Evidence from Simon Cash of Artelia Projects UK, the employer's agent for the Grenfell refurbishment. Discusses Artelia's contractual role, deleted responsibilities, and oversight of the project.
00:00:14 so
00:00:18 good morning everyone welcome to today's hearing
00:00:21 hearing today we're going to continue hearing evidence from mr simon cash would you like to ask mr cash to come in please
00:00:36 morning morning mr cash morning all right all ready to carry on yes good thank you very much
00:00:47 carry on yes good thank you very much let's just get yourself organized
00:01:00 yes mr millet good morning mr chairman good morning mr cash morning i want to continue the line of examination that we were on last night and turn to the question of the quantity surveyor for the grenfell project and now is it right that
00:01:12 project and now is it right that that was twitching lim until october 2015
00:01:16 2015 when michelle took over until the agreement of the final account in june 2017. correct yeah and uh you are i think by profession a quantity surveyor are you not
00:01:27 quantity surveyor are you not correct and you supervised uh twitch and lim didn't you in capacity as her line manager yes you did and um can you just tell us as briefly as you can what it is that a
00:01:38 as briefly as you can what it is that a quantity surveyor does normally quantity surveyor actually estimates the cost of carrying out works and then is also responsible in
00:01:49 then is also responsible in some instances for procurement of works and then
00:01:52 and then for managing the costs during the construction of the works and agreeing the final account and what about advising on variations yes that's part of managing the cost of works
00:02:03 works yes and also any changes in the design that may occur prior to the appointment of the contractor are there any or were there any to your understanding at the time of the
00:02:14 understanding at the time of the grenfell tower project any special considerations that would apply to a design and bill contract from a quantity surveyor's point of view nothing particular is a standard design
00:02:26 nothing particular is a standard design and build contract okay well we'll come back to that later on can we look at artelia's contract again please that's art four zeros five seven four two page 55
00:02:37 four zeros five seven four two page 55 and uh here we see the core services this is page one and at page 55 we see call services of a um a qs
00:02:48 call services of a um a qs a quantity surveyor this is the first page i think of the rics qs standard terms or rather this is the first substantive part of it if we go down to page 57 we can see that
00:03:01 if we go down to page 57 we can see that there are additional services there supplementary services for
00:03:07 for design and build contracts and could you look at
00:03:10 look at tick box 1.8.1 first of all please it says liaise with the client and the professional team both as defined and prepare the employer's requirements
00:03:22 and prepare the employer's requirements what does the quantity surveyor do normally
00:03:25 normally in terms of preparing the employer's requirements it collates documents from other members of the professional team and relevant documents
00:03:34 documents that are required uh that then will be uh form part of the employer's requirements and also uh prepares a set of preliminary documents which is one of the [Music]
00:03:46 [Music] composite documents and also a cost contract some analysis i see and if you look at
00:03:52 look at tick box 8 1.8.3 and then 1.8.4
00:03:59 look at those together 1.8.3 is about liaising with the professional team and preparing cost studies to assess alternative contractors proposals and prepare a recommendation for the client's approval and 1.8.4
00:04:11 client's approval and 1.8.4 liaise with the professional team would assist with specialist inquiries to assess alternative contractors proposals prepare recommendations for the client's approval looking at both of those when a quantity
00:04:22 looking at both of those when a quantity surveyor assesses a contractor's alternative proposal or proposals what should they do they'll be looking at the financial aspects of the alternative proposals compared to
00:04:34 the alternative proposals compared to those that are in the employers requirements solely the financial aspects yes
00:04:40 looking at 1.8.5
00:04:44 it's it says liaise with the professional team and conduct negotiations with the contractor obtain documentation from the professional team to confirm the agreed design and or performance specifications
00:04:55 design and or performance specifications recommendations for the client's approval
00:04:59 approval and when it says obtain documentation from the professional team to confirm the agreed design and or performance specifications what would a quantity surveyor do in that respect
00:05:10 quantity surveyor do in that respect what would that include it would i it would be the gathering of the documents from the from the professional team what what documents
00:05:18 documents whatever doctor professional team had prepared that relate to design or performance specifications right i see now we talked earlier on about artelia's contract with the tmo having
00:05:29 artelia's contract with the tmo having been signed into july 2014. it's right i think isn't it that artelia and the tmo agreed a number of additions in the 2014 version of the of the contract yes that's correct yes
00:05:42 of the contract yes that's correct yes and while we're still on this page this is the 2014 signed version of the contract while we're still on page 257 here and if you look at 2.1.9 under
00:05:54 and if you look at 2.1.9 under supplementary services which is the only box in that run other than one of the top of the page which has been ticked the rest are blank
00:06:06 which has been ticked the rest are blank 2.1.9 facilitate set up and manage value engineering exercises um and just for completeness you can also see that
00:06:17 also see that 2.1.11 has been ticked as well but just on 2.1.9 value engineering exercises when did it first become apparent to artelia that artelia would
00:06:29 apparent to artelia that artelia would need to assist with facilitating and managing a value engineering exercise on this project i'm not sure when specifically but it would have been at a time when
00:06:40 would have been at a time when it was identified that the cost of the works that had been estimated exceeded the tmos budget
00:06:47 budget that was available for the works right and i think it's right that certainly by march 2014 at the latest on evidence we've already seen in the inquiry
00:06:57 inquiry value engineering was a a key or at least an important feature of this project
00:07:02 project with that accord with your recollection yes now can we just go to briefly to twitch and lim's witness statement number two this is a rt540 is 9428
00:07:16 this is a rt540 is 9428 this is her second witness statement to the inquiry uh and i just want to ask you something about what she says about the role of a qs
00:07:24 qs quantity surveyor in in this exercise can we look at page 19 please and go to paragraph 56 she says there as qs
00:07:35 she says there as qs it is part of my role to facilitate set up and manage value engineering exercises
00:07:40 exercises so i will be involved in discussions about reducing costs do you agree with that yes but it uh that was the particular aim of the value engineering was to try and see if
00:07:51 value engineering was to try and see if there were alternative options that might reduce costs right what would a qs's involvement be in a value engineering exercise it would be to actually evaluate the financial effect
00:08:02 actually evaluate the financial effect of any suggestions that were being made by the professional team right so if evaluation of the financial effect of
00:08:11 effect of suggestions made by the professional team what would a qs do to facilitate a value engineering exercise
00:08:18 exercise set up a workshop that would involve the client and the professional team and any other relevant members to then identify
00:08:26 identify and bring to log suggestions as to where protection potential value engineering might be achieved i see
00:08:37 achieved i see now should the log suggestions and and where would those while we're on that answer where would those suggestions be logged uh they would be kept in a in a schedule schedule to what just a it would be a it
00:08:50 schedule to what just a it would be a it could be a spreadsheet it could be a written format but it would be a schedule of ideas and it would then the ideas could then be reviewed in terms of their technical evaluation
00:09:02 in terms of their technical evaluation by the
00:09:03 by the professional team and also looked at in terms of the financial effects as to whether there might be a reduction in costs or
00:09:09 costs or even whether there might be a benefit which doesn't necessarily result in a reduction in cost right and there's quite a lot of detail that you've given us in that answer so that would be a a a detailed document
00:09:22 so that would be a a a detailed document with it
00:09:23 with it not necessarily no right who would be the custodian of that document who would keep it
00:09:27 keep it uh the quantity surveyor would be the custodian yes right and who who on a particular project would have access to that it would be circulated to all members of the team right and was one
00:09:39 the team right and was one uh kept on the grenfell tower project uh there was
00:09:42 there was it was kept in a log yes i believe and there were ideas that were circulated now while on the subject of value engineering
00:09:54 engineering and it's a subject we will revisit later in your evidence um mr cash but i just want to ask you about obligations at this stage can we go back in this document sorry i'm so sorry go back in the contract
00:10:05 back in the contract to the 2014 contract to page 47.
00:10:12 and on page 47 as you can see this is core
00:10:16 core services and you can see under
00:10:21 uh um page four page 49 we can see tick box
00:10:30 2.1.4 under supplementary services and i should just say this is part of the contract dealing with the ea schedule of services the employer's agent schedule of services but it also talks about value
00:10:41 but it also talks about value engineering and here you see on page 49 paragraph 2.1.5
00:10:46 2.1.5 which has a cross in the box next to it facilitates set up and manage value engineering exercises what would the employer's agent do so not the
00:10:55 not the not the qs but the ea the employer's agent do to fulfill those obligations in a similar way they would
00:11:02 would arrange for a workshop or a meeting that would bring together professional team and uh then um act as a facilitator to record uh ideas that would potentially
00:11:16 record uh ideas that would potentially contribute to value engineering right they're very similar they're very similar within artelia with those obligations discharged by the one person who occupied two roles yes i mean at the
00:11:28 who occupied two roles yes i mean at the end
00:11:29 end in terms of uh distinction between the roles because it was one company providing the service that was an interchangeable service
00:11:40 that was an interchangeable service between people as and when uh you know who's actually responsible so it wasn't split between one person doing one thing and one person doing another because otherwise it would have been a waste of resource i follow who
00:11:51 been a waste of resource i follow who was the individual within artelia who discharged or was responsible for discharging artelia's contractual obligations both as
00:12:01 as under the qs services and under the ea services in respect of value engineering exercises the the lead in terms of the value engineering was taken by
00:12:11 taken by the in the initial stances by alan dawson as the employer's agent and supported by chen in terms of the quantity surveying aspects of that i follow thank you can we then turn more
00:12:22 i follow thank you can we then turn more specifically to the employer's agent role
00:12:24 role um you you mentioned alan dawson just now i think it's right that he was the individual within uh within artelia who had the role of employers agent up to march 2013.
00:12:37 employers agent up to march 2013. is that correct yes and then there are a number of other people who occupy that role thereafter and just i'm going to run through them just tell me if any of these is wrong march 2013 to july 2013 it was robert
00:12:49 march 2013 to july 2013 it was robert powell
00:12:50 powell yes july 13th march 15 philip booth yes and then march 15 to practical completion in july 2016. i think it was neil reed
00:12:59 neil reed yes right now looking at your first witness statement if we can please that's art4065 i'd like to go to page three in that document and we can look at paragraph
00:13:11 document and we can look at paragraph eight on that page under the heading ea services
00:13:15 services in the second sentence there you say that an ea employer's agent is essentially an administrative role and you go on to say an ea has the responsibility of monitoring the
00:13:27 has the responsibility of monitoring the progress of a construction project and administering the contract what administrative work does an ea do it's uh effectively um identifying the
00:13:39 it's uh effectively um identifying the progress
00:13:40 progress of the works uh it sets out to ensure that the design team the professional team are fulfilling their responsibilities in
00:13:51 fulfilling their responsibilities in terms of making sure that they are delivering in accordance with the program that they are on track and that that actions are being carried out in terms of the contract there are
00:14:03 in terms of the contract there are references within the contract to the role of the employer's agent in terms of what their obligations are in terms of the the documents that they should issue and uh generally administer on behalf of
00:14:16 and uh generally administer on behalf of the employer um the the management of the contract right does an employer's agent make substantive decisions relevant to a project uh only on on behalf of the employer
00:14:27 uh only on on behalf of the employer under the instruction of the employer i see
00:14:31 see um but in in terms of those decisions examining
00:14:35 examining the the substance of those decisions you you've referred to making sure the professional team fulfill their responsibilities in terms of making sure that they're
00:14:46 in terms of making sure that they're delivering in accordance with the program
00:14:49 program and also issuing documents i can understand those two substantive ideas is there anything else that an employer's agent does
00:15:01 employer's agent does on instructions normally from the client by way of administration of the contract if the client is requesting changes then we will issue instructions on behalf of the client to the team or
00:15:13 on behalf of the client to the team or to the contractor i see so change management yes right does an employer's agent provide advice to the client of any kind in
00:15:25 advice to the client of any kind in terms
00:15:25 terms yes indeed there's certain advice which is uh provided within the scope of service so for example in terms of procurement or tenderers and uh things like that but
00:15:37 tenderers and uh things like that but in terms of if you're referring to advice in
00:15:40 advice in respect of design absolutely not i follow so say procurement tenderers um what about budget uh that would be the realm of the quantity survey yes i see um now we saw earlier yes in your
00:15:53 um now we saw earlier yes in your evidence yesterday afternoon in fact that
00:15:55 that in this contract with the tmo artelia had deleted the role of project manager and project monitor you remember that yes i do can we look at robert powell's witness statement um that is art
00:16:10 please and go to page six he was as we've just established the ea for the grenfell tower project from march 2013 to july 2013 and look at
00:16:21 to july 2013 and look at paragraph 27 on that page at the top of the page there and he says the role of an ea is is generally speaking to provide professional administrative assistance and representation
00:16:33 and representation to the client in the context of a design and build contract this is different to a pm role as a pm tends actively to manage a team to develop and deliver a project for a client sometimes almost
00:16:44 a project for a client sometimes almost stepping into the client's shoes with the client's agreement in some respects
00:16:49 respects pm will frequently be actively making decisions on behalf of the client i understand that auk did not have this role on the project instead the client the tmo retained the pm project manager
00:17:01 pm project manager role for itself and was the decision maker this is not unusual do you agree with what mr powell has written there yes i do
00:17:11 are there any other differences between an employer's agent and a project manager over and above what mr powell has identified there not in general terms no so would an
00:17:23 not in general terms no so would an employer's agent have similar skills to a project manager they could have yes yes and it could somebody who is appointed an employer's agent also be a project manager
00:17:33 manager it's possible to take both boxes yes yeah is it less expensive in general in your experience for a client to appoint an ea an employer's agent and not a project manager
00:17:45 project manager um i would say yes yes can i then turn to the next sub-topic which is who the project manager actually was on this
00:17:56 project manager actually was on this project
00:17:57 project can we go back now again i'm afraid to the 2014 contract a rt405742 and go to page 23. um this is schedule one to the 2014
00:18:11 this is schedule one to the 2014 contract we looked at this yesterday afternoon
00:18:13 afternoon mr cash you can see that uh project manager services and project monitor services were deleted what is the difference between project manager and project monitor
00:18:24 manager and project monitor there are different scopes of services that are identified by the rics um can you give us an idea in very short brief terms what the difference is i can't think of anything off the top of
00:18:35 i can't think of anything off the top of my head i'm not i'm not particularly familiar with the project monitor scope of services okay fair enough now would it ever be the case that a client would appoint a project manager and an employer's agent on a project yes
00:18:48 and an employer's agent on a project yes as opposed to having one or the other but not both yes i'm currently involved in a project where that is the case i see but for a project like the grenfell tower refurbishment given its different complexities and
00:18:59 given its different complexities and different elements um what would you expect a project manager
00:19:04 manager to do or maybe put it better what would you expect project management services to include the project manager would be as
00:19:12 as um mr powell had said in his statement a decision-maker on behalf of the client and would have certain authorities to act on behalf of the client and what would those authorities
00:19:23 would those authorities tend generally to incorporate or include what sort of things they might relate to decisions regarding [Music]
00:19:34 [Music] types of design or progress in terms or development of programs in terms of making decisions on behalf of the client in terms of budgets in terms of acceptance of
00:19:48 budgets in terms of acceptance of derogations to employers recall requirements or to value engineering decisions uh rather than
00:19:56 than deferring to the clients themselves to make those decisions i see now you refer just now in your answer to value engineering decisions do i take it from that that in fact that could encompass
00:20:07 could encompass decisions about particular products to be used in a value engineering exercise or particular designs to be used in a value engineering exercise possibly depending on the project
00:20:18 possibly depending on the project manager's specific scope of services i see okay now we may come back to that later
00:20:25 later if i can show you um your first statement please a paragraph 22 this is on page eight you you say there that um uh this is
00:20:38 uh this is um second sentence while the minute you're referring to the second design team meeting there um you um you say towards the middle of that paragraph
00:20:49 that paragraph i believe that the project manager description and this isn't a reference to a document was a misuse of terminology which also occurred on other occasions during the project mark anderson whose title was
00:21:00 project mark anderson whose title was director of assets and regeneration and later clare williams of the tmo were the project managers on the project now you referred to a document which you say was
00:21:11 say was a misuse of terminology where that terminology was used what was it that led you to think that mark anderson and claire williams were the project managers for the grenfell tower project that they
00:21:24 for the grenfell tower project that they were the ones that were making the decisions and that they were driving the project forward and dictating a number of aspects in terms of uh setting the budgets and the programs so you were making well you
00:21:36 programs so you were making well you were of that view based on what you observed them doing is this right as opposed to anything that they
00:21:42 they told you claire williams was actually introduced to the project as the project manager
00:21:47 manager by whom uh i can't remember specifically but
00:21:50 but um i remember that is recorded in a meeting
00:21:57 did you understand that claire williams well
00:22:01 well let me ask you about mark anderson what was it that led you to think that mark anderson was the project manager he was he was the effectively the client's representative and within the tmo who is
00:22:13 and within the tmo who is uh managing the project did he or anybody else at the tmo tell you that he was a project or the project manager not specifically no right did you understand
00:22:24 right did you understand uh that claire williams and or mark anderson
00:22:27 anderson had taken on the project manager role in the same sense as the role as contemplated by the project manager obligations under the racs terms i can't say that for sure no no see what
00:22:40 i can't say that for sure no no see what did you understand her or their role to be as project manager
00:22:45 manager is it in terms of the general terms as a project manager as well as my expectation obviously i can't say specifically that they were taking on every role within the project management role of the services
00:22:55 services rics scope of services yeah so we'll come to the document in a moment but can you just look at the riba services standard form which did applies between the tmo
00:23:07 form which did applies between the tmo and studio e it says sea409824 please here it is and
00:23:17 you're familiar i think with the rba 2010 services i'm aware of it i'm not entirely familiar with it okay we've looked at it earlier on in this inquiry um we can see that at least in this
00:23:30 um we can see that at least in this project if you go to page two please well let's stick with page one for the moment stick with page one for the moment we can see on that page here are the services the project is the grenfell tower upgrade
00:23:41 project is the grenfell tower upgrade the client is is the tmo and the architect is studio e and then let's flip to page two where i do want to go um and you can see there that under specified
00:23:54 you can see there that under specified roles
00:23:55 roles the role of project manager is deleted and then it says if no project manager is appointed then the client or client's representative performs the role
00:24:06 role and then lead consultant lead consultant services are always required it says uh so you could see but you can see the project manager is deleted uh were you aware of that
00:24:18 uh were you aware of that no i wasn't right so do we take it from there that you didn't know that studio e had excluded the role of project manager not specifically in that document no you
00:24:29 not specifically in that document no you say not specifically in that document did you know otherwise or from another source that studio e
00:24:35 studio e had refused to take on or had excluded the role of project manager not in not uh specifically excluded it no but it is only in assumed terms
00:24:48 you say online you mean i don't understand that as much as that they were the architects and the client with the prop was the project manager
00:24:59 right i see um but as far as this contract goes would you accept that given that studio e had excluded the role of project manager
00:25:11 role of project manager as we can see that would mean that at least as far as this contract goes either the tmo or artelia as the client representative would be the project manager
00:25:20 manager it would it's in suggesting that the studio we are not the project manager but
00:25:24 but as you say one or other yes yes now now let's go to the document i want to show you which is art402255
00:25:37 these are the minutes of the contractor introduction meeting on the 1st of april 2014 it's a document we've seen a great number of times in the evidence
00:25:48 a great number of times in the evidence so far
00:25:49 so far and in in contextual terms this is just after
00:25:53 after ryden had won the job as the main contractor but i should just tell you some months before ryden's formal written design and build contract was
00:26:04 written design and build contract was signed with the tmo that was at the end of october 2014 and again for context this is about two years into artelia's work on the grenfell tower project and before before artelia's july 2014
00:26:18 and before before artelia's july 2014 contract with the tmo so that sets it in its chronological context let's look at it um we can see uh the top half of the page
00:26:28 page it's at the very top in fact uh on artelia branded paper you can see that these are the minutes of the meeting they're dated or issued on the 4th of april 2014
00:26:39 on the 4th of april 2014 you see that and you can see who was who had um
00:26:48 you can see who was present but you can also see above that under quality author peter blythe he's artelia yes yes yes and checked by phil booth philip booth
00:26:59 philip booth he's also artillery as we know we can see that lower down and then you can see who was present now just pausing there do you accept that this is a document that was produced by artelia
00:27:10 artelia yes i do yeah uh uh and boo mr boo and mr blythe were artelia employees appointed to the project at that time weren't they correct now let's go down the cast of those present
00:27:22 let's go down the cast of those present um we can see that there are three tma people present peter madison david gibson and claire williams and then immediately below that we can see philip booth company artelia function project manager you see that
00:27:35 function project manager you see that yes and
00:27:36 yes and peter blyth calls himself the assistant project manager now my question is this if artelia was not performing or not intending to perform
00:27:44 perform project management services can you explain why they have called themselves project manager or assistant project manager in this document that they produced i can't explain uh why they've done that
00:27:55 i can't explain uh why they've done that although those would refer to their business titles and therefore that may well be a reason why those have been used in error i see if you
00:28:07 i see if you look at the top of the page you can see that under objective second item down under project
00:28:17 project introduce the successful contractor to the client and then if you look and see who the client was under those present it's peter madison david gibson and claire williams
00:28:27 williams function client in each case so um
00:28:34 so um if this document was then circulated to all main contractors and certainly to ryden all the people from ryden would you accept that this document would be at least telling
00:28:46 would be at least telling ryden that artelia had the role of project manager potentially
00:28:54 let's go to art 401496 please before we do can i just ask you you said earlier on in your evidence that claire williams was introduced as the
00:29:06 williams was introduced as the as the project manager to you yes uh in fact
00:29:09 fact looking at this document not this one the first of april document we've just looked at
00:29:15 looked at in fact she she was introduced as the client
00:29:18 client and it was artelia who was introduced as the project manager i don't necessarily believe that they were introduced at the meeting as project managers but they were identified there as project managers right
00:29:29 managers right i don't think you were at that meeting were you right so how do you know what is the basis of your belief that they weren't introduced at the meeting as project managers in the middle
00:29:40 the middle i don't believe it says so within the minutes well let's look at this let's look at the 1.2 okay let's go let's go to that well we've got it on the screen look at 1.2 that says art represented by pb that's
00:29:53 that says art represented by pb that's artelia represented by philip boo will perform the role of employers agent on the project yes i mean i don't think there's anything in there that specifically says that artillery will not be
00:30:04 that artillery will not be the project manager do you think there is no
00:30:07 is no but it quite clearly states what the role is
00:30:11 yes it it says it says what it says one can argue about its con it's true construction i suppose but would you accept that there's nothing in this minute which would tend to contradict the idea
00:30:23 contradict the idea communicated by phil booth and peter blythe's role described as project manager and assistant project manager that artelia were not uh the project sorry that artelia were the project managers on the project
00:30:34 the project managers on the project there's nothing that says that they're not okay now let's go back to the document i want to take you to a rt40 is 1496. these are the minutes of a design team meeting of the 23rd of september 2013.
00:30:49 meeting of the 23rd of september 2013. uh
00:30:50 uh 24th of september 2013. i apologize and again we can see that artelia took the minutes of our tartillion notepaper and again the author is peter blythe checked by philip booth both of artelia
00:31:03 checked by philip booth both of artelia and again in the middle of the page we can see that claire williams and the others from the tma are introduced as the client and again towards the bottom phil boov and peter blythe project manager and assistant project manager
00:31:15 manager and assistant project manager so you see that yes and there's another one
00:31:18 one so again in 2013 this is earlier in time both of those individuals are introduced as
00:31:25 as project manager and assistant project manager
00:31:29 manager and before i ask my question i'll show you one even earlier document this is art 6037
00:31:40 this is the minutes of design team meeting number two thursday the 24th of may 2012. now you weren't there but you can see the bottom half of the page a paragraph one point naught
00:31:55 um that alan dawson is there and under introductions generally it says alan dawson
00:31:59 dawson is introduced as the project manager assisted by david hale so looking at the two documents i've shown you 23rd of september 2013 may
00:32:10 shown you 23rd of september 2013 may 2012 from the very earliest days of artely's involvement in this project artelia did introduce itself as the project manager that these medics were produced by studio e i believe
00:32:23 studio e i believe right but they were distributed uh i'm assuming to those who were present is that wrong uh they would they would have been yes yes and that would mean that
00:32:34 yes and that would mean that uh alan dawson and keith bushel and david hale and lim would have seen these notes yes yes and if if it were wrong and alan dawson
00:32:44 dawson hadn't introduced himself as the project manager then would i be right in thinking that one of them would have raised that and and said that the nate was inaccurate i don't know if he did
00:32:55 inaccurate i don't know if he did no but i i'm asking you to agree with the proposition that each of them or any of them having seen this would have corrected it if in fact
00:33:03 fact alan dawson hadn't introduced himself as the project manager do you accept that as a proposition potentially yes and and i don't think you've seen any document and certainly we haven't seen
00:33:14 document and certainly we haven't seen any document which says that that any such correction was suggested i haven't seen one no no so can we proceed on the basis that this is an accurate record of what was said what was said at the
00:33:26 of what was said what was said at the meeting by way of introduction of alan dawson
00:33:28 dawson it's another right it's a record of what studio you've recorded and i'm putting to you that given the absence of any correction can we proceed on the basis that studio e recorded it accurately if it's not been
00:33:41 accurately if it's not been [Music]
00:33:43 [Music] challenged in writing yes yes yes
00:33:50 having shown you a number of documents and the absence of correction of those documents do you still say that mark anderson and claire williams were in fact the designated project manager for this project yes i do given the way they were
00:34:02 yes i do given the way they were introduced yes and why do you say that because that's the way that they've just been recorded as
00:34:08 as attendees at a meeting it's not necessarily the way that they fulfill their functions right can we go to your first witness statement
00:34:16 statement uh at page eight please paragraph 22
00:34:28 now you say there and we've seen this a moment ago um well not not a moment but a few minutes ago you say that using the title doesn't
00:34:39 ago you say that using the title doesn't mean that they are project managers for the project and it was their job title at artelia that was project manager not their role on the project having seen the documents i've shown you did you ever take any steps yourself
00:34:51 did you ever take any steps yourself personally to clarify with anybody that the use of the title project manager was only a reference to an internal job title within artelia and not a reference to it to the status of that person
00:35:02 of that person on the grenfell tower project itself i can't remember specific uh any specific incidences i would have made it quite clear to the internal team that we were that we were employers agents and we weren't project managers there
00:35:14 weren't project managers there right i mean you can see can you how the possibility of confusion might have arisen at the very least in those in those particular instances possibly yes
00:35:25 possibly yes yes um can we then go to art four zeros 903.9032
00:35:35 art409032 this is a draft revised project brief as of may 2013 and we know it was written by robert powell of artelia
00:35:46 powell of artelia and it's dated the 1st of may 2013. um i don't need to show you the precise date this stage now at this point may 2013 tmo were considering whether to continue
00:35:58 tmo were considering whether to continue with lead bitter as the contractor for the grenfell tower project weren't they yes yeah and if we look at page two of this project in brief if you look at the first half of the
00:36:09 if you look at the first half of the page
00:36:10 page in the first paragraph last sentence there i pick it out it says apple yards that's
00:36:16 that's as artelia were at that stage who had previously acted as ea stroke qs will take on a full pm project manager ea employers agent role
00:36:28 project manager ea employers agent role in addition to their qs responsibilities and will fulfill the lead consultant role now i'll come to a question in a moment but before i do i want to show you something else in this document
00:36:39 else in this document page four it says in the top half of of page four
00:36:47 um under the uh heading um project team that's the bottom half of the text at the top half of the page it says um robert powell is proposed as
00:37:00 it says um robert powell is proposed as the project manager and you are proposed as the project director
00:37:05 director under the word client and that's peter madison of the tmo just looking at that document and taking those two pages together would it be right that at this point artelia was actually proposing to project manage the
00:37:16 actually proposing to project manage the refurbishment there was a proposal to do so but this was a draft document and the offer of doing the project management services in the consultant role was never taken forward
00:37:28 role was never taken forward can we then go to art all zeroes one two one nine please this is a further draft of the same document uh as
00:37:40 further draft of the same document uh as june 2013 a revised project brief again produced by artelia do you remember who produced this document i can't remember no if we look at page five
00:37:50 five you can see there is a space uh for it's a signature signed project director and project director is identified as you mr cash
00:38:03 director is identified as you mr cash do you see that yes and again project manager robert powell and phillip booth do you remember whether you signed this document i don't believe i did no did you see it at the time i can't remember you don't remember
00:38:15 remember you don't remember well while we're on this page as i've shown you robert powell and philip booth being designated as project managers um can we go to page two of this document
00:38:26 document because they're designated as project managers do you remember whether they signed it as project managers or not i don't believe they did this was a draft document still okay well let's go to page two under contract and procurement if you look at the third
00:38:38 and procurement if you look at the third paragraph down um it says
00:38:44 uh it says three lines down from that uh apple yards who had previously acted as ea straight qs will take on a full pm stroke ea role in addition to their qs responsibilities
00:38:56 addition to their qs responsibilities and will fulfill the lead consultant role
00:38:59 role so again that language remains in this june draft as it had as we'd seen it in the may version of this draft do you accept at least this much that at this stage june 2013
00:39:11 this stage june 2013 artelia was proposing to act as project manager
00:39:15 manager in the strict sense properly so called on this project yes there was a suggestion yeah then let's move um a little bit forward in time perhaps at the same time
00:39:26 at the same time art four zeros 911 please this is a tmo meeting 6th of june 2013. and i say it's a tma meeting because
00:39:37 and i say it's a tma meeting because that was the meeting title as you can see from the top of the page page 1 on the grenfell tower project and the date and the time of the meeting was the sixth of june again an apple yard's document again
00:39:48 again an apple yard's document again author philip booth checked by robert powell
00:39:50 powell this time and you can see who was present
00:39:53 present three from the tmo madison gibson dunkerton
00:39:57 dunkerton and then your present as project director and then underneath that we have robert powell and philip booth from apple yards as they then were identified as present as project managers you see that yes and then below it
00:40:11 you see that yes and then below it in item one it says approval of revised project
00:40:15 project brief you see that that's the document we looked at pb presented the draft revised project brief it was agreed to insert overall project costs including fees and
00:40:26 overall project costs including fees and surveys not just construction costs subject to the proposed changes the brief was approved you see that yes it looks from this as if artelia was approved as project
00:40:38 if artelia was approved as project manager
00:40:39 manager not only um because of the way in which mr powell and mr booth were designated in this document but also because the revised project brief which i've just shown you
00:40:50 just shown you in the page i've shown you identified artelia as such do you accept that sorry say that again well i've tried a different way maybe a long question it looks as if the draft project beef i
00:41:02 it looks as if the draft project beef i was showing you before which said that artelia was going to take on the project manager role was approved at this meeting subject to comments made on the attached
00:41:13 subject to comments made on the attached subject to the proposed changes yes
00:41:19 i i i i don't think that the comments um had anything to do with the status of artelia acting as project manager in terms of what was approved at the meeting
00:41:30 meeting yes but it wasn't actually formally taken forward still so you're saying that it was formally approved at the meeting but not formally taken forward exactly is that your recollection yes i
00:41:41 exactly is that your recollection yes i see
00:41:41 see were there any discussions with the tmo at this time on whether artelia was to act as project manager as proposed in the revised project brief i can't remember right
00:41:58 was this was that draft proposal ever acted on you say it wasn't taken forward was none of it taken forward or was some of it taken forward i don't know you don't know right um let's go to uh
00:42:12 let's go to uh well i'm just wondering whether or not something changed in july 2014 when the formal contract changed a formal contract was entered into i don't think anything changed it was as
00:42:24 i don't think anything changed it was as far as i was aware and concerned it had always been that we would carry out the roles of the the three particular services that were offered cdm coordinator quantity swear and employers agent and that whilst there had been a
00:42:36 and that whilst there had been a suggestion that uh artelia might take on the project management role uh in relation to the the um moving forward on the project it was never taken up right let me try
00:42:48 it was never taken up right let me try it slightly different way we can you say it was never taken up but we can certainly see what was the subject of specifically the contract in july 2014 we've seen the deletions there yes what i'm really getting at is whether or not there was a period
00:43:00 whether or not there was a period between
00:43:01 between june 2013 and july 2014 where at least according to the this document
00:43:08 document artelia did act as project manager i don't believe that we did there was a suggestion that we would in the draft briefs uh in that period of time which was uh i believe was the the standstill time
00:43:21 believe was the the standstill time when the status reports were prepared there was a specific brief that we identified certain activities that we would carry out and that was done in a in a letter called
00:43:32 called it looks to me from the documents we've been
00:43:35 been reading that it was agreed in principle that artedia would become project manager and then subsequently when the contract was formally drawn up and
00:43:46 formally drawn up and signed the project manager role was deleted
00:43:50 deleted now it maybe mr millet wants to ask you about what occurred but do you recall something some sort of discussion taking place which explained why there was that change in approach
00:44:01 change in approach no i don't the the the project management role was always excluded but it wasn't excluded at this stage was it because we've just seen that there was a meeting at which the proposal that you should
00:44:14 at which the proposal that you should take on the project manager role seems to have been approved or agreed in principle
00:44:19 principle as an addition as in addition to our role
00:44:22 role um because our 2012 offer was always exclusive of project management
00:44:28 all right yes yes um just coming back on that you say the 2012 offer was always exclusive of project management but in fact
00:44:39 fact just on the documents we've seen the way in which
00:44:42 in which uh people from artelia were introduced particularly at this meeting and the the adoption according to this document of the revised project brief in june 2013
00:44:54 revised project brief in june 2013 the documents suggest that it was at least possible that artelia had taken on the role of project manager between between june 2013 and july 2014. i don't believe that we
00:45:08 and july 2014. i don't believe that we did
00:45:08 did right was there any discussion so far as your recollection goes between artelia
00:45:16 artelia and the tmo about the fact that even though the revised project brief we've just seen was adopted and approved at this meeting which included a proposal that artelia would act as project manager nonetheless in fact artelia was not
00:45:29 nonetheless in fact artelia was not taking up the project manager role there was never any discussion of what any uh additional services might be required
00:45:36 required to make i'll tell you a project manager
00:45:43 that may be but my point is a narrower one
00:45:48 one we've seen the revised project brief and the proposal to take up the role of project manager stroke ea my question is was there any discussion with the tmo about taking up that role and if so what it would include
00:45:59 it would include no not that i was involved with can we go to art406206 this is an email from you dated the first of october 2015. and i should just
00:46:11 first of october 2015. and i should just say while we're on this a lot of the dates
00:46:13 dates from from the artelia side have american dating
00:46:17 dating so that is that that's a feature is it it's uh
00:46:21 it's uh used to us to be a feature of your email dating it is it's not something that i can influence no it isn't i'm not asking about that just in terms of how we read the documents i'm right am i reading this as a first of october 2015 document
00:46:32 a first of october 2015 document yes i think so yeah yes you just say that people outside this room need to understand that sometimes that they are in american format now in um the first paragraph
00:46:43 now in um the first paragraph uh you say um for your info i had a good meeting with peter madison this afternoon and we went through the various concerns regarding quality program cost etc he's conscious that his relationship
00:46:55 he's conscious that his relationship with steve that's steve blake of ryden goes back a long way and steve talks to him direct however peter does not want that relationship to circumvent artelia and bypass the role that we are playing in trying to
00:47:07 role that we are playing in trying to get the project finished to the required quality and within budget peter fully appreciates what we're doing and is very supportive of our approach now um you then go on to say um
00:47:18 now um you then go on to say um something something different but we don't need to look at that at this stage what i want to ask you is when you say when you get in getting the project finished to the required quality and within budget that was really the description of a
00:47:29 that was really the description of a project management role wasn't it there that's in terms of the the reference there was to the overall project not to our specific role yes but in getting the project finished to the
00:47:40 getting the project finished to the required quality and within budget were you not describing a project management role no
00:47:49 do you such do agree that this statement here from mr reed would suggest that artelia's role wasn't purely an administrative one it was it was to successfully conclude
00:48:01 it was it was to successfully conclude the project yes that's not just an administrative role getting the project finished to quality and on budget on budget isn't administrative or isn't solely administrative is it it's project
00:48:12 administrative is it it's project management no we were doing it in an administrative role
00:48:17 role in accordance with our scope of services the scope of services asks us to liaise with professional team in terms of ensuring and managing handover right looking at the documents we've looked at
00:48:27 looked at do you think that well do you accept that it was reasonable for other parties on the project to have the impression that artelia was acting as a project manager given that that is how artelia described itself in the
00:48:38 artelia described itself in the documents we've seen only in those documents we've seen but in many other occasions we made it quite clear that our role as employers agent is it possible that no one actually considered themselves to have project
00:48:49 considered themselves to have project management responsibility for this project
00:48:51 project i don't believe so there are many references to claire williams being project manager right but anyway your view i think as we've got clear is that you always thought she was the project manager from the start is that is that what you're telling us from her
00:49:02 is that what you're telling us from her introduction to the project yes right can you say from her introduction to the project i wonder if we can be a little bit more
00:49:07 bit more specific can you time and date that i can't remember no was it at a meeting you were told that i can't remember when her she was introduced at a meeting right i believe she she was uh was when i first came uh came across
00:49:19 uh was when i first came uh came across her
00:49:21 her her involvement in the project right i
00:49:28 see
00:49:33 can we then turn to artelia's role in providing clarity on roles and responsibilities which i think is where this topic takes us next i just ask i'm sorry to keep interrupting this sort um
00:49:45 sort um in the period up to the formal signing of artelia's contract when we have seen what was undertaken and what wasn't can you recall any occasion on which
00:49:57 can you recall any occasion on which something had to be done by a person in the position of a project manager
00:50:05 and if so who did it um i can't not specifically uh no i mean when during the course of a project people accept their roles and do their roles
00:50:17 accept their roles and do their roles and if they find themselves stepping over
00:50:19 over or being asked to step over those roles then they will invariably say so if they're stepping outside of their boundaries um at no time did we feel that we were being
00:50:30 being asked or drawn into providing a project management service we felt that the tmo were always in control of that so you can't think of an occasion on which you were asked either by the tmo
00:50:41 which you were asked either by the tmo or someone else for that matter to take steps which would normally be carried out by a project manager and you or someone else at artelia said
00:50:52 you or someone else at artelia said that's not our job correct thank you sorry thank you mr chairman can i just go back on the point uh earlier on you
00:51:01 you you you said i just want to be clear um the original proposal the fee proposal if we can just look at that at art
00:51:11 406358 please
00:51:22 406358 please this is the second of may 2012. and we can see there is your original fee quote for carrying out the services required at the bottom
00:51:33 out the services required at the bottom of the page and we can see quantity surveying employers agent and cdn coordinator there's nothing there for
00:51:44 there's nothing there for project manager it is correct but there's equally no express exclusion of project manager at that stage
00:51:53 that's right isn't it not in not in that letter
00:51:56 letter obviously attachments to that better no and then we see what happens later in may 2012
00:52:02 may 2012 and then into 2013 just to set that in its context can we then go to the question of of artelia's role in in in uh providing services as employers
00:52:14 in in uh providing services as employers agent on this project um art four zeros five seven four two please page 47 this is the schedule of services for the
00:52:25 this is the schedule of services for the ea role
00:52:26 ea role employers agent role which starts at two pages earlier on page 45 for those who want to see it but um perhaps we should just flash that up just so we're clear page 45 there it is two pages on at 47 we can
00:52:39 there it is two pages on at 47 we can see the core services and if we can look uh under that heading there are a number of boxes which have been ticked 1.1.1 to 1.1.5 have been ticked
00:52:51 1.1.1 to 1.1.5 have been ticked as has 2 1.2.1 and 1.2.6 1.2.7 etc we can see those if you look at um 1.1.1
00:53:02 we can see those if you look at um 1.1.1 at that attend client design project site and other meetings as provided under this appointment 1.1.2 in issue instructions on behalf of the client
00:53:11 client 1.1.4 monitoring the performance of professional team and contractor you see that yes and then in the middle of the page in the right hand column we can see 1.2.5
00:53:22 can see 1.2.5 advise the client on specialist services including consultants contractors subcontractors and suppliers required in connection with the project now that isn't marked it isn't ticked um and but below that again we see
00:53:36 um and but below that again we see an unticked box 1.2.8 advise the client on the selection terms of appointment and fee structures for the professional team advise the client on design services required under the building contract
00:53:49 required under the building contract so just taking 1.2.5 and 1.2.8 which were not taked what did you understand those services to entail it's a broad question i appreciate but can you give us a sense
00:54:01 appreciate but can you give us a sense of what
00:54:01 of what those services had they been take would have entailed in 1.2.5 if it had become apparent that there were
00:54:12 it had become apparent that there were a requirement for specialist services that hadn't already been appointed whether it be in terms of consultants or relative to design or contractors in terms of carrying out the works that we would be required to advise the
00:54:25 that we would be required to advise the contract
00:54:25 contract advise the client in terms of 1.2.8 um advising the clients on selection services appointment for the professional team is actually where we would be involved
00:54:36 is actually where we would be involved in procuring the team and setting up their appointments do you know why artelia excluded those services specifically from the core services for an ea
00:54:46 an ea because we didn't believe they were relevant to our appointment
00:54:51 uh it's a slightly circular answer can you just
00:54:54 you just unpack that for us please why did you not think they were relevant to your appointment because the design team was um had already been uh brought on board before our appointment right and that um it's not
00:55:07 right and that um it's not uncommon to have those boxes unticked uh they are quite specific in terms of roles
00:55:13 roles and uh they were not covered within our feed proposal were those uh services included for the calc
00:55:22 calc project do you recall i can't remember okay was there any discussion internally within artelia about why you would exclude those services for the grenfell tower project no
00:55:34 for the grenfell tower project no were those exclusions ever specifically discussed with the tmo it was part of the original offer that we put to the tmo um i prepared the documents and i ticked the boxes
00:55:44 the boxes as i felt uh fit in terms of the services that we're offering for the fees that we had that we had offered as well yes and to answer my question again having ticked those boxes as you say you
00:55:55 having ticked those boxes as you say you did was there any discussion ever between you and the tmo about whether they should be included or not included or why you'd excluded them i believe that uh at some time there would have been a conversation with jenny jackson
00:56:07 jenny jackson much further down the line after our initial proposal in 2012 which concluded the the discussions on what was finally signed right
00:56:22 did you make it clear do you remember to jenny jackson or anybody else at the tma what the consequences would be of artelia's excluding these particular services 1.2.5 and
00:56:34 these particular services 1.2.5 and 1.2.8
00:56:35 1.2.8 from its scope of ea services i didn't feel it was necessary to the the tmo are an educated client in terms of construction contracts and employee consultants on a number of occasions and they're
00:56:47 on a number of occasions and they're conversant with the scopes of services right so do we take it from that that you assumed that they would understand that
00:56:54 that that what falls within the scope of those services as uh set out there would not be part of the contract between artelia and the tma correct can we then go to art405742
00:57:07 correct can we then go to art405742 for page 48 next page on this is still within the schedule of services for the ea employer's agent and at the top of the page in the left-hand column you can see
00:57:18 see clause 1.3.3 which you have ticked or crossed and that provides establish the roles and responsibilities of the client the
00:57:29 and responsibilities of the client the professional team the contractor and specialist stroke design subcontractors what did you understand that service to entail it was to identify who was specific who was doing what
00:57:41 specific who was doing what in terms of the the people that had been appointed by the tmo and how would you expect an employer's agent to go about um doing what you've just described
00:57:53 um doing what you've just described it's identifying who was doing what in terms of the people that had been appointed by the tmo as you put it it was identified within the project execution plan and it would have been covered within
00:58:05 and it would have been covered within the meeting minutes and within discussions within meetings
00:58:11 okay so the project execution plan and who was responsible for compiling or keeping the project execution plan i'll tell you i've prepared a project execution plan was that
00:58:22 project execution plan was that something you had an input into not particularly no who who did i believe alan dawson did alan dawson did so that was the ea's role was it correct i see i follow and after alan dawson
00:58:33 after alan dawson uh the others who took on the role of va within artelia yes i follow you mentioned jenny jackson a moment ago i i think we know who she is but could you just explain generally who who jenny jackson is and what you understand
00:58:45 jenny jackson is and what you understand or understood her role was jenny jackson was introduced as the tmo's procurement expert and she was very much involved in the procurement process
00:58:57 procurement process that subsequently arose for the contractor and she was also involved heavily involved in the uh discussions and final agreement of
00:59:08 of our terms of appointment now just going back to what's on the page in front of us um can you just explain how the role at 1.3.3 to establish the roles
00:59:22 the role at 1.3.3 to establish the roles and responsibilities of the client etcetera
00:59:26 etcetera related to the roles at 1.2.5 1.2.8 which were excluded relating to advising the client on specialist services and design services
00:59:38 services and design services so when you the the 1.3.3 is relation to those
00:59:42 those people who are actually appointed i follow so
00:59:46 follow so uh i i i say so when it comes to um establishing the roles and responsibilities of the client um where is it where you had not ticked
00:59:59 um where is it where you had not ticked and 1.2.8 does that mean that the advice that you gave about that would not include those roles correct
01:00:08 so would it follow from that that where an employer's agent establishes the roles and responsibilities under box 1.3.3 an employer's agent might in the process of establishing those roles and
01:00:20 of establishing those roles and responsibilities and identify a role of responsibility that was not going to be fulfilled there's a possibility yes yes
01:00:32 and if we go up to the yeah yes and in doing so would have to identify
01:00:39 identify to those who were part of its team in other words the client um that there was a gap if there was one found to be uh yes yes now if we scroll up to the previous
01:00:51 yes now if we scroll up to the previous page page before page 47 you can see that there's tick box one point three one one point one point
01:00:59 one point three lies underneath the heading 1.3 design our iba outline plan of work 2007.
01:01:07 2007. you see that sorry no you should be on page 47 at the moment no page 47. so which which number are you looking at one point i'm on page 47 and i'm looking
01:01:19 one point i'm on page 47 and i'm looking at 1.3 the heading in the bottom right hand corner yes design our iaba outline plan of work 2007.
01:01:26 2007. yes yes and my point was that 1.3.3 sits within that section yes yes and the riba outline plan of work 2007
01:01:35 work 2007 is a reference to the riba stages of work
01:01:38 work correct it was later revised as we know but but
01:01:41 but but but that was at that stage and if you look at
01:01:44 look at um 1.2.5
01:01:48 um 1.2.5 and 1.2.8 again which as we now see are unticked um those um items of work or
01:01:59 um items of work or services are in the stage of 1.2 preparation uh preparation riba outline plan of work 2007.
01:02:10 plan of work 2007. you see that yes so in other words 1.2.5 and 1.2.8
01:02:14 and 1.2.8 sit in an earlier stage in the process of the services don't they yes yes so that being so doesn't that tell us that artelia wouldn't be advising
01:02:25 wouldn't be advising the client on specialist services uh or appointment fee structures and design services at the preparation
01:02:36 and design services at the preparation stage
01:02:37 stage but not necessarily at the design stage no because these these services although they are identified within particular stages they are not
01:02:48 particular stages they are not necessarily exclusive to those stages and i think that's stated at the top of the course at just above core services
01:03:02 the course at just above core services where would you where would you be identifying that there's uh if you scroll to the top of the page please yes are you referring to item three
01:03:12 there's um so item five item five i see i see what you'll say yeah that's that's in practice many of the services
01:03:23 that's in practice many of the services will be carried out in more than one section that's where you do tick but where you don't tick as we've seen in respect to 1.2.5 and 1.2.8 the um the absence of those services from the
01:03:36 the absence of those services from the ea
01:03:36 ea scope at the preparation stage according to the riba 2007 outline plan wouldn't necessarily mean that they fell out of
01:03:46 out of the scope of the works altogether if they came back in through uh another provision at a later stage such as design no i don't i don't agree with that they
01:03:57 no i don't i don't agree with that they once they're not if they're not ticked they're not ticked and it means that they are excluded completely that's my understanding if let me put a proposition to you then but if a does if by the design stage next
01:04:08 if a does if by the design stage next stage on
01:04:09 stage on artelia has to establish the roles and responsibilities of the client and the professional team does that not um bring with it an obligation to advise the client on
01:04:20 an obligation to advise the client on specialist services uh or design services if in fact they're missing
01:04:25 missing at that stage no because i believe that responsibility would sit with others who would it sit with that would sit with the members of the professional team or it may even sit with the tmo right and members of the professional
01:04:36 right and members of the professional team for this purpose being studio a curtains and max ford as you defined yesterday you say it may also sit with the tm may even sit with the tmo isn't that
01:04:49 may even sit with the tmo isn't that precisely the point that under 1.3.3 by that stage in the design stage it was artelia's role to identify precisely
01:04:59 precisely who had what obligation so that if it was the tma's obligation to take advice about specialist services or design it was artelia's job to tell them
01:05:10 design it was artelia's job to tell them that
01:05:11 that in terms of in terms of the roles and responsibilities of who had been appointed
01:05:15 appointed not in terms of who had not been appointed if there was a gap between that then and then we would look to close the gap between the idea is to make sure there was no
01:05:24 was no gaps between those that have been appointed exactly or that the fact that there may actually even be an overlap which sometimes is the case indeed i think you're accepting my point which is that if you'd spotted a gap in the in the course of performing your
01:05:35 in the in the course of performing your services at the design stage under um section 1.3.3 you would tell the client
01:05:40 client yes because we'd have it we're expected to make it quite clear that everybody understands what they're supposed to do as part of their roles indeed can i then move to a different topic which is client design advisor
01:05:52 topic which is client design advisor cda it's right i think that artelia acted as cda for the calc project correct and can we go then to art 408591 please this is an email from phil
01:06:04 408591 please this is an email from phil booth to
01:06:06 booth to you mr cash on the 10th of january 2014 again american dating and it says simon claire wishes for us to put forward a proposal for the cda
01:06:17 forward a proposal for the cda role as the custodian of fee proposals and escapes please can i ask you to do this
01:06:22 this i know they are considering others eg one-man bands but they have pi concerns and pi just for the benefit of others perhaps is professional indemnity is that right correct yeah and by way of
01:06:34 is that right correct yeah and by way of context
01:06:35 context it's right i think that this is email was sent during the odu process the ojeu tendering process before ryden was appointed as a main contractor
01:06:46 appointed as a main contractor yes yes so is it right that artelia was considering itself at this stage as a possible candidate for the cda role at this time yes yes turning then to the
01:06:58 at this time yes yes turning then to the what the role of the cda involves and i want to look first at the services um can we go please to art 406279 this is a proposal for cda
01:07:12 this is a proposal for cda dated february 2014 as you can see do you recognize this document mr cash yes i do you do did you personally approve it or have any input into it no i didn't
01:07:24 i didn't you didn't do you know who did personally approve prove it i can't remember
01:07:30 uh because it's a proposal was it would it have been someone within the grenfell tower project no no he didn't no the um the the cda
01:07:42 no no he didn't no the um the the cda role is is performed by another team within artelia right and uh it would have been uh prepared by uh richmond harding uh who would have been the person nominated as the cda
01:07:55 been the person nominated as the cda and she would have had the proposal signed off by her line manager and um then it would have been passed to me for final issue i i think you've answered a series of
01:08:07 i i think you've answered a series of questions in that answer that i had but it was
01:08:09 it was you say you say it would have been passed to me for final issue so you were the person who would have visited it to the client correct and in doing that would i be writing thinking that you would have taken steps to read it at least
01:08:20 taken steps to read it at least i would have looked through it i wouldn't have read every every detail of it
01:08:24 it all right now um just pursuing that a little bit can we go to your witness statement your first witness statement page 48 and i want to look at paragraph 48 if we
01:08:36 and i want to look at paragraph 48 if we can
01:08:39 can i'm sorry paragraph 148 on page 48 and you refer to this proposal you say on the 4th of february 2014 richmond harding at auk prepared a draft proposal to act as client design advisor for the
01:08:51 to act as client design advisor for the tmo on the project i sent this proposal to the tml on the 27th of february 2014 by post and 28th of february 2014 by email as part of a revised fee proposal
01:09:03 part of a revised fee proposal as i explained later the tmo declined to accept the proposal for auk to act as client design advisor had the tma taken up this offer the client design advisor role would have been provided by richard harding an architect who worked
01:09:15 richard harding an architect who worked in a different part of a uk's business now you put some dates in there about when you sent when it was prepared and when it was sent um if we look at the proposal itself going back to it
01:09:26 itself going back to it art four zero six two seven nine please can we go to page eighteen you've referred to richmond harding as the person who prepared it and there is her cv
01:09:39 and there is her cv and we could see in the bold text at the top
01:09:42 top that she is a qualified architect yes yes and had and we could see elsewhere i think she passed the riba part three in 1993
01:09:53 part three in 1993 we get that on the left-hand side of this document under qualifications do you see second entry down yes yes and then under relevant skills and experience
01:10:05 experience um which is a large box halfway down the page
01:10:09 page um uh it um [Music]
01:10:13 [Music] it says
01:10:17 it says five lines down her move do you see that her move into the pfi ppp sector three years ago
01:10:24 years ago has seen her focus on major high-profile public capital expenditure programs where she is responsible for contract due diligence and scrutinizing project delivery
01:10:33 delivery to ensure compliance with all necessary british and european standards output specifications funder requirements and statutory duties she is rigorous in her approach and highly valued by our funder and authority clients
01:10:44 authority clients for protecting their interests on these complex schemes so just on that would you say that miss harding had very specialized training skills and experience particularly in design
01:10:56 experience particularly in design yes and i think at this time she was an architect of some 15 years experience yes yes and um if you look at the box
01:11:08 yes yes and um if you look at the box the relevant experience halfway down which i'd refer to a minute ago but didn't go to there's a table called relevant experience and and um at the top entry you can see that she was
01:11:17 she was um client design advisor cda for the kensington academy and leisure center calc
01:11:22 calc uh for rbkc wasn't she correct as you said before and if we go to um a page three of this document you could see the services that
01:11:33 see the services that ms harding would perform if she were appointed cda yes and they're set out in the big box at the bottom i'm not going to read them all out but if you look at the third bullet point can we just do that
01:11:44 bullet point can we just do that she would if appointed review through a design
01:11:47 design compliance report agreed to key design packages
01:11:51 packages following the production of detailed drawing stage f reporting to kctmo using our risk-based warning light methodology backed up by our firm opinions and recommendations what would that
01:12:04 and recommendations what would that entail
01:12:04 entail in a bit more detail do you know yes this would uh be looking at the contractors proposals and designs when they were preparing construction
01:12:16 when they were preparing construction drawings or manufacturer drawings and reviewing them against the employer's requirements to see if there are any derogations and then using what we call a traffic-like light system
01:12:27 what we call a traffic-like light system of
01:12:28 of red amber and green as to whether those derogations were acceptable need consideration or were unacceptable in terms of what the tmo had identified
01:12:40 what the tmo had identified in terms of their employers requirements right
01:12:44 right just just examining that answer a bit more can can you just help me with that with that service or set of services that you've just explained there include comparing
01:12:56 explained there include comparing drawings with the nbs specification
01:13:02 could do yes would it involve monitoring the development or evolution of the drawings to make sure that they
01:13:10 that they did include what was in the nbs specification i don't believe it would be monitoring the evolution of the drawings it would be
01:13:16 be looking at the drawings that were finally issued once they've been completed
01:13:22 completed and taking that into account comparing those with the mbs specification and whatever information is in the employer's requirements correct yes and would that also include checking
01:13:33 yes and would that also include checking for regulatory or statutory compliance it would uh look to it would look at the question of regulatory compliance yeah would it look at would it include looking at the
01:13:44 at would it include looking at the as-built drawings yes and making sure that the as built drawings conformed precisely with what was actually on the building as built part of the role is site inspections and looking at compliance
01:13:55 looking at compliance right and would that include also examining any changes in materials from the mbs specification to new materials if they were part of a
01:14:06 materials if they were part of a variation or a contractor's proposal yes yes
01:14:12 if you go to page six of this document
01:14:24 you can see scheme design just below halfway down the page and she's and it said that we will provide a
01:14:31 provide a design compliance report a pre-contract award stage following a review of the construction or contractors proposal cps and endeavor to ensure that they meet the employers requirements nbs specifications british and european
01:14:43 nbs specifications british and european standards as well as all statutory and planning requirements once the contract is let we will review detailed drawings as they are produced to ensure the works proposed continue to meet ers
01:14:54 meet ers we will provide design advice as required by the kctma so just pausing there in fact i think the services that she was offering were being offered as part of this would include um
01:15:05 include um reviewing detailed drawings as they were produced not just at the end yes sorry when you say it wouldn't this it wouldn't be the evolution of the drawings until they were produced so drawings are issued in various stages
01:15:17 so drawings are issued in various stages i follow i follow that okay so when you when as they are produced you mean conforming to each stage under the raba scheme of work correct but at this stage they will be stage f
01:15:28 but at this stage they will be stage f yes so will this explain then what you meant or
01:15:32 meant or what was meant by artelia by the expression as they are produced yes but what does that mean that as as drawings are completed they are issued in batches because they wouldn't necessarily issue
01:15:43 because they wouldn't necessarily issue every single drawing all at once right so they would be concentrating on elements of design to suit their construction program and that they would then issue them in batches i i see so
01:15:55 them in batches i i see so just help me so if um a cladding subcontractor such as for example harley uh issued a a revised drawing to studio e through ryden
01:16:07 to studio e through ryden would that be something that would be a drawing as produced which would then be reviewed by the escape picked up by the scope of services no not necessarily because we wouldn't know that that drawing had been issued to studio e
01:16:18 studio e it would be drawings that are that are issued by ryden's to the client team for a comment so uh is acting as client design advisor effectively looking at the the drawings
01:16:30 effectively looking at the the drawings that are issued by ryden's not by ryden's supply chain i see but so i think you're telling us that these would be you would be dependent uh artelio
01:16:43 you would be dependent uh artelio in this role would be dependent on ryden issuing drawings to the tmo as the client is that is that right and
01:16:50 right and if in the event that this role had been taken up the drawings would have been issued to us as well i follow um looking at page um
01:17:02 looking at page um uh looking at i'll stay on this page for the moment um would the check um to ensure that the works continue to
01:17:13 um to ensure that the works continue to meet the
01:17:14 meet the ers would that um involve a check whether the design proposals met the initial studio e design are set out in the ers yes yes and i take it that would also
01:17:27 yes yes and i take it that would also include
01:17:28 include checking for compliance with british and european standards and statutory requirements in terms of the designs that are issued by ryden's yes yes it's not for us to check that studio e's initial design is compliant that is part
01:17:40 initial design is compliant that is part of studio e's role i i understand that uh
01:17:44 uh and that is part of the check for for compliance that would include the building regulations i assume would it yes and would that review also include whether the employer's requirements themselves were compliant with the
01:17:55 themselves were compliant with the british and european standards including the building regulations no because that's that's it so that's part of studio e correct i see and and curtins and max fordham as well right
01:18:04 right and what would be inclu recorded or included in a design compliance report um i can't say specifically but it would uh certainly look at things like any derogations between the
01:18:17 things like any derogations between the contractors proposals and the employers requirements and as i said it would also include the traffic light risk review in terms of uh the impact of those derogations it would
01:18:28 the impact of those derogations it would look at
01:18:29 look at uh any compliance it would look at planning uh whether there are any particular planning issues that may still need to be addressed uh where they're not fully addressed by the current designs that have been issued
01:18:38 issued yeah if we go to page six at the bottom at the end of the scheme desert design section it says as i've shown you we will provide design advice
01:18:50 will provide design advice what would that design advice have included had this role been taken up by artelia
01:18:54 artelia it would have been designed advice as required by the timo if the tmo had asked us
01:18:59 asked us for our opinions then we would have given it it wasn't anything in terms of uh saying that we would provide a continual design advice service in anything in a general aspect right but would it include
01:19:10 would it include artelia identifying non-compliances if they were reasonably obvious from the drawings with which you had been provided that would be part of the compliance role yeah right and see the cda appointment would
01:19:23 right and see the cda appointment would continue wouldn't it after after practical completion i think yes so that if the design change is a result of value engineering um the cda would review the resulting design for compliance
01:19:34 design for compliance with relevant statutory requirements correct yes and equally if the design change for any reason during the build i think you would also expect the cda under this proposal at least to review all the decisions taken
01:19:45 least to review all the decisions taken for con
01:19:46 for con to make sure that they there was compliance with all relevant statutory requirements if if it's identified as a change or if there are revised contractors proposals that are issued yeah so standing back
01:20:00 yeah so standing back would i be right in thinking that effectively the cda's role under this proposal would involve a check for design compliance throughout the lifetime of the building contract correct yes would it be normal to have a
01:20:13 correct yes would it be normal to have a cda appointed at this point in the process
01:20:16 process uh um in other words after the employer's requirements had been had been un established and the tender process was well underway it's not uncommon it's um it's a role
01:20:28 it's not uncommon it's um it's a role that
01:20:28 that quite is in various terms required when the design team is novated and the client actually doesn't have anybody left to advise them on technical matters
01:20:40 advise them on technical matters i see was there any consideration of having a cda appointed at any earlier stage in the project for example at the very start of the tender process in or from june 2013. i can't remember if
01:20:52 or from june 2013. i can't remember if it had been discussed in particular detail
01:20:54 detail you might remember
01:21:03 would it be good practice or would it have been good practice at the time to the best of your under understanding of thought processes at the time to have had a cda on a project like grenfell
01:21:15 project like grenfell at the time being the appointment of the contractor yes at the from the early part of 2014 say if not earlier it would have been appropriate once the contractor was on
01:21:26 appropriate once the contractor was on board
01:21:27 board yes i mean we've got a refurbishment here of a high-rise residential building with an overcloud where the budget was around about for the sake of argument at the moment nine million pounds
01:21:38 million pounds in a project of that scale and complexity what was your thinking at the time that it would have been a good idea to have a cda
01:21:46 cda yes on the basis that the design team members of the design team were being novated
01:21:53 right can i ask you to look at page 11 just to see the fee proposal for the services that were being offered
01:22:06 you can see there that the fees for the cda role
01:22:09 cda role were a total fee of thirty thousand nine hundred and twenty two pounds that that's right that that's an all-inclusive role is is it correct inclusive price i should say yes
01:22:20 correct inclusive price i should say yes yes i see
01:22:23 yes i see 600 pounds for post occupancy evaluation i follow that was an optional extra that was offered right so the the cda role
01:22:34 right so the the cda role as offered in the proposal was the first line the second one was a an option if they wish to take that up do you know how that fee was arrived at in general terms i believe it was looked at in terms of
01:22:45 believe it was looked at in terms of um initial review and then monthly a monthly calculation i follow and would that be can you give us
01:22:55 us an idea of whether that's a high fee or a low fee or you know whether you were giving the client a good rate i believe it was it's a fair fee right i'm sure you'd say that i wonder whether there was any way
01:23:06 that i wonder whether there was any way we could compare that with anything else um we do a number of cda role uh fee proposals i'm not i don't get involved in them very often but um i didn't see it was an unreasonable fee right
01:23:17 unreasonable fee right thank you mr chairman we are the sort of middle of this topic but i'm going to move on to a different sub-sub-topic i think would that be a good point yes it's good thank you yes i think we should all have a short break at this
01:23:28 should all have a short break at this point mr cash so um i'm going to ask you to go off with the usher in a minute we'll come back at 20 to 12
01:23:33 20 to 12 please and as i said yesterday please don't talk to anyone about your evidence or
01:23:38 or anything to do with it while you're out of the room all right good thank you very much thank you
01:24:00 2012's
01:39:53 good would you ask mr cash to come back in please all right mr cash ready yes
01:40:09 in please all right mr cash ready yes carry on thank you mr chairman thank you can we now go to uh page four of this same document art406279
01:40:20 and i'd like to look with you please mr cash at paragraph 2.1 on that page under the heading project understanding and key data and in the second paragraph there we can
01:40:32 and in the second paragraph there we can see that it says with the novation of architect studio e to the contractor the relationship and direct access to architects and other members of the design team that you have enjoyed on this project to date
01:40:43 you have enjoyed on this project to date will change the services of a client design advisor will ensure that the initial design that you have agreed and promoted to stakeholders does not get watered down as part of the procurement and delivery process
01:40:55 and delivery process now you've explained i think in your third witness statement what the purpose is of engaging a cda i just want to show you that if we go to that please third statement page 16. paragraph 36
01:41:10 page 16. paragraph 36 you explain that that the core purpose of a cda and similar appointments is to ensure that the interests of the employer here the tma are protected throughout scheme design
01:41:21 throughout scheme design to ensure that the design is not watered down during ongoing scheme design and construction just pausing there what does waterdown mean it's referring to
01:41:33 mean it's referring to whether or not the contractor the designer bill contractor will try and make some substitution in terms of their proposals
01:41:46 in terms of their proposals that um he's uh to a lesser um standard or or to a lesser quality than the employer is requiring or to a lesser
01:41:57 the employer is requiring or to a lesser um it could be capacity or performance generally um it is basically there to protect the client from to ensure that they are getting what they've
01:42:08 getting what they've paid for right you're just continuing them with your paragraph a cda seeks to protect the employer on a design and build contract who will
01:42:16 who will as a consequence of the novation of the architect to the design and build contractor have lost the services of an architect on the project as max fordham the m e contractor was not to be innovated to
01:42:27 e contractor was not to be innovated to ride in m
01:42:28 ride in m e services on the project were not to be addressed by the cda the cda provides advice as required by the client and reviews drawings to ensure that what is proposed continues to meet what is set out in the
01:42:39 to meet what is set out in the employer's requirements in in your recollection how important was it to you at the time that the tmo had that sort of advice
01:42:49 of advice on this project it's important that somebody has the responsibility of commenting on the designs that are being put forward
01:43:01 so who was that in the end was claire williams she was the client though yes but it doesn't mean to say that the client is
01:43:12 client is an educated client then there's no reason why the client can't take that role on themselves it's i've seen it done before so when you say important that somebody has the responsibility of commenting on the
01:43:23 the responsibility of commenting on the designs
01:43:24 designs who would that person be commenting to it could be uh an external consultant commenting to the client or it could be the client doing the checking themselves so the client would comment to themselves right yes
01:43:36 themselves right yes right okay um did you think that there was a particular risk in this contract that would mean that the client the tmo would benefit from a cda
01:43:47 would benefit from a cda we had proposed the service because we felt that there was a need for somebody to have a have a responsibility for commenting on the contractors proposals
01:43:58 commenting on the contractors proposals at the end of the day the client took that role on themselves yes
01:44:02 yes um a little bit you say you felt there was a need for somebody to have a responsibility for commenting on the contractors proposals but do you mean by that answer just to press you a bit that you thought
01:44:13 you a bit that you thought that this project required somebody to advise claire williams on the contractors proposals no i was purely saying that we could provide a service we didn't say that we
01:44:24 a service we didn't say that we that the client had to have that service no i'm not suggesting that let me try a slightly different way you were saying that you could provide a service was did you think at the time that the
01:44:36 did you think at the time that the client needed that service we didn't know that they needed it we said we would we offered it as an option clients may have the expertise may not
01:44:47 clients may have the expertise may not still wish to carry out that they may wish to devolve that responsibility in the same way as the employer's agent could equally have been within the client team
01:44:58 yes but you said earlier on line three on the previous page of the transcript that you'd propose the service because we felt that there was a need for somebody to have a responsibility for commenting on the contractor's proposals and that's why he proposed the
01:45:09 proposals and that's why he proposed the cda
01:45:10 cda yes what i'm really trying to tease out from you is whether when you said you felt there was a need for somebody to have a responsibility for commenting on the contractors proposals was that because you didn't think that the tmo had their own expertise to carry
01:45:22 the tmo had their own expertise to carry that responsibility for themselves it wasn't clear that they had it wasn't clear that they had did you ever spell out the risks to the tma so that they whether it was clerk williams or peter
01:45:33 whether it was clerk williams or peter madison or anybody else at the tmo that they fully understood the consequences of not having a cda and what it was that they would have to take on in in order to avoid
01:45:46 in order to avoid things like as you put it the watering down of the ongoing scheme design and construction yes i believe that we had conversations regarding that which led to the request for providing a cda service
01:46:03 i see so the conversate there were conversations were there that led up to them
01:46:08 them asking you to provide that service as we saw in the email yes hence the reference to one man bands yes did that were there well we'll come on to this now
01:46:19 on to this now can we then go to art402701 because we can see what happens to this proposal um this is an email from the tmo
01:46:30 tmo to philip booth now he was i think the uh employer's agent at this point wasn't he yes
01:46:41 yes but it's also sent to peter blythe who was assisting him in that role yes yes it's dated the 29th of august 2014
01:46:49 2014 but it says last you dear both last tuesday we talked about the appointment of a design advisor and the likelihood that this did not particularly apply to cladding and the m
01:46:59 the m e elements which were designed and under guarantee
01:47:03 guarantee and then in the next paragraph she says i've spoken to david gibson and we're going to see if we can manage this within the tmao as we are very familiar with the specifications
01:47:14 very familiar with the specifications for social housing we will monitor how this is working as presumably all proposals for comment will have a respond by date can you please send any design proposals to myself cc david gibson
01:47:26 to myself cc david gibson now just uh pausing there last tuesday i think refers to a meeting on the 19th of august which i don't think you were at were you i can't remember right um
01:47:40 i can't remember right um do you know why it took from the 27th of february 2014 which is when you sent the cda proposal dated the 4th of
01:47:51 the cda proposal dated the 4th of february 2014 to the tmo for the tmo to decide whether to appoint a cda can you explain the gap no i can't did you or anybody else at artelia to you
01:48:02 you or anybody else at artelia to you did the best of your recollection prompt the tmo for a decision on the appointment of a cda between february and august of 2014. i can't remember specifically no did you
01:48:13 i can't remember specifically no did you agree
01:48:14 agree in your own mind with what uh claire williams was saying that a cda was unlikely to be necessary in circumstances where the cladding and the m e elements were designed and under guarantee
01:48:27 designed and under guarantee i don't know no i don't agree with that did you
01:48:30 did you or bill booth express your disagreement with her about that i wasn't aware of this particular email until
01:48:37 until it's been disclosed did do to the best of your recollection did phil booth go go to her and say well you're wrong about this i don't know right let's just see what
01:48:48 i don't know right let's just see what ms williams says about this this is um a a statement that she produced to the inquiry in january of this year 2020. it's tmo six three 2-0-8-6-3-3 five nine
01:49:04 that's its first page i'd like to go to page seven please paragraph thirty and she says there artilla explained to me that the cda
01:49:15 artilla explained to me that the cda role would not touch on those discrete areas of the project where specialist contractors would have specialist knowledge
01:49:21 knowledge about their design and the materials used that artelia would not have this is what i meant in my email to peter blythe and philip booth where i said and she quotes the part of the email i've read to you about
01:49:33 the email i've read to you about um not it not applying to cladding and the emini elements um were you aware well can you help did artelia ever tell
01:49:45 can you help did artelia ever tell um claire williams to the best of your knowledge that the cda role would not touch on those discrete areas of the project
01:49:51 project no i don't believe so i don't i don't recall
01:49:54 recall is that your is what she says there um correct so far as your understanding of what a cda would do if appointed under the terms of the proposal no
01:50:06 proposal no the roles were quite clearly stated within the proposal it was sent to her right but it covered the whole of the design
01:50:12 design it would cover the whole of the design so she was wrong in her understanding um did you talk to claire williams or peter madison at all about the cda proposal between
01:50:23 at all about the cda proposal between february and august 2014 i can't remember
01:50:26 remember right did she ever tell you or did he ever tell you no we don't want the we don't want it in respect of the claiming or was this email the first you've seen of it this is the
01:50:37 the first you've seen of it this is the first i've seen of it i see would a cda a client design advisor normally only focus on the areas with greatest design concerns such as for example the new build areas that she's referred to in
01:50:48 build areas that she's referred to in her email
01:50:50 her email no so cda would look at every aspect of design would they correct yes um can we go to um
01:51:02 can we go to um get back to the email then again it's art40270
01:51:12 she says in the second paragraph i've spoken to david gibson etc and i've shown you that let's look at it again if we go to art406464
01:51:21 art406464 at page two please we do see that you were actually forwarded this email by philip booth you see that yes um and that's on the 29th of august
01:51:36 2014 where he says to you among others richmond harding and robert marr sadly tmo decided to be their own cda so it does look mr cash as if you did see
01:51:48 it does look mr cash as if you did see this at the time do you remember seeing that at the time yes i do um and if you'd seen it at the time you would have seen that she was wrong in her understanding having seen that can i ask you why you didn't
01:51:59 didn't go back yourself to the client or tell mr booth to go back to the client to tell her that she'd misunderstood um the role of a cda and the the role of cda was not to be excluded in relation
01:52:11 cda was not to be excluded in relation to the cladding and the m e elements i don't know did you have any thoughts at all about her reasoning behind her declining of your proposal
01:52:23 behind her declining of your proposal only that uh obviously as a an educated client that they had the capacity to provide that role themselves right well let's just let's just move on a little bit as i think we do see something we can see
01:52:35 something we can see on page one of this email run there's an email from you to phil booth on the 1st of september 2014 so a couple of days
01:52:46 couple of days later after he sends you her email in which he says sadly tmo decided to be their own
01:52:54 their own cda you say philip i'd like to think that with ryden's approach so far it should not be an onerous task however it is very important that we do not find ourselves being dragged into dealing with any issues relating to
01:53:05 dealing with any issues relating to compliance or design advice without it being acknowledged as additional work um you you say you refer to ryden's approach so far
01:53:16 approach so far what did you mean by that that they had been very cooperative and had been issuing
01:53:23 issuing a lot of information and uh that there was no reason to think that in terms of what they've been doing so far that there would be any issues of them
01:53:33 them uh derogating from the employer's requirements in terms of what information they might provide i followed did you understand that ryden at that time would be looking in their approach so far as you put it
01:53:45 in their approach so far as you put it at design compliance compliance with of design with regulatory requirements yes because that's part of their role as a design and build contractor yes and and when you say should not be
01:53:56 yes and and when you say should not be an onerous task did you mean onerous for the tmo or for artelia owners for the tmo
01:54:03 tmo right does that mean that your understanding at the time was that the tmo could rely on ryden's design skills as demonstrated by its quotes approach
01:54:14 as demonstrated by its quotes approach so far on quotes i don't when you say rely do you mean in terms of not checking it or do you mean in terms of it being correct uh i think both is what i probably mean
01:54:27 uh i think both is what i probably mean what do you think i think it's i would think it would i don't think it'd be right to rely on it i think you still have to check it right so to check it
01:54:39 right so to check it you would need well what sort of skills or qualifications would you need to check ryden's uh work which would include
01:54:50 which would include ryden's assessment of of design compliance you need to understand design you need to understand design what does that mean you just have a knowledge of design and
01:55:02 knowledge of design and the regulations and what is what is a compliant design had you taken any steps just to to satisfy yourself that
01:55:13 satisfy yourself that your client had knowledge of design and the regulations and what is compliant design
01:55:20 design no i was satisfied that they said that they had the expertise in the house right so you took them at their word yes not saying there's anything wrong with that but you never explored further
01:55:32 with that but you never explored further whether or not in fact the client actually had the skills to to to carry out the role they were taking on it wasn't for me to do that um turning to ryden had you taken any steps to satisfy yourself that ryden
01:55:44 steps to satisfy yourself that ryden would analyze the designs and check compliance they had been through a procurement process that had reviewed their technical competence as well as their experience of carrying out
01:55:57 well as their experience of carrying out refurbishment projects and that everybody was satisfied that they would uh
01:56:04 would uh be able to provide a design and do that with the novated design team of studio e i i see did that procurement process when you say
01:56:16 that procurement process when you say reviewed their technical competence we'll come to the procurement later in your evidence but just for present purposes can you identify with any precision what it was in the procurement process that led you to think that ryden
01:56:29 that led you to think that ryden as opposed to outsourcing it to others ryden
01:56:32 ryden had expertise and technical competence in the matters of design you wouldn't necessarily have internal they wouldn't necessarily have to have internally expertise in
01:56:44 have to have internally expertise in design
01:56:45 design because they were engaging other people to carry out design as part of their team
01:56:49 team at this stage
01:56:54 well they would they would propose to have
01:56:58 have other people to carry out design but at the stage of the tender process those people hadn't yet been appointed so repeating my question what steps did you take to satisfy yourself that ryden had the technical expertise
01:57:11 ryden had the technical expertise to carry out the design and provide suitable design advice itself to the tmo we knew that the studio e were going to be innovated to them and we knew that and part of the tender
01:57:23 and we knew that and part of the tender process was identifying whether or not they would be carrying out those design services in-house or be using their supply chain i see but you didn't know who was going to be in the supply chain not necessarily that's not i wasn't part
01:57:35 not necessarily that's not i wasn't part of the tender process no indeed so you wouldn't actually know who in fact it was at the bottom of the chain he was actually going to be providing the designs correct did that mean that you can't you couldn't actually
01:57:46 couldn't actually do any proper analysis about whether ryden had the in had the skills itself to know whether those designs were compliant only in terms of looking at the cvs of the people that were proposed within the
01:57:57 within the tender that was submitted and their ability to manage design indeed was it not artelia's role as employer's agent to make sure that ryden had itself
01:58:09 to make sure that ryden had itself the relevant skills to be able to supervise the design and compliance activities of its subcontractors as part of the tender process that was one of the evaluation criteria yeah indeed
01:58:20 indeed so you i think the answer to my question is yes there's in conjunction with the tmo who are also one of the evaluators as well right in conjunction with the tmo who are also one of the evaluators as well
01:58:32 are also one of the evaluators as well and again the the um the reliability or effectiveness of their evaluation would depend on their own qualifications skills and experience correct
01:58:42 correct yes and did you take i think i think i've asked you this before but in that connection let me just ask it one more time and i'm sorry if this is repetition of a question do you do yourself or to your knowledge anybody at
01:58:53 yourself or to your knowledge anybody at artelia taking these steps actually rigorously to make sure that your client did have the relevant experience expertise and and qualifications to just to to understand what it was that ryden were
01:59:04 understand what it was that ryden were doing
01:59:05 doing no i didn't think that was part of our role right didn't think it was part of your role
01:59:10 your role can we go to your first witness statement page 55 please i want to look at paragraph 173 29th of august you say uh claire williams the tma responded
01:59:22 williams the tma responded uh and you've set out the contents of the email there and in the last uh sentence you say while i was disappointed the day uk was not appointed i thought that the tmo as an organization that managed a lot of
01:59:33 organization that managed a lot of properties in the rbkc had the necessary experience to carry out this role
01:59:40 why was managing a lot of properties in rbkc relevant to whether a cda is required or was required in terms of their understanding of specifications and compliance uh
01:59:51 compliance uh they i would assumed that they would have had a good knowledge of what those were
01:59:56 were and that um that they have the expertise they have their own internal project managers they have their own health and safety internal health and safety that they felt competent to be able to carry out that role
02:00:08 carry out that role well be a bit more specific you've identified managing a lot of properties can i just ask you why i mean managing properties that doesn't include understanding
02:00:19 that doesn't include understanding design and compliance of design or materials with with regulations and statutory obligations is it no but in looking after properties and
02:00:30 no but in looking after properties and also
02:00:31 also um constructing new properties they were uh involved in capital works which would have to have been regulator uh compliant in terms of regulatory standards
02:00:42 standards right i mean put it a different way did you think that the skills which the tmos team on this project had were comparable with the design analysis skills of someone like richard
02:00:53 analysis skills of someone like richard harding i can't really comment on that well i'm asking i don't i don't know what their uh qualifications were no indeed so when you're comparing like with like
02:01:04 with like am i i think i'm getting the sense from you that you didn't actually put richmond harding as the potential cda on one side with her skills and experience and ask yourself well does the tmo have
02:01:15 and ask yourself well does the tmo have the same
02:01:16 the same skill set and experience set as original it wasn't in my in my remit to do that
02:01:24 did you ever give any thought generally to the tma's ability to perform the cda role during the grenfell project
02:01:33 project no i felt that occasionally they were asking us questions which they should have been dealing with themselves and we put them back to them right i mean
02:01:46 to your knowledge i i think you're telling us that claire williams and david gibson were never told that they didn't have the skills
02:01:57 the skills of somebody like richmond harding who would be able to carry out a cd cda role as per the proposal correct right
02:02:09 and do we take it the by their decision you just assumed that they would have those skills without investigating it any further yes it was we made a commercial offer
02:02:21 yes it was we made a commercial offer which they turned down
02:02:25 now
02:02:28 are you aware of any response back to the tmo
02:02:33 the tmo to claire williams's email of the 29th of august that we've just looked at where she says we don't want to take the take on the cda wrote we don't want to appoint a cda no i'm not aware of anything we haven't been able to find one do you know why
02:02:45 been able to find one do you know why there was no response we took it as read that they'd made their decision during the project did artelia ever consider
02:02:53 consider telling the tmo even informally that they ought to reconsider that decision no not that i remember
02:03:08 going back to the question a moment ago the tma's ability i think you've told us that you never did any specific investigations as to ms williams's technical qualifications just to confirm that that's correct isn't it yes yes nor indeed mr gibson is
02:03:20 isn't it yes yes nor indeed mr gibson is that right correct nor mr madison or in fact anybody at the tmo you dealt with correct yes was it your impression that claire williams was taking decisions design decisions i
02:03:33 was taking decisions design decisions i should say specifically herself i believe she was yes did you think that at any time she might have been referring design decisions to others at the tma
02:03:43 the tma i don't know
02:03:50 can we look at art 406480 please this is an email chain october 2014 29th of october 2014 at the top
02:04:01 29th of october 2014 at the top and it relates to an incident where the boilers were turned off allegedly because of ryden's works that's the background to it i don't want to go into the detail of that but can we go to page two of this document
02:04:12 document um and look at the bottom half of the sec that second page there this is an email of
02:04:17 email of the 29th of october 2014 to you mr cash from david gibson of the tmo and he says simon since sending this below this morning
02:04:29 below this morning uh peter madison has been in touch he's actually on leave returning friday he is requesting that you lead on review of arrangements we need clarity between ryden artelia including your cdmc
02:04:40 ryden artelia including your cdmc responsibilities and max fordham on how designs and method statements are agreed and signed off before works commence scrolling up to the top of the page you say uh i
02:04:49 say uh i sorry mr gibson says but back to you in fact we can't see that on this page perhaps we should just have the bottom of page
02:05:00 of page one
02:05:04 because we can see this comes to you as the primary recipient of this email and then if we can flip back to page two i'm sorry that these have been split over the page um you can see he says to you mr gibson does i still need an
02:05:16 to you mr gibson does i still need an overall view on design sign-off etc i have yet to establish who will lead on this and then if we go to the first page of this email chain we can see what you say in response to
02:05:28 we can see what you say in response to uh
02:05:32 in response to this email internally i think to nick valente same day 29th of october and you say this really needs to be discussed with philip that's philip
02:05:44 discussed with philip that's philip booth i think when he's back from leave we offered the tmo client design advisor services
02:05:50 services and they declined saying that they would do this role themselves so i do not see that we have a role in any sign-offs we will obviously need to write to the tma with chapter reverse but if keith can respond in the meantime that will
02:06:02 can respond in the meantime that will hopefully allow us time to look at the wider detail early next week now by sign-offs
02:06:11 that you refer to there do you mean um sign-offs
02:06:14 sign-offs on a on a design change correct and commenting on designs and commenting on designs
02:06:29 would a cda have a role in sign-offs that you refer to there not in sign-offs the cda would advise on compliance it is still with somebody still with it
02:06:40 it is still with somebody still with it would be with the tmo to provide the ultimate um comments but uh the cda would provide the feedback to the tmo
02:06:51 the feedback to the tmo yes to allow them to make the comments i i see was it your impression at this time
02:06:56 time late october 14 that the tmo might have been confused about who was meant to be having input into the designs and and method statements before the works began on site it is not
02:07:09 before the works began on site it is not uncommon for people to misconstrue who's doing what and sometimes you have to reiterate what the roles are
02:07:18 roles are yes and you say we will obviously need to write to the tmo with chapter and verse could you just explain what you meant by that that was in relation to the incident that had happened and who was responsible for
02:07:29 responsible for uh ensuring that that particular work because it was in relation to actually work not design uh there was the incident and signing off and approving the work carrying out because it interfaced with existing
02:07:40 because it interfaced with existing systems or outside of the contract right did was it your understanding at the time that perhaps claire williams was confused about precisely what artelia's role was in in respect of
02:07:51 artelia's role was in in respect of design and particularly sign off i don't believe
02:07:54 believe necessarily claire williams but obviously peter madison had uh had raised the issue and david gibson was forwarding on peter madison's views very very well then i asked the same question again in respect of
02:08:07 question again in respect of of david gibson and peter madison do you think they might have been confused as to precisely what artelia's role was in respect of design and sign off i think in potent i don't know whether it's in relation to design because this
02:08:18 it's in relation to design because this is in terms of as i say a physical incident which happened on site and uh it was one that was quite significant in terms of uh stopping heating go to the i believe all hot water to the residents and
02:08:29 all hot water to the residents and therefore i believe that the email was very much a knee-jerk reaction
02:08:34 reaction in terms of to trying to get people to do something yes can we go to art406658 please this is an email chain from august 2015
02:08:46 this is an email chain from august 2015 so um ten months later or say this is also about the design of the boxing club and savings made to made because of omissions
02:08:56 omissions and if we go to page three of this this is an email from claire williams to neil reed
02:09:01 reed um copying you and others in you can see that at the bottom there 17th of august 2015.
02:09:08 2015. neil thanks for your resume i thought it would give you some time before i run but it sounds like you're pretty up to date
02:09:13 date i'll catch up with you uh and then if you
02:09:16 you if you go to page four you can read her email
02:09:26 if you go to page four um this is from starts with an email from neil reid to claire williams after a site visit he'd made that day and there are various points of detail
02:09:37 and there are various points of detail in there
02:09:38 in there and then her email back if you go to the bottom of page three we can see where it starts
02:09:46 starts um this is to neil reed but it's and it's
02:09:49 it's copy to you mr cash same day thanks for your resume and then over the page at the top of page
02:09:58 four uh she says um in the in the third paragraph um that she's established that the
02:10:09 um that she's established that the tiling in the boxing club is not as specified
02:10:12 specified so she asks for a hard copy of the spec and she's asked twitching about the finishes costed for the boxing club etc and
02:10:18 and something about the shower rooms being plastered and painted etc and then one but my little bit of good news about blinds um these are just details but i want to show you page one now
02:10:30 show you page one now that's the context because she seems to be asking artelia to check the specification to see if certain items are included if you go to page one which is what i really want to ask you about this is neil reed's
02:10:41 neil reed's email to you the 18th of august 2015. and um
02:10:51 it responds to your email to him the same day
02:10:54 same day and that is where you say to him claire may think that it is our job to check what the specification requirements are against the contractor's proposals however compliance is not part of our role in terms of what is and is not
02:11:05 role in terms of what is and is not included in the tender as quantity surveys we prepare a contract some analysis that breaks down a lump sum tender offer from the contractor to give us something that allows proper evaluation of tenders and something against which to manage costs during
02:11:17 against which to manage costs during construction it's not a definitive document and the only way of telling what isn't is not included in the contract is to check the employer's requirements and the contractor's proposals this is not a qs or pm role but rather
02:11:28 this is not a qs or pm role but rather one that relates to the cda services that we offered and was declined can you explain that what you meant by compliance when you say compliance is not part of our role
02:11:39 not part of our role in the first paragraph it's in in relation to the compliance of the contractors proposals against the employer's requirements right what about compliance of the work done
02:11:49 done with the contractually agreed specification same sorry right would you agree with me that this email exchange demonstrates that the tmo even at this stage
02:12:00 stage say august 15 wasn't clear about the role which artelia was performing i wouldn't say that it demonstrates that they're not clear i just think it demonstrates that claire is trying to get us to do something that's outside of
02:12:11 get us to do something that's outside of our scope
02:12:13 our scope knowingly could well be well they could well be
02:12:17 well be i mean there are there are two possibilities either she was confused about your scope or she knew very well what your scope was and was trying to get you to do something outside it what was your impression that she was trying to get us to do something that
02:12:28 trying to get us to do something that was outside of our scope
02:12:32 right do you know whether you or anybody else at artelia did anything in response to uh this i can't remember
02:12:47 it's clear from mr reed's message back to you as i've shown you but not read to you you say this is very he says this is very helpful
02:12:57 helpful top of the page as and when you do speak to peter that's peter madison i think it would be helpful if you could run through this with him as we continue to come under pressure even today to provide clarifications about the spec
02:13:08 to provide clarifications about the spec and attend meetings thanks but and again
02:13:13 was your understanding that the pressure was to do something you weren't contracted to do or that there was confusion
02:13:19 confusion it was that we were being asked to do something we weren't contracted to do you know whether mr reed ever did speak to peter madison to say look stop trying to get us to do something that's out of scope i don't know whether he had a
02:13:31 i don't know whether he had a conversation with peter madison or with anybody else within tmo well let's move forward in time um can we go to art406656 please this is an email chain in september 2015
02:13:45 this is an email chain in september 2015 and it concerns an issue between the tmo and ryden about the performance of lifts in the event of a fire and the effects of the fire alarms and there's a long email which simon
02:13:57 and there's a long email which simon lawrence sends to claire williams and that's on page two
02:14:06 he sends it on the 11th of september so you can see there and it goes over to page three if we just look at that email and the first part of it on page two
02:14:17 first part of it on page two is all about the fire panel and various details about about the about that piece of equipment and then if we go to the second page
02:14:31 at the top we can see an email from claire williams to neil reed and malcolm and andrew malcolm reed
02:14:42 reed grenfell lyft chaps can you please give me a ring with your views on this and where we go with it there seems to be a couple of anomalies i mean if we go back to the first page we can see that mr reed then forwards
02:14:53 we can see that mr reed then forwards this email on to you on the uh same day and he says to you i'll call you after lunch to discuss
02:15:04 lunch to discuss one the challenges go on re lack of design coordination and foresight two claire is emailing us and seeking to draw us in on conversations about one exclamation mark i remain concerned about time we're
02:15:16 i remain concerned about time we're spending along with the very fact these things are coming up at this stage in the project did you agree with mr reed that there was at this stage a lack of design coordination and foresight i believe that was in relation to uh
02:15:28 i believe that was in relation to uh design coordination with interface with existing systems
02:15:34 he says the challenges go on it looks as if mr reed there is descri is is expressing the view that this is a general problem in other words that there is a general problem about lack of design coordination and foresight
02:15:46 coordination and foresight is that right i don't know but it's in general terms but i know in terms of responding to in terms of what he was responding to the uh issue raised by simon lawrence was in relation to interfaces with
02:15:58 was in relation to interfaces with existing systems right did i'm really just seeking to get to the bottom of what you really understood by this message did you understand him to me that this was specifically related to the interface with the existing
02:16:09 to the interface with the existing systems or a more general problem uh interface with existing systems right and um is it right that the tmo was um trying to draw artelia in to assisting
02:16:20 trying to draw artelia in to assisting on
02:16:21 on or resolving design and coordination problems
02:16:24 problems it appeared to be from uh the fact that claire williams was asking for our views yes
02:16:29 yes right is it fair to say that claire williams was trying to rely on artelia for design decisions at times during this project which which artillery did not regard its role as a shooting right and i i've covered this a minute
02:16:41 right and i i've covered this a minute ago but i think you're telling us that you thought that ms williams knew jolly well that that was outside the scope but we're trying to
02:16:48 to try to get you to include it yes did you ever say to her in terms look claire this is outside scope
02:16:56 scope stop trying to expand the scope um beyond what we're responsible for i believe that there were a number of occasions when not necessarily myself but other members of the team responded to
02:17:06 to claire saying that these were design issues and that she should look to other people to respond to them can we then go to art 406157
02:17:19 can we then go to art 406157 this is an email you wrote to peter madison on the 7th of september 2015 on the subject of cost projections in response to his email of the same day to you
02:17:28 to you which you can see i believe you can't see the moment that's on page two i don't want to show you that i just want to show you this
02:17:35 this last this email uh which you've sent to peter madison and it follows a conversation you had with him that day as you can see from the first paragraph and in the last paragraph if you go to
02:17:47 and in the last paragraph if you go to that he says as i said in my voicemail which you say in the first paragraph you left him earlier i would like to have a conversation after the meeting on wednesday the resolution of design issues which i
02:17:59 the resolution of design issues which i do not believe are within our scape of services hopefully we agree with the divide and responsibility lies and all work together to give you the much needed information and confidence you need to report back to your board and residents
02:18:10 to your board and residents now before i ask you a question about that can i show you what you say in your first witness statement mr cash at page 63
02:18:17 63 paragraph 204 you say in response to well in relation to this [Music]
02:18:24 [Music] part of this email you say once again i felt it was important to re-emphasize auk's role to the tmo and make sure that it understood that auk was not responsible for design issues
02:18:37 for design issues you surprised by that even by this point in the
02:18:42 in the project september 2015 the tmo might not have understood the limitation on your role about design yes
02:18:54 on your role about design yes you were surprised i was surprised that we were still having issues in that respect because there was a concern about an emission in the scope in the employer's requirements
02:19:05 requirements that should have been picked up as part of the design yes
02:19:09 so does that tell us that even at this stage or
02:19:12 stage or up to this stage there had been a degree of confusion within the tma about precisely what artelia's role was i don't believe it can be called confusion i i do believe that if uh it may be it was
02:19:25 i do believe that if uh it may be it was it appeared to me that peter madison was trying to apportion blame for something that had been missed did you ever have a conversation with mr madison
02:19:34 madison about the precise scope of artelia's design role that you uh indicated you would have yes i did do you know when that took place uh subsequent to that email right
02:19:45 uh subsequent to that email right and what did you tell him that it wasn't our position to uh to make sure that um the employee that the specifications uh contained the scope of works it was down to the design team so studio e max
02:19:58 down to the design team so studio e max fordham and curtin's to ensure that they captured all of the works necessary our contra our contract some analysis purely captured
02:20:09 contract some analysis purely captured the scope of works in a roundabout way it wasn't
02:20:12 it wasn't [Music]
02:20:14 [Music] definitive
02:20:18 and i'd like to turn to a different topic and i may come back to this this topic about roles later on may not be the end of it mr cash but let me turn to a different topic which is initial procurement
02:20:30 is initial procurement i'd like to examine with you the initial stages first of all of the grenfell tower refurbishment project and start if i can with artelia's original appointment
02:20:41 original appointment so going back a little bit to where we were yesterday in 2012. now according to the artelia corporate statement for the purposes of this inquiry artelia were appointed to
02:20:52 this inquiry artelia were appointed to calc
02:20:53 calc as a number of things and i'll just tick them off project lead yes yes yes um ea that's an employer's agent yes
02:21:02 agent yes qs yes yes cdmc cdm coordinator and cda client developer design advisor correct right and studio e was the lead design consultant i think we established
02:21:14 design consultant i think we established that yesterday yes yes um and is it right that artelia had gone through an ojeu oju tender process and had a framework agreement with the tmo
02:21:26 agreement with the tmo not a framework agreement right it was a an odu process for an appointment for the particular project i i i'm so sorry quite right so it had gone through an oju process but outside of framework correct
02:21:38 process but outside of framework correct i see
02:21:39 i see and then i think it's right that in april 2012 artelia was appointed formally to the to the grenfell tower project we were invited to attend a meeting with a view to being appointed yes
02:21:51 appointed yes right now were you surprised that you weren't required to follow a separate appointment process for the grenfell tower project as you had for the calc project no because the original calc project had made reference
02:22:03 original calc project had made reference to a potential follow-on project with uh in respect of grenfell tower so it was treated
02:22:09 treated so the ojeu tender was essentially for both projects is that right yes i see can we then look at the fee cap issue this is um
02:22:20 um a question that's come up before can we go to tmo1301757 this is uh part of an agenda of the tmo board meeting as you can see on the 15th
02:22:32 board meeting as you can see on the 15th of
02:22:32 of november 2012 confidential grenfell tower regeneration project
02:22:40 project you see that and the purpose of the meeting was to recommend to the board the progression of the detailed design and tender package phases of the grenfell tower regeneration project and to recommend to the board the
02:22:51 and to recommend to the board the appointment of lead bitter principal contractor for the pre-construction agreement phase of the project that's the that was the purpose of the meeting and if you go to the second page page two look at the bottom of the page of
02:23:02 two look at the bottom of the page of paragraph 5.4 under the heading procurement
02:23:09 you can see there it says apple yards this is para 5.4 apple yards has been commissioned separately as a cost consultant cc employers agent
02:23:20 as a cost consultant cc employers agent ea and construction design management coordinator cdmc and this fee commission is capped at 174 000 for the entire project you see that
02:23:31 000 for the entire project you see that yes um was that cap to keep artelia's fees below the o.j eu threshold i don't know why there was a cap there you don't know you can't help us and you went to
02:23:42 know you can't help us and you went to this meeting but you don't know why it was capped no if you look at paragraph 5.2 the meeting note records that the project design team has been commissioned by the tmo
02:23:55 team has been commissioned by the tmo under its own contract regulations and fees are capped at the eu procurement thresholds of 174 000 as the design team procurement for cal did not include provision to incorporate the grenfell tower regeneration project
02:24:09 did you understand that studio e if if that's what design team refers to uh had also been capped at 174 000 for the reason set out there no
02:24:22 000 for the reason set out there no not at that time did you come to learn that at a later time do you think when there was disc when it became apparent in meetings that the tmo wished to appoint all of the consultants under studio e rather than
02:24:34 consultants under studio e rather than individually
02:24:37 and when was that roughly uh it was not that i think it was not that long after i can't remember
02:24:47 this is november um 2012. so so i think something would have already been talked about by that time right i can't remember well let's see how we go can we go to
02:24:58 well let's see how we go can we go to tmo20850333 please this is an email between claire williams and jenny jackson of the first of sorry the 10th of january 2014 this is
02:25:09 sorry the 10th of january 2014 this is english dating or uk dating and go to page two
02:25:13 page two we can see claire williams's email to jenny jackson setting out the fee proposals
02:25:18 proposals to which she is responding on page one let's go to that and um claire williams says to her uh jenny i had a good
02:25:29 says to her uh jenny i had a good session with artelia yesterday and understand a lot more read the appointments my resume is and then she sets out there what her understanding is and then
02:25:40 there what her understanding is and then if you move
02:25:44 to the first item one artelia tmo appointment and there are some details there about the fees and then she says this is based on a contract sum of 9.8 million i have no issue with this
02:25:56 9.8 million i have no issue with this but understand that we would need to sign off
02:25:58 sign off the rics agreement covering services scope and then if you go to page um um to page two
02:26:23 so i think page three is actually what i need
02:26:30 um she talks about studio e yes under four studio studio e to be innovated
02:26:37 innovated this is the only one i would query and then she talks about what's been paid to date
02:26:44 uh and explains that uh artelia had sent an email on the 20th of november and then she says i cannot find their fee
02:26:55 she says i cannot find their fee information now but it totaled 180 000 under novation first stage is f to g i think with 39 eight to fifty four thousand then there was a massive ninety thousand stage k which is a construction
02:27:06 which is a construction stage and she sets out what stage cake covers after that now can we then go um back to jenny jackson's response on top of the email chain
02:27:15 chain i i'm i'm i'm hoping i've showed you enough of this email and if we need to get back into this email we'll we will but if you look at the email at the top of the chain and look at her her response to
02:27:26 look at her her response to to claire williams the fourth paragraph there says the fees for artelia from september 13 look very low given the complexity of the project i
02:27:37 given the complexity of the project i need to get their schedule of work sorted out next week so we can review i would have expected the cdm and the qs fees to be much higher my question is having shown you this
02:27:48 my question is having shown you this detail was artelia keeping its fees artificially low so that they were under the eu limit of 174 000
02:27:56 174 000 no can you explain why they were so low given the complexity of the project at this stage that was jenny jackson's opinion uh that i didn't believe that they were low
02:28:07 i didn't believe that they were low you didn't believe they were there right can we then turn to your role in the procurement of other contractors look at art four zeros
02:28:19 other contractors look at art four zeros five seven four two again please this is part of artelia's qs services schedule we looked at earlier page 55 i want to show you from july 2014
02:28:31 2014 page 55 as i say this is part of artelia's qs services schedule if we look at tick box 1.4.1 on that page um under the heading 1.4
02:28:42 um under the heading 1.4 pre-construction iba outline plan of work 2007 it says and this box is ticked advise on tendering and contractual procurement options prepare recommendations for the client's
02:28:53 recommendations for the client's approval
02:28:54 approval does that mean that artelia had the obligation to advise as to the procurement of other contractors of the contractors to carry out construction works
02:29:09 construction works uh well it says tendering and contractual procurement options does it not go a little bit wider than simply construction works no i don't believe it does the general understanding of this is in relation to
02:29:21 understanding of this is in relation to the procurement of a contractor to carry out the works and that then follows through in terms of the other scopes of services that carry on beyond it does that tell us that that there had
02:29:32 does that tell us that that there had already been a decision or one is supposed to read into this that the contract would be a design and build not necessarily
02:29:43 so if not necessarily why would you limit it then to contract to construction works because that's the general understanding this is a general scope of services that's applied and therefore you need to
02:29:54 that's applied and therefore you need to look at it in relation to the specifics of the contract itself or the project itself um this is relation to the quantity surveyor's duties in overall procurement of the contractor
02:30:05 overall procurement of the contractor this is
02:30:05 this is not looking back at uh consultants or anything like that right now specifically the obligation as described there however wide or narrow it is sat with the qs role yes
02:30:18 role yes for this particular yes yes and so i think it was treach and lim as supervised by you that would have the responsibility within artelia for advising on tendering and contractual procurement options yes
02:30:29 contractual procurement options yes and for preparing recommendations for clients approval yes yes and would this obligation apply for all
02:30:36 all to all contractors i mean for in other words all those who are contracting with the client in terms of construction works yes so you see you say only construction not any other service
02:30:49 construction not any other service no well let's move on then to studio e um i want to ask you some questions about the process which was gone through to appoint studio e to the grenfell tower project if i may
02:31:00 tower project if i may now again it's right i think that studio e didn't go through any competitive process
02:31:06 process whereby it was appointed onto the grenfell tower project was it correct did you ever raise any concerns about that no why is that
02:31:18 no why is that the the the team was carried over from calc project and i assumed that like ourselves that there was provision within their appointment to be carried over right
02:31:32 were you aware that studio e had never before worked on a project involving the overcladding of a high-rise residential block
02:31:38 block no i wasn't if there had been a competitive tender would its absence of experience in that respect have affected
02:31:50 respect have affected its score not necessarily it would have depended on what the selection criteria would have been did you ever have any discussion either with the tmo or within artelia
02:32:02 either with the tmo or within artelia internally about studio e's experience and expertise in high-rise refurbishments not not about their particular experience no why is that can you how can you account
02:32:14 why is that can you how can you account for the absence of any discussion about that
02:32:17 that they were they were a competent designer and they
02:32:20 and they proved themselves competent in terms of the cal project uh as architect and in terms of designers and architects and we had no reason to doubt their competence in terms of being able to do the work on the grenfell tower project
02:32:31 tower project well why did you have no reason to doubt i mean after all they've been appointed onto the calc project which was a low-rise building a school why did you think that they why did you
02:32:44 why did you think that they why did you have no reason to question their competence in terms of being able to do the design work on an overclouding of a residential high-rise building which was a very different building altogether they were one they'd already been
02:32:55 they were one they'd already been brought on board before we were brought into the project so i was uh there was an assumption in some respects that the client was
02:33:06 respects that the client was satisfied that they'd be able to do the design work the meetings that we attended the way that they presented the options on the cladding
02:33:15 cladding showed that they appeared to have quite a knowledge of what they were doing and i would refer back to the cdm role in terms of ensuring that the client would have met his
02:33:26 the client would have met his obligations in satisfying themselves as to their competence to provide the services for the project do you accept that the way in which studio e was appointed in other words simply being transferred across from the calp
02:33:38 being transferred across from the calp project to grenfell did not lend itself to a rigorous check and an analysis of studio e's suitability for the grenfell tower project itself i don't know well i'm asking you did you
02:33:51 i don't know well i'm asking you did you accept my proposition i i can't i can't say because i don't know what checks the tmo may have made already right so do i take it from that that when you came into the project
02:34:05 that when you came into the project from calc essentially it didn't occur to you personally or artelia more generally to examine the skill set super
02:34:17 to examine the skill set super suitability qualifications and experience of studio e wasn't that role it wasn't our role to do that other than a cdm coordinator to ensure that the client met their obligations in satisfying themselves as
02:34:28 obligations in satisfying themselves as to the overall team's competence right
02:34:35 were you aware that studio e had well studio e llp had financial difficulties in 2014. no i wasn't so you didn't know that the partnership the llp was in
02:34:47 partnership the llp was in administration and then wound up in august 2014 did you not know that no
02:34:57 if they've been a competitive tender at that time
02:35:00 that time that might have ruled studio e out you know if
02:35:03 know if it had been uh apparent right now i just want to look with you at the studio ecap of 174 000 pounds we saw a little bit of that
02:35:14 000 pounds we saw a little bit of that in the document we saw earlier the 15th of november 2012 tmo board minute paragraph 5.2 yes let's just look at another
02:35:27 yes let's just look at another document this is mr dawson alan dawson's witness statement to the inquiry he's he's artelia this is a rt408348 please at page 10 paragraph 45 um
02:35:40 paragraph 45 um and he says there it's not unusual to engage consultants up to a particular stage of a project
02:35:51 up to a particular stage of a project the design consultants fees for stages stage c to d work were capped at 174 000 pounds because the tmo were looking to have a single appointment with studio e with studio e then sub consulting to
02:36:02 e with studio e then sub consulting to the rest of the design team my understanding was that under the ojeu regime if there was a single appointment above 174 000 pounds then the work would need to be
02:36:13 to be to be tendered the purpose of the cap was to avoid having to tend to the work as the tma wanted the ultimate responsibility for the design to be all in one place ie with studio e
02:36:25 to be all in one place ie with studio e and i'll show you that i just want to show you something else before we get some questions can we look at art five zeros one six eight please this is the minute of a meeting of the 18th of july 2012.
02:36:37 18th of july 2012. so early on in the project and you can see who was present there it was held at apple yards this is a studio e
02:36:45 studio e document and paul duncan from the tma was there uh and
02:36:52 and we have from apple yards alan dawson david hale and treachen lim we see that and bruce sown some studio e
02:37:02 uh and in the um first main paragraph under appointments it says a dawson gave verbal verbal confirmation that all appointments are approved however the
02:37:13 appointments are approved however the tmo would like to subcontract all consultants via studio e up until stage d with the total fee up until stage d not exceeding 174 thousand pounds which is the e
02:37:24 pounds which is the e o j eu threshold for requiring work to be tendered this will probably mean deferring some fees post stage d now as a qualified q s yourself with oversight of this
02:37:35 q s yourself with oversight of this project and supervising this limb were you aware of this cap of 174 000 at the time i can't remember if i was aware at the time but um i think i
02:37:48 aware at the time but um i think i became aware of it yes when do you think you became aware of it i can't remember right did alan dawson not report back to you
02:37:57 you the what had happened at this meeting he probably would have done yes yes um you would therefore i think have understood that the purpose uh wall of the hundred and seventy four
02:38:08 uh wall of the hundred and seventy four thousand pound cap for studio e was say that the tma would have avoid having to to tender for a new architect for the purpose for in terms of being able
02:38:21 the purpose for in terms of being able to
02:38:22 to bring all of the consultants underneath studio e in a single appointment yeah yes individually they wouldn't have had to have done so
02:38:33 they wouldn't have had to have done so right
02:38:34 right did you ever discuss that purpose with the tmo yourself i can't remember did you know that anybody else in artelia had a discussion about
02:38:43 about about that approach i can't i don't remember anybody specifically but i suspect alan dawson would have done yes
02:38:50 yes did you think at the time you had discussed it that this was an appropriate arrangement i can't remember right
02:38:59 were you concerned at all from this point that studio e might be keeping its design fees low
02:39:06 deliberately to avoid the retender no did you think that they were doing so because they were underestimating the amount of design input which this project required
02:39:17 project required i don't think so no now the course that uh was adopted was a was i was proposed i should say i think was approved by artelia in the end do you remember that yes i
02:39:30 in the end do you remember that yes i think i do right did you take any action yourself
02:39:33 yourself i can't remember right
02:39:37 would you have expected someone from artelia to have pointed out to the tma that the approach they were adopting was a potential breach of the procurement rules
02:39:44 rules uh yes and i would remember if we did or not and it would have been wouldn't it it would have been yes yes and you can't remember
02:39:52 remember whether you did or not you would have expected someone within artelia surely to have raised this with you for discussion so that you could actually discuss it with the tmo yeah i can't remember in
02:40:04 with the tmo yeah i can't remember in turn i can't remember the details and uh whether or not somebody had already had the conversation with tmo in which case it wouldn't necessarily have escalated to me right are you telling us that you
02:40:17 right are you telling us that you you either weren't involved or don't recall being involved in any such discussion at all i don't recall right who would it have been do you think you would have had that discussion with the tma it would have been
02:40:26 have been a combination of alan dawson and troy chen lim
02:40:29 chen lim right um can we then turn to design quality control and specifically um sca's iso 9001.
02:40:40 um sca's iso 9001. are you familiar with iso 9001 of 2008. i know of his existence i'm not familiar with the contents of it right it's an international quality for sorry the international standard for this is
02:40:51 this is for quality management isn't it correct it's very broad and did you know or do you now know that organizations which are registered as iso 9001 compliant have been
02:41:03 iso 9001 compliant have been independently certified to have a a quality management certification yes i'm aware of that and i think artelia was itself 9001 registered wasn't it yes the time of it
02:41:16 registered wasn't it yes the time of it being engaged formally in 2014. yes yes um and i think you would understand or agree that being accredited
02:41:29 that being accredited and certified under isai 9001 involved a pretty rigorous accreditation process i believe it does yes did artelia ever check whether studio e
02:41:40 check whether studio e limited limited as opposed to llp was iso 9001 registered when it began to work on the project in and from mid 2014. no it wasn't part of our remit
02:41:54 mid 2014. no it wasn't part of our remit why is that wasn't part of your remit weren't responsible for uh checking their quality standards right can we then go to the contract
02:42:05 right can we then go to the contract page 47 art 40 5742 page 47 this page is from the employer's agent schedule of services which um i think i'm saying for the third time now begins on page 45 you
02:42:18 third time now begins on page 45 you don't need to get back to that bottom of this page we can see 1.3 design our iba outline plan of work 2007. we looked at this before and then um we can go to the next page
02:42:31 and then um we can go to the next page in a moment but but it's clear just on this that this is dealing
02:42:36 dealing with employers agent services in relation to design yes the design stage the design stage all right well i'll take that for the moment
02:42:47 take that for the moment if we go to page 48 we can see the top of the
02:42:51 of the page left hand column we can see that there
02:42:55 there is a box 1.3.2 right at the very top and that's ticked or crossed numbers marked as applicable liaise with the professional team and establish a structure
02:43:06 establish a structure and procedure for quality management establish review approval rate variation reporting procedures prepare recommendations for the client's approval with the professional team as referred
02:43:19 with the professional team as referred to their include studio e yes it would it would given that this section is for the design stage services as you have pointed out would that mean that um they would have
02:43:33 would that mean that um they would have to be established a structure and procedure for the quality management of the design of the of how the design was being uh prepared for the particular for this
02:43:44 uh prepared for the particular for this project and that would be captured within the project execution plan uh i i think that is an answer to i think that's i think that's a yes isn't it
02:43:55 that's a yes isn't it let me try it a different way do you accept that given what we're looking at sits within the part of these services related to the design stage that studio that um artelia's
02:44:07 that studio that um artelia's responsibility was to establish a structure and procedure for quality management relating to design yes yes and based on this contractual obligation you accept that artelia had an
02:44:18 you accept that artelia had an obligation to the tmo to establish quality management structures and procedures for the design in liaison with a professional team yes did artelia in fact ever establish
02:44:30 yes did artelia in fact ever establish any such structures or procedures at this stage i believe they were covered within the project execution plan project execution plan and and i think that's something which sat
02:44:42 and i think that's something which sat with a tree and lim isn't it uh no with ireland also with alan dawson right as the ea correct right do you know how alan dawson discharged that responsibility
02:44:54 that responsibility in practice he prepared a document that was issued did that cover studio he's owned work it covered the work of the team and the project and the project
02:45:06 and the project and the project professional team generally that would include studio wouldn't it yes because studio he was part of the professional team yes right okay
02:45:16 and did that um
02:45:20 project execution plan contain any guidance or requirements as to
02:45:27 to the systems of for example tracking of drawings
02:45:31 drawings um and design that studio we were to maintain
02:45:35 maintain no i don't believe it uh looked at studio e's internal processes no why is that because that was for them it wasn't part of our remit to look at their internal processes it was about looking at the
02:45:46 looking at the outputs and how those would be dealt with as overall in terms of the project well my next question is was it not look looking at the obligation liaison the professional team had established a structure and procedure
02:45:57 established a structure and procedure for quality management did that not include
02:46:00 include making sure that studio e internally had its own quality management procedures which which would enable the proper execution of the project plan no why is that i don't believe it's
02:46:11 no why is that i don't believe it's because it's not for us to interrogate each of the individual consultants as to how they carry out their work so what was the structure and procedure for quality management that was established with the professional team do you know
02:46:22 with the professional team do you know i can't remember you can't remember can you not even remember and outline what it was
02:46:27 it was no because it was as i said it was embodied in the project execution plan i believe right and i can remember the detail of that can we then turn to cdmc duties
02:46:38 can we then turn to cdmc duties in the context of studio e we um looked earlier at um artelia's obligations as the cdmc under the cdm regulations 2007 i think
02:46:49 under the cdm regulations 2007 i think that was yesterday and we looked at the approved code of practice at paragraph 90. you recall that do you agree with this proposition that artelia as
02:47:00 with this proposition that artelia as the cdmc on the project was required to consider
02:47:03 consider and provide advice to the tmo on the competency of studio e i can't remember the the clause right well let's um go back
02:47:15 right well let's um go back then to the approved code of practice it's probably the best place to find it this is inq3013936 of page 45 i think and we look look at paragraph
02:47:27 45 i think and we look look at paragraph 95
02:47:28 95 in this document yes page 45 power 195. we looked at this yesterday i think to be competent i'll read it again to be
02:47:39 be competent i'll read it again to be competent an organization or individual must have
02:47:41 must have a sufficient knowledge of the specific tasks to be undertaken and the risks which
02:47:45 which the work will entail and be sufficient experience and ability to carry out their duties in relation to the project to recognize their limitations and take appropriate action in order to prevent harm to those carrying out construction
02:47:56 harm to those carrying out construction work or to those affected by the work and look at 197 immediately below it appropriate experience is also a vital ingredient of competence people are more likely to adopt safe
02:48:07 people are more likely to adopt safe working practices if they understand the reasons why they are necessary and past experience should be a good indicator of the person's company's track record and if we go over the page to page 46 we
02:48:19 and if we go over the page to page 46 we can see para199 we just look at that what you must do it says all those with duties under cdm 2007
02:48:28 2007 must satisfy themselves that businesses that they engage or appoint are competent
02:48:32 competent and then it says this this means making reasonable inquiries to check that the organization or individual is competent to do the relevant work and can allocate adequate resources to it those taken on
02:48:43 adequate resources to it those taken on to do the work must also be sure that they are competent to carry out the required tasks before agreeing to take on the work
02:48:52 uh for notifiable projects the key duty of the cdm coordinator is to advise clients
02:48:57 clients about competence of designers and contractors including the principal contractor that they engage now i've shown you that did you understand
02:49:08 i've shown you that did you understand at the time that the cdm coordinator's role which was one specifically assumed by artelia should have considered and advised on the experience of studio
02:49:19 and advised on the experience of studio e in overclouding a building if it was covered in our scope of service then yes yes and do you agree that that uh artelia should have considered and advised on the use of other design professionals
02:49:31 the use of other design professionals to assist studio e in that task if they couldn't do it themselves i'm not sure where that comes into it well
02:49:39 well comes into competence doesn't it making sure that the organization or individual is competent to do the relevant work and can allocate adequate resources to it their competency is as architects and
02:49:50 their competency is as architects and designers indeed um does it did you understand that as a cdn coordinator artelia should have considered and advised on the financial standing
02:50:01 and advised on the financial standing and resources available to studio e for this project i'm not sure what checks were carried out by keith bush no but but as a general matter my question wasn't
02:50:12 wasn't that my question i'll ask it again did you understand that as a cda as a cdm coordinator artelia should have considered and advised the tmo on the financial
02:50:23 and advised the tmo on the financial standing and resources available to studio e
02:50:25 studio e in relation to this project i don't think that's relevant to their competence
02:50:33 well adequate resources um mr cash paragraph 199 says in the third line uh that you've got to make inquiries to check that the
02:50:44 got to make inquiries to check that the organization or individual is competent to do the relevant work and can allocate allocate adequate resources to it yeah sorry yes i mean i was thinking more in terms of financial standing uh right well that would be related to
02:50:56 uh right well that would be related to the ability to allocate adequate resources now i don't know
02:51:01 know well i don't think so i i had a couple resources um would have been related in relation to the people that were allocated the project and they appeared to be i don't know
02:51:12 and they appeared to be i don't know what checks were carried out in terms of adequate resources right uh
02:51:20 if studio we were having financial difficulties would that not be something you would want to know as a cdmc in order to be satisfied that they were able to allocate adequate resources to the project i don't believe it comes into the cdmc
02:51:31 i don't believe it comes into the cdmc it's about their competency to design right um and then quality management uh again
02:51:37 again same question did you understand at the time that artelia as the cdn coordinator should have or was was obliged to consider and advise the tma or the quality management processes of studio e as part
02:51:48 management processes of studio e as part of their competence if it was within our scope of service
02:51:58 would you say if it was within our scope of services we've already looked at the cmc
02:52:01 cmc cdmc duties under the contract uh and under the regulations i would suggest to you that that was within the state of your services
02:52:13 well we're going back over old ground it was within the skeptical services to ensure that studio e was competent as defined in the acop i'm not sure what as exciting i'm not sure what checks keith buschel had done or what he had
02:52:24 or what he had come um agreed with the tmo in terms of checks of studio his competency as the cdm coordinator right so does that tell me that you can't help answer this question
02:52:36 can't help answer this question did artelia provide any advice to studio to to the tmo about studio e's competency for this project correct
02:52:48 can we then turn to a different topic um which is a slightly different topic which is ledbitter's initial appointment to the grenfell tower refurbishment project now you cover this in your first
02:52:59 project now you cover this in your first witness statement to page eight if we could just have that up please paragraphs 23 to 24 and in 23 you refer to the second design team meeting on the 24th of may 2012 we've
02:53:11 meeting on the 24th of may 2012 we've looked at that earlier this morning and and then you say at paragraph 23 picking it up in the second sentence you say it was noted that the tmo board
02:53:23 you say it was noted that the tmo board needed to be persuaded that keeping with the iese contractor under calc was in both the projects and the tma's best interests this was a reference to the fact that ledbitter was the existing contractor on
02:53:35 ledbitter was the existing contractor on the calc project and one of the options for procurement of the building contract on the project was for ledbetter to be awarded the contract my understanding was that this was preferred by those attending the meeting
02:53:46 preferred by those attending the meeting from the tmo as it meant we can just go over the page that the tma would not have to go through a public procurement process to appoint a contractor on the project i mean power 24 you go on to say i also
02:53:59 i mean power 24 you go on to say i also understand that their view was that maintaining led bitter on the project would also in principle provide value for money because they were already working on the adjacent calc site and in terms of practicalities and
02:54:10 and in terms of practicalities and logistics that would provide some savings
02:54:12 savings sorry that would provide some savings over having an entirely new contractor having to come to site and set up now i think you weren't at that meeting as you told us earlier
02:54:25 this is the second uh design team meeting of the 24th of may 2012. yes um
02:54:35 yes um where you've set out what you say there in your statement that i've read to you at some
02:54:39 at some length did you take your conclusions there from the minutes that you read
02:54:45 yes you did and you say as i've shown you
02:54:50 you at the bottom of page eight top of page nine within paragraph 23 that the people at the meeting preferred to stay with lead bitter at this time because it meant that they didn't have to go through a public procurement process why would some
02:55:03 procurement process why would some people at the tma prefer not to go through a public procurement process to appoint a contractor on the grenfell tower project at this particular point in time the primary focus was on program
02:55:14 primary focus was on program and to go through a public procurement process would take several months and therefore if there was an option of being able to bring a contractor on board through an alternative means that saved them time then that would obviously help them
02:55:28 right was was there any to your understanding any discussion about the preference for not having a public procurement process anything to do with cost
02:55:40 process anything to do with cost no can i ask just in general terms we'll come to the retender later this afternoon in fact we're going to come to it next but before i get to it do you know in general terms why a
02:55:52 do you know in general terms why a design and build contract was chosen as the form of contract i believe rental tower project right i believe that's because that's what we've had on the calp project
02:56:03 had on the calp project um and i can't remember the specific conversations in relation to how how the decision was arrived at though i'm not sure whether there were discussions about other alternative uh
02:56:14 discussions about other alternative uh forms of contract well do you remember any discussions about an alternative form of contract i wasn't involved in any particular discussions i can remember no right was there any consideration given to whether a design and build form of
02:56:26 to whether a design and build form of contract was suitable for a major refurbishment of an existing building such as grenfell tower i can't remember i can't remember you can't remember that
02:56:37 can't remember that do you remember whether artelia ever gave any advice on alternatives i can't remember or the form of contract which tma should enter no i can't remember
02:56:48 [Applause] mr chairman it's i like the time it's five to one i'm about to turn to a different topic i'm very happy to continue well there are only a couple of minutes to go before the usual
02:57:00 before the usual time for a break yes um it's a new topic it's a new topic uh and i'm happy to start and have five minutes on it you use the five minutes five minutes no it won't take five no
02:57:12 five minutes no it won't take five no two minutes well right well in which case i think i'm getting the impression that this is an appropriate moment well if you're going to start a new topic it would seem more sensible to do that after you've had a break all right
02:57:25 after you've had a break all right well mr cash as you can tell we're about to have a break now so we can all have some lunch we'll come back and resume your evidence at two o'clock please thank you please remember not to talk about your evidence or anything
02:57:37 about your evidence or anything related to it when you're out of the room all right all right thank you very much we'd like to give the usher please thank you
02:57:53 thank you very much
02:58:13 you