4th August 2009, 03:35 PM
Quote:quote:Originally posted by Windbag
Quote:quote:Originally posted by 1man1desk
An approach that we have sometimes applied to substantial projects is to invite tenders only from units that have shown they can do the work to the standard required, and then to assess the quality elements of the bid before opening the prices only for those bids that passed the quality test. Nevertheless, at that stage one of the surviving bids will win on price - and the losing bidders can complain about being 'undercut'.
1man1desk
to let, fully furnished
Sounds good, although I suspect that actual formal tendering in this way is limited in archaeology, and small to medium-sized companies won't have the resources to successfully bid for those kinds of projects. Instead they find themselves up against one-man bands chasing housing developers needing trial trenching done.
Even if not done quite as formally as this, if a tender doesn't meet the specification then no consultant should be appointing them. It's just asking for trouble (and lazy) to just look at the price.
As well as being a consultant, I've run a small/medium sized company in the past and we did succesfully bid on such projects.
The suggestion above (can't remember who said it) that perhaps prices are lower because organisations are better managed is a valid one. And those more effective organisations are often the small to medium sized businesses, not least because their most experienced archaeologists are still 'hands on' in the field.