Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Apr 2005
9th January 2007, 10:44 PM
Quote:quote:Originally posted by troll
I have no issue with you there sir except to say that your list is not exactly exhaustive and thats my point entirely-even your good self can only count the good consultancies on one hand.:face-huh:
Which brings to mind that famous proverb:
In the land of the armless, the four-fingered person is king [8D]
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Dec 2004
10th January 2007, 10:12 AM
Particularly if he/she is the holder of the only toilet roll
..knowledge without action is insanity and action without knowledge is vanity..(imam ghazali,ayyuhal-walad)
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jul 2005
10th January 2007, 01:55 PM
Posted by Troll:
Quote:quote:thats my point entirely-even your good self can only count the good consultancies on one hand
Actually, I did not say that RSK, Atkins, Jacobs and RPS are all the good consultancies - I just listed the first four relevant names I thought of. I didn't even say that those four are good (or that they are bad) - just that they all do the kind of work described in the advert that is causing such unwarranted excitement.
1man1desk
to let, fully furnished
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Dec 2004
10th January 2007, 01:58 PM
Unwarranted in your opinion sir perhaps.:face-huh:
..knowledge without action is insanity and action without knowledge is vanity..(imam ghazali,ayyuhal-walad)
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2006
10th January 2007, 02:15 PM
'The advert belies a commitment to the monitoring of standards sir-one of the rarest practises ever.Especially for consultancies.Sad thing is...the local curators/LPA should be doing it but as we have seen elsewhere, they are at best inconsistant and at worst-politically hog-tied or massively under-resourced.'
I'm with 1m1d on this - RSK are asking for someone to monitor the standard of archaeological works being carried out along a major pipeline - no real need for excitement as this is fairly standard, although Troll as ever cannot resist having a pop at consultancies. This is a relatively clear example - RSK are representing a client in respect of a major project that requires oodles of archaeological work across more than one local authority. The client is keen to ensure that all work is done properly and tasks RSK with that (project has already had some negative PR and there are some protestors in place). RSK do not have the resources in-house and decide to advertise for an appropriate person. The local curators are almost certainly heavily involved, but monitoring on this scale can be a full-time job and as Troll rightly suspects the LPA resources are not adequate for this role. I doubt that the LPA is politically hog-tied as this is a strategic project that does not require planning permission. One local authority has alrady refused permission for blasting on a part of the route.
Beamo
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jun 2004
10th January 2007, 04:22 PM
Hello all,
I agree with 1m1d and beamo that this all looks pretty standard stuff. However, I would like beamo to clarify this statement:
'I doubt that the LPA is politically hog-tied as this is a
strategic project that does not require planning permission.'
Do you mean '..even though this is..', because as worded you appear to be saying that the LPA has more clout on jobs outside the planning permission system than in.
T
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Mar 2005
10th January 2007, 06:34 PM
Hmmm... Almost agree with Troll, though perhaps for the wrong reasons. Sure consultants monitor their sub-contractors, they'd be daft not too. But I would suggest that this 'monitoring' is more about value for money and project management than quality as seems to be suggested - although no doubt someone will respond that the 2 are the same. Really the monitoring of standards is best done by an individual or agency without a financial interest in the project - this rules out the consultants here. Unless they have been employed by the LPA to carry out monitoring on their behalf, which does happen. Is that the case here? Hang on - where in this ad does it even mention standards?????
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jul 2005
10th January 2007, 07:02 PM
Monitoring for 'value for money' and for archaeological quality are two different things, but there is a big overlap.
Bear in mind also that the consultant may not be employing the contractor - therefore the contractor will not be their 'subcontractor'. Our favoured model is for the contractor to be employed by the client, with the consultant separately employed to oversee them, under the terms of the ICE Conditions of Contract for Field Investigation.
The consultant's job in monitoring is to ensure that the contractor does the job in line with the standards specified in the contract. If those include IFA Standards (they usually do, and always if the consultant is an IFA member or works for an RAO), then monitoring those standards is part of the consultant's job.
Bear in mind also that, once the client has agreed a price for the archaeological work, it is in their interest to ensure that it is done to the agreed standard. That reduces the risk of disputes with the curator, which can cause unexpected delays and extra costs. At least on the larger developments, delays are usually more of a concern to the client than the straightforward cost of the archaeological work.
1man1desk
to let, fully furnished
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Mar 2005
10th January 2007, 09:45 PM
Sure, sure but in this case the ad states that duties will include management of archaeological subcontractors. Now, although they may not be the consultant's subcontractor does it not amount to the same thing in practice? In that the client is getting the consultant to monitor on their behalf.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2006
11th January 2007, 02:27 PM
Tom
'Do you mean '..even though this is..', because as worded you appear to be saying that the LPA has more clout on jobs outside the planning permission system than in.'
No - that's not what I am saying. I was merely pointing out that any suggestion that the LPA was hog-tied in this particular case is unlikely to be correct.
Beamo
