Professional negligence — Duty of care - Management contract — Respective obligations of designer, contractor and supervisor — Buildability - Scope of duty of supervision. Department of National Heritage v Steensen Varming Mulcahy (a firm) (Balfour Beatty Ltd and another, third parties) QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION (OFFICIAL REFEREES’ BUSINESS) HIS HONOUR JUDGE PETER BOWSHER QC 26-29 JANUARY, 2-5, 9-12, 16-19, 23-27 FEBRUARY, 2-5, 9-12, 16-19, 23-26, 30, 31 MARCH, 1, 2, 6— 8, 22, 23, 27-30 APRIL, 5-7, 11, 12, 14, 18-21 MAY, 10, 15-18, 22-25, 29, 30 JUNE, 1, 2, 6-9, 13-16, 20- 23, 28, 30 JULY 1998 0. Analysis of liability for design and for supervision. The plaintiffs (Heritage) were an emanation of the Crown responsible for the erection of the British Library. They were one of many bodies which had in succession been so responsible. The defendants, Steensen Varming Mulcahy (SVM) were mechanical and electrical consulting engineers for the Library project. The plaintiffs sued the defendants in contract and tort alleging professional negligence. The defendants joined as third parties Balfour Beatty Ltd (BB), the electrical contractors for the project and Laing Management Ltd (LM), engaged as management contractors for the project. The plaintiffs and the third parties joined forces and were jointly represented. The plaintiffs’ claim was limited to £8.4m which was the sum paid out by the insurers, who were the effective plaintiffs. The claim arose out of very extensive damage to the low voltage cabling installed by BB. BB replaced some of the cabling at their own cost but from 1993 were alleging that the damage was due to design faults for which they were not responsible. SVM said that the defects were due to bad workmanship on the part of BB and bad supervision and lack of co-ordination by both LM and Heritage. The contract was on a form of construction management. The Crown entered directly into separate contracts with the designers, construction manager and the works contractors and the construction manager (LM) was engaged to manage the works contractors on behalf of the Crown. Held: (1) SVM’s express design obligations were set out in the contract under seal dated 15 June 1984. Contrary to the plaintiffs’ arguments, these did not forbid lid-down trunking which was recognised by the contract as a possible34 Dept of National Heritage v Steensen Varming Mulcahy (a firm) 60 ConLR though not the preferred option. SVM preferred to avoid a mixture of lid-up and lid-down trunking because this would produce difficulties at the joins. This choice was obvious to all and no one suggested that lid-down trunking was forbidden until years later. (2) SVM were under an express duty to exercise all reasonable skill, care and diligence. They were under the same duty at common law. This included a duty to design the work so that it could be built ‘by those likely to be employed to do it’. BB’s contractual obligation of which they were frequently in breach was to use ‘directly employed qualified staff? and their contract further required ‘a high standard of workmanship and finish’ and the bringing to the attention of LM of any departures in the drawings or specification from accepted good practice. In the light of these considerations SVM were not in breach by designing a lid-down system. (3) SVM did have supervisory duties but in the context of the contract, they were limited so far as cable damage was concerned to detecting cable damage after it had occurred and requiring it to be put right. The duty did not extend to preventing BB doing bad work. (4) The argument of the plaintiffs that it was inherently unlikely that an experienced contractor’s workforce would have installed in excess of 3,000 kilometres of cable incorrectly and that therefore there must have been defects of design was not established. In breach of contract BB did not always use directly employed staff and not enough supervisors were employed by them. There was widespread bad workmanship by BB. Accordingly, there should be judgment for the defendants. Cases referred to in judgment Adcock’s Trustee v Bridge RDC (1911) 75 JP 241. Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee [1957] 2 All ER 118, [1957] 1 WLR 582. Bonnington Castings Lid v Wardlaw [1956] 1 All ER 615, [1956] AC 613, [1956] 2 WLR 707, HL. Brickfield Properties Ltd v Newton, Rosebell Holdings Ltd v Newton [1971] 3 All ER 328, [1971] 1 WLR 862, CA. British Westinghouse Electric and Manufacturing Co Ltd v Underground Electric Rlys Co of London Ltd [1912] AC 673, [1911-13] All ER Rep 63, HL. Caparo Industries ple v Dickman [1990] BCLC 273, [1990] 1 All ER 568, {1990] 2 AC 605, [1990] 2 WLR 368, HL. Chelmsford DC v T J Evers (1984) 25 BLR 99. Corfield v Grant (1992) 29 ConLR 58. East Ham BC v Bernard Sunley & Sons Ltd [1965] 3 All ER 619, [1966] AC 406, [1965] 3 WLR 1096, HL. Elliott Steam Tug Co v Shipping Controller [1922] 1 KB 127. Equitable Debenture Assets Corp Ltd v William Moss Group Ltd (1984) 2 ConLR 1. Hutchison v Harris (1978) 10 BLR 19, CA. Jameson v Simon 1899 1 F (Ct of Sess) 1211.60 ConLR Dept of National Heritage v Steensen Varming Mulcahy (a firm) 35 Livingstone v Rawyards Coal Co (1880) 5 App Cas 25. McGhee v National Coal Board [1972] 3 All ER 1008, [1973] 1 WLR 1, HL. Merton London Borough v Lowe (1979) 18 BLR 130, CA. Nye Saunders and Partners (a firm) v Alan E Bristow (1987) 37 BLR 92, CA. Robinson v Harman (1848) 1 Exch 850, [1843-60] All ER Rep 383. South Australia Asset Management Corp v York Montague Ltd, United Bank of Kuwait plc v Prudential Property Services Ltd, NyKredit Mortgage Bank ple v Edward Erdman Group Lid [1996] 3 All ER 365, [1997] AC 191, [1996] 3 WLR 87, HL, rusg sub nom Banque Bruxelles Lambert SA v Eagle Star Insurance Co Ltd {1995] 2 All ER 769, [1995] QB 375, [1995] 2 WLR 607, CA. Sutcliffe v Chippendale & Edmundson (1971) 18 BLR 149. University of Glasgow v Whitfield John Laing Construction Ltd (1988) 19 ConLR 111. Victoria University of Manchester v Hugh Wilson and Lewis Womersley (a firm) (1984) 2 ConLR 43. Yorkshire Dale Steamship'Co Ltd v Minister of War Transport [1942] 2 All ER 6, [1942] AC 691, HL. Jobn Slater QC, Peter Hamilton and Simon Henderson (instructed by Bannisters) for the plaintiffs and the first and second third parties. Philip Vallance QC, David Evans and John Whitting (instructed by Berrymans Lace Mawer) for the defendants. INDEX TO JUDGMENT CONCLUSION 36 INTRODUCTION 37 ABBREVIATIONS 37 ‘THE PARTIES 37 ‘THE CLAIMS 38 THE ISSUES 40 OTHER BODIES AND INDIVIDUALS PRINCIPALLY INVOLVED 40 DESCRIPTION OF SITE a2 GENERAL HISTORY OF THE PROJECT 43 DESCRIPTION OF THE ELECTRICAL INSTALLATION 7 THE CONTRACTS 50 Construction management 50 LM’s contract 50 BB's contract 62 SVM’s contract 70 CONSTRUCTION OF THE CONTRACTS AND COMMON LAW DUTIES 80 SVM’s express design obligations under its contract 82 SVM’s duty to exercise all reasonable skill and care 84 SVM’s duty to keep design under review 89 Co-ordinated and comprehensive drawings 90 Selection and approval of equipment and materials 91 SVM’s duty to supervise and inspect 9436 Dept of National Heritage v Steensen Varming Mulcahy (a firm) 60 ConLR BREACHES 99 Was there breach by SVM, BB or LM? 99 The evidence called on behalf of SVM 99 Cause in law 101 Cause in fact 104 ‘THE PLAINTIFFS’ GENERAL CASE 110 THE NATURE OF THE DAMAGE TO CABLES 412 DEFECTIVE MATERIALS AND BAD WORKMANSHIP 113 Pulling cables 119 BB’s case on pulling cables and friction burns 123 CRITICISMS OF DESIGN 126 Lid-down trunking 126 Trunking overloaded with cables 131 Routes of cables — long cables — complex trunking 139 Failure to co-ordinate design and late design changes 142 Failure to review the design 144 CRITICISMS OF SUPERVISION 144 CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE AND CONTRIBUTION 155 DAMAGES 155 Damages - remedial works 156 LM and agency staff costs 163 Consultant staff 164 APPENDIX A 170 HIS HONOUR JUDGE PETER BOWSHER QC. CONCLUSION For the following reasons given in this judgment, | find that the plaintiffs have proved no liability on the part of the defendants. I also find the first third party primarily to blame for the damage complained of in this action and the second third party and the plaintiffs secondarily to blame. Since the plaintiffs have made common cause with the third parties, | accept the invitation of their counsel to treat them as one and I give judgment for the defendants against the plaintiffs and the third parties. I also order that the defendants’ costs be paid by the insurers of the plaintiffs and both third parties jointly, such costs to be taxed if not agreed. The taxation of costs is to be on the standard basis save that the costs of Messrs Thain, Ulyatt and Mullis relating to quantum incurred before trial are to be taxed on an indemnity basis. If there should be a taxation of costs of this action, I invite the attention of the taxing master to the enormous assistance given to me by leading and junior counsel for all parties by their work both in and out of court. Their oral submissions have been supported by most helpful written submissions and schedules with detailed references to the evidence which have been of enormous assistance to me. I am also grateful to the parties for having provided me with the assistance of a computerised transcript by Livenote. Without all that help, both from counsel and the shorthand writers, the trial60 ConLR Dept of National Heritage v Steensen Varming Mulcahy (a firm) 37 of this action would have taken very much longer, and would not have concluded, as it did, before the formal opening of the Library. All concerned should be congratulated in preparing this action for trial in what was for them a very busy period of two years between the issue of the writ in January 1996 and the commencement of trial in January 1998. INTRODUCTION 1. By this action a claim is made limited to £8,437,446 plus interest for damages arising out of alleged breaches of duty in the construction of the new British Library in London. The delays and rising costs of that project have been the subject of much public comment which has centred mainly upon difficulties with mechanically operated shelving in the basement storage areas and electric cabling. This case has been primarily concerned with electric cabling. 2. This action is in reality brought by insurers. Normally, that is not a matter which concerns the court, but in this case it is a matter to be taken into account particularly because one of the issues is whether certain payments originating with insurers were in correct legal analysis to be regarded as discharging obligations of the plaintiff. The claim is limited to £8.4m because that is the cost to the insurers. From the point of view of the taxpayer reading this judgment, the involvement of insurers is relevant because it is important that the taxpayer should appreciate that nothing decided in this judgment immediately affects the financial position of the Crown. 3. In view of the notoriety of the British Library construction project, it is also important that I should stress that, despite the length of this trial, I have not been conducting a general inquisitorial inquiry into the causes and effects of delays in that construction project. My task is the limited task of deciding whether certain insurers are entitled, on the evidence put before me, to recover from the defendants £8.4m expended by those insurers, and if so, whether the defendants have rights of recourse over against two of the many other companies involved in the project. I stress the words, ‘on the evidence put before me’, because I do not have inquisitorial powers and the evidence put before me is not complete even in relation to those issues which I have to decide. I have not, for example, had the benefit of hearing evidence from Mr Dusan Marcovic, the former partner in the defendant company responsible as consultant mechanical and electrical engineer for the project during a vital period from about 1988 to November 1992. Moreover, the evidence adduced to prove the amount of the claim is incomplete and unsatisfactory. ABBREVIATIONS 4. A list of abbreviations used in this judgment is attached to this judgment as App A. THE PARTIES 5. This action is brought by insurers by subrogation in the name of the Department of National Heritage, now renamed the Department of Culture Media and Sport. Many bodies have been concerned with the interest of the38 Dept of National Heritage v Steensen Varming Mulcahy (a firm) 60 ConLR new British Library. When considering the legal effect of what has been done by and on behalf of the various bodies, it is important to bear in mind that the plaintiff is the Crown suing in the name of the Department of National Heritage (DNH): see the Crown Proceedings Act 1947, s 13. DNH is not to be regarded as if it were a corporation in its own right: it is a manifestation of the Crown. In the history of the British Library project the Crown also appears in other manifestations and as acting through various agents. DNH itself took over responsibilities from the Department of the Environment upon the creation of DNH in 1992. 6. Although this is an insurance claim, the reputations, professional and business, of distinguished individuals and bodies are at stake. 7. The defendants, Steensen Varming Mulcahy (SVM), were appointed mechanical and electrical consulting engineers for the British Library project. They are sued for alleged professional negligence in breach of contract and at common law. The defendants are sued as a firm. There were two partners, Mr Michael Carver and Mr Dusan Marcovic. Since 1992, the practice has continued through limited liability companies. Until recently, Mr Carver was managing director of SVM plc, a holding company for SVM Partnership Ltd and other group companies. Those companies are not concerned with this action. 8. The defendants in turn joined third parties. The first third party, Balfour Beatty Ltd (BB), is part of a group which is probably the largest electrical contracting group in the world. BB were engaged to install (among other things) the cabling and trunking the subject of this action. Other companies in the Balfour Group were involved in doing the work and in the remedial work. It is agreed that no distinction between one Balfour company and another is relevant for the purposes of this action, and for simplicity I shall refer to any Balfour company involved as BB. 9. The second third party, Laing Management Ltd (LM), were engaged as management contractors for the British Library project. THE CLAIMS 10. The plaintiff alleges that the true loss in fact suffered by DNH as a result of breaches of obligation on the part of SVM is reasonably calculated at £16,481,044 excluding interest, but the claim in this action is limited to the actual amount paid out by insurers in respect of material damage and in respect of consequential loss under the British Library project policy, in the sum of £8.4m. The plaintiff alleges that the total cost in fact incurred by DNH in respect of material damage was £3,881,660 but the claim is limited to an amount equal to the insurance settlement figure finally agreed for material damage namely £3,437,446. Ir is this latter figure which forms the first head of the £8.4m claim. DNH do not make any claim in respect of their uninsured material loss. The second head of the claim is made in respect of the costs alleged to be attributable to delays arising from the fact of cable damage. Under that head, the claim is limited to the policy limit of £5m, which was paid as the limited payment under an agreed settlement figure for a claim for consequential damage. That settlement figure was originally alleged to have been £14,317,682 but the figure was later amended to60 ConLR Dept of National Heritage v Steensen Varming Mulcahy (a firm) 39 £12,599,384. There were some additional items, again not claimed, which go to make up the alleged total of £16,481,044 for material damage and delay. 11, The claim arises from the discovery of very extensive damage to low voltage (240V) cabling installed in the New British Library by the appointed parcel contractor BB. There is some dispute as to the date when damage to cabling was first discovered. BB had been awarded the electrical works package in 1988 and this involved, so far as concerns this action, the installation of more than 3,000 km of single core low voltage cables in metal trunking, When items of damage were first discovered, BB replaced damaged cables at their own cost. By February 1993, BB were alleging that the amount of damage being discovered was due to design faults for which they were not responsible. BB claimed payment for their remedial works in respect of damaged cabling. There followed long delays for reasons which | shall consider, It was not until early 1995 that work was resumed at a reasonable pace. 12. Some 300 km of low voltage cabling were reinstated. As an alternative to the impractical task of replacing the totality of the 3,000 km of cabling, further mitigating electrical works were carried out in order to eliminate risk of fire, personal injury or current failure. Those further electrical works, known as ‘enhanced cable protection’, included the installation of automatic fuse switches and the redesign of some electrical systems. 13. In such a massive construction project, some defects and damage are to be expected, and would be put right as part of the ordinary process of installation at the cost of the contractor. But it is common ground that the amount of damage discovered in the low voltage cabling of phase 1A of the British Library project was far in excess of what might be expected in the ordinary course of events. DNH, BB, and LM now combine in this action to allege that the excessive damage was caused by bad design and other failings on the part of SVM, though they did not take that stand in common at the time. SVM deny those allegations and say that the excessive damage was caused by a combination of bad workmanship on the part of BB and bad supervision and lack of co-ordination both on the part of LM and on the part of DNH and its agents. Moreover, while DNH in this action alleges delays caused by cable damage, SVM say that delays were caused by many other matters also, including most importantly, changes in the overall design dictated by changes in government policy and requirements. 14. As a result of the common cause made by DNH, BB, and LM, unusually, the plaintiff and both third parties in this action are represented by the same counsel and solicitors. 15. In considering the allegations made against BB and LM I bear in mind that although witnesses were called from both companies, those companies were not in command of these proceedings. BB and LM were represented by the lawyers instructed by the insurers because they, like DNH, were insured under the project policy, as was required by the employers, the Crown. If the Crown had required that the professional advisers, like the contractors, should be covered by the same policy, this litigation is unlikely to have occurred,40 Dept of National Heritage v Steensen Varming Mulcahy (a firm) 60 ConLR ‘THE ISSUES 16. At the outset of this trial, virtually everything which could be in issue was stated to be in issue. The conflicting parties dispute: A. The nature and extent of SVM’s obligations and duty. B. The fact, nature and extent of any breaches of obligation and duty on the part of SVM. C. The mechanism of causation of cable damage and any consequential loss in particular whether such damage and consequential loss was caused by any breach of obligation on the part of SVM. D. The character and extent of cable damage. E. The parties responsible for causing cable damage. F. The quantum of remedial works and the fact and quantum of consequential loss. SVM in particular: A. Deny the obligations alleged against them as to design, co-ordination of design, production of ‘working drawings', and duties of supervision and inspection of the works as they proceeded. B. Deny that any failure in design or co-ordination or detailed working drawings or inspection occurred at all. C. Deny any breach of obligation on their part. D. Deny that they caused any of the damage or loss. E. Maintain that all the damage is due to failures on the part of BB and failures on the part of LM and DNH. F. Maintain that BB’s workforce was primarily responsible for all the damage because of unsuitable materials, bad workmanship, insufficient workface supervision and other failures, and maintain that LM are also responsible for the damage because of failures in co-ordination, supervision and inspection of the works. G. Deny that the bulk of the losses alleged have been incurred at all by DNH. H. Deny that SVM was in any way responsible for any part of the loss. OTHER BODIES AND INDIVIDUALS PRINCIPALLY INVOLVED 17. The employing client for the project, to whom everyone was ultimately responsible was the Crown. The most senior person dealing with the project in person was the Minister for the time being, assisted by the Permanent Secretary for the Department, who since 1992 to the end of the period under consideration was Mr (now Sir) Hayden Phillips. 18. DNH employed a project director who from August 1987 until 17 August 1995 was Mr John Pardey. He played the part normally played in a commercial venture by the owner’s representative. For ordinary purposes he was the voice of the plaintiff. 19. For most of the period of the project, Mr Pardey was answerable to the head of the Office of Arts and Libraries, a small government department. The head of that office answered to the Permanent Secretary. In 1991, the Office of Arts and Libraries was subsumed into the Department of the60 ConLR Dept of National Heritage v Steensen Varming Muleahy (a firm) 41 Environment, the predecessor of DNH. Throughout, the Office of Arts and Libraries was a manifestation of the Crown. 20. In 1978, when the project was first authorised, its management was made the responsibility of the Property Services Agency (PSA). At first, the PSA had financial responsibility for the project. In 1988, that responsibility passed to the Office of Arts and Libraries but PSA continued the management of the project. Having previously acted for other government departments, the PSA later acted for DNH. PSA itself went through some changes. PSA made some contracts for the project on behalf of the Secretary of State for the Environment. In 1992, PSA was to be privatised. For that reason, in September 1992, DNH entered into a project management agreement with PSA Projects. By September 1992, all contracts and commissions made on behalf of the Department of the Environment were transferred to DNH. In December, 1992, PSA Projects were sold to Tarmac Construction Ltd and a year later their name was changed to TBV Consult (TBV). At one stage the same agency was in the hands of Schal. Throughout the period relevant to this action, the management of the project was in the hands of PSA or TBV or Schal. In this judgment, I may at times refer to PSA when it would be strictly correct to refer to TBV or Schal. There is no practical difference for the purposes under consideration. Throughout, PSA or TBV or Schal was acting as agent for the Crown. The project manager employed by PSA in its various forms was, until 1994, Mr B A Brown, and the deputy project manager was Mr Andrew Housam. In early 1994, DNH appointed Mr Leslie Rothwell as project manager, and from then on all project managers at TBV worked under Mr Rothwell’s direction and leadership. Mr Housam remained deputy project manager. Mr Brown, Mr Rothwell, and Mr Housam all speak on behalf of the plaintiffs. 21. The ultimate occupier of the library is the British Libraries Board. The British Library and their engineers were intimately involved in the construction of the project though they did not have a contractual function. Understandably, the British Library sought to set high standards, and it was generally agreed by those who gave evidence before me that their standards were in many instances impossibly high. 22. PSA employed a design team consisting of architects: Colin $t John Wilson & Partners Ltd; structural engineers: Ove Arup and Partners; mechanical and electrical engineers: SVM; and quantity surveyors: Davis Langdon and Everest. In 1983, Colin St John Wilson & Partners appointed one of their directors, Mr John Honer, to be supervising officer for the construction, and in May 1991 he was appointed resident architect. The supervising officer has certain contractual functions to which I shall return. 23. The main construction programme began in 1983, and it was not until 1984 that PSA appointed LM as construction management contractor with overall responsibility for formulating the construction programme, for procuring works parcel contractors and for overseeing the work of those works parcel contractors.42 Dept of National Heritage v Steensen Varming Mulcahy (a firm) 60 ConLR 24, Individual parts of the works were divided between about 180 works parcel contractors. Among them were BB and Haden Young Ltd. Haden Young Ltd provided and installed some mechanical services including air and water systems and controls systems. The air system involved air handling plant, ductwork and terminal units. The water systems included heating and chilling water systems. The chilled water and hot water systems included condenser water systems and associated plant, that is, boilers, chillers, cooling towers, and pumps. There also, of course, were drain pipes for sewage and other waste water. The mechanical services included building energy managements systems which included controls, sensors, actuators, motorised valves and control panels. This equipment required massive plant rooms and there was a great deal of ductwork and pipework installed by Haden Young Ltd both in the plant rooms and above ceilings elsewhere in the building. There were some clashes between that ductwork and services provided by BB, Responsibility for those clashes is a matter in issue in this action. 25. All of the mechanical services to which I have referred, together with other mechanical services and the electrical services, were designed by SVM. 26. An important part is played by McLaren Dick & Co (later known as McLaren Topliss) (McLarens), loss adjusters. McLarens adjusted the loss under a project policy maintained by DNH with the Commercial Union Assurance Co ple and other insurers in respect of the British Library project. From time to time, McLarens recommended the insurers to make payments on claims. Payments were always made by cheque to DNH and to no other party insured by the policy. DNH would then make payments to some parcel contractors. DESCRIPTION OF SITE 27. The library is a very large project indeed. One measurement mentioned is that the total plan area including all floors and basements, is 26 acres. 28. The site is bounded by Euston Road on the south, Brill Road to the North, and Midland Road and Ossulton Street to the West and East. 29, The observer from the street sees a large building which is not as high as it might have been, due to planning restrictions imposed for the benefit of St Pancras Station on one side and some low level housing on the other. The observer does not see the massive basements which extend under the building and out under the extensive piazza in front of the building. 30. There are four deep basements for the storage of books, numbered downwards, B1, B2, B3, and B4, Above those levels there is BY just below ground level, predominantly occupied by plant rooms. From ground level upwards there is what has been described as the superstructure. In the superstructure are readers’ areas, office areas, and exhibition and meeting areas. 31. That part of the library which has been built is divided into phase 1A and the completion phase, or CP3. Originally there were plans for phases 1B, 1C, 2A, 2B and 3, which were not built. A smaller CP3 was substituted for them.60 ConLR Dept of National Heritage v Steensen Varming Mulcahy (a firm) 43 32. Phase 1A is at the south end of the site and the completion phase is to the north of phase 1A. 33. Phase 1A (itself divided into stages 1AA and 1AB) is 76,000 square metres in area and comprises above ground: the main entrance hall and piazza; reading rooms with desks for 579 readers; 13 linear km of open access book storage; three exhibition galleries; auditorium and meeting room complex with over 400 seats, and office accommodation for 600 staff; together with necessary cloakrooms etc. And below ground: four basement levels with 290 km of closed access book storage and facilities for computerised mechanical delivery of books to readers; and one level of plant rooms. 34. Stage 1AA comprised the basement book storage areas and central and associated plant rooms on five levels below ground together with, above ground, the entrance hall, exhibition area, rare books reading rooms and two levels of offices. Stage 1AB comprised the Science Reference reading rooms, meeting rooms and associated air-handling plant rooms. 35, The completion phase is 32,000 square metres in area and comprises: the King’s Library holding 60,000 books in a six storey glass bookcase; Humanities reading rooms on two levels with 450 readers’ desks; Science and Business rooms on two levels with 61 desks and 6.5 km of open shelving; Oriental and India Office reading room with 80 desks and 1 km of open storage; map reading room with 36 seats; additional closed access storage of 25 km; conservation workshops, photographic and reprographic centres; restaurant facilities for readers and staff, and accommodation for around 600 staff. 36. It is particularly relevant to this action to note that each reader’s desk is connected with underfloor cabling to serve desk lighting, power points for readers’ lap-top computers, connections between readers’ computers and the library’s computerised index, and communication with the book ordering system. There are also other refinements in the reading rooms requiring cabling, such as the electrical motorised adjustment of the desk tops in the map reading room and the library’s own computers away from the desks allowing readers’ access to the index as well as other computer equipment for staff. All parties make points (going in different directions) that there was no significant problem with that substantial quantity of underfloor wiring: the problems were with cabling overhead, between the ceiling and the underside of the floor slab above in those areas where there is a ceiling (reading rooms, offices etc) and in similar positions in other areas where there is no ceiling such as plant rooms. GENERAL HISTORY OF THE PROJECT 37. SVM were involved in the British Library project from about 1962 even before the present site was chosen. The original scheme was for an extension to the British Museum site in Bloomsbury. Planning permission was refused and in 1970 the government bought the site of the old goods depot of St Pancras Station. Planning permission was granted in 1977 with some restrictions, particularly as to the height of the proposed building, which dictated the unusual shape of the building above ground.44 Dept of National Heritage v Steensen Varming Mulcahy (a firm) 60 ConLR, 38. The original scheme at St Pancras was to build in a series of phases, phases 1A, 1B, 1C, 2A, 2B, and 3. A change of government in 1979 resulted in changes in funding requiring phase 1A to be broken down into stages [AA and 1AB. In 1989, further financial restrictions caused the Office of Arts and Libraries to decide that phases 1B, 1C, 2A, 2B, and 3 would not be proceeded with in the planned form and instead there would be a single smaller phase known as the completion phase. As a result, although the library is opened, the site is not yet filled. 39. Changes in the overall size of the total project resulted in design changes affecting the design of the work already under construction. The original design was for one building, not a series of independent buildings to be built one after another. Each phase was designed to fit into the whole building. When the grand scheme was changed, by removing later phases, the earlier phases had to be changed to conform with the new shape of the building as a whole. The use to which individual spaces were to be put changed, and the routes of corridors and services had to be changed. The mechanical and electrical services were designed for the building as a whole and they had to be changed. The changes in the grand design worked their way down to important but comparatively small points of detail like the matching of routes of individual cables to the routes of ducts and pipes. Those changes caused very substantial delays and disruption. The architect and the PSA were not at fault in causing those changes. Even individuals at DNH could with justice say that they were not personally responsible because they were compelled by forces outside the DNH. The Crown collectively is responsible for those delays and hence the Crown represented by DNH is responsible. It is impossible to put a figure on those delays. 40. Efficient management of the project was also made more difficult by its manner of funding. The funds for the project were allocated annually and also on a stage by stage basis. In any one year only the amount allocated could be spent whether it was sufficient or more than sufficient. The work had to be programmed according to the funds available. 41. Construction began in 1982 with the demolition of the remains of the depot buildings, rail tracks, platforms etc. 42. Until 1982, it was intended that the project should be carried out in a traditional manner. In that year, PSA put forward the idea of running the project as a construction management project. As a result, LM was appointed construction manager in 1984, Construction management was then a relatively novel form of contract management, particularly in government contracts. 43. On 24 May 1988, BB’s tender for the electrical works was accepted. 44, The physical work of installation of the electrical works began on 1 September 1988. 45. As early as Autumn 1989, excessive turnover of labour in BB’s workforce was seen to be impeding the efficient progress of the work, and a record was made to that effect by a clerk of the works in his diary on 10 March 1990.60 ConLR Dept of National Heritage v Steensen Varming Mulcahy (a firm) 45 46. By October 1991, the project was already 12 weeks behind programme, due mainly though not wholly to BB having reduced its workforce in previous months for various reasons including disputes with DNH over matters not the subject of this action. Other causes of delay included changes in design due to changes in client’s requirements. Shortage of electricians and supervisors remained a continuing problem thereafter, and delays increased. | shall refer to this problem of shortage of labour in more detail when I come to consider the supervision of the project. 47. During the early part of the work, BB detected and repaired defects at their own cost in the ordinary way. By at least as early as October 1992, BB realised that they faced a massive problem in dealing with repairs to damaged cables. Whether BB were aware of such cable damage earlier is a contentious matter to which I shall return later. 48. By October 1992, the work was already substantially behind programme for reasons not connected with cable delays. 49. To avoid having to pay for the repairs themselves, BB set about preparing a case for putting the blame on SVM. That case was set out in a carefully drafted lengthy letter dated 23 February 1993. 50. BB obtained a report from Mr R G Anstee, a consultant engineer. His report was presented on 17 June 1993. That report laid the blame for cable damage on SVM. 51. PSA then consulted Mr Terry Hedgeland. He produced a hurried report on 7 July 1993 followed by reports on 23 July 1993 and 6 August 1993 and then two further reports on 26 August 1993. The reports were inconsistent. 52. In autumn 1993, DNH consulted Kennedy & Donkin. They gave their first report in October 1993. 53. In mid-1993, BB followed a policy of non-co-operation, reducing the pace of remedial work and withdrawing labour. BB was now in dispute about a number of matters not confined to the cable damage the subject of this action. 54, On 17 December 1993 Mr Pardey for DNH wrote to BB giving them notice that they must repair the cable damage at their own cost. 55. In February 1994, BB withdrew their labour. DNH then entered into what was called a ‘commercial agreement’ allowing BB some payment on terms. 56. In March 1994, BB returned some labour to site but complaints about shortage of BB labour continued. 57. A lengthy process of re-inspections uncovered many more defects. It appeared that there could be no certainty of discovering all the defects. An unrealistic suggestion, made by the British Library, that all the cables should be removed and replaced was rejected, and after a great deal of indecision, it was decided on 20 June 1994, to fit ‘enhanced cable protection’, extra circuit breakers at the distribution boards which would shut off power if a cable fault occurred. It had taken almost a year to produce that decision. 58. Meanwhile, other works package contractors whose work had been disrupted, had stopped work. There was very little activity on site during46 Dept of National Heritage v Steensen Varming Mulcahy (a firm) 60 ConLR 1994. That situation had been predicted by LM in their report dated 21 December 1993 addressed to the supervising officer with copies to Mr Pardey of DNH and others, LM wrote: ‘The uncertainty of direction by the Project Team is having a major demoralising effect on the project as a whole and unless firm direction is given by the PSA and the supervising officer we anticipate further deterioration of progress on site and resistance by contractors to commit themselves to the work remaining.’ At this point, BB had reduced their workforce from 250 to 70 men and although they had not abandoned the work they were not regularly and diligently doing the work and they were causing delay to others. At the supervising officer’s meetings throughout 1994 the lack of progress was repeatedly reported. In April 1994, LM reported that BB had refused to provide power to other contractors and thus prevented progress: that was done as a flexing of muscles in disputes over refusals to accept their work. At the May 1994 meeting, it was reported that very little recordable work had been done in the past month ‘due mainly to the electrical contractors and How Fire’, and LM complained that the absence of decisions from DNH was leaving them in an impossible management position. 59. The situation on site throughout 1994 was reflected in a minute of a supervising officer’s meeting towards the end of that period on 8 September 1994 at which the supervising officer, TBV, Colin St John Wilson & Partners, David Langton & Everest, SVM, and LM were represented. At that meeting, LM stressed the need for a decision from DNH on three vital questions: (a) the end date of the project; (b) the full scope of the work; and (c) the budget and the funding rate. The others present agreed and mentioned numerous results of the uncertainty. In particular, the works package contractors generally were concerned at the financial situation resulting from the delay in the DNH decision and there were rumours exacerbating the situation. The supervising officer, Mr Addison, said that he was fairly confident that he would soon be able to issue an instruction. 60. In November 1994, DNH were given an additional budget for the project. 61. After November 1994, DNH negotiated supplementary agreements with the works package contractors to get them back to work. The series of agreements began with the signature of a completion agreement with BB on 11 January 1995. Agreements with other package contractors followed. Mr Rothwell, British Library operations director and later project manager, said that the total value of the resolved disputed contracts was over £100m and the saving on the budget was £3.25m. The terms of those agreements included terms that all claims and counterclaims between the contractors and DNH were extinguished. The progress of work picked up in 1995 after the supplementary agreements had been signed with other works contractors. 62. Construction of phase 1A had been due to be completed on 22 March 1993. The BB completion agreement extended the completion date to 31 July60 ConLR Dept of National Heritage v Steensen Varming Muleahy (a firm) 47 1995. The completion date was then extended to October, 1995. Construction of phase 1A was not in fact completed until 22 November 1995, a delay calculated as 31 months from the original completion date. The ‘enhanced cable protection’ was installed after that completion date. 63. A report by the Comptroller and Auditor General (22 April 1996) attributed that delay to, inter alia, the time taken to identify and resolve problems with the mechanical bookshelving, to reach a compromise on how to deal with cable damage, and to decide how to deal with shortcomings in the fire protection systems. I have heard much evidence not available to the Comptroller and Auditor General, and it is plain that the causes of delay were many and complex. 64. Two of the three causes identified by the Comptroller and Auditor General were not even arguably the fault of SVM. Although SVM designed the mechanical bookshelving, it is not suggested that they were responsible for delays relating to the bookshelving: their design was not at fault, the problem was one of failure to conform with the design. The problem with fire protection systems was itself in part a result of the passage of time in completing the project in that safety standards and the expectations of BL altered after the date of the original design. It is not alleged in this action that SVM were responsible for the delays associated with either of those two matters identified by the Comptroller and Auditor General. 65. It is alleged that a substantial part of the delay relating to cable damage was caused by SVM, but they were not responsible for the excessive amount of time taken to reach a compromise on how to deal with the cable damage, the installation of the ‘enhanced cable protection’. Even DNH and BB and LM do not allege that the 31 months delay was wholly caused by cable damage. A great deal of delay was due to indecision on the part of DNH. The DNH/BB/LM case is that SVM caused cable damage which in turn caused 12 or perhaps nine months delay to the project as a whole. SVM’s case is that there were so many different causes of delay that no critical period of delay can be attributed specifically to cable damage. SVM also say that in any event they, SVM, were not responsible for the damage to cables. 66. The writ in this action was issued on 24 January 1996. The trial began almost precisely two years later, on 26 January 1998. 67. The library was opened to readers on 21 April 1998, and was formally opened by Her Majesty the Queen in June 1998, in the month following the conclusion of the trial of this action. DESCRIPTION OF THE ELECTRICAL INSTALLATION 68. London Electricity Board (LEB) supplied electricity at a voltage of 11 kV to two LEB substations situated at opposite ends of the site at basement 1 (B1) level. 69. From those substations, power was fed at 11kV by high voltage cabling resting on ladder rack to 3 substations within B3. High Voltage cabling is large wire armoured cabling. Ladder rack is steel racking in the shape of a slim ladder suspended horizontally or vertically. 70. Within the substations are transformers which reduce the power to 415 V.48 Dept of National Heritage v Steensen Varming Mulcahy (a firm) 60 ConLR 71. The substations are located to serve particular areas of the building. Substation 1 serves the East side. Substation 3 serves the West side. Substation 2 is reserved for the heating, ventilation, and air conditioning system. 72. From the substations, power is taken at 415V by armoured cabling resting on ladder rack to 11 risers at various points around the building. The risers are copper bars extending up to the top and down to the bottom of the building. There was damage to at least one riser, but that is not complained of in this action. The damage to the riser is only relevant because it is evidence of at least one piece of indisputably very bad workmanship on the part of BB, caused by a workforce for whom high standards of workmanship are claimed by BB. 73. Each riser connects at each level to a distribution board within a steel cupboard. Each distribution board contains connections and circuit breakers and fuses for individual circuits. Those individual circuits supplied power at 240V to individual items of equipment, power sockets, lighting and so forth. Those individual circuits, or rather some of them (and certainly not those which run under floors), form the subject matter of this action. 74. Three kinds of circuits run from the distribution boards, to feed small lighting and power, building energy management system, and emergency and alarm systems. The small lighting and power circuits were required by BB’s contract to be wired using single core PVC insulated cables with stranded copper conductors enclosed in conduit or trunking, with no joints being permitted in the wiring without written approval of LM. The single wires were of different dimensions, but the majority of them were required to be not less than 2.5mm? in section. Wires of more than one size were used, but 90% of the wires were 2.5mm?. Each wire is coloured either red or black or green/yellow (carth). In phase 1A the PVC was white with the surface only being dyed the appropriate colour, so that when scratched or scuffed, the white PVC showed through. In CP3 the colouring extended through the whole body of the PVC. The wires are bendable but are not classed as flexible: that is, a short length can be held in the hand by one end without it bending under its own weight. 75. Wiring went from the distribution boards enclosed in trunking or conduits or a combination of the two. A conduit is simply a metal or plastic pipe. For present purposes, trunking consists of stecl channels made in lengths joined together. Some of the trunking is single channel, some is two channel, and some is three channel. The three channel trunking has attracted the most attention in this case. The external dimensions of the three channel trunking are 300mm wide by 100mm deep. When laid on a table, a length of three channel trunking looks like the cutlery drawer of a kitchen cabinet with no end pieces. Cables are laid in the channels and then a lid is screwed onto the open side giving the trunking the property of a duct. Trunking may be so positioned that the lid goes on the side, or on the top, or on the bottom. In the present case, we are concerned with a choice between trunking so positioned that the lid goes on top (lid-up trunking), or trunking so positioned that the lid goes on the bottom (lid-down trunking). Trunking of60 ConLR Dept of National Heritage v Steensen Varming Mulcahy (a firm) 49 identical design can be positioned for use either as lid-up or lid-down trunking. The strongest criticism made of SVM in this case is that they designed the installation in phase 1A to use lid-down trunking throughout, with the exception of underfloor trunking. 76. The trunking has to be routed to make T junctions and to turn corners and go through changes in elevation. For those purposes, accessories are made in the form of T pieces, bends, and sets (going up or down). Three channel T pieces have come in for particular attention. When a straight piece of three channel trunking reaches a T junction, it will often happen that the wires from more than one channel will be divided so that some wires in one channel go to the right and some from the same channel go to the left. The specification required that there should be segregation throughout the building between (a) lighting and small power, (b) escape lighting, and (c) building energy management system. The wires in (for example) the left channel must remain segregated from the wires in the centre channel so a system of bridges is incorporated in the T piece like a spaghetti junction in miniature. Special skills are required to cope with a very large number of cables often in very restricted spaces without damaging the wires and I have heard much evidence about techniques. 77. By the statement of claim, it is alleged that during the installation, damage was done to PVC single core general wiring cables and also to building energy management system cables, security cables, fire alarm cables, public alarm cables, lift diagnostic cables, lighting data loop cables, fibre optic cables and data and voice cables. Damage of all those kinds was reported in a report made by W S Atkins to insurance assessors in 1994. Damages are only claimed by DNH against SVM in respect of the single core general wiring cables, the 240V cables. The other damage is relevant and extremely significant because it was caused by the allegedly skilled and careful workforce and because the explanations put forward for damage aimed at laying the blame for damage at the door of SVM largely do not apply to cables other than the PVC single core cables for lighting and small power. 78. When the installation is properly done there should be no damage to cables. In the British Library there was an enormous quantity of damage to cables. 79, In considering the damage, the following elements of the installation have been examined: Design of the system, in particular as to the nature of the trunking and the routing; Specification of materials and method; Quality of the materials, particularly the trunking; Workmanship; Supervision; Inspection; Co-ordination of the work and Control of the project. 80. The respective responsibilities of each of the parties for those matters has to be considered to determine whether any one party or parties has failed to perform its responsibilities. Above all, there is the question whether any breach of responsibilities leads to a finding that one party has caused the damage alleged. The contractual requirements are complex.50 Dept of National Heritage v Steensen Varming Mulcahy (a firm) 60 ConLR THE CONTRACTS Construction management 81. In construing the contracts entered into by the parties to this action, and in considering their various duties, it is important to read the contractual documents within the context of the overall contractual scheme chosen for the project. In particular, it is important to clarify what is meant by a contract manager in the context of this project. 82. There are four main forms of management contract. 1. Management contracting where all contractors enter into a contract with the management contractor. The management contractor is responsible for procurement and financial control and cach contractor is paid by the managing contractor. The management contractor is paid a fee by the client together with the costs of all the contractors. 2. Project management contracting where the project manager provides a technical service to the client and procures and manages works contracts on behalf of the client. The project manager has full control of budget and programme and is paid on a staff reimbursement basis. 3. Design and management is similar to project management with the addition of design responsibility. 4. Construction management was the scheme adopted with LM in this case. Under such a scheme, the client (in this case, the Crown) enters directly into separate contracts with the designers, construction manager and the Works or trade contractors, and the construction manager manages the Works contractors on behalf of the client. 83. LM were engaged by PSA on behalf of the Crown in the name of DNH as construction managers. In the course of the project, LM were referred to as management contractors and in the course of this judgment, I may also so refer to them. In the language now used in the construction industry, that latter designation is wrong, but all concerned in this action are agreed that LM were construction managers. As construction managers, LM became responsible for managing works parcel contractors and service parcel contractors, including BB and Haden Young Ltd. There were about 180 parcels. Particularly relevant to this action are the electrical parcel, parcel 4235, handled by BB; and two mechanical services parcels handled by Haden Young Ltd, namely, central plant and pipework (parcel 4040), and airhandling plant and ductwork (parcel 4035). LM’s contract 84. PSA on behalf of the Secretary of State made two management contracts with LM, namely, 11 January 1984, for stage 1AA and 9 January 1987 for stage 1AB and together those stages made up phase 1A. 85, The second of LM’s contracts was an extension of the first, which was contained in various documents. By letter dated 11 January 1984 PSA accepted LM’s tender ‘for the management of the construction and completion’ of stage 1A. The tender was dated 21 February 1983 and its acceptance was expressly made—60 ConLR Dept of National Heritage v Steensen Varming Mulcahy (a firm) St ‘in conjunction with your letters dated 21 February, 11 May, 24 June, 16 August and 11 October 1983 and this Department’s letters dated 16th June, 22 August and 3 October 1983...’ 86. The tender contained the following: ‘TENDER... 1. I/We have perused the following documents:- (1) Contract Book: Section 1: General Information and Instructions to Tenderers Section 2: Management Contract Conditions Section 3: Prescribed Form of Works Contract for use with PSA [Property Services Agency] Management Contracts Section 4: Programme Summary, Cost Plan Estimate, Outline Specification, Method Statement and List of Drawings (2) the Information Drawings listed in Contract Book Section 4 (3) Supplementary Condition No. 139A, Value Added Tax (4) Standard Fire precautions PS (available from HMSO Shops) . . . SECTION 1 GENERAL INFORMATION AND INSTRUCTIONS TO TENDERERS 2. Personnel, November 1982... (b) Design Team Architect... M & EEngineer SVM... Structural Engineer Ove Arup... Quantity Surveyor DBE .. . (who later became DLE [David Langdon & Everest]). 7. Division of Responsibilities The following table is to be used as a general guide to the performance of the management contractor’s obligations under the Management Contract, and his relationship with and the responsibilities of the other persons shown in the table. The table does not limit the responsibilities of the management contractor set out in Section 2. It may be amended at any time by the Authority (but not, of course, so as to extend the management contractor’s responsibilities under Section 2). For the purposes of the table “Design Team” includes the supervising officer.52 Dept of National Heritage v Steensen Varming Mulcahy (a firm) 60 ConLR Activity ‘The Authority/Project | The Design Team Management Manager Contract 1, Brief Preparation, up-dating and amendments made necessary by Client's requirements 2. Design Approval of design at | Design responsibility | Provision of each stage as submitted | and design expertise to advise by the designers co-ordination on construction techniques, programme and cost implications, etc 3. Production Information Production and revision of all design information necessary for the construction of the Works Provision of expertise toadvise on construction techniques and cost implications, etc 9. Construction of the works Consider progress reports and decide whether intervention is necessary. Issue of design information and instructions necessary for the execution and completion of the Works. Full control and supervision of construction of the whole of the Works in accordance with the direct Contracts and Supervising Officer's instructions. Establishment of standards of quality of material and workmanship. Provision of site supervision of the whole of the Works. Oversight of the works in accordance with the standards set by the Contract documentation. Oversight of the Management Contractor's management operations. Approval and acceptance of works to be executed by others. Receive progress reports and pass to the Authority/ Project Manager with comment. Ensure completion of the entire Works to programme and specification and within budget. Prepare progress documents.60 ConLR Dept of National Heritage v Steensen Varming Mulcahy (a firm) 53 SECTION 2 MANAGEMENT CONTRACT CONDITIONS 1. Definitions, Etc. (1) “The Management Contract” means the documents forming the tender and acceptance thereof, together with the documents referred to therein including these Conditions, the Specifications, the Cost Plan and the Drawings, and all these documents taken together shall be deemed to form one contract .. . 2. Management Contractor’s Obligations The management contractor shall, through the provision of management services as detailed in Conditions 3 and 4, and elsewhere in the Management Contract, secure the completion of the Works by the Contractors. He shall control their performance in respect of standards of workmanship, cost and programme. Subject to the provisions of the Management Contract, the Management Contractor shall exercise the powers and duties ascribed to him in each direct contract. 3. Pre-commencement services The pre-commencement services . . . shall include: (1) Provision of advice and assistance to the Supervising Officer When requested to do so, consider alternative construction methods and technical solutions and the time required for cach alternative. Give technical advice on the construction techniques proposed for the “construction method” . . . (6) Provision of Staff The Management Contractor shall provide such competent specialists and support staff who have adequate experience on large and complex installations to undertake the pre-commencement services as shall be reasonably required by the Project Manager. All such specialists and staff shall be in the Management Contractor’s direct employment unless otherwise approved by the Project Manager. They shall include: . . . Chartered Mechanical and Electrical Engineers . . . [In addition, in a Proposal which formed part of the contract, LM stated: “. . . qualified mechanical and electrical engineers will be deployed to implement effective controls over services installations and the commissioning process.”| 4. Management of the Works The services which the Management Contractor shall provide after the Order to Commence is given shall include those services listed in Condition 3 as appropriate and in addition: . . . (3) Co-ordination and control of the work (a) Be responsible for and take all necessary steps to secure progress of the Works to specification and programme and within the cost plan. (b) Check progress of the preparatory (including installation and shop drawings) work of the Contractors; make visits to the premises of Contractors as necessary, to inspect production. (c) Report to the Supervising Officer regularly on progress and technical aspects of all orders placed.54 Dept of National Heritage v Steensen Varming Mulcahy (a firm) 60 ConLR (d) Co-ordinate and expedite all Works carried out by the Contractors (see also Condition 25) including making good defects during the maintenance periods. (c) Take all possible steps to prevent disputes arising between the Contractors, and, if arising, assist in settling them. (f) Supervise the execution of all the Works and maintain the necessary quality control. (g) Ensure correct setting out and levels for the Works (see also Condition 12). (h) Maintain records of the numbers of all workmen employed on the site. (i) Maintain records of all materials, delivered to and removed from the site, and of all inspections, tests, reports etc; submit copies to the Supervising Officer . . . 10. Progress of the Works The Order to Commence shall be given to the Management Contractor by notice and the Management Contractor shall thereupon arrange for the execution of the Works to begin. Subsequently he shall arrange and manage the execution of each direct contract so as to ensure that each is commenced and completed in accordance with the Master Programme and that the whole of the Works are completed to the standards specified and to the satisfaction of the Supervising Officer by the date for completion . . . 14, Appointment of Resident Engineer or Clerk of Works The Authority may appoint a Resident Engineer or a Clerk of Works and the Management Contractor shall admit him and his assistants to the site. The Resident Engineer or Clerk of Works may exercise the powers of inspection and testing in direct contracts and such other powers as the Supervising Officer may give notice of to the Management Contractor. 21. Avoidance of Delay (1) The Management Contractor shall secure the completion of the Works to the satisfaction of the Supervising Officer on or before the date for completion, prevent as far as possible any delay in the completion of the Works, and minimise delay if it becomes unavoidable. (2) In the event that delay becomes unavoidable owing to circumstances beyond the Management Contractor’s control, the date for completion shall be altered accordingly by the Authority. 24, Management Contractor’s Site Organisation (1) The Management Contractor shall maintain an adequate site organisation under the full time control of an experienced site agent who is conversant with British Standards and Codes of Practice and with the health, safety and welfare regulations, who is capable of assuming complete responsibility for the Management Contract and who shall be designated as the Management Contractor’s site agent to whom directions may be given by the Supervising Officer. The site agent shall be in attendance at the site during all working hours except that when required to do so he shall attend at the office of the Supervising Officer.60 ConLR Dept of National Heritage v Steensen Varming Mulcahy (a firm) SS (2) The site organisation shall include staff of adequate status and experience in mechanical, electrical and public health engineering services to ensure that compatibility is achieved between service installations one with another and each in relation to the works generally . . . (5) The Management Contractor shall employ on the site a sufficient number of suitably qualified persons for the supervision and management of the execution of the Works, and the Supervising Officer shall have power to instruct the Management Contractor to increase or decrease the number of persons so employed 25. Co-ordination (1) The Management Contractor shall be responsible for obtaining and co-ordinating installation details of all builders work drawings and installation drawings for statutory undertakings, Contractors or others employed direct in connection with the Works and for ensuring that the services are installed in accordance with the agreed services co-ordination drawings. The Management Contractor shall ensure that each service is installed in such a manner as to ensure proper performance and adequate fixing to the structure and to avoid conflicts in the positioning of the various ducts, pipes, cables, other items of service installation and other like items. He shall arrange for statutory undertakings, Contractors and others employed direct to attend necessary co-ordination meetings. (2) The Supervising Officer will provide co-ordination drawings showing the inter-relation of the services and their relation to the buildi components in sufficient detail to demonstrate that the services will be properly separated from each other and can be satisfactorily installed and maintained. These drawings shall form the basis of the relevant Contractors’ working drawings and it will only be necessary for Contractors to prepare installation drawings to show details of fabricated items and fixing details where site measurement is required. Any proposed deviations from the co-ordination drawings shall be submitted to the Supervising Officer for approval; if necessary the Supervising Officer will amend the co-ordination drawing(s). A deviation in this instance is considered as a change in the position of a service to such an extent that one or more other service will require repositioning. Development of installation details would not constitute a deviation unless this resulted in additional elbows, bends, offsets, transformation pieces etc. (3) The Management Contractor shall ensure that Contractors and others programme their work and provide him with information regarding builders work in reasonable time relative to the construction programme. (4) The Management Contractor shall employ a person on site whose status in his organisation and experience of engineering services are such that he can discharge competently all the requirements detailed above. (5) Acceptance or approval by the Supervising Officer of drawings and other documents provided by the Management Contractor in respect of work proposed and/or designed by the Management Contractor will not56 Dept of National Heritage v Steensen Varming Mulcahy (a firm) 60 ConLR relieve the Management Contractor of responsibility for any discrepancies, errors or omissions therein, nor for any other of his contractual and legal obligations. SECTION 3 PRESCRIBED FORM OF WORKS CONTRACT FOR USE WITH P.S.A. MANAGEMENT CONTRACTS 1. Definitions, etc. (1) “the Contract” means the documents forming the tender and acceptance thereof, together with the documents referred to therein including these Conditions (except as set out in the Abstract of Particulars), the Specification, the Bills of Quantities and the Drawings, and all these documents taken together shall be deemed to form one contract. When there are no Bills of Quantities all reference to Bills of Quantities in the Contract shall be treated as cancelled, except that where the context so admits the Schedule of Rates shall be substituted therefor 4. Specification, Bills of Quantities and Drawings (1) In case of discrepancy between these Conditions and the Specification and/or the Bills of Quantities and/or the Drawings, the provisions of these Conditions shall prevail. (2) Figured dimensions on the Drawings shall be followed in preference to the scale. (3) The Management Contractor shall provide free to the Contractor three copies of the Contract Drawings and of the Specification and of the blank Bills of Quantities, and two copies of all further drawings issued during the progress of the Works. The Contractor shall keep one copy of all Drawings and of the Specification on the Site and the Supervising Officer and Management Contractor and their representatives shall at all reasonable times have access to them . . . 6. Progress of the Works Possession of the Site or the order to commence shall be given to the Contractor by notice and the Contractor shall thereupon commence the execution of the Works and shall under the day-to-day supervision and control of the Management Contractor proceed with diligence and expedition in regular progression or as may be directed by the Management Contractor under Condition 7 so that the whole of the Works shall be completed by the date for completion. 7. Management Contractor’s instructions (1) The Contractor shall carry out and complete the execution of the Works to the satisfaction of the Management Contractor who may from time to time issue further drawings, details and/or instructions, directions and explanations (all of which are hereafter referred to as “the Management Contractor’s instructions”) in regard to: (a) the variation or modification of the design, quality or quantity of the Works or the addition or omission or substitution of any work; (b) any discrepancy in or between the Specification and/or Bills of Quantities and/or Drawings; ...(d) the removal and/or re-execution of any work executed by the60 ConLR Dept of National Heritage v Steensen Varming Mulcahy (a fiem) Ss? Contractor; ... (m) any other matter as to which it is necessary or expedient for the Management Contractor to issue instructions, directions or explanations... (4) The Contractor shall not make any alteration in, addition to or omission from the Works described in the Specification and/or Bills of Quantities and/or shown on the Drawings except in pursuance of the Management Contractor’s instruction issued in accordance with this Condition and such alterations, additions or omissions shall not invalidate the Contract... 13. Things for incorporation and workmanship to conform to description (1) All things for incorporation shall be of the respective kinds described in the Specification and/or Bills of Quantities and/or Drawings and the Contractor shall upon the request of the Management Contractor prove to the Management Contractor’s satisfaction that such things do so conform. (4) The Works shall be executed in a workmanlike manner and to the satisfaction in all respects of the Management Contractor. If any things for incorporation do not accord with the provisions of the Contract or if any workmanship does not so accord the same shall at the cost of the Contractor be replaced, rectified or reconstructed as the case may be, and all such things which are rejected shall be removed from the Site . . . 25. Precautions against loss or damage (1) The Contractor shall take all reasonable steps and precautions {including any steps and precautions expressly required under or by virtue of the Contract) to prevent and to minimise the extent of loss or damage to the Works and any things for incorporation on the Site (including things provided by the Authority) arising from any cause whatsoever including any of the causes referred to in Condition 26(3) . . . 26. Damage to Works or other things .. . (2) The Contractor shall (unless the Authority exercises his powers to determine the Contract) with all possible speed make good any loss or damage arising from any cause whatsoever occasioned to the Works or to any things for incorporation on the Site (including any things provided by the Authority) and shall notwithstanding such Joss or damage proceed with the execution and completion of the Works in accordance with the Contract. (3) The cost of making good any loss or damage falling within paragraph (2) of this Condition shall be wholly borne by the Contractor, except that (subject to paragraph (4) of this Condition) where the loss or damage is wholly or partly caused by (a) the neglect or default of a servant of the Crown acting in the course of his employment as such; (b) any of the accepted risks; [sic: for “accepted” read “excepted”] (c) any defect in the design of the Works or any part of the Works (except insofar as such design was provided by the Contractor, or any servant, agent or sub-contractor of his or otherwise on his behalf); (d) any requirement imposed on the Contractor under or by virtue of the Contract as to the method of executing the Works or any part of the Works (except insofarDept of National Heritage v Steensen Varming Mulcahy (a firm) 60 ConLR as such requirement was devised by the Contractor, or any servant, agent or sub-contractor of his or otherwise on his behalf); or (e) the neglect or default of the Management Contractor the Authority shall pay to the Contractor (where it is wholly so caused) the Appropriate Sum or (where it is partly so caused) such proportion of the Appropriate Sum as properly reflects the share of that cause in causing the loss or damage . . . 28. Date for completion: Extensions of time... (2) The Contractor shall be allowed by the Authority a reasonable extension of time for the completion of the Works in respect of any delay in such completion which has been caused or which the Authority is satisfied will be caused by any of the following circumstances: (a) the execution of any modified or additional work; ... (f) any other circumstance which is wholly beyond the control of the Contractor; (i) except insofar as the Authority shall otherwise decide, it shall be a condition upon the observance of which the Contractor’s right to any such extension of time shall depend that the Contractor shall, immediately upon becoming aware that any such delay has been or will be caused, give notice to the Management Contractor specifying therein the circumstances causing or likely to cause the delay and the actual or estimated extent of the delay caused or likely to be caused thereby; (ii) the Contractor shall not be entitled to any extension of time in respect of a delay caused by any circumstance mentioned in sub-paragraph (2)(f) of this Condition if he could reasonably be expected to have foreseen at the date of the Contract that a delay caused by that circumstance would, or was likely to, occur; . iv) it shall be the duty of the Contractor at all times to use his best endeavours to prevent any delay being caused by any of the above mentioned circumstances and to minimise any such delay as may be caused thereby and to do all that may reasonably be required, to the satisfaction of the Management Contractor, to proceed with the Works; and (v) the Contractor shall not be entitled to an extension of time if any such delay is attributable to any negligence, default or improper conduct on his part. . . 30. Outline Specification... (21) Medium Voltage Distribution: .. . Main cabling shall be carried out using paper and PVC insulated single and multicore armoured cables supported on tray or racking as appropriate... (23) Minor Power Installation: General purpose switched socket outlets shall be installed throughout the building, and shall be serviced via a floor duct system installed throughout all areas except the Basement Bookstack compartments. (24) Motive Power Installations: .. . Wiring shall be carried out using PVC armoured cables run on tray or PVC insulated cables in conduit and/or trunking as appropriate . . . (33) Automatic Data-processing: A comprehensive wiring facility shall be provided for the provision of an ADP installation which shall extend throughout the whole building.60 ConLR Dept of National Heritage v Steensen Varming Mulcahy (a firm) 59 The wiring provision shall take the form of a multi-compartment fully accessible floor distribution system which in some areas shall be associated with the Minor Power and Telephone Services. The ADP system shall interface with a central processing unit and_ local micro-processor terminals as required. Control and signal (but not power) wiring shall be carried out during the Contract . . . Appendix A Design and Construction Method Statement . . . 1. Introduction (1) Aim To inform tenderers of the general principles of structural stability employed both in the temporary and final condition which are an essential part of the design, in order that they may incorporate this into their planning of the Works both for tender and construction purposes. This description is not to be considered as exhaustive and complete. Detailed working methods which adhere to the principles stated must be submitted and agreed prior to construction . . . THE DEPARTMENT OF THE ENVIRONMENT PROPERTY SERVICES AGENCY DIRECTORATE OF CIVIL ACCOMMODATION PART 1 PROJECT ADMINISTRATION AND CONTROL RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS 1-12 AND 15-19 A Proposal by Laing Management Contracting Limited 1. Management A very able and experienced management team will be essential on this project to ensure that progress is maintained at the right level and to control cost and construction quality... In addition qualified mechanical and electrical engineers will be deployed to implement effective controls over services installations and the commissioning process 5.5 PRODUCTION CONTROL AND CO-ORDINATION (a) Control It is essential that all contractors are controlled from the start of the construction stage and Laing will administer and manage all activities to ensure that the contracts are efficiently carried out. Progress will be maintained and contractors managed by the application of the Laing Management Team to the following: (i) Ensuring that contractors have adequate supervision, labour resources, plant and equipment available and that they are aware of the future needs of the project. (ii) Identifying the interface activities with other contractors and establishing in agreement practical working arrangements and clearly defined responsibilities for work finishing . . .60 Dept of National Heritage v Steensen Varming Mulcahy (a firm) 60 ConLR (b) Co-ordination (i) Monitor physical progress weekly. Maintain close contact with each contract management and advise on aspects of work sequencing, resourcing, work planning and the management of installations. (ii) Convene and chair contract progress meetings involving consultants and associated contractors as appropriate to ensure that all co-ordination aspects with other trades are identified. (iii) Regularly inspect all installations, plant and equipment for quality, accuracy and compliance with specification . . . 5.6 QUALITY CONTROL, (i) Policy All Laing site management will be responsible for the Quality Control achieved on this project. . . Electrical Services... The timing would also be dependent upon whether the permanent lighting could be used to assist in achieving the high standard of finishes that will be required. If this is possible, then the use of insulated boards will allow progressive connecting and testing. The installation of the electrical services would be carried out in a traditional manner. High level cable racking within the plant rooms would be installed before any pipework to avoid possible access problems... Provision of a building management system would require careful planning, since it would not be possible to completely commission such a system until the plants being monitored were operational. Early discussions with the Consulting Engincers would be essential to arrange the early appointment of this specialist sub-contractor so that all routes and equipment are known and can be installed as the services proceed. Commissioning . . . During the design development stage, testing and commissioning procedures would be agreed with the Consulting Engineers, taking into account the PSA documentation requirements. A detailed programme would be drawn up and agreed with the relevant parties. This would be reviewed and adjusted as necessary at regular meetings that would be set up with the specialist contractor. At the same time procedures, progress and problems would be discussed. Laing believe that the Consulting Engineers presence would be vital to these meetings and would welcome their participation . . . Planning and Design Planning The British Library building would be highly serviced and the detailed planning and control of these installations will be fundamental to the success of the project . . . All drawings, specifications and information available would be studied and discussed with the Consulting Engineer. A detailed master programme would then be prepared integrated with structural and60 ConLR Dept of National Heritage v Steensen Varming Mulcahy (a firm) 61 finishings activities, This document would be the key to all future programme agreements with sub-contractors. Design When discussing this subject, particular attention would be paid to the following point: (i) An information release schedule would be agreed to ensure that the appropriate design decisions were taken to allow construction to proceed while allowing maximum flexibility to the design progress . . . (iv) Areas requiring detailed co-ordination would be identified. examples being the main plant areas at basement one and two levels [si these levels became known as B1 and BY]... (vi) The formation of economical and practical work packages would be agreed to ensure financial competition, effective site control and design flexibility... Pre-Construction Co-ordination The successful execution and completion of the contract will depend upon the controls exercised over the contractors employed... (iii) A design schedule would be agreed with the Consulting Engineers, in order that information is released to the contractors to enable them to achieve the above programmes . . . (v) Agreement would be reached with the contractors regarding management communications and the structure of meetings required to control the contract . . . Construction Co-ordination To cover the construction period, controls would be implemented to ensure that the total installation programme was achieved and that the required standards of installation were maintained . . . (i) ... The contractor would be advised on aspects of work sequencing resourcing, work planning and the management of installations. (ii) Laing would convene and chair regular meetings with the contractors and Consulting Engineers to discuss engincering queries and procedures... (iii) Regular inspections of the entire works would be carried out to ensure that all installations conform with the drawings, specifications and good engineering practice. When sections of work have been completed to the required standard, the Consulting Engineer would be asked to carry out his final inspection .. .’ Letter from LM to PSA dated 16 August 1983: ‘AMENDMENTS TO LMC SUBMISSION These amendments are necessary as a consequence of our accepting the 78 months construction period, our clear understanding of the contractual relationship between the authority, the design team and ourselves, and the necessity to appoint an alternative member of our staff as Resources Manager . . .62 Dept of National Heritage v Steensen Varming Mulcahy (a firm) 60 ConLR 3. The diagram indicating the formal relationships between the authority, the design team and LMC. This diagram will replace the ‘site organisation’ diagram which was enclosed between pages 7 and 8 of Part 1 of our original submission.’ 87. [have quoted at length those provisions from even longer contractual documents because they are relied on by the parties and they show the extensive and deep responsibilities of LM particularly in relation to co-ordination both of the works and of the design and also with regard to supervision and inspection and prevention of delay. Those provisions are important in considering the duties of LM as third parties in this action. They also form an important part of the contractual scheme and are part of the context in which the obligations of SVM should be construed. BB’s contract 88. SVM were responsible for preparing the tender for electrical works and considering the tenders when they came in. When SVM issued the tender for the electrical work on 3 November 1987, Haden Young Ltd had already begun their part of the work on site. Haden Young Ltd’s work included the installation of metal ducting for air conditioning and that ducting had to be routed near the routes for electrical installations. 89. Mr Sworder, a chartered engineer employed by SVM as a senior mechanical engineer with experience of clectrical engineering, gave evidence about the tenders received. The lowest tender was from BB on 8 February 1988, later revised. The tender was analysed by the SVM in-house QS team. SVM took the view that the tender was too low. It was 10% to 15% below SVM’s estimated cost and Mr Sworder feared that BB were seeking to obtain the work by putting in a low price without any profit and that they would later seek to make their profit by claiming for delay and disruption at later stages in a lengthy programme. However, BB were able to respond to all queries about their costings and SVM were required under PSA rules to recommend acceptance of the tender. 90. Before BB submitted their revised tender for the work, SVM had already, on 8 April 1988 issued BB with all the design and multi-service drawings for stage 1AA for the purpose of tendering. Due to changes in client’s requirements, the architects’ design of the building was changing and for the purpose of tendering, a moratorium was declared on updating the electrical drawings, so that the drawings in the hands of BB were not up to date at the time they entered into the contract. Even those out of date drawings in the hands of BB at the time of tender related only to stage LAA of phase 1A. BB were required to tender for stage 1AB of phase 1A on the basis of provisional sums. This heavy reliance on provisional sums was itself to cause problems. 91. After the work was begun by BB, a very large number of instructions (known as management contractor’s instructions) would be issued to bring the tender scheme up to date with the architect’s scheme as it advanced. BB were entitled to these management contractor’s instructions to support60 ConLR Dept of National Heritage v Steensen Varming Mulcahy (a firm) 63 claims for payment above the tendered sum. There were also changes in the client’s brief which led to more changes in the architect’s scheme and hence to more changes in SVM’s drawings and more management contractor’s instructions. 92. By letter dated 5 May 1988 addressed to the Secretary of State for the Environment via the PSA, BB submitted their revised formal tender for the work in the electrical installation in phase 1A. That tender was accepted by letter dated 24 May 1988 from LM writing on behalf of the Secretary of State. 93. The letter from BB to the Secretary of State dated 5 May 1988 included the following: ‘Further to our tender for the above works dated 8th February 1988 and subsequent meetings we would now confirm the following:— Our tender letter dated 8th February 1988 is withdrawn and replaced by this letter... Organisation and Programme 1. We confirm that the Management Contractor’s restraints programmes and notes (see Appendix B) will take precedence over our tender programme and that if awarded the contract, our Works Programme will be developed in accordance with specification clause PRE4/351... At Appendix C to this letter, we have included copies of the following correspondence with the Management Contractor. a. Laing Management Contracting Limited’s letter dated the 23rd February 1988. b. Balfour Beatty’s letter dated the 2nd March 1988. c. Laing Management Contracting’s letter dated the 3rd March 1988. d. Laing Management Contracting’s letter dated the 9th March 1988. . Balfour Beatty’s letter dated the 17th March 1988. Laing Management Contracting’s letter dated 17th March 1988. . Balfour Beatty letter dated the 24th March 1988. . Balfour Beatty letter dated the 25th March 1988. (ref: TRH/BK/2413/PTM). Balfour Beatty letter dated the 25th March 1988 (ref: TRH/BB/2413/JMT). j. Balfour Beatty letter dated the 25th March 1988. (ref: TRH/BB/2413/Posttend.1/PJM). k. Laing Management Contracting letter dated the 14th April 1988. I. Balfour Beatty letter dated the 18th April 1988. m. Laing Management Contracting letter dated the 29th April 1988. n. Balfour Beatty letter dated (Sth) May 1988. These should be read in full, including accompanying documentation, and are deemed to be contract documents . . .’ ao ne64 Dept of National Heritage v Steensen Varming Mulcahy (a firm) 60 ConLR 94. The tender form sent with the letter of 5 May 1988 included the following terms: “1. [We have perused the following documents: (1) Prescribed Form of Works Contract for use with PSA Management Contracts (2) Abstract of Particulars (Form C1009 Abs-VOP-Formula (T) (December 1978) BL) (plus Addendum). (3) Supplementary Conditions Nos. 139A (Form C1953A (September 1975) BL), 147A(M) (Edition 2) (Form C1961(M) (March 1984)BL), 207 (Form C1992 (May 1980 Amended April 1983) BL), 208 (Form C1993 (May 1980 Amended April 1983) BL), and 213(BL) (Form C1998 BL). (4) Specification (5) Bills of Quantities (6) Standard Fire precautions PS (available from HMSO Shops). (7) Drawing Nos all per list at PRE 2/200 of the specification. (8) The Restraints Programme with conjoined notes, and Concurrent Works Programme (9) M&E Schedule 4Z - Addendum to Summary to Tender (10) Schedule 1 - Standby Generation . . . ABSTRACT OF PARTICULARS which shall be read in conjunction with Prescribed Form of Works Contract for use with PSA Management Contracts. The Authority shall be The Secretary of State for the Environment. The Superintending Officer The Architect, Engineer or Surveyor (including any person or persons acting for him) appointed for the time being by the Secretary of State for the Environment for that purpose. NEW BRITISH LIBRARY METHOD STATEMENT 1.3 All installation and testing will be carried out by or under the supervision of directly employed qualified staff, and the workmanship assured by regular inspection by the Manager having responsibility for this function within the Company . . . 8. Installation method — Cabling All cable routes will be physically checked and measured and where necessary steelwork, non standard tray or cleat runs, will be designed and the drawings submitted for approval. Prior to cable installation, the route will be checked to ensure that all steelwork is free from abrasive parts. Depending on the route length, its configuration and the size of the cable one of three methods of cable pulling will be employed.60 ConLR Dept of National Heritage v Steensen Varming Mulcahy (a firm) 65 8.1 Hand Pull— The cable gang is spaced over the route and the cable fed by hand from man to man. 8.2 Bond Pull- Normally employed on heavy non armoured. cables, this method entails a steel bond being pulled over the section length by winch and the cable is tied to this at approximately 2 metre intervals. When installation is completed ties are cut and the bond removed. Control would be by wireless or telephone between drum, winch and strategic positions along the route. 8.3 Nose Pull- Normally employed on heavy armoured cables where the leading end has a pulling eye fitted to the cores and the armour of the cable. A rope or bond is attached to this pulling eye and the cable is winched in, This operation would be controlled by wireless or telephone [I quote the provisions concerning pulling cables from clause 8 only to reject them as irrelevant. The plaintiffs relied on them in support of their case that pulling cables was a proper practice. Evidence showed that each of those three techniques, 8.1, 8.2, and 8.3, as the words of two of them expressly indicate, related to heavy cables, not to cables the subject of this action.] PRESCRIBED FORM OF WORKS CONTRACT FOR USE WITH P.S.A, MANAGEMENT CONTRACTS {This document was not with the copy of BB’s tender, but the terms are included in the contract. The relevant terms are quoted in the extracts from LM’s contract above and are not repeated.] SPECIFICATION Specification [1b] PRE 1: 700 THE WORKS generally comprise:— The provision of working drawings, supply and installation of all materials and components, testing, commission and setting to work of Electrical Services and Equipment all as set out and defined in the technical specification . . . 750 DESIGN RESPONSIBILITY: carry out any design (additional to that incorporated in the documentation provided by the Authority for tender purposes) which is necessary to ensure the suitability, compatibility and correct fixing and location within the system of the components selected by the Contractor to meet the specified performance of the installation 1150 CO-ORDINATION: together with the Management Contractor co-ordinate the Works with the work of others employed direct so that their work and the Contractor’s own work are executed with due regard to each other and in such a manner that satisfactory construction and performance of the Works results . . .66 Dept of National Heritage v Steensen Varming Mulcahy (a firm) 60 ConLR PRE 2: FORM OF CONTRACT 101 CONDITIONS OF CONTRACT: will be the Prescribed Form of Works Contract for use with PSA Management Contracts and any amendments or Supplementary Conditions thereto as defined on the Tender Form... DRAWINGS 250 FURTHER CO-ORDINATION AND DESIGN: the building consists of areas of different structures, usages and headrooms thus necessitating complex structural and services solutions. The Contract Drawings identify the inter-relation of the services and their relation to the building components in sufficient detail to demonstrate that the services can be properly separated from each other and can be satisfactorily installed and maintained. The Contractor is to complete the final co-ordination of the Works in conjunction with the Management Contractor and others employed direct. The Contract Drawings are not Working Drawings but the Contract Drawings can be adopted by the Contractor as the basis for the production of his Installation Drawings . . . PRE 4: PROGRAMME... 151 METHOD STATEMENT: the method statement submitted with the tender shall explain in detail the intentions with regard to all aspects of the work including staffing, resources, hours of working, sequence and safe method of working, plant proposals, temporary services, quality control, protection, inspection, testing, access, unloading, storage and distribution, etc... 1051 PROGRESS DRAWINGS: keep on site for regular inspection by the Management Contractor, one set of white prints of the working drawings to provide a complete record of the Works. Mark-up these drawings at intervals not exceeding one week to show the progress of work installed. 1052 FURTHER METHOD STATEMENT: when requested by the Management Contractor elaborate on the method statement submitted with the tender and update same as necessary. Provide details of safe methods of working before commencing each part of the Works... 1351 DRAWINGS AND DOCUMENTS TO BE SUPPLIED BY THE CONTRACTOR: provide drawings, documents and explanatory literature as required by this specification in adequate time to allow for comment, amendment, resubmission, approval and general issue to suit the Contractor’s Works Programme. Normally a period of four weeks shall be allowed between each submission and return of each drawing, whether approved or not... Where required obtain approval of drawings and documents from the Management Contractor before any manufacture or installation is commenced. Should the Contractor believe during the course of preparation of such drawings that a variation to the Contract has occurred then the Management Contractor’s instruction must be obtained