18th September 2005, 03:44 PM
The trouble is, Troll, that most curators don't write specs; they write briefs, which often don't do much more than define the type of fieldwork to be done and the format in which the SMR wants to receive input. IFA standards make it clear that a brief is not suitable to be used either for tendering or as a project design, but they very often are used for both.
Consultants do write specs, in our case pretty detailed ones, and we can put in methodology in much more detail. We do it mainly to ensure a level playing field in tendering, which tends to disadvantage the cowboy units.
Curators are usually very happy that we do the specs, because it gives them the chance to have much more control than under their own briefs, without using any more of their own resources. In fact, if we are involved, they usually dispense with the brief altogether in favour of simply consulting on and ultimately approving the content of our spec.
However, doing the spec also enables us to cover H&S issues thoroughly. In cases where there are potential contamination issues, we usually get advice from experts in that field within our own company and amend the methodology to suit, putting relevant safety provisions in the spec. There have been occasions when (in agreement with the curator) parts of an evaluation, for instance, have been dropped or changed to boreholes because of contamination safety issues.
Curators are not suitable to oversee H&S because they have no specialist expertise in that area. Neither do we - we simply put appropriate rules in the spec. However, any large construction site operates under the CDM regulations and that imposes a requirement for the involvement of H&S specialists (as 'planning supervisors', a dedicated H&S role), who are responsible for everyone on site - including the archaeologists.
1man1desk
to let, fully furnished
Consultants do write specs, in our case pretty detailed ones, and we can put in methodology in much more detail. We do it mainly to ensure a level playing field in tendering, which tends to disadvantage the cowboy units.
Curators are usually very happy that we do the specs, because it gives them the chance to have much more control than under their own briefs, without using any more of their own resources. In fact, if we are involved, they usually dispense with the brief altogether in favour of simply consulting on and ultimately approving the content of our spec.
However, doing the spec also enables us to cover H&S issues thoroughly. In cases where there are potential contamination issues, we usually get advice from experts in that field within our own company and amend the methodology to suit, putting relevant safety provisions in the spec. There have been occasions when (in agreement with the curator) parts of an evaluation, for instance, have been dropped or changed to boreholes because of contamination safety issues.
Curators are not suitable to oversee H&S because they have no specialist expertise in that area. Neither do we - we simply put appropriate rules in the spec. However, any large construction site operates under the CDM regulations and that imposes a requirement for the involvement of H&S specialists (as 'planning supervisors', a dedicated H&S role), who are responsible for everyone on site - including the archaeologists.
1man1desk
to let, fully furnished