Ray Bailey of Harley Curtain Wall gives evidence on his background in cladding, knowledge of fire safety regulations, awareness of ACM panel combustibility, and his role in specifying materials for the Grenfell Tower refurbishment.
00:00:28 good morning everyone welcome to today's hearing today we're going to hear
00:00:33 hear from the first of the witnesses representing uh harley curtin wall those of you watching will see that there is a large flip pad next
00:00:44 see that there is a large flip pad next to the witness box that's because the next witness has asked for an opportunity to make drawings or diagrams to illustrate his evidence if he finds it necessary or helpful to do so
00:00:57 finds it necessary or helpful to do so yes mr miller mr chairman good morning i now call mr ray bailey please thank you
00:01:17 i do sincerely and truly declare and affirm the evidence i shall give shall be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth thank you very much mr bailey sit down make us have comfortable
00:01:30 right yes now you did ask whether you could be provided with some means of making diagrams or drawings if necessary in the course of your evidence yes there's a large
00:01:43 evidence yes there's a large flip pad there which i hope you'll find convenient so if you need to or make some diagrams okay
00:01:49 okay there it is thank you all right thank you very much yes mr millet mr chairman mr bailey good morning good morning can i start by thanking you sincerely for coming to the inquiry and helping us with our investigations we are very
00:02:01 with our investigations we are very grateful to you uh if you have any difficulty understanding any of my questions or you want them put in a different way i can do that or i can repeat the question
00:02:10 question can i ask you also please to keep your voice up so that the transcriber who sits to your right can get your answer down clearly and also i should just say because it sometimes happens that a nod
00:02:22 because it sometimes happens that a nod or a shake of the head doesn't go onto the transcript so you have to say yes or no as the case may be okay now um you've made two statements and i'd like just to show them to you first
00:02:33 like just to show them to you first um they are contained in a folder on your desk but they will also appear on the screen in front of you as will the documents to which i will be referring
00:02:41 referring during the course of my examination the first
00:02:44 first statement was made to the metropolitan police date of the 8th of august 2017 and that was at met 0001998
00:03:00 and i will just identify but not have shown up on the screen the ident the accompanying exhibits met triple zero one nine nine
00:03:12 met triple zero one nine nine eight seven just said that i've read that number into the record can you confirm mr bailey that this witness statement that i'm showing you is yours
00:03:24 yes thank you now the second witness statement was one that you made to the inquiry dated the 9th of november 2018 and the reference to that is har
00:03:36 that is har 0010184
00:03:38 0010184 can i please have that on the screen thank you and can you confirm that that's your statement yes have you read both of these statements recently uh i've read the uh rule 9 statement
00:03:50 uh i've read the uh rule 9 statement recently but not the police one right to the inquiry statement yes yes can you confirm that the contents of both statements are true yes thank you can you please look at the final page
00:04:01 final page of your inquiry statement har triple zero 101
00:04:05 zero 101 84 page 44. you'll see a signature there is that yours it is have you discussed your statements or the evidence that you propose to give today with anybody before coming here
00:04:17 today with anybody before coming here today no
00:04:18 today no thank you now i'm going to start with some questions about your background if i may
00:04:22 i may you graduated with a degree in civil engineering i think in 1981 from salford university yes yes did you study facade engineering as a speciality
00:04:33 as a speciality no did the course that you did include the fire performance of materials building materials did it include how facade materials are tested or classified
00:04:44 tested or classified in relation to fire no since graduating in 1981 i think it's right that you've worked in various uh construction and cladding companies yes yes
00:04:55 yes yes and you've worked i think for a number of companies including elementa elemeta lametta forgive me what was your job
00:05:03 job title there at lmeta uh i started as a graduate trainee and became a contracts manager
00:05:08 manager contracts manager uh you also worked at i think channel try line limited yes what was your job title there
00:05:15 there i was contracts director a contract director yes i see and then you all say name i think chilton aluminium
00:05:25 aluminium limited as another company you worked for yes i was operations director operations director during your time with any of those three organizations did you work on any cladding pro
00:05:36 did you work on any cladding pro projects on high-rise residential blocks
00:05:45 no now can i ask you to look at your witness statement your inquiry witness statement paragraph four
00:05:56 and i'd like to show you the top line of the page
00:05:59 the page it's page two where you say over some 15 years i gained significant experience in all aspects of building envelopes
00:06:09 envelopes from design to manufacturing and installation
00:06:13 now the 15 years was that from 1981 to 1986 or 1996 or is it another period 81-96 81-96 did that significant
00:06:26 81-96 81-96 did that significant experience involve facade design
00:06:31 though we had facade designers working for us
00:06:36 for us what about facade installation yes yes what about product procurement a product procurement but not product selection
00:06:48 selection i see
00:06:52 would i be right in thinking that during those 15 years in the industry you as part of your experience learnt something about fire performance principles yes yes
00:07:04 fire performance principles yes yes and during your whole 35 year career to date also did you ever have caused any time to study the building regulations i read through approved document b some
00:07:17 i read through approved document b some years ago
00:07:18 years ago that found it quite complicated um and as a result i have a working knowledge
00:07:25 knowledge of it but not detailed right can you even roughly tell us how long ago you read through approved document b
00:07:38 ten years was there a specific reason which which prompted you to read approved document b i can't recall right
00:07:49 was your reading of document be a one-off or have you had calls to go back to it and refer to it over the years the most recent interaction i have with it
00:08:01 most recent interaction i have with it is
00:08:02 is looking at diagram 40 which determines whether the products need to be class o if they're over 18 meters when was that that would have
00:08:13 meters when was that that would have been
00:08:13 been i think even during grenfell right but we'll come back to that um in general did you have cause at any time to study any of the industry guidance
00:08:24 guidance relating to exterior envelopes in relation to high-rise buildings such as the 2008
00:08:31 the 2008 cwct standard and related technical guidance
00:08:35 guidance i've read through the cbct standards and there's i think 12 or 13 volumes of that
00:08:42 that which deal with all aspects of the cladding from from testing impact loads weather resistance as far as one of those elements so again i've read through that understand the principles
00:08:54 understand the principles all the elements but again not in forensic detail now as at 2013
00:09:05 did you consider yourself as well placed as anyone in the specialist cladding industry in the uk to advise on whether materials or product products to be used in an
00:09:17 product products to be used in an external wall construction complied with the building regulations 2010
00:09:23 2010 and in particular approved document b
00:09:34 yes
00:09:38 and it stands from what you're telling us that you had by that date amassed a a reasonable body of expertise technical expertise that would equip you to answer detailed queries if they arose on a particular project
00:09:50 on a particular project uh depends how detailed the queries were yes fair enough did you understand uh that there were specific requirements in relation to external wall construction for buildings
00:10:01 construction for buildings which exceeded 18 meters in height yes did you or were you keeping abreast of amendments too and developments of the building regulations
00:10:12 building regulations and associated good practice uh i wasn't personally but we had a technical manager um prior to don acadel jones who had an msc
00:10:26 prior to don acadel jones who had an msc in facade engineering and as a member of the
00:10:29 the institute of assad engineers so when he left
00:10:33 left daniel took on that role so we actually had someone within the company whose job that was who was that uh prior to danica jones is a chap called graham hackley
00:10:48 could you spell his surname please h-a-c-k-l-e-y and when did he leave i think he left in 2013 or
00:10:59 2013 or the end of 2012. did he have any role at all
00:11:03 all it sounds on the date that of his departure that he didn't but can you just confirm for us did he have any role at all in relation to the grenfell tower project no he didn't and you say that daniel
00:11:14 no he didn't and you say that daniel ankita jones took over from him yes did daniel anchor jones have equivalent or better professional qualifications daniel had an
00:11:23 an msc in structural engineering and was on the
00:11:27 the msc facade engineering course right now you go on to say in paragraph four of your statement which is i hope still on the screen in front of
00:11:38 i hope still on the screen in front of you i was involved in a number of large-scale building envelope projects including the north terminal for gatwick now gatwick north terminal from my research was opened i think in march
00:11:50 my research was opened i think in march 1988
00:11:52 1988 so you would have been quite junior at that time
00:11:55 that time i was a young contract manager yes did you specifically work on the facade engineering of the north terminal not on the facade engineering what what aspects of the facade
00:12:07 aspects of the facade did you work on a contracts manager in our context is someone who organizes the
00:12:18 is someone who organizes the material the suppliers the delivery the access equipment uh the programming on site so i wasn't actually involved in the engineering of the facade right what
00:12:30 engineering of the facade right what about product selection or product selection was uh initially done by the architect who were yrm and in-house it was the company's
00:12:42 in-house it was the company's elementa the technical design department were you involved in considering the fire rating performance of the materials for use in the north terminal facade no now paragraph five of your statement
00:12:54 no now paragraph five of your statement you say
00:12:55 you say that to date
00:12:58 uh ie november 2018 which is when you signed this statement two harley employees have been funded through the msc and facade engineering was what was one of those
00:13:09 was what was one of those mr hackley you've referred to who was the other one dan akatol jones oh i see and would when did did dan anchoval jones complete his msc in facade engineering
00:13:20 in facade engineering he has but he had left the company part time he completed his msa right do you know where he was on the course uh where at what stage he'd reached on
00:13:31 uh where at what stage he'd reached on that i saw an engineering course when he was involved in the grenfell tower project
00:13:35 project i think he was three quarters of the way through i see uh so would it be right to say that during the period 2014
00:13:46 during the period 2014 to 2016 mid 2016 you act harley didn't actually have anybody with a completed qualification in facade engineering
00:13:58 qualification in facade engineering yes now you set harley curtain wall limited up in 1996 and you also say that that company did estimating designing and project managing construction packages
00:14:10 managing construction packages of external facades including rain screen
00:14:14 screen when you set it up is it right that you were the only employee yes so you did all the work yes yeah now paragraph eight of your statement if we can just go to that please uh on uh page three um you
00:14:27 uh on uh page three um you uh say there that you subcontracted relevant work
00:14:35 you see you say that yes what kind of work did you subcontract um the physical installation of the work the drafting of the
00:14:47 the drafting of the design and the manufacturing of the products
00:14:53 so you say the drafting of the design is that um you actually sketched out the designs for the facade did you
00:15:04 did you it depends what
00:15:08 form the contract takes usually the architect designs what they want and we effectively productionize it yeah so i see
00:15:20 so you would work with the art with the architect in relation to design did you have anybody yourself who you would
00:15:27 would uh engage as an independent contractor to do the to do design work there were a couple of draftsmen that we knew and used at that stage right who were they you remember i can't
00:15:40 right who were they you remember i can't remember their name right what about fitting did you sub-contract fitting
00:15:45 fitting we did is that how you got to know graham berry and mark osborne no i knew uh grand barrier mark osborne from channel when i joined channel
00:15:59 from channel when i joined channel um mark osborne was the installation manager for the company and graham berry was the shop foreman who was then promoted to the technical
00:16:10 who was then promoted to the technical office
00:16:11 office so i i've known those um the two directors of also very for i think 30 odd years now yes and you use them as cladding fitters i think regularly
00:16:21 regularly yes for about 20 years after 1996. correct
00:16:24 correct yes we'll come back to them later in your in your evidence can i just show you paragraph 10 of your inquiry statement um you identify there
00:16:35 um you identify there four previous projects on residential tower blocks which involved acm rain screen cladding namely premier house castle main tower clements court and ferrier point
00:16:46 ferrier point yes were there any others yes there was a child called estate yes and little venice
00:16:57 and little venice little venice and little venice was when little venice would have been
00:17:05 0009 around there maybe a year or so
00:17:12 yes and were they all um um what was little venice a a private block or a social housing block social housing
00:17:25 block social housing and they were all projects involving buildings
00:17:29 buildings in excess of 18 meters in height were they yes now prior to the grenfell tower project um
00:17:38 what was your can you can you describe the state of your understanding of the combustibility of acm panels they are class o well we'll come back to
00:17:51 they are class o well we'll come back to what that means but uh in detail later but in brief summary can you tell us what that meant to you
00:17:59 to you it's a product that um won't burn unless it's being uh unless it's a flame on it it won't sustain a fire
00:18:10 sustain a fire right did you have any understanding or in particular of the combustibility and the fire risks attendant uh on polyethylene core
00:18:21 attendant uh on polyethylene core pe core within an acm panel no did you have any understanding about the availability and relative merits in terms of fire performance of
00:18:32 terms of fire performance of fire retardant acm panels fire retardant acm panels but that's not a product that was widely advertised the only reason i knew his existence is
00:18:44 the only reason i knew his existence is because i read the bba certificate the pba certificate for rene bond says that both the pe corps and the fr core achieve a class o
00:18:58 core achieve a class o rating you read the bba certificate at the time of the grenfell tower project i read it in 2008 in 2008 yes did you read it after 2008 uh
00:19:11 did you read it after 2008 uh i didn't really thoroughly after 2008 i put it thoroughly in 2008 when we were working on the chalkboard estate project and the well i've seen it since it is
00:19:23 and the well i've seen it since it is the same certificate
00:19:27 did you have any understanding at the time of the grenfell tower project which i appreciate as a period of years as far as you're concerned about the combustibility and attendant fire risks
00:19:38 fire risks relating to pir insulation
00:19:44 no the
00:19:48 there's a bit of a history to rigid installation boards they came into
00:20:00 boards they came into existence on high-rise buildings after 2009 when partel was revised and the need for better installation
00:20:11 installation on buildings became a driver the first product that was used um in hydraulics it was a proof
00:20:23 was used um in hydraulics it was a proof as far as we were concerned the entire was kingspan k-15 and that's a product when it was first suggested
00:20:33 we looked into our our technical manager at the time looked into and checked it out and said yeah that's we can use that on high-rise buildings
00:20:45 we can use that on high-rise buildings and that product is widely used has been widely used almost as standard in the industry
00:20:51 industry since 2008 because rockwool which is the stuff we've used previously has a far less far less thermal performance when
00:21:03 far less thermal performance when [Music]
00:21:05 [Music] we are asked to use cell attacks on grenfell tower we are the mindset that these new
00:21:16 that these new um special super duper uh insulation products were acceptable providing them at certain criteria
00:21:28 certain criteria celetex made a big big deal about their products being suitable for buildings specifically
00:21:39 suitable for buildings specifically designed for buildings over 18 meters they're complied with bs8414 and then they use the term which is
00:21:50 and then they use the term which is very misleading now i'm looking back at um the term classo throughout not surface predict actually throughout
00:22:02 throughout so we not only read the literature we had their technical sales manager in to go through the project we sent
00:22:13 project we sent drawings showing the application with the acm
00:22:17 the acm on the building to them and i think we carried out all possible reasonable tests and it's also on the basis that
00:22:29 tests and it's also on the basis that uh celetex
00:22:34 are pre produced by sangoma a huge multinational company and we didn't believe for one second that they would attempt to mislead us on this so
00:22:48 on this so yeah just following up on one or two things in that answer you say that the first product that was used in high-rise that was approved as far as
00:23:00 in high-rise that was approved as far as you were concerned was k-15 yes and you looked at it and you say you looked into our technical manager at the time looked into it and checked it out and said yes you can use it on a high-rise building
00:23:12 use it on a high-rise building who was that technical manager was that mr hackling it was i see uh it was was in harley was it the job of the technical manager to assess technical compliance of products
00:23:26 yes i see and at the time of grenfell tower that was done and jones was it it was yes i see and when mr hackley first looked at
00:23:39 and when mr hackley first looked at kingspan k15 do you remember even roughly when that was
00:23:46 i'm guessing i would imagine it was about 2010 2011.
00:23:56 you also say in that answer that in relation to celetex that uh you say we i think we carried out all possible reasonable tests
00:24:08 possible reasonable tests what tests did you think so i should say checks
00:24:11 checks checks i see so did you actually have any knowledge at all about what tests celetex had carried out on rs 5000 or fr 5000 for that matter no on from the sales literature that i
00:24:24 no on from the sales literature that i saw it said it tested a ps8414 and that it had been tested to bs 476 um and it was classo throughout
00:24:37 um and it was classo throughout yes well we'll come back to the yeah the project literature later on just in general terms can i ask you another question did you ever have any or did you at the time of the grenfell tower project have knowledge of the risks of specifying
00:24:49 risks of specifying uh acm polyethylene panels as part of a rain screen cladding system together with pir insulation absolutely not no
00:25:06 no where you at were you or anybody else at harley
00:25:10 at harley a member of the center for window and cladding technology cwct the company was yes the company was when did
00:25:19 did harley join as a member
00:25:23 i'm i can't remember i would imagine probably 1999 right but i don't know that's if i'm wrong i'm
00:25:35 but i don't know that's if i'm wrong i'm not
00:25:36 not it's because i can't remember right and did membership of the cwct mean that you had access to regular updates technical guidance and industry knowledge yes and how often did that
00:25:47 knowledge yes and how often did that come through to harley as a member i can't remember was there anybody in the organization who was responsible for curating
00:25:56 curating the information as it came through from that industry body it would have been either our operations director
00:26:07 our operations director mark stapley but when graham hackley became the technical manager it would go through
00:26:13 through him were you or harley as a company a member of
00:26:17 member of the metal cladding and roofing manufacturers association no what about the timber decking and cladding association the architectural cladding association no or the engineered panels in
00:26:29 no or the engineered panels in construction trade association epic as it's known no no is there any reason why any of those organizations didn't attract your interests we're not [Music]
00:26:41 [Music] panel manufacturers and we don't deal with timber and we don't do roofs
00:26:49 do you agree in general with this proposition that it's necessary for a specialist cladding contractor to engage with trade associations in order to keep up with industry information and knowledge
00:27:00 information and knowledge yes
00:27:04 and as a specialist can we assume that harley was keeping itself up to date with the cladding industry at large
00:27:12 in general terms in general terms yes yes now at the time of working on the grenfell tower project from 2013 were you aware that there had been a long history of external cladding facades
00:27:24 history of external cladding facades on high-rise residential buildings
00:27:29 such a repeat that yes as at and from 2013
00:27:35 2013 which is the time you were working on the grenfell tower project were you aware
00:27:39 aware that there had been a long history of external
00:27:43 external cladding facade of fires on cladding facades
00:27:47 facades on high-rise residential buildings
00:27:50 no so were you aware of the fire at nosley heights in 1991 i was aware of that fire yes that was
00:28:01 i was aware of that fire yes that was the point after which cavity barriers um were introduced were you aware of the fire at garnet court which had occurred in 1999 resulting in one fatality
00:28:15 in 1999 resulting in one fatality were you aware of the fire at latino house in south london in 2009 yes were you aware of the fire in the mermails tower in rue bay in france in 2012.
00:28:24 2012. no what about the spate of fires in high-rise buildings in the uae in the period 2012 to 2013. no no
00:28:37 what about the fires at the address downtown hotel and also at the torch residential building both in dubai in 2015. did you know about those
00:28:49 in 2015. did you know about those no i don't think they were widely reported right at the time so that of the list i've i've read out to you i think you said yes in relation to noseley heights and latino house yes yes
00:29:03 are there any others that come to mind which you were aware of as at and from 2013. no subsequent um
00:29:17 right press had thought about a fire in melbourne but that was something that we had no knowledge of it so can we take it from what you've just told us that you don't have any
00:29:29 told us that you don't have any you didn't have any knowledge of the coverage of cladding fires in those dubai high-rise buildings in 2015 and 2016 and the industry publications no right
00:29:41 no right it would follow from that i think that um you didn't know that the external cladding had had ignited and caused flame to spread up the external cladding not at the time though or i suppose that
00:29:53 not at the time though or i suppose that the cladding on those buildings contained a polyethylene core
00:30:04 is it fair to say that as harley was holding itself out as a specialist uh cladding contractor uh that you and your team should have
00:30:16 uh that you and your team should have been aware of the dangers associated with acm panels that those fires illustrated
00:30:24 no i don't why is that
00:30:28 the fires that happened abroad were not reported um and you said we we weren't aware of those the other two fires one in 1991
00:30:40 two fires one in 1991 the recommendation was about the cavity barriers
00:30:43 barriers should be installed the lack of fire was as it was reported the problem there was that the fire stopping on the inside
00:30:54 stopping on the inside of the cladding system had been removed so the panels themselves didn't appear to be the issue you see the spate of fires in the uae in
00:31:08 you see the spate of fires in the uae in 2012 and 2013 were well publicized i know they were overseas but they were well publicized and carried by the bbc but i think you're telling us you didn't have any knowledge of those is that right
00:31:19 of those is that right correct
00:31:25 did you take any lessons away from your knowledge
00:31:30 knowledge either of the uh either of the nosebleed heights fire or of the lack of house fire about the the fire performance of acm cladding panels
00:31:44 no [Applause] now let's go to uh harley as at 2013 to 14
00:31:55 harley as at 2013 to 14 as a topic can i take you to paragraph nine of your inquiry statement please you say there that by 2013 to 14 harley had approximately 16 employees
00:32:07 employees now um you have a son called ben bailey yes how old is ben bailey now he is 31
00:32:18 he is 31 31 yes
00:32:22 when was he first employed by harley
00:32:31 he actually worked for harley during his some holidays from university but he became a full-time employee when he left university i'm just trying
00:32:42 when he left university i'm just trying to think what data that would have been 2012 2000 2012 2013. so he would have been 23 or 24 when he first started working
00:32:54 or 24 when he first started working full-time full-time at harley 23 or 24 yeah yes
00:32:58 yeah yes how many of your employees as at 2013 to 14 would have been involved in facade engineering
00:33:09 3014 in society engineering yeah it's probably
00:33:12 probably one who's that 13 14 or the hack graham hacker would have left by then with daniel i see and how many of the how many of those employees would have
00:33:24 how many of those employees would have been
00:33:26 been required as part of their job to consider the fire performance of specified materials in relation to any particular project
00:33:40 in terms of
00:33:43 what the design office generally do is if the products have a certificate that says they're classo they rely on that so that it's anybody working the design office
00:33:56 it's anybody working the design office will look at once the certificate has been looked at and the product is accepted they will use it
00:34:08 we don't look at every product every time once it's been used and been signed off we were using another project without do you refer to a design office
00:34:20 you refer to a design office who who was the design officer who who comprised the design office as at 2013 to 14. 1314 um the designer dan was in the
00:34:33 1314 um the designer dan was in the design of his mark stapley was in the design office and there were another four designers in our in-house design office at that stage right and after 2014
00:34:44 right and after 2014 it was it was similar until the highly current war went into liquidation okay and you refer also in that last answer to uh once it says it's class naught they rely on that we'll come we'll come back
00:34:55 rely on that we'll come we'll come back to class naught later on in your evidence but i just want to note that there did harley provide any formal training or continuing professional development for its employees in respect of their
00:35:08 for its employees in respect of their roles
00:35:09 roles during that period in addition to the mscs there were product knowledge courses that various employees went on
00:35:21 employees went on so that may involve training with the systems companies people like cornea or shuco and also pilkington's with regard to glass
00:35:35 pilkington's with regard to glass that sort of thing did any of your staff go on product knowledge courses relating to acm
00:35:41 to acm panels no
00:35:44 panels no what about insulation to be used in a rain screen system no
00:35:53 did harley provide staff um with training
00:35:57 training to allow them to keep up with industry accepted codes of practice for the design and installation of cladding and windows
00:36:04 windows that would have been the msc course that both daniel and graham went on i said but so apart from that i think the answer is no
00:36:16 think the answer is no is that right yes okay was harley iso 9001 credited no were the protocols of iso 9001 applied by harley even though harley
00:36:27 applied by harley even though harley wasn't a member no
00:36:31 now you go on to say in paragraph nine of your statement that your role as a director
00:36:36 director was to oversee the projects being worked on
00:36:41 on yes that's right is it would you actually yourself study uh quotations which were being given to employing employing contractors main
00:36:52 employing employing contractors main contractors the estimates would be produced by our estimator and we would have a review before they were sent out who was your estimator was that mike albison
00:37:04 estimator was that mike albison right and you say they would have a review were you personally involved in that review i was involved in the review with mark harris and mike albuston that for grenfell
00:37:16 mike albuston that for grenfell for grenfell yes yes
00:37:20 a paragraph nine you also say that you would work with mark harris i think he was the commercial manager on the sales side of the business yes that's right is it how is your time divided if you can give us some impression of it between
00:37:31 give us some impression of it between overseeing projects and the sales side of the business i would say
00:37:37 would say and i'm guessing 70 percent on projects and
00:37:41 and 30 on sales right now you say also that overseeing projects would involve your words reviewing key concept drawings for buildability and discussing projects internally you
00:37:52 and discussing projects internally you see that yes in the third and 49 there so is it right that you would actually discuss the design specifically the design of cladding projects
00:38:03 projects with your staff yes yes and when you say as you do at paragraph nine that you reviewed key concept drawings uh
00:38:14 key concept drawings uh what what does that mean and specifically how would you distinguish between
00:38:19 between what you call a key concept drawing from any other drawing well the key concept drawings are basically how we're going to build it
00:38:30 basically how we're going to build it with
00:38:32 with how's best to describe this
00:38:36 in if you're talking about grenfell for it specifically
00:38:45 we looked at we the architect sent us his design of how he wants the building um
00:38:52 um of the cladding to work and from that we're looking at ways to production an example is the
00:39:05 an example is the support rails for the windows now this is a an angle that bolts to the face of the structure
00:39:16 that bolts to the face of the structure above and below the opening into which the window unit is loaded
00:39:23 and we spent quite a lot of time on that rather than taking a standard off the shelf angle extrusion we designed it
00:39:37 angle extrusion we designed it [Music]
00:39:39 [Music] reviewing a number of factors one is thickening up various walls of it so that we didn't get any bending
00:39:50 bending where the stiff well is it going to help you to explain what yours yes we'll do
00:40:02 so the
00:40:07 that's the structure
00:40:16 the concrete structure and here on the arctic drawing there's a set of angles which are bolted
00:40:29 into which
00:40:34 the window unit's loaded and we have it
00:40:40 made down there onto the front of that
00:40:46 is the cladding rail ultimately the the panels are hooked over
00:40:56 over now this rail or this angle what we did with that
00:41:09 is actually determine the thickness that we want of this to give it its strength and over here we sloped this down so the water any water that came on here
00:41:20 so the water any water that came on here would run off the front
00:41:24 and we introduced some key slots here so that when we bolted this to it we didn't have to drill it on the side so the bolt would sit in here and stick up
00:41:36 here and stick up a cleat with them bolt on those bolt through to that with adjustment in and out one here this is so this is a serrated plate with a hole in it so that we can and then there's a
00:41:48 so that we can and then there's a serrated plate here which the bolt goes through into the concrete so we can adjust this up and down and in and out this is slow to let the
00:41:59 and in and out this is slow to let the water off at the bottom we put a down stand leg on it so this is far more intricate and complex than the standard angle because the standard
00:42:12 the standard angle because the standard angle
00:42:12 angle doesn't have these methods at the base the bottom one it wasn't the reverse of this because it if i should have drawn that there that's a
00:42:23 concrete sill the slope back so we had quite a long lever arm on this on this one so the wall thickness here was increased because it was longer and
00:42:35 was increased because it was longer and at the bottom we had a smaller upstand this is serrated again with a serrated plate so we can adjust this up and down and again with a race in here to take
00:42:47 and again with a race in here to take the cleat to give us the adjustment in and out
00:42:55 when we had the window here bearing these big units and we're lifting them up
00:42:59 up and we're 20 stories up in the air we don't want to drop anything so the purpose of these is when we put the window in the windows have a sort of a channel
00:43:13 and a channel so we put it in we push it up
00:43:17 up to the top lift it over and when it sits in
00:43:22 in in this position position two
00:43:29 it can't fall out so you can put it up let go
00:43:33 let go it can't come out so when i'm talking about
00:43:38 about the the productionization or or the architect's concept this is the bit of design that we're doing that the whole concept
00:43:50 that we're doing that the whole concept of what
00:43:51 of what the architect wants how he's designed it is his design the product of his but this bit is ours and that's what i was involved with the key concept of how this works so we're
00:44:03 concept of how this works so we're looking at adjustment because the flaws on here
00:44:10 the heights are different so from this side of the building to the other side of the building there can be 25 mil difference on the floor levels so we have to have adjustment in this to
00:44:22 so we have to have adjustment in this to take care of it all right so when i'm talking about our design that's what we do um so is that a i sort of cut you off yes because it's getting a bit long but
00:44:33 yes because it's getting a bit long but but it is my question was what distinguishes key concept designs or key concept drawings from other drawings is what you've just done show us an example of a key concept drawing correct
00:44:44 drawing correct and that would be done by by the harley designers
00:44:47 designers that were done by the harley's and you would review those yes would they then be reviewed uh again by uh studio e on this project yes they would
00:44:58 would before going off for uh construction yes routinely i i've seen that there are some drawings that slip through that but routinely right
00:45:10 through that but routinely right absolutely every time they should be reviewed
00:45:13 reviewed so can we take it that you saw uh all drawings produced by kevin lam and and daniel anchored jones no which why not were they not key
00:45:24 no which why not were they not key concept drawings there were half a dozen key concept drawings right the start that i saw and thereafter as they
00:45:32 they um and they become then there are variations on those key concept drawings
00:45:41 so the variations in those drawings i don't see that and there are revisions that go backwards and forwards with the architect i don't see all those revisions right how would you decide which ones you saw and which ones you didn't see
00:45:53 and which ones you didn't see generally it's it's the early these are the first half dozen drawings that i would see i see i may other drawings may pass across my desk but i'm not
00:46:02 not necessarily reviewing all of those very well we may come back to some examples of those later on in your evidence
00:46:12 you you say you reviewed the key concept drawings which you very helpfully now illustrated does it does that also tell us that you would have considered the fire performance of the materials being used
00:46:27 i i think with the acms which we've used before
00:46:32 before we knew they were class so um so we didn't review it but we knew what they were so we didn't review it it was taken as read
00:46:42 read that they were compliant the insulation as i've explained earlier with a new product to us
00:46:52 daniel spoke to celetex had the technical sales manager and we sent them key drawings and they signed off so as far as we were concerned the products were safe
00:47:07 would you also consider the fire safety of the design itself and its compliance with approved document b when considering the key concept drawings you've described
00:47:18 i think the products yeah at this stage there are things these early stage drawings so there's additions that go on to that
00:47:29 additions that go on to that so the fire break strategy is introduced a little bit further down the line well we're going to come back to that but my question i'll just repeat it did you yourself consider when
00:47:41 did you yourself consider when considering the key concept drawings whether or not those drawings complied with the proof document be mr bailey
00:47:51 yeah i think we just tweeted as read that they were we took it as read that they were
00:47:55 they were what would you consider yes we wouldn't we would not knowingly provide materials that weren't compliant no or designs that weren't compliant so i'm going to try and pin you down a bit more when you reviewed
00:48:07 more when you reviewed the key concept drawings that you've described to us by the illustration did you cross-check those designs as part of your review with the building regulations and with approved document b
00:48:18 approved document b not specifically no no now going back to paragraph
00:48:22 paragraph nine you say that you would usually visit the site once every two to three weeks to see how work was progressing that's right is it yes
00:48:30 yes how many projects would harley be working on at any one given time in general terms as that 2013 14 uh four or five right and during the period 2013 to 16
00:48:43 right and during the period 2013 to 16 when harley and i by that i mean the two companies were involved in the grenfell tower refurbishment do you recall how many other projects those two companies were actually involved in
00:48:54 actually involved in was it the same number uh
00:49:00 yes now in order to assess the progress of those works is it right that you would have known what materials were being used
00:49:07 used uh or proposed on those projects yes yes and during the site visits would you be looking at those specifically not specifically and to what extent would you personally be appraised of the
00:49:19 would you personally be appraised of the specific materials being used or proposed for a particular job at any given time
00:49:26 i i would know what products were on the job yes and would you discuss those with the client or client representative at those site meetings no
00:49:37 now you go on to say that you would also i'm sorry you're going to say and this is a paragraph nine again you say um on occasions this is the penultimate
00:49:49 on occasions this is the penultimate line i would visit projects more frequently you see that yes um how would you normally determine the frequency of your visits to site on these projects um
00:50:03 how smoothly they were running right i see so the less smooth the more frequent yes it now we know you set up harley facades in 2000
00:50:14 facades in 2000 and that that company remained dormant until i think september 2015 when harley curtain wall went into administration i got that right it it was actually um it was running
00:50:27 it it was actually um it was running in parallel with harley curtain wall for about nine months uh okay all right for nine months up to 2000 up to september 15th is that right
00:50:38 2000 up to september 15th is that right and in september 2015 the 10th of september 2015 i think um the grenfell tower um project i call it that was was transferred or novated if you like from
00:50:51 transferred or novated if you like from harley curtain wall to holly facades under a formal novation agreement correct
00:50:56 correct um i don't want to take you to it i'll just read the reference into the record so we can see it if we need it it's tmo one six zeros four sorry seven zeros four
00:51:07 four now in general terms in your view to the best of your recollection did the financial difficulties of harley curtin wall have an impact on the progress of the grenfell tower refurbishment
00:51:24 now i think tomorrow addiction no although it may have delayed um the
00:51:36 um the the project by a couple of weeks okay now just going back to an answer you gave earlier on you say that you would visit normally every two to three weeks did you visit the grenfell tower site every two
00:51:48 visit the grenfell tower site every two to three weeks um yes
00:51:54 um yes maybe a little more than that a little more than that was that because it was a little less smooth than other project no i think certainly after the innovation um
00:52:05 innovation um there was a lot of stuff to sort out so right but we'll they come back to that with you or others can i turn to some
00:52:16 with you or others can i turn to some questions about mark harris i'd like you to look at his witness statement please it's har3010159 please page two and i'd like you and i to look
00:52:28 page two and i'd like you and i to look together please at paragraph eight he says there one of the subcontractors i worked for as a freelance consultant with harley curtin wall
00:52:39 harley curtin wall i estimate for the first 15 years of my work as a freelance consultant i divided my time between these various subcontractors and thereafter for a period of five years about five
00:52:50 for a period of five years about five years i worked exclusively for harley curtain wall and harley facades limited during the time i was involved in the grenfell tower project i was working exclusively for harley i worked full time and was generally based
00:53:01 generally based at harley's offices from what date do you remember mark harris worked exclusively for harley
00:53:13 i i can't recall i i would i would have to guess at from
00:53:23 at from 2011
00:53:27 about 2011 youth yeah i can't recall what prompted him to come and work exclusively for harley do you remember
00:53:38 because we were um his biggest client by some way and he decided that he'd be better off
00:53:49 and he decided that he'd be better off working russ full time right now looking at that last sentence in paragraph 8 where he says i worked full time
00:53:57 full time and was generally based at harley's offices does that tell us that he was still an independent consultant even though he was working for harley full-time
00:54:04 full-time he was yeah he wasn't an employee on your payroll were there any formal contractual arrangements between mr harris as an independent contractor and harley he sent us his invoice every month we
00:54:15 he sent us his invoice every month we paid it i see but beyond that there were no terms conditions governing contractual relationships um no was he paid on a commission basis or a bonus basis
00:54:27 or a bonus basis can you he had a retainer and was paid on commission for the work that we got i see can you just give us a little bit of detail about how that commission
00:54:38 of detail about how that commission arrangement worked it was a percentage of the
00:54:41 of the um sales value for a project the sales okay the sale of what in particular the contract value right
00:54:52 the contract value right so the value of the contract between harley and the main contractor yes i see did his commission or or bonus or any remuneration arrangements
00:55:04 remuneration arrangements depend in any way on the prices that he managed to secure from suppliers no can i ask you then about grenfell tower specifically now we've
00:55:15 grenfell tower specifically now we've seen your statement paragraph nine that your role included we've seen this already going through estimating work reviewing key concept drawings for buildability and keeping up to date through site meetings and and progress
00:55:28 through site meetings and and progress meetings
00:55:29 meetings um you've given us a general picture in paragraph nine can we take it the the general picture in paragraph nine applied to the grenfell tower project yes yes how many times in total do you
00:55:43 yes yes how many times in total do you think
00:55:43 think you attended site on the grenfell tower project
00:55:59 well i don't want you to guess who would you generally meet on those occasions i'd i would meet um ben as the project manager i would meet the
00:56:11 as the project manager i would meet the fixers
00:56:13 fixers and the ryden project manager which would be
00:56:20 simon lawrence or
00:56:26 dave hughes or steve blake right you said project manager do you mean project manager or do you mean contracts manager well both both what about simon o'connor simon
00:56:38 both what about simon o'connor simon okay
00:56:39 okay yes okay what about building control no no
00:56:44 no i'm so sorry there's a question i should have asked you a moment ago about about um about mark harris's remuneration you say it was a percentage of the contract value what was that percentage
00:56:57 contract value what was that percentage um it was on a sliding scale um between one percent to half a percent right do you now we know that the value
00:57:10 right do you now we know that the value of the contract between harley and ryden uh
00:57:13 uh was roughly three million pounds just a little bit under three million pounds do you know what mark uh harris's total remuneration was in relationships
00:57:24 total remuneration was in relationships i'd have to guess where was it on the sketch you remember where it was on the scale between half a percent and one percent
00:57:30 percent no i i i i would be guessing i can't remember i'm afraid okay um
00:57:38 is there a document that shows how he was remunerated uh there may well be one somewhere mark may
00:57:45 may have a copy of it right is there a formal document which set out how he was to be remunerated which would then generate the invoices that you've discussed
00:57:56 discussed i've known mark for a long time and it we agreed on a handshake right so how how does the sliding scale work i i can't remember right but mom will have a copy though i'm sure all right we'll
00:58:07 i'm sure all right we'll have to ask about it you don't remember where on the sliding scale the grenfell tower project ended up again i'm going from memory
00:58:18 again i'm going from memory i think up there was so much up to a particular value and then over the value it was a reduced percentage because the sales work
00:58:30 because the sales work is pretty much the same if you're doing a million pound project or if you're doing a 5 million pound project so that's why
00:58:41 there was a sliding scale now can i take you back to your statement paragraph and also paragraph 76 just for the
00:58:52 and also paragraph 76 just for the purposes of reference um you say in your statement that you would have ad hoc meetings about key concept drawings for harley's projects is that right yes um now we know and we'll come to it
00:59:03 yes um now we know and we'll come to it in detail later but you had a meeting with studio e on the grenfell tower project they were the grenfell tower project architects on the 27th of september 2013
00:59:14 on the 27th of september 2013 at hayes galleria yes in london where you i think you discussed among other things the materials for the facade we discussed a range of things and
00:59:25 we discussed a range of things and potential materials which might be used yes yes
00:59:28 yes yes was it normal for harley as a specialist subcontractor to have meetings with architects on a project directly before
00:59:37 before the project had been put out for tender and before a main contractor had been appointed it's not unusual for either harley or any other subway
00:59:48 for either harley or any other subway chapter to do that can i show you paragraph 77 of your statement
00:59:54 statement page 20. let's just have that up on the screen if we could um you say there that
01:00:05 you believe you reviewed this is the second line the initial key concept design drawings for grenfell tower including the elevation drawings and you say you would have discussed
01:00:16 and you say you would have discussed days with kevin lam and or daniel angel jones did you discuss uh those at the hayes galleria meeting with studio e
01:00:25 studio e no because those drawings weren't didn't exist they didn't exist at that stage did you discuss any drawings at that meeting do you remember i think from memory um
01:00:37 i think from memory um studio brought a few drawings with them which they laid out on the table that sent
01:00:42 sent some drawings i think to mark prior to the meeting but it was it was very very much an initial
01:00:50 initial um sort of sales meeting what products are there what um how do we build it what's the access like
01:01:00 like so the whole range of high level
01:01:05 topics were covered now once those key concept drawings have come into being did you discuss those with kevin lam or daniel lancaster jones
01:01:14 jones our key concept yes yes how often did you have meetings with them do you think to discuss those drawings those drawings were produced quite quickly so over a period of two or three weeks i
01:01:26 so over a period of two or three weeks i would those drawings were those key concept drawings were produced so during that two or three week period i must have sat down with them three or four times would you have conferred with anyone else about those drawings besides mr lam
01:01:37 else about those drawings besides mr lam and anchoral jones yes um mark stapley uh would have been looking at them rob maxwell our contracts manager at the time would have an input because he's
01:01:48 an input because he's also interested in the buildability and the deliverability right of the project did any of those discussions either with mr lam mr axel jones mr stapley or mr
01:01:59 mr lam mr axel jones mr stapley or mr maxwell
01:02:00 maxwell involved the discussion of materials only we knew at that stage
01:02:09 um what materials were being used so they were prescribed as selective installation and acm for the panels now you mentioned
01:02:20 acm for the panels now you mentioned that you would have internal progress meetings in relation to the grenfell tower project in general who would have been in attendance at those meetings they weren't they would they weren't specifically
01:02:31 specifically for grenfell they were a project um review meeting so we would talk about the other projects as well as grenfell and in that in those meetings
01:02:42 meetings that we had mark stapley would have been there
01:02:46 there rob maxwell dan kevin me um on the grenville project they may have been in there on the other projects we were
01:02:56 were doing other project managers were in as well and how often did you have internal progress meetings on these projects they were irregular so maybe once a month
01:03:09 maybe once a month once a month so can we take it that you would have had internal progress meetings including meetings about the grenfell tower project roughly once a month but irregularly yes now let's go to paragraph 67 of your
01:03:20 yes now let's go to paragraph 67 of your statement
01:03:21 statement page 17 you confirmed there that you were aware in late march 2015 you say i was aware of the debate that was going on as to what the requirements
01:03:33 was going on as to what the requirements for these fire breaks were uh you see that
01:03:36 that yes um and you go on and explain a quote from one of the emails and there's some context to that and we'll come back to that i think later on but in general terms can we take it from
01:03:48 but in general terms can we take it from that as an example of your involvement that you were being kept abreast of a whole range of issues during this project from materials to key concept drawings to to cavity barriers for example
01:03:59 to to cavity barriers for example yes yeah
01:04:03 and can we take it also that you were really closely involved in the grenfell refurbishment from
01:04:10 from the meeting with studio e in september 2013 until the end of harley's involvement in the project i was as close involved in that project as all the other projects we were dealing
01:04:21 all the other projects we were dealing with what percentage or proportion roughly of your own time was spent dealing with the project in that time in that period with grenfell yes for grandpa
01:04:34 um in the harley quinn good wall era probably ten percent um after highly curtain wall disappeared probably uh forty percent
01:04:48 disappeared probably uh forty percent because we only had two projects running at the time i'm going to a different topic which is regulatory requirements can we look at your statement to paragraph 30
01:04:59 look at your statement to paragraph 30 please
01:05:01 page seven you say there
01:05:06 that the and you you quote from the covering
01:05:10 covering letter to the for the harley quotation for the building envelope that's the quotation to ryden that quotes our offer includes for the design supply and fix of a complete envelope package all in accordance with the client's
01:05:21 all in accordance with the client's requirements documents issued by yourselves clay's quotes um some questions about that as part of the design element for harley's work would that involve reviewing the
01:05:32 would that involve reviewing the drawings produced by studio e we wouldn't review their drawings we would use their drawings as a basis
01:05:44 we would use their drawings as a basis for our design right and you would as you say use you would then is this right produce detailed design drawings of your own based on what studio he had provided
01:05:55 based on what studio he had provided yes we produced the the production drawings
01:06:00 drawings to make the distinction
01:06:09 would you agree that part of harley's responsibility for the design supply and fix would include ensuring that the design
01:06:21 would include ensuring that the design of the facade complied with the relevant statutory requirements
01:06:29 yes but not in isolation um what does that mean well there is a pr when we receive drawings the drawings from
01:06:39 from studio e and they're issued to us their reader stage e at that point we
01:06:50 at that point we believe that what's being issued to us is compliant so the premise we start with
01:06:57 with is the expectation is that the design is compliant and we then are
01:07:10 producing the production version of the architect's design does that tell us that nobody had hardly analyzed the studio e
01:07:22 nobody had hardly analyzed the studio e drawings
01:07:25 drawings or the nbs specification as contained in the tender documentation in order to ensure that they complied with the relevant statutory requirements the we reviewed the mbs specification
01:07:39 the we reviewed the mbs specification because
01:07:39 because that um amongst other things we gave us the our design remit what part of the design we were responsible for
01:07:50 for the design that's come from the architect we we did a look at you will notice that the first rfi we
01:08:01 you will notice that the first rfi we produced the very first rf on the on the project was a query about cavity barriers and fire breaks seeking input from the architect from the
01:08:14 input from the architect from the from their fire consultants and building control about exactly where they wanted them so um yes that was our response
01:08:27 yes that was our response to their drawings looking generally where the cavity barriers were placed
01:08:39 the cavity barriers were placed there was there is the situation there is you have one window within a compartment so when there wasn't an additional
01:08:53 so when there wasn't an additional cavity barrier around the window that in itself
01:08:58 itself didn't necessarily ring any alarm bells because for the fire to escape from the cavity back into the building it would have to go past a cavity barrier so this this was
01:09:10 cavity barrier so this this was something that is not uncommon
01:09:16 in the industry if there's a single window within a compartment it's quite often it doesn't have a doesn't actually have a barrier around it so this didn't strike
01:09:28 barrier around it so this didn't strike in itself it doesn't raise a huge red flag but we did the very first thing we did was query the cavity barriers mr bailey i'm going
01:09:39 the cavity barriers mr bailey i'm going to kind of stop you in the the end of that i hope it's the end of that answer because it's quite a long answer
01:09:43 answer i'm going to re-ask the question but i'm going to break it down now um just take the nbs specification okay did anybody at harley
01:09:55 okay did anybody at harley analyze the materials and products contained in the nbs specification so far as concern the cladding to check whether it complied with the
01:10:07 to check whether it complied with the relevant statutory requirements yes they did yes who was that it would have been daniel i see
01:10:18 it would have been daniel i see did anybody at harley analyze the drawings that had come to harley from studio e to check to see whether they complied with the relevant statutory requirements
01:10:35 yes and we believe that he did you say you believed that they did what i'm really trying to get at here is whether you operated you harley operated on the assumption that somebody else had done the checking
01:10:46 that somebody else had done the checking first or whether you yourself it was the expectation that it had been done
01:10:51 done by studio before it came to us so so far as the drawings are concerned is this right harley proceeded on the assumption that studio e had checked all the drawings that they
01:11:03 e had checked all the drawings that they had produced and and satisfied themselves that they complied with the statutory obligations and requirements does that tell us
01:11:12 tell us that nobody had hardly checked the drawings for statutory compliance
01:11:19 i think that's a bit harsh but yes well you say a bit harsh i don't want to be harsh i just want to get to the
01:11:27 the bottom of what happened were there checks carried out by harley on the studio e drawings for compliance no right do you accept that as a
01:11:38 no right do you accept that as a specialist subcontractor responsible for design supply and fix of the facade on the grenfell tower project the buck stopped with harley on products and design no why not
01:11:50 on products and design no why not because there is a raft of layers with with harley with the architect with the fire consultants with building control
01:12:00 control um to ensure that the products are or the design is compliant
01:12:08 compliant are you stay saying that you were reliant on building control to make sure that the products and design were compliant
01:12:19 well ultimately yes can you explain how that comes about given that you were selling expertise and services as a specialist
01:12:30 specialist cladding subcontractor on this project if we have our we have our designs and the expertise is in
01:12:43 and the expertise is in the the cladding and how it's attached to the building how we get into site on time
01:12:51 time how we make it fit on particular items where we're not entirely
01:13:02 clear we ask questions of the architect of
01:13:06 of the specialist of building control to ensure
01:13:10 ensure that it's it complies
01:13:17 you say of the specialist of building control
01:13:20 control are you telling us that even though harley was a specialist cladding subcontractor with a lot of experience or particularly in relation to
01:13:31 or particularly in relation to overclouding high-rise residential buildings
01:13:33 buildings you nonetheless relied on building control to tell you whether or not the products and design complied with the statutory requirements
01:13:43 we're not we're not um strategy compliance experts so when we have a doubt about how something is done
01:13:56 about how something is done we seek guidance building control are the experts on compliance so that's
01:14:08 compliance so that's we don't in fact we don't talk to building control direct everything that we supply all the drawings that we produce are passed through to the main contractor to the architect
01:14:21 to the main contractor to the architect who then passes on to building control for for checking on the specific items that we're talking about the cavity barriers um we pushed that
01:14:33 um we pushed that right up the chain so that everybody looking at it from all aspects was happy that the sign complied
01:14:46 okay mr miller just allow me to intervene for a moment i wonder if you can just help me to understand this mr bailey if we reduce this to something specific
01:14:57 if we reduce this to something specific like the insulation yes did you consider it to be harley's responsibility to check what the nbs specification
01:15:08 to check what the nbs specification provided for by way of insulation and satisfy yourselves that it complied with the building regulations and adb
01:15:20 we checked the specifications we knew that celotex was the named product and we had celetex in we read their literature and they convinced us that he complied
01:15:33 and they convinced us that he complied so i think what you're saying is you did regard that as part of your responsibility yeah and you were satisfied because of what you already knew about celetex based on the literature that you had
01:15:46 based on the literature that you had been given right is that right that's right all right that's helpful thank you very much yes mr chairman this may be a convenient moment i was about to switch i didn't intend to uh break your lineup no not at all uh
01:15:57 no not at all uh it may be that a review of the notes may speed things up a little bit but it may be a convenient moment all right i'm happy to continue but we're moving on to a slightly different topic yep
01:16:06 topic yep subtopic all right mr bailey we're going to have a short break now so that you can stretch your legs and so on um while you're out of the room i have to ask you please not to discuss your evidence or anything to do with the
01:16:18 evidence or anything to do with the grenfell refurbishment with anyone else um we'll take court for an hour come back at 25 to 12 months okay all right you'd like to go to the ocean
01:16:32 please
01:16:39 all right 25 to 12 please
01:35:05 yes would you ask mr bailey to come back in please okay
01:35:22 all right mr bailey ready to carry on yes good thank you yes yes mr chairman thank you mr bailey we're going to turn uh to a different topic uh now which is the contractual arrangements in relation to
01:35:33 contractual arrangements in relation to this grenfell tower project specifically can i ask you to look at paragraph 47 first of all please
01:35:40 please that's your inquiry statement at page 12.
01:35:47 and you say there at power 47 that towards the end of july harley says 2014 harley were officially notified of ryden's intention to appoint it
01:35:58 it as the envelope package subcontractor the letter of intent you say refers to the authorized works as design
01:36:05 as design of facade works for the sum of thirty thousand pounds then you go on to say whilst no written contract was ever signed between harley and ryden a scope of works and ascertainment of lump sum
01:36:16 works and ascertainment of lump sum price was agreed in around july 2014 in the figure of 2.6 odd million pounds do you know why a contract was never formally agreed between ryden and harley
01:36:27 between ryden and harley i don't
01:36:31 do you know um or did it concern you that there was never a contract signed between harley and ryden um no it's not unheard of not unheard of
01:36:44 it's not unheard of not unheard of did it concern you it's my question no
01:36:48 it's not unheard of but is it usual to have no formal written contract on a project of this size it's not usual now no and given that it wasn't usual can you explain why it happened
01:37:02 can you explain why it happened i can't did it cause any difficult difficulties for harley not having a contract formally setting out the extent of the works and harley's responsibilities
01:37:14 responsibilities uh no
01:37:17 uh no now i think it's right isn't it that your scope of works harley's scope of works was determined by the letter of intent the loi sent by harley by sent by ryden to
01:37:29 sent by harley by sent by ryden to harley
01:37:30 harley yes and let's just look at that um if we can go to har four zeros five eight six seven please
01:37:40 this is the letter of intent or rather this is
01:37:43 this is uh an email i should say um sent uh to you by mark harris on the 25th of
01:37:51 25th of july you see that yes and he attached among other things the harley signed letter of intent with its appendices did you read them at the time um
01:38:06 probably not why not
01:38:11 there are a lot of um
01:38:16 some key documents in there i would have read other other ones
01:38:21 probably not know well um would you have read
01:38:27 read the harley signed letter of intent yes you would have done right
01:38:33 did you take steps to make sure that your
01:38:37 your staff so mark stapley daniel quito jones perhaps ben as well then bailey read the loi no
01:38:49 turning to the letter of intent itself if we can that's at har50120 you can see there that under item one
01:39:02 you can see there that under item one design of facade works the authorized works
01:39:08 did you understand from that that harley bore the responsibility for designing the entire facade
01:39:16 to the extent it was set out in the mbs
01:39:24 specification well that qualification doesn't appear here and i'm just really just trying to get you to understand your recollection about what the scope of the
01:39:35 recollection about what the scope of the work was just try the question again did you understand having probably read this letter of intent that harley's job was to design the facade
01:39:46 harley's job was to design the facade yes yes now if we look on down the loi if you go to heading 1 compliance just immediately below that you can see that it says that the authorized works must comply with the
01:39:59 authorized works must comply with the following
01:40:00 following and there is a series of appendices which include appendix f d i'm sorry appendix d and appendix f and if you um go over the page you can
01:40:12 and if you um go over the page you can see
01:40:12 see what appendix f uh well you can't actually but it does include appendix f can we look at appendix d first of all which is the subcontractor
01:40:23 first of all which is the subcontractor pre-contract interview that's har50391
01:40:32 did you look at this do you think yes i think i did yes let's look at page two under clause 4.2 please
01:40:50 two under clause 4.2 please and that says drawings and 4.1 revised stroke updated drawings to be issued to subcontractors offices electronically a copy to be held by site manager you
01:41:01 a copy to be held by site manager you are responsible for checking drawing revision with site manager prior to commencing work so when you saw that you you understood it did you yeah and the you in this case is always
01:41:14 yeah and the you in this case is always harley isn't it clearly it is yes and under 4.2 specifically subcontractor drawings um n a and then you can see um there are five items there with dates
01:41:27 there are five items there with dates preparation approval resubmission issued for construction and manufacturing period
01:41:33 period and then a note all drawings and specifications received by us will be commented upon and approved in principle only
01:41:39 only the subcontractor remains fully responsible for the design including relevant compliances design and dimensional integration now just looking at that do you accept
01:41:51 now just looking at that do you accept that harley was responsible and remained responsible for ensuring that the design of the facade
01:41:58 facade comprising the authorized works met the relevant compliances
01:42:05 yes and that included the building regulations and associated guidance including approved document b yes yes and did you expect your team on this project to be sufficiently familiar
01:42:16 this project to be sufficiently familiar with the requirements of the building regulations and approved document b to be able to design a safe cladding system
01:42:23 system yes and in instances where they were unsure they would seek guidance from the architect building control and other specialists who which are the specialists the
01:42:36 who which are the specialists the specialists um employed by ryden's i.e the fire consultants is alex over yes um we'll come back to
01:42:47 yes um we'll come back to that i think later um
01:42:52 does it follow from your the unqualified part of your answer that you
01:42:59 you recognize that ryden as the contractor buying your services as a subcontractor would be relying on harley's familiarity
01:43:10 would be relying on harley's familiarity with those statutory requirements and their expertise
01:43:18 our expertise in in the cladding and if we required assistance with the strategy requirement we would seek it
01:43:30 it but let me ask it again does it follow from that part of the answer that he wasn't qualified as the contractor buying your services ryden buying harley's specialist
01:43:41 ryden buying harley's specialist subcontractor services that uh that ryden was relying on harley's familiarity with the building regulations and approved document b yes yes
01:43:54 can i ask you to look at appendix f which is a schedule of information which is har50396 please
01:44:07 is har50396 please this is a a list uh under the heading envelope package schedule of information you see that yes and under that it says specifications
01:44:18 specifications and under the third item there do you see section b specification and design requirements yes
01:44:26 yes now we'll come to this document and back to this document in a minute but can we first
01:44:31 first turn to the contents page of the jct contract between ryden and the tmo which is at ryd uh six zeroes
01:44:42 which is at ryd uh six zeroes one sorry seven zero is one i think it should be at page two yeah seven zero is page two now i'd like to look here at the same
01:44:54 i'd like to look here at the same reference
01:44:55 reference under part two where it says section b specification and design requirements you see that yes uh so what's happening is that
01:45:06 that yes uh so what's happening is that the
01:45:07 the appendix f contains the same reference in the subcontract as contained in the head contract between ryden and the tma yes yes yes uh now if we can look at page 179
01:45:19 now if we can look at page 179 of this document the jct dnb contract between ryden and the tmo this is where we find section 2b
01:45:29 and this says or it's entitled architectural employer requirements are contained within and then you can see architectural nbs in appendix a stroke architectural you
01:45:41 in appendix a stroke architectural you see that
01:45:42 see that yes now this is this is the nbs specification that was prepared by studio e uh and provided
01:45:48 provided to harley with the tender documents yes i mean
01:45:51 i mean i say that do you agree with that yes um was it your understanding that harley's contract
01:45:57 contract with ryden the subcontract required harley to consider the nbs specification yes and would you agree that it would be to all intents and purposes impossible for
01:46:09 all intents and purposes impossible for harley to produce a proper tender for the project and to conduct detailed design work unless harley had considered the nbs specification yes yes now going back if we can now to
01:46:20 yes now going back if we can now to appendix f which is har 50396 page 3 please we see that that appendix also incorporated if you look
01:46:33 also incorporated if you look at the top of page 3 at the last lo but 1 it incorporated um uh lo1212
01:46:45 um uh lo1212 spec double zero one do you see that i do yes now that but do you know what do you happen to know what that might have been i don't let me help you that was a
01:46:56 don't let me help you that was a specification produced by curtin's consulting let me show that to you that's art 50914 please
01:47:09 50914 please now um this is dated the first of march 2013. you can see that it's entitled la 1212 spec double zero one produced by curtin's consulting and
01:47:20 produced by curtin's consulting and entitled structural performance specification for the design supply and application of over-cladding systems to grenfell tower um did you look at this document at the time do you think
01:47:31 time do you think i'm not sure i've ever seen this document right even though it was referred to in the subcontract yes really
01:47:41 would you accept just looking at its description that it was an important document because it sets out the specification for the for the design uh at the very least of the overclouding
01:47:53 uh at the very least of the overclouding system
01:47:53 system for grenfell yes can you explain why you you didn't look at this document whilst it's referred to in the letter of intent i'm not sure
01:48:04 intent i'm not sure it was ever supplied
01:48:08 you say you're not sure it was ever supplied does that mean that you've looked into this and right
01:48:17 i see now let's see how we go with it at section one if you can go to that please page three uh it says uh
01:48:28 under general in the second line second sentence all works shall be designed supplied and constructed by the contractor
01:48:39 whether or not you saw this document historically do you accept that in this case you
01:48:43 case you harley that is with the subcontractor engaged to design the building envelope
01:48:53 the contractor is harley in this case yes yes and as such harley had to design supply and construct the building envelope yes
01:49:04 envelope yes yes now let's look at section four which is page seven this sets out the standards of
01:49:12 compliance you see it says compliance with general standards and there is a list there uh of cour standards of compliance that all design
01:49:24 standards of compliance that all design components and workmanship must comply with would you agree with me that harley was under an obligation to ryden
01:49:33 ryden through these through this
01:49:36 document to ensure that the design components and workmanship must comply with each of those requirements and recommendations yes
01:49:49 requirements and recommendations yes and include including the statutory requirements the building regulations 2000 and subsequent amendments and and indeed the bre digests and information papers
01:49:59 papers yes yes if we look at section five which is page eight this is entitled specific standards of compliance and here is a
01:50:10 compliance and here is a a list of specific standards applicable to the building envelope were you familiar with this list
01:50:20 um no as i said i haven't seen this document before no you may not have seen the document before as you said but but just looking casting your eye if you would down the list of british standards
01:50:31 list of british standards these standards which are familiar to
01:50:36 you um some are and some aren't some are and some aren't well let's look at one particular one the pre penultimate say um third from the bottom bre
01:50:49 say um third from the bottom bre publication fire performance of external thermal insulation for walls of multi-story building second edition 2003 was that familiar to you at the time as an applicable standard
01:51:01 an applicable standard um if that's bre-135 yes bre-135 what about this publication bre publication second edition i i no i i don't know
01:51:12 second edition i i no i i don't know right okay well maybe it is the same it may be the same thing but what about the last one center for walling and cladding technology that should be cwct standards for walls with vertical range
01:51:24 standards for walls with vertical range screens 1998 yes and you read that in i think you told us
01:51:29 told us you were familiar with that yeah yes all right now
01:51:34 right now do you accept that you were you harley were obliged to be familiar with and apply
01:51:40 apply each of those publications and particularly the publications i just picked out the bre 135 publication and the cwct standard yes
01:51:48 yes if we look at page nine please next page under section six design and look at the third bullet from the bottom
01:51:56 bottom um you can see that uh it refers to the need for effective fire barriers and the at the top part of the page
01:52:04 the page you see that the document requires the designer
01:52:08 designer or the constructor to to consider the effects of the need for effective fire barriers
01:52:15 barriers were you aware that that was an obligation that harley owed to ryden yes and then at page 11 under section 7 you can see that the contractor if you look at this
01:52:26 look at this yeah the title is over cladding we can see here that if you look at 7.1.3 uh it says the system should comply fully with the recommendations of the bre document fire performance of
01:52:38 bre document fire performance of external thermal insulation of walls for multi-story building second edition 2003. so that's 135 and then again at 7.1.4 the system shall not be a fire risk at
01:52:49 the system shall not be a fire risk at any stage of installation nor shall it constitute a fire hazard after completion if for any reason the insulin becomes exposed
01:53:01 again were you did you understand that those were obligations which highly owed to ryden
01:53:06 to ryden yes yes now let's just look if we can at bre the bre publication of 2003 that's the second edition and we'll also look at the one in 2013
01:53:17 look at the one in 2013 third edition um starting with the second edition bre four zeros five five five four bre four zeros five five five four page two
01:53:29 four zeros five five five four page two uh if we start with page two please uh this is uh in the document just looking at the first page of it is that something that you were familiar with at the time of the
01:53:41 were familiar with at the time of the contract
01:53:42 contract yes summer 2014 it was now we can see it's authored by if we look at the next page
01:53:50 it's authored by sarah colwell and brian martin
01:53:54 martin and this document sets out design principles for external cladding referred to by the curtin specification my first question is this did you look at this document specifically
01:54:06 at this document specifically during the grenfell tower refurbishment no i didn't know it didn't did you look at it before starting on the grenfell tower project i think i
01:54:17 think i looked at it a few years ago a few years ago before the project yes what had caused you to look at this document
01:54:25 document a general reading general reading was it a specific project that had prompted you to look at it i can't recall
01:54:34 right did you refresh your memory ever in relation to this document or was this a one-off read it it was one or three right how many years before the grenfell tower project was that one i'm guessing five years um
01:54:48 i'm guessing five years um um are you aware or were you aware that this document which is you call and i think is um uh
01:54:59 um uh for short called bre 135 to specifically in the in approved document b yes
01:55:10 in approved document b yes yes and and were you aware that specifically specifically it's referred to a
01:55:15 to a paragraph 12.5 of approved document b i couldn't use a paragraph fair enough um
01:55:23 um [Applause] can we look at page seven of this document please this is a reference to a fire
01:55:35 this is a reference to a fire in 1999 in a housing block in scotland and you can see the picture
01:55:42 picture figure one garnet caught irvin now this was one of the fires i asked you about earlier this morning and you said you had no
01:55:48 had no recollection of i think looking at this document
01:55:52 document uh you sure that was quite right if in fact you had read this document yes the um the name of the building didn't register
01:56:04 the name of the building didn't register with me right now if we look at page nine you can see that um the mechanisms of fire spread are described there by figure 2
01:56:18 both in text form and in a picture
01:56:24 did you understand having read this document even though five years or so before grenfell or before your involvement on it that you understood that cladding systems
01:56:35 you understood that cladding systems can create the opportunity for rapid unseen
01:56:39 unseen flame spread yes which causes an unacceptable risk to the occupants yes yes and was that something that you appreciated during your time working on the grenfell tower project yes yes
01:56:51 yes yes now did you realize that this guidance also warns that external cladding systems offer a potential route for fire spread through multi-storey buildings
01:57:02 buildings yes and the close attention should be paid to the installation of cavity barriers
01:57:07 barriers to inhibit the spread of flame in the event of a fire involving an external cladding system yes yes now let's look at page ten paragraph three it refers to cavities
01:57:19 paragraph three it refers to cavities uh and it says uh there if flames become confined
01:57:25 confined this is the third line down uh or restricted by entering cavities within the external cladding system they will become elongated as they seek oxygen and fuel to support the combustion process this process can lead to flame extension
01:57:37 this process can lead to flame extension of 5 to 10 times that of the original flame lens and then this is in bold regardless of the materials used to line the cavities this may enable fire to spread rapidly unseen through the external cladding
01:57:48 unseen through the external cladding system
01:57:49 system if appropriate fire barriers have not been provided figure four was that statement of principle something with which you were familiar at the time of your involvement on the grenfell tower project
01:58:00 grenfell tower project yes and again looking at page 10 of paragraph
01:58:03 paragraph 5 fire service intervention it says that where the external cladding system is not significantly contributing to the spread of fire from one story to the to the there's a gap
01:58:14 gap um to the next i think it should say that intervention by emergency services should prevent continued fire propagation by way of the building envelope
01:58:23 envelope and then it goes on to say however where the external cladding system is contributing to the fire propagation rate the potential exists for the fire to affect multiple stories simultaneously thus making firefighting more difficult
01:58:36 thus making firefighting more difficult and again is that a principle even in general terms with which you were familiar at your time of your involvement in grenfell it was um just one or two more references then page 17 please third line third paragraph down this
01:58:49 third line third paragraph down this deals with system specific details ventilated cavities
01:58:56 uh you can see there that it says once the fire do you see third paragraph done once the fire is within the cavity it may propagate unseen through the system if adequate fire barriers are not employed
01:59:07 employed this may result in significant risk of system collapse or fire breakout at significant distances from the fire origin
01:59:15 so does that tell us and did you understand at the time that the guidance was requiring close attention to be paid to the installation of cavity barriers
01:59:26 of cavity barriers to inhibit the spread of flame in the event of a fire involving an external cladding system yes and then under on page 17 a little bit lower down under
01:59:37 on page 17 a little bit lower down under the heading performance of materials in fire do you see it says first of all insulation then it says the performance of insulating material when subjected to this type of fire scenario has been
01:59:48 this type of fire scenario has been outlined in the previous section typically non-combustible materials are used in these systems as it is difficult to prevent fire entering the cavity and spreading through the insulating material and again did you understand that
02:00:01 yes yeah and then and then bottom of page 17 over to page 18 we can see it says under external panel materials used for
02:00:12 under external panel materials used for external panels used can vary from non-combustible through to combustible and then there's the first bullet point and it says non-combustible materials and materials of limited combustibility as defined in
02:00:24 of limited combustibility as defined in tables a6 and a7 of approved document b typically cementitious based products through to natural products such as stone veneers and coated metal panels and it goes on about that and then it
02:00:35 and it goes on about that and then it says
02:00:36 says four lines up from the end of that bullet point it's halfway through that mini paragraph metal panels such as aluminium you see that yes
02:00:45 that yes may fall from the system if the strength of fixing is affected by the local fire source
02:00:50 source then it says they may also melt generating molten metal debris if exposed directly to the sustained flame envelope
02:01:00 again was that a a a warning or risk that you were familiar with at the time of the grenfell tower project yes now
02:01:13 the guidance available for the majority of the period of grenfell tower project was in fact contained in the 2013 edition of this um document bre-135
02:01:24 of this um document bre-135 or br135 and it contained further warnings can we just look at that it's cel403364 please
02:01:42 uh and again it's uh by sarah colwell and and
02:01:45 and and a new editor tony baker just looking at the front page is this a document the third edition 2013 that you you read i don't think i've seen that one you've
02:01:56 i don't think i've seen that one you've seen it right that's did you know that a further edition had been uh published in 2013. i you didn't i didn't know how can you account for that how did you
02:02:10 how can you account for that how did you not know that uh an updated edition of br135 had come into being given your experience and position in the industry
02:02:23 i'm not sure actually how we're alerted to updates of certificates or new publications right so there's not a circular issued saying by the way there's a new
02:02:35 issued saying by the way there's a new publication here it is you have to actively go and look for it was there no system in place in harley whereby
02:02:46 whereby guidance documents such as this one which was
02:02:50 which was official or semi-official because it's referred to in adb were were curated or collected no i think that's something that needs to be
02:03:01 to be looked at more generally right just looking at the bottom of that first page did you know that this document had been produced on behalf of celotex
02:03:14 had been produced on behalf of celotex well no um
02:03:20 just help me with it did you know of any relationship at the time given your role in the industry between celetex and the bre no i'm a little surprised
02:03:33 no i'm a little surprised um let's look at the document page 11 please
02:03:40 i'll take this very quickly uh
02:03:51 yes at page 11 please paragraph 2.1
02:04:08 is uh you can see it paragraph 2.1 halfway done it says it refer it refers to uh
02:04:19 it refer it refers to uh regulatory systems and then in the third paragraph it says these potentially conflicting requirements are highlighted in the area of innovative materials and designs which are being driven by the need to construct more energy efficient and sustainable buildings
02:04:30 sustainable buildings in order to meet these design challenges the range of new and innovative innovative materials and designs of systems being offered as potential solutions has also increased the volumes of potentially combustible materials being used in
02:04:41 combustible materials being used in external cladding applications you see that i do um was that something as a general principle you were aware of at the time yes uh and if you
02:04:54 yes uh and if you uh
02:04:58 uh look on uh at uh page 22 paragraph 6.4.1 under the heading insulation
02:05:12 i just want to show you that
02:05:16 performance of materials in fire as it can be difficult to prevent fire entering the cavity and spreading in these systems the selection of insulation materials and the design of the fire barriers to close these cavities are particularly
02:05:28 close these cavities are particularly important
02:05:28 important and again the time of the project in grenfell tower project were you familiar with that as a general principle even though you may not have seen this document yes yes
02:05:44 can i then go back to the loi
02:05:50 mr millet um
02:05:54 i'm just wondering whether this document was produced i i can't yes i've had it i've just had a note from those behind me mr chairman right
02:06:03 right perhaps i can just clear that up um mr bailey i asked you about production on behalf of celetex limited that may be my fault
02:06:12 my fault for misunderstanding what that means uh so i may have to revisit that later but i would withdraw the question about the production of this document by celetex
02:06:23 this document by celetex okay only relationship between celetex and the bre all right just for the record we i may need to clarify that later on um if if um we go back to the letter of
02:06:34 um if if um we go back to the letter of intent har 5 0 is 120 uh clause 2 b if we can just look at that
02:06:43 if you turn the page to uh it says the draft building contract
02:06:52 if we can go to the yes second line though the draft building contract is available for inspection by you at our offices
02:07:00 offices see that you are deemed to have notice of all its provisions and its provisions are incorporated in this contract insofar as they relate to the authorized works
02:07:11 works now just looking at that that's a pretty common provision isn't it for a subcontract it is yeah did you therefore understand that the provisions of the main contract between the tmo and ryden were incorporated into the subcontract
02:07:23 incorporated into the subcontract so far at least as they referred to the design or related to the design of the facade
02:07:32 i didn't appreciate that at the time but looking at what it says now i'd agree with you right you say you didn't appreciate it at the time can you explain why not no
02:07:44 did you not yourself sit down and just review the whole suite of contracts to make sure
02:07:49 make sure you knew what harley was being committed to no
02:07:52 to no it was that common for your prac as a matter of practice for you uh
02:08:06 normally we actually have a contract with centers we can read through this is the way this is issued as a letter of intent uh yeah that is
02:08:18 uh yeah that is that's causing this issue yes
02:08:24 yeah yes
02:08:27 so you're not knowing that the head contract had been incorporated into the subcontract wasn't abnormal is that right
02:08:34 right yes and let's say we never actually had the
02:08:37 the formal contract through no well i i'll come to that i think but but i think the answer to my question is that it's not was not normal for you uh it's not normal for you
02:08:49 uh it's not normal for you not to know that the head contract terms are incorporated into the subcontractor right does that tell us that at least in simple terms you didn't know that harley owed the same obligations to
02:09:00 that harley owed the same obligations to ryden that ryden owed to its client the tmo yes
02:09:06 did anybody at harley to your knowledge ever take the opportunity to inspect the head contract between ryden not to my knowledge no
02:09:20 so can we proceed on the basis that harley's involvement in this project proceeded without any familiarity at all with what ryden had promised
02:09:30 promised it would do to the for the tmo correct
02:09:36 is that unusual in your experience uh unusual but not um unheard of right
02:09:48 if we can look at the main contract this is ryd701
02:09:59 uh we can see that this is the first page it's dated the 30th of october 2014.
02:10:06 2014. this is the formal signed version and uh it's a design and build contract do i can we take it that you knew at least that yes yes
02:10:17 and at the time of the grenfell tower project how familiar were you with design and build projects
02:10:26 reasonably i'd probably a third of the jobs that we do uh design and build
02:10:35 can we look at page 19 please and i'd like you to look with me please at floors 2.1.5.1
02:10:45 which is a specific clause inserted into the
02:10:48 the head contract and it says the contractor warrants
02:10:52 warrants so that's ryden warranting to the tmo that it has not used and shall not use and has exercised and shall continue to exercise
02:11:00 exercise the standard of skill and care required by clause 2.17.2.1 to ensure that it is not and shall not specify
02:11:08 specify authorized cause or allow to be used in the works any products or materials which
02:11:13 which and then there are four sub-sub-clauses there
02:11:17 there the first of which says this is 2.1.5.1.1
02:11:22 2.1.5.1.1 do not conform with british or european standards where appropriate or codes of practice or where no such standards exist do not conform with a british board of agreement certificate
02:11:35 did you understand that harley was taking on that obligation vis-a-vis ryden
02:11:47 no but we wouldn't supply stuff that didn't conform with to that of course
02:11:54 what did harley do to ensure that it wouldn't
02:11:57 wouldn't supply stuff that didn't conform as you put it
02:12:04 the the key components were set out in the
02:12:08 the prescriptive mbs specification and
02:12:16 we know that the render bond had an agreement certificate which complied with this we know that the celetex
02:12:27 that the celetex came with its certification albeit as we've you found out it wasn't
02:12:39 what it was sold to us as
02:12:43 let's look at clause 2.17.1 on page 22. that provides the uh and again it's quite long but it
02:12:56 uh and again it's quite long but it provides that the contractor which is ryden in this contract
02:13:00 contract shall to the extent set out in clause 2.17.2.1 below be fully responsible in all respects for the design of the works including and then
02:13:14 it goes on to say at clause 2.17.2.2 you see it says not limited to the
02:13:26 you see it says not limited to the coordination and integration of all design and the interface between the design elements for the works whether carried out by the contractor or by any other party engaged on the works and the contractor
02:13:37 engaged on the works and the contractor shall adopt and take responsibility for any design work in relation to the works which may be carried out or which may have been carried out by professional consultants or specialist subcontractors or by any other person at the request of the employer did you
02:13:50 at the request of the employer did you know
02:13:50 know that harley was taking on that obligation vis-a-vis ryden uh no and then at 2.17.1.3
02:14:01 uh no and then at 2.17.1.3 the contractor would be fully responsible in all respects for selection of goods and materials and the satisfaction of performance specifications included or referred to in the employer's requirements can the contractors proposals this
02:14:13 can the contractors proposals this contract or any change again did you know that harley was taking on that obligation vis-a-vis ryden
02:14:19 ryden no
02:14:24 if we look a little bit further down at clause 2.17.2.3 i'm sorry 2.17.2.2 on page 23.
02:14:35 i'm sorry 2.17.2.2 on page 23. it says that the works will when completed comply with any performance specification or requirements included or referred to in the employer's requirements or contractors proposals this contract will own any change
02:14:47 will own any change same question again did you know that harley was taking on that obligation vis-a-vis ryden no clause 2.17.2.3 subject to clause 2.17.2.1 the
02:14:59 subject to clause 2.17.2.1 the contractor shall design and construct the works in compliance with all consents including the discharge of any reserved matters in planning consents relating to the works statutory agreements statutory requirements relevant codes of practice
02:15:11 requirements relevant codes of practice british standards or eu equivalents and manufacturers recommendations and the requirements of the insurers of the employer
02:15:17 employer insofar as details have been provided to the contractor at the date of this contract
02:15:22 contract and again same question i'm afraid did you know that harley was taking on that obligation vis-a-vis ryden no would you agree that the reference to statutory requirements and relevant codes of practice would
02:15:33 and relevant codes of practice would include the building regulations 2010 yes as a matter of as a matter of practice yes yes
02:15:43 would you agree that in order to ensure that harley complied with the contractual obligations that were incorporated into harley's letter of intent with ryden from the head contract as
02:15:55 ryden from the head contract as specialist subcontractor harley would have to analyze the specification and the drawings provided by the architect to ensure that it was possible to comply
02:16:19 to comply yes
02:16:23 and to develop the design your contract with
02:16:26 with ryden required harley to analyze the specification and design intent again to ensure that you were able to comply with the building regulations
02:16:48 yes and that would mean would it that you'd have to look at the nbs specification and yourself make sure that the product actually complied with the building regulations
02:16:59 the building regulations and approved document b rather than simply taking it on trust that that exercise of analysis had already been done by somebody else
02:17:13 no i think there was there was an expectation that by the time it came to us it was compliant on with regard to the celetex in particular we carried out
02:17:27 the celetex in particular we carried out what we thought were the necessary checks to ensure that it complied [Music]
02:17:34 [Music] and we were convinced that it did
02:17:38 unfortunately it didn't and that's gone past us the architect x over building control
02:17:57 the architect x over building control mr bailey would you just pause for a moment
02:18:04 mr bailey i'm going to have to ask you just to raise your voice a little bit if you were
02:18:07 you were sorry um it's not always very easy to hear what you're saying that's right thank you very much mr bailey i
02:18:14 bailey i i don't mean to be critical but but i i do understand what you want to tell us about celetex specifically and we will come to uh fr and rs 5000 in due time
02:18:26 uh fr and rs 5000 in due time i'm just trying to get a feel at the moment for the general propositions uh applicable applicable to any product and design um relating to harley's obligations or which
02:18:37 which informed them so my question again in general terms i'm saying i'm sorry i'm going to repeat it that do you accept that you would have to look at the nbs specification
02:18:49 to look at the nbs specification and yourself make sure harley make sure that the product actually complied with the building regulations and approved document b rather than simply taking it on trust that somebody else had done that job
02:19:02 that somebody else had done that job yes yes
02:19:14 can i ask you to look at the head contract again please ryd 3-0 is 94235
02:19:26 ryd 3-0 is 94235 this is the contract between ryden and the tmo page 64. again this is the conformed version executed on the 30th of october 2014 and on this page we can see clause
02:19:38 2014 and on this page we can see clause 2.2.1
02:19:40 2.2.1 all materials goods and workmanship used in the execution of the work shall be of such kinds and of such quality as are necessary to enable the contractor to comply with his obligations under this contract
02:19:51 this contract and then it says uh the contractor shall not make any substitution for any materials goods or workmanship specified or described in the employer's requirements
02:20:02 requirements or if not specified or described in the employer's requirements as set out in the contractor's proposals or in the specifications reside revised and returned to the contractor by the employer
02:20:11 employer in accordance with the contractor's design submission procedure set out in schedule 1 without the prior consent not to be unreasonably withheld or delayed in writing of the employer now i know that's a bit of a mouthful but would you agree with me that as far
02:20:23 but would you agree with me that as far as this contract uh applied to harley harley were under an obligation to ensure that any product substitutions had to be approved by ryden yes yes so harley wasn't allowed simply to
02:20:35 so harley wasn't allowed simply to substitute a product without getting approval first from from right correct yes now can we look at
02:20:42 at h a r three zeros one oh one five five this is harley's quotation that he gave to ryden
02:20:50 to ryden in uh
02:20:53 january 2014 29th of january there's the first page of it i'd like you to go please to page nine
02:21:04 where we can see a cost summary and there's a long list of bullet points there about what it is that you're going to do
02:21:11 to do for a total quotation there of 3.2 odd million pounds do you see that i do and you can see in that list that uh under the third
02:21:23 that uh under the third bullet point i'm sorry the last bullet point i'd say sorry the last bullet point design drawings survey and schedules for procurement 110 978
02:21:36 110 978 pounds you see that now if you or harley and anyone else with harley had seen anything in the draft contract
02:21:46 contract that you thought was beyond your expertise or that you wouldn't expect to do within either the total budget or the specific sub-budgets for each head
02:21:57 each head um you would have picked ryden up on that wouldn't you you would well you wouldn't have let me try a different way you wouldn't have quoted for something
02:22:08 you wouldn't have quoted for something that you weren't qualified to do no you wouldn't and you wouldn't have quoted a figure which was too low for the for the work that you thought was required no no
02:22:23 no no and if having seen the nbs specification and the employer's requirements and related drawings harley had thought that there were any flags any any sorry any any concerns or flaws in the
02:22:34 sorry any any concerns or flaws in the design
02:22:35 design then harley would have flagged that up in the quotation and priced accordingly we would have done yes yeah were you aware
02:22:42 aware of any concerns at the time about the employer's requirements or the design
02:22:49 oh no
02:22:52 can i get back to the left give me a moment i think the usher wants to have a word with me
02:23:00 you got something for me
02:23:11 i'm sorry yes when you go um can i ask you to go back to the letter of intent that h.a.r.50 is 120 please i want to look at page 2 with you
02:23:22 i want to look at page 2 with you particularly paragraph 2 point b paragraph 2b and that says the articles of agreement and subcontract conditions of dom 2 will apply
02:23:35 2 will apply save where they are modified by the terms of this contract the draft building contract is available for inspection by you at our offices you are deemed to have notice of all of its provisions and its provisions are incorporated in this contract insofar as they relate to
02:23:46 this contract insofar as they relate to the authorized works
02:23:50 what did you understand that to mean in the context of this letter of intent
02:23:58 and this is something you say you think you did read
02:24:40 sorry
02:24:58 as i'm reading that this now
02:25:12 i i don't read that as
02:25:18 the subcontract conditions being the same as the main contract conditions
02:25:30 all right um how familiar were were you familiar with the subcontract conditions or the articles of agreement and sub-contract conditions of dom 2.
02:25:42 sub-contract conditions of dom 2. broadly yes at the time yeah yeah broadly
02:25:47 broadly well let's look at them uh it's i n q three zeros [Music]
02:25:59 and these are the subcontract conditions for use with the domestic subcontract dom
02:26:05 dom ii articles of agreement and this is the 2011 edition which we believe was the current edition at the time of your involvement in the grenfell
02:26:16 grenfell tower project just looking at it's rather colorful if not garish first page was that something familiar to you at the time do you think uh i
02:26:27 uh i think we might actually have the 2010 edition but right uh but were you familiar with that with that edition 2010 yes right well um this is the 2011
02:26:41 2010 yes right well um this is the 2011 edition
02:26:42 edition did you know that there was a difference i'm not aware of a difference but i'm sure
02:26:46 sure right let's see how we go with this um are you saying that you were familiar with the 2010 edition but not the 2011 edition
02:26:54 edition yes i see well let's see if it's any different
02:26:57 different can i ask you to look at um uh page seven
02:27:02 seven uh and clause 2.1.1
02:27:07 and this is under the heading obligations of the subcontractor uh the subcontractor shall carry out do you see what it says yes the subcontractor shall carry out and complete
02:27:16 complete the subcontract works in a proper and workmanlike manner in compliance with the subcontract documents the construction phase plan and other statutory requirements
02:27:26 did you understand that from this that the statutory requirements would include the building regulations 2010.
02:27:35 yes all the work we carry out these being complies with the building regulations yes okay and that that meant that harley under this incorporated set of standard terms
02:27:46 this incorporated set of standard terms had an obligation to comply with the building regulations in relation to all the work it did whether it was a contract or not we had an obligation to comply with integrations indeed did harley have a formal process
02:27:58 indeed did harley have a formal process in place for conducting a compliance check
02:28:00 check of each of the materials to be used in the facade the subject of the loi
02:28:09 we on the project products that we'd used previously and we have all the bba certificates for it's a very quick check
02:28:20 it's a very quick check on products we haven't used before specifically seller techs there's a process we go through to check off that it does comply what was that process we
02:28:36 looked at some potentially looked at the certificates they gave us we had meetings with them we sent our drawings to them to make sure
02:28:47 our drawings to them to make sure they were happy that we were using it in the correct place and we were convinced by them that they were compliant
02:29:03 let's just quickly then look at one or two more
02:29:07 two more provisions in this subcontract uh clause 2.4.1 on page eight
02:29:18 i'll try and take this quite quickly um this is under materials goods and workmanship
02:29:26 uh just just looking at that i'm not going to read it all out because time will get short but looking at it were you familiar with that obligation as an obligation which harley owed to ryden
02:29:37 which harley owed to ryden yes yes
02:29:42 page nine similarly same question two point
02:29:45 point twelve point one clause two point twelve point one
02:29:49 this is divergences from statutory requirements let's have a look at that 2.12.1 again my question is um
02:30:00 my question is um were you familiar with that obligation as an obligation which holly owed to ryden
02:30:06 ryden yes
02:30:10 so would you agree with me that you were required or harley was required to notify ryden if there were any discrepancies between the design and the statutory requirements yeah yeah
02:30:21 and the statutory requirements yeah yeah and that again would involve positively checking whether the products proposed by the client for example in the nba specification or the employer's requirements were compliant with the relevant statutory standards
02:30:32 relevant statutory standards yes
02:30:38 so again would it follow from that that you would accept that a specialist subcontractor should warn either the main contractor or the designer if different that ace that that there is a serious
02:30:49 that ace that that there is a serious flaw in the design if it spots one yeah and if we spot it it was designed it wouldn't have been on the building and then looking at clause 2.13.1 at the
02:31:00 and then looking at clause 2.13.1 at the bottom of the right-hand page there 2.13.1 design liability just have a have a look at that if you would and the question is the same again
02:31:11 to give you a moment to look at it
02:31:21 again would you agree that you were you were
02:31:26 familiar with the obligation as an obligation which hardly owed to ryden yes yes
02:31:34 and that would mean that harley was taking on full responsibility for its design work to the standard of an architect or other appropriate professional designer holding themselves out as competent to
02:31:45 holding themselves out as competent to do the work yes yes and can we assume that harley intended to comply with that obligation as it went through the project of course
02:31:58 did that extend to ensuring that any designer
02:32:02 designer who worked on the project was appropriately qualified and competent to do so
02:32:06 do so yes and and for the purposes of the grenfell
02:32:09 grenfell tower project did that include daniel anchored jones yes and kevin lam yes
02:32:17 did you see anything in the contractual documentations in the contractual documents or in anything
02:32:26 anything in your discussions with ryden which you felt in any way operated to limit harley's obligations as a designer of the cladding system in any way
02:32:36 any way i think in the nbs specification it states that we're responsible for the thicknesses and the engineering of
02:32:47 and the engineering of the of the cladding yes my question was did you see anything either in the contractual documentation documentation that you did review or
02:32:59 documentation that you did review or anything in the discussions you had with ryden
02:33:02 ryden which you thought operated to limit harley's obligations as a designer of the cladding system in any respect yes the mes specification and what is it in the mbs specification that you say operated as a limitation on
02:33:15 that you say operated as a limitation on harley's obligation in the respects i've just identified because it's in i can't tell you the exact cause it's a design responsibility um
02:33:26 design responsibility um to determine the thickness of materials to be used did you think that that limitation meant that you didn't weren't responsible for any of these other things in the contract that i've been taking you through
02:33:39 that
02:33:43 whatever we do needs to be compliant with building regulations that's not whether it's in the contract or not that is we need to do the job properly in terms
02:33:54 we need to do the job properly in terms of selection of products that's not our responsibility that is in a prescriptive mbs checking the materials are compliant it's something that we would do
02:34:06 it's something that we would do routinely
02:34:08 routinely and with the key product of selatex we did carry out our checks
02:34:19 can i then take you to the collateral warranty date of the 25th of april 2016. that's a tmo one five zeros
02:34:30 that's a tmo one five zeros three three
02:34:34 and i'd like to look at page seven i'm sorry page one first of all just to identify the document tmo one
02:34:43 tmo one zero is three three um this is a formal uh contract and we can see from page one that is between harley facades limited and the tmo as the beneficiary and
02:34:56 and the tmo as the beneficiary and ryden as the contractor and it's entitled collateral warranty subcontractor and if you look at page two you could see the date of the execution of this document
02:35:06 document which is the 25th of april 2016. you see that
02:35:09 that i do and if you go to page seven you can see that there's an execution block there and it's executed by uh
02:35:20 it's executed by uh two of its directors can you identify those signatures that's mine my wife's she's company secretary of the director yes thank you now
02:35:32 the director yes thank you now let's just go back to page two please
02:35:37 this warranty under paragraph one uh
02:35:44 one uh expressly calls if you look at the very top expressly calls harley the design subcontractor do you see that
02:35:53 see that the very top harley facade is limited and then there's the registered number and address and it's defined
02:36:00 defined as the design subcontractor and the original contract between harley between ryden and harley curtin wall is referred to as the design subcontract you see do you see that yes
02:36:14 now presumably is this right that when you signed this warranty in the april of 2016
02:36:20 2016 you were happy with those labels were you
02:36:24 not entirely the at the time the collateral warranty came out it was the time of the final account in it
02:36:33 in it so it was
02:36:36 so it was suggested that if we didn't sign it we wouldn't get our final payment
02:36:44 who suggested that uh ryden's who at ryden
02:36:48 ryden um i think steve blake right and who did he suggest that too it wasn't quite as blunt as that but
02:36:59 it wasn't quite as blunt as that but certainly the inference right well who did he make that not quite as blunt as that time statement too right but anyway you did sign it um did you
02:37:10 but anyway you did sign it um did you ever say to him well look we're not the designer and we never promised you that we would design no can i look at page four with you page four para
02:37:20 four para clause 3.1 3.1 the design contractors sorry this is the top of the page the design subcontractor warrants and
02:37:31 design subcontractor warrants and undertakes to the beneficiary that 3.1 it has performed and shall continue to perform
02:37:37 perform all of its duties and obligations under or arising out of the design subcontract now before you signed this warranty
02:37:46 warranty in april 2016 did you yourself take the trouble to look back at exactly what had been agreed as between harley curtin wall and ryden in the original arrangements or drafts
02:37:57 in the original arrangements or drafts or the loi or the correspondence no we hadn't actually i think we spoke earlier
02:38:04 earlier seen the uh the head
02:38:10 contract or various appendices to it
02:38:16 indeed you told us that before my question is before you put your formal signature on this formal document did you look back and find out for yourself exactly what had been agreed as
02:38:27 yourself exactly what had been agreed as between harley curtin wall as it was and ryden
02:38:33 no because we it was sign it or else basically
02:38:46 do you accept looking at clause 3.2
02:38:51 that harley had an obligation to act with the care and skill of a properly qualified and competent cladding specialist we'd have the obligation whether we signed this or not right and that would
02:39:03 signed this or not right and that would include in respect of the design of the cladding
02:39:07 cladding yeah to the extent that we're responsible for an element of design yes
02:39:17 can we look at your statement then at paragraph 48 this is page 12 bottom of page 12 and over to page 13. um you you refer there to what was going
02:39:30 um you you refer there to what was going on in july 2014 which is the discussion between ryden and the planners about whether it was going to be faith fixed or cassette for the rain screen
02:39:41 cassette for the rain screen and you uh say there uh do you see you quote from simon lawrence's email on the 31st of july 2014
02:39:51 july 2014 where he says that the project client had just confirmed to planning that they are looking to proceed with the renault bomb champagne color as shown on the mock-up for the main body of the building
02:40:02 of the building and the cladding will be the cassette fixing version he went on to say in his email on the 31st of july it is unlikely that the planners will have any major issues with the above proposals
02:40:12 proposals as they have wanted of cassette fixings from the start it may be wise not to order the champagne color until we have 100 assurance
02:40:20 assurance but you can and then go over the page
02:40:24 certainly start getting things rolling full and then you say this full design can now start so i've shown you the lead up to that and and the
02:40:35 and and the reference to full design and then if you look at the bottom of page 13
02:40:44 uh sorry i'm saying sorry the bottom of that paragraph on page 13 the last three lines it says as far as harley were concerned the reference to full design above related to harley
02:40:55 related to harley refining the architect's design for the external facade in the nbs specification at page six of eleven
02:41:01 eleven of section eight ninety two the same description of full design was he also used um that being um so
02:41:13 um that being um so can you explain why the the design of the subcontract that harley signed didn't confine harley's responsibility in the way you say
02:41:25 way you say well the supreme channel you didn't actually have a subconscious all the um collateral collateral warranty
02:41:36 all right well let me try a different way can you explain why there are no terms in the loi or the appendices to the loi or any of the documents contained by reference in the loi including the
02:41:47 by reference in the loi including the head contract or in dom 2 which we've been looking at or in the collateral warranty which operate to confine harley's
02:41:58 operate to confine harley's responsibility in the way you've suggested in your statement
02:42:03 of the mes specifications part of that letter intent
02:42:10 so are you saying that despite what's contained in the loi the appendices to the loi the curtin's document that's referred to by reference
02:42:23 document that's referred to by reference dom two and the head contract and the collateral warranty the nbs specification operated to limit harley's obligations as a designer is that was that your understanding at the
02:42:35 that was that your understanding at the time
02:42:38 yes well can you just help me then to understand what the limit was because when i asked you earlier i think you accepted that it was part of
02:42:50 you accepted that it was part of harley's
02:42:51 harley's responsibility to satisfy itself that the products specified in the nvs specification were suitable and complied with the relevant
02:43:04 and complied with the relevant legislation so what limitation did the nbs specification impose
02:43:11 i said it's certainly that we
02:43:17 need to check materials that we're supplying our compliance but with the the limit
02:43:31 design is not our design the design comes down from the architect
02:43:38 architect we have a responsibility to check that the products are compliant to the best of our skills and that what we put up there stays on the building
02:43:50 the building so
02:43:54 what we're not doing is taking over everybody else's design responsibility for that we need to play our part we're not
02:44:07 absorbing everybody else from their role
02:44:15 all right thank you very much yesterday
02:44:34 well let's look at the nba specification if we can um i think in general terms we've got this much so far from your evidence today mr bailey in order to produce your quotation for the work you would have had to have
02:44:46 the work you would have had to have reviewed and did review the nbs specification yes let's look at that sea 50169 please and let's start with page 64.
02:45:00 and let's start with page 64. this is uh the part of the nba specification h92 which deals with rain screen cladding can you see that and it says it's to be read with
02:45:11 and it says it's to be read with preliminaries and general conditions you see and do you see that if you look at item 11 it says information to be provided with tender
02:45:21 tender in addition to the cladding specified in the below clauses 120 and 123 submit comparative supply and install costs per square meter of the whole planning system for the following materials
02:45:32 materials um you see that yeah now if we look at item
02:45:35 item 210 on page 68.
02:45:43 design rain screen cladding system and associated features complete detailed design in accordance with this specification and the preliminary design drawings and
02:45:55 and the preliminary design drawings and submit before commencement of fabrication related works coordinate in detailed design
02:46:02 design and then if we look at item two one five immediately below that it says design proposal submission of alternative proposals preliminary design drawings indicate intent other reasonable proposals will be considered
02:46:15 reasonable proposals will be considered and just looking at all of those each of those three items 11 210 and 215. first of all did you yourself look at those at the time of this contract
02:46:27 those at the time of this contract uh yes you did what did you understand by uh what those provisions were telling you in general terms
02:46:41 that we're completing the architects produced his design we're taking that design and making it fit the building right do we see anything in there that limits
02:46:53 limits sorry i put the questions a different way um
02:46:56 way um can you explain on the basis of what i've just shown you what it was that led you to think that harley's obligation in respect of design was limited in any way yes
02:47:09 was limited in any way yes if you need to scroll back up the nbs specification do you want to see page 64.
02:47:14 64. i'm not sure which page you want to see well i showed you item 11 on page 64. information to be provided with tender which is the next page over uh well then i then showed you page 68
02:47:26 uh well then i then showed you page 68 which we were on
02:47:30 210 design and 220. do we sorry if i could actually see the whole document well i think i can do that with the system we're operating okay but if there's anything can you
02:47:41 if there's anything can you perhaps i know this is difficult with a document such as this in an exercise such as this but can you tell me at least in rough terms what it is you think you're looking for
02:47:52 it is you think you're looking for it it says contracts design complete design responsibility for thickness of materials
02:48:04 thickness of materials and
02:48:12 well let's see if we can let maybe it may be that it's page 69 i think i know what you may be looking for can we look at that and and if i'm wrong about that please let me know it's uh page 69 let's look at 342 contractors
02:48:26 page 69 let's look at 342 contractors design of rain screen generally design responsibility determines the sizes and thicknesses of panels and types
02:48:33 types sizes and numbers of fixings to suit backing wall and the layout and details of supporting steel work design standard cwtc standard structural fire requirements they're they're set out design under
02:48:44 they're they're set out design under that complete the design in accordance with the designated code of practice to satisfy specified performance criteria functional requirements are specified in this section with fast stopping to the requirements of the building regulations
02:48:55 requirements of the building regulations additional requirements are specified in this section and i'm sorry to fish around and ask you by way of guesswork whether that's what you're looking for it is right what is it in that
02:49:05 that at the time therefore that led you to think that despite everything we've seen in the contracts we've gone through this morning harley's responsibility as a designer was limited
02:49:16 well is it designed to turn inside his thickness of panels type size his number fixing
02:49:21 fixing super layout detail support steel work well that wasn't surely all that harley was responsible for was it or was that your understanding
02:49:32 that that is not solely but that is the key point that we're responsible for
02:49:44 and do you say that it was your understanding at the time that those two lines there overrode everything we've seen in the contract about harley's responsibility as a designer
02:50:02 what we have is the main contract that has been passed down through us so we don't
02:50:13 passed down through us so we don't actually have a contract with runs we had a letter of intent and this is the basis that we were working with in any job that we do we need
02:50:24 in any job that we do we need to comply with building rigs and ensure that what we put up is right no matter what the architect designs
02:50:34 what we what we didn't do is take on the design to absolve everybody else
02:50:43 else of their responsibility
02:50:54 i don't think there's any suggestion of absolution mr bailey whether today or at any time what i'm simply putting to you or asking
02:51:07 what i'm simply putting to you or asking you about
02:51:08 you about is how it came about that your understanding that harley's design responsibility was limited by these words given the
02:51:19 by these words given the lengthy provisions in the contracts that we've been looking at
02:51:31 if we go back to the um clause that was in the writings let him that didn't strike me as tying
02:51:43 strike me as tying the subcontract we had into the main contract
02:51:47 contract i misread that misunderstood that but that's not how i read it well i'm how i didn't see how i'm reading it now that's not how i understand it
02:51:58 understand it well let's move on a little um let's go back if we can to harley's quotation for the works of the 29th of january 2014. har3010155
02:52:12 this document in general terms am i right in thinking was based on the nbs specification and the drawings and the employees requirements in general terms yes in general terms um
02:52:23 in general terms yes in general terms um if we look at
02:52:26 har3 page two this is the uh covering letter so it's within the package um this is a
02:52:38 so it's within the package um this is a letter to ryden signed by mike alberston who his name emerged earlier as the estimating manager and he says in the second paragraph our offer includes for the design supply and fix
02:52:50 includes for the design supply and fix of a complete envelope package and we looked at that by reference to your statement earlier on and if we go to page
02:52:56 to page nine and we looked at this again before and look at the final bullet point which we did look at design drawings survey and schedules for procurement 110 000 pounds
02:53:08 000 pounds that was what he included for that and then he offers alternatives and options including raynor bond cladding if you look at page 10
02:53:16 10 can we just look at that you see he says alternative alternatives and options yep you see that
02:53:24 that and then under that rain screen cladding and in the middle of the page he's offering
02:53:27 offering uh rainer bond rain screen clouding at certain prices and a luca bond rain screen cladding now i'm asking you to see that because i want next to go to a document there will
02:53:39 want next to go to a document there will be a question after this but can you look at a document at sea 3011490 please
02:53:51 this is an email from kevin lam to simon lawrence of the 22nd of august 2014 and uh you um were not copied in on that but studio e were as was mr ankertal jones and
02:54:03 were as was mr ankertal jones and kevin lam says simon please find attached some preliminary drawings to provide the basics of design and set up prior to us producing a full design package a full design package
02:54:14 package a full design package now those are two documents i've shown you can i now ask you to look at your witness statement at page 11.
02:54:26 paragraph 42 you say there in the and let's just look at the first two sentences you say in the course of correspondence between mark harris and deborah french about materials being proposed
02:54:38 about materials being proposed and the installation of the mock-up deborah french answered a number of queries posed by mark harris for example she writes in terms of butt jointing sorry but we do not recommend this
02:54:47 this the minimum gap between the panels is 10 millimeters we have to allow for the correct expansion of the panels 10 millimeters as a joint is very small but you can ask the fabricator to produce a thin painted strip to match
02:54:58 produce a thin painted strip to match the rainer bond color which will reduce the amount of black joints i know there'll be an up charge for this to allow for the alley strip and painting but not sure what this would be close quotes now just looking at that and the documents i've
02:55:10 looking at that and the documents i've shown you um can we take it that harley understood that the scope of harley's works extended to the design of the cladding system
02:55:22 as a general proposition as a general proposition yes and it looks from your statement that there are actually discussions between deborah french of or representing
02:55:33 deborah french of or representing reyno bond or representing um alcoa or iconic as they became and mark harris without any reference to studio e at all
02:55:44 studio e at all about the facade drawings in the summer of 2014
02:55:50 yes yes and does that tell us that harley knew that it had to
02:56:04 perform and complete the full design as quoted for in the quotation of the cladding and to that extent had discussions with the rain screen manufacturer in order to
02:56:15 the rain screen manufacturer in order to assist it to do so
02:56:20 the the clouding system we produce is the
02:56:28 are the physical components that we put up there
02:56:33 up there this particular detail that mark is sending through to run upon to comment on is a fabrication
02:56:44 run upon to comment on is a fabrication drawing so where we've taken the architect's design of how he wants the panel to look this is a
02:56:51 is a this is a fabricated production drawing of how
02:56:55 of how will physically be made
02:56:59 this isn't something that we would show to the architect it's exactly how it's made the dimensions of how the hook ons work and not something for the octet this was
02:57:11 and not something for the octet this was sent
02:57:11 sent to um renabond to make sure that they were happy with the size of the panel the detailing the machining detailing on the panel
02:57:23 the machining detailing on the panel so that this
02:57:27 there are different things so when we talk about design there is the production design and there is the
02:57:36 is the the sort of system design that they are subtly different and mr lam's reference in his email to the simon lawrence on the 22nd of august
02:57:47 lawrence on the 22nd of august to a full design package does that not include
02:57:50 include both the what you describe as the production design and system design is the full package it is did anyone at harley
02:58:01 it is did anyone at harley when they received the preliminary designs from studio e actually undertake an investigation or an interrogation of the employer's requirements before developing the
02:58:13 requirements before developing the designs further
02:58:16 yeah the design was undertaken based on the architect's drawings and the mbs specification did anyone at
02:58:27 the mbs specification did anyone at harley at the start of its involvement ever investigate the work that studio e had done to check its quality and report on whether that work was satisfactory and compliant with statutory standards
02:58:39 no the expectation that it would be there was you just proceeded on that assumption without verifying it when we looked at there was nothing
02:58:47 nothing that stood out to us that it was non-compliant right did anyone have hardly noticed that the drawings that you had received did not contain one in five ratio
02:58:58 did not contain one in five ratio drawings
02:59:01 drawings no and there wasn't
02:59:05 we wouldn't necessarily expect to see one in five drawings from the architect
02:59:11 would it not have assisted you in the design process to have seen one in five drawings
02:59:16 drawings it it may have with the cavity barrier strategy have been clearer for example if there had been one in five drawings uh probably
02:59:31 mr sharon i'm i'm in the middle of a probably quite lengthy passage of questions um which i might be able to shorten over the challenge over the break well it might be a good idea to stop at that point yes it might
02:59:43 idea to stop at that point yes it might yes yes thank you all right mr bailey we're going to have a break now so we can all get some lunch we'll resume at two o'clock please and please remember not to talk to anyone about your evidence or
02:59:54 about your evidence or anything to do with the refurbishment over the break all right thank you very much you'd like to go to the usher please
03:00:10 to go to the usher please thank you two o'clock please thank you
03:00:34 you