Dublin 15 schools to be shut down over structural defects

AGC

A Shaved Duck? wrote: »

The civil service had to sign off on the builds, so questions quite rightly have to be asked and evidence of any due dilligence provided.

People simply cant blame the builders here...somebody in the department of education has to sign off.

The builders could self certify in many cases.

If the government/civil service are to be involved it should have been the OPW. To try and lay the blame at a civil servant of whatever grade who may not know one end of a hammer to the next is not correct.

Department of Education looks after education not construction.

Pat Dunne

AGC wrote: »

The builders could self certify in many cases.

If the government/civil service are to be involved it should have been the OPW. To try and lay the blame at a civil servant of whatever grade who may not know one end of a hammer to the next is not correct.

Department of Education looks after education not construction.

You might want to have a look at the following brief from the Dept of Education and Skills, in regards of their Planning and Building Unit.
https://www.education.ie/en/The-Department/Management-Organisation/Planning-Building-Unit.html

The last section mybe of interest

Professional and Technical Section

The section is responsible for:

providing specialist technical advice and assistance as required to all sections within the Planning and Building Unit
development of policy and procedures in relation to capital works
research - planning and design of education facilities, energy efficiency etc. and development of design guidance and standard room templates
provision of assistance to schools and Design Teams at all stages in the progression of projects through the design and construction stages
production of a suite of documents to facilitate school design including design, procurement, construction and procedural advice.

AGC

Pat Dunne wrote: »

You might want to have a look at the following brief from the Dept of Education and Skills, in regards of their Planning and Building Unit.
https://www.education.ie/en/The-Department/Management-Organisation/Planning-Building-Unit.html

The last section mybe of interest

Thanks Pat my bad!

LorelaiG

The community centre is reopening on 10th November.

A Shaved Duck?

AGC wrote: »

The builders could self certify in many cases.

If the government/civil service are to be involved it should have been the OPW. To try and lay the blame at a civil servant of whatever grade who may not know one end of a hammer to the next is not correct.

Department of Education looks after education not construction.

So your saying that not one person from either the civil service or department of education should at the very least inspect building works for a school that taxpayers money if funding and children will be sitting in 5 days a week?

I find this very hard to believe.

Edit... just noticed you have been educated on this..my bad

AGC

A Shaved Duck? wrote: »

So your saying that not one person from either the civil service or department of education should at the very least inspect building works for a school that taxpayers money if funding and children will be sitting in 5 days a week?

I find this very hard to believe.

Edit... just noticed you have been educated on this..my bad

And my original post stated I felt it should be done by OPW. I never said it shouldn’t be inspected by the civil service.

A Shaved Duck?

AGC wrote: »

And my original post stated I felt it should be done by OPW. I never said it shouldn’t be inspected by the civil service.

Which was wrong, department are explicitly responsible.

AGC

A Shaved Duck? wrote: »

Which was wrong, department are explicitly responsible.

I know, sure I have been ‘educated’

blanch152

A Shaved Duck? wrote: »

The civil service had to sign off on the builds, so questions quite rightly have to be asked and evidence of any due dilligence provided.

People simply cant blame the builders here...somebody in the department of education has to sign off.

We can't be paying civil servants to stand around and watch every bricklayer to see that they are doing their job properly.

This looks like a clear situation of a private sector company seeking to shortcut a public job.

oblivious

blanch152 wrote: »

We can't be paying civil servants to stand around and watch every bricklayer to see that they are doing their job properly.

This looks like a clear situation of a private sector company seeking to shortcut a public job.

You can have an independent engineer to sign it off at critical stages of the build. Like people have to do ascondition of get a loan for an house extension.

Money is drawn down in lots when the section is signed off, final payment at roof and snag. The engineer should also be bonded to cover any mistakes on there part.

beauf

They should take photos and keep them.

tabby aspreme

Up until about 20 years ago on state funded projects, there would have been a Clerk of Works who was employed by the govt dept providing the funding, to oversee the building work, on a large school project they would have been onsite constantly similar to a foreman and would have been very thorough, my father would have built schools and council houses in the 60's and said the CoW would tap a steel nail into the block joints to make sure there was no gaps in the mortar, and push against all the ceiling slabs with a plank after skimming and if any skim popped at the joints or nail holes, it would all have to be redone.

Currently on a school building project, the Board of Management hire an architect, who will work on their behalf, on designing, tendering, and signing off on the work, the dept are at arm's length from the actual job.

Former Former

blanch152 wrote: »

We can't be paying civil servants to stand around and watch every bricklayer to see that they are doing their job properly.

This looks like a clear situation of a private sector company seeking to shortcut a public job.

This, a million times over.

You pay someone to do a job, you expect them to do it properly. If you got a builder to do your own house and three years later it's falling down, you wouldn't say "ah well, I've only meself to blame".

In this specific case (as I understand it), the defect is that the outer wall is not properly joined to the inside wall. So any inspector would have to be on-site as that job is happening, arriving the day before or day after would be useless. That's not reasonable.

I'm baffled by the response of WBS which was pretty much "well, the department signed off on it" - not that the work was up to code, not that they'll fix any defects, but that because the department didn't catch them in the act, tough sh1t...

The bigger worry is what else is lurking in these buildings.

A Shaved Duck?

Former Former wrote: »

This, a million times over.

You pay someone to do a job, you expect them to do it properly. If you got a builder to do your own house and three years later it's falling down, you wouldn't say "ah well, I've only meself to blame".

In this specific case (as I understand it), the defect is that the outer wall is not properly joined to the inside wall. So any inspector would have to be on-site as that job is happening, arriving the day before or day after would be useless. That's not reasonable.

I'm baffled by the response of WBS which was pretty much "well, the department signed off on it" - not that the work was up to code, not that they'll fix any defects, but that because the department didn't catch them in the act, tough sh1t...

The bigger worry is what else is lurking in these buildings.

Two wrongs dont make a right, when the department is spending multiples of millions on a building project at the least there should be a dedicated resource signing off on any and all milestone in the project. Its this attitude of we cant expect a civil servant to be on site thats in my opinion nonsense, its the least that we should expect there is a whole department specifically for this and they are getting paid well.

Former Former

A Shaved Duck? wrote: »

Two wrongs dont make a right, when the department is spending multiples of millions on a building project at the least there should be a dedicated resource signing off on any and all milestone in the project. Its this attitude of we cant expect a civil servant to be on site thats in my opinion nonsense, its the least that we should expect there is a whole department specifically for this and they are getting paid well.

Ah listen, there's a chip on your shoulder about civil servants that's completely tainting your view on this.

There should be a basic expectation that a contractor is going to perform the job he's paid to do. Foundations, steelwork, roof - I'd expect an engineer to sign off on those.

To detect any and all faults like this one, you'd need multiple inspectors on site at all times, looking over the shoulders of every builder, plumber and electricinan, and then people like you would be b*tching because bureaucracy is adding to the cost of projects and driving up the cost to taxpayers.

The builder is at fault here. They didn't do their job. I don't know why people have to defend and make excuses for cowboys stealing their taxes.

A Shaved Duck?

Former Former wrote: »

Ah listen, there's a chip on your shoulder about civil servants that's completely tainting your view on this.

There should be a basic expectation that a contractor is going to perform the job he's paid to do. Foundations, steelwork, roof - I'd expect an engineer to sign off on those.

To detect any and all faults like this, you'd need multiple inspectors on site at all times, and then people like you would be b*tching because bureaucracy is adding to the cost of projects and driving up the cost to taxpayers.

The builder is at fault here. They didn't do their job. I don't know why people have to defend and make excuses for cowboys stealing their taxes.

What chip? expecting some responsibility on a department to actually fuflill their remit in terms of oversight for major building projects?

In the last 15 years its been obvious that the private sector has taken advantage of the light touch regulation and we are still seeing the same behaviours by all parties. If you can accept that then thats fine but at least be mature enough to see an alternative view.

What do you mean by "people like me"?

AlanG

A Shaved Duck? wrote: »

What chip? expecting some responsibility on a department to actually fuflill their remit in terms of oversight for major building projects?

In the last 15 years its been obvious that the private sector has taken advantage of the light touch regulation and we are still seeing the same behaviours by all parties. If you can accept that then thats fine but at least be mature enough to see an alternative view.

What do you mean by "people like me"?

Hiring QA for a project where where the QA company take responsibility for the work can often cost as much as the initial project and is therefore rarely done. This is because it is very difficult to check most work and guarantee it has been done correctly if you are not doing the work yourself. I have been involved in several major projects where no company even tendered for the QA work because it is so difficult.
Realistically if you want the department to give the guarantees you seem to expect then only half the number of schools will be built. It seems ridiculous but if you ever try to run a project on this scale then you will see that is how it works.
Even if you are just doing a small extension to a house it will cost about 8000 to get an engineer to sign off all the work as opposed to the final external and plan inspection that costs about 600. At that you will still have no recourse.

If you want to see how difficult it is try ringing a few engineering firms asking them how much it costs to get them to sign off AND guarantee work on a 40 square meter extension. I would be surprised if anyone would even quote for the work.

fly_agaric

A Shaved Duck? wrote: »

expecting some responsibility on a department to actually fuflill their remit in terms of oversight for major building projects?

We can expect all we want but if the Dept. can't actually do this work, might as well expect pigs to fly. Whatever units the Dept. have on paper I doubt they have enough of their own people with the right skills to make sure contractors don't cut corners. Unfortunately, its unlikely there are loads of engineers and builders out there willing to do all these thorough checks on projects for the state for free. You probably don't wish to pay more taxes to make it happen either (public sector "leeches" and all that Indo propaganda).

Not a parent myself, but I afaik schools seem to expect voluntary contributions from parents to keep running. Every one near me has a yard covered in clusters of "temporary" prefabs for the last 20 years or more. Its not really suggestive of a well funded system with loads of resources to throw at teams of professionals inspecting school building projects.

A Shaved Duck?

Clearly a lot of civil servants reading this thread.

Im not suggesting that there is an infinite pot of cash nor that there isnt blame on both sides.

It does seem that making the point that the department responsible is partly culpable here is pretty unpopular.

If you lads are satisifed that the same lackluster approach to regulation is applied because its deemed to expensive or how can we expect people to do their jobs..then your entitled to your view.

It doesnt change the fact that schools had to temporarily closed down as the system is still broken..but sure carry regardless there is always a grey area or excuse.

ozmo

A Shaved Duck? wrote: »

...If you lads are satisifed that the same lackluster approach to regulation is applied because its deemed to expensive or how can we expect people to do their jobs..then your entitled to your view.

Not a civil servant - but only fair to lay blame where it lies - Builder was paid to do a job - and they didn't do it to spec.

It just not possible to put a minder sitting beside every bricklayer as they work....

Gov is doing what it can now - suing the builders and fixing the problem.

Thankfully the numbers of schools left affected is small and caught in time - it could have been much worse.

fly_agaric

A Shaved Duck? wrote: »

Clearly a lot of civil servants reading this thread.

Im not suggesting that there is an infinite pot of cash nor that there isnt blame on both sides.

It does seem that making the point that the department responsible is partly culpable here is pretty unpopular.

If you lads are satisifed that the same lackluster approach to regulation is applied because its deemed to expensive or how can we expect people to do their jobs..then your entitled to your view.

It doesnt change the fact that schools had to temporarily closed down as the system is still broken..but sure carry regardless there is always a grey area or excuse.

Can only speak for myself, but I'm not satisfied. The whole thing is pretty disgraceful.
However, if the Dept. doesn't actually have the staff (or money) to do the task properly, it is set up for failure from the start irrespective of whether people in there are doing their job or not.

I am working in the public sector but not education, so don't know exactly what is going on there but this sort of failure is a fairly regular occurrence across public and private sector in Ireland for some reason. If it was as easy as incompetents failing, well we could just hire someone else and fix it but the root of it seems to go a bit deeper than that (edit: its cultural IMO, that is why when you get old enough/live here long enough, you see very similar sorts of scandals and failures recur again and again).

LorelaiG

The parents voted that the schools remain closed because they weren't guaranteed that they were safe, as a result, children were bussed to different accommodation off site this morning. I'm not a parent of kids in the school so no idea where they've been moved to during the works. If I find out I'll update.

deiseindublin

What a mess.

miamee

LorelaiG wrote: »

The parents voted that the schools remain closed because they weren't guaranteed that they were safe, as a result, children were bussed to different accommodation off site this morning. I'm not a parent of kids in the school so no idea where they've been moved to during the works. If I find out I'll update.

From what I understand both schools were to continue housing the smaller children on their ground floors with older children being sent off-site. That is still up in the air for St. Lukes after they had parents visit on Wednesday, not sure if it's the same for TET. For one school they are walking to the nearby Le Chéile secondary school to use empty classrooms there and for the other they are to be bussed to another school though I can't remember where that one is, possibly Ongar.

Former Former

There's a story in the Irish Times today about redevelopment of flats on Dominic Street. The project is two years behind schedule and is now going to cost €39 million, 10 million more than originally planned, to deliver 72 social housing apartments. That's €540,000 per apartment, cost price, on a site which the city already owned. That's incredible.

So there's an example of bad public sector project management and budgeting. How the timeline and costs have spiralled like that should be explained and would appear to land squarely in the lap of the city council.

A construction company doing a shoddy job that can't be detected without actually taking the wall down? No, that's on the builders.

advertsfox

miamee wrote: »

From what I understand both schools were to continue housing the smaller children on their ground floors with older children being sent off-site. That is still up in the air for St. Lukes after they had parents visit on Wednesday, not sure if it's the same for TET. For one school they are walking to the nearby Le Chéile secondary school to use empty classrooms there and for the other they are to be bussed to another school though I can't remember where that one is, possibly Ongar.

Correct, our girl is in TETNS Junior Infants and has went in the last 2 days. There is no support beams in her classroom at all, the media who were showing all the scaffolding outside and in didn't mention that the pictures were from two different schools. TETNS is not as near as bad as portrayed but St. Lukes is.

LorelaiG

advertsfox wrote: »

Correct, our girl is in TETNS Junior Infants and has went in the last 2 days. There is no support beams in her classroom at all, the media who were showing all the scaffolding outside and in didn't mention that the pictures were from two different schools. TETNS is not as near as bad as portrayed but St. Lukes is.

How can you be sure of that.

advertsfox

LorelaiG wrote: »

How can you be sure of that.

All parents were invited up to the school on Wednesday before it was due to open so we got to seen the classroom and hallways. RTE also had a video with picture stills showing outside of TETNS but the following pictures they showed of the corridors were not the same, St. Paul's has a similar style layout I believe.

It's such a big mess but I'm glad the kids are back. It's still not ideal, none of it is but don't think there is a perfect solution here.