The Great Tower Block Fire Tragedy of London

[chrisp65]

1 hour ago, Chindie said:

The architect is going need a good lawyer.

And a good insurance policy.

And a new career.

I’d have expected the PI insurer to coach him on what to say and what not to volunteer. It really did come over as disarmingly honest.

Unless he knows that at some point he can produce some e-mail where someone else has said ‘not your role mate, leave all the compliance checking to me’.

But I think if it was me, I’d kinda lead off with that one.

[villa4europe]

the stuff about keeping his fees low in order to prevent the project being opened up to the European tendering / procurement rules is nothing surprising, they can just as easily manipulate the 2nd stage of the process too

and his reasoning does seem like a thought out handwashing, I know nothing of the regs because its not my job

from my experience of them with regards to the suitability of fire exits, strategy, emergency lighting etc then he would have a case, BC shouldn't sign the building off, that's something they have to check (and my previous company have been caught out on improving fire exits that are not part of our contract scope on 2 previous projects that I've done, you take on responsibility for the entire fire strategy route - even if that means you end up in a different part of the building you are refurbing - lost thousands because of it, so they as a contractor now have that knowledge that its a risk but they didn't before)

but external walls adequately resisting fire? that's not something im aware of BC checking, might need to take in to consideration that its an existing building too, on new builds they then start looking at more detail due to neighbours and party walls etc but existing im not sure

slightly interesting thing (which means its not....) the tower blocks that I refurbed in west brom and white heath nearly 10 years ago now (you can see Lancaster house off the M5, near toys r us junction) the building control officer was tony pulis' brother! nice guy

 

[snowychap]

15 minutes ago, villa4europe said:

the stuff about keeping his fees low in order to prevent the project being opened up to the European tendering / procurement rules is nothing surprising, they can just as easily manipulate the 2nd stage of the process too

Whilst it may not be surprising, it ought to have serious consequences both for the company involved and those members of the TMO/Council who agreed to such shenanigans.

Fiddling payment schedules and structures so as to avoid a contract being put out to tender (especially as they have apparently admitted that they knew they wouldn't have been selected for it had that been the case) sounds more than just a tad fraudulent and would suggest that if people are willing to oblige in a matter like that then they're probably more than willing to cut other corners, too.

[villa4europe]

31 minutes ago, snowychap said:

Whilst it may not be surprising, it ought to have serious consequences both for the company involved and those members of the TMO/Council who agreed to such shenanigans.

Fiddling payment schedules and structures so as to avoid a contract being put out to tender (especially as they have apparently admitted that they knew they wouldn't have been selected for it had that been the case) sounds more than just a tad fraudulent and would suggest that if people are willing to oblige in a matter like that then they're probably more than willing to cut other corners, too.

disagree with that bit, it happens for a myriad of reasons and is driven by both sides of the fence

open tenders are not quick and they're not cheap

and what they've done is also fairly common from my experience especially since partnering more or less got knocked on the head, its usually a mechanism for repeat business with a known entity though, the solution to it is large frameworks which for government work is very common but its when you cross over from one council to another that the practice comes in, a PM employed by a council is in a very successful framework with an architect, same PM has some work for another council outside of a framework and wants to work with the same architect again...that's how they ensure it...or they go open tender get the bids in and then during their assessment will tank the other bids - as a contractor I've been the recipient of that, the worst thing being they'll use your cheaper price as a stick to beat your competitor that they actually want to use - I've also been a recipient of that

 

Edited March 4, 2020 by villa4europe

[snowychap]

51 minutes ago, villa4europe said:

disagree with that bit

I'm sorry but I don't think your response disputes my suggestion. It explains that there are lots of reasons why people 'on both sides of the fence' (not disputing that at all) would be looking to try to do as seems to have happened here and says that this behaviour is fairly common. Well, fairly common doesn't make it okay - indeed, fairly common would alarm me much more and would, in my mind, suport my suggestion in that it's about finding justification for actions taken rather than analysing whether those actions should be taken in the first place. This would also seem to apply to the whole fire regulations practice that was talked about earlier in the thread and highlighted by Chris Cook on Newsnight in the aftermath of the fire.

I'll reiterate: I think that if you're willing to fudge payment schedules in order to escape a legal obligation for transparency and an open tender (defer 50% of fees in this situation) without asking too many questions (or even willingly on the basis that you know you'd lose the job if it were put out to tender) then you're probably willing to do whatever it takes to try and keep a contract and keep on the side of the people who have asked you to do it.

If, as it apppears you suggest, this kind of behaviour is endemic in the construction industry (or at least where it pertains to public works, avoiding tendering processes and so on) then I would hope that one potential outcome of this sorry tale, and the inquiry, might be a recommendation for much more stringent regulation in this field. With the current government, I doubt any calls would be listened to.

[villa4europe]

its a European regulation (called OJEU) its very unpopular from my experience and I haven't got a clue how Brexit impacts it, it will probably be overhauled

it would ironically stop the council from going to a tower block refurb specialist and appointing them to develop a scheme before negotiating a contract price with them which is why most don't like it, you cant do early involvement of specialists, its part of why early cost plans are always wrong and then headlines of government projects being over budget happen (amongst other reasons) and why they take so long to get to site in the first place 

I disagree that being willing to bend around OJEU means that you will then negate your contractual obligations or act ineptly

[snowychap]

6 minutes ago, villa4europe said:

its a European regulation (called OJEU) its very unpopular from my experience and I haven't got a clue how Brexit impacts it, it will probably be overhauled

it would ironically stop the council from going to a tower block refurb specialist and appointing them to develop a scheme before negotiating a contract price with them which is why most don't like it, you cant do early involvement of specialists, its part of why early cost plans are always wrong and then headlines of government projects being over budget happen (amongst other reasons) and why they take so long to get to site in the first place 

I disagree that being willing to bend around OJEU means that you will then negate your contractual obligations or act ineptly

Again, all you are doing is giving reasons why people don't like some regulations and giving justifications for their common (attempts at) evasion of those regulations.

It doesn't matter what the particular regulation is that someone has decided that they shouldn't have to be bound by. The issue is that parties conspire to evade their legal obligations. If they are willling to do it for one 'very unpopular' regulation then it would suggest that they're amenable to doing it for other regulations (very few regulations would score highly on a popularity scale especially when they're looked at from the point of cost or convenience).

I'm not suggesting that this makes people act ineptly or ignore agreed contractual obligations. Indeed, given the apparent nature of these things, it's not at all hard to imagine that the fear of financial liabilities arising from a failure to live up to obligations in a contract would weigh much more heavily upon the mind of one or both parties than a sense that they ought to comply with 'unpopular' legal duties and obligations.

I'm not promoting the idea of confusing an endemic willingness to ignore rules and regulations just because they're not liked with ineptness - far from it.

[HanoiVillan]

It seems to me that a likely sign of a worryingly under-regulated industry is that people within it are very familiar with the legal obligations they need to follow, and are also able to provide pre-packed excuses as to why they aren't being followed as a routine matter of course. 

If companies that are attempting to follow the rules and regulations that are in place in an industry (any industry, not just this one) find that abiding by those rules puts them out of price competitiveness because of competitors that routinely flout the rules, then there are really only two options. First, we could make the rules less onerous (in this case, with predictable safety consequences), or second, we can increase enforcement (including, yes, potentially putting people in prison and/or fining bad actors out of the market). Whichever it is, smart companies that follow the rules should see the benefit, and definitely not fall into the (perhaps subconscious) habit of making excuses or justifications for the bad actors. 

[villa4europe]

that's the problem though, this isn't seen as a system that is to the benefit of good smart companies, its a system based on lowest price and competing with companies from outside of your standard market

this for example was a London tower block, a mid scale contractor in the west midlands will be cheaper in an open tender than a London based contractor, lower overheads for a start, the fact that they wouldn't know the area, the supply chain, or have London based staff wouldn't impact the validity of the bid 

its not seen as a vehicle to get better service, its a vehicle to ensure best price

the answer is frameworks for government projects and in the last decade like I said they've moved away from partnering to wider more encompassing framework agreements which should ensure that you are competing with like minded similar size companies offering a similar level of service or doing a pre qualification round before the open tender which is the standard for the industry, limiting the tender to 5 pre selected companies

a pre qualification takes this company from Grenfell out of the tender, OJEU doesnt

 

 

[HanoiVillan]

20 minutes ago, villa4europe said:

that's the problem though, this isn't seen as a system that is to the benefit of good smart companies, its a system based on lowest price and competing with companies from outside of your standard market

I think we're in agreement about how people in the system see it. My point, really, is that that needs to change, which in practical terms can only come from enforcement of the rules (and, much harder, a change of mindset from 'this is how it is in this industry' to 'these irresponsible cowboys are ruining it for everyone'). 

21 minutes ago, villa4europe said:

the answer is frameworks for government projects and in the last decade like I said they've moved away from partnering to wider more encompassing framework agreements which should ensure that you are competing with like minded similar size companies offering a similar level of service or doing a pre qualification round before the open tender which is the standard for the industry, limiting the tender to 5 pre selected companies

a pre qualification takes this company from Grenfell out of the tender, OJEU doesnt

This could potentially be better, though of course it swaps one set of potential problems (underequipped companies winning jobs they can't fulfill properly, underbidding on contracts) with a different set (entrenched incumbents, cronyism). However, while I'm not against moving to this system, it will need proper enforcement. 

[snowychap]

34 minutes ago, villa4europe said:

that's the problem though, this isn't seen as a system that is to the benefit of good smart companies, its a system based on lowest price and competing with companies from outside of your standard market

this for example was a London tower block, a mid scale contractor in the west midlands will be cheaper in an open tender than a London based contractor, lower overheads for a start, the fact that they wouldn't know the area, the supply chain, or have London based staff wouldn't impact the validity of the bid 

its not seen as a vehicle to get better service, its a vehicle to ensure best price

the answer is frameworks for government projects and in the last decade like I said they've moved away from partnering to wider more encompassing framework agreements which should ensure that you are competing with like minded similar size companies offering a similar level of service or doing a pre qualification round before the open tender which is the standard for the industry, limiting the tender to 5 pre selected companies

a pre qualification takes this company from Grenfell out of the tender, OJEU doesnt

This is a very different answer to the whole thing, though. It's a suggestion of how better to pursue a goal than the method already used.

I don't think anyone does or should have an issue with arguing for better and more efficient processes, regulations, &c.

What HV and I have pointed out is that merely deciding that the current regulations don't suit, and thus won't apply, is not on (whether you're a contractor or a contracting authority). That goes for whether they're the OJEU, your pre-qualification test, fire regulations, working time directives, H&S legislation, pay, and so on.

As per HV's post above, it could just swap one set of issues for another and is still going to need effective enforcement especially if a mentality were then to take hold that this new process/regulation were 'not popular'.

[chrisp65]

Manipulating the budget and payments to get your favourite company on board is wrong.

You can dress it up with any common practise or best value argument you like.

It’s resulted in someone that didn’t know what they were doing contributing in a significant way to killing lots of people in their homes.

 

[chrisp65]

2012: Grenfell Action Group are so worried about the building they commission their own survey and it finds the building is a risk to the life of residents.

2013: Kensington warn the GAG that their repeated publicity of safety concerns is defamation and bullying and they threaten legal action

2017: 1:00am, June 14th a fire starts that will take 3 days to put out and kills 72 people

2020: no rush, these things take time

 

[Davkaus]

2,000 buildings are still death traps covered in the same kind of cladding. Not quite the response that was promised, is it.

Edited June 14, 2020 by Davkaus

[Xann]

What did everyone expect from the Tory filth?

[StefanAVFC]

3 years ago, jesus

[Dodgyknees]

1 hour ago, Xann said:

What did everyone expect from the Tory filth?

Exactly this.

[chrisp65]

 

 

Got some Churchill statues protected a bit quick though. Lord forbid someone should get paint on a plinth.

Perhaps that’s the key, perhaps 500,000 people need to sort themselves out, they should have had a big paper mache Churchill on the roof.

 

 

[chrisp65]

 

 

[HanoiVillan]

Somehow missed this the other day: