Evidence from TMO project manager Peter Maddison on the decision to reject appointing a client design advisor during the Grenfell Tower refurbishment
00:00:15 good morning everyone welcome to today's hearing
00:00:17 hearing today we're going to continue hearing evidence from mr peter madison so would you ask mr madison to come in
00:00:28 please
00:00:36 good morning mr madison good morning
00:00:40 are you all set up well put yourself some water and then when you're ready we'll
00:00:44 we'll get started thanks very much all right thank you yes morning mr chairman mr madison good morning good morning i now want to turn to the topic of the client design advisor and just
00:00:55 client design advisor and just uh look at that with you uh can we go please
00:00:59 please first to art four zeros two six one four
00:01:07 these are minutes of progress meeting number one progress update on site on the 15th of july 2014
00:01:16 july 2014 and if we look at that first page there we can see that you were in attendance at that meeting as the third person mentioned on the list of these now can we go please to page two and three
00:01:27 three at the same time bottom of page two top of page three and at the bottom of page two we can see under the title design development 3.1 cw to appoint a client design
00:01:38 3.1 cw to appoint a client design advisor and you see that yes and then over the top of page 3.2 it continues sl confirmed that their m
00:01:48 m e designers are on board and then 3.3 can you see that it says it was noted that the tmo or their advisor when appointed
00:01:57 appointed needs to sign off all design you see that i do and that was identified as a note
00:02:05 now do you remember the discussion at this meeting about the proposal for claire williams to appoint a client design advisor i don't specifically remember that conversation
00:02:16 specifically remember that conversation now you don't specifically did you know at the time what a cda or client design advisor did no it's not a familiar it wasn't a familiar or common um
00:02:25 common um role in my experience did you can we take it then that you didn't say at this meeting
00:02:30 meeting simply by virtue of the fact that it's not recorded that you didn't say oh we don't need a cda um i assumed there was going to be an offline review of what was needed and that would be what claire would be looking at right
00:02:42 be what claire would be looking at right do you recall that by this point 15th july 2014 a decision had been made within the tmo that claire williams would appoint a claire a client design advisor um i didn't
00:02:56 client design advisor um i didn't no i didn't understand that um so the role itself wasn't i mean i think it was proposed i understand it was proposed by artelia yeah
00:03:04 yeah um but um
00:03:08 um but um and there was there was some there was there were a variety of design client-side design issues that wanted to become were to be considered so for example
00:03:15 example the m e designers um sam lawrence confirmed that they were to be appointed through right they were to appoint theirs through ryden i remember a conversation with david
00:03:26 i remember a conversation with david gibson
00:03:27 gibson subsequently that he was recommending we retained max fordham to oversee the m e design on the client side and i also remember a subsequent
00:03:39 and i also remember a subsequent conversation with david regarding advice that artelia were offering which i assume was the client design advisor role but i didn't have sight of the proposal i was going to ask you that you
00:03:52 proposal i was going to ask you that you never saw the proposal from february 2014
00:03:55 2014 recommending uh rich mel harding of artelia who was an architect of 15 years experience to act as a client design advisor no you didn't see the proposal i don't recall
00:04:06 didn't see the proposal i don't recall seeing that um now if we go to art 402701 this is an email from claire williams
00:04:18 this is an email from claire williams to peter blythe and philip booth at artelia and the subject was design advisor
00:04:25 advisor now you're not copied in on this so i don't expect you necessarily to have seen it
00:04:31 seen it but let's just look at it together dear both last tuesday we talked about the appointment of a design advisor and the likelihood that this did not particularly apply to cladding and m elements which were designed and
00:04:43 and m elements which were designed and done to guarantee upon discussion most of the design concerns were over the new build areas i.e the flats nursery and boxing club i've spoken to david gibson and we're going to see if we can manage this
00:04:54 going to see if we can manage this within the tmo as we are very familiar with the specifications for social housing
00:04:59 housing we will monitor how this is working as presumably all proposals for comment will have a respond by date can you please send any design proposals to myself cc david gibson
00:05:10 myself cc david gibson now did you know at the time that this email was sent by claire williams 29th of august
00:05:16 of august 2014 that
00:05:19 2014 that the tmo was going to reject the proposal for a client designer advisor i wasn't aware of this email you went aware of the email did you know in general terms around this time that
00:05:30 in general terms around this time that the tma was going to reject the proposal for a client design advisor i can't remember the exact timing of my conversation with david gibson it may have been before or after all as part of this dialogue that was going
00:05:41 as part of this dialogue that was going on between claire and um and artelia um but um i remember david saying to me that
00:05:49 that he felt that the cl as the we'd appointed
00:05:53 appointed an m e side um we retained max fordham to
00:05:57 to comment on the m e side and we'd appointed a clockworks to review the works on site and he felt that
00:06:05 that this role wasn't necessary in the context of what was left and that was that was my understanding of the conversation i don't think it was any more than that and i note that um
00:06:18 any more than that and i note that um claire's reference that the cladding and the m
00:06:20 the m e um elements were didn't apply to that role which um so i don't know what the basis of that discussion was with artelia and clinton
00:06:32 discussion was with artelia and clinton right
00:06:32 right you refer just now to a discussion you had with david gibson in that discussion just to be clear did he advise you that the tmo either had make or would
00:06:43 that the tmo either had make or would make a decision that they didn't need a client design advisor in respect of the non-eminy elements of the refurbishment i don't remember him using the word client design advisor as i say the role
00:06:54 client design advisor as i say the role wasn't familiar to me right it wasn't a standard part of the design and build suite of appointments no indeed it wasn't but never mind the tag or title of the role
00:07:06 never mind the tag or title of the role my question again did david gibson advise you that the tmo had either made or would make a decision that they didn't need an advisor of that kind
00:07:18 kind to advise on the design advise the tmo on design in respect of the non-m e elements of the refurbishment he did you did
00:07:27 you did what did you say to him um i um i just noted what he said it seemed it seemed like he'd given its thought and had
00:07:38 and had considered what services were needed i think the
00:07:42 think the discussions that i'd had in general with david was that the responsibilities here were clear in terms of responsibility under the design and build contract with responsibility going to ryden as a designer and artelia as our
00:07:55 ryden as a designer and artelia as our employer's agent in a very standard way and
00:07:58 and so i didn't have an in-depth conversation with him about it but my understanding was that the principal responsibility for the design was with ryden as the main contractor and i'll
00:08:09 ryden as the main contractor and i'll tell you as our agent were ensuring that ryden complied with the terms of the employer's requirements did david gibson tell you that he had made the decision or he and claire williams had made the
00:08:20 or he and claire williams had made the decision
00:08:22 decision he was just telling you about it or did you get the impression that uh he would like to make the decision but wanted your approval of the decision he wasn't asking for my approval he was running he was running the
00:08:33 running he was running the what he was proposing to do past me really it was a it was a it wasn't an in-depth conversation it's just a reference i think following a meeting that he'd had with artelia so i think you know i think it
00:08:46 artelia so i think you know i think it was a
00:08:47 was a it was an impassing of this is what we're doing did he explain to you the precise reasons why he and claire williams had made the decision not to appoint a client design advisor
00:08:58 not to appoint a client design advisor no i didn't have a detailed conversation as i say
00:09:00 as i say did you not want to know why it was that david gibson had made the decision not to appoint a client design advisor as i say i hadn't recognized the client design advisor as being a standard part
00:09:11 design advisor as being a standard part of this appointment i had a pr my my understanding of this procurement of this contract was that it was going to be through a pretty traditional not a traditional a typical design and
00:09:22 not a traditional a typical design and build route and that the additional services of a cloud
00:09:27 cloud client design advisor wouldn't detract from the responsibilities of artelia's employer's agents to ensure that ryden's complied with the terms of the contract and what was the basic reason you understood
00:09:39 what was the basic reason you understood from david gibson that he had decided not to appoint a client design advisor i think in short that it wasn't necessary i think that was that was my understanding
00:09:50 understanding why wasn't it necessary as i said i didn't have a detailed conversation with you didn't ask him why he thought it wasn't necessary i didn't interrogate him in detail was there any discussion between you about whether or not it was sensible not
00:10:01 about whether or not it was sensible not to have a client design advisor at least in respect of the cladding design um well at no point did anybody raise any specific issues regarding the the the design of the cladding or any
00:10:12 the the design of the cladding or any risks attached to that and if any specialist advice had been recommended i would have fully supported that but none was ever given right um i recognized and now having
00:10:24 right um i recognized and now having seen the evidence regarding the client design advisor that it is um it will give you know general advice on architectural issues and on on design from a from a client
00:10:37 on design from a from a client perspective but um not specialist advice necessarily relating to cladding so um
00:10:45 um [Music]
00:10:46 [Music] looking back at this email and where claire williams says that the appointment of a design advisor in likelihood did not particularly apply
00:10:57 in likelihood did not particularly apply to cladding did you have a discussion with david gibson about whether and if so why the cda role would or wouldn't apply to
00:11:09 the cda role would or wouldn't apply to the cladding particularly as i say i had no in-depth conversation or sight of this so i and i wasn't part of the conversation where claire has taken the influence that it didn't apply to cladding or
00:11:21 apply to cladding or um although i recognized the m e elements because we did right so you can't explain why she thought that any appointment of a club of a client design advisor would exclude from its scope
00:11:32 its scope the cladding design no right can we go to the minutes of the august 2014 progress meeting number two
00:11:40 two held on the 19th of august 2014 and that is at art 402752 please
00:11:50 now here it is uh you are not present at this meeting but do you think you saw these minutes um i i don't recall
00:12:04 minutes um i i don't recall you don't recall specifically i wouldn't specifically review all minutes of the grenfell tower meetings would you not no would you be sent them i would probably be sent them
00:12:15 sent them i would probably be sent them you say probably can you do you recall what the system was whereby you got the minutes or didn't get the minutes um i don't recall actually
00:12:22 actually um i'm just looking to see if there's a circulation list but normally it would note if
00:12:26 note if i was on a circulation list so maybe i wasn't
00:12:29 wasn't right okay um let's see how far we go can we go to page two then please item 3.1 under the heading design development it says cw to appoint a client design
00:12:43 it says cw to appoint a client design advisor
00:12:43 advisor action cw just like the previous progress meeting note that you uh that we saw before in respect of the meeting you were at and then underneath that it says post
00:12:54 and then underneath that it says post meeting note cw advised that the tmo will perform the role of the cda in-house they will therefore need to sign off all design
00:13:04 were you aware that the impact of the decision
00:13:07 decision not to appoint a client design advisor was that the tmo would be responsible for signing off all design
00:13:15 design um no and i don't really agree with that minute
00:13:18 minute i don't agree with a minute can you just explain a little bit more why you don't have
00:13:22 have a minute well i think that um and it's so first started suggesting that cmo will perform the role of the client design advisor and just we can't really advise ourselves i mean
00:13:35 we can't really advise ourselves i mean i think you either have a service or you don't want to and i think i i recognize this client design advice that i'll tell you offered was an additional service to their appointments that were already made in
00:13:47 appointments that were already made in terms of employers agent and cdmc and quantity surveyor so um so i wouldn't that sounds like they're stepping away from some of those
00:13:59 they're stepping away from some of those responsibilities that are in their contract and then the comment about therefore signing off all design is a very broad statement because actually in contract rydens have
00:14:11 actually in contract rydens have responsibility into the design and build contract for signing off design and there are some elements that may be proposed to the client for whether issues of client choice
00:14:22 whether issues of client choice and the client should take
00:14:26 take a view on those issues and but also other parties within the professional team
00:14:32 team should also be part of that i think these matters would be considered this meeting really and and appropriate action taken does that quite long answer tell us a
00:14:43 does that quite long answer tell us a number of things does it tell us that so far as you were concerned at the time the tmo would not have the skills or training or education in-house to be able to as you put it to advise itself
00:14:55 able to as you put it to advise itself on design
00:14:59 on design having seen the scope now of the client design advisor role certainly we wouldn't have the skills in-house to provide that full role right um that's something sorry i'm so
00:15:10 right um that's something sorry i'm so sorry do you want to finish your well there are elements within that um that so for example in um where david and claire's experience in
00:15:21 where david and claire's experience in particular would be relevant to things like the design of the new flats the new homes within the building and issues such as that so so i think they would have skills in those regards
00:15:32 they would have skills in those regards but in terms of specifics around compliance of materials and uh and design of that that nature no those those skills weren't in-house and we couldn't have taken on responsibility no
00:15:44 couldn't have taken on responsibility no i mean we're looking at claire williams's skills and experience before she joined the tma she told us that she'd worked in maintenance repairs and regeneration product projects but that none of those skills
00:15:56 projects but that none of those skills design skills no no and we would be looking here for if there was if there was a requirement for specialist advice on issues such as cladding we would expect
00:16:08 expect and the professional team to be working with us and advising on that specialist skills and i'm not aware of any of that conversation and also it's worth probably mentioning as well
00:16:19 as well is that in relation to this i didn't have a conversation with anybody from artelia regarding the client design advisor role so nobody had contacted me if they felt that it was so important
00:16:30 that it was so important um that i don't recall any conversation relating to this um but it would make sense wouldn't it that if david gibson and claire williams had both decided that a cda role was not what they wanted for
00:16:42 a cda role was not what they wanted for artelia
00:16:43 artelia then artely wouldn't second guess them and come to you over their heads would they
00:16:47 they um i think if i think if senior people within artelia felt that we weren't on the right track so i would have a dialogue with simon cash for example and if he thought that
00:16:59 cash for example and if he thought that i needed a heads up on something he would contact me and or vice versa right but that didn't happen in relation to the client design advisor as far as no but of course we we know that the original proposal was made in
00:17:10 that the original proposal was made in february 2014 before the tender was uh finished before it had been won
00:17:17 been won so can you give us any insight as to what evolved during that period of time which led you to think at the time and perhaps you didn't think it at the time that a cda wasn't required because you had ryden on board
00:17:30 required because you had ryden on board from
00:17:31 from mid-march um i don't my the only conversation i remember about this this role and it wasn't called the client design advisor it was literally about
00:17:42 about post-tender client-side advice that might be required was it was the conversation i had with david gibson after he'd had a conversation with artelia and and others
00:17:53 conversation with artelia and and others in our team but you really put your finger on it i think mr madison in the light of the fact that nobody within the tmo had specialist skills of the kind and scope that were being offered under the cda proposal
00:18:04 being offered under the cda proposal and given that as we discussed yesterday artelia
00:18:08 artelia were cdmc but had no design responsibility is it right that actually you were left with nobody protecting your interests on the client side from any
00:18:18 any uh errors made by ryden in their design role
00:18:22 role um we were relying on the on artelia as a employees agents to ensure that writings complied with the terms of
00:18:33 writings complied with the terms of their contract but no more than that yes but that includes the design the specialist design too which we discussed yesterday but but not nothing beyond
00:18:44 beyond the employer's agent role and the cdmc role
00:18:48 role no but if if if they had advised that there was a requirement for any specific advice i think the i think from what from the conversation that i had with my team with david gibson
00:19:01 with my team with david gibson um at this time the understanding was very much that this was general advice on design not specific and that was that was the understanding and that seems to be borne out by
00:19:12 and that seems to be borne out by claire's email to artelia and i i don't know whether that was corrected by otelia
00:19:17 otelia so far as you were concerned how did you actually understand artelia's proposal was it a proposal and no more than that or was it actually professional advice that you needed the services of a client designed advisor that didn't assume it
00:19:29 designed advisor that didn't assume it was a proposal right so not advice no and sort of suffice that um because that's just what i understood i know but why
00:19:40 just what i understood i know but why did you understand it that way um i think if i would expect that if um artelia had offered advice that they thought was essential
00:19:51 that they thought was essential and that we weren't taking it i would have expected them to have escalated that to me i follow
00:19:58 follow um we then go to another topic if we can which is the decision to retender and i'm going to go back in time a little bit to the beginning of your your time at the tmo starting in january
00:20:09 your time at the tmo starting in january 2013.
00:20:12 2013. and can we start with your day book number one tmo double zero eight seven nine seven 771
00:20:20 771 please at page 56
00:20:28 and in fact this doesn't take us to january i think we're march at this point but can we look at the right hand side
00:20:38 um it says there just below halfway down on the right hand side do you see it says grenfell tower update 18th march or 18
00:20:51 18th march or 18 3 pd
00:20:54 3 pd dg
00:20:57 does that tell us that there was a meeting or discussion between you paul duncan and david gibson on the 18th of march 2013. yes so that's quite early
00:21:08 yes so that's quite early in your tenure at the tmo isn't it yes can we then turn the page to page 57
00:21:17 and look at the bottom of the page on the left hand side to the left of the spine
00:21:23 spine and it says studio e meet to understand a how the design developed b what are the implications of the revised design
00:21:35 of the revised design were you concerned at this time time about how the design had developed um yeah there were a number of issues in the that
00:21:44 the that were in the design at that time that i thought were unnecessary or impractical in some respects so for example there was a lift a new lift being installed in the
00:21:57 lift a new lift being installed in the for in the lobby with a link bridge across to the finger blocks which i thought was a very um bad idea because i think it was going to cause real access issues
00:22:08 real access issues and we wanted i wanted to make sure that the tower was a separate entity rather than having access from another block um there were also some issues i remember relating to um
00:22:20 um [Music]
00:22:22 [Music] there was the extent of the work so some of the work that were being proposed at that stage um went into the area and in there was an undercroft area under the finger blocks adjacent
00:22:33 blocks adjacent and included the refurbishment of some of those units into office space and i felt that there was a much broader piece public realm peace need some greater thought given to how that was
00:22:44 greater thought given to how that was going to work in practice did you get the impression that you couldn't work out from the papers you had how the design had developed so you needed to have studio e meet you in order to educate you on that um what we wanted to do was to refocus
00:22:57 um what we wanted to do was to refocus the design so where the design had sort of spread into
00:23:03 into an interface with the finger blocks we wanted it to focus on the tower specifically and then we could consider the finger blocks separately and how the the whole piece worked in a
00:23:14 worked in a in a more holistic way when you refer to the implications of the revised design what was the revised design i'd recall it was the removal of the proposal for the link bridge between the
00:23:25 proposal for the link bridge between the the tower and the finger blocks i see and what concerns did you have about the implications of those revisions um well um on a very practical sense
00:23:37 um well um on a very practical sense um i mean i've spent a lot of my career removing link bridges between blocks because there never seemed to be a very practical sense thing to do and i felt that um
00:23:49 because i think the requirement here was to try to get give people from the finger block access to the walkway level via a lift in grenfell which would mean that a lot of people from the adjacent blocks
00:24:00 blocks would be coming into the block and going back up onto the the podium of the finger blocks which didn't seem like a sensible solution at all um so there were some
00:24:11 solution at all um so there were some practical things there in relation to the
00:24:14 the the work units under the garages under the finger block i felt that
00:24:20 that area was dominated by a vehicle or access into the underground garages there and i felt that that needed some more thought in terms of design as to how to make that work
00:24:31 of design as to how to make that work because it felt like it was going to be a very
00:24:33 a very um yeah i didn't think it was going to be a successful design so it needed a bit more thought was there any concern or consideration in either of these subjects the
00:24:44 in either of these subjects the development of the design and the implications of the revisions in relation to the exterior wall the cladding system no now
00:24:56 no now i want just to ask you some questions about rbkc's role at this stage can we start by looking please at mark anderson's evidence on day 52
00:25:08 and i'd like you to be shane please the transcript for day 52 page 28. and look at line 11
00:25:18 and he was asked at line 11 by mr kenya can you help us what was the role and function of the sro answer that's the senior responsible officer so that was laura johnson
00:25:30 officer so that was laura johnson she was the senior responsible officer for the kensington academy and leisure center project otherwise known as calc question did the sro have
00:25:39 sro have decision making power regarding the project
00:25:43 project answer regarding which project question grenfell beyond the fact that rbkc were the funder of that project no now just to be clear is it right that as a delegated project run by the tmo
00:25:54 as a delegated project run by the tmo there would be no sro for the grenfell tower refurbishment that's correct so laura johnson was the sro for calc only yes yes do you agree with mark anderson
00:26:06 yes yes do you agree with mark anderson that laura johnson in any capacity had no decision-making power
00:26:10 power over the grenfell tower project itself um
00:26:14 um not decision powering related to the project itself but she was the client and responsible for the ownership of the management and the strategy regarding the stock
00:26:25 regarding the stock but also this project was part funded by tmo capital resources which came ultimately from the council but also from capital receipts from the council so it was partly funded
00:26:37 council so it was partly funded by the council so in so the reporting here was a little ambiguous and actually in terms of the um the approval reporting it went
00:26:48 um the approval reporting it went through both our board and to the cabinet
00:26:50 cabinet in the council so there was a degree in to which
00:26:54 to which um whether council had an interest and they were funding it i i they they had an interest and they were funding it but the question i think is a little bit wider than that and i'm just putting to
00:27:05 wider than that and i'm just putting to you
00:27:07 you what mr anderson says here in very clear terms i would suggest that beyond the fact that rbkc were the funder
00:27:14 funder of the grenfell tower project they had no
00:27:17 no decision-making power regarding it had no decision power certainly operationally in terms of the client role in terms of appointments et cetera that was done by the tmo i i i think you're accepting
00:27:29 the tmo i i i think you're accepting really aren't you what mr anderson has said that yeah you are thank you can we then look at art 50637
00:27:46 this is an email from laura johnson dated the 3rd of january 2013 to leadbitter now i appreciate that you were not at the tmo at this time you
00:27:57 were not at the tmo at this time you joined later that month so it's obviously before you started and i'm not going to suggest that you saw it at the time but you do see that it goes in copy uh to um but it's a draft email in fact
00:28:12 uh to um but it's a draft email in fact but you
00:28:12 but you you can see that it goes and copied to calc at apple yards goes to the apple yards
00:28:20 yards team uh and uh if we look at the third paragraph it says
00:28:27 says this there was originally a total of 60 million pounds available for the calc project and grenfell tower rbkc will now no longer be recommending
00:28:39 rbkc will now no longer be recommending the tma proceed with you on the latter and will advise them to re-tender the works to a list of contractors not including ledbitter at the next sra meeting on the 16th of january 2013
00:28:51 january 2013 i would like a list i would like an unequivocal equip commitment from you that we will be able to enter into contract for the calc project at a combined 50.4 million pounds by the 15th of february 2013.
00:29:03 15th of february 2013. if you cannot make this commitment then we will withdraw the leisure center from the project and reconsider our procurement position for the academy for these elements we remove and procure through alternative means we will not
00:29:14 through alternative means we will not include lead bitter on the tender list
00:29:18 now i've read the whole of that paragraph but what i'm really interested in in is the first half of that paragraph
00:29:25 paragraph when you joined the tmo a few weeks after this email um did you become aware of it
00:29:33 of it no you didn't did you become aware at least that rbkc had taken the position as set out in this email no so you didn't know is this right that
00:29:46 so you didn't know is this right that rbkc had now decided um
00:29:51 no longer to recommend that the tmo proceed with lead bitter and to advise them to re-tend to the works to a list of contractors not including lead bitter no you didn't right
00:30:04 and in fact we were still in the negotiation with ledbetter at this stage some time afterwards you say we the tmo the tmo
00:30:13 the tmo in indeed but i think i think the answer to my question is that when you came into the project you did not know that rbkc had advised the tmo to re-tender the
00:30:25 had advised the tmo to re-tender the works
00:30:26 works i don't think they had you don't think they had advised them or you don't think you knew
00:30:30 you knew i don't think they had advised them well uh all right but you didn't know that they were proposing
00:30:36 proposing to advise the tmo to return to the works to a new list of contractors not including ledbetter i wasn't aware of that right and and i did subsequently have conversations with laura johnson about
00:30:47 laura johnson about the this about the proposed approach but at this stage um we were trying the the professional team
00:30:58 we were trying the the professional team on the tmo side was trying to negotiate a price with ledbetter and that was my understanding you did indeed have conversations we're going to look at those very shortly
00:31:09 going to look at those very shortly but just before we leave this email would you agree that in our bkc no longer recommending that the tma proceed with ledbetter on grenfell and advising them to re-tender
00:31:20 grenfell and advising them to re-tender the grenfell works to a list of contractors excluding lead bitter rbkc were going well outside their role in respect of the grenfell tower refurbishment
00:31:31 tower refurbishment which was at least according to mr anderson and now your evidence limited to budgets um
00:31:41 from my knowledge my understanding this this wasn't the situation uh so i don't know if this if this is a draft email maybe maybe it wasn't sent maybe it was a negotiating position but
00:31:53 negotiating position but i'm not aware that this wasn't the position that um i understood we the tmo was in or the professional team was in relation to led better
00:32:01 better at this time
00:32:07 on the assumption that this email was sent
00:32:11 sent let's just work with that and on the assumption at the very least that laura johnson
00:32:15 johnson was taking the position as expressed in the paragraph i've read to you i lost my question again that position was well outside their role in respect of the grenfell tower project at least
00:32:26 of the grenfell tower project at least on mr anderson's and your understanding of it
00:32:29 of it which was that they had no decision-making role at all save and respective budget um
00:32:37 if um laura johnson was going to send an email like this i would have expected her to have spoken to me or to mark before doing so and agreed an approach because there was
00:32:48 because there was a challenge in our negotiations with ledbetters and they had been frustrating and long and
00:32:56 and uh there was it was causing a delay in the project and uh concern from residents who'd been promised these works yes i pointed out to you i think you weren't there at the time but what i didn't point out to you and should have done was of course that mr
00:33:07 should have done was of course that mr anderson
00:33:08 anderson was copied in on this email and mark never mentioned this to me in handover as far as i well you didn't um when i took handover of this it was on the basis that we were proceeding with
00:33:19 the basis that we were proceeding with ledbetters yeah just i'm going to try one more time on the point assuming uh that the position as taken in the third paragraph i've shown you was the position taken at the time by
00:33:31 was the position taken at the time by rbkc
00:33:32 rbkc then that position exceeded the narrow ambit
00:33:36 ambit or the ambit of rbk's c's role in the grenfell tower project according to mr anderson's evidence i showed you i think i think as i said i think that if laura
00:33:48 i think as i said i think that if laura was to take this approach she would have done it
00:33:51 done it in association with the tmo she would have spoken to us and agreed in a way forward
00:33:56 forward do you have any reason to think that she didn't that she didn't what sorry speak to the tmo and agree a way forward um i think i i did have a subsequent conversation about
00:34:07 conversation about with laura johnson about taking the project forward and uh that might shed some light onto why i don't think this was this approach was taken at that time now is it right do you know that in the
00:34:20 now is it right do you know that in the early months of 2013 rbkc was attempting to um agree the price
00:34:26 price or as it was put at the time arrive at a financial close for the calc project yes i was you were and when you arrived at the tmo later in january 2013 did you learn that rbkc's
00:34:39 january 2013 did you learn that rbkc's trouble
00:34:40 trouble in agreeing the price for the calp project with ledbitter was a factor in rbkc not wanting lead bitter on the grenfell tower project um can you repeat that let me let me let
00:34:54 um can you repeat that let me let me let me take it at stage when you arrived at the tmo in late in late january 2013 did you did you learn that rbkc did not want leadbitter on the grenfell
00:35:06 did not want leadbitter on the grenfell tower project no you didn't learn that no when did you come to learn that i didn't learn that you didn't learn it no
00:35:18 can we go to your day book uh uh number one tmo uh tmo double zero eight seven nine seven seven one please
00:35:29 seven one please and i'd like to go in that document page 26
00:35:43 uh and there we can see on the top right hand side of the document
00:35:49 excuse me we could see a date uh 13th of february 2013 right at the very top right hand corner do you see that yes and then just to the left of that we see laura
00:36:01 just to the left of that we see laura and then then underneath that uh grenfell and then underneath that to my right it says how ambitious yes question mark yes yes yes and then
00:36:14 question mark yes yes yes and then there's an arrow and it which i think points to
00:36:18 points to lead bitters and then somebody else can you read that architect architect and then apple yard and planners
00:36:31 and then further down the page are some dash points or bullet points do you see and uh it says at the bottom uh do you see penultimate dash work on
00:36:43 do you see penultimate dash work on other stuff is that what it says yeah and then underneath that in quotation marks we will be at the table um can you just help us with this is this
00:36:55 can you just help us with this is this laura johnson having a discussion with you about how ambitious
00:37:00 ambitious the grenfell tower project should be um well this was me contacting laura and asking for some clarification on a number of issues because i'd been with the project for some time
00:37:12 some time now i've taken stock of some of the issues relating to the design for example
00:37:15 example and was proposing some changes to that to simplify the scope of works and also felt that there were some issues that so for example i would say beyond the
00:37:26 so for example i would say beyond the finger blocks um in the wider west estate so i was some of the work that was spreading into that area um and so what i wanted to do was to talk
00:37:39 and so what i wanted to do was to talk to to
00:37:40 to to clarify a number of issues with laura that i felt had implications for her as the client i see and those implications included issues
00:37:51 and those implications included issues with design did they have scope certainly in terms of um whether the design whether the scope works spread into the finger blocks for example
00:38:01 example i can't remember whether this it was the timing is is unclear and obviously i've um i haven't reviewed these uh notebooks uh for several years so um right um
00:38:13 uh for several years so um right um what did you mean by how ambitious um
00:38:23 i think that's about the scope so what what what were we looking to achieve there
00:38:28 there and i don't remember if this was the meeting or
00:38:33 no so i think this was a this was me checking in with laura as the project sponsor for calc and for the client of the team overall to get her
00:38:44 of the team overall to get her perspective on what she wanted us to deliver because this was the first project that the tmo had delivered on this scale and this links down to the comment at the bottom we will be at the table well we're going
00:38:55 we will be at the table well we're going to ask you about that but but just just before we do follow up on your answer just now you were checking in with laura to get her perspective on what she wanted the tmo to deliver
00:39:06 wanted the tmo to deliver and that sounds to me as if you're going to her and asking her for her view or her instruction going well beyond
00:39:15 beyond simply matters of the budget is that is that fair
00:39:18 that fair no um i think it's reasonable to i mean laura was she was the director of housing she had a
00:39:29 a good understanding of the politics of the borough and the priorities of the council and the councillors and so i wanted to understand what the council wanted the tmo to deliver on their behalf and she was the key
00:39:40 she was the key point of contact to establish that right so when you say wanted to deliver you mean elements of the scope you wanted clarification as to what they wanted rbkc wanted as to
00:39:52 as to what they wanted rbkc wanted as to what the grenfell tower refurbishment should include it was a two-way conversation so i was um i'd i'd looked at some of the design and
00:39:59 and was proposing to take some of those items out that i thought were a bit over the top
00:40:04 the top unnecessary and i wanted to check in and make sure that what we were doing was
00:40:11 was on the right track politically because the
00:40:14 the the um my understanding is that the evolution of the grenfell tower refurbishment came out of the discussion with the local community around the delivery of the calc project and there was a lot of history and
00:40:26 and there was a lot of history and detail around that and laura had a very good understanding of
00:40:32 of what that discussion had been and what the local community wanted so that's part of the dialogue i see so from your perspective laura johnson was the source of
00:40:46 information or guidance is this right not only about the figure you had to play with
00:40:52 play with but actually about what the scope of the grenfell refurbishment should include um
00:41:03 i mean um she was one of a number of she was she was one of a number of key stakeholders in this and you know she was a key one and the council was a key
00:41:14 council was a key one the local community were key so we were we i was having discussions with us on this of this nature with all parties yes and i'm not making any underlying suggestion about whether it's right or wrong i just
00:41:25 about whether it's right or wrong i just want to get to the facts i just want to establish with some precision from your perspective and appreciating what you say about key stakeholders is it right that you were looking to laura johnson for
00:41:37 were looking to laura johnson for information or guidance not only about the figure the budget figure you had to play with but also about what the scope of the grenfell tower refurbishment included
00:41:50 grenfell tower refurbishment included is that right yeah as a stakeholder i was getting her views on what the what the scope should be yes thank you and when you then come to will be at the
00:42:01 and when you then come to will be at the table quotes on quotes first of all who said that it's a quotation who said that laura said that i see so laura said did laura say we will be at the table in other words rbkc
00:42:12 other words rbkc no the tmo will be at the table i see so she said you will be at the table no the tmo indeed um so i just want to be clear
00:42:21 be clear when you write down quotes we will be at the table
00:42:24 the table you're you're substituting the we you mean the tmo yes so you're saying that she said that the tmo would be at the table yes and what's the table um this is um
00:42:37 and what's the table um this is um so i was talking to laura about and part of part of this is was working with the council to understand their priorities in terms of what they wanted us to
00:42:48 in terms of what they wanted us to deliver for grenfell tower but also i wanted to establish whether there were other things that the tmo could deliver on behalf of the council are there other projects that
00:43:00 council are there other projects that could reasonably be delivered through the tmo because i was looking to build up a team that was skilled and able to deliver complex projects for the council and so um so i think that what laura was
00:43:13 and so um so i think that what laura was pointing out here is she said she's saying we shouldn't be duplicating things we're setting stuff up in necessary
00:43:18 necessary if necessary unnecessarily uh we should be delivering decent homes working on other stuff that's that's the question about what what are the stuff that might be that which are basically other projects
00:43:29 that which are basically other projects that the tmo could deliver on behalf of the council and laura's response was uh we will be at the table but in that so she wasn't promising she was saying that in
00:43:40 saying that in in part i took that if we can show that we can deliver complex projects then that will help secure future opportunities so in short laura johnson and rbkc were involved in the decision-making process
00:43:52 involved in the decision-making process about what should be delivered uh in respect of the grenfell tower project yes yeah now you said a moment ago that you wanted to ensure that the project
00:44:04 you wanted to ensure that the project was on the right track politically do we take it from that that the scope of the grenfell tower project was a political issue to use your word um in terms of the council broadly
00:44:18 word um in terms of the council broadly wanting knowing what they wanted what their priorities were so that was something that i was would take a sense check with laura but also present to the housing and property scrutiny committee
00:44:30 property scrutiny committee in rbkc so there was a an ongoing process of developing the proposals and ultimately agreeing them when you use the word political what do
00:44:41 when you use the word political what do you mean
00:44:42 you mean the council so ultimately the decision around the funding of this project and it was a was a council decision so it needed uh it was
00:44:53 council decision so it needed uh it was signed off ultimately by cabinet i just want to be clear when you use the word political do you mean politically sensitive no i mean the council is a political entity
00:45:12 did you have any discussions with laura johnson at this time 13th of february 2013 about the decision about who would be or
00:45:24 about the decision about who would be or who shouldn't be the contractor on the grenfell tower project i can't remember i did have a conversation with i can't remember at what time that was um maybe you could help me with that right well maybe we can but did you have
00:45:35 right well maybe we can but did you have a discussion with her about who should be the contractor um i there was a subsequent conversation to this one where i had a conversation with laura um regarding
00:45:48 conversation with laura um regarding a number of things one was in looking at the scope of the works on grenfell tower there was an issue that i that had occurred to me is that we weren't including to do internal
00:46:00 we weren't including to do internal works within the flats to the kitchens and bathrooms so at the end of the project we could potentially end up in a situation where the properties although substantially refurbished
00:46:12 although substantially refurbished didn't meet the decent home standard which was the minimum standard for social housing so there was a con
00:46:18 a con there was a question i wanted to ask about that and i also wanted to talk to her about
00:46:23 her about i wanted to just to check in that she was comfortable with the level of spend that we were looking to commit to the boxing club and to the nursery because they were considerable
00:46:35 because they were considerable and wouldn't necessarily generate significant income so there was a i just wanted to make sure that she was i wanted to i wanted her opinion
00:46:47 she was i wanted to i wanted her opinion on where those priorities were do you remember when that conversation was um i'll have to rely on my notes i don't have it i don't have it in my head but it was around the time where we were making the decision around
00:46:58 making the decision around procurement of potential uh potentially working with ledbetters or reprocuring i i i think i know what you're referring to and we will we will come to that uh in in due course um but just to get
00:47:10 uh in in due course um but just to get back on the answer you did give a moment ago you you say you wanted to talk to her about some specific things and in particular the level of spend you would commit to the boxing club and the nursery
00:47:21 nursery does that tell us that you wanted her views
00:47:25 views guidance instruction even perhaps on specific items uh or the cost of specific items within the scope of the grenfell tower
00:47:36 the scope of the grenfell tower refurbishment as then proposed um i wanted her to be aware of the level the
00:47:43 the the sort of costs that those two items particularly the boxing club and the nursery were going to entail why was it a concern why did you think it was it might be a concern of hers
00:47:54 it was it might be a concern of hers how much you spent on individual elements of the overall project um because if for example we could have omitted one of those elements and renewed all of the kitchens and
00:48:05 renewed all of the kitchens and bathrooms to achieve the decent home standards for example so there could have been some options there um and i wanted to understand the priorities from the council's perspective in terms of what they wanted us to achieve
00:48:16 of what they wanted us to achieve right i see so you're telling us i think in broad terms that the council had substantive input let's use a neutral word in into not only
00:48:27 only the overall budget that you were allowed to have
00:48:30 to have but into how to and whether to spend individual elements of that budget um they were a key stakeholder and i thought it was appropriate that we talk about the options and the possibilities
00:48:41 possibilities within that budget that's a yes then is it um
00:48:52 can you remind me the question yes um council rbkc had substantive input into not only the overall budget that you were allowed to have but into how and whether to spend
00:49:03 but into how and whether to spend specific elements of that budget yes we consulted them on that thank you
00:49:11 now i want to ask you some questions about events relating to leadbitter in the months after you started that's where we're going can i take you then to your first witness statement please at page six
00:49:25 and let's go to paragraph 35. uh you say at various meetings we discussed the difference between the artelia and ledbetter
00:49:36 between the artelia and ledbetter estimates for work packages i also had concerns at this time about lead bit of suitability as a main contractor for this type of project because of their lack of experience of work of this nature and of working with residents
00:49:47 residents who remained in their homes during the works i also had concerns about them being taken over by boig who from my past experience had lacked the experience of working with residents in occupation
00:49:58 in occupation it was very important to us on behalf of the residents the contractors demonstrated their concerns and ability to work alongside residents in situ and to be sympathetic to their needs and issues
00:50:10 to their needs and issues was led betters and bowie who were going to take them over i think was it was their lack perceived lack of experience in doing residential refurbishments with residents in occupation the only
00:50:22 with residents in occupation the only matter
00:50:22 matter on which you had doubts about their suitability or were there others there were others i think the length of time it had taken to get some costs there was a like they felt we was perceived within the
00:50:35 felt we was perceived within the um the professional team when i arrived that
00:50:39 that there was a lack of urgency and a lack of commitment to the project uh from um from ledbetter um they but they also the
00:50:50 um they but they also the but personally my my biggest concern was their lack of experience of refurbishing this sort of project
00:50:59 my experience of them was as a developer rather than a new build developer rather than a contractor experienced in refurbishing homes in occupation with chatham was a very was a specialist area
00:51:13 did you know that they had a subsidiary
00:51:17 that could have done that work had experience of working with residents in situ i was told they had a subsidiary i can't remember the name of that subsidiary but
00:51:29 name of that subsidiary but on the basis that we'd done no due diligence on lead better as as i could see um as far as i could see um and that they hadn't delivered
00:51:40 um and that they hadn't delivered costs and were very slow in responding when turning up to meetings when we when asked
00:51:45 asked right we were concerned that this wasn't progressing with the urgency that was needed
00:51:49 needed now you say we've done no due diligence on lead bitters as you could see is the we the tmo
00:51:56 um yes well i don't no so the answer is no i don't know it's my that was my perception i hadn't done energy dealers
00:52:07 perception i hadn't done energy dealers and so on
00:52:07 and so on on ledbetters i don't know what mark anderson had done when uh the original proposal to appoint ledbetter was done i didn't have sight of that right but i i hadn't done any i hadn't seen
00:52:20 but i i hadn't done any i hadn't seen any due diligence that had been taking place when i was in post and i felt it was really important that we got the right contractors with the right experience for this sort of work did you not think
00:52:29 not think then to do some due diligence of your own on ledbetter to check whether they were suitable for the grenfell tower project
00:52:36 project um that that was a that was an option but bearing in mind that
00:52:43 mind that at that point they weren't providing us basic cost analysis of this part of a negotiation that was been going on for several months um i didn't feel that that was necessarily the best approach at that
00:52:55 necessarily the best approach at that time
00:52:56 time yes you see you you say you don't know what mark anderson had done by way of due diligence in respect of lead bitters and you hadn't done any either
00:53:06 either and you were keen to get the right contractor my question is given those concerns that you just told us about
00:53:12 us about in the early months of 2013 why didn't you go about doing your own due diligence on ledbetter to see if they were suitable um the option there was ultimately the option
00:53:22 option the decision was that if ledbetter wanted this job they would show some urgency and they could apply for it through the og process and we would carry out due diligence and if they were the right contractor for the job
00:53:33 the right contractor for the job then they would be successful through that process you see at that point they weren't of course the subject of a tender but they were the proposed contractor leaving aside what laura johnson had said in her third of january
00:53:46 said in her third of january 2013 email that they were the proposed contractor you were dealing with weren't they in respect of the grenfell tower project they but you also told us that you had
00:53:57 that you had you were concerned is this right that you hadn't had any due diligence either shown to you or done it done yourself on them the feedback i got from the professional team is that ledbetter
00:54:08 professional team is that ledbetter themselves had no experience of refurbishing tower blocks with residents and occupation they were proposing to use a subsidiary that i had had no knowledge of
00:54:21 that i had had no knowledge of so i felt that due diligence was necessary but if we were going to go through a process of doing due diligence why not do that in the context of an open tender right you see
00:54:33 you you is it right that you actually had a conscious think about lead bitter's experience and suitability for the grenfell tower project
00:54:44 grenfell tower project completely yeah and you were concerned at the time as part of your thinking about the need to retender that you hadn't had any due diligence or hadn't seen any due diligence or done any yourself
00:54:55 diligence or done any yourself on their bitter particularly around working with residents and occupation right can i ask you why you thought consciously about ledbetter's experience
00:55:06 experience and the absence of due diligence in respect of them for grenfell but not about studio ease um because studio e's work was practice was more or less complete by that time
00:55:18 more or less complete by that time so i wasn't going to there was no need for me to go back and do due diligence on studio e because they had carried out the works more or less that was going to go to tender
00:55:30 less that was going to go to tender well is that right january 2013 they hadn't carried out the work they were at stage d that's right exactly you had to carry out this but that substantially the works had been designed to stage d and there was a
00:55:42 designed to stage d and there was a requirement to take it stage e to put it to the market and that was the decision and that so my so rather than i didn't it didn't occur to me to open up um
00:55:53 it didn't occur to me to open up um the due diligence on studio e for the reasons that i gave yesterday relating to
00:55:58 to the fact that they were already working on an adjacent complex over cloud prop property but i was um and i felt that if there was not that i had
00:56:11 i felt that if there was not that i had said not that i thought that there was any issue relating to studio e but by by going through and bringing in a design and build contractor with the right experience of working with residents and
00:56:23 of working with residents and refurbishing tower blocks then that would be the solution but you were concerned that you hadn't done any diligent due diligence on lead ledbetter and were concerned
00:56:35 on lead ledbetter and were concerned about the experience but you weren't concerned is this right about the fact that you had done no due diligence on studio e as i say there was no they had been appointed and
00:56:46 there was no they had been appointed and has substantially completed the work um at that point and i had no reason there was nothing that in this in the small amount of work they did on the time that i was there
00:56:57 did on the time that i was there on the client side um i had they raised no specific concerns that made me think i would go and reopen the whole due diligence on this project
00:57:08 the whole due diligence on this project those are two different things aren't they deciding not to do due diligence on somebody
00:57:11 somebody because they've already done a lot of work isn't the same as not doing due diligence because you're concerned about their experience and really what i'm trying to understand at the moment is why you thought you were concerned
00:57:22 were concerned about not having due diligence done on leadbetter to understand their experience for the grenfell type project but weren't concerned to do the same exercise with studio e um
00:57:36 in a way the the re-procurement through the audio process was going to address both issues by getting a contractor in who would take on responsibility for the design and the build of the project i understand that with leadbetter but you
00:57:48 understand that with leadbetter but you weren't proposing to have a new ojeu process
00:57:51 process for lead for studio e were you um no and therefore there would be no process which would flush out any issues about their experience or
00:58:02 issues about their experience or expertise in overclotting a high-rise residential building as i say i had no cause to go and go back to the basics on the design team i'd understood at that stage they'd been
00:58:14 i'd understood at that stage they'd been through due diligence processes through the
00:58:17 the cam well i assumed that the time was now easy framework and the council's appointment of them but i now understand is actually the cancerous due diligence at that point so i'd understood that that had taken place
00:58:28 i'd understood that that had taken place and that
00:58:29 and that um and i'd had no concerns personally that i'd
00:58:33 that i'd recognized in relation to studio e and neither did any of the other members of the professional team raise any concerns in relation to them so i had
00:58:42 had i really had no i had no cause and i didn't even i didn't even know i didn't know their lack of experience on high rise at that time no indeed and my question is how at the time could
00:58:54 and my question is how at the time could you have thought that rbkc's historic due diligence into studio e for the celt project could have any bearing at all on their experience and suitability for the grenfell tower project how about you
00:59:06 the grenfell tower project how about you with a client i didn't have sight of what due diligence mark anderson had undertaken when he did when he did the initial appointment at cgue did you ask him for it no did you ask anyone to see what due
00:59:18 no did you ask anyone to see what due diligence had been uninitially done initially on studio e i had no cause for concern that would have led me to go back and revisit the the initial appointments of any of the professional team you see that's just the point you see mr
00:59:30 you see that's just the point you see mr madison you did have calls because you had calls to question ledbetter's experience in respect to the grenfell tower project and what i'm suggesting to you is that the same cause ought to have prompted you to examine
00:59:41 ought to have prompted you to examine studio e's suitability and experience the cause that triggered um the there were there were a number of causes it wasn't the single cause that led me
00:59:52 it wasn't the single cause that led me to
00:59:53 to the view that we should uh tend to the work with ledbetters it was actually that
00:59:58 that there were there were a number of different factors one was about their appetite for the works and their costs and their ability to produce costs um and part of it was the their lack of
01:00:09 and part of it was the their lack of experience which we could have carried out specific due diligence around but felt that it was it would be much more the the other aspect of this was um a conversation
01:00:21 aspect of this was um a conversation that i had with laura johnson in relation to their difficulty getting financial close on the calc project and that let that that added to
01:00:32 and that let that that added to the um the range of issues that led me to
01:00:35 to uh come to the view that we should put that to the market then i understand let me just try one more time
01:00:43 more time there were a set of causes which drove you to put the grenfell tower project out to up to tender for the contractor one of which was your concern about the absence of due diligence and
01:00:55 about the absence of due diligence and information about the experience on ledbetter
01:00:58 ledbetter my question and i'll ask it one more time is given that you had cause to be concerned about lead bitter for the grenfell tower project why didn't you think at the same time
01:01:11 why didn't you think at the same time of looking to see whether studio e had experience and expertise for the grenfell tower project um i think i've explained why i didn't
01:01:22 um i think i've explained why i didn't because the stage they were at but also through the design and build process
01:01:27 process and selecting a contractor with the right experience they would take responsibility for the design post contract and there was a there was a so that was
01:01:39 there was a there was a so that was that was another part of this because it would the contractor would be required to do due diligence on whichever designer they appointed indeed but they would only be tendering wouldn't they on the basis of
01:01:50 tendering wouldn't they on the basis of a set
01:01:51 a set of employers requirements and detailed drawings which had already been produced by studio e didn't you want to make sure that the tender
01:02:00 tender when it happened would be based on drawings done by an architect on whom you had done due diligence for the grenfell tower project um as i say i i had no cause to go back
01:02:13 um as i say i i had no cause to go back and review the due diligence that had already been undertaken on this well you do say that and i've suggested the opposite but you disagree
01:02:19 disagree i think right now can we then go let me just ask you this did you expect the
01:02:26 the contractor once he'd been appointed and had taken over responsibility for design to examine design decisions made by the architect
01:02:36 architect before the contractor had come on board yes okay thank you can we then go to tmo1003870
01:02:53 this is a set of minutes of the tmo program board of the 25th of march 2013. do you see that
01:03:01 that yeah and you can see who was present robert black sasha jevons anthony parks and yvonne birch with nick rendall in attendance and judela ferreira um but we can see you were there for the
01:03:13 um but we can see you were there for the grenfell tower item if you look halfway down the page and it's just at the bottom of the screen there you see that yes just in general terms can you explain to us the program board is that is that part of the tmo's board is it a sub
01:03:25 part of the tmo's board is it a sub committee or no it's what is it it's a it's a sub um subcommittee of the executive team so it's the it was the executive team um considering major projects that were
01:03:38 um considering major projects that were running of all nations so it was a it was as you i think put it a committee of members of the executive team
01:03:46 team yes who were themselves members of the tma board yes yes and who would bring in so people would attend so i would attend for just specific items i wouldn't be there for the full meeting yes i understand could we go to page two please look at
01:03:58 could we go to page two please look at paragraph five
01:04:03 uh and uh we say uh you say i think that just just below the initial on the right hand side p p d procurement would be an issue
01:04:15 p d procurement would be an issue as the board was sold the project on the basis that we were doing it this way for efficiency savings so yeah could you just reorient this about a third of the way down the page perhaps i should just go back
01:04:27 page perhaps i should just go back in fairness to you and give you the full context if you go back to page one we can see that this is part of a discussion about grenfell tower and you had attended the meeting with paul dunkerton and david gibson for that
01:04:39 paul dunkerton and david gibson for that item and the hidden homes agenda and you can see you can give up you give a a presentation
01:04:48 and at the bottom of the page we can pick the point up i suppose here that you say there's been no clear audit trail to explain how decisions were made just pausing there on that whilst whilst we have it up um
01:04:59 we have it up um is that right you were you concerned uh that there had been no clear audit trail here the two on the grenfell tower project to show how decisions had been made
01:05:08 made i think there were lots of lots of elements in the project that needed reviewing and rationalizing and i think it had the scope had spread and so the process that i was going through was working
01:05:20 that i was going through was working with various stakeholders to package up the elements and make it ensure we did the right priorities my question is well let's take it in stages who said
01:05:32 well let's take it in stages who said there has been no clear audit trail to explain how decisions were made um i don't remember but it could have been me right it could have been you were you concerned that there had been no clear audit trail
01:05:45 there had been no clear audit trail um no i was more concerned that we had a scope of works that might not be achieving the priorities that we wanted to this looks like a complaint about the
01:05:56 this looks like a complaint about the absence of a clear audit trail to explain how decisions were made is that right no it's not a complaint it's more about saying we've got a scope of works that is a bit complex and perplexing
01:06:07 complex and perplexing and i don't know how we got there so there may be some good reasons for those things but there's no ordered trail so what i was working on with what i thought were my priorities what what the priorities for the project
01:06:18 what what the priorities for the project and i was working with stakeholders to ensure that they agreed and all disagreed and so we could get the right scope of works now going back to page two uh if we can please look at a third of the way down the page of
01:06:29 a third of the way down the page of paragraph five is the fifth paragraph down
01:06:33 down procurement it says would be an issue do you see that just below the pd on the right hand side yes procurement would be an issue as the board was sold the project on the basis that we were doing it this way for efficiency savings um which board
01:06:47 efficiency savings um which board was meant here i'm assuming that's the kctmo board the kctmo board yes uh not the program board
01:06:57 board or or was it the best i don't know you don't know you could be right either way it was
01:07:00 it was it was either the full tma board or the program board um what did it mean that the board was sold the project sold by whom
01:07:11 by whom i think what that means is that um the the reason for going through this proposed
01:07:18 proposed procurement route was that there would be advantage financial advantages for working with ledbetters because they were on the adjacent site we could get economies of scale you could use the
01:07:30 get economies of scale you could use the same
01:07:31 same site setup and that was assuming we were that we would get a better value for money mr madison was there's an answer to a different question the question is sold by whom you see it says the board
01:07:43 sold by whom you see it says the board was sold
01:07:44 was sold the project i don't know who sold the project to the board yeah i think whoever proposed whoever's written to the board so i presume it was the person who will have written the report to the board would have been
01:07:56 report to the board would have been mark anderson i would assume to that point
01:07:59 point but i imagined he was recommending that the
01:08:03 the um that we procure the project through ledbetters for the reasons i've described
01:08:09 described and when it says on the basis that we were doing it this way what does doing it this way mean doing it procuring negotiating a contract with with ledbetter with ledbitter yeah i see
01:08:24 with ledbitter yeah i see continuing uh the next paragraph down it says peter has spoken to laura johnson about the present situation and also mentioned it to the board so hopefully there will not
01:08:36 to the board so hopefully there will not be a huge issue if we say we need to start again paul is working with the architects to look at alternative uh what did you say to laura johnson in the conversation that's recorded here
01:08:48 the conversation that's recorded here um that was the conversation we talked about earlier where i discussed with her um her experience in relation to the um
01:08:59 in relation to the um their negotiation with ledbetter and the com the difficulty they'd had in reaching financial close on that negotiation and agreeing the principles and priorities going forward
01:09:11 principles and priorities going forward one of the key things that came out of that was around time because i was one of the implications of us tendering this project was that it would take us a bit longer to
01:09:21 longer to get it on site and residents were very concerned that this project had already been
01:09:26 been in a very slow gestation and they wanted it to be delivered and we wanted to deliver it on their behalf
01:09:33 do you remember when that conversation took place or it will be on the record here but i i don't know off the top well i don't think it is and i just that's why i was asking you do you know when that conversation took place
01:09:45 conversation took place um this is the 25th of march 2013. so do you remember how soon before this meeting that conversation took place i don't right do you know whether there's a there is a record of that
01:09:57 there's a there is a record of that conversation you can't find it in your note i don't i they may have been it may have been the note that we were looking at i mean my notes aren't verbatim they're just made memoirs really
01:10:11 would it be routine for you to discuss these matters with laura johnson yes it would
01:10:26 is it not the case that the only reason for you to talk to laura johnson about the grenfell tower project was is if you needed a bigger budget
01:10:35 no it was about establishing priorities and principles in terms of the scope of works the timing of the works
01:10:43 works and other issues did you say to laura johnson during this conversation look laura ledbetter are coming in consistently more expensive i'm going to need a bigger budget
01:10:56 need a bigger budget no because at that stage um the one of the concerns the main concern i think with ledbetter that's that stage in relation to their finances was that they wouldn't give any
01:11:07 was that they wouldn't give any financial breakdown of their costs so that we could compare them to our telia's estimates and their costs were significantly higher than artelia's estimates and that this project had been in a bit
01:11:19 and that this project had been in a bit of an impasse for some time on that point
01:11:21 point well we'll explore that in a little bit more detail shortly um if we go a little bit further down this
01:11:28 down this note it says and this is now uh two-thirds of the way down the page the recommendation from peter is for us to reprocure
01:11:36 reprocure we will wait till next week's deadline for lead bitters to come back with breakdown and reasons for gaps in costs if the information is not forthcoming or we still cannot reach an agreement then we should proceed by using an existing framework
01:11:50 is it right that it was you according to this minute who recommended re-procurement at that meeting yes it was can we then look at the final two paragraphs on that page
01:12:01 two paragraphs on that page peter and the team will look at the redesign opportunities to get a sense check and then go back to our bkc with a proposal for how to proceed it needs to be thoroughly explained that led bitters are trying to overcharge
01:12:12 led bitters are trying to overcharge who said that it had to be explained that led bitters were trying to overcharge do you remember
01:12:20 i don't know now you've just told us and indeed it is minuted elsewhere in this document um in fact in the paragraph
01:12:33 document um in fact in the paragraph of just below halfway down the page that ledbitter were at that stage still to come back to the tma with a breakdown and reasons for their costings was that can you confirm that that was
01:12:45 was that can you confirm that that was the position yes if that was the case how could you or anybody there have come to the view that ledbetter was trying to overcharge unless you'd seen ledbetter's breakdown of their costs those costs
01:12:56 of their costs those costs to date to that date had been significantly higher than atelier's estimate
01:13:00 estimate but why would that be overcharging i think overcharging's in an appropriate word
01:13:04 word oh is it so what would you like to put instead what would you have liked to sorry could you point me to where it is the very bottom it's the last word on the page
01:13:12 the page um
01:13:17 i think it explained that ledbetter's costs are significantly higher than our telia's estimates it's a bit different that isn't it because the express the sense that one gets from lead that is trying to overcharge is that laborers are
01:13:29 overcharge is that laborers are doing something that's illegitimate or not in good faith yes there wouldn't be a word i would have used so they weren't trying to overcharge they were just a bit more expensive than artelia is that the reality
01:13:40 artelia is that the reality yes right
01:13:44 mr chairman it's 11 15 i've got about to come to a different topic in fact um not a completely different topic but it's part of the same story but it is a convenient moment
01:13:56 same story but it is a convenient moment right well we'll stop at that point then um mr patterson we're going to have a break at this point please remember what i said to you yesterday about not talking to anyone about your evidence or anything to do with it over the judgment
01:14:09 anything to do with it over the judgment thank you
01:14:09 thank you thank you very much we'd like to give the usher please no i'm sorry we will come back at 25 to 12 please thank you thank you very much
01:14:24 good thank you 25-12
01:35:10 yes would you ask mr madison to come back in please yeah
01:35:24 right mr madison ready to carry on yes thank you mr madison um can i ask you to go to your uh diary please your 2013 diary
01:35:36 uh diary please your 2013 diary at tm00879 779 please i'd like to go in that please to page 28.
01:35:49 now this uh at the top right hand side is an entry uh in march 2013. i think we can see that it's march
01:36:00 that it's march if we go to the bottom we scroll to the bottom of the page if we can just do that very gently there we can see it's march and we know that it's 2013 from the top of the page if we just
01:36:11 of the page if we just scroll back up to that please and we can see
01:36:15 see that on the left hand column there's a note
01:36:19 note which says is this like sasha is that sasha jevons i think and there's in blue uh saviles
01:36:32 uh saviles next steps proposals robert and rbkc you see that yes and then underneath that it says procurement strategy asset strategy something strategy
01:36:43 asset strategy something strategy management i think strategy energy strategy
01:36:46 strategy and then in the right hand column it says me um
01:36:55 and then in blue i had something about audit recommendations by 27th of march 2013.
01:37:02 uh and then if you look a little bit lower down uh we can see uh other items meet simon apple yards cliff
01:37:13 other items meet simon apple yards cliff thomas ledbitter
01:37:17 and then it says something underneath that can you read that to us send something
01:37:24 can you read that account i'm afraid right
01:37:28 right and then it says meet it looks like
01:37:33 somebody dg is it lj i can't dg to agree procure uh so that's possibly david gibson and jenny jackson jenny jackson jj to agree procurement
01:37:46 jenny jackson jj to agree procurement priorities and then underneath that central plant and then maria and something else and then budget proposals it looks as if this is a list of issues
01:38:01 it looks as if this is a list of issues discussed or a note to yourself i think of matters to discuss does that help you with your recollection of what you discussed
01:38:08 discussed the day before or before the 25th of march meeting the note of which we've just been looking at the programme board meeting it doesn't
01:38:21 board meeting it doesn't tremendously to be honest now all right can we then go to art four zeroes sorry art four zero is nine
01:38:32 four zeroes sorry art four zero is nine one zero one please
01:38:37 this is a status report dated the 23rd of feb
01:38:41 of feb of april 2013 as you can see and that's page one
01:38:45 page one this is a month later than the 25th of march program board meeting that we saw earlier
01:38:50 earlier do you remember this report at the time um i remember a number of iterations of this report yes i remember there being a report that was uh there were indeed a number of iterations of this report and began to
01:39:02 iterations of this report and began to look at those uh can we go to page 18 of this document please
01:39:10 and here we see at the bottom of the page
01:39:13 page uh just above the numbered list uh it says while this exercise is still underway apple yards would suggest this is not a viable option for the
01:39:25 this is not a viable option for the following reasons uh and and this is about reprocurement of the project instead of lead bitter that's the context of it and before i go into
01:39:35 into the rest of the text do you remember that that was the context of the advice given here sorry could you just
01:39:42 just um i'm not really following what it's saying so what is the recommendation let me take it a little bit more slowly at the top of the page this is under the advice about the procurement of the principal contractor do you see yeah and in the third paragraph
01:39:57 yeah and in the third paragraph it says given the present issues surrounding the project and acknowledging that the cause of at least some of the delays and inability to reconciliate the cost plans between apple yards as pqs and ledbetter
01:40:08 pqs and ledbetter have been suggested to due to a lack of responsiveness and proactiveness on ledbetter's part it has been suggested that the tma might be best suited to procure an alternative principal contractor for the project
01:40:20 contractor for the project and that's what's being considered and then in the middle of the page we can see that the lhc framework was identified but some of the contractors on that had declined to submit or
01:40:30 submit or were awaiting costs and then uh three-quarters of the way down the page it says whilst this exercise is still underway apple yards would suggest this is not a viable option for the
01:40:41 this is not a viable option for the following reasons sorry what what is that i'm not i'm not sure what that is
01:40:48 well you tell me oh you received this report at the time yes um when i as i read it it's the it's the reprocurement but is that wrong once the exercise is
01:41:00 but is that wrong once the exercise is underway i posted suggested this i don't know what this is well this is uh the exercise of looking at alternative contractors from the framework or
01:41:12 contractors from the framework or frameworks was that not the case it may be um maybe as we work through it maybe well i haven't read it all out to you but but because i'd assumed that you were
01:41:23 but because i'd assumed that you were familiar with the document or at least um had it in the past been familiar with the document do you not understand what the exercise
01:41:35 do you not understand what the exercise is
01:41:36 is to which led bitter sorry to which apple yards
01:41:40 yards were referring i mean without reading the full report it's difficult to comment on it in isolation is there were lots of iterations of this report so i could be misleading if i right well i
01:41:52 i could be misleading if i right well i don't want to do that um let's um let's see if we can scroll through the document then says to give you your best recollection of it if we go to page let's start with page
01:42:08 let's start with page five which is the executive summary if we can okay
01:42:13 and we can see there that in the second paragraph the report has been generated that's the it because progression of the scheme has been extremely slow since before the beginning of 2013 and there are obvious
01:42:25 beginning of 2013 and there are obvious indications that the scheme as it stands remains outside the parameter set for the project related to time and cost which continues to hamper progress consequently the tma have requested apple yar's highlight the current status of the project and make recommendations
01:42:36 of the project and make recommendations on how to progress the scheme for the refurbishment of the tower and this would help if i could go to those recommendations that might help me recognize which version of the report
01:42:48 right well then that's that takes us through it to the end um let's let's take it a little bit more slowly then rather than jump about page five which we're on at the moment has the bullet points of where we are at
01:42:59 has the bullet points of where we are at the moment in the middle and then at the bottom of the page the principle is who's facing the project you see that at the bottom yes no positive indication that existing scheme can be completed for the approved budget etc
01:43:10 budget etc and then if we turn the page we can see that
01:43:16 see that at page six two thirds of the way down apple yards say in the circumstances of the project as presently identified you see that
01:43:25 see that so you know two thirds of the way down however the circumstances of the project has presently identified are so significant that it is proposed that the project is stopped in its present guides and a root and branch
01:43:37 present guides and a root and branch review is undertaken to better understand the contingent factors and to fundamentally revise the project brief before any further resources committed in an attempt to progress a project which at face value is incapable of delivery in its present form
01:43:49 delivery in its present form do you remember that i don't remember it but i right it helps you refresh your recollection yes right and then uh on page eight under introduction and status of the project at
01:44:01 status of the project at april 2013 just look at the third sent that paragraph to date a construction budget has been identified for the refurbishment of the grenfell tower refurbishment project of 8.5 million pounds and then at the
01:44:15 8.5 million pounds and then at the bottom of the page do you see it says however at today's date the project has effectively stalled primarily due to the inability to align the cost plans of the contractor and the pqs the difference being in excess of 1.2 million
01:44:28 uh you see that yes and then circumstantial evidence over the page
01:44:36 the scope of the project developed over time without clear guidance on budget from client early cost plans indicated affordability of the project and scope creep due to an absence of clarity of a budget
01:44:47 clarity of a budget and design team inclusion of clients requests for scope enhancement and perceived requirements from local authority planners and then also change of personnel you see that and then that's page nine and
01:44:58 see that and then that's page nine and then if we go on uh to page 10 penultimate paragraph the current position of the cost plans is such
01:45:05 such that apple yard's figures are already in excess of the 8.5 million budget and the contractor led that has cost the further in excess of that and then then if you scroll through page 11
01:45:16 11 client matters
01:45:19 uh and on to page uh 14 sorry 13 scope of design work stroke design you see you see that yes and then
01:45:31 you see that yes and then on page 14 we have cost starting with cost history and then the current position
01:45:36 position you see that it says under current position the current estimated construction cost by apple yards is revised
01:45:41 revised to 9.364 million including 765 thousand pounds as class contingency an increase of 949 000 pounds due to the following reasons
01:45:52 000 pounds due to the following reasons and then they're set out and then we can see from the box at the bottom uh
01:45:57 bottom uh that as at the 18th of april 2013 that's only a few days before this report led bitters sixth submission had brought their estimated construction costs if you look at the
01:46:08 at the second box from the right in the table down from
01:46:12 down from a cost of 12.148 million in february 2013
01:46:17 2013 down to 10.048 million in the middle of april 18th of april 2013. it's come down by more than two million pounds do you see that yes um and a total reduction 2.1 million
01:46:30 yes um and a total reduction 2.1 million so far
01:46:32 so far and in the middle of page 15 and you see there is a set of bullet points above which is said the difference between apple yard's latest cost plan and led bitters
01:46:44 latest cost plan and led bitters currently stands at 684 000 pounds the overall comparison is summarized below you see that and then the next page page 16 we get the advice under paragraph 4.3
01:46:57 we get the advice under paragraph 4.3 answering the question can value for money be proved utilizing led bitter costs
01:47:01 costs bearing in mind the option costs to dispense with lead better services and then the first two paragraphs say a negotiated tender will historically be higher than
01:47:12 tender will historically be higher than a competitively tender one however apple yards require further discussion with lead bitter in order to align applejack's cost plan and theirs led better willingness to adjust their rates based on apple yard's comments have showed that they are open for negotiation and
01:47:24 that they are open for negotiation and their costs have already reduced significantly by 2.1 million pounds since their first cost submission apple yards believe that ledbetter's overall construction costs contain a relative level of risk including in the included in their
01:47:36 including in the included in their pricing and this will be reduced once they have
01:47:39 they have actually measured the quantities and apply relevant rates based on the drawings
01:47:42 drawings you see that and then underneath that under paragraph 4.4 on page 16. apple yards say under the heading value engineering or ve
01:47:53 engineering or ve apple yard's current estimated construction cost is 9.364 million which is 864 000 pounds over the budget of 8.5
01:48:01 of 8.5 million pounds we do not think we can get within budget on the existing specification you see that yep that's an important sentence we're going to revisit later in your evidence accordingly a
01:48:13 later in your evidence accordingly a value engineering exercise will be required
01:48:15 required simply to make the current scheme affordable and and then we go to page 17 which is some more
01:48:22 some more mathematics and then page 18 procurement which is where i started my examination of you on this document
01:48:30 document now does that give you i think sufficient background to be able to answer some questions on this page yes right now under procurement principle contractor um they set out and i've read to you already the the first
01:48:42 already the the first um the third paragraph on that page and then looking at the one underneath that it is currently being considered do you see
01:48:48 see it is currently being considered that an alternative framework might give the tmo access to other contractors capable of better delivering the gtrp project and then it it refers to the lhc framework and the
01:49:00 it refers to the lhc framework and the number of contractors available on the framework have been requested to provide a check price against lead bitter based on a short scope of work and drawings provided to them
01:49:09 them and those are the results so far and then it says well it's expected that prices to be received from either higgins or lakehouse may improve upon those submitted to date by ledbetter there would need to be some significant work to align all the figures and
01:49:21 work to align all the figures and determine
01:49:21 determine if this course might give better value right and then we come to the while this exercise is still underway now just there i i've read an awful lot of this to you mr madison does this now make it clear
01:49:32 mr madison does this now make it clear in your mind about what the exercise being discussed is
01:49:38 sorry could you well you questioned what the exercise was and you wanted to write it
01:49:42 it okay so i've given you more than enough context the exercise is the check price for an alternative principal contractor a check price through the lhc isn't it isn't it feasible
01:49:53 isn't it feasible yes yeah apple yards would suggest this is not a viable option for the following reasons now let's go to those um and i'll show those to you one pqs project costs maintain that the overall
01:50:04 project costs maintain that the overall cost of the scheme is in excess of the budget which would indicate more fundamental action is required rather than just rather than to just change the contractor two usurping ledbitter at this stage
01:50:16 two usurping ledbitter at this stage throws up legal questions about the tmo's ability to do this apple yards are unable to comment on the legalities of this and recommend separate legal advice is sought if this were to remain an option three replacing the principal contractor
01:50:27 three replacing the principal contractor at this stage will incur additional time and expense without the guarantee that the tma would be any better served by the replacement four ledbetter's knowledge of the overall scheme the client and the project team is lost and then
01:50:39 and the project team is lost and then over the page at 19 the advice is accordingly and given the recommendations elsewhere in this report apple jars recommend retaining lead bitters as preferred contractor for the scheme
01:50:50 scheme in whatever form it is finalized now i've shown you a quite a lot of this report um perhaps we should just go to page 24
01:50:59 and just dip into that for a moment because you asked to see the conclusions and there they are we'll come back to those um
01:51:13 and the under item five paragraph five on that page the risks identified with reprocurement and then if we go to page 26 sorry 25 you can see the conclusion and recommendations and the
01:51:25 and recommendations and the recommendations that are at the bottom of page 25 which are one to stop the scheme in its existing guys immediately pending a design team review two to revise the scope of
01:51:36 team review two to revise the scope of the project including the decent homes requirements within the 8.5 million budget in mind and issue formally three revise the project program and then other things as well i needn't read out to you
01:51:47 read out to you now my overall question going back if we can to page 19 at the top of the page
01:51:55 page is this is unequivocal advice by artelia not to reprocure could we just go back to page 25 yes
01:52:09 because i think this is around this time so i think this this report predates the meeting
01:52:13 meeting with laura johnson that i had which we discussed earlier ah well it certainly predates a discussion in may we're going to come to but i'm just taking it i just want to ask you a question on this documentary
01:52:25 ask you a question on this documentary i've read a lot of it to you i'm very happy to read more of it to you but even on what i've read to you so far did you think at the time that artelia
01:52:33 artelia were giving you unequivocal in other words unambiguous advice not to reprocure
01:52:42 um
01:52:47 i think
01:52:51 and that was clearly the recommendation of this report although i think there were some other issues that needed to be considered as part of that so that was part of the dialogue that i had with artelia here
01:53:02 dialogue that i had with artelia here because i did have concerns around there were
01:53:06 were two main concerns really one was around it was further to my conversation with laura johnson regarding the difficulty in getting financial close with ledbetter on the calc project
01:53:17 ledbetter on the calc project my concern was even though our costs were getting closer in alignment here that there still might be a difficulty in
01:53:25 in reaching a financial close which could delay things further my the real driver here um was about getting the project done because residents were really
01:53:37 done because residents were really concerned that this had been going on for a very long time now the project had been talked about and developed and we were weren't near sight and my concern one of the
01:53:47 the concerns i had with this report was that we may have ended up in a situation where we continue to negotiate with ledbetter don't get to financial close
01:53:56 close then have to reprocure anyway and things just get
01:54:00 just get kicked further down the road and that was not an acceptable thing for the residents or for the tmo well i can absolutely understand what you've just said it's a long answer to a short and different question
01:54:12 different question but it i've got to go back to ask it again i'm afraid um and then follow up on something else you just said in it but at the time you received this report did you understand that artelia apple yards as they then were were
01:54:23 apple yards as they then were were giving you clear and unambiguous advice that reprocurement would be a bad idea yes yes now prior to this report i think you just told us in that long answer
01:54:34 you just told us in that long answer that you had a discussion earlier with laura johnson did laura johnson say anything to you about whether the tma should be reprocuring um i discussed
01:54:47 um i discussed her experience or the the council's experience of negotiating with ledbetter and that experience was one of the factors that um that led me to
01:54:59 that led me to discuss with artelia the um the procurement further to this report it's not quite an answer to my question did laura johnson say to you
01:55:11 did laura johnson say to you peter you'd be better off reprocuring the grenfell tower project rather than sticking with lead bitter did she say that did she suggest that um she didn't say those words we had a
01:55:22 um she didn't say those words we had a discussion and i think we came to a common view that actually reprocurement was the least risky um approach here you came to a common view yes but i see so
01:55:35 in that discussion which i think you've put at before the 25th of march program board meeting did she was she the one to raise reprocurement no i specifically went to
01:55:47 reprocurement no i specifically went to see laura to clarify issues around the scope of works the procurement yes and the principles because my concern was one was about making sure we had the right scope of works the issue around decent homes being an
01:55:58 the issue around decent homes being an issue the key issue i wanted to resolve but i also wanted to be really clear that um that if we were to reprocure that might take longer than
01:56:09 take longer than the lead better route although there were risks that the ledbetter may be prolonged it's in itself so it was a complicated situation and i felt that the clearest and cleanest way of doing this was to
01:56:20 and cleanest way of doing this was to reprocure
01:56:22 reprocure yes did you get the impression from your discussion with laura johnson that she was very firmly of the view that there should be a reprocurement of the grenfell tower project i think she was very clear that it was
01:56:33 she was very clear that it was it was ultimately my decision but she gave me some information that i i would use in forming that decision right did you have any reason to think that she was in in any doubt about whether there should be reprocurement
01:56:45 be reprocurement were you clear in your mind that that's what she wanted no i i think she was just giving me the benefit of her experience of negotiating with ledbetter now uh we've seen that you told the tma program board a
01:56:57 that you told the tma program board a month earlier 25th of march 2013 that there should be a reprocurement so in the light of that did artelia's advice here come as an unwelcome surprise to you i wouldn't say an unwelcome surprise but
01:57:08 i wouldn't say an unwelcome surprise but it was it was a different report than i was expecting and it was a bit of a surprise to see the costs move uh in the towards artelia's um estimate right so that was was that a
01:57:20 estimate right so that was was that a good thing or a bad thing um i think it was well it costs being closer to alignment is is a good thing the time it's taken to get there was a bad thing right but you got there nonetheless we'd
01:57:32 right but you got there nonetheless we'd got to a point we still hadn't got anywhere near financial close it was quite a way to go to actually securing this as a contract now let's just
01:57:40 just go go a little bit deeper into the report page 25 which is what we're on you can see that here are the conclusions and if if you look at the second
01:57:51 and if if you look at the second paragraph done it says the project is currently over budget with little expectation that if left to iterative reviews with the contractor giving diminishing returns that costs will be aligned or reduced sufficiently to make the scheme
01:58:02 sufficiently to make the scheme affordable and in the next paragraph it says the tmo has advised that it has desires to change the overall scheme to accommodate a change in brief and the proposed ve options to afford these proposed changes
01:58:14 options to afford these proposed changes may be consumed simply to bring the existing scheme within the realms of affordability and then uh if you look at the bottom of the page
01:58:25 the page uh it says accordingly it is apple yard's opinion and we and we looked at that um so i'm so sorry this is just below halfway down the page
01:58:37 down the page and i showed you this before accordingly it is apple yard's opinion that unless the project in its current guys is stopped
01:58:43 stopped and a fundamental review embarked upon to redefine the scope program and cost it will fail now just looking at that would you agree that that advice
01:58:54 that that advice was critical of the project as it then stood
01:58:58 stood in april 2013. it was explained in the challenges and the complexities that the project was was experiencing at that time yes and it and the report contained criticisms of
01:59:10 and the report contained criticisms of the tmo
01:59:11 the tmo didn't it as well as lead bitter yes so what was your reaction when you received this report
01:59:22 received this report i don't really remember
01:59:25 now examining a little bit more closely if we can the figures and the extent of the budget shortfall can we go
01:59:34 can we go back to page eight in this document in this report and we looked at it a moment ago but i just want to focus your eye on it page eight third paragraph down to date
01:59:46 page eight third paragraph down to date a construction the construction budget has been identified for the refurbishment of the gtrp of 8.5 million pounds and then if we flip onto page 10 and
01:59:57 and then if we flip onto page 10 and look
01:59:57 look at the second from last paragraph we again see the same point the current position of the cost plans is that apple yards
02:00:08 yards it's such that apple yards figures are already in excess of the 8.5 million budget and the contractor ledbit has cost a further in excess of that and then if we go to page 14 of the status report paragraph
02:00:20 status report paragraph 4.2 current position i showed you this before
02:00:26 before and i showed you i think that uh the current estimated cost by apple yards
02:00:33 yards is revised to 9.364 million including 765
02:00:37 765 000 pounds as a client's contingency and then
02:00:41 then i apologize for so many references but if you scroll over the page to page 15 you can see fourth paragraph down a bullet point list just above that the difference between
02:00:53 just above that the difference between apple yard's glacis cost plan and lead bit is currently stands at and this is in bold
02:00:57 in bold 684 000 pounds i've shown you all of those together to lead to this question it's correct isn't it that at that time the difference between artelia and ledbetter was
02:01:10 between artelia and ledbetter was actually less than the amount of tmo's contingency that the contingency was 765 000 pounds but the difference between apple yard's latest cosplan and led bitters was um
02:01:22 latest cosplan and led bitters was um 684 000 pounds that's right isn't it um but that was still too big a difference was it for the tmo to swallow
02:01:33 was it for the tmo to swallow no i think there were a number of different issues that were considered at that time um one was about the um i think
02:01:44 um i think we we started the process of considering the re-procurement option at that stage and i think that part of that that helped me firm up my view that due diligence was required to
02:01:56 view that due diligence was required to get a contractor who had the right experience and that the simplest and most direct rate of doing that was through an external procurement and if ledbetters were the best
02:02:07 ledbetters were the best placed then they would a bid for the job and win it sorry my question again was the difference of 684 000 pounds between lead bitters figures
02:02:18 000 pounds between lead bitters figures and artelia's figures too big a gap to bridge which would then justify re-procurement of the whole project um it wasn't the only factor i understand it was a factor
02:02:29 it was a factor did you think it was a bridgeable gap um yes
02:02:32 yes you did i think it could have been bridged but i thought there were other factors also that to be considered here one was that it had taken close to four months or more to get to
02:02:43 close to four months or more to get to this point um in a very difficult difficult negotiation and that the experience of rbkc in the negotiation
02:02:54 rbkc in the negotiation financial close of the calc project had been prolonged and difficult and i was concerned that this might be a further prolongation so it felt to me that the clearest way
02:03:05 so it felt to me that the clearest way of getting a contractor who had a track record of delivering this sort of work with residents and occupation at a market-tested price was to put the whole project to the market does that tell us that even if uh ledbet
02:03:16 does that tell us that even if uh ledbet had come down by a further 684 thousand pounds you would still have reprocured um
02:03:24 i i can't really speculate or not but i my view at that time at this time was that
02:03:32 that that it was really essential that we had a contractor with the right sort of experience to do this work i think it sounds as if and i just need clarity here the answer to my question is yes
02:03:43 is yes if leadbetter had come back to you in a late april and said well we'll reduce our price to 600 buy a further 684 thousand pounds to be honest that yes i think you're right i think if what this wasn't about
02:03:54 right i think if what this wasn't about price this was about quality this was about getting the right contractor at this time
02:03:58 this time it may have there may have been a different approach if we'd arrived at this position several months earlier and we carried out due diligence on ledbetter at that time
02:04:08 time but it's um it just felt as if this was this is dragged on for long enough and it might have dragged on for much longer and we may have ended up having good to go through a procurement as well the driver was really about value for
02:04:20 the driver was really about value for money and getting the right experience into
02:04:23 into to deliver this project well when you say that you said a minute ago that this was about quality not about price but you also say it was the driver was about value for money
02:04:35 money now i don't want to make a false opposite mr madison but which is it
02:04:41 which is this well were you after better quality than ledbetter could deliver regardless of whether you could bridge the financial gap or were you really after value for money in terms of quality i was looking for experience of of
02:04:54 experience of of contractors who had experience of working complex projects in high-rise buildings
02:04:59 buildings ideally with residents in occupation was was the problem not actually simpler that the tmo simply could not afford the project within the existing budget even with an overspend of only
02:05:12 even with an overspend of only 684 thousand pounds or 8.3 percent cost wasn't the driver here you say cost wasn't a driver fairly for money was a driver it wasn't the driver value for money and
02:05:23 the driver value for money and and getting the right contractor with the right experience was was the driver here could you explain the difference to me in between value for money and cost
02:05:34 value for money and cost um well value for money is is a is a factor of cost and quality and our focus has always been on
02:05:46 quality and our focus has always been on quality
02:05:47 quality and so in the valley in the tender that was put out for this project we gave quality a 60 weighting against 40 on cost and on pretty much
02:05:59 against 40 on cost and on pretty much all of the procurement that the tmo ever did
02:06:02 did we did the same thing we procured on cost on
02:06:05 cost on on quality as the main driver and we didn't i think very few contractors did we appoint the lowest contractor what gave you to think at the time if
02:06:16 what gave you to think at the time if anything
02:06:18 anything that a reprocurement exercise would would produce a contractor who could deliver better quality within the 8.5 million pound budget i thought that by having putting all those contractors who applied
02:06:30 all those contractors who applied through a
02:06:31 through a very thorough and rigorous due diligence process
02:06:34 process we would have the answer to that the answer but the answer is is this right a better quality building than ledbitter could produce within the 8.5 million pound budget
02:06:47 8.5 million pound budget that was the judgement that we made yes what led you what led you to think that that was remotely achievable um it was because if because ledbetter could apply for that if
02:06:58 could apply for that if ledbetter's price was so keen they would win this they would win this tender what led you to think that ledbetters wouldn't be able to do the project for the requisite quality because their experience wasn't in
02:07:10 because their experience wasn't in working in high-rise properties with residents and occupation and that was a really that was the driving factor for the from the tmo here was
02:07:17 was to make sure that the contractor had experience of working with residents and occupation that was really the key so not technical experience in producing a quality
02:07:28 producing a quality finished building but uh experience in dealing with relationships that as well you know there are there was the the due diligence that went through was was comprehensive and covered a whole range of issues
02:07:40 covered a whole range of issues including
02:07:41 including experience and method statements and i just want to be clear when you talk about quality you keep talking about experience of dealing with the refurbishment with residents in issue now that's a human relationships
02:07:52 now that's a human relationships question
02:07:53 question i'm not i'm not remotely saying it's not a critically important one but i want to focus on what you mean by quality is that what you mean by quality as opposed to finishing a a well-designed
02:08:05 well-designed well-built and statutory compliant building
02:08:08 building all of those things so that was defined within the quality assessment of the tenderers all right all of those things and what led you to think that ledbitter weren't
02:08:17 weren't going to be up to producing a well-designed well-constructed and statutorily compliant building it wasn't it wasn't my judgment that they couldn't no but my judgment was that to ensure
02:08:29 no but my judgment was that to ensure that we
02:08:29 that we got the right contractor the most direct way of
02:08:33 way of ensuring we got value for money was to put it to the market and the market would deliver that through a proper rigorous assessment of price and quality let's see
02:08:47 can we go to tm00830537 please
02:09:01 this is a set of notes from the project review meeting with apple yards on the 26th of april 2013 so three days after the report we've just seen
02:09:10 just seen update we've just seen and you were there with david gibson and paul duncan and from apple yards we had robert powell and simon cash and the purpose of the meeting was as it is said to review project and
02:09:22 was as it is said to review project and any key decisions and if you look at the first paragraph under project cost we can see that it says simon cash sc talked through apple yard's recent report in their negotiation meetings
02:09:33 report in their negotiation meetings with ledbitter he informed all that there is a cost difference of 684 thousand pounds between apple yards and ledbetter estimated work packages which is approximately eight percent difference and this is the sort of
02:09:44 difference and this is the sort of difference you would expect at this stage
02:09:47 stage you see that yes did you do you remember that
02:09:51 that particularly not particularly okay do you have any recollection of this meeting independently of this note um i assume this meeting is reviewing the status report that we've just been through uh well indeed
02:10:02 we've just been through uh well indeed it says talk through appleyard's recent report
02:10:04 report and i i'd like you to assume that that's the report that's dated the 23rd of april
02:10:12 and then um in the fourth paragraph simon cash says if we continued with these negotiation meetings then it's more than likely that the difference between the two estimates would be level
02:10:23 would be level that's what he said and did you agree with that
02:10:27 with that i didn't have a view i was taking right their advice but on what you told us this morning when you said that the gap could be bridged that was your view at the time was it um yes and then
02:10:41 um yes and then five pm that's uh you uh suggested we need to look at cost savings
02:10:48 savings you see that and you can see there some items suggested there and and then if we go uh over the page to page two please
02:10:59 the page to page two please we can see
02:11:03 yeah we can see at item nine just above the heading sc asked if budget was flexible pm advised that it could be dependent on the benefits to the project stroke
02:11:14 the benefits to the project stroke building
02:11:15 building do you remember any more about that conversation other than what is said there no but it was what we were looking to do was to ensure that we got a scope of works that
02:11:26 that we got a scope of works that met the priorities of the residents prior primarily but also the council and the tmo
02:11:31 the tmo right and that um the budget could be adjusted if necessary and then under procurement and contractual position uh item one or paragraph one apple yards advised that there would be too much
02:11:42 advised that there would be too much risk if we reprocured under current design as there is too much uncertainty on these design proposals
02:11:49 do you remember that um i'm a little bit confused by the sequences how we're looking at these but my because i think something we saw earlier related to the kitchen and
02:12:00 earlier related to the kitchen and bathrooms
02:12:01 bathrooms which um so i'm i'm not sure about the sequence of my conversation with laura regarding priorities and this report
02:12:11 report and maybe it's maybe this happened before my conversation with with laura do you remember simon cash expressing the view that the design proposals were too uncertain
02:12:23 uncertain yes and that that presented too much of a risk if there was a reprocurement so yeah so what we yes so there was a discussion around for refocusing the design
02:12:36 for refocusing the design and the scope of works for the tender of the work yes just going back then to something that we discussed you and i before the break about the due diligence on studio e you'd said that the designs were very
02:12:48 you'd said that the designs were very well developed by this stage by the time you come in came into the contract but here we have simon cash in the april of 2013 telling you that there's too much uncertainty on them did you not at that stage think well i
02:13:00 did you not at that stage think well i better go back and do some due diligence on studio e to see if they're really up to the mark in completing the design proposals
02:13:05 proposals to an appropriately certain level i don't think he's talking about design quality there i think he's talking about the scope of works i think he means the design in general of what we are intending to do um rather than the you know the
02:13:17 um rather than the you know the specifics of the design right you see he then goes on in the second paragraph to say if we did reprocure then a firm design needs to be agreed to develop a specification which would stand up to tender did that not tell you
02:13:29 stand up to tender did that not tell you that
02:13:29 that studio e who were at that stage the architects on this project needed to do more work in order to produce
02:13:38 produce firm designs with the whole the whole of the of the professional team needed to do more work to develop the project from stage d to stage e
02:13:49 stage e to allow us to progress the work so that's what was part of this this part this process was the re-mobilization of the project and the reinvigoration of the project
02:14:01 the reinvigoration of the project refocusing the project team ensuring that the scope of works was clear and so we could then put it to the market and indeed and was that not the very moment when you should have looked at
02:14:13 you should have looked at doing due diligence on studio e to see if they were the right people to be involved as the architect in producing the designs in its re-mobilization stage to get it to tender
02:14:25 to tender as i said as i said earlier my i had no reason to doubt the ability of studio e to carry out the work
02:14:35 work that already had due diligence carried out and they had already taken the scheme
02:14:39 scheme to stage d to re-employ or to to procure a new uh well it didn't occur it didn't occur to me it may have been if
02:14:50 may have been if one of the professional team had raised concerns about the quality of any of that
02:14:53 that design but this isn't about the quality of design this is more about the scope of work
02:14:58 of work and then at paragraph three rp advised that reprocurement would cost the tmo in regards of money time and project delivery
02:15:04 delivery apple yards are not sure of tma's position if challenged by ledbitter will say the introduction of new contractor would add more risk to the project with them not fully knowing the something i think with them not
02:15:15 the something i think with them not knowing fully knowing them i'm not sure what that
02:15:17 what that is supposed to say and this would provide further delays and possible cost did that not bear in your thinking that advice
02:15:26 advice um well i think you could look at the reprocurement in relation to money time and costs in two ways because um
02:15:37 two ways because um we weren't guaranteed we were going to get value for money through the negotiation with ledbetter because we hadn't reached financial close we were at a point where costs were aligning but there was still a long way to go before
02:15:48 there was still a long way to go before we could get to a financial close we said it was a long way to go there was eight point three percent way to go at that stage but there was there was further procurement of contractor packages i
02:15:59 procurement of contractor packages i understand and there was a it was quite a
02:16:01 a quite a significant process to have gone through
02:16:04 through between where we were then and where the we were chief ranger crow so this was about cost estimates rather than the actual costs and the experience of
02:16:17 rbkc had been that had been a difficult process and had taken a very long time and then it says pm had concerns with ledbitter's suitability working on this type of project paragraph five you see that um so you
02:16:29 paragraph five you see that um so you don't see that on your screen i'm sorry paragraph five
02:16:35 pm had concerns with ledbit of suitability working on this type of project
02:16:39 project did you express your concern that ledbetter weren't suitable yes and what did you say i explained that i didn't think that they had
02:16:49 had the track record of delivering works to occupy properties and then
02:16:57 uh lower down it's uh six it says sc suggested that ledbetter we're going to use their subsidiary company
02:17:05 company question marks who are specialized in this type of project as well as working with residents in occupation what did simon cash say about that do you remember i think that what's written there is all i recall
02:17:16 what's written there is all i recall right what was your reaction to that um i think in a way this is where it focused me on the fact that there was a now a new entity coming in to be delivering these works that we've never even met don't even have their
02:17:28 never even met don't even have their name recorded in the minutes here and and it really focused my attention that we needed to carry out proper due diligence otherwise we were just accepting a subcontractor that we no experience of
02:17:41 a subcontractor that we no experience of and then at eight skipping over seven which is about personnel essie advised the tmo that under the circumstances as mentioned above it would be wise to continue the project with ledbit as main contractor
02:17:53 project with ledbit as main contractor again that was unequivocal advice wasn't it it was yeah and then at nine you're recorded as suggesting that if we continue with lead bitter they need to provide a robust program showing their management in working with
02:18:04 showing their management in working with residents
02:18:04 residents management of surveys and to ensure they comply with specification what was your concern about their management of surveys particularly
02:18:15 management of surveys particularly i don't recall did you have any what was your concern about in ensuring they comply with specification i think this must have been something that was
02:18:25 that was linked to i was remember artelia here were managing working with ledbetters on the calc project
02:18:33 project and maybe some of their experience from the project was being reported back into the grenfell tower project so maybe there were some risks being identified there
02:18:41 there i i don't remember that but it's um but um but that is true that underlines the fact that we were we wanted to see a robust program in
02:18:52 we wanted to see a robust program in showing their management of working with residents that was the key well if we turn to the page the next page page three please of this note we can see there are two more headings there's consultant appointments
02:19:03 there's consultant appointments and actions uh pm studio eu fees will be considered for payment by tmo but not sure what agreement we have with them i'll be to advise as above now this was
02:19:16 i'll be to advise as above now this was some uh four months into your tenure at the tmo can you explain why you still even at that stage were not sure what the agreement or
02:19:27 were not sure what the agreement or arrangements were with studio e about their fees i mean in that period of time very little work had happened on the design or with the professional team if the project had stalled effectively so fees weren't being incurred at that
02:19:40 so fees weren't being incurred at that time
02:19:41 time but as i recorded here i was unclear about the
02:19:44 about the terms of those appointments and so the the paper trail wasn't very clear right why didn't you seek to answer this question a little
02:19:56 seek to answer this question a little bit earlier when you came into the project initially um this was the because there was no work
02:20:02 work really ongoing at that time this was so until we knew what we needed the professional team to do um we needed to know what we needed to do so we could procure them and commission them or instruct them and
02:20:15 commission them or instruct them and that was
02:20:16 that was so at the point where we are now potentially looking at moving the project forwards that we need to clarify the roles and responsibilities through of the professional teams through formal appointments and then if you look under
02:20:29 appointments and then if you look under actions
02:20:30 actions paragraph one is a global set of actions to move the project forward paragraph two
02:20:35 two tmo to arrange meeting with design team to consider planning and principles of scheme
02:20:39 scheme in meeting a frank discussion with max fordham and studio e about the fact that the designs need to be suitable and not over designed for this type of project
02:20:50 over designed for this type of project stroke building was it you who said that the designs needed
02:20:56 needed to be suitable and not over designed for grenfell
02:21:00 grenfell i don't recall but i would agree with that statement you would agree with it what was not suitable and what was over designed about studio e's designs at that stage for grenfell tower i don't think this well there was some issues
02:21:12 think this well there was some issues with both it says this is about max for demand studio e so in relation to studio we were the issues that i raised earlier in terms of internal lifts new lifts being installed in the link bridge
02:21:23 in the link bridge and the other the other issues that i i mentioned
02:21:27 mentioned in relation to max fordham the scope and of the m e piece was very considerable
02:21:38 piece was very considerable and i think that the project at one stage was trying to achieve brian uh accreditation and that i think had pushed the the complexity and the cost of the m e piece
02:21:50 complexity and the cost of the m e piece up significantly it was a very sophisticated and expensive system being been proposed there which i thought was going to be not only expensive but potentially
02:22:01 not only expensive but potentially difficult to maintain going forward so we wanted something that was manageable in the longer term what was over designed about studio he's designed as i mentioned the lift and the link
02:22:13 as i mentioned the lift and the link bridge
02:22:14 bridge and there may have been some other things but i don't remember now in paragraph three it says tmo to draft newsletter informing residents of progress and the change in design but with positive spin what do you mean
02:22:26 but with positive spin what do you mean by
02:22:27 by or what did the person who said this mean by positive spin i don't think spins the appropriate word i think we want to present what we're doing is is good and the right thing to do
02:22:40 yes was it you who used the expression with positive spin um no who did i don't know it wouldn't be a word i would particularly use
02:22:51 word i would particularly use no well somebody did and uh it's signed off by paul dunkerton this note uh maybe that he thought of the expression either way can we take it that it's a tmo idea the idea of giving newsletter a
02:23:03 idea the idea of giving newsletter a newsletter to residents with a positive spin i think positively promoting what we're proposing to do is absolutely an appropriate thing to do yes yeah you see the positive the idea
02:23:15 yes yeah you see the positive the idea of a spin
02:23:16 of a spin rather indicates doesn't it that you're telling somebody what they want might want to hear putting a gloss or an angle on it without actually revealing the whole truth is that fair um
02:23:28 the whole truth is that fair um i don't know without knowing exactly what
02:23:32 what um
02:23:36 yeah i i don't i don't know to be honest well
02:23:39 well you see i wonder why that is um
02:23:43 you were at a meeting where the suggestion is made to draft a newsletter telling the residents about progress and change in design but with positive spin that rather suggests that the idea was to tell the residents only good things
02:23:55 to tell the residents only good things and not tell them the whole truth is that no i think we would always tell them the whole truth and i'm not sure what negative things we would be avoiding trying to tell them we wouldn't be we would be telling people
02:24:06 telling people what we're proposing to do and when um in a positive way right that's that would be how i would describe it um yes but there was quite a lot
02:24:19 um yes but there was quite a lot actually as we saw it wasn't there in the
02:24:21 the in the report from artila artelia that you were discussing at this meeting which was negative about the way the tmo had handled the project thus far i take it that by putting
02:24:32 thus far i take it that by putting forward a newsletter with positive spin you weren't going to be telling the residents about any of that is that right um what we wanted to be communicating to residents is what we were going to do and when
02:24:43 were going to do and when the real concerns from residents at this stage was that this project was taken so long to get onto site and informing them of progress and change in design but with a positive spin
02:24:53 spin meant not with anything negative no i i don't agree with that you know we tell that
02:25:01 tell that we tell residents the truth we tell them what we're going to do and if there are negative things that we have to communicate then we will communicate those too
02:25:08 those too now we've looked in detail at the status report and we've looked in detail at the discussion note about the status report do you accept that there's absolutely nothing in it at all which suggests that ledbitter weren't going to be delivering
02:25:19 ledbitter weren't going to be delivering value for money you were a part in terms of costs and budgets i understand but that but artelia never never advised you that
02:25:28 you that uh led bitters weren't going to be delivering value for money is that fair um i don't have a recollection of that right
02:25:41 now if we move on in time please to the 21st of may 2013 uh there is an email at art 4088
02:25:52 uh there is an email at art 4088 please
02:26:00 and it's dated the 21st of may 2013 and it's about a meeting artelia had with you and laura johnson it's from robert powell
02:26:07 powell to phil booth and simon cash so it's internal to artelia phillip interesting meeting this am exclamation mark basically peter madison has been overruled by laura johnson she wants to keep the works for the
02:26:18 she wants to keep the works for the boxing club and nursery and doesn't want to progress the kitchens and bathrooms at this stage necessarily also pm not keen on progressing with lead bitter our report kicking all this off was based on the objective preserving program
02:26:30 preserving program this not now this now not so important value for money is accordingly we are likely to reprocure scheme via oj eu exclamation mark planning to planning a status update meeting with the tmo in
02:26:41 status update meeting with the tmo in hobart
02:26:42 hobart on the 6th of june at 3 pm and in the interim looking to make an on-account payment to studio e
02:26:52 now robert powell of artelia says in his witness statement and i don't need to show it to you but that you are at the meeting with uh robert powell the small that morning is
02:27:04 robert powell the small that morning is that right so which morning the 21st of may 2013. okay um do you remember that i don't remember but right um do you have any recollection of that
02:27:16 um do you have any recollection of that meeting not specifically now um do you remember what issues laura johnson had expressed her view about which you were then passing on to
02:27:27 about which you were then passing on to robert powell this was a conversation that i described earlier with my conversation with laura about procurement scope of works decent homes right so it was this conversation not not one in
02:27:39 conversation not not one in earlier in march so the conversation you had
02:27:42 had here didn't wasn't the one that predated the meeting on the 25th of march or maybe i'm getting confused about which sequence here
02:27:53 sequence here it says basically peter madison has been overruled by laura johnson had you been overruled by her on anything no i went to discuss priorities and principles with laura
02:28:05 principles with laura and she gave me some valuable advice and i took that advice and i agreed with it right clearly mr powell has formed the impression uh that you had one view but she had overruled
02:28:17 you had one view but she had overruled you can you explain that no what was it that you discussed with her
02:28:24 her that led to the view as recorded here that she wanted to keep the works for the boxing club and nursery and doesn't want to progress the kitchens and bathrooms at this stage necessarily was it that on which uh you had been as
02:28:37 was it that on which uh you had been as it
02:28:37 it is said overruled by laura johnson i wasn't overruled and robert's incorrect in his terminology there
02:28:44 there i discussed the issue of the costs and the costs of the boxing club in the nursery and wanted to check with laura that she was comfortable without the they were a priority
02:28:57 without the they were a priority laura clearly communicated to me that she saw that as part of the social value the infrastructure of the area and wanted this to be a great place so wanted that wanted the boxing club
02:29:09 so wanted that wanted the boxing club and the nursery as part of that wider regeneration of the of this area and wanted it to be a great place for people to live right and the the in a way might my question to her was we're going
02:29:23 might my question to her was we're going to do all of this work but we'll not have finished the kitchens and bathrooms and so therefore there may be some large level of investment and we still don't meet decent homes and her view was well
02:29:35 and her view was well she heard that point but said we can pick that up at a later date and i think in hindsight that was a very sensible advice was the point of difference then between you or was was there a point of difference between you about whether you
02:29:47 difference between you about whether you should or shouldn't progress the kitchens
02:29:48 kitchens and bathrooms within the flats at this stage no lauren i agreed yeah i wasn't overruled that came with some suggestions and proposals and options for laura we discussed them and agreed a way
02:29:59 we discussed them and agreed a way forward
02:30:02 what did you need to go and see her about i wanted to check in for the reasons that i described about the decent homes when you went to check in with her was your check-in proposal that you would do all the works boxing club nursery and
02:30:14 the works boxing club nursery and the kitchens and bathrooms um [Music]
02:30:19 [Music] i don't remember that
02:30:23 um when it also says also p.m not keen on progressing with ledbitter was this meeting the first time that you had told artelia
02:30:36 that you had told artelia that you were not keen on progressing with lead bitter i don't remember i think that um from from very early in my involvement in this project and we're
02:30:49 my involvement in this project and we're only in the fifth month of my time at the tmo here from very early on um the professional team was talking about reprocuring and not going with ledbetter so this wasn't this wasn't a surprise
02:31:01 so this wasn't this wasn't a surprise um interjection of mine this was something that the whole of the professional team had been talking about for some considerable time well you see we'd seen an email sorry we'd seen the note of the meeting on the 25th of march where you had told
02:31:12 on the 25th of march where you had told the programme board that you wanted to reprocure
02:31:14 reprocure we've seen the advice from lead bitter on the 23rd of april where they strongly advised not going to reprocure and we've seen the discussion note
02:31:23 note of the of the meeting where that report was discussed on the 26th of april where again we don't see you saying um well i don't agree with your advice we're going to reprocure
02:31:35 we're going to reprocure what had changed between the 26th of april
02:31:38 april and your discussion with artelia then and the 21st of may 2013 uh when you led la tilia to think that you were not keen on progressing with lead bitter
02:31:50 i think my i think my view had firmed up in terms of wanting to understand that we had the right contractor with the right experience but also added to that laura had given
02:32:03 but also added to that laura had given me some context around the difficulties that rbkc had experienced of getting the getting led better into a contract
02:32:12 contract on calc
02:32:19 we don't see you telling artelia in april that you thought their advice was wrong and you weren't going to accept it when it came to reprocurement do we
02:32:30 um i don't know no we haven't seen a record of that and i've shown you the record right so what i'm interested in is uh what happened for you to tell
02:32:44 what happened for you to tell artelia on the 21st of may that you were not keen on progressing with lead bitter
02:32:54 i've explained the reasons i think that's the best recollection i have i'm afraid
02:33:03 now we heard from simon cash about this email and i'd like to show you the transcript for day 48 please at page 163
02:33:12 if we get a line 23 please
02:33:28 uh before i show you this i perhaps to be fair to you just to put to you do you recall being at a meeting on the 21st
02:33:37 21st of may in the morning of that day where at which simon cash was present
02:33:44 i don't specifically sorry is this the from is this the
02:33:50 i don't i don't remember specifically now i'm just asking you that based on the email we've just looked at which we can go back to if you like if you could yes of course um it's art408858
02:34:09 about the meeting this morning and my question before i show you what what simon cash said about it was do you remember meeting simon cash at a meeting i don't remember but if simon was there that's
02:34:19 that's fine so let's then look at his evidence uh it's dave 48 page 163 line 23
02:34:28 and i i asked mr cash uh at line uh 20 before we get to 23. it looks as if
02:34:39 20 before we get to 23. it looks as if you attended this meeting is that right and he said yes that's correct so simon cash's recollection is is that he was at a meet at that meeting and at line 24 i ask
02:34:53 and at line 24 i ask mr cash when robert powell used the words overruled peter madison has been overruled by laura johnson and if we go over the page what did you understand he meant answer that laura i believe that peter
02:35:05 answer that laura i believe that peter madison reported to laura as head of social housing within rbkc and that she had effectively told him that what she wanted would basically take precedence over what piece of madison was trying to achieve
02:35:16 madison was trying to achieve and as i suppose the major funder for the project contributor of funds to the project
02:35:20 project he obviously had to take cognizance of what she was saying question right so as you understood it it sounds from what you have just told us that rbkc had some sort of decisive influence
02:35:31 had some sort of decisive influence about whether or not this contract would be reprocured is that right answer it appears so yes it appears so but did it appear so to you at the time answer yes
02:35:42 question really did you ask yourself or ask how the tmo how that could be no because at the end of the day that's a relationship above our client so i've shown you the full passage
02:35:54 so i've shown you the full passage um do you agree with it do you agree that at least from his perspective uh rbkc was exercising some sort of
02:36:05 uh rbkc was exercising some sort of decisive influence about whether or not this contract could be reprocured i think that this is simon cash repeating
02:36:12 repeating robert powell's view of a meeting or a relationship that he has no insight into really so there's an assumption there and that assumption is not quite right
02:36:24 assumption is not quite right what i've described to you is is what actually happened did you think you had the power to stand up to laura johnson and say no to her um i didn't it wasn't
02:36:36 no to her um i didn't it wasn't we we worked consensually we had we had we had we had agreement we reached agreement um it wasn't about power this was about working out what was the right and the best thing to do
02:36:48 right and the best thing to do you say it wasn't about power but of course as you point out or pointed out before you regarded rbkc as tma's client that's the word you've used so as your client did she not have power
02:36:59 as your client did she not have power yes absolutely yeah and therefore to what extent did you feel you had the power yourself to deny her on anything um well i never reached that position we
02:37:10 um well i never reached that position we would always discuss issues i always found laura very insightful and she knew the the the she knew the environment very well she had good experience and she gave
02:37:22 had good experience and she gave really valuable advice and i always valued it and worked within it yes do you don't recall a situation is this right where you felt inside yourself that you should stand up to her
02:37:34 yourself that you should stand up to her and say no but actually just went with it i've never not at no point did i ever feel that
02:37:46 not at no point did i ever feel that going back to the email of the 21st of may 2013 if we can
02:37:53 um art 408858 in the fourth paragraph we we see as we've seen already i've read it to you pm not progressing
02:38:04 you pm not progressing keen on not keen on progressing with lead bitter our report kicking all all the i'm so sorry our report kicking this all off was based on the objective of preserving programme this not now so important value for
02:38:16 this not now so important value for money is
02:38:18 money is is robert pyle is robert powell right that you said that you weren't keen on lead progressing with leadbiter yes now
02:38:29 yes now we saw earlier that robert powell says that the project would be reprocured by ojeu
02:38:35 ojeu that's a departure isn't it from your previous recommendations to re-procure using a framework isn't it i don't think that was their recommendations were you saying yes
02:38:46 recommendations were you saying yes um
02:38:49 well they'd i think there'd been some initial
02:38:53 initial exploration of the lhc framework and they had we've asked artelia to try and identify other frameworks that may be used
02:39:05 other frameworks that may be used and the benefit of a framework is that it reduces some of the time and the administration of the oju process
02:39:14 process but i don't think we'd found or they had found
02:39:17 found a framework that seemed to deliver what what we needed for this project so we felt that actually easier just to go through a straightforward um
02:39:29 straightforward um odu process it was clear and transparent do you remember having a discussion with rob powell to the effect that you are now going to reprocure the scheme through ojeu specifically as opposed to the
02:39:41 specifically as opposed to the frameworks we were looking at before or you were looking at before um i don't i don't remember i don't remember i didn't do any very detailed work on
02:39:52 detailed work on frameworks i'd mentioned some areas that i'll tell you might want to consider but i don't think i was i was asking them to recommend the appropriate route for
02:40:03 recommend the appropriate route for procuring
02:40:04 procuring the scheme now robert powell goes on to say
02:40:09 say uh as we've seen that preserving the program not so important or now not so important value for money is
02:40:21 value for money is did you say that um i don't remember but i think i can understand that i think it's um value for money was the driver here and that
02:40:32 and that the inference being that ledbetter may not be offering value for money the best way we felt of getting value for money was to put it to the market with a very clear price quality due diligence process
02:40:45 price quality due diligence process and that would take time and one of the part of the conversation i had with laura
02:40:51 laura was that this may take more time is that okay are you well how does that feel politically and that's the sort of sense check i was given laura said the right thing to do is to
02:41:02 is to deliver value for money
02:41:05 focusing on the oj eu do you actually remember
02:41:08 remember having the conversation with rob powell that said you now wanted to go with the og eu framework i think my recollection is that we took the recommendation from artelia i think this looks like a
02:41:21 artelia i think this looks like a internal
02:41:22 internal slightly shorthand [Applause] note um
02:41:32 i think that i i i would always be looking for my professional team and my employer's agents to be recommended in the procurement route right and when
02:41:44 right and when it says preserving program now not so important value for money is is that something you said i don't think i don't think it is something i necessarily said but i think
02:41:58 something i necessarily said but i think it it
02:42:00 it chimes with the conversation that i had had with laura that value for money is the is the so getting value for money we're spending public money here and it's a lot of public money um we
02:42:12 and it's a lot of public money um we need to
02:42:13 need to show we're getting value for money and if that takes a little bit longer then she's supportive of that i think you have did you have a conversation with laura johnson along the lines of preserving program is no longer
02:42:25 preserving program is no longer important value for money is no that that isn't how i would describe it i would say that value for money is is is achieving value for money for for the
02:42:38 achieving value for money for for the we're spending a large amount of money here
02:42:40 here making sure we get the best we can for that money and you can take a bit longer if it takes a bit longer to do that then that's the right thing to do was it not always the position mr
02:42:51 was it not always the position mr madison that you were spending public money
02:42:53 money always it wasn't a lot of public money yes and was it not always the position that as a public servant you would have to get the best value you could for that money
02:43:01 money exactly and that's why i thought that ledbetter's negotiation was ambiguous in terms of whether it delivered value for money
02:43:07 money and i thought that the clearest way of demonstrating it was was through a proper due diligence process and a market tested tender right so can you explain why value for money had now become the most important
02:43:20 money had now become the most important objective
02:43:22 objective um i think maybe in maybe this is around the refocusing of the professional team where actually you know so the things that some of simon cash is
02:43:34 that some of simon cash is alluding to in the status report maybe the lack of focus on what it is we're doing and
02:43:38 doing and this the scope creep and some of those issues that he was raising have allowed us to
02:43:45 us to lose a bit of focus on some of that and this was about focusing back down let's get an agreed scope of work let's get it procured in the in the way that we'll get this give us the best value for money in the most transparent way possible right
02:43:57 transparent way possible right um let's just see if we can prompt your recollection of this discussion by reference to your notebook please can we please go to tmo 879 779
02:44:09 tmo 879 779 at page 37 tmo double zero 879 779 at page 37. now this is may 2013.
02:44:21 at page 37. now this is may 2013. we can see uh that if you look at the
02:44:27 at the bottom of the page you see there's a date
02:44:32 date 21st of may 2013. grenfell and apple yards do you think that might be a a jotting or note sorry are you with me yeah because we
02:44:43 sorry are you with me yeah because we can expand it if you need to 21st of may 2013. do you see it says uh
02:44:54 you see what it says it says something underneath that can you can you read that out to us do you think underneath grenfell and apple yard
02:45:09 um perhaps it doesn't matter i think that refers to byuk which is weak
02:45:16 weak oh right but i can't read i i don't think that that doesn't look particularly relevant something about experience and expertise in social housing well it says it is if it's weak then that does make
02:45:28 it is if it's weak then that does make sense because then goes on to say we'll draw on
02:45:32 draw on something veil thamesville maybe their subsidiary expertise in okay good in social housing that ties with what you said earlier so there was clearly just clearly discussion even at this meeting
02:45:45 clearly discussion even at this meeting about
02:45:46 about uh the ability of breed to use their subsidiary as a social housing contractor yes yes and then fees design fee apple yards and then procurement led bitters
02:45:57 and then procurement led bitters framework oj eu question mark so it looks from this as if you did discuss the oj eu at this meeting but there's a question mark next to it um in general can i just ask you do you
02:46:08 in general can i just ask you do you think this was a note that you made to yourself in preparation for this meeting or was it a record of what was discussed at the meeting it'll be a note in preparation right so o.j eu question mark does that tell us that you wanted to go into the meeting
02:46:20 that you wanted to go into the meeting asking artelia whether the reprocurement exercise you had in mind would be through og ojeu yes yeah that's helpful so does that tell us that you were the one who had thought
02:46:32 you were the one who had thought uh that in contra distinction to the reprocurement exercise that you were talking about before namely through the frameworks particularly lhc you now wanted
02:46:43 particularly lhc you now wanted to discuss an oj eu procurement or a framework
02:46:47 framework i think that question mark or refresh okay but the oju had come in now as a new possibility yes so the options were led better as a framework a simple framework [Music]
02:47:04 yes
02:47:11 now moving on in time a little bit
02:47:23 uh and i'm just waiting just looking again to see if there's anything i need on that
02:47:27 on that page no moving on in time a little bit uh we go to tmo one double zero sorry one triple zero two seven
02:47:38 two seven zero two
02:47:42 i say moving on in time moving on three days i think and this is uh apple yard's status report addendum of may 2013
02:47:56 status report addendum of may 2013 uh and um if we go to the third page we can see that it was issued on the 24th of may 2013. you see that and it was issued to paul
02:48:07 you see that and it was issued to paul dunkerton
02:48:08 dunkerton did you see this at the time do you think i can't remember well we know it was sent to you on the 24th of may because we have an email which shows it perhaps i should just show that in front of you so you're clear
02:48:19 in front of you so you're clear art401206 please
02:48:27 robert powell to you 24th of may 2013 attaches the addendum peter please find attach the addendum to our report we discussed
02:48:36 discussed this should now give you the comfort you are looking for to proceed with looking to reprocure the construction against our earlier recommendation which was based on now obsolete information i'll come back to the text of the email in
02:48:47 come back to the text of the email in in due course but um just looking at the addendum
02:48:52 addendum did you ask artelia to write it um i don't remember specifically do you know what led to it's being produced
02:49:04 produced i don't recall can we get back to the email art 40120
02:49:15 second sentence or rather first sentence the addendum to our report we discussed did you discuss the addendum before they produced it it sounds like we've had a discussion around the original report
02:49:26 original report and agreed the refocusing of that that report now looking at the brevity of time between the 21st of may meeting and the note we've seen of that and your
02:49:38 and the note we've seen of that and your diary note and the 24th of may email only three days it's likely isn't it that the discussion about their producing an addendum took place at the 21st of may meeting that seems sensible and he then goes on
02:49:51 that seems sensible and he then goes on to say this should now give you the comfort you are looking for to proceed with looking to reprocure the construction i'll come back to the substance of that shortly but does that tell us that you were the person
02:50:02 tell us that you were the person who asked artelia to produce the addendum
02:50:06 um possibly i don't remember
02:50:13 yeah you don't remember and let's go back to the report tmo triple zero two seven zero two please and let's go to page five page five
02:50:26 um we can see at the top of the page addendum this addendum relates to the apple yard status report ensued 22nd of april 2013.
02:50:37 ensued 22nd of april 2013. uh the original report made some recommendations based upon knowledge of the project and our understanding of the tma's priorities at that time you see that and then if you go down to the third
02:50:48 and then if you go down to the third paragraph
02:50:51 paragraph there's a text and then some bullet points um
02:50:54 points um in the intervening period of following a meeting the tmo held with laura johnson of the royal borough of kensington and chelsea in week commencing 13th may 2013
02:51:05 chelsea in week commencing 13th may 2013 the tmo clarified their position relating to a number of contributory factors
02:51:09 factors to the scheme
02:51:14 and just pausing there does that help you identify with greater precision the timing of your meeting with laura johnson um week commencing 13th of may 2013.
02:51:30 i don't know but this obviously relates to the the discussion that i had with laura johnson it it does and it somebody at apple
02:51:42 it it does and it somebody at apple yards has got the idea that you'd had that discussion in the week commencing the 13th of may 2013.
02:51:47 2013. sitting there do you have any reason to think that that's wrong i've no i it's so long ago i really can't remember and then it says tmo clarified the position
02:51:59 it says tmo clarified the position relating to a number of contributory factors to the scheme and then there are some bullet points and the first bullet point says value for money is to be regarded as the key driver for the project
02:52:10 driver for the project now if we go to page six of this report i want just to look at the first and second paragraphs on that page
02:52:17 page six at a meet at a meeting this is the second paragraph at a meeting between the tmo and apple yards on the 21st of may 2013 it was confirmed by the tmo
02:52:26 tmo that the question of program should be considered subordinate to value for money with capital letters on the project see that and then just pausing there what do you understand program to mean
02:52:37 what do you understand program to mean here
02:52:39 here how quickly the work is done or when it starts right i think this is acknowledging it'll take longer if it takes longer to do something but you get value for money then right that's the priority now the document it refers to the 21st of may
02:52:51 document it refers to the 21st of may meeting
02:52:53 meeting between tmo and artelia which we've already discussed um do you remember whether it had been decided before that meeting that value for money was the priority consideration
02:53:06 the priority consideration uh sorry i'm lost on these dates i re i'm really struggling to to follow the timeline on this right but i think it's clear that i had a conversation with laura johnson on the
02:53:17 conversation with laura johnson on the um that's minuted in that yeah just noted in that meeting but i can't is i'm struggling to follow the timeline no i understand that in general terms perhaps i can help you
02:53:29 in general terms perhaps i can help you but in general terms did you go to the meeting on the 21st of may 2013
02:53:34 may 2013 with artelia having already decided with laura johnson that value for money should now be the driver
02:53:41 driver as opposed to the program
02:53:45 yes i think yes thank you now if program was now
02:53:49 was now not to be the key driver but value for money was
02:53:53 money was why wouldn't the tmo wait for the costs difference between artelia and ledbetter to reach a final resolution because cost isn't the only driver here
02:54:04 because cost isn't the only driver here lower cost isn't what we were going to accept we were looking for a clear indication that quality and experience and the right contractor with the right experience of doing this
02:54:15 with the right experience of doing this sort of work was going to win the job so we hadn't let better hadn't been through that you we were only looking at one dimension of ledbetter here which was price
02:54:26 was price and if that price comes down that doesn't mean you're getting the quality that you also want so i felt very strongly by this stage that we needed to do some due diligence to ensure that we
02:54:37 do some due diligence to ensure that we were getting the right quality of contractor coming back to the question i asked before and i'm sorry to repeat the question
02:54:44 question at this stage was there anything that gave you to think that you wouldn't get value for money from ledbitter yes what there hadn't been any due diligence to show that they had experience of doing the
02:54:57 that they had experience of doing the work
02:54:58 work uh the sort of work we were looking at here
02:55:01 here in addition to that there had been we had feedback for the from the exist the the exact team that was delivering the project next in the next door site that rbkc had been
02:55:13 in the next door site that rbkc had been experiencing difficulty in closing out a negotiation with that contractor and and so there were a number of warning signs saying that actually there are things that should be considered
02:55:24 are things that should be considered here
02:55:24 here and so i felt and that that also meant that
02:55:28 that you know that so my considered view at that time and uh was that we should carry out a procurement to make sure that we do a thorough
02:55:39 that we do a thorough due diligence on a contractor i can understand that you might in your due diligence process get someone who you considered was more experienced in dealing with residents but why would that mean that they necessarily were giving you better value
02:55:51 necessarily were giving you better value for money
02:55:51 for money because it would because value for money will be assessed as part of that you is one part of that of a very comprehensive due diligence process
02:56:00 process we tell value for money is now the driver
02:56:04 driver now i'm trying to under i'm trying to understand the connection between value for money
02:56:09 for money on the one hand and experience of overcladding or refurbishing
02:56:16 residential buildings with the occupants still in situ the value for money is that combination of price and quality so i didn't feel that that better had had a quality assessment that
02:56:28 had a quality assessment that thoroughly explored their experience their approach um to this sort of complex project with residents and occupation that was really what the key driver was here you say that mr
02:56:40 here you say that mr madison but you see we we see nothing here
02:56:43 here in this report or indeed in the 21st of may email which records the meeting or indeed in your note made in your diary in preparation for that meeting
02:56:54 for that meeting the the to the effect that the question of program should be considered subordinate to the experience of the new contractor in dealing with residents in situ
02:57:02 situ that doesn't feature well experience is only one aspect of the quality assessment obviously we can't just appoint solely on experience it was a full comprehensive quality assessment to ensure
02:57:12 ensure that we got the most experienced contractor that i understand and what that was
02:57:16 that was referenced in some of the earlier correspondence we looked at within the dialogue with with um artelia are you not over promoting the role of the experience of dealing with residence
02:57:27 the experience of dealing with residence in situ
02:57:28 in situ when uh when explaining and interpreting the expression value for money as used in this report it was it was a fundamental driver it was it was something that this this approach runs through i mean through my
02:57:40 approach runs through i mean through my time
02:57:41 time my five years at the tmo we re procured um we procured all of the servicing contracts put in place a framework and all of them were driven by quality
02:57:52 and all of them were driven by quality over price and and that was that was a so this is very consistent with all of our approach at the tml can you explain why we don't see a single record at this time
02:58:04 see a single record at this time that what should now become the most important issue is not value for money as we do see but the experience of dealing with residents in situ
02:58:13 in situ which we don't see i didn't say i didn't say that i said that value for money is that combination of price and quality experience is only one part of that quality assessment but a very important part
02:58:24 a very important part of this particular project so so when we read value for money in these reports we're to read into that are we the experience of dealing with residents
02:58:35 the experience of dealing with residents no price value for money is a combination of price and quality as part of that quality assessment experience working in residence is a really important part of it because this was
02:58:46 it because this was a very challenging building to refurbish with residents and occupation for a number of reasons yes but we've been around this boy a number of times and it's probably not worth repeating but i think we have the answer on that can
02:58:58 i think we have the answer on that can we then go down well is this likely to be a good point um
02:59:04 yes i think it is actually
02:59:07 mrs madison we'll have a break now so we can have some lunch and we'll come back at two o'clock please and while you're out of the room no talking to anyone about your evidence or anything to do
02:59:18 or anything to do thank you all right thank you very much
02:59:30 thank you two o'clock please
03:00:01 you