Quote:...why do curators put up with them?
Now there's a question! :face-thinks:
Sometimes I wish we didn't have to. There are a (very small) number of contractors where your heart just sinks when you see they've won yet another piece of work... Why? Because you know that you are going to have to spend a disproportionate and unreasonable amount of time trying your damned hardest to make them do the work to the required standard. Constant site visits, checking records, reminding them of the same issues every time, over and over again. It frustrates curators as much as anyone, because surprisingly - yes we do give a sh*t about the archaeology.
I'd love not to send the same report back over and over again. Should we be spending our time writing detailed critiques and correcting every error - effectively becoming a free editor? Or do we just send it back saying it doesn't meet the required standards, knowing full well that unless you babyfeed the contractor the information you'll just end up with more rubbish coming in. Is it fair that the contractor who does work to an excellent standard and edits their reports properly is left waiting for responses because all our time is spent trying to sort out a contractor that we know just cant be bothered?
What can we do? We try our hardest to enforce standards, but its a never-ending and thankless battle.
It's often hard enough to get the local planning authority to take enforcement action against complete non-compliance with an archaeological condition, the chances of them taking enforcement action against a developer because the work of one of their sub-contractors isn't up to scratch is minimal. You can advise them not to discharge the planning condition, but often they do anyway - after all a reports been submitted and the developers agents been in touch threatening legal action because they've got a development that they can't sell because the archaeological conditions not been discharged - so the condition gets discharged anyway.
Perhaps the developer might learn the lesson that this 'budget' contractor they employed last time ended up costing them lots more money due to delays? Maybe they'll twig that the cheap quote they got actually wasn't that cheap as the contractor kept going back cap in hand because there were 'complications' (the complication being that we'd actually made them do the work they're meant to do)? You'd hope developers would learn, but time after time we'll hear a developer tell us they'll never use that contractor again... the next project they employ them again. We might remind them (off the record) of what happened last time and ask them why on earth they're using that contractor again - and we know what the answer will be - "oh, but the quote was half the price of the others" :face-thinks::face-crying:
Oh, but the IfA will surely help, especially because the company says in its WSIs it abides by the IfA code of conduct and the company manager/director/owners a full IfA Member - well we've tried that aspect, spent a LOT of time working on providing the IfA with evidence, for them to do... Basically nothing, other than say perhaps we should give them another chance. Maybe that brings me round to the original origins of the thread - why aren't curators/advisory services required to be ROs - personally perhaps we have little confidence in the ability of the IfA to meaningfully enforce these standards that they are promoting.
Sorry for the rant, but they're seems to be an undercurrent that suggests that as curators we're wilfully ignoring enforcement of standards or that we don't understand what the problems are... but this isn't my experience. Sorry also for any spelling mistakes, but its late and I'm typing this on my phone. But as an industry we have to work together to raise standards, rather than keep employing this 'them an us' divisional attitude.
!..........................
