7th December 2005, 11:05 AM
Quote:quote:We might pay extra to have quality oil put in our car by a company who specialise in that particular vehicle, but a business only cares about getting the archaeology done to the minimum standard specified by the curator
In a lot of cases that's true, just as lots of people go to KwikFit for an oil and filter change. Archaeology is also a business, by the way, and when I select subcontractors to work on a site (whether it is plant hire or an environmental specialist) I choose those who offer best value, not always the cheapest - ie. those with a track record of supplying what I want, when I want it, at a reasonable price. I am prepared to pay more for a company that supplies newer machines with well-trained drivers at slightly higher cost. I have never lost a tender because of the cost of machine hire.
A developer is the same - he chooses an archaeologist on the basis of competence first and cost second. OK yes we are tendering competetively, but I am sure that most of the consultants on here will tell you that the difference between most tenders from contracting units is relatively peanuts.
For example. A developer is working on ?10m project where archaeological work is required. He gets a brief from the curator, he maybe has a consultant who runs the tendering competition (or maybe he does it himself). He gets three bids, one from Archaeologist A for ?240,000, one from Archaeologist B for ?270,000 asnd one from Archaeologist C for ?280,000.
Before making a decision on who to engage he looks at it in the round. He will not automatically award the contract to A.
He will ask his consultant (or the curator, or another developer with experience of that firm) what their experiences are of A, B and C. He might ask for clarification of programme details.
He will choose the bid that offers him least trouble. It might be that A has presented an unreasonable timetable and is unlikely to finish on time (a delay on construction by a week will cost the ?30,000 difference between A and B). It might be that A writes shoddy reports which need to be sent back by the curator for a large number of corrections (thus delaying all-important planning approval). It might be that B has shown a greater understanding of Health and Safety and has costed appropriately for it. Maybe C has allowed more staff to ensure higher quality of work.
The real choice will be between B and C. The chances are that A's low bid will be possible because he is giving his staff less time to work on certain aspects of the project, because he is paying them less or offering fewer benefits, or because he is incompetent.
Of course there may be nothing between the bids technically, in which case he will go for the cheaper bid. But this is very rarely the case.
To answer archae_logical's point, a great many do put in contingencies for adverse events - eg. more significant findings, bad weather, other delays outwith the project specification.