Crisis ? What Crisis? A Way forward?

[BAJR Host]

a famous example was stagecoach... free fares..... until of course the competition was broke.. !

better specs, more detailed and comprehensive, with better administration of contracts (often incorrectly termed "supervision")by the appropriate parties.


I cannot agree more.. and feel this is an underlying 'problem' that will not go away... and is a mid to long term goal that has been 'ignored' for too long.

Thus FAME should talk with IfA, and ALGAO to hammer out a solution

"Gie's a Job.."
Prof. 'Dolly' Parton

[kevin wooldridge]

I also do not think that there is a snowballs chance that archaeology will be nationalised (which is why I suggested we were talking hypothetically). But I still don't see why an instinct for self-preservation shouldn't prevail in times of economic stress. There must be a lot of companies out there who are feeling the pinch and maybe once one goes a lot more could follow. (I hear rumours that at least 2 archaeological employers are planning bad news for staff tomorrow). Why can't we all help each other at this time?

It seems to me the height of schadenfreude that anyone feels able to exploit the situation the industry finds itself in. Especially to claim that the mayhem of the 'market' and market forces, still holds any rational place in a vision for the future. After all the tears that will be shed tomorrow and probably for many days after are the real tears of real people not commodities....

[chiz]

quote:Originally posted by the invisible man

What exactly is meant on here by "undercutting"? Naturally firms invited to tender, in limited competition, for a contract submit their best price for the work...."Undercutting" normally means something entirely different, that is knowingly submitting a price below that of a competitor whether or not it is feasible. Obviously one does not (one hopes) know competitors' tender figures at the time.

True, but it happens, for example where following a tender process the client/consultant goes back to the units and says these are the figures, can you do it for less. Don't tell me it doesn't happen because it does, it is common in some areas and with some consultants and is the reason why I haven't got work on at the moment.

In addition, it is fairly easy to work out competitors rates from which tenders they win, which they lose, how they staff the sites and their day rates (which are easy to work out). I've been involved in tenders where we've known damn well what the competitor was going to tender, and the pM has charged less to get the work.

Undercutting, cutting prices back as far as possible. We all know what happens and what is meant.

quote:Quality etc and work being not being done "to spec" is an industry problem. I would suggest that the solution lies with better procedure more akin to the construction industry upon which commercial archaeology is modelled: better specs, more detailed and comprehensive, with better administration of contracts (often incorrectly termed "supervision")by the appropriate parties. In short, contractors should know exactly what and how much is required by when, and they get paid for that, no more and no less. There is no greater incentive to producing good work than the knowledge that you won't get paid if you don't.

Yes, agree in most part, although if you look at the proliferation of middle management paper shufflers in a lot of construction build teams you may despair of that vision for archaeology and archaeologists. But then maybe we need to realise that not every job in a unit should be filled by an archaeologist? Shock horror

There is though the issue that in archaeology it is hard often to know exactly how much there will be to 'do'. Developer's often don't mind paying units to dig their site, they're used to it now, but they don't like the uncertainty of knowing when the job will be finished.

[Curator Kid]

quote:Originally posted by bob

There is though the issue that in archaeology it is hard often to know exactly how much there will be to 'do'. Developer's often don't mind paying units to dig their site, they're used to it now, but they don't like the uncertainty of knowing when the job will be finished.

For a lot of projects, this uncertainty could potentially be addressed by undertaking larger scale and more comprehensive and informative evaluations. However, Developers don't like paying for those.

[chiz]

of course it could, but even with that there is an element of real or perceived uncertainty that developers have, rightly or wrongly. Of course when a demolition contractor takes a month longer....

I'm talking from a London/SE urban archaeological point of view, god knows what happens in fields these days, although I may soon have to find out!!

[flashdigger]

There is nothing wrong with competition. I see the real problem as being quality control by the Planning Archaeologists. Anyone who spreads thier wings further than a few miles knows how conditions vary between counties. In my opinion some don't ask enough, others ask the rediculous and the best gauge it about right. The main problem is the two extremes. If their is a spineless PA then you will get bad units puting in a low quote, doing a below par job and getting away with it becuase the PA does not question the site work/final reporting. If the PA is mr/ms seld important it annoys the client as well as puts projects under risk of making a loss. I have met PA's at both ends of the scale but fortunatly the PA in my direct area generally finds the balance well. My main point really though is the standard/quality of work required at both fieldwork and PX level needs to be more rigid in oder to let companies compete fairly for work. I for one do not want to have to start drastically letting standards go in order to bring in work.

[Dirty Dave Lincoln]

On the news last week i'm sure I heard that the new heritage bill is to be dropped from the Queens speech. Does anyone know differently?

[BAJR Host]

Put it this way.... if it does get even a whisper in the QS then I will eat my hard hat.

"Gie's a Job.."
Prof. 'Dolly' Parton

[drpeterwardle]

There is no infomation on what will be in the Queen Speech other than the draft that was published last July.

As the new planning act is at an advanced stage there is no reason for it not to be in. Indeed the two bills are interlinked so I would expect the New Heritage Bill to follow on shortly.

The only reason I can see for it being delayed is a recognition that parts of it are unworkable and major re-drafting is needed.

Peter
(Sorry off topic - if people want to discuss this please start a new thread).

David - what is your favourite recipe for eating a hard hat.

[the invisible man]

quote:Originally posted by bob
True, but it happens, for example where following a tender process the client/consultant goes back to the units and says these are the figures, can you do it for less. Don't tell me it doesn't happen because it does, it is common in some areas and with some consultants and is the reason why I haven't got work on at the moment.

In addition, it is fairly easy to work out competitors rates from finished.

Absolutely Bob, this sort of thing is exaclty what I mean that needs to be stamped out. It is certainly unprofessional, almost certainly contrary to IfA codes and quite likely to be illegal. Rather than being equivalent to local jobbing builders that knock your living room through, com arch should aspire to beome equivalent to full scale construction. Tenders should be truly like for like, quantified, confidential, and opened on the same day. As in construction, you inform all tenderers who the others were (alphabetically) and give a list of tenders submitted (numerically) and all is above board, in theory. I suppose what I am saying is more work for consultants and indeed curators. (I am neither)

I also agree that not everyone needs to be an archaeologist in a firm. A quantity surveyor would be hugely advantageuous.