12th October 2006, 12:55 PM
I don't disagree with the thrust of Troll's comments. Some issues of detail, however.
Under most circumstances, it is the legal responsibility of a client to make sure the site is safe before putting a contractor to work on it, or if there are hazards to make the contractor aware of them. Archaeological contractors should not therefore need to do the type of testing/investigation that Troll suggests.
What they should do, however, is ask their client about the likely presence of any such hazards, and ensure that the client's answer is based on having taken whatever steps are reasonable in the circumstances to find out.
If an unexpected hazard does arise during the work, the unit should take what steps are appropriate to keep their staff safe (including leaving the site if necessary), and they should be able to pass on any extra cost to the client.
1man1desk
to let, fully furnished
Under most circumstances, it is the legal responsibility of a client to make sure the site is safe before putting a contractor to work on it, or if there are hazards to make the contractor aware of them. Archaeological contractors should not therefore need to do the type of testing/investigation that Troll suggests.
What they should do, however, is ask their client about the likely presence of any such hazards, and ensure that the client's answer is based on having taken whatever steps are reasonable in the circumstances to find out.
If an unexpected hazard does arise during the work, the unit should take what steps are appropriate to keep their staff safe (including leaving the site if necessary), and they should be able to pass on any extra cost to the client.
1man1desk
to let, fully furnished