That’s according to Alice Jarratt, counsel for the Kensington and Chelsea tenant management organisation (TMO), who gave her opening statement to the Grenfell Tower Inquiry yesterday.
An OJEU notice for the project was published in August 2013 and after the pre-qualification questionnaire process, employer’s agent Artelia identified five contractors to be invited to tender, with three submitting bids.
This is not a paywall. Registration allows us to enhance your experience across Construction Management and ensure we deliver you quality editorial content.
Registering also means you can manage your own CPDs, comments, newsletter sign-ups and privacy settings.
Jarratt said that the scoring matrix for the process showed that 55% overall was for quality as opposed to 34% for cost, with the remaining 5% for performance in interview and 6% for the cost of alternative works.
Rydon, which submitted the most competitively priced tender of £9.2m “scored the highest in every category”, beating Durkan’s £9.9m bid and Mulalley’s £10.4m bid.
Jarratt said: “It has been suggested in some of the written opening submissions that the only consideration for the project was minimising costs. This was not the case. Looking for where reasonable costs can be reduced on a large public sector project is normal practice.”
The project’s budget later increased twice, first to £9.7m and then to £10.3m.
She added: “The TMO would never have accepted a value engineering option that it was aware was either not suitable, non-compliant or unsafe.”
Two TMO clerks of works
She also detailed how, despite the fact that it was Rydon’s responsibility to monitor the works, the TMO appointed two clerks of works.
She said: “They were appointed to carry out regular site inspections of the construction works and of the mechanical and electrical engineering installations and to report back to the TMO on workmanship, quality, progress and site health and safety. Jonathan White, who inspected the construction work, states he carried out a total of inspection reports, and at no point were any concerns in relation to the application of the cladding or any serious concerns in relation to health and safety raised with the TMO.”
And she also explained how, in 2015, a new set of CDM Regulations came into force, abolishing the role of the CDM co-ordinator and creating a new role of principal designer – a role that took on many of the functions of the CDM co-ordinator.
But Jarratt added that “inexplicably” none of the contracting parties were willing to adopt the position and the TMO “felt it had no option but to assume the role”.
In November 2015, Rydon agreed to be responsible for the preparation of the health and safety file, work which it subsequently subcontracted All Group Holdings Limited.
Jarratt concluded: “At all times, the TMO understood that applying cladding to the exterior of the building was a well-recognised method for improving the thermal efficiency and, for some, the appearance of a high- rise building. TMO believes it took reasonable steps to appoint competent specialists to achieve its aim of upgrading Grenfell Tower and bringing the building into line with modern standards.
“The professionals appointed had the experience and technical expertise to plan, design and build the refurbishment works for Grenfell Tower, as well as to advise the TMO on matters of compliance with industry standards, legislation and safety. Like so many others, we wish now to understand how, with this infrastructure in place, there were such terrible failings in both the design and construction of the works.”
