Evidence from Bruce Sounes of Studio E Architects regarding their role as lead designer on the Grenfell Tower refurbishment. Testimony covers team experience, knowledge of building regulations, and contractual responsibilities.
00:00:00 to continue hearing from Mr. SS. So, could we have Mr. SS in, please? Thank you.
00:00:21 Good morning, Mr. SS. Good morning. Ready to continue? Yes.
00:00:24 Yes. Good. Thank you. Yes, Mr. Gr. Good. Thank you very much. Yes, Mr. SS. I I want to start this morning by asking you some questions about the setup and selection of staff for the Grenell
00:00:35 selection of staff for the Grenell project. Um and can we start by turning within Mr. Kushill's statement. Um if we go to that at sea014271
00:00:46 at page six to look at paragraph 23
00:00:56 if we blow that up. Yes. Thank you. And if we look a about six lines down, there's a sentence beginning, a commission, we looked at this uh with Mr. Kushell yesterday, it says, "A
00:01:07 Mr. Kushell yesterday, it says, "A commission with an approximately 1 million construction value and above would have a director or associate director and a project architect allocated to it." Do you see that?
00:01:18 allocated to it." Do you see that? Yes.
00:01:20 Yes. Now, at the outset of Studio E's work on the Grimful project, was it the case that Mr. Kushell was the director and you were the project architect
00:01:33 um at the outset of Grenful. Yes, at the outset of the Grenful project.
00:01:37 project. Yes, I think that's correct. So, he's the director. You're the project architect. And were you the principal architect with responsibility for the project?
00:01:49 with responsibility for the project? You have to tell me what you mean as distinct from a project architect. Well, did you take day-to-day responsibility for the Grimfield project within Studio E?
00:01:58 E? Yes.
00:02:01 And then can we look um at SEAL014272
00:02:09 page two? This is within Mr. Kushell's exhibits.
00:02:14 exhibits. And on page two, at the bottom of the page, we see an email from you to Mr. Kushell dated the 7th of March at 11:37.
00:02:26 Kushell dated the 7th of March at 11:37. Do you see that there? Yes.
00:02:27 Yes. Yes. And again, I think we looked at this yesterday. And there we can see that you told Mr. Kushell, if you look at the one, two, three, fourth paragraph
00:02:39 at the one, two, three, fourth paragraph down,
00:02:40 down, we can see you say, "Very happy to front. This might be cleaner and provide a shield for Gary's gripes." And then you go on and say resourcing wise I'm not sure. So just focusing on that
00:02:52 not sure. So just focusing on that little bit for the moment where you say very happy to front this. Is that you saying I'm I'm happy to to take charge of this project going forward? Yes.
00:03:03 Yes. And Gary there is that Gary Stewart? Yes.
00:03:08 Yes. And he's one of Studio E's directors. Um well at that time it was partner. Yeah.
00:03:13 Yeah. A partner. Yes. I see. And did you know Gary Stewart to be the person in charge of administering health and safety in relation to projects and site safety?
00:03:25 site safety? I I think I did know that at the time. Yes.
00:03:27 Yes. You think you did know that? Well, it's a long time ago. Um I did know that and I think I knew it at the time.
00:03:36 time. Yeah.
00:03:37 Yeah. And you specifically recall Mr. Stewart taking that health and safety role within the practice, do you? I do. Yes. Yeah.
00:03:46 Yeah. And what do you mean by the statement uh that you've made there or that the the phrase you've used there might be cleaner and provide a shield for Gary's gripes. What what did you mean by that?
00:03:59 gripes. What what did you mean by that? Um I was an associate and Gary was of I'm appreciate this but uncomfortable speaking on behalf of Gary but Gary had
00:04:11 speaking on behalf of Gary but Gary had expressed a view not just in relation to me but others as well that associates um shouldn't really be project architects alone they should be um prospecting and
00:04:22 alone they should be um prospecting and winning work on behalf of the practice and therefore not um singularly project architects. So why would you fronting this provide a
00:04:33 So why would you fronting this provide a shield for his gripes? It it was a it was a client. It was a different client. The TMO was a a client and it was a a separate client to the RBKC.
00:04:43 RBKC. I see. So because it was with a new client, the TMO. Yes.
00:04:49 Yes. I you know a new project a new initiative that might assuage him in terms of his concern about associates going out and winning new projects. Just sitting back and
00:05:00 Just sitting back and is that is that right what I've just summarized? Yes.
00:05:03 Yes. Yes.
00:05:03 Yes. Yeah.
00:05:05 Yeah. Sorry then carry on. you're gonna say I think I've given a I don't know if I've communicated what what I understand but
00:05:16 what I understand but the client was a a new client and if I was going to front direct with the client and and not Andre
00:05:28 direct with the client and and not Andre that was in a sense um satisfying Gary's expectations associate Yeah. Now, turning back to Mr. Kushell, is it
00:05:39 Now, turning back to Mr. Kushell, is it fair to say that Mr. Kushell was only ever involved at a strategic high level in relation to the project?
00:05:48 Um, yes. Although of course he was kept a breast all the time. Yes. Um, but he he didn't he didn't attend meetings. No. When you say he's kept a breast, what kind of information would you keep him a
00:06:00 kind of information would you keep him a breast of?
00:06:04 um week by week, day by day. Um what I just kind of basic progress milestones, how you were getting on? Yes. I mean all the time. We we obviously worked very close at all
00:06:15 obviously worked very close at all times.
00:06:17 times. Did he ever review any of the technical work on the project?
00:06:23 By technical work you mean review drawings? Yes. Um specifications? He I don't not do not recall him reviewing specifications. No. Or drawings.
00:06:34 Or drawings. Certainly around the time of the planning application, he he would have definitely looked at drawings. I would have definitely shown him drawings. And what about later? What about tender stage when you were preparing the NBS
00:06:46 stage when you were preparing the NBS specification?
00:06:50 I I can't recall doing so. Um but I might well have done I might well have consulted him on something, but I it I can't recall. You can't recall. I I now want to look at some of the others that were involved
00:07:02 at some of the others that were involved in the project on behalf of Studioe. So, and I'm going to go through them. So, we have Marcus Kefir, and we know that he started working on the project around April 2012.
00:07:14 April 2012. Do you know or can you recall approximately when he stopped working on the project? I I don't recall. I I know his involvement was quite brief, but I can't recall. And do you know if he had any
00:07:26 recall. And do you know if he had any experience with residential high-rise overcladding?
00:07:37 Um not not as narrowly but he may have had some experience with but I'm I'm not sure.
00:07:43 sure. You don't know? No.
00:07:46 No. Adrien Jess is another uh figure that we see. Um you describe in in your statement as a senior architect who'd worked on several other projects under another studio e director sometimes as a
00:07:58 another studio e director sometimes as a project architect. Is that correct? Yes.
00:08:01 Yes. Uh for the for the transcript that's at paragraph one 124 of your statement. Is it right that he worked on the project from early September 2012? I I I seem to recall that from the
00:08:13 I I I seem to recall that from the documents. And do you remember when he stopped working on the project? It was early 2013.
00:08:23 So just for a few months he was involved.
00:08:25 involved. Yes.
00:08:27 Yes. And again, do you know if he had any particular experience with residential high-rise and overcladding projects?
00:08:35 I do not recall discussing his his previous experience. No. Okay.
00:08:41 Okay. Blaine Kagny is another figure. Um what was his role at Studio E?
00:08:50 As I recall, Blaine joined us as a graduate.
00:08:55 graduate. Um, so I I think he did have some experience, but he he had just qualified essentially qualified. Would that be parts one and
00:09:06 qualified. Would that be parts one and two or
00:09:06 two or part two? He had done part two, but he hadn't done a part three, so he wasn't a registered architect. And again, can you remember his involvement on when was his involvement
00:09:17 involvement on when was his involvement in the project roughly? That that's it's tricky because I I know he was on and off involved for quite a long time, but not consistently. So he might have
00:09:31 but not consistently. So he might have been involved right at the beginning and right at the end, but I I I cannot recall exactly. Do you remember the kind of situations when you would get him involved? Was there a particular No, it was obviously based on on pressure. He he was versatile. Um but he
00:09:44 pressure. He he was versatile. Um but he was he was involved in other projects at the same time. Yeah. And again, do you know if he had any experience with residential high-rise or overcladding as a graduate? No. No.
00:09:55 No. Then um we have Kai Fab Fabon. Fabian. Yeah.
00:10:01 Yeah. Um and is it right that he studied architecture in Germany? Yes.
00:10:05 Yes. And do you know if he was a registered architect in the UK? Yes.
00:10:10 Yes. Yeah. And he joined Studio E we know in 2003 and was promoted to an associate in 2012
00:10:18 2012 again. Can you remember approximately the dates when he was working with you on the project? Um
00:10:28 gosh it was a very it was a matter of weeks. Um
00:10:31 weeks. Um so not very long. Not very long. was
00:10:37 February, maybe 2013. I'm sorry, I'd have to.
00:10:40 have to. No, that's fine. Okay. I can't remember. And again, do you know if he had any experience with residential high-rise or overcladding projects?
00:10:51 In his years, he did discuss his experience, but I I couldn't be sure exactly because I I didn't see any pictures, drawings. And then we have Thomas Wreck. We know that he's a foreign qualified architect.
00:11:02 that he's a foreign qualified architect. He qualified in 2005. And at Studio E, he says he worked as a project architect. Was that your understanding? Yes.
00:11:12 Yes. And were you aware of whether he was a registered architect? Had he done his part three here in the UK?
00:11:21 UK? most of the European graduates qualify under um EU harmonization rules to to to register without doing a part three
00:11:33 register without doing a part three qualification. So I not 100% whether Thomas had registered. It's certainly right. I think with parts one and two there were equivalents um for three as well.
00:11:45 um for three as well. You think for three as well? Okay. And is it right that he Thomas Re only worked on the project for a period of three months between September 2013 and December 2013?
00:11:56 and December 2013? Yes.
00:11:57 Yes. Can we just look at something in terms of resourcing? Can we go to SEA 408352?
00:12:06 This is an email of the 6th of September 2013. If we can blow that up. Yeah, this is sent from you to Mr. Kushell. Um, and
00:12:19 Um, and right at the end, so this is so this is September 2013. So we've you've done your stage D report in August 13 and we're looking forward to stage E. And
00:12:30 we're looking forward to stage E. And you say at the end, Greful stage E is quite a lot of fee to earn in a short period. I'm a little anxious about the resource. So is it fair to say at this stage you were concerned about whether
00:12:41 stage you were concerned about whether you would have sufficient resource for stage E? sufficient resource, sufficient time. Um, obviously if you got more time, you can do more work.
00:12:52 time, you can do more work. Yeah. And what was it particularly? I mean, we're going to look at the stages later. What was it particularly about stage E that was concerning you? Well, that was our tender pack. Your tender pack was done at stage E. Yes. Um, through through well, I think I
00:13:07 Yes. Um, through through well, I think I think we started a bit before September, but it was due to be finished by the November.
00:13:11 November. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.
00:13:15 Yeah. Okay. And do you know if um Thomas Wreck had any particular experience with residential high-rise or overcladding projects?
00:13:23 projects? I'm not aware of it. No, he didn't me I don't recall him mentioning it. And then we have um Mr. Crawford, Neil Crawford. And it's right, isn't it, that he hadn't finished he hadn't taken part
00:13:34 he hadn't finished he hadn't taken part three of the architect's qualification, had he?
00:13:36 had he? No.
00:13:38 No. Um, and is it right that he took over from you as the day-to-day contact on the project from July 2014? Um, thereabouts. Yeah. I continued to be
00:13:49 Um, thereabouts. Yeah. I continued to be copied into emails and but he was then in the driving seat in terms of taking the project forward. Is that correct? At that stage we were um
00:14:01 that correct? At that stage we were um through planning most of planning not all of planning and Ryden were on board and he became the day-to-day contact for Ryden.
00:14:12 Ryden. Yeah we'll discuss Mr. Crawford's work a number of times, but just at this stage, can you um explain if he hadn't done his part three qualification, why why did
00:14:23 part three qualification, why why did you think it was appropriate to have him as the day-to-day contact going forward from July 14? Um
00:14:32 Um he had performed that role on several projects previously um in Studio E and I believe at his previous practice. Um he's Having
00:14:45 he's Having a part three is is obviously beneficial to the practice, but it
00:14:52 but it there's no um it's it's not a substitute for experience, right?
00:14:58 right? So he he had extensive experience. Is it right that Neil Crawford was the only person in the team that you knew of positively that had residential
00:15:10 positively that had residential overcladding experience?
00:15:15 um the overcrowding but um combining these all sorry I'm pretty confident because I sat in on his interview that I saw the projects that he had worked at
00:15:26 saw the projects that he had worked at and they were definitely high-rise and they were definitely residential. Okay. Yeah. Um but I know he also did commercial yeah projects. We're going to look at what he says about those projects in just a moment.
00:15:37 about those projects in just a moment. But it's right, isn't it, that he wasn't involved until the construction phase of the Grenell project, was he? Correct. Yeah. So, just looking back and and standing
00:15:49 So, just looking back and and standing back from from that team, would it be fair to summarize that the studio studioe team on the project consisted of you plus one or two assistants to begin with?
00:16:01 with? Um, you you've missed out Patty. Uh, Patty Glennon, is that right? Yes, I think his his involvement was more consistent throughout. What was his role?
00:16:12 What was his role? He was an assistant um similar age and um level as as Blaine. And over what time period did he assist with the project as I say it was more consistent. I think
00:16:24 as I say it was more consistent. I think it was from very near the beginning towards the end of 2013. Right.
00:16:31 Right. So, who did you think was working with you on a regular basis during your initial intensive involvement with the project? Who did you see as your key assistance on it?
00:16:42 assistance on it? In 2012, I I seem to recall it was mainly Patty. Patty Glennon. Yeah.
00:16:47 Yeah. And thereafter 2013. Well, from the end of 2012, obviously um um Adrian came on. Yeah. And I think during that period we
00:16:58 Yeah. And I think during that period we had had Yousef Blaine as well. Okay. And then you have Thomas Wreck coming in. Yes. Thereafter. In the run-up to the specification?
00:17:09 In the run-up to the specification? Yes.
00:17:09 Yes. At the end of 2013? Yes.
00:17:11 Yes. Yeah.
00:17:13 Yeah. And in the latter phases of the project, is it fair to say that Neil Crawford was working largely on his own with some oversight from you?
00:17:24 oversight from you? He
00:17:25 He Yes. I mean working there wasn't much call on his time as I recall. I was a long period over which he was involved but he wasn't producing work. He he was
00:17:36 but he wasn't producing work. He he was commenting on drawings and attending meetings as far as I he wasn't producing work as an architect typically does producing drawings. Now we know that the initial estimated
00:17:48 Now we know that the initial estimated cost of the Grimful refurbishment was around6 million pounds and we know that the cost went up to around 9 million by tender stage. Now based on what Mr. Kushell has said about resourcing should
00:18:00 Kushell has said about resourcing should this not have justified a larger team i.e. with a a director or a partner a project architect and then more associates.
00:18:13 associates. I'm not sure that's how you would make the judgment. No. So, you didn't think that it justified having a more engaged director on the project?
00:18:26 A more enga? No. Um, Andre was engaged when it came to the planning phase. He was very engaged. But I think you just accepted that he had fairly high level involvement apart
00:18:38 had fairly high level involvement apart from at the planning stage. Is that correct? Yeah.
00:18:45 And in terms of experience, is it right that um no one on the pre-novation team, my pre- Riden's appointment had experience of residential
00:18:56 experience of residential overcladding projects? We've run through them and I I I have to summarize that I none that I know knew of.
00:19:03 of. No.
00:19:07 Can we just look at the the experience that Mr. Crawford had um can we look at paragraph 21 of his statement? That's SEAL014275
00:19:18 at page nine.
00:19:25 Can you just read that paragraph to yourself for a moment? 21.
00:19:29 21. Yes, please.
00:19:40 Yeah. So, what we can see from that paragraph is that the Mil Harbor Quarter project that he refers to only got to the planning stage. Do you see that? That's in the third line up.
00:19:54 in the third line up. And then he's also referring to the Hardman Square project in Manchester earlier in that paragraph. Can we go on within Mr. Crawford's statement to paragraph 241? This is SEAL014275
00:20:08 at page 74
00:20:15 and he gives some more details about the Hardman Square project if we look three lines up from the bottom. So he talks about the Hardman Square
00:20:26 So he talks about the Hardman Square Manchester which Foster and Partners designed for Allied London in and around 2004. I was the project lead for foster and partners and I now recall that Arab facads assisted in designing the cladding as a facade consultant with
00:20:39 cladding as a facade consultant with metal bow fuk as a subcontractor. So is it right from that that it was Arab facads there who were designing the cladding as a facade consultant?
00:20:53 I thought metalbar were well I I'm familiar with the company. I think it's the same Austrian company. I think they're the cladding designers. Yes. Did you know much about Mr.
00:21:06 Yes. Did you know much about Mr. Crawford's experience in this regard when you engaged him on the Grenful project?
00:21:13 project? Did you speak to I know much I I I knew of it but I I don't think I he had discussed it with me. Um, so not necessarily in the context of
00:21:24 not necessarily in the context of grandfather, I must add, but I was aware of a project in Manchester which involved Arab facads and over and cladding.
00:21:35 cladding. And was that any part of your thinking when you put him on the Granville project, the fact that he'd had this experience? I think it was. Yeah.
00:21:48 I think I think that was our collective thinking. York, if you're directing that question at me, I think um Andre and I obviously
00:21:57 obviously thought of it when we um suggested putting him on. It was with reference to that Hardman Square project. No, no, just knowledge that he had experience with um
00:22:10 experience with um high-rise buildings. Would you agree with me looking at this that he's taken one project up to planning stage and there's another project but he's had some significant assistance there with
00:22:21 some significant assistance there with um metal barrel ar facads as the cladding facade consultant
00:22:31 has he had assistance well he says ar facad assisted in designing the cladding
00:22:40 Okay. Um, what I'm suggesting is that in fact his his experience of overcladding was actually quite limited when you look at this.
00:22:54 Would you accept that? I think I think you're inferring it. I don't think that's in any way. Okay, let's let's move on. A fair comment.
00:23:07 Do you accept that when taking on the project, Studio E should have recognized that their existing levels of knowledge and skill would need to be expanded?
00:23:18 Um,
00:23:21 I think knowledge, yes, skill, I think it was within our skills. Yeah.
00:23:27 Yeah. To tackle the project. At any stage during the Grenful project, did you consider hiring someone else who did have experience to work on in particular the overcladding aspects of the project?
00:23:42 Um,
00:23:49 I I definitely don't recall discussing that.
00:23:55 that. Was it a thought that ever occurred to you?
00:24:00 I think your question is again inferring that we would be designing something um specialist which we did not expect to be doing.
00:24:12 which we did not expect to be doing. So you didn't expect to be designing the overcladding? No.
00:24:15 No. For the project? No. Because
00:24:20 because
00:24:24 something as discreet and as sophisticated as an overcloud is usually um in my experience cont um let as a a single contract to a
00:24:37 cont um let as a a single contract to a specialist subcontractor.
00:24:41 So did you expect to do any design work on it?
00:24:44 on it? We expected to to provide the intent and the um
00:24:52 sufficient for it to be priced. Yeah. I see.
00:24:57 see. And did you consider instructing a member of your team to carry out further research
00:25:02 research into overcladding projects?
00:25:08 Um well there was research done at the outset and then certainly through 2013 when um it became clear that we would not be proceeding
00:25:19 clear that we would not be proceeding with lead
00:25:21 with lead and then the research sort of took on a slightly more a different focus because we would be providing um tender information for for an open
00:25:32 tender information for for an open tender. And that research that you talked about at the outset of the project, was that what we discussed yesterday where you said you went online and you had a look and if and you ended up finding C. Is that correct? Start looking for similar projects and
00:25:44 Start looking for similar projects and and quickly came across C. Yes. Yeah. Do you remember what similar projects you you found when you did that research? Do you remember any particular similar projects that were important? I
00:25:57 similar projects that were important? I I can't mention any by name, but I I I do know there were a number. I know they sent us drawings and I'm
00:26:08 sent us drawings and I'm Can we have a look now at paragraph 343.4 of your statement? This is a sea0 14273 at page 140 at the bottom of the
00:26:19 14273 at page 140 at the bottom of the page.
00:26:21 page. So there you say in the first sentence, the building regulations are not straightforward to interpret and this was a complex project. Now can you explain in what way you
00:26:33 Now can you explain in what way you appreciated it was a complex project?
00:26:39 It was a high-rise. Um
00:26:43 Um it was an existing building with a single means of escape. And that single means of escape was internal.
00:26:53 internal. Um it was a building which was going to be altered quite significantly. Um with the residents in in it.
00:27:04 in it. Yeah.
00:27:05 Yeah. Um
00:27:08 yeah tackling that is is clearly complex.
00:27:12 complex. And is that something that complexity is that something that you appreciated at the outset of the project? Yes, definitely.
00:27:23 But that wasn't something that triggered in you a desire to hire in additional expertise to assist you. I I I would argue that's what the consultants were.
00:27:34 consultants were. Yeah.
00:27:36 Yeah. Do you agree that the overcladding of the building envelope was by far the most complicated part of the project in terms of design, specification, and regulatory compliance? No,
00:27:48 regulatory compliance? No, you don't. Not at all. No. So, which part of the project did you think was the most complex in terms of design, specification, and regulatory compliance? Well, you you've added a lot of um
00:28:01 Well, you you've added a lot of um we can break it down. Which did you think was the most complex in terms of design? Four floors. The podium level was the alterations to the podium were considerably complex. um both in the the
00:28:12 considerably complex. um both in the the design, the number of changes, the reaching of the services, um coordinating the work given that it's it also had to accommodate the entrance and exit from the tower for the residents
00:28:24 exit from the tower for the residents and um
00:28:27 and um agreeing the the scheme with the planning. The lower floor was was definitely a challenge, the lower four floors, the podium as we call it. And does it follow from that that you'd
00:28:38 And does it follow from that that you'd say it was also the most complex in terms of specification and regulatory compliance?
00:28:45 Um
00:28:51 given that we were altering the means of escape
00:28:57 having to consider the ventilation and smoke extract to the new residential floors at that level. Yes, I would.
00:29:09 Yes, I would. And and
00:29:10 And and I mean I appreciate it's difficult this long after, but in terms of the overcladding aspect, where did that fall in your thinking in terms of complexity? Um rain cladding itself is quite
00:29:23 Um rain cladding itself is quite straightforward. Um especially when you've got a a concrete substrate. Um you you've got a if it were a new build and
00:29:37 An ideal backing is concrete background for a rainscreen cladding. So the existing building was in a sense no different to a new building. Just was a
00:29:49 different to a new building. Just was a it just happened to have a lot of people living in it. That's where the Does it follow from that that you didn't think that the overcladding was a complicated aspect of the design? No, of course it is. Um working at height is definitely
00:30:02 height is definitely working at height. Yeah. Well, yes. Um, of course it's sophisticated and technically complex because of structural um dimensional
00:30:15 structural um dimensional um coordination involved. And what about risk to the building? Did the overcladding of the building give rise to any complexity in terms of potential
00:30:26 to any complexity in terms of potential risks?
00:30:32 Did it I think the the risk that certainly did occur to us was was the the weight of the the cladding. The weight. Yeah. Yeah.
00:30:41 Yeah. I mean it did occur to us but I I it certainly was checked by the structural engineers. Can we now go back to the um and look at the 29th of February 2012 email from Mr.
00:30:54 the 29th of February 2012 email from Mr. Anderson with the initial brief for the project. So we find that sea 707 at page two.
00:31:12 So he says on page two, so this is in the first paragraph after the sub paragraphs at the top. We see him saying there, this work will be separate to but complementing calc. It
00:31:24 separate to but complementing calc. It must not in any way compromise the calcul project and we will require assurances and a clear delineation demonstrating this. Do you see that? Yes.
00:31:34 Yes. And that's we know about the calc project. So is it right that you were required to ensure that you didn't divert resources away from the calc project.
00:31:44 project. Um
00:31:47 Um I think that's the the the more obvious um interpretation of that. statement, but I'm not sure it's the only one. What would be the other interpretation
00:31:59 What would be the other interpretation you're thinking of? I think
00:32:06 I'm speculating, but if when I read I'm asking when when you read it, what did you understand it to mean? I thought it's relatively straightforward to keep a team separate, but I think they didn't
00:32:17 a team separate, but I think they didn't want
00:32:19 want any
00:32:21 any um
00:32:25 anything coming out of the Grenford project interfering with the progress of the CL project. So whether that be
00:32:36 whether that be discussing site boundaries or access or I don't know consultations I you know any any could could be anything. Okay.
00:32:46 Okay. Did you understand this to mean that the GRL project was a lower priority for the TMO than the calc project? I I don't think that's correct. No. Did you ever get that impression from
00:32:57 Did you ever get that impression from your dealings with the TMO that this was a lower priority project? No, no, no, not at all. Was it a lower priority project within Studio E?
00:33:08 Studio E? No.
00:33:10 No. Do you know how many architects within Studio E were working on the Cal project?
00:33:17 I'm sorry. Approximately I mean approximately if it was five it could have gone up. Any directors or partners? Cal.
00:33:25 Cal. Yes,
00:33:25 Yes, that was Andre obviously. Andre.
00:33:27 Andre. Yes.
00:33:28 Yes. Any other directors or partners? No.
00:33:32 No. No. So he had five. Well, you approximately I think it did fluctuate and I I'm hesiting. Sorry. Fair fair point. Approximately five. Were you ever involved in the CL
00:33:44 five. Were you ever involved in the CL project?
00:33:45 project? I was.
00:33:46 I was. What was your involvement? Um primarily in the bid. Sorry. Primarily in the bid. In the bid. Yeah.
00:33:55 Yeah. So when would that have been? Um I I think Andre discussed that yesterday and and I think I think it did start April, May, June 2011. I think we it's been
00:34:08 May, June 2011. I think we it's been awarded September, October. So in 2011 2011 Yeah. Were you ever involved thereafter in the CL project? I was involved a little for a month or
00:34:21 I was involved a little for a month or two.
00:34:21 two. What kind of involvement did you have? Um it was it was just initial
00:34:30 initial discussions about site organization. I think I attended one or two meetings. Did you ever have any detailed knowledge of the specifications for the CLK project? For example, what they might
00:34:41 project? For example, what they might have used in the external law. Was that something that crossed your desk that you looked at?
00:34:50 I think I was aware of what they were doing. But what what but that came later um
00:34:54 um okay
00:34:56 okay quite a bit later but not in I didn't um set about scrutinizing it. Okay.
00:35:04 Okay. I now want to ask you a few questions about the impact of studio's insolveny. So we know that in August 2014 Studio E LLP was placed into voluntary creditors
00:35:15 LLP was placed into voluntary creditors liquidation. Is that correct? Yes.
00:35:19 Yes. And it was Studio E LLP that was originally engaged to work on the Grenful project by the TMO. Is that right?
00:35:26 right? Can you recall approximately how many employees did that organization have in 2012?
00:35:35 So before the insolveny roughly what kind of size was studio LLP?
00:35:44 I can't recall because it obviously was changing and I think we have stated somewhere the approximate numbers at the time.
00:35:53 time. So I think in um the opening it was stated to be approximately 45. Would that sound about right? Yeah. I think we were at our biggest in 2012 I think.
00:36:04 2012 I think. At your biggest in 2012? I think so. Yeah.
00:36:07 Yeah. But I could be wrong. And by the time of the liquidation in August 2014, had Studio E LLP shrunk before that point? Yes.
00:36:18 Yes. By what kind of measure? I mean um that there was a series of redundancy um processes and do you remember approximately how many individuals were made redundant?
00:36:31 many individuals were made redundant? Are we talking tens? Are we talking a handful?
00:36:36 Very difficult. I I you can't some some people left of their own accordance, some some didn't. Um
00:36:47 I'm very hesitant to put a figure on it because I I I think I'd be guessing. Is it right that Studio Architects Limited is now a much smaller company than Studioe LLP was?
00:37:00 than Studioe LLP was? 2014.
00:37:03 2014. Um yes. Well, let let's say in 2014 was it a much smaller company? By mid 20 once the liquidation Yeah.
00:37:13 Yeah. Once everyone was transferred over. Yes.
00:37:15 Yes. Yes.
00:37:17 Yes. Approximately how many employees worked for Studio E Limited by that point? Mid 2014.
00:37:24 2014. Sorry. This Studio E Limited. Yeah. Um
00:37:28 Yeah. Um so after the insolveny which we know is in
00:37:32 in August 2014 a figure of 9 to 12 9 to 12.
00:37:37 9 to 12. Yeah.
00:37:39 Yeah. Yeah.
00:37:41 Yeah. So is it right that studio e architects limited is a smaller company both in terms of turnover and staff? Yes.
00:37:51 Was it ever the case that there was limited staff available to work on the ground project after Studio E LLP's insolveny? No.
00:38:02 No. You always felt that you had adequate people available? Yes.
00:38:08 Yes. And when the insolveny was taking place, were more senior members of staff such as yourself uh were you diverted away from project work while the insolveny took place?
00:38:23 Um there there was disruption obviously. Um we did have to move office but I don't I mean at the time we were
00:38:35 but I don't I mean at the time we were in a bit of it was a standown period. So apart from moving offices and that kind of disruption, did you yourself get pulled into
00:38:46 pulled into any work involved in dealing with the insolveny?
00:38:51 Not I attended some meetings, but I wouldn't say I was diverted. No. So it didn't affect your project work at that time. No.
00:38:58 No. No.
00:39:03 I now want to come on to look at um Studio E's contractual duties to the TMO. And I'm going to start by asking you questions about the contract between Studioe LLP and the TMO, your
00:39:14 Studioe LLP and the TMO, your appointment to them. Now, as we've already seen, on the 29th of February, 2012, Mr. Anderson emailed Mr. Kushell with an initial description of the project, which he then forwarded to you because Mr. Kushell was away. Let's go
00:39:26 because Mr. Kushell was away. Let's go back and look at that. This is SEA707.
00:39:33 And if we look at the email, can we go to page one of that?
00:39:44 Yeah. So, um, the email provides the principal objectives of the project. We see that at the bottom of that page. And if we go over onto page two,
00:39:56 if we go over onto page two, in the middle of the page, about three paragraphs down after the first lot of sub paragraphs, we see it says, "Additionally, commissions will be via the KCTMO and subject to OJU limits." Do
00:40:09 the KCTMO and subject to OJU limits." Do you see that there? Yeah.
00:40:11 Yeah. And is it right that OJU refers to the official journal of the European Union, which is where contract opportunities for public sector contracts are advertised? Yes.
00:40:22 Yes. And Mr. Anderson goes on to explain in that email the initial stages of the work were to cover three stages. Can can you see that just below? So he anticipates that there's going to be
00:40:33 anticipates that there's going to be scoping and outline brief stage then two stages A and B and then three stages C D and E. Now is that referring to to
00:40:44 and E. Now is that referring to to rebber stages when we see A and B CDE E those are rea that's my understanding yeah and we're going to look later at what each of those stages might have involved but for now I just want to ask
00:40:56 involved but for now I just want to ask you was it your understanding at that point that the Grenell Tower services that studio LLP was being asked to provide would not be competitively procured
00:41:08 procured I'm sorry
00:41:09 I'm sorry was it your understanding at this point that there wouldn't be a competitive tender process. Well, this was the first email. Um, and the mention of OG limits, I think I
00:41:20 the mention of OG limits, I think I initially
00:41:22 initially saw and thought it would be subject to competitive um procurement. Now, if it's not going to be competitively tended, the estimated value of the contract would have to be
00:41:34 value of the contract would have to be less than 174,000. Is that right? I I feel that questions on procurement should be directed at those who can best
00:41:45 should be directed at those who can best answer them. Okay.
00:41:46 Okay. And that's not me. Okay.
00:41:47 Okay. I
00:41:49 I I you know the OG limits are there to protect public money and I know that local authorities have to bid pretty much everything. So
00:42:02 much everything. So let's look at an email that you sent that. Can we go to sea 43567
00:42:20 and we say see here an email from you to Mr. crucial and you say in the first line
00:42:27 line in the second sentence concerned about the emphasis of working at risk while planning to OJU at all doesn't add up. Now can you just explain to us here what
00:42:40 Now can you just explain to us here what does working at risk while planning to o mean?
00:42:46 mean? Um
00:42:48 Um we discussed this yesterday and it was um 20 minutes after the email had arrived and I had just obviously read through it and seen the reference to the OU. Um he had mentioned working at risk
00:43:01 OU. Um he had mentioned working at risk which um architects can agree to do um to establish a feasibility if if they think there's a longer term view on the project that they'd like to
00:43:13 view on the project that they'd like to support.
00:43:15 support. And
00:43:18 And given the scale of the project and the mention of the OG, I thought that they would
00:43:26 would intend putting it out to tender. I see.
00:43:31 I see. That was my initial reading of the email.
00:43:34 email. And um you've explained um in paragraph 63 of your statement that you believe that the overall fee to deliver the project would be higher than the AJU threshold of 74,000. Is that right?
00:43:49 threshold of 74,000. Is that right? I I
00:43:54 I'm going to hesitate because we've just I think it's come up that on calc the sub consultants are all the other consultants were all subconsulted
00:44:06 other consultants were all subconsulted through studio e through you as the lead consultant. Can we just look at paragraph 63 of your statement? If we go sea 014273 at page 32
00:44:25 and you say in the last five lines, the reason I felt his email did not add up was that I believe the overall fee to deliver the project would be higher than the OJU threshold and studio may not be
00:44:37 the OJU threshold and studio may not be able to qualify in a bid process. I felt it did not make sense to expose ourselves by working at risk for any length of time. So there's a number of points there that you is it correct that
00:44:49 points there that you is it correct that you did feel that the overall fee to deliver the project would be higher than the AJ limit? Well, it was obviously a first response, but the second sentence I understood
00:45:00 but the second sentence I understood that this limit was the maximum contract value and if we were going to have a full team under us, I think at that point I thought the contract value would
00:45:11 point I thought the contract value would would be more be more.
00:45:12 be more. Yeah. And you're obviously also concerned there about working at risk. Is that correct? Um
00:45:21 I think anyone um It's understandable if you are, but I'm just asking you to be clear. You've said there I felt it did not make sense to expose ourselves by working at risk
00:45:33 to expose ourselves by working at risk for any length of time. Yeah.
00:45:35 Yeah. Yeah.
00:45:39 You then went to site on the 6th of March 2012 and we have an email from you to Mr. Kushell following that site visit of the 7th of March. If we can go to that that's sea 014272
00:45:52 that that's sea 014272 at page two. And if we can look at the bottom of page two
00:45:58 two again, we looked at this email before. Looking at the first paragraph of the email,
00:46:05 email, you say at the end of that he thought the OJ limit was 175K. I did a quick search and found 99K. So is it right that at this time you seem to think the OJ limit was 99,000, not 174? Is that
00:46:19 OJ limit was 99,000, not 174? Is that correct?
00:46:22 correct? based on a quick search based on that email that I've got. Yeah.
00:46:26 Yeah. And you also say in the next paragraph that you thought a figure of five to six million was too little. So you say it's definitely a project but a poor relative compared to cal. We'll come to that in a moment. He mentioned hunters arriving at
00:46:39 moment. He mentioned hunters arriving at a figure of 5 to six million which sounds too little. So at that point is it right that you felt that the value of the project would need to be much more than that? This is the construction value. Yeah.
00:46:52 This is the construction value. Yeah. It's clearly construction value. I'm overall construction cost. Um yeah, I I'm I cannot recall on what basis I arrived at that judgment.
00:47:04 basis I arrived at that judgment. You can't recall that? I can't recall what basis what comparison I was using to arrive at that judgment. But so you don't recall what you thought a
00:47:15 so you don't recall what you thought a reasonable figure would have been at that stage?
00:47:22 I think even that is would have been a challenge for anybody to to offer at that stage. Um but I as I say I cannot recall why I thought five to six sounded
00:47:33 recall why I thought five to six sounded like
00:47:36 like too little. I mean you did know what the key parts of the project were likely to involve the heating the overcladding the reconfiguration of lower levels. But but but to to make that statement I must have had in my mind another project or
00:47:49 have had in my mind another project or something similar or but I can't remember how I arrived at that.
00:47:54 that. Okay. And the bit what we just me looked at where you say it's definitely a project but a poor relative compared to calc. Can you explain what you meant by poor relative?
00:48:07 The the five to six million sounded like too little. I see. What was the overall construction cost for the Cal project? What was your understanding of it?
00:48:18 understanding of it? I think it was 30 million I think.
00:48:22 I think. And then can we look at the second to last paragraph? You say very happy to front this might be cleaner. We looked at that for Gary's gripes. And at the end of that you say
00:48:35 gripes. And at the end of that you say resourcing wise I'm not sure Marcus is maybe not the right person for sketches massing studies and visuals. Are you referring to Marcus Kefir there? Yes.
00:48:45 Yes. And is it right that at that point you were not convinced he was the right person for the job? No. The right person for initial sketches and massing studies. That is
00:48:56 sketches and massing studies. That is usually
00:48:58 usually um the sort of work that a assistant would do. I see. So it was the specific work you could see coming down the track immediately that you didn't think he was suitable for. Suitable is even unfair. Marcus very
00:49:10 Suitable is even unfair. Marcus very experienced architect, but he he he didn't he didn't use SketchUp. He didn't um he didn't produce 3D visuals. I see he was ultimately used by you on
00:49:22 I see he was ultimately used by you on the project, wasn't he? He was used. Yes. But but for a brief period and
00:49:30 and now um Mr. Kushel replied that same day um if we go to the top of page two that's at 5:38 p.m.
00:49:42 And um he said he was concerned we can see this from the first paragraph that 99,000 would not be enough. He says 99k would be problematic for the services
00:49:53 would be problematic for the services they are proposing. Exclamation mark. Do you see that? Yes.
00:49:57 Yes. Do you know whether he shared your concern that a figure of more like 174,000 would also not be enough? Um I think at this stage
00:50:08 Um I think at this stage we're not clear what that figure includes.
00:50:11 includes. Okay.
00:50:12 Okay. So I I it's very difficult to comment. Now at this stage you'd not yet provided a fee estimate to the TMO, had you?
00:50:23 No, I think this was No. Did you feel based on this exchange that you were required to produce a fee estimate that would be lower than the OJ EU threshold?
00:50:37 Um,
00:50:50 your your fee has to pay for the work. Um,
00:50:57 so when Mr. Anderson said it'd be subject to OJU limits, did that not did that say anything to you in terms of the the cost projections you need to prod to be producing?
00:51:15 Possibly. It possibly suggested that, but I I don't think that's how we would necessarily look at it. Did you ever advise the TMO that you thought the services that they'd asked
00:51:26 thought the services that they'd asked for should cost more than the AJU limit?
00:51:35 Did we ever advise TMO that we thought the services would exceed yes limit? Again, it it depends what included in
00:51:46 Again, it it depends what included in that figure. But do you recall having any conversations with the TMO about that OJU limit and whether that was achievable for the services you thought
00:51:57 achievable for the services you thought were reasonably required? I can't specifically remember any conversations. No. And I I didn't we can't we can't see anything in the documents, but we want to know whether
00:52:08 documents, but we want to know whether you have ever had that conversation.
00:52:25 Sorry. Okay.
00:52:29 Okay. On the 4th of May 2012, you were informed that the Grenful Tower project was officially live and that the budget was approved. Can we just look at that email for Mr. Anderson? This is SEA
00:52:40 email for Mr. Anderson? This is SEA 44136.
00:52:46 If we can look, if we could blow that up at the top. So, we can see that you are one of the recipients of that email from Mr. Anderson where he says, "Good good afternoon all. Some very good news for
00:52:58 afternoon all. Some very good news for your bank holiday weekend. RBKC's cabinet approved the provision of funds for the Grenell Tower regeneration project. were now officially live. And it's right, isn't it, that at this
00:53:09 And it's right, isn't it, that at this stage, Studioe LLP did not have any kind of concluded contract with the TMO and you were working at risk. Is that correct?
00:53:19 correct? Um, yes. I I can't recall how much work we did by this time to be honest. So, yes, we we were involved at risk. And was working at risk something that you had been keen to avoid?
00:53:32 you had been keen to avoid? Um,
00:53:36 no. No,
00:53:38 No, no.
00:53:39 no. Did the absence of agreed terms and fees have any effect on how Studio E decided to organize itself at this stage?
00:53:51 Um,
00:53:56 so that's a bit of a
00:54:00 strange question. Did the you haven't you haven't got agreed terms and you haven't got agreed fees. Did that affect did did we did we not follow approach to the project? Did we not follow up shortly after with
00:54:12 Did we not follow up shortly after with a fee proposal? Let's look at that. So on the 12th of June 2012, you emailed a fee proposal and a draft appointment. Can we look briefly at uh sea 44561?
00:54:29 So this is you to Mr. Anderson and you're saying please see attached letter and enclosures regarding our fee and terms of appointment. And then can we go to the letter that's attached? That's sea 44562.
00:54:42 sea 44562. that's dated the 11th of June.
00:54:48 So here is a letter where you are proposing you say I'm writing to clarify our proposed fees and conditions of service for the proposed upgrade. We get that in
00:54:59 for the proposed upgrade. We get that in paragraph one. And then we can see there that you've set out a suite of documents that you are proposing the agreement will comprise. Is that correct?
00:55:11 will comprise. Is that correct? These are all as I recall um part of a pack of documents prepared by the reba.
00:55:19 the reba. Yes, exactly. Yeah.
00:55:20 Yeah. And we're going to come and look at these later in in more detail. Can we focus for the moment on the proposed fee that was set out in schedule C? We see that listed there as one of the subparagraphs.
00:55:32 one of the subparagraphs. Can we look at that? This is at um art50148.
00:55:44 And we can see the total fees in the top right hand corner. Can we see that before we get to the table?
00:55:53 table? It says total fees. It says total fees twice. We see 323,000. Do you see that there?
00:55:58 there? Yes.
00:56:00 Yes. And do you agree that's the total fees that you were proposing across the stages
00:56:06 stages pre and postnovation? I I recognize the table. Yeah, I think Yeah. Did you yourself prepare this? I would have I would have prepared this. Yeah.
00:56:16 Yeah. And what it shows is that you're proposing to charge 161,500 for stages A to E. Now, we get that. You don't see that figure of 161,000, but we get that by adding up the figures at the
00:56:29 get that by adding up the figures at the top.
00:56:30 top. um under each of the stages. So if we add stage A to B 16,000, stage C 32,000, stage D 64,000 and stage E 48,000.
00:56:44 stage D 64,000 and stage E 48,000. You can take it from me that you get to 161,500.
00:56:49 161,500. Yeah.
00:56:51 Yeah. Now, was this breakdown a way of ensuring that the contract with TMO stayed below the OJ EU limit of 174,000?
00:57:05 Um, I think you you're asking if the allocations on the second row were typical, and I think they are quite typical.
00:57:15 typical. What do you mean by typical? Do you mean a fair estimation of Is it typical for services that would be required? How we would expect to
00:57:26 How we would expect to um
00:57:28 um allocate
00:57:30 allocate feed percentages per stage? Can you explain give us an overview of how you would go about doing that for a project like Grenful? How would you come up with these figures? What kind of
00:57:42 up with these figures? What kind of analysis would go into it?
00:57:46 Sorry, you're asking first. I'm asking you how you've managed to come up with these costings for each of the different stages.
00:57:53 stages. Your first question was whether I had manipulated it to come under the the threshold and my response is that those fee allocations per stage the 5% 10% 20%.
00:58:05 20%. To me look fairly typical. I see. So you take the overall construction cost and then you apply a percentage and you say that's typical. that you you you take your total fee and
00:58:16 that you you you take your total fee and then you divide it out by stage based on experience and um I
00:58:25 um I what I think what is quite typical in the with architects I I believe it's quite typical. So how do you get to the overall fee? Um that's based on the 4.75%.
00:58:37 Um that's based on the 4.75%. I see. So it's a simple percentage of construction cost and then broken down thereafter into roughly what you think the stages are going to require in terms of percentage time.
00:58:48 of percentage time. Yeah.
00:58:49 Yeah. That that's what this is based on. Yeah.
00:58:52 Yeah. And at the time did you think that this sum was enough to cover the work that had to be done pre-novation?
00:59:02 Well, I think at this stage, I'm not sure novation was clear at the stage. So, we're going to look in a moment exactly what was said about noation. Um,
00:59:15 exactly what was said about noation. Um, so maybe let's park that for the moment. Let's go on. On the 18th of July 2012, there's a project meeting number five which you attended. Can we look at that? That's art50168.
00:59:41 So this is a a project meeting Thursday the 18th of July 2012. And we can see you're the last name on the present list. And if you go further down page
00:59:53 list. And if you go further down page one, immediately under the heading appointments,
00:59:58 we then see it stated a Dorson gave verbal confirmation that all appointments are approved. However, the TMO would like to subcontract all consultants via studioe up until stage D
01:00:10 consultants via studioe up until stage D with the total fee up until stage D not exceeding 174,000 which is the OJU threshold for requiring work to be tended. This will probably mean deferring some fees post stage D.
01:00:26 Now I want to ask you about that last part. Does the reference to deferring fees mean that Studio E LLP would be paid by the contractor after Novation
01:00:37 paid by the contractor after Novation for work that it had done for the TMO?
01:00:42 I Yes, I believe that's what was said. So is it right then that the actual cost of the services required under the contract with the TMO was expected to be
01:00:54 contract with the TMO was expected to be more than the AJ EU limit.
01:01:05 The TMO would like to subcontract all consultants via the studio. So the fee would be um increased by the inclusion of the other consultants. Yes.
01:01:18 of the other consultants. Yes. But then we can see in that final sentence, this will probably mean deferring some fees post stage D. So do you accept that certainly Mr. Dawson is suggesting that it the fees of
01:01:30 is suggesting that it the fees of 174,000 whether including subconsultants or not are going to be exceeded and some fees will have to be deferred.
01:01:41 and some fees will have to be deferred. He's used the word probably. Um and he does use refer to stage D. Did you agree with this statement when you were at the meeting?
01:01:54 I I mean did did
01:02:03 I agree with their strategy? Did you agree that it would probably mean deferring some fees post stage D? I would have to have checked. Have to have done an assessment.
01:02:15 have done an assessment. You were at the meeting. Do you recall this being discussed? It's my notes. I I I could definitely to be fair that this these aren't your notes. I think these are the Artilia project meeting minutes.
01:02:27 project meeting minutes. So these would have been circulated to everybody after the meeting. I think you'll find these notes have got studio's title block. Oh, I see. So these were written by you. Yeah.
01:02:39 Yeah. And there's no record in these minutes, is there to studio disagreeing with that and saying no actually it's all fine. We we don't need to deferred fees. We can do it for within that.
01:02:51 do it for within that. Th this is suggesting taking it up to stage D. It's suggesting as yet unidentified number of consultants to be innovated. You you would have to assess it in detail to know what your figure is. I
01:03:04 detail to know what your figure is. I don't think at a meeting you you could do that.
01:03:07 do that. Okay.
01:03:08 Okay. And you hadn't done that kind of assessment at this stage? No. And I actually don't recall doing it.
01:03:17 it. Now we can see that a more detailed spreadsheet was sent by you to the TMO on the 27th of July 2012. Um, can we look at the spreadsheet? That's sea
01:03:29 That's sea 407386.
01:03:41 We got that SCA 40. It's one that has to go to offline and I think we need to be in the studio E tab at the bottom. Yes, thank you.
01:03:52 Yes, thank you. Now, for stages A to E in this spreadsheet, you're proposing a total of 190,000. And we get that by adding up
01:04:04 And we get that by adding up the 19, the 38, the 76, and the 57. That in that's if it includes stage E. Do you see that?
01:04:13 see that? Yeah.
01:04:14 Yeah. So again, you can take it from me that if we add the total fees at the top for A, A and B, C, D, and E, we get to 190,000.
01:04:25 190,000. Do you recall how you arrived at these fee estimates? Again, was it just applying the simple percentage approach that you talked about earlier? I I think the formulas and the cells
01:04:37 I I think the formulas and the cells confirm that.
01:04:42 So between June and July 2012, is it fair to say that you decided that the initial design work was going to cost a fair bit more than 160,000, which is what the June fees would show?
01:04:54 which is what the June fees would show? We we see a jump here of 30,000 as between the initial cost costings that you sent and this spreadsheet. The changes in the construction cost,
01:05:06 The changes in the construction cost, it's because it's gone up to 8 million, isn't it? And that's the only change.
01:05:13 The rest of the figures look the same. They're the percentages, I think.
01:05:18 I think. And I think you you'd agree with me that the pre-novation fees, if we're looking at stages A to E, if that's pre-novation, we'll look at this question in a moment. In this spreadsheet, exceed the OJU limit of
01:05:30 spreadsheet, exceed the OJU limit of 174,000.
01:05:32 174,000. You you just said there were 190. Exactly.
01:05:37 Exactly. Yeah.
01:05:39 Yeah. And if we can go to the covering email that you sent which accompanied this spreadsheet. So this is a art50981.
01:05:55 This is an email that you sent to Mr. Anderson
01:05:59 Anderson on the 27th of July. You can see that at the top.
01:06:04 the top. And we can see that the fees that you've proposed include a 50% deferment of all stage D fees to keep the fee limit be below the OJU limit. Now if you look at
01:06:16 below the OJU limit. Now if you look at we see that in the six if you look at the black bullet points on the left. If you look at the sixth one down, we can see at the bottom there, it says
01:06:27 we can see at the bottom there, it says a 50% deferment of all stage D fees to keep the total stage D fee below 174K. Do you see that? Yeah. So do you agree with me that at
01:06:39 Yeah. So do you agree with me that at this stage you are amending the figures to ensure that they fall below that 174,000
01:06:50 by applying this 50% deferment?
01:06:54 It says so. Yeah. Yeah. And again, do you agree that less than a month after the TMO approached Studio E for the work, it had become clear that the prennovation design services were going to cost more than
01:07:06 services were going to cost more than the OJU limit?
01:07:10 Um, sorry, this is July, end of July. Yeah, we were approached in February.
01:07:20 That's fair. Sorry. So within a few months of that approach, do you agree that it had become clear that the pre-novation design services were going to cost more than the limit?
01:07:34 Yes, I I I think that's what this illustrates. And is it right that the solution to this was not to put the services out to tender, but instead to agree that some
01:07:45 tender, but instead to agree that some fees would be deferred?
01:07:51 Um,
01:08:00 I'm not sure you're asking me to confirm whether it was agreed by all parties or by us or by the client. Was there ever a suggestion that this increase in fees, maybe due to the
01:08:11 increase in fees, maybe due to the increase in construction budget, meant that actually now it ought to go out to tender? Did anyone ever suggest that to you?
01:08:21 I I I can't recall any discussions on that. It's certainly something that we were um
01:08:33 Well, we clearly are discussing the threshold. Yeah.
01:08:37 Yeah. So, so whether someone decided to put it out to tender, I guess, was up up to them.
01:08:42 them. Up to them. Do you know? Can I just ask you, did you ever suggest to the TMO that because of the level of fees it ought to go out to tender
01:08:53 I'm I'm afraid I I'm not uh I don't have the insight on on the OG rules um as as to take a view on what
01:09:06 rules um as as to take a view on what ought to have happened. Um,
01:09:10 Um, do you know who in the TMO made that decision? Are you ever aware of who made that decision in the TMO? Yeah. Not to put it out. Sure. No. Okay.
01:09:22 Yeah. Not to put it out. Sure. No. Okay. Now, before we move on to the next topic, I'm going to ask you just a few more questions about the effect of deferring Studioe E stage D fees. You've mentioned in your witness statement there were there were delays in payment
01:09:34 there were there were delays in payment by the TMO during the project. for the transcript. That's at paragraph 176 of your statement. Um, can we now go to uh paragraph 162 of
01:09:47 Um, can we now go to uh paragraph 162 of your statement? This is at sea014273
01:09:51 at page 78.
01:10:04 So there you say if we look at the second sentence of paragraph 162 you say at this stage so that's by we know from the earlier sentence by the 20th of
01:10:16 the earlier sentence by the 20th of December 2012 studioe was working at risk because we were not invoicing because we had reached the OJU threshold. Do you see that?
01:10:27 threshold. Do you see that? Yes.
01:10:30 And if we can look at um SEA 406739
01:10:42 if you can blow this up.
01:10:47 If we look at this is your email at the top of the page to Chris Churchman. Now he's the landscape architects on Grenful,
01:10:55 Grenful, wasn't he? Well, for the landscape architect company, Chris Churchman, do you They provided landscape services to Studio Eve for the Calk project and I
01:11:08 Studio Eve for the Calk project and I think they may have provided some services for a very brief period on Grenful.
01:11:14 Grenful. Okay.
01:11:14 Okay. Um,
01:11:15 Um, and if we look in the third sentence of that, he says, "We're not invoicing on Grenful because we've reached the OJ." You say OJ RU, should that be OJU
01:11:26 You say OJ RU, should that be OJU threshold? Yes.
01:11:28 Yes. Yeah. So, do you mean that at that point Studio E had submitted invoices up to a value of £174,000?
01:11:39 That's the implication. I can't recall obviously the threshold, the limit or the total we had invoiced that point. And is it right that at this stage you were still working on the planning application for the project? Is that
01:11:51 application for the project? Is that right? This is December. Well, sorry. November 2012,
01:11:59 our work had come to to um a climax with the architect's appraisal panel presentation and we had gone away a bit unsure
01:12:10 and we had gone away a bit unsure what to do, where to take it from there. So, we we had continued to work on it, but it wasn't um it wasn't
01:12:21 it wasn't um I mean we didn't continue for much longer.
01:12:25 longer. Okay.
01:12:26 Okay. Because the What Reeba stage would you say you were at around this point? We were working in reb. Yeah. Because you've done your stage C report in August 2012. So, you've moved on to stage D.
01:12:41 So in the space of six months there studio exceeded its pre-novation budget. Do you agree with that? Six months. Um it's more than six
01:12:52 Six months. Um it's more than six months.
01:12:52 months. You were first asked to start working on the project in June 2012. I think our first meetings were in April.
01:13:01 April. But whether it's 6 months or nine months, do you agree that within those months you've exceeded your pre-novation budget?
01:13:11 Um I I I guess I am no choice but to confirm what I've written there.
01:13:21 Now looking at this email, do you agree that there was still a significant amount of work to be done at this stage including at reverb stages D and E?
01:13:32 including at reverb stages D and E? E. Yes. Um D. No. I I we we were discussing elevations um agreeing the appearance of the
01:13:44 um agreeing the appearance of the building. I didn't expect that to involve
01:13:48 involve extensive changes to the plans for instance. I think I'm right in that your stage D report was August 2013. Is that correct? Yes.
01:13:55 Yes. So that's sometime after this. But you're saying there wasn't actually a huge amount more to do in the run-up to that. Is that correct?
01:14:05 A lot happened between um December or even I think April until August. We made um numerous changes and
01:14:16 August. We made um numerous changes and reviewed the the scape the scope of the project.
01:14:21 project. Yeah. Um is it right that your understanding was that studio would not be paid until it was no to the design and build contractor?
01:14:37 Um,
01:14:42 I think this would not be paid. I think this was the agreement we had. Um, but is the impact of that that you weren't going to be paid for some time
01:14:54 weren't going to be paid for some time on the project?
01:14:58 At this stage in November, we still believe that Lead Butter Stro Buig were very much in the frame. So you were hopeful that they would come
01:15:09 So you were hopeful that they would come on board and then you would get paid for the work that you had done up to that or beyond that point? Beyond that point. Yeah.
01:15:17 Yeah. Did the fact that Studio E was not going to be paid for some time have any impact on the decisions Studioe made about how to resource the project?
01:15:29 Well, at this stage we were in a in a sense in a limbo. We weren't um
01:15:35 um we weren't working on the project except I think having occasional contact with the planners. I I I
01:15:44 think this period um is covered in some detail in my statement. Did the lack of payment have any impact on Studio E's um insolvency, its
01:15:55 on Studio E's um insolvency, its eventual
01:15:58 eventual creditors voluntary liquidation?
01:16:04 That's a big question and I I would deny that. No, I I to your knowledge did it have any impact the fact that you weren't receiving fees for the rest of stage D and stage E
01:16:16 for the rest of stage D and stage E until
01:16:18 until in my mind they were not linked. They weren't linked in my mind. Okay.
01:16:25 Okay. Yeah, Mr. Chairman, I think that might be a good moment for the break. We're about to move to some contractual terms. Yes. All right. Well, it sounds as though we're going on to a different topic now, Mr. S. So, we're going to
01:16:36 topic now, Mr. S. So, we're going to take a short break. Please don't talk to anyone about your evidence or contents of your statement when they're out of the room and we'll return at half 11.
01:16:47 the room and we'll return at half 11. Uh, yes, half past 11. All right. Thank you very much. Like to go with the user, please.
01:17:00 Half
01:17:03 11, please.
01:30:56 Good. Could we have Mr. S back, please?
01:31:15 Right. Ready to carry on, Mr. SS? Yes. Good. Thank you. Yes, Mr. Gr. Yes. Thank you. I now want to go through some of the specifics of the contract between Studioe LLP and the TMO and then
01:31:27 between Studioe LLP and the TMO and then we'll come and look uh after that at the contract between Studio E Limited and Ryden.
01:31:33 Ryden. So starting with the contract with the TMO, we saw earlier that you sent on the 12th of June a letter together with a a suite of documents um based on the REBA
01:31:44 suite of documents um based on the REBA standard conditions of appointment for an architect 2010. Um you you say in your witness statement that you would normally expect the local authority to propose terms, but in this case you put forward an agreement based
01:31:56 case you put forward an agreement based on the reeba standard form. Is that correct?
01:31:59 correct? Yes. Um, you say that at paragraph 88 of your witness statement. That's for the transcript. Um, and can you explain, was there a particular reason why you decided to use the reeba standard form
01:32:11 decided to use the reeba standard form contract terms?
01:32:15 Um, it's traditional. Yeah.
01:32:19 Yeah. Yeah. It's traditional form. Were you familiar with them? Not very familiar. No. How how often had you used them before?
01:32:30 How how often had you used them before? Um
01:32:33 I can't recall prior to this and that's not to say we hadn't used them but um in majority of my work with studio e um
01:32:46 majority of my work with studio e um previous years had been um we hadn't used rebforms. They had been bespoke forms provided by the client. But you nevertheless chose to put them
01:32:58 But you nevertheless chose to put them forward on this project. Um
01:33:02 Um I remember discussing with the other consultants and they had all referred to their own institutes standard forms and so I
01:33:10 so I you did the same did the same. Okay. And it's right isn't it that studio and the TMO did not sign any agreement in 2012 did they? No. If we can go to sea 4-9820,
01:33:29 we can see on page one, this is an email from you to Artilia,
01:33:36 Peter Bllye and others of the Artillia group copying in the TMO dated the 11th of November 2013. And we can see from this email that in November 13, you're still negotiating
01:33:47 November 13, you're still negotiating the terms of Studio E's appointment, aren't you?
01:33:54 You're suggesting there was other negotiations. There was The point I'm making is that by this point, you're still negotiating terms. You say, "I've run through the contract details. The changes proposed are
01:34:05 details. The changes proposed are straightforward, but I think there are two outstanding issues. The form of innovation and the collateral warranty." Do you see that? Yes. Yes.
01:34:12 Yes. Yes. Yeah. So you're still you're still discussing the terms of the appointment. Yes.
01:34:17 Yes. And then if we go on, we can see that the terms were more or less agreed by the 20th of November 2013. If we can go to sea 4
01:34:25 to sea 4 9993
01:34:33 and we see here an email from Philip Booth to Claire Williams copying
01:34:45 copying you in and it says studio e appear ready to sign their contract. Are you happy for them to prepare two signed copies for your signature? So, um, it appears to have reached a fairly final
01:34:56 appears to have reached a fairly final stage. Do you agree? Appears to. Yes. However, you've said in your statement that you're not sure whether any contract was ever signed. Did you ever chase up a final signed agreement with
01:35:09 chase up a final signed agreement with the TMO?
01:35:13 No. Um, chase up? Um I think I say in my statement that we have no record no record of a signed agreement ever having taken place.
01:35:24 having taken place. No.
01:35:26 No. Wasn't that something that you were keen to get in order before being nvated over to
01:35:32 to the design and build contractor?
01:35:39 Um, yes. I I I don't recall any concern, but um So, you don't recall being concerned that this contract hadn't been finally
01:35:51 that this contract hadn't been finally signed?
01:35:52 signed? I I
01:35:56 guess I had understood that it would be included in the in the contract and circulated to the contractors. Okay.
01:36:06 Okay. Sorry. Do you mean that the tendering contractors as in your agreement with the TMO would be circulated to the tendering contractors? I think that's what I had assumed.
01:36:17 I think that's what I had assumed. Okay. Can we go to your witness statement at paragraph 26? That's sea30 14273 at page 11.
01:36:35 And here we see you say, "From the documents within Studio E's possession, I do not know whether the TMO appointment was ever in fact signed by Studio E andor the TMO. I cannot specifically recall Studio E signing the
01:36:46 specifically recall Studio E signing the documents, nor do we have a completed copy on file. That said, I consider that the services studioe provided in the pre-contract phase were consistent with those services identified in the TMO
01:36:58 those services identified in the TMO appointment. Do you see that? Yes.
01:37:00 Yes. So, just to clarify, that is your evidence that the services that you provided were consistent with the services that you'd identified in those appointment documents to the TMO.
01:37:13 Yes. With some caveats because obviously we didn't complete all stages pre-novation. We'll come on to that in just a moment. So can we take it that when you were
01:37:24 So can we take it that when you were performing the services for the TMO that you understood you were providing the services outlined in those appointment documents?
01:37:34 I think there is was confusion around the lead consultant role. Um but on the cord lead cord architecture
01:37:45 but on the cord lead cord architecture role. Yes. Can I'm sorry. Can I just Yeah. I don't quite understand why you weren't keen to get a contract signed so that you had the terms of your
01:37:57 that you had the terms of your obligation set out and your right to be paid set out. Can you recall what your thinking was about that?
01:38:10 I have no recollection of it being signed, but I'm and we don't have a copy. We couldn't locate a copy.
01:38:21 locate a copy. Um,
01:38:22 Um, but that's not to say it wasn't signed. I I can't cannot remember. All right. And I I guess thought maybe it was, but I don't know.
01:38:34 thought maybe it was, but I don't know. So, we really don't know. Yeah. All right. Thank you. Okay. On your point about the lead consultant role, we will come back and discuss that in just a moment. Um, but can we just follow through with the scope of the services that Studioe LLP
01:38:47 scope of the services that Studioe LLP provided? Can we look at sea 404571?
01:38:59 Now this is the rebber standard form standard conditions of appointment for a consultant 2010. And this is um am I right in thinking these were the terms that you were referring to when you
01:39:11 that you were referring to when you proposed the terms of appointment to the TMO?
01:39:14 TMO? Yes.
01:39:16 Yes. And can we turn to section two of the conditions? That's on page four of that document.
01:39:22 document. And if we look at the bottom section of that page, we see obligations and authority of the consultant. At 2.1, can we see there it says the consultant shall exercise reasonable skill, care,
01:39:33 shall exercise reasonable skill, care, and diligence in accordance with the normal standards of the consultant's profession in performing this services and discharging all obligations under this clause too? Do you see that? Yes. And was that your understanding at
01:39:45 Yes. And was that your understanding at the time of what you were contractually obliged to do?
01:39:54 This was discussed. I think what it had been discussed with previous agreements the reasonable skill and care was um
01:40:05 um was the requirement for our PI cover. Yeah. So I was aware that that was the level of
01:40:12 level of um service that we would have to um provide. Yeah. And this is consistent with that. Yes. Yeah.
01:40:20 Yeah. And can we look at condition 2.3.1 just below that on the same page? It says the consultant shall inform the client upon becoming aware of a need to appoint
01:40:31 becoming aware of a need to appoint other persons other than those named in the project data to perform work or services in connection with the project. So is it right that in effect if you
01:40:42 So is it right that in effect if you thought that additional specialist expertise was required, you had a duty to advise the TMO of that? Uh yes.
01:40:52 Uh yes. Can we look at that project data document that's referred to there? If we go to SEA 409823,
01:41:00 this is the project data document which was appendix A to the contract documents as set out in your letters. And if we go to page five of that project data,
01:41:13 project data, it lists out the project appointments. Do you see that there? Yes.
01:41:19 Yes. And can we see there three boxes down that studioe are the lead consultant? Do you see that? Yes.
01:41:28 Yes. And was that your understanding that studio we were performing the lead consultant role? That's the bit I'm I'm less clear on as to what that may have entailed. I think in part we
01:41:40 may have entailed. I think in part we did and in part Artilia took that role. So So if you're asking me to confirm, I I think um I mean what gave you the impression that
01:41:51 what gave you the impression that Artilia performed the role of lead consultant?
01:42:01 Is this this is the um 2013 version? Yes, this is these are the final versions that were proposed by you in April 2013. Um RTD undertook a
01:42:18 a slightly different role. There were different people involved and they that was the period I referred to in my statement as reinvigoration
01:42:29 statement as reinvigoration and and they take a took a more leading role in advising the TMO. Was that just a more leading role in practice in terms of how it seemed to you or did you were you aware of some
01:42:40 you or did you were you aware of some kind of formality in terms of Artilia's role?
01:42:45 role? Uh
01:42:47 Uh yes, there was more formality to it. Did you ever look at Artia's contract with the TMO?
01:42:54 the TMO? No.
01:42:54 No. Can we have a look at that now? It's at art 405742.
01:43:07 So we see here this is 9th of July 2014. Please find and close the contract as signed by the TMO. And
01:43:16 And if we go within this to page 34
01:43:23 and we look at the bottom of that page, can we have the bottom of the page instead? So we see at the top there the discipline of the consultant. They're there as employers agent QS and CDMC
01:43:37 there as employers agent QS and CDMC services. Do you see that? Yeah. And then can you see immediately below lead consultant? It says the consultant is not the lead consultant. The lead consultant Bruce
01:43:48 consultant. The lead consultant Bruce Stoons of Studio E. Do you see that? Yeah.
01:43:53 Yeah. And is it your evidence that you weren't aware of this during your time on the Grenville contract on the Grenell project? Sorry. I I saw this was July 14. Um, I
01:44:07 I I saw this was July 14. Um, I certainly wasn't made aware of it then or 2013.
01:44:11 or 2013. Um,
01:44:12 Um, so you were never made aware of Artilia's contract that we're just looking at now. No.
01:44:17 No. So I want to be really clear. What was it that gave you the impression that Artilia was also performing the role of lead consultant?
01:44:29 I think I think it's reflected in the in the
01:44:33 the correspondence and the notes that they were advising the client on the procurement route on the um the briefing the steps to reinvigorate
01:44:46 the briefing the steps to reinvigorate the project. Couldn't that be entirely consistent with the employers agent role or even the CDMC role as opposed to lead consultant role?
01:44:59 I I I'm not sure I can answer that. Okay, let's go back to uh what we were looking at in the contract documents. That's sea 49823
01:45:13 That's sea 49823 and page five. C can I stop you? Yeah.
01:45:16 Yeah. Can we go back? Oh, to Artilia's contract. Yes. Um
01:45:22 Yes. Um can we do that or do you need the number again?
01:45:23 again? No, it's there. Um It's a art 4. We still got it. Yeah. Employees agent. Yeah.
01:45:35 Yeah. In my understanding, um, is the role of the individual acting on behalf of the client to manage a building contract.
01:45:48 client to manage a building contract. Um
01:45:50 Um I didn't I certainly then and I'm not sure now I understand how that relates to the professional team. I don't think just to be clear you don't understand
01:46:01 just to be clear you don't understand how the employers agent role relates to say the lead consultant role. know how that would cover the um why why why in that covers the
01:46:15 the um why why why in that covers the management of the consultants appointments that to me would fall more naturally to a lead consultant. Okay.
01:46:23 Okay. So, so as I say you've asked could could the lead the employees agent role cover the lead consultant role and my answer is no.
01:46:31 is no. Not to my knowledge because employees agent is specifically managing um building contract. So are you saying that because Artilia were involved in some of the appointments of the consultants?
01:46:42 appointments of the consultants? Yes.
01:46:43 Yes. That you thought that meant that they had some role in as a lead consultant? They had taken on. Yes.
01:46:50 Yes. And that was something what you had just inferred from what they were doing or was it something you were ever expressly told? Artillia are acting as lead consultant.
01:47:01 consultant. I I can't recall anyone being categoric about the um the role, but um I I think it is reflected in the correspondence in the meeting notes and
01:47:12 the meeting notes and stranger I wonder if it would help it certainly help me and it might help others if we were clearer about the nature of the lead consultant. We're about to come to that. Are we? Yes. All right. Thank you. So if we can go back
01:47:27 to um sea 409823
01:47:32 just just to go back sorry not not mentioned there and I think for the duration of the project I had always sorry
01:47:40 sorry assumed that um artilleria was acting in some kind of project management role now I know that term is used loosely but if I had been asked that's what I would have said
01:47:51 have said so let's be clear you thought they were acting as
01:47:55 acting as some kind of employers agent. Well, employees agent under the building contract
01:47:59 contract and lead consultant
01:48:03 project manager and I think there's an overlap between them. Okay. So, you're now saying it was more like a project manager role rather than a lead consultant role. Yes.
01:48:11 Yes. Yeah. Okay. Mr. Chairman, we are going to come to look at what these reeba documents say about the role of lead consultant in just a moment. So, when it's convenient to you, if I can take it um in steps. So let's
01:48:23 if I can take it um in steps. So let's go back to SEA 4. Here we are. So there you are named as lead consultant and there's no caveat to that or additional
01:48:36 caveat to that or additional mention of Artilia there is there in that box
01:48:42 that box under lead consultant. Yeah, it just says studio E, doesn't it? Yeah. And then underneath that we have contract administrator Apple Yards employers agent Apple Yards and then we
01:48:55 employers agent Apple Yards and then we have studio E also as lead designer and architect as designer. Do you see those?
01:49:01 those? Yes.
01:49:03 Yes. And you're also down there as the landscape
01:49:11 designer. Is that correct? That might be further down. Judgment.
01:49:16 Judgment. Sorry. You're right. Sorry, that's an error.
01:49:21 error. Now,
01:49:22 Now, did you understand during the project that you were engaged to act as the lead consultant? Forget Artillia's role for the moment. Did you understand that was a role that you should be performing?
01:49:36 I think when I put the document together, I had ticked the box in 2012. Um
01:49:46 well these are documents that come from the 2013 package of information that were put forward in November 2013 just before there's the emails saying studio e ready to sign their contracts
01:50:00 studio e ready to sign their contracts even though it mentions apple and churchman
01:50:03 churchman it does as contract administrator employers agent I think by that stage they had changed their name to artillia
01:50:12 Okay. So, you're saying these documents weren't corrected to put Artilia in those roles? I'm I'm
01:50:21 Yeah, I'm questioning whether they were reviewed. Can we look at um page two of this document?
01:50:29 document? And this is the schedule of services.
01:50:37 Sorry, we're now in the project data. Can we go to sea 409824
01:50:51 and if we look at page two here
01:50:58 here so this is the schedule of services which is appendix B to the contract appointment documents and at page two we have the section specified roles do you see there that some of the details are
01:51:11 see there that some of the details are filled out. Can you see that? Yes.
01:51:13 Yes. And do you see there that the lead consultant is there at A to L? Did you fill that out? I think I did in 2012. Yes. And it wasn't changed later.
01:51:26 And it wasn't changed later. I I do not recall. No. No.
01:51:31 No. And we see lead designer is also stage A to L. Do you see that? Yes. So is it right that this document is envisaging a service for the whole project not just up to the stage when
01:51:42 project not just up to the stage when the client procured the design and build contractor
01:51:47 that follows doesn't it from stages A to L
01:51:52 L I think it's in 2012 we weren't clear what was going to happen yeah so you can't explain why the document was completed in this way and form part of that later package of documents
01:52:06 It appears to have just been a hangover copied. Yeah. Okay.
01:52:14 Before we look at precisely what Reeba defines under these terms, lead consultant, lead designer, architect as designer. We're going to come to that in a moment. I just want to look at the stage at which
01:52:27 stage at which you assumed you would be working to before Novation to the design and build contractor. We looked previously at your original letter proposing terms to the TMO dated the 11th of June. Can we go
01:52:40 TMO dated the 11th of June. Can we go back to that? That's SEA 44562.
01:52:49 And if we can blow up the top of that letter,
01:52:54 if you read the paragraph underneath the the the subparagraphs with the attachments to the contract, we can see you say that it's not possible to
01:53:05 you say that it's not possible to finalize these documents until the stage of the proposed novation is decided and our scope of work is clear. Do you see that?
01:53:13 that? Yes.
01:53:13 Yes. So you're making clear at that point that it hadn't been decided at what stage there should be a noation. Can we now go to the letter the later letter dated the 11th of November 2013
01:53:24 dated the 11th of November 2013 which accompanied the contract docs that you sent to the TMO at that stage that's sea 409821
01:53:38 and if we can blow up this letter. So this letter is we I think we briefly saw it at the top. So it's the 11th of November 2013 and we've got the same suite of of
01:53:49 and we've got the same suite of of documents there. And then underneath that
01:53:53 that you say I've attached completed drafts of the schedules assuming a noated appointment. These schedules clarify our intent with regard to cost and time parameters the consultant team
01:54:04 parameters the consultant team professional indemnity cover etc. So at this stage you're saying I've attached completed drafts assuming an innovated appointment. Do you see that? Yeah.
01:54:18 And can we go to what your understanding was of of the appointment to the TMO and the stages you had to work to? Can we look at your witness statement at sea014273
01:54:30 at page 11?
01:54:35 This is paragraph 25.
01:54:40 And if we read the second sentence, so it's five lines down, you say, "My understanding of the KCTMO appointment is that studioe was to perform the
01:54:51 is that studioe was to perform the services set out in the enclosures to the TMO appointment, including as requested by the TMO to assist in finalizing brief and feasibility options. Outline design proposals reeba
01:55:04 options. Outline design proposals reeba stage C detailed design including pling planning pos permission submission reeba stage D and technical design reba stage E and preparation of the employer's
01:55:17 E and preparation of the employer's requirements. Do you see that? Yes. So just to be crystal clear here, you're saying that under the TMO appointment, you understood that you had to perform the services set out in those
01:55:28 to perform the services set out in those appointment documents up to stage E and preparation of employers requirements. Is that correct? Yes.
01:55:36 Yes. Thank you. Now, you've also said in your statement that in fact you believe what you actually prepared was closer to reeba stage F1. That's the one immediately
01:55:49 stage F1. That's the one immediately after E. Can we have a look at that? That's paragraph 241 of your statement at SEAL014273
01:55:56 at page 105.
01:56:06 So you say there while studio E had undertaken to prepare a reeb stage E tender package I believe what we produced was closer to reeba stage F1. Do you see that?
01:56:17 Do you see that? Yes.
01:56:18 Yes. Can you just explain why you felt it was a closer to F1? F1 is production information. That's correct, isn't it? No.
01:56:27 No. Sorry. What's your What's Reaper stage F1?
01:56:31 F1? I'm afraid I'm going to have to rely on my experience. Yeah, I I haven't referred to a reaper definition, but um going back many years, we had I
01:56:44 but um going back many years, we had I had been involved in projects where particularly in a two-stage tendering procurement um which this wasn't um um which is what we used on on
01:56:57 wasn't um um which is what we used on on calc. This is the the route whereby you appoint a main contractor and then under a pre-construction agreement you you tender the packages
01:57:08 agreement you you tender the packages one by one to assemble a final cost for the project. So that um it's sometimes called open book tendering. Okay.
01:57:20 Okay. And in two-stage tendering, the contractors don't want complete construction information. They they seek um complete scope of work to permit um
01:57:33 um complete scope of work to permit um inquiries to be sent out for the packages of work. So the emphasis is on the extent, scope, nature of the
01:57:45 nature of the the work, but not necessarily on the detail. And in your so so that that is where I understood the distinction between F1 and F2 came from um the one was focused on an tender
01:57:59 from um the one was focused on an tender specifically um subcontract packages. Yeah.
01:58:03 Yeah. And F2 was the construction detail. So I'm afraid that that's my Okay. I understand that about F1 and F2. What I'm trying to get at is you say you
01:58:14 What I'm trying to get at is you say you were you'd undertaken to prepare Aribba stage E, but that you believe what you actually produced was closer to F1. Was that because you'd prepared tender information? So you'd gone beyond the
01:58:26 information? So you'd gone beyond the technical design stage, stage E, and you've prepared a tender package. Is that why you're saying it's closer to F1?
01:58:38 No, I think I think it's to do with how comprehensive the information was. I see. So is what you're saying that the information was more comprehensive than you would expect at reba stage E.
01:58:50 you would expect at reba stage E. Well, then you might um except for stage E. Yes.
01:58:54 E. Yes. Okay. Can we go um to the project brief which is appendix D to the contract documents? This is SEA 40-9826.
01:59:11 This is called appendix D project brief and again it's one of the pack of documents that accompanied the November 13 letter. If you look towards the bottom of that page, we see the reeba stages being
01:59:23 page, we see the reeba stages being outlined. Can you see there it says reebus stages E preparation of tender documentation and then reebber stages F2 KL innovation to a design and builds
01:59:35 KL innovation to a design and builds contractor. Yes.
01:59:37 Yes. Can can you just explain what you understood that to mean when you put that together? At what stage was the innovation to take place? Um at the end of stage E
01:59:52 and
01:59:55 What about F1? Where's stage F1 on this? I guess it's rolled in to be on this. I see.
02:00:06 see. So you would envisage from F2 onwards is when you've then gone over to a design and build contractor and that's the point
02:00:14 point at which your TMO duties cease and you go over to the design and build contractor. Is that correct? That's what's um that's what this brief um outlines.
02:00:27 um that's what this brief um outlines. Yes.
02:00:31 Can we just look at the reeba stages in the rebar outline plan of work? So this is sea 409824 page three. So this is within appendix
02:00:42 page three. So this is within appendix B.
02:00:45 We've got the reeba outline plan of work from 2007 here. And this is where we see the A B C D E F and we see F1 and F2. Can you see that?
02:00:57 Can you see that? I can.
02:01:01 And that's Can you see there? This is why I asked you whether F was production information. Do you see that there? Yes.
02:01:08 Yes. But that wasn't something you were aware of that F was production information. No, no, it was production information, but it's I I haven't referred to this, but preparation of information in
02:01:19 but preparation of information in sufficient detail to enable tender or tender to be obtained. And can we just look at the bottom of the page?
02:01:28 There's um some notes at the bottom that in fairness to you, we must look at. It says the activities in italics may be moved to shoot suit project requirements.
02:01:40 requirements. So, is it right that when we're reading this, if there's anything in italics, we need to be aware that they may in fact move around depending on the nature of the project.
02:01:51 the project. Um, I wasn't aware of that at the time or since. No. Okay.
02:02:00 Okay. Now if you thought that noation would be at stage E stroke F1 I think which is what you've just said can you explain why we had stages A to L
02:02:12 can you explain why we had stages A to L marked as the stages for lead designer lead consultant which we looked at earlier is it I think you explained that was a hangover. Is that correct? It is and I there's obviously a discrepancy between the cover and what
02:02:25 discrepancy between the cover and what you've just shown me. Yeah. If we look at appendix C fees and expenses, can we look at that sea 409825 at page two?
02:02:41 9825. Yeah. So, here we've got the fees and expenses schedule. This is appendix C to the package of documents you sent. Yeah.
02:02:52 Yeah. Here you've actually filled out your fees beyond stage, haven't you? You've filled them out for F1, GH, F2, K. So again, that's not consistent, is it,
02:03:03 again, that's not consistent, is it, with or necessarily consistent with noation after E or F1? Why not? I think it is. So it's you don't think it's
02:03:14 So it's you don't think it's inconsistent to have spelt out your fees beyond
02:03:18 beyond the noation point at this stage? I think that that is noation. I see. Um, now let's look at the different roles that you were performing. So if we go
02:03:30 that you were performing. So if we go back to sea49824 and go to page five of the document, I'm sorry. You you've you're moving on, but c can you are are you suggesting we
02:03:42 but c can you are are you suggesting we would be in a position of renegotiating a fee with a successful contractor? Possibly. I mean, why not? I you don't think that was an option? Um,
02:03:55 you don't think that was an option? Um, no, it is an option. That certainly is an option, but that was not that's not how you saw it. That's not how it was understood at the time.
02:04:02 time. I see.
02:04:03 I see. Let's go to page five of SEA 409824.
02:04:12 And it's right, isn't it, that here we see spelt out in these Reeba standard documents precisely what the role of lead consultant involves. Is that correct?
02:04:22 correct? Yes.
02:04:23 Yes. So, we can't look at all of these now, but let's just take a few. Right at the top, first paragraph, advising on the need for and the scope of services by
02:04:34 need for and the scope of services by consultants, specialists, subcontractors, or suppliers. Did you understand that to be studio's role?
02:04:45 I do I do remember reading this at the time because I prepared the document. I did expect to discuss it in more detail.
02:04:56 detail. Um
02:04:57 Um Mr. S, you've proposed these suite of documents twice. You've proposed them in 2012. You proposed them again in 2013. I I think are you saying now that what's spelled
02:05:08 are you saying now that what's spelled out here for the role of lead consultant which was clearly marked as studio E's role is not what you understood you were providing? No, I'm not. But I'm I am saying that I
02:05:20 No, I'm not. But I'm I am saying that I put it forward in July 2012 and never got a word back. Well, we see that it's also being put forward again in November 2013 in your
02:05:31 forward again in November 2013 in your letter that we looked at a moment ago. Yeah.
02:05:34 Yeah. So, you've been working on the project for a while now. One would think that if you had an issue with being the lead consultant, you could have said that at that stage. Yes. But clarifying the the um the line
02:05:46 Yes. But clarifying the the um the line between Artilleria and ourselves was never discussed. So, is it your evidence that you did not think you were performing the role of lead consultant on this project? No, I think my statement's quite clear
02:05:59 No, I think my statement's quite clear that there was a potential overlap. There was an overlap. So you did think it was Studio E's role to performing these lead consultant functions there was yes
02:06:10 there was yes yes
02:06:12 yes can we look at the fifth paragraph down can you see there it says monitoring the work of the consultant do you see that yes
02:06:21 yes so again would you agree that it was part of studio's role as lead consultant to be monitoring the work of consultants on the project as the lead consultant
02:06:32 Yes.
02:06:35 And it was Studio E's role to ensure that other consultants discharge their scope of work as well. Yes.
02:06:47 Then if we can have a look at what it says about lead designer, can we go to page seven within this document?
02:06:54 And if we look for example at the second paragraph, do you see there coordinating design of all constructional elements including work by consultants, specialists or
02:07:06 work by consultants, specialists or suppliers and for health and safety matters in conjunction with the CDM coordinator? Do you see that? Yes.
02:07:13 Yes. Again, did you understand that to be your role as lead designer on the project?
02:07:19 project? Yes.
02:07:19 Yes. And who did you understand to be the CDM coordinator? was Apple's artilleria. Yes.
02:07:27 Yes. And then in designers below that on the same page if you see the second paragraph down providing designs, specifications, advice and information
02:07:38 specifications, advice and information concerning the design for which the designer is responsible with due regard to cost, functionality, build quality and impact, buildability, construction safety, operation and maintenance. Do
02:07:49 safety, operation and maintenance. Do you see that? Yes. And again, is that consistent with the services that you thought Studio E was providing on this project? Yes.
02:08:00 Do you see a little bit further down that we have um a paragraph beginning giving due regard there's reference there to the good practice in selection of construction
02:08:11 practice in selection of construction materials by O Arab and partners. Do you see that?
02:08:15 see that? Yes.
02:08:16 Yes. Did you ever read that Arab good practice guide?
02:08:24 the good practice in selection of construction materials.
02:08:30 I think I think I have, but I I do not recall all the detail, but I I I think I have seen it.
02:08:40 seen it. Is it a document that you were familiar with at the time you proposed the contract terms to the TMO? As I say, I I do not recall when I last
02:08:51 As I say, I I do not recall when I last looked at it. We're going to look at it just in a moment. Just before we do that, can we also look at the third paragraph down under designers? We've got there determining materials, elements and
02:09:03 determining materials, elements and components, standards of workmanship, type of construction and performance in use for the relevant design. Do you see that as well?
02:09:15 Sorry, which paragraph? So, I think it's the third paragraph down underneath designers beginning determining materials, elements, and components, standards of workmanship. Do you see that?
02:09:26 workmanship. Do you see that? Yes.
02:09:27 Yes. Again, is that consistent with the services you thought you were per performing on the ground project? Yes.
02:09:34 Yes. Let's just have a look at the Arab good practice guide. That's at INQ301120.
02:09:42 Sorry. 11220. Thanks.
02:09:49 So, we can see from the frontest page that's what it looks like. Do you recall reading this while working on the Grenville project? No, I think I think I'm thinking of the
02:10:00 No, I think I think I'm thinking of the the list of deletious materials, right?
02:10:04 right? Not this document. So if we just turn onto page three,
02:10:12 we can blow up the first paragraph on the left hand side where it says, "The aim of this document is to provide outline guidance for clients and specifiers on how to apply good practice to the selection of materials in
02:10:24 to the selection of materials in construction."
02:10:28 That this this isn't ringing any bells for you in terms of you reading this, so you weren't aware of it. And were you aware in general that the purpose of this guidance was to promote a change in approach away from simply
02:10:41 a change in approach away from simply prohibiting unfa safe materials to having a
02:10:46 having a a risk assessment approach and a formal risk assessment to balance risks to health and safety of any particular material against other factors? Were you aware of that?
02:10:57 aware of that? As I say, I wasn't I don't think I've seen this document. Okay, let's go back to the schedule of services at sea 409824 at page 8.
02:11:19 So it's sea 409824 page 8.
02:11:28 And so this is further on within the schedule of services appendix B where we get a section which gives a description of the design services at each of the different reebus stages. Do you see
02:11:39 different reebus stages. Do you see that?
02:11:39 that? Yes.
02:11:42 Yes. And if we can look at the bottom of that page we see C this is concept design stage.
02:11:49 stage. Do you see that? So that's receiving the design brief, preparing the concept design, reviewing the procurement method etc. You see that there? Yeah. And then if we can go over at stage D on page nine, headed design
02:12:02 stage D on page nine, headed design development.
02:12:08 And can you look two two lines down? It says there invest in investigating effect of statutory standards and construction safety on concept design. Do you see
02:12:19 safety on concept design. Do you see that?
02:12:20 that? Yes.
02:12:22 Yes. So do you agree that at stage D of You had to understand the statutory standards such as building regulations and apply them to the design. It
02:12:33 and apply them to the design. It says investigating effect of statutory standards. But do you agree in order to investigate the effect of the statutory standards you'd need to know what those statutory standards were?
02:12:46 Yes. Yes.
02:12:50 And then we can see below at stage E which is the technical design stage we've got consulting the statutory authorities on developing the design preparing technical designs calculations
02:13:01 preparing technical designs calculations and specifications sufficient to coordinate components and elements of the project and then we've got including information for statutory standards and construction safety. Can you see that?
02:13:12 construction safety. Can you see that? Yes. Now, in fairness to you, that's in italics. So that it's possible that that may shift around. It could come earlier, it could come later. Is that correct? You've you've pointed that out. Yeah.
02:13:23 You've you've pointed that out. Yeah. Yeah.
02:13:24 Yeah. And then at stage F, just to be clear, under production information, we have preparing production information including specifications in sufficient detail to enable a tender or tenders to
02:13:36 detail to enable a tender or tenders to be obtained. Yes.
02:13:39 Yes. And going back to your evidence we looked at earlier, your evidence is that in fact on the Grenfield project, you took it to stage F1 before Novation, isn't it?
02:13:49 isn't it? I said it was closer. I I don't think we um
02:13:55 um we were required to. That's I'm not saying you were required to. I'm saying your evidence is that in fact you did get to that stage F1. Is that correct?
02:14:06 correct? I think I I I said closer. Okay.
02:14:11 Okay. So, are you saying it wasn't F1, it was just an advanced stage E? Yes.
02:14:15 Yes. Okay. And then we have the tender stages which begin at the top of page 10.
02:14:24 And we see it's stage K, construction to practical completion.
02:14:33 And you can see there we've got in italics again reviewing design information from contractors or specialists to establish whether that information can be coordinated and integrated with other project information. So this is how the normal reebus stages work.
02:14:45 reebus stages work. Do you see that once we get to the construction stage? Okay.
02:14:53 Now, do you agree that it was always envisaged that the design would be at a relatively advanced stage before the project would be put out to tender?
02:15:04 project would be put out to tender? Um, no. No. Um, if you go back to 2012, no, I don't think that was the understanding, right? 2013. Was that the understanding that it would be at a relatively
02:15:15 that it would be at a relatively advanced stage before with the departure of um lead? I think um it was understood that
02:15:26 um it was understood that an open tender would have to be more detailed.
02:15:31 detailed. Yes.
02:15:32 Yes. Yes.
02:15:32 Yes. So I think you're accepting that certainly by that stage it was clear that the design would need to be at a relatively advanced stage before tender. It didn't need to be, but that that was
02:15:44 It didn't need to be, but that that was agreed.
02:15:45 agreed. That was agreed and that's what you understood. Yes.
02:15:47 Yes. Yes. Thanks.
02:15:51 And do you agree that under this appointment to the TMO, Studio E to carry out an investigation of the statutory standards before that noation occurred?
02:16:04 that noation occurred? Um,
02:16:06 Um, do I agree? Yeah. I
02:16:08 Yeah. I do you agree looking at this looking at all those duties that we've just looked at under this appointment that you had to carry out an investigation of the statutory standards before noation.
02:16:19 statutory standards before noation. I think the statutory standards um are covered by the whole team and I think they they're covered in the stage C and D reports. But did you understand it to be studio
02:16:30 But did you understand it to be studio E's responsibility? Forget about anybody else who might have that responsibility as well. Yes. Did you understand it to be studio E's responsibility at stages C and D to be investigating the statutory
02:16:41 and D to be investigating the statutory standards? Yes.
02:16:45 Yes. And that would include the building regulations 2010 and the requirements under those. Yes. Yes.
02:16:55 Just finishing off this document, can we just move to page 11 where we've got other services? We can see on page 12, box 18,
02:17:09 that um the electronic document control system is crossed out. Do you see that there?
02:17:14 there? Yes.
02:17:15 Yes. Can you explain why that was crossed out?
02:17:20 Um,
02:17:25 common practice in the industry with any contract of a reasonable size is for the contractor to manage their documents on an online platform. Um, and that
02:17:40 an online platform. Um, and that could fall to a consultant, but it usually falls to a contractor in a design and build. So is what you're saying that it was your expectation that you as studio didn't need to provide this because this would be something
02:17:52 this because this would be something that the design and build contractor would be providing during their appointment. No, it's it's not a requirement. It's it's
02:18:04 it's as I say it's it's become common practice.
02:18:07 practice. Would you say it's good practice to have an electronic document control system? Um
02:18:15 Um I I I think it is. Yes. Um it allows you to manage the documents. Okay.
02:18:21 Okay. Yeah.
02:18:22 Yeah. We're going to come back in a later topic to look at um document control and what document control Ryden had and what Studio E had on the project. So I'm not going to ask you more questions at this stage. Um can we just look at box 19
02:18:34 stage. Um can we just look at box 19 while we're here? You've got compiling maintenance and operating manuals. That's also crossed out. So again, just to be clear, it was your understanding that studioe didn't have a
02:18:45 understanding that studioe didn't have a role in compiling maintenance and operational manuals. No, we we um have a role, but we weren't responsible for collecting them. I see
02:18:56 responsible for collecting them. I see that would always fall to the design and build contractor, DMB contractor as opposed to say Artillia in its role as CDM coordinator.
02:19:09 as CDM coordinator. The reason it's crossed out is that in a traditional contract, the architect would typically take on that role, but in a design and build, it's it's the it's not necessary. It's the contractor usually. Yeah.
02:19:20 Yeah. Do you consider that the terms of this appointment were suitable for the Grimful project? Yes. Um,
02:19:29 Yes. Um, and you did you think they were suitable for a design and build arrangement where there would be noation to a design and build contractor?
02:19:42 And do you agree that if studio E was going to be providing these services that we've just discussed to the TMO had to be aware of the requirements of the building regulations including schedule
02:19:53 building regulations including schedule one part B on fire safety? Yes.
02:19:59 Yes. And the associated statutory guidance approved document B on fire safety. Studioe E would have to be aware of the requirements and compliant with those.
02:20:10 requirements and compliant with those. I think that's a slightly more difficult point as to how aware.
02:20:20 So did you think that Studioe have to have regard to the guidance in approved document B on fire safety? Yes.
02:20:29 Yes. So I now want to look at the basis on which studioe carried out work for Ryen following Ryden's appointment.
02:20:40 Can we go to paragraphs 30 to 31 of your witness statement? This is sea0 14273
02:20:47 14273 page 14.
02:20:57 if we could zoom in on those. So there you say initially Ryden engaged Studioe LLP under the same terms as the TMO appointment but for only those
02:21:08 TMO appointment but for only those services that related to the construction stage for a short period of time in June and July 2014. However, and as set out further detail below, after Studio E LLP became insolvent, Ryden
02:21:20 Studio E LLP became insolvent, Ryden engaged Studioe Limited to continue on the project. and you say, "I believe that Studio E LLP's appointment with Ryden took the form of a noation, although I do not
02:21:31 form of a noation, although I do not have any documents that evidence this." I do not recall specifically when this would have occurred, but essentially Studio E LLP's obligations transferred from the TMO to Ryden through the legal
02:21:42 from the TMO to Ryden through the legal process of Novation. Studio E solicitors have advised me that noation is a technical legal term used to describe a substitution of a new contract in place of an old one. So I just want to be clear about this. Is it your evidence
02:21:55 clear about this. Is it your evidence that Ryden did engage studio E limited under the same terms as the TMO appointment for a period in 2014?
02:22:08 It is. Yes. Although um we we didn't do much work in that period. Yeah. What was it that gave you the impression that Ryden had engaged you
02:22:20 Ryden had engaged you as studio LLP at that point under the same terms? I think my first meeting with Ryden was in April.
02:22:29 in April. Um
02:22:31 Um so until until June um there were conversations ongoing but um I I don't think we had commenced any
02:22:42 I I don't think we had commenced any kind of work. So did you ever see I I I I hadn't at that obviously did discuss terms but the
02:22:55 or rather discussed our ongoing work with Ryden but I don't recall any any um conversation which disputed the
02:23:08 conversation which disputed the understanding that we would be novated.
02:23:12 So there's an understanding that you will be no, but there's isn't it a separate thing whether you have in fact been novated and are then appointed by Ryden
02:23:21 Ryden the new contract? Yes. Did you ever have any conversations with Ryden to the effect of yes, we as Ryden have now engaged you studio LLP to act
02:23:32 have now engaged you studio LLP to act for us pursuant to these same terms. Did you have that conversation with Ryden? I I don't think I I did. No. So you're saying it was just an assumption that you made. Is that correct?
02:23:45 you made. Is that correct? I think it's a bit more of an assumption. I think I think it it was reflected in the conversations in the correspondence. Can you recall which conversations
02:23:57 Can you recall which conversations you had to that effect with who at Ryden?
02:24:01 Ryden? Not not individually. I mean I I I I know there are mention of meetings in in my witness statements, but they're not noted.
02:24:13 but they're not noted. Isn't it actually right that Studio E's noation and appointment to Ryden didn't happen due to Studio E LLP's insolveny and instead Ryden appointed Studio E Limited?
02:24:26 Limited? I think if I recall there were one or two invoices which went out prior to innovation. Sorry, prior to the liquidation. I would use those as
02:24:39 I would use those as invoices going to Ryen which you say were paid. Yeah. Yeah. If I recall I think there were two. But is it it's right, isn't it, that Ryden and Studio E Limited
02:24:52 Ryden and Studio E Limited didn't use the Reeba standard forms, but instead
02:24:56 instead agreed bespoke terms. Yes.
02:25:01 Yes. Now, I want to look at this. On the 17th of April, 2014, we can see that Ryden sent Studioe a draft schedule of services. Can we go to this? This is a Ryd64706.
02:25:27 R YD triple064706
02:26:00 Is there a problem with that reference
02:26:03 reference at the moment? Sorry. Okay.
02:26:09 So, we we can come back and look at that. That was an email on the 17th of April 2014. Aha, you may have it up. We have it. Great. Okay. If we can look at the email,
02:26:21 Okay. If we can look at the email, the second email down at 1624. Here we have Simon Lawrence sending you Grenell draft schedule of services. And he says, please see attached a draft schedule of
02:26:32 please see attached a draft schedule of the services document that we're proposing to send you. We can discuss further next week. Do you see that? Yep. And then on the 30th of April 2014, so a couple of weeks later, we see an
02:26:43 so a couple of weeks later, we see an email at the top of the same document back from you responding to Mr. Lawrence with your comments in markup. So we can see there the email and it
02:26:55 So we can see there the email and it attaches schedule of services markup document and you say, "Hi Simon, I could have returned this almost immediately. Apologies. I've highlighted my comments. It needs to go out to our insurer and
02:27:06 It needs to go out to our insurer and they will need to see the warranty as well. Do you see that? Yeah.
02:27:09 Yeah. Now I want to look at the attachment that you sent at this stage. So this is a R yd014215.
02:27:25 And what we see in this document is the draft that was sent to you by Mr. Lawrence. And then we see your comments in comment bubbles on the right hand
02:27:36 in comment bubbles on the right hand side. Do you see that? Yeah.
02:27:38 Yeah. And if we can go to page three,
02:27:44 this is the schedule of architectural services
02:27:49 services um which Ryden were proposing for studio's appointment. And then we see under item seven generally we can see
02:28:01 under item seven generally we can see there that the the proposal was that it said obtain building regulation approval for and on behalf of the contractor and I think we can see from your comment
02:28:12 and I think we can see from your comment you've said too ownorous given the scope of building control approval and our inability to commit you our employer. Can we scroll up? Yeah, we might. Can we take that up?
02:28:23 Yeah, we might. Can we take that up? That's it. Thank you. Yeah, that's better. Too ownorous given the scope of building control approval and our inability to commit you or our employer to any requirement. And you've
02:28:34 employer to any requirement. And you've then I think proposed alternative wording. Do you see that there? Yes.
02:28:39 Yes. You've got in quotes responsibility for coordinating building control submissions. Do you see that? Yes.
02:28:44 Yes. So you're proposing alternative wording on item seven. And then if we look at item 10 which says seek to ensure that all designs comply with relevant health
02:28:55 all designs comply with relevant health technical memorandums etc to do with the NHS publications. You've you've commented not relevant. Do you see that? Yes.
02:29:02 Yes. And there were a few other changes by you in this um document but they relate to issues that we're not concerned with such as acoustics. So can we agree looking at this that
02:29:13 So can we agree looking at this that you've got no changes or suggested comments on item eight? Do you see that? Yeah.
02:29:19 Yeah. Seek to ensure that all designs comply with the relevant statutory requirements including scheme development standards. Yeah.
02:29:26 Yeah. Item 13
02:29:28 Item 13 at the bottom. With other consultants where appointed develop the scheme designs, agree with the contractor the type of construction and quality selection of materials. Do you see that? Yes. And item 14, if we go over the
02:29:41 Yes. And item 14, if we go over the page, we've got coordinate any design work done by consultants, specialists, contractors, subcontractors, and suppliers. Do you see that? Yes.
02:29:50 Yes. So, is it right that you never proposed any changes to those? And you were aware of them from April 2014?
02:29:59 2014? Yes.
02:30:01 Yes. Now, the agreement was not signed at that stage, was it? No.
02:30:05 No. Do you know why not? Um,
02:30:10 Um, I don't think anyone from Ryden returned to us regarding my my comments until
02:30:20 until So, no one from Ryden got back to you again. Were you not anxious to get in place a clear contract with Ryden that set out what your responsibilities were?
02:30:36 Um, no I wasn't anxious. We can see that the final text was sent by Ryden on the 14th of December 2015. If we go to SEAL013741.
02:30:59 We see an email from Mr. Daniel Banks, who I believe is a a traininee solicitor at Ryden to you of that date. Yes.
02:31:08 Yes. Where he says, "Thank you for your email."
02:31:11 email." And then um you previously commented on the form of warranty and deed of appointment.
02:31:19 He he says, sorry, just before that he says, "I'm conscious we've got outstanding appointments and warranties for the following job. Leebridge Road, Frognull Place, and then Grenful Towers. You've previously commented upon the
02:31:30 You've previously commented upon the form of warranty and deed of appointment. Having considered your comments, I confirm that majority of your amendments have been accepted save for the net contribution clause and he sends tracked documents attached. I
02:31:42 sends tracked documents attached. I trust these are now in an acceptable format and shall issue engrossments in due course. And then we don't need to go to this on screen, but for the transcript on the 20th of January 2016, there was a letter
02:31:54 20th of January 2016, there was a letter from Ryden with finalized documents sent to Mr. Crawford and yourself. That was SEAL013878.
02:32:06 Um, can we look at your witness statement next, which is paragraphs 473 and 474. This is SEAL014273
02:32:17 at page 184.
02:32:23 So 473 and 474.
02:32:30 Can you just read those two paragraphs to yourself?
02:32:51 Yeah. So you say there that at this stage Ryden was keen to have the contract documents signed off because it wanted to achieve practical completion and it required collateral warranties to do so.
02:33:03 required collateral warranties to do so. And you also say in the last sentence of paragraph 473
02:33:10 you say in my experience it is common for contractors to put pressure on the design team to accept ownorous terms. Now are you saying there that you felt
02:33:22 Now are you saying there that you felt pressured by Ryden to sign the contract at this stage? Yes we were. Was it your view at the time that the terms proposed by Ryden were ownorous?
02:33:37 Yes, I I I my understanding is they were uninsurable.
02:33:43 Which terms were ownorous? Which ones in particular? I think um uncap. Unlimited cap.
02:33:54 uncap. Unlimited cap. I believe it's uninsurable. That was your concern, was it? Did you have any concern about the schedule of services that we just looked at? I don't recall raising any comments on
02:34:07 I don't recall raising any comments on the schedule of services. No,
02:34:09 No, but that's obviously wasn't the priority.
02:34:13 priority. Priority was the the um the liability. Did you speak to your insurers at the time about the concerns you had
02:34:26 about being this being uninsurable?
02:34:30 It was my understanding. I I know that because he mentions in his email that we had it been in discussion on the warranty. I I think I would have had conversations. Do you have a specific recollection of
02:34:42 Do you have a specific recollection of that though? That's what I'm asking you. Can you recall speaking to your insurers about this? No, I sorry I can't remember specific conversations. Do you agree that the amendments that
02:34:53 Do you agree that the amendments that you made to the schedule of services had been accepted and they were reflected in the finalized texts that were sent to you?
02:35:01 you? Since Yeah, I see they they were. And is it fair to say that you had plenty of time to consider and object to the terms in the schedule of services given that you had been sent them back
02:35:14 given that you had been sent them back in April 2014? No.
02:35:20 No. Um,
02:35:20 Um, you didn't have plenty of time to consider those and object to them. Is that what you're saying? I'm saying in 2016
02:35:32 in 2016 um
02:35:34 um once they came back once Ryden returned with documents they wished to to formalize
02:35:41 formalize um there was it was time critical to to agree to them. But there's no record is there of you raising any concerns at that stage about the schedule of services?
02:35:53 the schedule of services? No.
02:35:54 No. No.
02:35:57 We're going to go through those terms in a moment. So let's look at Ryd094228.
02:36:10 This is the final agreed text signed on the 3rd of February 2016 between
02:36:18 between Studioe Limited and Ryden. Now just looking at the date there. So this means that the final contract was not in fact signed until after Studio E Limited's work had largely been
02:36:29 Limited's work had largely been completed. Is that correct? Correct.
02:36:33 Correct. Can we turn to the terms of that written agreement in more detail? Can we see from page two of that document at the top of the page that the deed is made on the 3rd of February between Ryden
02:36:44 the 3rd of February between Ryden Maintenance Limited and Studio E Architects Limited? Do you see that? Yes. And on page three
02:36:54 at paragraph 2.1, do you see there it says the consultant has and will continue to perform for the contractor the services in respect of the development. Do you see that?
02:37:07 the development. Do you see that? Yeah.
02:37:07 Yeah. And the words has and will continue to perform. Did you understand that to mean it had retrospective effect?
02:37:18 Um,
02:37:30 did you consider that at the time? Yes.
02:37:32 Yes. Yes.
02:37:33 Yes. And can we look at paragraph 2.3 as well just below that? So it says the consultant warrants it has exercised and will continue to exercise reasonable
02:37:45 will continue to exercise reasonable skill, care and diligence in the discharge of the services to the standard reasonably to be expected of a competent professional experienced in the provision of professional services for work similar to the size, scope,
02:37:57 for work similar to the size, scope, complexity, quality and nature of the development. Do you see that? Yes.
02:38:01 Yes. And you were aware of that at the time? Yes. I
02:38:07 I think I would have challenged that but I didn't obviously normally What does that mean? I think I would have challenged it. You did in fact challenge this clause.
02:38:18 You did in fact challenge this clause. You did in fact raise a query about it or looking at it now. And if if something is is usually if it's clearly inconsistent then you would
02:38:29 it's clearly inconsistent then you would say so.
02:38:31 say so. Are you saying this is inconsistent with the services you provided to Ryden? Um, no, I'm not saying that. Um,
02:38:42 Um, no, I'm not saying that. Um, but it's it is implying a a pre-existing experience which we didn't have.
02:38:51 Well, it's saying it's to the standard reasonably to expected of a competent professional experience in the provision of professional services for work similar to the size scope. So, isn't it
02:39:02 similar to the size scope. So, isn't it it a theoretical competent experienced professional? Yeah.
02:39:08 Yeah. Yeah. So, it's not it's not saying you had those that experience. It's saying your services are be to be compared with that theoretical comparator. Do you agree?
02:39:17 agree? Yeah.
02:39:18 Yeah. Yeah.
02:39:19 Yeah. And if we look on paragraph eight on page five, there's also an obligation to use reasonable skill, care, and diligence to comply with its obligations as designer under the CDM
02:39:31 obligations as designer under the CDM regulations. Do you see that? Yes.
02:39:39 And we we're going to come back to look at CDM later. I I now want to look at a number of specific parts of the schedule of services at annex A. So it begins at page eight of this document.
02:39:54 And if we look on page nine,
02:39:59 if we can look at item four, if we can go down the page. So here we see the se the schedule of services which studio had signed up to
02:40:10 services which studio had signed up to in this contract with Ryden. And you see item four on page nine, seek to ensure that all aspects of the architectural designs comply with the
02:40:21 architectural designs comply with the employers requirement documents prepared by Artilia UK. Do you see that? Yes.
02:40:25 Yes. And was it your understanding that that's what you had to do in providing the services to Ryden?
02:40:36 Yes. Although I I don't remember considering that at the time. Yes. When you say you don't remember considering it at the time, did you ever look at this schedule of services and say, well, let's just check that it is consistent
02:40:48 let's just check that it is consistent with the services we've been providing to Ryden.
02:40:53 to Ryden. Sorry, that one says, does say all architectural design comply with employees requirement documents? Yeah.
02:41:00 Yeah. Um,
02:41:04 is that what you thought Studio E was contractually obliged to be doing for Biden?
02:41:13 Yes, I sorry. I had thought it just said complies with employees requirements in total, but it doesn't. Okay.
02:41:22 Okay. Item five, advise the contractor where in the architect's opinion there are shortfalls within the employees requirements and advise of assumptions to be made. Do you see that? Yes.
02:41:33 Yes. And then item seven, can you see responsibility for coordinating building regulation approval for and on behalf of the contractor? Do you see that? Yes.
02:41:41 Yes. So we can see that they've accepted your wording
02:41:45 wording that you're responsible for coordinating the approval rather than gaining the approval.
02:41:50 approval. Now that you've put them up side by side, the the word I used was submissions. So responsibility for coordinating building regulation submissions. That's the wording I remember you've
02:42:01 That's the wording I remember you've just um indicator.
02:42:06 Do you accept that Ryden had responsibility for coordinating the building regulation approval for on behalf of the contractor? Right. Ryden or sorry studio E at that point we had agreed to
02:42:17 at that point we had agreed to coordinate building control approval
02:42:23 under is there a difference between submissions and approval?
02:42:33 Yes, I think I could argue there was okay
02:42:37 okay the term statutory requirements isn't um defined. We we see item eight uh it says seek to ensure that all designs comply with the relevant statute requirements.
02:42:48 with the relevant statute requirements. Did you understand that that included the building regulations? Yes.
02:42:52 Yes. And the CDM regulations? Um yes.
02:42:58 Um yes. And then we can see at item nine there's an obligation in accordance with the CDM regulations to undertake a design risk assessment relating to the works that are part of the architect's brief. Do you see that?
02:43:09 you see that? Yes.
02:43:13 And then we can see item 12 with other consultants where appointed develop the scheme designs agree with the contractor the type of construction and quality selection of materials. Do you see that?
02:43:24 selection of materials. Do you see that? Yes. And I think you confirmed earlier that that's consistent with the services you thought you were providing to Ryden.
02:43:33 Quality selection of materials is a bit ambiguous. But yes, sorry I didn't catch that. The the last um phrase type of construction and quality selection of materials is a bit ambiguous. But
02:43:45 materials is a bit ambiguous. But what would you understand that to mean?
02:43:49 Um
02:44:00 of construction
02:44:09 I think the word selection is shouldn't be there.
02:44:13 be there. I see. So you think it's construction and the quality of materials? Yeah. And that would implicitly include selection of materials in compliance
02:44:24 selection of materials in compliance with relevant statutory standards, wouldn't it?
02:44:31 Yeah. And then item 13 on page 10, we can see coordinate any design work done by consultants, specialist contractors,
02:44:43 consultants, specialist contractors, subcontractors, and suppliers. Do you see that?
02:44:46 see that? Yes.
02:44:48 Yes. And then we have item 27. If we go down,
02:44:56 we see examine subcontractors and suppliers drawings and details with particular reference to tolerances and dimensional coordination, finish, durability, appearance, and performance criteria and report to the contractor.
02:45:08 criteria and report to the contractor. Do you see that? Yes.
02:45:11 Yes. And again, is that consistent with the duties you understood you were providing to Ryden?
02:45:18 to Ryden? Yes.
02:45:20 Yes. And then finally under item 31 on page 11
02:45:28 we can see if we zoom in under this schedule of services studioe are obliged to be providing certain types of drawings including we can see
02:45:41 types of drawings including we can see one in five drawings of various aspects of the external wall. Do you see that at little A?
02:45:46 little A? Yes.
02:45:47 Yes. Again, was that consistent with uh the services you understood you were to be providing to Ryden? Um, no.
02:45:59 Um, no. So, can you explain why someone has signed this contract with one in five drawings in it when you didn't understand you were to be providing one in five drawings?
02:46:10 It was 2016. the the building was largely complete. I we were under pressure
02:46:21 and I I
02:46:26 can I can almost um
02:46:30 hear a conversation which which was well what's the issue? It's done. It's completed. Okay. I think I had a conversation to that effect with someone at Ryden.
02:46:41 effect with someone at Ryden. In other words, why why why
02:46:45 dispute a minor point when the project's finished?
02:46:51 finished? So, so
02:46:52 So, so so you didn't think it was worth disputing? Yeah.
02:46:54 Yeah. You just lived with it even though you knew you hadn't produced one in five drawings.
02:46:58 drawings. Yes.
02:46:59 Yes. Can we just look back at item 13 on page 10 just for a moment? The the word coordinate there. coordinate any design work done by
02:47:10 coordinate any design work done by consultant, specialist, contractor. What did you understand coordinate to mean in practice?
02:47:20 The consultants and specialist subcontractors have
02:47:28 specific elements of work which often potentially conflict or need to be um coordinated in such a way that
02:47:39 to be um coordinated in such a way that they don't. And that is usually the the role of the architect to to discuss and agree between different parties how
02:47:51 agree between different parties how different trades come together. Would it include identifying gaps in in scope? You know, one subcontractor seems to be doing X and another Y, but
02:48:02 seems to be doing X and another Y, but there's a gap that needs filling in order to ensure No, I wouldn't. It wouldn't.
02:48:12 No, it's very much a a sort of practical spatial construction issues usually at this stage that you're considering.
02:48:25 Following Ryden's letter of the 20th of January 2016 proposing these final terms, did you actually check this deed of appointment to see if it accurately reflected your understanding of the work
02:48:36 reflected your understanding of the work that Studio E Limited had been asked to do?
02:48:41 I think I mentioned that I I I realized that it didn't exactly because of the lists of drawings. Was that the only respect in which you felt it didn't accurately reflect the
02:48:52 felt it didn't accurately reflect the services you'd provided? I didn't do a detailed review of it at that point. So you're not aware for for that very reason. Um we were
02:49:03 for for that very reason. Um we were under pressure.
02:49:06 Did you actually check to see whether Studioe had in fact carried out the services outlined in the schedule of services?
02:49:16 Um I think I think that's the same the same question. Um, I was aware of the services we had provided and I I was aware that the document wasn't 100% in
02:49:28 aware that the document wasn't 100% in alignment with it.
02:49:32 Do you know if anyone at Studio E, anyone else at Studio E may have checked to check that in fact they'd carried out the services in the schedule of services.
02:49:44 services. Um, I think I was the one who would have looked at the document initially. So there was no one else that Andre my director he he would have
02:49:55 Andre my director he he would have received the document and no doubt looked at it but I I think he would have expected me to to raise any issues. Okay.
02:50:03 Okay. Can we look at paragraph 35 of your statement? This is sea trip 014273 at page 15.
02:50:18 And you say there in the first sentence, studio E's role during the postcontract rebirth stages F and K included coordinating the detailed design of others, including the engineers and
02:50:30 others, including the engineers and specialist subcontractors, leazing with planning and building control to achieve statutory approvals and responding to stat site queries. Now, just looking at that there, was it
02:50:42 Now, just looking at that there, was it your understanding that Studio E's role was limited to coordination and responding to queries? Yes.
02:50:54 Did you believe at the time that there was no requirement for Studioe to check the work of subcontractors to ensure that it complied with for example the building regulations?
02:51:07 No, there was no no expectation on us to do that.
02:51:11 do that. That was your clear understanding, was it?
02:51:13 it? Yeah.
02:51:14 Yeah. Based on what?
02:51:19 The individual.
02:51:23 Well,
02:51:27 a lot of the work fell to specialist subcontractors who held design responsibility for their work. Obviously the cladding but also a lot of
02:51:40 Obviously the cladding but also a lot of the internal works on the services and it would not in in event fall to us to check compliance compliance would
02:51:54 check compliance compliance would fall to the um specialist themselves to to check um we I don't that that's almost asking us to provide a certification role in which We we didn't
02:52:06 certification role in which We we didn't have.
02:52:06 have. So why did you agree to item eight of the schedule of services which says seek to ensure that all designs comply with relevant statutory requirements?
02:52:20 I I think that's not the same as confirming compliance. I think that's so seeking to ensure that all designs comply with the relevant statute
02:52:32 comply with the relevant statute requirements. What what would you envision that would entail?
02:52:48 Well, clearly as a role having a role as um coordinating the applications, you you would
02:52:55 you would receive comments back from building control and take them up with individual contractors. I see. So in discharging that is it your position that
02:53:06 position that your role was limited to passing on any comments from building control about statutory compliance? Yes.
02:53:15 Yes. Can we look at Mr. Crawford's witness statement at paragraph 16? This is at sea014275 at page seven.
02:53:35 So there he says um we did not have a formal deed of appointment with Ryden until the end of the project which is not uncommon. However, from the outset of my involvement, Simon Lawrence Ryden
02:53:46 of my involvement, Simon Lawrence Ryden made clear to me that Ryden would contact us when it when it required and so I would coordinate responses to queries as and when we were asked to do so by Ryden. Studioe had responsibility
02:53:58 so by Ryden. Studioe had responsibility for coordinating the building regulations approval process. Now there he says that from the outset of his involvement, Simon Lawrence made it clear that Ryden would contact Studio
02:54:09 it clear that Ryden would contact Studio E as and when required. Were you aware of this? Yes.
02:54:16 Yes. Did Simon Lawrence ever say that to you? He did.
02:54:20 He did. Can you recall exactly what he said to you?
02:54:25 Um
02:54:30 I think I think it's in my statement. um something to the effect that we Ryden typically don't is it in my statement? Um yeah, I'll take you to that in fairness
02:54:41 yeah, I'll take you to that in fairness to you. Let's go to paragraph 33 of your statement. We were about to go to it. It's Sea T014273 at page 14.
02:54:55 And if we look at the third sentence, four lines down, you say, "I was aware from early conversations with Simon Lawrence that it was Ryden's intention that Studio E Limited would have less of an intensive role than Studio E LLP had
02:55:08 an intensive role than Studio E LLP had under the KCTMO appointment." Do you see that?
02:55:11 that? Yes.
02:55:12 Yes. So, are those the words that he used, less of an intensive role?
02:55:18 Um,
02:55:26 no. I think that's me summarizing it. Can you recall when you had this conversation with Mr. Lawrence approximately?
02:55:38 No. No. Um,
02:55:41 No. Um, I don't and I I think there were more than one, but I I can't remember. It was near the beginning. I mean it was long before the work started on site. Did it occur to you to get that in
02:55:53 Did it occur to you to get that in reduced into writing?
02:55:58 No, I I I
02:56:03 wasn't.
02:56:08 No. But what did you take that to mean in practice less of intensive role? What did you think that actually meant in terms of what studio would be doing for
02:56:19 terms of what studio would be doing for Ryden?
02:56:24 Well, less queries, um, less requests for for drawings or details.
02:56:34 He didn't he didn't say exactly but he did he did imply that it would that that was the ride and I would say
02:56:45 that that was the ride and I would say is his but that that's what we could expect that it would be probably less than what we were um
02:56:56 um expecting. And on the basis of that did you adjust your your work going forward? Did it affect the way studio approached its role in practice?
02:57:10 Our role became I think it's possibly used elsewhere but not in my statement but more reactive more um
02:57:23 we were we were asked and responded as when
02:57:27 when as and when required. Yes. H how did that fit with the obligations that we've looked at which you knew about from April 2014 in the the schedule of services?
02:57:38 the schedule of services? How did that as and when required role fit with what we've seen in the schedule of services? Um
02:58:04 Did you ever have that thought? Did it ever occur to you that there was a Well, on the one hand, I'm being told it's as and when required a less intensive role. But on the other hand, I've just seen this schedule of services
02:58:16 I've just seen this schedule of services and it's pretty extensive what we have to do. Did that that disconnect ever occur to you? No. Um I what didn't occur to me? Um we we worked for most of the project
02:58:28 we worked for most of the project without an appointment. So the disconnect wasn't really When when that draft appointment came in in April 2014 that we looked at where you made some comments, did you share
02:58:40 you made some comments, did you share that with Mr. Crawford at the time? Did you discuss it with him? I don't recall discussing it with him, but I think the understanding on
02:58:51 but I think the understanding on the um
02:58:53 the um building control liaison was was understood. I'm pretty sure we discussed that. I understand that. I'm not specifically on building control here. I'm talking about more the kind of obligations like
02:59:06 about more the kind of obligations like we saw in paragraph 8. Ensure the designs meet the statutory requirements. I'm not sure that's more ownerous than what
02:59:19 more ownerous than what than what you're describing. That what I'm describing. Yeah. I see.
02:59:22 I see. Mr. Chairman, I think that's an appropriate moment. Yes. All right. Thank you. Well, Mr. S, we're going to stop for a break now. Um, please don't talk to anyone, excuse me, about the evidence you've given or your
02:59:33 about the evidence you've given or your statement or anything else to do with the inquiry. All right. Over the adjournment and uh we'll resume at 2:00, please. All right. Thank you very much. Like to go to the usher
02:59:50 2:00, please.