10.1.1 The traditional procurement process was not a panacea for Clients but there were many positive aspects of it that had been developed over years of construction experience to address real issues in the construction industry that could be incorporated into current procurement models to their benefit but appear to have been lost in the transition. Under the traditional model the client generally employs the design team to separately design the project and provide an independent scrutiny of the performance of the contractor selected to build it.
10.1.2 On medium to larger projects this would generally have also involved the employment of Clerks of Works or Resident Engineers, who would be the eyes and ears of the design team on site and undertake on-going inspections of all aspects of the works. Specialist Clerks of Works would be employed to provide this service in relation to areas such as the Mechanical and Electrical installations. For the largest projects, it would be normal that resident architects and engineers would be based on the site to inspect and report on the quality of work and to require the removal and replacement of any sub-standard construction.
10.1.3 This in no way removed the fundamental responsibility from contractors to undertake the detailed supervision of the work to ensure it was built to the right quality in accordance with that specified by the design team in the contract documents. Contractors, sub-contractors and even individual tradesmen, are of course expected to operate effective quality assurance processes in relation to their own work, however it is self-evident that clients receive an extra level of assurance through inspections not carried out by those organisations or individuals that have done the work.
10.1.4 With the increasing adoption over recent years by the public sector of other models of procurement under which the design team is employed, and their terms of employment determined, by the building contractors, the level of independent scrutiny of construction has been significantly reduced. This situation would generally be typical of the approach used in Public Private Partnership arrangements, as exemplified by the PPP1 schools.
10.1.5 All the architects, engineers, building control officers and other professional representatives of public sector client bodies, who gave evidence to the Inquiry, expressed concern as to the impact of the increasing lack of independent scrutiny on the quality of construction in the industry.
10.1.6 A strongly shared view, expressed to the Inquiry by many witnesses, was that the reduced requirement for visits by the design team to site was now an increasingly common feature in the conditions of appointment of design teams as set by the contractors employing them. Many saw this as preventing the designers of buildings playing an effective and necessary role in ensuring that the design intent behind their drawings and specifications is actually understood and implemented on site. This point, while generally applicable, has a particular significance in relation to the structural design and construction of masonry walls.
10.1.7 It was stated by many witnesses that, in their recent experience, it was now much rarer for public sector bodies either to employ in-house Clerks of Work or to recruit them from external agencies for projects. The increasing diminution in the use of Clerks of Work by the public sector was considered by many witnesses to be a real risk to quality. A consultant structural engineer, whose evidence to the Inquiry typified the sentiments expressed by many other witnesses, said:
"With regard to the role of the Clerk of Works, I am a big fan, particularly in public sector projects. They are usually tradesmen, who have come up through their trade and know the shortcuts that the tradesmen on site may try to take. Certainly, if you could re-introduce the Clerk of Works on-site more widely, that would go some way to restoring public confidence in the quality of buildings."
10.1.8 Several of the representatives of contracting organisations who gave evidence to the Inquiry also stated that they saw benefit and value in having a properly qualified Clerk of Works as an extra pair of eyes on site.
10.1.9 As a result of the predominance of these new models of procurement for public sector projects, reliance is now increasingly being placed almost entirely on the internal quality assurance processes of contractors, effectively requiring them to police themselves.
10.1.10 For these essential arrangements to work effectively, requires the establishment of a wide range of detailed protocols for appropriate inspections by suitably qualified and trained personnel of the various elements of construction. However, such systems are only effective if what is contained within the written quality assurance files is actually implemented on site.
10.1.11 To do so contractors must invest in sufficient properly qualified management and supervisory staff, who are prepared to condemn without question substandard work undertaken by their own company and others, and are under no pressures in terms of the impact such condemnations may have on additional costs to their employer or resultant potentially expensive delays to programmes. Inevitably, there is the potential for conflicts of interest to arise in such circumstances.
10.1.12 There are many factors which can be seen as having potentially contributed to both the collapse of the wall and the failure to construct the masonry external walls in accordance with the required standards for resistance to wind-loading.
10.1.13 However, it is the unequivocally held view of the Inquiry that there were fundamental and widespread failures of the quality assurance processes of the various contractors and sub-contractors, who built or oversaw the building of the PPP1 schools, to identify and rectify both defective construction of the cavity walls and the omission of the proper incorporation of secondary steelwork.
10.1.14 Given the widespread nature of the presence of defective construction in terms of varying cavity width and lack of embedment of wall ties, the Inquiry can only conclude that those responsible for the supervision and quality assurance of this work either did not inspect the work adequately or did inspect it and failed to take appropriate action to have it removed or remedied.
10.1.15 It is of considerable concern to the Inquiry that the same defects and omissions were present to greater or lesser degrees in all 17 projects, even though they were constructed over a period of several years by a range of different contractors and bricklaying sub-contractors, each no doubt with their own quality assurance systems in place.
10.1.16 The reports on fire-stopping, which have just recently been completed, would equally appear to demonstrate a failure of quality assurance processes on the part of the various contractors and sub-contractors involved to ensure the satisfactory installation of building elements specifically designed to protect the safety of the users of buildings.
10.1.17 This inevitably raises the question as to whether these failures of quality assurance systems are restricted to the 17 PPP1 school buildings in Edinburgh or are likely to be found in other school buildings in Edinburgh and elsewhere in Scotland and the U.K., or are likely to be found in recent buildings generally.
10.1.18 In order to seek further information as to whether the primary cause of the collapse, the lack of embedment of wall ties, and the omissions of secondary steelwork were as a result of particular failings of the contractors engaged on the PPP1 schools, or whether the cause was related to more generic failings within the construction industry, the Inquiry sought information from all 32 Local Authorities in Scotland as to whether they had encountered or discovered evidence of similar defects in their buildings. The outcome of these inquiries revealed that similar faults had been identified in a number of schools throughout Scotland. Evidence provided to the Inquiry from these sources suggests that significant failings in quality assurance are still occurring in the present-day construction of buildings for Local Authorities and other public bodies.
10.1.19 The facts, as provided in evidence, show that the same recurring faults were discovered in buildings built by different contractors, different bricklaying subcontractors and different bricklayers at different times. There is no doubt that the nature of these faults could result in serious consequences for users of the buildings.
10.1.20 Accordingly, based on the evidence of defective construction provided, the Inquiry has come to the view that, it is insufficient for public sector clients with a responsibility to protect the safety of the communities they serve, to rely solely on the quality assurance processes of contractors for confirmation that key aspects of the construction of buildings, impacting on the safety of users, have been properly constructed.
10.1.21 It is completely possible and practical for appropriate levels of independent scrutiny, provided by a range of professionals, especially the use of Clerks of Works, to be incorporated into the new procurement methodologies that are increasingly being used to procure public buildings.