Best to always apply the pricipals of impact as a "fact" rather than at "law". The subject of argument was recently raised as a main topoic for examination at UTS.

The following comment from John Travers has been pasted from the "General" Discussion Topic:

In relation to the costs  matter i remember when an SIS cost well over $50,000 on almost every occasion and based on hourly rates it could cost us probably some 40% above that due to the 'found complexity ' of the site .....not known at quotation time. 

If you quote, say on a 45 hectare site, and find a Powerful Owl you have added time constraints for identifying roost sites and or breeding sites such as we are doing right now on a project. Weekly inspections were not quoted for to do this weekly assessment. It is adding considerable cost and I am not sure that will be picked up by the client. However I, and you, are bound to do the work as per the guidelines. This is the conundrum of the business we are in.  As consultants cost recovery is paramount as the first rule of business is to 'stay in business' otherwise your skill is lost to the industry.

Over the years the cost of doing work has trebled due to survey requirements, increased preparation time, new equipment requirements, added assistance for demanding projects, obviously very increased desk top assessment and of course mapping accuracy. Yet professional fees appear to be dropping.

In regards to the matter raised and the consultant referred to it is of little use in naming and shaming as that consultant simply chose to undercut the true price. If the consultant goes out of business then that will be his reward. However if the consultant undercut the required work for that site just to get the project then that is another storey.

I suggest that quotations should specify the work required by the Council / DECC guidelines; and the quotation price should reflect that work effort in detail. Talking to the client always assists in the eventual undertstanding of the costs. try putting options for additional work e.g.if you find a threathened species then that would require additional costs.

Obviously fauna survey is some 4 times more expensive that botanical survey due to long hours involved and this should be reflected in any costings. It is certainly the case that when i an assessment of large general environmental companies reports they invariably have no fuana survey other than desk top assessment and certainly little to no trapping or detailed habitat analysis. So profit is easily achieved by those firms not doing adequte or any fauna survey.

In the end those companies tout for additional fees when Council say the work is not good enough. However the client loses in the end as it is probably then out of season to do certain additional survey works. This is the hub of the problem. Quoting for work innefficiently for the client and clearly not doing the works in accordance with industry guidelines.  

I suggest that the Association should develop a standard one page advice sheet for all member consultants that could then be provided to each client at the rear of each quotation. The advise would clarify when fauna survey should be done, when seasonal survey should be considered, the likely time involved for fauna survey by giving examples and the type of equipment that the consultant should have to undertake those works. 

I believe one page could provide significant clarification advice such that a member consultant would benefit whilst the client would benefit from Association knowledge.

Notwithstanding that it is the case that expert judgment must also be fairly accepted if one decides that no fauna survey should be undertaken or no seasonal survey is warranted. But.....that expert judgement must be proper and right.  

John Travers 

I've suspected a few (mainly ex) clients were guilty of passing on at least verbally what I have quoted and more so what I have thought would occur on the site and its implications for the feasibity of the proposal in a quote. Consequently, I've not got the job, and often seen the report and found it insufficient (eg no mention of the species/issues I identified or inadequate survey), or heard down the track how much it was worth. Its also very frustrating when you produce a threatened animal, plant or EEC on the adjacent land in future, and Joe Bloggs who did the job next door you missed out on swore black and blue they wouldnt occur there.

I find Liz's report disturbing and agree competition should be on the value of yr work in these increasing legislative and litigatory times, not the minimal cost. Nothings truer in our industry than "pay peanuts, get monkeys", and reality is, the depth of knowledge required to make sound scientifically founded management and assessment decisions is worth a lot more than $30/hr. I like Liz's advice that if they haggle too much  - they are going to be slow payers, so stick to your guns. if they want quality, they will pay for it. If they dont, well, you'l probably see them in Court when you're ripping their pet consultant's legs off for incompetence.

I hope Stephen that in the next Consulting Ecology mention will be made of this, and there is certaintly a need to change the rules to stop such unethical behaviour.

Could members of the ECA please remember to abide by ECA Code of  Business Practice, Professional Conduct and Ethics, a legal document that we have all signed as a condition of our membership. A deliberate breach of the ECA Code can lead to disciplinary action being taken by the ECA Council if an official complaint is made and a subsequent investigation by the Council upholds that complaint.

I have learnt today that an ecological consultancy firm was successful in winning a large government tender on the premise that it had appropriate ecological expertise to conduct the work. It is alleged that this firm does not have the required specialist expertise among its staff to conduct the project adequately, but had planned to sub-contract much of the work to a specialist ecologist if awarded the contract. The apparent problem is that the potential sub-contractor who this consultancy firm had in mind allegedly did not know he was being considered for the project work until after the government had awarded the contract to the firm. Consequently, the potential sub-contractor is unavailable to participate in the project because of other project commitments.

If there is truth to this allegation, then it is my opinion that the consultancy firm has won a contract under false pretences. Unless it can find another specialist ecologist to conduct this work, it is probable that the project work will not be completed satisfactorily. Not only will this risk the reputation of the consultancy firm, it will risk tarnishing significantly the professional integrity of the ecological consultancy industry. From this perspective alone, if some members of the ECA engage in this type of activity, then it is my opinion that they are clearly in breach of the ECA Code of  Business Practice, Professional Conduct and Ethics.

To avoid this sort of thing happening, I suggest that any consultancy firm or individual planning to sub-contract a part of project work for which they are competitively tendering to:

1. identify clearly in its fee proposal who and what part of the project work would be sub-contracted, including the sub-contractor's relevant qualifications and experience; and

2. include the sub-contractor's signature in the fee proposal, thus validating the content of the proposal before it is submitted to the potential client.

In doing this, potential clients are more likely to choose a consultant who is capable of producing a high standard of work and the reputation of the ecological consultancy industry in NSW should remain intact.

I would be intereested to hear what other people think about this.

Liz,

If a member of the ECA engaged in such business activity, then the ECA Council in its deliberations last week considered that it would not be a breach of the ECA Code of  Business Practice, Professional Conduct and Ethics. However, the ECA Council did consider this type of activity as unprofessional and the fact that it would not breach the ECA Code of Practice is more a reflection of the Code's inadequacy to deal with this situation, rather than the business activity being acceptable. Therefore, the ECA Code of Practice needs to be tightened to cover such situations. 

That is a worrying example you give Stephen; it makes us sound like a chain discount store selling high volumes of imported goods rather than a professional industry selling high quality advice and expert opinion.

We include in our quotes a statement that the proposal is provided on a "Commercial in Confidence" basis and request that a reciprocal confidentiality is extened to all parties. But what recourse do we have if they don't respect that confidentiality? If an ecologist touting for this documentation is an ECA member, is it a breach of our Code of  Business Practice, Professional Conduct and Ethics? It sounds like it to me.

In regards to competitive pricing, now more then ever we have had potential clients trying to pressure us on price, asking for a more competitive quote, claiming thay have lower quotes in hand. In almost all cases they do not have any such a thing and are only trying to pay less than the work is worth. In my experience clients who haggle too much at the beginning don't like to pay their bills no matter how small and almost always turn out to be a problem.

But what worries me about the constant downward pressure on price is that in the end it is only the industry that will suffer. If we don't value our work highly, then who will? And this lower value product can only be provided by cutting corners like paying below award wages, using under-qualified staff, compromising safety measures or providing lousy reports.

In times of global financial uncertainty, many ecological consultants competitively and legimately offer discounts to potential clients when formulating fee proposals. However, it has been brought to the attention of the ECA Council that one ecological consultancy firm is allegedly advertising that it would out-bid other consultants if the potential client provided it with a copy of the written fee proposal of the competitive bidder with the lowest quote.

While it is acceptable and not uncommon for consultants to negotiate lower consultancy fees with potential clients, I believe that it is unprofessional for a consultant to request a copy of a written fee proposal of a competitor for the purposes of out-bidding them for a project. Such practice gives the consultant an unfair advantage over others, and also risks plunging the ecological consultancy industry (and the consultant) into disrepute.

I suggest that all consultants consider marking their written fee proposals as "Confidential - For Client/Project Manager Only" (or similar wording) to minimise the risk of these proposals reaching the hands of unauthorised third parties.

What do others think?