Examination of witnesses (Questions 20
- 39)
WEDNESDAY 4 MARCH 1998
PROFESSOR JOHN
KREBS, MR
COLIN READ
and MR JOHN
HANSFORD
20. These costs would not have been incurred
if the centre had not been built.
(Professor Krebs) That is not a disputed area
as far as the overrun is concerned. Mr Read may wish to confirm
that.
(Mr Read) Yes, that is true Chairman, that was
always a separate budget because it is the responsibility of a
separate group in NERC.
21. Would they have been relocated but for
the fact you were building this centre?
(Mr Read) No.
22. Thank you. Just to move on to this question
of project management, you made some references again in response
to the Chairman, if you just turn to page 41 of the Report and
Figure 15, this is a figure which indicates the eight reviews
the Chairman has referred to. I think you said incorrectly, Professor
Krebs, that you were first advised you in 1991 that should have
a project manager. This figure shows that you were advised so
by your own governing body in September 1990, does it not? "Responsibility
for management of this project should be assigned to an individual
who is not a member of the Design Team. The Council rejected this
proposal." The date on that is September 1990. Is that not
correct?
(Professor Krebs) You understand that I was not
there at the time but the Council at that stage on the advice
of experts on the Council made the decision not to appoint an
independent project manager.
23. They were advised as early as September
1990 that they should.
(Professor Krebs) It was a Council decision not
to.
24. The relevant date was not 1991, it was
September 1990.
(Professor Krebs) The first external advice came
from Touche Ross.
25. External advice, okay. I want to look
in a little bit of detail at your architects. How much did you
pay your architect in the end? I know that the fees doubled over
the life of the project but how much were your architects paid?
(Professor Krebs) Can I consult my colleague behind
me to get the exact number. £2.5 million.
26. What was the original estimate?
(Professor Krebs) The original estimate was £1.8
million.
27. That has not quite doubled so I suppose
you have done quite well there. I wonder if you would turn to
Page 13, Paragraph 2.14: "We have found little evidence that
users' requirements"—you yourself referred to users'
requirements as a wish list—"were seriously challenged
by the Council's professional advisers ... the Council did not
require them to challenge the users when it became evident that
they were not doing so." Whereas it is, as I understand it,
fairly normal for architects to do that job. Do you consider that
your architect were a little remiss in not challenging the users'
requirements at this stage?
(Professor Krebs) I think, Chairman, the users'
requirements were eventually challenged through the process in
Figure 5 which describes how the original wish list——
28. By that time you were into fire-fighting,
were you not, deciding what to cut to keep yourself within budget?
That is a rather late stage to be doing this. Would you not have
expected your architects to do that before you descended into
crisis management?
(Professor Krebs) I think if the project had started
with a specified sum of money and the users had been developing
a brief against a specified sum of money then we would not have
been in fire fighting mode.
29. You were happy with your architects
not challenging users at that stage. You do not think that was
a little remiss of them professionally?
(Mr Hansford) I think, if you look at Appendix
1, page 54, you will see that in January 1989 the Council and
the University study groups began to define the requirements—that
was when the work began on setting out the statement. If you look
a bit further down, it was not until July that the architects
were actually appointed. Again, if that project was being re-run
now that chronology would not have been done in that way.
30. Quite. Perhaps you might have appointed
your architects a little earlier.
(Mr Hansford) Indeed.
31. Are you saying it was too late for them
to challenge these assumptions?
(Mr Hansford) No, I am not saying that.
32. So do you think they ought to have been
challenging the user requirements?
(Mr Hansford) Yes, I think the process——
33. Professor Krebs is nodding. Thank you.
Can you turn to page 15 and 2.19 in the summary? "No alternative
design proposals were presented to senior management or user groups.
The project team selected a design concept which involved paying
a premium ...", et cetera. Would you not have thought it
was the job of your architects to suggest different design concepts
from which your team could choose? Is it not a little unusual
that you are presented just with one concept by your architects?
(Professor Krebs) I think they should have presented
alternatives.
34. Were there any penalty clauses in your
contracts with the architects by which you could have saved yourself
some of this 2.5 million, given that they do not seem to have
done their job very well?
(Professor Krebs) There were no penalty clauses.
35. Were they paid on the basis of an hourly
rate or a fixed fee? Was there a capped fee? How were they paid?
(Professor Krebs) In our present guidelines we
would do it on the basis of a fixed fee. At that time it was not
done on the basis of a fixed fee.
36. Do you think there are lessons to be
learned there for your organisation in the future?
(Professor Krebs) The lessons have been learnt.
37. I wonder if you can turn to Figure 20
on page 49? Here again we can see a Figure which says something
about your various consultants' comments. A comment here in respect
of your architects is that you, the Council, limited your choice
to firms who had worked previously for you. "The three firms
invited to bid had only limited experience of projects of a similar
type to the Centre and these were smaller. The Council did not
approach the Royal Institute of British Architects for the names
of suitable firms. The National Audit Office approached the Institute
who supplied a list of eight firms, which the Council had not
considered." Are you satisfied that in choosing your architects
you did so in a professional way?
(Professor Krebs) I think the basis on which the
Council made that choice at the time was that this particular
firm of architects had worked successfully with the Council before.
38. But on much smaller projects it seems.
(Professor Krebs) On substantially smaller projects,
but nevertheless significant sized projects. I can say in our
present practice, we would have a much broader range of competitors.
39. It seems to me that this is a fairly
sorry tale of simple things going wrong with a large project,
due in the most part, I would have thought, to the inexperience
of the Council. In fact you have said on a number of occasions
you have learnt lessons and things will be different next time.
Do you accept the recommendations in the Report?
(Professor Krebs) Yes.
| 
