The Grenfell Tower Inquiry has firmly criticised Rydon, the principal contractor, for significant failures that contributed to the 2017 disaster.
- The report highlights Rydon’s lacklustre management and over-dependence on subcontractors which were not properly assessed for competence.
- Investigations revealed Rydon’s inadequate approach to fire safety, including its failure to involve fire engineering consultants.
- The company’s poor coordination and oversight of design contributions led to severe communication breakdowns impacting safety measures.
- Rydon’s reliance on past projects and building control was deemed inappropriate, missing the mark on ensuring compliance with safety regulations.
The Grenfell Tower Inquiry laid substantial blame on Rydon, the principal contractor for the refurbishment, citing numerous failures that heavily contributed to the tragic events of June 2017. As revealed in the phase two report, Rydon was found to have provided superficial management services while outsourcing critical roles to subcontractors without due diligence or adequate oversight, which significantly compounded the disaster.
Rydon came under heavy criticism for their failure to properly evaluate the competence of the subcontractors they engaged. This was particularly crucial given their reliance on these parties to meet contractual obligations. The report pointed out that the architecture firm Studio E, involved in the project, was inexperienced in high-rise overcladding tasks. Had Rydon acknowledged this, they might have pursued the engagement of a fire engineer to evaluate the wall’s safety, potentially averting the disaster.
Additionally, Rydon’s approach to fire safety was described as complacent. The inquiry found that Rydon showed disinterest in involving fire engineering consultants despite the complexities involved in the high-rise refurbishment. Their contracts manager, Simon Lawrence, noted the firm’s assumption that safety had been pre-established, indicating a critical oversight in Rydon’s security approach.
Coordination and monitoring of design work emerged as another area where Rydon fell short. There was an absence of a clear responsibility matrix, making it challenging for Rydon to ensure that subcontractors understood their roles. This lack of coordination was exacerbated by inadequate monitoring and reliance on past project’s performance, rather than ensuring current compliance with safety standards.
The report also criticised Rydon’s undue reliance on building control to alleviate their lack of technical expertise. This approach was deemed excessive, with implications that Rydon used building control as an assumptive safety net rather than a collaborative partner to ensure design and regulation adherence. Moreover, Rydon’s inspections were considered inadequate, as they failed to identify significant workmanship defects, further highlighting managerial deficiencies.
In summary, the Grenfell Inquiry thoroughly criticises Rydon for its significant managerial failures that played a substantial role in the 2017 tragedy.
