28th April 2006, 01:53 PM
Ah, apologies, I misunderstood your post a bit. I quite understand about (effectively) in-house consultants - no not a good idea - but I was taking the case in your para 3 where a consultancy acts as Employer and presuned that you meant that a named individ in the same firm would act as Consultant. So who would, in this case then?
I do not have non-archaeology ICE contracts to hand, but confess that in my past life I never read one properly - didn't need to, they are used in civil/structural/services engineering rather than construction, which uses the JCT forms. In basic structure these are broadly similar, in terms of roles and responsibilties, valuations, payments and so on.
As I say it's this notion of named individuals that is one big difference. I suppose the consultancy principal will be named and the bod running the contact will be the named Representative? I confess that I would want written confirmation that I was covered by all insurances if I was personally named in any form of contract. First rule - know your client, second rule - know all parties!
We owe the dead nothing but the truth.
I do not have non-archaeology ICE contracts to hand, but confess that in my past life I never read one properly - didn't need to, they are used in civil/structural/services engineering rather than construction, which uses the JCT forms. In basic structure these are broadly similar, in terms of roles and responsibilties, valuations, payments and so on.
As I say it's this notion of named individuals that is one big difference. I suppose the consultancy principal will be named and the bod running the contact will be the named Representative? I confess that I would want written confirmation that I was covered by all insurances if I was personally named in any form of contract. First rule - know your client, second rule - know all parties!
We owe the dead nothing but the truth.