Contract Archaeology in the United States
Description: Call it contract archaeology, public archaeology,
or rescue archaeology. It’s about identifying, evaluating, and
managing sites threatened by development. It’s also a business.
Is the current entrepreneurial approach to preservation an appropriate
model?
Learning Objectives:
•Analyze the development of CRM programs and practice in the United States.
• Formulate a competitive proposal and budget estimate for a CRM project.
Readings:
Fitting and Goodyear, "Client-Oriented Archaeology," JFA 6 (1979): 352-360.
Raab, "Achieving Professionalism Through Ethical Fragmentation," Ethics and Values, ch. 8.
1. Historical Summary: Following the passage of
legislation such as the National Historic Preservation Act of
1966, which mandated that federal projects consider their
effects on cultural resources, the question that emerged was:
Who would fill the need for these mandated archaeological
services?
a. Not the Federal Government: Government agencies like the Bureau of Land Management or Forest Service found it easier and cheaper to contract for outside consulting services rather than building up the large-scale infrastructure that would be needed to do CRM in-house. Some federal agencies hoped the National Park Service would do all the required work for the federal system, but it did not assume that role, even though it became the premier federal agency responsible for coordinating and reviewing the work of the other federal agencies.
b. University Archaeologists?: A logical choice to fill the vacuum and provide archaeological consulting services, and one preferred by most commentators at the time (late 1960s, early 1970s). Several colleges and universities established CRM units, but they were never able to meet the demand. Part of the problem was cost: they were expected to be self-supporting by their host institutions. Also, a "scholars vs. shovel bums" schism developed between many academic archaeologists and contract archaeologists.
c. Enter the Private Sector: There quickly emerged a new, applied field of archaeology which would variously be known as CRM, contract archaeology, public archaeology, or rescue archaeology. Some groups were non-profit; many were for-profit. Especially in the early years, when government standards were almost non-existent, there was a huge diversity of skill, experience, and training among contract archaeologists. Many were not even archaeologists. A new field of consulting archaeology had arisen, bringing with it an entrepreneurial, competitive approach to providing archaeological services to the public that remains dominant today.
2. Types of CRM Organizations
a. Profit vs. Non-Profit Groups. For-profit groups are usually private consulting firms or CRM divisions of larger corporations. Non-profit groups tend to be institutionally-based (e.g., in colleges, universities, museums) as well as individual consultants.
b. University-Based Groups. Many colleges, universities, and some museums host CRM groups. They have several potential advantages: resources, infrastructure, employee pool, stability, curation capability, and legal and sponsored research support. Such groups can often spin off research from CRM projects into M.A. and Ph.D. theses. Disadvantages may include position of the group within a large bureaucracy, lack of freedom at the CRM-unit level, lack of flexibility in hiring, promotion, etc., fixed overhead rates set at institution-wide levels, and the vulnerability of recovered indirect costs that may be absorbed by the host institution with little benefit to the CRM unit.
c. Private-Sector Firms: These are of several different types, ranging from small CRM consulting firms to CRM units within larger preservation-related firms or businesses (e.g., environmental consulting firms or large engineering firms). Advantages may include more flexibility in hiring and the ability to mobilize quickly, although in large organizations the disadvantages of belonging to a larger firm are the same as above.
d. Individual Consultants: These are less common today than in the past. They are individuals, often academic archaeologists, who take on small projects only or occasionally join with larger groups.
3. Treatment of Cultural Resources in CRM Archaeology
a. Cultural resource management in the United States is conceived as a three-part process, involving: (1) identification; (2) evaluation; and (3) treatment of archaeological resources. All three are rooted in the notion of National Register significance.
• Identification asks "Is there a site (historic property, resource)? It generally involves a simple presence/absence test (although finding sites is no simple matter). Phase I archaeological surveys ("identification surveys") correspond to this phase.
• Evaluation assumes a site has been located, and asks "Is the site significant?"—which means"Is it eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places?" Surveys that evaluate sites are commonly called Phase II or "Site Evaluation" surveys.
• Treatment involves the handling of sites that are significant and likely to be adversely affected by a project. The goal is to avoid, or mitigate, the likely impact so as to preserve the data contained in the site. Treatment may include several options, including avoiding the site or redesigning the project to avoid any impact to it; excavation to recover the data prior to disturbance; or even burying the site to protect it. Archaeological excavations designed to obtain significant data prior to disturbance through construction are commonly called Phase III "mitigation" or "data recovery" operations.
b. Student Oral Reports: Three students were given typical CRM reports (from Massachusetts and Delaware): one a Phase I survey, the other a Phase II, and the third a Phase III data recovery. The students presented a summary of the reports, focusing on the goals and methods of each particular phase.
• Phase I Intensive Survey: Background research, field reconnaissance, subsurface testing (shovel test pits), laboratory analysis, report preparation.
• Phase II Site Evaluation: Description of Phase I work, goals of survey (define site boundaries, determine site integrity, data potential, temporal and cultural features, determine potential National Register eligibility), field testing (combination of shovel test pits and meter units), results, statements of potential eligibility.
• Phase III Data Recovery: Summary of Phase I and II studies, goals of the data recovery (e.g., to study prehistoric base camps and settlement systems), excavation and analyses, conclusions about quality of data recovered and usefulness.
4. CRM Contracts
a. Contracts imply accountability. There are specific expectations, construed as legal requirements, that specify what the project is, when it will be completed, and for how much money. Failure to meet the contractual obligations creates legal liability.
b. Contracts are usually procured by requests for proposals (RFPs) submitted to various groups in a competitive bidding scheme. They are generally written with cost-reimbursable, not-to-exceed budgets that specify and limit the amount that the contractor will be paid for the work. In CRM archaeology, work is frequently procured as a subcontract. For example, an environmental firm has a contract with a municipality to design a wastewater treatment facility. The town is receiving federal funds, which triggers Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (as well as other legislation). Rather than contracting directly with a CRM group, the town passes on the obligation to conduct the archaeology to the environmental firm. So the CRM archaeologists actually subcontract to them, not to the town.
c. Scope of Work: RFPs and contracts specify the scope of work for the contracted services required. Included in the scope of work are the type of CRM work desired (e.g., Phase I survey); the specific project area to be studied; the period of performance; budget; key personnel; manner of payment; termination clauses; and links to outside approvals needed (e.g., the State Historic Preservation Office).
d. Important Problem Areas in CRM Contracting: The contracting process presents numerous problems for conscientious archaeologists. Among them:
• Earth is opaque. What happens if you find more than you can handle based on your approved budget estimate?
• Notification requirements often require advance notice (frequently 30 days) or even advance notice and approval for various changes, including delays, changes of key personnel, and budget overages.
• Intellectual property rights. Many contracts seek to impose overly burdensome conditions that restrict the confidentiality and ownership of data. These are often in direct conflict with the fundamental public interest considerations that occasion the archaeological work in the first place.
• Standards and Quality Control: These include the lack of trained practitioners; the fragmentation of authority (often split between the SHPO, who has technical standards, and the client, who has general contract standards but is often a non-archaeologist); the problem that competitive bidding often leads to minimal standards of performance; and the fact that the CRM process (especially in Section 106 review) aims for consensus, not necessarily quality.
5. CRM Budgeting: The basic elements of budgets are direct
costs, fringe benefits, indirect costs, and fee/profit.
a. Direct Costs: All salaries and direct expenses relating to the project. Many groups include fringe benefits as an element of direct costs. Expenses include expendable supplies, copying, printing, mileage, laboratory analyses, etc. The rule of thumb is that the cost must be directly charged to a specific contract or project: in other words, one may charge a long-distance phone call to the client but not one's monthly phone service fee (which is part of indirect costs).
b. Fringe Benefits: Calculated as a percentage of salaries and used to cover employer contributions to Social Security, retirement, and health plans, as well as other expenses like tuition assistance and workman's compensation. Fringe benefits are a pooled rate for institutions like colleges and universities and are negotiated with a federal agency.
c Indirect Costs: Also known as overhead, this is also a pooled rate for the institution and, for colleges and universities, is negotiated with a federal agency. Overhead costs include all real costs that cannot be directly charged to a specific project or contract. They are calculated as a percentage of direct costs. Indirect costs include costs relating to the physical plant (buildings, maintenance, heat, lighting, etc.); offices, computers, vehicles, and equipment (non-expendable); administrative offices and personnel (costs of procurement, accounting, legal, etc.); and also, very importantly, the costs of marketing, project development, and research (R&D). In CRM contracts, the costs of proposal writing (which are often considerable for large projects) cannot be recovered as direct costs; they are part of indirect costs.
5. CRM Budget Workshop
See separate budget workshop sheet.