Evidence from Simon Cash of Artelia Projects UK, the employer's agent. Focus on value engineering savings, Ryden's profit margins, fire consultant appointment, and Artelia's oversight role.
00:00:14 Good morning everyone. Welcome to today's hearing. Today we're going to begin by hearing uh further evidence from Mr. Simon Cash and then we shall hear witnesses from other witnesses from
00:00:26 hear witnesses from other witnesses from Artilia.
00:00:27 Artilia. Yes, Mr.
00:00:28 Yes, Mr. Mr. Chairman. Good morning. Thank you. Uh, could you ask Mr. Cash to come in, please?
00:00:38 Thank you. Good morning. Good morning, Mr. Cash. Morning.
00:00:43 Morning. That's it. You get the water done and then
00:00:45 then Sorry. It's a bit like a ritual. That's all right, Mr. Chairman. I'm not sure the microphones are working in the room. Well,
00:00:54 Well, should I try? Is that Is that better? No. Now, yes. Sorry. Sorry. I was slightly off center. No. No. I don't think it was. I don't think it was you. Right.
00:01:04 Ready to get going? Yes. Right. Very good. Thank you. Yes, sir. Mr. Chairman, thank you. Mr. Cash, good morning. Um, last night we were u discussing the question of value engineering when we stopped. And I now want to go back to that subject uh into
00:01:17 want to go back to that subject uh into the spring of 2014. But now looking at the position after Ryden had been notified that they were the preferred bidder as they were on the 18th of March 2014. Can we now go to the contractor
00:01:28 2014. Can we now go to the contractor induction meeting of the 1st of April 2014? These are notes we've seen before a number of times. Art 402256, please. Um, this is a meeting at which
00:01:39 please. Um, this is a meeting at which you were not present. Uh, but Mr. Boo, Mr. Bllythe of Artillia were there as we can see. And again, they did the notes and checked them. Uh, do you think you saw these notes after the meeting? Soon
00:01:51 saw these notes after the meeting? Soon after the meeting? Uh, they would have been copied to me. Yes.
00:01:54 Yes. Yes. Can we look at page two please and look at paragraph 2.1? Uh this is under the heading proposed savings referenced in tender submission. And you can see there uh that cladding savings were
00:02:05 there uh that cladding savings were discussed and the note records there is a potential saving of up to £376,175 that could be realized through changes to the proposed cladding. Savings can be achieved by changing the material and
00:02:17 achieved by changing the material and the meth method of fixing. Changing from zinc to aluminium and using a face fixing rather than than cassette would save the most money. Now, were you aware before this meeting of the figure of
00:02:28 before this meeting of the figure of £376,175
00:02:31 £376,175 for savings on face aluminium cladding that Ryden was suggesting? I can't remember specifically if that was the figure, but uh Ryden's had been asked to price an alternative for
00:02:44 asked to price an alternative for aluminium cladding within their tender return.
00:02:47 return. Right. I can't remember whether that was the same figure or not. I I follow. Do you know or did you know how that figure was arrived at at that point in time? No.
00:02:58 at that point in time? No. Right.
00:02:59 Right. Now, if we look at your second witness statement, please at page three,
00:03:05 um you say there at paragraph 11 in the in the third line, I am not aware of the extent to which Ryden may have benefited from any cost savings achieved
00:03:16 benefited from any cost savings achieved through VE as I am not privy to its profit margin on the project, i.e. the margin between its costs and the contract sum paid to it by the TMO. You see that? Yeah. Yeah. Now, it's right, isn't it, that Artillia's contract sum
00:03:28 isn't it, that Artillia's contract sum analysis allowed a 12.5% margin for contractors overheads and profit.
00:03:35 profit. Sorry. Artellia's contract some When you say contract some analysis, our you talking about our estimate? Yes.
00:03:41 Yes. Rather than the tender. Well, it's called a contract sum analysis which I think was produced by Artillia in July 2014. We can look at it if you like. Yeah. Sorry. When you talk about the
00:03:53 Yeah. Sorry. When you talk about the that are you talking about the one that was completed by Ryden or are you talking about our estimate? Well, I'm talking about an analysis that well perhaps we should look at it to may help you. Can we please look at art
00:04:05 help you. Can we please look at art 405918?
00:04:13 This is something called a contract sum analysis done by Artillia. Yes. when when it when we prepare it, it is unpriced and it is not completed. We
00:04:24 is unpriced and it is not completed. We don't put a we didn't put a figure any figures in there. Those were completed by the tenderers. Yes, I understand that. Let's just see how far we go then. Um if you go to page 12 uh page 20 please and look at B12.
00:04:41 Uh we can see uh there that um under B12 contractors OP overheads and profit 12 a.5% included that's how you get to the 9.249 for
00:04:53 that's how you get to the 9.249 for Ryden.
00:04:55 Ryden. You see that that's how they've priced their tender. Yes.
00:04:58 Yes. Exactly. So exactly. So when I when I refer to this document as the contract sum analysis that's because it was called that. But um cut cutting through the detail. Did did you know and looking
00:05:09 the detail. Did did you know and looking at this document it looks as if you would have done that at that Ryden had allowed a 12% margin? No, that's not the margin. That is the allowance that they had made for
00:05:21 allowance that they had made for overheads and profit. All right. Overheads and profit then I'll take that. Now, did you know that on the 18th of March 2014, Harley had
00:05:32 on the 18th of March 2014, Harley had offered uh Ryden savings on the cladding of $517,000 for face fixed ACM in place of zinc? I wasn't aware of that. No, you weren't. Had you known that fact,
00:05:44 you weren't. Had you known that fact, you would have realized, wouldn't you, that the statement at the meeting that there was a potential saving of up to £376,175
00:05:53 for the cladding was a false and misleading statement. If I had known. Yes.
00:05:58 Yes. Yes. If you had known, what would you have done about it? I would have actually ident would have raised that as an issue that uh that Rydens weren't passing on the full value of the saving and their
00:06:10 the full value of the saving and their from their supply chain to the client. Yes. And is one of the reasons for that because otherwise Ryden would be making a secret profit over and above the 12%
00:06:21 a secret profit over and above the 12% OP.
00:06:22 OP. Yes.
00:06:26 Were you aware or did you ever become aware at the time of the project that is that the savings offered by Ryden to the TMO were substantially less than the savings offered to Ryden by Harley and
00:06:37 savings offered to Ryden by Harley and that ret and that Ryden was thereby retaining more than the 12% OHP? No, I didn't become aware of anything like that. Now, can we go to your second statement, please? ART
00:06:49 please? ART 407399.
00:06:51 407399. um you answered some questions about savings um in respect of value engineering and this this is at page two and I'd like just to look at paragraph six with you if we can. You say there
00:07:02 six with you if we can. You say there where VE does achieve a cost saving the party or parties who receive the benefit of that costsaving will depend on the stage in the project when the VE takes place.
00:07:14 place. And then if we just skip down to the next paragraph which is under the heading VE prior to the contract price being agreed. You say where sorry if uh VE occurs prior to the agreement of the
00:07:26 VE occurs prior to the agreement of the contract price then the saving achieved in the VE process will only benefit the client because it should result in a lower contract price. The client will therefore be paying the contractor less for the works and will get the benefit
00:07:37 for the works and will get the benefit of that saving. Now by in practice there you say in practice
00:07:44 practice um
00:07:47 uh do you mean that that's where there's no contractual obligation but the contractor will anyway adjust his price? No, this is this is prior to any contractor being involved. This is prior
00:07:59 contractor being involved. This is prior to this is during design rather than during the construction phase of the project. I see. So this is pre-procurement. pre-procurement. Um,
00:08:10 pre-procurement. Um, I follow and and then you go on to deal with V after the contract price is agreed at paragraph 8 and following. Well, let's look at that then. You say VE after the contract price is agreed is
00:08:21 VE after the contract price is agreed is it most commonly arises at the instigation of the client or its advisers when the price for the works exceeds its budget. Although VE can also involve the client achieving value in other ways other than in ways other than
00:08:32 other ways other than in ways other than just cost-saving. I'm going to go over the page. For example, a material with a longer lifespan but the same price. You go on and then you go on to say um uh
00:08:46 and then you go on to say um uh um when VE arises in the context of a client trying to complete the works within its budget, the benefit of any costsaving achieved through the VE will in practice go to the client because it
00:08:57 in practice go to the client because it will be reflected in an adjustment to the contract price. Does that tell us that that in your experience the whole of the VE goes to the client by way of a cost saving? It should do. However, the contract
00:09:09 It should do. However, the contract doesn't give make any obligation on the contractor to pass on any of the saving. I understand that. Uh paragraph nine you say in answer to the
00:09:20 paragraph nine you say in answer to the question specifically to what extent is a contractor or subcontractor obliged to pass on the savings it may make um in such a process to the client. You say a contractor or subcontractor will not usually be obliged under their contracts
00:09:32 usually be obliged under their contracts to pass on the savings in a VE process directly or indirectly to the client but in practice as explained above will do so. Now this is exactly what you've just told us um just now in the transcript.
00:09:44 told us um just now in the transcript. But if um a contractor is not obliged to pass on savings, why would they do so? in the uh spirit of collaboration on the project
00:09:54 project is the effect of that that you believe that it's up to the subcontractor to pass on the savings as a matter of as it were moral choice or commercial good practice
00:10:03 practice I wouldn't uh know what the contract terms are between subcontractor and main contractor so therefore I can't really say
00:10:09 say right
00:10:11 right are you saying that it's actually really up to the contractor how much of the savings are passed on yes
00:10:17 yes and what would determine that decision It would be a negotiation uh between the uh client's professional consultants team and the contractor. If the
00:10:28 team and the contractor. If the contractor didn't feel that they wish to pass on all of the savings, that's um for them. But at the end of the day, obviously uh from uh our point of view, it was to try and get the best position
00:10:39 it was to try and get the best position and protect the position for the client in terms of trying to get the price to uh an affordable level. Therefore, um trying to make sure that there be that the full saving was being passed on.
00:10:50 the full saving was being passed on. Yeah. You say it would be a negotiation between the client's professional consultants team and the contractor. Um am I right in thinking that where a contractor decided that it wasn't going
00:11:01 contractor decided that it wasn't going to pass on all the savings, uh it would it would nonetheless not do anything or say anything to lead the client to think that it was getting the benefit of all the savings.
00:11:12 the savings. Sorry, I don't follow. Well, where you um have a situation where a contractor decides to keep some of the savings from value engineering for itself, am I right in thinking that even though that may be the case, they wouldn't do anything or
00:11:24 the case, they wouldn't do anything or say anything to the client to lead the client to think that the client was getting the benefit of all the savings. I correct I think. Yeah. Now if we go back to the
00:11:37 Yeah. Now if we go back to the contractor induction meeting um and we don't need to see it actually but we can see that a cheaper cladding option what was proposed and cutting a very long story short it was ultimately accepted you remember that
00:11:49 accepted you remember that yes but not with face fixings. Did you or anybody else at Artellia perform any analysis or any breakdown of the savings offered? We reviewed the savings and uh we looked at uh trying to
00:12:03 savings and uh we looked at uh trying to get substantiation of what those savings were.
00:12:05 were. When you say you review the savings being specific, did you review the savings being offered by Ryden to the TMO in respect of the ACM face fixed or cassette fixed? We looked at a number of options. Yes.
00:12:16 We looked at a number of options. Yes. In terms of the financial uh evaluation, right? Did you look at the savings being offered by Harley to Ryden? No, we we weren't provided with that information. I follow. So it was only the savings
00:12:27 I follow. So it was only the savings that Ryden were offering to the TMO. And is that because is that because you only had access to what it was that Ryden was telling to the TMO? Correct.
00:12:36 Correct. I follow. Can I then turn to a different topic alto together which is the role of Exover on the project. Can we look please first at art 406247?
00:12:47 please first at art 406247? These are the minutes of design meeting number four of the 25th of June 2012. And if we look at the first page, we can see who was present at that meeting. Paul Duncan from the TMO, Alan Dawson
00:12:59 Paul Duncan from the TMO, Alan Dawson and Keith Bushell from Apple Yards as they then were. Uh and uh we can see if we look down at appointments,
00:13:11 you see a little bit lower down, it's third item down, it says AY. Uh and uh
00:13:20 Uh and uh um that I think I think is Apple Yards uh to uh instruct fire consultant. You see that? Yes.
00:13:29 Yes. Do you think you saw these meets meeting notes at the time? Uh they would have been distributed to me. Yes.
00:13:34 me. Yes. Yes. And is it right that Apple that Exover was appointed to the TMO um on the Cal project or by the TMO on the CLK project? I I believe it it was I
00:13:47 the CLK project? I I believe it it was I can't remember specifically right now. We can see that Jay Lee, if you look at the distribution list, is the fourth distribute down on the list. Jay Lee of XO, that's James Lee. Do you
00:13:59 Jay Lee of XO, that's James Lee. Do you know what circumstances led Exover being referred to in the distribution list for the meeting on the 25th of uh June in respect of Grenfell? No. Do you know how Exover came to be
00:14:11 No. Do you know how Exover came to be appointed to act as a fire consultant on the Grenfell Tower refurbishment at all? Studio E issued a request for them to submit a proposal. Right. You say Studio E issued a request
00:14:25 Right. You say Studio E issued a request and we've seen something of that a little bit around about this time. In fact, a little bit earlier in 2012. Were Artilia involved in Studio E's decision
00:14:36 Artilia involved in Studio E's decision to request X over um to submit a proposal as you put it? No.
00:14:43 No. No. So they did it off their own bat, did they?
00:14:45 did they? I don't know whether they were instructed to or whether they did it off their own um valition. I I don't know. I wasn't involved in it and nor Apple Yards. Uh, did you know that Studio E
00:14:57 Yards. Uh, did you know that Studio E were looking for help from Exover in mid 2012 in respect of the Grrenfield Tire refurbishment? When you say help, you referring to help in respect of engaging Exova. Um, if if
00:15:11 in respect of engaging Exova. Um, if if that's the case, then it's not unusual to have a fire consultant on a project in addition to other members of the design team. No, but my question is, did you know that Studio E were looking for help from Exover at that time in respect of this
00:15:22 Exover at that time in respect of this project? I wasn't aware that they were looking for help. No.
00:15:26 No. Thank you. Um, do you know if anyone other than Exover, any fire consultant or fire specialist other than Exover was ever considered to act as a fire
00:15:37 ever considered to act as a fire consultant on the Granville Tower project?
00:15:39 project? I don't know. Do you know what led to what we see in this note? Ay to instruct fire consultant. I believe it was a recommendation from studio E to the client that Exover
00:15:51 studio E to the client that Exover should be appointed. based on their proposal.
00:15:54 proposal. I I I see. So I I know that's it's a rather um succinct reference here, but was the position that E thought it was necessary to have the assistance of of a
00:16:07 necessary to have the assistance of of a specialist fire consultant wanted Exova to assist and wanted uh Artillia to instruct Exova. Is that all we take from what you've
00:16:18 Is that all we take from what you've told us in this and this note? All I can say is that um it was recommended that XOover be appointed as a fire consultant and that studio E had um reviewed their proposal and said that they had they
00:16:30 proposal and said that they had they felt it was acceptable and uh the overall action for Artellia was then to issue an instruction to say that the proposal had been accepted. Do you know whether any steps were taken
00:16:44 Do you know whether any steps were taken or by way of action by Apple yards to instruct fire consultant as this note says would happen? The action was a uh a note was sent to
00:16:55 The action was a uh a note was sent to Exova confirming that they would be appointed by the TMO. I see.
00:17:01 I see. But I think you say that you weren't involved in that. That would have been done by Alan Dawson. In fact, it was done by Alan Dawson.
00:17:07 Dawson. Right.
00:17:08 Right. Can we then go to um the question of fees uh art uh 688 please? This is an email of the 20th of June 2012 from Bruce Zones uh to
00:17:23 20th of June 2012 from Bruce Zones uh to um Chris Churchman and Andrew Cassell in respect of calc copied to Alan Dawson uh Kevin Powley and David Hail. Um is Kevin
00:17:35 Kevin Powley and David Hail. Um is Kevin who is Kevin Powley? Kevin Powley was um somebody employed on the calc project. Right. Okay. Um and this is about
00:17:46 Right. Okay. Um and this is about Granville Tower. Uh and um it says um Chris Xova's appointment will be direct to the TMO. We will not be instructing them direct as we are on Cal. Exover are
00:17:58 them direct as we are on Cal. Exover are awaiting instruction for both the main component of the project and for a separate item, a fire strategy for the existing tower which will cover fire access. Apple yards have been asked to do a review of team fees and scope.
00:18:10 do a review of team fees and scope. Alan, please confirm you will take this up with Mark Anderson. Now, this is a few days before the meeting uh on the 25th of July of June. We've just seen the design meeting number four. Um, and
00:18:23 the design meeting number four. Um, and looking at the third paragraph where it says Apple Yards have been asked to do a review of team fees and scope. Was that a review of Exover's proposed fees and scope?
00:18:34 scope? I don't know what he was referring to. Are you aware of if anyone from Artellia did agree to perform a review of Exov's fees and scope as this email suggests should happen? No. And uh when it uh
00:18:47 No. And uh when it uh goes on to say Allan, please confirm you will take this up with Mark Anderson. Uh I believe that was because this was an additional uh requirement over and above our commission and I don't believe that
00:18:59 our commission and I don't believe that there was ever any particular instruction from the TMO to actually take this up. Right. So, so far as you're concerned, does that take us to this point that even though there was a an indication
00:19:10 even though there was a an indication that Apple Yards would do a review of team fees and scope, in the end, the TMO did not instruct you a as their professionals to conduct such
00:19:21 a as their professionals to conduct such a review.
00:19:21 a review. Correct. I don't know who had asked us to do the review and obviously this is a a correspondence between Studio E and Chris Churchman. Um so uh we were only a
00:19:33 Chris Churchman. Um so uh we were only a CC to it.
00:19:34 CC to it. Right now turning to the fee proposals in a bit more detail. Do you accept that it's within the skill set of a quantity surveyor to be able to provide advice on XOover's fees?
00:19:46 XOover's fees? No, I don't. You don't. So a QS wouldn't be able to identify or analyze a budget for for our strategy work on a project. No, I don't. It's not part of it of the
00:19:57 No, I don't. It's not part of it of the core skill.
00:20:04 Um, it it's right nonetheless though, isn't it, that Artilia did receive copies of Exovover's fee proposals. Yes, that's correct. Yes. Can we go to SEA
00:20:16 Yes. Can we go to SEA um SEA 500, I'm sorry, 6074.
00:20:23 SEA 674. Now this is an email from Margaret Trina at exover to Alan Dawson at Apple Yards property to Bruce son on the 20 um 5th
00:20:35 property to Bruce son on the 20 um 5th of October 2012. But at the bottom half of that page because this is a response to it. There is an email from Alan Dawson on the 18th of July 2012 to Terry Ashton copy to
00:20:48 of July 2012 to Terry Ashton copy to Bruce Stones and David Hail. And uh there it just says, "Terry, I just wanted to drop you a short note to confirm that the client has now confirmed your proposed fee is approved. To which end we would now ask that you
00:21:00 To which end we would now ask that you engage with Bruce at Studio E in respect of the AB above project forth with." Um so just looking at that it does look as if uh the TMO um ha had confirmed that
00:21:13 if uh the TMO um ha had confirmed that XOA's proposed fee was was approved and then you asked or Alan Dawson asked uh that Terry Terry Ashton engaged
00:21:24 uh that Terry Terry Ashton engaged directly with studio studio E. Um do you know on what basis the TMO had confirmed that the proposed fee was approved? I believe on the advice of
00:21:36 approved? I believe on the advice of Studio E.
00:21:37 Studio E. I see. So, Artilia had no role to play. Are you telling us in the in the approval of that fee proposal? Correct.
00:21:44 Correct. I see. Now, if we go to the top of the page, so the email I I first identified to you, Margaret Trina's email, um that sets out the two proposals that Exover
00:21:55 sets out the two proposals that Exover had made. And if you look at the first paragraph, you can see that there's a reference to a fee proposal for the upgrade works. Do you see that £8,600 plus VA that for the upgrade works? Yes.
00:22:06 plus VA that for the upgrade works? Yes. Yes.
00:22:06 Yes. And in the second paragraph, uh there is a reference to the existing fee existing acceptance of the fee proposal in respect of the existing condition of the building for the sum of £2,865
00:22:19 building for the sum of £2,865 plus VAT. Now, just looking at the existing condition proposal, um do you recall that there was in fact no existing fire strategy for the building?
00:22:30 existing fire strategy for the building? Yes.
00:22:32 Yes. And the job of exover is this right as you understood it was to write one from scratch.
00:22:37 scratch. It was to review. Yes. Uh yeah. Well was to produce an existing fire a fire strategy for the building as it stood prior to the refurbishment. Yes. I believe it was a a fire strategy
00:22:50 Yes. I believe it was a a fire strategy or report on fire strategy. Yes. Now, given that this was a proposed refurbishment of a 1970s high-rise residential block, um the refurbishment project was and was was contemplated at
00:23:03 project was and was was contemplated at that stage to be a substantial and complex piece of work. Do you accept that proposition? Uh I'm not sure who um would had had said that but I mean in
00:23:14 would had had said that but I mean in terms of uh projects they all have different complexities uh and different levels of difficulty and um you know in terms of what was required on this project. It uh didn't
00:23:27 required on this project. It uh didn't seem to be uh overly complex in that sense of how I understand it. Is this that was that a personal view you had at the time that the fire strategies both of them were not neither
00:23:39 strategies both of them were not neither of them particularly complex? I I can't comment on the fire strategies. I was talking reference to the project as a general. Well, do you agree that for both for the
00:23:51 Well, do you agree that for both for the um existing building fire strategy and for the refurbishment fire strategy, both pieces of work were significant and substantial pieces of work for Exov?
00:24:02 substantial pieces of work for Exov? I don't know. I've not done fire strategies before. Right. Did you yourself or anybody else at Artilleria ever actually consider the scope of Exov's proposals? No, because it wasn't part of our
00:24:13 No, because it wasn't part of our remitt.
00:24:13 remitt. I see. So you didn't consider whether the feeds that they were quoting uh as seen by Alan Dawson in this email here were adequate to perform the necessary work.
00:24:22 work. No, because Studio E had actually requested the proposals and had reviewed them themselves. I see. So you didn't you didn't check whether Exovover had devoted sufficient time to the job or was proposing to do
00:24:33 time to the job or was proposing to do so or or put yourself in the position of checking Exov's quality. Wasn't part of our role. Whose role do you think it was if not Artilia's role? Studio E.
00:24:44 Artilia's role? Studio E. And why was that? Because they were the ones that had requested the proposals and had also identified what the scope of the service was.
00:24:50 was. Right. Can you explain why uh Artillia were involved at all? As we can see that they were both in June and July 2012 and
00:25:01 they were both in June and July 2012 and then again in October 2012. if Artillia really wasn't involved in um assessing the the amount of the fee its adequacy and and the scope of the work that was
00:25:12 and and the scope of the work that was proposed to be done by Oxover on both of these proposals on uh as employers agent obviously we can act on behalf of the employer on behalf of the TMO in issuing instructions and the TMO had actually
00:25:24 instructions and the TMO had actually approved the proposals that have been put forward by Exova and asked us to issue an instruction confirming that they their proposal had been accepted and that they were to be appointed direct to the TMO and that is solely
00:25:36 direct to the TMO and that is solely what we were asked to do. No other involvement at all. I see. So does it come to this that your evidence is that as EA employers agent which was Alan Dawson's role at the time, your role was simply to make sure
00:25:49 time, your role was simply to make sure that there was a contractual link between Exov and the TMO and look no further than that about what it was that XO was to do and and the adequacy of the price. Correct.
00:25:58 Correct. I follow. So do we take it that that you never actually and nobody at Artillia actually ever did give any advice to the TMO about the scope of the proposal proposals uh for both of these reports
00:26:10 proposals uh for both of these reports on the building that Xavier were were being asked to do. Correct.
00:26:18 Did Artillia have a view at the time about whether these fees were adequate given the amount of professional service required on a project of this complexity? I didn't have a view. No. Do you know whether Mr. Dawson had a
00:26:29 Do you know whether Mr. Dawson had a view.
00:26:29 view. I don't know. Can we then go to look at on to look at Exova and Artillia's role uh in the context of CDMC?
00:26:40 context of CDMC? Um I I want to go back to where we were yesterday and look at Artillia's duties under the CDM regulations to ensure that competent designers and contractors were appointed. And if we need to go back to
00:26:51 appointed. And if we need to go back to to the AOP, the approved code of practice at paragraph 90, Mr. Cash, we can do that. Um, would you agree though generally that exova would come within the definition of designer for the
00:27:02 the definition of designer for the purposes of the CDMC? I don't know. The purposes of the CDM regulations? You don't know. Would well would you agree that um a CDMC a CDM coordinator
00:27:15 that um a CDMC a CDM coordinator should have considered and provided advice on the competency and resources of Exover as a designer? I don't know. You don't know? Um that would be a C I'm not a CDM coordinator. Keith Bush was the C was
00:27:27 coordinator. Keith Bush was the C was the CDM coordinator and he would have identified whether or not Exova were designer under the definition of the uh CDM regulations. Yes. And I'm really after your
00:27:38 Yes. And I'm really after your recollection. Was there any to your knowledge any any discussion within Artilia about uh whether um Artellia or Keith Keith Bush
00:27:50 whether um Artellia or Keith Keith Bush in particular as CDM coordinator uh would consider and provide advice on the competency of Exov as a designer? I don't know if he had on um in specific reference to this project. Obviously
00:28:02 reference to this project. Obviously Exova were engaged on the cow project and had already been through a test of competency on that project. Yes. Yes. Um uh but the fact that
00:28:13 Yes. Yes. Um uh but the fact that they've done that on that project doesn't necessarily carry across to this project, does it? I can't comment. Well, each project must carry its own set of standalone obligations. Surely they
00:28:23 they Yes. But in terms of the competency, because this was a follow-on project from uh the cow project, I'm not sure what levels of uh checks were carried out by Keith Bushell. Right. But you were Keith Bushell's
00:28:34 Right. But you were Keith Bushell's supervisor as project director, weren't you?
00:28:36 you? Not his line manager. No, I was the project director for the project. Yes. And as project director for the project, even though you weren't his line manager, you would nonetheless had overall super supervision or overall
00:28:47 overall super supervision or overall responsibility for the quality of his work. responsibility, not supervision. He was an associate director within the business and therefore was a particularly senior level of being able to act autonomously and under his own
00:28:59 to act autonomously and under his own authority. Yes. Um did you regard it though as part of your responsibility as project director for this project to
00:29:10 as project director for this project to make sure nonetheless however senior uh the particular role carriers were uh that they knew exactly what their roles were? that they knew what their roles
00:29:22 were? that they knew what their roles were. Yes. And that had that had already been defined. We'd had kickoff meetings and uh each person within the team knew exactly what their role was. Right. Was there any discussion to far as you can recall between you and Keith
00:29:33 as you can recall between you and Keith Bushell or anyone else or anyone else at Artillia about whether Keith Bushell as the CD M coordinator should have been examining Exova's competency and resources as a
00:29:46 Exova's competency and resources as a designer?
00:29:46 designer? I don't recall any particular conversations that I was involved with. Sorry.
00:29:50 Sorry. Do you accept that under the CDM regulations, Artilia as a CDM coordinator had the obligation to ensure that that designers complied with their duties just as a general proposition of
00:30:03 duties just as a general proposition of law? Do you accept? In terms of making sure that the clients were complying with their obligations. Yes.
00:30:10 Yes. Well, maybe we need to look at the regulation. Could you please go to INQ3011315, [Music]
00:30:17 [Music] please? These this is the CDM regulations 2007 and I want to go to regulation 20 uh about page 11 of this if we can please and I want to go to
00:30:29 if we can please and I want to go to regulation 20 subregulation 2 C and regulation two starts off without prejudice to paragraph one the CDM coordinate
00:30:40 paragraph one the CDM coordinate coordinator shall and then if you look at C take all reasonable steps to ensure that designers comply with their duties under regulations 11 and 182. I mean, were you aware at the time uh
00:30:52 I mean, were you aware at the time uh that a CDM coordinator had that obligation? Not specifically. I knew that they had obligations. Yes. Did in in general terms, did you do you
00:31:03 Did in in general terms, did you do you agree with me that that completing a fire safety assessment of the proposed facade construction was fundamental to Exova's task of delivering a refurbishment fire strategy
00:31:15 refurbishment fire strategy for the completed project or for the existing
00:31:17 existing for the for the refurbishment? You're quite right for the refurbishment. I'm I'm not sure that they I'm I'm not sure whether it did or didn't. I know that obviously the fire strategy is there to uh deal with the operation of
00:31:31 there to uh deal with the operation of the building in the event of a fire and how uh people may escape from it or how uh the fire brigade may attend to fires etc. So that to me is the fire strategy
00:31:42 etc. So that to me is the fire strategy rather than actually being a design document.
00:31:45 document. Right. What I'm really putting to you to try and cut through this is that Exova was a designer. They had duties under regulations 118 and 182 and it was Artillia's job as CDM coordinator uh to
00:31:57 Artillia's job as CDM coordinator uh to take all reasonable steps to ensure that they complied with those duties. That that's the point I'm putting to you. Do you accept that? Uh I'm not sure what regulations 11 and 182 are.
00:32:08 182 are. Right. Um let's then turn to Exovover's OFSS the outline the ex the outline fire safety strategy for the refurbishment. Um when you were working on the
00:32:19 Um when you were working on the Granfield Tower project, Mr. Cash, were you aware of the three issues um of the outline fire safety strategy or OFSS produced by Exova for the refurbishment?
00:32:30 produced by Exova for the refurbishment? No.
00:32:31 No. Right. Did did you or to your knowledge anybody else at Artellia ever read these reports when they came in? I didn't. I don't know if anybody else in Artellia did. Just to try and um prompt your your
00:32:44 Just to try and um prompt your your memory, there were three of them. The first one was the 31st of October 2012. The second was the 24th of October 2013. And the third one, the third issue was
00:32:55 And the third one, the third issue was the 7th of November 2013. Those dates, do they ring a bell with you?
00:33:00 you? No.
00:33:01 No. Right.
00:33:03 Right. Would you have expected an employer's agent to read those documents when they came into you? No.
00:33:08 No. Why is that? because they were documents that were either uh documents to help the TMO in terms of operational uh issues in in relation to the existing
00:33:19 uh issues in in relation to the existing building or in terms of operational issues uh in the future building based on the design that was being developed. Would you expect the CDMC the CDM coordinator to read these?
00:33:31 coordinator to read these? No. But the exaver was part of the professional team as defined in the EA requirements and the and the contract that you signed was it not? No, they were not. They were not. They were you didn't regard Exaver as part of your
00:33:42 regard Exaver as part of your professional team. Is that right? No, they weren't identified as as a member of the professional team. There were only three people apart from Artellia that were identified as the professional team. I see. So
00:33:58 did they not become part of the professional team by reason of working on this project? Not nec no because they weren't identified as as an additional member of the professional team by by the client. They became a subconsultant. Sorry. They
00:34:09 They became a subconsultant. Sorry. They became a direct employee to the um to the TMO under contract and worked alongside studio e Max Forom and Curtains, but they weren't identified as
00:34:20 Curtains, but they weren't identified as a member of the professional team. No. Can we then go to EXO401106?
00:34:27 I just want to see how far we can get with this document in the light of the answers you've just given me. This is issue three of the outline fire safety strategy for the building dated the 7th
00:34:39 strategy for the building dated the 7th of November 2013. Just looking at its first page. Is this the document you think you over saw at the time?
00:34:45 the time? I can't remember. Right. Let's um well then we might may not get very far at all but let's just look at page four if we can and try let me try this out on you. Page four is the introduction
00:34:57 introduction and it explains what the refurbishment comprises. Uh and there are five bullet points none of which identify the overcladding.
00:35:08 of which identify the overcladding. Uh and then it goes on, this report details the applicable statutory controls in respect of fire safety and contains an outline fire safety strategy for compliance with these statutory controls.
00:35:18 controls. If that had come into artillia, do you expect that the person receiving it would have read that page? I don't know. Right. I don't know. Um
00:35:32 can we go to page nine then and look at paragraph 3.1.4 Four, compliance with B4 external fire spread. This says it is considered that the proposed changes will have no adverse effect on the
00:35:43 will have no adverse effect on the building in relation to external fire spread, but this will be confirmed by an analysis in a future issue of this report.
00:35:51 report. Were you I'm assuming from your answers you've given me that you weren't aware that each of these reports and I say each each issue of the OFSS October 12,
00:36:02 each each issue of the OFSS October 12, October 13, November 13 said exactly what is said there under 3.1.4 which is that in relation to external fire spread um the adverse effects would
00:36:14 fire spread um the adverse effects would be or lack of them would be confirmed by an analysis and a future issue of this report.
00:36:19 report. I wasn't aware of that. Uh, no. No.
00:36:28 Did Did you ever see anything that uh would lead you to think that Exova ever provided an analysis in a future issue of of this report?
00:36:41 future issue of of this report? I haven't seen I don't remember seeing anything.
00:36:43 anything. No. No. Do you accept that Artillia as a CDMC
00:36:47 CDMC should have ensured that Exova as a designer did produce a final report addressing the impact of the overcladding work on external fire spread as they indicated they would? No, I don't believe it is part of the
00:36:59 No, I don't believe it is part of the CDM coordinator's role to uh manage design issues or to manage uh production of fire strategies. It's u its role as CDM coordinator would have been to
00:37:11 CDM coordinator would have been to collect the information for the health and safety file at the end of the project but obviously u that didn't happen because the of changes in um legislation
00:37:22 legislation right um now earlier we looked at uh the contract and let's look at that again art 40-5742 please I want to just look at page 63 in
00:37:34 please I want to just look at page 63 in the light of what you've just been telling me just to go back to it. This is the CDMC schedule of services. And at the top half of the page, this is um art 405742,
00:37:47 this is um art 405742, page 63,
00:37:49 page 63, this is under the contract that you signed with the TMO, Mr. cash and it says
00:37:54 says um
00:37:57 um and this is the second bullet point I want to show you work with the project team with a proactive approach to ensure uh that the schemes are designed and delivered incorporating all relevant
00:38:08 delivered incorporating all relevant requirements to achieve statutory compliance. Did you understand at the time that that obliged Artilia to work with Exova and the TMO to ensure that the B4 requirements of the building regulations
00:38:20 requirements of the building regulations were properly addressed by Exova and completely addressed by them? No, because it wasn't to actually carry out the design or carry out any reports or it was to work with them in terms of
00:38:32 it was to work with them in terms of ensuring that designs met the requirements in relation to working safely in on site and um also in terms of being able to maintain safely after
00:38:43 of being able to maintain safely after the work's been completed. Can we just go back to page eight of this document because I you you said earlier in your evidence that Exova weren't part of the professional team. And I just want to particularly in the
00:38:54 And I just want to particularly in the light of what I've just shown you examine that again. The definition of professional team here means the consultant the professionals listed in the appendix. And then this any other professionals engaged by the client in
00:39:06 professionals engaged by the client in relation to the project and which the client notifies to the consultant. Now we know that exover as you've been telling us were engaged by the TMO who is the client. Um why do you say that
00:39:17 is the client. Um why do you say that exova weren't a professional who were part of the professional team as defined?
00:39:23 defined? They weren't actually notified as an additional member to the professional team. They were just engaged as a another consultant. They were engaged as another consultant. Were they not notified to you? What why
00:39:35 Were they not notified to you? What why would you why do you say they weren't notified by the CMO to you? They were notified as as a as an appointee, but they weren't notified as another member of the professional team.
00:39:47 you you you that's an interpretation of the provision. Can I just understand what you understood at the time what it was that notification involved within the context of that
00:39:58 involved within the context of that definition that it would be if you um it would be a variation to the the names that were already listed within the appendix.
00:40:08 That would have to be done formally, would it?
00:40:10 would it? I believe so. Yes. Right. Why wasn't the communications that we saw in July 2012 about X ever being engaged to perform two uh analyses
00:40:23 being engaged to perform two uh analyses of the building sufficient notification to bring them within the definition of professional team as you understood it? Because I I didn't feel it was there were others that I believe there were that um other people were also consulted
00:40:35 that um other people were also consulted and uh were not al didn't become part of the professional team either. Well, who are those others that you I can't remember specifically. I can't remember specifically, but I don't
00:40:47 remember specifically, but I don't believe that exova uh were actually part of professional team that the the the professional team was limited to studio e Max Forom and uh curtains. Right. I I thought maybe I'm wrong that
00:40:59 Right. I I thought maybe I'm wrong that Artillia Artilia's role at least in part was to identify risks on in respect of the project and gaps uh in respect of professional expertise. Um, how could
00:41:10 professional expertise. Um, how could Artilia carry out that role uh if they didn't read these documents, the outline fire safety strategy and the existing fire safety strategy? So, I don't see the correlation between the two. The the the risks that you
00:41:22 the two. The the the risks that you referred to were actually uh risks to the there was a risk register which was produced which was looking at risks in terms of the delivery of the project and those related to particularly risks such as things like planning u finances
00:41:36 as things like planning u finances contract insolveny etc. they were also um reviewing roles and responsibilities of the professional team in terms but making sure that there was no overlap between their appointments or or in
00:41:47 between their appointments or or in terms of their understanding of their roles and responsibilities or any gaps. Um so you I'm not sure in terms I I feel that there mixing up there of of what you're
00:41:59 mixing up there of of what you're saying.
00:42:00 saying. Right. I'm just puzzled here because um as we've seen specifically in respect of the CDM regulations which obviously applied and and the role of the CDM coordinator um why is it why was it not
00:42:13 coordinator um why is it why was it not the case that the CDM coordinator had an obligation to ensure uh that Exova as a designer was carrying out its own health and safety obligations uh which were
00:42:25 and safety obligations uh which were imposed on it under the regulations the the health and safety uh sorry the the CDM coordinator issues uh a health and safety risk register which is for each of the consultants to complete to
00:42:37 each of the consultants to complete to ensure that they are reviewing and ensuring that their design where there may be risks in terms of their design are being mitigated in in relation to works being carried out on site safely
00:42:48 works being carried out on site safely and also in terms of works that uh to be maintained post post completion of the works.
00:42:54 works. Right. Well, let's um let's see how we go then on this art 402256, please. Um these are the minutes of the uh contractor induction meeting of the
00:43:06 uh contractor induction meeting of the 1st of April 2014, which we've seen before. Again, we don't see you weren't at the meeting, but we we looked at this a moment ago. If we go down um to this
00:43:18 a moment ago. If we go down um to this time point 5.3 on page four please. It says there uh underneath um novation of designers
00:43:28 designers you see it says under 5.3 Exover completed the fire strategy at tender stage. Were you aware at the time that it was being said at this meeting that Exova had completed the task of
00:43:40 Exova had completed the task of delivering a fire strategy at the tender stage?
00:43:43 stage? In terms of what they'd been engaged to do, I presume that that's what it was relating to. Yes. Looking at it now, do you accept that that was wrong and misleading given that an important part of Exov's work, namely
00:43:54 an important part of Exov's work, namely the much promised future analysis of external fire spread under B4 of the building regulations, remained outstanding. There would have always had to have been a fire strategy completed at the end of
00:44:06 a fire strategy completed at the end of the project because there was still designed to complete. You can't carry out a and complete an overall fire strategy until you have all of that information. This to me is saying that
00:44:17 information. This to me is saying that they completed what they were required to do at tender stage in terms of the documents that were issued then. Right. Um, but we know that the fire strategy wasn't complete at the tender stage, which is in and after November
00:44:29 stage, which is in and after November 2013, because Exov's report expressly said that there was a future analysis still outstanding. That's why I put it to you in the terms I did. It wasn't complete, was it? It was complete as require as as
00:44:41 It was complete as require as as complete as it could be at tender stage and and I believe I don't know in terms of their terms of appointment, but um it would never have been completed as in as a final document. it wouldn't have been
00:44:52 a final document. it wouldn't have been until the end of the project and as I say my my interpretation of that it was completed in terms of what was what was required and what could have been completed at tender stage. Well you say it was as complete as it
00:45:04 Well you say it was as complete as it could be at the tender stage. What was what's the basis for your um for that view Mr. Cash? Because the design was still evolving and still had to be completed by Rydens and until the design is complete you
00:45:15 and until the design is complete you can't you can't actually uh complete the fire strategy. Uh well the design may not have been complete but it was sufficiently advanced to be able to form the basis of a tender and so the
00:45:28 the basis of a tender and so the question then is why wasn't the exova uh strategy sufficiently complete at that stage in respect of the overcladding design and and materials to be able to
00:45:39 design and and materials to be able to form a view at least about the safety of the design as it then stood because it in a design and build uh contract the the design is not complete tender, it still has uh development to
00:45:52 tender, it still has uh development to carry out to be carried out by the contractor and that is uh that therefore means that you cannot complete all of the necessary documentation that would has to be in place at the end of the project. If you were going down a
00:46:03 project. If you were going down a traditional route then the design would have been completed to a much greater level of detail. Yes. You see the problem with that is that there's absolutely nothing in the X over report at all the OFSS at all about the
00:46:15 at all the OFSS at all about the clatting whereas in fact the tender stage documents which all went out which went out to the tenderers had quite a bit in it about about the external waiver clatting. So hence my question I
00:46:26 waiver clatting. So hence my question I don't understand how you can form the view that it was justifiable that there should be nothing in there at all about the fire strategy at the tender stage. I didn't say there was nothing in there about fire strategy. I just said external external fire spread.
00:46:39 external external fire spread. Sorry. In which documents? In in the um in issue three. Indeed issues one and two of the offs. I wouldn't No, I didn't read the documents. No. Right. Um
00:46:55 can we then turn to the question uh of well before we leave that if you're if you're right is it right that Artillia would have expected a final fire strategy to be delivered by um Exover to
00:47:09 strategy to be delivered by um Exover to the client once Ryden had completed the design. I would have expected Ryden to deliver a final fire strategy as part of their role as the design and build
00:47:20 their role as the design and build contractor. Yes.
00:47:21 Yes. Not necessarily Exova. There was no requirement that Ryden actually engage Exova. Albeit that there had been uh minutes that identified that they were going to appoint them. There is no
00:47:32 going to appoint them. There is no obligation on them having to do that. They could have appointed anybody else to do that. Indeed. But would you not have expected given that Exova had been had been appointed and had done some work uh for
00:47:43 appointed and had done some work uh for Exova to have to have finished their work off at the stage at which the construction was completed? No, no, no particular expectation that it would solely be Exova that would have
00:47:54 it would solely be Exova that would have done that role. It could have been, as I say, somebody else, but somebody else being a specialist fire consultant, somebody with specialist fire strategy knowledge. Yes. Yes. So that's a gap, isn't it?
00:48:07 Yes. Yes. So that's a gap, isn't it? The fact that there wasn't one is a gap. I don't know. It I don't know whether or not a fire strate somebody with was engaged is part of the design and build
00:48:18 engaged is part of the design and build supply chain. Did you realize at the time that Exova never was engaged by Ryden following Ryden's appointment as main contractor? No, I wasn't. To your knowledge, did Artillia ever give any advice to the TMO
00:48:30 Artillia ever give any advice to the TMO uh or or indeed Ryden for that matter that Exova needed to be properly engaged by Ryden specifically to ensure that the fire safety of the external cladding was properly considered by a specialist fire
00:48:42 properly considered by a specialist fire consultant? It wasn't our position to tell anybody who to engage. If if Ryden decided to engage somebody else other than Exova, that was their decision. Yes, indeed. But you could see or
00:48:53 Yes, indeed. But you could see or Archilia could see uh from the um 1st of April meeting uh that there had been a report at the far at the tender stage.
00:49:05 report at the far at the tender stage. Leave aside the question we've debated about whether it was complete or not. My question is did Artillia ever tell the TMO um that Exaver needed to be properly engaged to complete their work and to
00:49:16 engaged to complete their work and to ensure that the fire safety of the external cladding was properly considered? No, because it wasn't our role to tell them. Wasn't it part of Artillia's role as employers agent? Not to tell them that they had to engage
00:49:28 Not to tell them that they had to engage Exova. No. Why is that? Because, as I say, it could have been any other fire consultant that could have carried out that fire strategy on behalf of Rydens. Right. I I understand I understand the
00:49:39 Right. I I understand I understand the difference you're the distinction you're drawing between Xover and A other. So, I'll ask my question in a different way. Um, did Artillia ever advise the TMO that a specialist fire consultant or
00:49:51 that a specialist fire consultant or engineer needed to be properly engaged to complete uh the work and produce a final report uh and so that the fire safety of the external cladding was properly
00:50:03 external cladding was properly considered. It was been part of the employer's requirements. Yes. And part of Briden's duty. It was. You accept that it was part of the employees requirements to do that? Yes.
00:50:12 Yes. Yes. And so the question arises, did you ever advise the TMO that they needed a final and comprehensive report on the fire safety strategy of
00:50:24 report on the fire safety strategy of the external clatting by any specialist, whether it was Exover or somebody else? Not specifically, but I know it would have been identified in the design reports that there was still further work to be carried out.
00:50:35 work to be carried out. Indeed. And given that there was further work to be carried out, whether by Exavver or by somebody else, was it not Artilia's job uh to make sure that that happened?
00:50:46 happened? It was identified, I believe, in the stage D report. Was it Artilia's job to make sure that that happened? Mr. Cash, I don't believe it was. No, it's part of Ryden's duty as the designer build contractor to ensure that it happened.
00:50:57 contractor to ensure that it happened. But
00:50:57 But was it not part of Artillia's duty under the morass of contractual obligations as we've seen in the contract that was signed in July 2014? I don't believe so. No.
00:51:09 Were you aware of the contractual basis on which Exova was used by the TMO after the appointment of Ryden? As we've seen, no.
00:51:18 no. We we've seen various instances where in for example September 2014 and again in March 2015, ad hoc advice was given by well sorry sought by Ryden and given by
00:51:30 well sorry sought by Ryden and given by Exova in respect of various aspects of the external wall construction. Do you know the basis on which that advice was sought and given? The contractual basis? No, I don't.
00:51:43 No, I don't. Did you ever consider the question of whether it was appropriate to use X over on on an as and when required basis? No, because I wasn't aware that they were being used on that basis.
00:51:54 were being used on that basis. I'd like to turn to a different topic now, which is the change in the CDM regulations. Now, we've talked about the role Artillia was to was contracted to perform, namely the role of CDMC under the 2007
00:52:06 the 2007 uh regulations. Um
00:52:11 Um [Applause] before I I do that, I I I I just want to pick up a question I should have asked you just a moment ago. Um have you or Artilia ever, to your
00:52:22 have you or Artilia ever, to your knowledge, done a project which has involved a facade consultant or specialist facade engineer? I believe within Artellia that they would have been in uh in projects that
00:52:34 would have been in uh in projects that would have involved a facade engineer. Yes.
00:52:36 Yes. Yes. Were they quite common in the years 2012, 13, 14? I can't remember. Right. You can't remember. Um you may not be able to remember specific instances, but do you not have a
00:52:47 instances, but do you not have a recollection of in general whether facade consultants were commonly used in respect of high-rise overcladding projects? uh high-rise overcladding projects were not common projects
00:52:59 projects were not common projects at that point in time. any overcladding projects whether high-rise or not u there some some projects I wouldn't say it's difficult to say whether it's common or not but uh I have been
00:53:12 common or not but uh I have been involved in projects where there have been facade engineers uh particularly where buildings have been recclad did you ever consider yourself or to your knowledge did anybody at Artillia consider whether a facade consultant
00:53:24 consider whether a facade consultant would be appropriate in respect of the grandf tower project. No.
00:53:28 No. Why is that? Because we would weren't engaging the design team and uh in projects where facade engineers have been engaged, it's normally at the instigation of other
00:53:39 normally at the instigation of other members of the professional team who have identified that uh the projects are particularly complex or have a requirement for a facade engineer. You say you weren't engaging the design
00:53:50 You say you weren't engaging the design team. That's that may be true post tender. Um what about before the tender? Did you ever consider at that stage whether a facade consultant would be appropriate for this project? No.
00:54:00 No. And again, why is that at that stage? Because I didn't occur to us that one would necessary, right, based on the uh the other consultants that are being appointed and what their duties were.
00:54:11 duties were. Right. So
00:54:13 Right. So presumably, I'm right would follow that you never had a discussion with the TMO or indeed anybody else that they should consider obtaining obtaining the services of a specialist facade consultant. Correct.
00:54:23 Correct. Right. Um can we then go back to where I was about to go next which is the CDM regulations change. Uh we discussed earlier on I think in your
00:54:34 we discussed earlier on I think in your evidence that the basic legal position uh changed in 2015 so far as the CDMs are concerned. Yes.
00:54:41 Yes. And there was a transitional period I think between April 2015 and October 2015.
00:54:48 2015. and and after that after October I think it's October the 5th 2015 there was a new regime in place correct
00:54:56 correct yes um did you also know that the role of CDMC CDM coordinator was abolished in the 2015 regulations yes
00:55:05 yes and it was then replaced by or replaced with the role of principal designer is that right yes correct
00:55:13 um can we go to INQ3011316
00:55:18 These are the CDM regulations 2016 themselves. And if we go to page six, we can look at regulation five which provides and you can see appointment of the principal designer and the principal contractor. Were you familiar with these
00:55:31 contractor. Were you familiar with these regulations in the period between April and October 2015?
00:55:37 2015? I knew that they were in existence. I wasn't familiar with the contents though.
00:55:41 though. All right. Can I just focus then on subpar or subregulation three? If the client fails to appoint a principal designer, the client must fulfill the duties of the principal designer in
00:55:52 duties of the principal designer in regulation 11 and 12. Were you aware of of that rule? I was I became aware of it. Yes. Uh and just to be clear, regulation 11 pertains to duties in the
00:56:04 pertains to duties in the pre-construction phase and regulation 12 in the construction uh phase itself and the health and safety file. Did you know that?
00:56:12 that? Not specifically, but um I was aware that they would assume those duties. Yes.
00:56:16 Yes. Right. So for this project, I think it's right to say just tell me if this is wrong, the effect of the 2015 regulations was that there was no role of CDMC after it had come into force
00:56:29 of CDMC after it had come into force after the end of the transition period on the 5th of October. Yes. And that at that point the TMO as the client had to appoint a principal designer.
00:56:39 designer. Correct.
00:56:40 Correct. Yes. And if if the TMO did not appoint a principal designer, then the TMO had to perform the role of principal designer itself.
00:56:46 itself. Correct.
00:56:47 Correct. And and in doing that then discharge the duties of principal designer in regulations 11 and 12 as as we can see here.
00:56:54 here. Yes.
00:56:54 Yes. Yes. And that law came into effect on I think I said the 5th. It's actually the 6th of October 2015. Yes.
00:57:02 Yes. Yes. That's the date. Now I think you tell me if this is wrong but are you aware that the TMO have criticized Artilia for only giving them two weeks notice to find and appoint a principal designer?
00:57:13 designer? I'm aware that they have said that. Yes. Um would the TMO have been able to appoint a principal designer after the 6th of October 2015 if those two weeks didn't give them enough time to find
00:57:24 didn't give them enough time to find one?
00:57:25 one? I believe that they could have appointed a principal designer which would have then passed that role on to whoever was appointed. But in in the intervening period, they would have been the principal designer.
00:57:36 principal designer. Yeah. Um let's let's move on with the story then or rather pick it up in April 15. Do you remember that Keith Bushell uh was until April 15 the CDMC? You
00:57:47 uh was until April 15 the CDMC? You mentioned him before in your correct.
00:57:49 correct. And Keith Bushell was then replaced with Colin James as I think a subcontractor of Artillia. Correct.
00:57:56 Correct. As CDMC and then you referred I think earlier on in your evidence also to Paul Burrows. um who I think was involved at the same time as Colin James. Is that right?
00:58:06 right? Correct.
00:58:07 Correct. And Colin Paul Burrows was employed by Artillia, wasn't he? Yes.
00:58:11 Yes. And he was also in a CDA CDMC role. Yes.
00:58:15 Yes. Yeah.
00:58:16 Yeah. Do you remember what the division of responsibility was between Paul Burrows and Colin James? Not particularly. No. Right. Can we look at your third witness statement, please? Um
00:58:27 statement, please? Um you set out there some uh instances where Artilia had discussed the rule change with the TMO in 2015. And if we can go to uh first of all art
00:58:41 And if we can go to uh first of all art 406286 please. This is an email of the 20th of July 2015.
00:58:49 Uh and we can see uh that the subject line in both emails on that page is F10. Grenfell F10. What is an F10?
00:59:02 Grenfell F10. What is an F10? An F10 is a form that is uh required by the Health and Safety Executive to be submitted uh in connection with carrying out works. Can we go to page seven of this email string then? And at the top of page
00:59:15 string then? And at the top of page seven, we can see that there's an email from Neil Reed of the 13th of July 2015 to Paul Burrows. And you're copied in on this string. Do you see? Yes.
00:59:25 Yes. And he asks the question, does Neil read, "Could you confirm if the F10 has been amended to suit the EOT to the 23rd of October 2015?" Just to be clear, does the EOT mean or
00:59:38 Just to be clear, does the EOT mean or stand for extension of time? Yes, it does. And and is it right that this email chain is about resubmitting an F10 form to the Health and Safety Executive? Correct.
00:59:48 Correct. Yeah. And and that was it because you had to do that because the completion date for the project had changed. Correct.
00:59:55 Correct. And am I right in thinking that's a fairly routine matter? Yes.
00:59:58 Yes. Yeah. Can we look at page six then is moving up the email chain and go to the bottom of that page and you can see here an internal email within Artillia from Paul Burrows to Colin James again copied
01:00:09 Paul Burrows to Colin James again copied to you uh and he says in the third paragraph there Neil as this finishes after 6th of October a principal designer needs to be appointed if we're not in control of the design process then we cannot accept this role please
01:00:20 then we cannot accept this role please advise so we know which direction we need to take um and that email chain was then forwarded to Claire Williams of the TML on the 20th of July. And we can see that
01:00:32 on the 20th of July. And we can see that at page two if we just jump up to page two.
01:00:35 two. And
01:00:37 And uh you can see that at the bottom of that page. Neil Reed Clare Williams 20th of July revised F10 attached. You see that?
01:00:45 that? Yes.
01:00:45 Yes. Does that mean that the does that mean a revised F10 form was attached to this document? Again, you received it as we can see.
01:00:53 can see. Correct.
01:00:54 Correct. um when you go to the next email up. Uh in fact, actually you're not copied in on this. So that's that's my mistake, but that's your understanding of it. You
01:01:06 but that's your understanding of it. You you then um say in your statement, your third witness statement that Miss Williams should have understood from that email chain that Artillia was refusing to perform the role of principal um designer.
01:01:20 principal um designer. If you look at the email in the middle of that page, Claire Williams says to Neil Reed. Neil, I'm not sure that Artillia should be the designer on the latest F10. You may want to check information on this earlier version.
01:01:33 information on this earlier version. And I think you've suggested in your third statement that Miss Williams should have understood from that that Artillia would refuse to perform the role of principal designer. Is that your recollection? Yes,
01:01:46 it it is. So let's just perhaps look at your at your statement um art 409416 please at page four if we can look at um paragraph 16.
01:02:01 four if we can look at um paragraph 16. If you look at four lines down into that
01:02:05 you you explain that the email for was forwarded onto Clare Williams in a chain on the 20th of July. See that?
01:02:12 See that? Yes. Um,
01:02:15 Yes. Um, and in response to this chain, Clare Williams commented on 20th of July 2015 that she was not sure that AUK should be the designer on the latest F10 form and noted that AUK was an unlikely designer exclamation mark. Um, and then if you go
01:02:27 exclamation mark. Um, and then if you go to page five and look at paragraph 20, sub paragraph B, you repeat the point just there. So the question then arises
01:02:40 just there. So the question then arises for me. Why did you assume that Clare Williams had read six pages down into the email chain to see that Artilia was not willing to take on the role of principal designer and the reasons for it
01:02:52 and the reasons for it because also she had identified that on the F10 that Artellia was being identified as principal designer and that she had said that we were an unlikely designer. I I I see. So you took from that that
01:03:04 I I I see. So you took from that that she had read all the way down through the long string of forwarded email discussions within Artellia. Not saying that she would have done necessarily, but um that's what my
01:03:15 necessarily, but um that's what my assumption is. Yes. And the fact that she'd commented on the F10 as well. Could you just ask me just tell me why why was Claire Williams not actually told the reason that we see here that Artilia was not in control of design
01:03:26 Artilia was not in control of design directly by you or anyone else at Artillia? I believe there was another email which identified that she had to appoint a principal designer at a similar time from Colin James. Yeah. And we'll come to that. My my
01:03:37 Yeah. And we'll come to that. My my question is why was Clare Williams not told the reason at this point? Namely that Artivia was not in control of design
01:03:44 design because it was still because at that time Paul Burrows was was looking for an answer that whether or not we were in control of design. Right. Okay. Well, if we go to the top
01:03:55 Right. Okay. Well, if we go to the top of the email chain, we've got um this is art, back to art 406286, you can see that there was a uh a mix up with the F10. Just go to the
01:04:06 uh a mix up with the F10. Just go to the top, go to the top of the chain, page one.
01:04:11 one. Uh
01:04:18 Clare Williams comes back on the 20th of July and says, "Whoops, here is the one I'm asking you to check against. Artillia are an unlikely designer. Is it your evidence that this statement
01:04:30 Is it your evidence that this statement indicates that Miss Williams understood very well in July 2015 that Artillia wasn't going to act as principal designer come October? Yes.
01:04:41 Yes. Right
01:04:43 Right now, as I say, you're not on this email chain, but you've given evidence about it in your statement, which is why I'm asking you about it. Um, can we then go to art 404398?
01:04:54 to art 404398? This is an email from Neil Reed to Colin James and Katrina Stonley.
01:05:00 Uh, and this time you are copied in on it and it's also dated the 20th of July 2015.
01:05:07 2015. Neil Reed says, "Thanks for this. I've sent on to client uh and he attaches a document and the document is a revised F10 for
01:05:19 and the document is a revised F10 for Granfell Road apparently. Um, and if we go to that document, that's at art uh 404399
01:05:31 you see that
01:05:35 um here is the notification that you referred to earlier at least generically and it's dated the 20th of July 2015. If we look at the first page uh on at the bottom,
01:05:47 bottom, can you see that it it says about twothirds of the way down the page about those involved in the project, you see it says role principal designer uh name Artellia UK Limited email Colin
01:06:00 uh name Artellia UK Limited email Colin James at Artellia. So that's showing that this document um was telling the EHSSE that Colin James of Artilia is the principal designer.
01:06:13 of Artilia is the principal designer. This was the document that was sent to Claire Williams that she commented on saying that Artellia was an unlikely designer. I'm not sure whether or not this was the actual form that was finally submitted to the HSSE.
01:06:26 finally submitted to the HSSE. Uh
01:06:27 Uh fair enough, but and I think you've answered my my question. So this is the document that was sent to Miss Williams as we've seen from the 20th of July email that goes to her. Yes.
01:06:37 Yes. Yes. And when she says, "Artilia, an unlikely designer," did you understand when you saw this, and I think you do because you you've said so essentially, that she was expressing surprise that Artillia had put themselves down in this
01:06:49 Artillia had put themselves down in this form, this F10, as a principal designer, correct?
01:06:55 correct? Because she's seen the F10 that was sent on to her, which you've now corrected. So, returning to Mr. reads comments in his email if we can go back to it. A art 404398
01:07:05 404398 if we can please. He goes on to say, "However, in the meantime, we are wondering if we should be the principal designer and what
01:07:16 be the principal designer and what happens in October 2015. We need to explain to the client who needs to do what." So at this point, can we take it that you and others at Artillia were alive to the fact that a discussion needed to be had about who
01:07:29 discussion needed to be had about who was to be the principal designer on the Grrenfield Tower project at least come October?
01:07:33 October? Correct.
01:07:34 Correct. Can we then go to art 40418 because we now see Mr. James's response, Colin James' response to Clare Williams's email of the 20th of July.
01:07:45 Williams's email of the 20th of July. Here is his response of the 21st of July. Uh and uh Neil Reed is copied in. You're not I think copied on that. And he says, "Hi Clare, the the 2015 CDM
01:07:56 he says, "Hi Clare, the the 2015 CDM regulations have replaced the CDM coordinator with principal designer and the new F10 uses this title. Existing F10s will also change to the new format when they are revised as is the case here. by to the 6th of October 2015, the
01:08:09 here. by to the 6th of October 2015, the client must appoint a PD, principal designer, under the new regulations for all new projects and existing projects that extend beyond that date. Now, it's clear from this that Mr. James' response
01:08:21 clear from this that Mr. James' response doesn't highlight any difference between the CDM coordinator role that Artilia had at that point and that was going to disappear and the new principal designer role, does it?
01:08:33 principal designer role, does it? No, it doesn't. And it doesn't spell out to the TMO the consequences to them as a client of not appointing a principal designer.
01:08:42 designer. Correct.
01:08:42 Correct. Yeah. And looking at this response, do you agree that you could fairly read this email as meaning that the principal designer is a straight replacement of the CDMC?
01:08:55 Somebody might infer that, but I didn't say I wouldn't necessarily say that is a given.
01:09:00 given. Yes. I and and you wouldn't say that as a given because it was it would be wrong. But it it and you would know why it was wrong. Uh but it may be that somebody who less versed in the detail
01:09:11 somebody who less versed in the detail might might think that a principal designer was being said to be a straight replacement for the CDNC
01:09:19 potentially. Yes. Yes. Can we then go to this is an offline document. I think we need art 400 9332.
01:09:40 and if if you can't find the offline version, we can try the the non-offline version.
01:09:50 This should be an email. It is an email chain of September 2015. Can we start at page um seven and 8 and just at the very bottom bottom of
01:10:01 and just at the very bottom bottom of seven
01:10:05 uh
01:10:09 we can see Andrew Malcolm's email to Neil Reed of the 10th of September. You see that it's a it's it's a in two colors because um Neil Reed I think has
01:10:21 colors because um Neil Reed I think has responded but uh if you go over the page you can see Neil Neil Reed's response the same day copy to you.
01:10:34 Yes, that's that. If we go back to page seven I'm so sorry page this is over two pages. Um
01:10:41 pages. Um this is the one I want. Neil Reed 10th of September to Mel to Andrew Malcolm copied to you and Paul Burrows. Uh and
01:10:53 if you go then to page five. Well perhaps we should perhaps we should just stick on that so that you've got the detail. He says Andrew read your email below. These are all good questions and exactly why I raised the
01:11:05 questions and exactly why I raised the email as I did to Paul etal on 21st of July. Re what does artillia wish stroke need to do? CDM 2015. We need to advise our client comments added below and the
01:11:16 our client comments added below and the comments are set out on page seven. Paul, please can you determine in conjunction with Simon Cash and then action whatever it is Artelia needs to do on this project to ensure client compliance with CDM 2015. Thanks PS. I
01:11:28 compliance with CDM 2015. Thanks PS. I assume you have approached have an approach consistent with the situation on other projects. Thanks in regards Neil. And then if we go to page five, I just want to track through track this through with you. Page five. At the top of page five,
01:11:41 of page five, uh,
01:11:45 you see Colin James comes back next day. You're copied in. Hi, Neil. The client needs to appoint a principal designer prior to 6th of October, 2015. I'm not sure what the scope of our involvement
01:11:56 sure what the scope of our involvement is on this project. However, if we have control over the designers, we can be appointed as principal designer. Please see attached appointment template. And then further up page five and on to well
01:12:07 then further up page five and on to well further up page five. I think you have
01:12:13 you have uh your email to Neil Reed. Neil, I thought this question had had already been raised with Clare and we'd advised her that Artilia are not in the position to take on the principal designer role
01:12:24 to take on the principal designer role and that the TMO should approach Rydens to take it on as they are in control of the design process. Now, so that's your response. And then if you go to the bottom of page four, you get a response from Neil Reed
01:12:39 where he says, "Not formally to my knowledge. I think Paul Strait Collins should write to set out the situation and and recommend action, although should letter come from you query." And then I'm sorry to take
01:12:53 you query." And then I'm sorry to take so long over this, Mr. Cash. Go to the top of page one. You can see in the second email from the top, Neil, simple fact is that we cannot act as a PD. So
01:13:04 fact is that we cannot act as a PD. So choices are to ask Ryden to take on the role. They they are responsible for design, but they are not obliged to take it on. If not, TMA will have to engage someone direct. And then Mr. Reed uh says, okay, thanks
01:13:16 And then Mr. Reed uh says, okay, thanks Sai. That is my understanding, but I didn't know if Paul had found a way or desire for Artiller to provide it given discussions at Whizzley. Just uh just on that what do the discussions at Whizzley refer to?
01:13:26 refer to? I'm not sure. Okay. Do you agree that even as at midepptember 2015 not even the employer's agent Neil Reed by which he was by that stage was sure if Artidia
01:13:38 was by that stage was sure if Artidia was going to act as principal designer come the 6th of October. He was still looking to find a way as to whether or not we would or wouldn't. But there had already been prior discussions, albeit as he says, it's not
01:13:50 discussions, albeit as he says, it's not been formally noted about the fact that we wouldn't take on the PD role. Right.
01:13:57 Right. I mean, there'd been no formal notification to the TMO about the need for it to assume the role of principal designer as at this stage had it had there
01:14:05 there not formal no or even I think informal other than the discussions we've seen in July. There may have been intervening discussions. I can't remember. Right. Right. Well, um let's see. If you
01:14:16 Right. Right. Well, um let's see. If you go to your third statement, um you make a reference there. This is page um
01:14:25 uh page seven, you make in your you make a reference to progress meeting number 15 on the 15th of September, 2015.
01:14:37 2015. Uh, and if we go to um the notes of that meeting, that's art 406731,
01:14:45 406731, please.
01:14:47 please. These are the minutes of that meeting. It's easier to take it from the minutes. Now, you weren't there, but you do refer to these minutes in your statement. So, I'm assuming that you're able to answer questions about it. And if you look at page seven of this meeting minute,
01:15:01 page seven of this meeting minute, Andrew, Andrew, Malcolm, and Neil Reed were there. Uh, and it's an artilleria document as they always are. If you look at page seven at the top of it, page page seven, paragraph 7.3,
01:15:13 page seven, paragraph 7.3, it says CDM 2015 CW to a point a principal designer from the TMO's new consultancy framework. Now, it it do you accept that it wasn't
01:15:26 Now, it it do you accept that it wasn't until September, midepptember 2015, i.e. this meeting and in these minutes that the TMO can really be taken to have understood that that they needed to appoint a principal designer.
01:15:37 appoint a principal designer. It was the first time that it was formally recorded. Yes. And and that being so, do you accept that this was the first time that the TMO were really firmly and clearly
01:15:50 the TMO were really firmly and clearly alive to the fact that they needed to appoint a principal designer? I'm not sure what conversations had occurred prior to this meeting, but this was the first time, as I say, it was formally noted. Yes. All right. Now, we then move on to the
01:16:03 All right. Now, we then move on to the appointment of a principal designer. We know that Artillia refused to perform that role on the Granville Tower project. Um, your reasons, I think, were that you weren't in control of the
01:16:14 that you weren't in control of the design. Is that right? Correct.
01:16:17 Correct. I think you do say that actually at paragraph 217 of your first witness statement. Um, can we then look at a different part of that statement
01:16:28 that statement at page 70, your first witness statement at page 70, because we here see how you describe how you told Clare Williams of the change on the 25th of September,
01:16:41 of the change on the 25th of September, 2015. And you could say, you see what you say there. Uh if you look at page paragraph 222
01:16:50 um you uh you summarize a conversation in an email to Paul Burrows and Neil Reed on the 25th of September and you've set that out there. There's no need to turn to that. uh
01:17:05 uh but if we actually we you can see that the first part of it says under the CDM 20 under the CDM 2015 the CDMC role
01:17:16 20 under the CDM 2015 the CDMC role terminates at close of 5th of October the road of CDMC has been abolished and the new role created that of principal designer that it looks from that as if this is the first time you're spelling out to Clare Williams exactly what it is
01:17:29 out to Clare Williams exactly what it is that's happening because they up to that point in time there seemed to be an impression that Artellia would take on that role and I wanted to make it absolutely clear uh
01:17:40 wanted to make it absolutely clear uh despite any previous conversations that may or may not have taken place that that was our position. Right. Well, let's then we perhaps we ought to look at the document. Can we can we see it? It's art 406195.
01:18:03 Uh, and this is an email to Paul Burrows and Neil Reed on the 25th of September, 2015.
01:18:11 2015. And you say, Neil, Paul, I've just had a conversation with Clare to try and clarify what's been going backwards and forwards in terms of what the TMO need to do as this seemed different to what Bailey Garner was saying to her. Just pausing there. Bailey Garner were who? I
01:18:24 pausing there. Bailey Garner were who? I believe they were a consultant on their framework. What was their role in the Grenell Tower project?
01:18:30 project? I don't know. They I don't believe they had one.
01:18:32 had one. Right. Why were they talking to her about this subject? Do you know? Because she had, I believe, talked to them as one of their consultants on the framework about taking on the principal
01:18:43 framework about taking on the principal designer role. And you go on to say, "What I've said is uh the current role of the CDM coordinator ceases to exist as of 5th October.
01:18:52 October. The TMAO must appoint a principal designer. Bailey Garner are not prepared to take on the role as they say the PD should be involved with the project from inception.
01:19:03 And then there are other things too. But just on that bullet point there, that second bullet point, um
01:19:12 um you are are telling Paul Burrows that you have said to Clare Williams that the TMO must appoint a principal designer. And just going back to my point again, is this a record of that conversation in
01:19:25 is this a record of that conversation in which you were really making it clear to the TMO yourself at least for the very first time?
01:19:31 Yes. In terms of spelling it out because obviously it still wasn't the message wasn't getting through from previous conversations because the issue was going backwards and forwards between ourselves and the TMO and they were
01:19:42 ourselves and the TMO and they were still trying to push us to become the principal designer.
01:19:47 Now you you go on to say in the second bullet point, my response is that this situation is not common to this project and many organizations are being engaged due to the transition of roles who have
01:19:59 due to the transition of roles who have not been involved with projects since inception such as the way of legislation. Does that mean that that this problem about advising clients about them taking on the PD role was not confined to the
01:20:11 on the PD role was not confined to the Granville Tower project and was a generic problem across the industry? Yes. Right. Was it your view at the time that if if no principal designer was forthcoming, then the TMO had the option of engaging
01:20:23 then the TMO had the option of engaging somebody else? In other words, somebody not previously engaged on the project or really do they have no choice and have to take it on themselves? If if they couldn't if if uh none of the existing members of the team were to
01:20:36 existing members of the team were to take on that role and they didn't want to engage or they couldn't engage somebody else, then yes, they would automatically take that role on board. Right. Let's look at the third bullet. You say however for this project her first port of call should be Ryden as
01:20:47 first port of call should be Ryden as they are the D&B contractor and as such manage the design process and are responsible for the design. If Ryden are not prepared to take on the PN take the P and D role take the PD role on then
01:20:59 P and D role take the PD role on then the next option is to ask if Studio E would take on the role through Ryden. Now Ryden were asked whether they would be principal designers, weren't they? I believe so. Yes. They refused, didn't they? Yes.
01:21:09 Yes. Studio E were asked, weren't they? Yes.
01:21:11 Yes. And they refused, didn't they? Yes. And at one point, I think it seemed as if John Rowan and Partners would perform that role. Do you remember that? They had, I believe, uh, expressed an
01:21:23 They had, I believe, uh, expressed an interest and, uh, Neil Reed had recommended that Clare Williams speak to them.
01:21:29 them. Yes. And and what happened to that? I have no idea. Right.
01:21:37 Right. Now, if you look at see what Miss Williams says in her fourth witness statement. Uh, can we go to that? She that that's a TMO 20853697,
01:21:50 please. TMO20
01:21:53 TMO20 853697.
01:21:55 853697. And I'd like to just show you the first page there. That's her additional witness statement. And we can go to page four of that, please. And then and then over on to page five. I want just to look at paragraphs 20 and 21 with you. Um at
01:22:09 paragraphs 20 and 21 with you. Um at paragraph 20 she says on 1st of October 2015 I emailed Neil Reed highlighting various issues in relation to the project in respect of the change in CDM regulations. I queried as follows and
01:22:21 regulations. I queried as follows and then she sets out her query. CDM regulations change as long as the project team agree the design is fundamentally complete. Then we believe the provisions within the legislation allow KCTMO to request the principal
01:22:32 allow KCTMO to request the principal contractor to compile the health and safety file and issue direct without the formal appointment of a principal designer. Can we get this put into the meeting next week and check that the team agreed design is fundamentally complete and get this minuteed. I
01:22:45 complete and get this minuteed. I believe the expression fundamentally complete came from a discussion with Simon Cash. That's what she says. Uh, and then she goes on, the this email was formalizing the discussion that I'd
01:22:57 was formalizing the discussion that I'd had with Neil Reed's manager. At this point, Neil was a consultant to Artilia and not based in their office. I cannot recall Neil Reed ever advising that this arrangement was unacceptable under the new CDM regulations in 2015.
01:23:11 new CDM regulations in 2015. Um, a number of things followed from that. Um, would the design being fundamentally complete uh be a good reason for the TMO performing the role of principal designer?
01:23:24 it wouldn't uh be a um prerequisite in terms of them performing that role. I think it's just a it was a point in time. Uh I don't recall uh the the term
01:23:39 time. Uh I don't recall uh the the term fundamentally complete, but uh we probably would have had a discussion at the time about where the project would have been relative to when it was going to complete on the 23rd of October and the changeover on the 6th of October.
01:23:53 the changeover on the 6th of October. Who was it who came up with the idea um that the design was fundamentally complete so as to justify the TMO taking on the role of principal designer? That would have been the TMO. We nobody
01:24:07 That would have been the TMO. We nobody came up with a particular idea that was fundamentally complete. As I say, I don't remember the term being used, but obviously at that stage in the project, if there was only going to be 2 weeks after the changeover, then the the inference is that there should be no
01:24:19 inference is that there should be no design left and that they should be actually in the handover period. Well, we can see that she says in paragraph 21 that the expression fundamentally complete came from a discussion with you.
01:24:30 discussion with you. What do you say about that? I don't recall that. You don't recall it? Can we just look at your third witness statement page seven? I just want to go to paragraph 25 in that you'd say there
01:24:43 paragraph 25 in that you'd say there commenting on paragraph 21 uh that she believes the expression fundamentally complete relating to the progress of design on the project had come from a discussion she had with me. I cannot recall whether I said this to her at the
01:24:56 recall whether I said this to her at the time the project was due to complete on the 23rd of October 2015. The design should have been near to completion at such a late stage in the project. So it is possible that I discussed this or something similar in nature with her. Is is that still your evidence?
01:25:08 is that still your evidence? Yes.
01:25:08 Yes. Yes.
01:25:13 Did did you consider when having that discussion with her uh that the TMO would be giving themselves duties imposed by regulations
01:25:24 themselves duties imposed by regulations 11 and 12 under the new 2015 regulations? I knew that they would be giving themselves duties were not necessarily what they specifically were under 11 and 12 um because I didn't know
01:25:35 under 11 and 12 um because I didn't know what the specific wording of those regulations were.
01:25:42 And to your mind, what relevance is a design being fundamentally complete have to producing a health and safety file? the design. Well, to produce the health
01:25:53 the design. Well, to produce the health and safety file, there has to be information in there as to how to uh maintain and operate the building in a safe manner uh and carry out maintenance works in a safe manner. Uh so it could
01:26:04 works in a safe manner. Uh so it could be uh record information of the design uh once it is completed fundamentally complete is not complete. It has to be completed to actually
01:26:15 It has to be completed to actually fulfill the or to prepare a full health and safety farm. Indeed. Did you advise the TMO precisely on what duties they were undertaking if if taking on the role of principal
01:26:26 if taking on the role of principal designer?
01:26:27 designer? Not me particularly, but I know that Paul Burrows did actually advise the TMO of the differences between a CDM coordinator and a principal designer, identifying what the principal designer's role was,
01:26:40 designer's role was, right? Uh you say Paul Burrows did. Do you know when he did or how he did that? Uh, I can't remember specifically the dates, but I know it was probably around this time. I see. Mr. Chairman, is that a convenient moment?
01:26:51 convenient moment? Yes, I would think it is. How you how you doing? We're doing quite well. We've got about um
01:26:58 um probably another hour maximum on the questions I've prepared. Um, and then there'll be have to be a short break to see whether there are any other questions which are coming in from core participants. But that is a that is a
01:27:09 participants. But that is a that is a very much a maximum. Right. All right. Well, Mr. We're going to have a break a break now and we'll come back of course to the 12. Right. Thank you. And uh please don't talk to anyone about
01:27:20 And uh please don't talk to anyone about your evidence or anything to do with it while you're out of the room. I won't. Thank you. Thank you very much. We'd like to go with the usher.
01:27:40 Course 12, please. Okay.
01:44:07 Yes. Would you ask Mr. Cash to come back in, please?
01:44:23 Right, Mr. Cash. Yes.
01:44:24 Yes. Yes, Mr. Mill. Now, Mr. Cash, uh, in your third witness statement, and I don't think we need to go to it, paragraph 17, you say you had a conversation with Miss Williams about
01:44:35 a conversation with Miss Williams about Artilia performing the role of CDM compliance advisor on the 25th of September, 2015. We can look at it if you want to, but that's what you say there. Yes.
01:44:45 Yes. Yes. Um, can we look back please at art 406195?
01:44:51 This is the email which we saw just before the break which records that that conversation and in the last bullet um you say you're telling um Paul Burrows
01:45:04 you say you're telling um Paul Burrows the the CDM compliance advisor role is not a project specific role but rather a clientside role and one uh which uh one that we can fulfill advising clients of their obligations
01:45:16 advising clients of their obligations under the new regulations and ensuring that their project managers PDs and PCs are all doing what they should be under the new regulations similar to the role we are offering to Lambbeath. Now, what tasks specifically did you think the CDM
01:45:28 tasks specifically did you think the CDM compliance advisor would perform? Specifically, I wasn't um I hadn't considered uh in any detail, but it was particularly in terms of uh the health
01:45:40 particularly in terms of uh the health and safety file and making sure that the client or principal designer, if the client wasn't the principal designer, uh would be pulling together the health and safety file. Right. I see. So the CDM is it right
01:45:52 Right. I see. So the CDM is it right that the CDM compliance advisor role that you've referred to there would would make would involve ensuring uh that the health and safety file was complete?
01:46:02 complete? Not necessarily. It would be ensuring that the whoever is responsible for it would complete it. So advising I see. So advising the TMO in this case that the H that the health and safety file was of their obligations
01:46:14 and safety file was of their obligations to ensure that the health and safety file was complete. Correct.
01:46:17 Correct. Yes.
01:46:19 Yes. Now we know that the TMO decided not to appoint a CDM compliance adviser. Do you know why that was? Uh they decided to take that role themselves. Yes. Do you know why that was? No.
01:46:29 No. Right. Um we then turn to the next topic which is the TMO's own decision to perform the role of principal designer which we know they decided to do themselves. Can we look at um ART 409351
01:46:42 themselves. Can we look at um ART 409351 please? Um and go to page three. This is an email from you to Andrew Malcolm on the 23rd of October 2015
01:46:53 Malcolm on the 23rd of October 2015 copying other people from Artilia as we can see and it'll read Paul Burrows and at the top of the page uh in the second paragraph
01:47:03 paragraph uh you you say there Paul Burrows is responsible for all matters relating to CDM.
01:47:10 CDM. Uh well I should just show you the first line actually because it's relevant. I've spoken to CLA, but that was to say that we are not in a position to act as PD.
01:47:19 PD. Uh was that a a later discussion from the one in September that you referred to or is it a was it the discussion that you had in in September?
01:47:30 you had in in September? I can't recall. And you go on to say Paul Barrows is responsible for all matters relating to CDM and the action is with him to sort out what is going on. No one else is qualified to deal with this. By no one
01:47:41 qualified to deal with this. By no one else is qualified. Do we correctly understand you to mean that dealing with CDM requires specialist skills? It it requires uh to to be qual. Yes, it
01:47:53 It it requires uh to to be qual. Yes, it requires specialist skills because it needs an understanding of the regulations and the intricacies of those regulations. Right. What would be a qualification? You say no one else is qualified to deal with this. What sort of qualification would you need? I wouldn't I wasn't
01:48:04 would you need? I wouldn't I wasn't saying that he was he had a particular qualification but um he would be uh I would he was a member of um I believe AOP and uh that um that uh he was the
01:48:19 AOP and uh that um that uh he was the business's uh health and safety adviser corporate health and safety adviser uh and uh actually had an in-depth knowledge of CDM regulations right would you agree that the role of
01:48:30 right would you agree that the role of principal designer under the new CDM regulations as they uh in October 2015 was a specialist position requiring specialist expertise. I wouldn't know whether it was a specialist position
01:48:41 whether it was a specialist position because in fact the role of principal designer is taken on by uh different types of people whether it be a project manager or an architect or a contractor
01:48:52 manager or an architect or a contractor whatever they were would you agree that the role
01:48:56 the role uh would require specialist knowledge and expertise it would require knowledge I wouldn't necessarily say it's specialist it would need an understanding of the regulations fine and a and an understanding of the
01:49:09 fine and a and an understanding of the consequences of the regulations and what they had to do under them presumably. Yes.
01:49:13 Yes. Yes. Did you think at the time that it was sensible for the TMO to perform that role itself and what you knew of them? They were an educated client and they as far as I was concerned would understand
01:49:24 far as I was concerned would understand what the role of a principal designer was because they actually were carrying out other capital works uh in within their organization and therefore this wasn't a solely issue solely an issue on this project. Did you
01:49:38 this project. Did you have the view at the time that Clare Williams and those assisting her in in relation to the Grenfell project had sufficiently specialist expertise and and familiarity with all the obligations
01:49:49 and familiarity with all the obligations in the new legislation, the new regulations to be able to perform their obligations as principal designer there. I don't know what uh level of knowledge
01:50:00 I don't know what uh level of knowledge they had specifically, but in terms of what was left to do on the project. I didn't feel uncomfortable in them taking on that role. I see. So you didn't think that that it was not very sensible to per for them to
01:50:12 was not very sensible to per for them to perform that role and indeed do so without a CDM compliance advisor? We were offering a service a bit like we did with the CDM design sorry as we did
01:50:23 did with the CDM design sorry as we did with the client design advisor role uh where we felt that we could help support them. It was up to them as to whether or not they took that that offer up
01:50:34 right now. Can we then turn to a short topic um namely preconstruction information under the CDM regulations? Um, I I think it's right that under the
01:50:46 Um, I I think it's right that under the 2007 regulations, the CDM coordinator had a statutory obligation to deliver pre-construction information to the main contractor. Was that your understanding? Correct.
01:50:56 Correct. Can we look at Ryd's 92644, please? This is the pre-construction information that Artillia provided in November 2013, and you can see it's dated the 25th of November 2013. Did you um read this at
01:51:09 November 2013. Did you um read this at the time it was released? Can't remember if I specifically read through the detail. Well, I would have been aware of that document. Right. Can we look at page 14 and look at paragraph 2.14, please? Fire precautions. And it says there in the
01:51:21 precautions. And it says there in the second paragraph, the principal contractor shall not remove or displace any of the firefighting stroke fire protection arrangements provided for the normal operation of the building stroke area without first agreeing and
01:51:32 area without first agreeing and arranging the implementation of adequate alternative arrangements. Um, I think it's right that the pre-construction information document doesn't anywhere provide any information in the form of descriptions or or drawings or the like
01:51:44 descriptions or or drawings or the like to show the firefighting or fire protection arrangements, does it? I don't believe it does. No. No. And without that information, do you know how the contractor would know what they should do with the firefighting measures?
01:51:55 measures? There would be uh they would look at whatever record information there is in existence within the TMO. Could you go to page 15 then please and look at section 2.15
01:52:08 and um this uh is entitled emergency procedures and means of escape. Refer to the following for details of means of escape and you can see there uh what those include um location plan site area
01:52:21 those include um location plan site area access plan phasing plan and other uh and existing emergency procedures and fire plan. You see that? Yes.
01:52:29 Yes. But again, as you've I think accepted, this document doesn't append those drawings or plans, does it? I don't know if this is a document that sits within an overall pack of
01:52:40 sits within an overall pack of information that was issued for tender. So, I can't remember whether or not those documents were included in the overall tender information pack that was issued.
01:52:48 issued. I see. I mean, it doesn't on the face of it give you any guidance as to what the plan is or where to find it or what number it has or anything like that. Any of these plans? No, it doesn't. No.
01:52:58 No. Do you think that on that basis the pre-contract information was incomplete? No. If if the the documents were included in the overall tender pack, then uh it would have been with Rydens to have checked everything that was in
01:53:10 to have checked everything that was in that that pack. Right. And if they weren't, then they they should have raised a a a technical query requesting where that information was if it wasn't available. But if they weren't, would you accept that the pre-contract information was
01:53:22 that the pre-contract information was incomplete? If the information wasn't available, then we couldn't have provided it. But that's that's where it should have been. Can we then turn to the health and safety file? And I want to start with
01:53:33 safety file? And I want to start with the a discussion with you about the preparation of the health and safety file. Uh under the uh excuse me, under the 2007 regulations, it was the CDMC,
01:53:44 the 2007 regulations, it was the CDMC, the CDM coordinator who was to produce the health and safety file. Is does was that your understanding? Yes.
01:53:50 Yes. Yes. Can we then just look very briefly at the regulations? They are at INQ3011315
01:53:58 please. And at page 10 in that document, we can find regulation 20 which pertains to the duties of a CDM coordinator. You can see the general heading there. Uh and and if you go over
01:54:12 heading there. Uh and and if you go over to page 11, we can see regulation 20 subregulation 2E. Prepare when none exists and otherwise review and update a record the health
01:54:23 review and update a record the health and safety file containing information relating to the project which is likely to be needed during any subsequent construction work to ensure the health and safety of any person including the information provided in pursuance of
01:54:34 information provided in pursuance of regulations 171 182 and 221J.
01:54:40 Do you accept looking at that that there was a statutory duty uh to prepare a health a record of health and safety information relating to the project?
01:54:51 information relating to the project? Correct.
01:54:51 Correct. Yeah. And then if we look to Ryd 3092644 then this is back to the pre-construction information report. I just want to go in this to section
01:55:04 I just want to go in this to section 3.14
01:55:06 3.14 on page 18.
01:55:10 Um and it says there existing health and safety file a health and safety file as defined by the regulations is not available for this building. Now in the circumstances where there was no health
01:55:22 circumstances where there was no health and safety file for Grrenfield Tower at that time so November 13 would you have expected Artellia to produce one? No.
01:55:29 No. Why not? because uh those regulations refer to not only refurbishment or conu uh projects but also to new construction projects where there wouldn't have been
01:55:40 projects where there wouldn't have been a health and safety part. What it is is saying is that the the obligation is to produce one but it doesn't say when and uh as is normally the practice if uh the
01:55:51 uh as is normally the practice if uh the information for the health and safety file is amassed during the project and the health and safety file is produced at the end of the project when all of the information is available and there's no further changes to be made to that information. I'm not really sure I
01:56:03 information. I'm not really sure I follow that given that Artilleria was the CDMC and given the obligation under regulation 22E which we've just looked at together to prepare a health and safety file. Why? And given that one
01:56:16 safety file. Why? And given that one didn't exist as at November 2013, why wasn't it Artillia's job in that role to produce a health and safety file? It was, but as I say, it doesn't say specifically at that point in time.
01:56:28 specifically at that point in time. There was no information to prepare a health and safety file upon at that point in time. So therefore we have to prepare one and we can only prepare it based on the information that eventually becomes available from the various parties that uh are asked to supply that
01:56:41 parties that uh are asked to supply that information. So the TMO uh the contractor and the designers supply the information that go into that health and safety file and that plan was issued by Keith Bushell identifying who the various parties were that contributed to
01:56:53 various parties were that contributed to that health and safety file and you can't produce it without that information. So it's it's very much reliant on those parties to provide that information. Right. I understand that answer.
01:57:04 Right. I understand that answer. Did you or anybody under your tutilage um ever spell out to the TMO as the client or Ryden as the contractor as
01:57:16 client or Ryden as the contractor as they became what precise information you needed as the CM CDMC to be able to discharge your functions uh under regulation 20 subregulation 2E?
01:57:29 uh under regulation 20 subregulation 2E? I didn't personally. Uh I believe that Keith Bushell did. I believe he did. Do you know when he did and how he did? Uh he would have he issued a template identifying what information was
01:57:40 identifying what information was required from which party and and to your knowledge um how far did that get uh as at 2000 the October of 2015. How developed was it?
01:57:52 2015. How developed was it? I don't know. But uh I would say it's probably quite limited because as I say that information is not normally uh amassed and gathered until the end of the project. Can we then go to Artilia's contract
01:58:03 Can we then go to Artilia's contract again? This is ART 405742 page 61. I just want to go back to the schedule of the CDMC services that Artilia agreed to perform there. And if
01:58:15 Artilia agreed to perform there. And if we look at paragraph seven under those obligations, it says give suitable and sufficient advice and assistance to the client on the following measures and and then they are various measures
01:58:27 and and then they are various measures set out. Uh and at item E at the bottom sub paragraph E providing health and safety information for the health and safety file regulation 21A.
01:58:38 safety file regulation 21A. You see that? So so the obligation wasn't only in the regulations, it was also part of your contract. Yes. And then if we go over the page to page um 62 please we can see paragraph 10. It
01:58:52 62 please we can see paragraph 10. It says lies with the principal contractor on and then item C the contents of the health and safety file. Do you see that? Yes.
01:58:59 Yes. And again there's a reference to regulation 21 C 20 sub regulation one subregulation C. And then again over the page uh or the bottom of the page to or
01:59:10 page uh or the bottom of the page to or lower down the page to paragraph 13. prepare when none exists or otherwise review and update the health and safety file incorporating relevant information from other duty holders. And there's a reference to regulation 28 sub
01:59:21 reference to regulation 28 sub regulation 2E there and then under 14 immediately below it deliver TWWO 2 as opposed to TMO copies
01:59:32 deliver TWWO 2 as opposed to TMO copies of the health and safety file to the client and that is the regulation sub subregulation F. Now summarizing it, do you agree that it was Artilia's duty under the 2007 regulations and the
01:59:45 under the 2007 regulations and the contract that we've just been looking at? First of all, to prepare a health and safety file where none previously existed.
01:59:52 existed. Yes.
01:59:54 Yes. Secondly, to advise the TMO on the information to be put into the health and safety file and other members of who would need to contribute to it. Yes. Thirdly, lies with Ryden on the contents
02:00:06 Thirdly, lies with Ryden on the contents that were required for the health and safety file. Correct.
02:00:09 Correct. Fourthly, to deliver two copies of that file to the client. Yes.
02:00:13 Yes. Yes.
02:00:14 Yes. Can we then go to INQ3013936?
02:00:19 This is the um approved code of practice for the 2007 regulations which we looked at before, otherwise known as L144.
02:00:33 And if we go to page 58 in that document and look at paragraph 259,
02:00:41 you can see that it says there uh what you must do and there's a reference to, as you can see in the little box on the left, regulation 20, subregulation 1 C and 2e, which we've been looking at in
02:00:53 and 2e, which we've been looking at in the terms in terms of the contract and the regulations. C can I just ask you are you familiar with this document or were you familiar with this document? No.
02:01:01 No. Right. So you I know of its existence but I wasn't familiar with it uh with the detail of its contents. Okay. Um well if we look at um paragraph 259
02:01:13 259 it says under what you must do clients designers principal contractors other contractors and CDM coordinators all have legal duties in respect of the health and safety file. And then if you look a little bit lower down, A, it says
02:01:25 look a little bit lower down, A, it says CDM coordinators must prepare, review, amend, or add to the file as the as the project progresses and give it to the client at the end of the project. Now, did you know well, let me let me try it
02:01:37 did you know well, let me let me try it this way. Does that suggest or did that suggest if you've read this, I suppose, that the CDM coordinator should be compiling the health and safety file during the project as you go, not at the
02:01:48 during the project as you go, not at the end.
02:01:49 end. As the information becomes available. Yes.
02:01:51 Yes. Yes.
02:01:52 Yes. And although as you say you weren't familiar with the details of this ACOP at the time, is that your understanding that the CDMC should be compiling the health and safety file on an as you go basis once
02:02:04 safety file on an as you go basis once the information becomes available? Once it becomes available and not leaving it to the last minute. Well, it doesn't if the information doesn't become available until the end of the project, then that is the only time that you have the opportunity to do so.
02:02:15 so. And that is the normal course. That's the way that that's how projects normally run. Some projects have sectional completions or phase completions in which case then the health and safety file is updated as those sections are completed and that is
02:02:28 those sections are completed and that is how that's how the industry interprets that particular uh particular requirement in terms of the regulations. Right. So is it your understanding just
02:02:39 Right. So is it your understanding just so I've got it that even though this ACOP says
02:02:44 ACOP says uh that CDM coordinators must uh prepare review amend and add to the file as the project progresses in practice your experience was that that didn't happen and it was done at the end once all the
02:02:56 and it was done at the end once all the information was available. Yes.
02:02:58 Yes. Right. Well let's then turn to what was prepared. Can we go to art 404765 please? This is an email from Paul Burrows
02:03:09 Burrows to Clare Williams on the 24th of September
02:03:12 September 2015. There it is on the screen and your copied in. And it says, "Hi, Cla. I will be consolidating the CDMC document for the Artillia project so that it can be issued to the principal designer under
02:03:23 issued to the principal designer under CDM 2015." Now, what did you understand to be the CDMC document that Paul Burrows was referring to there? It would have been any information that we have pertaining
02:03:35 any information that we have pertaining to the CDMC role that would be relevant to the principal designer role. Can you give us some specifics? What would it have included? What did you understand it would have included? I didn't understand it to in to include
02:03:46 I didn't understand it to in to include anything specific. It was a statement that Paul Burrows had made. I didn't think about what the contents of those documents might be. Right. But you understood that the CDMC would be the uh be or include the health
02:03:58 would be the uh be or include the health and safety file if we had any information. Yes. Did you divine from this or did you have any other um reason to think that you didn't have all the information you
02:04:09 didn't have all the information you needed at that stage for the CDMC? Well, I know that we wouldn't have had all of the information because the project hadn't completed at that stage. Right. But it was very close to
02:04:20 Right. But it was very close to completion, indeed sufficiently close to completion for Clare Williams to think that design was fundamentally complete. Given that and given that that was the basis on which he agreed to be principal designer what was outstanding what was
02:04:31 designer what was outstanding what was so importantly outstanding that you couldn't pull together the CDMC document or within that the health and safety file at that stage I don't know what information had been received uh in terms of the information
02:04:44 received uh in terms of the information that been outlined in the original template that had been sent much earlier in the project
02:04:50 right were you surprised that the CDMC document was only been compiled filed at this late stage? No.
02:04:58 No. But is that because of the practice that you referred to before that it was left until late on? Correct. And also that uh our role in the project was coming to an end and
02:05:09 the project was coming to an end and that we would need to hand over whatever information that we had to the principal designer.
02:05:15 designer. What would you have expected to have been handed over at this stage? We're looking at late or lateish September 2015.
02:05:23 2015. I didn't have any expectations of any particular documents other than what was what what the CDM coordinator may have had received uh and what other information had been prepared. So there would have been the template for the
02:05:35 would have been the template for the health and safety file certainly and any pre-construction information which the principal designer wouldn't necessarily have had uh a copy of if it had not if it was uh somebody that was else somebody else being appointed other than
02:05:47 somebody else being appointed other than the TMO.
02:05:47 the TMO. Right.
02:05:50 Right. Uh
02:05:52 Uh can we
02:05:55 I mean we know that the project should have been completed by October 2015 and I think the revised completion date was the 23rd of October 2015 as we saw from
02:06:06 the 23rd of October 2015 as we saw from the EOT reference earlier on given that completion of this project was really imminent by this point. We were only a month away from the extended period. Um, could you just explain why you wouldn't
02:06:17 could you just explain why you wouldn't have expected more by way of documentation to be available to be put into the health and safety file? Because the the project actually subsequently extended beyond the 23rd of October.
02:06:27 October. You didn't know that at the time? No, I didn't. But it was uh obviously the information hadn't been issued and or despite I don't know what levels of requests had been made, but the information wasn't there and wasn't
02:06:38 information wasn't there and wasn't available. Did it trouble you that it wasn't there and wasn't available? I wasn't. It didn't trouble me because I knew that that eventually whatever when we get to the end of the project that a health and safety file will be amassed and produced. Right. Well, let's let's see what was
02:06:50 Right. Well, let's let's see what was available at the time. Can we go to art 409351,
02:06:54 409351, please?
02:06:57 please? This is an email of the 23rd of O. Sorry. This is an email chain internally within Artellia. Uh, and this one is um from Andrew Malcolm to Paul Burrow's copy to you on
02:07:09 Malcolm to Paul Burrow's copy to you on the 26th of October, but has an it has an earlier history. If we go to page four, please, we can see that on the 23rd of October, Andrew Malcolm writes to Neil Reed, copy to you. Neil,
02:07:21 to Neil Reed, copy to you. Neil, apparently you have all the CDM information. Apparently, Simon has spoken with Clare. Seems as if Neil, can you send the information to Clare referencing conversation that she had with Simon
02:07:32 with Simon again? That conversation, was that the one in September or was there a later conversation about what the CDM information was that she would be getting? Do you remember? I can't remember. No, I can't remember. Uh, and if you go up
02:07:45 I can't remember. Uh, and if you go up the chain
02:07:48 the chain to the next email, he just on that page, um, Andrew Malcolm, sorry, um, it starts at the bottom of page three, I think. We need to see that one. Neil Reed writes
02:08:00 need to see that one. Neil Reed writes to Andrew Malcolm on the 23rd of October. We need to go back to the top of page four because it's split copy to you. I don't have anything guys and whatever is being issued needs to come from Paul andor via Simon does it not?
02:08:13 from Paul andor via Simon does it not? You see that? Yes. And then if you go to um go one email up to from that uh to page two um
02:08:24 um you write to Andrew Malcolm 23rd of October uh and say Andrew I've spoken to CLA but that was to say we're not in a position to act as PD. This is an email we saw before in the context of a different discussion.
02:08:35 different discussion. Yes.
02:08:36 Yes. Just putting it in its context. Then we go back up another email pleased. Uh and Paul Burrows comes back to Andrew Malcolm. uh a copy to you as well as Neil Reed and says, "Andrew, the only
02:08:47 Neil Reed and says, "Andrew, the only information we have is attached. This includes one, reviews of the principal contractor's construction phase HNS plan. Two, the old and updated F10. Three, reports associated with the
02:08:58 Three, reports associated with the construction phase of the project. Four, agreed template for the HNS file. Best regards, Paul. Were you surprised at the time that this was the only information that Artilia had for the health and
02:09:10 that Artilia had for the health and safety file at this time, late October 2015?
02:09:16 At that point in time, uh that's all that we would have received. Yes.
02:09:21 Yes. Yes. Were you surprised that it was it was uh so thin? That uh there was no information other in the health and safety. I wasn't necessarily surprised by it. it uh it
02:09:32 necessarily surprised by it. it uh it was a statement of fact. Well, I know um would you let me try it a different way. By the 23rd or 26th of October 2015, would you have expected more to have been done on the health and safety file?
02:09:43 safety file? Well, on the basis that our appointment terminated on the 6th of October, we wouldn't have had any involvement beyond that in terms of collecting any information for the health and safety file.
02:09:51 file. That may be, Mr. cash. But I'm asking you whether or not learning what you learned in late October about what was available for the health and safety file, did it not surprise you at that time, regardless of your continuing role
02:10:02 time, regardless of your continuing role that it was so thin? No, because we quite often, as I said, information will come as in in a a lump at the end of the project, and we hadn't actually reached the end of that project yet.
02:10:12 yet. Right. Well, let's go then to art 409351.
02:10:19 This is an email from Andrew Malcolm to Paul Burrow's copy to you same day. Hi Paul, with the greatest of respect, I don't think this can be dumped on the client like this, assuming you're expecting me to just forward this on, or
02:10:31 expecting me to just forward this on, or can it? Simon's email below infers, we've not discussed nor briefed the client in a CDM capacity other than to explain that we cannot act as PD. uh the immediate project team Neil
02:10:42 uh the immediate project team Neil Michelle and myself whilst we are quote superstars unquote we aren't qualified or competent in areas of CDM this goes back to my original email some time ago now expla now explaining that we need to
02:10:53 now expla now explaining that we need to have a process for handing over the CDM bundle and its associated components to the client the message I'm getting back from both Neil Simon and the client is that this has not happened despite the HSSE deadline
02:11:05 HSSE deadline therefore can I request that either you or Colin James or anyone from Artilia who is qualified or competent in areas of CDM arrange happily through me either a face-to-face handover meeting or even a call with the client ahead of any cold
02:11:16 a call with the client ahead of any cold emails. This is so that the CDM bundle is passed complete with an explanation of the associated components. Please can we treat this as a matter of urgency but by no later than the end of next week
02:11:27 by no later than the end of next week 6th of November 2015 for this to happen. If anything I personally want to stop looking dafted at client meetings for missing a deadline. We, Royal Artellia, we had six months plus to sort out, let
02:11:38 we had six months plus to sort out, let alone any regulatory implications that may or may not have repercussions against Artilia. Now,
02:11:47 Now, number of questions about that email, which I read in full to you, um, would forwarding on the documents, or as it's put by Mr. for Malcolm dumping them on the TMO have fulfilled Artilia's
02:11:58 the TMO have fulfilled Artilia's obligations and duties did you think at the time
02:12:02 the time in terms of handing over information there yes
02:12:06 there yes our role had come to an end and there was a handover process and I believe that Paul Burrows had agreed to meet with Clare Williams and actually carry had have a handover meeting right and pass documents on to her
02:12:17 and pass documents on to her so you couldn't simply dump them on the TMO you your thoughts at the time were in agreement with Mr. Mr. Malcolm, were they? You needed a handover meeting and explain what was there and what wasn't there.
02:12:26 there. Yes, and I believe that happened, right? Um, did you agree with Mr. Malcolm that the process of a of handing over a CDM bundle is one that should happen?
02:12:37 happen? Yes.
02:12:37 Yes. And that one and that that should be done by what he calls the CDM team. Yes.
02:12:42 Yes. Yes. And I believe it happened. You thought it happened. Okay. Uh, looking at the last paragraph which I've read out to you, Mr. Malcolm seems to be criticizing Artellia or individuals at Artellia for their performance. Was
02:12:53 Artellia for their performance. Was there some friction between the employers agents on the one hand and the CDM practitioners on the other within Artellia at this point on this project? There there appears to be in terms of his own personal views. Yes.
02:13:04 his own personal views. Yes. Did you know about that given the project given your role as project director on this project? Yes,
02:13:08 Yes, you did. What did you do? What did you do about it? I tried to uh smooth the waters and tried to uh push and and uh one made to to make sure that the
02:13:19 one made to to make sure that the handover process had actually taken place in terms of Paul Burrows making sure that he passed the information uh and also uh in terms of uh the friction there. I felt that um that Andrew
02:13:30 there. I felt that um that Andrew Malcolm was actually uh probably not in uh that that email wasn't actually written in in a in a tone that was acceptable
02:13:42 tone that was acceptable in terms of an exchange between people
02:13:47 regardless of the tone. Was it your view that the substance of his point was correct? Namely, that Artillia had been slow in sorting out this question. I don't think there was any obligation on
02:13:59 don't think there was any obligation on Artellia to actually sort out uh the client appointing a principal designer. We had made it quite clear to the client that we couldn't take on that role and that they would have to appoint a
02:14:10 that they would have to appoint a principal designer or that they would take on that role themselves.
02:14:17 Well, he is of the view that you've had six months plus to sort out this uh problem. Did you agree with him that you you that you'd had six months to sort it out and had been slow in doing so?
02:14:28 out and had been slow in doing so? I believe that that we had, you're right, we had six months and we had been discussing it with the TMO and it hadn't been sorted, but I don't believe it was solely within uh Artellia's um
02:14:39 solely within uh Artellia's um obligations to actually carry out any uh reappoint for the principal designer role. It was down to the TMO to take that responsibility. Can we
02:14:51 that responsibility. Can we can we go to art 409356 please? This is an email from Neil Reed to you on the 27th of October 2015 and he says Simon one CDM following a
02:15:02 he says Simon one CDM following a further completion meeting today it transpires that CLA has had no call from Paul accordingly despite all the effort to ensure a smooth transition recml considers Artilia's efforts in this regard appalling. Andrew and I were
02:15:14 regard appalling. Andrew and I were quite embarrassed by the lack of professional closure and I think we all expected and planned for from Paul. Can you exert some pressure on Paul to wrap this up much in the way you suggested in a previous email? Cla still needs a CDM
02:15:26 a previous email? Cla still needs a CDM advisory type role and will probably bite Paul's arm off if he's able to offer this role. Saw that.
02:15:32 Saw that. Yeah. Um and then you it goes and then uh it goes on um as at today we have an expired F10 and a client expecting a handover of documents to include a partial HNS file.
02:15:43 documents to include a partial HNS file. Someone will need to help compile a completed HNS file. So there remains scope for Artillia to see extra fee. Now Artilia's efforts have been described by Clare Williams according to this as appalling. Uh did you do you
02:15:56 this as appalling. Uh did you do you agree with her assessment? only in respect that Paul had not contacted her to pass over the information that we had.
02:16:02 had. Right.
02:16:06 Did you understand this email to be essentially an escalation of this issue to you as the project director? Yes.
02:16:12 Yes. Did you take any steps to sort this out? I tried I would have taken steps with Paul to ensure that he actually did meet with CLA and pass over the information that we had. Do you know whether there
02:16:24 that we had. Do you know whether there was any handover of documents or a file to the TMO? I don't know specifically. No. Did you not follow that through in your role as project director? I can't remember. Right. It was your responsibility to do
02:16:35 Right. It was your responsibility to do so given that this matter had been escalated to you. So I asked the question
02:16:39 question you can't remember. What about Ryden? Was there any handover of the documents or a file to Ryden? No, there was no need to hand over documents to to Ryden. Was a completed health and safety file ever handed over to the TMO. Do you
02:16:51 ever handed over to the TMO. Do you remember? I believe it came from Ryance to uh direct to the TMO. Right. So not from you. Correct.
02:17:00 Correct. Can we go to ART 40 5461 please? I just want to look at some different questions about Ryden during the construction phase.
02:17:14 This is a formal complaint email from Neil Reed to Steve Blake of the 30th of March 2016. So late on in the project, now you were copied in on this. Uh it's
02:17:25 now you were copied in on this. Uh it's a longish document and I'm not going to read it all out to you. Um but um it starts out by saying, "Steve, we are writing to set out our frustrations and concerns about a number of current issues with this project as both the
02:17:36 issues with this project as both the client team and consultant team hold the perception that Ryden could and should be doing more in the run-up to completion." And then you can see that there are three main topics set out. Resource,
02:17:47 three main topics set out. Resource, meeting attendance, and handover matters.
02:17:50 matters. Now, did you um when you saw this email, did you did you read it? Do you think I was aware of the email and um I had discussed it with with Neil before it was issued?
02:18:01 was issued? Yes. I think in fact you also um you saw this email before it was sent. Yes.
02:18:07 Yes. And and and um you you knew that it had been reviewed by David Gibson of the TMA before it was sent to Steve Blake. Is that right? Yes.
02:18:17 Yes. Yes. Can we look at um art 406672 please? This is an email from Neil Reeds to you copying in others relating to Ryden on the 9th of May 2016.
02:18:30 Ryden on the 9th of May 2016. You can see it there on the screen. 9th of May 2016 and and uh this is now very close to the end of the project. Uh and Neil Reed says Simon the O andM are
02:18:43 and Neil Reed says Simon the O andM are unacceptable to the COWs Clark of works. This is just a flag. This is becoming a farce. Despite all our efforts to ensure a smooth landing, I have to say I do not think I have ever worked with a
02:18:54 think I have ever worked with a contractor operating with this level of nonchilence. We are all getting sucked into doing far more than we ought to at this stage of the project. I'm wondering if you need to write to the TMO to express our concern and what we are
02:19:05 express our concern and what we are endeavoring to do about it. Additional site visits, additional meetings, endless emails on design related issues that don't concern us as CLA is the design lead, etc. Challenging the contractor, etc.
02:19:16 contractor, etc. Now you see that Mr. Reid describes the situation as a farce, as he puts it, and that Ryden are operating with a a level of non nonulence. Did you ever write to the TMO to express
02:19:27 Did you ever write to the TMO to express your own concern as suggested by Mr. Reed in this email? I can't remember if I did. So, we don't we can't find a document showing that you did do that. My question is, if you didn't do that, why you didn't do that?
02:19:39 you didn't do that? Possibly because I would have had a conversation uh rather than write it. Did these complaints about Ryden cause you any concern about the quality or the safety of Ryden's work? No.
02:19:50 No. Did they cause you any concern about the regulatory compliance of the work that they' done? No.
02:19:55 No. Why is that? This was regard to a process. It wasn't in regard to uh the quality of work that they had done. This was in terms of trying to uh
02:20:07 trying to uh close out matters in terms of documentation which they were due to produce to achieve practical completion. and to ensure that they contained the right information. Did you do anything in response to this
02:20:19 Did you do anything in response to this email with I can't remember if I did anything specific. No. Did you take it up with Ryden yourself? I can't remember. Right. Thank you very much. Um Mr. Chairman, I've come to the end of my prepared questions. Right. Thank you.
02:20:30 Right. Thank you. This is the normal moment where you look and see whether there are others that I've missed or whether there are others other questions that people want me to ask.
02:20:36 ask. Yes. Um well, Mr. Cash, as Mr. minute said he's got to the end of the questions he prepared, but council needs time just to take stock and sometimes questions come in from people who are
02:20:48 questions come in from people who are outside the room. So, we'll have a a 10-minute break at this point. Uh, do you think half Yes, 12 will give you long enough. Certainly, we'll come back at 12 and no talking to anyone about your evidence.
02:21:00 anyone about your evidence. Fair enough. Right. Would you like to go with the usher, please? Thank you.
02:21:11 Mr. Mill, that's quite a short break. If you need longer, Mr. Chairman. Yes. Thank you very much. Thank you. Half
02:29:43 Yes. Would you ask Mr. Cash to come back in, please?
02:29:55 Right. Well, we'll see if Mr. Millet's found some more questions. Mr. Cash. Yes. Have you, Mr. Chairman? There are a couple of follow-up questions of our own which we want to ask. Can I can I ask please that Mr. cash be shown the contract again art
02:30:06 Mr. cash be shown the contract again art 30-5742
02:30:08 30-5742 and I want to go to page 48 please
02:30:20 and uh at paragraph uh 1.3 we looked at this yesterday um it one of the roles that was ticked was to establish the roles and responsibilities of the client
02:30:32 roles and responsibilities of the client the professional team which we could see we looked at this morning and has a definition the contractor and specialist stroke design subcontractors
02:30:44 stroke design subcontractors and my question is whether or not you understood at the time that when it came to Exover who were a direct contractor of the TMO it was your role or your
02:30:56 of the TMO it was your role or your obligation Artillia's obligation to establish the role and responsibility of Exov within that work. I believe that that was identified within the project execution plan that
02:31:07 within the project execution plan that they were appointed as the fire consultant. That being so was it your was it not your role and responsibility to to make sure that everybody knew what
02:31:20 to to make sure that everybody knew what they what XOA was doing and that Exova knew what it was doing? That was within the the project execution plan. The the detail of their appointment was not something that was within our remitt. Why why was it not
02:31:31 within our remitt. Why why was it not within your remit? Because we weren't responsible for appointments of consultants. No, but were you not um responsible for establishing the role and responsibility of Exovover as a specialist stroke
02:31:43 of Exovover as a specialist stroke design subcontractor? And that was as a FAR consultant. Yes. Yes. Um
02:31:50 Yes. Um next question or second question. Um did you or do you know or did you know whether the existing fire safety strategy which had been compiled by
02:32:04 strategy which had been compiled by um Exover in the August of 2012 and had never progressed beyond a draft has draft water marked through it uh was
02:32:16 has draft water marked through it uh was included in the pre-contract pre the pre-contract information pack of November 2013. I don't know if it was or not. I don't know if we had a copy of that.
02:32:27 know if we had a copy of that. Right. Do you know whether Terry Ashton's design note was incorporated in or included in that document? I I don't know. Again, I don't know if that was issued to us. Do you did you understand that it those
02:32:40 Do you did you understand that it those that document or those documents ought to have been included in that pack? If we knew of their existence, we would have made sure that they would have been right. Okay. Thank you. Um well, um Mr.
02:32:51 right. Okay. Thank you. Um well, um Mr. Cash, those are the end of my my planned questions. I have one more question for you, which is a question that I often ask uh certain witnesses in this inquiry, and that's this. Looking back on all the documents and the exchanges we've had over the last day and a half
02:33:03 we've had over the last day and a half or so, and looking back over your own involvement in this entire project, is there anything that you would have done differently? I think it's fair to say that um if there was anything that uh we could have
02:33:16 there was anything that uh we could have done or influenced that would have avoided um the uh the events that happened then uh I think in hindsight one would say yes there's always ways of doing things better. Uh I don't think
02:33:29 doing things better. Uh I don't think that uh we can say that we act with perfection um and that in going forward we always look at ways we're doing better and improving on what we learn.
02:33:43 Thank you very much. Well, Mr. Cash, it only remains for me to thank you very much for coming to the inquiry and assisting us with our investigations. We're extremely grateful. Thank you. I do.
02:33:51 do. Well, Mr. Cash, it only remains then for me to thank you as well for coming to give your evidence. I'm sorry that we spread your evidence over more days than I think you were given to expect
02:34:03 I think you were given to expect originally, but I'm afraid that was just unfortunate. Circumstance, circumstances go that way sometimes. But uh I'm very grateful to you for coming to give your evidence. It's been very helpful to hear from you. And now you are free to go.
02:34:14 And now you are free to go. Thank you very much. No, no questions from core participants then. Uh I don't know. Mr. Millet will have considered whether there are any questions and probably taken them in already, I think. All right. Thank you.
02:34:25 All right. Thank you. All right. So, thank you very much. You would like to go with the usher. Thank you very much indeed, everyone.
02:34:41 Right. Thank you, Mr. Minute. Now, we'll have to rise, won't we? We'll have to rise briefly. The next witness is Mr. Philip Booth, and Miss Graange will be taking him. Right.
02:34:49 Right. Uh, we need a fivem minute cleaning break, I think, for uh and and then I shall relinquish the podium for her. Right. Well, thank you very much. Well, we'll rise for a moment and you can ask someone to come and fetch us as soon as
02:35:01 someone to come and fetch us as soon as uh you're ready. Very good. Right. Thank you very much.
02:42:32 Yes, Mr. Grange. Yes. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman. Um, could we have Mr. Philip Booth, please?
02:42:54 Can you please read out the witness affirmation text? I do solemnly swear uh sincerely and truly declare and affirm that the evidence I shall give shall be the
02:43:05 evidence I shall give shall be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Thank you very much. Mr. Booth, do sit down. Make yourself comfortable. Thank you.
02:43:22 Right. Yes, strange. Yes. Um, thank you very much for coming today and assisting the inquiry with its investigations. It's it's very much appreciated. Um, my questions are intended to be short and simple, but if
02:43:33 intended to be short and simple, but if you have any difficulty understanding anything I'm saying, please ask me to just repeat the question or put the point in a different way. If you feel you need a break at any point, just let us know. And please, can you try and
02:43:44 us know. And please, can you try and keep your voice up so that the lady sitting to your right just there can take a nice clear note of what you're saying?
02:43:51 saying? Sure.
02:43:52 Sure. Now, you've made two witness statements to the inquiry. If we can pull up the first one, art 408527.
02:44:02 And if we look at page 59, the final page of that statement, we can see it's dated the 27th of September, 2019. And is that your signature there? Yes, it And have you read that statement
02:44:14 Yes, it And have you read that statement recently?
02:44:14 recently? Yes, I have. And are the contents true? They are.
02:44:18 They are. Thank you. And if we go to your second statement, this is art 4009420.
02:44:26 And this is a shorter statement. If we go on to page four of it. There we can see it's dated the 10th of March 2020. And again, is that your signature on that page? Yes, it is.
02:44:37 Yes, it is. And can you confirm that the contents are true? They are true. Have you discussed your statements or your evidence with anybody before coming here today? No.
02:44:47 No. Thank you. So, I'm going to start with just some questions about your background and your your history. Um, in your witness statement at paragraph 3, you set out your qualifications and training. If we just bring that up, this
02:44:59 training. If we just bring that up, this is in your main statement, art 48527.
02:45:05 I think it starts at the bottom of page one.
02:45:09 one. And then it goes on to page two. So you tell us there that you graduated from Ashton University in 2001 with a degree in managerial and administrative studies
02:45:23 in managerial and administrative studies and then you say that you are a member of the association for project management and that you've completed training in project management. Um just to ask you a couple of questions
02:45:34 Um just to ask you a couple of questions about that. In in little A there at the top, you refer to the Association for Project Management AMP MP APM qualification. You see that there?
02:45:46 qualification. You see that there? Yes.
02:45:46 Yes. When did you complete that? Um
02:45:51 Um uh I can't exactly recall but it it would probably been um about 12 years ago. Okay. Something like that. So some time ago. and prints too. You've
02:46:04 So some time ago. and prints too. You've referred to that in little B. Can you help us as to what that is? It's a uh it's a form of project management principles. It's it's uh born out of the IT industry projects uh in a
02:46:18 out of the IT industry projects uh in a controlled environment. So it's a qualification that you can get in project management as to particular type of methodology of project management. Yeah.
02:46:26 Yeah. And again, did you complete that some time ago or more recently? um again maybe eight 10 years ago and you also say there in little C that you've attended various management and
02:46:37 you've attended various management and project management training courses and also industry related conferences and seminars that's right isn't it correct
02:46:45 correct is there any particular training that you have to undertake to become an employer's agent there's not an official qualification to being an employes agent as far as I'm
02:46:57 being an employes agent as far as I'm aware no
02:47:00 Now at little C you you also say there 3C that you've got uh training in contract procurement. Can I just ask do you have specialist knowledge of contract
02:47:12 specialist knowledge of contract procurement? Um I've learned about procuring main contractors different types of uh procurement methodology through ad hoc
02:47:23 procurement methodology through ad hoc training events and through just experience over the last 15 odd years. Yeah, I see. I wouldn't say I'm an expert, but I am very familiar with it. Yeah.
02:47:34 Yeah. Now then you go on in your statement at paragraph five and onwards five, nine and 10. If we could look at paragraph five to start with and and what you do in those paragraphs is you set out some
02:47:45 in those paragraphs is you set out some examples of the projects that you've worked on. Um, so we can see that you're talking about in paragraph five working as a project manager for Glen Care projects relating to mental health hospitals.
02:47:58 relating to mental health hospitals. Um, and you outline a number of um, schools and hospital projects there. Would that be fair? Yes.
02:48:05 Yes. Now, is it right that before the Grenell Tower project, you had no experience in the overcladding of high-rise buildings? So, I'd been involved in projects that were in tall buildings. Um, and I've
02:48:17 were in tall buildings. Um, and I've been in involved in projects that had um claddin and curtain walling refurbishments but not both together. I see. Yeah.
02:48:28 I see. Yeah. Did you have any experience of project involving residential buildings that were occupied? Um, so when I was at um in my sort of
02:48:39 Um, so when I was at um in my sort of hospitals, yes, some of those projects were carried out whilst uh resident the the occupants of the hospital. Yeah, because it was their residency were in place. So I had that experience. School
02:48:50 place. So I had that experience. School projects were often done during whilst schools were open but not a not a residential high-rise building. No. No. Had you ever worked on any projects which involved um aluminium composite
02:49:03 which involved um aluminium composite materials, aluminium raincreen cladding being applied? So some of the schools that I did did have those type of um systems put in. Yes.
02:49:13 Yes. Yeah. And you tell us in your statement that you joined Apple Yards as it was then called in January 2005 and you left there in April 2016. Is that right? That's correct. And you now work for a different company
02:49:25 And you now work for a different company doing project management. Is that correct?
02:49:29 correct? And you say that during your time at Apple Yards then known as Artellia after that you went from being an assistant project manager to a senior project manager which is what you were at the
02:49:40 manager which is what you were at the time of the Grenell project. Is that right? Correct. And then is it right that you ultimately became project director within Apple Yards? Is that right? Yes, I was there about 12 years at the
02:49:53 Yes, I was there about 12 years at the organization. So yeah,
02:49:55 yeah, I climbed the ranks. Can you help us as to exactly when did that promotion to project director occur?
02:50:03 occur? Um
02:50:05 Um I can't actually recall. Right. Um, was it while you were working on the Grenell project, do you think? Um,
02:50:14 Um, I don't think it was. I think it might have been after. After. Okay. It would have been fairly close though, perhaps.
02:50:20 perhaps. Yeah. Now, in terms of your appointment to the Grenville Tower project, is it right that you were assigned to the project in around April 2013? Is that correct?
02:50:30 correct? That is correct. And is it right that your role was as employer's agent? Correct.
02:50:37 Correct. And is it right that your start on the project over overlapped with Robert Pal who was also the employers agent on the project?
02:50:44 project? Yes.
02:50:46 Yes. And did he leave the project in around July 2013? He did. So we had a few months working together as a handover period. Yes. I wanted to ask you about that. Um,
02:50:57 Yes. I wanted to ask you about that. Um, was that simply a long handover with him or was it intended that during that period you would both be working full-time as an employer's agent? So, we just took advantage of the fact
02:51:10 So, we just took advantage of the fact that um, Robert was working his notice period because he got he was leaving the employment of um, Artellia. Um and when I came on board it was a quite a transition period of the project and so
02:51:23 transition period of the project and so it made sense to you know have that transition and handover process. Yes. And with both of us working on it. Yes. And is it right that you were assisted in your role as employers agent
02:51:35 assisted in your role as employers agent by Peter Bllythe and later Nick Valente. Is that correct? Have I said his name correctly? Yes.
02:51:42 Yes. Yeah.
02:51:43 Yeah. And were they both assistant employers agents?
02:51:47 agents? Yes.
02:51:48 Yes. Yeah. And who did you report to on the project?
02:51:53 project? So on on the project, the project director for the project was Simon Cash. Yeah. And that was who you were reporting to. Was your line manager somebody different? It was.
02:52:03 It was. Who was your line manager? Uh it was Bill Phelps. Right.
02:52:08 Right. Now you then tell us that in paragraph 22 of your first statement, I don't think we need to turn this up, that in around mid June 2015, you were assigned to another project which required a full-time commitment. So is it right
02:52:21 full-time commitment. So is it right that your involvement in the Grenell project ceased at that point in June 2015?
02:52:27 2015? Correct.
02:52:29 Correct. And is it right that Neil Reed, a witness that we'll hear from after you, then replaced you on the project as employer's agent? That's correct.
02:52:40 And he replaced you in March 2015. Is that right? Uh, yes. Yes, that sounds right. Now, it doesn't appear that you were assigned to another full-time project
02:52:52 assigned to another full-time project until June 2015. Can you help us as to what happened between March and June 2015?
02:52:58 2015? So, there was a again handover process that happened. I see. So, you were handing over during that time to Mr. Reid. Yes.
02:53:08 Yes. And is it right that at the point that you joined the project, the TMO was considering whether or not to to continue with Lead Better as main contractor? That's right. Yes.
02:53:20 That's right. Yes. And when you left the project, Ryden was partway through the construction work. Correct.
02:53:24 Correct. Yeah.
02:53:26 Yeah. Now, I'm going to start this topic. We won't finish it, but I'll I'll start it. I'm going to ask you about the difference between an employers agent and a project manager and also um something about those roles on this
02:53:37 something about those roles on this Grenville project. Now, we've heard from Mr. Cash about the contracted services that Artellia uh performed and that Artellia was not formally contracted
02:53:49 formally contracted um onto the refurbishment until a signed contract in July 2014. Is that your understanding? That's right. Yes. Now, can you just explain your
02:54:02 Now, can you just explain your understanding of the difference between an employer's agent and a project manager?
02:54:09 manager? So, an employer's agent is a defined role on design and build contracts to uh administer the uh building contract
02:54:23 administer the uh building contract um with the design and build contractor. there's a RIS scheme of uh works that's associated with an employer's agent and what what duties they might might not take. Um so
02:54:35 duties they might might not take. Um so it's a very defined administrative role for design and build projects. That's what I understand employees agent is a project manager is a um is a far more
02:54:47 a project manager is a um is a far more uh wider descriptor uh and it encompasses um more uh I am uh project manager and so have fulfilled that role
02:54:59 manager and so have fulfilled that role on other projects continue to do so. The the main sort of key difference as I see it is a project manager may well take on responsibilities outside of just
02:55:11 responsibilities outside of just administering the contract the the construction contract and that and those duties can be um you know um written specific to the to the project and it
02:55:23 specific to the to the project and it might be that they get involved more in things that are wider to the project than just the construction. So maybe communication outside u the construction elements with stakeholders, maybe client
02:55:35 elements with stakeholders, maybe client side elements to help with um um things that that are outside just the administration of the building contract. I see
02:55:43 I see a project manager also um may have sort of um delegated authorities from the client to make decisions. Usually
02:55:54 client to make decisions. Usually employers agent does not. they are administering the contract under the direction of the client. So I think the main the main difference is employees agent is a more narrow scope of surfaces
02:56:07 agent is a more narrow scope of surfaces for a design and build contract. A project manager can be much more far reach in responsibilities um with some decision making authority if given by the client. Yeah, thank you. That's very helpful.
02:56:19 Yeah, thank you. That's very helpful. When you were describing the employer's agent role, you said that um that's linked very much to the appointment of a design and build contractor, but would you accept that prior to the appointment
02:56:30 you accept that prior to the appointment of a DMB contractor, an employer's agent may well have a role in coordinating whatever professional team the client had gathered together at that point? Yes.
02:56:40 Yes. Yeah.
02:56:41 Yeah. Are the skills of an employer's agent broadly similar to those of a project manager?
02:56:49 manager? There are similarities. Yes. I think um you need more skills to be a project manager than an employes agent. Yeah. It's it's quite an administrative role,
02:57:00 It's it's quite an administrative role, the employees agent role. Yeah.
02:57:03 Yeah. Um and I think as a project manager um it is a it is defined you can get scope services in the RAS but actually it's quite a generic title and it can
02:57:14 it's quite a generic title and it can mean a lot to different people. So sometimes there is some confusion as to what is P project manager. So you talked about there might be similarities with the similarities be in
02:57:26 similarities with the similarities be in terms of the administrative aspect of the role the administration of yes
02:57:31 yes uh the contracts and administration relating to you know the process of design or the process of construction. Yes, in both
02:57:42 process of construction. Yes, in both roles you need to be sort of organized and
02:57:46 and write lists, diligent. Is it sometimes common for um construction professionals to use the terms employers, agent and project manager interchangeably? Is that a
02:57:58 manager interchangeably? Is that a thing?
02:57:59 thing? It is a thing in industry. Yes. Um so um yes that is something that in the industry um it does get chopped and changed around a bit.
02:58:11 changed around a bit. Yeah. Would you agree that project management is a specialist skill which uh should involve some kind of formal training in project management? Um I believe you should be formally
02:58:24 Um I believe you should be formally trained in it to do it. Yeah. It's not like uh uh an industry like a you know an accountant where you have to have achieved accreditation to do to do it. I think anybody can call
02:58:36 do to do it. I think anybody can call themselves a project manager if they want to. But my belief is that you should be you should have done the exams. You should have got the badges to do a good service. Yeah. Yeah. In your experience, do most
02:58:48 Yeah. Yeah. In your experience, do most major construction projects have a project manager properly so-called in the way you've just described?
02:58:57 Yes. And what about major refurbishment projects? In your experience, would major refurbishment projects commonly have a properly trained project manager?
02:59:11 Yes. But is it possible that you can have without one and just have an employer's agent?
02:59:18 agent? It is possible. Yes. Would
02:59:22 Would you agree that the Grenell Tower project was a complex project to manage for any either any employers agent or indeed any project manager?
02:59:33 project manager? Yes, it was complicated. And was it complicated in part because it was residential with residents remaining in occupancy and because it was an older building
02:59:44 was an older building that may have been subject to dilapidations over time. Yes, they were parts of the factors that made it more complicated. Will there be any other factors in your mind that made it particularly
02:59:55 mind that made it particularly complicated? Well, there was a construction site behind that. They're building the Kensington uh leisure center and academy. Um it is syncric of this
03:00:08 academy. Um it is syncric of this particular job. Yes. Residents were staying in occupation. That was a um part that was specific to this project. Yeah. Um
03:00:17 Yeah. Um that's why um you know TMO were heavily involved because of that. In your view, was this the sort of project that needed a designated trained
03:00:28 project that needed a designated trained project manager? Um
03:00:32 Um somebody needed to fulfill the role. So yes,
03:00:37 yes, Mr. Chairman, I think that's a good moment for a break. Um yes, and now go into slightly more detail. Yes. All right. Thank you. Well, Mr. You've only just got into your stride, I'm afraid. But given the hour, I think
03:00:49 I'm afraid. But given the hour, I think this is the time when we must have a break so we can all have some lunch. Okay.
03:00:53 Okay. Um, so in a minute I'm going to ask you to go off the usher and be ready to return at 2:00. Please. Um, while you're out of the room on this or any subsequent occasion, please don't talk
03:01:04 subsequent occasion, please don't talk to anyone about your evidence or anything relating to it. Okay. All right. Of course. Right. Would you like to go to the usher, please?
03:01:23 to the top, please. Thank you.