12.3.1 Immediately following notification of the collapse at Oxgangs School, the Council acted quickly and effectively, firstly, by allocating one of the senior building professionals in the Council to act as their main representative in relation to the issue and secondly, by appointing WRD to provide them with professional structural engineering advice and services in relation to the collapse.
12.3.2 Within a matter of days, in recognition of the fact that under the contract responsibility for making Oxgangs School safe to occupy lay with ESP, the Council transferred the appointment of WRD to ESP. At this stage, the Council had no reason to suspect that this was more than an isolated failure of a gable wall although they had sensibly asked for precautionary checks to be carried out elsewhere.
12.3.3 In accordance with interim arrangements made with ESP, the remedial works for Phase 1 were undertaken by Amey under the professional direction of WRD and for Phase 2 were undertaken by Galliford Try as advised by the structural engineers they directly appointed, Goodson Associates. This latter relationship was very similar to a Design and Build arrangement in that ESP had no direct contractual relationship with Goodson Associates in regard to this particular area of work and also had limited access to the technical information they produced other than through Galliford Try.
12.3.4 These arrangements while properly reflecting the contractual structures underlying the PPP contract indicate a level of separation created by the procurement model between the Council and direct access to core information relating to the actual fabric of schools, the condition of which determined the Council's ability to meet its statutory obligations in providing a safe environment for the pupils and teachers in Edinburgh.
12.3.5 It has been noted that even though there were clearly contractual issues between the Council and ESP arising from the discovery of defective construction and the enforced enclosure of the schools, there was a relatively open and transparent sharing of technical information between these two parties. It is clear, however, from evidence to the Inquiry that the timely making available of all relevant information to the Council was less than ideal. This was particularly true in relation to the lack of clarity provided to the Council by ESP as to the detailed proposals that Galliford Try were adopting in their approach to the remedial work.
12.3.6 When evidence began to emerge of the extent of defects across the schools, the Council appointed Scott Bennett to provide them with independent professional advice and to quality assure any structural proposals that were put to them by ESP.
12.3.7 In evidence to the Inquiry, supported by that contained in copies of correspondence and minutes of meetings held at the time, the Council felt that the response from ESP and communications with ESP largely carried out through its agents, initially tended to be more focussed on legal and financial matters and was less clear as to how to address the practical issues arising from the defective construction.
12.3.8 In minutes from the Corporate Incident Management Team held on the morning of 26th April 2016 there was discussion as to the quality of responsiveness and capability of ESP in relation to the management of the remediation works. The following extract from the minutes stated:
"There was also concern that it was not exactly clear who ESP were, making it difficult to have direct dialogue and get firm answers. There was frustration that the pace of action was not adequate."
12.3.9 The meeting discussed proposals that the Council might suggest to ESP in relation to strengthening their team from a technical and construction project management perspective. However, there was also a concern that the Council should not undertake any direct actions that could be seen to dilute the full responsibility that lay with ESP.
12.3.10 On the afternoon of the same day, 26th April 2016, the Council held a meeting with the funders and directors of ESP at which they expressed their concerns.
12.3.11 It would certainly have been a key objective of ESP to achieve the earliest completion of the remedial works with the least period of closure of schools, both to reduce the level of disruption to the education of the children and in order to minimise the reductions from payments to ESP made by the Council as a result of the closures.
12.3.12 ESP still felt that this could be achieved through their proposed phased approach to remediation, with the second phase of remedial works occurring in the period when the schools would be closed for the summer. At the meeting the Council made it explicitly clear to the funders that this was an option which they would no longer accept and sought confirmation from the meeting that full remediation would be undertaken in a single phase.
12.3.13 When it was confirmed to Galliford Try that a two-phased solution was not acceptable, they continued with the implementation of the full extent of the required remedial works on the Phase 2 school. However, they did so in advance of the completion of detailed surveys of the defects to the structure of the external walls of the schools and without submission of the details of their proposed remedial works to ESP or through them to the City of Edinburgh Council.
12.3.14 In evidence Galliford Try stated that they were seeking to achieve the earliest return of pupils to their original schools, as indeed they were being encouraged to do so by the Council. They were successful in this regard, in that they completed the remedial work to the Phase 2 schools significantly before this was achieved for any of the Phase 1 schools.
12.3.15 It had been reported at a CIMT meeting held on 22nd April that there was a perceived reluctance on the part of Galliford Try to provide the same level of documentary reassurance that ESP had agreed to provide to the Council in relation to the quality and effectiveness of the remedial works. The meeting was advised that Galliford Try believed that they were acting in compliance with the full extent of the requirements in their contract and that this requirement exceeded the obligations placed on them by the contract.
12.3.16 In this situation, the nature of the PPP contract structures seemed to act to inhibit the Council in its desire to undertake due diligence in seeking appropriate assurance as to the safety of the schools. Ultimately, agreement was reached that all relevant participants, including Galliford Try and Goodson Associates who had acted as their structural engineers, would provide the required assurances.
12.3.17 However, by proceeding with the remedial works without the opportunity for prior comment by Council advisors as to the adequacy or acceptability of the proposed engineering solutions or the opportunity by Council appointees to inspect the carrying out of the work while it was being done, they to some degree replicated the situation of the original construction of the school, where there had been no contemporaneous independent scrutiny of the quality and appropriateness of the design and construction in advance of their implementation.
12.3.18 The situation was resolved through the appropriate insistence of the Council and their engineering advisors, Scott Bennett, that prior to the reopening of any schools they would require the receipt of certified documentation as to the detailed nature of the works undertaken and the structural calculations on which these works had been based.
12.3.19 The Phase 2 works, somewhat after-the-fact, were further checked against this documentation by a Clerk of Works appointed by the Council. Fortunately, the major proportion of the remedial installation of head restraints and windposts was visible for inspection due to being retrofitted on the inner faces of the inner leaves of cavity walls.
12.3.20 Due to the unusual nature of the circumstances and the nature of the work, it was agreed that retrospective building warrant applications could be made based on evidence supplied by other inspecting parties.
12.3.21 Will Rudd Davidson and Goodson Associates as structural engineers, and Amey and Galliford Try as contractors, provided ESP with letters stating that they were satisfied with the standard and safety of the remediated buildings. Scott Bennett Associates, the Council's Structural Engineers, reviewed the evidence on which Will Rudd Davidson and Goodson Associates had based their designs, and the signed records of implementation of these designs by Amey and Galliford Try. They confirmed that they were satisfied with the evidence provided.
12.3.22 The fact that both firms of structural engineers responsible for the design and supervision of the remedial works and Scott Bennett Associates had members registered with the Structural Engineers Registration Ltd ("SER") gave greater legitimacy to this approach. SER have been appointed by the Scottish Government to administer the national scheme for certification of building design through which SER-certified engineers have the authority to certify that designs comply with building regulations.
12.3.23 In addition to an in-depth review of this documentation, a final inspection of all remediated buildings was undertaken by Scott Bennett Associates supported by Hickton, the firm of Clerks of Works appointed by the City of Edinburgh Council to inspect the remedial works to the schools.
12.3.24 Taking the above evidence into account, the Council's Building Standards team was satisfied that retrospective building warrant applications would be appropriate. This approval method was seen by the Council as being the most expedient route to re-open the schools.
12.3.25 The process of approval of the 'Completion Certificate Where No Building Warrant Obtained' for each of the PPP1 schools is at the time of completion of this Report still on-going. The description of the works submitted in these applications primarily are in respect of the retro-fitting of the windposts to all the PPP1 schools.
12.3.26 Given the limited nature of the work involved, the certification and counter checking by structural engineers who are registered with the SER scheme and the urgency of getting the pupils back to their schools for the beginning of the new school year, the Inquiry is of the view that the response was pragmatic, if not fully compliant, and in the circumstances was an understandable approach.
12.3.27 As the same level of pre-remediation reports of surveys of the walls of the Phase 1 schools was not produced by Galliford Try or made available to the Inquiry, with regard to the Phase 2 schools, the Inquiry was unable to undertake the same level of analysis as that undertaken for the Phase 1 schools in relation to the level of missing head restraints, bed joint reinforcement or windposts in the Phase 2 schools.
12.3.28 While, in addition to the defective wall ties, it had been confirmed by Galliford Try that all three elements had been found not to be in full accordance with the design, the lack of survey information in relation to these items makes it difficult to be precise as to the full extent of the failure by the original contractor Miller Construction to properly construct the external walls of these four schools.
12.3.29 The Inquiry is of the view that the Council could have been more proactive in terms of seeking to ensure that proper surveys were undertaken and records made of the defects or omissions in the construction of the external walls of the Phase 2 schools and could in relation to these schools have more actively pursued its rights under the contract.
12.3.30 It is also the view of the Inquiry that, given the original problems were associated with the poor quality of construction, the Council could possibly have appointed a Clerk of Works at an earlier stage than was done, so that all opening up of walls and remedial construction work could have been inspected as it was being done rather than relying on retrospective inspection of the completed work as in the case of the four Phase 2 schools.