Testimony from David Gibson, TMO's Head of Capital Investment (2013-2016), about lack of professional training, fire safety knowledge gaps, and his role in the Grenfell refurbishment project.
00:00:13 [Applause]
00:00:18 Good morning everyone. Welcome to today's hearing. Today we're going to continue hearing evidence from the tenant management organization. Yes, Mr. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. Yes, we are.
00:00:29 Good morning, Mr. Chairman. Yes, we are. We I now call Mr. David Gibson for the TMO.
00:00:32 TMO. Thank you.
00:00:44 Can you please read out the witness affirmation text? I do solemnly, sincerely, and truly declare and affirm that the evidence I shall give shall be the truth, the whole truth, and
00:00:57 shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Thank you very much, Mr. Gibson. Would you like to sit down and make yourself comfortable?
00:01:07 Right. Yes, Mr. Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Gibson. Good morning. Good morning. Can I start by thanking you very much for coming here today and assisting us with our investigations? We are very grateful to you. If during the course of
00:01:19 grateful to you. If during the course of my questions, uh I I ask you a question which you don't understand. I can put it another way or repeat the question. Just please say. Could you also please keep your voice up so that the transcriber
00:01:30 your voice up so that the transcriber who sits to your immediate right can get down everything you're saying and so that others who are not in this room can hear what you're saying very clearly. Also, can I just give you um a tip? If
00:01:42 Also, can I just give you um a tip? If you shake your head or nod, the no or yes, as the case may be, doesn't go onto the transcript. So, you do have to say no or yes. Um we're going to take two breaks during the course of the day, but
00:01:53 breaks during the course of the day, but if you need any break at any other time, please just indicate and we can take a short break. Now uh I'm going to start um by ask by putting statements to you. You have, I think, made a total of four
00:02:05 You have, I think, made a total of four witness statements to the inquiry. They should be in a folder on your desk in front of you, but everything I'm going to show you will appear on the screen in front of you as well. Can we go first please to TMO50887?
00:02:19 This is your statement dated the 23rd of January 2019. And I'll call that your first statement or your January 2019 statement possibly. Um is that your first statement?
00:02:32 Um is that your first statement? It is. Yes. Uh and uh
00:02:37 Uh and uh yeah. And then we go to TMO842310.
00:02:42 This is your statement. uh of the 5th of September 2019 and I'll call that your second statement. Is that your statement? It is.
00:02:51 It is. And then you made a third a further statement a third statement on the 6th of February 2020. I'll call that your third statement. That's at um TMO864675
00:03:03 please. Is that your third statement which you called your additional statement? It is. And then your fourth statement is dated the 3rd of October which is TM 089
00:03:14 dated the 3rd of October which is TM 089 879742.
00:03:17 879742. That's your fourth and final statement I think isn't it? It is.
00:03:20 It is. Um have you read those statement statement statements recently? I have.
00:03:24 I have. And can you confirm that subject to some corrections perhaps you want to make later um that their contents are true? They are.
00:03:32 They are. Have you discussed your statements or your evidence with anybody before coming here today? No.
00:03:37 No. Uh, I'm going to begin with your background, qualifications, and experience. And just to put a little bit of context around that, if I may, you were the TMO's head of capital investment from the 25th of February,
00:03:49 investment from the 25th of February, 2013, I think, to the 30th of June 2016. Is that right? That's correct. And was that your first role in a TMO or an ALMO?
00:04:00 an ALMO? It was. Yes. Now, by way of background, just to give you some help, as of February 2013, the Granfell Tower refurbishment project had
00:04:12 Granfell Tower refurbishment project had started. Yes, that's correct. And it was a separate project from the Kensington Academy uh leisure center or calc project as we call it. It was
00:04:22 It was or it had grown out into a separate project certainly. Yes. Yes.
00:04:26 Yes. Yeah. And lead bitter at that time was the main contractor or proposed main contractor on the Grenfell Tower project.
00:04:33 project. That's correct. And at that time you were looking forward to uh lead bitter being the main contractor. I
00:04:44 I my understanding at the time that um lead better were not engaged in the process. Um so I'm not I'm not quite sure whether there was actually an appointment of them. There were
00:04:55 appointment of them. There were discussions with them. You're quite right. There was not yet an appointment. Yeah.
00:04:58 Yeah. Um can we then go against that general um background to paragraph five of your first statement on page one? That's TMO50887.
00:05:10 That's TMO50887. Yeah.
00:05:11 Yeah. And you say there that you qualified as an architect from Queens University Belfast and North London Polytechnic. And you started your career uh in a small architect practice in London working on a range of housing
00:05:22 working on a range of housing refurbishments prior to working as an architect for Hackne Council for 7 years from 1981 to 1988. Then you go on to say that you um were in private practice for two years and then you joined u circle
00:05:35 two years and then you joined u circle 33 as a senior technical officer. Uh now in your um 3rd of October 2020 statement, your very recent one, your
00:05:46 statement, your very recent one, your fourth, um you've sought to correct parts of your first witness statement there because they're inaccurate or you want to word them differently. That's correct. That's right. And one of the things you say is at paragraph five of your first
00:05:58 say is at paragraph five of your first witness statement um that you weren't an architect at Hackne Council, but an architectural assistant. Is that right? That's correct. Can you just tell us very briefly what the difference is? Um I would be working
00:06:10 the difference is? Um I would be working to a project architect. Um so assisting a project architect. Most of what I was working on at that time would have been
00:06:22 working on at that time would have been um preparing drawings for um and plans for a particular scheme mostly um new build housing and some
00:06:33 um new build housing and some refurbishment of street properties. Now you refer to working on a range of housing refurbishments before you joined uh Hackne Council. What work did you do for Hackne as an architectural
00:06:45 for Hackne as an architectural assistant? Um I worked on a number of new build housing schemes um on street properties, refurbishment
00:06:56 um on street properties, refurbishment of street properties. So major major works to street properties. When you say street properties, do you mean houses at street level? Um the traditional London street right
00:07:06 right properties. Yes. So not high-rise blocks. Not high-rise blocks. I follow.
00:07:11 I follow. Um and you say that was um new build. So do I take it from that not refurbishment or did you do refurbishments? Um the street properties would be refurbished. They would be refurbishments. I see. And
00:07:22 They would be refurbishments. I see. And is it right that while you were at Hackne you obtained your part two and part three qualifications? That's correct. I follow. And you then went to ARC UK I
00:07:33 I follow. And you then went to ARC UK I think after that didn't you?
00:07:38 No. No. ARC UK is the architect's registration. Um I went to a a small architectural practice.
00:07:49 a small architectural practice. Oh follow. I'm sorry that's that my misunderstanding the name of it. What was the architectural practice that you joined? Um,
00:07:58 A and A and Q partnership. AQ. And what work did you do for A&Q? Um, similar work to what I had been doing in Hackne. Um, the practice had
00:08:10 doing in Hackne. Um, the practice had been set up about two years before from people who had worked in Hackne. I see.
00:08:17 I see. The practice at that time was growing and they were recruiting staff and I was asked to join them. Right. And you were there just to be clear about dates between 1987 and 1991. That's correct. So four years, not the two years you
00:08:28 So four years, not the two years you said in your first statement.
00:08:34 87 to 1990, I think, right? Uh okay. Um I think you you say 1991 in your in your statement. It it doesn't matter. But but longer than the
00:08:45 doesn't matter. But but longer than the two years you originally said in your first statement. Is that right? that there must be an error. Um, okay.
00:08:53 okay. But I started with circle in 1990. December 1990. December 1990. Okay. That's circle 33. Yes.
00:09:02 Yes. All right. Um, and during your time in the private architectural practice down to the end of 1990, did you do any refurbishment of high-rise blocks? No, you didn't. Now turning to your work
00:09:14 No, you didn't. Now turning to your work at circle 33 which is your um first witness statement of paragraph 5 where we find the first reference to it. You you say there um that your work as a senior technical officer ranged from
00:09:27 senior technical officer ranged from dealing with major repairs to development. Yes.
00:09:31 Yes. Um when you say uh major repairs to development, were you working as an architect? Um no. When I first joined them, there
00:09:42 Um no. When I first joined them, there was actually um Circle Architects were uh part of Circle 33. Um but after a few months that was
00:09:55 Um but after a few months that was absorbed into the main property um department of Circle 33. I see. And didn't really exist anymore. So what was your role your professional role
00:10:07 was your role your professional role within um within circle 33? It was as there was a restructuring and was a senior technical officer. Was that was that akin to the practice
00:10:18 Was that was that akin to the practice of an architect? Um
00:10:20 Um or was it the practice of an architect? Probably less so. It was it depend what we were working on. Um, I did one scheme where I was
00:10:32 scheme where I was the employer's agent on a major repairs to tenanted low-rise flats. Um and then as that progressed
00:10:44 Um and then as that progressed I was working within the development department and we the two departments had come together and I was working on then development opportunities which may be I think the major one I worked on at
00:10:56 be I think the major one I worked on at that time was a conversion of a of a um former nurses home to provide 42 new flats and masons but five stories high.
00:11:09 flats and masons but five stories high. Right. Yeah, I see.
00:11:10 I see. Uh,
00:11:12 Uh, circle 33, was that social housing? Yes, it was. It was.
00:11:16 It was. And the major repairs to development, I think you you've told us what those what those were. Those were the repairs to tenative low-rise flats. Is this right? And then
00:11:24 And then and then, um, development opportunities. Yes.
00:11:27 Yes. And you mentioned the nurses home. I see. Uh now um during your time before you moved to the TMO um beyond what you've just told us, what other experience did you gain of regeneration
00:11:39 experience did you gain of regeneration projects such as that at Granful Tower? Uh nothing. Right. Did you ever receive any training on asset regeneration projects?
00:11:51 Old Ford Heart Association where I worked for the last 2009 to 2013. um where
00:12:02 um where um a group member within the now circle 33 became
00:12:07 33 became circle. It um had a group structure. Old Ford was originally under circle 33 and became uh a housing association in
00:12:19 and became uh a housing association in its own right or a group member in its own right and they were a regeneration organization. They had taken transfer of stock from
00:12:30 stock from Tar Hamlets um and that was mostly new build the first tranch I wasn't involved with that but then my involvement became on the Parkside Estates regeneration where we
00:12:41 Parkside Estates regeneration where we took transfer of those properties I think about 3,000 properties right
00:12:45 right so it was a regeneration work um but but probably more um decent homes type work than major works to a
00:12:56 homes type work than major works to a single property. Right. Did you have specific professional training for that or did you learn on the job as it were? No, that was Sorry, that was working as the client. Oh, I see. Yes. Right. I I follow.
00:13:08 Oh, I see. Yes. Right. I I follow. Um
00:13:10 Um uh right.
00:13:11 uh right. All of this was working as the client. I see. Um what experience or training did you have of running construction projects as the client? As a client. I
00:13:27 um it's only in my the early part of my career I was running construction projects
00:13:35 projects um within the circle 33 at that time. Right.
00:13:39 Right. As my career progressed, I was much more of a management position. So I would set up the projects um I might procure them um
00:13:51 the projects um I might procure them um and others would deliver. Right. Did were were you registered with the architect's registration board throughout your career or from the time you qualified as an architect?
00:14:02 architect? When I qualified I registered until 1991.
00:14:06 1991. I see. So during no longer it was no longer relevant to the type of work I was doing. I see. So during your whole time at circle 33 and when that morphed into old Ford in 2009
00:14:17 Ford in 2009 you you no longer retained your registration as no I wasn't working as an I see during your period and I'm interested in particularly the period the old Ford period if you like from
00:14:28 the old Ford period if you like from from uh from 2009 did you carry did you carry out or h obtain any CPD in each year uh
00:14:37 year uh continuing professional development
00:14:41 We would have had opportunities but I wasn't compiling a CPD log book. I didn't have any need to but we did we did have necessary. I'm sorry. Yeah, you didn't. Okay. Well,
00:14:52 I'm sorry. Yeah, you didn't. Okay. Well, you were a member of the RIBA during that period. I I've never been a member of the RBA. Um, was there any way in which you maintained your knowledge and competence
00:15:03 maintained your knowledge and competence and uh your finger on the pulse of industry development? Um
00:15:12 well only in terms of working within the industry um working with um contractors and consultants I would have had training in um
00:15:25 training in um in contracts to some degree various various contracts etc. Um, some of the consultants we use would do training that could be used for CPD. Um,
00:15:39 training that could be used for CPD. Um, so we would have workshops, possibly lunchtime seminars, that type of thing. I see. Where where you were the recipient of the training rather than the giver. I see. And was any were any of those
00:15:50 I see. And was any were any of those workshops on procurement of materials? No.
00:15:54 No. Or on design? Nope.
00:15:58 Nope. Um, still sticking with your time before you joined the TMO in 2013, Mr. Gibson, did you do any training uh in relation to fire safety?
00:16:09 to fire safety? I recall having half day training um from I believe it was an exfire officer on some of the causes of fires in blocks of lots.
00:16:23 causes of fires in blocks of lots. When
00:16:24 When when was that?
00:16:28 I would think it was probably about 200
00:16:34 8 n and what was do you remember the specific focus or um particular mostly
00:16:43 mostly fire doors was the main focus. um in that do not assume that because something
00:16:52 something has been tested as a fire door, it remains as a fire door. Otherwise, if you alter how that door is fitted cuz it's tested in within the frame that it
00:17:03 it's tested in within the frame that it sits in. If you change that at any time, it may no longer be a fire door. I see. Um, did you receive any training in relation to fire safety
00:17:14 in relation to fire safety considerations for high-rise buildings in particular? Nope.
00:17:17 Nope. Um, what about training or um, uh, knowledge in respect of suitability of different materials and design features for residential buildings?
00:17:29 for residential buildings? Not any specific training. No. Do I take it therefore that it would follow that you never received any training or and had no relevant experience at all specifically on cladding on high-rise buildings and the
00:17:40 cladding on high-rise buildings and the considerations relating to cladding? Grenful Tower is the only cladding high-rise cladding I've ever been involved with. I don't think even lowrise cladding I've been involved with.
00:17:51 with. Turning then to your time at the TMO. Can I ask you to look at your second statement please? TMO 30 is 842 310 page two. And I want to look at paragraph six
00:18:02 two. And I want to look at paragraph six please with you. You mentioned health and safety training there. Under paragraph six you say, "I recall receiving training in health and safety throughout my career. However, I cannot be sure whether this was with the TMO or
00:18:13 be sure whether this was with the TMO or with the housing organization I worked at before I joined the TMO. This training was on the general health and safety responsibilities of property managers. I also recall receiving some fire safety training that was delivered by exfire service officers. Uh now did
00:18:28 by exfire service officers. Uh now did did did that training while you were with the TMO uh from ex fire service officers um when was that do you remember or or are you
00:18:39 was that do you remember or or are you referring that to the that's the same training I we've already discussed
00:18:43 discussed right I see so when you were at the TMO what training and health and safety focusing on fire did you receive? I don't I didn't personally receive any. I
00:18:56 don't I didn't personally receive any. I think there were some opportunities for us. Um but and um
00:19:04 and um I think I I put that out to my team members and other people who might need it. I think some did go, those that could. I think I managed to trace one
00:19:15 could. I think I managed to trace one back and that I for the training being provided, I was actually on leave. The other one I don't know what happened. I would have gone if I could have gone but I probably had a clash of meetings.
00:19:28 I probably had a clash of meetings. Who was responsible within the TMO for uh ensuring that relevant um um staff members engaged on particular projects received appropriate fire safety
00:19:39 received appropriate fire safety training.
00:19:46 I would have responsibility for identifying um training needs um for the staff that I manage and we discuss those with them with discuss
00:19:57 discuss those with them with discuss that with them on an annual basis. um my manager would identify training needs for me but as a client you know I had a general
00:20:10 client you know I had a general knowledge of safety um but more in terms of how to manage buildings once they were built right you say your manager would
00:20:22 right you say your manager would identify training needs for you would that have been Peter Madison yes
00:20:25 yes I see did he ever identify any specific training needs for you we were using consultants and designers generally so it was we were acting as a
00:20:37 generally so it was we were acting as a client
00:20:38 client right
00:20:39 right um so that wouldn't be the sort of training we'd be talking about no did you did Peter Madison ever identify any training needs for you I don't recall any specific
00:20:52 I don't recall any specific um training identified you say you were responsible for the training needs of the staff you managed yes
00:20:59 yes um Did you ever um identify a need for your staff to be trained on fire safety relating to uh well staff generally?
00:21:10 relating to uh well staff generally? Anything at all? Um no, but they did have opportunity to go to the training that I had we've already discussed that was available at at that time. Um the they the the I
00:21:23 at that time. Um the they the the I think on one occasion um on some people did go um because they were available to go.
00:21:32 go. They went because they were available to go. Does that mean that they wouldn't go if they weren't available? It means that there could be a clash of meetings. It wasn't mandatory. Did did
00:21:43 meetings. It wasn't mandatory. Did did you not as their manager not seek to rearrange their diaries so that they could go to those training events that you identified as necessary for them to go to?
00:21:53 go to? Sorry, I didn't identify um that the one we were talking about as a training need. It was an opportunity. Yes. My question really was that where you saw an opportunity for your staff to
00:22:04 you saw an opportunity for your staff to be trained on fire safety matters, did you not prioritize their diaries so that they were free to go? No, they they generally manage their own time. Um, and depending what different
00:22:17 time. Um, and depending what different members of staff had different experiences and different needs, but I never identified a need for them to have that particular training. And I see. And does that uh apply to
00:22:29 And I see. And does that uh apply to your time working on the Granfield Tower project?
00:22:32 project? Yes. So, do we take it that you that during your time uh on the Granfield Tower project, you never identified a need for training on fire safety for any
00:22:43 need for training on fire safety for any of your staff working on that project? I did not. You did not. I'm going to ask you some questions about the Lacanel house fire in in a little bit of detail uh
00:22:54 in in a little bit of detail uh throughout your evidence, later on in your evidence. But before I do, can I just ask you at the time of your appointment to the TMO in in 2013, were you aware of other historic fires in exterior um cladding structures on
00:23:07 exterior um cladding structures on high-rise buildings? Lan House is the only one I had knowledge of at that time. Um there's some
00:23:20 not in this country the Dubai ones that have been referenced that I would have some knowledge of but not not in terms of what the causes were. Right. Well, let's just take let's just
00:23:31 Right. Well, let's just take let's just I'll give you a list and see what you knew and didn't know. And I'm I'm not looking at your knowledge now, Mr. Gibson. To be clear, this is your knowledge as at February 2013 and thereafter. Uh Nosley Heights 1991. Um I don't
00:23:45 Uh Nosley Heights 1991. Um I don't particularly recall Garnet Court in Irvin in 1999. I don't recall the detail. You mentioned Dubai. I'll come to that in a moment. Um lacrosse in the lacrosse
00:23:57 in a moment. Um lacrosse in the lacrosse building in Melbourne in 2014. Did that cross your radar as an item on the news? Possibly. Right. Um you mentioned uh Dubai. Were
00:24:08 Right. Um you mentioned uh Dubai. Were those the fires in 2015 or the UAE fires in 2012 to 13?
00:24:15 I'm not sure which one. I just recall Dubai and seeing news the news on television. Did you some fires? Did you remember discussing any of those
00:24:26 Did you remember discussing any of those fires um those Dubai UAE fires with anybody within the TMO um from 2013? No, because I don't they weren't
00:24:37 No, because I don't they weren't generally relevant to the work we were doing.
00:24:40 doing. Right. Do I take it from that that you never received any information or training or or briefing on the lessons learned from the the UAE or Dubai fires? No.
00:24:50 No. I see.
00:24:54 Now I'll come back to Latin House in due course. Um can I look first please at your role at the TMO when you joined in your first witness statement at paragraph 7 if we can have that up
00:25:06 paragraph 7 if we can have that up please. That's U TMO5087 at page two. You say that you were invited to apply for a role at the TMO through an agency at that time. Mr.
00:25:17 through an agency at that time. Mr. Gibson, did you know anyone else at the TMO?
00:25:23 TMO? I did, but I didn't know they were at the TMO.
00:25:26 the TMO. Who did you know? Robert Black used to work within the circle group.
00:25:34 [Applause] And
00:25:39 okay, anybody else? When you arrived, did you find that you knew people already?
00:25:43 already? Um Carl Mcgari who was in my um was one of the project managers um within the um capital reinvestment team.
00:25:55 within the um capital reinvestment team. I had worked well I didn't work with she had worked at the same time as me at Hecnne and she had a short spell at circle 33 right now if we can look at paragraph eight of
00:26:07 now if we can look at paragraph eight of this statement please you you say there um in the last three lines in summary the job entailed an overview of what needed to be delivered during the course of a five-year program to identify and
00:26:18 of a five-year program to identify and procure works and resourcing through project managers to deliver and the job title as you you've explained earlier in the paragraph was to support the director of assets and regeneration on the development and maintenance etc. Um
00:26:32 the development and maintenance etc. Um so
00:26:34 so at this point when you applied for the job did you have experience of that role in other words an overview of the delivery of a major work from start to finish?
00:26:44 finish? Yes,
00:26:44 Yes, you did.
00:26:46 you did. Uh and and that was from the old Ford work you were doing in Tower Hamlets, was it? It was because that was um regeneration of five estates, 3,000
00:26:58 regeneration of five estates, 3,000 properties. Now, you reported when you arrived to Peter Madison, didn't you? Correct.
00:27:04 Correct. And he reported to Sasha Jevans. Yes. Correct.
00:27:06 Correct. And she reported to Robert Black. Correct.
00:27:09 Correct. Yes. And when you started uh the TMO, I think it's right, Paul, this is right. Paul Dunutton reported to you. Correct.
00:27:16 Correct. So, we have the chain of command. Yes. And then I think it's right that in the September of 2013, Clare Williams took over from Paul Duncan. Correct.
00:27:24 Correct. Now you've mentioned two other project managers uh reporting to you in your evidence. How many how many people in total um would you say reported to you? Three project managers, two resident
00:27:37 Three project managers, two resident liaison officers.
00:27:41 And those three project managers, were they each on different projects? Yes, they each had a portfolio of projects.
00:27:48 projects. They each had their own portfolio of projects. How many projects in total uh when you at least when you arrived uh at the TMO were you given to oversee?
00:28:04 It's difficult to say. There wasn't
00:28:08 there were not many active projects. There were a lot there were a number of historic projects that needed to be resolved. Um and and and there were some
00:28:21 resolved. Um and and and there were some historic issues with um there had been um I think we were trying I think there were some cyclical pro projects ongoing on site um and we're
00:28:34 projects ongoing on site um and we're trying to maximize spend for that year end. Um so at that time we were trying to identify works to procure for the following year whilst we looked at
00:28:45 following year whilst we looked at setting up uh a a longer term partnering arrangement with contractors.
00:28:54 So a little peace peace work was peace meal at that time. the types of projects were peacemeal in terms of what we could deliver,
00:29:01 deliver, right?
00:29:02 right? Um there were often projects needed a very long lead in because we had about onethird lease holders in in within the within the um stock and that required us
00:29:16 within the um stock and that required us to start further back in terms of informing them of future works. Okay. So you've given us a fair picture of what you were asked to do. More specifically, um, were you given a
00:29:29 specifically, um, were you given a particular brief when you arrived by Peter Madison for your role in relation to the Grenfell Tower project? No. Um,
00:29:39 No. Um, I knew delivery would come under me. Um, but at that time I think both Peter and myself were trying to understand the project.
00:29:50 understand the project. Right.
00:29:51 Right. I see. and he he'd only just arrived the month before, I think. Now, just on Peter Madison, uh was there a division of responsibilities between you and him?
00:30:02 you and him? Um
00:30:05 certainly he was the strategic lead in if we're talking about Granfield in particular. Yes, he was the strategic lead. Where was the dividing line between
00:30:16 was the dividing line between responsibilities? What sort of decisions would he take that you wouldn't or that you would take that he didn't need to? Can you give us a very brief feel for that?
00:30:26 that? In most meetings we attended together, but Peter would would um
00:30:34 I think he would set the scene, right? um in terms of communicating what we needed to do, what we needed to understand about if we're talking about Grenville in particular um and how how
00:30:45 Grenville in particular um and how how we needed to go forward. I see. So he so in terms of when things were set up and we were ready to deliver then I took
00:30:57 and we were ready to deliver then I took on more of a role and what kind of decisions would be passed up the chain to the executive team?
00:31:04 team? Um
00:31:07 Um on grandfield we would report I think monthly to the program board and then obviously um in regards to letting contracts etc um you needed board
00:31:20 contracts etc um you needed board approval so that will go to the board. Very well. Can I then turn to your relationship with Paul Duncan? Now when you started at the TMO in February 2013, Paul Dunutton was already there, wasn't he? And he was already working on the Grenle Tower project
00:31:32 Grenle Tower project and then I think you we know Peter Madison joined in the January of 2013. So you and Peter Medicine had to play catchup really in terms of understanding what had gone on previously with that project.
00:31:43 project. Yeah. And and were you given a briefing or um a handover pack or a discussion when you joined in relation to Grenell Tower specifically? There was no handover pack for any of the work. Um, I
00:31:57 handover pack for any of the work. Um, I met with the individual project managers and they briefed me on their projects on Grenville. I also looked at whether
00:32:08 on Grenville. I also looked at whether it was a stage C or stage D report from studio E which gives gave me a good background on what was contained within the scheme at that time and what the scheme was.
00:32:19 scheme was. Yes, I see. I I I follow. Uh uh so you were essentially briefed by the the the the managers who were already on the project.
00:32:29 Yes. Paul Paul Dertton and the information that was available. Now in your first witness statement you say at paragraph 11 you in the first line you say upon my appointment to TMO
00:32:40 line you say upon my appointment to TMO I identified a need to recruit additional project managers. Um was that specifically on the Granfield Tower project or was that overall? No, I think there is a slight area error there. I
00:32:52 there is a slight area error there. I had three temporary project managers. What I wanted to do was to recruit permanently to all those posts and the recruitment that we did carried out was
00:33:04 recruitment that we did carried out was for three project managers. Was that overall or or or specific to Granfell?
00:33:09 Granfell? No, overall. Overall, I think I think you say temporary project managers. One of those was Paul Duncan. He was only Yes. uh three interims. Yes. Okay. Um were you concerned that
00:33:21 Yes. Okay. Um were you concerned that the capital investment team that you were overseeing was underresourced or lacked experience in any way?
00:33:29 I was concerned that there were a number of temporary staff there. Um I wanted to go through a recruitment process to get
00:33:41 process to get um
00:33:43 um people with the right skills and ability um to run the projects. They're generic project manager um roles. So not specifically for Granville.
00:33:54 Granville. Right. Even generically were you I'll repeat my question. Were you concerned that the members of the capital investment team that you were overseeing temporary though they were were were
00:34:05 temporary though they were were were either either weren't enough of them or or lacked experience in any way? I think we had enough but there was possibly lacking experience.
00:34:16 possibly lacking experience. Right. And would you say that applied to Paul Duncan in your view at the time? Um,
00:34:27 possibly. I didn't take a view, a strong view. Um, Paul was communicated to me what he needed to communicate. Um, but I don't
00:34:38 needed to communicate. Um, but I don't know if he was proactive enough to take things forward on his own without assistance. And what gave you that sense? Do you remember? Um
00:34:49 remember? Um because I didn't see him taking a lead in the project. The project had stalled. Um so he had stopped.
00:35:00 I see. And I think you you do say in your uh in your first statement that he wasn't suffic considered sufficiently experienced for the requirements of the role. What what kind of experience did
00:35:13 role. What what kind of experience did you actually need that he wasn't giving you?
00:35:16 you? um we went through a the normal recruitment process. So people would provide supporting statements with what they had done previously and how it
00:35:28 they had done previously and how it matched with our requirements. Um and then there was a an interview process with both Peter and myself. And I'm sorry, let me cut you off. I'm asking what what kind of experience did
00:35:40 asking what what kind of experience did you need that Paul Duncan didn't have?
00:35:45 I think I need a more rounded experience. And
00:35:52 in the industry there are a lot of people who've come from various backgrounds who um
00:36:01 who um move around organizations and have quite short stays and and become project managers. They don't necessarily have project management
00:36:13 necessarily have project management background although we weren't necessarily looking for a project manager. It's a it's a generic role within the organization but people with experience of as a client delivering a
00:36:27 experience of as a client delivering a project because we would generally have consultants and contractors on a contractual arrangement. So were you looking for somebody on the ground tower project who had experience
00:36:38 ground tower project who had experience of delivering a project as client? Yes. Thank you. Can we then turn to Clare Williams as the next topic? And I'd like to take you to your first witness statement of paragraph 12 on the next page, please. And you say there that uh Clare Williams
00:36:51 And you say there that uh Clare Williams was one of a number of applicants. Yeah, this is the first line who applied for the post of project manager. I'd known her for many years through our employment with Circle 33.
00:37:02 employment with Circle 33. Um just very briefly, what was your work relationship with Clare Williams at Circle 33? It varied on the scheme I talked about
00:37:13 It varied on the scheme I talked about where I was the employer's agent, the technical officer. She was the project officer. So that was the refurbishment of 42 flats,
00:37:24 of 42 flats, right?
00:37:24 right? Um I then became So did she report to you on that? No,
00:37:28 No, you didn't? No.
00:37:29 No. Okay.
00:37:30 Okay. Did she report to you at all on any projects while at Circle 33? Um yes there was a period probably around 200 no 2019
00:37:44 or around about 2000 for about 2 years she reported to me um but that was she had much more of a planning role in identifying what works needed to be
00:37:55 identifying what works needed to be delivered by others. I see. Um, did you invite her to apply for the role at the TMO or did she just do that off her own bat? Um, I had told her there was an
00:38:06 Um, I had told her there was an opportunity. I see.
00:38:09 I see. Um, did you interview anybody other than Clare Williams for the role for which you eventually appointed her? Um, yes. I think we interviewed in total
00:38:22 Um, yes. I think we interviewed in total at least five people. We we we had used an agency to to identify candidates. It had been
00:38:29 had been publicized in in the press, but at that time in the industry, it was very difficult to get um people with the right levels of experience.
00:38:40 right levels of experience. Yeah.
00:38:41 Yeah. Um and I've often had to ask around the industry when I needed staff as to who is available or who might be interested. I see. Um, looking at the third sentence
00:38:53 I see. Um, looking at the third sentence of your paragraph 12 there, do you see you say there um, Peter Madison and I interviewed her for the job and she was seen to be well suited to the post, not least because of her experience of
00:39:04 least because of her experience of dealing with tower block refurbishment in the past and her skills and experience dealing with resident consultation. This was known to be a particular requirement in relation to the Granville Tower refurbishment for which he was
00:39:16 Tower refurbishment for which he was being engaged where the residents would remain in situ during the refurbishment work. Now on that point, did you want Clare Williams for the role because she had dealt with residents in occupation during major refurbishment works in the
00:39:27 during major refurbishment works in the past?
00:39:28 past? Yes.
00:39:29 Yes. And that was to be her focus on Grenfell, was it? Um, no. Part of the focus there are all the responsibilities in terms of liaison with internal stakeholders.
00:39:42 Indeed, but but it it was I think to be a particular focus of hers on the Granville Tower project among others. Yes, because it was um a large number of residents in situ that were going to
00:39:54 residents in situ that were going to have
00:39:56 have Did she have any construction qualifications? As far as you were aware,
00:40:00 aware, um she didn't need any for the role that we were appointed to. Did she have any experience of managing and delivering a complex residential refurbishment as a client so far as you knew?
00:40:11 knew? Um
00:40:14 which she had worked on. She was also a project manager on old Ford at at the time I left and the time I was there. But um there was a another
00:40:28 there. But um there was a another manager in between. So I had a re regeneration manager under me. Right.
00:40:33 Right. And he appointed her as um a project manager and thought very highly of her. Do do you know whether she had any experience of managing the delivery of a complex high-rise refurbishment as a
00:40:45 complex high-rise refurbishment as a client?
00:40:50 We were [Music]
00:40:53 [Music] recruiting for the generic role. So we weren't specifically looking at a project manager for Grenfield at that time. Once I gone through the
00:41:05 time. Once I gone through the recruitment process, I looked at the people I had post. At that time I only um put in post or confirmed in post two project
00:41:16 or confirmed in post two project managers,
00:41:18 managers, one being CLA and one being another member of staff who had already been there. Um but I looked to see who was the best fit. Right. And did either of those two have
00:41:29 Right. And did either of those two have any experience of managing the delivery of a complex high-rise refurbishment? Um, it depends what you mean by monishing delivery as client, but I don't
00:41:39 don't seeing the project through to its end. Um,
00:41:45 not I don't think no I don't think any of the others have.
00:41:52 Did any of them or either of them have any experience of a project involving the overcladding of a high-rise residential building?
00:42:01 I don't think so. We weren't specifically recruited for Granville. Right. Now, in the lower third part of um paragraph 12, you you say Clare was
00:42:12 um paragraph 12, you you say Clare was also required to respond to contractor needs and to pass on and assimilate their reports of progress and to inform the TMO and the TMO board. Again, she was highly experienced and skilled at
00:42:23 was highly experienced and skilled at this and performed this task to a high standard. In case there should be any misunderstanding, there was no requirement on Clare to carry out the technical aspects of the refurbishment itself, but to monitor and report upon
00:42:34 itself, but to monitor and report upon contractor progress as customer or client. Now, um did she have any decision-making power in respect of the refurbishment at any level? Um yes, because she managed the budget.
00:42:49 Um yes, because she managed the budget. Um, so if there were any decisions that need to be made that had a budgetary impact and she could contain that within the budget, um, she could make those
00:43:00 the budget, um, she could make those decisions. I see. And what sort of decisions would she not be able to make where she needed your approval? Um, anything that had a major impact on
00:43:11 Um, anything that had a major impact on the budget or delivery or quality, etc. But she was experienced and Claire and I sat diagonally opposite. So I was aware
00:43:22 sat diagonally opposite. So I was aware of
00:43:24 of um what she was working on, what decisions what she was working on. Right. And Peter Madison, what sort of decisions would neither you nor Clare Williams be able to make on on the
00:43:35 Williams be able to make on on the Grenell Tower project which were the preserve of Peter Madison? Um,
00:43:41 Um, anything that had an impact on the budget.
00:43:44 budget. That's that's like CLA Williams though, isn't it?
00:43:46 isn't it? Yes.
00:43:47 Yes. So, would you who would who would be the decision maker, Clare Williams or Peter Madison or you or all of you? Uh, it would go up through the chain if I was comfortable, but I don't think
00:43:59 I was comfortable, but I don't think I needed to make any decisions in Grenville in terms of once it got on to site. Um I think we had established the budget before that
00:44:10 had established the budget before that um so she would be managing the budget from that point. Clare was less involved in the procurement but and Kim um her role became more important once we were
00:44:22 became more important once we were starting on site. Now let me try a different way. I'm not sure I put my question as well as it could have been. Um can you give us an example of the sort of decision where you and CLA might look at each other and say well we can't decide this. This is
00:44:33 say well we can't decide this. This is one for Peter.
00:44:40 No, I think we there were a couple of times that we made decisions. Um I think there's only one to do with um changing the
00:44:49 the the windows um on Grenville. Um but that was and that would have had a cost impact but because of the impact not not
00:45:02 impact but because of the impact not not making that change would have on the on the on on the residents. Um and again we discussed it with Peter anyway. He was aware of it. I see. Where did So you say you sat diagonally opposite Clare Williams.
00:45:13 diagonally opposite Clare Williams. Where did Peter Madison sit in the office?
00:45:15 office? Um just behind us in in an office in but he was in a he was in an office but you were out on the floor. Yes. an open plan. Yes.
00:45:24 Yes. Arrangement. Is that right? I see. Would it follow from that that um you had lots of discussions with with Clare Williams that would not have been in an email? Uh
00:45:33 Uh or in writing at all.
00:45:37 I would be aware of the issue she's dealing with. I would hear her on the phone. But whether we had discussions, if you said picked a particular something she wanted to talk to me about um or a query or a problem, we would
00:45:50 um or a query or a problem, we would discuss it and it wouldn't necessarily be in an email. I see. And what about Peter Madison? Would there be discussions with Peter Madison? You might pop your head around his his office door or she might which wouldn't be recorded in in writing.
00:46:02 wouldn't be recorded in in writing. Um yes. Yes. Now, you say in um your first statement at paragraph 36, if we could please go to that, it's at page um 8, page eight. Paragraph 36, fourth um
00:46:17 8, page eight. Paragraph 36, fourth um fourth sentence down, you you say neither Clare I nor any other sorry, neither Clare I or any member of our team had any technical expertise in relation to the refurbishment work. Um
00:46:28 relation to the refurbishment work. Um does it follow from that um that
00:46:34 that uh nobody had any technical expertise or or did you have some technical expertise in relation to the refurbishment work? We were acting as client. So we were
00:46:46 We were acting as client. So we were employing
00:46:47 employing people who were advising us technically right
00:46:51 right a professional team. Um but we were acting as client. we we we would probably understand if we were
00:47:02 probably understand if we were um they wanted to suggest something to us what the impact of that might be technically um or we would ask them further questions so that we could understand what it might be.
00:47:13 understand what it might be. I mean given your tech training and your background in architecture that you very helpfully explained to us earlier on you did have some technical expertise in relation to the Granville Tower refurbishment work didn't you? Yes, but
00:47:24 refurbishment work didn't you? Yes, but my my role was as client and to oversee delivery.
00:47:29 delivery. Yes. But you had enough technical expertise to to know whether something was going wrong or off track or questions had not been asked where they should have been asked. Um, is that fair? I think my role was more monitoring progress program
00:47:44 more monitoring progress program any issues that arose um rather than delving into the the detail of the of the of the construction. M Mr. Gibson, I think what Mr. Millet
00:47:56 Mr. Gibson, I think what Mr. Millet suggesting is that you were an educated client.
00:47:59 client. Yes.
00:47:59 Yes. In the sense that you would understand technical aspects. Yes.
00:48:03 Yes. Yes. Thank you. Yeah.
00:48:12 Now can I then turn to look at the role of RBKC and we we'll come back shortly to the question of the expertise of the Grenfell TMO team if I can use that
00:48:23 Grenfell TMO team if I can use that loose expression. Um I want to ask you some questions about the relationship between the TMO and RBKC. Um if you go to your first witness statement of page three please let's look together at paragraph 14.
00:48:36 look together at paragraph 14. You say there uh
00:48:39 uh um that TMO managed RBKC's housing under the right to manage legislation and its roles and responsibilities were set out in the modular management agreement with
00:48:50 in the modular management agreement with RBKC.
00:48:51 RBKC. The MMA content was in standard form following regulations set by the Secretary of State. Um are you familiar with the MMA? No,
00:49:01 No, you're not. Were you familiar at the time with the MMA? No. Right. Um, let me just ask one question about it then in light of that answer. Can we go to the document? It's
00:49:12 answer. Can we go to the document? It's at RBK301906.
00:49:20 Uh, we're going to go in it to page 35, but this is the first page of it. And we can see from the second page of it, although there's no need to turn it up, that it was dated the 12th of June, 2006.
00:49:31 2006. Can we go to page 35, please? And I just want to draw your attention to one clause in it. It's clause 6.1 on page 35 under the heading major works. The BWTMO
00:49:45 under the heading major works. The BWTMO agrees to enter into contracts for agreed major works and supervise such works if the council has included a sufficient amount within the allowances for the BWTMO to carry out such works.
00:49:57 for the BWTMO to carry out such works. during your time on the at the TMO indeed. Um, were you aware of that provision?
00:50:07 Not specifically. No, you weren't. Did did you know generally that the TMO could enter into major works and contracts and supervise those works that it had that it was had that
00:50:18 works that it had that it was had that as long as long as they had an agreed budget and and as long as there might be budget approval needed from Kennedy and Chelsea?
00:50:27 Chelsea? I see. Um,
00:50:35 did you think at any time that when the TMO was supervising major works, uh, it it was doing so independently of
00:50:47 uh, it it was doing so independently of RBKC
00:50:49 RBKC or as an agent for RBKC in any way? We were doing it independently but we the ownership of the properties and the
00:51:00 the ownership of the properties and the asset belonged to RBKC. So we were acting on their behalf. Yeah,
00:51:06 Yeah, I I I understand that. In fact, let's just go straight to your first witness statement and go back to go back to that and look at paragraph 17 on page four.
00:51:20 And um you say there um the Grenle refurbishment uh was by far the largest of one of a number of projects within my remitt at TMO. The refurbishment project was an RBKC project which TMO was
00:51:32 was an RBKC project which TMO was required to deliver on its behalf. Just to be very clear, Mr. Gibson, when you say um that it was an RBKC project, is that is that simply because it was a building owned by the RBKC?
00:51:46 My understanding was that they had identified the need for works to this building. Um my understand also that the TMO up until
00:52:00 understand also that the TMO up until Grenfield had carried out relatively minor works to properties and that the capital major capital works
00:52:12 and that the capital major capital works were still um the ownership still set with RBKC. Um and I think this was the first project where we were been given the
00:52:23 project where we were been given the opportunity to carry out the this type of work in their behalf. You say on their behalf. Yeah.
00:52:29 Yeah. Can
00:52:31 Can I sort of understand what you what you mean by that? Um did you mean essentially that they gave that RBKC gave TMO all instructions or is it simply limited to the fact that the asset belonged to them and they held the
00:52:43 asset belonged to them and they held the purse strings? Yes. I I think before this a project of this size might have been delivered by RBKC
00:52:55 delivered by RBKC themselves. I I don't think it was part of the original agreement. I think there were some discussions backwards and forwards but before my time and this was the first big project that
00:53:08 and this was the first big project that the TMO were were were delivering. So I think some of the responsibilities had transferred. I see. Ju just in lay term, general terms so that we can all understand it.
00:53:19 understand it. At the time of your involvement in the Grenfell Tower project, who did you think was the client? The client was the TMO. The TMO.
00:53:26 The TMO. Yeah.
00:53:32 Um, can we then turn to a different topic, which is your role in the Grenville Tower refurbishment, and start with paragraph 18 of your first witness statement on page four, if we can.
00:53:44 statement on page four, if we can. And you say there was just below where we where we were. The refurbishment had been substantially planned and designed before I joined TMAO, but the arrangements at the time I arrived were in suspension.
00:53:55 in suspension. RBKC had engaged a number of their call-off contractors to prepare the refurbishment and the project was in limbo because the pricing was over budget. The main contractors at the at that time were Leadbit Bitter who had
00:54:06 that time were Leadbit Bitter who had been engaged by RBKC to cost their scheme. Leadbit were part of RBKC's call-off contractors and they had been engaged by RBKC to conduct a costing exercise involving a pricing mechanism
00:54:17 exercise involving a pricing mechanism that was not specific to Granfeld Tower and was based on standard pricing arrangements. Now you say that there in your fourth witness statement I think you seek to correct or clarify
00:54:29 I think you seek to correct or clarify this paragraph in some respects but in general terms is it still correct that when you arrived at the TMO in the February of 2013 you understood that this was an RBKC
00:54:40 you understood that this was an RBKC scheme
00:54:42 scheme Grenfell using RBKC calloff contractors my understanding was that RBKC had identified the works to Granville Phil
00:54:54 identified the works to Granville Phil um and that the TMO were able to once a decision had been made that we were delivering the works and that responsibility transferred to us that we
00:55:05 responsibility transferred to us that we were able to access their contractors from their OG procurement. You say that that was your understanding. Yes. who told you or what
00:55:16 understanding. Yes. who told you or what was the source of your understanding that you that you as the TMO were able to access their contractors from their OJU procurement? Um I would have been briefed by Paul
00:55:29 Um I would have been briefed by Paul Dunkerton. Um but
00:55:35 I've had at lower levels with RBKC and when we're talking about hidden homes etc. They would often talk about us accessing their procurement.
00:55:46 accessing their procurement. Did anybody tell you did anybody from the RBKC tell you that when it came to the Granfell Tower project, you could access their contractors that they had acquired under the tender for the for
00:55:58 acquired under the tender for the for Calc.
00:55:58 Calc. Did anyone from RBKC? Yes.
00:56:00 Yes. No.
00:56:01 No. Right. Did any did anybody else within the TMO tell you that? um that was the arrangement that was in place and the background on the board
00:56:12 place and the background on the board board papers etc indicated that yes there certainly Mr. Gibson, I'm not suggesting that you were involved in the arrangements, but they were those were the arrangements you came to. I think when you arrived, did you ask anyone at the time when you
00:56:24 did you ask anyone at the time when you arrived, how come we can access uh contractors who had been procured by the RBKC as opposed to the TMO for the Grenful Tower project?
00:56:38 It I don't think it would have been unusual. The the asset was RBKC's. It would depend on the wording of the OG
00:56:50 It would depend on the wording of the OG notice.
00:56:51 notice. Did you Is it something you investigated? No, you didn't. You just took it as red. Yes.
00:56:56 Yes. I see. Now, can we look at paragraph 19? You say there upon the project being handed over and upon the arrival of Peter Madison in 2013, Peter and I assisted Artillia, the appointed
00:57:08 assisted Artillia, the appointed consultant, project managers, you say with capital letters there, to provide a more focused pricing for the refurbishments and looking at the design with regard to the relocation of office space in ancillary buildings and
00:57:19 space in ancillary buildings and following that the scheme is put out to tender through the OJU tender processes. Now, I'm going to come back later to the role of Artilia, but when you arrived at the TMO,
00:57:29 the TMO, um, uh, who had retained lead bitter in relation to the Grenfield Tower project or had there been a retainer of lead bitter yet in relation to the Grenfield
00:57:40 bitter yet in relation to the Grenfield to Tower project? I don't think there had been. Right.
00:57:44 Right. Was there an intention at that time to stop using um, lead bitter who had been the RBKC calloff contractor for the CEL project?
00:57:53 project? when you arrived to clarify the question.
00:57:56 question. Yeah, let me try again. At the time you arrived, February 2013, did you detect or were you told that there was an intention to stop using the RBKC calloff contractor lead letter for the you
00:58:07 contractor lead letter for the you right when you arrived and I know Peter Madison had only arrived shortly before you. Did you know what his intention was about the potential for a reprocurement exercise?
00:58:19 exercise? Um I think Peter and I were in the same position. Um I think we met with Artillia and Sam and Cash to understand the position and get the background on
00:58:31 the position and get the background on where we were with the project. Right.
00:58:34 Right. Yeah. Okay. Well, let let's come to uh let's go to that then um and not take a question out of order. If you go to paragraph 25 of this statement, can we
00:58:46 paragraph 25 of this statement, can we just take that? It's on page six. I just want to pick up that last answer. Um you say there um at the at paragraph 25 at the top of the page at the time of
00:58:57 25 at the top of the page at the time of my appointment the rebuilding of the uh Kensington area leisure center calc uh was being undertaken directly by RBKC using their contractors led bitter
00:59:08 using their contractors led bitter architect studioe and other contractors. RBKC chose to use the same contractors and consultants for the proposed Granville Tower refurbishment uh which they were able to do under their framework agreement via the public
00:59:19 framework agreement via the public sector procurement arrangements to call off contractors without the need to go out to tender. Now again, just leaving aside what you've said by way of correction in your fourth witness statement, as far as you understood it
00:59:31 statement, as far as you understood it at the time, is it right that RBKC had chosen to use those contractors for Grenfell and not the TMO?
00:59:44 I don't know if I know who had chosen to use the let me try it another way.
00:59:56 another way. The understanding seemed to be that the OG notice
01:00:01 OG notice for kelk
01:00:03 for kelk and what was within it had allowed us to use the same because the sites were adjacent to each other. um and and we could access via the OG arrangements. I
01:00:15 could access via the OG arrangements. I think the my understanding at the time was if we wanted to go down that procurement route then lead betters were the contractor that we needed to be
01:00:27 the contractor that we needed to be talking to. Right. My question was slightly different. Yeah. Um, my question was, as far as you understood it at the time, did you think that RBKC had itself made the choice to
01:00:40 that RBKC had itself made the choice to use the same contractors for Grenfell as they had for Cal? No.
01:00:44 No. As opposed to the TMO making that choice?
01:00:47 choice? Um,
01:00:49 Um, I don't think I was aware either way. Um,
01:00:57 right. Did you concern you at the time that the same set of contractors had been or were to be appointed for Grenfell as had been appointed for Cal
01:01:08 Grenfell as had been appointed for Cal simply because they were working on calc?
01:01:13 Not as such. It concerned me more were leaders the right contractor for rentful car.
01:01:25 But that that's a different question. But I I I think I take I think I have your answer not as such. Um can I go back then to uh your reference in paragraph 19 of your statement the
01:01:37 paragraph 19 of your statement the previous page to Artillia acting as project managers? I just want to pick that point up here. Um you you you um well say there that they're project
01:01:50 um well say there that they're project managers. Was was your role limited to assisting Artellia with more focused pricing when you arrived in the February of 2013?
01:01:59 of 2013? No.
01:02:00 No. No. Um
01:02:07 you you you you um agree I think that the complex the project was a complex one at that point, don't you? Yes.
01:02:15 Yes. Yes. But you also had other projects within your portfolio as someone running the capital investment team. Sorry, can you repeat the question? You had a you had a portfolio of which Grenfell Tower was only one when you
01:02:27 Grenfell Tower was only one when you arrived.
01:02:27 arrived. Yes.
01:02:28 Yes. Yeah. Did did how much can you give us a feel for how much time at that stage at least Granfeld Tower took up in comparison with the other projects in your portfolio?
01:02:39 your portfolio? At that time um I was still going through an induction process. Um so I was getting to know the TMO and how it worked. um and was meeting lots of
01:02:52 worked. um and was meeting lots of people but in terms of time perhaps 10%. 10%
01:02:56 10% possibly less. Right. What was the maximum amount of time in percentage terms the Grenfell Tower took up between February 2013 and June 2016 when you left?
01:03:07 and June 2016 when you left? Um it would have reduced what probably 10% at any time was. Okay. Now um can we go back and I'm sorry to jump around in your statement back to paragraph 36 on page eight
01:03:18 back to paragraph 36 on page eight please. This is your first uh witness statement. Um you say there um paragraph 36
01:03:29 paragraph 36 that um this is a third of the way down. The project team of consultants were the experts specifically engaged to design and develop the refurbishment work to meet the project requirements. None of us at TMO had any relevant experience
01:03:41 us at TMO had any relevant experience expertise for these works and none of us had involvement or understanding of the cladding work to be used and included as part of the refurbishment. You see that yes
01:03:49 yes we had no knowledge or experience of cladding materials or fitment. This is specialist work and we had no knowledge of the materials involved or how they needed to be installed. The requirement was that all works would be compliant
01:04:00 was that all works would be compliant with all legislation, regulation, standards and guidance. And we relied on the contractors and consultants to achieve this and for the clark of works planners and building control to check this.
01:04:11 this. Now you you say that the project team were engaged to design and develop the refurbishment work. But they weren't able to make decisions about it, were they? That was for you.
01:04:23 Sorry. Can you repeat the question? Yes. I'm not sure. the project that the um the project team of consultants were there to design and develop the refurbishment work but the ultimate decisions about that fell to the TMO.
01:04:36 decisions about that fell to the TMO. No.
01:04:37 No. Yes. If I could give some context possibly
01:04:42 possibly at this time we stopped the scheme and we we looked at it again. So in terms of Peter and I worked with the designers to
01:04:53 Peter and I worked with the designers to redefine the scope of the project, the project had drifted. There were works being carried out that were not to Grenful that were contained
01:05:05 were not to Grenful that were contained within the pricing mechanism at that time. So we relooked we looked at what was in the scope and we reset a new client's brief.
01:05:17 client's brief. Right. I'm going to come back to that later on. I just want to go I just want a slightly more precise answer to a narrower question. Let me try it a different way. Um you say you relied on the project team of consultants and entirely and I'm
01:05:30 team of consultants and entirely and I'm sorry the project team of consultants and contractors. Yeah.
01:05:33 Yeah. Um
01:05:36 for let's see if we can identify them. Expertise in relation to the works. Yes.
01:05:42 Yes. Understanding of cladding. Yes.
01:05:44 Yes. Knowledge of the materials. Yes. Installation of materials. Yes.
01:05:49 Yes. And compliance with all legislation, regulation, guidance, and standards. Yes.
01:05:53 Yes. Yes. G.
01:05:55 Yes. G. Given that you were relying on them, was it not critical for you to make sure that each of those members of the project team of consultants and contractors were competent?
01:06:08 contractors were competent? Um
01:06:16 they had gone through the process. I understood they gone through the process. The project was welldeveloped at this stage. in meetings with them. They came over all the the project team
01:06:30 They came over all the the project team designers and and and and others involved came over us having a good understanding of the project what they needed to do came over competently as
01:06:43 needed to do came over competently as consultants and advisors. Um so I didn't I didn't have any reason. They seem to understand the project.
01:06:54 They seem to understand the project. They
01:06:56 They they projected to us a good understanding of the project. So there's nothing in my meetings with them that would have given me any concern about their ability to do
01:07:10 any concern about their ability to do the tasks that they were doing. No, I I understand that. Uh and and thank you for that. That wasn't quite my question. Again, let me just try it differently. Do you accept as a proposition that it
01:07:22 Do you accept as a proposition that it was it was critical for the TMO as the client to make sure that whichever consultants and contractors were used for Grenfell, they were competent in all the areas I've just I've just put to
01:07:33 the areas I've just I've just put to you.
01:07:34 you. Yes.
01:07:35 Yes. Yes. And experienced. Yes.
01:07:38 Yes. And had the relevant knowledge of materials and how to install them. Yes.
01:07:43 Yes. Yes. Now, you've you said that you weren't involved in that process. Um, and indeed in your fourth witness statement of paragraph 5, and I don't need to take you to it, you you made a
01:07:55 need to take you to it, you you made a clarification um that when those consultants first became involved in the project, um there um you had little knowledge of how they came to be appointed. Um and perhaps I
01:08:08 came to be appointed. Um and perhaps I just ought to show you what you then say. If you go to TMO879742
01:08:14 at page two please, you then say at paragraph five, if we can just see that um uh you you say um
01:08:28 uh you you say um my understanding, this is middle of the paragraph. My understanding of how the consultants were appointed as at the time I joined the TMO was that they had been procured via a framework that RBKC
01:08:39 been procured via a framework that RBKC had had access to and used for the adjacent calc scheme and that the TMO had been able to take advantage of this procurement for the consult for the consultants on Grenful Tower. So given that evidence
01:08:51 So given that evidence um did you at any point question whether the use of the kelk consultants uh was suitable when it came to Grenfell?
01:09:01 Grenfell? No.
01:09:02 No. No. You never thought to yourself, well I know that studio have been appointed to the calc but are they really suitable architects to be used on Grenfell tower? Um the scheme was very well developed. Um from
01:09:14 Um from I had looked at their stage CD report. It seemed very professional. I'd met um Bruce Sees. He came over very well and very competent. Right.
01:09:25 very competent. Right. I had no reason to think they weren't they didn't have the ability to do this. Did he or anybody else ever tell you uh that he had never done uh an cladding of
01:09:36 that he had never done uh an cladding of an overclatting of a high-rise residential block? Had
01:09:44 Had he done so, would you have had calls to question whether or not um Studio E was a suitable appointment for Grenfell?
01:09:55 Not necessarily. Why is that? Um I think there's a point in anyone's career where they're doing something for the first time. Um
01:10:07 the first time. Um there's shouldn't be anything technically very diff difficult about overclouding a building. Um the complexity comes in with highrise and access and and other
01:10:20 with highrise and access and and other areas. But but clouding is is something that is very common in the industry. When people do things in your experience for the first time in their careers, is
01:10:31 for the first time in their careers, is it your experience that they normally do something under the close supervision of somebody who has done that thing before?
01:10:40 I think it would depend on how confident they are in in in that. And in in terms of
01:10:48 of designing the clouding um I don't think it would be particularly ownorous. You don't think it would be particularly ownorous? You don't now or you didn't
01:10:59 ownorous? You don't now or you didn't then?
01:11:03 I didn't then. What do you think now?
01:11:12 Obviously mistakes were made. Um, but it wouldn't be the level of detail I would normally
01:11:18 normally query because we we we had all the arrangements in place that we thought would would protect us. You know, we were the client, it wasn't the sort of area I would be looking at. I mean, as the client, yeah,
01:11:30 the client, yeah, if you had discovered that, and I know this is a counterfactual, but if you discovered that uh that Bruce Saints had never done an overclatting of a high-rise project before, uh would you not have wanted to ensure
01:11:42 uh would you not have wanted to ensure that if he was going to work on the Granfell Tower project, he worked under the supervision of somebody who had done such a project?
01:11:52 I don't think so. You don't? Okay. Can we then turn to the road of Artilia? Um first of all project manager and again just bearing in mind the words I showed you in your statement before paragraph 19 I've showed you that
01:12:06 before paragraph 19 I've showed you that uh can I go or stay actually within your fourth witness statement paragraph uh six please um you say uh at paragraph 19 of that statement I refer to Artillia as
01:12:17 of that statement I refer to Artillia as the appointed consultant project managers when you put capital P and a capital M there as this was how I recall the Artillia employees introducing themselves to At paragraph 37, I also refer to
01:12:28 At paragraph 37, I also refer to Artellia as the contract administrator, cost consultant, and coordinator. I I have since received a letter I sent to Artillia on the 6th of March 2014 in which I confirmed the appointment of
01:12:39 which I confirmed the appointment of Artillia as employees agent, CDN coordinator and quantity surveyor. And I can confirm that these were the formal roles undertaken by Artillia in respect of the project. Now, first is it your evidence uh that
01:12:51 Now, first is it your evidence uh that when you arrived at the TMO in 2013, Artillia employees introduced themselves to you as project managers? Yes.
01:12:59 Yes. Right. Do you remember which employees of Artillia did that?
01:13:09 There were number um but I'm clear in terms of Alan Dawson or Robert Powell
01:13:20 there was a project in itself to look at where we were with Grenville and plan a way for forward and they were project managing that activity.
01:13:35 I I see. So, so do I take it from that that you thought Artilia were undertaking the Granfield Tower project as project managers in the in the formal sense?
01:13:46 sense? They were undertaking that piece of work in the formal sense. They were undertaking um their actual contract with us for the
01:13:58 um their actual contract with us for the construction was as my um last statement up with their roles.
01:14:10 I'm not sure I really understand that answer, I'm afraid. Um, from the introductions that you had when you first arrived, did you think that um, uh, Alan Dawson or Robert Powell
01:14:23 um, uh, Alan Dawson or Robert Powell were the project managers in the formal sense for Granville Tower? I think I did. You did. Um now, um if you go please to your first witness
01:14:35 if you go please to your first witness statement, uh and go to page 12, I'd like to look with you at paragraph 63. You say there, "Artilia were initially engaged by RBKC to manage the Celt
01:14:47 engaged by RBKC to manage the Celt project and it was considered sensible and expeditious for them to continue with the Granfield Tower refurbishment on behalf of the TMO. They had an established track record of robust contract management on the adjacent kelk scheme where there had been difficult
01:14:59 scheme where there had been difficult contractual issues to manage. Their role was that of contract administrator cost consultant QS and CDM coordinator and as such they were required to manage the contract on behalf of TMO advise on the
01:15:10 contract on behalf of TMO advise on the specifications in terms of CDM and understand the cost involved and provide regular reporting on program and costs. Now when you say there manage the contract on behalf of the TMO, what did
01:15:21 contract on behalf of the TMO, what did you mean?
01:15:23 you mean? um
01:15:25 um within their employer's agent role, they have a duty to administer the contract. General duty. We are the client. There's a contractor
01:15:37 We are the client. There's a contractor and their duty is to administer the contract.
01:15:39 contract. I thought it. Yeah.
01:15:40 Yeah. I see. So you're referring to the EA role, the employees agent role. I see. And when you say advise on the specification in terms of CDM, can you just be clear what you mean by that expression?
01:15:52 expression? Um,
01:15:54 Um, I would expect the CDMC to
01:15:59 CDMC to um look at the contractor's design and to to let us know that it was acceptable
01:16:11 to let us know that it was acceptable and it it it met the requirements of legislation etc. It it fulfilled the terms of the contract. uh did right. So did you think that the
01:16:22 uh did right. So did you think that the CDMC role
01:16:25 CDMC role was uh essentially to doublech check compliance of design with regulatory standards? Is that is that what you're saying? I think there is a role for CDMC there.
01:16:37 I think there is a role for CDMC there. That was my that would have been my understanding. Was that your understanding of the 2007 regulations?
01:16:45 I think they had a my my thoughts were that they had a duty right now at paragraph 64 of this statement just at the bottom of the page
01:16:56 statement just at the bottom of the page uh we can pick this theme up a little bit more closely you say as the CDM coordinator they were required to check the information and comment on any concerns before going to tender and throughout the refurbishment project as
01:17:08 throughout the refurbishment project as well if we turn the page as well as coordinate contractors during the project. Their contract administration roles was to alert the TMO as project client of any cost or program issues
01:17:19 client of any cost or program issues that would impact positively or negatively on the project. When you say check the information and comment on any concerns, what did you mean by that?
01:17:30 concerns, what did you mean by that? Let me be more specific. Um when you say um and this is the bottom of page 12, I think put that up. Um, you say check the information and comment on any concerns
01:17:41 information and comment on any concerns before going to tender. But you use that expression. Can you be a bit more precise about what you mean?
01:17:51 My C the CDMC um
01:17:56 um would provide a document to within the tender documents um
01:18:06 um that gives information on the design requirements within the CDM regulations and then
01:18:15 and then further down the line um the contractor's proposals will be examined against that,
01:18:24 right?
01:18:27 When you say coordinate the contractors during the project as you do over the page,
01:18:35 page, was that
01:18:37 was that uh what well what aspect of of their role was to coordinate contractors? Was that QSA or CDMC?
01:18:47 It's possibly badly worded in terms of coordinating contract. Well, how would you how would you like to word it? Now, um
01:18:56 um there's one contractor, one point of responsibility. I would expect the CDMC to say that it's fit for purpose and the employers
01:19:08 fit for purpose and the employers um and the employers agent role for them to say and confirm that it fulfills the contractual obligations.
01:19:22 Now going back to what you said before about the role of the CDMC checking the design. Um if Artellia had contractually excluded responsibility for the design
01:19:33 excluded responsibility for the design that that couldn't mean that in their role as CDMC they were responsible for the design. That's a proposition I'm putting to you. Do you you accept that? Can you?
01:19:43 Can you? Yes. Um well it let me try it a different way. Did you understand that in in taking on the role of CDMC, CDM coordinator,
01:19:57 of CDMC, CDM coordinator, Artillia were responsible for checking the design for correctness or in some other way taking responsibility for the design?
01:20:07 design? No, there was only one point of responsibility to the design and that was the contractor. But I would expect them to
01:20:16 them to say that they're satisfied that the contractctor has taken into account the requirements of the CD regulations. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This may be an appropriate point for a break.
01:20:28 be an appropriate point for a break. Yes.
01:20:30 Yes. Very well. Well, if that suits you, it probably is a good time. Mr. Gibson, we have a break as you probably know during the morning and the afternoon, and this is a good time to take it. So, we'll stop now. We'll come back. Continue your
01:20:43 stop now. We'll come back. Continue your evidence 25 to 12, please. And while you're out of the room, I have to ask you not to talk about your evidence or anything to do with it to anyone else. Okay.
01:20:52 Okay. All right. Thank you very much. Would you go with the usher, please?
01:21:02 All right. 25 to 12, please.
01:36:52 Yes. Would you ask Mr. Gibson to come back in, please? Thank you.
01:37:05 Right, Mr. Gibson, ready to carry on? Yes, thank you. Thank you very much. Yes, Mr. Millet. Thank you very much. Um can I turn to a different topic which is the client design advisor
01:37:17 design advisor uh and uh start by asking you to go to art 408591.
01:37:35 Now, this is an email uh from Phil Booth uh to Simon Cash internally at Artellia uh dated the 10th of January 2014.
01:37:47 uh dated the 10th of January 2014. I know that it says 1 1014, but very often with Artillia dates, we have the American dating. It's the 10th of January 2014. Uh and it says, "Simon, Clare wishes for
01:37:58 Uh and it says, "Simon, Clare wishes for us to put forward a proposal for the CDA role as the custodian of fee proposals and scopes. Please can I ask you to do this? I know they are considering others. For example, one man bans, but
01:38:09 others. For example, one man bans, but they have PI concerns. Kind regards, Phillip. Now, Clare is Clare Williams. Yes.
01:38:14 Yes. Um, did did you yourself have any involvement in seeking a proposal from Artilia for a CDA, a client design advisor?
01:38:23 advisor? No. But um, if I can take you back a little bit to where this arose in the first place. Yes. Just to bear in mind this is January 14.
01:38:35 January 14. Um yes
01:38:37 Um yes during
01:38:39 during when we were managing the project plan when we were redefining the project scope.
01:38:44 scope. Yes.
01:38:45 Yes. And going through that plan um there were a series of meetings that we attended. Um and I think was on the risk register and we went over the same points over and over
01:38:57 went over the same points over and over again.
01:39:00 again. Artellia were advising us how they would best protect our interest once we got in into contract with a contractor that we might not be familiar with. And those
01:39:12 might not be familiar with. And those discussions and the recommendations were innovation of the designers um
01:39:20 um studioe and curtains and the retention of um Max forom as our me and to provide a plant design advisor role to us
01:39:33 a plant design advisor role to us because that's where we thought the complexities were at that time. They said they could also offer us a CDA role
01:39:44 said they could also offer us a CDA role that some clients choose to have. Um, wasn't one that I was ever been offered before or contractually aware of. And I could see the benefits for some clients.
01:39:55 could see the benefits for some clients. If it's the first time you're doing if it's a one-off building and you aren't used to being a client on taking on quite a major property, the CDA role might be quite useful.
01:40:08 might be quite useful. But
01:40:10 But I believe it was we had our designers on board. They were working with the contractor and you wouldn't normally bring in another designer to check the designer's work.
01:40:22 the designer's work. Well, um you say you wouldn't bring in another designer. We'll come to the proposal in a moment because that's not what the CDA role they were that that they came to propose involved. But can I go back to my
01:40:35 involved. But can I go back to my question?
01:40:36 question? Yep. um which is um and I'm not sure I now um
01:40:44 now um well the question was did you yourself have any involvement in seeking a proposal from Artilia? Now let me put the question in a different way. The email I'm showing you says CLA wishes
01:40:55 email I'm showing you says CLA wishes for us to put forward a proposal for the CDA role. My question is, was there a perception within the TMO that it was necessary to have a CDA, a client design
01:41:07 necessary to have a CDA, a client design advisor?
01:41:08 advisor? No.
01:41:10 No. Why was Clare Williams asking for a proposal for a CDA then? I don't know. I assumed I can only assume. I don't know.
01:41:22 assume. I don't know. Did you have any role yourself in Clare asking Artillia for that proposal? No.
01:41:31 No. Do you know why she asked for such a proposal?
01:41:42 If she was going to ask for a proposal, I would have expected her to have discussed it with me and explained the reasons why she thought it was necessary. We didn't have that
01:41:53 necessary. We didn't have that conversation. I see. When did you first discover, we may be able to work this out from the documents, but when did you first discover that she had off her own bat, so it appears, uh, asked them, Artillia,
01:42:06 so it appears, uh, asked them, Artillia, for a proposal for a CDA role? Um, I didn't. You didn't? I didn't know anything about her asking for proposal.
01:42:17 for proposal. Right. Uh, well, let's um see if we can put the proposal before you and see if it triggers a recollection. Can we go to art 406744, please?
01:42:33 These are the minutes of a progress meeting. Uh number one on the 15th of July 2014 and on the first page we can see that among uh others from the TMO
01:42:45 see that among uh others from the TMO you were present Mr. Gibson. Yes.
01:42:49 Yes. Second line down. Present David Gibson.
01:42:58 Yes. Yes. Um and if we go to the bottom of page two we can see item three design development. You see that there just at the very bottom of the page. And
01:43:09 just at the very bottom of the page. And if we go over to the to page three, we can see it says CW to appoint a client design advisor. Do you see that?
01:43:20 design advisor. Do you see that? Yes.
01:43:20 Yes. Yes. And the action there CW. So it looks from this Mr. Gibson that you were in a meeting where this was an taken as an action by Cla Williams.
01:43:32 So given that you were there, uh can you explain um how you never did u know uh about her asking for a proposal for a client design advisor?
01:43:44 client design advisor? Um
01:43:45 Um I don't um I know as I stated previously that that the role had been not recommended by um Artellia but a
01:43:57 not recommended by um Artellia but a suggestion that we could have. Um I can only suggest that this has been
01:44:06 minuteed incorrectly.
01:44:11 possibly if she was to consider appointing a plan of design advisor, but it was never a discussion that we had.
01:44:21 Right. Do you recall nothing at all about being at a meeting such as this in mid 2014 where the appointment by the TMO of a client design advisor was meeting? I don't recall cler asking for
01:44:35 meeting? I don't recall cler asking for it and I would be surprised. Right. Well, let's um let's look at the proposal itself and see if you can um
01:44:43 um Well, actually, before I go um to to that document, let me just ask you, were you routinely provided with minutes from progress meetings such as this? Yes,
01:44:54 Yes, you were.
01:44:54 you were. Yes.
01:44:55 Yes. So, can we take it that you would have received this minute? Yes.
01:44:58 Yes. Would you have read it? I would have scanned it and checked for actions.
01:45:05 actions. So you would have in scanning it and checking for action seen that Clare Williams was to a point a client design advisor
01:45:13 advisor because that's what's written down the page.
01:45:15 page. I haven't picked that up and I don't understand why it's there. Right. So does that tell us that whatever else you might have done with these program minutes you didn't read
01:45:27 these program minutes you didn't read this one very carefully? I think I scanned them because I had would have attended the meeting before. Yeah.
01:45:36 Yeah. Well, let's go to the proposal. It's art 406279,
01:45:40 406279, please. Uh and uh this is a proposal from Artilia from February 2014 for a client design advisor. Just looking at its first page there, is this a document
01:45:52 its first page there, is this a document you think you've ever seen before? Um I have seen the document. Do you think you saw it at the time, February 2014?
01:46:05 It's possible. Um, but I can't confirm definitely yes or not. I know we received the January 14 via Jenny Jackson. Um, Jenny was doing
01:46:18 via Jenny Jackson. Um, Jenny was doing the appointment. I can't recall whether we had a discussion or not over it. Um, if Jenny had thought we had needed the role, she would have had a discussion
01:46:29 role, she would have had a discussion with me,
01:46:31 with me, right?
01:46:34 right? Did
01:46:38 you say it's possible that you saw it in February 2014? If Jenny wanted clarification on whether we wanted the role, she would have spoken to me. I don't recall a discussion.
01:46:51 discussion. Now, Mr. Gibson, you mentioned Jenny. Do you mean Jenny or do you mean Claire? Um,
01:46:57 Um, I mean
01:46:58 I mean Jenny,
01:46:59 Jenny, our procurement consultant. Jenny Jackson. That's Jenny Jackson. Yes. I thought you might have done I'm just wondering on you say you say I know you received it in January 2014. Yeah.
01:47:09 Yeah. Via Jenny Jackson. Yes.
01:47:11 Yes. But
01:47:12 But why do you say you know that given that this is dated February 2014? Sorry, I my mistake. Oh. So yeah, going just being sorry early a little bit more a little bit more focused. Did you do you recall seeing
01:47:25 focused. Did you do you recall seeing this document in or around February 2014?
01:47:29 2014? No.
01:47:29 No. You do you remember seeing this document at any time before the middle of 2014?
01:47:37 I think I must have discussed it with Claire because I I recognize
01:47:48 I recognize um her response on taking up this appointment. She had discussed it with me. So I that at whatever time she wrote that email, we
01:47:59 whatever time she wrote that email, we would have had a discussion and I would have looked at this document.
01:48:05 So just trying to understand your evidence. Do I take it from this what you've told us so far that you you never discovered that she had asked for this proposal but you saw the proposal and then discussed it with her nonetheless?
01:48:18 then discussed it with her nonetheless? Yes, it was her asking for the proposal is is the bit that I queried. I follow. Did you when you did eventually get to see this proposal study it in any detail?
01:48:31 study it in any detail? Um,
01:48:32 Um, yes, I would have studied it in some detail.
01:48:35 detail. Some detail. Well, let's see how let's see how we go. Um, page 18, please. Did you see that? Um, contained within it here was a CV of an architect called
01:48:48 it here was a CV of an architect called Rich Harding. Um, I don't recall. You don't recall? This is the This is the person whom Artilia were proposing to act as the client design adviser. Do
01:49:00 to act as the client design adviser. Do you think you read this CV? I possibly scanned it. Um, but my view is that we didn't need the CDA
01:49:11 is that we didn't need the CDA role.
01:49:11 role. No, I'm just just just keep with keep with the document. I just want to know how much of it you took on board when you did get it. Did you pick up the fact that what was being proposed by way of a CDA was a qualified architect with 15
01:49:22 CDA was a qualified architect with 15 years of experience? Um, I think I did. You think you did? Okay. Um
01:49:34 going to page three then if we can go back to that and let's look at the third bullet point on that page in the box. This is what you would be
01:49:46 in the box. This is what you would be getting within the scope of services from Richmond Harding as a CDA if you appointed her. Looking at the third bullet point, it says, "Review through a design and compliance report agreed key
01:49:57 design and compliance report agreed key decision packages following the production of detailed drawing stage F reporting to KCTMO using our risk-based warning light methodology backed up by our firm opinions and recommendations. Did you pick up from your review of this
01:50:09 Did you pick up from your review of this document when you did review it um what a design compliance report would entail as described there?" I would understand it. Yes. Yeah. So, do you agree that a design
01:50:20 Yeah. So, do you agree that a design compliance report would have been helpful to the TMO to ensure that the design at every stage was compliant with the building regulations and British standards? Yes, but it's additional to the contract
01:50:33 Yes, but it's additional to the contract requirements. So, yes, it's an additional check. Yeah. And at the end of scheme design just above the header construction phase uh it it it says
01:50:45 uh it it it says uh
01:50:47 uh we will provide advice design advice as required by the KCTMO.
01:50:55 So I'm not seeing nothing. Okay. Well, let's go to page um
01:51:04 uh uh let's stay on that page uh and and look at the middle paragraph. This probably does the point just as well. Page three. In the middle paragraph there, she it says Richmond has an
01:51:15 there, she it says Richmond has an in-depth understanding of building life cycle costings and understanding of how the public sector is is focused on revenue costs as much as those of capital costs. She has experience of value engineering at both pre and
01:51:26 value engineering at both pre and postcontract tender stage and the ability to focus on the brief and variations to it and weigh up and clearly present options and risks for you. Did you did you spot that when you saw this?
01:51:38 saw this? It's possible. I can't recollect.
01:51:43 Uh, and do you agree uh that that having design advice such as this from a qualified architect with this degree of experience would have been extremely helpful to the TMA to ensuring that
01:51:55 helpful to the TMA to ensuring that design standards didn't slip?
01:52:00 It's not something I've ever previously been recommended to have. Um I believe we had the suite of
01:52:13 Um I believe we had the suite of contractual documents that were required. We had the designers on board. Um so
01:52:21 Um so I didn't give it a great deal of consideration. You didn't give it I in terms of some of it I thought was doing a check that the clerk of works were already doing on
01:52:33 clerk of works were already doing on site etc. But I wouldn't have thought there was we didn't at this stage need design advice because this is we're coming what middle of 14 now
01:52:47 we're coming what middle of 14 now we're on site. We're well on site. Well, it's it's not it's February 2014. Sorry, February 2014. Yeah, you weren't on site at that stage. In fact, the in fact uh Mr. Gibson, just to assist you with your recollection,
01:52:59 to assist you with your recollection, February 2014 was towards the end of the tender process. Yes. Which which then came to its culmination in the March of that year. Can I just ask you to go to page four
01:53:11 Can I just ask you to go to page four and look at overview under project understanding and key data. In the second paragraph, it says this. With the novation of architects studio E to the contractor, the relationship and direct access to architects and other members
01:53:23 access to architects and other members of the design team that you've enjoyed on this project to date will change. The services of a client design adviser will ensure that the initial design that you've agreed and promoted to stakeholders does not get watered down
01:53:34 stakeholders does not get watered down quotes unquy
01:53:37 process. Now given what's said there, did you not think it useful at the time given the possibility or um um likelihood that Studioe would be
01:53:48 likelihood that Studioe would be innovated to sit under Ryden as Ryden's subconsultant um to have the the valuable services of a client design adviser as somebody you could talk to directly about design?
01:54:02 No, I I think if if Studio E had felt their designs were being compromised, they would have found a way to have a conversation with us. But that would be leaving it to them
01:54:14 But that would be leaving it to them rather than having a resource you could immediately pick up the phone to. Yes. But I don't think there was any stage where I felt the need to pick up the phone in
01:54:26 I felt the need to pick up the phone in terms of getting design advice. The assigned decisions we were taking at that stage post tender were relatively minor.
01:54:36 minor. Looking a little bit down the page, we can see that she or Ailia rather records their understanding that the scape of works was out to tender and will cover the following renovations. Then you look at the third bullet point and you see
01:54:48 at the third bullet point and you see overcladding external elevations to improve appearance. I'll either side the question about appearance. Um you you've told us already that um you studio E did
01:54:59 told us already that um you studio E did not necessarily have the in-house expertise in relation to overclatting external elevations. Did it not occur to you that it would, at least in respect to that aspect of the project, have been extremely useful to the TMO to have
01:55:12 extremely useful to the TMO to have immediate direct access to a an an expert architect to advise directly on that question.
01:55:23 directly on that question. Sorry, I think I must misinterpret you because I I don't think I had an understanding that studio did not have experience in
01:55:36 studio did not have experience in overclouding. I think we were previously discussing and perhaps I picked it up wrong was did I know whether they had previous
01:55:47 I know whether they had previous experience of overcrowding? Yes.
01:55:49 Yes. Yeah. Well, let me try it a different way. What What gave you to think that Studio E did have experience in overclatting a high-rise building?
01:56:05 There was nothing to indicate to me that they weren't experienced. Right. Well, that that's a negative. So, there's a there's a vacuum there in your understanding. Um, would it not
01:56:17 your understanding. Um, would it not have been helpful to fill that vacuum with a CDA who could have advised you on overcladding external elevations? I don't think I would have given it consideration at that time.
01:56:29 consideration at that time. Right.
01:56:32 No, going to page 11 of the proposal if we can. Oh, well, Lendy, let's let's go to page six. Um before I go to the end, um
01:56:41 um did you uh see when you looked at this document the services scope and in particular what is said there under scheme design
01:56:52 scheme design and then in the third sentence or third paragraph of that we will provide design advice as required by KCTMO. Mhm.
01:56:58 Mhm. Did you see that? Did you pick that up? Yes,
01:57:00 Yes, you did. And again, did you not think it would be useful for the TMO to have design advice from a qualified architect of 15 years standing given that given
01:57:11 of 15 years standing given that given that studio were going to be no to the to the
01:57:13 to the Yes. But given that we had got to the point of tender, we understood the the tender documents.
01:57:25 we understood the the tender documents. It the design proposals had been reasonably well developed. Um, so in terms of design advice going forward after studio had been
01:57:39 going forward after studio had been novated or I don't think they were novated in the end but but were working with the contractor. Um, I wasn't we weren't expecting to have
01:57:50 weren't expecting to have or need design advice. You say you don't think they were novated in the end? Yeah. Did did you does that is it your evidence that you thought at the time that Studioe was still contracted
01:58:02 that Studioe was still contracted directly to the TMO? No.
01:58:06 No. So what do you mean by there was a proposal within the documents within tender documents to Novate Studio E to the contractor.
01:58:19 I think discussions were had because I remember speaking to Peter Madison who wasn't keen on noation and the discussions were that
01:58:33 riden should satisfy themselves and agree terms of agreement
01:58:41 agreement terms of appointment between each other but there he wasn't keen that there was an official novation And I don't think we have a novation contract in place. So
01:58:54 we have a novation contract in place. So there was an intention, there was a possibility of noation, but I don't think it happened.
01:59:02 You say you don't think it happened. So what was your understanding about whether or not Studio E after Ryden had been appointed still continued
01:59:13 Ryden had been appointed still continued in a direct relationship with No, they had a direct relationship with Ryden, but there wasn't an ovation. They agreed terms.
01:59:25 They agreed terms. And and having done that, what was your understanding of the of the continued relationship if any directly between the TMO and studio E? Um after that there was no continued
01:59:37 Um after that there was no continued direct relationship apart from design warranties etc. The relationship was via Ryden.
01:59:43 Ryden. Yeah. And and my point is that given that at least it was a possibility as at February 2014 and and thereafter that studio E would be subcontracted to
01:59:54 studio E would be subcontracted to Ryden, if I can use a neutral word about saying the word noation, that it would have been extremely useful for the TMO to continue to have design advice from a qualified architect uh directly down to
02:00:07 qualified architect uh directly down to the end of the project.
02:00:17 The design was welldeveloped. So I can't I'm trying to think back on circumstances where we needed design advice.
02:00:31 So did I identify a need for design advice for ourselves? No.
02:00:40 and remember us needing to design advice. I don't recall that we did. Why was Peter Madison not keen on as we use the word noation but not keen on
02:00:51 use the word noation but not keen on noation?
02:00:52 noation? Um I think it
02:00:57 no I think means there's an obligation for the contractor to work with that architect
02:01:07 architect and get make them um use them to to develop the designs as necessary to make it fit for construction.
02:01:18 construction. Um, I think we were quite happy with Studio E's performance. We didn't see that there needed to be an ovation.
02:01:29 ovation. Um, but they would agree terms between themselves, but not an ovation. Did cutting through this? Yes. Was it your understanding that Peter Madison
02:01:40 your understanding that Peter Madison wanted the TMO to continue to have a direct architect client relationship with T with Studio Even once the Ryden contract was led?
02:01:51 contract was led? No,
02:01:52 No, no,
02:01:52 no, no.
02:01:53 no. Right.
02:01:54 Right. Our relationship had finished at that point. The contractor had taken on all design responsibilities and we were leaving it for the contractor to decide hard to use studio
02:02:08 contractor to decide hard to use studio but we knew studio we were involved in the development of the design. So when you say Peter Madison wasn't keen on noation I think you mean it in the strict narrow legal sense of the word right I follow. Can we go to page 11 of the proposal um here we see the
02:02:21 11 of the proposal um here we see the fees that Artillia were going to charge. uh and it comes to uh £3,92250p for the CDA role and £600 for the POE.
02:02:32 for the CDA role and £600 for the POE. Um so a total of £31,000 odd£315,000 odd. Did you have any views at the time when you saw this document about whether that cost was worth paying in order to have the benefit of this professional
02:02:43 have the benefit of this professional advice?
02:02:46 advice? I didn't see the need for the rule. Can we go to art 402752, please? Well, Mr. Gibson, do you in a sense are you saying he wouldn't have accepted this
02:02:57 saying he wouldn't have accepted this even if it had been offered free? Free perosibly, but um but I mean I not getting the impression I wasn't I wasn't I didn't feel there
02:03:08 I wasn't I wasn't I didn't feel there was a need for the role. I wasn't particularly interested in the role. It was a additional service that Artellia had told us that some clients choose to have. There was no
02:03:20 choose to have. There was no recommendation that we should have it. But I asked a question because I I'm not currently getting the impression from your answers that you looked at the price and said to yourself, "Well, it
02:03:33 price and said to yourself, "Well, it would be useful, but not at that price." I didn't.
02:03:37 I didn't. I'm getting the impression you didn't think it was useful at all. I didn't think there was a need for it. Right.
02:03:42 Right. At any price. I don't think price was a consideration. Okay. Well, let's just see how we go with this. maybe that I can take the next run run of questions more quickly in light of that answer in exchange with
02:03:53 in light of that answer in exchange with the chairman just now. Can we go to art 402752
02:03:58 402752 please? These are the minutes of Prager's meeting number two on the 19th of August 2014 and we can see that you're there as well as Claire Williams. Do you see that?
02:04:09 Do you see that? And again, can we take it that you would have seen these minutes after the meeting and at least scanned them? Yes.
02:04:14 Yes. Right. Um can we look at page two please under item three the heading here is design development and uh we can see there it says again CW to appoint a
02:04:25 there it says again CW to appoint a client design advisor action CW post meeting note you see um uh CW advisor the TMO will perform the role of CDA inhouse they will therefore need to sign
02:04:37 inhouse they will therefore need to sign off all decision sorry all design now up to this point this is August 2014 was it expected that the TMO would appoint a client design advisor. We saw
02:04:48 appoint a client design advisor. We saw the meeting notes from the previous month, July 14. Here we see them again, August 14, with the action, but then a postmeating note.
02:04:59 postmeating note. The expectation was the areas of design that we would be commenting on and signing off were in relation to the
02:05:11 signing off were in relation to the layouts of the new build units, the boxing club and the nursery.
02:05:19 Right. Let me try this a different way. It looks in chronological terms, it looks as if you have a proposal in February and you've been invited in the January 14.
02:05:31 you've been invited in the January 14. There's an action in July 2014 that CLA Williams would appointed a client design adviser. That action is repeated in the August progress meeting note, but then there's a postmeating note where CW
02:05:43 there's a postmeating note where CW advised that the C TMO would perform the role of CDA inhouse. Mhm. My my question, I put it differently, is was the decision that CLA Williams wouldn't appoint a CL a client design
02:05:55 wouldn't appoint a CL a client design advisor, but would the TMAO would do that in-house taken after the 19th of August meeting and then recorded in this minute as such.
02:06:06 such. Um I can't we had a discussion myself and Claire. Um we thought as I've stated that the
02:06:19 we thought as I've stated that the design that we the areas of design we would be asking to comment on were in relation to the new build units boxing club and nursery. I follow.
02:06:28 I follow. Yeah.
02:06:29 Yeah. But the decision not to appoint a CDA was made shortly after this meeting. Is that right? Looking at the there was no need to appoint a CDA. You told us that. I just want to know
02:06:41 You told us that. I just want to know when the decision was made. Mr. Um, can you help me? I I can't help but we can use the right
02:06:47 right the post meeting note that we must have at that time looked at CW to appoint a plant design advisor discussed it and
02:06:59 plant design advisor discussed it and in terms of responsibility and the areas of design we were discussing um that we didn't need any assistance right um now this we know the the
02:07:10 right um now this we know the the proposal was made in February 14 this is August August 14. Yes.
02:07:13 Yes. Was there a reason why the decision hadn't been made or the issue hadn't been resolved between those period between those dates? Between February and August? Yes.
02:07:24 Yes. I don't recall if I got the plant design advisor
02:07:31 advisor um proposition formally before this date. I know it was appended. But I know now it was appended to the appointments Jenny was doing,
02:07:42 to the appointments Jenny was doing, Jenny Jackson was doing in February 14. And I think as I stated previously, Jenny identified any gaps in our
02:07:55 Jenny identified any gaps in our coverage contractually. So she would have reviewed that. If she thought there was a need, she would have spoken to me. Right.
02:08:03 Right. We didn't I don't recall us having that conversation. Right. So, you can't explain why it took so long for the TMO to decide not to have a CDA.
02:08:14 to decide not to have a CDA. Um,
02:08:18 I assume that I tell you we're were pushing for us to take on this role and we didn't feel there was a need for it. Yes, I know. I you you can't I just want
02:08:31 Yes, I know. I you you can't I just want to understand do you have any explanation as to why it took between the February and the August of 2014 for the TMO to decide not to appoint a CDA? No.
02:08:41 No. Thank you. And now looking at the post meeting note um it says that um the TMO will need to sign off all design. Mhm. Um,
02:08:53 Mhm. Um, first of all, who was it within the TMO that you thought would be signing off all design? Um, between myself and CLA, we were we
02:09:04 Um, between myself and CLA, we were we were comfortable that we could cover the areas of design that we were anticipating to need to sign off. And you've said, I think just a moment ago, that that included um the nursery
02:09:17 ago, that that included um the nursery and the boxing club and the Is this right? The lower four floors. Yes. Right. So just on those aspects of the refurbishment, when you say you would be signing them off, does that mean giving
02:09:29 signing them off, does that mean giving final approval to them?
02:09:34 I wouldn't necessarily say I would use the the terminology sign off. I would make comment on the design proposals or at this stage it was
02:09:46 design proposals or at this stage it was the contractor's proposals to us. Um, and I did make comment on I I as I recollect the um the new units on the
02:09:59 recollect the um the new units on the lower floors. Um, but we wouldn't sign off the design. That was still the contractor's responsibility. So, C can you can you can you explain what you understood by the word sign off
02:10:12 what you understood by the word sign off in the post meeting note there to agree that they're acceptable or we would have no adverse comments. Right. There wasn't a formal signing off process. We would comment on the design
02:10:23 process. We would comment on the design proposals. If we had adverse comments, we would pick that up with the contractor. We did make comments. They weren't necessarily
02:10:34 necessarily There were comments to do with layouts or kitchens or bathrooms. I can't remember now, but I remember making comments.
02:10:41 comments. So, when it says design, Yeah. Does that mean general uh design or architectural intent or does it mean as built the um sorry the construction drawings for each
02:10:53 sorry the construction drawings for each and every
02:10:53 and every No, not the construction drawings. Not the construction. This was the sign off that we were talking about here was the layouts of the new units on the lower floors that
02:11:05 the new units on the lower floors that hadn't been fully developed at the time we went to town. I follow now that that you've talked about the the lower four floors, the nursery and the boxing. Yeah.
02:11:13 Yeah. Do does that mean that you the TMO were not going to sign off on all design in respect of the overclatting?
02:11:22 We wouldn't have expected to. The design on the overclouding as designed by studio E. The contractual
02:11:33 as designed by studio E. The contractual responsibility was for the contractor to take on that design and develop it and to ensure that it was compliant. So,
02:11:41 So, so we wouldn't be taking a role in signing off. I follow. So, when it says the TMO will perform the role of CDA inhouse and therefore need to sign off all design,
02:11:52 therefore need to sign off all design, I think on what you've told us that when it came to the cladding, the TMO wouldn't be performing the role of CDA inhouse uh and wouldn't be signing off on that design.
02:12:03 on that design. Correct. There was no contractual requirement for us signing off design. The only contractual requirement was for the contractor to develop the designs
02:12:15 the contractor to develop the designs and
02:12:17 and construct. So when it came no sign off process required. So when it came to the cladding yes
02:12:24 yes uh the TMO was entirely reliant for design on on who you tell me? um initially studio and then the contractor
02:12:36 initially studio and then the contractor takes responsibility for the development of that design and constructness. the responsibility then sits with the it's the point of this suite of documents there's one point of
02:12:47 documents there's one point of responsibility the contractors taking on that responsibility and and and as an educated client how would the TMO protect itself against any
02:12:58 would the TMO protect itself against any errors or defects uh in in in the designs as developed either by studio or the subcontractors contractors or subcontractors sorry right we protect shells there would be
02:13:12 right we protect shells there would be to sign warranties as necessary but the point of responsibility still remains with the contractor. I see. So I think the answer is right. Yes.
02:13:23 Yes. Can we go to art 402701? This is an email from Clare Williams to Philip Booth and Peter Bllythe on the 29th of August 2014. Now this is 10 days after meet progress meeting number two.
02:13:34 after meet progress meeting number two. We've just seen for which we've just seen the minutes. Dear Ba, last Tuesday we we talked about the appointment of a design adviser and the likelihood that this did not particularly apply to cladding and the me and elements which
02:13:45 cladding and the me and elements which were designed and under guarantee. Mhm.
02:13:47 Mhm. You see that? Yeah.
02:13:48 Yeah. Um and then she says upon discussion most of the design concerns were over the new build areas i.e. the flats, nursery and boxing club. That's what you told us.
02:13:56 told us. Um do you remember whether you you saw this email at the time do you think? I probably did. I I recall the discussion with Claire, right? And I recall the discussion about we were
02:14:07 recall the discussion about we were comfortable signing off and I think it was helpful that cla right
02:14:13 right put in place our understanding of what we would be doing in that we were signing off the new build areas flats nurseries and boxing club
02:14:24 nurseries and boxing club I don't think anyone challenged that. I see. So do we take it from this that whatever else the CDA might have done what their role would always have been limited to the flats nursery and boxing
02:14:35 limited to the flats nursery and boxing club and not the cladding? No, I think the CDA role was a wider role than that as offered but
02:14:46 role than that as offered but contractually we were happy with right our point of responsibility which was Ryden. Cla Williams then continues in her email. I've spoken with David Gibson and we are going to see if we can manage
02:14:57 we are going to see if we can manage this within the TMO as we are very familiar with the specifications for social housing. Do you remember having a conversation like that with Clare Williams? Yes,
02:15:04 Yes, you did. And and uh do you know what social housing specifications Clare Williams was referring to there?
02:15:15 referring to there? um social housing in terms of flats, how they're laid out and how the this is most to do with layouts,
02:15:26 this is most to do with layouts, kitchens and bathrooms. Um relatively simple ammon going into the flats etc. Um it might also refer to
02:15:38 the flats etc. Um it might also refer to um disabled access um that type of arrangement. Was there any link between the exclusion of the cladding from the role of a
02:15:50 of the cladding from the role of a design adviser if taken on at all and what she refers to as the specifications for social housing? Was there any link between the two? No, there was no
02:16:04 the CDA. We didn't think there was a requirement for the CDA role. So, we've set that aside. We have our contractual responsibilities
02:16:16 contractual responsibilities in terms of is the design and layout are they acceptable to us as a social landlord.
02:16:27 landlord. we had a good understanding of what was acceptable or not because I' many times I'd made comments before on layouts but I wouldn't be making comments on
02:16:40 I wouldn't be making comments on construction details. Right. So I think what you're telling me and we can take this up with Clare Williams I suppose is is that um the familiarity of the TMO with specifications for social housing was
02:16:52 specifications for social housing was the reason to manage the whole thing in house as opposed to specifically to the cladding aspect of the of the project.
02:17:04 I'm confused about what you mean by me. The reason it's confusing Mr. Gibson is because the email itself Yeah. draws the distinction between the cladding and me and elements on the one
02:17:16 cladding and me and elements on the one hand. Yeah. And the new build and design concerns over the new build areas flats nursery in Boxing. Yes. Right. Uh and then she goes on to say that it's going to be managed in house because the
02:17:27 going to be managed in house because the TMO is familiar with the specifications for social housing. And I just want to get a feel for whether there was any link uh between not having a CDA in respect of uh the the cladding and the
02:17:39 respect of uh the the cladding and the fact that the TMO felt that they could manage CDA in house because of familiarity with social housing. Were they related at all?
02:17:55 I keep trying to perhaps I'm expressing myself wrong. We didn't feel there was a need for a CDA rule. As clients,
02:18:06 CDA rule. As clients, we had a a responsibility to check that we were happy with the design layouts of the new build units.
02:18:17 the new build units. um otherwise contractually the CDA role doesn't doesn't sit anywhere. We chosen this type of contract so that there's one point of responsibility.
02:18:30 So I'm sorry I'm not expressing myself. Well, don't worry. I think we probably got enough. Yeah.
02:18:37 Yeah. On that. Um do you remember Philip Booth giving his evidence to the inquiry on this issue a few days ago? If you want, I can show you what he said about this. But the gist of his evidence at day 49,
02:18:51 But the gist of his evidence at day 49, uh, pages 17922 to 18024, uh, is that the TMO didn't want to incur the fees for a CDA. No, we didn't think there was a need for
02:19:02 No, we didn't think there was a need for the rule.
02:19:02 the rule. Right. I see. Um, he he in answer to the question from Miss Graange, he was asked, "Did they expressly say to you, we don't want to incur the additional fees?" and his
02:19:14 incur the additional fees?" and his answer was well yes they were very much about do we need this role you know it's 30 grand or whatever it was um the impression given by Mr. Booth's evidence was that the price played a significant
02:19:25 was that the price played a significant or at least a role in your deciding not to have a CDA. Is that right? No.
02:19:31 No. So it was
02:19:31 So it was I didn't think there was a requirement for the role. We were comfortable with what we were expecting to sign off in terms of design proposals and that
02:19:42 terms of design proposals and that wasn't signing off for cladding. We wouldn't be doing that. Can we then turn to a different uh topic which is the introduction of alternative
02:19:53 which is the introduction of alternative material for cladding and van value engineering. Uh now um just just bearing in mind that you started at the TMO on the 25th of February 2013. I just want
02:20:04 the 25th of February 2013. I just want to show you a document that very shortly predates your time there. It's TMO1049908.
02:20:14 Uh and uh it's a TMO program board of minutes uh sorry TMO program board minute of the 17th of January 2013. You can see it there on the screen. Um and
02:20:26 can see it there on the screen. Um and you can see that it was uh attended by Robert Black, Sasha Jevans, and Anthony Parks. Uh just looking at its first page, is this a document that you might have seen at the time you joined the
02:20:38 have seen at the time you joined the TMO?
02:20:40 TMO? Um
02:20:43 I might have seen it depends what's contained within it and then I can that's relevant to Granville and then well let's absolutely let's look at page three and on page three under section three we can see a heading Grenfell and
02:20:55 three we can see a heading Grenfell and Hidden Homes. Paul Duncan attended for this item. You see that? Yeah. Uh, and um, it it says, and I don't want to read it all to you, but I'll just pick out the bits I want to ask you
02:21:06 pick out the bits I want to ask you about.
02:21:06 about. Under Grenfell Tower, it says, "There was currently a 2 million pound overspend on the project for the stage D cost plan. We were working with Apple yards to get back to the original budget, and costs for cladding and
02:21:17 budget, and costs for cladding and ventilation for the academy were currently being reviewed, and the same approach would be applied for Grrenville Tower. The specification had been for bespoke cladding, and cheaper options were now being considered.
02:21:28 were now being considered. Um, did anyone, whether Peter Madison or Sasha Jevans, tell you when you arrived at the TMO that the Grrenful Tower project was 2 million pounds over budget?
02:21:43 What I did learn soon after arrival that the project had effectively stopped. Um there was a gap between Artillia's
02:21:56 Um there was a gap between Artillia's cost estimate and
02:22:00 and what um
02:22:03 what um the Apple no not um lead betters prices but there was a problem with engaging with lead batters who
02:22:15 with lead batters who lead better batters didn't seem engaged in the project didn't seem to want the project um tell you were going to try and get more information so they could
02:22:29 and get more information so they could tell us
02:22:31 tell us why there were these this 2 million pound gap so they could understand what the differences were. Yes, I think we're getting a bit ahead. I my my question was a a more precise one. Did anyone at the TMO who was there
02:22:43 one. Did anyone at the TMO who was there already
02:22:44 already Yeah. tell you uh that there was a 2 million pound overspend on on the Granfield Tower project for the stage D cost plan as this minute records.
02:22:57 Paul would have told me there was a gap and probably that was 2 million. I can't remember what the figure was. Thank you. Did anybody tell you that the costs for cladding were a candidate for
02:23:09 costs for cladding were a candidate for cheaper options?
02:23:13 one of a number of things that were probably been looked at. But at this point or shortly after this point, we rescopeed the project.
02:23:25 we rescopeed the project. So everything within the project was under consideration again. Yes. Okay. Did anybody tell you specifically expressly that that cladding was a candidate for one of the
02:23:37 cladding was a candidate for one of the cheaper options to get the the spend down?
02:23:41 down? Cladding.
02:23:44 I don't think at this stage. No. No. Um, now looking a bit lower down the page,
02:23:52 page, uh, you can see in the penultimate paragraph on that page, it says that Paul Duncan would keep executive team updated on progress in getting back to the 9.4 million pound budget. When you
02:24:04 the 9.4 million pound budget. When you arrived, were you told what the budget was?
02:24:12 I would have been told the figure was it 9.4 million. Do you mean construction costs or total scheme?
02:24:19 scheme? Well, that's my next question. Did you did you understand what the overall budget was? I think the overall budget was 9.4 9.7 seems to you know I can't
02:24:30 9.4 9.7 seems to you know I can't remember exact figures it changed. Yeah. Right.
02:24:33 Right. But that overall right
02:24:35 right total scheme costs were in that range indeed. And did anybody tell you that of the overall costs something like 8.5 million pounds 8.415 in fact was for
02:24:47 million pounds 8.415 in fact was for construction? Yes,
02:24:49 Yes, they did. Now is it right that when you arrived the TMO were considering a reprocurement of the project? I think you've told us this in your evidence so
02:25:00 you've told us this in your evidence so far, but can you confirm?
02:25:05 We were Peter and I were both trying to understand the scheme and that was the purpose of the meeting with Herellia um for them to give us some background as to how we'd got to this point in the
02:25:17 as to how we'd got to this point in the project. At that stage we effectively stopped the project and redefined it and rescoped it.
02:25:33 Yes. When you arrived y late February 2013,
02:25:38 2013, you were introduced to the Grenfield Tower project. Did anybody tell you at that point we are looking to reprocure or did that come later? That came later. That came right. Yeah.
02:25:49 right. Yeah. Okay. Can can I can I ask you to look at a TMO project review note of 11th of January 2013? So again before your arrival TMO847332
02:26:02 please this um is a document again Mr. Gibson, you won't have seen at the time it was produced cuz it predates your arrival by about 6 weeks.
02:26:13 arrival by about 6 weeks. Is it a document you would have been shown when you did arrive? It's possible go to the if we look at page one paragraph three TMO concerned that lead bitter suggested
02:26:25 TMO concerned that lead bitter suggested in a meeting prior to Christmas break that their estimated budget for the project is 2 million higher than Appleard stage D cost plan. Mhm. And just looking down at paragraphs 5, six, and seven, or particularly six and
02:26:36 six, and seven, or particularly six and seven,
02:26:37 seven, if led bit are unable to meet the TMO budget, Alan advised that the TMO could reprocure via another framework such as LHC or through a full OAU process. Reprocurement would have possible 5 to
02:26:49 Reprocurement would have possible 5 to six month delay to project with an estimated conclusion by June 2013 if a decision was taken by end of January. Mhm. Now when you arrived late February,
02:27:00 Mhm. Now when you arrived late February, were you told at that time uh that um there were discussions or considerations within the TMO about reprocurement? No.
02:27:10 No. No.
02:27:12 No. Were Were you aware that the design team had agreed to defer half their stage D fee to ensure that the total cost for their services fell below the OJU threshold?
02:27:26 I was aware that
02:27:30 there appeared to be conflicting information. I'm not sure why. My understanding was that they would
02:27:41 they wanted to notate the costs um with toate
02:27:49 the consultants to
02:27:53 to um lead better at that time and I didn't really understand why that was being considered. It was confusion. Yeah, I can see that. Um let's move on
02:28:05 Yeah, I can see that. Um let's move on to uh a different document. Uh art 401083
02:28:11 401083 please. Now um this is a chain of emails in February late February 2013. Uh well this is certainly that's where it starts. And if we go to page eight in
02:28:23 it starts. And if we go to page eight in this email run it's a very long email chain. If we go to page eight in it, um this is uh
02:28:33 uh the second one on the page here I want to show you which is from Paul Duncan to Alan Dawson on the 27th of February 2013. Now I I I think that was a mere two days after you'd arrived but
02:28:44 a mere two days after you'd arrived but you were in the TMO by then I think. Yes.
02:28:48 Yes. Yes. Uh and um you can see that Paul Duncan says to Alan Alan Dawson at Artelia,
02:28:56 Artelia, Alan, the TMO would like to try to and keep the proposed heating system as it offers more benefits in the long run. Also, the current design of window offers better prevention for residents throwing items out especially if the
02:29:07 throwing items out especially if the canopy is removed. And then he says this, if we look at VE, I suggest the following. And there's a long list of bullet points there. Uh and uh you can see that he says in the second bullet point, look at
02:29:18 the second bullet point, look at alternative material for cladding. Mhm.
02:29:21 Mhm. Now um
02:29:24 Now um uh do you remember being involved in any discussions when you arrived at this point with uh Paul Duncan about value engineering in relation to material for
02:29:35 engineering in relation to material for the clatting? Not specifically. Second bullet. Yes. You don't remember that specifically. Now he's listing a series of things that are to be considered and as you can see from the
02:29:47 considered and as you can see from the list
02:29:49 list remove generation works, remove cost for canopy, remove link bridge, uh remove crown, remove improvement, etc., etc. A lot of these things in that list are the removal of works from the project. Yes.
02:30:01 removal of works from the project. Yes. Did you know that at that point Paul Duncan was looking to shrink the project at in some respects, even if not specifically?
02:30:16 No. Um, but I think following this there was a full review of the project. So whatever
02:30:26 whatever was here, we stopped the project and we rescooped the project at the point. Sorry, I'm going to cut I know because we're going to look at this
02:30:37 know because we're going to look at this in due course. We're going to take this step by step through the history, but I want to know what happened at the beginning. Just looking at this email and seeing the sense of what he's uh what he's proposing, did you understand at the time, even though you may not have seen
02:30:49 time, even though you may not have seen this email? Yep. At the day on the day it was sent, that the TMO were looking at at reducing the scope of the project.
02:31:07 I don't think I must have because when I reviewed the project
02:31:14 I identified issues with the link bridge.
02:31:19 bridge. So I can't have been told before that there was a there was a suggestion to remove it as one thing. I know that there was a I think I the
02:31:32 I know that there was a I think I the crown has a reference um and I recall that but I don't specifically recall looking at alternative materials would be a normal
02:31:43 alternative materials would be a normal thing to do. Now he describes it as value engineering but actually it's it's a reduction in the scope of the project. Do you see a did you see or would you have seen a difference in those two concepts? Value
02:31:55 difference in those two concepts? Value engineering on the one hand and reduction in scope on the other. Yes.
02:32:00 Yes. Yes. So at least in respect of the things that he was removing that wasn't value engineering at all. That was simply cutting things out. Yes.
02:32:08 Yes. Yes. Now can I ask you to look at the email the day before which is at pages 2 to three of this email. No. Let me try a different email run. Art 405911
02:32:19 different email run. Art 405911 please.
02:32:21 please. [Applause] I think this is where we see it. Yes. Alan Dawson, 26th of February to Bruce S. Again, you didn't see this U, but um
02:32:32 S. Again, you didn't see this U, but um at pages two and three of this email run. Can I just show you this? This is Alan Dawson asking Studio E for a radical rethink. 26th of February,
02:32:43 radical rethink. 26th of February, bottom of page two, over to page three. And as I say, this is between Artilia and Studio E. And he says, um, gents, as
02:32:54 and Studio E. And he says, um, gents, as you are aware, can you see at the top of page three, as you aware, there is currently a de significant deficit between the approved costs plan stroke budget and the initial figures coming back from lead bidder, not least of
02:33:05 back from lead bidder, not least of which on the external facade and general fit out, where we are as much as 483, and 1.24 million pounds apart, respectively. Clearly, we have to reconcile but
02:33:16 Clearly, we have to reconcile but moreover bridge this gap as a matter of some urgency. Your urgent assistance in this regard would therefore be be appreciated. Can you come back to us with a radical rethink of the scope stroke spec while still meeting the
02:33:27 stroke spec while still meeting the original brief by early part of next week to deliver it within budget?
02:33:34 Now, did you know when you arrived that these discussions were going on between Artilia and Studio E about a radical rethink of the scope stroke spec for the
02:33:45 rethink of the scope stroke spec for the Granville Tower project? No,
02:33:48 No, you weren't.
02:33:52 And then if you go over to the first page of this email run and look at the bottom of that page and and the second uh top of the second page you can see Bruce A's response and he says Allan
02:34:04 Bruce A's response and he says Allan it's not really possible to undertake a radical rethink without sight of the figures a discussion with the client and the involvement with the services engineer who is not copied into your email is the me and not under review as
02:34:15 email is the me and not under review as well and then he goes on at the top of page two the obvious targets for savings are and then look at the second bullet point. Change zinc cladding material to something cheaper. I think planning will need a sweetener to swallow this perhaps
02:34:27 need a sweetener to swallow this perhaps copper, ceramic, terracotta or more glass at low level. Um,
02:34:35 Um, were you involved in any discussion at this time
02:34:39 this time on your arrival or perhaps shortly after about changing the zinc cladding to a cheaper material? I recall seeing this, but if you can
02:34:50 I recall seeing this, but if you can give me the time of this email again, the date of this email, uh, the time of this email, it's the 26th of February at 11:48 in the morning. So, so sorry, I bet the date.
02:35:02 so sorry, I bet the date. The date. Yes, it does go, I should just show you, to Peter to Peter Madison and Paul Duncan because they're copied in on it. Yeah.
02:35:09 Yeah. So, you might have seen this, do you think?
02:35:11 think? I This is familiar. Um, but I don't think I would have seen it at that date. Do you remember having a discussion with Peter Madison or Paul Duncan about changing the zinc cladding to a cheaper
02:35:23 changing the zinc cladding to a cheaper material?
02:35:23 material? No,
02:35:24 No, you don't. Can I then take you to TMO102602, please?
02:35:30 please? This is an email from Bruce S on the 17th of April, 2013 to Peter Madison. And this time you are copied in. Mhm. uh and uh he says on the second page of that email uh if I can just show
02:35:44 page of that email uh if I can just show you that
02:35:46 you that uh he says going beyond the meeting you just see under samples he says going beyond the meeting I think it is worthwhile circulating the samples we've been collecting of alternative cladding
02:35:57 been collecting of alternative cladding options to zinc and then there's an image that's referred to and then a long list of coated aluminium ACM products do you see
02:36:07 you see Mhm.
02:36:07 Mhm. Um and they're all Jurig gloss. Mhm.
02:36:11 Mhm. Except the eighth which is Reinhing. There are eight there. Yep. And then
02:36:15 And then uh R and underneath that Marley Equitane cement particle board and others. Now you got that at the time. Do you remember whether there was any discussion about what ACM was within the
02:36:28 discussion about what ACM was within the TMO?
02:36:31 TMO? No.
02:36:33 No. You got this email at the time. Did you know what coated aluminium ACM was? No.
02:36:40 No. Did you ask uh Bruce to tell you?
02:36:47 I don't think I specifically did. Were you not interested to know what ACM was given that it was being uh bruted as an alternative cladding option to zinc?
02:37:00 The discussions as I recall were what does it look like and little more than that? What would satisfy the planners? Because this was all what what
02:37:13 planners? Because this was all what what material we used was all subject to planning
02:37:19 planning agreement much later down the line. Um so
02:37:25 Um so these were alternative materials. There would have been discussions on costs but not on performance as as an educated client and indeed in
02:37:37 as as an educated client and indeed in your case an architect. Were you not interested to understand what ACM was or what it was made of?
02:37:48 My understanding it was it was aluminum sheeting with some form of insulation within it. Were you not keen to understand what
02:38:00 Were you not keen to understand what that as you call it form of insulation was within it? No, because we weren't
02:38:11 we were not expecting to be offered materials that would be not compliance. We weren't asking questions about compliance. We knew there was a
02:38:22 compliance. We knew there was a requirement for us for whatever materials we use and how they were put together to be in accordance with
02:38:33 together to be in accordance with regulations and legislation. So, we weren't having that type of discussion. No, I understand the assumption you're working on. I just wanted to know why it was. Well, let me ask it this way. Had you ever
02:38:45 let me ask it this way. Had you ever come across aluminium composite material in the course of your um professional life before you received this email? No.
02:38:53 No. And therefore I do ask the question being offered as an alternative a material that you'd never come across. Why were you not curious to understand
02:39:05 Why were you not curious to understand what it was made of?
02:39:11 I don't know. I mean we weren't because the discussions were over what
02:39:23 the discussions were over what what's the what's the choice of materials we have how does that affect the cost plan and is that acceptable to the plowish
02:39:35 is that acceptable to the plowish and it's part of what's the choice you're being given a choice between zinc and an ACM product. Given that you'd never come across ACM before,
02:39:47 never come across ACM before, I I'm just trying to understand why you in particular, given your qualifications, didn't ask yourself, well, I wonder what that's made of. My assumption, rightly or wrongly, was
02:40:02 My assumption, rightly or wrongly, was there were number many, many properties in London with aluminium cladding, and this was aluminium cladding. I didn't think anything any further than that.
02:40:15 think anything any further than that. Right. Was there any discussion between you and anybody studio or internally within the TMO of why the ACM was cheaper than zinc? No.
02:40:26 No. Did you ask yourself? I wonder why it's cheaper than zinc. I just assumed it's a different manufacturing process, a different supplier,
02:40:37 supplier, a different methods of manufacture. It's not the sort of no.
02:40:45 no. Did you have any understanding at that point about how much investigation studio E had done into the suitability of ACM panels in place of zinc as the as the cladding material for the raincreen
02:40:58 the cladding material for the raincreen at Granfell? No.
02:41:06 Do I take it from that answer that you never had a conversation with Studio E about the differences? No.
02:41:13 No. Why is that?
02:41:20 The discussions we were having, as I stated, was what does it look like? Is it acceptable to the planners? What's the cost?
02:41:29 the cost? It wasn't discussions weren't any further than that because we weren't expecting to be offered anything that might not be compliant. That was not a consideration.
02:41:42 Okay, let's um come back to range panels later. Um can we move on in the story to March 2013?
02:41:53 March 2013? Please go to TMO 1038883.
02:41:58 These are the minutes of the TMO program board of the 25th of March 2013
02:42:08 and you are recorded as
02:42:14 um well you're not recorded but I think you were in attendance with Peter Madison and Paul Dunton um not on this page but on a different part of it but for the Hidden Homes Granfell item. If you go down,
02:42:28 Granfell item. If you go down, scroll down a little bit, you can see under the heading Granfell Tower. Do you see
02:42:33 see Peter Madison, Paul Duncan, and David Gibson attended for this and the Hidden Homes agenda items. So although you weren't recorded at the top of the document, you were certainly there. Yes.
02:42:43 Yes. Yes. Now um we can see uh there's some background in the second paragraph and in the last paragraph at the bottom of the page it
02:42:55 paragraph at the bottom of the page it says there has been no clear audit trail to explain how decisions were made. Do you see that? Was that a concern that Peter Madison had raised with you before this meeting?
02:43:12 We were both picking up the project pretty cold and it was difficult to understand how decisions had been made.
02:43:23 understand how decisions had been made. Um, no clear auditori
02:43:29 [Music] is it decisions about materials? Is it decisions about design? Is it decisions about scope? Um, I don't know.
02:43:40 about scope? Um, I don't know. No, all I'm asking you is whether what we see recorded there had been the subject of a prior conversation between you and Peter and Peter Madison before this meeting. I can't specifically recall. Right. But but certainly did you share
02:43:51 Right. But but certainly did you share his concern that there had indeed been no clear audit trail to explain previous decisions on this project?
02:44:00 Yes. Was Peter Madison being critical of how Mark Anderson had run the project up to this point which had led to this failure of an audit trail?
02:44:12 I think it was just a factual position statement, not necessarily criticism of anyone.
02:44:19 anyone. Well, you say that, Mr. Gibson, with respect. That isn't right, is it? A a a statement that there has been no clear audit trail to explain how decisions were made is is clearly a criticism, isn't it?
02:44:30 isn't it? It is.
02:44:30 It is. Yes. And and is it not a criticism of those who were in charge of this project up to this point? Certainly before Peter Madison and you took over. Yes.
02:44:39 Yes. And therefore it's a criticism, isn't it, of Mark Anderson's handling of the project at least in that respect. If you follow that logic, yes. Is there anything wrong with the logic?
02:44:51 No. But it possibly widened it out more than I might have. Let's turn the page, please. Fifth paragraph down.
02:45:02 Um we say you say it said you see it says there procurement would be an issue as the project was recommended to board on the basis that we were doing it this way for efficiency savings. Um did you
02:45:14 way for efficiency savings. Um did you know what the issue was that was being referred to there.
02:45:26 I think the efficiency was you had
02:45:32 you had using
02:45:36 using the kelp contractors and consultants um to take the scheme forward was to realize efficiencies
02:45:49 was to realize efficiencies and efficiencies in cost to the scheme because it would be a single contractor. Okay.
02:45:56 Okay. Is that a polite way of saying that the efficiency savings were savings that would be made from not having a reprocurement um because you could use the existing teams on calc and and not have an OJU
02:46:09 teams on calc and and not have an OJU limit?
02:46:14 Sorry, I'm not on let me try it a different way. where the efficiency savings from not having a reprocurement exercise in truth monetary savings by avoiding OJU limits by using
02:46:25 savings by avoiding OJU limits by using existing teams appointed on calc and the problem was that a reprocurement would spoil that exercise would spoil the efficiency savings
02:46:46 We're we're looking back historically at this point. I'm trying sorry I'm trying to understand the minute in in context. Yeah.
02:46:55 Yeah. Um
02:46:59 well okay the context is uh uh the question of let's perhaps look at the previous paragraph. It might help you. The question to be answered is should we
02:47:11 The question to be answered is should we be trying to get the scheme delivered or get back to market and manage it differently? I.e. reprocure or not do it at all.
02:47:18 at all. Procurement would be an issue as the project was recommended to board on the basis that we were doing it this way for efficiency savings. Yeah. My question is um were the efficiency savings which
02:47:31 um were the efficiency savings which would arise from not having a reprocurement exercise uh be essentially the savings you would make by avoiding OJU limits because you
02:47:43 make by avoiding OJU limits because you are using the existing teams from calc. No, I'm not interpreting that that way. The way I'm interpreting that is there had been a previous report to
02:47:54 there had been a previous report to board recommending the way we were doing it was because of efficiency savings.
02:48:03 Um indeed a and why would well then you tell me why would procurement be an issue?
02:48:09 issue? Um
02:48:13 just link it to the one to the paragraph above. And the question to be answered is should we be trying to get the scheme delivered or get back to market and manage it differently i.e. reprocure or
02:48:25 manage it differently i.e. reprocure or not do it at all. So we were reviewing the scheme at this time.
02:48:34 Well, I I I'm I'm I'm suggesting to you that the problem with reprocurement is that it it would cost more because you wouldn't have the benefit of using the previous I think at this time the problem with
02:48:47 I think at this time the problem with reprocurement might be the length of time it would take.
02:48:53 take. Well, that's not the that's not the reason given in the minute as the issue by which I take it. It means problem, is it?
02:49:03 it? Efficiency savings isn't time, it's money, isn't it? Or have I got that wrong?
02:49:10 wrong? No, I think it's a recognition that the board had previously been advised that
02:49:17 that the way they were going to deliver the project and procure it, they were doing it for efficiency savings.
02:49:26 We are now reviewing that and recognizing that this is the recommen recommendation that had previously gone to the board and we would have to go back and say we were
02:49:38 would have to go back and say we were going to do it another way for potential efficiency savings which there's a bit of a conflict there. I follow. If we look at the next paragraph, he says or it says Peter has spoken to Laura
02:49:49 it says Peter has spoken to Laura Johnson about the present situation and also mentioned it the board. So hopefully I think it should be to the board.
02:49:55 board. Yeah.
02:49:56 Yeah. 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. Mhm.
02:50:04 Mhm. Um what discussions did you have with studio E at this stage? We can see that Paul is that's Paul Duncan. Were you working with the architects to look at alternatives? No, at this stage
02:50:16 alternatives? No, at this stage I and Peter together were meeting with Artellia to understand the project, how we got to where we were and what we
02:50:29 how we got to where we were and what we needed to do to re-engage with the project.
02:50:33 project. Right now, Laura Johnson, just to be clear, is RBKC, not TMOs. Yes.
02:50:38 Yes. Yes. Were you present when Peter Madison spoke to Laura Johnson about the present situation as this minute records?
02:50:48 Was I present? Yes. Were you were you party? Sorry. I wasn't party to the meeting with Peter and No. Right. Now we we we have seen um well
02:51:00 Right. Now we we we have seen um well you I think told us already that Laura Johnson had threatened to remove lead bitters from Cal and Granfell at the start of January 2013. We saw that from the documents that predate your arrival.
02:51:12 the documents that predate your arrival. But was it your understanding that Laura Johnson of RBKC would have a say on whether the Granfell project should be reprocured?
02:51:24 No.
02:51:28 I think Peter was but no. I don't I wasn't expecting her to have a say. My recollection at this time was that
02:51:41 My recollection at this time was that Peter and I had both reviewed the project. We had a number of questions about the project and its scope and Peter was going to talk to Laura and
02:51:54 Peter was going to talk to Laura and Laura Johnson and that was about the scope of the project and where we were with the discussions with lead better that they didn't seem engaged no more than that.
02:52:09 So I'm not aware of any that Peter would need direction from Laura Johnson. Why would it be anything to do with RBKC
02:52:20 Why would it be anything to do with RBKC that the scope of the project was perhaps smaller than it otherwise was going to be to start with?
02:52:30 I had raised questions when I looked at it because I didn't understand why we were fitting out a nursery and a boxing club within the base of this tar block.
02:52:46 club within the base of this tar block. There were other options for that space. So I think I'd raised that. Why are we doing this? How's that been signed off? Peter was going to clarify these issues
02:52:58 Peter was going to clarify these issues with with Lara Johnson and I believe he came back and said Laura has clarified the boxing club nursery. They're committed to it as a social thing. Um
02:53:09 committed to it as a social thing. Um it's important to them. So that stopped that discussion. There were certain things that we needed to clarify. you know how much she understood of what
02:53:20 you know how much she understood of what was in the project and was she agree agreeing in an agreement with that scope and he got that response. Why was it necessary to seek her agreement to the SC to the new scope or
02:53:32 agreement to the SC to the new scope or discussions about scope?
02:53:37 you were spending RBKC money on something that possibly didn't have a clear audit trail on decision making.
02:53:48 making. And we wanted to clarify, are you comfortable with this scope, what's in, what's out, not the detail of the design, but in terms of the scope of
02:54:00 the design, but in terms of the scope of the project, of the nursery, of the boxing club, which was a reasonable amount of money in the scheme. Now looking two further paragraphs down the page
02:54:11 page uh it says the recommendation from Peter is for us to reprocure. Mhm.
02:54:15 Mhm. You see that? Yep.
02:54:17 Yep. Um now at this stage I think you hadn't received the breakdown of lead bitter's proposed costs had you. What did you understand Peter Madison was recommending about reprocurement at this point given that you hadn't yet had the lead bids revision of their costs?
02:54:31 the lead bids revision of their costs? Um I think it's a discussion that Peter and I had had. Um if anybody had asked me at this time what my recommendation would have been
02:54:42 what my recommendation would have been it would have been reprocure right
02:54:44 right we did not feel that lead better were the right they were they weren't engaged they had no history of we didn't know of any history and we were we were asking
02:54:56 any history and we were we were asking our telly etc to to to help us and what work they' done but from our point of view we had complex X high-rise overcloud building
02:55:09 complex X high-rise overcloud building complex me and residents in situ. I would not have promoted going to a framework in order to get a contractor
02:55:20 framework in order to get a contractor fit to
02:55:22 fit to deliver that works. I would my my recommendation and I think we took the the sensible approach would have been
02:55:34 the sensible approach would have been we look for a contractor who is experienced in this type of works which is ultimately what we did but we did go on a journey of understanding where we were with lead
02:55:45 understanding where we were with lead better we explored other options of I think with the LHC framework but that put us in the same position as it would have been with lead better
02:55:58 have been with lead better in that it wasn't a procurement exercise carried out specifically for this building and
02:56:08 I would have said reprocure so I don't think Peter is making looking at what he's got and I agree in
02:56:22 looking at what he's got and I agree in the situation we were in we need to understand where we were and we need to understand where we were going but this is not if we had been on it from the start this is not how we would have chosen to procure the project
02:56:35 chosen to procure the project I understand so I think what you're saying is coming into it fresh you and Peter Madison looked at the project and thought it just needs to be reprocured even though regardless of the cost question
02:56:47 cost question what regardless of the cost question regardless of the fact that led bit were 2 million over
02:56:54 No, that that was a factor, but we had a disengaged contractor, so we didn't appear to be going anywhere with lead better. They weren't coming to the table to explain their costs. Um, and we we
02:57:08 to explain their costs. Um, and we we want to rescope the project anyway. Um, but there were benefits in in going to the open market. Yes, I see.
02:57:24 It then goes on to say in the same paragraph, we will wait till next week's deadline for lead bitters to come back with a breakdown and reasons for gapping gaps in costs. If the information is not forthcoming or we still cannot reach an agreement, then we should proceed by
02:57:36 agreement, then we should proceed by using an existing framework. It looks from that as if this is Peter's recommend this is a decision. It looks it looks from that as if the decision of the meeting was that even though Peter
02:57:49 the meeting was that even though Peter Peter Madison wanted to reprocure and you I think were in agreement with that nonetheless you should wait to see what led bitters came up with by way of better figures.
02:58:01 better figures. Is that fair? I think that's reasonable. Yes. Can we then go to um Alan? Um this Mr.
02:58:13 Can we then go to um Alan? Um this Mr. Chairman, I'm looking at the clock. Yes. Are you going to a new topic? I'm going to It's a new topic and a new document, and it's it'll take more than 5 minutes to do the document, but I'm anxious to use four minutes where I can. So, I I think I might start on it.
02:58:25 So, I I think I might start on it. Well, you can read the document, then we can write. Well, we can look at the document and I'll Let's see how we go. Can we um It's an email from uh um Paul Duncan to Alan
02:58:36 an email from uh um Paul Duncan to Alan Dawson on the 27th of February, which we looked at before, so it's fairly familiar. Um this is at ART 401083.
02:58:49 Um now um this is the series of emails in late February 2013, Mr. Gibson. The first of which is on the 26th of February and we saw that at um
02:59:02 26th of February and we saw that at um before in this reference it's at page 11.
02:59:07 11. We can just go down to that.
02:59:12 uh and uh he says there that there's this significant deficit between the approved cost plan stroke budget and the initial figures. Mhm.
02:59:21 Mhm. And um I showed you that before. This is the radical rethink email. So we're familiar with that. Yes. Um a and if the bottom of page eight, if we scroll up to that, we we can see that on that page, Paul Duncan
02:59:35 can see that on that page, Paul Duncan uh sets out uh a a revision uh and we've we've seen that and it goes over to page nine.
02:59:43 nine. Mhm.
02:59:45 Mhm. Now, as I say, this was very early on in your role. We in your role at the TMO, I think you told us you you may have known about this, but had no role in this. Is that right? I think that's correct. Right. And we're moving on then to page
02:59:57 Right. And we're moving on then to page seven in this. We're moving up the chain and therefore later in time we could see Alan Dawson's response on the 1st of March, bottom of page seven. Uh and you're not copied in on this. So that
03:00:08 you're not copied in on this. So that may be a clue to your involvement. And if we go to page eight at the top, we can see that um uh he attaches a draft reprocurement program. You see that? uh
03:00:20 reprocurement program. You see that? uh and um a and follows the dates set that are set out in in Paul Duncan's email. And then if we look at page five
03:00:32 And then if we look at page five in this email run, um this is an email sent by Paul Duncan on the 27th of March. So later in March, so you'll now you've now been at the TMO a month. Uh and it says, "David, please issue
03:00:44 and it says, "David, please issue program at your earliest convenience. We would also like cost analysis if the TMA reprocured this project to to include abortive fees, outstanding fees, and additional fees. You see that? Is that something that you had an
03:00:55 Is that something that you had an involvement in at this time? Did you discuss um a request for a cost analysis if the TMA reprocured?
03:01:07 I can't recall. You can't recall. Um, moving up the email, we get to an email on page three from Robert Powell, 3rd of April, 2013.
03:01:18 from Robert Powell, 3rd of April, 2013. Um, this is to Paul Duncan. Uh, and, um, he, uh, says, "Good afternoon, Paul. Conscious that we owe you a short paper on the VE options shopping list in
03:01:29 on the VE options shopping list in relation to Grenfell along with comment on the LHC framework. I spoke to Simon Cash today." uh he says um and um uh he goes on uh to say at the in the
03:01:41 uh he goes on uh to say at the in the last paragraph of that uh page uh accordingly I plan to issue a status report to you next week. You see that? Mhm.
03:01:50 Mhm. And then there's a response to that on the 10th of April at page two setting out some requirements from Paul Dunton. You see that there is to Robert Pal. You're not copied in on this but again I just want to show it to
03:02:02 this but again I just want to show it to you. And he says good afternoon Robert. just to confirm our requirements. Um, were those requirements that you had discussed with Paul Duncan before he sent this email,
03:02:13 sent this email, do you think? And just looking down, he goes on to Apple Yards to advise us of the current position straight design and likelihood of delivering the project within the TMA's allowed budget of 8.5 million
03:02:25 TMA's allowed budget of 8.5 million construction cost. This seems to me to be familiar. By this stage, myself and Peter would have met with Appleard to understand
03:02:38 have met with Appleard to understand um
03:02:40 um the current position and and I think Paul has the refuge. So I would have been involved in the background. You were involved by this stage. Yes. In in the background of this. Thank you. That's very helpful. Mr. Mr. Chairman,
03:02:52 That's very helpful. Mr. Mr. Chairman, that is a convenient moment because I'm now going to go having set that up to to the the substantive response document to this which which will come after after lunch, I think.
03:03:03 lunch, I think. Yes. All right. Thank you very much. Well, we're going to have a break now, Mr. Gibson, so we can all get some lunch.
03:03:10 lunch. Um,
03:03:12 Um, I'll give Mr. Millet the benefit of two minutes. So, we'll come back at 2:00, please. And, uh, please don't talk to anyone about your evidence while you're out of the room. Thank you. All right. Thank you very much.
03:03:30 2:00, please. Yes. Thank you.