12th March 2006, 02:24 PM
A little more radical but ultimately desirable for reasons including improved pay and conditions, is a more professional and accurate method of pricing and tendering contracts, something I have queried before.
I recommend an article by Michael Heaton in TA 59 (Winter 2006) (pause for booing and hissing by certain contributors...) pages 34-35. Heaton is a contractor and consultant and is studying building surveying and construction management at university, and has used almost the identical words that I once used - "no civil engineering contractor or building contrcator would undertake a project on this basis" (the "basis" being the conventional archaoelogical method). This is very true, I can assure you.
Heaton goes on to show how the standard method of measuring construction quantities (SMM7, I won't bore you further) can easily be adapted for archaeology. If archaeological contracts were measured and priced properly in this way, as he says the contractor "could not lose money" (actually he could, as can a building contractor, but not if the job was managed satisfactorily). Tenders can be evaluated on a true like for like basis, and work done is actually paid for.
I raise this here as I believe that such a practice would lead to more consistent employment, certainly better site conditions, and more realistic pay levels.
Not meaning to be rude but I am still find it astonishing that such practices are not industry standard already.
Have a look chaps. I'd love this to be raised/discussed at the BAJR and IFA conferences.
We owe the dead nothing but the truth.
I recommend an article by Michael Heaton in TA 59 (Winter 2006) (pause for booing and hissing by certain contributors...) pages 34-35. Heaton is a contractor and consultant and is studying building surveying and construction management at university, and has used almost the identical words that I once used - "no civil engineering contractor or building contrcator would undertake a project on this basis" (the "basis" being the conventional archaoelogical method). This is very true, I can assure you.
Heaton goes on to show how the standard method of measuring construction quantities (SMM7, I won't bore you further) can easily be adapted for archaeology. If archaeological contracts were measured and priced properly in this way, as he says the contractor "could not lose money" (actually he could, as can a building contractor, but not if the job was managed satisfactorily). Tenders can be evaluated on a true like for like basis, and work done is actually paid for.
I raise this here as I believe that such a practice would lead to more consistent employment, certainly better site conditions, and more realistic pay levels.
Not meaning to be rude but I am still find it astonishing that such practices are not industry standard already.
Have a look chaps. I'd love this to be raised/discussed at the BAJR and IFA conferences.
We owe the dead nothing but the truth.