Kensington & Chelsea Tenant Management Organisation (TMO) Evidence-Thursday 15th October 2020 (2/2)

Full transcript

00:00:11 yes would you ask miss williams to come back in please thank you

00:00:30 right mr williams ready to carry on yes thank you

00:00:33 thank you good thank you yes mr chairman thank you ms williams before the lunch break um i was asking you some questions about the project manager on the grenfell tower project and you you told us what your role in that respect was my next question is who did

00:00:46 respect was my next question is who did you think was the project manager of the project itself yes um whereas artelia didn't have that job title in their

00:01:00 fees in many ways i feel they took over the role of project manager because they had two of the critical roles to get the project

00:01:06 project moving they had employers agent and qs which are both very important so whereas notion it wasn't in their job title they actually acted that way

00:01:17 acted that way in my perception did you think they ever did anything outside their role as employers agent or qs

00:01:28 um it's a big question i suspect they did

00:01:34 did but i if you're asking me on the spot i can't think of what they would do but that they

00:01:39 that they they obviously had a good overview of the project um did you ever think that they had an overview of the project beyond the scope of the services that they had undertaken

00:01:50 they had undertaken uh certainly after the 9th of july 2014 contract

00:01:56 contract um

00:01:59 no i think it was more perhaps they didn't do anything beyond the scope it was the way they managed so professionally that they came across as the project manager

00:02:09 manager well maybe we can take this more shortly did you ever think that studio e was the project manager no no

00:02:17 did you understand in fact that studio ue had expressly excluded the role of project manager from their contract documents i'm not surprised you're not surprised but do you know

00:02:27 you know i don't know you don't know but you're not surprised all right can we then move um back to looking at the question of artelia

00:02:35 artelia can we go to the um do we go to art 402255 these are the minutes of the contractor induction meeting of the 1st of april 2014 and we can see the attendance list there

00:02:47 and we can see the attendance list there and ms williams we can see that you're the third

00:02:50 the third tmo at nd down after peter madison and peter gibson you see that yes just generally because we're going to be looking at quite a lot of these in the course of your evidence did you

00:03:00 did you generally um get these minutes

00:03:05 after the meeting or get draft minutes after the meeting um generally i got the minutes after the meeting would you was it your practice to read them

00:03:16 i would read them yes and if you had seen anything that was either wrong or didn't accord with your recollection of what was said at the meeting can we take it that you would have told artelia and that they would have made a correction

00:03:27 that they would have made a correction i did and i suspect you'll find several of my amendments in the minutes very well they were put at the beginning but i'm going to proceed on the basis that unless you tell me otherwise these minutes or minutes which you saw

00:03:39 these minutes or minutes which you saw and approved at the time or at least didn't object to do you see what i'm going with that yes yes now on this can we then look at this page and you can see the cast of attendees and we can see that philip

00:03:50 attendees and we can see that philip booth uh is listed as project manager and peter blythe as assistant project manager do you see that yes but you're listed as the client

00:04:02 yes but you're listed as the client and at the bottom of the page at item 1.1

00:04:05 1.1 under introductions um it said that pb confirmed the client on the scheme as tmo

00:04:12 tmo cw that's claire williams that's you will be the main point of contact for ryden throughout the project and then if we look at item 1.2 art represented by pb

00:04:24 look at item 1.2 art represented by pb will perform the role of employers agent on the project now as i've shown you you're the point of contact for ryden artelia is the employer's agent does that indicate that you were

00:04:35 does that indicate that you were performing some sort of management role as the tmo's main point of contact with ryden

00:04:40 ryden i was the project manager for the clients yes i see so your management role is client-side managing the project within it as i think you told us earlier yes and what was your impression of others

00:04:52 and what was your impression of others on the contract so ryden and studio e what did you think they thought who did you think they thought with the project managers

00:05:01 managers i can't speak before them i don't know

00:05:06 do you know whether artelia ever spelled out to ryden or studio e who the project manager was or whether indeed there was one i don't remember ever being discussed

00:05:22 right

00:05:27 uh in his oral evidence for the inquiry philip booth told us uh how he saw things working and i just want to show you something that he said

00:05:36 he said um in the transcript for day 49 please and i'd like to go to page 134 on day 49 and look at line 5.

00:05:47 and at line 5 ms grange asks him was there a period of time when artelia did consider itself acting as a project manager

00:05:55 manager and mr booth said i don't particularly feel there was no i mean it's not a hard line in the industry like that you were being an employer's agent or project manager

00:06:03 manager they're quite close as roles but in terms of even if you know i was never given any authority limits by the client to the client was always all it was always at almost every meeting we went to

00:06:14 to if you look at all our meetings so in terms of fulfilling a role as project manager if i did through you know actually pre-actually signing our appointments it was always i was never making decisions on behalf of the client

00:06:25 the client because they were very hands-on they were very experienced they were very there

00:06:29 there and involved usually when i'm employed as a project manager is because a client has perhaps not got the resource to dedicate to a project so i would be representing them without being present there or making decisions

00:06:40 being present there or making decisions with authority limits etcetera and he goes on is it a fair statement to say that the tmo was very hands-on on this project somebody did attend every meeting yes

00:06:51 somebody did attend every meeting yes yes

00:06:52 yes it's right to say that decisions were made by the tma as opposed to artelia

00:06:59 yes some were informed by artelia's information yes right

00:07:09 and then over the page in the transcript if you go to page 135 the question is asked by miss grange at line five to your knowledge was it ever

00:07:20 line five to your knowledge was it ever minuted in a meeting that artelia was not acting as project manager answer no but i think you know i think it was understood by everybody that we our appointment was as employers agent but because that was what our

00:07:31 but because that was what our appointment documents were and i think tma were clear that they were the project manager but we had project management capabilities is mr booth correct to say that you were clear as to the scope of artelia's appointment

00:07:44 artelia's appointment i was because i was processing their invoices and i'd seen their appointment document but as philip said there's a very thin line sometimes between

00:07:53 between project management and employers agent um yes

00:08:00 um yes in a project like this or indeed on this project

00:08:03 project would it have been helpful do you think to have had a clearly designated project manager

00:08:07 manager with oversight of everything no i've worked on teams of a similar uh composition and it's not been a problem right so

00:08:20 right so seeing if we can put it into into boxes you were the project manager within the tmo team responsible for that on the client side artelia were as their contract said certainly from july 2014

00:08:35 contract said certainly from july 2014 employers agent qs and cdmc but not a project manager so was there a project manager as i say i believe that artelia's

00:08:48 as i say i believe that artelia's appointments meant that they they were in the best position to and did steer the project right did you i think what you're telling us and tell me this is wrong is that you

00:08:59 that you uh understood then understood the scope of their services and understood that they understood the scope of their services yes yes yes and that artelia understood that you understood the scope of their

00:09:10 that you understood the scope of their services as well in other words neither of you was confused

00:09:15 um i think what philip has said hashem there may have been some issues but i think they um they carried out their employers agent

00:09:26 they carried out their employers agent role to

00:09:28 role to um administer the contract as much as i did the client role right and when people were described as project managers such as um as you've seen philip booth in the

00:09:39 um as you've seen philip booth in the minute we've just been looking at where you could see there they are described as as project manager what did you understand by that at the time um i i would assume it was

00:09:50 at the time um i i would assume it was as myself

00:09:51 as myself i think if you looked at the minutes there was three of us who were described at one point as project managers um there was phillip simon lawrence or no simon o'connor and myself

00:10:02 no simon o'connor and myself it meant that we managed our part of the the project on behalf of our organization right i see

00:10:09 see so when you see the expression project manager next to philip booth's name did are you telling us that you thought that he was responsible for the grenfell tower project within artelia's scope of services as

00:10:20 artelia's scope of services as as contracted he was employers agent but his job title was project manager very good

00:10:27 good um can i then turn to artelia's role uh as designer and whether there was one now in your statements you i think accept that artelia

00:10:38 you i think accept that artelia performed the services of qs employers agent and cdmc and you've accepted that today as well and those were the services set out i think in their 2012 fee proposal and

00:10:49 think in their 2012 fee proposal and also in their 2014 contract weren't they yes yes um did you think at any stage that any of those roles involve taking responsibility for the design of the refurbishment

00:11:02 i had worked with employers agents who had

00:11:07 had a role with design but i know that artely

00:11:10 artely didn't you know that they didn't have a role with design apart from i suspect they because of their cdmc role they would have initially

00:11:22 sorry if that's confusing no i i i i will explore that but let's see if i can take this a little bit more quickly than perhaps i was intending to did you understand that um

00:11:36 that the consultant was not to be responsible for the design of of the project namely um artelia

00:11:47 namely um artelia apart from as i say the cdmc role which is one of their yeah but otherwise they weren't involved in the design as i understand i see so you understood at the time that they had a cdmc role and all of that involved

00:12:00 a cdmc role and all of that involved but outside that defined role they were expressly not responsible for the desire for specifying and or approving the design all the materials did you understand that i did you did so i don't think we need

00:12:12 i did you did so i don't think we need to take time up on the contracts then did you understand the distinction between

00:12:18 between being a designer and being a cdmc yes in that in this contract we had obviously our designer initially was

00:12:29 obviously our designer initially was studio e

00:12:30 studio e right and the cdmc's role design is a sort of starts at inception yes i see

00:12:53 [Applause] uh just say that we're absolutely clear about this

00:13:03 because it may just be a simple matter of clarification can i ask you to go to your 20th of january statement of page seven and go to paragraph 32 in light of what you just told me i just want to see if we can clear this up very

00:13:15 want to see if we can clear this up very quickly

00:13:16 quickly you say there specifically as d as described in detail above

00:13:24 artelia were already providing services a cdmc

00:13:27 a cdmc employees agent and quantity surveyor the cdmc role included taking reasonable steps to ensure that the design is complied with their duties then you cite from the regulation further in artelia's form of appointment

00:13:38 further in artelia's form of appointment they confirm themselves to be designers it's on that point i was concerned when you say that they confirm themselves to be designers were you meaning that they confirmed

00:13:50 were you meaning that they confirmed themselves to be cdmc or did you mean something else um it was within their cdmc part of the role thank you okay so not designers

00:13:59 designers outside that role no right that i think clarifies that [Applause]

00:14:08 now can we go then to your february 2019 at page nine tmo double zero eight four

00:14:19 at page nine tmo double zero eight four zero

00:14:20 zero three six four

00:14:28 uh and again i think i can take this quite quickly given the answers you've just given me uh in paragraph 48 there you say um that artelia were initially engaged by rbkc to manage the calc project

00:14:40 rbkc to manage the calc project and and then you say uh in that in relation to that project their role was that of contract administrator cost consultant qs and cdm coordinator

00:14:51 coordinator and as such they were required to manage the contract on behalf of the tmo advise on specifications in terms of cdm understand the costs involved and provide regular reporting on program and costs and over the page on page 10

00:15:04 and costs and over the page on page 10 in paragraph 49 you say as the cdn coordinator they were required to check the information and comment on any concerns before going to tender you see that yes now

00:15:18 on that did you um what did you expect the cdm coordinator certainly in the context of the grenfell tower project to be checking for

00:15:28 in general what the cdm coordinator does is look at the designs to make sure they're

00:15:38 suitable to build and then that the what's been built can be maintained so it's looking at the health and safety making sure the designers are aware

00:15:48 aware of what they're designing so they're not building in health and safety risks or if health and safety risks are there um

00:15:58 eliminating them or abating them by making sure the designer is fully aware right of what the implication is of the design now you told us earlier that i didn't you had any formal training on the

00:16:08 the cdm regulations uh either 2007 or 2015 how did you come to be familiar with the role of the cdmc

00:16:19 role of the cdmc i have had training on them in terms of the differences and also in terms of

00:16:28 terms of um presumably what they contained at the time right so i i have heard training on that so so far as you were concerned you were you thought uh or understood uh that uh artelia's

00:16:41 uh or understood uh that uh artelia's role was to make sure that the designers in this in the proper sense were aware of what they were designing say that they weren't building in health and safety risks yeah how did you think artely would go about discharging that obligation as cdmc

00:16:54 they had as part of the project team they had access to all the designers and the person they appointed put together the pre-construction

00:17:07 put together the pre-construction information for tender so they would have known what they were looking for and if there were any queries i would hope they would have picked them up and you were aware were you that under regulation

00:17:18 regulation 20.2 c the cdmc had to take all reasonable steps to ensure that designers complied with their duties yes yes and that that included a duty of designers to take reasonable steps to

00:17:29 designers to take reasonable steps to provide design information to the cdmc yes and that included i think you say detailed design is that your understanding sorry the last bit i didn't quite hear it was it was it your understanding

00:17:41 it was it was it your understanding is that among that information they had to provide detailed designs um they probably wouldn't have been detailed at the stage of going to tender right they would have been but

00:17:52 right they would have been but thereafter they would have been yes yes and i think what you're saying is that the cdmc had a a duty to ensure that they received from the

00:18:03 to ensure that they received from the designers

00:18:05 designers um or take reasonable steps to provide to receive from the designers design information yes but that was available at the time but i say in this tenure it wouldn't have been detailed design right

00:18:25 i'm i'm going to ask you i think about uh

00:18:29 uh the cda proposal now now do you remember that in the january of 2014 you asked artelia to put forward a proposal for the cda role or acda role

00:18:42 proposal for the cda role or acda role um i'm aware that they'd mentioned it and i said i'm not aware of it can you please

00:18:49 please send me the details because i've never heard of this role before well can we go to art 4085 please

00:19:04 and this is an email from phil booth to simon cash on the 10th of january 2014. simon claire wishes for us to put forward a proposal for the cda role as the custodian of fee proposals and

00:19:16 as the custodian of fee proposals and escapes please can i ask you to do this i know that they're considering others eg one-man bands but they have pi did you ask artelia to put forward a proposal

00:19:26 proposal to um perform the role of a cda i hadn't heard of the role until artelia mentioned it i've worked on many dmbs and this is the first time i've ever heard of it

00:19:37 heard of it i think he'd said oh we've got this proposal and i would have said i know nothing about it please can you send it to me so i understand what it entails

00:19:46 entails uh right well let's just come back to that answer in just a moment and see if we can get this through a document can i ask you to go to tm00850333

00:19:58 tm00850333 and i want to go to page two you can see from the top of the email run that it's a

00:20:06 a set of communications between you and jenny jackson in january 2014 and this email is from you to her on the 10th of january jenny i had a good session with artelia

00:20:17 jenny i had a good session with artelia yesterday and understand a lot more really appointments my resume is and then you talk about artelia there and she

00:20:29 and she um

00:20:32 you say that one artelia tma procurement then you discuss fees uh and if you go to page three of this document or this email run

00:20:43 three of this document or this email run we come to

00:20:47 uh um just about halfway down stage k can you see stage k covers do you see that and it says doing working drawings coordinating the construction detail i would say specifically here the

00:20:58 i would say specifically here the cladding window junctions and then you go on to say i think this is a massive amount and this is the 90 000 for stage k

00:21:09 and this is the 90 000 for stage k as potentially the working drawings are only for the lower four floors landscaping self-consulted and the specialist clouding and heating contractors will do the detailed drawings

00:21:17 drawings it also means we are duty-bound to pay this whether or not studio we are asked to provide the information by the contractor i cynically think that there is no guarantee that the current the contractor will use studio e to their potential

00:21:28 potential as the architects will push for quality solutions which the contractor may not find palatable i spoke to simon cash about this as it is such a substantial amount another concern is that if the

00:21:39 another concern is that if the contractor does not use studio e properly this will impact on costs elsewhere i.e additional fees on the design advisor who is commenting on the contractor's proposals and their tasks will be made harder

00:21:50 harder i've worked on a scheme where the novated consultant found it frustrating that the contractor ignored all their information and did their own thing and spent many hours bleeding to me how the appointment did not work any

00:22:01 how the appointment did not work any views

00:22:03 views you see that yes um now you refer to a conversation with artelia on the day before this email did you ask fidet booth during that conversation to

00:22:15 fidet booth during that conversation to make a proposal for a cda

00:22:20 i reiterate this probably would have that the different roles would have come up during that meeting and he would have said well we've proposed a cda and i hadn't seen the paperwork so i'd

00:22:32 and i hadn't seen the paperwork so i'd said send it through because i don't know what this role entails by the time of this email 10th of january it looks pretty clear that you understood what a cda

00:22:44 that you understood what a cda whether it had that precise title or not would involve because as we can see in the last paragraph of that page uh your your it comes up you see there's a reference to design

00:22:56 you see there's a reference to design advisor yes i i i i think i've been briefed by them that there was such a role and that's why i included it in this email right so turning then to the question of the

00:23:08 so turning then to the question of the genesis of the request that you clearly did make to artelia

00:23:13 artelia for a for a proposal um can we take it from this email that you understood that a cda having been told perhaps what it was by

00:23:24 having been told perhaps what it was by artelia would comment on the contractor's design proposals yes i having seen the document yes yes and did you understand also that there

00:23:35 and did you understand also that there was

00:23:36 was a specific risk following the novation of an architect to the main contractor that the main contractor could just ignore the novated architect or design consultant as

00:23:47 consultant as if if you like there is always that worry yes yes and and therefore there might be a tension or was was a tension between the novak

00:23:55 novak novated architect and the main contractor because the the architect would want quality product or quality results whereas the main contractor may not be so keen

00:24:07 as i say it can happen in contracts it might not it's an anecdotal yes it's an anecdotal conversation you say anecdotal but in fact you're doing yourself a disservice mrs williams

00:24:18 doing yourself a disservice mrs williams because this was part of your experience which you're telling jenny jackson you had

00:24:22 had and it looks on the face of it that your experience told you that after the novation of the architect there was a risk in a design and built contract that although the architect wanted quality solutions

00:24:34 wanted quality solutions the contractor would reject them on the grounds of perhaps cost was that is that a fair summation of the experience you're imparting to to jenny jackson here

00:24:46 imparting to to jenny jackson here the experience i had was actually not with an architect but um i think we had a robust design and build uh contract with specification that that

00:24:58 uh contract with specification that that would mean that shouldn't happen so my anecdote was slightly um twisted perhaps well what was the risk that you were seeking to avoid or

00:25:09 that you were seeking to avoid or minimize that you thought having a proposal for a cda might

00:25:16 might give you

00:25:20 i think this email covers many appointments it's not specifically about cd the cda i'm if you'd ask your question again maybe i can perhaps i could do it yes you may ask it

00:25:32 perhaps i could do it yes you may ask it more simply when you asked first of all is it right that you asked artelia to put forward a proposal for a cda

00:25:43 cda they had talked about a cda and i said i do not know what that role entails please give me something to look at so i can understand what you're what you're implying what

00:25:54 what you're what you're implying what does this role cover so when philip booth tells simon cash in the email we've seen claire wishes for us to put forward a proposal for the cda role

00:26:05 role are we to understand your evidence that you didn't actually ask him to propose a cda role you just wanted him to explain what one was very much so yes he put a positive spin on it and

00:26:16 on it and uh i i i see he put a positive spin on it right

00:26:21 it right um nonetheless did you understand at the time when you wanted him to clarify the role

00:26:28 role that the role was there in order to minimize or eliminate the risk that an architect might well but once some

00:26:39 some once invaded uh give advice to the contractor but the contractor might ignore it

00:26:47 i think your question covers several things um

00:26:50 things um well i i i it doesn't with respect i'm just putting to you your logic in the last paragraph of the email we've still got off on the page uh which uh i i had thought had

00:27:01 uh which uh i i had thought had given rise to what we see yeah so you tell me then in your words what was it that was going to be good about having a cda but once you understood it's it precisely what they did yeah having

00:27:14 it precisely what they did yeah having understood what they did i couldn't think of anything

00:27:19 anything positive about it because we had a design and build contract where the responsibilities for the design lie clearly with the contractor

00:27:30 design lie clearly with the contractor this would be an additional tier that perhaps wouldn't bring anything to the table

00:27:38 because our design and build contract was

00:27:43 was based around the fact we did have items that needed specialist design so i

00:27:51 know that designer well i've never worked with a design advisor but it did seem that they were going to comment on everything across the board whereas we had specialist areas of design

00:28:01 design with contractual arrangements in place to cover those so the design advisor seemed to be an untenable role

00:28:14 the design advice ms williams did it occur to you that whether the contractor or a specialist subcontractor was going to carry out remaining design a mistake might be made

00:28:25 remaining design a mistake might be made which

00:28:25 which which a client design advisor could alert you to

00:28:32 the specialist design was such that we felt

00:28:36 felt that

00:28:39 the specialists who did the design they did that day in day out a design advisor would be unlikely to find somebody who had specialization in cladding and m e as

00:28:50 specialization in cladding and m e as well as the other elements it was because of the specialist design that it seemed to be a very difficult shoots to fill right thank you

00:29:01 thank you can we look at the proposal itself um this

00:29:04 this is it art406279

00:29:17 um and it's dated february 2014 it was done by artelia proposal for client design advisor now we know that this was sent to uh jenny jackson and copied to you

00:29:30 to uh jenny jackson and copied to you on the 28th of february 2014. let's just show you that email i think it's at a

00:29:38 rt406225 art six yes and here is an email from simon cash to jenny jackson on the 28th of february 2014 and you can see you're copied in on

00:29:50 2014 and you can see you're copied in on it

00:29:50 it yes yes and you can see that the attachment there is revised fee proposal combined

00:29:56 combined and that is in fact this document do you remember

00:30:01 remember receiving this document and seeing it when i say this document i mean the one that's just disappeared from your screen the

00:30:09 the cda yes i've seen that right if we get back to it art406279

00:30:17 art406279 um it is clear on its first page that it's a proposal for a client design advisor

00:30:22 advisor and you can see if you scroll down just a few pages that it was a fairly lengthy document it ran over some tens of pages

00:30:31 of pages you see that so when you got it you would have realized it was a fairly uh detailed uh formal and well presented proposal yes uh yes um when you got it did you wonder

00:30:44 uh yes um when you got it did you wonder to yourself well i wonder why they're sending me this all i asked for was an explanation of what a cda does um i believe this would probably be on a standard template and they would just tailor it for each

00:30:56 tailor it for each scheme well did you read this document at the time carefully when you when it came

00:31:00 came to you i read it at the time yes in doing so would it have jumped out at you that this was actually a detailed proposal

00:31:13 this was actually a detailed proposal for a carefully defined role with a price at the end i i know there was a price at the end but i don't remember all the headings i'm only looking at page one now

00:31:25 looking at page one now yes uh well we can we can scroll through it

00:31:28 it you've recognized the document i've shown that you were sent at the end of february 2014 my question is when you got this document were you surprised to get it given its detail and content

00:31:40 to get it given its detail and content um well i think i'd ask philip for a clarification so this was clearly what it

00:31:45 it what it was was the document that they were going to send me through this isn't a clarification of what a cda does this is a proposal by artelia to act

00:31:56 act as cda setting out carefully and at some length precisely the scope of that role with a price at the end yeah so when you got all this detail

00:32:08 got all this detail did you not were you surprised

00:32:12 no i'll tell you a professional company i would expect them to deliver something of this sort for a proposal but yes because that because and that rather suggests that you'd ask them for one

00:32:23 one rather than asking for an explanation about what one was do you see the distinction i do but i suspect that um as philip's email just said

00:32:34 um as philip's email just said it said you were the holder of all the fee proposals he'd said to simon this this is a document that they would have a base for and obviously they would tailor for each client

00:32:46 tailor for each client so i wasn't surprised to get a professional looking document and considered document right well if we go i see you think it was just

00:32:57 was just you say that you i'm going to want to misquote you um that this was a document tailored for each client yes and you could see that it was tailored for the grenfell tower project

00:33:08 tailored for the grenfell tower project when you read it um to be honest i don't remember that much about it but i remember at the time yes that it had a lot of information in

00:33:19 yes that it had a lot of information in it

00:33:20 it yes that was that was specific to the grenfell tower project do you remember that um yes i'm sure they would have but so i'm only looking at the front page so i haven't seen this

00:33:32 at the front page so i haven't seen this for a little while yeah um all right well i mean we can look at it if we go down to page three i mean i don't want to rush this document it's an important document if we go to page three we can see uh

00:33:43 if we go to page three we can see uh that

00:33:43 that um that the under introduction the client advisor lead would be rich more harding and we can see what her experience is and then if you look at the scope of services in the black box

00:33:55 services in the black box there are six bullet points you see that yes uh and some of them i i i can well see maybe generic uh but um item three

00:34:06 uh but um item three review through a design compliance report report agreed to this agreed key design packages following the production of detailed drawing stage f reporting to kctmo using our risk-based

00:34:17 reporting to kctmo using our risk-based warning light methodology backed up by firm opinions and recommendations and then if you go to the following page page four you see under project understanding of key data

00:34:29 under project understanding of key data here are some uh items that are very specific to the grenfell tower project you see yes you've got reference to studio e being evaded you've got a reference to the scope of works of which the third bullet point on that

00:34:41 of which the third bullet point on that page is the overclouding external elevations to approve appearance and then at the end of that document

00:34:47 document if you go to the end of the document [Applause]

00:34:59 page um forgive me

00:35:12 at page 11 you can see that the fees that are set out there

00:35:18 out there total thirty thousand nine hundred and twenty two pounds uh odd and six hundred pounds for poh do you remember that i remember there was a fee on it i wouldn't have remembered the figure okay

00:35:29 wouldn't have remembered the figure okay so looking at this document when you got it and i scampered at it at some through it at some speed miss williams it would have been obvious to you that artelia had taken some time and

00:35:40 that artelia had taken some time and some trouble to put together a comprehensive client design advisor proposal hadn't they but they had used their standard document which they'd tailored for a ship

00:35:51 tailored for a ship to what extent it was standard and to what extent it wasn't i i can't i think get into with you my question is given what had come does it not tell us that you'd actually

00:36:02 does it not tell us that you'd actually ask for this document as opposed simply to asking

00:36:06 to asking for an ex a brief explanation as to what a cda does in order to decide whether it would be helpful to ask for one at all no i i am i would i've had a

00:36:17 no i i am i would i've had a conversation with phillip i don't know what this role entails let me know what it entails obviously at that point he would have said well let's put a fee on it i said okay

00:36:27 okay i would have had i would have said to him okay give me the whole lot and we'll see what it looks like because i wasn't clear what what they were proposing as part of this role and i didn't know

00:36:38 i didn't know you know i had no understanding of what a fee would be so it would be useful to get the whole package rather than partial but i also see from this or i remember from this report

00:36:49 from this report that they this person wanted there was a a time frame as to how long they wanted to look through everything and then you got a a report at the end

00:37:00 and then you got a a report at the end of it

00:37:01 of it so it was

00:37:04 so it was um say another process brought into the system rather than the straightforward contractual arrangement we had with our contractor who had the design

00:37:16 with our contractor who had the design responsibility so there are many things about this that still don't resonate as viable now at this time do you remember this is

00:37:27 now at this time do you remember this is february 2014 the tma was evaluating the tender bids

00:37:34 february 14 i think they came back yes yeah they came back on the 14th of february yeah and this document comes to you on the 28th of february right so you're actually the process of of evaluating the tender bits

00:37:45 of evaluating the tender bits at that very time would this uh this service not have been helpful to you

00:37:54 you um in in that exercise

00:38:00 no the the tender which was being evaluated um gave performance specifications and we didn't have any designs to look at at

00:38:12 didn't have any designs to look at at that stage we you know at this stage that the bidders costs were higher than the tma's budget

00:38:18 budget all of them weren't they yes yes and you knew that bidders have been asked to price alternative cladding hadn't they yes and you knew i think at this stage that it was likely if not inevitable that they would

00:38:29 likely if not inevitable that they would have to be a value engineering exercise we would have to look at alternatives yes all right that's another way of putting it and and it was already i think envisaged

00:38:40 and and it was already i think envisaged that savings on cladding would be central

00:38:43 central in that exercise if you look at the works cost which was 8.4

00:38:49 8.4 million the external works were something like 3.5 million so it was one of the big ticket items that you would look at if you were looking at savings yeah so i think

00:39:01 looking at savings yeah so i think that's a yes that you would envisage on value engineering cladding it was on the alternative proposals as well yes so that's a yes okay now um i just want to show you what

00:39:13 okay now um i just want to show you what phil booth says about this again day 49 please transcript page 175 at lines 11 to 15. he says at line 11

00:39:27 he says at line 11 in answer to a question from miss grange but on a project like this that underwent quite a significant value engineering exercise was that perhaps another reason why a client design advisor would be a good idea

00:39:38 idea he says yes i think that's fair to say do you agree that it would have been a good idea for the tmo to have its own design advisor safeguarding quality in order to help the tmo as ryden was suggesting in

00:39:50 the tmo as ryden was suggesting in relation to these ve options no the design and build contract with its design responsibilities was very clear the specialist areas which were the ones

00:40:01 specialist areas which were the ones that we were more concerned about had specialist designers

00:40:07 designers so no i i believe that what we had in place was the best option a client design advisor would have muddied the waters meant no

00:40:18 would have muddied the waters meant no clear line of communication and as i say i don't know how anybody could look at both cladding m e and general

00:40:29 look at both cladding m e and general work and be able to give advice on those so no i'm still clear that a client design advisor

00:40:40 design advisor which may be appropriate in other projects was not because of this contract now this project involved cladding didn't it it did and you've never done an overclouding exercise i hadn't

00:40:51 overclouding exercise i hadn't no and say why wouldn't the assistance of an experienced architect as richmond harding was who would have been the cda not have assisted you at least in that uh i i

00:41:04 assisted you at least in that uh i i didn't read that person's cladding qualifications but we had a our designer studio who did our basic design

00:41:13 design had done cladding on perhaps different types of building the calc adjacent for example and i believe that they were a competent

00:41:24 and i believe that they were a competent um consultant in that i i know that they did their research they looked at different

00:41:32 different materials and then obviously the contractor who finally installed was one with a track record so i i i again would have worries about a

00:41:43 i i i again would have worries about a cda

00:41:43 cda being another tier that would be um not best place to comment on clouding or

00:41:52 or m e

00:41:55 can we look at art four zeros two seven five two please these are the minutes of progress meeting number two on the 19th of august

00:42:06 meeting number two on the 19th of august 2014

00:42:07 2014 and we can see that you were there miss williams do you see yes and if we go to page two and look at item three you can see there's a heading design development you see that

00:42:20 yes under 3.1 cw to appoint a client design advisor yes now there's a post meeting note i we can see that my question is was a

00:42:31 i we can see that my question is was a the role of a client design advisor discussed at this meeting

00:42:36 i believe as i tell you as employers agent

00:42:39 agent um lead these meetings and do the minutes

00:42:44 minutes they would have given me the proposal before this and then they would have minuted cw to appoint a client design advisor meanwhile i'm looking at the client

00:42:56 meanwhile i'm looking at the client design advisor role with david gibson i don't know whether jenny commented but we looked at whether that that role is needed and as i say um

00:43:08 that role is needed and as i say um we decided it wasn't appropriate for the form of contract we had in the the building works we were going to do yes

00:43:15 yes you've gone a little beyond my beyond my question my question was simply was the role of a client designed advisor discussed at this meeting

00:43:24 to the extent that it's minuted possibly but it says you see cw to appoint a client design advisor and the action person is cw that's you

00:43:35 that's you so i'm just asking you what gave rise or was there a discussion that gave rise to the action point whereby you were going to appoint a client design advisor i believe artelio put this in as a

00:43:46 i believe artelio put this in as a prompt to keep the subject live obviously we hadn't looked at the cda or maybe got it and not discussed it thoroughly so between the

00:43:57 thoroughly so between the the meeting and the minutes being done the decision had been made

00:44:04 it says underneath that post meeting note cw

00:44:07 note cw advised that the tmo will perform the role of cda in-house they will therefore need to sign off all design

00:44:15 design did you agree the wording of that post-meeting note no that was artelia's wording because i had

00:44:21 had caveated our response to them saying it would only be the cda or looking at the design that the tmo would do would only be for

00:44:32 that the tmo would do would only be for certain areas of the building so no i i didn't um word that that way and i hope i did an amendment in the following meeting right now philip booth was asked about

00:44:46 right now philip booth was asked about this post-meeting note and again i just want to ask you about what he said in his evidence transcript please for day 49 at page 181 line 17

00:45:03 and he says there that 181 line 17 question from ms grange so it appears that there was some discussion of this at the meeting and then a post-meeting note is added afterwards saying the tmo have decided

00:45:14 afterwards saying the tmo have decided to do it in-house can you remember what was discussed at the meeting about this role answer i remember talking to claire her asking me you know do we need this what will this world include what sort of things am i are they likely to be reviewing and then

00:45:26 are they likely to be reviewing and then if we go over the page and taking her through that she went away and had to think about it and she decided afterwards that's why we put it as a post-meeting note that they could do it themselves and

00:45:38 that they could do it themselves and then he goes on at line six to say yeah that's what i remember is that an accurate

00:45:44 accurate statement or accurate description of the discussion about this subject that you had with mr booth at that time i don't know that it was at that time that was the gist of the discussion i

00:45:55 that was the gist of the discussion i had with philip and that's probably the discussion that um meant that i got the proposal from them

00:46:04 well that's can't be right chronologically if i've understood your answer because the proposal came in february as we've seen and this discussion is in august yeah no i apologize but clearly

00:46:17 yeah no i apologize but clearly i don't i don't know how either philip or i can remember exactly what was said at that meeting but you understand that i'd asked for information about it as philip had said

00:46:28 information about it as philip had said and he said that he talked me through it then there may have been a gap because he said she went away to think about it and she decided afterwards that's why i put in a post meeting now can we i think the information is there

00:46:40 can we i think the information is there i just think the chronology is a bit um dubious right can we look at day 49 page 182

00:46:52 this is also mr booth's evidence to the inquiry

00:46:56 inquiry and on that page at line 10 uh the question is put to him so you say you remember telling claire williams that if the tmo was going to take on the

00:47:08 that if the tmo was going to take on the role

00:47:09 role it would need to sign off future designs is that right you said that to her question mark line 14 he says yeah so again change is proposed there's no design responsibility but they would

00:47:21 no design responsibility but they would need to say yes we're happy with that to proceed

00:47:23 proceed so a checking role still but they would need to agree it i couldn't as employers agent do you agree with that

00:47:32 that that that would have been the conversation i had with philip yes i see so do you agree or did you agree that philip booth made it clear that you or at any rate the tmo would need to be

00:47:43 need to be responsible for checking and signing off the designs that came from ryden yes yes

00:47:52 yes [Applause]

00:48:05 can we then go to art 2701 this is an email from you to philip booth and peter blythe on the 29th of august 2014. so not very long after the meeting we've just been looking at

00:48:17 meeting we've just been looking at about five days after it actually and you say there last tuesday we talked about the appointment of a design advisor and the likelihood that this did not particularly apply to cladding and eminy elements which were designed and under guarantee

00:48:30 which were designed and under guarantee upon discussion most of the design concerns were over the new build areas i.e the flats nursery and boxing club [Applause] now you've explained this email in your witness statement of the 20th of january 2020.

00:48:41 2020. if we can just look at that um page seven

00:48:46 seven tmo eight five three six nine seven at page seven and i would like to look at paragraph thirty with you you say artelia explained to me that the cda role would not touch on those

00:48:57 cda role would not touch on those discrete areas of the project where specialist contractors would have specialist knowledge about their designs and design and the materials used that artelia would not have that's what you say and uh

00:49:11 that's what you say and uh you say this is ortelia who at artelia explained that to you

00:49:19 i don't remember i would suspect you as philip but i don't know well you see philip booth told ms grange in his evidence to the inquiry that he never told you that cladding would be excluded from the cda's consideration if

00:49:31 excluded from the cda's consideration if the cda was appointed and that's that's day 49 page 182 that lines 19-25 i don't want to go to it but

00:49:39 it but unless you want to see it but that's what he said can you comment on that

00:49:46 i can't comment on his testimony but what my recollection is is that when we talked about the role that the proposal seemed to be

00:49:57 that the proposal seemed to be comprehensive and it didn't seem to exclude any areas of the project in our conversation we did talk about the fact that there were specialist contractors with

00:50:08 were specialist contractors with specialist knowledge and therefore the cga role was um less interesting less viable

00:50:19 um less interesting less viable because it only would cover areas that were social housing i think that's right i'm trying to do you remember the circumstances of this conversation and for example where were

00:50:31 conversation and for example where were you do you remember no i'm afraid i don't

00:50:36 but i think the cgo role proposal they gave us

00:50:39 gave us didn't exclude anything but then when we talked about it they might have said oh well it wouldn't cover that or cover that anyway so again it puts into doubt the

00:50:52 so again it puts into doubt the value of that role right so you say that this

00:50:57 this exclusion from scope of the cda of cladding came you say from philip booth in a conversation

00:51:05 it would be most likely philip i don't think i talked to anybody else artelier about it right as i say he can't uh recall that and he says in his evidence that he

00:51:17 and he says in his evidence that he didn't say that it would have been a conversation 10 years ago

00:51:24 now

00:51:28 to be fair to you he does say and i'll show you this this is day 49 page 182 line 23 he says

00:51:43 uh i and this is in the context of excluding the cladding i think and again i don't know i'm not claire but i think she was reassured by the fact that obviously there were specialist cladding advisors

00:51:54 there were specialist cladding advisors coming

00:51:54 coming in and and over the page there were warranties product warranties and product guarantees that come with the cladding

00:52:01 cladding yes and i said well yes that's true but you will still need to sign it off and she was reassured by having those extra checks and balances that was his evidence to the inquiry does that help you with your recollection of the

00:52:12 recollection of the conversation about the scope of the cda and cladding i i think philip is saying here that um the warranties

00:52:25 that um the warranties and the product guarantees that come with the cladding would mean that responsibility for design etc would be clear but

00:52:36 design etc would be clear but what you will have to sign off was the areas that i said we would take responsibility for which was the social housing the boxing club and the nursery where i did have a communication with

00:52:49 where i did have a communication with ryden

00:52:50 ryden and the areas that we did sign off were kitchens and radiator layouts and things like that right

00:52:57 right well that i think partly answers perhaps my next question but let's see how we go can i go

00:53:01 can i go to back to your email of the 29th of august which is art402701

00:53:09 and in the second paragraph you say i've spoken to david gibson and we are going to see if we can manage this within the tmao as we are very familiar with the specifications for social housing now i asked mr gibson yesterday about

00:53:22 now i asked mr gibson yesterday about this

00:53:22 this uh perhaps the day before no yesterday about this uh and i just want to ask you about it as well

00:53:29 as well what was the connection between omitting the cladding from the scope of any cda retainer on the one hand and the

00:53:40 retainer on the one hand and the specifications for social housing on the other

00:53:46 the cladding i think we've all been very clear is a specialist item in terms of the products in terms of the fixing

00:53:58 but the social housing was all contained within the external building envelope and the specification was already

00:54:09 and the specification was already written

00:54:11 written so it was purely

00:54:15 clarifying which kitchen layout i want where i want the radiators to go it was not

00:54:26 um it was a totally different scale of issue i don't know if that's clear enough

00:54:35 enough it may not matter um can i then just put something to you about about the decision not to take up the cda role you've given us your reasons can i just ask you whether the fact that

00:54:47 can i just ask you whether the fact that it was going to be an extra 31 odd thousand pounds play in your decision making not at all the fees on this project were substantial i was going to put 30 000

00:54:58 substantial i was going to put 30 000 was

00:54:59 was it was a drop in the ocean yeah it was it was comparatively minor compared to some of the fees we were paying exactly the issue is clearly to do with design responsibility it was never to do with

00:55:10 responsibility it was never to do with cost

00:55:11 cost and given that the 30 odd 31 or thousand pounds was a drop in the ocean compared but the rest of the fees on the project wouldn't have been worth spending the money

00:55:18 money just to have an extra layer of assurance on matters of design no i it would have been a complication in the design responsibility in the contract

00:55:30 contract there were issues i think i said to you that the person required 10 days to look at something or there was a 10 days 14 days i can't remember and also they gave you a report at the end of it they didn't actually

00:55:42 of it they didn't actually they gave you something else to filter so it wasn't in my view a perfect proposal but the bottom line was it diluted the contractual responsibility

00:55:53 responsibility for those specialists that specialist areas whether it be cladding or vm can i then turn to a different topic which is your review exercise now i think you referred

00:56:04 review exercise now i think you referred to this

00:56:05 to this possibly the the in your evidence this morning can we start by looking at your february 2019 statement of page 34 and i'd like to go to paragraph 189

00:56:16 34 and i'd like to go to paragraph 189 please

00:56:21 and you say that i was involved in a review exercise

00:56:27 which which looked at avoiding any duplication of work increasing work efficiencies and identifying other areas where savings may be achieved and that's all you say about it now first do you recall the date or

00:56:38 first do you recall the date or approximately the date when this exercise occurred no i don't i'm afraid i think

00:56:48 no i don't to put it in its context in your statement um the paragraph above it relates to a pre-contract meeting on the 9th of april 2014 and the paragraph below it is about a meeting

00:56:59 paragraph below it is about a meeting with the planners on the 8th of may 2014.

00:57:03 2014. does that perhaps tell us that this exercise took place between those dates or

00:57:08 or can you not help on that no i can't remember i'm afraid looking at the substance do you remember who took part in that review

00:57:20 i think david gibson was there but i can't

00:57:25 can't recall anybody else right was it a paper exercise or was it a discussion

00:57:37 i suspect it was looking at drawings

00:57:42 right do you remember what drawings you looked at i remember that i took out a staircase there was there was the plan to build to knock down a staircase and

00:57:53 to build to knock down a staircase and build a staircase in the same place so i remember that but i i can't remember anything else specifically i'm afraid

00:58:02 afraid were any decisions made about the duplication of work that you were seeking to avoid

00:58:10 oh i i can't remember i'm afraid i'm no help to you right and similarly i suspect does the same answer apply in relation to increasing

00:58:21 to increasing it working yeah it does was this exercise carried out once or more than once do you remember

00:58:31 i i don't remember

00:58:43 can we then move to a completely different topic which is um appointments and fees before ryden came on board

00:58:50 on board and i want to start in january 2014 which is during the tender process but before the bids had come back um can we start by looking at tm00850333

00:59:02 um can we start by looking at tm00850333 please

00:59:07 this is your email of the 10th of january 2014 to jenny jackson and we looked at this parts of it below earlier on um

00:59:20 parts of it below earlier on um you you say in the sec this is page two i think we need actually you say jenny i had a good session with artelia yesterday and understand a lot more read the appointments my resume is remember we looked at this

00:59:31 my resume is remember we looked at this about half an hour ago um and i think you agreed with me that there had been a meeting with artelia on the 9th of january which gave rise to

00:59:43 on the 9th of january which gave rise to you writing this email on the 10th yes yes and if we look if we look down scan down we can see that it deals with the appointments of artelia on page one max fordham on page one

00:59:56 on page one max fordham on page one curtin's on page one and then put the page to page two uh you can see uh under item four studio e you see that yes and then you set out below that the

01:00:07 yes and then you set out below that the fees and the novation position for each so it looks as if you've done a review of who was on the contract at this stage and the fee the fee position to date yes and we're

01:00:19 the fee position to date yes and we're commenting to jenny jackson about it yes yeah now if we go back to her response steny jackson's response at the top of this email run at page one

01:00:30 at the top of this email run at page one she says um and this is the 10th also the 10th of january 2014. claire this is very clear and easy to understand thank you your email focuses on the fees but not

01:00:41 your email focuses on the fees but not on the authority to appoint now just pausing there as we i think discussed

01:00:47 discussed or you've told us jenny jackson was the tma's procurement advisor yes yes do you understand jenny jackson to be asking about whether contractors at this stage had been correctly procured

01:01:01 no i was purely checking with her the appointments and obviously i was looking at the budget that was my main emphasis on this

01:01:14 that was my main emphasis on this so i wasn't talking to about appointments as such no i see so you were looking at this purely from the financial perspective i follow let's just see how we go if you go to your february 2019 statement at

01:01:25 go to your february 2019 statement at page nine

01:01:27 page nine i want to look at paragraph 44 with you you say there studio e were the architects for the scheme providing design advice and specifications and they liaised with

01:01:39 and specifications and they liaised with the borough planning they drew up the architectural specifications for the tower refurbishment and were recommended by rbkc following their work on calc now studio e's appointment was made well

01:01:50 now studio e's appointment was made well before you started at the tmo weren't they

01:01:52 they yes how did you know that rbkc had recommended studio e

01:01:59 they had

01:02:03 like he'd been working on calc and

01:02:10 calc and as part of

01:02:15 that the follow-up work on grenfell they'd clearly been happy with their performance otherwise they would have

01:02:27 not suggested that they would be on board

01:02:32 board for the grenfell tower project well you say in your statement that they've been recommended and you just said that they essentially had suggested that they

01:02:43 essentially had suggested that they would be on board you say otherwise they wouldn't have suggested that they would be on board for the grenfell tower project my question is how did you know

01:02:54 my question is how did you know that rbkc had actually recommended studio e for the grenfell tower project

01:03:05 i don't but the fact that they were part of the

01:03:10 of the project team that moved across from the calc

01:03:13 calc meant that rbkc had had no concerns over their performance oh that may be um miss williams but i just want to see if i can get to the bottom of this

01:03:26 see if i can get to the bottom of this recommendation or suggestion point i i might understand your evidence that in fact you don't

01:03:33 you don't know of any actual recommendation by rbkc

01:03:37 rbkc you're assuming that um simply that rbkc was happy

01:03:42 was happy that studio e should work on grenfell tower

01:03:49 you're right the word recommended is perhaps not correct but there was obviously no problem with their performance

01:04:01 their performance do you know or did you know at the time what checks or due diligence had been conducted either by rbkc more more persist

01:04:12 either by rbkc more more persist or more specifically by the tmo into studio's suitability for the project before they were appointed to the grenfell tower project

01:04:24 i'm aware that studio e came through an odu process which

01:04:32 has quite rigorous um requirements but no i'm not clear on the specifics no did you ever take any steps to ask what due diligence

01:04:44 to ask what due diligence studio he had gone through for the for the purposes of appointment to the grenfell tower project i did not but i did talk to them about their experience

01:04:57 you talked when was that probably when i first met them right um when i'm saying i met them i'm talking about bruce souness yes i would have asked him about what

01:05:08 yes i would have asked him about what have you done before what's your background those sort of questions you do when you're meeting professionals for the first time yes i understand but by that time of course september 2013

01:05:21 course september 2013 uh studio e had already been appointed to the grenfell tower project haven't they

01:05:25 they yes yes were you aware that they had never done an overclouding project before

01:05:33 no no the bruce sainz had no experience of overclouding a high-rise residential building

01:05:38 building no i was aware they'd worked on cladding projects because of the calc but i didn't know they hadn't done overclouding i suspect it's a fairly rare

01:05:47 rare project did it did it occur to you to ask them

01:05:51 ask them whether they'd ever done any projects involving overclouding a high-rise residential building i understood that they generally didn't do residential work

01:06:06 can we go back to jenny jackson's response to you of the 10th of january which we were looking at a minute ago in the third paragraph she says the commissions for both artelia and studio

01:06:17 commissions for both artelia and studio e are above the eu threshold and in the fourth paragraph she says the fees for artelia from september 2013 look very low given the complexity of

01:06:30 look very low given the complexity of the project do you know what is meant by the eu threshold

01:06:37 threshold um yes that there are if if you don't appoint somebody through an owed you contract

01:06:48 somebody through an owed you contract that there is a service fee beyond which you should be appointing them through a an odu contract it's to make sure

01:06:59 an odu contract it's to make sure that you don't um just

01:07:04 pay somebody employ somebody without actually going through the formal procedures so the odu thresholds are prescribed if the fees are above a certain level it

01:07:15 the fees are above a certain level it needs to be done correctly through the oju process did you know at the time what the aoj eu threshold was i'm wary of saying it but i i i would have known at the time

01:07:26 have known at the time yes why are you wearing a wary of saying it because many years have passed and inflation has kicked in in the meantime so i have a figure in my mind but it's um

01:07:38 i have a figure in my mind but it's um so probably not right now right i i i think the figure we've been looking at was 174 000 pounds does that ring a bell um no it doesn't i thought it was higher

01:07:49 um no it doesn't i thought it was higher okay were you aware of any arrangement with studio e or with artelia to keep their fees artificially below the eu threshold no i think though commercial companies

01:08:02 no i think though commercial companies they'd want to be paid for what they did did anybody from artelia or did jenny jackson herself point out to you that if studio

01:08:10 studio e were keeping their fees artificially low was a potential breach of the procurement rules she would have picked it up yes i don't remember whether she said it to me

01:08:22 but

01:08:26 did anybody else mention to you that if studio e were keeping their fees artificially low that was potentially a breach of the eu procurement rules

01:08:37 procurement rules i i don't remember anybody saying it to me but i was mindful and i know jenny was very hot on this that she would have been um you know aware that there would be an

01:08:50 um you know aware that there would be an issue

01:08:50 issue if the figures um

01:08:56 went you know too high or too close to the

01:09:00 the thresholds so i don't i don't remember anybody keeping their figures artificially low i think that would be

01:09:08 would be not not what commercial companies do did anybody ever tell you that there had been an arrangement or at least a proposal that studio e would defer some of their fees to a later stage i

01:09:20 stage i don't recall any conversations like that no right

01:09:25 we could see that jenny jackson certainly did think as i've shown you that the fees for artelia for september or from september 2013 look very low given the complexity of the project

01:09:36 given the complexity of the project did you resolve her question about why they looked so low no i didn't but i has to be born in mind that they were

01:09:47 were that the project had been instigated probably 2012 and it went to 30 and then there was a stop then it started again so i just had the figures that i was given

01:09:58 figures that i was given which i believe were artelio's figures so i don't know if they had put some figures into a previous spreadsheet for works that they

01:10:09 spreadsheet for works that they undertook

01:10:10 undertook before the stop but that's clear yes thank you i'm now going to turn to a different topic which is the tender process

01:10:18 process and the decision to appoint ryden now can i begin with your own experience of tenders did you have a working knowledge of the general principles that govern an oj eu procurement process i've been on the edge of them i've never

01:10:31 i've been on the edge of them i've never actually

01:10:32 actually been part i've always been a on the sidelines sort of thing right did you ever have any training uh or cpd on the rules governing an oje

01:10:43 uh or cpd on the rules governing an oje you procurement process no had you ever managed or worked on such a procurement exercise before no

01:10:51 did you have a i think it would follow that you didn't have a working knowledge of the procurement processes then no no um can i then turn to your involvement in the right intender

01:11:02 involvement in the right intender and take you to your february 2019 statement to page seven please and i want to look at paragraph 36 you say there um under the heading

01:11:13 you say there um under the heading procurement procurement was dealt with independently by jenny jackson an external consultant to oversee compliance with ojeu regulations and with all assessments sorry with all assessments and recommendations

01:11:25 assessments and recommendations being made by artelia the contract administrator and cost consultants jenny jackson led the procurement process and if we go down to the next paragraph

01:11:33 paragraph 37 you say i'm aware that artelia sent out invitations to five tenderers on the 29th of november 2013. i had marked some elements of the tenders but i had no involvement with

01:11:44 tenders but i had no involvement with the decision-making in relation to procurement was your role in

01:11:48 in the procurement exercise confined to scoring

01:11:52 scoring some of the elements or was it wider than that

01:11:56 than that and as you see from the following paragraph i took some of the tenders around the tower with artelier to say this is the building and to walk them around the areas they'd need to be

01:12:08 them around the areas they'd need to be conversant with i also

01:12:13 arranged for some residents to help mark the resident communication section of the tender so there were three three elements really one walking around the block with

01:12:24 really one walking around the block with the tendras then uh getting the residence involvement for the resident communication part then i did mark some part of the tenders

01:12:34 tenders and then i attended actually i attended the um

01:12:39 the um tenders conference on the 5th of december

01:12:42 december so sorry that was four things yes i think did you also attend the interviews on the 7th of march 2014. and i attended the interview sorry five things yeah and we know that

01:12:54 sorry five things yeah and we know that and ultimately the tmo decided to appoint ryden yes yeah do you know who it was within the tma who actually made that decision

01:13:07 i believe that the figures were presented to us by artelier and there would have been a conversation

01:13:19 and there would have been a conversation this is the winner and then it would have gone from there

01:13:27 now looking at paragraph 37 that i've just read to you you say i had no involvement with the decision-making in relation to procurement i just want to understand what you mean

01:13:38 i just want to understand what you mean there by decision-making does that mean you didn't decide how the tender was structured um no i didn't that that was i suspect jenny with artelia

01:13:49 jenny with artelia and you didn't decide who would mark which questions um early on it had been said that i would be involved with the resident communication section because that would be what i

01:14:00 section because that would be what i would be taking forward i don't remember whether i was told what i was going to be marking beforehand right did you have any decision-making

01:14:11 right did you have any decision-making role in how the tender process would be conducted

01:14:15 conducted no

01:14:22 can i then turn to one of the roles you did

01:14:26 did occupy which as you've just mentioned was resident involvement uh now mr chairman this is a slightly lengthy well not very lengthy but there's a slightly lengthy uh topic then we'll occupy the time between now and a

01:14:38 we'll occupy the time between now and a break so i think we should it would be convenient if we did yes of course we can do that now we'll have a short break now ms williams will come back at half past three and uh

01:14:49 come back at half past three and uh please don't talk to anyone about your evidence or anything to do with it while you're out of the room thank you thank you very much

01:15:04 right now first three please

01:30:21 thank you would you ask miss williams to come back in please thank you

01:30:38 hi miss williams ready to carry on i am yes thank you yes thank you mr chairman uh miss williams can i go back to an exchange that we had earlier this afternoon

01:30:48 afternoon on the 19th of august 2014 minute and i just want to take you back to that if i may

01:30:53 may it's a tm0100-23263 please at page two

01:31:04 and you can see there under paragraph 3.1

01:31:09 3.1 under the post-meeting note we looked at where it says cw advised that the tmo will perform the role of the cda in-house they will therefore need to sign off all

01:31:20 sign off all decisions that's the document we were looking at and i just want to go to the transcript of this afternoon to look at and see what you said there it's today's transcript day um uh page one two four

01:31:34 um uh page one two four please day fifty four page one two four lines sixteen to twenty

01:31:43 and i put to you do you agree or did you agree that philip booth made it clear to you or at any rate the tmo would need to be responsible for checking

01:31:54 responsible for checking and signing off the decisions that came from ryden can you answer that yes

01:32:01 did i not caveat it that it would only be the boxing club nursery and flats no it might might i just want to focus on the question because i just want to be clear about what you mean

01:32:13 be clear about what you mean when you said yes there because i then went to a different document and my question is when you said yes did you mean that you would be responsible for signing off that the design was compliant

01:32:24 compliant or did you mean that you would simply by signing off a prove that the designs shown reflect tmo design choices

01:32:34 the latter that the designs um were what we'd expect in relation to the specifications yes thank you can i then turn to

01:32:46 yes thank you can i then turn to the question of resident involvement in the tender process and can we look please at your february 2019 statement of page eight and i'd like to go to paragraph 39 in

01:32:57 and i'd like to go to paragraph 39 in that please and you say there that in the second sentence residents were invited to take part in the tender review process nobody responded

01:33:08 responded to the general request for assistance and participation and so i personally contacted a number of people to invite them to participate and ultimately i persuaded two leaseholders namely pillyburton flat 165

01:33:19 leaseholders namely pillyburton flat 165 now sadly deceased and mr barakat flat 92 to provide a view on behalf of residents and they assisted us when no one else came forward they were involved with and looked at

01:33:31 they were involved with and looked at the part of the tender concerned with the resident's consultation process and the participation with residents now just first of all to repeat a question i asked mr gibson this morning are you sure

01:33:44 mr gibson this morning are you sure that pilly burton was asked to participate in this process the reason i ask is

01:33:49 ask is because her uh her partner nicholas burton has no recollection that that was the case

01:33:54 the case she was there i i specifically remember her sitting there and being part of the right can we then go to tmo one

01:34:06 can we then go to tmo one three zeros five three one one

01:34:11 and i'd like to go to page five in that please

01:34:14 please this is an exchange between peter madison

01:34:18 madison page five yep page five this is an exchange between councillor blakeman judith blakeman and peter madison in relation to the tower

01:34:28 tower and um you can see there she asks him do i infer correctly from the new calc newsletter that there's been a delay

01:34:36 delay in appointing the contractors for the grenfell tower refurbishment and the consequently the works will not be starting in march and this is dated the 20th of february 2014. so that's the that's the topic and if we go up to the

01:34:47 that's the topic and if we go up to the top of page four a little bit higher up the stream we can see peter madison's response

01:34:56 uh he says in the third paragraph there tenders are currently being evaluated the current proposed date for interviews is friday the 7th of march are you available on this date you see that yes

01:35:08 that yes and he

01:35:11 and he mentions the interviews he also says in the previous paragraph that they anticipated a start on site in the spring of 2014 as we've communicated to residents and the board and if we scroll up to the bottom of

01:35:22 and if we scroll up to the bottom of page

01:35:24 page three we can see councillor blakeman's response

01:35:31 uh 21st of february ps she says i hope there will be one or more residents

01:35:39 residents on the interviewing panel as well then if we scroll up to the bottom of page 2

01:35:47 you can see that this is an email to from you to david gibson on the 21st of february 2014

01:36:00 and you say to him hi just seen this from peter i will look for leaseholder as well as tenant next week i understand that our contractor interviews are more presentations

01:36:11 presentations do you know if peter is aware of this claire

01:36:16 can we take it from that looking at the timing that there had been no plan to involve residents in the interview process as part of the tender until councillor blakeman brought up the subject

01:36:26 subject on the 20th of february 2014. i believe that jenny had been very clear that we should have residents

01:36:37 that we should have residents look at the resident consultation section

01:36:41 section i think there was an issue finding people

01:36:45 people and i know i looked for many people for their 7th of march interviews and nobody volunteered so

01:36:56 volunteered so it was always going to be part of the uh tender evaluation because say jenny here mark that is quite early on

01:37:08 jenny here mark that is quite early on when did you start looking for leaseholders and tenants to take part in the

01:37:12 the tender process i think we've been looking for a while but i i i was still comparatively new so i was finding out who people were so i think i'd looked

01:37:26 who people were so i think i'd looked i think i'd asked housing management if they had anybody who they could identify because it would take people's time and when i did ask

01:37:37 time and when i did ask i think i'm aware that i'd asked 12 people

01:37:40 people for the 7th of march interviews um i think those people were referred by housing management to me as being people who

01:37:47 who possibly may be available but people declined on the basis of time or um doctor's appointments i think there was a little bit of everything

01:37:58 there was a little bit of everything the interviews were on the 7th of march so at this point you only had two weeks to find some residents to sit on the assessment panel didn't you yes can we look at your reaction uh at the bottom of page one and over to

01:38:10 uh at the bottom of page one and over to page

01:38:10 page two

01:38:15 uh i should show you what david gibson sends back to you at the bottom of page one

01:38:20 one and then your reaction to it hi claire just had word with peter and then over the top of page two he will discuss with you next week our current thinking is we assume presentation topic has not

01:38:31 we assume presentation topic has not been set yet we assume it can stroke will be resident focused is it possible for the event to be two parts the formal score presentation something slightly less formal not marked to enable residents counsellor i think

01:38:44 to enable residents counsellor i think to engage with contractors and get some confidence that they can deliver with all the constraints perhaps you can work this out with jenny now this email it was if we go back to

01:38:56 now this email it was if we go back to page one at the bottom of page one we can see dated the 21st of february and so this is all happening then and we can see your reaction to that at the top of page one to jenny jackson

01:39:09 at the top of page one to jenny jackson jenny are you around this is another 24th of february i should say i think we are booked into artelia for 2 p.m today meanwhile can i share the below with you life is getting more complicated maybe we can talk this over this pm

01:39:22 maybe we can talk this over this pm see that yes and if we scroll up to jenny jackson's response

01:39:42 uh well we don't have it on here um but at this point um we are only a few weeks away or a few days away really from the interviews uh to take place

01:39:55 uh to take place uh why was life getting more complicated miss williams i have no idea if there's more of the email that might inform me

01:40:08 more of the email that might inform me but the items that were identified um in terms of the bullet points that was for the 7th of march interviews obviously right i see

01:40:20 obviously right i see let's go to the uh response from jenny jackson

01:40:23 jackson that i was going to show you uh it's tmo one

01:40:26 one triple zero tmo one triple zero five three one three

01:40:41 uh and jenny jackson comes back to you and says

01:40:45 and says i assume this is a joke question mark and you respond to her four minutes later

01:40:53 later morning of the 24th of february jenny i just picked up your voicemail i was rolling on the floor laughing with disbelief too peter is not in today as that was my first job to book him

01:41:04 first job to book him to talk this through see you at 2 pm at artelia

01:41:08 artelia can you explain why you thought this was funny i don't know what i was laughing at the floor about i'm afraid it doesn't particularly

01:41:19 about i'm afraid it doesn't particularly mean that it relates to the above

01:41:22 email well let's scroll down then to page two

01:41:33 to page two we can see that she's responding she jenny is responding to your message to sharing david gibson's message to you

01:41:44 to sharing david gibson's message to you with her

01:41:44 with her do you see and david gibson's message to you

01:41:50 you was as we've just as we've seen at the bottom of page two and three so what was funny about all of that yeah no nothing was funny in terms of the resident communication that was something we were always too committed

01:42:02 something we were always too committed to

01:42:02 to i suspect jenny already had a scenario in mind

01:42:06 in mind so i i i really don't understand what the comments about it doesn't particularly mean it relates to this well what does it relate to i don't know i'm afraid but i i wouldn't make any assumptions

01:42:20 but i i wouldn't make any assumptions because i say what was suggested there in terms of the bullet points was fairly reasonable but i think jenny had already got something in mind that would be my automatic view at looking at that well

01:42:31 automatic view at looking at that well sorry just to butt in there if we go back to

01:42:36 back to the previous document can we do that please

01:42:43 please um no i'm sorry the the one in which uh we're looking at i think before that that's um that's gmo tma one triple zero

01:42:56 that's um that's gmo tma one triple zero five three one three um in fairness to you i see that there was a voicemail which of course we don't have access to yeah no so it could have been something

01:43:07 yeah no so it could have been something totally unrelated i would never say it was about the resident communication because we were always clear that was what we were going to do

01:43:14 to do and i say it was when jenny set out the tender premise there was always going to be a bit on resident communication and i was always going to be finding the

01:43:25 and i was always going to be finding the people who are doing it i i don't automatically connect the two together and i wouldn't want you to either

01:43:31 either well you may not but i want to see if i can make some sense of this you see ms williams and you understand why it's important that we might have to do that uh let's take it in stages um if you

01:43:43 uh let's take it in stages um if you scroll down to to page two just say we're very clear about the documents we've got david gibson writes to you 21st of

01:43:54 david gibson writes to you 21st of february

01:43:55 february hi claire has just had a word with peter he will discuss with you next week our current thinking is and we can see what he sets out there on page three presentation topic not been set yet

01:44:06 been set yet assume that it can will be resident focused is it possible for the event to be in two parts formal something slightly less formal now that's what he says that then goes as we can see if we go

01:44:17 that then goes as we can see if we go back up to page two

01:44:22 do you see that from you to jenny jackson yeah and you say meanwhile can i share the belay with you life is getting more complicated perhaps

01:44:33 life is getting more complicated perhaps we can talk this over that's all you say yeah and then above that as we can see she responds to you saying i assume this is a joke now just

01:44:45 saying i assume this is a joke now just pausing there what is it that you thought she was referring to by the by this um i don't know whether she was queering

01:44:58 i don't know whether she was queering the um the elements of the interview that peter had laid out or whether to say she already had something in mind and she

01:45:10 already had something in mind and she was

01:45:11 was um surprised that another proposal was being put forward i don't know i can't respond for her well i want i'd like you to because you you say in your email response i was

01:45:22 you you say in your email response i was rolling on the floor laughing with disbelief

01:45:25 disbelief too which means you're sharing a joke about something and what i would like to know

01:45:31 know is what was the joke that you were sharing with jenny jackson i don't know but it could have been totally unrelated and i say i i confirmed that the tmo was committed

01:45:44 i i confirmed that the tmo was committed to resident consultation that was never an issue

01:45:47 an issue um for me it was an issue finding people in over the period because i was still new to the project but there's nothing that i can see that was funny i think what was suggested was

01:45:59 was funny i think what was suggested was quite reasonable

01:46:03 right when did you ask housing management for residents names to be put forward for the purposes of the tender i'd asked probably fairly early on when

01:46:15 i'd asked probably fairly early on when i understood that that was required and

01:46:21 yes when was that yeah no i honestly don't remember do you remember who you asked um i would have asked jan jones who was the housing manager right now

01:46:32 housing manager right now uh in your witness statement uh and it's in various places actually but but certainly the 19 the february 19 statement of paragraph 149 you say that the residents

01:46:44 paragraph 149 you say that the residents at um pity burton and mr barakat were involved with and looked at the part of the tender process concerned with the residence consultation process and participation with residents yeah yes

01:46:55 yes now as we understand it there were two resident representatives invited to score uh and you told us who they are there may be a question mark about philly burton but you've given us your evidence on that

01:47:06 your evidence on that is it right that they scored one question on the pq and one question on the itt

01:47:15 i believe it would have been on the itt because the ppq um part of the tender process was complete

01:47:27 part of the tender process was complete i don't remember which questions they scored there was a powerpoint in relation to it jenny presented them with a powerpoint because obviously they were lay people and didn't know what they would be looking at

01:47:37 at so there was a 10 minute presentation explaining what the purpose of the morning or the afternoon was what we were looking at and just

01:47:48 what we were looking at and just briefing them on things they might be looking at and say mr mr barakat and mrs burton were both

01:47:57 were both there and participate i think so it was probably only a morning or an afternoon it wasn't a whole day no that's good let's start with the pqq and

01:48:07 and looking at the questions they were asked to score can we go to art408909 please and on page one of that document you can see that there's some administ

01:48:18 see that there's some administ general administrative information you can see that uh with weightings across the page and if you

01:48:30 and if you look at the second page please at the bottom of the second page we can see that there is item 10 technical ability you see that and the bit and the bidder is asked to provide three examples of major works

01:48:42 provide three examples of major works yes i didn't see the pqq at the time so this the first time i've seen this documentary is that right you've never seen this documentary yeah because i think the pqq closed sometime in september and as a

01:48:53 closed sometime in september and as a result of that the the number of contractors were filtered out to a smaller number who were then invited to tender the itt process right so that's why i said that

01:49:05 process right so that's why i said that i believed uh mrs burton and mr barack out both involved the invitation to tender because as a result of that the tender river was selected i see so so i haven't seen the pqq stuff

01:49:17 i see so so i haven't seen the pqq stuff it was

01:49:18 it was um before my time and i wasn't involved with it was before your time but when you came into the tender process did you not look at the pq queues and how they were scored no why's that um because it was being

01:49:30 no why's that um because it was being managed

01:49:32 managed by jenny with artelia and i said the pqqs

01:49:36 pqqs is spreading the net to see who's going to be involved with the tender as a result of the pqqs there was a five contractors who were

01:49:47 there was a five contractors who were invited to tender so the pqq is a filtering mechanism right i see um can we then go

01:49:59 um can we then go to the

01:50:03 uh

01:50:07 next document which i think is offline which is tmo10084721

01:50:16 now just help me with this

01:50:21 uh it was this the itt spreadsheet

01:50:28 this would have been atelier's overall spreadsheet yes right and we can see from your initials that you were involved in this and by this do do i mean the itt

01:50:44 it looks more like the itt because this includes myself and david and philip who would be the next right set of people okay

01:50:55 the next right set of people okay now if we scroll to rows 16 and 17

01:51:00 we can see uh question sevens point zero 16 resident liaison you see that yes and then 7.1 and i i think i'm right in

01:51:14 and then 7.1 and i i think i'm right in saying and we can scroll up and down if you like but this is the only question where a resident was asked to provide their evaluation is that right

01:51:25 my recollection is it was more because it did take we were there for an hour or two at least well this is i think a summary sheet of the

01:51:34 the results of the um this or rather who was to

01:51:37 to evaluate what part of the itt we can scroll up and down it perhaps we should scroll

01:51:42 scroll to the top and then scroll slowly down to the bottom so you can see the document in its full form so this is artelias and i don't know i would have seen this particularly but it seems to me this is one part

01:51:53 but it seems to me this is one part of the um

01:51:56 of the um the document that this relates to just one section i think there was other sections right well we looking at 7.1 resident liaison

01:52:07 well we looking at 7.1 resident liaison we can see from that 16 and 17 that that residents you and jenny jackson jj were to score that topic yes yes

01:52:20 that topic yes yes were there any other topics from recollection that you thought well you think that residents were also asked to score i believe

01:52:31 to score i believe that there are definitely different scores for different things so i don't know whether it was broken down further

01:52:40 but it was it was about how a contractor would anticipate uh communicating with residents when they're on site so it

01:52:52 they're on site so it did ask them specific questions so i don't know whether their 1500 words was broken into topics right looking at the general topics perhaps we can just go from the top just to

01:53:04 can just go from the top just to make sure we've got your evidence really clear on this if we go to the top of the document

01:53:09 document we can see the topics the first one is i think is general

01:53:18 and that's about the organization and supply chains and then under two is logistics now it doesn't look as if that was something that residents were asked to score and no reason why they should be

01:53:29 no reason why they should be did you accept that yes and then three program again it doesn't look like that that's that was something that residents were going to be asked to score and again there's no reason why they should be

01:53:40 be correct yes and then supply chain same question

01:53:44 question yes yes and then planning again same question

01:53:48 question you wouldn't expect residents to have any meaningful input into that would you know

01:53:51 know and then quality is that something that you would have expected residents to have input into no no resident liaison yes we've seen that

01:54:01 that grant funding is that something you would have expected residents to have input into no and the environmental what about that

01:54:10 um i'm minimizing no no that's about minimization of waste and recycling and then uh tender price which is at the bottom and

01:54:21 and not i think a topic on its own and then interview scoring so it's identified i think nine topics in all are there any other topics from recollection that you can think of where the residents were asked

01:54:33 where the residents were asked to provide their scores i i can't remember i don't remember this documentation and i don't remember exactly what the residents were asked to whether say that question seven may have

01:54:45 whether say that question seven may have been broken down into more specific details i think if you looked at the paragraph there was about five or six points

01:54:53 points yes can we then look at the context of uh

01:54:56 uh in which this sits which is our tedious final tender report this is at art402197 please

01:55:03 please and i'd like to have pages seven and eight up together on the screen on page seven

01:55:18 on page seven on page seven we see um the uh as a box on the bottom of that page with the criteria and the

01:55:29 of that page with the criteria and the waiting and you can see the tender price gets 34 percent price for alternative works gets six percent

01:55:36 percent see that yes and then there's technical quality with a with a list of sub percentages you see that organization logistics program supply chain planning and then over the page onto page eight

01:55:47 and then over the page onto page eight quality

01:55:48 quality uh resident liaison grant funding and environment and they correspond to don't they to the the score sheet we've just been looking at the excel spreadsheet and we can see that resident liaison there gets 15

01:56:00 that resident liaison there gets 15 do you see that yes um it it and and if we're if it's right that the only issue that residents were invited to comment on was resident liaison as we've seen

01:56:11 seen um then they were um really limited in their the scope of their comments to 15 of the overall percentage

01:56:23 it's a weighted 15 yes indeed in this part obviously we were trying to get residents to attend the formal interviews and say i did approach 12 residents

01:56:35 and say i did approach 12 residents of whom no nobody was interested or had the time

01:56:38 the time right um i i i put to you the list of uh things like such as program and quality

01:56:46 quality uh and i think you readily accepted that those were not things which you would expect the residents to be involved in scoring um i may have put that to you too readily and you may have accepted it too readily but maybe not

01:56:59 accepted it too readily but maybe not so can i ask the question why were residents not invited to score on items such as program or quality

01:57:06 the program would be something that you'd be asking the contractor how would they program their works you'd be looking for reasonable lead-in

01:57:17 you'd be looking for reasonable lead-in times you'd be looking for

01:57:20 a program that was viable we already heard from artelia in anticipation of a number of weeks we'd expect maybe them to put the trades

01:57:31 we'd expect maybe them to put the trades in order so you could understand the program

01:57:33 program it would be unlikely that a lay person would

01:57:36 would understand that

01:57:40 when you say a layperson what assumptions were you making about the components of the profile of the residents

01:57:48 residents who occupied this building

01:57:51 i would make no assumptions about their profile because i know there were many different people with many different skills

01:58:00 skills but to have an understanding of a building program is something that perhaps wouldn't have crossed most people's experience that was an assumption you made was it or did you actually ask people what no

01:58:12 or did you actually ask people what no we didn't ask people we made the assumption better say i would never underestimate the skills of residents no i'm not suggesting that you would under underestimate the skills they did have

01:58:24 they did have but i'm really suggesting to you that they assumed they didn't have skills relating to programmable quality that could be brought to bear in the tender process

01:58:31 process possibly yes yes i see um

01:58:36 now we also see while we're on those two pages how the scores then break down and uh it interview i think is at the very bottom of that box on page eight as five percent

01:58:49 eight as five percent uh so i think technical quality accounts for 55 percent of the score price gets 34 percent and interviews get 5

01:58:59 the interviews were the other area in which residents could participate yes yes so in reality in total they get in terms of weighting participation in something which is 15

01:59:11 participation in something which is 15 and something which is five percent so 20 in all

01:59:14 20 in all and beyond that they're not involved yes yes

01:59:19 am i right in thinking that in every case residents scores were considered along with the tmo scores yes were they averaged together that's the way that i believe the scoring is usually done yes so the

01:59:32 scoring is usually done yes so the resident schools didn't stand alone as a 15

01:59:35 15 score it was it was your views and their views

01:59:38 views combined uh yes i think there's a mechanism for doing this which i'll tell you i did

01:59:51 yeah you're right yeah no i'm fine yeah and and yes philip booth told us that the process was that the artelia numbers would then be compared with the tma straight resident numbers and then the decision would be made as to the

02:00:02 the decision would be made as to the final score is that right yeah they do a median or something of that sort there's a calculation so i think the process i think so far been able to quantify

02:00:13 think so far been able to quantify the input that residents had into the tender process is that is that a fair summary of what we've just been discussing that they did look at those two areas you've discussed yes then i can turn i think to

02:00:25 discussed yes then i can turn i think to the reports which recommended ryden the first is a document um which we've been looking at previously in this inquiry which is art402197

02:00:36 art402197 and this is artelia's final tender report of the 12th of march 2014.

02:00:47 this is a document that i'm going to assume you saw at the time and we're familiar with yes yes yes can we go to page 25 of that

02:00:57 this is the formal part of it where they express their conclusion and they recommend that approval be given to appointment of ryden as a as a contractor i've summarized it there

02:01:08 as a contractor i've summarized it there but that's right isn't it yes and they explain their reasons for that

02:01:13 that the most competitive tender price and the highest quality marking making it the most economically advantageous tender now you do you recall that two days before that

02:01:24 before that on the 10th of march you produced a report

02:01:28 report about the tender internally for the tmo i did a report yes i don't know the timing of it yes let's go to it it's

02:01:38 tmo10040921

02:01:43 this is a report i think you produced looking at its first page entitled permission to let the grenfell tower contract

02:01:52 contract you see that yes uh and uh this is your report i think it's indeed uh yes i did a report so well we can scroll to the bottom if we just scroll to the bottom of the document we can see your name there yeah no so it

02:02:05 we can see your name there yeah no so it looks like my format yeah williams 10th of march 2014. just to put it beyond doubt right so and going back uh up up it we can go to the second page page two we can see um uh

02:02:18 page two we can see um uh as we have done your your date but we go up a little bit we get your recommendation you see that uh it is recommended that the

02:02:25 the contract be let to ryden after the standstill period which is 10 days from the announcement of the selection in lines with in lines with ojeu regulations so that any challenges can be addressed

02:02:36 so that any challenges can be addressed you see that yes and um

02:02:39 and um [Applause] yeah this is the date of the 10th of march would you say that by that date it was clear to you that ryden had effectively won

02:02:52 i think that yes i'll tell you i had done some work with the numbers and i think it was yeah obviously i mean you've had the interviews yes yeah because the interviews were the seventh weren't you they were exactly

02:03:04 seventh weren't you they were exactly right

02:03:04 right they were on the seventh yeah and um you've had the itt's and they've been scored

02:03:11 scored and my question again would you say that by the time you came to write this report

02:03:15 report it was clear to you at least that ryden had in effect won yes yes did you discuss uh this report or rather your recommendation in it

02:03:26 recommendation in it with anybody at the tma before you wrote this report

02:03:34 i would have there would have been a draft

02:03:40 so yes who did you discuss it with um i would have shared a draft with david gibson possibly of peter madison

02:03:52 now here you see as i've shown you that you refer to the standstill period being 10 days from the announcement of selection in line with oje regulations can we assume that you

02:04:03 oje regulations can we assume that you are

02:04:04 are familiar at least to that extent with the ojeu standstill period i believe jenny would have told me that was the bottom line yes right did you know what its purpose was um

02:04:15 did you know what its purpose was um only that as it says here to um allow any challenges to be made and in the third paragraph there are some bullet points

02:04:26 some bullet points and you say just above those the main proviso is that after the contract is let discussions are held properly with ryden to deal with and there are a number of things in

02:04:38 and there are a number of things in those bullet points and the last bullet point says this the contract sum should not extend beyond the works original budget for the scheme

02:04:45 scheme allowed of 8.415 million pounds the budget as stated on 8th of january 2013 is 9.768 million comprising fees

02:04:57 comprising fees 8.415 k and fees 1.353 k now you make it very clear that the and this is your main proviso as i'm

02:05:09 and this is your main proviso as i'm showing you is that the discussions on that bullet point should be had after the contract is let was that your understanding at the date you signed this report

02:05:21 at the date you signed this report i suspect that that was what i i would have

02:05:25 have talked to my manager about it and i think that would have been the outcome yes

02:05:29 yes you would have talked to your manager that's david gibson yeah so is it right that you and david gibson well understood and indeed were prepared to report as a main proviso

02:05:41 main proviso that there would be no discussions on the subject of budgets exceeding 8.415

02:05:52 exceeding 8.415 million pounds until after the contract was let

02:05:56 was let well that that's what i've written so yeah it is and and i'm really just suggesting to you very simply that is what you understood at the time yes yes

02:06:07 and what was the source of your understanding that that was to be only after those discussions could only happen after the contract was let i believe i would have been talking to

02:06:18 i believe i would have been talking to jenny i see

02:06:22 now your list doesn't include anything about value engineering at the time you wrote this report did you understand that the tma would be seeking to value engineer the contract down further from ryden's quoted price

02:06:33 down further from ryden's quoted price of 9.21 million pounds i was aware that the tender had come in higher than the budget yes but i obviously wasn't clear as to how

02:06:45 but i obviously wasn't clear as to how um how we were going to get there apart from as it says here um discuss after the contract is let which is

02:06:53 which is i don't know whether that's the only way to do it

02:06:59 to do it yes i mean do we understand your final bullet point there essentially to be an allusion to value engineering down from 9.2 to 8.14

02:07:10 value engineering down from 9.2 to 8.14 million

02:07:12 million well it says it shouldn't extend beyond the works budget so yes yes thank you

02:07:26 yes yes thank you [Applause] moving a little bit further forward in time

02:07:34 time uh did you go to a meeting at the tma's offices on the 18th of march 2014 with ryden

02:07:46 i i don't know do we know what the meeting was about what's the we do let's look at roid four zeros three three zero two

02:08:06 and there's a long run up to this uh but uh

02:08:13 but uh in the middle of page one there's an email from steve blake david gibson copied to you which follows from earlier emails below it

02:08:24 it uh from david gibson to steve blake earlier that day in which david gibson sends steve blake a simple spreadsheet indicating areas

02:08:35 a simple spreadsheet indicating areas for price reductions to the tune of eight hundred thousand pounds okay and in the middle email steve blake says to david gibson by way of response

02:08:47 of response hi david understand what's required and see no reason why this can't be achieved your spreadsheet says a tuesday pm meet rather than monday pm as email would work which would work perfectly

02:08:57 perfectly as requested we will respond early monday

02:09:02 you see that yeah and then the meeting took place and there are other documents i can show you i think but the meeting then took place

02:09:10 place as mr gibson told us this morning in the afternoon

02:09:13 afternoon of tuesday the 18th of march 2014 with ryden at the tma's offices and he said that you were there yeah no that's fine i just wasn't clear what the

02:09:24 that's fine i just wasn't clear what the subject was but yes no that was the subject

02:09:30 now artelia was not at that meeting were they

02:09:36 i don't remember don't know

02:09:40 do you remember anything about the

02:09:44 meeting i think we looked at a list of possible savings

02:09:56 was the list given to you by ryden

02:10:01 i think we both had lists you both had lists were they the same list or were they separate lists oh i don't remember

02:10:09 remember don't remember i think they were they were

02:10:12 were ideas put forward and i think they're put forward by both parties right well let's first look then at the spreadsheet that david gibson

02:10:25 spreadsheet that david gibson had sent to steve blake which is attached to his email which was copied to you on the 13th of march and that is at ryd403301 please

02:10:37 march and that is at ryd403301 please from memory 3301

02:10:50 was that an email was that a document that was on the table if there was a table at the meeting of the 18th of march

02:11:01 [Applause]

02:11:04 it could have been yes right can i show you another document which is

02:11:13 ryd403490

02:11:22 please this is a ryden document which sets out savings

02:11:28 savings under a number of heads but under the overall title for grenfell tower value engineering options now we know that this document was sent by ryden

02:11:37 by ryden katie bachelier to the tma on the 20th of march was this document

02:11:45 document on the table at the 18th of march meeting i don't remember does it look familiar it does look familiar but i don't know when i saw it you would have seen it on

02:11:57 when i saw it you would have seen it on the 20th of march or thereafter my question is really whether it was put on the table in front of the tmo at the 18th of march meeting i don't remember but they may have just

02:12:10 i don't remember but they may have just talked around it

02:12:17 do you remember discussions about savings

02:12:20 savings for cladding that would result by substituting aluminium for zinc we'd always looked at the big ticket items

02:12:31 items um to see if there was any options there and clearly that is one item that's on this list here so it would have been talked about

02:12:42 so it would have been talked about [Applause] and you can see that this document identifies a saving of 293.000 was that discussed at this meeting do you remember well i don't know whether so my

02:12:54 well i don't know whether so my suspicion would be that ryden would talk around it and perhaps not put a figure they would say we'll take it away and look at it so you said this came out in the 20th so

02:13:05 so you said this came out in the 20th so quite likely they did take it away and think about it right so you have at least this recollection that there was a meeting at the tma's offices with ryden to talk about prices

02:13:17 offices with ryden to talk about prices and reduction in their bid yes on the 18th of march yes and that was before

02:13:24 before notification of of the winner yes yeah and that was it would follow of course before the letting of the contract yes yes and that was contrary to what

02:13:36 yes yes and that was contrary to what you had said in your as a proviso in your 10th of march report wasn't it yes why was that why was this meeting happening

02:13:47 happening in spite of your clear proviso in your 10th of march report

02:13:54 i believe the tmo wanted to get resolution of the contract some as soon as possible

02:14:01 did you realize that having a discussion of this nature with ryden would put the tender process at risk of being compromised i was aware that peter had taken legal

02:14:13 i was aware that peter had taken legal advice

02:14:16 but i think that the the aim was to see if we could very quickly resolve the contract some so as you say

02:14:28 the contract some so as you say it it perhaps was um

02:14:33 trying to um look at the options earlier perhaps

02:14:39 perhaps than after the standstill period yes do you accept that it was contrary to the proviso you'd set out in your it was different from my report it's contrary to it's not just different it's

02:14:51 contrary to it's not just different it's a country it's country too yes thank you we've never seen a written note of this meeting

02:14:58 meeting now you were there do you remember whether anybody took a written note at this meeting

02:15:05 i didn't i suspect it was more looking at headings and talking through any options hmm

02:15:18 talking through any options hmm looking at headings and talking through options isn't of itself a reason not to take a note of a meeting where you're discussing a 800 000 reduction to a 9.2 million pound budget

02:15:29 budget was there a discussion at the meeting about not taking a note of the meeting miss williams i don't recall that being mentioned can you explain why there is no written record of this min of this

02:15:41 is no written record of this min of this meeting at all

02:15:45 no i don't know is it because the meeting was a secret meeting which was improper as everybody well knew who were present

02:15:56 i don't think so i i don't think improper is a motive word um all right let me try a different word is it is it the position that there was

02:16:07 is it is it the position that there was no written note of this meeting because everybody who was attending knew that it shouldn't be taking place

02:16:17 i think it was an introductory meeting to look at what we could look at in terms of options

02:16:25 options and

02:16:28 i don't remember there being i was probably the most junior in the room so possibly i should have taken notes but i wasn't asked to did anybody at the meeting say let's not take a note of this meeting it's offline i don't remember that being

02:16:41 it's offline i don't remember that being mentioned

02:16:41 mentioned but to say you know people probably would have looked to me as the most junior in the room and i wasn't asked to take notes so i didn't did you have any sort of say as to whether this meeting should take place

02:16:52 whether this meeting should take place contrary to the uh proviso that you'd put very clearly in your 10th of march report

02:16:58 report no you did you express any kind of uh any kind of dismay that the meeting was happening in contrary to what you'd put in your

02:17:09 in contrary to what you'd put in your report no

02:17:11 report no did you feel that you could say that

02:17:16 i wanted to move the project forward and i didn't say anything against this idea of having a

02:17:26 meeting now could you please go next to art408632 this is the letter to ryden dated the

02:17:38 this is the letter to ryden dated the 18th of march 2000 2014 in which ryden are told that they are the preferred bidder and i'm summarizing

02:17:50 the preferred bidder and i'm summarizing what's

02:17:51 what's said in the first paragraph there but looking at it a little bit more closely the writer of this email which is this letter which is phil booth from artelia says in the second line we have now concluded the tender

02:18:02 we have now concluded the tender evaluation process and we have been authorized by casey tma as employers agent for the above mentioned project to inform you that you are the preferred bidder and it is the intention of kctma to enter into contract with you subject to

02:18:13 enter into contract with you subject to the agreement of the site boundary and formal approval from the kctmo board and the royal borough of kensington and chelsea council rbkc

02:18:23 there's no mention in there of the meeting of the 18th of march or any prospective value engineering in this letter is there i'm only seeing the top of the letter but

02:18:33 but well i suspect not at this stage at this stage no

02:18:37 stage no problem you can take it from me that there isn't okay this letter was sent out well we'll see let's go to art408755

02:18:48 art408755 this is the email under which this uh this letter was sent by peter blythe of artelia to peter arnold ryden and you can see the time 5 55 p.m so that was after the 18th of

02:19:00 5 55 p.m so that was after the 18th of of march meeting wasn't it yes so it was the decision to send this letter made but between the end of the 18th of march meeting at the tmas offices and 5 55 pm that same day

02:19:13 and 5 55 pm that same day i don't know who was it at the tmo who told artelia to send this message send this letter um i don't know it wasn't myself it wasn't you you don't know who it was

02:19:25 it wasn't you you don't know who it was no if it wasn't you it can only have been either peter madison or david gibson surely yes it would have been one of those two but it wasn't myself right was ryden's

02:19:38 right was ryden's uh or rather was artelia's notification to ryden held back until they had agreed or at least indicated that they could they they could reduce their price

02:19:50 they they could reduce their price by the 800 000 pounds that the tmo had indicated

02:19:56 i i don't know i wasn't involved with the sending out of the notice so i don't know right

02:20:10 can we go to your february 2019 statement please page 32

02:20:20 and i'd like to go to paragraph 181 the paragraph 181 you say this on the 17th of march 2014 and then he referred to a document

02:20:32 and then he referred to a document artelia formally advised ryden that their tender proposal had been accepted their tender proposals were for 9.2 million pounds which was above the funding available but was thought to be achievable

02:20:43 but was thought to be achievable with some refinement aimed at saving approximately five hundred thousand pounds

02:20:47 pounds i'm aware that it was identified at that stage that there could be a saving of almost 250 000 pounds in respect to the cladding

02:20:54 cladding [Applause] now note the date 17th of march if we go to the exhibit that you're referring to that which you refer to as cw

02:21:05 cw 27 that is a tmo one one triple zero five four seven four let's look at what it is you refer to there

02:21:16 now this is a a letter which bears the 17th of march date and the title and it's to ryden and the title is notice of award of a contract subject to agreement over site boundary

02:21:28 subject to agreement over site boundary issues enhancement and improvements to grenfell tower etc now that is not the final version that was sent to ryden i showed you a moment ago was it because

02:21:39 it because that version had 18th of march on it and a different title yes that's a different version yeah it's a different version so this is an earlier version isn't it yes so what you're referring to

02:21:50 yes so what you're referring to on your in your statement as the 17th of march

02:21:53 march letter is in fact not the right document that wasn't the document under which ryden would notify that they were the winner was it agreed right and

02:22:03 right and and at this stage well perhaps we should just look at some metadata on it if we go to art 402210

02:22:16 metadata on it if we go to art 402210 we can see here that this document i'm showing you on the screen now gets amended by somebody called jenny

02:22:27 and we can see that these amendments are are made

02:22:35 uh and if we go to page eight of this document we i think can see a bit more detail about the

02:22:41 the timing and the identity of the person who made the amendments because here are the

02:22:46 the i call the metadata but it's a list of of the changes and you can see that jenny makes the changes and you can see that they are all made

02:22:54 all made uh in the early evening of the 17th of march can you see yes and jenny i i'm going to assume unless you tell me wrong differently as jenny jackson i assume so yeah right was there any other

02:23:05 assume so yeah right was there any other jenny involved in this process no so it looks as if the document you refer to not only wasn't the one that was sent out but was then amended by jenny late in

02:23:16 then amended by jenny late in late in the day on the 17th of march now that stage of course the 18th of march meeting was scheduled but hadn't yet happened had it right is is is there a reason why

02:23:27 right is is is there a reason why this letter didn't go out on the 17th of march

02:23:34 i can only assume what everybody looking at it would assume that they'd written it on the 17th and and jenny

02:23:40 and jenny picked up errors that meant it didn't go till it wasn't revised and didn't get posted out to the 18th well is the reason why this letter didn't go on the 17th of march

02:23:51 on the 17th of march or perhaps early in the morning of the 18th of march when she'd made her amendments was because you were waiting to see what happened at the 18th of march meeting with riding i don't know i don't know whether it

02:24:02 i don't know i don't know whether it took artelia a while to do the amendments i don't know i wasn't involved with this part of the attender

02:24:10 you see had the notifications been sent to the bidders on the 17th of march that ryden were the winner and the others were the losers then a meeting on the 18th of march with ryden

02:24:21 the 18th of march with ryden would have occurred at least post notification and not pre-notification wouldn't it yes

02:24:30 when you did your witness statement and said that the winners were formally informed on the 17th of march why did you do that um my assumption was that i probably had the draft letter in my directories in my folders

02:24:44 in my directories in my folders but i possibly didn't have the amended 18th of march one so i'd assumed the 17th of march one which

02:24:52 which clearly seeing this now as a draft had been

02:24:55 been sent out

02:24:59 when was the first time that you discovered that in fact the notification of a preferred bit of status was sent to ryden on the 18th of march not the 17th of march as you said in your statement um probably only recently

02:25:13 um probably only recently in the last month maybe something like that right is there any reason why you didn't see fit to make a correction by way of a supplemental statement no it

02:25:25 by way of a supplemental statement no it obviously wasn't brought to my attention so i i would have if i'd spotted it but i say to me it looks though i'd saved the

02:25:32 the original letter in my directory and didn't have the updated one right

02:25:41 could one of the reasons be tell me if this is wrong that you knew very well that the letter to ryden did not go until the evening of the 18th of march after the all-important meeting with ryden and that you said 17th of march in order

02:25:53 and that you said 17th of march in order to make it look as if it had gone before i wish i had the acumen to think like that no it was a pure admin error on my part because i got the wrong

02:26:02 wrong bit of paper in my folders now you were fully aware of all the conversations going on within ryden between the 11th and the 18th of march about value engineering weren't you

02:26:14 about value engineering weren't you i was at that meeting that you described the 18th

02:26:18 the 18th i'm don't know what else you mean by well you were privy to the emails oh yeah i was copied in the emails you were copied in all the emails and so you could tell at least from the emails that we've seen that you were aware

02:26:29 we've seen that you were aware that within the tmo there were discussions between the tmo and ryden about value engineering to the tune of eight hundred thousand pounds yes yeah yes why haven't you mentioned anything about that in your statement

02:26:41 anything about that in your statement or statements

02:26:44 i don't know i suspect the emphasis of my statements was more about the construction of the tower rather than

02:26:53 than some of the background i don't know it would have been something i would have been advised on and it possibly wasn't um highlighted is one of the reasons why there is nothing at all in your witness

02:27:04 nothing at all in your witness statements about these discussions with writing prior to the notification of preferred bit of status is because you knew they were improper no i deny that that's not true it was

02:27:16 no i deny that that's not true it was something that wasn't picked up i was concentrating and was obviously guided as to what i put in my statement my emphasis was more on the construction of the tower that the tender process wasn't something

02:27:28 that the tender process wasn't something that i was majorly involved with and didn't cross my mind mr chairman is that a convenient moment yes i think it is thank you very much

02:27:39 yes i think it is thank you very much thomas williams i think we've reached the point where we ought to stop for the day

02:27:42 day um i am going to have to ask you to come back and answer some more questions tomorrow but i think you were expecting that anyway um we'll resume at 10 o'clock tomorrow please

02:27:52 please and in the meantime please don't monday i'm sorry monday without forgetting myself aren't i you'll resume at 10 o'clock on monday and in the meantime because there are several days between now and then please don't talk to anyone

02:28:04 now and then please don't talk to anyone about your evidence or anything related to it

02:28:07 to it i won't all right thank you very much thank you

02:28:10 thank you then please

02:28:24 right mr minute thank you very much monday

02:28:28 monday on monday monday thank you thank you very much

02:29:08 you