25th January 2006, 03:46 PM
I might be throwing this up as an idea and it might alreadyy be old hat, but I was having a chat, as you do, about standards of contract archaeology and our wages at work being largely determined by how much we can tender for to win a job (this is in light of an eval we lost out on where there was a good twenty grand difference in the price range of the submitted tenders)and this came up: what if the local authority (or whoever) who issue the brief for work to be undertaken also quoted the price range which the job should be undertaken for. Then the potential contractors would not be able to vastly undercut or overprice, and standards of work and pay could be raised. Is there any law that prevents this happening?
At the moment the quality control is more at the other end, with county arch's sending poor reports back, or envoking the mythical 'blacklist'. This seems to me a bit 'after the lord mayors show' (i.e. the sites already trashed).
I know that more money doesnt necessarily mean better standards of work. But 'bracketted' tender levels would surely help.
So what do people think, or am I, like, so five minutes ago and consultants have been doing this for years...
Gumbo
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Mar 2005
25th January 2006, 03:59 PM
Oh yeh, I just realised that this is a stupid idea as everyone would put in the lowest bracketed tender and I client would be faced with loads of the same cost of tender. So perhaps forget this whole idea (unless someone clever is out there who can see a way around).
Sorry,
G
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2005
25th January 2006, 05:11 PM
A better idea:
All tenders require IFA membership, and the IFA enforces sensible levels of pay for all member organisations on pain of explusion.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Oct 2005
25th January 2006, 05:27 PM
Quote:quote:Originally posted by gumbo
consultants have been doing this for years...
Gumbo
Maybe...
Perhaps more of a blind bracket system (B&Q: on sale now). The real problem is who sets the range, and who authorises the range etc. A whole world full of head ache.
Of the Clan Sutton
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Nov 2005
25th January 2006, 05:33 PM
You cannot require IFA membership as it is not a chartered body. To do so now would represent a restraint of trade against non IFA bodies.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Oct 2005
25th January 2006, 05:43 PM
I wouldn't touch either with a bargepole I'm afraid.
It should however be possible to say that they have to be of an IFA standard because then you aren't discriminating against the units that for some reason cannot join. As part of this you may be able to say that to be of an IFA standard the units have to pay the IFA minimum wages.
I'm not sure about all this at the moment, but will be soon as I'm intending to start enforcing IFA standards through planning conditions. Hopefully
When I look at the smiles on all the children's faces, I just know they're about to jab me with something.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2005
25th January 2006, 09:33 PM
Quote:quote:Originally posted by historic building
You cannot require IFA membership as it is not a chartered body. To do so now would represent a restraint of trade against non IFA bodies.
That's why we need to charter the bugger!
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
26th January 2006, 08:12 AM
what a loverly turn of phrase! should it not be the other way round?
Another day another WSI?
Posts: 1
Threads: 0
Joined: Jun 2005
26th January 2006, 02:54 PM
<sings> It'd be fun to charter a consultant and sail the wide consultant-sea...
But seriously, I don't know about anyone else out there who regularly does tender assessments. I usually have a rough idea how much it should cost and can spot those either using my own special PriceRamp® software or only charging for the site tea fund.
D. Vader
Senior Consultant
Vader Maull & Palpatine
Archaeological Consultants
Our geophysicists have completed their scan of the area and found nothing
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2006
27th January 2006, 01:36 PM
If a curator writes a Brief and requests that contractors should be IFA RAO or 'IFA standard', then how is 'IFA standard' assessed and by whom. Is the curator going to ask an non-RAO contractor to provide the same level of information to them that an RAO has to present to the IFA ? Surely the only people who could assess whether a contractor is 'IFA standard' are those that sit (or have sat) on the IFA RAO Committee.
In a less compicated way the same thing applies with regard to those Briefs that require the fieldwork to be directed by an MIFA 'or equivalent'.
Beamo
