Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jun 2004
2nd September 2004, 02:45 PM
Yes, we used to have a theory that contractors (building) priced jobs purely on the weight of the tender documents package.
Don't know about archaeological tenders (and after reading these threads I do wonder) but you may rest assured that a construction tender is read, every word. Anything amounting to a qualification or attempt revise the conditions of the tender has to be spotted and removed. They do try to slip things in (or out).
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
10th September 2004, 12:38 AM
However too often...archaeology is seen as a hoop to be jusmped through... and as the developer or construction company has no real idea about archaeology...the county archaeologist is not really allowed to advise beforehand which company to approach and there is no real vetting system or complaints system..... then the upshot is the developer almost always goes for either the mega big unit... or the cheapest tender... not really competitive tendering.
If you go for the biggest Unit.. they must knwo what they are doing
OR ... I will go for the cheapest cos they all do the same thing in the end approach
thats the hard facts... how do we change it.
BAJR
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
10th September 2004, 10:45 AM
I think that the reality is more complex and most bigger developers have come across archaeology by now even if it is just a watching brief.
There are issues of level of PI insurance carried for bigger jobs and availability for example.
Often bids may be similar ie within ?100 and the developer will say we may as well go for the cheapest!
Peter
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
10th September 2004, 12:07 PM
Some interesting comments.
"... the developer or construction company has no real idea about archaeology..."
I think increacingly they do; it is more common these days for developers to ask questions about what they are paying for.
"the county archaeologist is not really allowed to advise beforehand which company to approach..."
They do though don't they, what about those lists? and who knows what is said in phone calls.
"...and there is no real vetting system or complaints system..."
What is the point of the IFA then??
(head, wall, banging sound...)
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
10th September 2004, 02:12 PM
Point.... IFA..... you tell me. Though I do think a Sea change is a-comin. where the rubber teeth are refitted with steel gnashers.
But honestly.. have you ever heard of an RAO being dealt with (I know of one case) ?
As to developers being more aware... thats not what I see at this end... and that is both as a contractor and as a countie.... where the developer does not understand the difference between a watching brief and an evaluation, between predetermination and desk based assesment...
BTW... if I was to advise a client of one company over another... you are looking at the possibility of being taken to court by either the client... if the contractor turns out to be mince..... OR by other contractors who could rightly claim unfair denial (see Wednesbury Ruling!!) Lists... are all unofficial.. and must state that there are other lists (even the good old yellow pages which are jsut as valid... The RAO, the BAJR list and the yellow pages are only that...lists of names.)
sound of more wall banging----[xx(]
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
10th September 2004, 02:56 PM
Whatever you start off talking about, you always end up talking about the IFA.
Archaeology is a business, but it is also a rather cosy little world largely run by people who know (like, hate, have shagged) each other, and the IFA is effectively a cartel of unit directors and managers and nothing more than what this insular, introspective profession deserves...
But then again I've been in archaeology long enough to notice that things are changing...they're getting much stranger and more complicated!
I just hope that in twenty or thirty years time we don't look at the 1990's and the present time as some sort of 'golden age' in the way that some people nowadays look at the 70's and 80's. That would be very bad.
I've gone off topic a bit I know, but I'm a bit fraught at the moment.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
10th September 2004, 06:09 PM
I think Leon has a point here although I would phrase it very differently. The IFA is essientially a management organisation and always has been. Originally you had to have been in charge of a big project and now you have to do member grade work ie be a manager.
The standard has also risen for member grades over the years.
This can be parralled in other professional bodies eg the Law Society and the Institute of Legal Executives or The professional bodies for Doctors and Nurses.
I am surprised that anybody thinks the seventies and eighties were a golden era they were dreadful by comparison to today.
Peter
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
11th September 2004, 12:19 AM
An interesting discussion, unfortunately during the in depth discussion about contractual obligations you all seem to have forgotten about the archaeology, isn't that what we're there for!?! As a Project Officer for a major national company I'm aware that cost and best value matter but what about the stuff in the ground - please folks balance the profit margin against the needs of the archaeology. Happy to be a gamekeeper as opposed to a materialistic b*****d consultant poacher.
Oz :-)
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
11th September 2004, 09:38 PM
Peter the materialistic b****** consultant poacher here. I see nothing wrong with being materialistic and being paid well. Archaeologists are entitled to eat and live some where decent even the diggers and project officers with national companies.
The basic point is that X is contracted to do ABCDEF in return for a sum of money. This is to a standard defined by hundreds of documents and regular checking by the planning authority. If you have bid correctly then you make a profit or should do. The problem is the unpredictability of the archaeology.
The needs of the archaeology are simple - keep it in the ground undistubed by preservation in situ. Even research excavation destroys archaeological remains you know. Thus I would suggest that I am involved with the preservation of archaeological remains not their destruction. Sometimes excavation is the right or the only option.
Without wishing to start a consultant/contractor argument. Contractors bid a single fixed priced sum whatever is found based upon evaluation trenches you havenot even seen, whatever the weather conditions, whatever the variations that occur and whatever the quantities of artefacts. When somebody from the Local Authourity can tell you to do double the amount of work.
The nature of consultancy is such that it is in your own best interests to do more work when you are paid by the hour. Would I bid a single fixed priced sum for even an assessment without doing a fair amount of research? No. Could I win a tender competition for a DBA based upon cost. No (Unless I was deliberately doing it cheap).
If Oz works for a big national company then they must have consultants. Is he saying that his work mates are as he suggests.
Peter
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
12th September 2004, 11:21 PM
As both Poacher and Game keeper and a b*****d I have to point out that the contractor would never be expected to keep to a fixed price contract if the County decided further work was required due to further developments that had arisen during the evaluation/excavation. Now a good contract with the developer would have pointed out that the price is based on A B C and if (god forbid Mr House Builder!!) D happens then the county will have to decide whether or not more work is required... then it will be up to county to convince Mr House Builder to cough up more....
IF however you mean that a county tosses back a peice of work because it is not seen to comply with the requirements of the original request OR meets the minimum requirements set out in the contractors own WSI ... then I am afraid unless the contractor has a pretty good reason why it falls below was expected the cost must be bourne by them...
Examples might be... not putting in enough trenches... not informing the county when work has started until the last day ... then saying they have to be filled in that day....... etc etc.
Hmmmmmmm
David
