Supply Chain Council of European Union | Scceu.org
Procurement

Inside Housing – Insight – Grenfell Tower Inquiry diary week seven: ‘I do not think I have ever worked with a contractor operating with this level of nonchalance’

An image of a poorly fitted cavity barrier (picture: Dr Barbara Lane)

‘I do not think I have ever worked with a contractor operating with this level of nonchalance’

When project manager Mr O’Connor took to the stand on Thursday, he was asked detailed questions about Rydon’s onsite management of the works.

Again, much was left to subcontractors, with Rydon only checking the finished details against drawings after installation – right down to the fact that he was not even checking what materials were coming onto site and being installed to ensure they matched the design.

Mr O’Connor referred repeatedly to being “under pressure” with the project slipping some 12 weeks behind schedule.

Discussing his departure from Rydon in summer 2015, he said: “It was starting to fall behind programme and, you know, when that happens, pressure happens… Extremely long days, you know, just a lot of pressure… it was affecting my home life.”

These difficulties led to frustrations from KCTMO’s consultants Artelia, which wrote in May 2016: “This is becoming a farce. Despite all our efforts to ensure a smooth landing, I have to say I do not think I have ever worked with a contractor operating with this level of nonchalance.”

With regard to the quality of the work, two particular issues were raised. First the fitting cavity barriers for the cladding system – designed to prevent fire ripping through it – which were described as “shockingly poor workmanship” by Mr Millett.

Mr O’Connor was unable to explain how this had slipped through the quality control systems in place.

Second was windows. The refurbishment saw new windows fitted in all flats in the tower. These have been identified as a crucial piece in the disaster, in explaining how the fire broke out of the flat of origin and back in to those higher up the building.

One issue was the decision to pack the gap between the old and new windows with highly combustible insulation instead of non-combustible mineral wool, as specified.

Rydon subcontracted this work to SD Plastering, but not the design elements, meaning it retained responsibility for the design. So why did it not meet the specification?

“We should have checked it,” Mr Lawrence said. “But I would have expected those managing the works on site to have a closer grip on the… specification than someone like myself, but I do agree we should have checked it.”

But when Mr O’Connor was asked if he appreciated that filling the gap with Celotex was a risk, he replied: “I didn’t see it particularly as an issue, as the whole building was being covered in [Celotex] and someone far more intelligent than me had designed it.”

“I don’t think we were cognisant that there were regulations relating to the window linings internally,” Mr Lawrence added. “We thought it was an aesthetic finish product.”

Undoubtedly, this does point to a bigger issue in the industry: there are thousands of tower blocks with combustible insulation around windows.

What’s next?

Next week we will hear from further Rydon witnesses, including those who took over after Mr Lawrence and Mr O’Connor left the project.

Related posts

Building a COVID-resilient supply chain episode one: procurement

scceu

Procurement of protection Finlayson supplies the Center for Security of Supply with more than 60 million protectors for healthcare professionals

scceu

Govt Starts Procurement Process Of Smartphones | Jaipur News

scceu