Updated 5.25pm with BCA response

An investigation by the Chamber of Architects (KTP) into the dangerous demolition of the former Go Exchange building in Birkirkara has exonerated architect Maria Schembri Grima of responsibility for the debacle. 

The contractor responsible for those demolition works ignored the architect's orders and failed to follow the project's demolition method statement, the KTP concluded. 

The probe into the February 2023 incident also cleared the site technical officer, architect David Muscat, of breaches of the Periti Act. 

It however was highly critical of the contractor responsible, Polidano Bros Ltd, and also found that the site manager - who according to sources was the project's applicant, Mark Agius - failed to enforce construction site regulations.  The KTP highlighted how the Building and Construction Authority, the entity responsible for overseeing building rules, failed to cooperate with the probe. 

Polidano Group responded by kickstarting legal action against KTP, saying it "categorically rejects" the probe's conclusions and noting that it had never been asked to provide its version of events. 

The KTP investigation kicked off after video published by Times of Malta showed huge bricks falling onto Psaila Street, near homes and a school, as part of demolition works for the project. 

The works had been immediately stopped by the Building and Construction Agency, whose chairperson at the time, Maria Schembri Grima, was the architect of the project, being led by Excel Investments project.

Excel Investments is owned by Gozitan developer Joseph Portelli. The applicant is his business partner Mark Agius. The works contractor was Polidano (Ċaqnu) and the site technical officer (STO) was David Muscat.

Polidano, Excel Investments and Muscat had all subsequently been fined by the BCA, which said demolition was not in line with the project's method statement. Fines ranged from €5,000 for Polidano to €2,000 for Muscat. 

Excel had also blamed Polidano for the debacle, but the contracting company had pushed back and insisted it followed the architect's instructions at all time. 

The KTP probe concluded otherwise. 

It found that:

• The demolition method statement did not instruct the contractor (Polidano) to execute the works as illustrated in the videos uploaded in the media;
• The contractor failed to follow the demolition method statement;
• Polidano had been instructed by the site technical officer, with Schembr Grima's agreement, to clear the site of debris on February 9 to set up a mobile crane. This had to be done before any further demolition works were carried out The contractor failed to do so. 
• The contractor appeared to have decided to hastily proceed with the demolition works over the weekend as he sought fit "in defiance of the instructions given by the STO instead of granting architects time to finalise an amended method statement".  
• The site manager, Agius, failed to enforce the provisions of subsidiary legislation relating to construction site management regulations.

This, the chamber said, showed that there had been no breaches by Schembri Grima and Muscat of the legislation that covered architects.

Anger over the dangerous demolition had led to Schembri Grima resigning as BCA chairperson and the KTP launching an investigation into the incident, to establish whether there were potential breaches by either of the two architects involved in the project.

That investigation, it said on Friday, was now concluded.

It regretted that the BCA did not cooperate with its investigations (see BCA response below). 

The BCA does not divulge details of contractors or developers fined or found to be in breach of construction rules, despite its board member David Xuereb having testified under oath that he wants "rogue" contractors and developers to be named and shamed.

Polidano Group files legal action

Later on Friday, Polidano Group said that it had filed a judicial protest against the KTP, calling on it to retract the statement and warning that its probe risked damaging the company's bid to win various "high-value" government tenders. 

Polidano said that it had never been given the chance to respond to accusations and insisted that it was still waiting to present evidence to a BCA tribunal tasked with establishing responsibility for the incident. 

"As part of its evidence, Polidano has presented the detailed Method Statement governing the works showing that it was in full compliance with the instructions and obligations listed in this document," the company said in a statement. 

"Furthermore, responsibility for closing the necessary roads around the site lay with the developer – not the contractor – and in fact no pedestrians or vehicles were permitted access to the area where works were taking place," it added.

The company said the KTP's "accusations" also coincided with a period when it was bidding for high-value tenders which now risked being derailed by the probe's conclusions. 

BCA: We always cooperate with KTP

In a statement, the BCA said that it always cooperated with the Chamber of Architects when formally asked to do so. 

It also reiterated lines of responsibility as stipulated by the law.

"According to regulation 9 of subsidiary legislation 623.07, professional responsibility for the method statement rests with the architect who prepared it, responsibility for enforcing the method statement lies with the Site Technical Officer and responsibility for implementing measures listed in the method statement lies with the contractor," the BCA said.