The client for the Grenfell Tower refurbishment opted not to spend £30,000 on design advice even though the project was likely to undergo significant value engineering work, the inquiry into the 2017 fire has heard.

Philip Booth, at the time a senior project manager with consultant Artelia, which was working for the Kensington and Chelsea Tenants’ Management Organisation (TMO), said he had spoken with the Grenfell landlord about providing a client design adviser (CDA) role on the scheme.

In January 2014, Booth emailed colleague Simon Cash, cost
consultant on the Grenfell project, to say the TMO project manager Claire Williams
had asked Artelia “to put forward a proposal for the CDA role”.

“She was recognising that she may need some support and
wanted us to – and she was considering others, and she wanted Artelia to put
forward a proposal to fulfil that role,” he added.

Asked by inquiry counsel Kate Grange if he encouraged the
TMO to appoint a CDA, Booth replied: “I certainly made her aware of our
proposal and felt that it was something that, if she didn’t take up, then she needed
to understand what she was taking on as a responsibility.”

Grange added: “On a project like this, that underwent quite a significant value engineering exercise, was that perhaps another reason why a client design adviser would be a good idea?

“Yes, I think that’s fair to say,” Booth said.

In the event, the TMO decided not to appoint the CDA. “They were very much about, ‘Do we need this role?’” Booth said. “You know, it’s 30 grand or whatever it was.”

Value engineering

Grange then moved on to the appointment of main contractor
Rydon, in March 2014, and the value engineering design decisions that followed,
including in relation to the cladding.

She asked Booth: “Was there any process, as far as you were
concerned, to assess the impact of changing the design as a result of the value
engineering that was done?”

“All of the professional team were engaged in the value engineering exercises, as well as Rydon, when there were 11 on board,” he explained. “So I think all of the – it was a very collaborative piece of work to review what could be value engineered and what couldn’t.”

“Was there an assessment done of the potential changes in
terms of value engineering and any reduction in quality that would result?”
Grange asked.

“The proposals might be identified by somebody and it’s put
forward, and then what’s different in the proposal should be highlighted so
that you can make an informed decision on the overall,” explained Booth. “And
that process was worked through with the design team.

“But the onus of what are the changes in terms of quality is
from whoever’s putting forward that proposal.”

Grange then asked if there was any specific assessment of
the potential value engineering changes in terms of risk to safety.

Booth answered: “So, there was lots of discussion around
changes, but it was always, you know, assumed and implied that design – everything
put forward would need to be safe, that’s implicit, you know.”

Change control process

The inquiry counsel then asked Booth if there was “a change
control process in place so that a qualified designer considered the impact of,
for example, the change in the choice of cladding materials?”

He replied that he thought there was. “We were working
collaboratively, all together in terms of what value engineering was taken
forward,” Booth said.

“But the, you know, responsibility of design and safety, you
know, it was always – you know, so for the cladding example, all of the debates
about changes were all around aesthetics or fixing and planning. They were
never around: is it going to be fire compliant or is it safe? Because that’s
just a given, that designers have to design to the, you know, health and safety
requirements of the time.”

Grange noted that in an email dated 24 October 2014, Simon
Lawrence, the former Rydon contracts manager in charge of the Grenfell scheme, had
proposed a tracker spreadsheet for project changes.

She added: “We can see he [Lawrence] has said there that
Rydon don’t have a specific document to record change because it’s normally
done via email records, RFIs, drawings. Would you have expected Rydon to have
had a way of formally recording and managing design decisions?”

Booth replied: “I think what – RFIs is usually the
methodology that contractors use, which stands for request for information, but
it can become quite a clunky and administratively, you know, burdensome
process.

“And I get what he was talking about there on refurbishments, because sometimes, you know, there are uncertainties, you find something and you need a maybe sort of faster answer than on a new-build. So I supported his proposal of a simple change tracker to help with keeping an audit trail of what was needed, when.”

The Inquiry continues.