TMO Evidence session focusing on tender process irregularities and value engineering discussions with preferred bidder Ryden before announcement.
00:00:09 Good morning everyone. Welcome to today's hearing. We're going to begin by hearing further evidence from Mr. David Gibson. So would you ask Mr. Gibson to come in, please.
00:00:29 Morning, Mr. Gibson. Good morning. All ready to carry on? I think so. Right. Thank you very much. Yes, Mr. Blet.
00:00:36 Blet. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. Good morning, Mr. Gibson. Good morning. Um, I've got a couple of follow-up questions from tomorrow's evidence, if I can from yesterday's evidence. Um if I can start with those please. Um the
00:00:48 can start with those please. Um the first relates to the discussion we were having yesterday about the minutes of the meeting at which you told us that Simon Lawrence had given you an assurance that the cladding was inert.
00:00:59 assurance that the cladding was inert. You remember the evidence that you gave about that and you told us about the minutes that you are you say handed at the meeting in hard copy form.
00:01:10 hard copy form. Um my first question is this. was the normal course of events during the refurbishment that Artilia would issue minutes to TMO electronically via email in advance of the subsequent meeting.
00:01:22 in advance of the subsequent meeting. That's correct. Right. And and so would it follow that there would be an email from Artellia to the TMO uh enclosing or attaching those
00:01:33 the TMO uh enclosing or attaching those minutes for you? I see. That being so when you were given minutes in hard copy during the subsequent meeting was that unusual? It was because I had been checking for
00:01:46 It was because I had been checking for the minutes to see if they arrived so that I could check for that particular that that item had been minuteed correctly. Um I remember contacting in
00:01:57 correctly. Um I remember contacting in case I'd missed it and someone else had sent it out and I was looking under the wrong name for the email. Um, so that was why I remember that it was the only occasion we had received them in hard
00:02:08 occasion we had received them in hard copy at the meeting. Always before that we received them electronically. Did it occur to you to correspond with Artilia before the meeting and ask them yourself to send you the hard copy or
00:02:19 yourself to send you the hard copy or rather the soft copy minutes so that you could check them before the meeting? No, I think I was checking in the morning of the meeting. I think that might have been a later meeting or perhaps I was checking the night before
00:02:31 perhaps I was checking the night before to see if they would usually have arrived a few days before. Yes, I see. Um the other area I want to ask you arising out of yesterday's evidence relates to the stage D report.
00:02:43 evidence relates to the stage D report. Now, I think um you told us yesterday and just for the reference, it's said it's it's um uh yesterday's evidence at day 53, page 29, lines 14 to 18, and
00:02:55 day 53, page 29, lines 14 to 18, and also page 136 that you said that you you didn't see any of Exova's fire safety reports.
00:03:06 I think there might have been reference within the stage D report, but I can't. Well, that's what I was going to put to you. Can I ask you then to go to art 401364?
00:03:20 Now this is an email from Bruce S. Mhm. Uh do you see it's dated the 20th of August 2013 to Phil Booth and Peter Madison and it's uh also sent to you
00:03:33 Madison and it's uh also sent to you as well as well as someone called um Kidzan and uh I think Miss Kigan was the interim uh manager I suppose or project
00:03:45 interim uh manager I suppose or project manager between Paul Dunton and Clare Williams arrive. That's correct. Yes. Now um if you look at the email it says uh all please see below a link to
00:03:56 says uh all please see below a link to our completed stage D report. the elevations of images are reduced are to a reduced resolution so that the whole document does not become huge and there there is the uh internet link to the
00:04:08 there is the uh internet link to the stage D report and then it says Xava's fire safety report from January is included as is the updated Bream preassessment and artillia's program and
00:04:19 preassessment and artillia's program and revised cost estimate if anyone needs anything further or there are any comments please do not hesitate to come back to me um and you you you could see that now it isn't
00:04:30 you you you could see that now it isn't right to refer to Exerver's safety report as dated January because we don't think that there was one dated January. Um but um if we can see what was attached uh can we go to a art
00:04:44 attached uh can we go to a art 401363
00:04:48 at page 78 and that is a document that one would find within this link and here it is on the screen and it's issue number one of
00:05:00 the screen and it's issue number one of the OFSS the outline fire safety strategy dated the 31st of October 2012. 12. So my question is when you received the email from Bruce S dated the 20th of
00:05:13 the email from Bruce S dated the 20th of August 2013, did you open the link, look at the stage D report and find within it this document?
00:05:21 document? I don't recall. You don't recall? You could have done I I suppose, couldn't you? Yes. But you don't recall doing so.
00:05:32 Can I then go back to where we were yesterday? Uh, and I want to go next to art 4002197
00:05:41 and where we were yesterday while this is coming up is March 2014 and the Ryden and others tender. And here is the final tender report uh for the Grenell Tower
00:05:53 tender report uh for the Grenell Tower project produced by Artilia and it's dated the 12th of March 2014 as you can see. Um, did you see this document at the time? Do you recall? Um, I would have done. Yes.
00:06:05 Um, I would have done. Yes. Yes. Can we go to page four?
00:06:10 We can see from this box on page four that the author was Twitch and Limb uh and it was checked and approved by Phil Booth and issued to Peter Madison as you can see from the second box on the left.
00:06:23 can see from the second box on the left. And if we go to page 25, we can see Artillia's conclusions paragraph 10. And the conclusion there is that Ryden have submitted the most competitive tender price and the highest
00:06:35 competitive tender price and the highest quality making it the most economically advantageous tender. It is worth noting that Ryden receive the highest marks in all aspects of the tender evaluation. It is therefore recommended that approval is given to commence the formal
00:06:47 is given to commence the formal standstill period in in accordance with the EU regulations and subject to the conclusion of this standstill period the contract is awarded to Ryden Limited and a notice is placed in the official journal of the European Union to this
00:06:59 journal of the European Union to this effect. Now that's a clear recommendation for Ryden. I just wanted to know um whether you saw this at the time and realized that at that time 12th of March Artillia were recommending
00:07:11 of March Artillia were recommending Ryden as the contractor. Yes. And I think there had been a draft report before this is the final one and I don't think the recommendation had changed.
00:07:21 changed. Right.
00:07:21 Right. I could be wrong but I think we knew that Ryden were going to be recommended. Uh you say you knew that Ryden were going to be recommended. From what date did you know that do you think? um from
00:07:34 did you know that do you think? um from after the end of the um
00:07:42 the interview. Um I I think I referenced yesterday um Philip Boo after we completed the interview or presentation and scored that um Philip Boo produced
00:07:54 and scored that um Philip Boo produced the um his spreadsheet with all the scores
00:07:59 scores um compiled right
00:08:02 right and I think there are one or two minor things outstanding but it was quite clear from that time that they would be the recommended um contractor Yes, I see. And just to be
00:08:15 um contractor Yes, I see. And just to be clear, the interviews were on the 7th of March. Correct. 5 days before this report. Yes. Can we then stick with this date, the 12th of March, uh and look at the
00:08:26 12th of March, uh and look at the process of value engineering, so it was called uh between the 12th of March and the 18th of March. Uh now we we've seen already in your evidence some emails that Ryden were aware already of the
00:08:38 that Ryden were aware already of the need for some value engineering. Uh and um perhaps I should just show you the first of those. Um Ryd 403277.
00:08:52 This is an email of the 11th of March. So before Artilia's formal recommendation from Jeff Henton, Alan Shocks and others internally within Ryden. You see that?
00:09:03 internally within Ryden. You see that? Yes. uh high team have spoken with Peter Madison at Kensington and Chelsea TMO Limited who informs me that our price for the above is in first place allied
00:09:14 for the above is in first place allied to which our presentation and documentation is also in first place. Therefore, subject to a small amount of value engineering, Peter should be in a position to recommend our appointment on this scheme to his board early next
00:09:25 this scheme to his board early next week.
00:09:26 week. Now, it it it's it's obvious from the text of this email that Peter Madison had told Ryden that they were in first place. And that's before even Artilia's recommendation. Do you know when it was and how it came
00:09:37 Do you know when it was and how it came about that Peter Madison was talking to uh Jeff Henton at Ryden about being in first place? Um I don't know. Um I know we had a
00:09:48 Um I don't know. Um I know we had a problem that um Jenny Jackson had identified with our budget and the submitted price being over and could we enter into a contract
00:10:01 enter into a contract um or we recommended the board enter into a contract that um was over and above our budget price. So there was there was a difficulty to be um overcome
00:10:13 there was a difficulty to be um overcome in that and I think Jenny had got some legal advice at that time. I think there were two other things but because Peter had as you as you say his
00:10:25 had as you as you say his board report was doing recommendation coming up very soon. I recall that the tender had been delayed or extended
00:10:36 tender had been delayed or extended tender period had been delayed by two weeks. So we were expecting the tender back on the 31st of January and it came back on the 14th of January uh 14th of February and that um meant we had very
00:10:51 February and that um meant we had very little time to sort it out because Peter's reports need to be compiled and then circulated to board members and there's a time scale for that. So
00:11:02 there's a time scale for that. So there's very little time. We were trying to overcome a difficulty. We're trying to overcome the difficulty. I think we got legal advice um from Tars and Hamlin and Jenny had got on
00:11:15 and Jenny had got on what we should do, what we could do in this and the recommendation. We're going to come to that. Yeah. Sorry. All right. I think the answer was my my question was a a narrower one than the answer that you given us would tend to
00:11:26 answer that you given us would tend to suggest. Did you have any conversations with Peter Madison about him telling Jeff Henton of Ryden uh that they were in first place on or before the 11th of March?
00:11:37 March? I did not. You did not. Did you know that he was going to tell uh Ryden that they were in first place? I did not. At that stage? No. Now just just back back a day then if we can just to complete
00:11:49 a day then if we can just to complete the emails at that time. Ryd's 94368 please.
00:12:00 This is an email of the 10th of March. If we can see uh in fact could if we can go to uh the bottom of the email chain, we could just run up through it very
00:12:11 we could just run up through it very quickly. Um at the bottom of the email chain we can see that Jeff Henton tells his secret his assistant uh Sandra Guest on the 10th of March um and ask him to arrange lunch or an evening meal uh with
00:12:24 arrange lunch or an evening meal uh with Peter Madison. And you can see that that's in the email below that. And then if you go up a little bit um you can see that Jeff Henton at the top of the page
00:12:35 that Jeff Henton at the top of the page sends an email to Steve Blake also on the 10th of March uh and says spoke to Peter about the award and they are keen to get going. They need to do a fair amount of value
00:12:47 They need to do a fair amount of value engineering which should be achievable. Now my question is on the 10th of March and this is three days after the interview but two days before Artillia's formal recommendation. Did you know uh that Jeff Henton was speaking to Peter
00:12:59 that Jeff Henton was speaking to Peter Madison about the award and about the need by Ryden to do a fair amount of value engineering? I did not
00:13:07 I did not did not.
00:13:11 Can we then go to TMO850707?
00:13:17 This is an email chain between you Peter Madison, Clare Williams and others. And I want to start with the second email at the bottom of the page. please, if we can.
00:13:32 Uh, and go to page two, I think, please.
00:13:41 [Applause] Yes, there it is. Uh, and now this is the 12th of March. Uh, and we start with the email from Peter Madison to to David Burns.
00:13:55 Peter Madison to to David Burns. uh copy to Clare Williams
00:13:59 and uh he's uh and Jenny Jackson subject confidential Grenfell Tower pre-contract agreement. Dear all, I spoke to Steve Blake from Ryden today. That's the 12th
00:14:11 Blake from Ryden today. That's the 12th of March. He was comfortable with closing the approximately 270,000 pound gap in the budget. He'll give us an estimate of the cost of pre-construction work, etc. Uh, and then he goes on, if
00:14:24 work, etc. Uh, and then he goes on, if we can get him something by Thursday, that will give a figure by the end of the week, I will factor this into the board approval. I think it would be worth CLA meeting somebody from Ryden to confirm that we have a shared understanding of the site boundaries and
00:14:35 understanding of the site boundaries and and the interface with the lead bitter site. Can you see if we can do this before next Wednesday? And that's from Peter Madison to to David Burns. And then if immediately above that, can I just ask because I'm not sure
00:14:47 can I just ask because I'm not sure David Burns. No, I'm just going to show you what what what that that that's right. Um, in fact, uh, you then get copied in to that same email that
00:14:58 copied in to that same email that evening. Do you see just above that, David Burns and Peter and David Gibson? Yes. Uh and then at the top of the page the next day in the off in the morning
00:15:09 the next day in the off in the morning that day 9:15 you then respond to Peter Madison and say Peter Clare and I are working on this regards David Gibson which is which is you. Um now it looks as if the TMO wanted a
00:15:22 Um now it looks as if the TMO wanted a figure from Steve Blake by the end of next week. Uh in other words, is this right before the preferred bidder would would have been announced? That's correct. I recall we met, Peter,
00:15:35 That's correct. I recall we met, Peter, myself and Jenny met on the 12th of March. Yes.
00:15:42 Yes. Um to discuss how we overcome I think three difficulties. One, the one I was describing before about the um
00:15:54 um how we got into a contract over and above our budget and how that could be recommended. Um the legal advice we had received indicated we our choices were to award
00:16:08 indicated we our choices were to award to the preferred contractor if had gone through the process. If they were the winner and we followed the very prescriptive route of marking their submissions and they were the winner, we
00:16:20 submissions and they were the winner, we could choose to award or we could start again. But there was also reference within that email to if you've got value engineering exercises or value engineering clauses within the contract
00:16:33 engineering clauses within the contract you could once you're in contract seek to use those clauses in order to overcome this difficulty. Um, and I think that's what all we were trying to
00:16:44 think that's what all we were trying to do was clarify. There was a process clarify with with um, Ryden that they were comfortable with this this approach because they
00:16:55 with this this approach because they could have if we' entered into a contract over and above our budget. They could have said, you know, there could have been a a claim against us for loss
00:17:06 have been a a claim against us for loss of profits, etc. if we hadn't reached an agreement with them that they were comfortable with this approach. Well, we we'll come to look at that
00:17:18 Well, we we'll come to look at that answer in a little bit more detail very very shortly. My question you've answered it, I think is yes. It was before the preferred bidder was announced. Correct. My next question is were
00:17:30 Correct. My next question is were discussions like this getting figures for value engineering being held with any other bidder other than Ryden? The the
00:17:45 marking of the tender submission is a very prescribed route. You have asked them for submissions. you have stated to them how they will be
00:17:57 have stated to them how they will be marked and you need to follow that process.
00:18:01 process. It doesn't allow for you to talk to other contractors. You can you've got a preferred bidder at the end of the process or you don't. Um but it doesn't there is it doesn't make any allowances
00:18:12 there is it doesn't make any allowances for talking to other contractors that would breach the regulations. So is the answer to my question that although you were having conversations with Ryden? Yes. At this stage before the preferred
00:18:25 Yes. At this stage before the preferred bidder was announced, you weren't having the same conversations about value engineering with any other bidder. That's correct. Thank you. Uh how could you properly be having discussions with Ryden about
00:18:37 having discussions with Ryden about price reductions uh without also talking to the others at the same time equally? It wouldn't be allowed under the OG
00:18:49 allowed under the OG regulations. If we have put a tender out, ask for submissions and it's very prescriptive in terms how it's scored. It doesn't allow us to then change that
00:19:00 It doesn't allow us to then change that route.
00:19:02 route. Well, I can understand not having any discussions at all, but how could you be having discussions with Ryden but none of the other biders? Wouldn't that have been unfair to the other biders? I think
00:19:13 been unfair to the other biders? I think it was clarifying a process, but it wasn't, was it? With respect, Mr. Gibson, you actually asking for hard figures.
00:19:21 I think what we were seeking was comfort from them because we had provided some of the hard figures. We also needed um figures for um the pre-commencement agreement which
00:19:33 um the pre-commencement agreement which is the contract we would enter into with Ryden at so much a month until we were in position to enter into the main contract.
00:19:43 contract. And there was a separate um issue with um the public realm works which were to be done by the kelk contractor
00:19:55 be done by the kelk contractor um because the borders between our two sites had to be defined and that that work I think was to be paid and carried out by the contractor but we'd allowed
00:20:08 out by the contractor but we'd allowed within the within our tender we'd asked the contractor to price that so that cost of that work was within the submitted price
00:20:19 that work was within the submitted price from them. So we need to clarify how much was of of the cost was associated with that because that would come off the sort of the gap between our budget
00:20:30 the sort of the gap between our budget and their submitted price. Forgive me for pressing you a little bit, Mr. Gibson, but I do need an answer. How could it have been proper to have any of these discussions about price reductions with Ryden alone and not having those discussions with any of
00:20:42 not having those discussions with any of the other bidders? I'm very clear on the directions I'm I've been given and in terms of working with Jenny and what you could or could
00:20:53 with Jenny and what you could or could not do. It was very prescriptive which is why for example the interview we had been told in advance by Jenny you are not allowed to
00:21:04 advance by Jenny you are not allowed to ask any questions. You have to ask if you ask a question to one contractor you have to ask the same question to them all. So you couldn't explore their responses. Well if you have to ask the same
00:21:15 Well if you have to ask the same question to all bidders during the interview on the 7th of March. Yeah. Surely it would have followed in your mind at the time that you if you were going to have discussions about value
00:21:26 going to have discussions about value engineering with one of those biders, you would have to have them with all. No,
00:21:30 No, that's not how you understood it. No, that would would have been a very clear breach of the regulations. But you thought that having one discussion about price reduction with one bidder wasn't a breach of the
00:21:41 one bidder wasn't a breach of the regulations. Is that your evidence? I think we were in an uncomfortable position, but we couldn't talk to three contractors. That would not be allowed. We were
00:21:53 That would not be allowed. We were trying to clarify a process at this point.
00:21:55 point. How about talking to none of them until after the announcement? Um, the problem was that Peter needed to get information for his board report and we needed to be be sure that Ryden
00:22:07 and we needed to be be sure that Ryden were comfortable with our approach. We were trying to agree a process with them and get and get an understanding from them that they were agreeable to the we would enter into a contract at a higher
00:22:19 would enter into a contract at a higher figure. We would use the value and value engineering clauses to then work out how we bridge that gap. So this was dictated was it by TMO's internal processes and requirements to
00:22:31 internal processes and requirements to get a report out quickly. It that was a significant factor. I follow. Let's just see how this event uh this continues. Uh you um uh respond as
00:22:43 this continues. Uh you um uh respond as we can see on this email to Peter Madison that you are working on this with Clare Williams. Let's then go uh to RYD 403295
00:22:54 uh to RYD 403295 please.
00:22:56 please. This is an email from Steve Blake internally at Ryden on the 12th of March at 3:00 in the afternoon. So this this I think post times the email we've just
00:23:07 think post times the email we've just looked at from you internally and in his first paragraph he says we are going to be asked by KNC to find some further value engineering
00:23:19 to find some further value engineering savings
00:23:21 savings in addition to those identified in our tender let's wait until this approach is made before going to the supply chain in terms of value allocation we took care to make provision against the specification that was exactly compliant
00:23:32 specification that was exactly compliant Peter M is going to forward some ideas tomorrow.
00:23:36 tomorrow. Now, do you know of any conversation between Peter Madison and Steve Blake in which Peter Madison told Steve Blake that he was going to forward some ideas the next day, 13th of March?
00:23:47 the next day, 13th of March? Yes.
00:23:49 Yes. What did you know of those that conversation or those conversations? Peter, Jenny Jackson, and myself met to discuss our position and what we needed
00:24:00 discuss our position and what we needed to do. we were uncomfortable with the position we were in. I think there is a record before that of um because I'd referred to the legal advice we got and
00:24:13 referred to the legal advice we got and an offline discussion. So I was aware at the end of the meeting and in terms of how we took forward our approach that that Peter would give
00:24:24 approach that that Peter would give Steve Blake a ring. I was asked to then compile some a spreadsheet and sent it to him the next day. I see.
00:24:36 We'll come to the spreadsheet in just a moment. Could I just ask you why what you've just told the inquiry is isn't in any of your witness statements? I had forgotten all about this. Did you not see any of the emails I'm now showing you when you were you were
00:24:48 now showing you when you were you were preparing your witness? Can I finish my question?
00:24:50 question? Sorry, my apologies. Thank you. Were you not shown these uh emails when you were preparing your witness statements even as late as the witness statement of the 3rd of October
00:25:01 witness statement of the 3rd of October this year, two weeks ago?
00:25:06 At that stage, yes, I think I was. So why didn't you say anything about these conversations that you've just told us about in that statement? Um I
00:25:17 told us about in that statement? Um I think we wanted to keep the clarifications and corrections I was making to my first statement just deal with those points. Um because it was quite clear that this was going to arise
00:25:28 quite clear that this was going to arise during the during the my my w during me giving witness here. So your position was that you would rather wait
00:25:39 position was that you would rather wait to be examined on it orally rather than say anything about it candidly, clearly and openly in your witness statements. When I did my first witness statement, I
00:25:50 When I did my first witness statement, I had forgotten I didn't recollect any of this. It was only until I' I'd seen some of the emails and we' shown some of the emails at a much later date after they had appeared in the inquiry um that I
00:26:02 had appeared in the inquiry um that I was able to piece together what had happened.
00:26:07 happened. But you weren't able to piece this this conversation together until I've just I just took you through these emails just now. Is that what you're telling us? No, I knew I could piece it together few
00:26:18 I knew I could piece it together few weeks ago and I could have been put in my statement, but it was likely that I was going to be asked questions on this at the inquiry. So, I didn't feel the
00:26:30 at the inquiry. So, I didn't feel the need or
00:26:31 need or my the advice to me was we we know that would be dealt with at the I don't want to know about the advice he was given to you. Um, let's see how we go then, Mr. Gibson. Um uh the next email I want to
00:26:43 Gibson. Um uh the next email I want to look at look at with you please is RYD 403302.
00:26:50 This is a chain of emails on the 13th of March 2014. And it starts at the bottom of page one and over onto page two.
00:27:00 You see, and uh on on page uh
00:27:06 uh uh well, it' be better look at the very bottom of page one. This is from you to Steve Blake. Do you see that? And then if you flip over to page two, we can see the bulk of the email. And it says this. Peter Madison has given uh of the TMO
00:27:19 Peter Madison has given uh of the TMO has given me your contact details. I understand you are currently in a meeting. I've attached a simple spreadsheet indicating the areas we would like you to look at in relation to the possible savings. Our target is
00:27:30 the possible savings. Our target is around £800,000 which included the cladding savings already priced and any grant income to the scheme. Could you come back to us early Monday with some indicative time scales and confirmation as to where you
00:27:41 scales and confirmation as to where you consider there are opportunities for savings with figures where possible? Currently allowing for pre-start activities at £100,000 a month, say three months. Can you also confirm if you can make a meeting on Monday
00:27:52 you can make a meeting on Monday afternoon with Peter, myself, and Claire Williams, the project manager for the scheme at our offices. It might be useful if you can bring your estimator also. Don't think I need the rest.
00:28:04 also. Don't think I need the rest. Now you are clearly telling uh Mr. Blake that Peter Madison has instructed you to send Ryden some suggestions for value engineering. That's right, isn't it?
00:28:15 engineering. That's right, isn't it? We can see that what what I'm sending him is as much information as I have on what the difficulties were. Um and I think if you follow this
00:28:26 were. Um and I think if you follow this further down the line once we have signed the pre-commencement agreement there is then at the contractor introduction meeting Artellia then take over the process of dealing formally
00:28:40 over the process of dealing formally with value engineering and the public realm works. Right. Um can we look at the uh well can we ask you is this the first time that you were in contact with Steve Blake? Yes
00:28:51 Yes it was.
00:28:53 it was. And do you agree that the the effect or thrust of your email is a specific instruction to Ryden or request if you like to try and make savings over and above the price they tended
00:29:07 including the the price they've tended because that within their tender return we already had identified potential savings because at that time we didn't know what cladding would be acceptable
00:29:20 know what cladding would be acceptable to the planners. So we couldn't make a decision on that. Yeah. No, it it's a much simpler question I'm asking you. Do do you accept that the thrust of this email was to tell Ryden that they had to come down further from their bid price?
00:29:34 come down further from their bid price? No.
00:29:35 No. You don't? No.
00:29:36 No. Well, can you explain uh what you meant when you said uh that you were indicating areas we would like you to look at in relation to possible savings? Savings surely over and above the 9.2
00:29:49 Savings surely over and above the 9.2 million that they'd bid. I was given them enough information um to try and explain what the problem was so that there were areas they would be looking at. Um, so I was, you know,
00:30:04 be looking at. Um, so I was, you know, my wording might be slightly bad, but the intention was to clarify the process, but being as open as possible with them on what the gap was,
00:30:17 possible with them on what the gap was, what we've identified, and asking them to look at other areas. Right. Well, well, you use the expression our target. Our target is Kirkar Circar if you like £800,000.
00:30:30 Kirkar Circar if you like £800,000. Mhm.
00:30:30 Mhm. What What was the target? Was it a savings target? What was it? The target was to get to our budget which was 8 in the region of 8.5
00:30:41 which was 8 in the region of 8.5 million.
00:30:42 million. Exactly. And the difference between 9.2 million odd, which was the Ryden's bid, and the 8.415 million pounds, which was the construction budget that you had, was £800,000 or so, wasn't it?
00:30:54 was £800,000 or so, wasn't it? Yes.
00:30:55 Yes. Yes. And and the aim of this email was to get them down from 9.2 million by a process of what you might call value engineering to your budget of 8.415 million. Is that all right? Thank you. Now, let's um let's look at the
00:31:07 Now, let's um let's look at the spreadsheet. 8 Ryd 43301, please. RYD 403301.
00:31:22 And if we just uh click on the native
00:31:33 um did you draft this document?
00:31:38 I'm not sure that I did. I think I I think but I can't recollect totally. I think we
00:31:46 think we had met with Artellia before this to agree the areas because we had recognized the problem some weeks
00:31:57 we had recognized the problem some weeks before.
00:31:59 before. When when do you think this document was first produced?
00:32:07 I think I had I can't remember. I I I had the information. I think we had the information before. So I probably put just put the information into this this format.
00:32:19 information into this this format. I see.
00:32:19 I see. Now we can see it says um the works budget is £8.415 million. The cost savings to be made need to be in the region of £800,000. So that really
00:32:30 region of £800,000. So that really reflects what you said in your email, doesn't it? Yes.
00:32:32 Yes. Yeah. The list below is not exhaustive and there may be other elements for consideration. the and then you talk about the pre-commencement costs under that. And then you can see the target of £800,000
00:32:43 £800,000 or greater. You see at the bottom in the of the box in bold of which item three, do you see cladding subject to planning approval was mentioned in tender as alternative costs
00:32:55 mentioned in tender as alternative costs £243,000.
00:32:57 £243,000. So that's a saving which is already in there of £243,000. Yeah.
00:33:02 Yeah. And then there's 100,000 possible for a possible eco grant, but you've still got to get up to the 800,000 which was your target. Yes.
00:33:12 Yes. The 243 was within the 800,000 indeed.
00:33:16 indeed. Yes,
00:33:17 Yes, absolutely. But there were still gaps, weren't there? Yes.
00:33:19 Yes. Such as windows, crown design for the roof,
00:33:22 roof, and other things. Yes. And of course, if you could get the the savings in relation to cladding uh higher than 243,000 uh that would have been a bonus, wouldn't it? Because it would have reduced the figure closer to the 800
00:33:35 reduced the figure closer to the 800 that you wanted. Yeah, that's correct. Then it says underneath riding to confirm if possible by Monday 17th March agreement in principle to above and to and then at the bottom riding to
00:33:46 and to and then at the bottom riding to confirm possible meeting with TMO at TMO's offices Tuesday 18th March PM question mark. Did you put that in there?
00:33:54 there? Um, yes.
00:33:55 Um, yes. Yes.
00:34:01 Did it not occur to you at this point when producing this document and sending it to Steve Blake at Ryden that your budget, the 8.415 million odd pounds, was simply too low
00:34:12 million odd pounds, was simply too low for the project that you wanted? No.
00:34:16 No. No.
00:34:18 No. Why is that?
00:34:23 I think we'd had very late during the tender process, I think just before the original tender return, we'd had a a revised um tender
00:34:37 return, we'd had a a revised um tender estimate from Artillia, which was well in excess of anything we' previously discussed. Um I think that we were actually quite pleased when we saw the
00:34:49 actually quite pleased when we saw the the Ryden um tender submission figures because it wasn't as big a gap as we thought there might be and we thought this is something that we can make work.
00:35:02 this is something that we can make work. And yet you still wanted them to come down by 800 a further £800,000 in order to get the contract.
00:35:12 We're looking at the areas that there might be alternative prices. We're looking at areas that are things that we could change. Um, we're looking at sort of landscaping as
00:35:25 we're looking at sort of landscaping as I mentioned because that was the public realm works which we knew would be paid for by others and that would increase our budget.
00:35:34 You you realized presumably that the 9.2 2 million that Ryden had bid was about just under about £800,000 itself. Less
00:35:45 just under about £800,000 itself. Less than the Artillia indicative benchmark number, wasn't it? Yes.
00:35:49 Yes. A and that Ryden was significantly cheaper than the next bid up by I think about £600,000, wasn't it? That's correct. So you were already getting a significantly lower bid than anybody had
00:36:01 significantly lower bid than anybody had previously indicated. Correct. and now you wanted a further £800,000 on top of that. In those circumstances, Mr. Gibson, my question is, did it not occur to you to go to Peter Madison or anybody else and say,
00:36:12 Peter Madison or anybody else and say, "Look, uh, this this budget is simply too small for what we want. We need to rethink what uh the scope of our project."
00:36:21 project." No. Um, we thought the the gap was bridgeable. We had already identified some things that would bridge that gap. There are other areas of work priced
00:36:32 There are other areas of work priced within there. um submission that we would get funding for elsewhere. Um I think there mentioned the eco grant of 100,000 and the landscaping cost that we wanted them
00:36:44 the landscaping cost that we wanted them to separate out from us because that would be paid for by others. So we' already gone some of the way to identifying what how we might bridge that gap at that time. And um looking at the confirmation meeting on Tuesday the
00:36:59 the confirmation meeting on Tuesday the 18th of March which we know happened and we'll come to in a moment. You wanted that confirmation before the announcement of the result of the tender.
00:37:08 tender. That's correct.
00:37:14 Can we then look at Steve Blake's response? Uh first please. RYD 403310 at page one which is his email of the 13th of March at the bottom of the page
00:37:25 13th of March at the bottom of the page to you copy to CLA Williams to hide David understand what's required and see no reason why this can't be achieved your spreadsheet says a Tuesday PM meeting rather than Monday PM as email which would work perfectly
00:37:37 which would work perfectly as requested we will respond early Monday that was the 17th regarding opportunities for savings and time scales
00:37:47 scales so It looks well, let me put it this ask you this way. When you got this email from Steve Blake, did you see that he understood exactly what you were asking for?
00:38:00 Yes, because by the 13th of March, Peter would have had a conversation with Steve Blake on the 12th of March, right?
00:38:10 right? To clarify what he needed and what we wanted to do. And then you responded at the top of the page uh the next day 14th of March. Steve, thanks for swift response. Yes, I meant Tuesday PM. I
00:38:21 response. Yes, I meant Tuesday PM. I will forward a meeting invite. Uh and and then if we look at uh the next email that Steve Blake sends you on the Monday, the 17th of March, that's at
00:38:33 the Monday, the 17th of March, that's at ry 403348. Please let's go to page one.
00:38:42 Uh he says um he says to you, David, Katie and Simon have been on the case today and will have a range of options to present for tomorrow.
00:38:54 options to present for tomorrow. Hopefully we will be in a position to achieve the ve levels needed. See that?
00:38:59 See that? Mhm. Um, now that reference to tomorrow was a reference to the meeting that was fixed for and indeed then took place on
00:39:10 fixed for and indeed then took place on the afternoon of the 18th of March. Is that right? That's correct. Yes.
00:39:14 Yes. And so far as you were concerned, you were clear in your mind that Ryden clearly understood that you wanted options to achieve the value engineering levels needed. In other words, £800,000
00:39:26 levels needed. In other words, £800,000 of savings. We wanted assurance that they were comfortable with our approach.
00:39:36 Well, it wasn't just comfortable, was it? Because you made it quite clear in the spreadsheet that what you needed was a reduction in cost of the project.
00:39:47 a reduction in cost of the project. Yes.
00:39:47 Yes. Achieved by a change to the specification.
00:39:54 I don't think we were changing the specification necessarily at this time. Well, it wasn't that the underlying premise. You were asking them to concentrate on particular areas where
00:40:05 concentrate on particular areas where the existing specification could be modified in order to produce a saving in the cost of the project. I think that's part of it. What's that? What else is there?
00:40:17 What else is there? Um
00:40:20 Um I think we we'd asked them to could they identify other areas. Um there might Yes indeed there might be changes to the specification but at that time no decisions had been made. We were just
00:40:33 decisions had been made. We were just trying to get as much information together um to ensure that we were they were comfortable and we were comfortable. You you see I asked the question because a little while ago you said what you wanted to discuss with
00:40:45 said what you wanted to discuss with them was process. Yes.
00:40:47 Yes. But actually what you wanted to discuss was the application of a process. You were interested in the outcome of the process not just the process weren't you?
00:40:56 you? Um yes.
00:40:57 Um yes. Yeah.
00:41:00 Yeah. Yes. Thank you. Yes Mr. Yes. Thank you. Um yes. Uh then let's turn to the 18th of March 2014 meeting. Were you at that meeting?
00:41:11 Were you at that meeting? Yes.
00:41:12 Yes. Did it take place at the TMO's offices? Yes.
00:41:14 Yes. Was it in the afternoon? Yes, I think. And the purpose of that meeting was to discuss what we've seen in this email run up to this point. The savings that could be made.
00:41:27 could be made. It was discuss
00:41:31 the approach. they were comfortable with the approach. It was to give them as much information as possible um so that they could satisfy themselves. They were be would be
00:41:43 themselves. They were be would be comfortable with the approach and it was allowing them the opportunity to um potentially present other areas that for us to consider.
00:41:54 us to consider. Um did the estimator that you'd asked to attend from Ryden actually attend? I think so. Um, does the name Katie Bashellier mean anything to you? I recognize the name.
00:42:05 I recognize the name. She was the Ryden estimator for the at this point. Yes.
00:42:11 Yes. She attended that meeting, didn't she? I think so. Yeah.
00:42:15 Yeah. And the point of her attending that meeting as an estimator, someone very close to very precise figures, was so that she could discuss very precise figures with you.
00:42:28 figures with you. That's why you wanted her there. No.
00:42:36 We thought an estimator would be appropriate to have at this meeting when we're just we were we were discussing costs and in order for us to be
00:42:47 costs and in order for us to be comfortable and for them to be comfortable with our approach to overcome the problem we didn't. Were any notes or minutes taken by anybody at that meeting?
00:43:00 anybody at that meeting? I don't I probably took some notes of my own but it was an offline meeting by but it was an offline meeting. Yes.
00:43:10 Yes. Do you mean that it was a secret meeting and therefore should be unrecorded? Yes,
00:43:16 Yes, you do.
00:43:18 you do. Thank you. And why was it to be a secret meeting for which no record was to be taken and indeed none exists?
00:43:32 There had been communication with Artellia before in terms of Jenny had put forward a proposal for overcoming the problem that we had. Um Artellia
00:43:45 the problem that we had. Um Artellia agreed that approach to an offline meeting or informal discussions. One said one I can't remember which one said which. Um but you know it wasn't a
00:43:57 which. Um but you know it wasn't a secret. It was agreement to an offline meeting to to overcome the difficulties that we had. Most people have secret meetings or
00:44:09 Most people have secret meetings or offline as you might describe it uh and don't take records of it uh because they don't want the fact of the meeting and the contents to be discovered by anybody else. That that's right in respect of this
00:44:21 That that's right in respect of this meeting, isn't it? No. So why not take a record of it then? Because we were it was a very brief meeting.
00:44:30 meeting. They didn't from my recollection have all the cost. There were a number of areas that they stated they were working on and looking into. Um I think we had
00:44:42 on and looking into. Um I think we had agreed that the the alliance for the pre-commencement agreement was in the right ballpark. They were they were comfortable with that. Um, so it was just an agreement in principle.
00:44:54 just an agreement in principle. Yes. Um, it was an agreement in principle which you absolutely needed in order to be able to move the process forward and go to the board. Yes.
00:45:02 Yes. Why wasn't it recorded? It was important.
00:45:07 I think was what we wanted was an understanding. What you wanted was a secret understanding that was not discoverable by anybody else. Least of all the other bidder. That's right, isn't it? Can you not accept that?
00:45:21 It was an offline meeting, right? We we recorded your answer. Um, at the meeting, did Ryden agree to make the savings that uh that you had
00:45:32 the savings that uh that you had requested and that they had told you should be achievable? They agreed they were comfortable um and been able to identify and bridge the gap between the two sets of figures.
00:45:46 Can you look at Ryd 43489 please?
00:45:54 This is an email from Kate Bashelier KT Bashelier I'm sorry of Ryden. She's the estimator we talked about uh sent on the 20th of March 2014. So two days after
00:46:05 20th of March 2014. So two days after the meeting and it sent to Peter Madison, Cla Williams and you copied to Simon Lawrence and Steve Blake. Further further to our meeting on Tuesday, please find attached our summary list of value engineering options.
00:46:17 options. Now, uh can we look at the attachment? It's at ry 403490.
00:46:30 And uh here is the document she attached. Do you remember this document at the time?
00:46:42 Yes. Yes. I would have seen this at the time and
00:46:47 and it reflects what I had said previously in terms of we didn't have the figures at the meeting and I've now forwarded some figures to give us comfort and
00:46:58 some figures to give us comfort and they've identified some other areas. Yes. Did we we we could see that it was attached to the email that Katie Bashellier sent you on the 20th of March.
00:47:08 March. Did you see this document at the meeting?
00:47:10 meeting? No,
00:47:11 No, you didn't. No. So So is it right then that the first time you saw this document was when Katie Bashellier sent it to you on the 20th of March? Yes.
00:47:19 Yes. Yes, I see. Um was there any discussion at the meeting um about uh savings in respect of cladding
00:47:30 respect of cladding and in particular a discussion about substituting zinc with aluminium for a saving of 293,368.
00:47:41 I think that had already been priced within their tender submission. We knew that the clatting was subject to the
00:47:52 that the clatting was subject to the agreement and approval of the planners. Um
00:47:57 Um whilst we might have preferred the lower cost, um we couldn't um we didn't have any certainty at this time which material would be used. And your simple
00:48:10 material would be used. And your simple spreadsheet had a saving for cladding in it of £243,000, didn't it? Yep. And that had come from the tender. Yes. The alternative cost.
00:48:21 The alternative cost. But now you were being shown a figure of £293,000
00:48:25 £293,000 odd pounds by way of saving for cladding. So 50,000 or so uh um greater greater saving. Was there any discussion at the 18th of March meeting about a
00:48:37 at the 18th of March meeting about a greater saving on clatting? I don't recall right
00:48:44 right now
00:48:50 if you go please to Ryd 403491.
00:49:05 Uh we can see uh that uh looking at the various suggested savings on cladding the largest saving was on face fixed as an alternative aluminium system which gave a saving of £376,175
00:49:21 with the alternative aluminium system cassette of 293368.
00:49:27 Um did was there any discussion about an alternative uh system which would produce an even higher saving for aluminium namely if
00:49:39 higher saving for aluminium namely if you if face was used 376,000 odd pounds was that discussed at the meeting? at the meeting on the 18th? I don't think so. I think this arrived
00:49:50 think so. I think this arrived afterwards. Right.
00:49:56 Did Did the spreadsheet that you were sent by Katy Bashelli on the 20th of March tell you that the £800,000 target for savings was achievable partly by way of reduction of the price for the
00:50:08 of reduction of the price for the cladding?
00:50:13 Sorry, can you? Yes. Did the spreadsheet that Katie Bashellier sent sent you showing the different savings for cladding options tell you that the £800,000 saving target could be achieved?
00:50:27 It gives some comfort it could be achieved. Um but at this stage it was subject to the planners agreeing um what the material would be.
00:50:39 the material would be. Right. Can we then go to the next topic which is the notification of the preferred bidder and look please at art 408632.
00:50:49 Now this is the letter under which Ryden was told that it was the preferred bidder.
00:50:55 bidder. You see that? Yes.
00:50:56 Yes. That that's the the final form of letter that was sent and it's entitled notice of preferred bidder status and note the date 18th of March 2014. So, the same
00:51:08 date 18th of March 2014. So, the same day as the meeting, we've just been discussing Mr. Gibson. Mhm.
00:51:12 Mhm. Uh, and I'm Can I assume that you've seen this letter before? Yes.
00:51:17 Yes. And and were aware of it at the time? Yes, because we knew who the preferred bidder would be. This was just the formality of issuing
00:51:28 formality of issuing um
00:51:29 um that
00:51:30 that Yes.
00:51:32 Yes. Uh and uh you can see uh that in the first main paragraph it thanks Ryden for the tender uh and says that uh we that's
00:51:45 the tender uh and says that uh we that's Artilia and you indeed as the TMO have conduct have concluded the tender evaluation process uh and we have been authorized it says by the TMO as employees agent for the abovementioned project to inform you that you are the
00:51:57 project to inform you that you are the preferred bidder and it is the intention of KCTMA to enter into a contract with you and then it says this. Subject to the agreement of the site boundary and formal approval from the KCTMO board and
00:52:08 formal approval from the KCTMO board and Royal Burough of Kensington and Chelsea Council.
00:52:10 Council. Mhm.
00:52:11 Mhm. Now, we've looked at this letter a number of times. We can't find anything in it about a condition about value engineering. Doesn't say subject to arriving at a a final figure by way of value engineering. Why is that? Why was
00:52:23 value engineering. Why is that? Why was that not in the letter?
00:52:28 I think this is just the legal wording that's been inserted. It um it indicates that there were discussions and I said there were discussions about
00:52:41 and I said there were discussions about boundary adjustments and the public realm works and that we needed to get approval. So it was I think Jenny had agreed this this um addition to it and
00:52:53 agreed this this um addition to it and it was just her being correct and saying that why
00:52:57 that why there are things still to be clarified. So it's subject to these matters. You are the preferred there's no indication in this letter uh that the contract would be dependent on
00:53:11 that the contract would be dependent on uh Ryden reducing their overall construction price. Correct. There's no mention of the meeting of the 18th of March either, is there?
00:53:22 18th of March either, is there? Correct.
00:53:23 Correct. There's no meeting of value. There's no mention of discussions about value engineering or a target of £800,000. Is that
00:53:30 that correct?
00:53:32 correct? Why is that? Because it was an offline meeting. I think
00:53:37 think so. The conditions the conditions anybody reading this letter would think that the only conditions for entry into a contract between the
00:53:48 for entry into a contract between the TMO and Ryden would be agreement about the site boundary and formal approval from the TMO board and the council. That's right, isn't it? Correct. And anybody reading this letter
00:54:00 Correct. And anybody reading this letter would not know that in fact underneath it all was a offline as you put it discussion agreement or understanding that Ryden would reduce their
00:54:11 that Ryden would reduce their construction costs by a further £800,000 or so. That's right, isn't it? I think I've explained that there was a problem. We'd had an offline meeting. it
00:54:23 problem. We'd had an offline meeting. it wouldn't be in here because the advice we had had from um the solicitors was you need to award the
00:54:34 the solicitors was you need to award the contract to the preferred bidder or you have your option is you've got a preferred bidder. This is what this is saying. um you need to award at that and
00:54:45 saying. um you need to award at that and then you can go through the legal process of using the value engineering clauses to achieve the target. Now we're going to come to the advice in
00:54:56 Now we're going to come to the advice in a moment because I'm very interested to know what you say about it but just just focusing on my question uh and you've answered it in the way you have. Let me try this a slightly different way. You didn't even tell
00:55:08 different way. You didn't even tell Artellia that you were having these discussions about value engineering or or a meeting to discuss value engineering, did you?
00:55:18 I think we did. Well, let's take it in stages. Yes. Did you tell Artilia that you had asked uh well, did you tell Artillia that you were having a meeting with Ryden before
00:55:31 were having a meeting with Ryden before the the announcement of the preferred bidder to discuss a target reduction of £800,000?
00:55:36 £800,000? No. No. And Artilia weren't at the meeting, were they? That's correct. Nor was Studio E. Correct.
00:55:43 Correct. Yes. Um, did it occur to you to go to Studio E when you were told what the basis of these reductions was to be, namely a reduction in the price of the
00:55:54 namely a reduction in the price of the cladding and a substitution uh from zinc to aluminium, to go to a studio and ask them whether that change in product was
00:56:05 them whether that change in product was something that they could advise you on? No.
00:56:09 No. No.
00:56:10 No. Let's look at uh another notice, shall we? Um and I think I can take this quite quickly. This is art 40224.
00:56:32 [Applause] And this is uh a notice to Mr. Hazelton at the who was one of the losers. as indeed it says in the first paragraph
00:56:47 uh in the first paragraph. Uh again we can see there's no mention of targeted savings or value engineering uh as the reason for identifying somebody else in fact Ryden as the winner is there
00:57:01 fact Ryden as the winner is there correct
00:57:03 correct uh and although we don't need to go to it this the notice to Durkan says very much the same thing that's art 40219
00:57:13 and can I suggest to you that there was a good reason for not telling the other biders that the one of the reasons for awarding the the contract to Ryden was because they had agreed to reduce their price by £800,000 or so. And that is
00:57:25 price by £800,000 or so. And that is because if they discovered um that the TMO were discussing cost savings on the price with Ryden uh prior to uh the award that raised the risk of a challenge to the award decision.
00:57:37 challenge to the award decision. Correct.
00:57:38 Correct. Yes. Can we then look at the Trowers advice that you've referred to now a number of times in your evidence this morning? This is at art 400's 6433 please.
00:57:52 And it's an email chain on the 2nd and 3rd of March 2014. So about a week before the the internal discussions we've seen with Ryden and the discussions that Peter Madison had
00:58:04 the discussions that Peter Madison had and then you had with Ryden about value engineering the price down and uh we we can start I think with the second page. page two of this email run and I want to
00:58:18 page two of this email run and I want to look with you at the email of the 2nd of March from Jenny Jackson uh to uh Phil Booth, Simon Cash, Clare Williams and Peter Bllythe copied to you and I want to look at it in full if we
00:58:30 and I want to look at it in full if we may. Um it's a discussion on advice given by trrow and hamlins who are solicitors reputable solicitors on procurement and uh it starts please can we discuss how we intend to bridge the
00:58:42 we discuss how we intend to bridge the gap between the 9.249 odd million pound tender submitted and the 8.5 million client budget and clearly the 8.2 sorry the 9.2 that's
00:58:54 and clearly the 8.2 sorry the 9.2 that's referred to there is the is the is the Ryden tender price isn't it? Yeah. Yeah. The advice obtained from Trousers and Hamlins is clear and I'm going to read it to you. It's in smaller print on this page. KCTMO has
00:59:06 smaller print on this page. KCTMO has advertised the contract as a restricted procedure based on an estimated contract value of 8 million to 10 million pounds. Tenderers are required to submit a price for undertaking the program and KCTMO is
00:59:18 for undertaking the program and KCTMO is required to assess the tenders based on the price stroke quality criteria you have set out in the tender documents. The restricted procedure does not permit a contracting authority to undertake negotiations with tenderers prior to the
00:59:29 negotiations with tenderers prior to the contract award and does not provide for the contracting authority to revise the tender document or for tenderers to submit revised best and final offers. To do so would be a breach of the EU
00:59:40 do so would be a breach of the EU regulations even if you allowed all the tenders to ne renegotiate their prices. Your only EU compliant options are to assess the tenders and award the contract to the tender who scores scored
00:59:52 contract to the tender who scores scored the highest based on your price stroke quality criteria or not award the contract and run a new procurement exercise. If the contract allows it, you
01:00:03 exercise. If the contract allows it, you may run value engineering exercises with your selected tender, but only once the contract has been entered into. In the event that there is a formal
01:00:14 In the event that there is a formal challenge, we may be required to disclose some stroke elements of the formal reports. So I suggest the references to value engineering are removed for the moment. I think the way forward is to enter into
01:00:27 I think the way forward is to enter into the contract for 9.249 odd million pounds and then embark on the on the VE post award. So the award is on the basis
01:00:38 post award. So the award is on the basis of the published evaluation criteria. There will need to be some informal quotes unquote discussion with the preferred contractor prior to award so that there is an understanding of the
01:00:49 that there is an understanding of the approach views question mark. Now that's per email in full. Did you read the advice contained within
01:01:01 Did you read the advice contained within the email I've just read to you from Trowers and Hamlins? Yes.
01:01:06 Yes. Did you understand it? Yes. Was there any part of that advice that was not clear to you? Nope.
01:01:15 In her final paragraph, you can see what she says.
01:01:19 she says. Did you uh and I'm not going to reread it to you. Did you inform uh Peter Madison of Jenny Jackson's uh uh thoughts as to the way forward?
01:01:32 uh uh thoughts as to the way forward? I can't recall. Um, I I would expect that Peter may have had discussions with Jenny at this time. I don't know.
01:01:43 don't know. Did you think in your own mind that Jenny Jackson's approach as to the way forward, namely a quote informal unquote discussion,
01:01:54 informal unquote discussion, uh, might itself have been contrary to Trous and Hamlin's advice? Yes,
01:02:00 Yes, you did. Yes.
01:02:07 But as we've seen, in fact, what happened I is that you had not only discussions of the approach with Ryden, but discussions about actual
01:02:19 with Ryden, but discussions about actual figures by way of value engineering as part of your decision whether to award the contract to them at all. We've seen that. Was that not completely contrary
01:02:30 that. Was that not completely contrary to the clear legal advice that you received from trials and Hamlins and understood? It was
01:02:50 now considering the documents that you've just seen, do you agree that Ryden received preferential treatment? No.
01:03:01 No. Well, they were told that they were in pole position and they were given a chance to produce value engineering figures before notification in circumstances where the others were not. Does that not tell us that Ryden was given preferential treatment?
01:03:13 given preferential treatment? No, it tells us that we followed a process
01:03:17 process um in
01:03:19 um in assessing the tenders to get to a preferred contractor status. And it tells me or tells us that we had identified a problem. We were looking,
01:03:30 identified a problem. We were looking, we had taken legal advice. We were looking at a way to overcome the problem. I think it's quite clear.
01:03:41 Why did you not mention the fact that you had gone against Trousers and Hamlin's advice in the process of selecting Ryden in your first witness statement? I had I think I'd said previously I had
01:03:53 I had I think I'd said previously I had forgotten all about this. I I had retired some this was two years, three years afterwards. It was I was
01:04:04 three years afterwards. It was I was trying to in my statement respond to the questions the inquiry had asked me and and I was trying to do it
01:04:15 asked me and and I was trying to do it as best as possible from memory. At the time, I had very limited access to information. Even as late as the 3rd of October this
01:04:27 Even as late as the 3rd of October this month, this year, two weeks ago, you had the opportunity. I knew I knew at that time. You knew at that time. Yes, Mr. Gibson. And I'm going to suggest to you that you didn't mention anything about going
01:04:38 didn't mention anything about going against Trrow and He's advice and conducting an improper and compromised process with Ryden because you knew it was wrong. No, because I knew it was I would be
01:04:50 No, because I knew it was I would be questioned on it here.
01:04:57 Can I ask you to go to your first witness statement, please? Page 14
01:05:05 and go to paragraph 72. You say there Ryden were appointed following a rigorous tender process conducted under the transparency of the public procurement exercise that is OJU.
01:05:20 public procurement exercise that is OJU. Now, Mr. Gibson, in light of the documents we've been looking at this morning and your evidence about it, can you still maintain that the tender
01:05:31 can you still maintain that the tender pro progress was rigorous and transparent? Yes.
01:05:36 Yes. How can you possibly maintain that it was rigorous and transparent in the light of what you told us about the tender process was rigorous I
01:05:48 I I make a point the tender pro pros assessing the tenders was a rigorous process
01:05:56 process um I agree that there wasn't full transparency because there had been an offline meeting to overcome a problem and in saying that the process was
01:06:07 and in saying that the process was conducted under the transparency of the public procurement exercise that is OJU is utterly misleading because it was no such thing.
01:06:21 I disagree. Very well.
01:06:31 Can we go to what happened a little bit later in March now which is the approval by the TMO board. Uh this is TMO1031040.
01:06:47 These are the TMO board minutes from the 27th of March 2014. And I'd like to look with you please at page two, item two.
01:06:58 And I I'm a bit too quick. It's my fault. Can we go back to page one because I just want to show you who was there. There's a large cast of those present.
01:07:07 present. You see that? Uh and in attendance, Robert Black, Ion Burch, and a and underneath that a little bit lower down, Mr. Peter Madison.
01:07:19 Mr. Peter Madison. And then if we go to where I wanted to go, uh which is uh page two, item two. Here we see the heading Grenfell Tower refurbishment and Peter Madison gave a
01:07:31 refurbishment and Peter Madison gave a progress report and uh it says if you look a little bit lower down uh Ryden's it's third line Ryden was the
01:07:42 Ryden's it's third line Ryden was the preferred contractor and because there was a very tight perimeter on costs we would work with them on the detail of their tender in addition there was some further work to be done on the planning permissions and the type of materials and cladding in order to contain costs.
01:07:55 and cladding in order to contain costs. There would also be further work on energy and it was hoped to attract some funding. When these two pieces of work were completed, it was hoped to carry out the contract within budget. It was recommended that we enter into a pre-contract arrangement with Rydens in
01:08:07 pre-contract arrangement with Rydens in order to progress the project. That was his that was his report. And then we can see at the bottom that the board members raised some points. Uh and the first of which is it was pointed out that there was a big difference in the prices being
01:08:18 was a big difference in the prices being offered on page 83. And that's that's you don't need to see that but that was the um the prices uh as a result of the bid. However, Rydens was consistently lower. And then if we turn the page at
01:08:30 lower. And then if we turn the page at the top of the page at point 2, it says it was queried why there was such a big deviation in tender prices and whether Rydens had put in a low tender in order to obtain the contract. Confirmation was given that the pre-contract period was
01:08:42 given that the pre-contract period was being recommended in order to look at these issues. It was queried whether this could be interpreted as being contractually committed. However, if we didn't get within the budget, it would not be committed. But there was confidence that it would be possible to get the contract within budget. And then
01:08:55 get the contract within budget. And then item three, it was queried whether we had confidence in Ryden's pricing and confirmation was given that we had received a very detailed tender report which was also competitive. And then the decision is made at the bottom to award
01:09:08 decision is made at the bottom to award uh the um a pre-contract agreement uh to uh Ryden and and to appoint them as contractor for the project. not in reverse order from the way I've read
01:09:19 reverse order from the way I've read that out. Um, now it looked well, first of all, did you see these board minutes when they came out in the May of 2014? No, they aren't generally cir I wouldn't
01:09:30 No, they aren't generally cir I wouldn't normally be they wouldn't normally be circulated to me. Right. Did Did any of the executive team discuss the concerns that were recorded there with you? No.
01:09:39 No. Was there any concern elsewhere within the TMO uh that Ryden's pricing might have been too low? I wasn't aware of any.
01:09:47 any. Nobody seems to have told the board that the other tenderers had not been given the opportunity to value engineer uh or to discuss their approach informally as you might put it. That's right, isn't
01:09:58 you might put it. That's right, isn't it? There's no record of it. My question is to your knowledge is it right that nobody on the board was told uh that the other tenderers had not been given the same opportunity to have these
01:10:09 same opportunity to have these discussions as as Ryden had? I don't know. I wasn't at the meeting.
01:10:19 U Mr. Chairman, I've got a final topic or two, I think, which I think I can cover quite quickly and it would be sensible if I try to. Yes. Can I then turn to the topic of CDM
01:10:31 Can I then turn to the topic of CDM regulations now? Uh can I go back to the contractor induction meeting of 1st of April 2014 first of all and that's at TMO1023253
01:10:51 uh and this is a document we've seen very many times now in in in the course of this module in this inquiry. Uh and um if we uh look uh at how um Keith
01:11:04 um if we uh look uh at how um Keith Bushell who is um described there if we go down if we go down a little bit to uh item 2.1 please.
01:11:18 Uh I'm sorry 1.4 top of the page. The role of CDMC will be performed by KB of art. So that's Keith Bushell of Artilia. um when you saw these notes and do you
01:11:32 um when you saw these notes and do you understand what CDMC was? Yes,
01:11:34 Yes, you did. Uh and what role did you understand the TMO had under the CDM regulations 2007?
01:11:45 We needed to appoint a CDMC [Music]
01:11:50 [Music] CDMC coordinator. Um we were quite clear on that. I think I think prior to this I had met some many months before met Keith Bushell and I think he
01:12:02 before met Keith Bushell and I think he talked me through the process. Who within the TMO was in charge of making sure that the TMO carried out its regula its role under the CDM regulations 2007.
01:12:15 Who within the who within the TMO? Who who within the TMO was in charge had responsibility for making sure the TMO carried out its own role under the CDM
01:12:26 carried out its own role under the CDM regulations 2007 specifically in relation to the Granfield Tower project. I should say
01:12:37 I think we all had a responsibility to ensure that a CDMC was appointed, right? We knew that we needed to appoint one and we did appoint one. It was part It was part of the original Artellia
01:12:50 It was part of the original Artellia appointment. Could we then Yes, it was. Could Could we then look at the progress meeting minutes for progress meeting number 16 of the 22nd of October 2015? Those are
01:13:01 of the 22nd of October 2015? Those are at TMO 0830091.
01:13:05 And I'd like to go in that please to page four.
01:13:15 And on page four, we see item 3.2 under the broader heading contractors report and program. And another 3.2 has a heading CDM F10. It says expires
01:13:28 heading CDM F10. It says expires tomorrow. Uh and and um uh there's some more material about that we'll be looking at with others. And then it says PMN
01:13:38 PMN and that's post meeting note. Under the 2015 regulations, if the PD appointment finishes before the end of the works, then the principal contractor takes on the PD role. That's principal designer
01:13:50 the PD role. That's principal designer role. This means the principal contractor puts together the H and S file, health and safety file for the client for discussion at the next progress meeting in bold. Now, um, Mr.
01:14:02 progress meeting in bold. Now, um, Mr. Gibson, you were on the distribution list for these minutes. Did you read them at the time, do you think? Yes, I did. I was aware of the discussions. Um, can you remind me of
01:14:13 discussions. Um, can you remind me of the date of this? Yes, the 22nd of October 2015. So, that's about Yes, I think we previous prior to this there were discussions in the background. There were there were and that's true.
01:14:25 There were there were and that's true. Um, and my question was did you read the the minutes and you said you did. My next question is at this point, so this is latestish October 2015 and so after the 2015 CDM regulations had come into
01:14:37 the 2015 CDM regulations had come into force.
01:14:38 force. Yep.
01:14:40 Yep. What did you understand the TMO's CDM regulations or OB obligations under those regulations to be at that time? That the CDMC coordinator role was being
01:14:51 That the CDMC coordinator role was being deleted and we need to appoint a principal designer I think. Yes. And and whose obligation at that time was it or sphere of responsibility within the TMO
01:15:04 sphere of responsibility within the TMO to make sure that the TMO complied with the updated or amended uh CDM regulations replaced the new CDM regulations.
01:15:15 replaced the new CDM regulations. Right. It was clear that the client had responsibility so myself or Peter. Um but it was clear that we were in a
01:15:26 but it was clear that we were in a difficult position um because of the change in the rules. We were aware that others had effectively dealt with this with with with um projects on site by
01:15:39 with with with um projects on site by the CDMC's becoming the principal designer role. Um but for whatever reason um Artellia didn't offer us that
01:15:51 reason um Artellia didn't offer us that service and I still not sure why they were unable to provide that. Let's then look at the next progress meeting which is number 17. This this one was 16. We
01:16:02 is number 17. This this one was 16. We go to 17. That's the 17th of November 2015 at TMO101410.
01:16:11 And if we go first of all to the first page of that
01:16:17 we can see uh the date and we can see that you were in attendance as the second attendee down on the list. And if we can turn please to page two and look at item or paragraph 2.8
01:16:30 at item or paragraph 2.8 we could see that discussion took place about the CDM regulations. And there we can see
01:16:38 can see um it says uh CDM regulations 2015 AM noted the PMN the post meeting note on previous minutes copied here for
01:16:50 on previous minutes copied here for completeness and then they're set out and then it goes on to say um it it was agreed that Ryden are not the PD principal designer
01:17:01 Ryden are not the PD principal designer under the CDM regulations 2015 The TMO as the client are to undertake this role.
01:17:08 role. If you just turn the page, it was further agreed that Ryden would be responsible for collecting and presenting the HNS file information in accordance with the employers requirements and the PCI and present to
01:17:20 requirements and the PCI and present to the TMO as PD. Now um working one way through the acronyms as best one can there um is it right that as a consequence of the
01:17:31 right that as a consequence of the change in the regulations unless a principal designer was appointed the client namely the TMO would become the principal designer. Correct.
01:17:40 Correct. Yeah. And this minute is recording that Ryden were to present the health and safety file for the building to the the TMO as a as a principal designer. In
01:17:51 TMO as a as a principal designer. In other words, the TMO would receive it in its capacity as principal designer. Is that how you is that what was discussed? Yes, we were uncomfortable with being
01:18:02 Yes, we were uncomfortable with being the principal taking on the principal designer role. I don't think we were well advised at that time by Artellier. Um, we had asked them, they had said
01:18:14 Um, we had asked them, they had said they couldn't do it. We had been pointed in the direction of Ryden. Um, they said they couldn't do it. I think we asked Studioe, I might be wrong on who we asked. We asked a number of people and
01:18:25 asked. We asked a number of people and we we also asked people from our now in place framework consultants whether they could take on the role. Um and no one was willing to
01:18:38 the role. Um and no one was willing to take on the role. So we didn't have another option.
01:18:46 Uh, can I ask you to look at Peter Madison's second witness statement to see what he says about this? This is TMO847337.
01:18:57 And I'd like to go to page 9 within it.
01:19:07 And he says at paragraph nine,
01:19:13 sorry, paragraph 40 on page nine,
01:19:18 uh, halfway down that paragraph, the TMO therefore took on the role and it was explained to me by David Gibson that the
01:19:29 explained to me by David Gibson that the role would sit with TMO by default and would be a technicality. Did you tell me Peter Madison that the role um of uh principal designer would be a technicality?
01:19:43 Yes, I think I explained to him fully the
01:19:47 the situation
01:19:49 situation the um the attempts we had made to appoint the um appoint a principal designer. We didn't wish to undertake the role. um we
01:20:02 wish to undertake the role. um we weren't being supported by by others. Um there had been discussions about um an advice given but I can't recall who gave advice whether it was Artellia
01:20:14 who gave advice whether it was Artellia but in discussions with CLA I was aware there there was um advice given that if the it was agreed that the design was fundamentally complete
01:20:25 fundamentally complete um there was less risk to us taking on the role and was on that basis that we reluctantly took on the role. Yeah,
01:20:37 you I think have answered my question. Yes, you did tell Peter Madison that the role would be a technicality. Mhm.
01:20:44 Mhm. Um it it it's a regulatory requirement, isn't it?
01:20:48 isn't it? Yes.
01:20:49 Yes. Yes. So why did you describe it as a technicality? I'm not saying you can't have technical regulatory requirements, Mr. Gibson. Far from it.
01:20:57 from it. But why did you describe it as a technicality?
01:21:04 because we were uncomfortable taking on the role, no one else would take on the role. Um, and some we had to take it by default.
01:21:12 default. I understand. Yeah.
01:21:14 Yeah. Both of those parts of that answer. My question really is why did why did you use the word technicality? Why did you give Mr. Madison the impression that it would be a technicality?
01:21:25 would be a technicality? I can't remember what words I used. Um, I think I had made him fully aware of the position we were in. Right. Because using the word
01:21:37 Right. Because using the word technicality would rather suggest that it wasn't terribly important. I think it was very important. Right. Um, now we've um looked at whether the TMA actually received a health and safety file for the building
01:21:49 health and safety file for the building from Ryden um previously with other witnesses. Now, was there ever, as far as you were aware, a health and safety file held by the TMO that met the relevant regulatory requirements?
01:22:04 A health and safety file, whilst it should be compiled as the job proceeds, isn't normally handed over until completion or after completion so that
01:22:15 completion or after completion so that all the paperwork is in place. I think when I left the TMO um we hadn't reached that position so I wouldn't know whether the TMO had born or not.
01:22:26 the TMO had born or not. Yeah. Just to be clear for those listening you left the TMO on the 30th of June.
01:22:31 of June. That's correct. 2016.
01:22:33 2016. Yes.
01:22:34 Yes. And that was before the certificate of practical completion I think that was issued in respect of the refurbishment. Correct.
01:22:39 Correct. Yes. Um, nonetheless, were you aware before you left, so between October 2015 and the end of June 2016,
01:22:50 and the end of June 2016, that the TMO as principal designer had a reg a regulatory responsibility to review, update, and revise the health and safety file from time to time?
01:23:03 and safety file from time to time? Yes, but I thought there had been an understanding at some time that Artellia would assist in that process. I may be wrong. My memory may be playing
01:23:14 may be wrong. My memory may be playing tricks on me, but I seem to remember seeing a post meeting note on the minutes giving that information. Well, we're going to cover that with
01:23:25 Well, we're going to cover that with other witnesses, but um I I I just want your evidence. Yeah. Were you personally aware that the TMO as principal designer had a responsibility under the CDM
01:23:37 had a responsibility under the CDM regulations uh to review, update and revise the health and safety file from time to time as a continuing process? Yes.
01:23:48 Yes. Can you explain why to your knowledge the health and safety file such as there ever was was not reviewed, updated and revised?
01:23:59 updated and revised? I think I've explained the circumstances. I think I've answered that right
01:24:06 right already.
01:24:09 When the TMO took on the role of principal designer, as we can see, they did reluctantly uncomfortably. I can understand as you've told us did they
01:24:20 understand as you've told us did they not satisfy themselves uh of precisely what their statutory obligations were and go about satisfying them.
01:24:34 We were the named principal designer but my understanding was that Artellia had at one point agree to assist in that
01:24:45 had at one point agree to assist in that process. So yes in terms of regulation it was our role but we had been offered I believe some assistance in in in fact what happened
01:24:58 assistance in in in fact what happened and I could take this shortly is that Ryden took on the role of completing the health and safety file and my question for you is what steps did you take to ensure that the TMO as the principal
01:25:09 ensure that the TMO as the principal designer kept tabs on Ryden's work in producing the health and safety file. I think I've already explained that um
01:25:20 think I've already explained that um it hadn't been and I think normally it is the case it isn't put together until the end of the contract although it should be
01:25:31 contract although it should be put together as soon as you have the information that's available. So it it should be happening but but generally it doesn't happen at the end of the process.
01:25:40 process. Yes. Thank you. Um M Mr. Chairman, I I've come to the end of my prepared questions and I suspect it's also an appropriate time for a break. It is, but I just like a little bit more help from Mr. Gibson on this last point.
01:25:53 help from Mr. Gibson on this last point. Did anyone within the TMO, as far as you can remember, actually take the trouble to identify what the obligations of the principal designer were?
01:26:10 I think I was generally aware of the obligations.
01:26:18 I think we were all aware of the obligations and we were trying to find a way of
01:26:25 way of achieving the desired outcome. So should I understand that although you were aware that the file should be compiled and updated as the work
01:26:37 compiled and updated as the work progressed y
01:26:39 y you accepted in a sense as a fat comply that you wouldn't actually receive a file or there wouldn't be a file until the end of the work.
01:26:50 of the work. I've never had a file before the end of work.
01:26:55 work. Right. Thank you. You want to follow up on that? Um I might, Mr. Chairman. Um but I in order to do that I think I need a document. I do need a document. Well, should we take a break at this
01:27:06 Well, should we take a break at this point?
01:27:07 point? Yes.
01:27:08 Yes. Otherwise, you think you've reached the end of your question? Yes, I have. But that we were going to take slightly longer break because there are others who want Well, when you say slightly longer, what
01:27:19 Well, when you say slightly longer, what do you suggest? 30 minutes. 30 minutes. Yes.
01:27:25 Yes. All right. Well, Mr. Gibson, we normally do have a break, not only because it's the middle of the morning, but because at this point, council needs an opportunity to consider whether there are any further
01:27:36 consider whether there are any further questions that ought to be asked and whether any questions have come in from elsewhere that we need to put to you. We don't usually take half an hour, but I think on this occasion we'll do that.
01:27:48 think on this occasion we'll do that. So, we'll resume uh at 12:00, please. And uh I must ask you again not to talk to anyone about your evidence or anything relating to it while you're out of the room. Yeah. Okay.
01:28:00 Yeah. Okay. Thank you very much. Would you go with the usher? Mr. Chairman, I should I should just mention for those benefit of those listening that I I had made it clear to them that I thought it was appropriate
01:28:11 them that I thought it was appropriate that we would with the TMO witnesses take a slightly longer break so that um others who had more direct relationships with them could give us very well. Well, anyway, there it is. I've said 12:00.
01:28:23 it is. I've said 12:00. Thank you. Thank you.
02:00:20 Thank you. Would you ask Mr. Gibson to come back here, please?
02:00:32 Right, Mr. Gibson. Well, we'll see if uh Mr. Mill's found some more questions for you. Yes, Mr. Mill. Yes, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. One or two, Mr. Gibson. So, um this won't take terribly long. Um the first I question I
02:00:44 terribly long. Um the first I question I want to ask you was about um the scoring of the tender that we've been discussing and you remember that some residents were involved or were to be involved in the scoring process. Uh now that that's
02:00:55 the scoring process. Uh now that that's a topic that may very well be revisited later in this inquiry, but while I have you here, it's a short question. Um, you say in your first statement at paragraph 52, if I can just have that up,
02:01:11 uh, that um, two lease holders were involved in the uh, tender review process and the first of which is Py Burton, flat 165 now deceased. Now, M
02:01:22 Burton, flat 165 now deceased. Now, M Mr. Burton, Nicholas Burton, her husband, uh, has uh, says in his statement that he's got no recollection of her being involved. And my question is only with this. Are you quite sure that Billy Burton was involved in the
02:01:34 that Billy Burton was involved in the scoring process?
02:01:39 We had two lease holders. Um it was actually the PQQ process as opposed to the tender process. It was the first part of the process who had been nominated from our leasehold
02:01:52 been nominated from our leasehold section as as um lease holders who were interested in taking part or being involved in in forums etc. And two lease
02:02:04 involved in in forums etc. And two lease holders attended. I think I was provided these names. I cannot remember the names of the people who were there but there were two people. Right.
02:02:13 Right. Yeah. You you can't remember in fact whether it was Billy Burton or perhaps somebody else. I don't recall the names. Right. Okay. Ju just while I'm on that
02:02:24 Right. Okay. Ju just while I'm on that topic and again it's something we will likely revisit at module 3. Were you involved in deciding which aspects of the tenders residents would be involved in scoring?
02:02:35 in scoring? I think we had a discussion about it. So I would have involved in a discussion as to what was most appropriate. Right. And what was the basis on which the aspects they would be involved in
02:02:46 the aspects they would be involved in was decided? The likely technicalities of the contractor's response. Can I then go to a different question um
02:02:58 Can I then go to a different question um in relation to the TMO taking on the role of principal designer when uh the decision was made in the circumstances you've already described
02:03:09 circumstances you've already described in the October of 2015 to take on the role of principal designer? What stage in the construction had been reached on the Granfield Tower project? Can you recall?
02:03:19 recall? Um
02:03:22 Um well we we're now in an extended contract period. Um I can't remember exactly. I expect the
02:03:33 I can't remember exactly. I expect the cladding had largely been completed. Um I I I don't know. I I would have to look at the contractor's program to to
02:03:44 at the contractor's program to to assess. C can you recall or give us a feel for how much of the construction remained outstanding?
02:03:59 No. 15 20% possibly. But it's a it's you know I I couldn't I could well be inaccurate in that. When the role was
02:04:10 inaccurate in that. When the role was taken on, did you give any thought to how much design work would be required at that stage of the process? Yes, there had been discussions um in that it was now
02:04:22 um in that it was now construction that was going on the the um design had I think the term used was fundamentally complete at that stage. Yes, that's a term that I think Clare
02:04:34 Yes, that's a term that I think Clare Williams has used in her evidence. Yes.
02:04:36 Yes. You say it was a term that was used. Yes.
02:04:38 Yes. Is that a term used generally in the TMO at this time? No.
02:04:42 No. To describe the project? Right.
02:04:45 Right. But it was a term it was terminology that had been advised I think in meet someone in meetings with CLA as to if we
02:04:56 someone in meetings with CLA as to if we agree that if it's agreed that the design is fundamentally complete, it will lessen our risk in terms of taking on the reluctant role we took on.
02:05:08 on the reluctant role we took on. Yes.
02:05:09 Yes. Yeah.
02:05:09 Yeah. In what respects wasn't it complete?
02:05:21 I think it was complete. Okay.
02:05:23 Okay. But I may be wrong. But well, we can explore that perhaps with with um Miss Williams when she comes to give evidence. Uh finally on the question of health and safety generally
02:05:37 question of health and safety generally um who was the person uh at a seniormost level in the TMO in other words on the TMO's board who was
02:05:49 other words on the TMO's board who was responsible uh for health and safety matters.
02:05:56 Well, I think there's a chain of command through the health and safety department to various managers onto the executive team. Um, and then I'm assuming
02:06:07 team. Um, and then I'm assuming ultimately Robert Black, right? Um, did the person you say Robert Black did that did Robert trying to follow the the GN of command? Well, well, well, well, well, well,
02:06:18 Well, well, well, well, well, well, certainly, but but was there any particular member of the TMO board who was specifically charged with the responsibility for health and safety matters? Generally,
02:06:29 matters? Generally, I don't know. Right. Do you know whether there was any person on the TMO board, in other words, at a director's level, uh, who who was charged with health and safety responsibilities in respect of the
02:06:40 responsibilities in respect of the Grandfell Tower project itself? I don't know. You don't know? Right. Did you ever Is that not something that you ever thought about?
02:06:48 about? No, I didn't. You didn't? Right. Um well, Mr. Gibson, um thank you. Um those are my questions. Um I it remains for me to thank you. Uh and I have one remaining question as
02:07:00 and I have one remaining question as well, and it's a question that we tend to ask people in positions of particular responsibility. We've been through a day and a half's evidence now, looking back on a number of months and years of of
02:07:11 on a number of months and years of of what happened. And my question to you is this. Looking back on it, is there anything that you think you should have done differently? I think with the benefit of hindsight
02:07:23 I think with the benefit of hindsight when I raised the query about the installation and got the assurance I received,
02:07:31 received, I would like have liked to have followed that up.
02:07:37 Right. Well, Mr. Gibson, I've got no further questions for you. uh it remains for me to thank you and uh for coming to assist us with your with our inquiries and answering my questions. So, thank
02:07:48 and answering my questions. So, thank you very much. Thank you. And Mr. Gon, I I would add my thanks to those of Mr. Milit. It's been very helpful to hear your evidence. Uh and I'm we're all very grateful to you for
02:07:59 I'm we're all very grateful to you for coming along to tell us what you know. Thank you. Thank you very much. And you're now free to go.
02:08:05 to go. Thank you. Thank you.
02:08:17 Mr. Minute, you have another witness, but I think we need to rise for a couple of minutes for housekeeping purposes, don't we?
02:08:23 don't we? Yes, Mr. Chairman, there's a cleaning process that has to happen. I I'm told that normally it takes about 5 minutes, but I'm in your hands. Well, um, you you send someone to come and get us when you're ready. I think
02:08:34 and get us when you're ready. I think that's the best thing. Very well. It's likely to be about 5 minutes.
02:08:37 minutes. Yes. Well, that will be fine. Brothers watching so they can tune back in again. Thank you very much.
02:19:02 Yes, Mr. Millet. Mr. Chairman, I now call Miss Clare Williams, please. Thank you very much.
02:19:22 Can you please read out the witness affirmation to I do solemnly, sincerely, and truly declare and affirm that the evidence I shall give should be the truth, the
02:19:33 shall give should be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Thank you very much, Mr. Williams. Sit down and make yourself comfortable.
02:19:42 Yes, Mr. Mill. Mr. Chairman, thank you, Mr. Williams. Good afternoon. Good afternoon. Can I start by thanking you very much for attending the inquiry and assisting us with our
02:19:53 and assisting us with our investigations? We are extremely grateful to you. The questions that I'm going to ask you are intended to be short and simple. Sometimes they don't work out that way. If there's a question you don't understand, I can put it again
02:20:04 you don't understand, I can put it again or I can put it in a different way. Can I also ask you to keep your voice up so that the transcriber who sits to your immediate right can get down everything you're saying. And on that point, uh, if
02:20:15 you're saying. And on that point, uh, if you nod and shake your or shake your head, that doesn't go on the transcript. So, you have to say yes or no, as the case may be. We're going to take scheduled breaks. We'll we'll stop at at about 1:00 or so for the the lunch
02:20:27 about 1:00 or so for the the lunch break, and we'll take a break in the afternoon. And when it comes to Monday, we'll take a break in the morning and the afternoon as well. But if you need a break at any other time, please just indicate, and we can do that. Now, um,
02:20:39 indicate, and we can do that. Now, um, on your desk, uh, are a number of statements to the inquiry. Um, you've made, I think, quite a number. We're going to be looking at five of them which address the issues in module one
02:20:51 which address the issues in module one and they'll appear on your screen as well as in the hard copy in the file if you need to look at that, but most of the time we'll be looking certainly from my perspective all of the time looking at what's on the screen. It may be sensible just to keep following that.
02:21:03 sensible just to keep following that. Can we start with your first statement which is dated the 15th of February 2019?
02:21:10 2019? That's a TMO84364
02:21:19 and I'm going to call that your February 2019 statement. That's your first statement and I think your longest. Uh, and uh, if we go to TMO842312,
02:21:33 um, that's your September 2019 statement. Is that your Is that that statement? Um, it has no date on it, but I assume so. Presume the dates right at the bottom. Sorry. Yes. Okay. Uh, and then, um, we have the
02:21:47 Yes. Okay. Uh, and then, um, we have the statements in January 2020. TMO863359.
02:21:54 if you could have that up. That's dated the 14th of January 2020. Uh and uh the next one is TMO8536797
02:22:07 which is dated the 20th of January and we'll call that the 20th of January state 2020 statement and that's there as well. And then finally your fifth one for this purpose is the date is dated the 23rd of February 2020. That's
02:22:20 the 23rd of February 2020. That's TMO00866580.
02:22:24 If you could just have that up. That's dated the 23rd of uh February 2020. You can just identify that formally for us.
02:22:35 us. Now, um are those statements that I've shown you your statements? Um from the front page, I believe in the s.
02:22:41 s. Yes. Yes. Well, we'll be looking at at the rest of them in in due course. Um have you read those statements recently? I have. You have? And um subject to some
02:22:53 You have? And um subject to some corrections I'm going to put to you in a moment. Can you confirm that they're true?
02:22:57 true? Yes.
02:22:58 Yes. Now, can we go first, please, to TMO863359,
02:23:04 which is your 14th of January statement at page three. Look, and I want to look at paragraph 14 of that, please. uh you um you cite a document reference
02:23:15 uh you um you cite a document reference there
02:23:17 there um which is art 404531
02:23:23 um now we understand that that's a wrong reference and that you wish to correct the reference to art 406195 that's what we've been told is that correct
02:23:34 correct um it's I haven't had access to these documents I think they were numbered by the inquiries yeah they they have been well you're referring there and we're going to come to it in due course in your evidence to
02:23:45 to it in due course in your evidence to the formal advice to the TMO about the abolition of the CDMC role and perhaps I should just show you the document so that we can correct it. A art 406195 please
02:23:58 please just want to get this right at the start of your evidence. Is that the document you were intending to refer to? It's an email of the 25th of September 2015 from Simon from Simon Cash to Paul Burroughs.
02:24:10 Simon from Simon Cash to Paul Burroughs. Can I see the previous screen please? The previous screen certainly. Art. Yeah, the one with the document reference. Yes, of course. TMO 0863359
02:24:21 Yes, of course. TMO 0863359 at page three.
02:24:26 So, paragraph 14 says Paul Burrows Vartellier replied to me. Can I see the email again, please? Yes,
02:24:35 Yes, it's art 406195. that that isn't to me. So, I don't know. Right. Well, we've been told that that is what you want to refer to. And this is an email from Simon Cash to Paul Burrows. Perhaps there's a one lower
02:24:47 Burrows. Perhaps there's a one lower down.
02:24:48 down. [Applause] Perhaps we should scan down to page two where you do see an email from Paul Burrows to you. Yes, that looks more right. My fault. I took you to the wrong
02:24:59 right. My fault. I took you to the wrong Should we just see the relevant part of the text then? Yes, we can certainly do that. It says, "Hi, Claire. Under CDM 2015, the CDMC role terminates at close of 5th of
02:25:10 role terminates at close of 5th of October. The role of CDMC has been abolished in a new role created that of principal designer. Right.
02:25:15 Right. Was that the email you want you were wanting to refer? Yes. Yes. Thank you. Document. Right. And um that the paragraph 14 that we've been looking at in in this statement is
02:25:26 been looking at in in this statement is identical in the later January statement, the 20th of January statement. Uh also at paragraph 14. And then would it follow that you also have to correct that reference in that statement? Yes. Thank you very much.
02:25:38 statement? Yes. Thank you very much. So say for those corrections I think you've confirmed that the contents of those five statements are true. Can I ask you have you discussed those statements or your evidence with anybody before coming here today? No.
02:25:48 No. Right. I'm going to begin the substantive topics then Miss Williams if I may with looking at your background qualifications and experience. And first of all I'd like to start with your work history. It's right I think that you
02:26:00 history. It's right I think that you joined the TMO on the 9th of September 2013 isn't it? Yes.
02:26:05 Yes. And the role that you took up was project manager. Yes.
02:26:09 Yes. And you sat within the asset and regeneration team. Yes.
02:26:13 Yes. Yes. And just looking at the wider context of the state of the Grenfield Tower project when you when you started. Just correct me if any of this is wrong. Is it right that the OJU tender was
02:26:24 Is it right that the OJU tender was running for a main contractor for the Granfell Tower project?
02:26:30 I'm not quite sure at the date that it started.
02:26:33 started. Right.
02:26:34 Right. It it was due. I don't know the date that it was actually started, but that was always the plan. All right. But but it was certainly due. Yes.
02:26:42 Yes. Um I think in fact the tender was already at the PQQ stage. Yes.
02:26:48 Yes. You don't I had forgotten. No. All right. Um did you know that some appointments had already been made for the project? for example, Studio E and Artia.
02:26:58 Artia. Yes.
02:26:59 Yes. Yes. Can we look at your February 2019 statement of page two? And I want to go to paragraph 10 on that page, please. Uh and uh you say in paragraph 10, I
02:27:13 Uh and uh you say in paragraph 10, I have a diploma in maintenance management and have worked all my career in housing for either local authorities or housing associations concerned with maintenance, repairs, and regeneration projects. I also worked on some new build and
02:27:25 also worked on some new build and refurbishment works. Um where when rather did you get your diploma?
02:27:32 diploma? It was when I was working for the London Burough of Haring Gay. So between 1983 and 1992,
02:27:41 and 1992, right? Do you remember when in those years you got the diploma? It would be towards the end probably 1990 if I was to have a guess. Right. Can you give us a sense of the sorts of things that you learned on your
02:27:52 sorts of things that you learned on your diploma?
02:27:54 diploma? It was an institute of building diploma in maintenance management. Um it had a a section on basic technical
02:28:06 Um it had a a section on basic technical understanding. It had a section I believe in structural legal issues. Um it was the equivalent of an HNC but um so in all
02:28:20 equivalent of an HNC but um so in all honesty it was a little while ago but it it it it covered little bit of technical little bit of legal and perhaps ancillary matters related to construction. Right. And of the basic technical
02:28:31 Right. And of the basic technical understanding that you learned on that can you give us a sense of what that contained? What sort of technical issues or questions did it come? Um it was maintenanceorientated. So it would have be about the naming of
02:28:43 So it would have be about the naming of parts. It would have been about um how a foundation works, how a roof works, how um walls and external structure work. It was say it was
02:28:55 structure work. It was say it was maintenance orientated, right? Management orientated. Did it did you ever get any education within the diploma on on uh the building regulations? it would have referred to them but I I
02:29:07 it would have referred to them but I I think it was overdone over six months as a sort of day release or something like that. So it it was an overview rather than specific um detail.
02:29:18 than specific um detail. Did you ever get any education on the approved documents that formed part of the building regulations? No, not as part of that arrangement. Not not as part of that. Uh okay. Did you ever get any education on the
02:29:30 you ever get any education on the approved documents? No, but I obviously have an awareness that they exist. Yes. All right. Um, can we look at your February 2019 statement, TMO00840364,
02:29:44 February 2019 statement, TMO00840364, and I want to go to page seven in that document and look please at paragraph 35 with you.
02:29:50 with you. You say there I personally had previous experience of project managing refurbishment works from a client stroke landlord perspective but I had no previous experience of works involving
02:30:01 previous experience of works involving cladding. And you also say later in your statement and it's it's paragraph 71 uh and I don't think we need to turn it up but um you say you never had any
02:30:12 but um you say you never had any involvement or technical understanding of cladding work. Is that is that right? Yes.
02:30:16 Yes. Yes.
02:30:18 Yes. Uh now you say you you you as you do you had previous experience of project managing refurbishment works. Um I just want to understand a little bit more about those projects. Um what were those
02:30:31 about those projects. Um what were those refurbishment projects? Can you list some?
02:30:34 some? I worked on what they called the rough sleepers initiative. Right.
02:30:39 Right. Um which was effectively bringing voids back into empty properties back into use. So it would be street properties, houses on streets where the properties
02:30:50 houses on streets where the properties are empty, they would be stripped, they would be refurbished and say um made suitable for rough sleepers. I've done
02:31:01 suitable for rough sleepers. I've done uh smallcale projects which I would say would be a house that may be becoming three flats. Again, they were all totally empty. They were refurbished perhaps for special client groups. um
02:31:15 perhaps for special client groups. um for example supported housing um
02:31:20 um and I think the largest one I've worked on was one when I worked in the development department which was the refurbishment of a um an
02:31:31 um an old house nurses housing scheme right
02:31:34 right um that was the largest one I've done again it was empty and we brought it back into use it was a a building that had been in poor condition and on The largest or more significant of those projects you've just
02:31:45 of those projects you've just identified, what was your your role? Um, it would have been project manager for the client. Right. So, was that a formal title as
02:31:56 Right. So, was that a formal title as well as a functional role? Um, I'm trying to remember what the title was. I would say it would be project manager, but it it was only project manager in terms of the client. So it'd be briefing
02:32:09 So it'd be briefing um the housing management team as to when the properties were due to be completed so that they could then get um people straight in. It would be about consulting with the in-house teams about finishes or any specific requirements
02:32:22 finishes or any specific requirements for example I see
02:32:24 I see I don't know additional sockets or something of that sort. and your largest project, the nurses housing scheme that you've just referred to. Can you give us a date which would indicate when that
02:32:35 a date which would indicate when that was?
02:32:36 was? It was when I was at circle. So it would have been from 1992 on um I honestly don't know. I I would say between 95 and 2000. I see. But it's best guess. Now,
02:32:50 2000. I see. But it's best guess. Now, am I right in thinking that before you joined the TMO in the September of 2013, a large part of your career was focused on maintenance and repair of properties?
02:33:01 on maintenance and repair of properties? Um, I had also worked probably for 15 years in housing development, which is um on working as project manager on new build development. So small estates,
02:33:15 build development. So small estates, small blocks of properties, but where where another part of the organization had acquired the site and I would then take the contract on site.
02:33:27 And had any of those projects involved a high-rise block of flats? No.
02:33:35 No. Um
02:33:37 Um would you say this is fair or maybe it's not? I don't know. Tell me that the refurbishment projects were not the major part of your career history before you joined the TMO.
02:33:49 TMO. No, they were not. They were not. I just want to ask you some questions about what you knew about David Gibson. Can we stick with um your February 2019 and go to page two
02:34:02 and go to page two and I want to look at paragraph nine where you set out your work history and you say there that you worked for Circle Housing Trust uh between 1992 and 2002 and then the
02:34:14 uh between 1992 and 2002 and then the Circle Housing Group from 2008 to 2013. Is that's correct, isn't it? Yes. A and um did the circle housing group become
02:34:27 did the circle housing group become something known as the old Ford group or association? No. Circle housing group became circle anglia. It amalgamated. I see. Now, David Gibson told us in his
02:34:38 I see. Now, David Gibson told us in his uh evidence that he knew you and had worked with you at circle 33. Is that right?
02:34:43 right? Would you I'm sorry. Would you forgive me a minute? I just want to have a quick word with a thright. Yes.
02:34:50 Yes. Yes. If I put the question again. Yes, certainly. Um, David Gibson told us in his evidence that you had worked with him while you were at circle 33. Um, is
02:35:01 him while you were at circle 33. Um, is that correct? Yes,
02:35:02 Yes, it is. And could you give us the years when you worked with him at circle 33? We were in different departments. So it would have been between 1992 and I
02:35:15 it would have been between 1992 and I don't know if he was there till 2002 but it would have been in that time frame but say we were in different departments in different buildings right so we we coincided on a project I suspect
02:35:25 suspect he also said that um you'd worked together at Old Ford but I think that you're saying that's not right or is that right? No Old Ford is part of Circle Housing Group. Yes. It was one of the components of Circle Housing.
02:35:36 of Circle Housing. Did you work with him within Old Ford? Um he he managed a department. I worked in a regeneration team and he managed the department that the team fell under.
02:35:47 the department that the team fell under. Right. So would it be fair to say that before you joined the TMO you knew David Gibson professionally quite well? I wouldn't say quite well. I'd worked with him in several employees. Yes.
02:35:58 with him in several employees. Yes. Okay. Uh
02:36:01 Okay. Uh and on several or different projects. Different projects. Yeah. Yeah. Now, um, turning to the question of your arrival at the TMO, we know that David Gibson started his role in late
02:36:14 David Gibson started his role in late February 2013, 25th to be exact. You started on the 9th of September 2013. And he told us that you uh had been told by him that there was an opportunity to
02:36:25 by him that there was an opportunity to apply for a role at the TMO. Is that right?
02:36:27 right? Yes.
02:36:28 Yes. Um, were you invited to apply to by the TMO?
02:36:33 TMO? David mentioned it. I was being made redundant from what the post I was in. So, I put an application into the agency that was advertising the job.
02:36:45 that was advertising the job. I follow I follow. Um, were you interviewed by the agency? Yes. And then formerly by the TMO.
02:36:53 the TMO. And when you were interviewed by the TMA, were you interviewed by David Gibson?
02:36:57 Gibson? Um, yes.
02:36:58 Um, yes. Did he lead the interview? No, it was Peter Madison was there as well. Who who else interviewed you apart from Peter Madison and David Gibson? Nobody.
02:37:05 Nobody. Nobody. Just the two of you. I see. Uh were you asked during your interview or at any stage during your recruitment process about your experience in major works involving construction projects?
02:37:17 works involving construction projects? Yes, I was. What did you say? Um I had obviously aligned my CV to that to say that I had worked on um larger scale projects and
02:37:31 worked on um larger scale projects and the previous job that I was being made redundant from um involved it was titled regeneration but it was actually enhanced cyclical where there
02:37:42 actually enhanced cyclical where there was we were working on probably seven or eight blocks of a t at a time doing external works. works and communal works. It involved a lot of resident liaison work and that they were major in
02:37:56 liaison work and that they were major in terms of the the cost. They were um so I think it was 55 million over six years was the headline for the the schemes. Right. And what was that project the regeneration project that you've just
02:38:07 regeneration project that you've just told us about? Um it was the regeneration of an estate in Tower Hamlet. Um could you give us its name? Um it was it was called Parkside.
02:38:18 it was called Parkside. Parkside. Right. I follow. And
02:38:23 And were you asked about your experience on Parkside and perhaps other projects too as acting as client or employer on construction projects?
02:38:36 construction projects? I was asked about what the works entailed and how I I dealt with them as part of my role. Right.
02:38:44 Right. Um
02:38:45 Um but specifically were you asked about your experience as as client in other words somebody who had retained professionals. Um not particularly in relation to that project but obviously in relation to my
02:38:58 project but obviously in relation to my whole career because I had four housing associations act as client on behalf of them for the new build schemes I worked on.
02:39:06 on. Right now you told us that you hadn't had any experience on or of refurbishment of tower blocks. Does it follow that you you'd had no experience of um a project involving the recladding or overcladding of a tower block?
02:39:19 or overcladding of a tower block? I've never worked on a reclad at all. No. On a cladding. Were you asked that at the interview by David Gibson or Peter Madison? I don't remember. Right. Did the subject come up at all
02:39:30 Right. Did the subject come up at all during the interview? I don't remember. Now if we um well we don't think we need to look at it but in your February 2019 statement you um say
02:39:43 your February 2019 statement you um say that the the role that you were being interviewed for required experience of working with residents in situ because the build the refurbishment for Grenville Tower was going to happen with
02:39:55 Grenville Tower was going to happen with the residents in occupation. Was that a particular point that came up in the interview? Very much so. And my previous experience had been the scheme I've just described
02:40:08 had been the scheme I've just described in um Tower Hamlets was a lot of work with residents where they were being asked to pay for works. So I've been involved in in lots of resident meetings
02:40:20 involved in in lots of resident meetings residing residents with information. Um, and it was a I I it was a major part of the job which whichever part of the role they were interviewing for that it
02:40:32 role they were interviewing for that it was definitely a major part of the job. Right. Uh, and you were obviously successful in the application to your understanding was the main reason that you were successful u your experience
02:40:43 you were successful u your experience and skill in working with residents in a refurbishment where they remained in occupation. I don't know. I didn't ask. But what did you did you understand that that might have scored a hit? Um, I was interrogated on it, so
02:40:56 Um, I was interrogated on it, so possibly that was important, but I didn't ask after the event. All right. Can we then turn to your knowledge and training on fire and health and safety matters? As at September 2013, when you joined the TMO,
02:41:08 September 2013, when you joined the TMO, had you had any training in fire safety?
02:41:14 I at one point was a um a fire marshal. So I'd been out in the car park with the carbon monoxide. Um
02:41:22 Um but had you had any training? No, not specifically. So, do we take it that you had no uh training or technical
02:41:34 training or technical um education on fire safety with regard to a building owners or a responsible person's obligations under the fire safety order 2005
02:41:45 safety order 2005 or otherwise known as the regulatory reform order? Yes. I I haven't had training in that. Right.
02:41:51 Right. Did you have leaving aside a formal education on those matters, would you have a a working knowledge or familiarity of fire safety in residential buildings?
02:42:03 residential buildings? I would be aware that there would be requirements and that I would hope I would be able to identify the people in my organization who would manage those. Right.
02:42:13 Right. From 2005 onwards, did you have any detailed knowledge or experience or familiarity with the um legislation and
02:42:24 familiarity with the um legislation and regulations under the fire safety order? No.
02:42:29 No. No. Um had you done any health and safety training?
02:42:36 Um, in my last, well, I think in my last employments, there'd been a lot of e-learning, so there may have been some health and safety training in in those, which would
02:42:47 safety training in in those, which would be very generic. Right.
02:42:52 Right. Did you ever receive any education, formal or by way of perhaps less formal education or experience on health and safety um obligations of uh owners or or
02:43:03 safety um obligations of uh owners or or responsible people for residential buildings? No.
02:43:09 No. Um now turning to your role at the TMO, uh you I think reported to David Gibson as I think you've made clear. He was your line.
02:43:20 He was your line. Yes. and his title was head of capital investment and he reported to me to Peter Madison as he told us that that was the basic line of command wasn't it and Peter Madison's job title was director of assets and regeneration
02:43:31 director of assets and regeneration wasn't it? Yes.
02:43:32 Yes. Yeah. Um now is it right that none of you three neither you nor David Gibson nor Peter Madison sat on the executive board of the TMO?
02:43:43 board of the TMO? That's right. Yeah.
02:43:47 Um, can we go to your February 2019 statement at par at page four, TMO840364 at page four, please? And I want to look
02:43:58 at page four, please? And I want to look with you, please, at paragraph 18.
02:44:03 You say there, my role was to monitor the program and budget for the TMO. I should I'm sorry I should point out to you this is under the heading modifications to the interior and
02:44:14 modifications to the interior and exterior of the building that's Grenville Tower between 2012 and 2016. So that's the context in which you're saying what I'm going to show you. And you say my role was to monitor the program and budget for the TMO. It was
02:44:25 program and budget for the TMO. It was largely a reporting function and my role was not to manage the contract. Professional consultants were employed for this. I fronted the scheme for residents as their TMO point of contact liazing with residents and the principal
02:44:36 liazing with residents and the principal contractor Ryden and others throughout the works. And uh at paragraph 19 you go on to say my role was to keep residents informed and to lies with them and to report to
02:44:47 and to lies with them and to report to others within TMO and RBKC. My role was very specifically in relation to monitoring liaison and facilitation. Now you say there that your role wasn't to manage the contract. What contract are
02:44:59 manage the contract. What contract are you referring to? Um, this is in relation to the JCT design and build contract
02:45:07 contract with Ryden. With Ryden. Yes. Whose job was it to manage the contract? U, our employer's agent, Artellier, were tasked with that. When you arrived at the TMO, did anybody
02:45:19 When you arrived at the TMO, did anybody tell you that TM Artilia's task was to manage the Ryden contract? They had been appointed before my
02:45:30 They had been appointed before my arrival as employer's agent.
02:45:35 And what did you understand the role of managing the contract to use your words involve?
02:45:40 involve? Um I'll tell you as employer's agent um they manage the contract by putting processes in place whether it be change control spreadsheets or
02:45:53 control spreadsheets or um handover spreadsheets. They managed variations. they managed anything that would impact on um the
02:46:04 anything that would impact on um the contract and obviously their role is to get it through to hand over and practical completion certifying as need be.
02:46:10 be. Right. When when you arrive Sorry, did you want to finish your Okay. When you arrived September 2013, did you investigate what the the contract between TMO and Artillia was?
02:46:23 between TMO and Artillia was? I had a lot of information in my directories that I started to wage through my electronic directories. So I did try to interrogate what their role
02:46:34 did try to interrogate what their role was. Yes.
02:46:35 was. Yes. Right. And what did you discover? that they'd been employed previously and my understanding was that we were formalizing their contract
02:46:46 formalizing their contract um
02:46:48 um because they they'd been doing it on a previous basis when because the scheme had had started and then stopped. Yes.
02:46:55 Yes. So um my colleague Jenny Jackson who did the procurement was working with them to get their new um roles into a contract. Right. Do you think at that time this is
02:47:07 Right. Do you think at that time this is September 2013 so just to help you before the 2014 July 2014 formal contract
02:47:16 contract did did you think that at that time uh Artellia were the employer's agent on the Grenfell Tower project? Yes.
02:47:24 Yes. What gave you to think that uh there was a spreadsheet with the roles and the fee figures against it. Now you go on in in fact you you say in your first sentence of paragraph 18 that
02:47:35 your first sentence of paragraph 18 that your role was to monitor the program and the budget in your function of monitoring the budget um presumably you would have to know what the contract or who the contractors were on the project.
02:47:46 who the contractors were on the project. Um when I took on the spreadsheet it there was just I suspect the cost estimate for from Artellier in as the budget for the works cost. The budget inevitably had on costs as well. Uh, I
02:48:00 inevitably had on costs as well. Uh, I see. So, you got figures, but you didn't have anything to tell you who was doing what.
02:48:05 what. Um, the budget is a list of figures. It you just put works against it. It doesn't matter who the contractor is at the early stage. Later stage, it doesn't matter. It still works. Okay. Did did you know
02:48:17 Okay. Did did you know at that stage in your exercise of the function of monitoring the budget who the TMO had retained as its professionals at that date on the
02:48:28 professionals at that date on the Granfell Tower project? Yes. Because there was a figure for works and then there was uh several consultants named and a figure against their name.
02:48:40 figure against their name. Right. Can you remember who the consultants were? Um it would be the ones who I believe went on with well did go on with the project. So it was Artellier
02:48:49 Artellier Curtains Studioe
02:48:54 and there was a couple of odd ones that I don't know where they came from and I never heard of them since. What about Xova?
02:49:04 I don't know whether over on there. I put them on subsequent but initially I don't know that they were on there. I see.
02:49:11 I see. Did you investigate how the contractors that you did see on there and you've listed were charging? Did you see how how how much they were charging and what the arrangements for their fees?
02:49:22 the arrangements for their fees? Um that's when I started the job. That was one of the things I had to wage through because there were figures against different tasks. Yeah. Different roles.
02:49:29 roles. I see. And when you say um in the uh last sentence of paragraph 19 that your role was very specifically in relation to monitoring, liaison and facilitation.
02:49:41 to monitoring, liaison and facilitation. Um
02:49:42 Um to what extent were you autonomous in those matters and to what extent were you or reporting to those above you? I was reporting to those above me. Um
02:49:55 I was reporting to those above me. Um the role of the project manager I believe is always about getting in the deci decisions that need to be made and passing them on to others to get confirmation. So I yeah I would
02:50:08 to get confirmation. So I yeah I would report to others. Yes. Uh now the other professionals in the project uh and we've heard a lot of evidence from them during the course of this module so far um referred to the
02:50:20 this module so far um referred to the TMO from time to time as the client. Would you agree that you were u a representative of the client from time to time?
02:50:28 to time? Yes.
02:50:29 Yes. Yeah.
02:50:31 Yeah. And that basically you were the person within the TMO facing Ryden? Yes.
02:50:36 Yes. Yes. And as client, is it right that the TMO as a body would have to make an a wide range of decisions u both before and during the construction?
02:50:47 and during the construction? Yes.
02:50:47 Yes. Yes. Did you personally make any decisions about instructing variations?
02:50:55 I can think of one example which was minor under £5,000 which was a practical issue otherwise I would always
02:51:07 practical issue otherwise I would always take the issue up. Right. I see. So £5,000 was that a set limit under which you could make any decisions? Um it it was my view that was reasonable to keep the project going.
02:51:19 reasonable to keep the project going. I see.
02:51:20 I see. Anything over that I would have been wary of.
02:51:22 wary of. Right. So this was a limit set by yourself.
02:51:24 yourself. It was
02:51:24 It was for common sense reasons essentially. I see.
02:51:27 see. Not a formal limit imposed on you by some sort of scheme. No.
02:51:30 No. Right. Um did you ever make any personal decisions
02:51:34 decisions about spending on the project? No.
02:51:38 No. No. None at all. Even though even below 5,000. Um, I don't don't remember making any because I it was a big project and it all adds up. So, no.
02:51:49 it all adds up. So, no. I see. Did you make any decisions yourself about appointments directly to the TMO such as Artilia or John Rowan or Max Forom or it's over?
02:52:01 Max Forom or it's over? Um, I was involved with the tender process for getting the Clark of Works on board, but otherwise no. Well, and we're going to come to that, but but otherwise, no. you say
02:52:12 otherwise, no. you say okay um
02:52:19 I want to just look at the issue of design decision making very specifically with you can we start by looking at Ryd 30's18951
02:52:31 30's18951 please this is your email of the 29th of September 2014 to Simon Lawrence so this is a year or so into your um your uh role and you say uh Simon's because it
02:52:45 role and you say uh Simon's because it goes to both Simon Lawrence and Simon O' Connor I'm aware that you are having design meetings and there are a couple of things I need to be up to date on one window design subject to Mr. Defan's latest inquiry two scheduled for when we
02:52:57 latest inquiry two scheduled for when we are going to get client choice specifically bearing in mind that the TMO is taking on the responsibility of design advisor. Now you've said in various witness statements that you relied on the professionals appointed for design decisions. Looking at this
02:53:10 for design decisions. Looking at this would you accept that the TMO was making final decisions on design? The window design is a big issue and I don't know if you want to talk about that now but the issue we're making was
02:53:22 that now but the issue we're making was about client choice which is about colors and types of kitchen units. I I see. Um, but you can see there that you say that the TMO is taking on the
02:53:35 you say that the TMO is taking on the responsibility of design advisor at the time. And I know there's a history to this we're going to look at, but at at this time, did you not think that that meant that the TMO was going to be making design decisions?
02:53:48 making design decisions? It was clarification in this contract because I think there was this issue of the client design advisor and the TMO had said that we would take on that role
02:54:00 had said that we would take on that role for a limited area of the project and it was actually more clarification because the specifications were already written. So we were just saying I want this color
02:54:13 So we were just saying I want this color kitchen rather than that color kitchen. It wasn't
02:54:16 It wasn't anything that had a contractual implication financially or programwise. Okay. Well, maybe we'll come back to that in due course. But I think for the for present purposes, are you telling us that the role of design advisor to which you were referring in this email was
02:54:28 you were referring in this email was very much limited to things like colors. Yes.
02:54:33 Yes. I see. Now, just looking at the TMO's professionalism in within its team generally, um, Philip Booth of Artillia has given evidence to the inquiry and I just want to show you what he says. is
02:54:44 just want to show you what he says. is the transcript please for day nine day 49 um uh page 171 please and I just want to show you page page 171 lines 23 to 24
02:54:57 to show you page page 171 lines 23 to 24 um he says there and this was in the context of him being asked by Miss Graange about whether the project needed a client advisor and he says at line 22 I think I would have
02:55:10 says at line 22 I think I would have said that yes it needs one but the TMO had a massive team. Some of them were architects, some of them were fire engineers. So, I wasn't concerned when they said, "We'll take it on. I think we
02:55:22 they said, "We'll take it on. I think we need to take over ourselves." Is Philip Booth right that the TMO had a massive team containing architects and fire engineers?
02:55:33 fire engineers? Yes, there were many skills within the within the organization. Who within the TMO was a fire engineer? I would suggest that he he's talking
02:55:44 I would suggest that he he's talking about our fire risk assessor rather than a fire engineer as such. Right. There's a difference, isn't there?
02:55:51 there? There is
02:55:52 There is quite a big difference. In fact, yeah. No apologies. I should have picked you up. It was we had a fire risk assess accessible to us. So, in fact, you the TMO did not have
02:56:04 So, in fact, you the TMO did not have in-house access to fire engineering expertise properly so-called. That's true. Right.
02:56:20 Um I want to look now at Artilia and at the question of project manager. Who was it? Um in your February 2019 statement of paragraph three. This is page one.
02:56:33 of paragraph three. This is page one. February 2019 statement page one please. You say it paragraph three. I was TMA's project manager for the Grenful Tower refurbishment from September 2013 to practical completion in July 2016.
02:56:47 practical completion in July 2016. Um, and you uh have described in your uh February 2019 statement of page 7, paragraph 35
02:56:58 paragraph 35 what I showed you before, there's need to go to it, which was your personal previous experience of project managing refurbishments from a client straight landlord perspective. We looked at that. Now, just looking at those two pieces of evidence together, why do you call
02:57:10 evidence together, why do you call yourself a project manager in respect of the Grenfell Tower project? It was my job title and in terms of Grenfell Tower, I was
02:57:23 and in terms of Grenfell Tower, I was the client and I project managed that part of the role. So
02:57:30 So um making sure that client decisions were made uh to facilitate the project really.
02:57:36 really. Right. Did that mean that you had a general oversight of the works for the refurbishment in terms of reporting on program? Yes. In terms of program and I think budget budget as well.
02:57:47 budget as well. Yes. I see. But I think you exclude from that matters of design.
02:57:55 Yes. But it was something that I initially hadn't um assumed that we'd be doing.
02:58:03 doing. But when it cropped up,
02:58:09 we decided, David Gibson and myself, that we could do that,
02:58:16 do that, right,
02:58:16 right, for just specific areas of the project. Yes. Say, so cutting through this, I am am I right in thinking that your title or your self-description of project manager, it really just meant that you
02:58:29 manager, it really just meant that you were the person in the TMO responsible for overseeing the Grenfell Tower project as a client project.
02:58:40 It was project managing the client element.
02:58:42 element. Project managing the client element. I understand. Not project managing the project. No.
02:58:48 No. Right.
02:58:51 Now, do you recall, and we can look at the documents if need be, uh, that Artilia signed formal engagements on the 9th of July, 2014 with the TMO.
02:59:05 9th of July, 2014 with the TMO. Um, I'm sure that's right. If you say, okay, I'm just want to see if we can get I can get your recollection and we can go to the documents if need be. Are we going to look at the um formal engagement? We we we can. Um, well, I'm not suggesting we should and
02:59:17 well, I'm not suggesting we should and if you weren't minded to take the witness to it, but if we are, this might be a point to break.
02:59:23 to break. Well, it might it might. Let me see. Yes. Well, let's break then and I can pick it up. Let before we do, let me see if I can get to it more quickly. Um, Miss Williams, do you remember that when the formal contract between the TMO and
02:59:35 the formal contract between the TMO and Artillia was signed in the July of 2014, Artilia deleted uh the role of project manager from the contract. I I would have expected them to. I
02:59:47 I I would have expected them to. I didn't think that it wasn't a fee we were paying for as project manager. Very good. In which case, I don't think I need to see the documents. And is that a convenient moment? I think it is. Yes. Thank you very much. Well, M. Williams, although you've only
02:59:58 Well, M. Williams, although you've only just started giving evidence, I'm afraid it's time to take a break so we can all get some lunch. So, we'll stop now. Um, we'll start again at 2:00, please. And I must ask you not to talk to anyone about
03:00:09 must ask you not to talk to anyone about your evidence or anything related to it while you're out of the room. You all right?
03:00:14 right? Yes. Thank you. Thank you. Would you like to go with the usher, please?
03:00:26 Good. 2:00 then, please. Thank you.