26th April 2006, 06:46 PM
Invisible - thanks for the response.
Regarding the contracting out of the work, it has been my experience as a consultant that some work is indeed contracted directly by the developer to the archaeological unit with the consultant acting as some form of 'middle man' as you indicate, i.e. preparing and agreeing the Project Designs, organising the tender competition, advising on appointment, monitoring of compliance etc.
However, in some circumstances (probably more than 50% of my own workload) the developer prefers that the archaeological contractor is procured directly by the consultant, and the charges are passed back to the developer either at cost or at cost plus an agreed handling fee. There are numerous reasons for a developer using this route, especially developers with a particularly cumbersome procurement system whereby it takes a lot of effort to have an archaeological contractor approved to provide services beyond a certain cost, whereas the consultant is already approved. It is for these situations that I am looking for feedback regarding the ICE Contract.
In my previous role as a project manager for a large archaeological contractor I was consistently amazed by the lack of detailed contracts for what were actually quite costly pieces of work. Many projects were simply done on the back of a letter agreeing to a quotation to implement a particular scheme, or merely through the issue of a Works Order - I am always surprised at the low level of litigation / arbitration in the post-PPG16 world.
A standard form of contract would be a 'good thing' - but is the ICE Contract the right one for all contracted archaeological work ?
Beamo
Regarding the contracting out of the work, it has been my experience as a consultant that some work is indeed contracted directly by the developer to the archaeological unit with the consultant acting as some form of 'middle man' as you indicate, i.e. preparing and agreeing the Project Designs, organising the tender competition, advising on appointment, monitoring of compliance etc.
However, in some circumstances (probably more than 50% of my own workload) the developer prefers that the archaeological contractor is procured directly by the consultant, and the charges are passed back to the developer either at cost or at cost plus an agreed handling fee. There are numerous reasons for a developer using this route, especially developers with a particularly cumbersome procurement system whereby it takes a lot of effort to have an archaeological contractor approved to provide services beyond a certain cost, whereas the consultant is already approved. It is for these situations that I am looking for feedback regarding the ICE Contract.
In my previous role as a project manager for a large archaeological contractor I was consistently amazed by the lack of detailed contracts for what were actually quite costly pieces of work. Many projects were simply done on the back of a letter agreeing to a quotation to implement a particular scheme, or merely through the issue of a Works Order - I am always surprised at the low level of litigation / arbitration in the post-PPG16 world.
A standard form of contract would be a 'good thing' - but is the ICE Contract the right one for all contracted archaeological work ?
Beamo