The Great Tower Block Fire Tragedy of London

[HanoiVillan]

8 minutes ago, villa4europe said:

I think a portion of it but again the person offering the alternative product did not deem that product suitable because they aren't qualified or did they accept it as suitable because they aren't qualified 

You have an "expert" suggest this material and an "expert" approve it

You think the man in between them who works out how much that material costs should carry guilt, I think its inevitable that every one who worked on the project will shoulder some guilt but at the same time I don't think the man with the money has done anything wrong 

Struggling slightly to follow your argument - is 'the man with the money' here Kensington & Chelsea Tenant Management Organisation, or someone else?

[chrisp65]

2 minutes ago, snowychap said:

It's interesting that you feel the need to couch it in the above.

But still your post misses by a country mile the point that I was making.

Play one's part in the process and one should be prepared to shoulder the fall out of the result.

If one finds it difficult to do the right thing but not doing the right thing is the only option then one either doesn't do it or one faces the consequences if one's actions contribute to a damaging outcome.

 

I’m not couching it in any terms, it’s how real life plays out every day. Moral choices are easy. It’s the mundane that’s hard.

I think I’m in a lucky position, the company I work with swims with some slightly less sharky sharks. It’s a decision we have made as a company, better for it to be 20 of us working on selected projects than needing to win all types of work to keep 40 or 60 of us paid and employed.

But that was pretty much an example of how it always plays, not a clever trap, a day to day scenario. We have to train staff not only to be able to do their job to a competent level, but to know how to not be bullied and how to communicate and how to record communications.

How not to be left holding the ‘approval’ when the music stops.

Not about ‘doing the right thing’. Day to day life isn’t a moral crusade kicking against the pricks. It’s more nuanced than that, it’s anticipating the possible consequences of a dozen seemingly trivial decisions.

Nobody has ever asked me to use flammable cladding. I’m sure they didn’t ask the guys on Grenfell to use flammable cladding. They were asked to use a material that appeared on the surface of it to be pretty much standard. If you’re busy and someone suggests a building cladding material, one that has a BBA agrement certificate logo on the literature, you do kinda presume its suitable for cladding buildings. As opposed to doing your own independent testing.

Not trying to defend anyone, just illustrating how it happens, by a hundred drips, not by someone setting out to kill for cash.

 

[villa4europe]

4 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

Struggling slightly to follow your argument - is 'the man with the money' here Kensington & Chelsea Tenant Management Organisation, or someone else?

No the contractors QS or estimator 

The person that engineered it so that the contractor took some of the saving for themselves 

[HanoiVillan]

6 minutes ago, villa4europe said:

No the contractors QS or estimator 

The person that engineered it so that the contractor took some of the saving for themselves 

Thanks. I have to say it seems fundamentally very dishonest to me, but what do I know.

[snowychap]

3 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

I’m not couching it in any terms, it’s how real life plays out every day.

These decisions are a part of real life every day. I'm not sure why you think I'd disagree with that considering that''s been the basis of the point I;ve been making, i.e. you make a choice and you need to live with the consequences of that choice.

Yes you are 'couching it in a particular term' - it puts a particular bent on the content of the rest of your post suggesting that anyone taking a particular line willl have it written off as 'the moral high ground' shortly to be followed by the phrase 'real life'.

14 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

Not about ‘doing the right thing’.

That much appears to be obvious.

8 minutes ago, chrisp65 said:

Not trying to defend anyone, just illustrating how it happens, by a hundred drips, not by someone setting out to kill for cash.

You may not be setting out to defend anyone but by many fewer than a hundred drips, you have done so. Rather than just illustrating how it happens/can happen, you have put it in terms from the very start that have justified the practices.

People don't need to 'set out to kill for crash' to bear some responsibility - they just need not to follow through properly with some rudimentary questions (because it's not the done thing or they may lose future work or...or...) and because it's down to someone else and because they just assumed (or in the case here perhaps some did ask questions and others gave them 'reassurances' that weren't worth a great deal but possibly fly around left right and centre in the industry because it's standard practice to not do x, y or z and just say you are or believe that someone else will pick it up).

[snowychap]

3 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

Thanks. I have to say it seems fundamentally very dishonest to me, but what do I know.

I'm with you and as I suggested a few pages and a number of months back, if they're happy to be dishonest about that ('oh but everyone knoows that's what goes on...') then perhaps they're happpy to be dishonest about, say, whether they'll employ a fire expert even when they have said in meetings in five separate months that they would, &c.

Perhaps the system isn't the only thing that's broken.

[chrisp65]

5 minutes ago, snowychap said:

These decisions are a part of real life every day. I'm not sure why you think I'd disagree with that considering that''s been the basis of the point I;ve been making, i.e. you make a choice and you need to live with the consequences of that choice.

Yes you are 'couching it in a particular term' - it puts a particular bent on the content of the rest of your post suggesting that anyone taking a particular line willl have it written off as 'the moral high ground' shortly to be followed by the phrase 'real life'.

That much appears to be obvious.

You may not be setting out to defend anyone but by many fewer than a hundred drips, you have done so. Rather than just illustrating how it happens/can happen, you have put it in terms from the very start that have justified the practices.

People don't need to 'set out to kill for crash' to bear some responsibility - they just need not to follow through properly with some rudimentary questions (because it's not the done thing or they may lose future work or...or...) and because it's down to someone else and because they just assumed (or in the case here perhaps some did ask questions and others gave them 'reassurances' that weren't worth a great deal but possibly fly around left right and centre in the industry because it's standard practice to not do x, y or z and just say you are or believe that someone else will pick it up).

 

I tried to use my experience to illustrate how things can happen. I haven’t justified or defended anything by anyone.

I’ll come back another day when it’s a bit less about picking a fight.

 

[HanoiVillan]

1 minute ago, snowychap said:

I'm with you and as I suggested a few pages and a number of months back, if they're happy to be dishonest about that ('oh but everyone knoows that's what goes on...') then perhaps they're happpy to be dishonest about, say, whether they'll employ a fire expert even when they have said in meetings in five separate months that they would, &c.

Perhaps the system isn't the only thing that's broken.

The thought does occur that if Rydon repeatedly lied about appointing a fire safety advisor on this project, then presumably we have to assume that they habitually lied about appointing fire safety advisors on every project, and so does this now mean that anybody who lives or works in a building Rydon worked on has to now assume that nobody considered whether their work was fire safe or not, and from there we then have to question whether this is just an industry standard and nobody appoints fire safety experts to anything (maybe they're sat at home making tea all day) and very soon you question the entire industry.

If, in the system, it is hard or impossible for people to 'do the right thing', then those in the industry need to campaign for industry-wide changes to make 'the right thing' easier to do. That's hard, but it is important. If Rydon were cowboys free-riding on everybody else's honesty, that would be much easier because we wouldn't need to make such wide-ranging changes, but the message I'm taking from this conversation is that these business practices are absolutely standard, so.

[Stevo985]

1 hour ago, snowychap said:

You fail to understand what I'm saying, which is that if you're going to be happy to be pocketing the share of these reduced costs (or in this case also partly compensating for the mistake of underpricing the total works -as per the link above) then you should be happy to take some of the moral share for the outcome of the process to which you have contributed.

If the people involved in that process aren't happy to take on that risk (of the responsiblity for the grave outcome) then they either shouldn't be participating in that process or if they're happy to waive it away and just carry on as normal sleeping like babies then they deserve the opprobrium dished out to them.

I think it entirely depends on the context.

If you offer up a cheaper alternative knowing it's a lower quality and knowing it's unsafe then yes I 100% agree that part of the responsibility and guilt should be shouldered.

But if it's a case of finding a better value alternative and somebody else doing the tests and evaluations and deciding it's fine then I'm not sure you should be implicated.

 

I work in procurement for an aerospace company. If I found a cost saving by buying a part from another company and then a plane fell out of the sky because that part failed, would I be responsible? I'm sure I'd feel some guilt but it's not my job to determine if that part is safe for flight. There are so many other checks and qualifications that need to be done by engineering, designers, quality inspectors etc that as long as I haven't done anything out of process then I wouldn't say that was my fault.

So I get what V4E is saying. If it was somebody's job to find some cost savings and they sourced this cheaper alternative, and it was somebody else's responsibility to evaluate whether that material was appropriate then I'm not sure the first person is at fault. Yes they might deserve some guilt but I don't think they're at fault.

But like I said, the more that fictitious person knows about the quality of the material and the appropriateness (or lack of) to do the job required, the more I agree that they should shoulder the blame and the guilt

 

 

Edit: I don't even know if this is relevant to this particular situation, just thought it was an interesting discussion even if it's turned a bit hypothetical.

Edited July 21, 2020 by Stevo985

[blandy]

8 minutes ago, Stevo985 said:

I work in procurement for an aerospace company. If I found a cost saving by buying a part from another company and then a plane fell out of the sky because that part failed, would I be responsible? I'm sure I'd feel some guilt but it's not my job to determine if that part is safe for flight. There are so many other checks and qualifications that need to be done by engineering, designers, quality inspectors etc that as long as I haven't done anything out of process then I wouldn't say that was my fault.

From reading, and perhaps not being able to follow all the nuances of the building safety explanations kindly provided, it nevertheless looks like what I do know about (which is also aerospace safety) is completely differently run and managed than building safety. You're exactly right in what you say re-aircraft parts and the work that has to be done with them and their use, and your "it's not my job" (other than [I presume] it is your job to ensure that the procurement side of it captures the specs and DRLs and such like in the contract and T&Cs).

It seems like 

12 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

the message I'm taking from this conversation is that these business practices are absolutely standard

is a real problem within building, and that aside from individual negligence, it's something that needs to be fixed. 

[villa4europe]

I'll give another example of what the article implies

During a groundworks package looking for VE the civil subcontractor recommends that they backfill using selected material rather than imported MOT type 1

This generates a saving of £40 / m3, the groundworker offers the contractor a saving of £30 / m3, the contractor offers the client a saving of £20 /m3

The clients structural engineer runs his calculation and approves the saving

The building collapses because the calculation was wrong 

You think the contractors QS shoulders blame for the building collapsing because he offered the saving? Or because he shaved money off the saving for himself? 

The blame lies with the structural engineer 

The fact that some of the saving was kept by the contractor has no relevance to the mistake that was made 

And with regards to it being dishonest, this is a profession, university qualified and **** hard to do

As for the fire safety advisor, on the high rise refurbs I've done that always sat as clients risk so we never appointed anyone to do it, even if it was a d&b project the risk for it would reside with the novated design team not the contractor, I've never seen a fire safety advisor appointed by companies I've worked for, that's not a construction risk it's a design risk 

 

[Stevo985]

5 minutes ago, blandy said:

From reading, and perhaps not being able to follow all the nuances of the building safety explanations kindly provided, it nevertheless looks like what I do know about (which is also aerospace safety) is completely differently run and managed than building safety. You're exactly right in what you say re-aircraft parts and the work that has to be done with them and their use, and your "it's not my job" (other than [I presume] it is your job to ensure that the procurement side of it captures the specs and DRLs and such like in the contract and T&Cs).

It seems like 

is a real problem within building, and that aside from individual negligence, it's something that needs to be fixed. 

Yeah I agree with all of that.

The part in bold, I didn't mean my post to come across as flippantly as that. Procuring the parts you do have responsibility for quality. But the responsibility is to ensure that the supplier follows all the correct quality procedures. They have all the right drawings, they have the right quality standards and can prove it, they submit quality documents, they submit parts for testing and qualification etc.

So my job is to make sure they do that part. But I'm not expected to have the technical knowledge to actually test a part and say "yes this is a sufficient quality to go on this plane". That's somebody far more qualified than I am. And if a part on a plane failed then that would be the part of the process I would think was to blame

 

The practises are definitely different, I guess I was just trying to draw on a similar scenario and give a comparison to show how someone responsible for sourcing parts of material could be, rightly imo, not blamed for something not being up to standard.

Edited July 21, 2020 by Stevo985

[villa4europe]

13 minutes ago, Stevo985 said:

I work in procurement for an aerospace company. If I found a cost saving by buying a part from another company and then a plane fell out of the sky because that part failed, would I be responsible? I'm sure I'd feel some guilt but it's not my job to determine if that part is safe for flight. There are so many other checks and qualifications that need to be done by engineering, designers, quality inspectors etc that as long as I haven't done anything out of process then I wouldn't say that was my fault.

Large scale construction is exactly the same 

[blandy]

16 minutes ago, villa4europe said:

During a groundworks package looking for VE the civil subcontractor recommends that they backfill using selected material rather than imported MOT type 1

This generates a saving of £40 / m3, the ground-worker offers the contractor a saving of £30 / m3, the contractor offers the client a saving of £20 /m3

The clients structural engineer runs his calculation and approves the saving

The building collapses because the calculation was wrong 

You think the contractors QS shoulders blame for the building collapsing because he offered the saving? Or because he shaved money off the saving for himself? 

The blame lies with the structural engineer 

The fact that some of the saving was kept by the contractor has no relevance to the mistake that was made 

It looks like the issue with that is not "blame" attached to the QS - from your explanation the SE has made the mistake. But it does look like there is an underlying problem with the system.

A quote was prepared based on an assessment of the materials etc. required to do the job. There is an underlying incentive clearly apparent (and widespread, if I've understood correctly) that, post-contract award, people will then rummage around looking to make themselves money/savings by finding cheaper alternative parts. Now while it's conceivable that cheaper parts might be able to meet the necessary standards, it's also conceivable that the originally selected quality of parts/material will not be met, and thus there's a risk of future problems with safety. The system appears to incentivise post contract chopping and changing to lower quality materials, and perhaps SEs feeling pressured to approve things they may not otherwise have done, or even if not that, it's an opportunity for errors in calculations and assessments to creep in...thus compromising safety.

[chrisp65]

It’s not ‘post contract’ though, that’s the old ‘traditional’ route.

It’s now design and build. The design is done after the contract is let, it’s built in to the system that design and specification will happen post contract award. You don’t get time in advance, you basically get sufficient time to have an educated guess, you win the contract, and then you have to make sure you didn’t cock up and win a contract you can’t fulfill at the price you gave.

That’s the point where you start designing.

Now, imagine that being the contract system if you were building an aeroplane or a car, and every plane and car was different. 

But not to worry, every component is tested. Well, I say every component. If someone is making a component that’s quite like another component, they’re allowed to piggy back their testing certification. Well, I say testing, they haven’t actually tested them, it was more a generic group test in lab conditions.

But its got the official certificate. So its the same. Yeah?

 

[villa4europe]

Just now, blandy said:

It looks like the issue with that is not "blame" attached to the QS - from your explanation the SE has made the mistake. But it does look like there is an underlying problem with the system.

A quote was prepared based on an assessment of the materials etc. required to do the job. There is an underlying incentive clearly apparent (and widespread, if I've understood correctly) that post contract people will then rummage around looking to make themselves money/savings by finding cheaper alternative parts. Now while it's conceivable that cheaper parts might be able to meet the necessary standards, it's also conceivable that the originally selected quality of parts/material will not be met, and thus there's a risk of future problems with safety. The system appears to incentivise post contract chopping and changing to lower quality materials, and perhaps SEs feeling pressured to approve things they may not otherwise have done, or even if not that, it's an opportunity for errors in calculations and assessments to creep in...thus compromising safety.

I agree

But then the issue is also the expectation that the project is over designed and we can look to achieve the same goal but with "inferior" products

That's usually the case with belt and braces in structural design and then designing something for the front page of their portfolio in architecture, it's also usually the case that architects have favourites and specify them and then that manufacturer over prices tge product to us knowing they have no competition on the project, I could write some long posts on that practice and how it fits in with contracts and risk

Conversely I will look at what's shit to build for us, anything with a low buildability or requiring large temporary works for my company I will look to get rid of making it safer and easier 

You tend to know what architects you can VE for over design before the project starts, associated architects in brum for example will over specify a project, I've done VE with fosters and partners and they were horrendous, we could have built their project for 25% of the cost if they'd let us but they said no and it was cancelled because the client couldn't afford it 

[blandy]

3 minutes ago, villa4europe said:

But then the issue is also the expectation that the project is over designed and we can look to achieve the same goal but with "inferior" products

That's not a great expectation when it relates to fire safety.

[villa4europe]

2 minutes ago, blandy said:

That's not a great expectation when it relates to fire safety.

It can be

I've looked at VE on an existing tower block for reducing the thickness of insulation behind render, which was proposed by the render manufacturer based on changes to standards, it was accepted by the architect but rejected by the clients insurance provider 

By over design I also mean specified products and where they sit in the market, same as everything else you have rolls royces in cladding and you have cheaper products that claim to do exactly the same but aren't as aesthetically pleasing or usually aren't as clever in their installation system 

I'll throw out another common scenario in construction, the architect will be visited by a rep from a cladding manufacturer during feasibility, he'll take him out to lunch sell him some wonderful system that's new and exciting, market leading, the architect will then write the name of that manfucturer in the spec, won't nominate or name them in the contract but they're in the spec

Said manufacturer will give me a list of 5 approved installers that I have to use for the project, I don't know any of them, never worked for my company before, none of them are within 100m of the project, ridiculously expensive and then knowing they're in the spec they won't agree to any of terms or conditions or most importantly our contract programme... I will do everything I can to use VE as a vehicle to getting them off the project 

I also have a favourite cladding subcontractor who I know well and consider relatively risk free for me, I will propose we use whichever manufacturer they tell me to use 

[villa4europe]

13 minutes ago, blandy said:

That's not a great expectation when it relates to fire safety.

Got a better example 

Intumescent paint to structural steel, the regs say that you don't have to paint steels supporting the structure to the roof, you can let the roof collapse within 30 mins, all other steels require 60 mins paint or boxing

If I see it then I'll try and VE that out as over design 

[HanoiVillan]

44 minutes ago, villa4europe said:

And with regards to it being dishonest, this is a profession, university qualified and **** hard to do

As for the fire safety advisor, on the high rise refurbs I've done that always sat as clients risk so we never appointed anyone to do it, even if it was a d&b project the risk for it would reside with the novated design team not the contractor, I've never seen a fire safety advisor appointed by companies I've worked for, that's not a construction risk it's a design risk

On the first point here, I feel like you think I'm attacking you personally or something. I'm not. I appreciate this line is literally parodic, but two of three of my best friends are quantity surveyors of different kinds. I don't know much about their work - I don't pretend to - but they are smart guys who work hard and I don't begrudge them what they earn, or what you earn, or what anyone else earns.

What I would say though, is that there are - or should be - alternative ways of making a project pay, rather than misquoting savings to clients.

On the second point, I have no reason to doubt you, but that's not the implication of the article vis a vis this project.