Have you used the ICE Conditions of Contract?

[Austin Ainsworth]

quote:Originally posted by drpeterwardle

I actually think UnitofOne has a point when he says:

"You might try to cheat me, isn’t that why we need a consultant."

I agree with that yes that why even on very small jobs a consultant and a contract is needed. As things stand anybody can set themselves up as an archaeologist without qualifications, competance and/or experience let alone insurance etc.

The cost of a one day watching brief is often disproportionate to the work and this is the kind of thing a consultant can sort out. Similarly in any watching brief situation there is the potential for it to turn into a much bigger project.

However the ICE contract is a bit formal for a small project so what I do is refer to it in the letter of instruction. ICE is clearly geared around the larger excavation projects and I would like to see versions for watching briefs and evaluations.

Peter

Well, at the risk of sounding glib; you, as a consultant would say that. There seems to be an an assumption on your part that clients need to be protected from the demonic predatory nature of archaeological contractors by consultancy angels such as yourself.

Could you give examples where clients have been blatantly overcharged for WBs and evals?

[drpeterwardle]

Austin Ainsworth said

"Could you give examples where clients have been blatantly overcharged for WBs and evals?"

1. I could but of course I cannot (the AUP) and I simply would not.
2. This is clearly off topic
3. I actually said "The cost of a one day watching brief is often disproportionate to the work" I did not say "clients have been blatantly overcharged for WBs and evals". Although I do know of examples when this has happened.
4. Some organisations have minimum charges for things like reports.
5. Doing "unneccessary" work is rife in our industry - there is an essiential conflict in what is an appropriate amount of work in a given circumstances. (I discussed this at the BAJR conference). For most archaeologists doing outreach is a neccessary part of any project and yet it is something that cannot be demanded by the planning system.
6. Virtually no contractor is going to say to a potential client that the work is
a.unneccessary
b. unreasonable
c could be done cheaper by say a one man and his dog organisation.

This thread is about the use of contracts.
Dr Peter Wardle
Archaeological Consultant.

[Steven]

quote:Originally posted by drpeterwardle

I actually think UnitofOne has a point when he says:

"You might try to cheat me, isn’t that why we need a consultant."

I agree with that yes that why even on very small jobs a consultant and a contract is needed. As things stand anybody can set themselves up as an archaeologist without qualifications, competance and/or experience let alone insurance etc.

The cost of a one day watching brief is often disproportionate to the work and this is the kind of thing a consultant can sort out. Similarly in any watching brief situation there is the potential for it to turn into a much bigger project.

However the ICE contract is a bit formal for a small project so what I do is refer to it in the letter of instruction. ICE is clearly geared around the larger excavation projects and I would like to see versions for watching briefs and evaluations.

Peter

Hi Chaps
Peter, I can only speak for the authorities which I advise, but I don't agree that a consultant is required for all projects. In particular the small scale jobs. In these cases as a county council employee I have a duty of care to the rate payers as well as a duty to regulate the standards etc of archaeological practice, and to advise the LPA. So I would offer advice to the small developer (i.e. often the homeowner) concerning the implications of the planning condition. My advice could cover issues such as likely costs (only very roughly of course), level of work, synergies (i.e. telling them how to try and cut down on extra costs by minimising JCB hire by timetabling properly etc). I believe that the "developer" has every right to expect me to point out if their contractor is trying to falsely enlarge the project. I have to say I haven't come across a contractor trying this but then again maybe that's because I try to monitor (a lot).

Maybe I'm alone amongst my curatorial colleagues to offer this type of "holistic" archaeological service, but I doubt it. I think its part of public service to be equitable and reasonable.



Steven

[Unitof1]

Hello steven In the ice contract appendix that puts the consultants name in the frame it also asks for the name of the planning supervisor. Is that you. Is there a reason why you have to be named? Unlike for the consultant it does not ask for named representatives from you. Have you had experience of engineers or their representatives coming to ask if they can use your name in these contracts?

and have you looked at the roles of the characters outlined in the guide. The curators roles are defined, you apparently can- advise the Consultant (not the archaeologist) on any changes to the investigation in light of new findings. The consultant apparently can consider and –if appropriate, authorise variations to the investigation. Apart from whos boss its not entirely obvious how you are to become aware of the light of new findings, I suspect through the consultant. The consultant presumably becomes aware from the archaeologist.

quote:like the idea ery much of templated and formal contracts for smaller works .. very good idea indeed

hosty because of the unknowable nature of archaeology and archaeologists I am not convinced that any contract templates can be defined. If anything I suspect that archaeologists should be paid through gift. As it stands the only one on one contract mentioned so far is imans NEC professional services conrtact.

http://www.neccontract.com/newsletter/ar...EWS_ID=636

I suspect that because of the ice contract that it will be almost impossible to produce a straight forward ifa Employer-Archaeologist contract because

1) as the good doctor has said the consultants do think that they should be arbitrating through the structure set out in the ice contract for any and all potential archaeological field jobs.

2) Any straight forward, code complicit Employer-Archaeologist contract will show up the incongruities implicit in the ice contract. For a start the Employer would go from being the landowner to an engineer even though the landowner still exists in the ice world. There would have to be an explanation of when and why.

3) Outside of the contract the point at which a consultant would be necessary would have to be defined. As I have said consultants are involved mostly for the troublesome problems of getting developments getting permission. This is what the ice contract is about even though brilliantly it does not mention it.

Austin I didn’t want to be banned in the first place

[Paul Belford]

<s>Britarch</s> BAJR gets better and better.

Not only are the incoherent postings of Mr Unit about to result in a ban, but now the moderators are having a pop at eachother.

Marvellous!

[Oxbeast]

I thought that last post was pretty coherent, Paul.
As the IFA were instrumental in drawing up this contract, it would be interesting to know if it is the position of the IFA that all archaeological jobs, no matter how small, should be under the aegis of a consultant.

[drpeterwardle]

Just because we are moderators it does not mean we agree on everything.

It is simply not a matter for the IFA to decide who should be involved in particular types of contract. What they can do is facilitate documents like the ICE contract which may be applicable in some circumstances.

There are a variety of contractual situations and would be useful is a set of contract templates which have been agreed by all the players ie land owners, archaeologists, builders, developers etc via the various representative bodies.

Peter Wardle

[1man1desk]

Posted by Dr Peter Wardle:

quote:I agree with that yes that why even on very small jobs a consultant and a contract is needed. As things stand anybody can set themselves up as an archaeologist without qualifications, competance and/or experience let alone insurance etc.

The cost of a one day watching brief is often disproportionate to the work and this is the kind of thing a consultant can sort out. Similarly in any watching brief situation there is the potential for it to turn into a much bigger project.

However the ICE contract is a bit formal for a small project so what I do is refer to it in the letter of instruction. ICE is clearly geared around the larger excavation projects and I would like to see versions for watching briefs and evaluations.

Although I am a consultant, I don't agree that it is appropriate to have a consultant on every project, and for very small jobs (especially domestic clients) I would advise them to go directly to a local unit.

However, for medium to large jobs it is certainly beneficial to the smooth running of a project to have a consultant in place. Nevertheless, it remains optional - it is just up to the client to decide whether they think it is worthwhile.

As for the use of the ICE Contract, I would apply the same principles. A small, domestic client may not need to use it, and is unlikely to know about it or understand it. However, it certainly reduces project risk for both parties in medium to large projects.

Bear in mind, however, that you should never need to exchange copies of the actual document - the minimum requirement is to have an exchange of letters in which both parties agree to be bound by its terms, and setting out the information required.

You don't need different versions for different types of project (excavation, survey, geophys etc) - it works fine for all types.

Mr Unit seems to be under the impression that the IFA wants to impose the use of the contract as a requirement. That isn't the case - they just want it to be available as an option, because they see it as beneficial to the profession to have a set of terms and conditions available that is tailor-made for archaeological purposes.

1man1desk

to let, fully furnished

[BAJR Host]

Uo1 post was pretty coherent...and yes moderators can disagree.. phew... its a rollercoaster ride.... the joy of BAJR... wash your mouth out with soap for saying the other B word )

I do think a template can be created for general works, with enough flexibility built into the ______ fill in here gaps _______ to allow for individual cases.



"I don't have an archaeological imagination.."
Borekickers

[1man1desk]

Posted by Unit of 1:

quote:In the ice contract appendix that puts the consultants name in the frame it also asks for the name of the planning supervisor. Is that you. Is there a reason why you have to be named?

The Planning Supervisor is a role set out in the Construction (Design and Management) Regulations (CDM), which is an important piece of health and safety legislation (although you couldn't tell that from the name).

CDM governs the way in which health and safety issues are managed during the design and implementation of most construction projects, and the Planning Supervisor (nowadays known as the CDM Coordinator) is the person responsible for overseeing the H&S aspects of such projects.

While the Health and Safety Exective don't seek to apply CDM to archaeological work as such, they do apply it to all qualifying construction sites, so any archaeologist that is working on an actual construction site is nevertheless subject to CDM.

CDM imposes duties on all relevant parties - the client, the designer, the main contractor, and subcontractors (such as the archaeologists), and on the named individual in the role of Planning Supervisor. The PS is often an employee of the designer or the main contractor. Failure to comply can lead to prosecution. Therefore, where it is relevant, it is important to name the Planning Supervisor in any contract. If it is not relevant, just put "N/A" in that box in the contract.


1man1desk

to let, fully furnished