TMO witness evidence on procurement and consultant management during the Grenfell refurbishment project
00:00:07 would you ask mr madison to come back in please
00:00:09 please thank you
00:00:19 all right mr medicine yes thank you i'm sorry there are some noises off so perhaps i should ask you just keep your voice up a bit more than usual sure and i don't think they'll need troubles too much okay yes mr millet
00:00:33 troubles too much okay yes mr millet mr chairman thank you can i ask you to go to your uh notebook for for um the period
00:00:43 eight seven tm00879 seven seven one please
00:00:49 and i'd like to turn to page seventeen please
00:00:54 [Music] uh and this is a diary entry which you can see on the uh right hand side which relates uh to a meeting
00:01:03 meeting it seems on the 4th of march the 4th of february i'm sorry 2013. do you see that yes and it says in the third line down ledbit is critical
00:01:14 critical of max fordham and studio e can you recall what that entry was about no i don't recall you don't do you remember ledbitter being critical of studio e in any way no i don't you don't
00:01:27 no i don't you don't [Music]
00:01:29 [Music] the only reason to think that this entry is wrong in any way and that it doesn't record something you thought at the time um it clearly record something that i recorded at the
00:01:42 record something that i recorded at the time
00:01:42 time and um but it doesn't it doesn't require it doesn't ring a bell it doesn't ring a bell at all can we please go then to art401206
00:01:59 this is an email from robert powell to you 24th of may we looked at earlier and we could see that it attached the addendum status report that we've now looked at in some detail
00:02:10 looked at in some detail and as i showed you before he says in the second sentence this should now give you the comfort you're looking for to proceed with looking to reprocure the construction against our earlier recommendation which was based on now obsolete
00:02:21 which was based on now obsolete information what was the comfort that you were looking for in proceeding with reprocurement and i think that's just robert's words i mean we were just looking for a recommendation from
00:02:32 recommendation from artelia as to how to take the procurement forward well are you able to explain why he thought that you were looking for comfort in producing the addendum no i can't explain
00:02:43 can we go to art 40s 9020 please
00:02:55 this is an email chain between robert powell
00:02:58 powell and david gibson on the 24th and 28th of may
00:03:02 may 2013 and uh we can see it starts at the bottom of page one on the 24th of may with robert powell's email to david gibson
00:03:09 gibson copied to among other people to you mr madison do you see that yes and he's apologizing to david gibson for having left him off the earlier correspondence which
00:03:20 off the earlier correspondence which which is what attached the addendum and then we can see at the top of the page
00:03:25 page uh david gibson writes back to robert powell
00:03:28 powell you see that and you're also copied in on it you see you're the last copy party do you see yes robert thanks for this the recommendations within the addendum are in line with our discussions of last
00:03:39 are in line with our discussions of last week and allows us to progress towards reprocuring the construction do you see that yes and then it talks about meeting again on thursday the 6th at 3 p.m at your offices
00:03:50 your offices um the it looks as if the tmo had discussed what recommendations it would like artelia to make
00:03:58 make is that right
00:04:02 um i don't recall um
00:04:06 um [Music]
00:04:10 well just looking at it it says the recommendations this is from david gibson the recommendations within the addendum are in line with our discussions of last week
00:04:20 week so it looks as if uh there were discussions last week which produced an addendum which were in line with them that's right isn't it um yes it sounds like there's been a meeting between of the two parties
00:04:32 meeting between of the two parties and there's been an agreement to redraft the report yes yes and did artelia ask sorry did tmo ask artelia
00:04:43 ask artelia to make a recommendation to reprocure i can't remember that meeting can we then go to art406418 please
00:04:54 now this uh is an email from robert powell
00:04:57 powell uh to simon cash on the 22nd of may 2013. it follows the from the day before the 21st of may when we saw that there was a meeting and the
00:05:09 we saw that there was a meeting and the the overruling email if i can if i can put it that way um and it's discussing the drafting of the addendum so it predates the addendum and it says
00:05:21 so it predates the addendum and it says simon stroke philip attached my draft addendum to our april report to the tmo fundamentally it says this is a bit of political lubrication to give the tmo justification to go
00:05:33 to give the tmo justification to go against the recommendation in our original report which suggested they keep ledbitter involved with the project
00:05:40 project what was the purpose of the report mr madison
00:05:44 madison to justify going against artelia's initial advice not as far as i was aware my understanding was that we'd asked our tell
00:05:52 tell we'd met with atelier agreed what we uh a way forward and asked them to produce a report that reflected that agreement did your wanting a written addendum
00:06:04 wanting a written addendum to artelia's 23rd of april status report serve any political purpose as far as you were concerned no it was purely for internal use so we had clarity about
00:06:16 had clarity about what we were doing and what the recommendation was it's clear that mr powell thought that your request for the addendum was as he put it a bit of political lubrication
00:06:27 put it a bit of political lubrication can you explain why from your point of view at the time that he might have got that impression no
00:06:34 no he says to give the tmo justification to go against the recommendation in our original report can you explain why he thought the tmo needed or wanted justification
00:06:45 needed or wanted justification to go against the recommendation in the original report which was not to reprocure
00:06:51 reprocure it's a very perplexing piece of text um no i i mean my understanding was that the tmo had met artelia we'd explained our priorities
00:07:04 we'd explained our priorities and we discussed those with artelia and agreed
00:07:07 agreed a way forward that was to be drafted into a report i think the inferences that robert has here
00:07:13 here are incorrect but this is an internal correspondence within the within i'll tell you i haven't had any sight of this no i appreciate that but it looks as if what happened summarizing it to this
00:07:25 what happened summarizing it to this point
00:07:26 point is that you'd had a discussion sorry you'd had the status report in april discussed it in april and then there'd been a discussion on the 21st of may where you'd ask for an
00:07:37 the 21st of may where you'd ask for an addendum
00:07:38 addendum and they produced the addendum and internally within apple yards they've got the impression at least that this was a piece of political lubrication to give you a piece of paper uh which ju
00:07:49 to give you a piece of paper uh which ju which justified uh you're not taking their advice which was not to reprocure but instead wanting now to go ahead with reprocurement is that fair um
00:08:01 is that fair um i'm a little bit that was quite a long question um yeah i'm summarizing the history i could put it more shortly mr madison did you want the addendum there's a piece of paper
00:08:12 piece of paper so that you could justify to whoever asked why it was you weren't taking artelia's original advice it was more about so we had something that
00:08:21 that explained what action we were going to be taking and why so it wasn't about justifying something that happened in the past it was about i was looking for artelia to recommend a way forward
00:08:32 way forward when you were looking for artelier to recommend reprocurement to be precise weren't you that's what we'd agreed with them yes and you wanted them to write a report which was different from their first report
00:08:42 report yes yeah now there was then a revision can we go to our art 40s 9106 please
00:09:05 that's right i'm just conscious of that there is a lot of noise and i'm wondering whether the witness feels able to concentrate on this very detailed question which is on important
00:09:17 detailed question which is on important topics i've said how you finally get this medicine um
00:09:22 um difficult i think that's what you'd like to say yes yes yes all right and um i think i'll i think we'll write for five minutes to see whether we can resolve this problem
00:09:33 see whether we can resolve this problem um i was waiting to see mr agaros quite how things developed and i'm very less to allow proceedings to be disrupted by the sort of testing that's going on
00:09:45 the sort of testing that's going on outside which is extremely foolish since the whole point of this inquiry is to obtain justice for grenfell but there we are
00:09:53 are um we'll rise five minutes right um you'll remember what i told you earlier about not discussing your evidence when
00:10:02 she
00:10:08 i'm going to say 20 past because it's easier to come back to a specific time rather than try and work out five minutes on the clock very well mr trump
00:28:57 yes would you ask uh mr madison to come back in please thank you very much
00:29:11 on this medicine i think it'd be easier to concentrate now um mr millet i'm going to suggest that we push through it'll help us three very good messages but i think we should have a break run about half past three because i think
00:29:22 past three because i think to run for two hours without a break is more than is reasonable to expect mr madison to understand no that's absolutely all right mr miller thank you
00:29:31 thank you mr madison i hope that you could hear and understand my questions in the run-up to the break we just had but if you've got any lingering doubts about it i'm happy to go back and revisit any questions you want me to
00:29:43 revisit any questions you want me to i think we'll probably cover the areas as we go forward i think so too well then let's uh let's move on art full zero is 9106 please
00:29:56 now this is a set of minutes of the tmo meeting to review the project on the 6th of june 2013 and we can see you were present at the meeting
00:30:07 meeting if you go to item 2 please on the first page under the heading contractor procurement it says pm requested apple yards to review the previous addendum report
00:30:19 to review the previous addendum report to include greater detail on programming costs to demonstrate that tendering the contract will deliver greater value for money the main project driver did you ask for a stronger statement
00:30:32 stronger statement that reprocurement would deliver value for money then was in the original addendum the addendum of the 24th of may i don't really recall is there anything that's sitting there now leads you to
00:30:43 that's sitting there now leads you to think that that minute as recorded there is wrong um no no now the report itself is at art double zero six one eight one
00:30:56 [Music]
00:31:00 and this is a a status report or the status report and it says april 2013 for the tmo uh 22nd of april 2013
00:31:14 for the tmo uh 22nd of april 2013 and never mind the oddity about that date
00:31:18 date the original one said 23rd but leave that on one side and in brackets it says updated 18th june 2013. is this the document that you asked artelia to
00:31:29 artelia to review in the 6th of june meeting
00:31:34 i don't know i can't recall i'm saying i'm sorry i've asked a question that's probably
00:31:41 probably assumes the answer to the previous one which i haven't asked you yet can we go within this document first please to page 27.
00:31:51 here we see the addendum which has now found its way into the status report so this looks as if this is the status report from april which now contains the addendum from may
00:32:05 and uh is this document you saw at the time do you think i've got no reason to believe why why it shouldn't be right now can we go to art four zeros one two four one please
00:32:17 one two four one please oh sorry before we leave this i'm sorry i do want to get back page four if we go to page four we can see the version history of this document and we can see if we go there that uh
00:32:30 if we go there that uh the distribution was 22nd of april 2013 paul duncan and then 19th of june 2013 peter madison so was this do you think
00:32:42 peter madison so was this do you think the report that came as a result of you giving artelia the instruction that we saw at the 6th of june 2013 meeting i can't recall all right now if we
00:32:54 i can't recall all right now if we go to art401241 this will be an email from simon cash to you
00:33:01 you on the 19th of june 2013 and copied to others
00:33:05 others at tmo and artelia attaching status report june version 5 final do you see that yes and
00:33:16 do you see that yes and it says peter apologies for the delay in issuing this to you but it has taken longer than i anticipated to update our status report following our discussion last week i'm aware that you have a board meeting
00:33:27 aware that you have a board meeting tomorrow and may not have sufficient time to review what i've written but in essence i've taken on board your comments and reworded sections to read in a better light i've also attached a further copy of the near-term action
00:33:38 near-term action program did you ask simon cash to reword the report to read in a better light it sounds like simon and i have had a conversation about the report and i've
00:33:49 conversation about the report and i've asked him to redraft parts of it yes thank you and let's just see what parts have been redrafted as a result of your request can we please have the original status
00:34:00 can we please have the original status report up at page five that art four zero is nine one zero one
00:34:10 and at the same time i wonder whether we can have
00:34:15 uh a art a rt and i wonder if we can do this art four zero six one eight one page five i'd like to be able to show those pages at the same time
00:34:29 so that there they are the first one is april
00:34:33 april the second one is june having been through the addendum process and just looking at the left-hand side the original report uh in the bullet point list you can see
00:34:44 uh in the bullet point list you can see it says
00:34:45 it says uh client brief has been allowed to allow to develop in a piecemeal fashion over time
00:34:50 over time absence of a controlled and managed scope for the project late commitment to a defined construction budget historic relationship and contractual position
00:35:00 position regarding the associated calc project may have frustrated good and proactive progress
00:35:05 progress uh absence of earlier intervention absence of proper change control applied to the design brief and slow reaction of the proposed contractor to address and align cost plans there was that was what was in the original report
00:35:17 what was in the original report and if we compare that with page five on the right-hand side of the june version which you were sent under cover of the 19th of june email we've been looking at there's a new set of bullet points
00:35:29 there's a new set of bullet points and it says in summary there are a number of contributory factors that have led
00:35:33 led to the present situation including first bullet point now the development of the client brief went through a number of iterations over time expanding to reflect the desired objectives
00:35:45 to reflect the desired objectives now just pausing there the amendment in that bullet point is very much less critical isn't it of the tmo it's it's more neutral it's more neutral i'll take that
00:35:56 it's more neutral i'll take that and then at the second bullet point um the original one said a uh absence of a controlled and managed scope for the project and now it says a perceived poor
00:36:07 and now it says a perceived poor commitment from lead bitter to demonstrate a full commitment to this project the indications are that this project was not properly resourced due to the parallel demand of the
00:36:17 the kensington academy and leisure center project calc
00:36:23 and that's a new point in there completely isn't it the original report didn't
00:36:28 didn't uh say that one of the contributing factors
00:36:31 factors was a poor commitment or perceived poor commitment from leadbetter was it no but i think it's a true statement maybe but it wasn't in the original
00:36:42 the original report was it it doesn't look like it no and this list in the updated report on the right hand side doesn't say anything about tmo's commitment to budget being late
00:36:52 late as the original report did in the third bullet point if you look back at the left-hand side of the page
00:37:01 it doesn't no that's been taken out hasn't it yes yeah yeah and originally that was a criticism of the tma and possibly rbkc wasn't it or an incorrect statement
00:37:14 or an incorrect statement which was it i believe it to be an incorrect statement
00:37:20 right
00:37:24 did you ask artelia to downplay anything that was critical of the tno not to downplay i wanted to i wanted this report to be focused and clear and neutral and to define a clear way forward and i
00:37:37 and to define a clear way forward and i felt that um there was some of this some of the text was a little bit too negative and backward looking whereas we wanted to be focused on going on
00:37:46 on the project going forward and so and i felt that some of the language was a little
00:37:52 little less than neutral and i think the same points could have been made in a lesser motive way really i think did you ask artelia to strengthen the justification for not proceeding with leadbitter
00:38:04 with leadbitter um
00:38:08 there was an agreement we had discussed there's been there was a discussion between artelia and my team about the way forward as we've described this morning
00:38:19 forward as we've described this morning and what the changes and priorities were how we perceived the issue relating to led better and their appropriateness as contractor and we wanted the report um here for
00:38:33 and we wanted the report um here for artelia to give a clear focused recommendation of a way forward yeah
00:38:40 yeah so is the answer to my question yes you did ask artelia to put in writing this a clearer if you like
00:38:47 like justification for not proceeding with lead bitter well that that sounds like if i was asking artillery to do that i'd be writing the report i was working with them and asking for them to make a recommendation
00:38:58 asking for them to make a recommendation of how we
00:38:58 of how we move forward within the parameters that the client was working with them on so it just the way you suggest it might make it sound like i'm instructing them whereas i'm asking
00:39:10 i'm instructing them whereas i'm asking well i am instructing them but there's a client but i'm asking them to give me a recommendation of how we can meet our objectives well you really put your finger on it if i may say so
00:39:21 may say so are you writing their report there was an element wasn't there with your interfering with the substance of the advice and asking them to give you better advice or different advice i don't disagree with the word interfering i
00:39:33 disagree with the word interfering i think it's having clarity as a client is what we wanted and what we were aiming to achieve and trying to give clarity to our our um consultant as to what we what how we would deliver
00:39:46 as to what we what how we would deliver that and how we were looking for a recommendation from them on that basis did you ask artelia to strengthen the justification for reprocurement um i asked them to to amend the report
00:39:59 i asked them to to amend the report to reflect what we had agreed as the way forward
00:40:08 when simon cash says in his email that the report should now read in a better light
00:40:13 light did you understand him to mean that it would now
00:40:16 would now put the tmo in a better light this this report was an internal report this was for me as for me and my team as the client so we've got a clear order trail of what
00:40:29 we've got a clear order trail of what we're doing and why we've done it this wasn't to be presented to anybody or to reflect us in a better light we wanted something that was clear factual and focused
00:40:41 clear factual and focused that was forward-looking you see i would suggest to you that that answer and the one that's preceded it is
00:40:49 it is is actually a gloss and that in reality when you put the original report the addendum
00:40:55 addendum the instruction at the sixth of june meeting and this report together and you read them all as one to the reader it appears that you have told artelia what report they should write you dismissed the first one
00:41:07 dismissed the first one because it put the tmo in an unfavorable light
00:41:12 light and he wanted a clearer and stronger justification in writing for re-procurement isn't that what happened no i don't agree with that
00:41:24 agree with that this was making sure that the report reflected
00:41:28 reflected the parameters that we had agreed with otelia which was around the principles what we were trying to achieve and how we wanted to achieve it and that being value for money and
00:41:39 and that being value for money and quality
00:41:39 quality and experience and and all of those issues that i've related to in terms of how we can procure the best quality contractor for this job
00:41:50 the best quality contractor for this job with the best experience that was the purpose of this so you would have on your evidence is this right you would say that this was simply reflecting uh an agreement an agreed position that
00:42:02 uh an agreement an agreed position that uh artelia was willingly and happily uh able to reflect in their report i think that it was a it was it was part of an iterative process whereby which the the client clarified the principles of
00:42:15 the client clarified the principles of what we were looking to achieve and worked with artelia i mean so so some of the some of the things that are reflected in this commentary explain some of that that there are um
00:42:28 explain some of that that there are um there's been an evolution we've now focused
00:42:30 focused the the brief we've clarified that value for money is the the driver we've clarified that time is a secondary issue so we can we can take time to re-procure
00:42:41 can take time to re-procure through the most effective route and so that's
00:42:44 that's what that's and i think what was probably difficult in this process for apple yards is that they've tried to do it through the iterations of a single report
00:42:52 report maybe they should have just written a new single report explaining what we were going to do going forward and i think that maybe that's part of the the evolution of this but i i
00:43:01 but i i you know but but once we'd clarified those principles um i had understood that we'd agreed a way forward with artelio it wasn't the case of us imposing this on them i don't know why
00:43:12 imposing this on them i don't know why we would
00:43:14 we would well uh political lubrication maybe one reason let me suggest here there was no political lubrication necessary i don't know even know what political lubrication is
00:43:25 even know what political lubrication is frankly let's look and see what simon cash said about these events at the time can we go please to the transcript of his evidence at day 48
00:43:33 at day 48 page 194 at line 15.
00:43:44 we can see uh here that we're looking at the differences between the status report and the updated status report in june 2000 and and if we look at line
00:43:55 2000 and and if we look at line eight um having put that to him i asked him this and i think you've accepted that the criticism of the tmo about a late commitment to budget has been removed
00:44:07 been removed now am i right in thinking that you agreed with these statements when this status report went out answer i didn't necessarily agree with them personally no question why did you let them out then
00:44:19 question why did you let them out then to peter madison if you didn't agree with them
00:44:22 with them answer peter madison and i had a particularly strong conversation about the changes that had to be made he was being very persistent and put a lot of pressure on us to make
00:44:33 and put a lot of pressure on us to make those changes i was quite resistant because i felt that it was a true reflection of what had happened on the project but at the same time this was a report that peter madison was looking to
00:44:44 that peter madison was looking to present to his board and that if we weren't going if we didn't make the changes then the report wouldn't be presented to the board and therefore
00:44:51 therefore that no decision would be made or no recommendations would be drawn from that therefore the whole basis of the report would have failed completely
00:45:03 failed completely question so you were basically strong-armed into making these changes answer yes now is it right that you and he mr cash had
00:45:14 is it right that you and he mr cash had a particularly strong conversation about the changes that had to be made i don't recall it and um i mean i don't know that i've ever well i haven't
00:45:25 don't know that i've ever well i haven't strong armed anyone ever and i don't think simon would be someone who would be easily strong armed i think we would have a frank conversation and agree a way forward but i don't
00:45:36 i don't think that's an accurate statement you know and he said that we've seen it you were being very persistent and put a lot of pressure on you to make those changes do you accept that
00:45:45 that i don't recall that i mean the whole basis of that paragraph if i could just go back to it um just yes so i mean the whole idea that this was to go to the board
00:45:57 idea that this was to go to the board isn't it isn't true either it's um so there wasn't it wasn't a report from my board this was a report for internal clarification as to the way forward and it may have i may have taken
00:46:09 and it may have i may have taken information from this to report into my board
00:46:12 board and to get the approval for as well to to inform
00:46:16 to inform the board about how we were taking things forward and you know that would have been an appropriate thing to do but this wasn't the case of trying to rewrite something i wanted to be focused and clear and i
00:46:27 i wanted to be focused and clear and i didn't think it was and i thought it did so but it wasn't this wasn't a memorable conversation in my mind i don't remember it
00:46:37 it the conversation that simon's saying was very strong right well he certainly got the impression that uh he artelia had been strong-armed into writing this report
00:46:48 into writing this report let me put it to you this way uh it's quite clear that the advice originally given in the april status report was that there should not at least at that time being a re-procurement exercise and that you
00:47:00 re-procurement exercise and that you should continue with ledbitter yes yes and my view was that the outcome of that would have been we would have potentially selected a contractor with a price that hadn't
00:47:11 a contractor with a price that hadn't been tested and that didn't necessarily have the experience required to do this job yes and that wasn't acceptable i understand that entirely and and that
00:47:22 i understand that entirely and and that led you to reject the advice given in april
00:47:26 april and want different advice which is what you asked for and ultimately received in this report and we did that by working with artelia explaining the parameters that we could work within in terms of value for money and time
00:47:37 terms of value for money and time scale and that made things easier for them to recognize that actually we could there are different options if we've got more time to procure if we're not up against
00:47:45 against trying to close out the uh the lead betters tender so so none of this seemed very contentious really um at the time i don't remember it being a contentious issue
00:47:57 a contentious issue i don't remember this conversation directly but um [Applause] why would you if you were going to reject the advice that was given by artelia in april 2013
00:48:08 artelia in april 2013 in their formal status report of the 23rd of that that month why did you need a further report at all you could just put the report they'd given you in the bin and do your own thing because uh
00:48:19 thing because uh because what i wanted here was a recommendation of how we take this forward my role is to move this forward but you'd already decided how to move move it forward why did you need a recommendation from artelia because there's a professional aspect
00:48:30 there's a professional aspect to this that is needed so to explain how we take it forward and to give a recommendation of the appropriate route and that was what i was asking about asking artelya to do
00:48:41 asking artelya to do there was a you know it was the priority was
00:48:45 was to get a contractor that had the requisite experience to do this job and i don't believe that we had established that with ledbetter
00:48:54 ledbetter my question is a different one which is given that you had asked for the advice been given the advice you didn't like and have decided to reject it why did you want any why did you want a new report at all why not simply say to
00:49:05 new report at all why not simply say to artelia
00:49:06 artelia well thank you very much we're going to do something differently this is what we're going to do because their role is to because we are we are the non-technical client here so we are
00:49:18 client here so we are commissioning them to recommend technical ways of delivering what we want to
00:49:22 want to be achieved and so we are looking for their recommendation on that and that was something that they had offered and it was part of their service it was something that um they were very clear about they gave us options
00:49:35 clear about they gave us options and so it was it was absolutely appropriate that we asked them to communicate to us how they will deliver that for us and if they couldn't then we would have to consider a different way of
00:49:46 to consider a different way of procuring this do you accept that you weren't simply giving them new facts on the basis of which you wanted their independent advice you were actually asking them in substance to give you the
00:49:57 asking them in substance to give you the advice
00:49:58 advice that you wanted and in the style that you wanted it um no i don't accept that i don't can we then go to tmode10048490
00:50:12 then go to tmode10048490 this is an email from david gibson to claire williams in september 2013 17th of september 2013. uh and uh it's uh not i think copied to
00:50:24 uh it's uh not i think copied to you although you are the recipient of the 19th of june email which it attacked which it uh forwards on to claire williams as i think you can see claire re-vfm through procurement this is all i've
00:50:36 through procurement this is all i've seen from apple yards and then he says and we had to twist their arms quite hard for them to write it
00:50:42 it you see that yes do you accept that that is
00:50:46 is a fair description by david gibson of how the june version of the artelia advice came to be in its final form i don't recall this um
00:50:59 i think we were looking for a report that gave clarity going forward and we hadn't had it can you explain why david gibson told claire williams that quotes we had to twist their arms quite hard for them to write it if that
00:51:10 quite hard for them to write it if that was not the case i've got no recollection of this so i can't read a comment well i'm i'm asking you to see if you can help me
00:51:19 help me understand why it is that david gibson was of the impression according to this contemporaneous document that the tmo had to twist apple yards arms quite hard for them to write the
00:51:31 arms quite hard for them to write the report he's attaching i assume he's referring to the fact that we're on version 5 of a report and so we were looking to before we got one that we felt satisfied
00:51:42 before we got one that we felt satisfied our requirements that's an assumption you make
00:51:47 you make but the well as i say i don't remember the detail of this but you know i think five iterations of the report is quite a lot it certainly is and it's certainly telling but i'm just interested in whether you can explain
00:51:58 interested in whether you can explain why mr gibson thought that uh tmo had to twist uh apple yards's arm quite hard for them to write it
00:52:08 write it you can't they're david's words i don't right
00:52:12 right mr minute i'd just like to get a little bit further help from this can you tell me mr madison what was the use
00:52:20 use to which this report was going to be put within the tmo it was just for internal so we've got an internal record of what we've agreed going forward and i i could draw from it to make the
00:52:32 i could draw from it to make the recommendations to the board or to explain the way forward really so although i think you told us earlier it wasn't necessarily going to be shown to the
00:52:42 the board as it stood you envisaged drawing on it
00:52:47 on it when you made some form of presentation to the board is that yes the right position yes i think so yeah all right thank you yes thank you mr miller
00:52:57 mr miller um can we go back to your first witness statement then please at tm050892 page six and let's go to paragraph 33.
00:53:09 and let's go to paragraph 33. uh you say at the uh in that paragraph in the second uh sentence at the at that time and this is february march 2013 the
00:53:20 and this is february march 2013 the budgeted cost for refurbishment were nine million pounds while costs presented by ledbetter were 12 to 13 million pounds which artelia advised
00:53:28 advised did not represent value for money just just on the 9 million i think in fact that's not quite right is it or is that the figure that you're putting here which includes uh fees yes it does right uh and you say
00:53:40 uh fees yes it does right uh and you say the costs presented by lead bitter were 12 to 13 million which artelia advised did not
00:53:45 did not represent valley for money artelia's first report in april 2013 advised no such thing did it no nowhere said
00:53:56 said that ledbetter led bitter at 12 to 13 million or indeed any figures uh were not valued for money [Music]
00:54:04 [Music] um well that's my inference that i know tell you are telling me that the cost should be nine million or nine million less the the fees
00:54:15 the fees and ledbetter are telling us it's going to cost 12 to 13. my assessment of that is that we're not getting value for money that may have been your assessment of it mr madison but it isn't right to say is
00:54:26 mr madison but it isn't right to say is it that artelia advised you that ledbetter's figures did not represent value for money okay do you accept that i can yeah accept that can you explain how that mistake came to be made in your statement i think that's just a
00:54:38 statement i think that's just a misdrafting i think right
00:54:46 in fact it's the contrary isn't it because when we look at the status report
00:54:49 report they're telling you that ted ledbetter had come down by 2.1 million to just over 10 million and the gap between you was under 700 000 pounds but this relates to february and march
00:55:01 but this relates to february and march yes
00:55:01 yes i'm transitioning narrative so in february march the costs gap was at that stage
00:55:06 stage at a later stage things changed i agree but at this stage i think that gap was significant
00:55:18 uh can we then look at the circumstances in which tmo discontinued with ledbitter and i'd like to show you the witness statement of richard cloak at met3070907
00:55:35 at met3070907 and i'd like to put up pages six and seven of that uh together that's at um five and six i think internally uh
00:55:46 externally at the bottom of page five he says by april straight may 2013 it was fairly clear that the clients and ledbetter's views on budget costs were somewhere apart
00:55:59 on budget costs were somewhere apart i should have explained richard click was the the ledbetter executive wasn't he
00:56:04 he dealing with the calp project and the grenfell tower project um i recognized the name but i don't know his role right okay and he says um we were informing apple yards that they needed to think about how they wanted to progress
00:56:15 how they wanted to progress as unless the scope was altered or additional budget was made available it was our view that the schemas proposed could not be delivered in line with the client's advised budget
00:56:26 the consensus seemed to be that there was no point in continuing to work on the cost plan until we receive guidance from the client team on how to take things forward
00:56:34 forward you see that yes now is it right that there was a consensus that led bitter would not work anymore on the cost plan for grenfell at that time i think there was a consensus within ned better because they hadn't provided any
00:56:46 because they hadn't provided any information that had been requested over a period of months and weren't able to give a breakdown of their costs and weren't turning up to meetings
00:56:56 meetings so they clearly had stopped working and there was a distinct lack of commitment from them on this project i see can we go to art 409106 again this
00:57:08 i see can we go to art 409106 again this is the 6th of june 2013 meeting tma meeting and if we look at page two as art four zero is nine one zero six
00:57:19 as art four zero is nine one zero six uh page two item two point two please um pm it says would confirm that he would advise ledbitter of decision to tender contractor now
00:57:31 decision to tender contractor now this is the um 6th of june meeting if we flip back a page we can see that at the foot of the page part
00:57:40 part a moment ago contract procurement where you asked apple yards to review the addendum
00:57:45 addendum and include greater detail on programming costs etc to demonstrate that tendering the contract
00:57:52 contract will deliver greater for money value for money the main project driver that's there but on the next page we see that you had
00:58:00 you had uh uh confirmed that you would advise ledbet
00:58:04 ledbet of the decision to tend to contract her um
00:58:07 um so is it right that you actually had made the decision to re-tender and as it were drop led better before you
00:58:19 as it were drop led better before you had the final report from artelia um
00:58:28 could you just remind me of the date of this 6th of june 2013. yes i think that following the yes following may um we decided that the procurement was going to be via
00:58:41 the procurement was going to be via an alternative routine to lead better right does this tell us that you didn't actually need artelia's written advice in its final form before making the decision to retender
00:58:52 retender um we needed well there are two different distinct issues here one is whether we are going to proceed with lead better and the second is how we are going to procure the works themselves
00:59:04 procure the works themselves and they're quite distinct the different things so the report from artelia was about
00:59:08 about how we were going to take it forward
00:59:15 well forgive me just i think it's simpler than that that when let me try this differently looking at 2.2 we can see that you confirmed to the meeting that you would advise ledbetter of the decision to tend
00:59:27 advise ledbetter of the decision to tend to contract her when was that decision made i don't recall
00:59:34 recall is it it would follow from the fact that you were telling the meeting that you would advise letter ledbetter of the decision to tend to the contract
00:59:42 contract that that decision had been made before this meeting isn't that right yes and i think there's quite a trail of uh there's quite a narrative through various internal meetings within the tmo
00:59:55 various internal meetings within the tmo to the programme board and to board indeed um
01:00:00 indeed um recording the the timeline around this um yeah yeah and so it would follow sorry no no no so
01:00:12 and so it would follow sorry no no no so given that you didn't get the final report from artelia until the 19th of june which we saw earlier
01:00:21 earlier it follows doesn't it that you made the decision
01:00:25 decision to tender the contract re-tender reprocure
01:00:29 reprocure no matter how you express it before you had the final advice from artelia the report from artelia was to tell us how to procure it that's what we wanted it to say
01:00:39 it to say it was what is the route the decision had been made prior to that that's what we'd agreed with atelier and asked them to
01:00:44 to report that in a status report not in the state sport we actually asked them to produce a report that explained how they would take that forward through
01:00:55 forward through through a procurement process in the meantime i was i was going to contact ledbetter and tell them with the decision to do go through that process
01:01:08 my question was different my question is do you accept as a matter of chronology that you had made the decision to reprocure the contract before you
01:01:19 to reprocure the contract before you received artelia's final report that's a fact on the documents do you accept it yes because that was the purpose of the report is to tell us how to how to procure it so yes that was the
01:01:30 how to procure it so yes that was the purpose of the report was how to procure that contract and we see that the decision was made to reprocure even before the addendum of the 24th of may because
01:01:42 the addendum of the 24th of may because we saw that from the 21st of mar of uh may email sorry i'm getting very confused by the timelines here so i don't really follow but what if maybe you could explain the point that you wanted
01:01:53 point that you wanted to make because the timeline's just confusing me a lot we've seen there are a number of dates let me just give them to you 23rd of april is the status report then the 21st of may is the meeting
01:02:05 then the 21st of may is the meeting where you
01:02:05 where you are overruled by laura johnson according to the email and the dis and you tell artelia that you're going to reprocure through the aj eu
01:02:13 eu 21st of may the 6th of june we have a meeting where you say that you would advise ledbit of the decision to tend to contract her and the 20 and the 19th of june is when
01:02:24 and the 20 and the 19th of june is when you get the final version of artelia's advice looking at that chronology doesn't that tell us that you made the decision to reprocure and to tell ledbitter of that decision
01:02:36 ledbitter of that decision before you had the final advice from artelia
01:02:42 the principle has been established but the detail of how to procure it was waited for in the report
01:02:52 now when did you tell libbetter do you know
01:02:58 know [Music]
01:03:00 [Music] around this time uh let's have a look there's a there's a document i think that can throw light on that art408603 um i'm sorry before we leave this
01:03:11 um i'm sorry before we leave this document um the entry we've been looking at 2.2 talked about decision to tender contracted that means what put it out for tender
01:03:22 for tender put the contract out too tender yes and what what was the method of doing that other than through the oju procedure it could have been through a framework
01:03:34 been through a framework but the discussion that we'd had at that point was that it would be an open tender
01:03:38 tender and part of the reason for that was that we wanted to give ledbetter the opportunity to tender if this are wanted so that would have to have been a no due tender it would have had to be
01:03:48 had to be a few process right there because of the value and because we particularly wanted to leave that opportunity there for lead better if they did want it then it was easier to go through an open process so the
01:03:59 process so the way of putting this out to uh procurement in or to tender if you like was really only the odu process yes yes
01:04:10 odu process yes yes so i'm just wondering whether you needed advice from artelia about how to get that
01:04:15 that um
01:04:21 i i i i'm struggling to remember the detail that i mean the significance of this report now it seems a little much less than it's uh all right that's what's greater now than
01:04:32 all right that's what's greater now than it was then rather uh can you go to art408603 please
01:04:46 uh this is an email uh from uh it's the second email down it's an email
01:04:53 email from david gibson to phil booth dated the 19th of july 2013
01:05:02 and although it's actually not dated that date
01:05:06 that date we can see that you um are
01:05:16 copied in on it it's the bottom of the
01:05:20 page uh
01:05:25 [Music] and at the bottom of the page it's an email from phil booth too um sorry an email from david gibson to phil booth i'm so sorry
01:05:36 phil booth i'm so sorry i'm actually looking at the middle email on that page subject oje you noticed from david gibson to philip booth cop it to paul duncan see that and the
01:05:48 cop it to paul duncan see that and the secondary paragraph no i am lost no i've confused you it's my fault entirely um if you look at the first page there's an email at the very top from phil booth to simon cash yes
01:05:59 to simon cash yes and underneath that there's an original message
01:06:03 message subject re o j eu notice from david gibson to phil booth do you see that yes it's copy to paul duncan now it's not copy to you i don't think but it says philip as discussed i'm able to confirm ledbetters have been informed
01:06:15 to confirm ledbetters have been informed they didn't raise any objections and offered any assistance we might need we've agreed for simon to have a conversation with his lead bit of contact just to clarify if they're likely to be interested in tendering once we clarify the position we may
01:06:26 once we clarify the position we may again give consideration to tapping into an existing ojeu you see that yeah um is that the time when ledbetter were informed we think yes mid-july can you explain what the
01:06:37 you explain what the gap was why there was a delay between the
01:06:40 the 6th of june 2013 when we saw that you told the meeting that led bitter would be informed of your decision to tend to the contract uh and the middle of july when they were told do
01:06:51 middle of july when they were told do you know why that was i don't know that it was the middle of july when they were told um i don't have any record of when they were told
01:06:59 were told all right now it was open to lead bitter to bid
01:07:02 to bid for the project under the ojeu tender process wasn't it yes and they didn't did they no do you know why that worked um when i
01:07:12 um when i i mean what part of the concern when we were going to contact ledbetters here was that they whether they might claim make put some claim in uh because they've done some work
01:07:24 they've done some work um and they may have objected to the idea of us reprocuring actually when i made contact
01:07:31 they were very sanguine about it and which made which confirmed my view that they really weren't interested in the work
01:07:39 work [Music]
01:07:41 [Music] in fact may have been relieved um and um so but what we did ask was um so david here is asking simon because simon's simon cash is working with um ledbetter
01:07:54 simon cash is working with um ledbetter on the adjacent site to to check in with his
01:07:57 his contact there and see if they're interested because part of the opportunity leaving the the oju
01:08:04 oju the open oju route open for ledbetter was to ensure that there wasn't any claim or come back from them being precluded from that work and david's email here seems to be
01:08:15 and david's email here seems to be suggesting that if they aren't interested that that might open up the procurement via an existing framework route
01:08:30 i'm now going to turn to a completely different topic which is the tender process itself now as we've looked at this was tubby and indeed was in the end an ojeu tender
01:08:42 and indeed was in the end an ojeu tender process
01:08:43 process now before the grenfell tower refurbishment project uh had you had you done uh any public procurement exercises of any substance yes i've got a large experience of
01:08:55 yes i've got a large experience of procuring contracts and were those under the oj eu regulations a number of them happen yes yes so would you say that as of the 2013 to 2014 period you were familiar with
01:09:08 to 2014 period you were familiar with the obligations imposed by the procurement rules on contracting authorities awarding public contracts in the broadest terms but um we had a specialist in-house who was specialist consultant in-house who was
01:09:20 specialist consultant in-house who was specialist in managing the procurement processes and she oversaw um the procurement works that was generally carried out by our consultants that was jenny jackson
01:09:33 our consultants that was jenny jackson tony jackson yes i'm really just asking about you i think your answer about you is in the broadest terms yes right and did you understand you that is not jenny jackson did you understand that one of the basic
01:09:45 understand that one of the basic principles in public procurement exercises
01:09:47 exercises is that the bidders are all given equal treatment until the contract is actually let
01:09:54 let yes now
01:09:59 yes now let's just take a run up here i want to ask you about what you know about ryden or knew about ryden in his evidence to the inquiry stephen blake of ryden said that he'd known you
01:10:10 blake of ryden said that he'd known you since the early 2000s is that correct probably i can't remember when i first met him uh i don't probably when i was working at hyde probably in the late 2000s the late two late evening the late
01:10:22 2000s the late two late evening the late naughties as they're called otherwise before 2010 probably right i don't really recall when i first met him right you said yesterday that you paid a visit to chalk the chalcott's project now we
01:10:33 to chalk the chalcott's project now we know that ryden with a contract from the calcutt's product project did you meet steve blake in connection with the childcards project i don't recall who we met from ryden there to be honest right
01:10:44 right do you remember the circumstances in which you first came to know mr blake um
01:10:53 so i've never actually directly worked with ryden or steve blake in any way before this contract um ryden were a contractor who did a lot of work at height housing association and i
01:11:04 work at height housing association and i worked at height housing association but didn't work directly on any of the contracts that they were delivering there although i did a small piece of strategic asset management
01:11:15 piece of strategic asset management on a pfi contract that they did some repair and maintenance work on but i had no
01:11:19 no direct client role in any of those contracts
01:11:23 contracts how did you first come to know mr blake um i didn't really i wouldn't really say i knew mr blake i knew him in the same way that i knew his equivalence in most of the main contractors who would
01:11:35 most of the main contractors who would bid for this sort of work well forgive me you told us uh you caught you can't remember when i first met him probably when i was working at hyde in
01:11:46 probably when i was working at hyde in the late 2000s so you you'd met him can you tell us the circumstances in which you came to meet him
01:11:54 him i've just described them i was working at height housing association where they did a lot of work with with ryden and
01:12:02 and i had i will have i will have met them and i would have probably thinking about it probably have assessed various bids that they've made
01:12:14 assessed various bids that they've made for works
01:12:15 for works but i've never appointed them they've never been successful in part of those procurements mainly because they tended to be more expensive than most uh even with a quality price that tends
01:12:27 uh even with a quality price that tends to be more expensive so although i evaluated them and known them by reputation as being a good reliable contractor with a good experience i didn't i didn't
01:12:38 with a good experience i didn't i didn't have any personal relationship with them when you moved to haringey in 2011 from height housing did you keep up your acquaintance with or your
01:12:49 acquaintance with or your relationship such as it was with mr blake
01:12:52 blake um no not that i remember um i did it at haringey council one of the directors of ryden was a non-executive on
01:13:01 on the board and but no i didn't have any contact with steve blake in that time that i can remember now steve blake told the inquiry and
01:13:12 now steve blake told the inquiry and just for our reference purposes it's day 28 page 92 lines 10 to 11 that you would meet at conferences from time to time for example the annual housing conference of brighton
01:13:23 housing conference of brighton is that right yes i mean the annual housing conference of brighton is an opportunity to meet most contractors in the sector in a very short space of time yes and did you meet mr blake yes i do remember meeting him
01:13:35 remember meeting him and what about manchester united i've never been to the manchester conference right uh what about jeff henton of ryden did you meet him yeah so jeff henton was the
01:13:46 yeah so jeff henton was the non-executive director at um homes for haringey uh was he yes um for a time when i was there
01:13:55 there and he
01:14:08 i was distracted by that i think you may have been jeff henton was the non-executive director at something homes for harrington yes what's homes for haringey it's the alamo at har engage so i see where i worked and can you help us
01:14:20 i see where i worked and can you help us when did
01:14:21 when did jeff henton leave homes for harrington haringey do you remember i think he was probably probably there for a year when i was there so right did you work with him
01:14:32 work with him he was a he was a non-executive so he was he was a an independent on the board certainly but did you work with him no you didn't did you meet him from time to time did you get to know him at all
01:14:43 to time did you get to know him at all and yes i knew i knew him and i'd met jeff at
01:14:46 jeff at um when it hide and so um
01:14:53 um ryden delivered a number of significant projects at hyde so the packington estate project a regeneration project in islington
01:15:04 islington and the islington pfi project and they were very high profile schemes and um i've been to i've met them at various significant events at those um
01:15:15 events at those um in the development of those projects i see do you did you get told or did you find out [Music]
01:15:25 [Music] that jeff henton had left homes for harrington and gone to ryden no no he wasn't an executive he was he was always at ryden in my ex in my understanding oh i see i see he was an independent on the board to
01:15:36 he was an independent on the board to give
01:15:38 give a dimension of expertise to the board as a non-executive so it wasn't a paid board member no i follow i follow what you're saying so he remained on the board of uh of um of uh homes for haringey
01:15:52 of um of uh homes for haringey but as a non-executive director of that whilst being as an executive director of writing i don't know his status right now okay
01:16:00 now okay well we don't have to trouble you with that um
01:16:03 that um to your knowledge did sasha jevons have contact with ryden at events such as the annual housing forum
01:16:10 forum in brighton um i i don't know specifically i'm sure she she could have done
01:16:17 have done now i probably would have done it yes
01:16:25 [Applause] if we go to your notebook please at tm00879
01:16:40 this is your entry at page 23 please for the 12th of february 2013.
01:16:51 the 12th of february 2013. [Music]
01:16:53 [Music] and on the right-hand side of the notebook
01:16:57 notebook there is a long list of items with a bracket a square bracket next to them you see that yeah and
01:17:09 this is part of a list which i think starts or a text which starts on the left hand side 12th of february 2013 in grenfell tower you see that yes and it looks as if this
01:17:21 you see that yes and it looks as if this is a meeting with uh ledbetter at that time because as a reference to colin childs or childs i think it is actually uh simon cash mo is that mochitecha i don't know
01:17:35 mo is that mochitecha i don't know qs and then what looks like gareth
01:17:40 is this a record of a meeting you had with ledbitter on the 12th of february 2013. led best and simon cash absolutely and
01:17:52 then underneath that it says studio e have stood down their design team etc i don't think i need the rest of that and then it says underneath it one million pound discrepancy in the cladding quantities
01:18:04 discrepancy in the cladding quantities quantities in lead bitters cost plan are greater than or greater something can you help me with what that says sorry can you point me
01:18:14 me i'll greater no i can't it can't uh and then there's the list
01:18:22 and it's it says separate separate uh separate out costs i think what does the first one say block maybe block
01:18:31 block and then externals internals m e uh hidden homes boxing club nursery offices reception and then this i think is that rubbish
01:18:42 and then this i think is that rubbish or public realm oh public realm okay um nothing there about cladding but we've seen that there was already a million pound discrepancy in accordance with your note
01:18:54 with your note pausing there do you remember this meeting i don't remember specifically the meeting but right but but this is is this a is this a contemporaneous note of what was discussed or is it a preparatory note no this is a contemporary note i see
01:19:07 no this is a contemporary note i see what has been agreed right and then underneath the list with the square bracket next to it which i drew your attention to it says ryden cost com i think that says comparison is that
01:19:19 com i think that says comparison is that right that's right or compare cost compare comparison right can we take it then that from the 12th of february 2013 you
01:19:30 of february 2013 you wanted ryden to do a cost comparison for grenfell
01:19:34 grenfell and this was a conversation that i had with artelia and artelia made contact with
01:19:39 with ryden and the con the connection i had made so we'd had this discussion here which um was it was clearly a discussion at a time when there was a significant gap
01:19:50 gap between
01:19:53 ledbetter's costs and after the odds of the times estimate
01:20:01 this scheduling of the elements of the scheme
01:20:05 scheme is trying to feed to um ledbetters the way we want them to structure their costs because we hadn't had this sort of breakdown they were just giving us lump sum costs
01:20:17 just giving us lump sum costs and then so i'm going to cut across it because i'm asking a simpler question let me try it a different way because i'm not really getting what i'm after here
01:20:24 here the name ryden is mentioned who's who mentioned the name ryden at the meeting so that was a conversation that i had with um simon cash afterwards so that's the so that's the the line under the meeting we talked about how we want them
01:20:36 meeting we talked about how we want them to produce their costs and i've suggested we've talked and i've said on my experience of having seen chalcott's estate ryden or a contractor who have done very similar works maybe
01:20:48 who have done very similar works maybe we could get them to give us some sort of cost advice and explain whether or not we're in the right ballpark here and on the back of that i think it was robert
01:20:59 the back of that i think it was robert um sorry his name escapes me um made contact with ryden at that time uh i was going to come to that but but i can deal with it now you
01:21:10 that but but i can deal with it now you say
01:21:10 say uh robert i think it would be robert powell yes right made contact with ryden at that time that would that be february 2013 do you think or was it a little bit later i don't remember right um
01:21:23 i don't remember right um so i think summarizing what you've just said to us it was your idea uh in mid february 2013 to ask ryden to do a cost comparison exercise for the grenfell tower refurbishment
01:21:34 refurbishment it was certainly i don't know if it was my idea but it was something we discussed alongside we also talked about the lhc there's getting sense check costs from them as well
01:21:44 well you were the one who came up with the name ryden wasn't artelia i don't remember i think i don't know if i'll tell you knew them as well i don't know uh now can we go to ryd40111
01:21:56 uh now can we go to ryd40111 please
01:22:04 this uh is an email between stephen blake and jeff henton at the top of the page uh on the 5th of april
01:22:13 april 2013 and the reference is the grenfell tower regeneration project
01:22:22 and uh it forwards uh an email attached below from robert pal to steve blake [Music]
01:22:33 [Music] and it says jeff says to jeff henton jeff this is the peter madison scheme which is right up our street they are asking for a framework that we are
01:22:44 are i think i should say on to procure to avoid
01:22:47 avoid ojeu andy any thoughts could be a challenge
01:22:52 challenge but a start now of course this isn't right an internal email you may not have seen this before at all but can you throw any light on why it was in early april 2013 ryden would be
01:23:04 early april 2013 ryden would be referring to the grenfell tower refurbishment project as being the peter madison scheme um it's possible so when i when i first went
01:23:13 went to whenever i um when whenever moving jobs i'll always contact my other the rest of my network and let them know where i am and what what what is
01:23:24 where i am and what what what is and talk opportunities this is one of the reasons for going to conferences such as brighton is to talk about opportunities that may be coming up
01:23:32 up and to explain um the sort of priorities and principles of what we're looking to deliver in the in the new in the new environment uh but also in
01:23:44 the new environment uh but also in trying to establish um links to because actually what we were doing at kctmo was trying to gear up um to deliver much bigger programs and we
01:23:56 to deliver much bigger programs and we needed larger scale contractors to come in and help deliver so there were conversations that i've had with a whole range of contractors and in reality
01:24:05 reality that field is relatively small there aren't hundreds of contractors who do refurbishment of homes in occupation at large scale so i will probably know most
01:24:17 so i will probably know most the the equivalent of say someone like steve blake in most of those large contractors because i've been working in that sector for
01:24:25 for 30 years um let's just see the background in the email immediately below it robert powell writes of artelia is writing to steve blake on the 5th of april and he says
01:24:36 blake on the 5th of april and he says steve
01:24:37 steve good talking with you just now perhaps you would have a look at the attached supporting information for the proposed redevelopment of grenfell tower rbk and c if you would be prepared to venture a check price against this it would help
01:24:48 check price against this it would help us recognizing that we need to agree a usable framework stroke means procurement with rbk and c as mentioned we are talking to more than one contractor in consideration of such an appointment and our client is looking to utilize
01:24:59 and our client is looking to utilize their existing frameworks to procure same now that that's what he was sent
01:25:04 was sent you see that yeah uh and that's not very accurate if you well we'll come back to that um we will come back to that in a moment so you'll have your chance to answer questions on that but what i want to ask
01:25:15 questions on that but what i want to ask you is something slightly different there's no mention in robert powell's email to steve blake of your name particularly or something called the peter madison scheme is there and we can see that there isn't um
01:25:29 and we can see that there isn't um no no um and and therefore are you able to explain why steve blake when sending this email on to jeff henton
01:25:40 this email on to jeff henton as he does the same day two hours later you see calls it the peter madison scheme
01:25:49 scheme my question is did you have a discussion with steve blake before steve blake received the email from robert powell uh explaining the scheme uh to him i don't recall
01:26:00 don't recall um i may have had a conversation with steve in a more broad sense um that's prior to on my arrival at the the tmo but i would have doubted it
01:26:13 the the tmo but i would have doubted it um
01:26:14 um or possibly robert powell has spoken directly to steve i don't know right now looking at the time of course this is early april 2013. you say you may have had
01:26:25 april 2013. you say you may have had a conversation with steve blake in a more broad sense uh
01:26:33 do you remember whether you told steve blake that you were looking to reprocure the contract no i think here well i think there are i think there were two things that
01:26:44 i think there were two things that robert powell was doing here one was trying to get some sense of price and comparison because there was such a big discrepancy at this time between artelia's estimate and ledbetter's price
01:26:57 artelia's estimate and ledbetter's price um but also we will we will start in the process of looking for options for procurement so i think that's why he's talking about potential frameworks that suitable
01:27:09 potential frameworks that suitable contractors might have access to but any of any such procurement would be subject to a thorough and strict process
01:27:24 yeah my question again when you spoke to steve blake to the best of your recollection before this email this before the 5th of april 2013 did you tell him
01:27:36 april 2013 did you tell him that you the tmo were looking to re-procure the contract no i i don't remember a specific conversation with steve right did you tell him
01:27:48 right did you tell him uh that you wanted to avoid oj eu well you can't afford og i think that but the
01:27:54 but the terminology so is that his will his words
01:27:58 words indeed i mean looking at the top emails he says he says they are asking for a framework that we are on to procure avoid a oj eu did you have a discussion with steve blake i can't see that can we scroll up so we
01:28:09 i can't see that can we scroll up so we can see it yes of course i'm so sorry if you go to the top email on that page
01:28:19 second line they are asking for a framework that we are on to procure to avoid oj
01:28:24 avoid oj eu so that did you well i think that's very disaster question did you have a conversation with steve blake no to that effect no and so
01:28:33 and so the conversation there wasn't it wasn't a conversation i recall and also there's no way that we would be looking to procure to avoid oju just for clarification because the what
01:28:44 just for clarification because the what will what we what what we would be looking for are any frameworks that comply with og that we could use to procure this type of work and that was what um
01:28:58 was what um that's what um artelia were exploring um in a broader sense so they were talking to the lhc and looking at other frameworks that could potentially be used to comply with og not avoid it so that's
01:29:10 comply with og not avoid it so that's very much
01:29:11 very much ryden's misunderstanding of what was did you have a conversation with jeff henton before the fifth of april about re-tendering no he didn't
01:29:23 uh steve blake was asked about this and he said uh and just for the record it's
01:29:31 it's day 28 page 107 lines two to four and i asked him the question how did you know at this stage and it's april 2013 that mr madison was involved and he said either peter would
01:29:42 involved and he said either peter would have told me or jeff told me so that was his recollection what's your recollection i think you said you probably had a conversation with steve blake it's that's that's possible
01:29:53 possible it's possible i had a conversation with steve i did know that um as i say the connection i'd had i'd had a discussion with um with with steve
01:30:04 um with with steve regarding his experience at chalcott estate
01:30:08 estate but but i was possibly when i in early early times when i joined tmo but it wasn't about procurement it was about under getting an understanding of the processes and
01:30:21 processes and and in this instance it was about getting artelia to contact them to understand to try and understand that better
01:30:28 better price difference between artelia and ledbetters mr jones it's 3 30 but i'm still on this page
01:30:37 page i'm happy to break but if it's not inconvenient to you i think it would be better to give mr madison a break now very good let's do that right mr madison we're going to have a short break now i'm going to say just 10 minutes or a few minutes over we'll
01:30:50 10 minutes or a few minutes over we'll come back at quarter to four at least by this clock which i see more clearly and while you're out of the room please don't know talking about your evidence all right thank you very much
01:31:07 right quarter four please thank you
01:45:02 you need it now yes would you ask mr madison to come back in please
01:45:19 yes ready mr madison thank you thank you very much
01:45:22 very much yes mr miller um mr madison staying with this email run that we were looking at see it uh you can see that robert powell uh talks to steve
01:45:34 that robert powell uh talks to steve blake on the fifth of april were you the one to put robert powell in touch with artelia to do the price check i think um in touch with ryden
01:45:47 yes i'm so sorry with ryden yes um that was the discussion that i suggested not based on their experience of having done very similar work at charcot estate that
01:45:57 that they would provide some some insight into the differences between the various prices were you aware that ryden didn't have any relevant rbkc framework agreement at that point
01:46:10 um i didn't understand yeah yes i was aware yeah sorry i think that's the answer yeah and this of course is all happening in early april
01:46:21 in early april some weeks before you got the status report from from artelia isn't it yes i mean this conversation wasn't about procurement at this stage primarily this was about trying to
01:46:32 primarily this was about trying to understand whether the costs that ledbetter were offering
01:46:37 offering were true because so that was that was the um
01:46:42 the um that was what we were trying to understand is the the difference is the difference between the artelia estimate and the ledbetter cost so i suggested artelia speak to ryden and get a sense check of their estimates to see whether it's their
01:46:54 estimates to see whether it's their estimates wrong or is it led better as costs that are wrong well you say this conversation wasn't about procurement at this stage but if you look at the penultimate paragraph of the powell email of the fifth of april he does
01:47:05 email of the fifth of april he does refer to the fact that our client that's the tmo
01:47:08 the tmo was looking to utilize their existing frameworks to procure same so we had no existing frameworks but it was a conversation about procurement wasn't it that's so i think the part of the conversation
01:47:19 the part of the conversation with with on the previous notes that you showed me
01:47:22 showed me um where it was about um what are our options here is it go with ledbetter and what are the options so we were exploring frameworks as well so the conversations
01:47:33 frameworks as well so the conversations in the networks the soft market testing of the procurement i suppose is trying to explore what frameworks were out there that might be appropriate so one of the frameworks that they that
01:47:44 so one of the frameworks that they that we did approach was the nhc which because i saw that we saw that uh in
01:47:50 in the status report itself i think but all i'm
01:47:53 i'm putting to you is this email was in the context
01:47:57 context of a price check in the market in the context of a wider ambition of the tmo to take this project back out to tender um no it was it was to price check and
01:48:08 um no it was it was to price check and so to understand primarily whether and the what the difference was and to understand the discrepancy between the artillery costs and lead batters it was trying to establish
01:48:20 batters it was trying to establish was artillery's estimate correct or was it in fact ledbetters are offering the right price so that was the primary thing but a secondary
01:48:28 secondary option was to find out who in the market is available with the right experience and to do this this work and what are the frameworks that might
01:48:40 the frameworks that might allow us to access an appropriate contractor subject to the appropriate due diligence yes yes thank you can i just ask you did you
01:48:52 can i just ask you did you have continued con
01:48:55 correspondence or discussions with ryden after april 2013 but before the tender process in november i don't recall did they ever come back
01:49:07 i don't recall did they ever come back with the check price this dialogue was all managed by robert powell so i don't recall what i don't recall what the outcome of this dialogue was right did anybody come back to you telling you
01:49:19 did anybody come back to you telling you that ryden had produced a number i don't recall all right can i ask you to go please to tmo
01:49:30 double zero eight seven nine seven seven three please at page 30.
01:49:38 this is an entry in uh your that's better your notebook for the 16th of july 2013
01:49:49 your notebook for the 16th of july 2013 you see and it says on the left hand side ojeu
01:49:54 side ojeu let jeff know do you see that yes what was that about um
01:50:02 so that might have been the time when we did we were issuing the og notices and um that was to give a heads up to jeff henton to the fact that the og
01:50:14 jeff henton to the fact that the og notice was being issued really did you give the heads up to any other contract or potential contractor that you knew from your your past yeah i've spoken to other contractors
01:50:26 yeah i've spoken to other contractors who we were working with at that time so for example so people who so generally people who we were working with who you thought had the relevant experience would encourage to we would inform that
01:50:38 would encourage to we would inform that that sort of work was coming up because obviously we don't want people to miss opportunities and we want to try and broaden the field as much as possible
01:50:46 possible can you give us some names of potential contractors you gave the heads up to at that time um well certainly i think at that time we were working with um keep most at tmo so i suspect that we
01:50:57 um keep most at tmo so i suspect that we would have contacted keep them out but that they would have been in um um
01:51:04 so you the contractors that we were in close contact with through um through existing contractor relationships right are those the sorts of contacts that you would record as you've recorded your
01:51:16 would record as you've recorded your discussion with jeff here not necessarily i mean sometimes um probably the one with jeff is because i had no direct contact with him so i thought i would give a direct link it says ojeu let jeff know as far
01:51:28 link it says ojeu let jeff know as far as i'm aware and i may be wrong about this your notebooks at this time and indeed any other time don't indicate that you had any other contact or intended to have any other contact with any other contractor about the oj eu notice
01:51:39 about the oj eu notice would that be right as a matter of your record i remember david gibson dropped me an email asking if we wanted to give a heads up to anybody and this was the only one that i remember but i do i suspect we will have spoken
01:51:52 but i do i suspect we will have spoken to our
01:51:53 to our existing contractors as well david may have done the same
01:52:05 [Applause] can we then turn to the events of february and march 2014 the following year now just to give you
01:52:18 the following year now just to give you a little chronology said i can firmly place you in the chronological context do you remember the
01:52:26 the tender exercise went out or the tender pack went out uh at the end of november 2013. yes and the bids came in on the 14th of february 2014.
01:52:38 february 2014. okay and the itt schools were then finalized in late february yes yes and the interviews were on the 7th of march yes i think the
01:52:49 were on the 7th of march yes i think the um
01:52:50 um tender was delayed a couple of weeks indeed
01:52:53 indeed and then there was a final tender report by artelia addressed to you on the 12th of march 2014
01:53:04 and if you don't remember take it from me that that is the case and then it was on the 18th of march 2014 that artelia gave notice to ryden that it was the preferred bidder
01:53:18 and then there was a standstill period of 10 days thereafter yes yes yes now um that's the skeleton chronology um
01:53:29 that's the skeleton chronology um let's start with earlier in march um as i understand it there was a a meeting or a conference of the chartered institute of housing in brighton on the 4th to the 6th of march 2013.
01:53:43 on the 4th to the 6th of march 2013. do you know that that happened do you know that yes were you there yes you were steve blake said that although you weren't on the list of delegates you were at some of the peripheral
01:53:54 peripheral events is that right yeah i think i was on the list of delegates oh right um but you were there did you speak to steve blake at the housing conference not that i remember specifically i was
01:54:05 not that i remember specifically i was at the conference specifically last year too because we were in the process of procuring a new framework
01:54:11 framework for consultants and contractors so i remember spending a lot of time in this installs talking to potential opportunities for contractors and consultants
01:54:24 did you speak to anybody from ryden i don't remember any specific conversations with anybody to be honest but um you know it's it's possible that i had a conversation with somebody from
01:54:35 had a conversation with somebody from ryden let's go to ryd3086648 please
01:54:46 this is an email from stephen blake to tim shutler and jeff henton on the 6th of march 2013. and in the first paragraph he says tim at the housing conference we had meetings with senior representatives from k and c
01:54:58 from k and c and my opinion is that in the event we were the successful contractor they would have no issues signing up to a form of documentation as we suggest you see that just pausing there was
01:55:09 you see that just pausing there was any of the senior representatives of knc you or members of your team sorry did i miss that question well let
01:55:21 sorry did i miss that question well let me
01:55:22 me yes he he says here at the housing conference we had meetings with senior representatives from k and c d d was any of them you or your members of your team i don't recall and i appreciate that you are tmo and
01:55:34 and i appreciate that you are tmo and not krbkc of course but do you recall meeting steve blake or do you recall any members of your team i don't know any specifically you don't
01:55:45 specifically you don't and i think you said you don't recall meeting anybody specifically from ryden is that right not specifically no i don't right sitting here today steve steve blake is telling uh tim
01:55:56 steve steve blake is telling uh tim schutzler on the last day of the conference itself at lunchtime that day that they had had meetings with senior representatives from knc um sitting here today have you any
01:56:10 um sitting here today have you any reason to think that was wrong i've got no recollection and so i can't say whether it's right or wrong you don't know um
01:56:19 it then goes on in the third line we have been informally advised that we are in pole position ours to lose
01:56:27 do you know uh uh did or did you know that this information had been given to ryden at this time i wasn't aware no can you explain how steve blake
01:56:39 steve blake got informally advised that ryden were in pole position and that the grenfell tower project was theirs to lose no i don't
01:56:49 you don't
01:56:52 can you offer any explanation as to how steve blake would have come by that knowledge other than from the tmo i can't no
01:57:05 now the interviews were on the 7th of march as i've put to you uh so the conference finished the day before the interview if that's correct if someone at the tmo
01:57:17 if that's correct if someone at the tmo had told ryden that they were first or in pole position before even the interviews had occurred would you consider that improper i think it's very unwise because it could jeopardize the whole
01:57:29 because it could jeopardize the whole procurement indeed
01:57:33 now i asked simon cash about these events
01:57:37 events and he effectively gave the same evidence as you've just given that informal information to ryden were in pole
01:57:45 in pole position yours to lose or asked to lose was irregular and improper and he agreed with that and do you agree i think as well i think it's very unwise well you say i'm wise it would have been irregular
01:57:56 i'm wise it would have been irregular and improper um i mean i think it would be improper to give any commercial advantage and i'm not sure that
01:58:05 that that does that but i think it was a very unwise it would open up to challenge definitely now i think you're telling us you can't explain how steve blake was told
01:58:19 explain how steve blake was told informally that ryden were in pole position i think you said you can't explain that no
01:58:28 now claire williams produced a report internally at the tma on the 10th of march for you didn't she do you remember that
01:58:35 that the 10th of march yeah well let's look at it
01:58:38 at it it's tmo10040921 and it's a report on tma paper entitled
01:58:51 and it's a report on tma paper entitled permission to let the grenfell tower contract you see that and if you look at the last page
01:59:03 uh you could see that the report author is claire williams and the date of the report is the 10th of april 2014. do you think you saw this at the time
01:59:13 does it look familiar to you no it doesn't look familiar really um i just wonder how that could be let's look at the recommendation it says under item 4 on that page
01:59:25 it says under item 4 on that page recommendation it is recommended that the contract be let to ryden after the standstill period which is ten days from the announcement of the selection in line with the oj eu regulations so that any challenges can be addressed
01:59:37 be addressed do you not remember seeing her report to that effect can i see who reports to let's go to the first page
01:59:49 and i'm not sure it tells you the idea the identity of the reportee but can you explain why you wouldn't have seen it given that you were her line manager up and one more um
02:00:05 is this a draft report or is it before it's been issued not so far as i know to answer your question mr madison i put this to claire williams and she accepted it was her report
02:00:15 report because my recollection was that it was because obviously on completion of the um the evaluation we needed to get a board report so we couldn't let
02:00:26 get a board report so we couldn't let any contract or give any um until we've been to board indeed and that
02:00:32 that under purpose of report first bullet point says the purpose of this report is to get permission to let the grenfell tower contract it would be surprising wouldn't it if you hadn't seen this document well i don't think this document ever had any status
02:00:43 status well never mind about that it would be surprising wouldn't it if you had never seen this document
02:00:49 um i don't know what the status of it is it it's not a formal report it's something
02:00:57 something it looks to me like something that's been drafted but it the the formal approval goes through our board report which went on the 27th of march
02:01:06 march so we couldn't have let any contract of any nature at this time doesn't make any sense
02:01:15 well i'm just very perplexed by that because it looks i mean claire williams has gone through a great deal of trouble to set out the case for permission to let the grenfell tower contract
02:01:27 let the grenfell tower contract as we can see and set out the background let's just go through it together to see if it triggers a recollection two sets out the background three sets out the current status
02:01:38 out the current status if you go over the page
02:01:41 four sends out the recommendation and there it is it is a a report by claire williams who was the project manager
02:01:50 manager on this project which was which was making a recommendation on the basis of a
02:01:56 a uh formal tender in which you'd been intimately involved no i hadn't been involved intimately in this at all would you not no i had so from the outset of the pqqs
02:02:08 i had so from the outset of the pqqs i had no involvement in any stage of the evaluation until the very last stage which was the um
02:02:15 um the interviews um so yes so 90 and the the interviews themselves was five percent of of the 100 evaluation
02:02:26 five percent of of the 100 evaluation so this this process was run entirely by artelia and by jenny jackson and claire williams and david gibson
02:02:37 david gibson i had no direct involvement in any way in any part of this evaluation other than
02:02:41 than i was at the present at the final interview which is that was actually more of a presentation um for stakeholders i focus on stakeholders but i
02:02:52 but i but i did get involved on completion of the
02:02:56 the evaluation on the 7th of march yes when the evaluation was complete i did then take the start to take the project forward because we had to do some
02:03:06 some quick work to get the board approval i needed some legal advice to support that and so there was a there was a sequence of events but i can't quite work out what this report is
02:03:18 can't quite work out what this report is um and how that fits in with our timeline because the seventh tenth this is the monday i don't i don't know the status of this report
02:03:29 i don't know the status of this report all right well let's um let's proceed for the moment on the basis that you didn't see it at the time uh now uh we also know that artelia produced its final tender report on the 12th of march let's
02:03:40 tender report on the 12th of march let's see if you saw that art four zero before we leave this document can i can i just ask um who would normally report to the board with a view to getting permission
02:03:51 board with a view to getting permission to let the contract that would be me so this that's why this is so unfamiliar to me because i would write all of those approval reports and i wrote the approval report report for this one um so this maybe this was
02:04:05 this one um so this maybe this was something that claire had drafted as a an initial to help me something that i could
02:04:11 could drop into my report as and when that was available that that's possible right thank you yeah i'm sorry um let's go to the final tender report from artelia 12th of march 2014.
02:04:24 art402197
02:04:32 looking at that first page did you see that document yes you did and uh just to take it quickly you can see it's dated the 12th of march 2014 and if you go to the last page page 25
02:04:46 paragraph 10 point nought conclusion ryden have submitted the most competitive tender price and highest quality
02:04:53 quality making it the most economically advantageous tender it is worth noting that ryden received the highest marks in all aspects of the tender evaluation it is therefore recommended that approval is given to commence the formal
02:05:04 approval is given to commence the formal standstill period in accordance with the eu regulations and subject to the conclusion of this standstill period the contract is awarded to ryden limited and the notice is placed in the official journal of the european union to this effect
02:05:15 effect so that you knew at that stage 12th of april
02:05:19 april at least that the formal conclusion of right of
02:05:22 right of artelia was that ryden should be awarded the contract yes we'd actually known that earlier because the evaluation was complete on the seventh and rotelli had issued an interim report
02:05:34 and rotelli had issued an interim report prior to those interviews so the final evaluation was done was completed in that meeting on the seventh right now let's step back two days to the 10th of
02:05:46 let's step back two days to the 10th of march 2014. can we go to ryd403274 please
02:05:54 and this is an email exchange on the 10th of march and if we scroll down to the bottom of the the email run
02:06:07 we can see that there's an email from you
02:06:10 you to jeff henton copy to judea ferreira on the 10th of march 2014 at 1657. do you see that and it says hi jeff
02:06:23 and it says hi jeff sasha's pa is judella i have copied her into this message so your pa can contact her
02:06:28 her to arrange a meet up with sasha and i you see that and above that we see an email from jeff henton giving some context um to uh sandra guest who
02:06:40 um to uh sandra guest who is we were told i think uh jeff henton's pa sandra could you arrange lunch or evening meal if they would prefer venue tba
02:06:51 would prefer venue tba but central london mid-april jeff you see that yes uh now i asked stephen blake when he came to give evidence about the purpose of this
02:07:03 give evidence about the purpose of this meeting
02:07:04 meeting and his answer at day 29 page 7 line 25 you don't have to have it up was that it would be to recognize the award of the contract do you agree um it was a it was a
02:07:18 do you agree um it was a it was a so there was a there was a piece of correspondence prior to this um so i i had contacted jeff henton there's a there's a piece of context before that so we finished the
02:07:29 before that so we finished the evaluation on the seventh of jul of march and we were we had a situation where um we were over the budget so we'd
02:07:43 um we were over the budget so we'd when i tell you issued the um sorry i'm not going to answer your question so maybe you should we should ask
02:07:49 ask we may we may get to that because i i i think i know where you're going but let's take it step by step pausing here
02:08:02 was it right that the meal or meeting was to recognize the award of the contract as steve blake told the inquiry it was to so it was this contact was subject to
02:08:14 it was this contact was subject to was following my contact earlier in the day with jeff henton to make to agree a process whereby which we could clarify whether we would be able to
02:08:25 we would be able to award that contract and so there was a series of steps that that took place from that monday the 10th and up until
02:08:36 that monday the 10th and up until the board report on that was issued about a week later so at this meeting i had notified jeff that they were in
02:08:47 had notified jeff that they were in first position in terms of price and quality
02:08:51 quality and that's subject to completion of the standstill period and of board approval would be recommended for the award of the contract when was this meeting this wasn't a meeting well you just said
02:09:03 this wasn't a meeting well you just said so at this meeting sorry i didn't meet him no i rang him right when did you ring jeff henton and tell him that they were in first position i believe it was on this day on monday
02:09:15 i believe it was on this day on monday the 10th of march okay that's what triggered him to make contact with sasha right and the purpose of the lunch or evening meal if they would
02:09:27 lunch or evening meal if they would prefer
02:09:28 prefer was what the purpose of that was to this was the first time that ryden and kct meow had worked together this was a re this was the most important project that
02:09:39 important project that tmo had in his books and obviously jeff henton wants to introduce himself as a new
02:09:45 new new client having won a significant project potentially at that time and this was an opportunity for senior the the senior directors to meet
02:09:56 the the senior directors to meet establish
02:09:57 establish principles and to establish communication going forward in terms of making sure that this project was delivered to uh to meet the aspirations of the
02:10:08 to uh to meet the aspirations of the residence and of the tml it looks as if jeff henton wasn't content with the meeting but wanted lunch or dinner yes was that because there was
02:10:20 or dinner yes was that because there was an element of celebration about the event he may have seen it like that and i
02:10:25 i i think this was really seen as an opportunity for the senior managers of both organizations to meet with
02:10:32 with um and to
02:10:36 um and to establish a related working relationship going forward did you have lunch or dinner with ryden as jeff henton's email suggests i can't remember what
02:10:47 remember what i think there was there was a there was a meal and i can't remember when it was exactly but it was late it was it was after
02:10:55 after well it's just mid-april so i suggested it was mid-april probably that time but at this time mid-march was there a lunch or evening meal no
02:11:05 let's um go to ryd 3-0 is 94368 please
02:11:13 this is an email also dated the 10th of march
02:11:21 from 10 from jeff henton to sandra guest copied to steve blake if you go just up a little bit i'm sorry on the screen uh where jeff henton says sorry peter
02:11:33 uh where jeff henton says sorry peter sascha steve and me exclamation mark now you're
02:11:36 you're steve steve blake has copied in on that now you're not to know that at the time but then looking at the top email this is also the 10th of march at 7 20 p.m
02:11:46 p.m from jeff henton to steve blake spoke to peter
02:11:50 peter about the award and they are keen to get going they need to do a fair amount of value engineering which should be achievable all in all feels like a result
02:12:00 now by peter was that you yes so you had had a conversation that day i think you
02:12:08 think you said earlier about the award yes yes yes
02:12:15 and then the next day 11th of march we see ryd403279
02:12:27 and again this is an internal ryden email
02:12:30 email and jeff henton is sending a message to the grenfell team
02:12:38 uh hi team i have spoken with peter madison at kensington and chelsea tmo limited
02:12:44 limited who informs me that our price for the above is in first place ally to which our presentation and documentation is also in first place therefore subject to a small amount of value engineering
02:12:55 value engineering peter should be in a position to recommend our appointment on this scheme to his board early next week
02:13:04 had you indicated in the con in the conversation the previous day or on this day 11th to ryden that ryden was going to get the contract subject to what you called a small
02:13:16 subject to what you called a small amount of value engineering subject to a small amount of value engineering no subject to the completion of the standstill period and board approval
02:13:30 and board approval but what we'd also wanted to do was to establish some value engineers and principles that could be then reported to the board because at this time the
02:13:42 because at this time the the scheme was over over the approved budget
02:13:45 budget and there were a number of items within the tender that were um there were a number of items within the tender that
02:13:56 tender that that needed clarification one of them being the
02:13:59 being the so within the tender there was an alternative there were two alternative cladding materials the windows needed a planning permission sign off as well and there was some public realm works
02:14:10 and there was some public realm works that was actually performed part of the calc project which was priced in the tender as an option
02:14:16 option and so in terms of trying to move the contract forward we needed to and to understand to firm up a contract price
02:14:24 price we needed to clarify what materials were going to be used on on the on the building so that we could then clarify the price within the board approval but we couldn't do that at this
02:14:35 approval but we couldn't do that at this stage there was more work that was required
02:14:38 required to progress that board approval so the and that was so this was reflected in so that was the reason with so we as we were over the budget
02:14:49 were over the budget um our options were to either we couldn't negotiate with all three contractors that was clear we've got advice from travis that that wasn't uh possible and so our options were to
02:15:01 uh possible and so our options were to either reprocure or to work within the award to award the existing contract the the contract that was in first place but in order to do that we needed to
02:15:13 but in order to do that we needed to clarify these points so we could understand the value of the works and then make a decision to either increase the budget or to reprocure so that was this that
02:15:24 or to reprocure so that was this that was why this process started ahead of the um the standstill period because we needed to establish that principle so that could then be reported into our board and so that that
02:15:38 reported into our board and so that that so there was a that was what this this dialogue was about that was why there was the urgency about making it because
02:15:43 because the deadline for the board report was about seven days after this you finished your answer
02:15:53 um i think so mr madison that was a very long
02:15:57 long speech which encompassing a number of wide-ranging and different ideas over a number of different days have you been thinking about what you've
02:16:08 have you been thinking about what you've just told me for some time before you just said it um i have i have given some thought to this abs
02:16:15 this abs absolutely i'm sure you have i'd like now if we can please instead of you giving me a long speech with respect to answer the questions
02:16:23 questions step by step and what i asked you and i put to you if i can recall it was that had you indicated in that conversation either
02:16:34 indicated in that conversation either on the 10th or the 11th of march to ryden
02:16:37 ryden that they were going to get the contract subject to what you called a small amount of value engineering now let's just let's break it down even further
02:16:46 further did you tell ryden that they were going to get the contract no did you tell ryden that their price was in
02:16:53 was in first place allied to which their presentation and documentation is also in first place yes you did
02:17:01 do you agree that telling ryden those things was irregular no do you agree
02:17:12 irregular no do you agree that it was unwise
02:17:16 um
02:17:20 i think any dialogue with any dialogue at this stage was did bring about a risk of challenge that's why we took some initial legal advice around
02:17:31 advice around this approach because it was a very um it was it was a very difficult position we were in we either had to reprocure the whole tender we were in a situation where we'd only had five tenderers who'd gone down to three
02:17:44 five tenderers who'd gone down to three we
02:17:45 we actually got three tender so there's we were clear that there wasn't a very strong market there and so the idea of reprocuring wasn't an attractive one at that stage we didn't have the option for
02:17:56 we didn't have the option for negotiating with the three tenderers who had submitted tenders the only option open to us other than to retender was to work with the existing contractor that
02:18:07 work with the existing contractor that did
02:18:07 did carry with it some potential risk of challenge and we took legal advice on that
02:18:12 that mr madison i understand that you want to defend the tma's position on this but what i'm seeking to get at is the facts and and your understanding of them at the time do you understand yes did you think at the time that by
02:18:24 did you think at the time that by telling ryden that the price was in first place and their presentation and documentation was in first place was improper in the sense that it wasn't compliant with the rules on public procurement for
02:18:35 the rules on public procurement for public works i wouldn't call it improper i would say that it was it did factor in some potential risks of challenge within the eu procurement rules however we took legal advice on
02:18:46 rules however we took legal advice on that the
02:18:47 that the advice was not that it was illegal or improper it advised us that there were particular risks and those are commercial risks that
02:18:55 that we might want to consider in order in the in the situation that we found ourselves in thank you so i think that answers my question
02:19:03 question that you didn't go about making sure that the other bidders had the same opportunity to get involved in the in satisfying the
02:19:14 get involved in the in satisfying the same conditions that you were asking ryden to satisfy in order to win the contract
02:19:17 contract it was clear in the advice that we got that that wasn't that wasn't possible to do within the within the procurement rules
02:19:27 let's move forward in time and then we'll come back to the legal advice probably on monday now tm00850707
02:19:40 probably on monday now tm00850707 this is an email chain between you david gibson
02:19:43 gibson claire williams and some others and if we go to the bottom of the page this is an email of the 12th of march you see
02:19:54 you see wednesday 12th of march and it says this is from youtube david burns and in fact it was supposed to be i think that was the wrong david it was supposed to be david gibson as you say
02:20:05 supposed to be david gibson as you say in the
02:20:06 in the uh message above that i spoke to steve blake from ryden today he was comfortable with closing the approximately 270 000 pound gap in the budget
02:20:15 budget he will give us an estimate of the cost of pre-construction work can you draft a scope of activities and time scales for him to cost if we can get him something by thursday he will give a figure by the end of the week
02:20:25 week i will factor this into the board approval i think it would be worth claire meeting somebody from ryden to confirm that we have a shared understanding of the site boundaries and the interface with the laboratory site can you see if we can do this
02:20:36 site can you see if we can do this before next wednesday
02:20:40 now did you speak to steve blake on march the 12th yes you did
02:20:49 did you have a conversation with steve blake on march the 12th about a gap in the budget
02:20:56 um
02:21:04 what we were looking to establish was that
02:21:07 that our the rydens would so there was a there was a degree of clarification needed around the materials
02:21:15 materials used in the tender um in in so but we also need to establish the um that ryden were prepared to work
02:21:26 the um that ryden were prepared to work with us on value engineering post contract um and they needed to understand the sort of scale of value engineering that we were thinking of and so that was the purpose of this is to establish the principles that we were
02:21:38 establish the principles that we were looking to to achieve here which actually are reflected in the board report which was about establishing the materials through the through the um planning permissions and
02:21:50 through the um planning permissions and through
02:21:51 through um and through establishing the in the the public realm work because with that would have come additional budget as well so that would have clarified
02:21:59 clarified some of those issues so there were a number of issues that need to be clarified
02:22:02 clarified part of which was going to be a value engineering of a gap of about 270 000 pounds was estimated at that time and that was the principle we were looking to establish with ryden's at this time
02:22:15 did you have a conversation with mr blake about a gap in the budget on the 12th of march 2014
02:22:23 2014 yes in order to establish that they would work with us post tender to value engineer that gap can i ask you to look at your 2014 diary
02:22:34 can i ask you to look at your 2014 diary which is tm008
02:22:43 and we can see an entry for the 12th of march at page 28. and if you look at that you can see that on page 28 on the left-hand side of
02:22:57 that on page 28 on the left-hand side of the page we see the entry for wednesday the 12th of march 2014. ring steve blake i think you're telling us you did yes then we see an entry for the 13th of
02:23:11 yes then we see an entry for the 13th of march
02:23:14 right to steve blake re pre contract proposal i think that says first of all am i right that is what it says yes
02:23:29 did you write to stephen blake about a pre-contract proposal i can't specifically remember whether i did if i did it would have been by email
02:23:39 and the pre-contract proposal is what is contained within the board approval that was reported to the board that that following week can we go next
02:23:51 that that following week can we go next to ryd403295 just taking this step by step this is an email from steve blake internally at ryden you see 12th of march
02:24:02 ryden you see 12th of march at 3 o'clock in the afternoon you see that
02:24:05 that yeah and it says we are going to be asked by k and c to find some further value engineering savings in addition to those identified in our tender let's wait until this approach is made
02:24:17 let's wait until this approach is made before going to the supply chain in terms of value allocation we took care to make provision against a specification that was exactly compliant peter m is going to forward some ideas tomorrow
02:24:29 tomorrow now is that the same conversation 12th of march to which you refer in your email to david gibson that we saw a moment ago the one that was miss sent
02:24:40 a moment ago the one that was miss sent to david burns could i see that one again please
02:24:47 yes it's tm00850707
02:25:01 it's timed at 5 27 pm 12th of march dear all i spoke to steve blake today from ryan from ryden today do you see that
02:25:09 that said you give a figure by the interview is that the same conversation it sounds like it yes right and then going back to the email we were just on ryd403295 it says in the final
02:25:20 on ryd403295 it says in the final paragraph
02:25:21 paragraph i'll just go back to that peter m is going to forward some ideas tomorrow did you offer to forward some ideas to him the next day maybe the 13th of march i don't recall but
02:25:32 but i think um it's possible david gibson may have done so it's consistent with your diary that you or perhaps he was going to write yeah yes let's go then to the 13th of
02:25:43 yeah yes let's go then to the 13th of march ryd403302 please this is a chain of emails on the 13th of march
02:25:53 march which is the tomorrow referred to in the 12th of march email ryd 403302 and at the let's i think go to page two
02:26:07 and at the let's i think go to page two of what's on the screen so we can uh have the bottom of page one and page two together
02:26:15 i think we need the bottom of page one i'm afraid to start with just to pick up the email and we can see david gibson writes to steve blake on the 13th of march
02:26:26 the 13th of march 1314 that day copy to you and claire williams
02:26:29 williams steve it says peter madison of the tmo has given me your contact details i understand you are currently in a meeting i've attached a simple spreadsheet indicating the areas we would like you to look at in relation to possible savings
02:26:41 relation to possible savings our target is around 800 000 pounds which included the cladding savings already priced and any grant income to the scheme could you come back to us early monday with some indicative time scales and
02:26:52 some indicative time scales and confirmation as to where you consider there are opportunities for savings with figures where possible and then i don't need the next paragraph and then the next paragraph on says can you also
02:27:01 you also confirm if you can make a meeting on monday afternoon with peter myself and claire williams the project manager for the scheme at our offices it might be useful if you can bring your estimator
02:27:10 estimator also and that's signed off by david gibson
02:27:16 gibson and mr gibson indicates there that you have instructed him to send ryden some suggestions for value engineering is that right yes the professional team would pull together some proposals during the tender process because they
02:27:28 during the tender process because they knew we knew that the pretender estimate was greater than the budget so the professional team had pulled together some options and i think that was the schedule that david sent across
02:27:39 was the schedule that david sent across and that included some of the elements that were
02:27:43 that were included in the pricing schedule within the tender and then there's there was around about 270 000 pounds in addition to that that we were looking to
02:27:53 to value engineering value engineer post tender and at this stage we were looking to establish that principle that ryden would be comfortable with that so that we could enter into a
02:28:04 that so that we could enter into a pre-contract agreement to try and develop
02:28:07 develop that yeah you said that before i think but i think the answer to my question is yes
02:28:12 yes is that right you had instructed mr gibson to send this email
02:28:18 yes yeah um can we go to the attachment please which is ryd403301 do you recognize this document i'm sorry
02:28:29 do you recognize this document i'm sorry i wait
02:28:29 i wait for it to come up on the screen i'm sorry i'm getting ahead of myself mr madison forgive me
02:28:35 this is a the spreadsheet that was attached to the email we've just seen
02:28:47 do you recognize this document no you don't can you you can't help me with who compiled it or
02:28:58 who compiled it or no i don't i don't think i've ever seen this you've never seen it before
02:29:03 let's see if it jogs the recollection uh its title is grenfell it says the works budget is 8.415 million
02:29:11 million pounds the cost savings to be made need to be in the region of 800 000 pounds the list below is not exhaustive is this something you didn't you've not seen before
02:29:21 before um no i've seen something similar to it before but i think what it's doing is scheduling out some of the um the it looks like it to me as if it's scheduling out some of the
02:29:33 scheduling out some of the potential areas of saving that have been identified by the professional team but also
02:29:38 also identifying some of the alternative materials that were identified within the tender i'm just puzzled because you say you've never seen it before but it was you were copied in on the email david
02:29:50 you were copied in on the email david gibson sent to steve blake and and also copied to claire williams did you not open the attachment to see what it was that david gibson had sent steven blake i don't think i don't think i i mean i
02:30:01 i don't think i don't think i i mean i may not have done i may have done it doesn't
02:30:04 doesn't it doesn't ring any bells but i think that um at this stage we were really looking to establish principles rather than details anyway well you say that this is a detailed list
02:30:17 this is a detailed list of items that could be the subject of value engineering as you would call it leading to a total reduction in the then quoted ryden price for
02:30:28 in the then quoted ryden price for grenfell
02:30:29 grenfell of 800 000 pounds it's quite detailed isn't it it's not just about an approach i mean the the majority of this had already been priced within the dryden's contract
02:30:37 contract so the the material costs for example in the um
02:30:40 the um public realm works had um had already been priced so there was a um so the actual value engineering element was about 270 000 um but it was just to give clarity about
02:30:51 um but it was just to give clarity about what those issues were and what sort of scale of value engineering would be required post-tender and to establish whether rydens were prepared to work with us on that or if they weren't then our options were
02:31:02 or if they weren't then our options were to go back out to tender um do you know where mr gibson got the figure of eight hundred thousand pounds from
02:31:10 i'm assuming it's the gap between the tender and the budget yeah
02:31:19 did you tell mr gibson or suggest to go to gibson that he would ask ryden to reduce their tender price from 9.2 million
02:31:32 their tender price from 9.2 million pounds
02:31:33 pounds to 8.4 million pounds no the process we were going to go through here was to get an agreement through a pre-contract agreement with ryden's to establish the planning permission
02:31:47 establish the planning permission so we could understand the costs of the windows
02:31:50 windows and the cladding because that they were subject to planning approval and the costs of that were variable so and at that stage once we've established that then the choice is do we either enter
02:32:01 enter into a contract at the value of the materials that have been uh approved or we look at an alternative procurement route so we need to establish
02:32:10 establish those facts before we could enter into contract and in reality down the line we did increase the budget once we had established some of these costs were you not interested to know what the contents of
02:32:21 interested to know what the contents of the simple spreadsheet that david gibson was sending ryden i think i was aware in principle of the sort of the areas that have been considered by the professional team i think that had been done through the tender processes that through through um between the period of the
02:32:35 through um between the period of the um the um
02:32:40 um the um pre-contract um pretender estimate being issued by otelia and uh identifying that that was significantly higher than the the anticipated budget are you telling us you didn't open the attachment and
02:32:51 us you didn't open the attachment and look at the spreadsheet yourself i don't recall specifically looking at this in detail but at this stage this was about establishing principles it wasn't about the detailed um the detail process yes and if you
02:33:02 um the detail process yes and if you look at the bottom of the text in the box it says ryden to confirm if possible by monday 17th march agreement in principle to above can we take it that whether or not you opened the attachment and saw these details
02:33:13 these details you knew that there were a a a a set or was a set a list of items in respect of which you wanted ryden to come back
02:33:21 come back in order to take you to a reduction of eight hundred thousand pounds um yes i mean we were looking to um but it was about a principle part of which was already priced within the
02:33:33 which was already priced within the tender
02:33:34 tender that there was about three about 270 000 pounds worth of works that weren't within that we want to establish the principle that ryden would work with us on that basis mr chairman i've got about five more
02:33:46 mr chairman i've got about five more minutes on this document of this topic before being able to reach a natural break
02:33:50 break yes all right would you be content to go on for another five minutes i think so all right thank you yes on your games if we scroll up to steve blake's response in the email we can come off that document and go back if we can
02:34:01 document and go back if we can to the email itself which is at ryd
02:34:07 yes thank you if we can scroll up to steve blake's response on the 13th of march of page one on this we can see that he comes back to david
02:34:18 we can see that he comes back to david gibson and copies claire williams and you mr madison and says 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 which would work perfectly
02:34:31 pm as email which would work perfectly as requested we will respond early monday regarding opportunities for savings and time scales look forward to meeting you
02:34:40 did you understand from that when you received it that stephen blake would be amenable or was amenable to entry into discussions about savings before
02:34:50 before even being formally notified that they were the winner of the tender i mean at the bottom of the spreadsheet it was clear we were looking for agreement in principle at that stage and this was about establishing the
02:35:01 and this was about establishing the principles that could then be reported onto
02:35:04 onto board in terms of the pre-contract agreement that's really what we were focusing on that's why that's why this is myself and david and claire working on this and not i'll tell you because this was about establishing these principles to
02:35:16 about establishing these principles to agree
02:35:16 agree the pre-contract works because this was about getting the project moving through the board approval do you agree that the discussions that
02:35:27 do you agree that the discussions that you were having through the spreadsheet that i've now shown you uh on the 12th and 13th of march were really very specific they were about value engineering
02:35:38 they were about value engineering targets and specific uh figures or at least specific items which would lead to a specific figure by way of reduction i think there was to give an illustrative sort of idea of what we were thinking what our professional team had thought
02:35:49 what our professional team had thought of to date but it was about establishing the principle of what we would do post award well it was more than that wasn't it because if you look at the spreadsheet it was more than just can you come down to our budget please let's talk about that
02:36:00 let's talk about that would you be amenable to coming down to our budget there was a list of specific items which were potential candidates for price reductions including the cladding
02:36:08 cladding and so the purpose of that i mean the professional team would put that together as their ideas of the areas where we may be able to
02:36:15 able to reduce those costs and really the idea of
02:36:19 of having this early conversation with ryden's was to to give them the opportunity to say well actually that's not feasible or as they said well actually we think we can work with this if they said it's not feasible
02:36:30 feasible then our only option left is to go back out to tender yes i mean really what i'm trying to get you to accept at this stage mr madison we'll come to further detail
02:36:38 detail shortly some more on monday but what i'm really just trying to see if you'll accept is whether in fact this wasn't simply a vague discussion about an approach in general but actually a proposed detailed discussion about detailed items leading
02:36:49 discussion about detailed items leading to
02:36:50 to a roundabout a pretty precise figure of eight hundred thousand pounds it it was as i described it it was the it was the it was as much detail as the um professional team
02:37:01 professional team had been able to pull together it was the ideas that we thought that the professional team thought could be delivered and it was about establishing the principle um that whether or not ryden's thought
02:37:14 um that whether or not ryden's thought that that was feasible and they could work with that if they said no we can't the margin is too tight then our option is to go out to tender it was the only they were the only two options
02:37:25 options available to us at that stage through this procurement mr chairman that's a natural enough break i think well i think it would be a good time to stop it yes
02:37:36 stop it yes thank you well mr madison it's been a slightly longer day than we normally have but
02:37:40 have but we're going to stop at that point um i'm going to have to ask you to come back on monday to deal with some more questions if you would and in the meantime please remember not to talk to anyone about your evidence or anything to do
02:37:52 about your evidence or anything to do with it apart from the exception that i mentioned to you yesterday while you're away from the hearing room all right thank you thank you very much and we'll see you again at 10 o'clock on monday please thank you
02:38:14 monday please thank you thank you very much 10 o'clock on monday
02:38:26 please
02:38:34 you