3rd November 2006, 04:24 PM
And here I was having a quiet afternoon.
Insurance.
To insure against archaeological discovery as Troll suggest was perfectly possible - I set up said scheme in 1994. It is however very difficult and by defintion is expensive. Most very large developers will self insure in any event.
To answer Trolls points.
"Developers/clients pay a premium based on their past record" No the nature of this kindo of insurance is that no claims bonuses cannot be used.
"and the location of their developments." is a factor but a relatively unimportant one.
A developer working in the City of York, Canterbury or Edinburgh is likely to pay a higher premium than one for example working in Loughborough, Skegness or Redcar(completely random choices).
"Premiums can be reduced the more a developer/client reduces impact upon the archaeology over time."
Not sure what Troll means by this.
"Alternatively, premiums will raise should a developer/client neglect the conditions set by curators."
By defintion this would render the insurance invalid.
Asking for quotes - I always reckon contractors make a meal out of tendering especially for small jobs. They need to know:
What they are being asked to do - X trenches x wide etc
Where
When
Whats the archaeological interest
What H&S issues there are
What the practical difficuties are.
What risks they are being expected to cover.
Several years ago I posted my method statement for tender competitions on Britarch. I got loads of flack about it for being unneccessary including providing the infomation that people are asking for here.
Peter
Insurance.
To insure against archaeological discovery as Troll suggest was perfectly possible - I set up said scheme in 1994. It is however very difficult and by defintion is expensive. Most very large developers will self insure in any event.
To answer Trolls points.
"Developers/clients pay a premium based on their past record" No the nature of this kindo of insurance is that no claims bonuses cannot be used.
"and the location of their developments." is a factor but a relatively unimportant one.
A developer working in the City of York, Canterbury or Edinburgh is likely to pay a higher premium than one for example working in Loughborough, Skegness or Redcar(completely random choices).
"Premiums can be reduced the more a developer/client reduces impact upon the archaeology over time."
Not sure what Troll means by this.
"Alternatively, premiums will raise should a developer/client neglect the conditions set by curators."
By defintion this would render the insurance invalid.
Asking for quotes - I always reckon contractors make a meal out of tendering especially for small jobs. They need to know:
What they are being asked to do - X trenches x wide etc
Where
When
Whats the archaeological interest
What H&S issues there are
What the practical difficuties are.
What risks they are being expected to cover.
Several years ago I posted my method statement for tender competitions on Britarch. I got loads of flack about it for being unneccessary including providing the infomation that people are asking for here.
Peter