Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
1st August 2009, 08:48 PM
@muddy could not find your previous post.. can you link?
It is a valid question... perhaps one for a separate thread.
@Kim.. like Peter, the wording of your post is very specific and perhaps is best pointed directly at myself rather than first
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Apr 2008
1st August 2009, 11:34 PM
"Anyone know if Kent Archaeological Projects is still going? I call for work but no dice yet."
As far as I know Redben, KAP are still up and running. From what I hear Tim's writing up the Canterbury pipeline job from last year and there's other work in (no pun intended) the pipeline.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Nov 2005
2nd August 2009, 06:34 PM
Not that I suggesting there is any evidence for it in this case but is there a likelihood now that units facing crisis might be revealed to have spent their post-ex budgets on other things? A bit like a (low cost) pyramid scheme?!
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
2nd August 2009, 08:19 PM
Small update... the poster Kim Boyer has not replied to emails requesting clarification of who they are, and why they posted. A check on the location has turned out to be an interesting location... I am now sure who they are.
Something that will become impossible on the new BAJR federation site.
Constant development is the law of life, and a man who always tries to maintain his dogmas in order to appear consistent drives himself into a false position.
Mohandas Gandhi
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Nov 2008
2nd August 2009, 09:07 PM
Exciting times on Bajr I see.
Back to the original topic, I know of a couple of units that look likely to go under. It is a worry and a shame, as their demise seems to have little to do with quality of work but rather other units undercutting them for jobs.
How will this affect things in the long run? It seems unlikely that new units will spring up so are we going to have a system of one man units doing local work and a few big companies tendering for everything else?
....attempting to control and dominate british archaeology since 1984...
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2009
3rd August 2009, 12:24 AM
This is getting miserable.
Archaeological contractors have gone into administration or been closed by their backers in the past; Tempus Repartum, South Yorkshire Unit, Leicestershire Unit and Bath Archaeological Trust all spring to mind. This year, in the midst of what we are told is the worst recession since the 1930's, as I understand it, three small long established regional contractors Lindsay Archaeological Services, Manchester and according to this thread, SUAT have closed. I name these three (which have already been named on BAJR)so as to avoid any further confusion. This is dreadful for those working there, and for those of us who have lost jobs elsewhere, but let us hope that this is it.
Proffesional archaeology in Britain is constantly evolving,when I first started competitive tendering was practically unknown. When loads of archaeologists left the Museum of London in 1990 (so many that it was the lead item on the local TV news), many relocated to the regions and the skills base was spread out across the country. It is impossible to predict the future, I remember a dozen or so years ago the talk on site was that there would only be two or three national companies, which become so large that they would either be brought by multi-national construction companies or would float on the stock exchange. What actually happened of course was the opposite.
Times may be difficult now, after many years of an unprecidented boom, but the economy will eventually recover and the profession will move forward again.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Nov 2005
3rd August 2009, 10:45 AM
Quote:quote:
....so are we going to have a system of one man units doing local work and a few big companies tendering for everything else?
I have feared for a while that the current situation will be a little like a nuclear war - the only survivors being those with very deep and well-defended bunkers (i.e. the big units with large infrastructure projects that are not going to stop) and cockroaches(those willing to do any tiny little piece of work for the lowest possible price they can survive on). Anyone caught in the middle is a bit screwed. To use the modern jargon, the manner in which archaeological tendering is typically conducted is unsustainable.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jul 2005
3rd August 2009, 01:52 PM
Posted by Plautus:
Quote:quote:I know of a couple of units that look likely to go under. It is a worry and a shame, as their demise seems to have little to do with quality of work but rather other units undercutting them for jobs
That's a bit of a simplistic outlook. The units at risk of closure may be at risk because they are poorly managed (despite producing good work in archaeological terms), while those 'undercutting' them may be cheaper not because they cut archaeological corners but because they are better managed.
I am not saying that is necessarily the case - just that it is too simplistic to say that the more expensive bid would necessarily result in better quality work, or that a cheaper bid is necessarily poor quality.
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
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Nov 2007
3rd August 2009, 03:08 PM
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.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2006
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.
