Grenfell inquiry


otherwise would likely refuse to answer questions. ‘These questions are important


to finding out the truth about the circumstances of the fire. The undertaking will not jeopardise the police investigation or prospects of a future criminal prosecution.’ Jonathan O’Neill, managing


director of the Fire Protection Association, commented: ‘Whilst we fully support the need for full disclosure to ensure that Sir Martin receives a complete picture of the decisions and events that resulted in the tragedy of the Grenfell Tower fire, it is absolutely vital that the survivors’ needs and aspirations for the inquiry are also fulfilled. ‘Today’s announcement will


move things on, and that is welcome; however, more work clearly needs to be done in reassuring the survivors that those to blame for this tragedy are fully held to account.’


Architects testify


The Guardian reported on the testimony from Studio E and founder Andrzej Kuszell, who admitted that the company ‘lacked experience in cladding tower blocks’ and revealed that it was selected ‘despite never having carried out similar work’, without any ‘competitive procurement process, interview or design competition’. Mr Kuszell also could not recall any competence check being undertaken. Studio E also admitted that


it was so ‘green on process and technicality’ that staff would have to undergo ‘rapid training’; while Mr Kuszell admitted the company ‘would not have been selected if there had been’ a procurement tender, stating: ‘I am really, really sorry for all of you. I can only say to you from my heart we really wanted to do the best project we could.’ Inquiry counsel Richard Millett said Studio E’s selection was ‘cheap, convenient, quick, even though Grenfell Tower was a completely different kind of project with different challenges’ to the neighbouring school that it


had refurbished. Mr Kuszell confirmed his team ‘was not experienced in overcladding a residential tower block’, with KCTMO knowing ‘exactly what our skill set was’. The company’s Neil Crawford


‘had day-to-day management’ of the project, but was not fully qualified as an architect, while senior architect Bruce Sounes testified he had not worked on a high rise building and had no experience with composite materials. He also believed Studio E would not have won the job in a bid process due to a ‘lack of relevant experience’. Asked whether Studio E might


have been in financial difficulties when taking the job, and whether it was ‘eager to retain lucrative projects despite not having the expertise’, Mr Sounes said this was an ‘unfair question […] if a project comes along and there is no reason for you not to do it, you will do it’. Emails also revealed early budgets were considered ‘too low’ by Studio E, with the fee offered kept low to ‘avoid putting the contract out to tender under public procurement rules’. In emails, the company believed


this ‘would not cover all the work they needed to do’, with Mr Sounes worried about KCTMO’s approach, describing ideas for early design changes as ‘headless chickens, a chaotic mess’ and warning Mr Kuszell that the project was being treated like a ‘poor relative’. This related to an email from


RBKC’s housing strategy and regeneration manager Jane Trethewey, which said that Grenfell was ‘one of its worst property assets’, with recladding to ‘prevent it looking like a poor cousin to the brand new facility being developed next door’. Mr Kuszell said: ‘I believe that we


had the processes and experience of complex buildings to be able to undertake this commission. But it was clear that there would be a need for CPD and research around the project.’


Mr Sounes also admitted that he: had ‘no knowledge’ of rapid fire


NEWS


spread; had not read regulations pertaining to cladding; did not know that aluminium composite material (ACM) cladding panels were combustible and that they had previously caught fire on buildings; and ‘did not familiarise’ himself with relevant regulations demanding that external walls ‘adequately resist the spread of fire’. This meant that he did not


see a diagram which showed how external wall systems must meet safety rules, as well as information about previous cladding fires and diagrams that showed how fires could spread on high rise residential buildings. He also admitted that he had not read regulatory guidance about designing cavity barriers, despite Studio E promising to ‘ensure that all designs comply with the relevant statutory requirements’ in client service lists.


Mr Sounes said that the council’s building control department was responsible for checking compliance, and gave more detail on the lower fee asked for to ensure the job did not go out to tender. KCTMO requested he ‘deferred charging some fees’ so that the threshold obliging the organisation to issue an open tender ‘was not met’, which was revealed in emails and project meeting notes. One note from July 2012 said


KCTMO ‘would like […] the total fee up until stage D [a design phase] not exceeding £174k which is the OJEU threshold for requiring work to be tendered. This will probably mean deferring some fees’. Three days after that, Mr Sounes proposed to KCTMO’s director of assets and regeneration Mark Anderson ‘a 50% deferment of all stage D fees to keep the total stage D fee below £174k’. His statement added the following:


‘I understood that this limit was the maximum contract value permissible under EU procurement regulations, above which KCTMO would have to follow a compliant procurement process in selecting consultants. (Story continues overleaf)


www.frmjournal.com MAY 2020 13


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60