{"id":57473,"date":"2025-06-25T17:51:21","date_gmt":"2025-06-25T14:51:21","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/geoconversation.org\/geology-for-pennies-how-tenders-derail-fieldwork\/"},"modified":"2026-05-07T17:56:58","modified_gmt":"2026-05-07T14:56:58","slug":"geology-for-pennies-how-tenders-derail-fieldwork","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/geoconversation.org\/en\/geology-for-pennies-how-tenders-derail-fieldwork\/","title":{"rendered":"Geology for Pennies: How Tenders Derail Fieldwork"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

My name is Victoria Chikatueva, I am a leading geologist at the IGT Service company. We are engaged in the search and exploration of solid minerals. In our company, there are no geologists \u201cin the office\u201d – everyone, without exception, works in the fields. Each specialist goes to the site, performs field tasks, goes on routes and takes samples.<\/p>\n\n\n

And perhaps that is why we especially notice how the quality of geological exploration decreases every year<\/strong>. This can be seen in everything: in reports, technical specifications, and geological notes. And, what is most alarming, there are fewer and fewer competent specialists who really know how and want to work in the field. This is exactly what I want to talk about – about the systemic problems due to which the quality geological exploration<\/a> It begins to crumble even before we leave for the fields. Because if everything continues \u201cas it is now,\u201d at some point there will simply be no one left to work.<\/p>\n\n\n

\n

What Victoria says resonates with me too. I am not a geologist or geophysicist. But everything she describes is how I lived every field season. Tender – in May. Departure is in June. The equipment is unprepared and there is no time to check it. You come to the field with equipment that doesn\u2019t work, and you bear the brunt of everything. You work neither for the sake of discovery, nor for the sake of data, nor for the sake of the project. And in order to \u201cclose the volumes\u201d. And at some point, not just fatigue comes, but sense of meaninglessness<\/strong>. And when I heard Victoria’s speech, I realized that we have to publish this. <\/strong>Because if we don\u2019t give a voice to those who work in the field, we will never change anything.<\/p>\nMaria Kostina<\/strong>, editor-in-chief of GeoConversation<\/cite><\/blockquote>\n\n\n

The material was prepared based on Victoria Chikatueva\u2019s speech at the scientific and practical conference \u201cCurrent problems of exploratory geology\u201d. The full report can be viewed at <\/em>link<\/em><\/a>.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n

Why do a raw technical specification and a fixed tender price ruin a project even before it goes into the field?<\/h2>\n\n\n

If we look at the structure of a geological exploration project, we are accustomed to dividing it into three classic stages: pre-field, field and office. But in reality, everything starts earlier – with tender procedures, which have already become an integral part of our geological life. And this is where the first errors are made, which then affect the entire project.<\/p>\n\n\n

It all starts with a technical specification. As a rule, it is prepared by the customer\u2019s geological service. And in recent years, we are increasingly seeing crude, undeveloped technical specifications. We read them and it\u2019s immediately obvious: the paragraphs were copied from different projects, with different goals, objectives, and approaches. The texts are collected haphazardly, without a single logic, without comprehension. And in this form they move on – to the purchasing department.<\/p>\n\n\n

There the next stage begins – the so-called marketing research. These raw technical specifications are sent to potential contractors, they name their price, and based on these responses, a price corridor is formed. But here\u2019s what\u2019s important: the price is \u201cfixed\u201d even before the task itself has become adequate. Even if the technical specifications are then corrected, finalized, and the essence is understood, the price corridor no longer changes.<\/p>\n\n\n

After the raw technical specifications have been sent to the mailing list and proposals have been collected from contractors, the technical specifications begin to be finalized. They are trying to clarify, rewrite, put in order – as best they can. But the price corridor, which tender procedures are already oriented towards, remains the same. No one is reviewing it, even if it has become clear that the amount of work is an order of magnitude higher than initially expected.<\/p>\n\n\n

Then the tender itself begins. On paper, this is a procedure for selecting the optimal contractor based on the price-quality ratio. But in practice, the main criterion remains one thing – price. And the one who gives the cheapest offer wins. A cheap offer means:<\/p>\n\n\n