It's time to take responsibility

In my last blog, I let off some steam after reading up on the first few days of the Grenfell Inquiry’s second phase.

I was angry. I had a realisation that nothing that happened was unusual and was in fact typical of many projects. The Grenfell project had issues at every stage, but I would suggest that most projects will have at least one of the same issues. 

There are many parts of the process to be explored but it seems that the cladding design is getting the greatest focus. 

The issue is that nobody is willing to accept design responsibilities for the cladding. After reading every submission, nobody is saying they were the designer, and nobody was taking the overall responsibility.  

I still would not know where the liability for fa?ade design on the project lies. I’m sure the inquiry will have an opinion and the subsequent legal cases will define it.  

The fundamental issue is that, in reality, the overall system is never really designed. In the design and build process, the architects give a performance spec and some ideas. The contractor gets a rough price, cheap enough to win the lowest price tender. The main contractor then goes to a cladding installer, who has a designer to design it as cheaply as possible by substituting components. The material manufacturer then looks for the cheapest product to supply to the installer.  The main contractor pulls this all together and produces lots of contracts and warranties to ensure they are not liable. 

So who has ownership of the design? You can give your own answers below. 

What is the alternative and how can this be overcome? Clearly the issue is the lack of clarity of design. This is caused by the design and build contract. This contract was designed to move risk to the place where it is best managed and moved away from the client. Clients drive this contract development - not contractors or designers. 

The principal is correct; however, it has evolved, and the risk seems to be passed around like a rugby ball. 

My suggestion is that we go back to the way it used to be. The responsibility should be given to one designer - I would propose the architect. 

The architect will design the entire system, select the materials, consider the installation and take confidence in other strategies. Architects have been too keen to pass risk down the line to the contractor and subcontractor. 

The best-placed designer with an overall picture of the design is the architect. There was an old term, ‘equal and approved,’ which seems to have disappeared. 

This may not be the cheapest solution but there is a greater chance it will consider all the issues. 

The responsibility clearly lies in one place. If there is a request for change, the architect will have to agree to it or another party should accept the design responsibilities. This should be clearly recorded and communicated. 

Architects might say they don’t want the liability, but by allowing someone else to take responsibility, our PI costs have tripled since the disaster. Surely it would have been cheaper to design it ourselves. We could afford a minimum of four full time architects instead of our increased premium. You can design and check a lot of facades for that. 

Instead we are paying underwriters to cover our liability rather than self-managing risk. 

The Grenfell facade, in relative terms, was straightforward. An architect with experience of similar projects should have the required skills. 

There are facades in high rise buildings, such as those in the city, which I would suggest are very specialist. In this scenario, there needs to be a specialist designer but the principal would be the same in that there should be clear design responsibilities. 

We must stop pushing liability elsewhere, accept responsibility and get it right.