Tender specialist

[MattyF]

Sorry but I really think the AA trying to monopolise contracts to there approved contractors is out of order.

[benedmonds]

1 hour ago, MattyF said:

Sorry but I really think the AA trying to monopolise contracts to there approved contractors is out of order.

It must make things easier for those putting out work to tender just to ask for arb approved especially if you don't have experienced staff to assess the tender. If a company has already been vetted then it is a much simpler process.  They shouldn't need to do all the checks to ensure compliance as the as have done them.

[AA Teccie (Paul)]

3 hours ago, MattyF said:

Sorry but I really think the AA trying to monopolise contracts to there approved contractors is out of order.

Hi Matty, Approved Contractor is an increasingly recognized industry benchmark / standard, available to, AND achievable by, any business (regardless of size.) Hence it can help reassue the client organization in achieving compliance and competence and meeting their "due diligence" responsibilities.

If you were an AC you would doubtless think differently and expect the AA to do everything it can to increase use of the scheme / standard (an obvious statement I know but contractor members pay a lot of money annually, albeit "good value" I hope, for the AA to "bang the Approved Contractor drum" where  it can.

The FC, in general, is a supporter of the AA / AAAC Scheme.

 

Cheers

Paul

PS As a matter of interest, FC contracts are worded with the "...or equivalent" clause so it may be open to discussion.

[doobin]

I'm not ARB but....

 

(IMHO)

 

The only reason Pete is stilll being nicey nice and engaging on this board is beacuse the AA has not yet reached the critical mass required whereby a private organisation starts setting the defacto 'standard'. If this was construction, then he'd be CSCS and wouldn't give a fuck.

 

Mark my words, despite laudable stated aims, the end result of all such schemes that are successful is simply yet another tax- pay for membership or stick with small private jobs. Monkeys and morons pass CSCS cards every day- if AA gets as big then it will go the same way.

Edited February 5, 2020 by doobin

[scottythepinetree]

On 05/02/2020 at 14:50, doobin said:

I'm not ARB but....

 

(IMHO)

 

The only reason Pete is stilll being nicey nice and engaging on this board is beacuse the AA has not yet reached the critical mass required whereby a private organisation starts setting the defacto 'standard'. If this was construction, then he'd be CSCS and wouldn't give a fuck.

 

Mark my words, despite laudable stated aims, the end result of all such schemes that are successful is simply yet another tax- pay for membership or stick with small private jobs. Monkeys and morons pass CSCS cards every day- if AA gets as big then it will go the same way.

Yikes. Pretty harsh mate.

The fact is that Arb will never, ever be as big as construction. The AA are simply a voice or focal point for the industry. Sure, there may be some of the same protocols and similarities to larger bodies, but a lot of that is because there is likely a lot of admin involved and following an existing model is better than reinventing the wheel.

They're getting a lot of flak lately (mostly due to the 2 rope rubbish the HSE are pushing) but for the most part this is out of their hands. I'm not totally convinced that they are representing the industry the right way on this issue but I think that they are at least trying. I'll reserve judgement until the ICOP is finalised.

On the whole though, it would be better that the Arb industry has it's own body to distinguish the cowboys from legit operators, rather than a free for all or Arb getting shoe-horned under the umbrella of a representative body from another industry.