UK government acknowledge IfA membership as pre-qualification to tender.

[BAJR]

IFA Membership (or demonstrable equivalent skills/experience)" to let non-IFA folk prove their suitability

Thats the one I go for. as there are other ways to prove ability.

Until such times... as they say... until such times!

here is a certain safety in the fact our business generates such low pay that few of the potential applicants for this post could seriously afford the legal fees needed to mount a challenge...

Which is the truth!

[P Prentice]

it is the future. cnutist resistence is probably futile as there is no credible alternative - as much as i would like your bajrness to take it on

[CARTOON REALITY]

cnutist

The spell checker doesn't seem to be working properly . . .

[P Prentice]

have consulted the wisest (google) and am vindicated - besides cant be bothered with the shrew spell checker

[beamo]

''IFA Membership (or demonstrable equivalent skills/experience)"

I sometimes come across this sort of phrase in Briefs prepared by County Archaeologists, where it is stated that the archaeological work must be directed or managed by an MIFA or someone of equivalent experience.

I always wonder a) who is going to make the decision that a nominated director/manager is or is not 'of equivalent experience', and b) in the event of someone being decared 'not of equivalent experience', what is the mechanism for appeal?

Beamo

[John Wells]

'who is going to make the decision?'
Those who are awarding the contract/job and have to be able to justify their choice even though in some cases, their own expertise to make the choice may be limited or non-existent. So choosing an 'equivalent' may eventually be deemed too risky by those awarding the contract/job.

'what is the mechanism for appeal?'
Conversely, if there was the possibility for appeal, the MIFA could be in the strongest position if a non-MIFA is appointed.
Cost is probably more of a winner on appeal, if the standards are met, but legislation may (should?) eventually require MIFA status.
Currently, in law, those working in some trades have a higher status than archaeologists.

The fall-back position is likely to be to the default MIFA, unless a candidate/group is of 'special merit'.
Credibility, defensibility and liability (watching ones back) will be the the order of the day.

I have found professional bodies to be fascinating and watched with interest as old established learned/professional bodies with 'Victorian/Edwardian' demarcations have merged areas of expertise and professional membership. Decades ago, working in radiation protection research, officials of the Institute of Physics once described me as a biologist, whereas the Institute of Biology saw me as a physicist...but all was eventually resolved ;o)
If top experts cannot tell the difference between biology and physics, it would not be surprising to find that non-archaeologists awarding contracts cannot tell the difference between an MIFA and someone of equivalent status, especially when degrees in archaeology and practical experience in the field are so diverse.

[beamo]

'who is going to make the decision?'
Those who are awarding the contract/job and have to be able to justify their choice even though in some cases, their own expertise to make the choice may be limited or non-existent. So choosing an 'equivalent' may eventually be deemed too risky by those awarding the contract/job.

So what happens if the person awarding the contract/job (possibly myself, as a consultant and an MIfA) considers that the nominated person is 'equivalent' to MIFA, but the County Archaeologist who prepared the Brief (and who is not an IfA member) disagrees?

Beamo

[troll]

Then surely it would be for the County Archaeologist to justify his/her stance. Equally, in my understanding, MIfA accreditation is not currently accepted in Law as a cast-iron guarantee of professional competence. My previous employer instituted an "unwritten" policy whereby a certain archaeological company with RO status should be asked to tender as a matter of course. No doubt to save Clients money and increase my employers profit margins. The RO in question is "controversial" to say the least and has a long-standing negative reputation in the industry. Perhaps not explicitly relevant to this thread but...an example of where IfA status is used/abused and also an illustration of the risk we as an industry expose ourselves and our Clients to. Planning Law is exactly that.....IfA status has no standing (currently) in Law.

[Kel]

Basically, pretty much anyone could mount a legal challenge in the event of any outcome. There is no standard accepted across-the-board quality measure for archaeology in the UK, so enforcing a legal obligation to use one in the tendering process is always going to be a thankless task for a local authority.

Let's be honest, it's not their fault that archaeology doesn't have such a thing.

Banging on about who could take legal action against whom is an entirely moot point. Nobody's actually going to do it and if they tried, I doubt anyone would win bar the lawyers.

[John Wells]

So what happens if the person awarding the contract/job (possibly myself, as a consultant and an MIfA) considers that the nominated person is 'equivalent' to MIFA, but the County Archaeologist who prepared the Brief (and who is not an IfA member) disagrees? Beamo[/QUOTE]

Whoever is empowered to grant the contract makes the decision and takes the responsibility.

In terms of local authorities and how things may develop, it is probably easier to think in terms of other professionals, accountants, solicitors, civil engineers and especially surveyors (Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors!) etc.
There will always be anomalies in transitional periods which may require some initial flexibility in the professional body.
Compared with other professions, one wonders how the IfA will encourage employers to institute a graduate scheme leading to chartered status considering the nature of 'field archaeology' as a profession.