Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Oct 2005
27th January 2006, 03:22 PM
Quote:quote:Originally posted by beamo
If a curator writes a Brief and requests that contractors should be IFA RAO or 'IFA standard', then how is 'IFA standard' assessed and by whom. Is the curator going to ask an non-RAO contractor to provide the same level of information to them that an RAO has to present to the IFA ? Surely the only people who could assess whether a contractor is 'IFA standard' are those that sit (or have sat) on the IFA RAO Committee.
In a less compicated way the same thing applies with regard to those Briefs that require the fieldwork to be directed by an MIFA 'or equivalent'.
Beamo
Yes it would be difficult to stipulate that they are RAO or equivalent because, as you say, only those that sit (or have sat) on the IFA RAO Committee know how to judge that.
What I can do is check that they follow the IFA codes of conduct and standards and reject the work if they don't.
I would have to have a long sit down with our legal department before I even thought of saying that they had to be RAO.
When I look at the smiles on all the children's faces, I just know they're about to jab me with something.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Mar 2005
27th January 2006, 04:26 PM
Hugh, a question: If IFA membership cannot be made to be mandatory for contractors on briefs, would you entertain the notion of, for example, County Council Briefs adopting a 'blind bracket' system (as suggested by Barnsey)? Is it just the policing costs that are a bad idea or are there other reasons that make you think it would be a bad idea?
Gumbo
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2005
28th January 2006, 01:22 AM
Ah, the return of Chartism!
deep
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Nov 2005
31st January 2006, 10:51 AM
How would you actually enforce the blind bracket idea? What would actually stop an organisation offering a cash back deal or discount for early payment, anything to get around it. The curator would have to examine all the contracts and be party to any discussions behind the agreement. This is not to mention the restraint of trade which a situation like this would offer.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Oct 2005
31st January 2006, 11:26 AM
*headache*
[xx(]
Of the Clan Sutton
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Nov 2005
31st January 2006, 01:21 PM
sorry, bit ranty.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2005
1st February 2006, 01:13 AM
Cashback!
They'll be paying by Switch card next!!
deep
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jun 2004
1st February 2006, 01:28 PM
It would indeed be a restraint of trade and contrary to the principles both of PPG16 and competitive tendering, in that a minumum (and maximum!) price has been set by someone not party to the contract.
You might just as well return to a county unit system (which, unfashionably, I think has some merits. Not commercial ones though.)
We owe the dead nothing but the truth.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jul 2005
13th February 2006, 02:29 PM
I regularly assess tenders from archaeological units, and I also find that the prices sometimes vary enormously (highest price sometimes more than 100% more than lowest).
Differences in pay scales do contribute to this in a small way, but a much bigger factor is the unit's assessment of how many staff/how long it will take to do a particular bit of work. You can specify the nature and content of the work as tightly as you like, and you may still get one unit assuming they can do it in a week with two people while another wants three weeks with four people.
Another key aspect is sections of the work that cannot reasonably be estimated for in advance. How do you know, for instance, how many radiocarbon dates you will need? Units are often put in the position of having to guess, and their guesses vary widely. We deal with this by identifying those items and making the guess on quantity ourselves; the unit then just has to put in the rate that they will charge. They get paid for the actual amount used.
So, overall, its a much more complex question than simply lowest pay = lowest tender.
1man1desk
to let, fully furnished
