On 24 Feb 00, at 17:15, [log in to unmask] wrote:
> Hi Paul
> The 'way tenders are won' is not responsible! you cannot blame a system it
> is the people within the system.
How depressing. Let's blame the units for having the temerity to try
and stay in business. Of course it is the tendering system that is to
blame and not the people. People operate within the system; if it
allows some to get away with underhand tactics, it is the fault of the
If every archaeological unit tendering
> for a job decided to increase their quote by say 10% the developer would
> have to employ them at the higher rate.
That is called operating a cartel and is illegal. Speaking of reality
checks, how would we do this without operating as a cartel?
It is the undercutting by some
> units which leads to the unfortunate action of lower quotes by other
> organizations which is the root cause of many problems including staff
> wages, conditions, contract length, specialist involvement etc.
This is what happens in a market economy, which of course should
not be seen in any way a political comment. Heaven forfend.
> tax may be a solution but you are still dealing with a pot of money which
> has to be assigned on a quality based decision. It is likely a situation
> would arise where a series of sites come up and funding decisions are made
> that the money goes to 'the most important'. The following budget year
> only sites of less quality than the sites not funded the previous year
> arise. Surely at present at least we can argue for funds on an individual
> project basis without worrying about the budget running out leaving other
> sites without any archaeological involvement. Also how would the legal
> side of this work out as at present archaeology in the planning system
> requires a developer to fulfill a legally binding condition. With a budget
> based system that could not happen as the control of the archaeology would
> be outside of the developers control and therefore unenforceable. Steven
Perhaps the solution is a requirement of, say, 1% of the development
budget to be set aside for archaeology; I am under the impression
that this is the situation for all Federal-funded projects in the USA. If
there is no archaeology involved, then the condition would not
operate. If archaeology is involved, then the full amount should be
used for the fieldwork and post-excavation of that archaeology. The
monitoring body would apportion the work on the basis of the
research designs, with the costings a check on how the money works.
I suspect that there will be problems with this as well, but it is surely
better than competitive tendering in an unregulated market.