what I
01:51:23 sent her is that correct that's what I saw yes
01:51:24 saw yes yeah and I think you've just explained you weren't aware of any response from Ryden on this is that right whether written or otherwise correct I don't know I assume
01:51:35 otherwise correct I don't know I assume they spoke sorted it out did you ever consider chasing Ryden for a response to this at the time no I didn't um and can
01:51:48 this at the time no I didn't um and can you help us as to why not because assume that it' been resolved because I got lots of the lots of these type of things and that was how things usually happened so CLA would ask
01:52:01 things usually happened so CLA would ask me as employees agent what was maybe included in the tender and the then the design um discussion agreement would happen between uh well and other TMO
01:52:13 happen between uh well and other TMO representatives and Ryden designers whoever it might be and then it would come back to me as right well we need to instruct and confirm what it is that we've
01:52:23 we've decided wasn't that a very important email referring to fire safety potentially relevant to Life Safety on the project wasn't that an important email which is important for you to check had been responded
01:52:35 check had been responded to
01:52:37 to um I mean yes it's it's important I mean I but I didn't see it really as my my job to check that CLA was you know getting replies to every email yeah
01:52:49 getting replies to every email yeah looking at it now he's you know he question in your mind well maybe I could have done something but I think at that time it was just another email query I directed her to where to get the answer
01:53:02 directed her to where to get the answer and nobody ever it never became uh nobody raised it to me as an issue going forward so I I had I didn't at that time have any concerns that there was any fire issues with the cladin being
01:53:14 fire issues with the cladin being proposed were you concerned that um CLA Williams isn't actually posing a specific question to Ryden uh in the email we concern that the email's slightly kind of short form in terms of
01:53:27 slightly kind of short form in terms of what she's put here did that concern you not not at the time no and what about liaison with your um cdmc coordinator um did it occur to you that
01:53:39 coordinator um did it occur to you that maybe the CDM coordinator on the project ought to be made aware of this uh set of email
01:53:48 exchanges um no cu at the again at the time it was it was all part of the design review process and they were looking at
01:54:00 process and they were looking at different options of of the cladin it wasn't um it wasn't something I shared with the
01:54:07 with the cdmc I see now in his oral evidence um Mr Lawrence has said that he thought the email he received this email was continuing discussions that TMO and
01:54:18 continuing discussions that TMO and Ryden were having about the cladding on the lower floors and in particular that the glass fiber reinforced concrete products um can you help us on that is
01:54:31 products um can you help us on that is it right um were you aware of discussions going on between the TMO and Ryden about the robustness of the cladding on the lower floors and specifically about its fire
01:54:42 specifically about its fire performance um I wasn't aware of any distinction between lower and upper floors other than the lower floors needed because they didn't currently have a they weren't been over clad and
01:54:53 have a they weren't been over clad and when you received this email you copied into it did you understand Miss email's concerns about the lacol uh house issue to relate only to concerns about the cladding of the lower floors or did you
01:55:05 cladding of the lower floors or did you take it as a concern more generally about the
01:55:08 about the cladding uh I just took it as a clading for the whole building yeah now I now want to ask you about some of U Mr Gibson's evidence David Gibson of the TMO has made two witness statements to
01:55:20 TMO has made two witness statements to the inquiry uh and I I want to start by looking at his first statement this is TMO
01:55:28 887 it say statement which was dated the 23rd of January 2019 and I want to go to Pages 18 to
01:55:38 19 start on page
01:55:44 18 so from paragraph 94 onwards um he explains in these paragraphs that he didn't have a clear understanding of what the cladding was
01:55:55 understanding of what the cladding was inv would involve and he then goes on and
01:55:58 and describes raising a query with uh Ryden about this and he says specifically raised it with Simon Lawrence um have can I just check have you read these passages of Mr Gibson's
01:56:10 you read these passages of Mr Gibson's first statement before um I've read CLA Williams I don't know if I've read DAV okay well let me take you through them then so 94 he says he did not have a clear understanding of
01:56:21 he did not have a clear understanding of what the clouding would inv F and he had visited it would be as composite panels of rain
01:56:26 of rain screen and then he says I recall at one of our monthly design development meeting Simon Lawrence indicating that there's a disparity between the delivery times for insulation and Rain screen and
01:56:37 times for insulation and Rain screen and to avoid delaying the project he indicated their intention to install the insulation first and the rain screen later uh and then he says in 96 this was the first I was aware that the two items
01:56:48 the first I was aware that the two items I the insulation and the rainscreen were separate and he says it raised some concerns in his mind having recently read recommendations following the laor fire
01:56:58 fire inquest um 97 he tells us at this time Ryden were erecting the Mast climbers to the Tower and had not fitted any cladding other than the sample that was
01:57:09 cladding other than the sample that was on
01:57:10 on display and then I think we can um pick it up more detail at 98 at 98 he says this I raised this with Simon Lawrence as a matter of serious concern and asked
01:57:21 as a matter of serious concern and asked him if he could give some assurance that we would not have a lacol type problem with the separation of rain screen and insulation and then if we can go over to
01:57:32 insulation and then if we can go over to look at
01:57:33 look at 99 he says this the meeting was chaired by Philip boo of artia and Simon Lawrence assured us that this would create no problem because the materials used were completely inert and would not
01:57:44 used were completely inert and would not burn at all the meeting accepted his assurances in this regard and nothing came to my notice subsequently prior to the far
01:57:52 the far to question that these assurances were not accurate the minutes of this meeting were produced by Aria and they definitely existed because I recall reading them I recall that lacol had
01:58:03 reading them I recall that lacol had been spelled incorrectly in the minutes I understand these meetings cannot be located in TMO files and then at 101 he said I have a clear recollection of the discussion and the minute recording it
01:58:15 discussion and the minute recording it my recollection is that it was raised at a design development meeting and the minute was produced in time for the next monthly meeting it was produced in hard form at that time and may not have been scanned onto TMO system or received
01:58:27 scanned onto TMO system or received electronically I know I did not receive the minute electronically before the meeting because it was handed to me in hard form at the meeting until the occurrence of the fire at grenal Tower I
01:58:38 occurrence of the fire at grenal Tower I had always believed the cladding installed was inert as I had been reassured by Simon Lawrence and I had no reason to consider otherwise and then he says I cannot recall the date of the meeting but I have given some details in
01:58:49 meeting but I have given some details in my statements to when it was I think it may have been about March to April 2015 or possibly earlier so I've read that all out to you um so that you can see clearly what he's
01:59:03 um so that you can see clearly what he's saying um and then before I ask you some questions about it I also want to show you what he says in his second witness statement this is dat of the 5th of September 2019 this is TMO
01:59:19 84231 0 and I want to look at page eight paragraph
01:59:32 23 so this is where he gives a little bit more evidence uh on this point and he says I've been asked what precisely I meant when in the earlier meeting I asked for Assurance that we would not
01:59:43 asked for Assurance that we would not have a lacano type problem with the separation of the rain screen and the insulation prior to that meeting I had believed that the cladding and insulation were manufactured off site Etc and then he says it was only during
01:59:55 Etc and then he says it was only during that meeting when I learned from the contractors that they were to be installed separately that I recalled a learning or advice note circulated by the hsse following the file at lacol house that noted that the cladding had
02:00:06 house that noted that the cladding had acted as a flu or a chimney I raised these concerns in the meeting and Simon Lawrence of Ryden responded by assuring me that the rain screen and the insulation were completely inert and would not burn at all I believe those
02:00:18 would not burn at all I believe those were the exact words used so I've shown you all of that in detail now in your first witness statement at paragraph
02:00:29 statement at paragraph 173 you say that you don't recall any other occasions other than the lacol emails we discussed between you and Clare Williams you don't recall any other occasions where any party raised
02:00:41 other occasions where any party raised the fire at lacol house or saw any assurances about the fire performance or fire specification of the cladding system and and I want to check does that remain your evidence do you have just
02:00:52 remain your evidence do you have just showing you this provoke any recollection on your part of David Gibson raising with Simon Lawrence at a meeting you minuted these
02:01:03 meeting you minuted these issues I was definitely not at a meeting that that was discussed all the meetings our was at were minuted we produced them um it may I didn't go to design
02:01:16 um it may I didn't go to design development meetings because I wasn't part of the design at that time so I'm not saying it didn't happen May well have happened it wasn't a meeting that I was at so I don't have any recollection
02:01:28 was at so I don't have any recollection of that discussion point at all okay and all of our other meetings have got clear minutes issued for them so maybe it was a ride and meeting that he remembers but
02:01:42 a ride and meeting that he remembers but I wasn't
02:01:43 I wasn't there do you ever recall anyone using the word inert or completely inert in the context of the cladding materials no I I I had no um other than that one
02:01:54 I I I had no um other than that one email um I didn't have any nothing was raised to me about fire retardance and anything around the cladin all of mine uh
02:02:04 uh cladin discussions around what it was going to look like and how it's fixed the building I see in her statement uh CLA Williams says that artia gave her a
02:02:15 CLA Williams says that artia gave her a hard copy of the minutes recording David Gibson's
02:02:19 Gibson's question now um can you help us as to whether Aria ever did Just Produce hard copies of the minutes as opposed to any electric electronic form of minutes as
02:02:31 electric electronic form of minutes as well no I'm not familiar with that every other minutes we did were issued electronically rather than hard don't know why I would why would print one and just hand it to them were there any ever
02:02:43 just hand it to them were there any ever um any meetings that weren't
02:02:47 minuted
02:02:50 um I think most most of them most of them were there were lots of them but I I was not at a meeting where this was discussed okay so you can't help us as
02:03:01 discussed okay so you can't help us as to whether someone from artia may have recorded a conversation about the cladding and produced it only in a hard copy form no it doesn't doesn't sound right I don't I definitely didn't do
02:03:13 right I don't I definitely didn't do that or write some minutes and only hand it in hard copy it's not in accordance with our checkin and all the other minutes we did yeah um exov now I want to ask you a bit
02:03:26 yeah um exov now I want to ask you a bit more about the fire strategy and ex over's work on the project can we pick it up with um an email um this is a rt4 8891 this is an email from you to Paul
02:03:39 8891 this is an email from you to Paul dunon on the 10th of May 2013 so this is shortly after you join the project in March 2013 and in the third paragraph you say
02:03:53 2013 and in the third paragraph you say this you say yesterday we did discuss the future consultant and contractor appointment strategy and Arrangements I feel this needs further consideration and we propose to prepare a procurement paper for your consideration and
02:04:04 paper for your consideration and approval on this I want to ensure that it's very clear what everyone's role is going forward how the contracts and appointments work and what TMO are committing to going forward I have put
02:04:15 committing to going forward I have put some words about this into your attachment which I hope is appropriate and
02:04:20 and clear now um um there's there's an attachment to this uh document if we can go to that art
02:04:33 48711 and if we look at this on the second page at the bottom we see this it says Apple yard's proposal for new appointments following the approval of the GRL Tower project
02:04:45 the approval of the GRL Tower project rebrief Apple yards have proposed to prepare a procurement paper setting out how the contractor and Consultants should be appointed going
02:04:54 going forward um and if we go back up to the first page of this document at the bottom of the page we see a header other appointments in the second half of that page and we can see
02:05:06 second half of that page and we can see the third and fourth lines down refer to exov and we've got exova to assess existing fire strategy for building exova to advise on fire strategy during
02:05:17 exova to advise on fire strategy during construction can you see that I can and we can see it says that um exova advise on fire strategy during construction stage D to F and to provide
02:05:29 construction stage D to F and to provide strategy for building on completion of work for TMO records do you see that there yes so is it right that from the
02:05:40 there yes so is it right that from the very beginning of your work on the project you expected that exov would produce fire strategy advice through the construction phase to completion of the work
02:05:52 work uh this is this was a document which we're trying to record all of the fees that have been s of um and appointment to date and for them to assess what was likely to be
02:06:03 them to assess what was likely to be going forward and the the these were provided to me um when I took over and so
02:06:11 so yes it obviously ex over had done some work already and there there were some um work still to be done there yes so you anticip ated further work from exov
02:06:23 you anticip ated further work from exov through to completion uh of the work for TMO records do you see that there at at that time
02:06:35 yes did artia in fact prepare a procurement paper following your offer to do that in the email to Paul Dunkerton uh I think what actually happened is the procurement paper got
02:06:47 happened is the procurement paper got sub sort subsumed into the status reports that we did so it didn't it didn't sort of Warrant its own just just on procurement because we were looking at everything um in a whole the
02:06:59 at everything um in a whole the procurement aspect got rolled into the status report papers okay so we know in in the event that on the refurbishment works exova prepared three draft outline
02:07:10 works exova prepared three draft outline fire safety strategies the first one was in October 2012 and then the second one was in October 2013 and the final one was the 7th of November 2013
02:07:22 7th of November 2013 um so the first one was before your appointment but the second two of those were after your appointment that's right isn't
02:07:29 isn't it can you say that again fine so there was a fire strategy a draft one of the fire strategy in October 2012 that was before your appointment but then there were two uh revisions to that in October
02:07:41 were two uh revisions to that in October 13 and November 13 that was during your time on the project yes the last the last version was included in the tender
02:07:52 last version was included in the tender that we went out to the contractors for and did you read any of the outline fire safety strategies when they were produced
02:08:01 produced yes for what purpose were you reading them uh it was part of the attender that I was cating I mean I didn't um just
02:08:13 I was cating I mean I didn't um just wanted to be familiar with what it said and uh so um I received it along with all the other papers that came from the design team to form the tender that we
02:08:25 design team to form the tender that we went out to the contractors on did you regard it as part of your role to check that exov had completed the work that it had promised in its feat
02:08:37 proposal uh I don't think that is part of my role no I'm asking you at the time did you think it was part of your role to check that exov had completed the
02:08:48 to check that exov had completed the work it had promised in its fee proposal no
02:08:52 no and and why not um I didn't have engagement with vix overa they weren't part of the core professional team that I was working with to prepar in um the um tender
02:09:05 with to prepar in um the um tender documents uh they were appointed I think either Direct by TMO or under studioe as a sort of special contractor so they were they weren't appointed by Studio e
02:09:17 were they weren't appointed by Studio e they were appointed um by the TMO but Aria gave the instruction to accept their fee proposal we do know that okay are you saying that you yourself had no
02:09:29 are you saying that you yourself had no involvement in terms of monitoring ex over's work looking at the fee proposal looking at what they delivered and Advising your client on the discharge of
02:09:41 Advising your client on the discharge of that no I didn't see my role as employees agent to monitor the their their work they you know they provided a fire strategy I'd received one it went into the
02:09:52 into the tender that's I think I got a duty to raise concerns if anybody is underperforming as an employers agent I didn't have any
02:10:04 any concerns I think you agreed at the beginning of your evidence that you did accept it as part of your role for check for gaps and any work not completed are you saying that you didn't ever perform those checks in terms of EX
02:10:16 ever perform those checks in terms of EX over's engagement on the project yeah what I I didn't I yes that is a role of mine um I didn't perceive there was a gap we had a
02:10:28 there was a gap we had a fire strategy um I think uh in the employees agent duties there it's about our vising on you know clear and obvious
02:10:40 our vising on you know clear and obvious gaps I'd expect my design leaders to tell me if they were like real Specialists of gaps not not every project always has a fire engineer on um so it wouldn't
02:10:52 so it wouldn't always be a natural Gap that as an employeers agent I would necessarily highlight but we had the fire strategy they they did that was my next question if you didn't have that role who did you
02:11:04 if you didn't have that role who did you think did have that role to check the work that exova had done under its fee proposal and ensure that it had completed its work and indeed we saw here that the intention was to have
02:11:15 here that the intention was to have something completed at the end of the project for TMO records it wasn't your role whose role was it so as an employees agent I can't check people like design outputs I mean I I
02:11:27 people like design outputs I mean I I could check you know if architect does a draw in I can check that but I'm not qualified to check the the quality of them I rely on the designers um to highlight any gaps or to do their do
02:11:39 highlight any gaps or to do their do whatever checks that might be in place is
02:11:44 is that uh so does that answer your question it's answered my question okay um can we now go to um EXO
02:11:58 41106 this is the um third and final issue of the outline fire safety strategy dat of the 7th of November 2013 and if we can go within it to page
02:12:10 2013 and if we can go within it to page nine and look at the top of the page we can see here under compliance with B4 external fares spread it said it is considered that the proposed changes
02:12:21 is considered that the proposed changes will have no adverse effect on the building in relation to external fars spread but this will be confirmed by an analysis in a future issue of this report do you see that there I do now did you read that do you think at any
02:12:33 did you read that do you think at any stage when working on the project I did would you agree with me you don't need to be a designer to see that the work that xover is doing in relation to
02:12:45 work that xover is doing in relation to that aspect is not complete and that an analysis and a future issue of the report is being promised do you agree with that so when I read this and because i' gone back to this
02:12:57 because i' gone back to this subsequently I read it at a time where I'm cating a lot of tender documents ready to go out to Tender and the design in many aspects is not complete it's
02:13:08 in many aspects is not complete it's only up to a certain stage to go to Tender and I read that sentence it says to me there are no adverse effects on the building in relation to the external fire spread so from my perspective I it
02:13:21 fire spread so from my perspective I it didn't raise any alarm Bells at that time of the design development it felt there's no alarm here but I recognized that there was further design that would need to be done as with the rest of the
02:13:32 need to be done as with the rest of the project and that that would need to be done in the next stage by the design and build
02:13:39 build contractor I see so you saw it as something for rying to pick up if they saw fit to do so is that right yes and we drew to Ryden attention that this was
02:13:51 we drew to Ryden attention that this was the strategy at that time of the design development and that they needed to you know take the design forward as the designer Bill contractor and satisfy the
02:14:03 designer Bill contractor and satisfy the the compliances met but what as employer's agent agent to the TMO wasn't this a gap in X over's work something that you should have spotted and at the very least pointed out to your TMO
02:14:17 very least pointed out to your TMO client at reading at the time I didn't see it as a gap it was a there's no adverse effect at this time but that you know more design work is required at
02:14:29 know more design work is required at this time we haven't uh you know I also knew that we needed to appoint a design and build contractor that would bring with them uh supply chain of Specialists clad in Supply you know designers and
02:14:41 clad in Supply you know designers and suppliers they they they do it day in day out they install these things then so it was bringing in the expertise to make sure that it um um we
02:14:52 expertise to make sure that it um um we got we got the best best design and and and it complied so at the time of reading this I I didn't see this as a gap or an issue or a problem I saw it as a status of design we went to Tender
02:15:04 a status of design we went to Tender passed it over to design build contractor for them to then carry on the design process through to um completion now we know and you've just referred to it that a version of this
02:15:16 referred to it that a version of this outline fire safety strategy was included in the tender documentation can we now go to Art
02:15:29 48667 this is an email dated the 11th of November
02:15:34 November 2013 it's um from Andre Snelling of ads is it right that ads was uh subcontracted by Aria to assist twe and
02:15:46 subcontracted by Aria to assist twe and Lim in costing the m& elements is that right that's correct so it's to you and and tweet in Lim and it's just before the oju notice was published and we can see from the
02:15:59 was published and we can see from the email that Andrew Snelling has concerns about going out to Tender and in the middle of the page he says at point six fire strategy has not been signed off by building Control Fire officer do you see
02:16:11 building Control Fire officer do you see that there I do now you say in your witness statement this is paragraph 93 um on page 25 that Andrew Snelling was highlighting outstanding m&
02:16:23 m& items did you understand that he was referring to the exov fire strategy that we've just looked at or was he referring to some other fire strategy no I think he was referring to the ex over fire
02:16:35 he was referring to the ex over fire strategy when you received this email did it prompt you to consider what position had been reached with the exov strategy which had been included in the tender
02:16:44 tender documents yes what checks did you then carry
02:16:48 carry out so I'll tell you were putting together the tender and Andrew was giving us his advice on where he saw
02:17:00 where he saw um we were at that time Andrew wasn't involved in the project as much as tweetin and an i and we what we happened I got this email met with um tween we
02:17:12 I got this email met with um tween we went through all the bits that he raised some of them we resolved and some of them we considered and the fire strategy not being signed off with building control we knew we had the fire strategy it was it was there it was complete it
02:17:24 it was it was there it was complete it was completed by a fire engineer um and so um it was appropriate uh decision was made I felt that we could go out to Tender on this basis didn't need to have
02:17:36 Tender on this basis didn't need to have it checked by a building Control Fire officer because we had a a professional prepare it it was there we were advising the the tendering contractors of what
02:17:49 the the tendering contractors of what the fire strategy was so we went through all of these and there was a slight delay before we went out to Tender as we had to resolve some of these things but okay that wasn't and
02:18:02 of these things but okay that wasn't and that wasn't something that was a concern to me you say there the fire strategy was complete was that your understanding having read the report or had somebody told you that the fire strategy was complete so I was assured I had a fire
02:18:15 complete so I was assured I had a fire strategy piece of paper by a qualified fire engineer giving me telling me what the strategy was the point we were at a point of design um where we wanted to go out to
02:18:27 design um where we wanted to go out to the market and and the point of tendering for a design and build contractor is to tell them how far you've got on the design give them a clear understanding of where it's got to and I felt that we we were an
02:18:39 and I felt that we we were an appropriate time to go out to Tender because we had a fire strategy it was clear where we got to what was what was um decided and what wasn't okay can we now go to Art 4225
02:18:50 now go to Art 4225 56 these are minutes of the contractor introduction meeting that was held with Ryden on the 1st of April 2014 we can see that you're at this meeting from the list and we can also
02:19:02 meeting from the list and we can also see that you checked the minutes of this meeting and if we go to page four and look at Point 5.3 in the middle of the page we can see it says exov completed
02:19:14 page we can see it says exov completed the fire strategy ATT tender stage they have not been novated but SL Simon Lawrence will contact them with a view of using them going forward do you see that there I
02:19:26 do did you understand by that stage that three draft outline fire safety strategies had been delivered but exov had not yet delivered any detailed fire
02:19:37 had not yet delivered any detailed fire strategy did you realize that at this
02:19:42 time
02:19:45 um well the fire strategy that I had at tendo that was the same one so did it says draft on it I I um that was my understanding that was
02:19:58 um that was my understanding that was the report we got and we tendered it and gave it over to Simon Lawrence do you agree that by this stage the cladding materials had not been finally
02:20:10 selected um yeah we we'd put some Alternatives in the tender but you're right it had not been finally suspected and there had been no confirmation from rbk planners
02:20:21 been no confirmation from rbk planners that ACM would be acceptable had there uh in April 2014 that didn't come until much later in that year
02:20:37 agreed now we can see from the minutes um that it said that um exava have not been novated but Simon Lawrence will contact them with a view to using them going forward that's in that second
02:20:49 going forward that's in that second sentence
02:20:50 sentence can you remember what was actually discussed at this meeting about ride and appointing xover so my memory is mainly um uh around we were clarifying as it
02:21:04 um uh around we were clarifying as it says under their Novation of designers which designers we uh like as the TMO and and we were we were passing over to the contractor and it was it was always
02:21:15 the contractor and it was it was always um understood that um Structural Engineers curtains and the Architects Jud would be novated so that the knowledge that they' gained thus far in the project would stay and they would
02:21:28 the project would stay and they would complete the design process and that's what we confirmed higher up but exov who had just who had completed the fire strategy were not going to be novated but we wanted to
02:21:40 going to be novated but we wanted to draw to the attention of the design and bu contractor not telling them that who they had to use that's their that's their um prerogative draw to their attention that you know this was done
02:21:51 attention that you know this was done this is where the design was suggesting that they got in contact to consider using them going forward I see so you recall that actually being said to Ryden du you this is where we've
02:22:03 said to Ryden du you this is where we've got to um and suggest that they get in contact to consider using them going forward yes and that's what I think the minutes yeah record now um if we go forward in the minutes um to June 2014
02:22:16 forward in the minutes um to June 2014 this is at tmo2 83249 90 so what we were just looking at was April the 1st of April 2014 now I want to look at the 13th of
02:22:28 2014 now I want to look at the 13th of June
02:22:30 June 2014 this is called the pre-start meeting and we can see you're present and again you've check the minutes and then if we go to item 3.5 on page
02:22:43 three we can see there's a action there Simon Lawrence to appoint other Consultants to include fire DDA acoustic Etc after the main subcontractors are on
02:22:55 Etc after the main subcontractors are on board and so did that mean Simon Lawrence to appoint other consultants and when it talks about fire was that envisaging someone either exov or someone like exov yes and DDA can you
02:23:09 someone like exov yes and DDA can you help us with what that was referring to uh disabled um access yeah um some form of disability Consultants yes sometimes there um because there was um
02:23:21 there um because there was um some ramps and things at the lower level and they wanted to make sure that the building was going to be accessible to all and had there been a recommendation by Aria or the TMO that disability Consultants should be
02:23:33 Consultants should be involved um I don't think we'd recommended it I mean it needed to make sure that the design needed to make sure it complied with again those standards yeah of accessibility public building um
02:23:46 yeah of accessibility public building um and residents May well need that um but it wasn't dictated that they needed to have a specialist designer for that yeah but the design as overall by Ryden
02:24:00 but the design as overall by Ryden needed to comply yeah um now if we go um on in time to look at Art 4
02:24:11 look at Art 4 2797 these are um minutes of the progress meeting number three on the 16th of September so about a month later 2014
02:24:20 2014 we can see you're there and you've checked the minutes and if we go to page two item
02:24:25 two item 1.4 we see the same action again in that first line Simon law to appoint other Consultants to include far DDA do you see that there I do yes and you can take
02:24:37 see that there I do yes and you can take it from me that um in the uh October progress meeting number four held on the 21st of October 2014 uh exactly the same uh item appears
02:24:50 2014 uh exactly the same uh item appears again at
02:24:52 again at 1.2 uh at the top of page two of those meeting minutes so we're seeing the same action from through from June September
02:25:04 action from through from June September October um that's correct isn't it yes did anyone query at these meetings whether Simon Lawrence had or in fact
02:25:15 whether Simon Lawrence had or in fact was intending to appoint a fire
02:25:19 consultant uh my memory from these meetings is we were we're at the early stage of the um ride and coming on they were uh initially appointed on a uh
02:25:32 were uh initially appointed on a uh limited scope of work under a uh pre-construction Services agreement so they'd only been appointing the sort of key
02:25:41 key um
02:25:43 um um uh designers and subcontractors that they needed to progress the preconstruction services work so it didn't strike you as odd that this minute was coming up again and again
02:25:54 minute was coming up again and again with with no change on we did we did keep pressing it and and as an as an action that's why stayed on there a number of times and Simon Lawrence's response um was well we're we're going
02:26:06 response um was well we're we're going through the procurement process of bringing on our uh subcontractors and designers and he had started with bringing on you know the the uh M and
02:26:19 bringing on you know the the uh M and the facade people because that's some of the area that we were really focusing on so they wanted to bring them on board but we hadn't yet got round to appointing the follow on
02:26:31 got round to appointing the follow on that's why we we kept on there can we go to Art
02:26:36 to Art 43150 these are minutes of progress meeting number five held on the 18th of November
02:26:44 2014 and again uh we can see you're present and you've checked the the minutes we go at the bottom of the page to point one 1.2 we can see it says Simon Lawrence
02:26:57 1.2 we can see it says Simon Lawrence has now received the sign contract Simon launch to arrange preparing the bond warranties Etc and that's all that's said about appointments in these meeting minutes there's no mention at all of appointing
02:27:09 there's no mention at all of appointing Consultants whether that be fire Consultants or um disability Discrimination Act DDA Consultants can you help us how did the action about riding and appointing a
02:27:20 action about riding and appointing a fire consultant drop out of the
02:27:25 minutes um I don't know um usual customer practice is that only once a minute has
02:27:36 practice is that only once a minute has been completed then it wouldn't manifest itself we would write it again in the following month and so uh the few meetings beforeand he was
02:27:47 meetings beforeand he was there does that mean you thought at the time that Ryden had appointed fire consultant um I I don't have a vivid memory of it so I don't know so that's I
02:27:59 memory of it so I don't know so that's I I can't answer that but that would be usually what would happen that's why actions usually dropped off for minutes but I don't have a a memory of him Simon saying I've appointed a fire consultant
02:28:11 saying I've appointed a fire consultant I'm afraid do you recall anybody noticing at the time that the action about rid and appointing a fire safety consultant had not been closed off off no we did yeah
02:28:24 off no we did yeah also um whenever we write minutes uh we do send them for draft and then ask at the beginning of the next one is there any inaccuracies and um but I just I don't I don't remember
02:28:38 um but I just I don't I don't remember what happened there I'm afraid Mr Lawrence's uh Simon Lawrence's oral evidence was that Ryden decided internally not to appoint one was that ever discussed or communicated to you
02:28:50 ever discussed or communicated to you uh it may have been I mean I knew that the but I don't have a memory of that I mean I knew the Des overall design responsibility sat very clearly with
02:29:01 responsibility sat very clearly with Ryden um and we weren't dictating who they needed to appoint to discharge that design responsibility no but I'm asking you a specific question um was it ever communicated to you that
02:29:13 um was it ever communicated to you that Ryden had decided not to appoint fire Consultants I don't have a strong memory of that no
02:29:22 can you recall any discussion at this time about uh disability Consultants again why that was allowed to drop off was there any discussion around that at this meeting um no I don't remember I I
02:29:35 this meeting um no I don't remember I I remember the I do remember that we have an appoint we we're focusing well when Ryden was saying they were focusing on their main uh uh subd designers and sub
02:29:46 their main uh uh subd designers and sub um contractors to start with and they there was a uh reticence to appoint too many
02:29:54 many um um additional people whilst they didn't have the contract signed contract in place because they were only under a limited instruction to start with under the pre but I think they had the signed
02:30:05 the pre but I think they had the signed contract in place from July 2014 so this PO St that doesn't it this well that's what this minute is 1.2 SL has now received a signed contract oh I see that's why I remember
02:30:18 contract oh I see that's why I remember it they had a preconstruction Services agreement before that but it only was focusing on certain activities that were some value engineering activities clad in design that's why they appointed
02:30:30 clad in design that's why they appointed those people okay first now we know that exova was not novated to Ryden following appointment as main contractor and xava was not otherwise retained by Ryden as fire safety consultant were you ever
02:30:41 fire safety consultant were you ever concerned that a fire consultant had not been appointed directly by Ryden on the project at the time no did you ever have any discussions with
02:30:52 did you ever have any discussions with your client about that the TMO about whether it might be a good idea to discuss with Ryden why a fire consultant hadn't been appointed
02:31:04 appointed um no I mean there were plenty of fire elements being discussed uh on the project you'll see our where in in the
02:31:15 project you'll see our where in in the minutes and they were so there was it wasn't it like it was was a subject that wasn't ever discussed but they were largely they were around um the smoke extract system that design making sure
02:31:27 extract system that design making sure that the there were there were the fire brigade was involved TM most fire officers were involved I understand all that I wanted to know whether it was ever discuss between you and your client whether or not uh that should be raised
02:31:38 whether or not uh that should be raised with Ryden did you know were you aware of the basis on which exova was used by uh Ryden and others after Ryan's appointment
02:31:49 appointment I don't know no did you know at the time that the design team occasionally asked for xovers input on an ad hoc basis were you aware of that no I'm not surprised by that
02:32:02 that no I'm not surprised by that because we had introduced them I see so that that didn't had you been aware of that that wouldn't have concerned you that xav were being used on an ad hoc
02:32:14 on an ad hoc basis
02:32:16 basis um no so you know I ride were in control of the design we decided who was going to be novated over and they were clear that they had to discharge their design responsibilities and it was for them to
02:32:28 responsibilities and it was for them to decide which designers they needed in place um did you ever inquire whether a final version of the outline fire safety strategy had been
02:32:40 produced uh no I didn't ask that question wasn't that an important document for your client the TMO we know for example that the cladding changed really quite radically between what the
02:32:53 really quite radically between what the tender suggested and then what was put on the building why didn't you ever have a discussion with your TMO client about whether EXO's work needed finishing and a final detailed fire strategy for this
02:33:05 a final detailed fire strategy for this building prepared so I would expect that sort of thing to happen but um when I left the project it was still mid mid construction um at the end of projects usually you start engaging with the
02:33:17 usually you start engaging with the client at Handover about you know what's their new risk assessment that they're going to have in place which would include what's the final fire strategy based on the overall building but when I
02:33:29 based on the overall building but when I left it was still mid construction so that I see I didn't bring that up would you accept that it would be part of EXO Aria's role as employers agent um or as
02:33:41 Aria's role as employers agent um or as CDM coordinator to have those discussions with the TMO about a final fire strategy for the building um I think in Handover duties you need
02:33:54 I think in Handover duties you need to make sure that uh there are um the fire operations and and um strategy and so the client is in place so the fire
02:34:06 so the client is in place so the fire risk assessment the client has to write to look after the building going forward is in place okay so um and that's part of the Handover at the at the
02:34:17 of the Handover at the at the end um just finally in in my question some very brief questions about the health and safety file on the project were you ever made aware of any steps
02:34:28 were you ever made aware of any steps which artia as CDM coordinator was taking to create the health and safety file during the time you worked on the project so um I was aware Keith bushel
02:34:40 project so um I was aware Keith bushel was the cdmc and uh uh I was aware that he did he provided information that went into the tender documents also were you ever aware that he was collating
02:34:52 ever aware that he was collating information for use on a health and safety file were you ever made aware of that so I was aware that he' put together um this as his normal customer practice the structure of what the
02:35:04 practice the structure of what the health and safety file would look like and what would need to be provided by designers and the uh and also the main contractor so that that could be collated at the at the end as a record
02:35:15 collated at the at the end as a record of the as built but when I was on the project we we were still mid construction so I think we'd only got to the point of this is what we were going to expect the structure to be I don't
02:35:27 to expect the structure to be I don't believe it have been okay put together Mr chairman I've reached the end of my questions all right thank you very much have a a short break I thought 10 minutes yes to um sweep up we'll do
02:35:41 10 minutes yes to um sweep up we'll do that U well Mr boo Council think she's finished her questions but U we need to have an opportunity to sweep up make sure there's nothing that have been asked that hasn't been asked or that
02:35:52 asked that hasn't been asked or that there are questions from others that we need to put to you so we're going to break now until quter to 1 okay and then we'll come back and see if there's anything else that we need to ask you all right okay thank you thank you very
02:36:12 much right course one
02:36:18 please
02:36:48 e
02:37:18 e
02:37:48 e
02:38:18 e
02:38:48 e
02:39:18 e
02:39:48 e
02:40:18 e
02:40:48 e
02:41:18 e
02:41:48 e
02:42:18 e
02:42:48 e
02:43:18 e
02:43:48 e
02:44:18 e e
02:45:00 would you ask Mr boo to come back in please
02:45:13 okay all right Mr boo we'll just see if there are any more questions for you all right yes Miss grch have you found something no more questions but just a clarification on my part um I think I may have said perhaps up to two times
02:45:24 may have said perhaps up to two times that the xover outline fire safety strategies were drafts In fairness to you uh they're not marked as draft it was aov's existing fire safety strategy
02:45:35 was aov's existing fire safety strategy that was marked as a draft they were always just outline fire safety strategies so I feel I ought to correct that In fairness to you okay good there's anything more you wanted to say on that as a result of that correction
02:45:46 on that as a result of that correction but um I just wanted to make that clear thank you right well Mr boo it only remains then for me to thank you very much for coming here to give your evidence I'm sorry that we had to do it
02:45:57 evidence I'm sorry that we had to do it over two days not one but uh these things happen sometimes anyway it's been very helpful to hear from you and we're grateful to you for coming okay and now you're free to go well thank you very much thank you very much I hope um my
02:46:10 much thank you very much I hope um my small PA helps with making sure time in I never happens again thank you thank you thank you
02:46:25 when I miss Grange we'd normally have to have a short break for housekeeping purposes at this stage anyway yes I'm going to suggest that we break now for lunch yes and uh we'll take the hour for
02:46:36 lunch yes and uh we'll take the hour for lunch but we'll resume at qu to 2 that would be fantastic yes thank you yes good quarter to two then please
02:46:47 okay
02:47:17 e for