好色先生TV

After 50 days of evidence from contractors and consultants involved in the ill-fated refurbishment of Grenfell Tower, project client the Kensington and Chelsea Tenant Management Organisation this week became the subject of questioning at the inquiry into 2017鈥檚 disastrous fire.

First up from the now disbanded arm鈥檚-length management organisation was Paul Dunkerton, a project manager at the TMO, who was quizzed about the decision to drop original contractor Leadbitter from the tower block refurbishment project in 2013.

The inquiry heard that KCTMO鈥檚 cost consultant Artelia had cautioned against jettisoning Leadbitter from the project as savings of 拢2m were sought from the firm鈥檚 early stage quotes for the work. Instead, a fundamental review of what KCTMO could get for its budget was proposed.

However by June of that year, Artelia had changed its advice and supported the idea of a re-procurement exercise in a move driven by the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea鈥檚 director of housing, Laura Johnson.

Artelia had earlier said the project was a failure risk and that re-procuring its main contractor would only 鈥渋ncur additional time and expense鈥�. Dunkerton told the inquiry his role on the was mainly administrative.

Tuesday鈥檚 session heard from Mark Anderson, who was KCTMO鈥檚 interim director of assets between 2011 and January 2013.

He was asked about checks that were made on project architect Studio E鈥檚 past experience with high-rise overcladding projects before it was appointed to the Grenfell refurbishment 鈥� adjacent to the Kensington Academy and Leisure Centre (KALC) the practice was delivering for RBKC.

Anderson admitted that he had never asked Studio E directly whether it had delivered a high-rise overcladding scheme before. The practice had not. Anderson said he did not know why he had not posed such a question.

Inquiry barrister Andrew Kinnier QC spent much of the day asking about the procurement of the Grenfell project and whether it was Ojeu-compliant because, for speed, the plan was to rely on the Ojeu process RBKC had undertaken for KALC in summer 2011.

Anderson, who is a former architect, described that process as 鈥渞igorous鈥�.

He said he had at least two meetings with Studio E director Andrzej Kuszell and reviewed RBKC鈥檚 procurement documents for KALC, and asked his team to research Studio E and all the consultants working on KALC to establish their professional standing, client base and competence.

鈥淭here was nothing to indicate we wouldn鈥檛 want to use them,鈥� Anderson said of Studio E. 鈥淭here was a process I went through to satisfy myself that the pre-construction professional team were suited to a project of that nature.鈥�

Back in March, Studio E founder Kuszell told the inquiry that the practice鈥檚 lack of experience in overcladding high-rise buildings would have made it unlikely for the firm to be appointed to the Grenfell project if the work been put through the Ojeu process.

Anderson also told the hearing that Studio E鈥檚 project lead for Grenfell, Bruce Sounes, had been a 鈥渧ery different individual鈥� in 2012 and 2013 to the architect who appeared before the inquiry earlier this year.

鈥淚 was quite impressed with Bruce,鈥� he told inquiry chairman Sir Martin Moore-Bick. 鈥淚 think the Bruce Sounes you had here in March is a very different individual to the one I had experience of. He appears to have lost confidence and his enthusiasm and drive.鈥�

On Wednesday former KCTMO head of capital investment David Gibson told the inquiry that the organisation鈥檚 decision not to hire an independent Client Design Adviser (CDA) to assist with Grenfell鈥檚 refurbishment was not financially motivated.

The former architect said cost consultant Artelia鈥檚 suggestion that bringing in a CDA would be helpful to avoid problems as main contractor Rydon took on the project on a design and build basis had been rejected because it was seen as an unnecessary move.

鈥淚t鈥檚 not something I鈥檝e ever previously been recommended to have,鈥� Gibson said.

鈥淚 believe we had the suite of contractual documents that were required, we had the designers on board so I didn鈥檛 give it a great deal of consideration. Some of it, I thought, was doing a check that the clerk of works were already doing on site.鈥�

Gibson told the hearing that at the time the idea of appointing an experienced architect to advise the TMO on value engineering and design compliance was mooted, all major design decisions on the project had been taken.

Last week, Philip Booth 鈥� an Artelia staff member who was employer鈥檚 agent for the TMO for part of the Grenfell project 鈥� told the inquiry he believed saving money was part of the motivation for not employing a CDA to provide design challenge.

Gibson rejected the suggestion on Wednesday.

He was also quizzed about the degree of scrutiny that was given to value engineering-led proposals to change the project鈥檚 originally proposed zinc cladding for aluminium composite material.

Gibson said the TMO had purely been focused on how alternative materials would look because it had been taken as read that all proposed alternatives would meet 好色先生TV Regulations requirements.

鈥淲e were not expecting to be offered materials that were not compliant, so we weren鈥檛 asking questions about compliance,鈥� he said.

鈥淲e knew there was a requirement for the materials that were used, and how they were put together, to be in accordance with regulations and legislation. So we weren鈥檛 having that type of discussion.鈥�

Gibson told the inquiry he stood by his assertion in one of his written witness statements that Rydon contracts manager Simon Lawrence had assured him all of the materials being used for Grenfell Tower鈥檚 new cladding system were 鈥渃ompletely inert鈥�.

No minutes exist from the meeting in which the assurances were said to have been given and Lawrence denied giving such an assurance in his evidence to the inquiry in July.

Gibson continued his evidence on Thursday, when he admitted that KCTMO had knowingly gone against its own legal advice when it engaged in secret pre-appointment talks with Rydon that aimed to get the prospective main contractor on board for an 拢800,000 value engineering-driven cut to its 拢9.2m winning bid.

He said the move had been prompted by time pressures to get a report on Rydon鈥檚 selection as preferred bidder to the KCTMO board.

At the end of his evidence, Gibson was asked what he would have done differently on the project with the benefit of hindsight. He said he 鈥渨ould have liked to follow up鈥� the concerns he raised about the new insulation being added to Grenfell Tower as part of its cladding system.

KCTMO鈥檚 last witness of the week was Grenfell project manager Claire Williams. Like Gibson before her, she defended the organisation鈥檚 decision not to appoint a CDA 鈥� arguing the move 鈥渨ould have been a complication in the design responsibility in the contract鈥�.

Williams said she understood the service a CDA provided but 鈥渃ouldn鈥檛 think of anything positive about it鈥� for the Grenfell project.

鈥淲e had a design and build contract where the responsibilities for the design lie clearly with the contractor,鈥� she said. 鈥淭his would be an additional tier that, perhaps, wouldn鈥檛 bring anything to the table.鈥�

Inquiry chair Moore-Bick asked Williams whether it had occurred to her that specialist contractors might make mistakes that a CDA could alert the TMO to.

She replied: 鈥淭he specialist design was such that we felt the specialists who did the design did that day in, day out. A design adviser would be unlikely to have specialisms in cladding and M&E as well as the other elements.鈥�

Williams is due to return on Monday, when the inquiry continues.