Rydon Evidence - Monday 20th July 2020 (1/2)

Full transcript

00:00:23 good morning everyone welcome to today's hearing today we're going to

00:00:27 going to hear further evidence from mr lawrence one of the ryden witnesses so could i ask you to bring mr lawrence in please

00:00:44 in please good morning mr lawrence

00:00:47 that's it sit down make yourself comfortable

00:00:53 all right yes you pour your water and then we'll get going

00:01:02 right ready to carry on yes thank you good thank you yes mr lawrence good morning good morning uh can i ask you please to be shown uh ryd three zeros

00:01:14 uh ryd three zeros one four two one five that's ryd three zeros one four two one five

00:01:22 five at page three which is the schedule of architectural services that you sent to studio e in your draft on the 17th of april 2014 if you remember

00:01:33 april 2014 if you remember and it's the one which studio e sent back to you on the 30th of april 2014 with your with their comments on it now it was never executed during your

00:01:44 now it was never executed during your time on the project but was it your understanding that these services were those which studio e had agreed to provide to ryden yes yes looking at page three can we look

00:01:56 looking at page three can we look together please at paragraph eight which says seek to ensure you see that that all designs comply with the relevant statutory requirements including scheme development standards

00:02:09 including scheme development standards did you understand that studio e had promised to ensure that all designs complied with the relevant statutory requirements that's why i would

00:02:20 requirements that's why i would understand by that yes just not the the health technical memorandums and did that include the building regulations that's how i understood it yes was that

00:02:32 that's how i understood it yes was that not

00:02:32 not rather more than ensuring only that a design conformed with architectural intent

00:02:38 intent that is more than just the architectural intent yes how could you be confident that even though a design might conform to architectural intent it would also comply with the building

00:02:49 it would also comply with the building regulations because they would be talking to building control to apart from using their own experience but

00:02:58 but talking to building control to ensure that the designs complied was it your understanding that when mr crawford stamped a drawing conforms with architectural intent so a he had already talked to building

00:03:10 he had already talked to building control or got some sort of approval from building control before doing so you would like to think that he would use his his knowledge and expertise to highlight if anything's if there's any

00:03:22 highlight if anything's if there's any issues whether he would have had that fully signed off by building a troll before it started to be constructed

00:03:30 timing may be different on that admittedly right but you would expect it to be signed off um shortly afterwards or thereafter

00:03:41 um shortly afterwards or thereafter did you ever discuss with neil crawford how his architectural intent stamp that we looked at on thursday would operate as an indication uh that he was satisfied that the design

00:03:52 uh that he was satisfied that the design complied with the building regulations uh i don't know i don't believe i mean specific conversation about it now unless you had made sure that studio e wasn't just checking for architectural intent but

00:04:03 checking for architectural intent but also for statutory compliance as studio had promised as we see here in the schedule unless you'd made sure how could ryden in turn be sure that ryden had given the

00:04:14 in turn be sure that ryden had given the tma what ryden had promised under the contract with the tmo

00:04:22 um sorry can you can you yeah unless you'd make sure yes that studio e was doing rather more than just checking for architectural intent but actually making sure that the

00:04:33 but actually making sure that the designs they stamped a were compliant with the building regulations how could you be sure that uh you ryden were giving the tma what you ryden

00:04:44 ryden were giving the tma what you ryden had promised under your contract with the tmo

00:04:46 the tmo because we had the build control as well um

00:04:50 um that were one of the third party obviously checkers and signing off so we had several layers of of checking of the information did to your knowledge did building control check the designs

00:05:03 did building control check the designs marked

00:05:03 marked by studio e before they proceeded to construction uh possibly not as as i said previously did you realize that by laying off to trusted subcontractors the job of

00:05:14 trusted subcontractors the job of ensuring that all designs complied with statutory requirements uh and if ryden had no means of supervising or checking that the work had been done properly

00:05:26 that the work had been done properly ryden was assuming a risk of non-compliance and therefore breach of contract with the tmo

00:05:33 well all the works would be would be checked and signed off before completion and will be checked by building control at the very least if and others as the works progressed so i don't think

00:05:46 as the works progressed so i don't think there was ever any thought that we would not be compliant

00:05:50 compliant and we would not be fulfilling our obligations to the tmo wouldn't it be a little bit late though to leave it to building control to sign off

00:06:00 off we employed a we've employed a a sp in this particular instance when we talk about cladding we've employed a specialist subcontractor who we believed well it is specialist in their field who

00:06:11 well it is specialist in their field who we believe to be competent and we believe that they would as a specialist would understand all the rules and rigs relating to the their specialism

00:06:22 specialism um you know in the same instance we would we would be looking to a a gas installer to understand the gas rigs it is it's the same principle um

00:06:34 it's the same principle um the designs would obviously then be overseen by or will be checked by studio e they would then be checked by building control and then the process of construction there will be numerous checks by

00:06:47 there will be numerous checks by not only the specialist subcontractor who's installing ourselves clerker works building control so so we believed all those layers of

00:06:58 so we believed all those layers of quality control and checking were in place and that's how we would comply right but just to finish this off and just to press you a little bit more at the moment when

00:07:09 moment when a drawing which had come from harley and been seen and stamped a by studio e then proceeded to construction none of the checks you're referring to building control clerk of works

00:07:22 building control clerk of works uh had been applied to that drawing that they may not have been to every drawing at that time no how much of ryden's business in 2014 to your knowledge was design and build

00:07:35 your knowledge was design and build um i would imagine a fair proportion i couldn't tell he was anywhere much can you tell us how much roughly even i would never know right if you didn't have a design team in-house or

00:07:46 didn't have a design team in-house or any in-house expertise so far for design how could ryden operate a a design and build business because they relied on third parties to do that

00:07:58 do that which in my experience is standard throughout the industry now can i then turn to a topic we were talking about on thursday afternoon when we when we broke

00:08:09 thursday afternoon when we when we broke and that's drawings and and i want to look with you at another example um uh perhaps a better example this time mr lawrence of how our drawing would progress

00:08:19 progress from one marked b by mr crawford to one marked a

00:08:24 marked a and we're going to look at drawing

00:08:27 c1059332 can i ask you please to be shown sea triple zero one three two two one

00:08:41 triple zero one three two two one now this shows that on the 29th of may 2015 if you look at the uh second email down on that page you'll

00:08:52 uh second email down on that page you'll see that mr lam sends uh an email to you sorry yes to you copy to neil crawford uh

00:09:00 uh ben bailey at harley's and mr ankle jones mr stapley also at harley's and he says neil

00:09:06 says neil please find attached drawings for the crown element for approval so although it's sent to you he calls you neil

00:09:15 you neil and you uh i'm sorry he responds you see just above that uh copied to you and mr lam back to mr lam on the 12th of june hi

00:09:27 back to mr lam on the 12th of june hi kevin please find attached comments on the crown drawings so so mr crawford responds to you and mr lam and he attaches a drawing

00:09:38 attaches a drawing uh detailed sea comments we can find that at ryd3043547

00:09:47 we can just please have that 43547 and you can see that

00:09:58 here is c1059332 we get that number right at the very bottom you can't i think see it because it's obscured by the

00:10:07 the uh the page mark but it is that and it's in revision you see and it's rev date notes and you can see that it's been marked b and has comments on it you see that

00:10:18 and has comments on it you see that yes and uh you can see what the comments are the details of the comments don't matter for the moment let's just follow the story of this document then through that's mark b 12th of june then the next document is

00:10:30 12th of june then the next document is sea

00:10:31 sea triple zero one three two six two

00:10:37 that's an email of the first of july 2015

00:10:40 2015 if you look at the last email on that page

00:10:43 page kevin lam to you copied uh to uh neil nsbs eu whoever that is and daniel angel jones and ben bailey

00:10:55 and daniel angel jones and ben bailey and mark stapley uh and uh neil please find attached revised coping detail to the crown element if you could have a quick look and pass your comments

00:11:06 have a quick look and pass your comments we shall then reissue the whole of this element

00:11:08 element for construction based on your previous approvals

00:11:12 approvals having a shorter coping will allow it to run between columns etc and then we can see a few uh about a few hours later mr lam realizes he sent

00:11:23 realizes he sent the email to the wrong kneel and sends it to neil crawford not copied to anybody else neil wrong meal below kevin lam you see that

00:11:33 that yes and uh he attaches uh although you don't see it in the second in his real email if you like uh to the right kneel he attaches to the

00:11:44 uh to the right kneel he attaches to the wrong neil email um a document which we can see um

00:11:53 from the response because neil crawford then comes back on the first of july a little bit later hi kevin please see attached regards neil

00:12:02 neil and that's the top of the page and he attaches

00:12:05 attaches s e a triple zero one three two six three

00:12:14 and that's a clean document marked a this time and you can see that it's called revision a first july 2015 coping redrawn you see that yes

00:12:28 coping redrawn you see that yes uh so it's now got a um and then the story continues sometime then goes by and then we have an email from mr lam to mr lawrence copy to mr

00:12:39 from mr lam to mr lawrence copy to mr crawford

00:12:40 crawford and others which is har40443

00:12:48 har40443 which is an email of the 26th of august it's the second email on that page from mr lam to mr lawrence copy to neil crawford and others at harley

00:13:00 crawford and others at harley neil main entrance adjusted as pay off further comments this morning planning drawing just with additional set out for information for the installers and then you can see two days later 28th

00:13:11 and then you can see two days later 28th of april top of that page neil crawford to neil to kevin lam and you copy to others at harley hi kevin no further comments as attached

00:13:23 hi kevin no further comments as attached and there is an attachment to that that email that's at sea403310

00:13:34 email that's at sea403310 uh which is again marched marked a but there have been further revisions in the meantime it seems on the 25th and 26th uh of august it looks like 15.

00:13:50 uh and if you go to page three of that

00:13:57 uh you can see what we were looking at before

00:14:01 before again mark day

00:14:04 that's actually the document i wanted to show you page three now we haven't been able to find any further revisions of the drawing or any approval from you relating to it at all um the kevin lamb drawing

00:14:15 at all um the kevin lamb drawing register just so you know which for our transcript is bsd50938

00:14:23 bsd50938 records this drawing the one i'm showing you here on this page as having it's been issued as revision b on the 26th of august 2015 with status as construction

00:14:34 construction so we can we could see that it proceeded for construction based on this drawing now on what i've just taken you through where you can see it proceeding from b

00:14:45 where you can see it proceeding from b through to a through to construction would that be a typical run of communications relating to changes in the drawing going from b to a that should be a typical run yes

00:14:56 typical run yes where the communications appear to have been from kevin lam at harley to neil crawford with you essentially just copied in yes

00:15:07 with you essentially just copied in yes yes that was what was agreed from the outset

00:15:11 outset it was agreed from the outset was it when was you say that when was that agreed i remember there's an email somewhere that that's uh

00:15:19 uh um well i don't know who it's from it's from studio where you're from harley asking whether one could talk to the other and and me saying yes of course please copy us in right thank you but

00:15:30 please copy us in right thank you but but just just to make absolutely clear the answer to my question this run is a typical run is it at the time i would assume so yes okay um now i just want to ask you a question or two about

00:15:42 want to ask you a question or two about about proceeding to construction by reference to a different drawing drawing c1059223 uh now this is at har har404590

00:16:01 now this is an email from kevin lam on the 20th of october 2015 to you copied to others at harley and

00:16:12 copied to others at harley and neil crawford at studio e as you can see from the very last copy addressee subject grenfell and there's a

00:16:20 there's a watch of drawings and the text says neil please find attached gf curtain wall elements for comment stroke approval and he attaches as i say a large number of drawings one of which

00:16:32 of drawings one of which and it's in the second line in the middle is eight five five c one a five nine ga model fifty two two three do you see that yes now if we go to that drawing it's at

00:16:46 yes now if we go to that drawing it's at s e a four zeros three three one please

00:16:56 and we can see from that drawing that it has no studio e stamp on it yet as one might expect because it's being sent to studio e it appears for the first time but it is

00:17:08 it appears for the first time but it is marked

00:17:09 marked approved for construction do you know why it was marked approved for construction before studio he had even commented on this drawing i don't definitely know why but i would

00:17:21 i don't definitely know why but i would assume that it was a highly internal process to say it's ready to go out to be checked but that would be my guess i see did you

00:17:34 that would be my guess i see did you ever have any discussion with either studio e or harley about why they were marking drawings approved for construction before they'd even been seen by studio e no did you notice that it had been

00:17:47 no did you notice that it had been it had been stamped approved for construction before even being examined by studio e i don't recall

00:17:54 recall is this was this typical do you think um well the the drawings that i've seen obviously end of last week and and now it does appear typical yes that's what they're doing that's what

00:18:05 that's what they're doing that's what they're doing yeah now on the 22nd of october 2015 uh we see a reply from mr crawford to mr lam and mr lawrence you yourselves copying mr stapley and others at harley

00:18:20 har404669

00:18:24 so as i say this comes to you miss lawrence as well neil crawford and kevin lam is the first addressee you're the second others are harley copied hi kevin

00:18:35 others are harley copied hi kevin please see attached comments on ground floor and he attaches to that email a single document of the collated marked up drawings let's just have a look at that that's har

00:18:46 just have a look at that that's har four zeros four four six seven zero and if we can go to page three within that

00:18:55 we can see yes there it is we can see that this is drawing two two three

00:19:03 uh and now neil crawford has added his red stamp marked b or ringed b on it with some comments you see that yes

00:19:13 yes uh and let's look at the next document

00:19:17 har-404743

00:19:21 which is which is an email from kevin lamb to neil crawford at studio he copied to others at harley

00:19:34 but it appears not actually copy to you uh now you would of course would have left by this time i think this is 26th of november 2015 but

00:19:45 this is 26th of november 2015 but stephen blake i think had taken over your role on this project at this point hadn't he

00:19:49 hadn't he yes correct so i'm just to draw to your attention the fact that nobody from ryden is actually even copied into this email and he says neil please find attached gf curtain wall drawings

00:20:00 attached gf curtain wall drawings revised in accordance with your comments and then he makes a note uh and on the second entry down drawing two two two to two to eight so that would include two two three

00:20:12 include two two three uh he says we have increased the mullion uh

00:20:15 uh to 550 where vents are installed as this is the minimum possible and he attaches a drawing and i just want to show you that

00:20:30 [Music] sca3013639

00:20:40 uh and that doesn't appear to have any mark on it at all but it's still approved for construction uh uh uh and although it's seen by

00:20:52 uh uh uh and although it's seen by neil crawford he we don't see him applying a stamp and i say that from the next document

00:21:00 har-401999

00:21:07 this is an email from ben bailey forwarding the email to to agf

00:21:15 can you just help us who are agf you don't know uh he says mike lucy please see our construction issue drawings attached to the grenfell tower

00:21:25 and he makes some comments about particular drawings now it looks as if from what i'm showing you that at that stage

00:21:34 stage when the construction drawings go out um from harley there had been no confirmation either from ryden or studio e

00:21:44 e that they were they were they even conformed with architectural intent let alone

00:21:49 alone that they were compliant with the statutory requirements would that be typical can we just sorry across can we just go back to the first drawing that was stamped by studio

00:22:01 drawing that was stamped by studio yes what was that that's quite a lot of drawings i'm getting lost there was is that was that stamped b that was stamped

00:22:09 stamped so that you want to see that again yes it's har sorry if i might no of course har

00:22:14 har four zero is four six seven zero at page three

00:22:24 yeah so sorry it's probably my own benefit so harley's have sent a drawing to studio a studio e have marked it b yes and

00:22:34 and made comments on that drawing yeah so by marking it be

00:22:43 i would understand that providing the comments were incorporated then it would be approved for construction but it would be good

00:22:54 construction but it would be good practice

00:22:55 practice and it would be ideal that the drawing was revised sent back to studio e and then they stamped it again hey that would be yes that would be good practice that would be good practice but

00:23:06 practice that would be good practice but it wasn't done by the fact for the fact it's been stamped b it wouldn't um preclude it from going into

00:23:13 into construction providing it incorporated the comments that were made by studio e in in general mr lawrence was it your experience that sometimes harley would simply proceed to make the

00:23:26 harley would simply proceed to make the changes indicated by stamp b not send a document back for approval

00:23:33 approval mark for marking a but proceed to construction i don't think that's unusual whether they well i don't recall whether they particularly did or particularly didn't but it wouldn't be it's not unusual

00:23:44 but it wouldn't be it's not unusual that's

00:23:44 that's that would be general practice in the industry

00:23:47 industry again in my experience right okay not unusual in the industry what about on this project in your own experience this project without looking at all the drawings i can't say but i would imagine that um

00:24:00 that um harley's in my experience like to get things um approved by as many people as possible um

00:24:10 um before moving on so if which i think they've tried to do that by sending that back to studio e um it's just you know we haven't stamped it hey that

00:24:21 it hey that seems to me the only bit that's missing there well there's another bit missing which is that ryden didn't didn't see a stamp mark day at all

00:24:29 all and didn't don't appear to have seen the drawing until the very end right so would it can we take from this that

00:24:37 that even though ryden were in the copy ease on the communications between harley and studio e there were there were occasions and this is an example of occasions when studio e didn't even have the

00:24:50 when studio e didn't even have the opportunity to apply stamp a before the drawing was sent for construction it does appear that way from the english thank you

00:25:00 thank you and i'm going to turn to a slightly different topic that within the same region

00:25:04 region drawing control now we don't need to bring up your statement um but at paragraph 45 of your statement you've

00:25:11 you've summarized ryden's role as to manage and coordinate the work of third parties this is paragraph 45 and you also say that it was to coordinate and manage the process of design

00:25:22 process of design you recall that from your statement yes um

00:25:28 um what stage did you believe that the design had reached when studio e began working directly for ryden in 2014 i would have said that was stagey stage

00:25:40 i would have said that was stagey stage e

00:25:40 e okay would you normally expect there to be one to five construction drawings available to you at stage e

00:25:54 um yes i would to get to the to the um completion of of technical design um but you often find particularly the

00:26:07 um but you often find particularly the reaper stages that there is a um well it doesn't it seems to be a bit float

00:26:14 float it's not a quite a hard and fast rule um so i think there was enough detail that i would say at the stage

00:26:26 that i would say at the stage when it come across whether there was absolutely everything that ticked every single box to say it was

00:26:34 was the right sections the right et cetera et cetera

00:26:37 et cetera then then possibly not i thought without checking sorry and by the time this the design on this project

00:26:43 project reached riba stage e there were no one to five scale drawings produced by studio e showing for example the detail

00:26:54 studio e showing for example the detail of the cavity barriers around the wind around the windows on the tower did you know that

00:27:01 um i'll take those radio i'm not sure i'll recall one way or another to be fair all right sorry with the with the coding specifically they would be relying on

00:27:13 specifically they would be relying on obviously the specialists to to add further detail

00:27:18 yes to the information i mean can we take it that one of the things as an incoming design and build contract manager you would be looking for uh

00:27:28 for uh at stage e when coming in would be one to five drawings uh i don't think it'd be as as precise as that

00:27:36 as that um i think you would look as look at the design overall um and and designs particularly around areas where we had

00:27:47 areas where we had third party specialists looking at i would expect them if there was any detail that they didn't have i'd expect them to

00:27:56 them to flag it up you know and bring out from the

00:28:01 the were one to five scale drawings not necessary

00:28:05 necessary didn't you think they were necessary in order for you to be able to progress or coordinate the progression of the design as between studio and harley not the st not at the start of the

00:28:16 not the st not at the start of the the of taking the project over no not necessarily right at what point did it become it would progress it would you know design a build typically and this won't be always but typically

00:28:28 and this won't be always but typically we

00:28:30 we can some form of construction starts before the full design for the full the building is completely um you know completely finished and and complete

00:28:42 complete so i would take that as a working you know a work in progress that would be dealt with with studio and harley through the early stages of the project did you not think it important to be involved in that so that you could make

00:28:54 involved in that so that you could make sure that at whatever stage they thought it was necessary to have one in five scale drawings you saw them

00:29:02 well i've got i've got a special subcontractor that's designing and installing it's it's key that they have the drawings that they need

00:29:12 they need to be able to design and then eventually install

00:29:17 install so i would i would expect if they didn't have the drawings that they needed i think that would be part of the design process is it started to be fair yeah i think reliance on

00:29:28 to be fair yeah i think reliance on on a particular type of drawing um as in one in five um there are many more drawings and types of drawings that go into the overall

00:29:39 of drawings that go into the overall and reliance just on one in fives i i don't see how that's quite as important as any other particular drawing well

00:29:52 maybe it is maybe it isn't but but let's just take it as an example then on that on that basis but didn't you think that it was important in order for ryden to do its job of progressing or coordinating

00:30:04 progressing or coordinating design as you've said that you should at least

00:30:07 least know that they had been produced at the relevant stage

00:30:16 yeah i don't see it as as significant as perhaps you're suggesting there because of the design process

00:30:24 process it would be very rare that we we would pick up a tender and it would be fully 100 everything ticked off at a reaper stage there would normally be a merge between

00:30:35 merge between possibly d and e um and it would be developed

00:30:42 it could be developed to you know convert developed to d it could be developed to e but you know the further the client progresses the design the the better and less risk

00:30:53 the design the the better and less risk they have

00:30:55 they have financially obviously when they go out to tender but we would often pick up you know you may have one in five on on every other part of the building but maybe not one in five on the cladding because they knew there was a specialist

00:31:07 because they knew there was a specialist subcontractor coming in to complete that final part of the technical and fabrication design work so what what about one in five drawings for other parts of the building for the

00:31:18 parts of the building for the for example the podium i think i asked you to depend what depends what it is and i don't recall what drawing pack we had so right well let's have a look um let's go to ryd 50435

00:31:30 ryd 50435 please

00:31:38 this is the pack of as-built drawings issued by studio e for grenfell

00:31:49 uh and uh its title is as built register and issue advice grenfell tower refurbishment project see if we can go to page 27 of that document please

00:32:06 we can see if we can blow up the bottom

00:32:12 left

00:32:20 um we can see i'm afraid you've got to turn your head a bit it's in it's in um landscape but it says as built do you see that

00:32:28 see that at the bottom left

00:32:32 just above studio yes architects limited these are so this is an as built drawing and it's entitled detail section

00:32:40 section sheet one uh and you can't quite see that

00:32:44 that but um but you can see it actually again in the bottom corner if you turn your head

00:32:49 head four entries down in the same box can you see that mr lawrence yes so we can see what it is so but we can also see uh and i'm sorry to make you move your head

00:33:00 and i'm sorry to make you move your head i wonder if we can turn it into let's find back into the into uh landscape

00:33:06 landscape um we can also see that the drawing shows in a number of places that the cladding was detailed a zinc composite rain screen panel for example top left hand side if that could be blown up

00:33:18 could be blown up for you um can you see the very top entry underneath the big zero one yes it's a zinc composite rain screen panel uh and again two bullets down h92

00:33:30 uh and again two bullets down h92 zinc composite tbc rain screen panel you see that yes there were no zinc rain screen panels installed on grenfell were there

00:33:41 grenfell were there not to my understanding no so the this as-built drawing was inaccurate in that respect

00:33:45 respect it does appear that way yes that's a serious mistake isn't it uh yes can you account for it uh no because i wasn't i'd left

00:33:56 uh no because i wasn't i'd left long before the as built were completed and issued that that is that is true but you have no explanation for that yourself no okay can you help me with this mr lawrence i noticed looking at the box in

00:34:08 lawrence i noticed looking at the box in the bottom right hand corner which we might be able to get back

00:34:14 not sure whether we can or not um the drawing bears the date 26th of

00:34:25 um the drawing bears the date 26th of september 2013. what had been built by then uh nothing it i would suggest it that studio have taken an original

00:34:36 that studio have taken an original tender drawing and have just put it in the pack of as built without checking it and or updating it all right i think that's probably the simple

00:34:47 i think that's probably the simple answer to it it was right okay thank you thank you

00:35:02 right okay thank you thank you can i ask you to look back at the contract

00:35:06 contract which ryden had with tma that you entered into in the october of 2014 30th of october tmo one zero zero four one seven nine one

00:35:23 and go to page 48 in that

00:35:33 uh now uh you can see s1

00:35:38 and i should just make it clear to you these are additions that were agreed to specifically as part of schedule one the contractor's design submission procedure and if we look at s1 together mr lawrence

00:35:49 mr lawrence it says the contractor shall submit to the employer all the drawings details documents or information which are reasonably necessary to explain and or amplify the employer's requirements or the contractors proposals

00:36:01 contractors proposals or that are required by the employer's requirements or to enable the contractor to execute and complete the works or to comply with any instruction issued by the employer in accordance with the following requirements and there are a number of requirements set

00:36:13 there are a number of requirements set out

00:36:14 out you see that in the light of that obligation can you explain how you during your period as contracts manager could be satisfied that ryden was meeting its contractual obligations like this if uh ryden had no proper

00:36:27 like this if uh ryden had no proper system in place to ensure that it was being given that information by its subcontractors

00:36:37 it will it would be controlled by the the lead designer so all drawings would go through the lead designer ie studio e what system did you have did ryden have

00:36:48 what system did you have did ryden have in place during your role as contracts manager to ensure that studio e

00:36:54 studio e had the right drawings so that you could in turn

00:36:57 in turn submit them to the tmo the only drawings that goe would be getting that weren't there right and were they

00:37:05 were they were the several specialist

00:37:10 subcontractors with design liability um which in this case i think was only um or relevant studio e architecturally i think was only

00:37:22 i think was only harley's and harley's were obviously carrying out the work as well so

00:37:32 i would expect that harleys would produce the technical drawings that they needed

00:37:36 needed to enable them to actually build the build the project and if there was any if there was any details that studio required i would expect them and harley's in a in a collaborative way

00:37:49 and harley's in a in a collaborative way to

00:37:50 to um be asking each other questions and understanding that they both had the full information needed from each other right so your role was essentially reactive to whatever they were doing

00:38:02 reactive to whatever they were doing was that a fair way of describing it reactive in what you were a recipient relied on them to provide you with things

00:38:10 things rather than actually you pursuing them yes and i would only generally i would only um or any other team generally would only get involved if there was a detail that

00:38:21 get involved if there was a detail that we

00:38:22 we that we that didn't have them realized that we didn't have or that you had studio e saying that harley weren't producing stuff or or vice versa which i don't remember being the case

00:38:33 which i don't remember being the case but what systems did ryden have in place to control and manage requests for information rfis um both from packaged subcontractors uh uh

00:38:43 uh or for and from from consultants yeah they

00:38:47 they i can't recall their precise i can't recall their precise system but they they probably had one it's normal practice right well let's see if we can just pursue this a little bit

00:38:58 bit um in his oral evidence to the inquiry mr ashton said this was day 17 page 22 at line

00:39:05 at line five and i'll just quote we can go to the transcript mr lawrence if you need it but

00:39:10 it but just just bear with me he said on some projects the project manager insists on a monthly progress report from all the consultants that sort of structure didn't apply to this project that type of regime

00:39:21 this project that type of regime is hired is highly desirable on any project of any significance do you agree with that uh i definitely think it could be beneficial yes i definitely think it'd be

00:39:32 yes i definitely think it'd be beneficial did you or anybody else at ryden

00:39:35 ryden ever insist to your knowledge on ins on a reporting structure like that for this project

00:39:41 project from harley's or from studious from ivy particularly well harley's there was i believe site held

00:39:52 weekly or monthly meetings with them

00:39:57 with studio e we had designed coordination meetings but we didn't insist on a written report from them

00:40:07 from them monthly to weekly or whatever um

00:40:12 no yes we've got the notes of those but beyond that i think the answer is nothing great yes

00:40:23 can i ask you to look at art402495 i want to ask you some questions about a a tracker

00:40:32 a tracker or the tracker and this document is a set of minutes of the pre-start meeting on the 30th of june 2014.

00:40:44 june 2014. and we looked at this i think on thursday mr lawrence can i take it to page 3 please item 3.6

00:40:54 and at item 3.6 you can see that it says sl to produce a planning tracker and sl is you yes yes

00:41:05 did you produce a planning tracker i didn't produce a planning tracker but um

00:41:11 um ibi taylor the planning consultants produced a tracker i see it was used what form did that take i think it was

00:41:23 what form did that take i think it was an excel

00:41:25 an excel i think it was an excel document um and it would highlight um all the planning applications non-material amendments etc etc and any conditions for discharge did you

00:41:36 and any conditions for discharge did you have access to it yes did you use the access to it i believe so yes did you use that access regularly

00:41:43 regularly i would have thought so yes did you use that access consistently i i would assume so i don't recall okay let's look at art four zeros two nine

00:41:54 let's look at art four zeros two nine nine seven

00:41:59 this is an email of the third of november 2014 from simon o'connor to nick valente um forwarding him

00:42:13 uh an email from peter blythe of artelia to claire williams and and mr o'connor and others copied to you you see that yes

00:42:24 copied to you you see that yes and uh in the email that mr o'connor is sending mr valente at artelia he is sending him something called appendix 6 planning tracker

00:42:37 appendix 6 planning tracker do you see that yes thank you now that document is at ryd 30 is five four zero five

00:42:51 uh

00:42:55 are you familiar with that document it's not terribly clear and i wonder if it could just be blown up a little bit the details of it i don't think matter very much but um is this the document that was used

00:43:06 um is this the document that was used is this the planning tracker from what i can say from the screen albert i would say

00:43:12 say yes it is i i'm sorry it's not the best but

00:43:15 but no on what you can see of it in terms of its layout and the shape of it it appears to be it does appear to be how was that maintained i was who who was responsible for keeping it up to date

00:43:27 for keeping it up to date uh well the planning consultant would keep up to date with comments from um or either either from progress that they knew about so anything relating to planning went

00:43:39 so anything relating to planning went via them

00:43:40 via them um and if there was anything that we needed supply or studio e or et cetera for any discharge or yeah or any planned applications then we would add comments

00:43:51 applications then we would add comments to that as well i see i want to ask you about an rfi tracker can i ask you to look at sea

00:43:59 3011472

00:44:03 this is a minute of design team meeting number one 13th of august 2014.

00:44:12 you see that and uh your present there as well as mr o'connor uh and mr sainz mr crawford from studio e

00:44:20 e and other people including harley you can see if you go to page 2 please item 3.20

00:44:30 and it says review rfi tracker none at present

00:44:34 present uh and if you go to page four at item 4.20

00:44:44 it says review rfi tracker can you see that yes

00:44:49 that yes is it fair to say that in fact no rfi tracker was ever set up uh there was an rfi tracker that um uh js right head and and there was an rfi yeah maybe there

00:45:03 and there was an rfi yeah maybe there wasn't uh

00:45:05 wasn't uh i don't recall maybe there wasn't uh an overall

00:45:08 overall spreadsheet like the planning tracker um but the process there was a process but whether there was no real tracker i don't recall do you know why that was uh no i don't

00:45:19 do you know why that was uh no i don't know why that was can i ask you to look at another document

00:45:23 document on the subject of project change tracker art

00:45:28 408861 this is an email from you to philip booth

00:45:34 booth of artelia on the 24th of october 2014. copy to nick valente subject change tracker

00:45:42 tracker do you see that yes morning phillip uh following wednesday's client design meeting i've put together a spreadsheet tracker for project changes

00:45:54 tracker for project changes as attached before i send it out formally i wanted to run it past yourselves to make sure it works for you also

00:45:59 also basically ryden don't have a specific document to record change because it is normally done via email records rfis drawings etc in my experience some of the standard

00:46:10 in my experience some of the standard construction processes don't always work as well in refurb as they do in new build environment because of the way and timings that clients have to make decisions often reactively

00:46:20 that's the background to that is it fair to say that what you've said there means that ryden didn't actively collate and record

00:46:31 and record project changes at all because its approach was to rely on whatever contemporaneous documents happen to be produced by others uh no i'm

00:46:43 uh no i'm i don't know i don't recall what system they

00:46:47 they what yeah what process or what system they had

00:46:50 they had um but we would um

00:46:57 um i'm sure there would be a system um what was it

00:47:01 was it no i can't recall i mean right is it impo

00:47:04 impo is it not just as important in a a refurb as in a new build to be able to record clearly for the design and builder uh changes in the project yes in one place

00:47:15 changes in the project yes in one place so that anybody working on the project can know where to go and can look at it to see what they are yes yes and and that would help the client stay on top of its spend

00:47:26 client stay on top of its spend and be able to make informed choices

00:47:31 yes so the absence of a project change tracker would be a serious gap wouldn't it in the information records

00:47:40 records there is a project change tracker because i've attached one to the

00:47:45 email but you also say in the email that you don't have a specific document to record change because it's done by contemporaneous documents just to

00:47:57 contemporaneous documents just to clarify this the project change tracker is one that i'd set up it wasn't a writing document was one that i'd set up right to try and there was there was a lot of

00:48:07 lot of significant change at the start of the project

00:48:11 project which which you'll be aware of windows clouding planning etc etc so i wanted to set up a document where we could record the major

00:48:24 document where we could record the major change that was happening because there was a significant amount so i set that project change tracker up um bryden's process and systems

00:48:36 um bryden's process and systems um i i don't recall their precise processing systems now it's been too long i've worked i haven't worked from ryden so i couldn't tell you exactly what systems they have

00:48:47 tell you exactly what systems they have and what systems they haven't i see i would

00:48:49 would i would expect them to have a system for recording change but whether there was a specific document like that i'd presumably not because it might be yes i was going to go on to to pick up the rest of the email with you because you

00:49:01 rest of the email with you because you you say you've put together a hybrid form

00:49:04 form uh from several others you have with the aim that it can serve as a record and audit trail of what has changed and why it is only an overview sheet to be to use in conjunction with emails rfis etc

00:49:15 use in conjunction with emails rfis etc we'll also highlight any financial or program change so the client doesn't get any surprises if there's a team we feel it will work then i'll add it to our monthly report so that's how you left it with um with mr booth

00:49:25 mr booth and what i want to do given the background of that and given the importance that you've accepted attaches to it just follow the story through a little bit sea please sca three zeroes one two

00:49:37 sea please sca three zeroes one two one three seven this is an uh an email and if we can go

00:49:48 this is an uh an email and if we can go to page four first of all it's an email chain in november 2014 and at page four we have an email from claire williams to you mr lawrence on the 7th of november 2014

00:50:01 lawrence on the 7th of november 2014 copy to artelia and to max fordham you see that

00:50:05 see that yes and at the very bottom of the email she says i'm mindful that there is no process in place for noting when client decisions on proposals are required by and that there may be an

00:50:17 required by and that there may be an impact of not making a decision in a timely way i'm asking that ryden and artelio work together to get this in place as well as the change tracker which is not yet published so that any risk is

00:50:28 not yet published so that any risk is quantified just pausing there is it fair to say that at this point the tmo claire williams wasn't happy with ryden's control of design change information uh i don't know i can

00:50:41 change information uh i don't know i can only

00:50:43 only assume the same as yourself what what the email is implying right i'm just asking to see if this triggers a recollection on your part as to the background to what she's saying there can you recall no i don't know okay

00:50:55 can you recall no i don't know okay uh let's look at the uh the next email uh uh which is a rt408915

00:51:12 this is an email to you from mr booth on the 11th

00:51:15 the 11th of december 2014

00:51:21 and he says i'm concerned simon he says i'm concerned that i have not yet seen the tracker distributed following the design meeting held on the 22nd of october

00:51:30 october i commented on the friday the 24th of october and thought it would be a good document and process to adopt on the tracker there were some short time scales for decisions put upon kctmo to meet the design

00:51:41 put upon kctmo to meet the design development program and also a record of areas of design alteration to be carried out by your design team i'm concerned that because the tracker hasn't been seen some of the these deadlines may have been missed as

00:51:53 these deadlines may have been missed as we agreed at the meeting ryden are responsible for managing the design development process and for seeking approval

00:51:58 approval for alterations to tender designs and comments

00:52:01 comments on for construction drawings i just want to make sure that appropriate and fair time is given to max fordham and tmo to review and comment on drawings there have been some difficult quick decisions

00:52:12 have been some difficult quick decisions required recently for tma windows metering and i want to ensure that going forward

00:52:16 forward these type of things are avoided or recognized early to give time the tracker i understood was also the process you were going to use to record design changes decisions required and approvals

00:52:28 was mr booth's understanding that he was setting out in this email to you correct about the purpose of the tracker

00:52:39 uh i believe i would say generally yes yes so the the tracker was the tracker that i'd set up was initially just to capture the the um

00:52:52 initially just to capture the the um the large and significant design changes that were happening at the start of the project

00:52:56 project driven by the client um and then

00:53:02 i don't fully recall but i think um

00:53:07 the tmo and probably artelia then had comment that we could add some additional columns and it could it could serve as a you know a wider a wider document for all to use

00:53:19 wider document for all to use so was your tracker adopted i believe so did artelia uh have any comments about whether it

00:53:30 uh have any comments about whether it was practical to use it i think they i think the email in front of us suggests that yeah but i don't recall any specific conversations

00:53:41 any specific conversations one way or the other to be fair you're quite right the email does suggest that my question was perhaps a poor one were there any later conversations after this email about

00:53:51 about the practicability of using your tracker i don't recall let's just look at one or two of the versions of the tracker document

00:54:02 let's start with art402939

00:54:08 this is the version of the tracker document as at the 23rd of october

00:54:15 2014. so before the email we've just looked at

00:54:19 looked at and this is called rev a is this the tracker that we've been discussing yes it does appear there right i don't think that's the full the

00:54:30 right i don't think that's the full the full amount on screwing because yes no no i mean we can look at our pages but just to show it to you right let's see

00:54:36 let's see and then there's another one dated 17th of november 2014 that's art403086 please

00:54:53 that's art403086 please so we can we've seen one for uh october this one for november also called rev a yeah and you can see on this one

00:55:04 yeah and you can see on this one while we're on it uh it says cladding spec second item down altered to acm rain screen cladding from zinc so you'd made that project change in there

00:55:14 in there was it that was that was capturing the um the ve list um before we actually set out so

00:55:25 um before we actually set out so yeah that's did you make that did you put that entry into that yes yeah i believe sir yourself yes i see who else had access to this document uh i believe it would have been kept on our

00:55:36 kept on our what we would call our common drive to our

00:55:40 our project system and we can look at other versions of it um often was it updated

00:55:51 um i would expect as and when there was a change or or any decisions

00:56:01 any time it needed to be i would suggest but

00:56:04 but what procedures did did you have in place to ensure that this document was updated

00:56:09 updated consistently and continuously through the project would it be rev it would be reviewed how i would suspect it would generally form part of our monthly um report to the client and be discussed

00:56:22 um report to the client and be discussed there

00:56:23 there and we it would be updated i would expect i'd have updated it prior to issuing those documents to the client ready for the meeting at the moment sorry the intention of

00:56:35 at the moment sorry the intention of this change tracker is is really to pick up um change that affects um program and or cost

00:56:49 to the best of your recollection and you said a moment ago it would be reviewed generally monthly to the best of your recollection during your time on the project until october

00:57:00 your time on the project until october 2015

00:57:01 2015 was this document reviewed monthly and up and updated or were there gaps without knowing information there could be gaps but i would i would like to think i've updated it monthly right

00:57:13 updated it monthly right at the moment we haven't been able to find any tracker versions beyond april 2015. would that surprise you or would be

00:57:21 would be would you expect there to be such documents um i think it would depend if there was any further change and what change that was

00:57:31 right can i ask you to look at

00:57:38 ryd3022907 this is an email of the 5th of november 2014

00:57:44 2014 from you to neil crawford copied to simon o'connor and bruce sayings and he says uh highly and after my meeting with claire this afternoon i'm keen to issue as many construction drawings for approval to her even if most of them are straight

00:57:56 to her even if most of them are straight from the tender she's still making a big issue that she hasn't got all of the up-to-date drawings issued during the tender stage i've been trying to politely suggest that the issue lies with her rather than with us but it seems to be falling on

00:58:08 with us but it seems to be falling on deaf ears

00:58:09 deaf ears i've also put together a change tracker document which i plan to issue tomorrow which will hopefully capture the changes and effect of the changes she's requesting so it's clear for everyone what is being

00:58:20 clear for everyone what is being asked uh

00:58:24 asked uh just help me with with the dating this is november 2014 one of the versions we looked at a few minutes ago was dated october 2014. so am i right you're thinking that

00:58:36 2014. so am i right you're thinking that when you say i've put together a change tracker it was actually something that you'd done prior to this discussion with miss

00:58:41 miss williams uh yes believe so i see to what extent if at all was your

00:58:53 to what extent if at all was your compilation of the tracker or or the perpetuation of its use driven by the desire to keep the tmo off your back

00:59:04 your back um no i thought it was a useful thought it was a useful document um so it wouldn't just be issued to keep them off my back it would be it's i put it together to help everybody

00:59:17 it's i put it together to help everybody in the project so we could track the significant changes

00:59:21 changes that were being made early stages did miss williams have access to that document

00:59:26 document uh she would have had to the via the monthly minutes i would suggest but we didn't i think as we said on thursday we didn't have a project um online portal that we stored all the

00:59:39 um online portal that we stored all the information on that every party could get to no i see let's see as far as you're concerned though she knew it did she and she could she could ask for it if she wanted it yeah of course yes uh

00:59:52 yeah of course yes uh can i ask you to turn to a rt403710 then this should be the minutes of a progress meeting number nine on the 17th of march 2015

01:00:03 2015 and miss williams is there as are you mr lawrence and others from artelia as well and if you go please to page three we can look at item eight point one

01:00:14 can look at item eight point one together

01:00:16 together valuations certificates is the heading and then in the third paragraph art that's artelia express their disappointment for not receiving all cost information in time for art to review

01:00:26 review and for tmo to make their decisions some costs have now been outstanding for several months this is not acceptable so is impacting on the project this is all repeat

01:00:38 can you explain given that the existence of the tracker why it is or why it was recorded there that artely were disappointed

01:00:49 that artely were disappointed in not having all their cost information in time to review and for the tma to make their decisions car i don't know what that's relating to specifically right

01:01:03 i'm going to turn to a completely different topic now which is fire safety mr chairman it's we've been going for just over an hour um but this is a fairly long topic

01:01:15 but this is a fairly long topic um i'm happy to continue to an appropriate moment when you say long topic are you thinking it'll go well beyond well beyond the 15 or 20 minute mark uh so can it can it be broken uh yes

01:01:28 uh so can it can it be broken uh yes quite early to break it yes it is too early i think it is too early to break i'm just signaling that if if the witness wanted a break at this point on your and you did then well normally we'd go on a bit longer than this before you have a break how are you feeling i'm

01:01:39 have a break how are you feeling i'm fine whatever's convenient for everybody that's very good of you thank you well let's continue that let's continue and then you find a point which you think is sensible very good um so as you heard i'm going to turn to a different topic fire safety expertise

01:01:51 a different topic fire safety expertise now in your witness statement and i don't think it's a need to look at it um paragraphs 35 and 68 you refer to the tmo as having retained a fire advisor

01:02:02 a fire advisor or fire safety consultant by the name of carl stokes you remember referring to that and you say that he was connected to the project what was your understanding in even if

01:02:14 what was your understanding in even if in general terms of his role mr stokes's role in relation to the refurbishment project at grenfell tower

01:02:21 tower i believe he was looking at the block as a whole and the the fire risk assessments on behalf of the tmo for that block and probably others but

01:02:33 probably others but we only saw him in connection with that block i see were you aware that he wasn't contracted or retained or appointed to undertake any ongoing consultancy and or supervisory role in relation to

01:02:45 and or supervisory role in relation to the refurbishment um

01:02:55 yeah i didn't expect him to be the fire consultant for the the project no but i did expect him to be

01:03:02 be the work on behalf of the tmo um as their fire officer should we say i see did you ever speak yourself to carl stokes about the cladding or the

01:03:13 carl stokes about the cladding or the insulation on the on the building as part of the refurbishment uh i i spoke to him a few times um whether i don't know generally specifically about cladding

01:03:26 generally specifically about cladding did you make any notes of your meetings or discussions with mr stakes um

01:03:30 um not particularly because they were generally fairly informal um he would he would come into the site office

01:03:37 office and speak to the um the other members of the team more than myself because i wasn't there all the time the only specific meeting that i recall was particularly regarding aovs

01:03:55 did you and ryden ever seek advice from or rely on mr stokes to provide fire safety advice in respect to the design or construction of the rain screen cladding facade

01:04:09 of the rain screen cladding facade now i think it's right but correct me if i'm wrong that ryden itself didn't have any in-house fire safety expertise correct and it's also right that ryden never

01:04:19 never instructed fire safety consultants or specialist fire safety experts for the refurbishment project no in my experience i didn't know

01:04:30 no in my experience i didn't know in your experience they didn't specifically sorry for the specific projects no they didn't no was it your view at the time that ryden were relying on x over

01:04:41 ryden were relying on x over to identify any relevant non-compliances with employers requirements for the building regulations no we rely on our specialists we rely on highly we're relying on studio room

01:04:53 highly we're relying on studio room reliant on building control i see so

01:04:58 from that can we take it that ryden never did rely on any work or advice done or given by xover well it's over were um

01:05:11 it's over were um as we know were part of an email trail um and they were actually contacted via studio e um so it formed part of the

01:05:24 um so it formed part of the the email trail i'm i'm not sure right sorry yes so xover were were never integrated into the design and build

01:05:36 integrated into the design and build team i think that's crazy and why is that um it wasn't in my experience with ryden it wasn't we hadn't employed i hadn't seen employed

01:05:47 employed a specialist fire consultant on any previous projects

01:05:53 i see and that includes does it the previous high-rise overcladdings that

01:06:00 that ryden had done correct for example childcards correct and very appoint yes yes can i just ask you some questions about

01:06:11 about the appointment of xavier uh in his oral evidence to the inquiry mr cagell

01:06:18 cagell of studio e told us and for our own purposes it's day six page 29 line 20 uh to line one at page 30.

01:06:29 20 uh to line one at page 30. he said uh when you're well i'll give you the full quote um and if you need to see the transcript we can look at it together but he said when it comes to the fire regulations which have as you can see from this document become increasingly voluminous

01:06:40 document become increasingly voluminous and actually at times difficult to interpret

01:06:43 interpret it's critical to get involved with building control as early as possible and and these are the words i want to focus on when you're dealing with any project which has any order of complexity then a fire consultant is

01:06:54 complexity then a fire consultant is essential to guide you through that's that was mr kashel's evidence of his experience do you agree with mr cajell

01:07:02 cajell that a fire consultant is essential to guide you through projects which have any order of complexity in hindsight definitely

01:07:11 at the time at the time i'd never experienced ryden using a fire consultant so did it would follow i think from that that you

01:07:21 that you never explored how much it would have cost to engage a fire safety engineer as part of your design and build team i believe we talked about a fire consultant

01:07:33 talked about a fire consultant during the tender period um and that was actually focused on the lower four floors um the

01:07:44 the cladding or the over cladding element um was something that we'd had experience with for the the previous um i don't know six years

01:07:54 years um with what we believe to be a confident specialist subcontractor so as far as risk goes that was

01:08:05 so as far as risk goes that was we were comfortable with that what the nuances of this particular contract um the lower floor floors and the escape routes was

01:08:16 the escape routes was was of a greater concern to us

01:08:21 did your budget that formed your tender price

01:08:26 price uh include anything for a fire safety engineer and i have done this right did you ever have any discussions with the tmo about whether the budget could accommodate a fire consultant as part of

01:08:37 accommodate a fire consultant as part of the dnb

01:08:38 the dnb team

01:08:41 i don't believe so relating to budget no don't can i ask you then to go please to art

01:08:48 art 402255 which is a set of the minutes of the contractor induction meeting of the 1st of april 2014

01:08:59 of april 2014 art 402255. now this is a document we're going to come back to i think a number of times

01:09:08 it was held at the network hub okay ctma's offices on the 1st of april of 2014 between 12 and 215 that day and you're present there

01:09:19 215 that day and you're present there as you can see and mr mr blake is given these minutes for information purposes and we can also see mr madison mr gibson and ms williams from the tmo and artelia there as well

01:09:31 from the tmo and artelia there as well can i ask you to look at page four please

01:09:36 and look at page paragraph 5.3 this is under the heading novation of designers

01:09:44 designers and under 5.3 the notes record x over completed the fire strategy at the tender stage they have not been novated but sl will contact them with the view of using them

01:09:57 contact them with the view of using them going forward do you recall making that statement at that meeting um not necessarily the specific statement but um i do recall that we were considering use

01:10:09 i do recall that we were considering use of x over or another fire consultant in relation to the lower four floors when you say we who do you mean by that oh i mean ryden has the team i see if it wasn't you who said that can

01:10:21 i see if it wasn't you who said that can you help us with who did say that at that meeting it probably was me that well it would meeting state set so yeah now you can see that the first sentence

01:10:33 now you can see that the first sentence says x over completed the fire strategy at tender stage do you know can you help us who used the word completed

01:10:44 word completed i can't who said x over completed the first strategy at tender stage i remember i can't recall at this stage had you seen issue three of x overs

01:10:57 had you seen issue three of x overs outline fire safety strategy dated the 7th of november 2013. i would assume so because i would assume that was all part of the tender pack that come across to us in

01:11:09 that come across to us in december january time or november time i say when the person said x over completed

01:11:16 completed the fire strategy at tender stage what document did you understand that to be referring to the well at the at the time i i can't

01:11:27 the well at the at the time i i can't recall

01:11:28 recall but i haven't seen information since you i would suggest it's the x over issue three of their fire strategy document which i believe

01:11:39 fire strategy document which i believe we received it as part of the tinder pack yes

01:11:44 now it records that they have not been novated

01:11:49 novated so in your mind at the time who were x over in contract with i'm not sure i knew whether it was studio a or

01:12:01 studio a or tmo did you not ask

01:12:06 no in theory it wasn't really relevant at that stage right

01:12:15 when it says they have been they have not been novated did that not indicate to you um that you at least ryden weren't taking them on and that therefore they

01:12:26 taking them on and that therefore they would remain in contract either with studio e

01:12:28 studio e or with at the tmo it could mean that they've

01:12:31 they've just finished their section of work i've they've completed their contract today next week

01:12:36 next week right when it says sl will contact them with a view of using them going forward who would be using quotes on quotes x over

01:12:45 over would it be ryden it would be right i see

01:12:49 see was there any discussion either at this meeting

01:12:53 meeting or at around that at around that time with the tmo or studio e or artelia as to how the tmo might use x over going

01:13:04 how the tmo might use x over going forward

01:13:05 forward i don't recall any no was there any discussion at this meeting or around this time as to how studio e might use x over going forward again i

01:13:16 might use x over going forward again i don't recall any discussion or how you ryden would use x over going forward

01:13:24 forward i don't think i don't believe so i can't remember i can't i don't remember the i remember the meeting in general but what was exactly spoken about in that meeting

01:13:35 exactly spoken about in that meeting i can only rely on the minutes right i'm just trying to get to the bottom of your understanding mr lawrence and obviously if you can't remember and can't help us then then say be it um was it your

01:13:46 then say be it um was it your understanding that in contacting them with a view to using them going forward was that with a view to you subcontracting them in or simply using them

01:13:56 them picking their brains as it were as somebody else's subcontractor i would assume and and i so assume because i don't remember specifically but i would assume that would be us subcontracting them

01:14:08 that would be us subcontracting them i see

01:14:12 did you ask the tmo about or studio e for that matter about whether x over expected to be kept up to date with the project

01:14:24 to be kept up to date with the project no i didn't ask him did you wonder not not i don't recall there being any issue around that no did you ask the tmo

01:14:36 issue around that no did you ask the tmo who were your client to see the contract under which xover had been retained either by the tmo or by studio e

01:14:47 studio e no did you ask studio e that question um no i don't believe so were you not interested to know on on what contractual basis x over had completed the fire strategy at tender stage as this minute records

01:15:00 at tender stage as this minute records um i don't remember it flagging any any concern and need to see the contract that

01:15:11 that they've previously been with now right was there a discussion at this meeting about the need for a fire safety consultant in relation to the

01:15:22 safety consultant in relation to the lower four floors at this meeting uh i don't recall i just the lower floor floors was is what i recall from our

01:15:35 as in ryden's concern about the fire stretch and lower floor floor four floors yeah mr chairman that's probably as convenient as any to break good point

01:15:47 convenient as any to break good point all right well in that case we will have a break now mr lawrence we'll come back at half past eleven uh if that's going to be long enough is that going to be long enough just a minute uh yes yes mr chairman that's perfectly

01:16:00 uh yes yes mr chairman that's perfectly fine right thank you please no talking to anyone about your evidence while you're out of the room please and off you gave her the option okay

01:16:16 good luck please thank you

01:31:29 right would you like to ask lawrence to come back please

01:31:46 right ready to carry on mr lawrence good thank you mr lawrence i need to correct uh one or two things that i put to you this morning um because a date is wrong that i put to you can i ask you please first to be shown a

01:32:00 rt408915 this is an email we looked at this morning

01:32:08 and i think i put it to you that it was dated the 11th of december 2014 in fact as was often but not consistently i believe the case at

01:32:20 not consistently i believe the case at this time

01:32:21 this time artelia used an american dating system and this in fact is dated the 12th of november

01:32:27 november 2014. uh and that would mean that the email i or the document i showed you at art 3086 which was 17th of november which we

01:32:39 3086 which was 17th of november which we looked at was after the email after this email a lot before it

01:32:44 before it john just let's just take a look at that document just to be absolutely sure so that you're clear art 403086

01:32:58 that's the it's still rev a but it's it's

01:33:01 it's it's it's after the email we looked at not before it to say you're clear thank you very much now coming back to where we were we've just been looking at the um

01:33:12 we've just been looking at the um contractors induction meeting of the 1st of april 2014 together where um you said that you would look at using x over going forward

01:33:23 would look at using x over going forward um you confirmed that intention to contact a fire consultant on we we've counted at least three later occasions and i just want to go through those with you please first a rt402

01:33:42 this is the note of a pre-start meeting of the 13th of june

01:33:49 of june and we can see that uh claire williams is there present three uh people from uh artelia and you're there as well and if you can go please to page three

01:34:00 and if you can go please to page three paragraph three point five uh it says sl to appoint other consultants to include fire you see that in brackets

01:34:12 to include fire you see that in brackets after the main subcontractors are on board

01:34:16 board you see that yes uh at this stage this is now

01:34:20 is now june so we've moved from april to june 2014. what steps had you taken to appoint fire consultants uh we we hadn't um i think we're

01:34:31 uh we we hadn't um i think we're clarifying there that we would do that after the

01:34:33 after the main subcontractors are on board and i'm not i'm not sure if they were at that stage or

01:34:38 stage or or not i thought uh let's look uh at um the next meeting which is a rt402

01:34:51 this is progress meeting number one held on the 15th of july 2014 so we're about a month on from the last one can i ask you please

01:35:02 from the last one can i ask you please to look at what that item 1.8 on page two

01:35:13 and it says again it's the same rubric sl to appoint other consultants to include fire after the main subcontractors are on board uh so we're now a month on what steps have you taken

01:35:24 have you taken i'm not sure we've taken any within that month right uh let's go to another one then

01:35:40 ryd3018299

01:35:45 ryd yes thank you that's progress meeting number three held on the 16th of september 2014 and you can see your present again and if we go to page

01:35:56 if we go to page two under item 1.4

01:36:01 we see the same language again sl to appoint other subcontractors to include fire after the main subcontractors are on board and by this stage the main subcontractors were on board

01:36:12 the main subcontractors were on board weren't they harley was on board i would imagine so yes what steps had you taken by this stage to appoint a fire consultant or investigate doing so we heading at that stage

01:36:21 stage right uh did you ever uh we so the the initial intention regarding fire consultants

01:36:32 consultants was for the lower four floors as i've said previously the cladding um in our view at the time was less of a

01:36:43 in our view at the time was less of a risk

01:36:44 risk um

01:36:47 than the lower floor floors because of the means of escape um so we'd we thought that it might be a good idea to have a fire consultant for those lower

01:36:58 have a fire consultant for those lower four floors um but as the design progressed and the input from building control particularly paul henson [Music]

01:37:08 [Music] we we ultimately come to the conclusion that

01:37:12 that we didn't need that fire consultant for the lower four floors do you remember when that decision was taken not without going through the records now couldn't you say we who was the we it would be a team

01:37:24 would be a team a ride and team decision i couldn't specifically say who was in the room and who wasn't in the room or exactly even when it was to be fair no that's very fair but it's a ride in team decision so

01:37:35 team decision so nobody from outside riding such a studio e or harley no i see

01:37:43 now mr ashton of xover tells us that nobody ever contacted him from ryden we don't need to go to the transcript but it was it's um it's his statement in fact and also day 17

01:37:55 fact and also day 17 page 191 nine one to three is he right about that yeah i don't recall

01:38:03 recall contacting him um regarding fees did you ever have any contact at all with mr ashton

01:38:12 directly no i don't believe so well there are some emails we can look at later on which are in relation to specific topics but but you had no con no contact with him no i don't

01:38:23 con no contact with him no i don't believe so

01:38:28 and i think you told us earlier but just confirm that you didn't understand what the continuing contractual position was as between x over and either studio e or the tmo yeah i didn't know that and you didn't

01:38:39 didn't know that and you didn't investigate it no right

01:38:44 no right if you had uh appointed another fire consultant or x over as a fire consultant what would you

01:38:55 over as a fire consultant what would you have asked them to do at the time we'd have asked them specifically to be looking at the lower floors right but we may have gone we may have been more general than that

01:39:08 we may have been more general than that many covers the whole build but possibly we would have just looked at the lower floors

01:39:15 did you have any discussions in 2014 we've seen the minute of the first of april

01:39:22 april and we've seen the minutes of june july and september on this topic

01:39:31 but did you have any discussions with studio e

01:39:34 studio e about what you would need from a specialist fire consultant even in relation

01:39:40 relation only to the lower four floors and i don't recall any specific discussions no right do you know why at each meeting the same wording keeps coming into the minutes

01:39:52 wording keeps coming into the minutes that uh sl would appoint other consultants to include fire but nothing was done

01:39:58 was done i i would suggest at that stage we didn't know if we were going to import somebody or not um and

01:40:06 i would suggest we weren't clear with the client that we were either going to do so we weren't going to do so um we were unsure at that stage pretty so would it be fair i don't want to make you say something

01:40:17 i don't want to make you say something it isn't correct but would it be fair to say that when we look at these minutes and see these words there about sl appointing other consultants to include fire it at this stage at least it's just a placeholder essentially uh

01:40:30 placeholder essentially uh partly i mean we would we intended to look into it definitely so it wasn't just a an off-the-cuff comment

01:40:38 comment um but at the stage of the project in september and i'd have to look at the records to be absolutely sure i think we were only at

01:40:50 absolutely sure i think we were only at very very early stages um i i doubt at that stage we were even constructing anything in the lower four floors i would imagine we were we were clearing the site and doing

01:41:03 we were clearing the site and doing enabling work so um so it's it'd be fairly early on for us to decide whether we actually needed that input or we didn't need that does it follow from that that there was no specific discussion at any of these

01:41:14 no specific discussion at any of these meetings these four meetings about specifically what except you would ask a fire consultant to do correct i see can i ask you to look at mr stones's witness statement this is sea

01:41:27 stones's witness statement this is sea 3014273 please at page 152

01:41:41 and i'd ask you to look with me please at paragraph 372 and this is although i can't see it from the previous page this is a roundabout

01:41:52 the previous page this is a roundabout april time march april and he says around this time i believe i asked simon lawrence whether ryden would extend xavier's appointment or appoint another fire consultant simon said that ryden typically did not engage

01:42:04 said that ryden typically did not engage fire consultants on the basis that the strategy was established by the client's team and as contractor it was responsible for executing it he regarded it as building control's responsibility to raise any concerns and

01:42:16 responsibility to raise any concerns and satisfy themselves with the details of the submission

01:42:21 did mr sones ask you to extend xover's appointment or appoint another fire consultant as he says there

01:42:30 i think he's asking us whether we would not actually that we need to um i'd we may have had that conversation i don't recall it specifically

01:42:41 did you tell mr sons what he says you told him here by way of a response i think that's uh whether that's word for word exact but i

01:42:52 whether that's word for word exact but i think that's a fair um

01:42:56 fair um um a fair explanation of of how ryden typically

01:43:04 dealt with the issue of fire yes compliance so say you're not quarreling with his evidence there about the gist of his response your response to him

01:43:15 response your response to him no not registering did mr sands accept what you told him and leave it at that or did he take you up on it uh i

01:43:27 take you up on it uh i i think it was just left as it as that i don't believe we had any further well i don't recall any further correspondence from studio e saying

01:43:38 saying this is a service that is needed um

01:43:43 so so no i don't think any further than that right you see mr sones has told us that his recollection is that he queried what you were saying back to him and that it came up more

01:43:54 back to him and that it came up more than once

01:43:56 than once and that's day 12 page 168 line 20. but do you

01:44:01 do you do you remember that i i don't remember that but i would expect if it was as serious a point as mr simons is suggesting that there would be emails relating to that and i would

01:44:13 emails relating to that and i would suggest if he didn't get a response that he felt was appropriate for himself then he would go further up the ride and chain yes so yeah

01:44:27 if it's right that you did tell him that ryden typically didn't engage fire consultants as you as he records you telling him here at paragraph 372 and you confirming

01:44:39 here at paragraph 372 and you confirming that the gist of it is as he said if that's right how can you explain that on the first of april you told the contract induction meeting that you would contact x over with a view to using them going forward

01:44:52 with a view to using them going forward because

01:44:53 because grenfell was a the thing that stood out for us

01:44:56 for us at grenfell wasn't the overcladding because we had experience of that previously it was actually the blower floors and the works involved in changing the

01:45:07 changing the means of escape obviously adding flats in there

01:45:11 in there demolition works etcetera so that was more of our focus and concern at the time if the gist of what you said back to him was as he said

01:45:22 what you said back to him was as he said here

01:45:23 here we don't see you saying well we'll think about

01:45:26 about using x over for the lower four floors so did you tell him that well i don't recall this specific conversation but i think the general

01:45:38 conversation but i think the general i agree in the general principle what he's what he's saying right the conversations backwards and forwards

01:45:45 forwards relate to that subject i don't yeah i don't remember any specific ones so he would say well you did tell him that you didn't typically engage fire consultants etc but nonetheless at the meetings we see

01:45:56 meetings we see you did indicate that you would look at using x over going forwards and the appointing fire consultant was a repeated theme in later meetings june july and

01:46:07 in later meetings june july and september 2014

01:46:10 can you comment on that

01:46:14 not any more than not probably just have to be right

01:46:19 i think the point that i'm trying to put to you is that if in fact ryden was going to use or was going to think about using x over or another fast safety consultant

01:46:32 x over or another fast safety consultant going forward even if only for the for the lower four floors that is something you would have told mr sons uh when he asked you to extend the appointment uh i would have imagined so but i don't

01:46:44 uh i would have imagined so but i don't recall the conversation so i i'm just agreeing in principle and what he's saying there

01:47:01 you didn't take away did you from that conversation the idea that mr sones was happy

01:47:06 happy that a fire consultant was unnecessary did you as i don't recall the conversation i i can't recall any feelings about it you you could

01:47:17 any feelings about it you you could recall i think a moment ago the gist of your response to him well the the response would be

01:47:27 in line with what i'd seen and experienced my experience with ryden what we typically

01:47:33 typically did or didn't do as in using fire consultants yes i thought you were telling us earlier that you although you didn't recall the precise words of the conversation

01:47:44 conversation you recall the gist of you're telling him what he's recorded there at paragraph

01:47:48 paragraph 372. is that wrong i think we i think we might actually be splitting hairs there i think

01:47:54 i think perhaps i'm not communicating very clearly but i don't recall the conversation specifically um but what he's saying was said in general terms

01:48:05 saying was said in general terms i agree that that would have been the position

01:48:08 position as in ryden didn't typically engage fire consultants in my experience

01:48:15 and we would regard building control's responsibility to raise concerns so so in general principle i agree with what he's saying but i don't recall that specific

01:48:26 but i don't recall that specific conversation right uh and therefore it would follow that when you indicated to the meeting on the 1st of

01:48:37 1st of april 2014 that you would look at using x over going forward even if only for the

01:48:41 the lower four floors that would be a departure from ryden's established practice

01:48:45 practice wouldn't it it would yes and and for the reason that grenfell had some unique um

01:48:53 unique um parts of the contract that we were looking at which was the lower floor floors

01:48:56 floors and particularly around the means of escape

01:49:00 escape um there's there was a lot of reconfiguration works around the means of escape for the um for the residents um whilst they were occupying the building

01:49:12 whilst they were occupying the building so so yes it was flagged as a risk and and and we discussed

01:49:17 discussed possibility technology but between april and september of 2014 do you recall having having a discussion with mr sands about using x over going forward in relation to the lower four floors

01:49:29 relation to the lower four floors i don't recall any specific discussions well let's pick up the story then after the 16th of september 2014 progress meeting can we look please at sea three zeros

01:49:40 can we look please at sea three zeros one one 11754

01:49:50 this is an email chain between you and neil crawford at studio e in the middle of september 2014 the first one is uh at the bottom of page one at the top of

01:50:01 at the bottom of page one at the top of page two

01:50:05 uh if we could just go to page two i think first of all this is an email from neil crawford to terry ashton alex over coffee to you

01:50:19 to terry ashton alex over coffee to you you see that yes and its subject is grenfell tower regeneration project fire strategy drawings minor revisions terry and you can see the text there uh and

01:50:30 and you can see the text there uh and the gist of that is that you're you're asking i think for uh his advice about the escape distance wall and door ratings sorry not you neil crawford is asking for that

01:50:41 asking for that you see that there yes

01:50:45 and he's asking for advice on the revised strategy plans relating to the ground floor mezzanine and walkway level in the way i've just identified now you reply to that email if we can go back to page one please

01:50:58 at the bottom you reply

01:51:03 to neil crawford hi neil i'm just catching up on emails particularly around design and have noticed x over in the chain

01:51:09 the chain i know that they provided information in the tender for the casey for kctmo but i don't know if they're still working for them i know that we haven't employed them

01:51:20 employed them so if you're getting some free advice then great otherwise we will need to look at this

01:51:27 given what you said in april june july and only a few days before in september at the the initial meeting and the progress meetings about looking to use a fire consultant

01:51:39 about looking to use a fire consultant why did you let matters run to september without having actually appointed one because i believe and i think the email at the top probably highlights this we were still

01:51:51 probably highlights this we were still in discussions

01:51:54 it was still in the design process and the and

01:51:58 the and um waiting for building control comments um around excuse me around the whole lower four floors the aovs etcetera so at that stage um we had to decide if

01:52:11 so at that stage um we had to decide if we were using a fire consultant for those areas or not

01:52:16 and we were engaged probably around that time and

01:52:20 time and and afterwards obviously for a period of time with john hogan and paul henson

01:52:27 relating to their input around the fire strategy yes i see um if you look at the response we've just looked at together it seems from that that you did know that they had provided information in

01:52:39 that they had provided information in the tender for the tmo does that help us clarify that you knew at the time that they would have been retained by the tmo as opposed to studio e no i didn't know that

01:52:50 that you didn't know i think i think that that's an assumption i didn't know that would you say i know that they provided information in the tender for the tml it's the tmo by that i'm saying

01:53:02 the tml it's the tmo by that i'm saying it's the tmos tender that came out because it was from them and within their information they sent us there was a x over fire strategy document

01:53:11 document so whether they provided it to studio e or somebody else it was still within the tmos tender as a whole

01:53:19 whole i see that's what i'm referring to but in the email you go on to say but i don't know if they are still working for them

01:53:24 them which would indicate to us at least that you knew at that stage that they had in the past worked for them them being the tmo is that right um

01:53:36 not no i didn't know in fact i didn't know until recently um in the evidence that they were definitively working for the tmo and contracted to the tmo um

01:53:48 and contracted to the tmo um i'm making an assumption there that because it was a tmo tender and as i've said the the fire strategy come out with the tmo tender documents that

01:53:57 that you know it's kind of the royal then whether it be tmo studio e or whoever i see it's the tmos

01:54:04 tmos group if you like yes yes sorry i'm yeah you could change that to him would mean the same thing did you ask the tmo if you could be sent the communications

01:54:15 if you could be sent the communications that they had or their team had had with with x over no why is that why would they i'm not sure why they would be relevant we had a we had a document that

01:54:26 relevant we had a we had a document that was issued um i'm sorry i don't understand the relevance okay well let's look at it this way

01:54:33 this way you knew at this stage that you hadn't yet appointed a fire consultant and you you weren't sure what the tmo were doing so far as that was concerned

01:54:44 were doing so far as that was concerned uh wasn't it important for you ryden as the incoming contractor to understand what the current position of the fx over was

01:54:55 of the fx over was and who they were retained by and what what they were going to be doing um no i would think it would be on the designer build contractor to satisfy themselves that the fire

01:55:08 satisfy themselves that the fire strategy is is correct quite often the client teams retain their own um advisors to to oversee the designer build contractor so

01:55:19 build contractor so if they're employed by the tmo then that could just be another oversight for what we would then employ heat i don't quite see the relevance now you say if you're getting some free

01:55:30 now you say if you're getting some free advice then great otherwise we will need to look at this how do you decide it had ryden decided against instructing x over because you saw an opportunity to save money

01:55:41 opportunity to save money no no we weren't as as the email above says we weren't at the stage where we decided

01:55:47 decided we wanted build control input we wanted to fully understand the lower floor floors and the strategy around that before we made a decision about what services we needed or didn't need

01:56:00 services we needed or didn't need did you decide against uh instructing x over or

01:56:04 over or any other fire consultant because you hadn't budgeted for that expenditure i think we had budgeted how much i can't tell you don't know right i mean you'll be in the records why were you happy for studio e to get

01:56:16 why were you happy for studio e to get free advice because if they were talking to a

01:56:20 to a a fire consultant and that consultant was was able to aid them in any way ahead of our meeting with building control then then that that's fine i'd they'd be no

01:56:32 then that that's fine i'd they'd be no different going to a material manufacturer and getting advice from their technical department it's it was we were relying on the lower floor floors we were relying to have the conversation with builder

01:56:43 to have the conversation with builder control and get the full understanding of it

01:56:45 of it and i'm not sure in september 2014 with all that was going on with all the other changes and and planning changing material changes that

01:56:57 planning changing material changes that we'd got to a position where we all fully understood that over four floors down to the the minute detail you see you'd breeze you'd been copied in on an

01:57:08 you'd breeze you'd been copied in on an email from neil crawford to terry ashton in which neil crawford asks for specialist advice from terry ashton were you not keen to understand what the contractual the formal

01:57:19 what the contractual the formal relationship was at that time between studio e and x over

01:57:27 um no it didn't concern me no why is that was it not important for you to understand what based on what basis studio e was getting advice

01:57:38 getting advice well i think it's the same as what i've previously said regardless if if a client well a i would expect if studio he had a contract with

01:57:49 contract with xover to to know about it and have the and the conversation we looked at previously in bruce bruce's email for them to be saying we've retained x over it's they're one of our sub

01:58:00 over it's they're one of our sub consultants so but the same again i think as a as a dmv contractor we should satisfy ourselves with our um

01:58:12 satisfy ourselves with our um consultants and if they double up to what the client team has then

01:58:17 then then that that's fine that often happens yes

01:58:20 yes were you not it's not quite an answer to my question i was really seeking to get to the bottom of of of why it wasn't important for you to understand the formal basis on which studio e who

01:58:31 the formal basis on which studio e who was by now your subcontractor was getting advice from a fire safety specialist well i don't know why i didn't ask

01:58:44 [Applause] do you think it was well let me put it this way

01:58:50 this way ad hoc advice on a free basis was unsafe and inappropriate for a project of the scale and complexity of the grenfell tower project was it not if we were totally relying on

01:59:03 was it not if we were totally relying on that advice then i'd agree with you but as i've said we were still waiting for the

01:59:08 the design and consultation with building control related to these matters so if it had been a if it had been a full and final advice as a freebie then i totally agree with

01:59:19 as a freebie then i totally agree with you but that wasn't the case it was it was an input from x over early on in the stage before the design had been fully developed fully signed off and fully agreed by all parties

01:59:30 fully agreed by all parties given that as you say the design hadn't been

01:59:33 been fully developed fully signed or actually developed fully signed off and fully agreed by all the parties was it not essential for you ryden to put in place a fire safety strategy even if in

01:59:44 a fire safety strategy even if in relation only to the four floors as you told us

01:59:47 told us to make sure that the resource was reliably there on a clear basis for studio e to use or for you to use we thought we had a resource with building control

01:59:59 building control isn't a resource is it not in the sense that you can track it in

02:00:05 in we pay for their service to check the compliance and provide advice regarding the

02:00:11 the regulations so but they're not a specialist fire consultant are they but they have a specialist fire engineer

02:00:20 in paul henson if studio e was getting as your subcontractor getting free advice from x over didn't you want to know on what basis xover was willing to provide free advice

02:00:34 i don't recall needing to know why didn't you want to know that i don't know

02:00:40 know right going back to your email exchange that we've got here on the screen he comes back to you on the 22nd of september

02:00:52 september hi simon thanks for the heads up on the x over position you see that ahead of tomorrow's dtm as design team meeting yes uh just wanted to flag up the importance of getting john hoban and

02:01:03 importance of getting john hoban and paul hanson round the table to agree the fire approach to eliminate package risk re-fire ratings aovs and then you go back to him and say same day let's have a chat about this tomorrow

02:01:14 let's have a chat about this tomorrow after the facade design and get a plan together so it looks as if

02:01:20 if facade design was very much in the mix there as part of that discussion

02:01:28 um no i don't read that the same as as you have i'll read the tomorrow's dtm which presumably was on the 23rd of september

02:01:39 the 23rd of september may well have been a the time we were meeting neil right and harley's to have a dtm just relating to the facade design now

02:01:50 just relating to the facade design now we saw in the april induction meeting that you'd said that you were going to be looking at using xover going forward as a fire safety consultant did you tell mr crawford or mr sones

02:02:02 did you tell mr crawford or mr sones that that was your plan at least back at at that point in the uh i don't recall the conversations about it

02:02:09 it uh in your email at the top it says let's get a plan together did you get a plan together uh i don't recall the specifics around that but i would

02:02:21 but i would i would assume and i'm assuming that it was relating to getting a plan together to meet up with john hogan and paul henson

02:02:31 henson as he suggested in the email previous can we then look on in the story the next progress meeting this is

02:02:44 ryd3022280 this is a progress meeting number four

02:03:05 21st of october 2014 at page one i'd like to look at item 1.2 please

02:03:13 please and again we see the same language sl to appoint other consultants to include fire

02:03:19 fire after the main subcontractors are on board now we know that the main subcontractors are on board by this stage and have been for a while were the tmo not interested that they're present at this meeting

02:03:30 present at this meeting in why you'd been promising uh to or indicating that you would appoint other consultants to include fire since april but hadn't done it yet

02:03:41 i don't don't recall their their thoughts on it right now by this time we've seen september and this is now october the building control full plans application had already gone in hadn't

02:03:52 application had already gone in hadn't it had gone in august okay was it was it your understanding that building control was that basically is your complete safety net

02:04:04 safety net not as a complete safety net because we've got

02:04:07 we've got we've got a design team that should be designing in accordance with the regulations and compliance but building control is there to ensure

02:04:19 but building control is there to ensure that we

02:04:21 that we we do that and they check the plans that we do that yes so building control are there

02:04:27 are there uh to to to check compliance but they're not there were they is the best of your understanding uh is essentially to

02:04:38 uh is essentially to check your designs for compliance

02:04:44 yes they're their designs for compliance but they're not there to do the design work in the first place are they no no no

02:05:00 mr chairman i've just been passed a note that something has happened with the transcriber uh something's gone wrong with the transcript uh i'm told five minutes is

02:05:11 transcript uh i'm told five minutes is all that's needed right which seems to be running but there may be other problems i i indeed i think there's a problem with with can we if we just take five

02:05:22 with with can we if we just take five minutes yes we can do that and i'd well well let's say we'll pass that i'll just give a little bit more time to correct

02:05:28 correct so i'm so sorry ms lawrence that's right mr lawrence there's obviously a technical glitch that we need to sort out so would you give the usher please of course we'll be back at quarter past 12

02:05:37 12 either to be told we can carry on or to be told why we can't carry on all right okay thank you very much

02:05:52 right 12 15 please

02:16:10 [Applause] well i missed a minute where are we now uh we are in the middle um i'm afraid we broke in the middle um you're in the middle i'm asking you can we keep going or not we can keep going

02:16:21 we keep going or not we can keep going yes it was i'm told it was a technical problem with the audio within the system uh i think i've accurately summarized it anyway it's been resolved sufficiently sufficiently right but then would you like to ask mr

02:16:33 right but then would you like to ask mr lawrence to come back please

02:16:46 lawrence to come back please mr lawrence i haven't asked what the details of the problem were probably just as well i'm told that it's been sufficiently fixed for us to carry on

02:16:54 on i'm sorry about the disruption to your evidence but we are now ready to go on all right yes thank you again yes yes thank you mr chairman mr lawrence um the distinction you're drawing during 2014

02:17:07 drawing during 2014 uh between the lower four floors of the building

02:17:10 building and the cladding in terms of the importance for the purposes of retaining a fire consultant was that a distinction in your mind in april june july september october 2014

02:17:23 september october 2014 yes i would have said the whole yeah can you explain why there aren't any documents

02:17:28 documents emails memoranda native meetings which draw that distinction now i can't explain why there isn't any because we don't see anything in the documents at the time that suggest that you would be using xavier

02:17:40 suggest that you would be using xavier or any other fire consultant in relation to the lower four floors why is that

02:17:47 is that i don't know right are you sure that's not something that that's coming to your mind

02:17:52 mind later no now did you make a positive decision not to appoint a fire consultant yes it was the same we did and i think

02:18:05 yes it was the same we did and i think you said earlier on that you made that a round about the time when you become clear to you that the lower four floors were not going to be such a big problem i may have

02:18:13 have missed characters you're correct when was that do you know i know i can't i can't tell you right was was studio e or harley privy

02:18:24 or harley privy to that discussion no i think that was a bryden team discussion did you ever tell the tmo or studio e that contrary to what had been said in the various

02:18:37 what had been said in the various minutes of the meetings through 2014 ryden were no longer going to or consider appointing a fr consultant i don't know if we told them or not so

02:18:48 i don't know if we told them or not so you made the decision within ryden my question is did you communicate that decision to anybody else in the i don't recall one way or the other right had you done so there would have been a record of it wouldn't there if it had been in a meeting in yes or an

02:19:00 if it had been in a meeting in yes or an email then yes there would be right so how would tmo or studio e for that matter

02:19:04 matter know that you'd made that decision having indicated in the minutes prior to october 2014 that you were still looking at appointing a fire consultant well they wouldn't know right that's a

02:19:15 well they wouldn't know right that's a bit of a gap isn't it in their knowledge and one that you could have filled uh we could have done yes right can i ask you to look please at um a witness statement of chris

02:19:28 at um a witness statement of chris holt he was a ryden employee wasn't he he was one of the site managers yeah one of the site managers and he gave us a statement dated 27 september 2018 this is ryd3094210

02:19:43 this is ryd3094210 and i'd ask you please in that turn to page two

02:19:55 and at paragraph 11 he says i was aware that the refurbish that as the refurbishment was to a residential block of flats one of the main risk factors would be fire safety

02:20:07 would be fire safety when i started on the project i spoke to simon lawrence the ryden's contract manager and asked whether i was required to consider aspects of fire safety in my role simon informed me that it was not part of my role and that it had been dealt

02:20:19 of my role and that it had been dealt with i do not know whose role fire safety was first did mr holt ask you whether he was required to consider aspects of fire safety in his role

02:20:30 safety in his role i don't recall that conversation don't recall the conversation now he he says he started on the project as a site manager in september 2015 which was only a month or so before you left brighton

02:20:40 brighton but you don't you say you don't recall the conversation i recall that conversation right um did you tell him anything to the effect that consideration of fire

02:20:51 to the effect that consideration of fire safety was not part of his role uh i doubt it because i don't recall that conversation or having any conversations in that manner at all with

02:21:02 manner at all with with chris right

02:21:08 similar question in respect of where he says that you told him it had been dealt with

02:21:12 with sure you don't recall him no i don't recall that conversation whatsoever no whose role was fire safety at that point so september 2015. well collectively as a as a whole team

02:21:24 well collectively as a as a whole team they'd be very varying parts of fire safety

02:21:27 safety there'd be the construction fire safety where you would have fire coordinators fire marshals etc um so unless that's what he's referring to

02:21:37 to i don't know i see he may be referring to the

02:21:42 to the the site management role in construction rather than the project as a whole whose role was uh fire safety in relation to site management i think it would depend i don't know who

02:21:55 i think it would depend i don't know who the time was the fire coordinator and the fire mart the appointed fire marshals um i don't know i don't recall who that was whose role was fire safety in relation to the the building uh in other words not

02:22:08 the the building uh in other words not the fire safety on the site but fire safety in relation to the build the project itself for the for the refurbishment project for the refurbishment that would come under ryden's yes and

02:22:20 that would come under ryden's yes and then for the ongoing who would then write who were then right and sorry to press you um

02:22:28 probably be myself right did you ever carry out any due diligence

02:22:39 did you ever carry out any due diligence on x over no [Applause] did you ever learn anything about x over what they did and what their role in the project knew

02:22:51 and what their role in the project knew the name in the industry but that was that was as far as it went right uh well let's dig a little bit into some detail it's right isn't it that as part of the

02:23:02 it's right isn't it that as part of the contract documentation that you received as part of the tender package uh i think you told us earlier you got issue three of xover's outline fire safety strategy dated the 7th of november 2013.

02:23:15 dated the 7th of november 2013. please be great jim can we just look at it it's

02:23:18 it it's uh cst

02:23:21 uh cst uh six zeros eight five

02:23:26 it is also in plenty of other places for other people's references but this is the one i've got at the moment cst 85. now here it is uh in its first page and it's a report

02:23:39 uh in its first page and it's a report to studio e as you can see did you read this document at any stage yes i would have done as part of all the tender and contrary documents yes so just to put a date range on that at

02:23:51 so just to put a date range on that at some point after november 13 but before march or february 5th probably would be fair sorry 13 14. yeah probably fair right did you rely on it in any way

02:24:05 um

02:24:09 yes we did because it it as it says it outlines the uh the fire safety strategy and the related to the design and the works that were coming on

02:24:20 were coming on did you notice that it had been sent to studio e it was a report to studio e um

02:24:30 i have done but whether that was at the time

02:24:33 time or afterwards i can't recall who did you think

02:24:37 think when you read this was x over's client um i would say as as and when i noticed that

02:24:48 that again i can't recall when that was um reading that now you would assume that was studio e when you were appointed and you became a contractor and novated studio e did

02:25:01 a contractor and novated studio e did you ever ask studio e whether this document

02:25:04 document issue 3 was sufficient for their purposes

02:25:09 purposes no i don't think we asked him specifically did you ask to see xover's fee proposal and scope of works for carrying out the refurbishment works fire strategy

02:25:20 fire strategy by safety strategy uh no i think i've answered that previously or do you mean post this either way no either way no i mean let's see if we can just see if

02:25:32 i mean let's see if we can just see if you've ever seen the document can i ask you to be shown it tmo one three zero 303885

02:25:46 this is the fee proposal dated the 9th of may 2012

02:25:57 2012 sent to mr sames at studio e dear bruce grenfell tower project fire safety engineering services is do you recognize this document no you don't

02:26:08 don't all right do you recall reading something called an initial design

02:26:15 design note dated 12 september 2012. don't recall reading it now let me just flash that up and see if it triggers a recollection tmo10037827

02:26:34 recollection tmo10037827 this is it does this look familiar to you

02:26:39 you no no do you recall reading either of issue one

02:26:43 issue one or issue two of the outline fire safety strategy

02:26:47 strategy which which were the precursors to issue three that you did see i don't believe so

02:26:51 so i think your only issue with issue three now i'd like to turn back to your witness statement please uh and look at paragraph 48 it says ryd 309 at page nine

02:27:09 and you say at paragraph 48 before the project began ryden instructed specialist contractors to undertake a number of surveys of the site these included surveys relating to

02:27:20 site these included surveys relating to the presence of asbestos lifts electrical systems and structural issues relating to the first four floors ryden used contractors to undertake those surveys for example our electrical subcontractor js wright

02:27:32 our electrical subcontractor js wright did the

02:27:33 did the uh electrical survey

02:27:37 did did you arrange a fire safety strategy of your own no we didn't did i i think you did commission a site fire risk assessment didn't you

02:27:50 fire risk assessment didn't you that i believe would be an internal right well let's just i'm assuming we'll see the internal management okay let's just see if we can pin that down and deal with it paragraph 67 of

02:28:01 down and deal with it paragraph 67 of your statement please which is page 14.

02:28:07 you say in the second line there ryden had a site fire risk assessment developed for the construction phase that was based on the knowledge that

02:28:18 that was based on the knowledge that there was a stay put policy for the tower block that policy was consistent with what i had found on other projects

02:28:27 so the site fire risk assessment what was that for how we managed the how we managed the site and the construction phase of the project

02:28:36 project in relation to fire if you had a sight fire

02:28:39 fire risk assessment as you say here why not a fire safety strategy for the project beyond issue three that we'd seen

02:28:47 we'd seen well i think we would be relying on issue three so that was it if nothing yeah if nothing had changed then yeah

02:29:00 now let's look at issue 3 if we can can you please

02:29:06 see an uh document ryd3018989

02:29:16 this

02:29:21 is where we see it being sent to you

02:29:27 uh now you you told us earlier that you'd seen it as part of the tender package

02:29:32 package here we see that on the 29th of september 2014 neil crawford sends john hoban copy to you

02:29:42 you the current x-over study you see that and he says it was written prior to the fire strategy rev b changes and also attached the correspondence with x over relating to the rev b

02:29:54 with x over relating to the rev b changes which we will modify accordingly

02:30:01 now if we look at it again it's back to cst

02:30:05 cst 6085.

02:30:12 you can see that it's entitled at the top grenfell tower outline fire safety strategy were you ever concerned that this document never progressed beyond an

02:30:24 document never progressed beyond an outline

02:30:28 i don't think we would have distinguished between an outline and

02:30:34 i don't think we'd have noticed that word particularly it would have stood out

02:30:38 out particularly did it not concern you that you never thereafter saw a detailed fire safety strategy in my time well the build hadn't finished by the time

02:30:49 the build hadn't finished by the time that i had i had left but as far as we're aware that was

02:30:59 well understood at the time that was um dad looked at the works that the refurbishments that were going on and were

02:31:08 were and had said ultimately that yes they're able to go on and and yes they are

02:31:15 they are the works are safe we can complete them in accordance with building rigs etc right you said in the last answer that the building in my time the building hadn't finished by the time i left that's true that was

02:31:27 by the time i left that's true that was october 2015 but does that mean that you wouldn't expect there to be a detailed fire safety strategy until the refurbishment works have been completed i think it depends if there's any

02:31:38 i think it depends if there's any changes significant changes on the way through the process wouldn't you want a detailed fire safety strategy long before completion of the of the refurbishment works

02:31:50 refurbishment works we thought we had we thought this gave us the information that we needed all right can i ask you to turn to page nine in it then please

02:32:00 and look at paragraph or section 3.1.4 can i ask first of all i'm sorry when you did receive this document first of all as part of the tender package and secondly

02:32:10 secondly again in late september 2014 did you read it thoroughly uh whether i would have done in september but i would have done initially differently right um then let's look together at

02:32:21 right um then let's look together at 3.1.4

02:32:23 3.1.4 on page nine under compliance with b4 external fire spread the report says it is considered that the proposed changes will have no adverse effect on

02:32:34 changes will have no adverse effect on the building in relation to external fire spread but this will be confirmed by an analysis in a future issue of this report did you note at the time that the

02:32:47 did you note at the time that the proposed changes there were not identified specifically um

02:33:00 i i don't know whether i've noted that or not

02:33:05 or not this come as part of the whole tender pack when we first saw it and the tender pack included over cladding and all the other changes so suggest that we presumed that it was

02:33:17 suggest that we presumed that it was cognizant of all of the information that it was attached to

02:33:23 does that tell us that when you read the word proposed changes in this paragraph you understood that that included the overcladding yes you see the let's just finalize this a

02:33:35 you see the let's just finalize this a little bit more because mr ashton uh gave some evidence about this but let's look at the document if you look at page one under the introduction

02:33:52 you can see that when we get there

02:33:59 the refurbishment is summarized in five bullet points but we don't see any reference there to the over cladding but i think you're telling us and

02:34:10 but i think you're telling us and correct me if this is wrong that you understood that didn't make a difference to you and you understood that the proposed changes did include over-cladding i thought that proposed changes included over cladding right because but reading this now

02:34:24 but reading this now i can see that it doesn't expressly state over cladding in that did you note that

02:34:32 that there was no information at all given in this outline fire safety strategy about what the

02:34:39 what the cladding was going to be comprised of or or anything about its design i don't recall noting that no did you make any effort to establish what documentation xover had read or considered

02:34:51 considered particularly in relation to the exterior no i'd i'd assumed that again it was attached to a complete set of

02:35:02 of tender documents drawings

02:35:05 etc that it encompassed everything did you know whether or not xaver had been given the specification of the cladding system

02:35:16 specification of the cladding system when it wrote the report no i didn't know that

02:35:19 know that did you know whether xover had been involved in the drawing up of the nbs specification forming part of the tender i didn't know that no did you make any assumptions one way or the other at the time i assumed that they'd been part of the

02:35:31 i assumed that they'd been part of the design team from from the from the start and had been on the

02:35:37 the design journey um as to what was going to be part of the refurbishment and what wasn't

02:35:41 wasn't i see you meant you were you assumed it but you didn't ask anybody about it no i don't believe so i don't recall doing so right

02:35:51 did you did you know i think the answer would follow from your last answer that you didn't but did you know that whether xover had actually ever seen the nbs specification no i didn't know

02:36:02 the nbs specification no i didn't know going to page four at the bottom of the

02:36:06 page okay sorry can i just just say that there's

02:36:12 there's obviously there's a and i'm reading this now rather than from memory but there is a note at the bottom there that's that's based upon discussions held with the design team rbkc fight on fire strategy access etc

02:36:24 fight on fire strategy access etc drawings produced by studio ellp so i think that

02:36:31 you know i think you would you could easily assume that that is part of the whole pack of drawings and specifications well it's interesting you say that because that was my next

02:36:42 you say that because that was my next question

02:36:43 question looking at that reference can you tell us what those were what were the fire strategy drawings produced by studio e

02:36:52 studio e uh yeah i can't there are drawings there that show the lower four floors and where the compartments need to be where the travel distances were etcetera did those drawings include anything so

02:37:04 did those drawings include anything so far as you can recall uh giving any details of a specific cladding proposal i don't know without looking at any of the drawings i don't know

02:37:16 going back to paragraph 3.1.4 on page 9.

02:37:29 did you notice at the time that as at september 2014 this report had been through three issues but there had as yet been no

02:37:41 issues but there had as yet been no further analysis of the proposed changes from previous issues sorry can you guess that again i mean you hadn't i think read the previous issues let me try the question slightly

02:37:52 issues let me try the question slightly different

02:37:52 different a different way did you when you saw this

02:37:56 this report in september 2014 have you first read it sorry this is the note this is the november report this is the it's back up this is the november report issue three

02:38:07 november report issue three which you'd first seen in the tender yeah yes and then you saw again in september 2014. sorry yes yes did you note in september 2014

02:38:18 yes did you note in september 2014 uh there had been as yet no further analysis or any analysis in a future issue of the report uh no i didn't know that did you note at

02:38:30 uh no i didn't know that did you note at the time that there had been as yet no comprehensive and unqualified b4 assessment uh no

02:38:42 uh no why didn't you pick that up in september 2014

02:38:46 2014 and ask yourself the question well this has been outstanding from at least november 13 where are we now

02:38:55 now well i don't know if i had noted it i saw at the time i don't recall um

02:39:02 recall um but analysis in future issue of this report doesn't necessarily mean that it's over doing that it could be another um and it and confirmed by analysis

02:39:14 um and it and confirmed by analysis could also be compliance with building control regulations so i think it's open to interpretation

02:39:26 sorry going back to original question i didn't note it at the time or recall it at the time

02:39:33 whether it's six over or a and other as you say

02:39:36 you say despite the provisional nature of this advice on the issue of compliance with b4

02:39:42 b4 is it right that neither you nor anybody else in ryden ever took any steps to resolve these matters by getting a final report based on all the drawings which did give

02:39:53 based on all the drawings which did give complete and unqualified advice in relation to b4 external fire spread i didn't during my time on the project can you explain why that is

02:40:04 explain why that is because i would read that that providing we

02:40:07 we comply with the building regulations then when the system is compliant then it will not have any adverse effects on the outside the

02:40:19 adverse effects on the outside the building

02:40:28 so from that answer do i take it that you are comfortable simply to rely on what xover was saying

02:40:39 about the proposed changes having no adverse effect we were comfortable that we would then employ

02:40:45 employ a specialist subcontractor we have the architect and we'd have the building control oversight as well yes but without the confirmation by an analysis and a future issue of the report

02:40:55 report how were you comfortable in moving forward with the cladding of the building because again analysis to me would be providing that we comply with the

02:41:08 that we comply with the building regulations then it is then it is okay it doesn't say it needs to be analyzed in any other way or or if you do this or you

02:41:19 other way or or if you do this or you don't do that or you do something else it's it's under the heading of b4 external fire spread and my interpretation of that is providing

02:41:30 my interpretation of that is providing me comply with b4 which obviously is what we set out to do um

02:41:36 um then it would have no of no adverse effect

02:41:39 effect but mr lawrence this report isn't saying there is compliance it's saying the proposed changes will have no adverse effect on the building

02:41:51 have no adverse effect on the building in relation to external fire spread but this will need to be confirmed by a future issue well i read that by building control

02:42:02 well i read that by building control that's how we would that's what my experience showed that we didn't use fire consultants my experience showed that we would we would have the design checked by our

02:42:13 we would have the design checked by our third parties and and ultimately building a trial but but mr lawrence this doesn't mean that doesn't say to me can i can i um can you carry out some other sort of

02:42:24 can you carry out some other sort of test to prove that it it complies it's it's in to me this is implying that providing we comply with b4 of the building regulations then it would have no adverse effect who

02:42:35 then it would have no adverse effect who did you think would issue the futuristic this report it wouldn't be building control

02:42:40 control would it not of that report knife so how did you read the words but this will be confirmed by an analysis in a future issue of this report

02:42:52 report i don't know one it couldn't have been that it would be okay if it passes building control could it well that's how i would that's how i read it at the time

02:43:03 how i read it at the time and i don't think that's expressly clear to say

02:43:07 to say that by complying with building control you're still not it's still not okay that's not how i read them

02:43:27 do you agree that neither you nor ryden could

02:43:31 could fairly take any comfort or derive any assurance about the fire safety of the rain screen cladding facade from xavier's engagement as a fire safety

02:43:42 xavier's engagement as a fire safety consultant prior to ryden's appointment as main contractor sorry could you could you repeat that yes do you accept this proposition that neither

02:43:53 neither you personally nor ryden as a company could take any comfort or derive any assurance about whether the rain screen was safe based on xover's engagement as a fire

02:44:05 based on xover's engagement as a fire safety consultant prior to ryden being appointed main contractor i think we could take some comfort

02:44:15 and what gave you about comfort because we've got a document from a fire consultant and a well-known fire consultant that how i read it because it's right

02:44:26 that how i read it because it's right wrong

02:44:26 wrong maybe slightly different but how i read it is implying that providing we comply with b4 then it will have no adverse effects on the building

02:44:37 the building and ban i think to suggest to you that that reading was not a fair and terrible reading of that sentence at the time

02:44:44 the time because it was saying that it would need to be confirmed by an analysis and a futuristic of this report that that was my interpretation at the time all right and i don't think it's clear i don't

02:44:56 and i don't think it's clear i don't think he expressly clear otherwise now at the time of xover's version three 7th september 2013 uh it's right isn't it that the reyno bond pe 55 acm cladding had not

02:45:10 reyno bond pe 55 acm cladding had not yet been chosen

02:45:13 um actually chosen no but it was one of four or five options that were being proposed by the tmr and studio

02:45:25 proposed by the tmr and studio yes in the nbs spec i think you're referring to yes uh

02:45:33 yes uh and similarly uh celetex fr 5000 a rs 5000 but fr 5000 was also uh

02:45:45 fr 5000 was also uh also had not um been finally chosen but it was in the nbs specification it was specified yes yes

02:45:58 when it was decided to go ahead with those materials later particularly the acm rain screen overcladding is it right

02:46:10 acm rain screen overcladding is it right that the decisions to use those materials were made without seeking specialist input from a fire safety consultant

02:46:20 uh well ryden didn't yes yes we didn't seek thank you after the choice had been made and that the focus on because the word choice can be ambiguous

02:46:32 because the word choice can be ambiguous here but focusing for example on the acm polyethylene core cladding after that choice did it occur to you to go back to x over to confirm

02:46:44 to go back to x over to confirm the analysis about b4 external fire spread and ask them to produce a future issue of issue three no it didn't it didn't occur to me but i

02:46:55 no it didn't it didn't occur to me but i would have assumed that as in it's in the mbs spec of a variety of

02:47:03 of um cladding materials um that they would have been cognizant of all of those options

02:47:14 and if there was one that stood out that needed more or less work then it would have been noted in here so

02:47:20 here so is that an assumption i think we've asked i'll ask you this question but is that an assumption that you sought to verify at the time you came into the contract not to verify no

02:47:31 into the contract not to verify no why is that we've just been handed these documents that have got a specification have got input from a fire safety consultant

02:47:42 i would suggest you wouldn't normally then write to every single party that was

02:47:48 was that was involved in putting the documents together and asked them if they are

02:47:51 they are correct and they have understood what they put together there would be a level of assumption there

02:47:59 given that ryden had no design or other specialist expertise in house who did ryden expect would advise on fire safety will get assurance about the fire safety

02:48:11 will get assurance about the fire safety of a design and selection of material with if we're talking cladding then we have got our specialist consultant

02:48:22 have got our specialist consultant our specialist subcontractor harley's so we will be relying on them to design and know the rules and regulations

02:48:33 and know the rules and regulations relating to their field of expertise we also again rely on studio e to have a a view and understanding of building regulations

02:48:44 building regulations and then again it would be checked by building control

02:48:49 did you notice at the time you read issue 3 whether at the tender stage or in september 14 that issue 3 didn't refer to cavity barriers

02:49:00 barriers no i didn't you didn't notice can you explain why you didn't no no if you had noted it uh well let me ask it a different way this is a

02:49:10 this is a complex engineering project this refurbishment wasn't it yes yes and it required detailed safety

02:49:22 it required detailed safety detailed fire safety input or expertise yes and in circumstances where you didn't instruct your own fire safety engineer can you explain why you didn't

02:49:33 engineer can you explain why you didn't scrutinize what x over had done to date and what they had not done now i can't explain

02:49:43 in the absence of any detailed fire safety strategy or any mention of cavity barriers or a full

02:49:49 full complete report on b4 external fire spread

02:49:53 spread and indeed any final report did it not occur to you that xover's work could not safely be relied on by ryden no

02:50:01 now moving forward in time can we look at a document ryd3037478

02:50:10 this is an email from you to ben bailey at harley i'm so sorry i'll wait till it comes up on the screen

02:50:20 there it is it's an email from you to ben bailey at harley dated the 31st of march 2015 morning ben and it's part of a discussion uh

02:50:31 and it's part of a discussion uh uh um about um whether there was a building fire strategy document because he'd ask the question and you could see that from his email of the same day sorry the day before the

02:50:43 of the same day sorry the day before the evening of the day before simon is there a building fire safety distract i say sorry simon is there a building

02:50:49 building fire strategy document and some information on internal finishes that you can send over for me to pass on to siderise thanks ben and you say yes there is but it only

02:51:00 and you say yes there is but it only relates to the bottom four levels where we are constructing new as we are constructing new the fire ratings are in line with the current regs approved document b anything above that is existing and there is no record showing what fire

02:51:12 there is no record showing what fire rating the slabs and walls internal and external were constructed to when the building was originally built back in 1974 we know that it's unlikely that the party walls etc would be in line with the current regulations

02:51:24 line with the current regulations however this can't be proved that extensive surveys and specialist analysis

02:51:28 analysis unfortunately that is what you get with a refurb because we can't prove otherwise the building control officers will revert to current regs on a better to be safe than sorry approach

02:51:38 what was your what was the basis for your understanding as we could see from that email then that the fire safety strategy only related to the bottom four levels on reflection

02:51:50 on reflection and and reading this in preparation i'd i think i misunderstood what i was being asked for and i think i was referring actually to the fire strategy drawings

02:52:05 to the fire strategy drawings um from studio e so i think i've misunderstood that and i think and answered him correctly

02:52:16 when did you come to that view

02:52:19 since re-reading i'm i'm prepping right

02:52:27 i see it's not it because it's not correct i've answered my email isn't correct

02:52:35 i'm going to turn to a very different topic now

02:52:39 topic now mr lawrence but there's still eight minutes or so on the clock so i'm going to start if the german lets me yep and the topic is the early part of the tender and value engineering

02:52:50 the tender and value engineering now we've already discussed the riba definition of value engineering just to repeat it it's it the quotation uh is

02:52:57 uh is value engineering promotes the substitution of materials and methods with less expensive alternatives without sacrificing functionality i think you're familiar with with that yes now if can we look at your statement

02:53:11 yes now if can we look at your statement uh please ryd3094220 at page four at the bottom and let's look together at paragraph 21 and over to 22.

02:53:22 21 and over to 22. and you say following the initial approach from kctma ryden was asked to meet with the kctmo to talk through the available options in particular alternative products for the scheme as the kctmo needed to

02:53:33 the scheme as the kctmo needed to achieve around 800 000 pounds of savings from the original tender price they provided ryden jeff henton steve blake katie bachelier and myself with a list of areas in which

02:53:44 of areas in which it was felt the savings may be achieved and then over the page paragraph 22 i subsequently attended a meeting on tuesday the 18th of march at the office of kctml along with steve and

02:53:57 office of kctml along with steve and katie bachelier our estimator i think the kctma people were present present were david gibson head of capital investment peter madison director

02:54:06 director and claire williams project manager at the meeting it was discussed what could be done to bring the project within their revised budget now paragraph 23 of your statement

02:54:18 now paragraph 23 of your statement you say i understood that some of the savings the kctma were looking at had the potential to be achieved through grant funding and then you go on to say uh it was also

02:54:30 and then you go on to say uh it was also my understanding that the kctmo had in its original tender document included alternative product specifications that ryden was asked to price against so that if chosen by kctmo would have contributed to the

02:54:42 by kctmo would have contributed to the overall savings they were looking for i've read quite a lot of that to you is it fair to say that what you're describing here overall particularly at paragraph 22 and 23

02:54:53 22 and 23 uh as a request from the tmo to value engineer the cladding and other areas and other areas but it included value engineering the cladding yes

02:55:07 now can i ask you to look at the ryden company statement ryd30 is 94236 at page

02:55:16 at page 82.

02:55:20 let's look at paragraph 192 together

02:55:33 that's ryd30 is 94236 paragraph 192 at the bottom of the page kctmo's formal request for value engineering was passed down to members of the supply chain so that they could advise in respect of their

02:55:45 they could advise in respect of their specialist areas and because um they would be individually responsible to go over the page individually responsible for procuring products and materials required for their parts of

02:55:56 materials required for their parts of the project and then there's an example of that do you agree with that statement yes can i ask you to look at um katie bachelier's witness statement

02:56:07 um katie bachelier's witness statement can i just ask is it how do you pronounce her name i think you've got it correct i'll show you okay right ryd30 is nine four three four seven three zero is nine four three four seven

02:56:20 three zero is nine four three four seven page three this is uh mr shelia's witness statement uh and she was an estimator on the

02:56:31 uh and she was an estimator on the grenfell tower project she was we know that and paragraph 20 she says in respect to the savings for the cladding harley provided four different options to the client i do not recall which system was chosen

02:56:42 i do not recall which system was chosen my role was to provide the proposed options to the client and to highlight the savings that were available for each option

02:56:48 option and we will leave it there for the moment do you agree with that statement um harley did provide

02:57:02 yes i do agree with that statement hardy did provide costings for four options or yeah i think it was four options yes um but that was brought about

02:57:14 um but that was brought about by the request for that from the tender yes and we'll come back to that i think later perhaps but when she refers to the savings that were available

02:57:25 savings that were available you see that in respect of savings um was those were savings uh from the contractor were they

02:57:36 uh from the contractor were they yes that was how much that was that was detailing

02:57:40 detailing so in the tender we were asked for five options

02:57:43 options um i might not be exactly correct on that five options and i think the tender asked for us to price um for the

02:57:54 price um for the the zinc option which was the most expensive and then provide alternative quotes for the other options so i believe we provided a quote for the zinc and then we provided additional

02:58:05 additional documents that said less a hundred thousand pounds two hundred thousand pounds

02:58:11 pounds that's where we're gonna come to that yes we will come to that i just want to just want to get your the sense of whether you agree with what she's saying which is quite high level at this stage let's see if we can approach it slightly

02:58:22 if we can approach it slightly slightly differently in practice where ryden is aware that the client any client

02:58:27 client needs to make savings ryden would invited subcontractors down the chain to explore what savings could be achieved is this right and then they would collate savings and then pass those savings on to the client

02:58:38 those savings on to the client yes yes and in the case of the cladding was it the estimator's job ms porcellia's job to liaise with the see what savings could be achieved and then relay that information

02:58:49 then relay that information uh she would yes and that would go to the client the tmo in this case yes that would be yeah internally viewed by the tindering team and then go to the client yes yeah and you you

02:59:01 to the client yes yeah and you you is it right that you within ryden coordinated that process uh i'm not sure i caught an eye so i worked on the bid but it was a team it was a it was a team

02:59:13 but it was a team it was a it was a team effort

02:59:13 effort yeah financially i had you know far less to do with the finances um than the actual construction programming and how we would do the work were you ever

02:59:24 how we would do the work were you ever yourself given any training on on how to go about value engineering um i don't believe we had any specific training though did you understand that it was essential when conducting a value

02:59:35 it was essential when conducting a value engineering exercise that you couldn't sacrifice functionality in favor of cost reductions um you say you couldn't that's

02:59:48 um you say you couldn't that's i would say we would you would provide options to the client um now they could even be you know different products for that but save on program and not money but um

03:00:00 but um you were giving the client a list of options um where they could save money yes but at no cost to functionality if you're inferring fire

03:00:14 if you're inferring fire uh resistance or retirement then yes we wouldn't be looking to give them something less than they've asked for definitely yes what steps did you take during the value engineering process in general

03:00:28 value engineering process in general that quality or functionality were not sacrificed in favor of cost savings uh well we would we would be relying on the

03:00:38 the subcontractor right so if we're talking cloudy we'll be relying harley

03:00:44 mr chairman i think that is a convenient point

03:00:47 point i'm about to turn to a document chain and we're going to go into some of the history but um it is right we will stop there then we'll stop now then mr lawrence wait for lunch please go with the usher don't talk to anyone about your evidence

03:00:58 don't talk to anyone about your evidence please thank you

03:01:08 good two o'clock please thank you

03:04:02 you