4th July 2008, 05:21 PM
Still holding my breath and waiting for the arrival of the wonderful contract although there has been no news from the library service, supposes that could be good news
Conditions of Contract and the Specification or Written Scheme of Investigation. Its impossible to get those confused. I find it best to keep all those terms together in the same sentence.
I don?t buy the archaeologists lack of contractual knowledge. Archaeologists work on them day in and out.
I dont see whats so wonderful about a specialist publishing house. We live in the age of the web. If its so special the ifa should get its own. All that fantastic knowledge sharing hidden and theres guides as well. The ifas got loads of guides it should take them off the web and cut down a tree and charge 31.99 quid a pop
As for credibility and trust rubbing of onto the archaeologists by association with a bunch of preferred contractor strategic partners I think the same could be said the other way round unless the engineers know of a better archaeological association to rub up to.
As for the conflictions of your named consultant being subbed out of a company of thousands being able
might suggest that you are casting aspersions on the character of a fellow archaeologist I could start with most of principle 1 at Code 1.1 and work my way through well through all the principles, man? what kind of archaeological contractor have you advised the Employer to get,
why are you finding unexpected discoveries, were your dt and evals inadequate? Have you heard of contingencies?
As a model maybe the ifa, now that its got experience at this making special contracts for special groups, could start some tie ins with other groups like farmers, landowners, the NFU, CLA, architects, small business, water board, DTI, environment agency, English heritage, the national trust, time team, undertakers, people who have an invisible friend who gives hope to all those who suffer after having made them suffer in the first place. The ifa will end up dripping with credibility. I am not sure that there would be any space for named consultants in these contracts as it could be that having a named consultant is part of the shared copyright with the engineers (not that they are named in the contract)
Does anyone know what was used on Heathrow?.presumably it was before the wonderful contract and was a not so good like the consultants were unnamed?
Conditions of Contract and the Specification or Written Scheme of Investigation. Its impossible to get those confused. I find it best to keep all those terms together in the same sentence.
I don?t buy the archaeologists lack of contractual knowledge. Archaeologists work on them day in and out.
I dont see whats so wonderful about a specialist publishing house. We live in the age of the web. If its so special the ifa should get its own. All that fantastic knowledge sharing hidden and theres guides as well. The ifas got loads of guides it should take them off the web and cut down a tree and charge 31.99 quid a pop
As for credibility and trust rubbing of onto the archaeologists by association with a bunch of preferred contractor strategic partners I think the same could be said the other way round unless the engineers know of a better archaeological association to rub up to.
As for the conflictions of your named consultant being subbed out of a company of thousands being able
Quote:quote: Part of the role of the Consultant is to advise the Employer as to whether additional work proposed by the Contractor is reasonable and justified in the light of unexpected discoveries
might suggest that you are casting aspersions on the character of a fellow archaeologist I could start with most of principle 1 at Code 1.1 and work my way through well through all the principles, man? what kind of archaeological contractor have you advised the Employer to get,
why are you finding unexpected discoveries, were your dt and evals inadequate? Have you heard of contingencies?
As a model maybe the ifa, now that its got experience at this making special contracts for special groups, could start some tie ins with other groups like farmers, landowners, the NFU, CLA, architects, small business, water board, DTI, environment agency, English heritage, the national trust, time team, undertakers, people who have an invisible friend who gives hope to all those who suffer after having made them suffer in the first place. The ifa will end up dripping with credibility. I am not sure that there would be any space for named consultants in these contracts as it could be that having a named consultant is part of the shared copyright with the engineers (not that they are named in the contract)
Does anyone know what was used on Heathrow?.presumably it was before the wonderful contract and was a not so good like the consultants were unnamed?