Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
1man
At my unit we have had endless discussions at how to cost these thing up and I do like the idea of a provisional quantity but some clients want a soild number upfront - this is why we came up with the two stage costings (In theory they could go out to tender between the stages but it is probably unlikely given timescales etc).
I am interested in the price per square meter. How do you arrive at a figure for this or is it still best guestimate?
Merc
Certianly we are being increasingly asked for fixed price jobs and although these take the risk away from the client, it gets firmly suffled onto us.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jun 2004
Given that archaeology deals with the unknown by definition, there must always be an element of risk. I have always found it bizarre and anomalous that that risk is borne by the archaeological contractor. I can't think of any parallels in the construction or development world where universally a contractor "contracts" to carry out a defined task in a defined time for a defined fee.
It is vital that this is addressed in order for the industry to progress, and to improve standards and conditions, IMHO.
We owe the dead nothing but the truth.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jul 2005
Posted by Mercenary:
Quote:quote:Sounds sensible. Could not the provisional quantity of archaeology be used in tendering for urban or more intensively occupied sites, so as to avoid contractors going bankrupt due to enexpected discoveries? Or do developers prefer the fixed fee jjobs with no unknowns or risks for themselves?
Generally speaking I try to use provisional sums and/or provisional quantities for anything that a tenderer cannot reasonably estimate in advance. This eliminates a lot of risk for the tenderers, but it also means that I can compare tenders on a 'like-for-like' basis.
With a provisional quantity, I specify how much is notionally wanted (eg. process 50 soil samples); the tenderer enters a rate and can then calculate a price.
With a provisional sum, I specify an actual amount of money.
Either way, the contractor gets paid for what they actually do - but they have to get the consultant's agreement before doing the work.
Clients do often like lump-sum jobs, but I always advise them that this is rarely appropriate for intrusive archaeological work and is not acceptable for either watching briefs or SMA-type work. I have always won that argument so far (I've been doing it for 13 years).
1man1desk
to let, fully furnished
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jul 2005
Posted by Invisible Man:
Quote:quote:Given that archaeology deals with the unknown by definition, there must always be an element of risk. I have always found it bizarre and anomalous that that risk is borne by the archaeological contractor. I can't think of any parallels in the construction or development world where universally a contractor "contracts" to carry out a defined task in a defined time for a defined fee.
There are lots of examples in construction where the contractor shoulders a substantial share of the risk - look at ECI contracts on highways schemes, for instance. The point is that the risk should be shared according to who has control of an issue. Where the contractor has no control, the client should take the risk. Doesn't always work out that way in construction, any more than archaeology, though.
Quote:quote:It is vital that this is addressed in order for the industry to progress, and to improve standards and conditions, IMHO.
Look at the ICE Conditions of Contract for Archaeological Investigation. These CoC are designed to address exactly these issues from the perspective of both contractor and employer, in an even-handed way, and follow well-established construction industry standards.
If you use these CoC (properly) you will find that your risks are much better controlled. If you get an invitation to tender that does not specify any standard CoC, then it is open to you to propose the use of the ICE ones.
An important initiative carried through by the IFA to promote good standards and reduce risk to archaeological contractors, by the way. Now picked up by some curators and referred to in their planning briefs.
1man1desk
to let, fully furnished
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jun 2004
I am referring to construction proper, as opposed to civil engineering, where different forms of contract are used - principally the JCT Forms. I am not familiar with highways contracts but I would assume that if risk is borne by the contractor, and thus the contract becomes at least in part a speculative venture, the potential rewards (and tenders) are correspondingly higher - other wise they wouldn't do it. Alternatively, would they be, in very crude terms, similar to a Design and Buld contract? In this case a contractor builds to his Contractors Proposals tendered against Employers Requirements, and while the works are not measured in the sense of a BQ, defined work is done for a defined fee (in theory - its a much abused form of contract). But there is no risk in the sense that are using it.
In construction, that is building construction, a contractor carries no risk other than his own management abilities - and to a very limited extent the weather. This is because the work is measured. If 2 million bricks are needed instead of the measured 1 million, he gets paid for the extra million. If he used 2 million because he wasted a million, he doesn't get paid for them.
I see that the ICE CofC contain provisions for "measured" work. What I am driving at however is that I gather from these forums that it is common to tender on a lump sum basis against vague or unmeasured unquantities, e.g one post hole or 200, and the contractor bears the risk. If I have got the wrong end of the stick I apologize, and will get my coat. I'm off to Spain tomorrow anyway - hope Hosty hasn't drunk it dry!
We owe the dead nothing but the truth.
