The architect behind the Grenfell Tower refurbishment has admitted the practice may not have won the work if the procurement process had been competitive.
Studio E Architects co-founder Andrzej Kuszell admitted at the inquiry that the that the London-based practice had no experience in cladding or refurbishing a high-rise block, nor on high-rise residential projects in general, reports Construction News’ sister publication the Architects’ Journal.
At an earlier hearing, a lawyer representing a group of survivors and the bereaved had accused the Grenfell Tower Tenant Management Organisation (TMO), the refurbishment client, of “circumventing public procurement legislation” by capping their fees below the thresholds which would have triggered a competitive procurement process.
Asked if he thought the TMO was seeking to avoid such competitive procurement, Kuszell said he thought it was “a method to permit them to appoint not just us but others as well, to carry out the work being novated to the contractor”.
And, asked whether he accepted that, had there been a competitive procurement process for the work, it was unlikely Studio E would have won, Kuszell replied: “Knowing the way procurement works, I think you’re right.”
Kuszell repeatedly told the inquiry that, as founder, he did not have responsibility for the day-to-day running of Grenfell Tower, a role assigned to associate Bruce Soanes.
He was later asked whether a technical review of the Grenfell Tower proposals to check whether the designs complied with the Building Regulations had been carried out at the tender stage in 2014. Kusznell replied: “A technical review, in the sense you are asking, was not carried out at that stage; it was carried out later.”
The lawyer for the inquiry pointed to evidence that showed a full technical review by Studio E had not occurred until 28 October 2015, explaining this had been produced while the external facade works were already 60 per cent built and a year after the aluminium composite material (ACM) cladding panels had been specified.
Grilled on whether it was normal for a technical review to take place when an “important element of the project” was already substantially complete, Kuszell replied: “What is important is at what point had the project been developed to the point where you’d be reviewing the final technical equation.”
The inquiry continues.
