Justified ?

[Mick Dempsey]

It's impossible to comment with any authority on this particular case, but I would want my hard earned tax money to be spent with prudence.

Price SHOULD be a major factor. Especially with something as mundane as a tree dismantle, rather than say a new health centre or the like.

[Spruce Pirate]

I think it would very much depend on how the LA worded the invitation to quote. If they specified a MEWP must be used then I think A would have very good grounds to be miffed, if they specified industry best practice I can see how A's nose would be out of joint if the tree was truly dead, if they made no spec's at all I can see how it would be annoying, but to involve the press seems a bit much. I'd be letting the procurement department know I wasn't happy, but anything more is just sour grapes.

[devon TWiG]

To me it sounded like sour grapes as well , not sure how it ended up in the press but they are in effect putting themselves up as the more professional outfit , but letters had been sent to senior members of the Authority as a complaint ( not sure this was wise )......... The RA was of contractor a) not the client , I am sure we have all done jobs where a MEWP would of been easier / safer BUT more costly so it was not used ...does this constitute taking unnecessary risk/ bad working practice ? and I believe local Authorities are legally bound to accept the lowest quote , without very good reasons not too .

[eggsarascal]

To me it sounded like sour grapes as well , not sure how it ended up in the press but they are in effect putting themselves up as the more professional outfit , but letters had been sent to senior members of the Authority as a complaint ( not sure this was wise )......... The RA was of contractor a) not the client , I am sure we have all done jobs where a MEWP would of been easier / safer BUT more costly so it was not used ...does this constitute taking unnecessary risk/ bad working practice ? and I believe local Authorities are legally bound to accept the lowest quote , without very good reasons not too .

 

Have you got a link to where it was in the local press?

[roseyweb]

I use mewps a lot as I'm getting older and fatter

Usually for lots of siding up, road side works etc.

 

But very rarely is there a tree which can't be dismantled from rope and harness no matter how manky it is, especially if no rigging or few valuable targets,

 

I think some times people with a lack of experience might get the willies over a tree just because it's dead.

 

Elms are pretty tough too, here's a big one I dismantled a few years ago, proper dead and picused as rotten.

[wicklamulla]

I'd love to know who those 2 contractors are ! i reckon i could have 3 guesses and hit the nail on the head. Sour Grapes indeed.

[peatff]

I don't see the point. Two people quoted and the second got it on price. Was anyone injured during the job ? The first company was obviously wrong in their assessment.

[Steve Bullman]

Not justified at all. If the authority had put the job out there and specified it had to be done from a mewp then it might be a different story

[AA Teccie (Paul)]

What a conundrum! As far as I'm aware the LA will get quotes from a list of arb approved guys and just go for the cheapest one. I don't think they would too interested in much else. If contractor B knew contractor A planned to use a mewp and then took the risk doing the climbing the tree in order to under cut them.. Then I guess contractor A would have a good grounds to be miffed. I remember something about climbing a tree should only be done if there are no other options available???

It does seem arb approval can be a bit of a farce at times. This is a pretty good example tbh

 

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

[Jonny69]

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

 

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.