Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
14th March 2005, 01:53 PM
Nice to see the IFA acting and making it known that they have acted. This is the sort of positive move that was promised to both the Digger and BAJR. A good first step. which we heartily endorse.
:face-approve:
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Mar 2005
14th March 2005, 02:06 PM
Hear hear! However, 2 lines at the foot of the RAO page is hardly the front page. Perhaps a statement on their news page would be more appropriate. Also the new yearbook will have presumably gone tp press prior to this action being taken. As this is a main resource for developers choosing contractors the organisation concerned will effectively appear to be a RAO until a next years edition is published.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jun 2004
14th March 2005, 02:26 PM
I am led to believe that they are not listed in the year-book. Nice to see the IFA standing up for a change. Now it comes down to the planning archaeologists to update their recommended unit list. Again, though while management has been slapped we shouldn't lump all of A.S's employees in the bad eggs barrel.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
14th March 2005, 02:53 PM
Lets be realistic if you go to the following:
http://www.bajr.org/WhoseWho/Contractors....asp?id=34
You will see that Archaeological Solutions are still listed here as a "Registered Archaeological Organisation". It takes time for these things to be changed.
Peter
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jun 2004
14th March 2005, 07:40 PM
Well, yes, bad news that they did it but good news that they were caught and punished.
So, presumably they will re-apply next year and will be re-admitted if the application form is in order this time.
Meanwhile, the unit that allegedly machined through unrecorded stratigraphy goes unpunished.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
14th March 2005, 10:15 PM
So do people feel that BAJR should also remove them from the list?
Should it carry no more adverts from them?
At what point do I let them 'back in'?
Or is the public nature of the removal from the RAO enough?
With teh BAJR hotline now working very well... is that enough protection for future alleged breaches and slip's with JCBs.??
Basically.... I am asking for an honest opinion...
but with that opinion must come a solution (no pun intended) -
BAJR
}
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
14th March 2005, 10:44 PM
David,
Removing the note that they are a RAO definately.
Adding a link to the IFA statement maybe.
If you remove them/when do you let them back in are far more difficult questions. This is particularly so when so little infomation is in the public domain.
Peter
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
15th March 2005, 01:01 AM
David,
Having thought about this (in the pub) my view is that Archaeological Solutions have had there RAO status removed because:
"Unfortunately it has now ben necessary to remove Archaeological Solutions from the RAO list for providing false information in support of an application for registration."
BAJR, so far, allows anybody who conforms to the pay and conditions terms to advertise for staff on BAJR. Therefore I suggest that if Archaeological Solutions conform to this then this should be allowed to advertise. They do have the investor in people accreditation. (perhaps there is some merit in them!) (To speculate does this put a budget pressure on them?)
Market forces will mean that for example they will have difficulty getting Professional Idemnity insurance and other insurances. Similarly some people will not wish to place contracts with them.
Archaeological Solutions have not had their status removed because they are not doing "good" archaeology but "providing false infomation" so in fact an assumption has to be made that they do in fact do "good" archaeology.
I am not in a position to comment on the quality of their work as I have never hired them.
Peter
(expecting a lot of flames)
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jun 2004
15th March 2005, 09:50 AM
Peter,I think the IFA RAO standards can also cover a unit saying they can undertake certain types of work to IFA standards. Obviously lying on an application can/could cover that 'yes we are capable' and the IFA decides that 'no your not'. So poor work practise could be covered under telling porky's. Not that I'm saying this is the case in this current discussion over A.S.
David, I'd say that A.S. doesn't need to be burn't at the stake. Any unit should have the opportunity to reaply and be closely watched to maintain that a serious change in attitude/practise is in place. If they're not up to scratch they're out still. I think the long term damage to a struck-off unit has serious implications for, not just their financial bottom line but also less tangibles like good-will and hence the overall value of the company. By this i mean that folks should not see this as a limp gesture but quite a serious smack for management.
Perhaps, post their jobs but flag RAO's distinctly.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
15th March 2005, 09:50 AM
I never intended to have a go at the diggers who work/have worked at AS. I've worked with several in the past and found them OK. My point was that the RAO page on the IFA site says that the unit must be supervised by a MIFA. This is presumably the MIFA who wrote the falsified application, so are there any plans for sanctions against this person?
If the unit is no longer sanctioned, then surely the manager must be no longer sanctioned as well?
As Dr Wardle says, I have no real knowledge about their archaeological methods.
