29th July 2010, 02:13 PM
This potential merger is just another in an increasingly long list of events that show how the contract archaeological world is responding to the loss of work resulting from the credit crunch recession and the subsequent gradual upturn in workload.
Contractors have been forced to rethink their business model and clearly expansion (or die?) has been seen by several independent organisations as the way forward. In the last couple of years Oxford have added the former Cambridge County Unit to their empire and also opened a Mediterranean office. Wessex have opened an office in Maidstone, taken a considerable chunk of ARCUS to create an office in Sheffield and also opened a marine archaeology office in Edinburgh (as well as closing their London office). Headland have taken over Archaeological Investigations Ltd. to create a Hereford office, CFA have opened an office in West Yorkshire and YAT have taken the rest of ARCUS to create their own Sheffield office.
Clearly Cotswold and Wessex are looking to develop the relationship formed following their JV collaboration on the A46 at Newark. Wessex and Oxford have also got the Oxford-Wessex Archaeology JV (OWA) that is currently working on the East Kent Access road in Thanet and has previously worked on other major road schemes including the M6 Toll Road. There is also the Framework Archaeology JV between the same companies - this is a single client JV and only carries out work for BAA, so with the ConDem cancellation of the potential new runways at Stansted and Heathrow it may be that Framework is now regarded as 'on hold'. The HAPCA JV that Headland and PCA established for the M74 completion has been seen by the two organisations as successful and is now being rolled out as a bid vehicle for other large projects. Perhaps the formation and use of JVs is a consequence of working with the construction industry, where such alliances are common for major schemes?
If big is better who will be the losers in all of this. Clearly contractors linked to the public sector will come under increasing pressure to demonstrate value for money (not purely in terms of profit or loss). Recently two university-based contractors have gone (Sheffield and Manchester) and others are under scrutiny (Glasgow?). Similar pressures may start to bear down on local authority-based contractors.
The publication of PPG16 and the recession of the early 1990s saw the emergence of independent companies engaged in the market - some remained quite small but others (PCA, Network?) have grown to be considerable larger than most the organisations that predate them.
I see two key issues that are limked to the consolidation in the market, and they are ones that we have discussed many times on this forum:
1. Pay and conditions - this must not be allowed to slip back to what is was before. The gains in pay and conditions that were made during the 1990s and the early part of the 21st century have already begun to be eroded - accommodation, short-term contracts etc.
2. Standards - possibly even more crucial now that public sector cuts are starting to be clarified. How many planning authorities are going to be able to provide a top-class archaeology development control service two years from now. In the event of a recruitment freeeze, what happens when the senior people leave?
I'm not suggesting that a merger of two of the larger contractors will lead to a reduction in standards or in pay and conditions - rather that this merger is a response to market conditions and it is when such conditions start to require contractors to make big decisions then we should all look closely at what other effects the market will or could have.
Beamo
Contractors have been forced to rethink their business model and clearly expansion (or die?) has been seen by several independent organisations as the way forward. In the last couple of years Oxford have added the former Cambridge County Unit to their empire and also opened a Mediterranean office. Wessex have opened an office in Maidstone, taken a considerable chunk of ARCUS to create an office in Sheffield and also opened a marine archaeology office in Edinburgh (as well as closing their London office). Headland have taken over Archaeological Investigations Ltd. to create a Hereford office, CFA have opened an office in West Yorkshire and YAT have taken the rest of ARCUS to create their own Sheffield office.
Clearly Cotswold and Wessex are looking to develop the relationship formed following their JV collaboration on the A46 at Newark. Wessex and Oxford have also got the Oxford-Wessex Archaeology JV (OWA) that is currently working on the East Kent Access road in Thanet and has previously worked on other major road schemes including the M6 Toll Road. There is also the Framework Archaeology JV between the same companies - this is a single client JV and only carries out work for BAA, so with the ConDem cancellation of the potential new runways at Stansted and Heathrow it may be that Framework is now regarded as 'on hold'. The HAPCA JV that Headland and PCA established for the M74 completion has been seen by the two organisations as successful and is now being rolled out as a bid vehicle for other large projects. Perhaps the formation and use of JVs is a consequence of working with the construction industry, where such alliances are common for major schemes?
If big is better who will be the losers in all of this. Clearly contractors linked to the public sector will come under increasing pressure to demonstrate value for money (not purely in terms of profit or loss). Recently two university-based contractors have gone (Sheffield and Manchester) and others are under scrutiny (Glasgow?). Similar pressures may start to bear down on local authority-based contractors.
The publication of PPG16 and the recession of the early 1990s saw the emergence of independent companies engaged in the market - some remained quite small but others (PCA, Network?) have grown to be considerable larger than most the organisations that predate them.
I see two key issues that are limked to the consolidation in the market, and they are ones that we have discussed many times on this forum:
1. Pay and conditions - this must not be allowed to slip back to what is was before. The gains in pay and conditions that were made during the 1990s and the early part of the 21st century have already begun to be eroded - accommodation, short-term contracts etc.
2. Standards - possibly even more crucial now that public sector cuts are starting to be clarified. How many planning authorities are going to be able to provide a top-class archaeology development control service two years from now. In the event of a recruitment freeeze, what happens when the senior people leave?
I'm not suggesting that a merger of two of the larger contractors will lead to a reduction in standards or in pay and conditions - rather that this merger is a response to market conditions and it is when such conditions start to require contractors to make big decisions then we should all look closely at what other effects the market will or could have.
Beamo