好色先生TV

BDP has hit back against the Department for Education鈥檚 legal claim against it over problems at Westminster Academy, arguing that faults and cost overruns were caused in part by Galliford Try and Davis Langdon.

The joint 拢3m claim against BDP by the department and the academy, revealed in full by 好色先生TV last week, said staff and pupils had been sent home because of 鈥渦nbearable鈥� temperatures resulting from ventilation design failures.

It also argued that BDP鈥檚 鈥渘egligent breach of duty鈥� in providing design information caused delays and budget overruns on the project (pictured) and resulted in cost claims by contractor Galliford Try and project manager Capita Symonds.

But in a 70-page defence and counterclaim lodged at the High Court, BDP - which acted as design team lead consultant and contract administrator on the 拢28m flagship school - alleged that there had been 鈥渄efective workmanship鈥� on the ventilation system by Galliford Try and that QS Davis Langdon had provided 鈥減oor advice on cost projections鈥�.

In the document, BDP also insisted it had not been overpaid. It counterclaimed for more than 拢700,000 for additional work it said the firm had carried out.

Because of the proximity of the nearby M40, Westminster Academy鈥檚 facade is sealed, with a ventilation system designed to compensate for this through four roof-mounted air-handling units, which would supply air into raised floor voids via shafts.

BDP鈥檚 defence admitted that there had been complaints of overheating since the building opened in 2007 but said such problems were caused by 鈥渃onstruction and maintenance defects rather than any inherent design flaw鈥�.

It said the collapse of plasterboard partitions within the risers had initially impeded air flow and claimed the floor voids had leaked due to 鈥渄efective鈥� construction.

The defence also denied the client鈥檚 claim that temperatures had exceeded 30潞C and said the ventilation system had been largely fixed following a 鈥減rolonged investigation鈥� by BDP.
Addressing cost overruns during construction, BDP argued that it had carried out its role with 鈥渞easonable care and skill鈥� as had architect and sub-consultant AHMM.

But it said DL had failed to monitor costs 鈥渃ompetently during the development of the design鈥�, resulting in a sudden and unexpected increase in costs and a value engineering exercise.
A Davis Langdon spokesperson said: 鈥淲e have successful ongoing relationships with both parties and do not wish to comment.鈥�

A Galliford Try spokesman said: 鈥淕alliford Try is not involved in any legal action relating to this project 鈥� [It] is confident that the work undertaken by the company on this project was carried out to a high standard.鈥�

The case continues.