Contractor's lists

[monitor lizard]

quote:Originally posted by YellowPete

Have the County Archaeologists been pushed out of the decision making phase, on who does the work, to the pure and simple standard phase, relating to what work will be sufficient and that works' satisfactory completion.



txt
Mike

I can only speak for myself. If a group one a tender for a job about which I questioned their suitability or experience, I would ask to see CVs a work or the relevent members of staff, and may recommend that additional specialists are contracted in. Like having spot dating people from the local area, or specific scientific bods that can act in some capacity ranging from continual site presence to advisory. That approach also helps to provide education or training to the unit involved, so that next time they may be able to do it themselves.

The use of briefs and specifications, and the monitoring of such, is how standards are maintained.

ML

[monitor lizard]

If a tender document is being prepared without a brief having been produced or a specification agreed, that isn't my problem.

My job is to enusre that an agreed specification is being adhered to. If completing the mission requires the contracting unit to augment their existing specialsit complement, then that's what has to be done for them to fulfill their own contractual agreement with their client inorder for the planning condition to be satisfied.

[Curator Kid]

quote:Originally posted by YellowPete


Ahh, so its the same principle of motion, as when a County Archaeologist visits sites, to see what work they what doing, as the sites' archaeology evolves on the ground, requiring special attention?

Eh?

[Paul Belford]

Is Yellow Pete the new Unit of One?

[BAJR Host]

I do feel a new Uo1 in the making.

Yellow Pete, you can make very good points.. but I do sugegst you reread posts before pressing send.. no offence, but if people can't understand what you are saying it is difficult to discuss.

As an ex-Development Control arch myself, thats what we do/did the WSI comes in, the project begins (as an eval usually) and so, the unexpected is not so unexpected.. you can then plan for phase II if you can't, then you must work with additional contingency.. harder on pipelines admittedly, but not on the majority of projects.

?When a sinister person means to be your enemy, they always start by trying to become your friend.?
William Blake

[Blacktusk]

So its typically small `one man bands` who usually produce pretty poor to sub-standard work? I have worked with a number of small, medium and large companies who also produce `pretty poor to sub-standard work` and they get away with it. I think it all depends on who the person managing the project is, and if they have the experience, dedication and professionalism to undertake the work, it does not matter if they work alone or part of a large organisation.

[Windbag]

In addition to what Blacktusk says, I'm aware from having worked with and for companies of all sizes that "corporate culture" can be a major factor also. A company I worked with had a very defeatist attitude to finding anything ("it's a natural feature, and I know this before I've bent down and dirtied my trowel to prove it") and another had a very slapdash attitude to recording ("no-one looks at our site records apart from us, so what does it matter how I record things- it's all in my head anyway, right?"). We aren't talking minnows here.
That's why I'd put the emphasis (again!) on decent monitoring before, during and after an excavation.

?He who seeks vengeance must dig two graves: one for his enemy and one for himself?
Chinese Proverb

[1man1desk]

quote:Have the County Archaeologists been pushed out of the decision making phase, on who does the work, to the pure and simple standard phase, relating to what work will be sufficient and that works' satisfactory completion.

That has been the case since the introduction of PPG16 and competitive tendering in 1990 - the principle being, if you ask the developer to pay for the archaeological work, then it is reasonable to allow them to choose the archaeological contractor.

Curators can't decide what contractors should be invited to tender, or who should be appointed. However, they can challenge the inclusion of a particular firm on a tender list, or the appointment of that firm, if they can demonstrate that the firm in question has failed to do work to the standard specified in the past, within that curator's area.

Curators can also require proof that individuals who would perform specific roles within the contractor's team have appropriate experience, skills and knowledge, and can object to the use of those individuals if they can't provide that evidence.

What curators shouldn't do, but often try to do, is specify that their own pet specialist should be used, without addressing the question of whether the person put forward by the unit is adequately qualified for the job.

1man1desk

to let, fully furnished

[1man1desk]

Posted by Yellowpete:

quote:but if a one person band is to be a RAO, the cost by comparison, to a larger unit would be a Major overhead., making it more difficult to compete

Posted by Blacktusk:

quote:So its typically small `one man bands` who usually produce pretty poor to sub-standard work?

I know of at least one one-man-band firm that has been on the RAO list since its inception, and has found it a very worthwhile investment. The same one-man-band firm has an extremely high reputation for quality, on which their whole business model is based. So, both RAO status and high quality are available to small firms, and can provide them with a competitive advantage.

1man1desk

to let, fully furnished

[BAJR Host]

what is your question then.

?When a sinister person means to be your enemy, they always start by trying to become your friend.?
William Blake