20th August 2008, 02:08 PM
Posted by Dr Peter Wardle:
However, for medium to large jobs it is certainly beneficial to the smooth running of a project to have a consultant in place. Nevertheless, it remains optional - it is just up to the client to decide whether they think it is worthwhile.
As for the use of the ICE Contract, I would apply the same principles. A small, domestic client may not need to use it, and is unlikely to know about it or understand it. However, it certainly reduces project risk for both parties in medium to large projects.
Bear in mind, however, that you should never need to exchange copies of the actual document - the minimum requirement is to have an exchange of letters in which both parties agree to be bound by its terms, and setting out the information required.
You don't need different versions for different types of project (excavation, survey, geophys etc) - it works fine for all types.
Mr Unit seems to be under the impression that the IFA wants to impose the use of the contract as a requirement. That isn't the case - they just want it to be available as an option, because they see it as beneficial to the profession to have a set of terms and conditions available that is tailor-made for archaeological purposes.
1man1desk
to let, fully furnished
Quote:quote:I agree with that yes that why even on very small jobs a consultant and a contract is needed. As things stand anybody can set themselves up as an archaeologist without qualifications, competance and/or experience let alone insurance etc.Although I am a consultant, I don't agree that it is appropriate to have a consultant on every project, and for very small jobs (especially domestic clients) I would advise them to go directly to a local unit.
The cost of a one day watching brief is often disproportionate to the work and this is the kind of thing a consultant can sort out. Similarly in any watching brief situation there is the potential for it to turn into a much bigger project.
However the ICE contract is a bit formal for a small project so what I do is refer to it in the letter of instruction. ICE is clearly geared around the larger excavation projects and I would like to see versions for watching briefs and evaluations.
However, for medium to large jobs it is certainly beneficial to the smooth running of a project to have a consultant in place. Nevertheless, it remains optional - it is just up to the client to decide whether they think it is worthwhile.
As for the use of the ICE Contract, I would apply the same principles. A small, domestic client may not need to use it, and is unlikely to know about it or understand it. However, it certainly reduces project risk for both parties in medium to large projects.
Bear in mind, however, that you should never need to exchange copies of the actual document - the minimum requirement is to have an exchange of letters in which both parties agree to be bound by its terms, and setting out the information required.
You don't need different versions for different types of project (excavation, survey, geophys etc) - it works fine for all types.
Mr Unit seems to be under the impression that the IFA wants to impose the use of the contract as a requirement. That isn't the case - they just want it to be available as an option, because they see it as beneficial to the profession to have a set of terms and conditions available that is tailor-made for archaeological purposes.
1man1desk
to let, fully furnished