4th November 2006, 12:06 AM
I don't price the work and submit tenders myself - thank goodness - but as an irrelevant party looking in, I do wonder if there's a certain 'cart before horse' desire involved here.
The specifiying brief from whatever source (direct client or via consultant) needs to be of a set standard that contractors can work to in order for any fixed price guidelines to have any meaning.
It's with that in mind that I wonder (and everyone thinks geophys is a possibility) what specific tasks could be of a fixed rate.
Looking at our charge sheets (we get a detailed breakdown of operative hours), some of the tasks we routinely do like backfill scanning and such vary little in time per cubic metre and such like.
Personally, I think it's too complicated if you step beyond specifying equipment charges and basic labour charges. You can't price things per hour when you've no idea how many hours are involved; it just makes a nonsense of a quotation.
One of the simplest tender forms I've seen broke the work down into stages and costs. Tenderes can detail how much of their price goes towards office overheads, insurance of various sorts, support staff, accommodation and then plant hire, non-professional labour charges and stuff.
It's ok for the Consultant or Client because at least they can compare like answers to like and see where the differences are, and better for the contractor because they can continue to make a reasonable guess at costs (and ours carry a rider of up to +10% if it's a quotation rather than a tender) which is what they're in business to do - it's the risk they take and the sting in the tail of competitive tendering.
So I think it's up to the Client/Consultant to specify their wants consistently and they'll get a breakdown consistently.
Where the good Doctor lists what he reckons the needs of contractors are to quote, I would say he's spot on (with my business hat on). Sadly, the impression I've had from the office in the last two years is that we've often had to find that information out for ourselves on larger projects because the data supplied is 'optimistic'. They also tell me that they break it down themselves differently.
They take (on larger works) the specified Where, When and What.. then rely on our own survey/research (which costs money!) to tell us if, how, and how much. If this approach isn't used, then we end up in the situation eventually where Consultants will be specifying a price for the work 'take it or leave it'. That's unhealthy. The prices will get driven down and the pressure will again be on contractors to do the work for nearly no profit and the attendant internal cutbacks which stifle staff and business development.
End Clients aren't at risk from being overcharged by everyone under competitive tendering - it's designed to avoid that. Guideline prices for work are a risk to contractors though. They're already taking enough risk in having to put together a competitive price to win the work they live on.
The specifiying brief from whatever source (direct client or via consultant) needs to be of a set standard that contractors can work to in order for any fixed price guidelines to have any meaning.
It's with that in mind that I wonder (and everyone thinks geophys is a possibility) what specific tasks could be of a fixed rate.
Looking at our charge sheets (we get a detailed breakdown of operative hours), some of the tasks we routinely do like backfill scanning and such vary little in time per cubic metre and such like.
Personally, I think it's too complicated if you step beyond specifying equipment charges and basic labour charges. You can't price things per hour when you've no idea how many hours are involved; it just makes a nonsense of a quotation.
One of the simplest tender forms I've seen broke the work down into stages and costs. Tenderes can detail how much of their price goes towards office overheads, insurance of various sorts, support staff, accommodation and then plant hire, non-professional labour charges and stuff.
It's ok for the Consultant or Client because at least they can compare like answers to like and see where the differences are, and better for the contractor because they can continue to make a reasonable guess at costs (and ours carry a rider of up to +10% if it's a quotation rather than a tender) which is what they're in business to do - it's the risk they take and the sting in the tail of competitive tendering.
So I think it's up to the Client/Consultant to specify their wants consistently and they'll get a breakdown consistently.
Where the good Doctor lists what he reckons the needs of contractors are to quote, I would say he's spot on (with my business hat on). Sadly, the impression I've had from the office in the last two years is that we've often had to find that information out for ourselves on larger projects because the data supplied is 'optimistic'. They also tell me that they break it down themselves differently.
They take (on larger works) the specified Where, When and What.. then rely on our own survey/research (which costs money!) to tell us if, how, and how much. If this approach isn't used, then we end up in the situation eventually where Consultants will be specifying a price for the work 'take it or leave it'. That's unhealthy. The prices will get driven down and the pressure will again be on contractors to do the work for nearly no profit and the attendant internal cutbacks which stifle staff and business development.
End Clients aren't at risk from being overcharged by everyone under competitive tendering - it's designed to avoid that. Guideline prices for work are a risk to contractors though. They're already taking enough risk in having to put together a competitive price to win the work they live on.