Unsupported browser

For a better experience please update your browser to its latest version.

Your browser appears to have cookies disabled. For the best experience of this website, please enable cookies in your browser

We use cookies to personalise your experience; learn more in our Privacy and Cookie Policy. You can opt out of some cookies by adjusting your browser settings; see the cookie policy for details. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies.

Grenfell Inquiry has exposed design and build as our dirty little secret


The lack of oversight, ownership and liability that the inquiry has exposed is of little surprise to those of us immersed in the everyday realities of construction, says RCKa director Russell Curtis

The infamous game of exquisite corpseinvented by surrealists in the cafés of early 20th-century Paris, involved participants contributing to an evolving drawing, oblivious to their predecessors’ intent, save for a few short lines extending across a crease in the paper concealing the previous player’s work. With only limited information with which to extrapolate, each artist’s efforts unwittingly transformed churches into chickens; fish into fountains. The drawing revealed at the conclusion of the exercise could be surprising, disturbing – but never predictable.

As the second phase of the Grenfell public inquiry kicked off last week, the general public unwittingly glimpsed the construction industry’s own version of exquisite corpse. While shocking to many, the lack of oversight, ownership and liability that the inquiry has exposed is of little surprise to those of us who are immersed in the everyday realities of contemporary construction.

Design and build is construction’s dirty little secret; a seductive contractual brew which purports to offer clients certainty and comfort but amounts to little more than the delusive reconciliation of the cost/time/quality triumvirate. This commissioning and construction process has not only enabled the derogation of responsibility; it has positively encouraged it. The labyrinthine blame game now taking place within the inquiry is as predictable as it is devastating.

A rotten culture of risk-avoidance has demoted the pursuit of quality far down the list of priorities 

D&B is not, in and of itself, the problem. Rather it’s the inevitable manifestation of a rotten culture of risk-avoidance, which has demoted the pursuit of quality so far down the list of priorities that in some cases it ceases to factor at all. Yet it’s easy to understand why it remains so popular with clients. The opportunity to offload the risk of cost and programme overruns to a main contractor, thus saving face when things go awry, is too tempting to ignore, particularly within a public sector paralysed by fear of failure. In response, contractors – working to razor-thin margins and possibly bidding below cost in the hope they can recoup costs through subsequent ‘value engineering’ – simply bat the risk down the supply chain to the design team, suppliers, specialist subcontractors, or whoever else happens to be in the room at the time. Deniability is plausible when nobody really knows who is responsible.

The Hackitt review went some way to addressing this, but misidentified the elusive ‘golden thread’ as information, promoting the idea that a more robust transfer of data is the cure. But without singular oversight of the entire process – a sole point of responsibility – it’s no wonder what emerges is a poor facsimile of what was intended. No, the golden thread must be quality – the setting out, from beginning to end, of what a project must be like; then the presence of an ever-present and empowered agent with the authority and capability to intercede when things are not as they need to be. 

The bereaved, survivors and relatives group, in its submission to phase two of the inquiry, put it thus: ‘Under Design and build there is a danger that the architects, once novated, are squeezed out of the process. They are, after all, now a cost burden for the design-and-build contractor. That certainly seems to have happened here. And there is no independent professional person to administer the contract and ensure that the design intent is fulfilled.’

It doesn’t have to be this way. Within the last quarter-century, a sea change has taken place elsewhere within the UK construction industry, with the number of site accidents and injuries plummeting. Changes in legislation have helped, but this has been principally due to a significant change in culture. The tragedy at Grenfell has made it apparent that our attitude to quality must now undergo a similarly profound transformation.

Russell Curtis is a director at RCKA and a founding director of procurement campaign group Project Compass 


Readers' comments (4)

  • Russell, very well said and thank you.

    Nobody seems to be getting to the heart of the Grenfell disaster.

    PS Simple language is always better, so please no more "delusive reconciliation of the cost/time/quality triumvirate."

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • What ever happened to Quality Management - wasn't it supposed to have been drilled into everyone's culture through the formulation and application of ISO standards?

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Sorry, David. Duly noted.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

  • Quality is indeed the golden thread that was cut to ribbons over the last couple of decades of PFI and D&B. Led, if that is the right verb, by unscrupulous cap-in-hand builders like the reckless, greedy and unscrupulous senior management of Carillion. It’s a race to the bottom with these people and human life counts for nothing in the relentless and evil pursuit of super-profit.

    It is clear that we now need to return to the former ‘system’, where the architect was the leader of the design team, with his trusty clerk-of-works by his side, acting as his eyes and ears on site. It is only in this way that design quality and safety can be remotely ensured, and the dangerous antics of cowboy builders kept at bay.

    Bring back the traditional system with architects at the top of the hierarchy. No sensible or cultured client would dream of procuring their building any other way. Realistic fee scales are required for architects, as arbiters of taste and quality, to perform their full professional duties. This is not possible at a fee of 4.75% for a full professional service to an existing building. The fee should be twice that amount to do the job properly and prevent further loss of life.

    Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment

Have your say

You must sign in to make a comment

Please remember that the submission of any material is governed by our Terms and Conditions and by submitting material you confirm your agreement to these Terms and Conditions.

Links may be included in your comments but HTML is not permitted.