Justified ?

[Ian Flatters]

The way I see it is a quotes a quote. If one company decided a platform was need and another decided it wasn't what's the problem. Unless they specified a mewp but I'm still yet to see a quote specify machinery.

 

I quote on a lot of council work these days win some lose some. It's mainly down to what equipment one has to do the job. Bigger kit normally means a bit cheaper although a smaller job and I become vastly expensive compared to my smaller setup competition.

 

Just how it goes. Seems like someone being bitter but you'll never beat that.

 

Most people these days do go for the lowest quotes but I'd rather save money than pay twice as much for a simple task.

 

For example we completed a site clearance and quoted against 3 companies all running tw150's. They estimated 3 days and I had it done in 1 and a bit. That's not because I undercut them in anyway, shape or form. I have bigger kit and machinery to make my life easier. Of which I have invested my hard earns money into so why shouldn't I win larger works at a lower cost.

 

Just how I see what's been discussed.

[Maxnaggle]

Were they ARB Approved?

 

Regardless its H&S directive, in terms of "collective measures" take priority (MEWPs in our industry case) AND the industry ICOP which sets out a hierarchy to follow when planning work at height = AVOID, e.g. feel from ground level (where possible / feasible), PREVENT (the chances of a fall by using collective measures / MEWPs) and the MINMISE (use rope and harness.)

 

ALL contractors, ARB Approved and not, will interpret this and apply it with subjectivity.

 

Cheers..

Paul

 

Hi Paul, took this from the first post on this thread : ( I am assuming here that a,&b, are both on a list of approved contractors for the Authority )...

 

I assumed this meant ARB approved... might be wrong though!

[matelot]

I'd suggest that any contractor that criticises the local authority in the press lacks judgement....

[skyhuck]

The way I see it is a quotes a quote. If one company decided a platform was need and another decided it wasn't what's the problem. Unless they specified a mewp but I'm still yet to see a quote specify machinery.

 

I quote on a lot of council work these days win some lose some. It's mainly down to what equipment one has to do the job. Bigger kit normally means a bit cheaper although a smaller job and I become vastly expensive compared to my smaller setup competition.

 

Just how it goes. Seems like someone being bitter but you'll never beat that.

 

Most people these days do go for the lowest quotes but I'd rather save money than pay twice as much for a simple task.

 

For example we completed a site clearance and quoted against 3 companies all running tw150's. They estimated 3 days and I had it done in 1 and a bit. That's not because I undercut them in anyway, shape or form. I have bigger kit and machinery to make my life easier. Of which I have invested my hard earns money into so why shouldn't I win larger works at a lower cost.

 

Just how I see what's been discussed.

 

I don't understand this bit?

 

So you were more expensive than them or less?

 

Why is giving a lower price "undercutting"?

 

I'm not even sure whats meant by "undercutting" its general something said by those who don't win the job about those who do win the job, often they have little if any information on which to base the claim.

[Ian Flatters]

I don't understand this bit?

 

 

 

So you were more expensive than them or less?

 

 

 

Why is giving a lower price "undercutting"?

 

 

 

I'm not even sure whats meant by "undercutting" its general something said by those who don't win the job about those who do win the job, often they have little if any information on which to base the claim.

 

 

Cheaper on bigger works more expensive on smaller works.

[AA Teccie (Paul)]

This is very confusing. Mewps fall over and fail as well. Anyone got any data they are actually safer over all. Considering they will be used for about 0.000000001% of the time at height across the whole of the uk when undertaking aerial tree work.

 

Out of interest, what would the ARB approval contractor status tell you about their decision whether to use a MEWP or not?

 

I love it when the client explains how the "the other guy/contractor says he will use a cherry picker"

 

3 days a year not using a mewp when you've priced for one is at least the ski holiday covered.

 

MEWPs do fall, indeed one failed in Leeds / Bradford area last year (I think) and the operator was badly injured. What's interesting though, and there are no "hard facts and figures" that I'm aware of, I can think of several situations last year where climbers fell from trees for various reasons. So, anecdotally, and acknowledging the vast majority of aerial tree work is still done from rope n harness thereby perhaps making a proportionally similar, MEWPs can benefit safety...under some circumstances and in certain situations (see Chapter 9 of the previous HSE research report below.)

 

The ARB Approved Contractor, and indeed ALL compliant contractors, should be aware of the industry ICOP (see below also) AND be able to justify whatever method of accessing the tree they have selected based on sound reasons. This can include cost, or rather dis-proportionate cost, which in H&S terms is the "reasonably practicable" argument, i.e. cost 'v' benefit, hence the cost of the job would be significantly increased for very little safety gain (the exception here in many / most instances being the dismantling of dangerous trees.)

 

Skiing holiday sounds great...how do you risk assess that?

 

BTW without exception, every contractor I've ever spoken to who owns a MEWP would never get rid and always wants a bigger and better one because they are a very useful tool to have available and certain jobs get done much quicker and efficiently.

 

Cheers, n thanks for the questions..

Paul

rr123.pdf

ICoP_TreeWorkAtHeight-090215.pdf

[AA Teccie (Paul)]

Hi Paul, took this from the first post on this thread : ( I am assuming here that a,&b, are both on a list of approved contractors for the Authority )...

 

I assumed this meant ARB approved... might be wrong though!

 

Maybe, maybe not, kinda academic anyway as compliance is compliance regardless of who a contractor is approved by...or not as the case maybe.

 

That said many Councils still have their own 'informal' approved list but often its a presumption by the contractor who works for the council that they are therefore council approved...sounds good for marketing.

 

Cheers..

Paul

[Jonny69]

MEWPs do fall, indeed one failed in Leeds / Bradford area last year (I think) and the operator was badly injured. What's interesting though, and there are no "hard facts and figures" that I'm aware of, I can think of several situations last year where climbers fell from trees for various reasons. So, anecdotally, and acknowledging the vast majority of aerial tree work is still done from rope n harness thereby perhaps making a proportionally similar, MEWPs can benefit safety...under some circumstances and in certain situations (see Chapter 9 of the previous HSE research report below.)

 

The ARB Approved Contractor, and indeed ALL compliant contractors, should be aware of the industry ICOP (see below also) AND be able to justify whatever method of accessing the tree they have selected based on sound reasons. This can include cost, or rather dis-proportionate cost, which in H&S terms is the "reasonably practicable" argument, i.e. cost 'v' benefit, hence the cost of the job would be significantly increased for very little safety gain (the exception here in many / most instances being the dismantling of dangerous trees.)

 

Skiing holiday sounds great...how do you risk assess that?

 

BTW without exception, every contractor I've ever spoken to who owns a MEWP would never get rid and always wants a bigger and better one because they are a very useful tool to have available and certain jobs get done much quicker and efficiently.

 

Cheers, n thanks for the questions..

Paul

 

Thanks for the detailed response. Nice to see the AA taking a sensible stance on the subject.

 

I do not risk assess ski holidays. Injuries per hour on the slopes I expect would be horrible!

 

You are of course correct that if you own and run a cherry picker day to day i'm sure it is a very useful tool and really makes the job run faster in certain situations.

 

I suppose I get annoyed hearing "Its to dangerous to climb, you'll need a picker". I've yet to ever see a justification for a mewp other than in some situations its a lot faster, which obviously = more profit. Quite fancy a 14m on a landrover for hedge topping and cutting which would definitely speed the process up.

[AA Teccie (Paul)]

I suppose I get annoyed hearing "Its to dangerous to climb, you'll need a picker". I've yet to ever see a justification for a mewp other than in some situations its a lot faster, which obviously = more profit.

 

Hmmm, HSE love "hindsight" in prosecutions so perhaps be prepared for the question "why did you not use a MEWP on this job when the tree was quite obviously dangerous?"

 

Food for thought n "pragmatism" is my middle name

 

Take acre out there n thanks fer the chat

Paul

[fen01]

I'm think the issue here is the press bit really, and I'm not sure what's going on there Tbh.

 

Wrt using a MEWP I've just quoted a large job where I believed a MEWP is required due to the condition of the tree, I expect at least one of the other firms quoting will quote for climbing. So what? Well, we've both risk assessed the tasks using our knowledge and experiences and arrived at different conclusions. If he wins good on him, if I win the job I'm happy, but I'm not going to compromise my safety or that of my employers needlessly (which I think climbing may well do). Of course the MEWP I use may fall over or such... As long as you can honestly justify YOUR decisions and course of action if there is an accident, then that's fine by me.