Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2006
Please see
http://www.espo.org/index.asp?CMD=CTR for more details
Short Description of the contract or purchase(s)
Cambridgeshire County Council is seeking an external partner organisation to assume responsibility for its in-house archaeological field services unit (called 'Cam Arc'). Should such an organisation be identified, then ownership of Cam Arc would transfer to it, in April 2008, on the basis that the transfer would both ensure the continued existence of Cam Arc, and offer the Unit greater commercial and operational freedom. Whether or not the transfer exercise proceeds will in part depend upon the extent to which genuine interest is evidenced amongst potential partner organisations. To assess such interest, it is proposed to carry out a market testing exercise in advance of commencing the formal procurement process. Should insufficient interest be shown, then the procurement process may be cancelled.
Any takers?
Wine then beer makes you queer, beer then wine is just fine. If in doubt drink gin.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Apr 2005
Reading further:
III.2.3) Technical capacity....
.... The pre-qualfication application form which will be issued should the excercise proceed will require that any company or organsiation is an Institute of Field Archaeologists (IFA) Registered Archaeological organisation or EU equivalent.
So that narrows the field of potential tenderers down to roughly 50...
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2007
What a great chance for some of our larger corporate 'Tesco' units to swallow another minnow.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Apr 2005
Quote:quote:Originally posted by Gog
What a great chance for some of our larger corporate 'Tesco' units to swallow another minnow.
Not so sure that you could describe the Cambs County unit as 'minnows'.
According to whether you put more faith in the IFA or Current Archaeology estimate of how many employees there are in this unit, Cambridgeshire lay somewhere between the 9th to the 13th largest archaeological contractor in the UK.
Surely this situation could be avoided if the 5 county and 1 university units that share borders with Cambridgeshire, collaborated to create an East Anglia Archaeological Co-op. Five of the 6 units that could form such a body are already RAOs. A co-operative 'body' representing all 6 units would be (my estmate) the 2nd largest RAO in the IFA. An archaeological co-op would protect the long established heritage of archaeological organisation in East Anglia, widen the jobs and resources pool available for archaeology, whilst still allowing the existing units to operate within their traditional 'home' areas. There might well be many economies of scale resulting from such a move (particularly regarding admin, pay and pension matters, where the local government units could use a single LA 'admin provider', as already happens I believe between some sections of Cambs and Suffolk County Councils).
My biggest fear (living as I do in the furthest extreme of East Anglia) is the domino effect that might follow the loss of a cornerstone of local archaeological provision in our region.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
The sort of arrangement Kevin suggests is a cartel and as such is illegal.
For this to happen all the organisation would have to merge.
Peter
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2007
Would be interesting to find out the background to this situation, what brought the Local Authority to such a measure.
Part of the answer may lie in the current depressing financial situation whereby funds are harder to find through cuts, cuts and more cuts.
nil desperandum
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Apr 2005
Quote:quote:Originally posted by drpeterwardleThe sort of arrangement Kevin suggests is a cartel and as such is illegal. For this to happen all the organisation would have to merge.
Tend to disagree, sir....
The Gershon Report which came out in 2004 points the way forward for Shared Services across local authority boundaries, has the explicit agreement of our current Chancellor of the Exchequer (possibly next Prime Minister) and it is possible to obtain central government funding support to set up Shared Services Schemes. I assume that the Gershon report takes the Enterprise Act into account and has decided that local authority efficiency is for the greater good and does not constitute a cartel.
The following link is one report which outlines the potential of Shared Services in relation to Gershon:
http://www.serco.co.uk/Images/delivering_tcm3-8310.pdf
I think for hard pressed local authorities Shared Services could be the way forward in providing local archaeological coverage. I am surprised that Cambs CC haven't pursued this route in addition to the sell-off option....especially when the county shares borders with such a large number of other counties still providing archaeological field services
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2007
Interesting to see this particularly within the wider context of historic environment reform, and whether this is a workable idea (certainly welcome the proactive approach) with regard to local authority and key services important to political leaders, would it not confirm the position of archaeological contract services as not significant enough politically, hence why in this instance it appears a private sector partner is sought to enable the said unit 'greater commercial and operational freedom?'
nil desperandum
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Nov 2005
What is also relevant is the dire financial position the County Council finds itself in. Considered a 'wealthy' county it is severely capped, but it has a disproportionately high level of poverty but does not qualify for extra funding. The County and District councils are looking for savings and being an area where several archaeological units work, the County Archaeologcial Unit may be considered a luxury they do not need and is thus an easy target...
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2007
While theoretically one uber-unit in East Anglia, or at least a co-op type organisation sounds appealing it absolutely impossible to imagine ever happening.
Principally beacause there has been so much archaeological work in Cambridgeshire in recent years (I'm involved in some of it), that there are an inordinate number of units working in the region, not all based so locally, who all have a right to tender for work. However I would not call any of them large units, medium and small - yes, but not large. Each has there own excavation and post ex teams, and most have internal specialists of one sort or the other. Thats alot of archaeologists in long term employment, and I fear any co-op or centralisation may have a severe impact on that.
On the flip side, it may be this level of competition that has brought about the Cam Arch situation. I haven't come across another county with such a level of competition (or to be fair work, and very interesting it is).
