31st August 2004, 07:06 PM
VOR, there is a parallel with your yoof creature in construction - the Project Manager. This has no similarity to its namesake in archaeology who equates to a builder's Contrcats Manager. Nobody knows what a Project Manager does (other than wear sharp suits and speak in tongues) but (s)he always slows down a project and adds to the costs.
Contrary to popular belief, other than major government projects and local jobbing builders doing your kitchen extension, construction contracts do not run way over time/budget. The contractor works to a set of contract documents - usually drawings, specifications and bills, and to a set programme with a date for completion. If the project goes over the contract sum, there will be a reason for this, most likely an inadeqacy in the contract documents (or client added extras).
Obviously on the other thread I did not mean to suggest that archaeology is priced by the post hole! An intriguing idea... I have assumed that it is priced against a brief or specification setting out a schedule of work in sufficient detail for it to be quantifiable, implemented and monitored, (and) to form the basis for a measurable standard. (IFA Stds and Gdnce for arch exc 3.2.3)
Do you not then submit a lump sum tender against those parameters? Surely there must be a breakdown to permit an "extras" or indeed omissions to be priced fairly/
Sorry to be dim but I am not a pro, as you will have gathered.
Contrary to popular belief, other than major government projects and local jobbing builders doing your kitchen extension, construction contracts do not run way over time/budget. The contractor works to a set of contract documents - usually drawings, specifications and bills, and to a set programme with a date for completion. If the project goes over the contract sum, there will be a reason for this, most likely an inadeqacy in the contract documents (or client added extras).
Obviously on the other thread I did not mean to suggest that archaeology is priced by the post hole! An intriguing idea... I have assumed that it is priced against a brief or specification setting out a schedule of work in sufficient detail for it to be quantifiable, implemented and monitored, (and) to form the basis for a measurable standard. (IFA Stds and Gdnce for arch exc 3.2.3)
Do you not then submit a lump sum tender against those parameters? Surely there must be a breakdown to permit an "extras" or indeed omissions to be priced fairly/
Sorry to be dim but I am not a pro, as you will have gathered.