7th December 2005, 01:34 PM
Quote:quote:ie. those with a track record of supplying what I want, when I want it, at a reasonable price.
All very sensible. This assumes some kind of track record between contractor and client though. The problems seem to creep in however with developers who have no experience of dealing with archaeological conditions. The current overheated climate of development seems to breed these new developers like maggots on a corpse... sorry got carried away there. We forever deal with clients who don't understand the polluter pays principle, and seem new to the whole thing. They see archaeological conditions as some kind of development tax. The finer points of value with regard to contractors who fulfill the brief and speedily discharge the condition are lost on them. I'd be amazed if this kind of client was clued up enough to not automatically go for the cheapest tender, when they appear wholly ignorant of the reasons for the condition and the whole archaeological planning process.
An example occurred recently when we had a meeting with a client (quite a large building firm) and the curator. The client tried to argue that the whole polluter pays system was wrong and the government should pay to do the archaeology. He also tried to argue that his firm was not the polluter, and that perhaps it was the Romans or Vikings! The mind boggles at such ignorance, it was like it was 1989 all over again.
We have found that developers in the region are put off by contingencies in tenders and prefer a fixed price. It makes for very risky tendering.