Gig advertised from multiple agencies

[The Agents View]

I know that it's common practise in preferred supplier contracts in NL; don't know how that is in UK though.

They deal it out by saying to suppliers; 'Supplier A, you can and must offer 2 CVs, Supplier B, you can and must offer 3 CVs' and so on.

Don't ask me for the logic. I've long realised that he who seeks logic in large organisations will find only convoluted nonsense.

Now interestingly - I work in a business which has no preferred supplier relationships at all (OK we have a couple technically - but they're for ad-hoc coverage more than anything else).

I work to the basis of submitting one, maybe two candidates, fully referenced, fully qualified as someone who has done what the client is looking for, before. The person will need either everything the client has asked for, or the majority of the skill set (bear in mind if I find someone who has more credibility, but no personality, they'll not normally get the nod). I then work with contractors to ensure that all of the relevant info is either in thier CV, or in my cover sheet. For me the game is not about quantity - it's all about knowing what you're looking for, matching that skill set exactly, backing that up and then submitting. It depends on the agency - but I'd never put all of the applicants through to the client, simply because my job as the agent is to make sure that the people/person put through has effectively BEEN through the first interview process - then all the client needs to do is second interview and decide. If they want to see all of the applicants, they should be advertising the role themselves - it's cheaper!! But then, as anyone who reads my post may have noticed - I'm not your johnny come lately, spotty oik, volume recruiter

[Mich the Tester]

But is that always the case? Wasn't there an earlier thread dealing with agents holding candidates "in reserve"?

In my experience clients like to see as many candidates as possible, and hence I suggest that this "2 CV" rule is more an instrument of the agents, rather then the clients.

Or..

maybe the client only wants to see 2 CVs from that particular agent due to past experiences of "doubtful" candidates provided by that agency....

I know that it's common practise in preferred supplier contracts in NL; don't know how that is in UK though.

They deal it out by saying to suppliers; 'Supplier A, you can and must offer 2 CVs, Supplier B, you can and must offer 3 CVs' and so on.

Don't ask me for the logic. I've long realised that he who seeks logic in large organisations will find only convoluted nonsense.

[BlightyBoy]

agencies say they’re only able to offer 2 CVs to the clientco because of the terms and conditions of the preferred supplier policy.

But is that always the case? Wasn't there an earlier thread dealing with agents holding candidates "in reserve"?

In my experience clients like to see as many candidates as possible, and hence I suggest that this "2 CV" rule is more an instrument of the agents, rather then the clients.

Or..

maybe the client only wants to see 2 CVs from that particular agent due to past experiences of "doubtful" candidates provided by that agency....

[Mich the Tester]

The Joys....

Common courtesy suggests that is out of order, but I know it's common practice in the industry.

All I would say is that whilst it's not right to try and stiff the agent - he/she is not doing their job properly by not keeping in touch with you, even if it's just a quick call to say you're no further forward because xyz.....

It's not difficult really.....

Cheers
TAV

I don't want to shaft the agent, after all he's got bills to pay too, but one problem I’m finding is that agencies say they’re only able to offer 2 CVs to the clientco because of the terms and conditions of the preferred supplier policy. So if I stick to only one agent for the role I reduce my chances of getting my CV through to the hiring PM. The only logical course of action for me as a contractor is to send my CV to all the agencies advertising the role and hope that one of them puts it through to clientco. I can imagine that this is annoying for agents, but as long as clientcos persist in these stupid policies, what else can I do?

[BlightyBoy]

Common courtesy

What? Agents? Common Courtesy?

If the boot were on the other foot mate, then I doubt any agent would have any reservation in stiffing the subbie!

[The Agents View]

The Joys....

Common courtesy suggests that is out of order, but I know it's common practice in the industry.

All I would say is that whilst it's not right to try and stiff the agent - he/she is not doing their job properly by not keeping in touch with you, even if it's just a quick call to say you're no further forward because xyz.....

It's not difficult really.....

Cheers
TAV

[BoredBloke]

Best to ask the client's procurement department what the options are. Agent's View will be right in many cases, but you have no idea what the client's authorised supplier policy is like.

Sometimes, some agencies are more preferred than others.

It might even be that the first agent has no contract with the end client in the first place, and is just trying it on, in which case take your pick.

Tell me about it - I went for a role that I was a 100% match for. No ifs or buts, 100% match as I had done the exact same role at another part of the same organisation and done it very well. I went with the first agent and told all the others who called me that I was already being put forward. Since then it's gone dead. The agent won't return calls or answer email - par for the course. But my point is that they were so lax about it. Surely in this market if they had somebody who was available at the right time, with a spot on skills match (I'd even worked for them in the dim and very distant past) and who wasn't even going in at the complete top end of the rate scale they would be all over this one like a rash.

Tomorrow I'm going to contact one of the others to see how things are with this role. Since this first agent will not return my calls and if the role is still live I'll see if one of the others can put me in. One of the ones dealing with it is the agency I'm currently with so it's worth a punt!

[thunderlizard]

Best to ask the client's procurement department what the options are. Agent's View will be right in many cases, but you have no idea what the client's authorised supplier policy is like.

Sometimes, some agencies are more preferred than others.

It might even be that the first agent has no contract with the end client in the first place, and is just trying it on, in which case take your pick.

[The Agents View]

If you've been put across to the client with terms, then no - The client will end up paying a margin to the other agency, and an introduction charge. If this happened to me then I'd be agressively pursuing 12 weeks charge at full rate.

The original agency takes a bigger cut because they;re quicker, more efficient and likely have a better in-depth relationship with the client (you would hope). If they actually have no relationship with the client and your details haven't gone across, then you can be put forward by the agency - but try not shafting the other agency - see what happens.....you might even be surprised....

[swamp]

Don't see why not?

[denver2k]

Lets say, a gig advertised by multiple agencies with different rates. If someone didnt know that, he goes through 1 agency, gets the gig and just before joining he finds the other agencies (with better rates).

Can he ditch the previous one and go for the other one (better margins) before signing a contract.

By the way,thats not happening with me but i just saw a role advertised from two different pimps having around £50 rate difference, so this question pops up in my head.