Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jun 2004
21st April 2007, 12:53 PM
Also, I agree that it would be nice to dock the pay of contractors who do not complete all works and I can see a client trying this on...but they would have a hard time proving this without alerting the curator in the process as any contractor would simply say "well, you got your condition discharged didn't you?".
I don't qute follow. Surely the Contractor must execute the contract, i.e. carry out the works described in the specification forming part of the contract. If the work was not done, or was not done in accordance with the contract, then it either has to be done or rectified, or the final contract sum can be adjusted. Same as construction (or any other contract). Simply discharging a planning condition won't have anything to do with it, unless the contract actually was just to get it discharged, which I trust is unlikely.
We owe the dead nothing but the truth.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Oct 2006
22nd April 2007, 02:56 AM
As you know, the point of archaeological work (from a developer's point of view) is to discharge planning conditions, not to discover the joys of the past. True, contracts will often cite the completion of a programme of works as outlined in document A, but the object of the exercise is to get on and build whatever it is. The point I was making is that the curator is the only impartial point of enforcement in this process and if the brief was not complied with in full, no one would do anything unless it impeded development work as there is no economic interest in doing so (unless of course one can persuade the contractor to do this for nothing). This is only likely to happen on the instruction of a curator....speaking generally, admittedly, I am sure there are plenty of anecdotal incidents where others have acted but we must deal in generalities....
Also it is not the same as other construction work because it is easier to check standards for construction than for archaeology (I've made this argument already, so I won't repeat it); checking archaeological work is a tricky and time consuming business; hence my arguments for more resources for curators etc....
don't panic!
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jul 2005
23rd April 2007, 02:27 PM
Posted by Hurting Back:
Quote:quote:More seriously though, I think that such an approach would help...but how to institute it widely enough? We are also back to how to ensure that questionnaires are consistent across different organisations and who is going to enforce this (contractor compliance that is), as the consultant, however well meaning, is not in a neutral position in all of this?
Pre-qualification questionnaires (in any industry) are always designed and issued by the client or their consultant. What they do is establish the quality criteria they want to take into account in appointing a contractor. In principle, therefore, there is no need for them to be consistent between different organisations.
1man1desk
to let, fully furnished
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Oct 2006
23rd April 2007, 05:33 PM
Quote:quote:Originally posted by 1man1desk
Pre-qualification questionnaires (in any industry) are always designed and issued by the client or their consultant. What they do is establish the quality criteria they want to take into account in appointing a contractor. In principle, therefore, there is no need for them to be consistent between different organisations.
1man1desk
to let, fully furnished
I would think then that this inconsistancy (between questionnaires) would make it difficult to use this as a market wide mechanism on it's own; the questionnaires would presumably look to assure the client that the contractor will complete the contract as described in the approved scope of works meaning that it is still dependant on this curatorial imput....
don't panic!
