Quality with FransWhat happened
- The building. Block C is a residential block over 18 m high within The Rock, a retail and residential scheme in Bury. Laing O'Rourke built it under a design and build contract signed in 2008, with BDP's appointment novated from the client to the contractor. It was completed in 2010.
- The 2008 query. According to Construction News, a query sent on 4 December 2008 noted that K15 was not a material of limited combustibility, which one compliance route for buildings over 18 m needed, and asked for the details or specification to be clarified. Construction News says it was sent by Laing O'Rourke but may have started with a building services subcontractor; the Architects' Journal describes it as a query from Laing O'Rourke.
- The answer. On 10 December 2008, BDP replied that Kingspan's technical services and literature said K15 complied with the Building Regulations, referred to Kingspan's literature and a technical bulletin, and said building control approval would be needed.
- 2017 to 2021. Concerns about the cladding were raised in 2017. An investigation found K15 in the external wall build-ups, and the cladding was judged not to comply. Laing O'Rourke replaced the insulation across about 1,722 m² of wall, finishing in April 2021, at a reported cost of £1,842,185.
- The claims. Laing O'Rourke pursued BDP for about £1.83m. BDP denied liability but paid £1.125m, including legal costs, in July 2026 as a full and final settlement, about 61% of the claim. BDP is now trying to recover that sum from Kingspan in the High Court, and is also asking for building liability orders against other Kingspan group companies.
Both sides, in their own words (summarised)
BDP alleges that Kingspan made dishonest representations about K15's suitability above 18 m, and that it would not have specified the product otherwise. It relies partly on the Grenfell Tower Inquiry's final report of September 2024, which strongly criticised how K15 was marketed from 2006 onwards, including reliance on a 2005 system test of a product whose formulation later changed. BDP denies it was negligent.
Kingspan denies the allegations and says the inquiry's findings cannot be used as evidence in this case. It argues that any non-compliance was most likely caused by the cladding panels, which it did not supply, says BDP did not follow any of the recognised routes for showing fire compliance on a tall building, disputes that the settlement was reasonable, and says that any share it owes should be under 5%.
These are allegations and defences in live proceedings. Nothing about who was at fault at Bury has been decided, and this post does not take a side.
Why this matters for QA/QC
Look at it from the site office. Someone on that job read the specification, saw that the product did not match a compliance route, and wrote it down. That is exactly what we ask our engineers and inspectors to do. The question was right.
The weak point was the close-out. The reply pointed back to the manufacturer's own literature and to approval still to come. On many projects that answer would be filed and the RFI marked closed. But a marketing claim is not evidence, and "building control will approve it" is a future event, not a fact. An RFI that asks "does this comply?" should close with a document that shows it: a test or assessment report covering the system you are actually building, a classification, or a fire-engineered solution signed by the person responsible for it.
The second lesson is time. This query was read again 18 years after it was written, by lawyers. Your RFI log, your submittals and the replies attached to them are not admin. They are the record of who knew what, and when.
And one fair point for balance: the site query did its job. It put the issue in front of the designer in writing. If you raise it, record it and escalate it, you have done your part. The failure is letting a weak answer close it.
Check on your site tomorrow
- Pull your open and closed RFIs on fire performance, cladding, insulation and fire stopping. For each one marked closed, ask: what document actually closes it? If the answer is a brochure, an email or "to be approved", reopen it.
- For every product in a fire-critical build-up, check that the submittal includes a test or assessment report for the system as built, not for a different substrate, board or fixing. Check the report date and the product name and version against the delivery labels.
- Walk one elevation and match what is installed to the approved submittal: insulation brand and type, board, membrane, cavity barriers. A substitution without a new approval is a non-conformance, even if it is "equivalent".
- Set a rule that a technical query on compliance can only be closed by the designer or engineer responsible, with the evidence attached, and that QA/QC signs it off.
- Make sure the RFI log, the submittal register and the replies are stored in the project system, not only in someone's inbox. Assume someone will read them in 15 years.
I'll come back to this story if the court rules on BDP's claim.
Same habit, different trade: check what is installed against what was approved, and record it. The 31-point checklist I use before every concrete pour.
Download the checklist
Sources: Construction News: Laing O'Rourke's 2008 Kingspan fire query revealed in £1.1m dispute (28 Oct 2026) · Architects' Journal: BDP pays contractor £1.1m cladding claim as Kingspan lawsuit continues (27 Oct 2026) · Construction News: Laing O'Rourke suing architect for Bury recladding costs (Jul 2025) · PBC Today: Laing O'Rourke to sue BDP over Bury cladding remediation (Jul 2025) · Irish Post: Kingspan criticised in Grenfell report (Sep 2024) · Construction Management: Grenfell inquiry hearing on K15 testing and marketing (Nov 2020). The proceedings are ongoing; we report only the parties' stated positions and published findings, and no court has decided liability.