Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
13th September 2004, 12:44 AM
Hmmm,
A fixed price sum contract including the post X is at the mercy of the development control archaeologist. I want to see X Y Z done, I want A radiocarbon dates done B detailed finds reports I want to see C sections published.
The contingency arrangements get so complicated ......
Peter
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
18th September 2004, 12:47 AM
Dr. Wardle, I don't have much time for this but to be brief only a fool would tender for the unknowable on a fixed price, my tenders are based on a day rate contingent on remains expected and then subsequently found, the cost to the client is of course fluid any other costings are absurb and ignore the unpredictability of the archaeological resource. We cost for the unpredictable nature of the archaeology not the budget costings of the client anything else shows a lack of regard for the archaeology and plays into the hands of the developer/client.
Still happy to be a gamekeeper and not a B*****d consultant poacher.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
19th September 2004, 01:29 PM
I really donot see this as an us and them situation with developers/clients. This attitude misses the whole point of PPG 16.
I am not saying that all developers are nice chaps who think preseving archaeology is wonderful or that paying for an excavation is a good use of their money.
I think I should make it clear that I am not saying a single fixed priced all eventualities contract is a good one but they are fairly common.
One of the biggest problems I have is when I ask for a quote for a defined, simple, job with specified contingencies what I often get is not a quote but a costing or an estimate or similar. This is usually unclear.
Often the people who require budget stability are in fact are charities or not for profit organisations whose projects are grant funded. Usually the grants are fixed so therefore the budgets are fixed. Similarly private individuals are on a budget defined buy a loan from a bank or building society.
I would ask everybody to consider if they would engage a plumber, picked out from yellow pages, and employ them to do a job on their house without a fixed price. To add to the mix somebody from the council can come along and say they want to see double the amount of work done and you have no say in the matter.
To go back to the archaeological sitiuation you are then told nothing was found but a report is still needed to inform what work may be required on others land.
It is wrong for archaeological work to be done for a budget set by somebody who has no idea of what the cost actually are or what might be found if the budget is inadequate to cost the eventualities.
Peter Wardle
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
19th September 2004, 04:27 PM
I should stress once again that a curator should ask for a certain level of work at teh outset... and each WSI should reflect the minimum that is required... no costs are ever seen by the County Curator. If it becomes evident that more work is requires...
1
#1 The curator will have made this clear to the Planners... though whether or not this is passed on to teh client is another matter.
#2 The contractor should make this clear to teh client... to not do so is to risk having to do extra work for nothing.
#3 The curator can only ask for additional work to be done if it within the initial remit of teh project... or some intimation has been given that IF circumstances show that further work is required just who will be liable...
If a curator feels that a contractor has NOT done a job that comes up to the minimum specifications of the Contractor produced WSI OR Curator produced brief... then they are quite within their rights to keep asking for the project to be completed to a level that wsa first asked for.
Fixed price for teh job... BUT.... explanation that IF it turns out that more work is required due to unexpected conditions... then a further phase is required.
Curators can never ask for work that cannot be justified..
BAJR[8D]
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
22nd September 2004, 08:14 PM
To be picky
"no costs are ever seen by the County Curator." This should read costs are not generally seen by curators.
Curators do see costs/resources at least in England. It is common practice for them to see the number of days labourt which is involved and thus is an indirect indication of costs. If a section 106 agreement is signed the amount to be spent on archaeology will often be stated. The curator also sees costs if the authourity is the developer and in effect they are an in house consultant.
The "unexpected" is actually defined in PPG 16 and the Scottish equivalents as well as the process. It does not say that more work must automatically be done or that the curator can require it. Both sides are expected to compromise.
Peter
