Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Apr 2005
22nd September 2009, 09:55 AM
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/bu...762924.ece
With peace and consolation hath dismist, And calm of mind all passion spent...
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
22nd September 2009, 12:08 PM
Heard that one... and had a wry smile! :o)
For really I think that the poorest he that is in England hath a life to live, as the greatest he
Thomas Rainborough 1647
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Nov 2005
22nd September 2009, 01:03 PM
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
Austin Ainsworth
Unregistered
22nd September 2009, 05:03 PM
david Wrote:Heard that one... and had a wry smile!
Made me smile as well.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
22nd September 2009, 06:03 PM
And indeed it was due to exactly what Red Earth suggested..
I'll pay to do that site... ooops! thats wrong!
For really I think that the poorest he that is in England hath a life to live, as the greatest he
Thomas Rainborough 1647
Posts: 7
Threads: 3
Joined: Mar 2009
23rd September 2009, 11:44 AM
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...?
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Nov 2005
23rd September 2009, 02:51 PM
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.
103 construction companies fined by the Office of Fair Trading
