Back in 2012, a local authority in London decided it wanted to improve the thermal efficiency of one of several 1970s concrete tower blocks it owned.
The plan was for a refurbishment that upgraded the communal heating system, fitted new windows and installed a new insulation system onto the external walls.
The council set out to procure a contractor to carry out this work. Budgets were tight and cost was made a priority. “Value for money is to be regarded as the key driver [of] the project,” a member of the team wrote. A procurement process was set up, with the bid to be assessed 55% on quality and 34% on cost. Three contractors submitted bids. They priced the job at £9.2m, £9.9m and £10.4m. The £9.2m bid was the runaway winner.
It was later alleged that behind-the-scenes conversations had taken place between this bidder and the council’s managing agent, resulting in an agreement to reduce their initial planned bid by £800,000.
As the work began, cost was stripped out. Zinc cladding – which had been selected by residents in a consultation – was swapped for a cheaper option, saving around £300,000.
“Value for money is to be regarded as the key driver [of] the project”
But the council also wanted to obtain grants through green funding – so it set requirements for the insulation performance, despite the cost-cutting. Consultants suggested a plastic material that had a high thermal performance, was thin enough to fit in the design and was cost-effective compared to alternatives. It had a poor fire performance, but little thought was given to this.
Perhaps by now you have figured out which refurbishment project is being described. The council was the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea, the managing agent was Kensington and Chelsea Tenant Management Organisation, the contractor was Rydon and the building was Grenfell Tower.
The above description is sourced largely from the description given by the barrister representing the survivors at the start of the inquiry’s second phase. The process is ongoing and some of the details may be challenged, or further explained.
But what is certainly clear is that the refurbishment of Grenfell was, on one level, an effort to make an old building more sustainable. And – with the emphasis placed far too strongly on cost – it went desperately wrong. Now, three years on from Grenfell, sustainability is once more at the top of the sector’s to-do list. First, and most obviously, the sector is in the early stages of spending billions to help the country decarbonise by 2050.
This means the retrofit of existing homes to make them more energy efficient and it means working to ensure the new homes we build are fit for the future. It also means collectively buying millions of environmentally friendly replacements for gas boilers, millions of electric car charging points and millions of solar panels. This will require a gigantic procurement effort.
