+- BAJR Federation Archaeology (http://www.bajrfed.co.uk)
+-- Forum: BAJR Federation Forums (http://www.bajrfed.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Forum: The Site Hut (http://www.bajrfed.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?fid=7)
+--- Thread: Have you used the ICE Conditions of Contract? (/showthread.php?tid=963)
Have you used the ICE Conditions of Contract? - 1man1desk - 25th June 2008
Posted by Unit of 1:
Quote:quote:No reason then why the ifa cannot put a copy of the contract and its notes on the webYes there is - they are not sole owners of the copyright and they are not the publishers.
These documents are only of interest if you are likely to be the Contractor, Employer or Consultant under a contract using these terms and conditions. If you are, then it is a professional necessity to obtain a copy, and ?30 is not a large cost, which you can probably charge to the job anyway. If you are not, then I don't see why you are even interested.
1man1desk
to let, fully furnished
Have you used the ICE Conditions of Contract? - oldgirl - 26th June 2008
Quote
The solution to the Principle-Agent problem in the oil exploration industry, where the developer is most certainly desperate to find oil and is worried that the agents might cheat them, is that the consultant, often referred to as a Bird Dog, is present through out the period of the fieldwork with the team.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sorry, I clearly misunderstosd the role of the 'bird dog' then. I though they were working for the developer.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Further quote
Oh and a curator who should be doing TCPA for district authorities but is moonlighting for the DTi. Yes I am familiar with the stitch up.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The local authorities were paid for the time that the curators were working for the DTI.
I'll stop dealing with this then, as we were obviously at cross purposes, and let the dicsussion get back to the ICE contracts!
Have you used the ICE Conditions of Contract? - 1man1desk - 26th June 2008
Posted by Unit of 1:
Quote:quote:The solution to the Principle-Agent problem in the oil exploration industry, where the developer is most certainly desperate to find oil and is worried that the agents might cheat them, is that the consultant, often referred to as a Bird Dog, is present through out the period of the fieldwork with the team. They are there to get the maximum product at the highest quality. Are there any examples of this in British consultant archaeology?Whether or not the contract is let using the ICE Conditions of Contract, if there is a Consultant involved they are always appointed by the Employer. The Employer might be a range of different people - the developer themselves, or their design consultant/environmental consultant, or their principal contractor.
Under the ICE Conditions of Contract, the Consultant is a named individual, not a company.
On most projects, the Consultant will not be present full-time, because there won't be enough for them to do. However, some large projects (eg motorway construction)might justify a full-time presence.
For most jobs, where there is no full-time presence, the frequency of visits will vary according to the size of project, the archaeological results being achieved, rate of progress and other factors.
The point of the Consultant's role is for the Employer to have someone who can administer and monitor the implementation of the work who knows and understands archaeology. The Consultant will usually have written the Specification and agreed its content with the Curator. They will monitor the work to ensure that all the work required by the Specification is being done, and to the standard required, and to the timescale required.
If the Contractor wants to increase or reduce the scope of work, or the methods to be used, or the resources they have agreed to provide, or change the programme, then it is up to the Consultant to determine whether the changes are reasonable.
The Consultant also checks the Contractor's invoices to ensure they are correct, and certifies whether or not the work has been completed properly.
The Consultant will nearly always have been on the job before the Contract is put out to tender, and may well have a longer involvement in the job in other roles - for instance as the person responsible for the DBA or archaeological input to the EIA, and/or for liaison and negotiation with the Curator.
1man1desk
to let, fully furnished
Have you used the ICE Conditions of Contract? - Unitof1 - 1st July 2008
Went to the library to get a copy of the wonderful contract but temporarily on hold and will have to pay ?2.5, ?5 with the guide, because they have not got it anywhere on their system but will try interlibra. I rang up publishers to ask about copyright angle. You can refer to it by clause but no photocopy. They mentioned some agreement form in the back, which they weren?t sure if it could be copied, or not.
M!
Quote:quote:Whether or not the contract is let using the ICE Conditions of Contract, if there is a Consultant involved they are always appointed by the Employer. The Employer might be a range of different people - the developer themselves, or their design consultant/environmental consultant, or their principal contractor.
From my slim learning I have found the word Landowner and Developer for the Employer in the contract. From the Telford publishing site (I cant see why they would miss-represent the contracts content)
Quote:quote: The Contract retains a pattern traditional in civil engineering contracts, with an investigation commissioned by an Employer (Landowners, developers etc.), designed or approved by an Engineer and carried out by a specialist Archaeological Contractor, only that the term 'Consultant' is used instead of 'Engineer'.
It seems to me (apart from the etc bit) that the suggested model is that the consultant occupies the position of the engineer between the landowner and the archaeological contractor. I don?t think that the word Employer should be confused with the engineer which it could appear that 1mans is doing with the suggestion that design consultant/environmental consultant, or their principal contractor could be seen as the equivalent of an engineer.
I would like to see the consultant work for the landowner or that if the employer was called a developer, that the developer at the time was also the owner of the land. I think that to work for any other party could involve a conflict of interest over the archaeology with the contract that that party held with its employer. As I have said elsewhere, notably pipelines where the developer has powers of compulsory purchase enforceable through the DTI and where most often those powers are not taken up so the ownership is never even temporarily with the developer. I think that there is a conflict with IFA Code 25 -An archaeologist embarking upon fieldwork will secure the permission of the landowner and tenant as appropriate, and of any others with rights or responsibilities for the land and its safekeeping. I think that the code says Secure Permission, it says the Archaeologist will Secure the Permission.
On my small and pathetic jobs I quite often get architects or builders ringing me up and trying to sub contract me through them. I point out that the condition is with the landowner and that I want to invoice the owners direct as it clarifies the ownership of the archaeology.
I had a question recently from a husband and wife about who would get all the loot when it was only the husbands name that was on the planning application. It then turned out that the farm was held in a trust with a sister for a great aunt. This job had come my way through an architect asking for quotes. In terms of contract law I could very easily contracted through with the architect but I don?t think that you should.
I have had another job recently where a builder rang me up and said that I was to be on site the next day. I told him that I was surprised as I had had no such previous appointment and that I was unaware that a wsi had been approved. Turned out that the actually? I cant tell you the rest because its against Code 25
Have you used the ICE Conditions of Contract? - 1man1desk - 1st July 2008
Dear Mr Unit,
Glad to see you are actually trying to find out about the contract now. However, you seem to have misunderstood some of what you have read, either on the ICE website or in my posts.
I am not confusing the Engineer or Consultant with the Employer.
The Consultant in the ICE's archaeological contract is the exact equivalent of the Engineer in their engineering contracts. In both cases, they are always appointed by the Employer to design and/or approve the project and then, usally, to oversee the work and administer the contract.
You say:
Quote:quote:I would like to see the consultant work for the landowner or that if the employer was called a developer, that the developer at the time was also the owner of the land.On the principle that 'the polluter pays', the money always comes ultimately from whoever it is that wants to develop the site (the developer). Sometimes that might be the landowner, but if it isn't then in any normal commercial situation it will be someone who is paying the landowner for rights to use the land, or has paid for an option to buy the land.
The Employer in an archaeological contract may be the developer themselves, or it may be a company working on their behalf, such as their design consultant or environmental consultant.
For instance, the company I work for does both engineering/ architectural design and environmental assessment for many developers in both the public and private sectors. When commissioning archaeological work, one of our staff (sometimes myself) is appointed as the Consultant. The Employer may be the company itself, or it may be our client. Either way, the money to pay for both the Consultant and the Contractor comes ultimately from our client (the developer, who may or may not own the land, but does have rights to it).
1man1desk
to let, fully furnished
Have you used the ICE Conditions of Contract? - Unitof1 - 2nd July 2008
In the ICE contract I am perplexed by the carry on of having engineers related to or not by this type of contract by the presence of this contract in some copyright halo of association with civil engineers.
So far the structure outlined by you is that there is an Employer. This Employer employs a consultant and I think that this very same employer also employs the archaeological contractor. We would appear to have two contracts with the employer bundled into one. Alternatively it could be that in the bundle the Employer employs a consultant who then employs an archaeological contractor. I presume that in the bundling there are advantages to the archaeologist as it has been recommended by the IFA that is an association for members who call themselves archaeologists.
It would appear that the contract has made allowances that the Employer can be anyone and not directly the landowner with whom archaeologists have to have had a secured permission, and all others with rights to the land. The ifa has enshrined this requirement at the highest code level. So I would expect some caveat emplaced to allow for
Quote:quote: The Employer might be a range of different people - the developer themselves, or their design consultant/environmental consultant, or their principal contractor.
Quote:quote: The Contract retains a pattern traditional in civil engineering contracts, with an investigation commissioned by an Employer (Landowners, developers etc.), designed or approved by an Engineer and carried out by a specialist Archaeological Contractor, only that the term 'Consultant' is used instead of 'Engineer'
Is the contract specifically saying, this contract has nothing to do with the engineers? Then why is it being presented thought the auspices of the engineers? Is there not a possibility that the IFA could release a copy of the contractual relationship at a generic level? As I have pointed out even on the smallest commercial level with an architect and a builder there are every day examples in which the wonderful contract might be applicable in dealing with these chancers presumably where I am the consultant and the archaeological contractor rolled into one.
I still eagerly await the wonderful contract to ascertain the relationships outlined in the contract between the consultant and the archaeological contractor and Employer.
It looks like rain, what to do?
Have you used the ICE Conditions of Contract? - BAJR Host - 2nd July 2008
Seems like an eminately sensible idea...
"No job worth doing was ever done on time or under budget.."
Khufu
Have you used the ICE Conditions of Contract? - Unitof1 - 3rd July 2008
Quote:quote: I echoe the sentiments. unit of one.... anther nonsense or ignorant peep from you and will be very unhappy. it is goog to see disussion of this document.. do not derail it .. or I will simply delete your posts. I don,t mind sensible comments from you... but don't get smart.
Quote:quote: Seems like an eminately sensible idea...
sometimes I shout No It Isn?t at a mirror pants down of course by the way this is a comma
Have you used the ICE Conditions of Contract? - Sith - 3rd July 2008
Quote:quote:Originally posted by Unitof1
I still eagerly await the wonderful contract to ascertain the relationships outlined in the contract between the consultant and the archaeological contractor and Employer.
The contract is between Employer (usually the developer) and the Contractor, however, there are at least four roles under the contract:
The Employer - who will appoint the Contractor (field archaeologists);
The Consultant - a named individual appointed by (in my case) Vader Maull and Palpatine to fulfil this role on behalf of the Employer;
The Contractor - means the archaeological organisation appointed by the Employer (following advice from the Consultant), to carry out the work defined in the Specification/WSI; and
The Curator ? the County/DC Archaeologist or their representative(s).
The only thing that engineers have to do with it is in the format of the contract and the definition of terms. In effect, they have helped to write the contract in words that engineers understand (for this read also ?developers?, ?builders?, ?corporate land wreckers? ? select one which suits you). It helps to avoid awkward discussions like this:
Archaeologist: We?ve done the watching brief and found Stonehenge II. You?ll have to hold off building your road for a year. Oh, and I?ll need ?1,000,000 to dig it up.
Developer: Eh? You?ve had your watching brief that the county wassisname made me pay for. You can flip off!
Under the ICE contract it should work more like this:
Archaeologist: We?ve done the watching brief and found Stonehenge II. You?ll have to hold off building your road for a year. Oh, and I?ll need ?1,000,000 to dig it up.
Developer: Are you telling me that you need to vary the contract under clause 3.7 to cover a contingency for significant remains?
Consultant: Yes, that?s about the size of it.
Developer: Flip me! A year? Can you make it nine months and what can you do for cash?
D. Vader
Senior Consultant
Vader Maull & Palpatine
Archaeological Consultants
Don't make me destroy you, Curator
Have you used the ICE Conditions of Contract? - Unitof1 - 3rd July 2008
I cant say that I see any wonderful advantage so far and the landowner thing seems to be drifting over the horizon.
You mean there is somebody called the archaeologist, maybe not, just contractor even. M1 had me thinking that they were an archaeological contractor. Probably trying to steal some magic archaeology dust to sprinkle over the word named consultant, which would appear to be a very intriguing named position presumably with its own named insurance liabilities although named for what I ponder. I rather have a named archaeologist, now that would unbelievable. Imagine, the person might run off with the record.
Still seems that the engineer creole is superfluous or their format or definition of terms. As far as I understand contracts its lawyer terms and format and for developer I would speack in bankesse.
Quote:quote:in words that engineers understand (for this read also ?developers?, ?builders?, ?corporate land wreckers
Archaeologist: We?ve done the watching brief and found Stonehenge II. You?ll have to hold off building your road for a year. Oh, and I?ll need ?1,000,000 to dig it up.
Developer: Are you telling me that you need to vary the contract under clause 3.7 to cover a contingency for significant remains?
Consultant: Yes, that?s about the size of it.
Developer: Flip me! A year? Can you make it nine months and what can you do for cash?
Consultant: I can make it in 2 weeks for half the cash but I will need it up front. Hows that other job coming along, the stone circle thingy thing, have you considered a flyover? You?ll need a desk top study. There not cheep you know You have to go to HERs.
Archaeologist: I am not really an archaeologist but you hired me so I must be I have 25 days work experience and that was in Uganda but if you say that I can do it in a week and for a fiver you must know what your talking about.
Still holding on to my cooing noise