103 construction companies fined by the Office of Fair Trading - kevin wooldridge - 22nd September 2009
There was a story on the Today programme this morning about an Office of Fair Trading investigation into construction company tendering practice. The story also featured in the Times.
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/construction_and_property/article3762924.ece
103 construction companies fined by the Office of Fair Trading - BAJR Host - 22nd September 2009
Heard that one... and had a wry smile! :o)
103 construction companies fined by the Office of Fair Trading - RedEarth - 22nd September 2009
Perhaps they'd run a story on the widespread evidence for price-fixing in archaeology... that is price fixing in as much as we fix it that our prices seem to get lower and lower every year. They probably wouldn't believe any industry would be that stupid. :p
103 construction companies fined by the Office of Fair Trading - Austin Ainsworth - 22nd September 2009
david Wrote:Heard that one... and had a wry smile!
Made me smile as well.
103 construction companies fined by the Office of Fair Trading - BAJR Host - 22nd September 2009
And indeed it was due to exactly what Red Earth suggested..
I'll pay to do that site... ooops! thats wrong!
103 construction companies fined by the Office of Fair Trading - GnomeKing - 23rd September 2009
thier noses firmly in the trough again (oink, oink)
course, construction used this practice to increse thier profits rather than win work ... perhapes not a bad idea after all...
the base-line appears to be whether Value For Money was delivered by the construction companies ... if that could be demonstrated for archaeology (eg graduate workforce/skilled technicians, public interaction, peer reviewed results) then perhapes there would be no problem...?
103 construction companies fined by the Office of Fair Trading - RedEarth - 23rd September 2009
GnomeKing Wrote:the base-line appears to be whether Value For Money was delivered by the construction companies ... if that could be demonstrated for archaeology (eg graduate workforce/skilled technicians, public interaction, peer reviewed results) then perhapes there would be no problem...?
Indeed, but it depends on who is defining what is valuable - if developers (i.e. the principle client) place no value on things like graduate workforce, public interaction, peer reviewed results (although they might be forced to see these things as valuable by a dilligent curatorial service) then they are valueless. The clients of developers will, or at least should, see the value in good work on the other hand.
|