11th September 2004, 09:38 PM
Peter the materialistic b****** consultant poacher here. I see nothing wrong with being materialistic and being paid well. Archaeologists are entitled to eat and live some where decent even the diggers and project officers with national companies.
The basic point is that X is contracted to do ABCDEF in return for a sum of money. This is to a standard defined by hundreds of documents and regular checking by the planning authority. If you have bid correctly then you make a profit or should do. The problem is the unpredictability of the archaeology.
The needs of the archaeology are simple - keep it in the ground undistubed by preservation in situ. Even research excavation destroys archaeological remains you know. Thus I would suggest that I am involved with the preservation of archaeological remains not their destruction. Sometimes excavation is the right or the only option.
Without wishing to start a consultant/contractor argument. Contractors bid a single fixed priced sum whatever is found based upon evaluation trenches you havenot even seen, whatever the weather conditions, whatever the variations that occur and whatever the quantities of artefacts. When somebody from the Local Authourity can tell you to do double the amount of work.
The nature of consultancy is such that it is in your own best interests to do more work when you are paid by the hour. Would I bid a single fixed priced sum for even an assessment without doing a fair amount of research? No. Could I win a tender competition for a DBA based upon cost. No (Unless I was deliberately doing it cheap).
If Oz works for a big national company then they must have consultants. Is he saying that his work mates are as he suggests.
Peter
The basic point is that X is contracted to do ABCDEF in return for a sum of money. This is to a standard defined by hundreds of documents and regular checking by the planning authority. If you have bid correctly then you make a profit or should do. The problem is the unpredictability of the archaeology.
The needs of the archaeology are simple - keep it in the ground undistubed by preservation in situ. Even research excavation destroys archaeological remains you know. Thus I would suggest that I am involved with the preservation of archaeological remains not their destruction. Sometimes excavation is the right or the only option.
Without wishing to start a consultant/contractor argument. Contractors bid a single fixed priced sum whatever is found based upon evaluation trenches you havenot even seen, whatever the weather conditions, whatever the variations that occur and whatever the quantities of artefacts. When somebody from the Local Authourity can tell you to do double the amount of work.
The nature of consultancy is such that it is in your own best interests to do more work when you are paid by the hour. Would I bid a single fixed priced sum for even an assessment without doing a fair amount of research? No. Could I win a tender competition for a DBA based upon cost. No (Unless I was deliberately doing it cheap).
If Oz works for a big national company then they must have consultants. Is he saying that his work mates are as he suggests.
Peter