Consultation on the Architects Code of Conduct and Practice

Procurement
What we must learn from the fire
The conclusions of the Grenfell Inquiry report, expertly delivered by Sir Martin Moore-Bick on the 4th of September are unequivocal and damning. This is the final report, but I consider that an opportunity has been missed to re-examine the role that the now almost ubiquitous “Design and Build” approach to Procurement played in the failure of what was essentially a recladding project. Design and Build, Redacted textwhere the architect and design team work in the service of the building contractor, not the building owner or the end user, is, I contend, a major risk in multiple projects.
Sir Martin concludes that Grenfell ought to “… bring about a fundamental change in the attitudes and practices of the construction industry" and most architects agree with that aim. It is noteworthy that the architects involved were inexperienced in high-rise projects and that they were appointed without competition. They no doubt relied upon the specifications and information produced by the cladding manufacturers that it met building regulations, and technical and fire safety standards and was suitable for use in such a project.
I find it difficult to believe that any competent architect would specify a cladding material that they knew might constitute a fire risk, but without experience, they might accept something that a more experienced practitioner would challenge.
Under Design and Built Procurement, the cladding may not always be tightly specified under” Employers Requirements” and instead may have been left to the contractor to determine and for their architects to incorporate. It is always challenging for the architect to question the validity of the choice proposed by the contractor, and their client, and where there is no formal contractual basis to insist on the architect’s specification then they would have no option but to continue or to resign the novation and step back from the project. It has been reported that a technical manager of the company that provided the insulation for the cladding panels emailed those raising fire safety concerns “...go fuck themselves” or the firm would “sue the arse of them” adding they were “getting me confused with someone who gives a dam[sic] imagine a fire running up this tower!!!!!!!!!!!”. Most seasoned architects will have found themselves in these invidious positions when they insist on certain standards- Design and Build undoubtedly weakens their professional standing.
In the wake of Grenfell it is estimated that the UK has over 4,600 buildings which require their cladding to be removed due to elevated fire risk. Thousands of tenants live in perpetual fear and homeowners find that they have an asset with questionable value or that carries a huge burden for repair costs. The extent of the problem suggests to me that there must be many other architects who may have accepted similar diktats from design and build contractors and made compromises that relied too heavily on manufacturer assurances. They face an unenviable ethical and professional dilemma.