APPENDIX 1
Alexander and Co Ltd
Level 3,
26 Virginia Avenue East
Eden Terrace
Auckland 1021

21 November 2017

John Black
Engineering & Facilities Manager
Counties Manukau Health
Building 27
MIddlemore Hospital
Private Bag 93 323
Otahuhu
AUCKLAND 1640
Sent by:

PO Box 90 718
Auckland 1142
New Zealand
Phone: +64 9 302 2757
www.alexander.co.nz

Post & Email (John.Black@middlemore.co.nz)

Dear John
Counties Manukau Health
Building 11 - McIndoe Building, Building 12 - Kidz First Building &
Manukau Super Clinic Complex - Elective Surgery Centre
Alexander & Co Ltd Ref: 3258, 3259 & 3290
Instructions
We understand that Counties Manukau Health require an appraisal of the priorities for the
recommended repair works to the above buildings, to assist forward planning and budgeting.
Summary and conclusions
The findings indicate that all buildings are compromised by moisture ingress and resultant
damage. There are variations in the level of damage as a result of remedial works.
All buildings should be prioritised as there remains a real risk of fixing failure and where
sufficient fixings fail the cladding will either partially or become fully detached from the
building. This creates a risk to the public that will need to be mitigated. We recommend that
the building facades should be regularly monitored and to those wall faces not protected by
lower roofs, barriers installed at ground level to prevent unauthorised access.
Our recommendation is to prioritise the recladding repairs as follows: •

First priority: The Kidz First Building and targeted repair the McIndoe ambulance bay.
Plan immediately for work commencement within 2018.

•

Second priority: The Elective Surgery Centre of the Manukau Super Clinic complex.
Plan within 6 months for work commencement early 2019.

•

Third priority: McIndoe Building – remainder of building. Plan within 12 months for
work commencement in early 2020.

Counties Manukau health should prepare a programme that will need to involve all
stakeholders both operational and financial and technical support services.

 These recommendations should be read in conjunction with the individual building reports
and attached Appendix A.
Public safety:
The areas of fibre cement wall cladding investigated were all located at Level 2 and Level 3
of the buildings investigated. All buildings included extensions at Level 1 and the roofed
areas to these extensions provide protection to the public and staff in the event of a cladding
panel fixing failure. However, even to these areas maintenance personnel may still be put at
risk, although it is accepted the intermittent nature of their access to the roofed areas will
reduce the perception of risk.
The McIndoe Building includes the emergency ambulance bay area. The extent of damage
discovered at this location is of concern, in the event of a cladding panel potentially falling
from the building.
To the Kidz First Building, there are extensive areas of wall cladding that are not protected by
lower roofs, although it is accepted that garden areas provide some barrier and protection to
the Heavenly Garden and beyond the Al Fresco dining area to the adjoining courtyard.
To the Super Clinic Complex, the areas of investigation to the Elective Surgery Centre are
generally well away from the public and staff thoroughfares, with the exception of the
ambulance bay, although even this area is partially protected by the roof canopy above the
entrance.
Construction:
The cladding material was generally a James Hardie Titan™ board product to the Kidz First
and McIndoe buildings. However, to the Super Clinic Complex, the material is a PBS
Eterpan Multiboard™ product.
The wall underlay material was mainly a synthetic wrap, Tyvek Home Wrap™. At some
locations, however, alternative synthetic wraps and, in localised areas fire resistant building
paper, were discovered.
Wall cladding systems were originally direct fixed to the timber frame substrate. Localised
remedial works were discovered to the Super Clinic Complex, which incorporated cavity
construction. This form of construction was more extensive to the McIndoe Building,
particularly at second floor level and the eastern courtyard, which had been substantially
reconstructed. The Kidz First Building was all direct-fixed cladding.
Scope of investigation:
To summarise the scope of panelised fibre cement cladding:
(a)

Kidz First Building: This is applied to all wall faces at first and second floor levels,
with localised areas of proprietary plaster and horizontally applied corrugated steel
sheeting.

(b)

McIndoe Building: The fibre cement wall cladding occurs to both the first and second
floor levels, with localised cladding at ground floor level.

Alexander & Co. Ltd

Page 2 of 5

 (c)

Super Clinic Complex: The investigation was limited to the Elective Surgery Centre,
where the panelised fibre cement wall cladding was applied to all first and second
floor levels of the building.

Timber treatment:
The timber frame to all buildings consisted of Radiata Pine, which was originally untreated.
Where remedial works included replacement of the timber frame, treated timber was
introduced, including H1.2 boron treated and H3.2 CCA treated timber.
Water ingress:
With reference to the moisture content readings obtained to the structural timber frame and
the resultant damage to the timber frame, statistically the Kidz First Building should receive
priority, in conjunction with the ambulance bay entry area to the McIndoe Building.
The remaining wall areas to the Elective Surgery Centre are also significantly affected by
moisture ingress. To the remainder of the McIndoe Building, the extent of remedial works
and introduction of treated timber has restricted damage.
In our opinion, the remaining works to all buildings will need to be planned within the next 12
months with works commenced within two years from the beginning of 2018.
Significant mould:
The timber framing was generally of 150 x 150 size and the depth of the frame assisted in
providing some level of protection to the internal plasterboard linings.
It was noted that the fibre cement cladding material was unsealed or painted on the rear face
and moisture had penetrated directly through the dilapidated paint finish or at the panel
perimeters and fixing points. Under these circumstances mould is attracted to the moist fibre
cement panels and can transfer through the building wrap onto the timber frame. Where the
wall cladding had been remediated, less extensive damage was apparent, although generally
the underlying defects had not been resolved and the deterioration will continue over time.
The laboratory reports define the levels of mould within the wall cavities.
In a few locations to the Kidz First Building and the Super Clinic Complex, the inner face of
the plasterboard linings had been affected by fungal growth and this damage will readily
transfer to the interior of the building in the short to medium term.
As the wall cladding systemically leaks further damage and mould growth is inevitable. This
risk should be closely monitored with remedial measures taken both to remove the cause
and replace infected materials. Independent air testing by a recognised laboratory may also
be necessary subject to operational concerns.
Defects
There were a variety of consistent defects discovered to all buildings, including:
(a)

Failed vertical expressed joints

(b)

Failed horizontal socket expressed joints

Alexander & Co. Ltd

Page 3 of 5

 (c)

Failed window flashings and window to wall junctions

(d)

Porous fibre cement wall cladding

(e)

A deteriorated paint finish

(f)

Water damaged timber framing

(g)

Poorly installed building wrap, which often failed to consider deflection and drainage

(h)

Discoloured insulation batts, indicating excessive airflows within the wall cavity

(i)

Other defects may be discovered during the repair process.

Moisture content readings
As advised in our reporting, moisture content readings are indicative of defects and damage.
As referenced in the Beagle Consultancy Ltd reports, on-going decay can continue once the
moisture content exceeds 18%, although to create the initial decay moisture content ranges
of 24% - 30% are required.
Our assessment of each individual building is as follows, based on the discovery of these
moisture content readings at the site investigation locations.

Building

Moisture Content Readings (%)
at each investigation
Assist with
on-going decay

Create decay

1.

Kidz First Building

95%

65%

2.

McIndoe Building

50%

30%

3.

Super Clinic Complex

80%

50%

Damage
We have assessed the extent of timber framing decay based on the number of site
investigations and the discovery of damaged framing at those locations. Our findings were
as follows:
1.

Kidz First Building: Decay discovered to the timber framing at 90% of the locations
investigated.

2.

McIndoe Building: Timber framing decay discovered at 25% of locations investigated.
Note: Damage was reduced by the extensive remediation measures, including the
introduction of treated timber and cavity construction.

3.

Super Clinic Complex: Decay discovered to the timber framing at 60% of the locations
investigated.’

Alexander & Co. Ltd

Page 4 of 5

 Recommendation
Based on the above assessments, these indicate that the Kidz First Building should
receive priority for remediation, together with the Emergency Ambulance Bay to the
McIndoe Building.
The extent of damage discovered, including our assessment of the previous investigations at
the Super Clinic Complex indicate increased levels of moisture content to the timber frame
and an increase in damage. These factors will be replicated within the other buildings. On
this basis, we consider that all buildings should be remediated, with the remediation
works prioritised for completion within the next five years.
This is a qualified recommendation that will require:
(a)

Mitigation measures to protect the public, staff and service personnel from the
risk of wall panels becoming detached from the building that should include
the provision of protective barriers.

(b)

Monitoring the wall faces for deterioration prior to the remedial repair works

(c)

Monitoring the internal wall linings to those areas of significant damage.

Further clarifications:
(a)

Hospital buildings are complex not only in construction but also in the
specialized provision of building services. Systemic failures within the
construction industry have been discovered with similar buildings. These
deficiencies are often not discovered during localised investigations, but are
discovered either in service or through the remedial works when the
components fail or are exposed. Durability of components is critical to
building performance and areas that will become concealed by the remedial
works must exceed the durability of those remedial works. In addition the
works require building consent and the building consent authority will require
compliance with the building code.

(b)

The timeframes for repair are critical as the moisture damage of these
buildings is in places close to breaching the internal linings. Ad-hoc
emergency repairs are unlikely to be an acceptable option as they present a
risk to patients and staff and will adversely affect the smooth operation of the
facility.

(c)

We understand that at least some patients and also staff will have a low
resistance to mould contaminated building materials affecting the air quality.
This factor alone may impact on the required urgency and timing of the
repairs.

It is anticipated that further discussions will be required to assist with forward planning. We
await your further instructions.
Yours sincerely
ALEXANDER & CO. LTD
Peter Gillingham
Registered & Chartered Building Surveyor   Associate
Encl. Appendix A Risk assessment matrix
Alexander & Co. Ltd

Page 5 of 5

 APPENDIX A

COUNTIES MANUKAU HEALTH - BUILDING RISK ASSESSMENT MATRIX

Priority / Building

1.

Kidz First Building

Deterioration
and decay of
framing

Risk to public
safety

High

Medium - high

High

High

High

Medium

Future
damage
likelihood
Yes (critical)

Significant
mould likely to
affect internal
areas

Comments

High

Priorities based on investigations and damage

Medium

Targeted repairs driven by Public Safety issues

High

Extensive barriers to access including lower
roofs, canopies and buildings

(Building 12)

1A

McIndoe Building – Ambulance
Bay

Yes (critical to
this area)

(Building 11)
2.

Super Clinic Complex (Elective Surgery Centre)

Yes (critical)

Damage is similar to Kidz Frist building
3.

McIndoe Building - balance of
building

Medium

Medium

Yes (variable)

(localised)

(Building 11)

Medium

Most wall facades protected by lower roofs
except parts of the internal courtyard
Future damage modified by previous remedial
works

 

Alexander & Co. Ltd

Risk Assessment

Page 1 of 1

 10.2 Sample photos showing the deterioration uncovered

10.2.1 Kidz First Building 12 – Middlemore Hospital

Test Location 10
Moisture content of 97.9% below window jamb and behind failed vertical jointer.

 Test Location 15
Severe timber damage below inverted corrugate feature. Timber sample indicated advanced soft to
rot to framing.

  

Test Location 17

Damaged framing below Lozenge panel and aluminium socket horizontal jointer.

Test Location 18
Damaged framing sampling at 1, 2 and 4, indicated active fungal growth through to incipient and
advanced rot.

 10.2.2 McIndoe (Acute Hub) Building 11 – Middlemore Hospital

Test Location 3A
Saturated bottom plate. Moisture level recorded at 97.9%. Advanced brown discovered in this
location.

 Test Location 3A
Timber frame visually decayed above soffit resulting from leaks and lack of drainage.

 Test Location 12
Failed horizontal expressed joint flashing. Timber untreated with incipient decay to framing.

 Test Location 13B
Moisture reading recorded at 35.8% to external corner indicating an active leak.
Corner stud replacement with H3.1 timber but leak is still active.

 10.2.3 Manukau SuperClinic Elective Surgery Centre– Manukau Health Park

Test Location (DT 3)
Indicating active fungal growth and loss of strength to the plasterboard internal lining.

 Test Location (DT 3)
General view of timber frame, laboratory analysis indicated advanced rot at all the locations tested.

  

Test Location (DT 4)

Advanced rot and harmful mould behind failed vertical expressed joint.

Test Location (DT 15)
Mycelium to surface of framing with active advance rot and harmful mould present.

 ID Task Name Duration Start Finish 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022

OctNovDecJanFebMarAprMayJun Jul Jul Jul Jul AugSepOctNoyDecJanFeWarApMale
1 Scott 147 days Approval 0 days 19/12
3 Design 101 days Stage 1 Methodology reviewed 0 days 05/11
5 Stage 2 Methodology reviewed 0 days 19/03
6 Construction 651 clays Remediation Cladding Programme 948 days Kid: First 628 days and Procurement 100 days Design 100 days Install 425 days MESH 625 days and Procurement 100 days Design 100 days Install 425 days 548 clays and Procurement 100 days Design 100 days Install 340 days 24 Dec '20 13 Apr '22 
Task Project Summary aw. Inactive Milestone Manual Summary Rollup Deadline 1r
Project: Remediation Reciad Summ Split . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. External Tasks lnactlve Summary Manual Summary Progress 
Date: 04 '17 Milestone 0 External Milestone Manual Task Start-only I:
Summary Inactive Task Duratlon-only Finish-only :l

Page 1

APPENDIX 2
Counties Manukau Health: Corporate Risk Management Heat Map
Report Produced On: Thursday, 8 March 2018

Certain

13.19

Almost
Certain

L
i
k
e
l
i
h
o
o
d

Legend:
- Strategic / Whole of System Risks

Likely

- Directorate Level Risks
- Divisional Level Risks
Unlikely

Highly
Unlikely

Extreme

Major

Moderate

Minor

Low

Consequence

Note: Number prefix indicates originating area of the organisation for risk, suffix indicates specific risk ID from the risk register for the originating area

Page 1 of 2

 Heat Map Risk Details

Note: Number shown in matrix cell above correlates to the Risk ID in this section

Previously Reported Risks
Risk Details & Analysis

Risk Controls

Risk Management & Interdependency

13.19 Failure of critical building infrastructure

Causes:

Corrective Control:

Treatment Plans:

Area: Facilities and Asset Management

• Reprioritisation of limited baseline capital funding has
resulted in the sustained under investment in our
facilities – we have an ageing building stock that has not
been adequately maintained and is no longer fit for
purpose.
• Recent amendments to legislation have increased CM
Health’s risk of statutory non-compliance across a
number of key building concern areas e.g. seismic
resilience, asbestos
• Cladding products and construction techniques used on
some of our facilities are now known to be faulty

Investment planning

• ELT has prioritised the urgent development of a Facilities Remediation Programme. A programme business case is
being developed to provide the framework for the assessment and remediation of facilities as required. This
programme of work involves a comprehensive rolling assessment of the condition of our property portfolio across all
key building concern areas (seismic, asbestos, weather tightness, critical infrastructure) starting with the buildings
considered highest risk – these assessments have commenced and are at varying stages of completeness. The
findings of these assessments will be considered against service delivery planning, with investment business cases
prepared and implemented as needed.

Owner: Director of Population Health & Strategy
Logged On: 11/07/17
Risk to continuity of service provision should partial
building failure occur or service delivery be disrupted for
maintenance and remediation as a result of leaky
buildings, including the potential for significant financial
costs
• Kidz First
• Manukau Superclinic
• MacIndoe
• Scott
Risk Ratings:
Inherent
Current
Target

Likelihood:
Consequence:
Likelihood:
Consequence:
Likelihood:
Consequence:

Certain
Extreme
Certain
Extreme
Unlikely
Minor

Consequences:
Potential consequences of this risk being realised include,
but are not limited to:
• Significant capital outlay to rectify issues resulting from
the accumulation of deferred maintenance
• Non-compliance with legislation and building standards
• Requirement to exit services from their current location
due to building condition
• Inability to deliver essential healthcare services due to
failure of critical buildings and/or infrastructure
• In the event of a natural disaster (e.g. earthquake) the
health and safety of occupants could be at risk
• Other health and safety risks due to poor
environmental conditions (e.g. asbestos exposure, falling
cladding, fungal spores, insect infestations)
• Service disruption during periods of necessary remedial
works (e.g. closure of areas due to recladding, removal
of asbestos)
• Inability to implement rapid service delivery solutions
for acute demand growth due to lack of suitably
maintained facilities
Risk Interdependencies:
•
•
•
•
•

Availability of adequate funding
Natural disaster e.g. earthquake etc.
Facilities reporting
Maintenance funding
Long term investment plan

Report Parameters Applied:
Risk Areas Included (Blank = ALL areas):

Corrective Control:
Remedial works

Detective Control:
Rolling building condition assessment

Latest Status Update Notes:
Progress to Chester on Thursday, 31 August 2017
Details:
CMH Legal are progressing a building contract with Hawkins through Chapman Tripp.
Alexander & Co undertaking a Peer review of contract sum as required by CIC
Update added by Angela Jones on 15/02/18

25

Preventative Control:
Asset management maturity improvements

Preventative Control:
Increase in annual maintenance, repairs and
operations funding

Preventative Control:
Revised building contracting strategy

+ Facilities and Asset Management

ELT Owners (Blank = ALL Owners):
Risks Raised after the following date are reported as Newly Raised:

Page 2 of 2

Risk
Score

8/03/2018

 APPENDIX 3
Board papers
Meeting and date

Agenda item and withholding

CMDHB Board meeting:
23 March 2016

Facilities/ Strategic Assessment
That the public conduct of the whole or the relevant part of the proceedings of
the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which
good reason for withholding would exist, under section 6, 7 or 9 (except section
9(3)(g)(i))of the Official Information Act 1982.
[NZPH&D Act 2000 Schedule 3, S32(a)]
Commercial Activities
The disclosure of information would not be in the public interest because of the
greater need to enable the Board to carry out, without prejudice or
disadvantage, commercial activities.
[Official Information Act 1982 S9(2)(i)]

CMDHB Board meeting:
30 November 2016

Scott Building Recladding
That the public conduct of the whole or the relevant part of the proceedings of
the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which
good reason for withholding would exist, under section 6, 7 or 9 (except section
9(3)(g)(i))of the Official Information Act 1982.
[NZPH&D Act 2000 Schedule 3, S32(a)]
Commercial Activities
The disclosure of information would not be in the public interest because of the
greater need to enable the Board to carry out, without prejudice or
disadvantage, commercial activities.
[Official Information Act 1982 S9(2)(i)]

CMDHB Board meeting:
29 March 2017

Scott Building Re-clad Business Case
That the public conduct of the whole or the relevant part of the proceedings of
the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which
good reason for withholding would exist, under section 6, 7 or 9 (except section
9(3)(g)(i))of the Official Information Act 1982.
[NZPH&D Act 2000 Schedule 3, S32(a)]
Commercial Activities
The disclosure of information would not be in the public interest because of the
greater need to enable the Board to carry out, without prejudice or
disadvantage, commercial activities.
[Official Information Act 1982 S9(2)(i)]
Negotiations
The disclosure of information would not be in the public interest because of the
greater need to enable the Board to carry on, without prejudice or
disadvantage, negotiations.
[Official Information Act 1982 S9(2)(j)]

CMDHB Board meeting:
25 October 2017

Facilities Master Planning Strategic Assessment
That the public conduct of the whole or the relevant part of the proceedings of
the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which

 good reason for withholding would exist, under section 6, 7 or 9 (except section
9(3)(g)(i))of the Official Information Act 1982.
[NZPH&D Act 2000 Schedule 3, S32(a)]
Communication with the Sovereign
The disclosure of information would not be in the public interest because of the
greater need to enable the Board to maintain the constitutional conventions for
the time being which protect the confidentiality of communications by or with
the Sovereign or her representative.
[Official Information Act 1982 S9(2)(f)]

Board meeting:
06 December 2017

Facilities Master Planning Update
That the public conduct of the whole or the relevant part of the proceedings of
the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for which
good reason for withholding would exist, under section 6, 7 or 9 (except section
9(3)(g)(i))of the Official Information Act 1982.
[NZPH&D Act 2000 Schedule 3, S32(a)]
Communication with the Sovereign
The disclosure of information would not be in the public interest because of the
greater need to enable the Board to maintain the constitutional conventions for
the time being which protect the confidentiality of communications by or with
the Sovereign or her representative.
[Official Information Act 1982 S9(2)(f)(i)]
Scott Building Recladding Works Contract
That the public conduct of the whole or the relevant part of the proceedings
of the meeting would be likely to result in the disclosure of information for
which
Commercial Activities
The disclosure of information would not be
in the public interest because of the
greater need to enable the Board to carry good reason for withholding would
exist, under section 6, 7 or 9 (except section 9(3)(g)(i))of the Official Information
Act 1982.[NZPH&D Act 2000 Schedule 3, S32(a)] out, without prejudice or
disadvantage, commercial activities.
[Official Information Act 1982 S9(2)(i)]
Negotiations:
Negotiations The disclosure of information would not be in the public interest
because of the greater need to enable the Board to carry on, without prejudice
or disadvantage, negotiations.
[Official Information Act 1982 S9(2)(j)]