2nd July 2008, 03:23 PM
In the ICE contract I am perplexed by the carry on of having engineers related to or not by this type of contract by the presence of this contract in some copyright halo of association with civil engineers.
So far the structure outlined by you is that there is an Employer. This Employer employs a consultant and I think that this very same employer also employs the archaeological contractor. We would appear to have two contracts with the employer bundled into one. Alternatively it could be that in the bundle the Employer employs a consultant who then employs an archaeological contractor. I presume that in the bundling there are advantages to the archaeologist as it has been recommended by the IFA that is an association for members who call themselves archaeologists.
It would appear that the contract has made allowances that the Employer can be anyone and not directly the landowner with whom archaeologists have to have had a secured permission, and all others with rights to the land. The ifa has enshrined this requirement at the highest code level. So I would expect some caveat emplaced to allow for
Is the contract specifically saying, this contract has nothing to do with the engineers? Then why is it being presented thought the auspices of the engineers? Is there not a possibility that the IFA could release a copy of the contractual relationship at a generic level? As I have pointed out even on the smallest commercial level with an architect and a builder there are every day examples in which the wonderful contract might be applicable in dealing with these chancers presumably where I am the consultant and the archaeological contractor rolled into one.
I still eagerly await the wonderful contract to ascertain the relationships outlined in the contract between the consultant and the archaeological contractor and Employer.
It looks like rain, what to do?
So far the structure outlined by you is that there is an Employer. This Employer employs a consultant and I think that this very same employer also employs the archaeological contractor. We would appear to have two contracts with the employer bundled into one. Alternatively it could be that in the bundle the Employer employs a consultant who then employs an archaeological contractor. I presume that in the bundling there are advantages to the archaeologist as it has been recommended by the IFA that is an association for members who call themselves archaeologists.
It would appear that the contract has made allowances that the Employer can be anyone and not directly the landowner with whom archaeologists have to have had a secured permission, and all others with rights to the land. The ifa has enshrined this requirement at the highest code level. So I would expect some caveat emplaced to allow for
Quote:quote: The Employer might be a range of different people - the developer themselves, or their design consultant/environmental consultant, or their principal contractor.
Quote:quote: The Contract retains a pattern traditional in civil engineering contracts, with an investigation commissioned by an Employer (Landowners, developers etc.), designed or approved by an Engineer and carried out by a specialist Archaeological Contractor, only that the term 'Consultant' is used instead of 'Engineer'
Is the contract specifically saying, this contract has nothing to do with the engineers? Then why is it being presented thought the auspices of the engineers? Is there not a possibility that the IFA could release a copy of the contractual relationship at a generic level? As I have pointed out even on the smallest commercial level with an architect and a builder there are every day examples in which the wonderful contract might be applicable in dealing with these chancers presumably where I am the consultant and the archaeological contractor rolled into one.
I still eagerly await the wonderful contract to ascertain the relationships outlined in the contract between the consultant and the archaeological contractor and Employer.
It looks like rain, what to do?