15th September 2010, 10:13 PM
Thanks TC for explaining the options quite clearly, as well as the pitfalls.
Anyone who suggests that any list can remove risk is a fool to themselves, as Unit of 1 is fond of saying - Caveat emptor. However to quote the IfA:
The rest is here: http://www.archaeologists.net/regulation/organisations
Either you believe the above, or you don't. I know where I stand. Vetting advertisers on a jobs website is hardly comparable in my view.
Curators also don't provide 'quality assurance' BAJR, surely you realise that, for the same reasons of liability that we don't, or shouldn't recommend specific contractors. Ensuring compliance with briefs and specs and planning conditions etc is not the same thing, but there is an overlap of course. If asked, I take option number 2. We used to do option 4 but the list swiftly becomes as long as your arm or BAJR's list.
Tender lists are not the same as LA contractor lists and depending who is maintaining one, potentially more defensible. Many private companies and consultants either maintain these lists or will only deal with ROs.
I have a lot of sympathy for the original poster and it seems to me a bit of a bad joke that an authority would choose to go down the list route, including specific criteria when they clearly don't have the resources to maintain it. This is grossly unfair, and I can only suggest taking the matter over their heads and raising a complaint with the Chief Exec or Head of Department if you make no headway. If you live in the area I would also raise it with your local councillor. No matter how understaffed a public body is, 5 months to respond to a simple enquiry is unacceptable.
Quote:This suggests that this list is a kitemark of quality and means that if the company is an RO then it says, no worries here
Anyone who suggests that any list can remove risk is a fool to themselves, as Unit of 1 is fond of saying - Caveat emptor. However to quote the IfA:
Quote:Archaeological projects are complex. Registered Organisations have demonstrated the requisite skills to
- provide informed and reliable advice
- execute schemes of work appropriate to the circumstances, minimising uncertainty, delay and cost
- subscribe to codes of professional conduct and practice
IfA’s Registered Organisation scheme is a unique quality assurance scheme. There is no equivalent in the historic environment. It is a ‘kite mark’ of commitment to professional standards and competence.
The rest is here: http://www.archaeologists.net/regulation/organisations
Either you believe the above, or you don't. I know where I stand. Vetting advertisers on a jobs website is hardly comparable in my view.
Curators also don't provide 'quality assurance' BAJR, surely you realise that, for the same reasons of liability that we don't, or shouldn't recommend specific contractors. Ensuring compliance with briefs and specs and planning conditions etc is not the same thing, but there is an overlap of course. If asked, I take option number 2. We used to do option 4 but the list swiftly becomes as long as your arm or BAJR's list.
Tender lists are not the same as LA contractor lists and depending who is maintaining one, potentially more defensible. Many private companies and consultants either maintain these lists or will only deal with ROs.
I have a lot of sympathy for the original poster and it seems to me a bit of a bad joke that an authority would choose to go down the list route, including specific criteria when they clearly don't have the resources to maintain it. This is grossly unfair, and I can only suggest taking the matter over their heads and raising a complaint with the Chief Exec or Head of Department if you make no headway. If you live in the area I would also raise it with your local councillor. No matter how understaffed a public body is, 5 months to respond to a simple enquiry is unacceptable.