10.14.1 The effectiveness of quality management and implementation of quality assurance methodologies by the main contractor, given the increasingly large proportion of actual construction that is undertaken by sub-contractors, is dependent on ensuring that those sub-contractors have in turn quality systems that align with those of the contractor.
10.14.2 The requirement for main contractors to carry out due diligence on subcontractors was raised in evidence to the Inquiry by a representative attending on behalf of the Scottish Building Federation, who was a Director of a Building Company, which also provided sub-contracting bricklaying services on larger projects. He stated:
"We would normally expect the contractor to check out the sub-contractor and do due diligence in the marketplace. However, we would think it unlikely that they would be in a position to check the operatives who the subcontractors engage."
"There is a tendency for good contractors to get more and more work but they will eventually get to the point where they will be unable to properly resource jobs they take on and quality can go down."
"Certainly, a main contractor will assume that their sub-contractors will employ competent tradesmen but the main contractor cannot necessarily control it. You will then have to rely on a supervisor or even a Clerk of Works or both."
"Building standards and quality issues can sometimes be enhanced if the client puts in place additional supervision as a check. However many clients won't have anyone on site to act in their interest as an additional set of eyes and ears..."
10.14.3 The availability of well-trained bricklayers has already been raised as a concern within the construction industry. In periods of heavy demand, such as when so many schools were simultaneously being built, there can be a pressure on contractors and sub-contractors to use members of the workforce that may not be well known to them and who may not have the requisite skills or even training.
10.14.4 In evidence to the Inquiry it was acknowledged that while operatives coming on site would be required to show Construction Skills Certification Scheme (CSCS) cards, the focus of this system tended to be on safety matters rather than on the skillset or competence as a tradesman. This was acknowledged by several witnesses as a potential weakness in the on-site quality control of those undertaking the work.
10.14.5 Another issue raised in discussion about the quality assurance of sub-contractors was the influence of the way in which individual bricklayers were paid. It has become commonplace over recent years, with the increasing demise of bricklayers being permanent employees of main contractors, that payment is on the basis of the number of bricks laid or square metres of wall completed in a day. The bricklayer is not normally paid anything extra for the incorporation of wall ties, corner ties, bed joint reinforcement or head restraints. The more complicated and numerous the accessories to be fitted the longer it takes and the less bricks are laid, reducing the earnings for that day. For that reason some bricklayers will not take on more complicated work.
10.14.6 The Inquiry was advised by two senior Clerks of Works, permanently employed by a large public sector organisation in Scotland, that the quality of bricklaying was still today a constant problem for them, requiring their on-going inspection. They both were of the view that the common means of remunerating bricklayers, as described above, was one of the contributory factors in bringing about this situation.
10.14.7 One of them described a recent example from a major project where they spotted that a bricklayer was building a significant section of the wall he had been working on without building in any wall ties. When he was stopped by the Clerk of Works and queried, his response was that as the contractor hadn't provided enough wall ties they had run out, and he could not afford to sit around as his earnings for that day were dependent on him completing the wall.
10.14.8 The Inquiry would not expect that this is a regular occurrence in the practice of the trade but in the situation described, without the inspection of Clerks of Works, another wall could have been built that represented a potential danger to members of the public using or in the proximity of the building.
10.14.9 In the case of the PPP1 schools, it is particularly noticeable that throughout the various buildings, the areas that tended to be least provided with head restraints were those areas where the steel beams were sloping upwards at the angle of the roof, making it more difficult and time-consuming for a bricklayer to install head restraints than in the case where the beam they were to be attached to was horizontal .
10.14.10 The chair of this Inquiry was informed during a visit to the site of one of the PPP1 Schools, undergoing remedial work, by a representative of the builder undertaking the remedial work, that a number of head restraint fittings were found sitting on top of the steel beams where the bricklayer has placed them rather than take the time to connect them to the steel beam and build them into the adjacent wall, from which they were found to be missing.
10.14.11 It is also of notice that throughout the schools in those walls where head restraints were fitted, the specified more complicated head restraint fitting, which was designed to connect both leaves rather than just the inner leaf to the steel beam, were rarely found. Instead they tended to be replaced by the simpler single leaf fitting, which was quicker to fit but did not share the structural advantage of helping to tie the two leaves to each other as well as to the steel beam.
10.14.12 From the programmes provided, it is clear that the schools were built quite quickly, the incentive to do so being that if they failed to achieve the required dates for the start of school terms, they risked losing income from Council payments. In evidence the Inquiry was told by an experienced contractor and ex-bricklayer that a focus on speed of construction in which tradesmen such as bricklayers are required to accelerate can often be at the cost of quality.
10.14.13 It is difficult for the Inquiry to be categorical about the degree to which any of these factors may have impacted on the quality of the brickwork in the PPP1 schools given the non-availability or unwillingness of witnesses involved in the actual construction of the walls to come forward. The Inquiry also experienced difficulty in getting representatives from a number of invited specialist bricklaying sub-contractor, who had not been involved in the PPP1 projects, to agree to give evidence to the Inquiry on quality in the Industry.
10.14.14 However, it is clear that the quality systems and supervision in place were inadequate to prevent the repeated and widespread occurrence of similar defects across a range of school projects delivered by a range of contractors and sub-contractors. It is also clear that the lack of embedment of ties on the scale discovered must have been obvious to those building the walls and should have been obvious to anyone supervising them.