ࡱ> #` Jgbjbj\.\. *>D>DJ_,,,,Dp<.-------$ /hq1-8&8&8&--***8&B-*8&-*** ,,z'*--0.*c2)c2*c2*G *5"#w--* .8&8&8&8& Construction Project Management Principles B UBCM7A-15-M/02 Application of Measured Contract Practices to Archaeological Contracting: Clients Needs 2,554 words excluding Executive Summary Executive Summary Planning Policy Guidance 16: Archaeology and Planning, has made archaeology a material consideration in the planning system and an increasingly common mandatory component of development and construction projects. The costs, though small in comparison with project budgets, can run to millions of pounds, are opaque to non-archaeologists and are borne entirely by the Developer. There are relatively few archaeological contractors and their costs are neither transparent nor predictable. Most costs are based on two-part lump sums or day work rates split between site works and off-site analyses, with the latter invariably re-estimated upwards once site works are complete, for contracts that might run for five years after completion of site works. Profit margins in archaeological contracting are generally 3x the 1% margins quoted by Latham (1994) for general contracting. Application of measured contract practices used in civil engineering groundworks and building maintenance term contracts, in which contractors are paid on the basis of a measured comparison of works completed and works priced for in a bill of quantities or schedule of rates, would provide financial transparency and predictability of outcome for Developer and Contractor alike. It would ultimately be in the Clients interests. Implementation would have to be lead by clients and their professional advisors. Promotion in the construction and archaeological presses, together with joint drafting of an archaeological standard method of measurement will help, but archaeological contractors, left to their own devices, will not adopt the practice unilaterally. 1 Introduction 1.1 Promulgation, in 1991, of Planning Policy Guidance 16: Archaeology and Planning by the Department of the Environment, created, overnight, a market for archaeological services and a major headache for the construction and property development industries. Archaeological works on construction and development projects, hitherto an occasional if unplanned occurrence, became a material consideration in the planning system of England and a mandatory component of an increasing number of construction and development projects. Not only were there not enough archaeological contractors or consultants to supply the demand, those that did exist had no experience of the contractual practices and little understanding of the legal and economic contexts in which they found themselves operating. 1.2 Fifteen years on, the situation has not changed significantly. Archaeological contractors are not enjoying the benefits that ought to flow from a rapid increase in the volume of work, with pay rates generally half those of construction, and construction clients and their contractors are being ill-served by commercial, academic and governmental organizations that are arguably not competent to provide the services required of them by PPG16. 1.3 This paper proposes an innovation in archaeological working practice that would benefit archaeologist and client alike. The author suggests that application of Measured contract practices from the analogous fields of civil engineering groundworks and site investigation would provide clients with financial transparency in what is currently a black art, whilst providing archaeological contractors with a measure of risk protection in what is often an unpredictable undertaking. 1.4 The analysis is hampered, however, by a lack of public disclosure by archaeological contractors and consultants. There is no equivalent of the Building Cost Information Service, the price books published by Spons et al or the Building Analyses published the Architects Journal. The only published analysis of archaeological costs was published in - the author believes - Construction Manager in 1990 by the late Tony Gregory. Despite the author publishing two articles on these subjects (Heaton, 2006a; 2006b), the profession is reluctant to publish contract sums or other financial details of even public funded projects. Accordingly, the contract values and contract forms cited below are based on legal reports, the authors professional experience, personal communications and published accounts at Companies House and the Charities Commission. 2 The Nature of Archaeological Contracting 2.1 Prior to 1986, all archaeological work in the UK was sponsored by academic or government organisations in pursuit of academic or social goals, the latter exemplified by the Manpower Services Commission schemes of the late 1970s and 1980s. The government organizations included a Central Excavation Unit of the Department of the Environment (formerly PSA) and a number of regional or municipal units maintained entirely by government grant aid. These latter organizations were responsible for the Rescue archaeology of the 1970s and 1980s hastily arranged excavations of development sites by unpaid volunteers supervised by inexperienced graduates, commonly initiated by chance finds made during construction projects that set in stone the construction industrys experience and expectation of archaeology. 2.2 In 1986 Berkshire County Council applied, for the first time, its structure plan policy EN6 on the protection of archaeological sites, derived from the 1979 Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Areas Act, to minerals extraction sites in the Kennet and Thames valleys. With the construction boom of the late 1980s underway, minerals companies complied and within a year the policy had been applied to all extraction and development sites of plausible archaeological potential within Berkshire. The precedent was adopted by neighbouring counties and the European Parliament in promulgating its Environmental Impact Assessment directives, which found legal expression in England in PPG16 and the later (1994) PPG15: Planning and the Historic Environment that extended the remit of the law to work affecting historic buildings and their settings. 2.3 The increase in work for the relatively small number of organizations capable of mounting archaeological excavations at short notice, was immense and unforeseen. Organisations employing half a dozen professional staff in 1986, such as The Trust for Wessex Archaeology at Salisbury, had moved to larger offices within three years to accommodate salaried payrolls of hundreds (TWA, 1990). Since 1991, every English local authority has applied PPG16 to an increasing number of planning applications and construction projects. Darvill and Russell (2002) suggests there were a minimum of c. 2500 full scale excavations in England, plus c. 2000 site investigations and other forms of work in 2002 alone, some encompassing hundreds of hectares. The number has increased every year since. 2.4 By the mid 1990s, archaeological contracting had become established as a material consideration in the planning systems of the UK and a regular experience in the working lives of the construction professionals and contractors. The CIOB issued guidance to its members in 1993 (Bluer, 1993); all Local Planning Authorities retained the services of a statutory archaeological advisor; and in 2004 the Institution of Civil Engineers published its Conditions of Contract for Archaeological Investigations as a service to its members (D. Vernon MICE, pers comm.). 2.5 The costs, though small in proportion to the construction projects they accompany, are still considerable: The archaeological works at the Bath Spa Project cost half a million pounds at todays prices (authors knowledge), those preceding the Birmingham Northern Relief Road cost 2.5 million pounds (Midlands Expressway v Carillion Construction Ltd and Ors, 2005), whilst those preceding construction of the Channel Tunnel Rail Link are estimated (by the author) to be in the order of c. 5 million pounds. Utilities companies such as Wessex Water and British Gas repeatedly incur archaeological costs of several tens of thousands of pounds, and all new road schemes are preceded or accompanied by archaeological works of similar value, the larger ones running to millions. 3 Contract practices 3.1 Despite a complete change in the volume and commercial context of archaeological contracting in Britain between 1986 and 2006, contract practices have remained unchanged. The only published guidance routinely used, and specified in all local planning authority briefs - Management of Archaeological Projects (English Heritage, 1991) assumes a state agency as client. The overwhelming majority of archaeological contracts are tendered-for and managed as single item lump sum contracts or cost re-imbursable day work contracts. This means that archaeological contracts such as that preceding the Bath Spa Project was awarded and managed on the basis of three lump sum items: (1) Site Operations, (2) interim Assessment report and (3) full post-excavation Analysis and report; the 2.5 million of archaeological works accompanying construction of the Birmingham Northern Relied Road was managed on the basis of single lump sum items for approximately a dozen previously identified sites a population that increased as work proceeded; whilst the potentially 1.6 million of site works at Heathrow Terminal 5 was managed as a day works contract (Gill Andrews, pers comm.) on the basis of the contractors time sheets only. Whilst the rate and extent of site works can at least be observed by the clients representatives or main contractors, the off-site analysis works that invariably form 30%-50% of the contract values are managed as single lump sums, unseen. Furthermore, these post-excavation works will commonly last 2-5 years after completion of site works. 3.2 Whilst making for relatively simple pre-contract procedures, certainly as far as the Quantity Surveyors are concerned, these practices mitigate against the clients interests and, ironically, those of the archaeological contractors. To the client or main contractor, the financial bases of these contracts are opaque, a serious handicap when larger than expected volumes of archaeological deposits are encountered, such as the Spitalfields or Hereford Mappa Mundi excavations where the numbers of human skeletons encountered were c.10x those expected, with commensurate variations of cost and completion dates. Furthermore, Management of Archaeological Projects (English Heritage, op cit) is explicit that tendered costs for off-site post-excavation analysis and report writing should be re-estimated during the interim Assessment stage after site operations. This effectively allows the archaeological contractor to re-negotiate the contract. Profit levels in archaeological contracting are, as a result, generally 3x that of general contracting (information taken from company reports lodged with Companies House and Charities Commission), whilst that of the Bath Spa Project was running at c. 50% of the contract sum when the author relinquished management of the contract. Nonetheless, for archaeological contractors, lump sums carry disproportionate risk (Senior, 1990) forcing them to build-in hidden contingency costs; day works contracts discourage improved working practices; and both mitigate against the accumulation of surplus necessary for the training, research and professional development. Despite the higher than industry average profits, pay levels in archaeological contracting are generally 50% of the equivalent construction rates. This hampers recruitment, training and retention of experienced personnel. (Hinton 2002; Aitchison and Edwards, 2003) 4 The Proposal 4.1 There is another way. Despite the opacity of its working practices and the abstract nature of its end product, Archaeology has much in common with construction groundworks and site investigation. Indeed, it was the similarities between the two undertakings, manifest in the early drafting meetings of the Conditions of Contract Standing Joint Committee, that facilitated the ready adaptation of the ICEs Ground Investigation conditions of contract to archaeological ends (ICE, 2004b). The principal difference is that archaeologists make extremely detailed records of everything they have revealed, investigated, sampled and processed, for archaeological purposes (cf. Barker, 1977). These detailed drawings, schedules, catalogues, written descriptions, photographs and carefully curated samples and artifacts constitute, inter alia, an exact quantitative record of the volumes and types of materials encountered by the archaeological contactor. Most are now digitized as a matter of course and all are publicly deposited with museums. These records are a Quantity Surveyors dream come true and lend themselves perfectly to the management of Measured forms of contract. 4.2 Measured contracts are one of three basic forms used in construction, the others being cost reimbursement and lump sum. It is the oldest form of contract valuation - all medieval and later building works in England being valued by the measure until the advent of the professional architect in the early 19th century (Salzmann, 1952) and is applicable to all procurement routes, particularly Partnership working (cf. Latham, 1994). In building construction and maintenance it is particularly suited to term contracts entered into before the value of works can be ascertained accurately (Carillion, 2001; JCT, 2006), and it is the basis of most civil engineering and groundworks contracts (Seeley, 1993). A Bill of Quantities or Schedule of Rates is prepared, normally by a quantity surveyor employed by the client, which breaks the works down into definable items distinguished by element, position, materials or method of construction etc. The bills for even modest projects will run to several pages. For civil engineering projects, the units of measurement and the methods and tolerances of measurement used are codified in the Civil Engineering Standard Method of Measurement published by the ICE (McCaffrey et al, 1982). The itemised quantities or rates are normally accompanied by Preliminaries such as insurances, site protection, welfare facilities etc., the costs of which are not directly related to the construction design; and Method related charges for tasks such as plant delivery or day works that cannot be measured. 4.3 This form of contract valuation is particularly suited to civil engineering because of the inherent unpredictability of all groundworks. Ground conditions cannot be predicted with 100% accuracy and, on brownfield sites, obstructions such as old foundations are commonly encountered (McCaffrey et al, op cit). It is explicit in the ICE conditions of contract that the quantities excavated, built or demolished by the contractor may differ from those contained within the bills. The completed works are literally measured by a quantity surveyor or engineer and the as built quantities compared against those the contractor tendered for (Seeley, 1993). 4.4 There is no reason why archaeological works could not be costed and managed on the same basis. Instead of simply inviting or accepting a single lump sum tender for archaeological works, a clients design team should assist an archaeological consultant in drawing up a bill of quantities that reflects the quantity, quality and diversity of archaeological deposits likely to be encountered on a given site, and the methods needed to investigate and analyse them. Excavation volumes can be itemised and quantified by type and the methods to be used in their investigation (bulk excavation, manual excavation or sieved extraction, for instance); artifacts and samples can be itemised and quantified by well-understood types; analysis and report writing costs can be itemised as % of the Site Operations costs, the percentage varying with site type and the efficiency of the contractor. Preliminaries and method-related costs would be exactly the same as in construction contracts. With experience, access to a library of published archaeological reports and a well-designed site investigation, any competent archaeological consultant could do this. Indeed, archaeological contractors do it implicitly when estimating their lump sum prices. 4.5 Smaller than anticipated quantities (as happens more often than not) would result in lower charges for site operations and, thereby, lower analysis and report costs. Similarly, the archaeological contractor is protected against the consequences of unforeseeable discoveries, so would not have to build in hidden contingencies. Final out turn costs would be predictable as soon as site operations were complete and the relationship between final out turn costs and results could be easily verified by recourse to the archaeological records. The process and costs base are transparent and predictable and the risks equitably shared, with all the benefits that confers to both parties. 5 Implementation 5.1 All cultures are, by definition, conservative. Archaeological contracting is a young discipline, clinging to inherited working and employment practices in the face of unfamiliar and often adversarial - commercial challenges. Existing practices work, just, and many will prefer the devil they know to the one they dont. Two articles published by the author on this subject (Heaton, 2006a: 2006b) have drawn no response from fellow professional archaeologists, but there is anecdotal evidence of reluctance to embrace contract practices that would restrict the contractors ability to renegotiate the contract once site operations are finished. 5.2 Innovation will therefore have to be lead by clients (cf. Egan, 1998) and their professional advisors. As current practices stems largely from mutual ignorance , it could be initiated by informal and formal education starting with a survey of construction professionals to assess their experiences of archaeological provision and practice. The results would support informative articles in the construction press, drawing attention to the applicability of Measured contract practices to archaeological contracting and the benefits to clients. Short training courses in each parties working practices, at the behest of client groups, would then dispel remaining prejudices. 5.3 Major clients such as government agencies and the professional institutions could then be invited to adopt and, or promote the practice in the spirit of the Egan Report. To ease the transition for archaeological contractors, an archaeological version of the CESMM would have to be drafted, together with a guidance note, in consultation with other construction professionals. This would make a fitting accompaniment to the ICEs Conditions of Contract for Archaeological Investigations. Maintenance of a cross-sector review cycle over the lifetime of two or three large (infrastructure) projects would be necessary, to record feedback and assure participants. 5.4 The author has unilaterally implemented Measured practices on three projects under his consultancy two for a county council and one for an Arts Council funded client all of which have proved successful from client and contractor perspectives. A fourth will go out to tender in the New Year. REFERENCES Aitchison, K., and Edwards, R., 2003. Labour market intelligence: Profiling the Profession 2002/3. (Institute of Field Archaeologists on behalf of Cultural Heritage National Training Organisation) Barker, P., 1977, The Techniques of Archaeological Excavation. Batsford Bluer, R., 1993, Archaeology and Development, Construction Papers No. 28. (CIOB) Carillion, 2001, Measured Term Contracts. (HMSO) Darvill, T., and Russell, B., 2002 , Archaeology after PPg16: archaeological investigations in England 1990-1999. Research Report No. 10 (Bournemouth University School of Conservation Sciences) Egan, Sir J., 1998 , Rethinking Construction. (ODPM) English Heritage, 1991, Management of Archaeological Projects. (HMSO) Heaton, M.J., 2006, Costing the earthand the finds and the samples, The Archaeologist 59. Heaton, M.J., 2006, Show me yours: Cost comparison in Archaeology, The Archaeologist 60. Hinton, P., A Training and Career Path in Archaeology: Key note speech to The Institute of Field Archaeologists Annual Conference 2002. Institution of Civil Engineers, 2005, ICE Conditions of Contract for Archaeological Investigations, First Edition. (Thomas Telford) Institution of Civil Engineers, 2005, ICE Conditions of Contract for Archaeological Investigations, First Edition: Guidance Note. (Thomas Telford) JCT, 2006, Deciding on the appropriate JCT Contract. (Joint Contracts Tribunal) Latham, Sir M., 1994, Constructing the Team. (HMSO) McCaffery, R.G., etal, The Civil Engineering Standard Method of Measurement in Practice. (Granada) Midlands Expressway v Carillion Construction Ltd and Ors, 2005. EWHC 2810 (TCC) Salzmann, L.F., 1952, Building in England down to 1540 Seeley, I.H., 1993, Civil Engineering Contract Administration and Control, 2nd Edition. (Macmillan) Senior, K., 1990, Risk and Uncertainty in Lump Sum Contracts Technical Information Service No. 113. (CIOB) TWA, 1990. Annual Report to the Charity Commissioners. (Trust for Wessex Archaeology, Salisbury) BIBLIOGRAPHY Aitchison, K., and Edwards, R., 2003. Labour market intelligence: Profiling the Profession 2002/3. (Institute of Field Archaeologists on behalf of Cultural Heritage National Training Organisation) Barker, P., 1977, The Techniques of Archaeological Excavation. Batsford Bluer, R., 1993, Archaeology and Development, Construction Papers No. 28. (CIOB) Carillion, 2001, Measured Term Contracts. (HMSO) CIOB, 2002, Code of Practice for Project Management for Construction and Development. (Chartered Institute of Building) Darvill, T., and Russell, B., 2002 , Archaeology after PPg16: archaeological investigations in England 1990-1999. Research Report No. 10 (Bournemouth University School of Conservation Sciences) Department for Trade and Industry, 2005, Construction Sector Unit Annual Report 2004/5. (HMSO) Egan, Sir J., 1998 , Rethinking Construction. (ODPM) English Heritage, 1991, Management of Archaeological Projects. (HMSO) Fewings, P., 2005, Construction Project Management. (Taylor and Francis) Heaton, M.J., 2006, Costing the earthand the finds and the samples, The Archaeologist 59. Heaton, M.J., 2006, Show me yours: Cost comparison in Archaeology, The Archaeologist 60. Hinton, P., A Training and Career Path in Archaeology: Key note speech to The Institute of Field Archaeologists Annual Conference 2002. Institution of Civil Engineers, 2005, ICE Conditions of Contract for Archaeological Investigations, First Edition. (Thomas Telford) Institution of Civil Engineers, 2005, ICE Conditions of Contract for Archaeological Investigations, First Edition: Guidance Note. (Thomas Telford) JCT, 2006, Deciding on the appropriate JCT Contract. (Joint Contracts Tribunal) Jones, M., and Saad, M., 2003, Managing Innovation in Construction. (Thomas Telford) Latham, Sir M., 1994, Constructing the Team. (HMSO) McCaffery, R.G., etal, The Civil Engineering Standard Method of Measurement in Practice. (Granada) Midlands Expressway v Carillion Construction Ltd and Ors, 2005. EWHC 2810 (TCC) Murdoch, J., and Hughes, W., 1996, Construction Contracts: Law and Managemen. (Spon Press) NHS Estates, 1996, Guide to Building, Engineering and Grounds Maintenance contracts for the NHS Estate. (HMSO) Office of Government Commerce, 2002, Procurement Guide 6: Procurement and Contract Strategies. Achieving Excellence in Construction (HMSO) Salzmann, L.F., 1952, Building in England down to 1540 Seeley, I.H., 1993, Civil Engineering Contract Administration and Control, 2nd Edition. (Macmillan) Senior, K., 1990, Risk and Uncertainty in Lump Sum Contracts Technical Information Service No. 113. (CIOB) TWA, 1990. Annual Report to the Charity Commissioners. (Trust for Wessex Archaeology, Salisbury)  *,-;<=>ʷwgWD0'hIhSk5CJOJQJaJmH sH $hIh&#CJOJQJaJmH sH h&#CJOJQJaJmH sH hSkCJOJQJaJmH sH 'h9hSk6CJOJQJaJmH sH *h9h956CJOJQJaJmH sH *h9hSk56CJOJQJaJmH sH $h`jh}ACJOJQJaJmH sH $h`jh9CJOJQJaJmH sH !h}A5CJOJQJaJmH sH !h95CJOJQJaJmH sH -<=P Q D E GHIYst56 (dgd&# $da$gd&#dgdz+$a$gd`j $da$gd`jJg O W k u   % ( J L j k y z       ! " ` a e f ɹɦɦɦɦɦɦɦɦɦɦɦ$h8+hCJOJQJaJmH sH hCJOJQJaJmH sH $h8+hkCJOJQJaJmH sH hZGCJOJQJaJmH sH h8+CJOJQJaJmH sH 'h8+h8+6CJOJQJaJmH sH $h8+h8+CJOJQJaJmH sH 3 # * E K U V r y z {  # [ k u "(3HGHIJwf!hZG5CJOJQJaJmH sH $hIhkCJOJQJaJmH sH $h8+hSkCJOJQJaJmH sH hLCJOJQJaJmH sH hCJOJQJaJmH sH hGCJOJQJaJmH sH hhGCJOJQJaJmH sH h8+CJOJQJaJmH sH $h8+hkCJOJQJaJmH sH #JLXY]jmwA]fg oprtxǷǤǐ}mZǤJmǤǤǤJJhACJOJQJaJmH sH $hIhCJOJQJaJmH sH hCJOJQJaJmH sH $hIh? CJOJQJaJmH sH 'hIhSk6CJOJQJaJmH sH $hIhu%CJOJQJaJmH sH h>CJOJQJaJmH sH $hIhSkCJOJQJaJmH sH 'hIhSk5CJOJQJaJmH sH !h>5CJOJQJaJmH sH .ceh23456:NQںڗڇwdTA$hIh?8CJOJQJaJmH sH h>CJOJQJaJmH sH $hIhCJOJQJaJmH sH htWCJOJQJaJmH sH hr_CJOJQJaJmH sH $hIhDCJOJQJaJmH sH hTqCJOJQJaJmH sH hACJOJQJaJmH sH hCJOJQJaJmH sH $hIh<CJOJQJaJmH sH $hIhtWCJOJQJaJmH sH  #$(,/A ڷt`O```?hPCJOJQJaJmH sH !hI6CJOJQJaJmH sH 'hIhI6CJOJQJaJmH sH hCJOJQJaJmH sH hICJOJQJaJmH sH h>CJOJQJaJmH sH $hIhtWCJOJQJaJmH sH $hIh?8CJOJQJaJmH sH hTqCJOJQJaJmH sH $hIh4@CJOJQJaJmH sH $hIh+CJOJQJaJmH sH   PW "$<ఝziUA'hIhSk5CJOJQJaJmH sH 'hIhKTJ5CJOJQJaJmH sH !h>5CJOJQJaJmH sH $hIhICJOJQJaJmH sH hSkCJOJQJaJmH sH $hIhtWCJOJQJaJmH sH hICJOJQJaJmH sH h#CJOJQJaJmH sH hTqCJOJQJaJmH sH hPCJOJQJaJmH sH h'CJOJQJaJmH sH (Z [ q#r#%%((((..g6h6w6;;1A2ACCHdgdz+MO!?RY]  %&ͺ𺚊vccScchLCJOJQJaJmH sH $hIhMwCJOJQJaJmH sH 'hIh A6CJOJQJaJmH sH h `CJOJQJaJmH sH hTqCJOJQJaJmH sH hS CJOJQJaJmH sH $hIh ACJOJQJaJmH sH h#CJOJQJaJmH sH $hIhbDCJOJQJaJmH sH h>CJOJQJaJmH sH L R Y [ _ !!N!j!!!!"Ųo\H\5\$hIh4CJOJQJaJmH sH 'hIh_6CJOJQJaJmH sH $hIhgCJOJQJaJmH sH hCJOJQJaJmH sH h'CJOJQJaJmH sH h>CJOJQJaJmH sH $hIhbDCJOJQJaJmH sH $hIh ACJOJQJaJmH sH $hIhMwCJOJQJaJmH sH $hIh_CJOJQJaJmH sH 'hIhMw6CJOJQJaJmH sH ""##-#6#9#A#C#E#Q#R#p#q#r#v#w#####ʺݚ݊zgWG44$hIh$CJOJQJaJmH sH h3CJOJQJaJmH sH h>CJOJQJaJmH sH $hIh3CJOJQJaJmH sH h_CJOJQJaJmH sH h%0CJOJQJaJmH sH hKCJOJQJaJmH sH hTqCJOJQJaJmH sH h[?CJOJQJaJmH sH $hIh4CJOJQJaJmH sH $hIhgCJOJQJaJmH sH h `CJOJQJaJmH sH #W$X$Y$$$$$$$$$%%"%#%*%,%1%i%%%%%%%%8&=&>&I&t&&&&ͽͪͪ탗oo_h>CJOJQJaJmH sH 'hIh9o6CJOJQJaJmH sH 'hIh46CJOJQJaJmH sH $hIh9oCJOJQJaJmH sH $hIh$CJOJQJaJmH sH h[?CJOJQJaJmH sH h(CJOJQJaJmH sH h0CJOJQJaJmH sH $hIh4CJOJQJaJmH sH "&& '''''k'{''((((((ıı{k[J6'h3h35CJOJQJaJmH sH !h>5CJOJQJaJmH sH h3CJOJQJaJmH sH hKTJCJOJQJaJmH sH $hIhKTJCJOJQJaJmH sH $hIh9oCJOJQJaJmH sH hj4CJOJQJaJmH sH $hIhFCJOJQJaJmH sH $hIhDCJOJQJaJmH sH 'h(hF6CJOJQJaJmH sH 'h(hD6CJOJQJaJmH sH ((v)|))))))**@***********6+7+m+௜|l\\L\hODCJOJQJaJmH sH h'CJOJQJaJmH sH h\YCJOJQJaJmH sH h50CJOJQJaJmH sH h3CJOJQJaJmH sH $hIhryCJOJQJaJmH sH h1x$CJOJQJaJmH sH !hS 6CJOJQJaJmH sH hj4CJOJQJaJmH sH hS CJOJQJaJmH sH h>CJOJQJaJmH sH m+s+u+y+z+~++++++++++++++++,,&,G,I,q,s,x,|,,,,,,,,+---O-ఠl'hKhK>*CJOJQJaJmH sH hKCJOJQJaJmH sH h_CJOJQJaJmH sH hJ?CJOJQJaJmH sH h0CJOJQJaJmH sH h3CJOJQJaJmH sH hQCJOJQJaJmH sH h'CJOJQJaJmH sH h[^CJOJQJaJmH sH 'O-T-h-i--.............///}jZJ:hlyCJOJQJaJmH sH h8CJOJQJaJmH sH h>CJOJQJaJmH sH $hIhKTJCJOJQJaJmH sH $hIhryCJOJQJaJmH sH h[CJOJQJaJmH sH h0CJOJQJaJmH sH hQCJOJQJaJmH sH h_CJOJQJaJmH sH h'CJOJQJaJmH sH hJ?CJOJQJaJmH sH hj4CJOJQJaJmH sH /0G0P0U0000011%191B1C1G1c1p1111 22`2244𜌜|k|W|C|'hwDh1x$>*CJOJQJaJmH sH 'h1x$h1x$6CJOJQJaJmH sH !h1x$6CJOJQJaJmH sH h1x$CJOJQJaJmH sH h\YCJOJQJaJmH sH h(CJOJQJaJmH sH 'hlyhly6CJOJQJaJmH sH hj4CJOJQJaJmH sH hACJOJQJaJmH sH hlyCJOJQJaJmH sH h`:CJOJQJaJmH sH 4142444>4Z4[4h4444444465C5N5O516>6G6S6X6Y6]6_6`6a6b6аpР`P`P`P`Рh5CJOJQJaJmH sH hACJOJQJaJmH sH h%CJOJQJaJmH sH hb.CJOJQJaJmH sH h *CJOJQJaJmH sH h$ CJOJQJaJmH sH hNCJOJQJaJmH sH hICJOJQJaJmH sH h(CJOJQJaJmH sH hj4CJOJQJaJmH sH h`:CJOJQJaJmH sH b6e6f6g6h6j6w6{667'7>77]8^8`8ͽxhXH8(8h\YCJOJQJaJmH sH h hCJOJQJaJmH sH h=CJOJQJaJmH sH h *CJOJQJaJmH sH h3CJOJQJaJmH sH h<CJOJQJaJmH sH h>CJOJQJaJmH sH 'h(h(5CJOJQJaJmH sH !h>5CJOJQJaJmH sH h(CJOJQJaJmH sH $hIhSkCJOJQJaJmH sH h_CJOJQJaJmH sH hlyCJOJQJaJmH sH `8b8f89'9)999999999:/:[::;;u;;O<ఌ|l|\LlLhtvCJOJQJaJmH sH h>CJOJQJaJmH sH h#qwCJOJQJaJmH sH h&CJOJQJaJmH sH hg]CJOJQJaJmH sH 'hphp6CJOJQJaJmH sH hBX/CJOJQJaJmH sH h-CJOJQJaJmH sH h CJOJQJaJmH sH hpCJOJQJaJmH sH h=CJOJQJaJmH sH O<Q<<<=}====>>>>>>>>????ۻ{{{{k[G6!hs6CJOJQJaJmH sH 'hhs6CJOJQJaJmH sH hsCJOJQJaJmH sH h\YCJOJQJaJmH sH h5 CJOJQJaJmH sH huCJOJQJaJmH sH hSCJOJQJaJmH sH h[WCJOJQJaJmH sH h#qwCJOJQJaJmH sH h,TCJOJQJaJmH sH htvCJOJQJaJmH sH 'htvhtvCJH*OJQJaJmH sH ??@@@@A(A*A0A1A2A6AAPB\BaBbBcBiBjBrBBࠐp`L;`L`p!h,T6CJOJQJaJmH sH 'h,Th,T6CJOJQJaJmH sH h,TCJOJQJaJmH sH hM*CJOJQJaJmH sH h>CJOJQJaJmH sH htvCJOJQJaJmH sH hpCJOJQJaJmH sH hCJOJQJaJmH sH hyICJOJQJaJmH sH h\YCJOJQJaJmH sH h5 CJOJQJaJmH sH hsCJOJQJaJmH sH BBBBBCCCFCGCOCPCXC[C\ClCwCCCCCCCCDDDDDDDDDDhEiEEEEE6FаааРph *CJOJQJaJmH sH hCJOJQJaJmH sH h>CJOJQJaJmH sH hCJOJQJaJmH sH hKGCJOJQJaJmH sH hECJOJQJaJmH sH hM*CJOJQJaJmH sH hsCJOJQJaJmH sH hX CJOJQJaJmH sH (6FVFnF~FFFFFGGGGGG!G&G)G*GGGHGZG[GGHH H H(H)H7H8HPHHHHHHIII!I"I@IAIMINIIIIh>CJOJQJaJmH sH hQCJOJQJaJmH sH hPTCJOJQJaJmH sH hy@lCJOJQJaJmH sH h3=CJOJQJaJmH sH hKGCJOJQJaJmH sH hCJOJQJaJmH sH hxCJOJQJaJmH sH 0HHhKiK{KN NPPRSSSTTTQURUUUUU V!VVVWWaWbWgdGdgd~dgdz+IJJ J JZJxJyJJJ%K-KcKeKhKiKjKkKlKzK{KKМЌxhT@h'hJh5CJOJQJaJmH sH 'hJhJ5CJOJQJaJmH sH h>CJOJQJaJmH sH 'h>h>5CJOJQJaJmH sH hKGCJOJQJaJmH sH 'h1hx5CJOJQJaJmH sH hy@lCJOJQJaJmH sH hpCJOJQJaJmH sH hxCJOJQJaJmH sH hyICJOJQJaJmH sH h/6CJOJQJaJmH sH KKKKKKKKK&L1LKLbLcLdLLMMMNN N Np`pPpP@h>CJOJQJaJmH sH hb.CJOJQJaJmH sH h~CJOJQJaJmH sH hr_CJOJQJaJmH sH h* CJOJQJaJmH sH hz+CJOJQJaJmH sH hvCJOJQJaJmH sH h2CJOJQJaJmH sH h5CJOJQJaJmH sH h[CJOJQJaJmH sH hy@lCJOJQJaJmH sH hZ CJOJQJaJmH sH  NNN'N2NANBNSNrNtNwNNNN|OOfPPPPPPPQQAQbQQQgRRАЀЀpp`ЀЀЀO!h~6CJOJQJaJmH sH h>CJOJQJaJmH sH h\&CJOJQJaJmH sH h2CJOJQJaJmH sH h^zCJOJQJaJmH sH hc CJOJQJaJmH sH h66xCJOJQJaJmH sH hP}CJOJQJaJmH sH h~CJOJQJaJmH sH hb.CJOJQJaJmH sH hGCJOJQJaJmH sH RRRRRQSSSWSfSsSLTPT~TTTTTTp`L8'hhb.5CJOJQJaJmH sH 'hh5CJOJQJaJmH sH h\06CJOJQJaJmH sH hBCJOJQJaJmH sH h CJOJQJaJmH sH hrCJOJQJaJmH sH h^~ CJOJQJaJmH sH hjjCJOJQJaJmH sH h>CJOJQJaJmH sH h*V3CJOJQJaJmH sH h2CJOJQJaJmH sH h~CJOJQJaJmH sH TRUdUUUUUUUUVVV V!VFVVਕn_T@'hDhD5CJOJQJaJmH sH hDhDCJaJhDhDCJOJQJaJ'hDhD6CJOJQJaJmH sH $hDhDCJOJQJaJmH sH $h( kh 5LCJOJQJaJmH sH !h 5L5CJOJQJaJmH sH  h 5Lh 5Lh 5Lh 5LCJOJQJaJ!h 5L6CJOJQJaJmH sH h 5LCJOJQJaJmH sH h5CJOJQJaJmH sH VVVVVVVVVWWWW3WZW`WǷڧsbO;0h%Gh 5LOJQJ'h%Gh 5L6CJOJQJaJmH sH $h%Gh 5LCJOJQJaJmH sH !h,5CJOJQJaJmH sH $hAh,CJOJQJaJmH sH !hA6CJOJQJaJmH sH hACJOJQJaJmH sH h,CJOJQJaJmH sH h 5LCJOJQJaJmH sH $h&0 h 5LCJOJQJaJmH sH !h 5L5CJOJQJaJmH sH 'h&0 h 5L5CJOJQJaJmH sH `WaWbWWWWWWWXXXXXXXXXXXXY,Y-Y.Y/YVYǬ蜌yhYE'h4V|h 5L6CJOJQJaJmH sH hh 5LCJOJQJaJ!h55CJOJQJaJmH sH $h5h5CJOJQJaJmH sH h\CJOJQJaJmH sH h5CJOJQJaJmH sH 'hh 5L5CJOJQJaJmH sH  hICh 5L!h 5L6CJOJQJaJmH sH h 5LCJOJQJaJmH sH !h 5L5CJOJQJaJmH sH  hDh 5LbWWWXXXX.Y/YYYZZLZMZZZ[[;[<[[[\\v\w\x\y\\gdGVYYYYYYYYZZ-ZDZKZLZMZ\Z˺rarN=*$hAZh 5LCJOJQJaJmH sH !hA5CJOJQJaJmH sH $hAhACJOJQJaJmH sH !hA6CJOJQJaJmH sH hACJOJQJaJmH sH !hD5CJOJQJaJmH sH 'hDhD6CJOJQJaJmH sH $hDhDCJOJQJaJmH sH !h 5L5CJOJQJaJmH sH 'h4V|h 5L6CJOJQJaJmH sH hh 5LCJOJQJaJ!h 5L6CJOJQJaJmH sH \ZdZZZZZZZZ[[[[;[<[P[[̻tcP<'h[h 5L6CJOJQJaJmH sH $h[h 5LCJOJQJaJmH sH !h[?5CJOJQJaJmH sH hfvZCJOJQJaJmH sH h[?CJOJQJaJmH sH $hIh[?CJOJQJaJmH sH 'h(h[?6CJOJQJaJmH sH !h 5L5CJOJQJaJmH sH $hAZh 5LCJOJQJaJmH sH !h 5L6CJOJQJaJmH sH h 5LCJOJQJaJmH sH [[[[\\\\\\\u\w\y\ɸɥubRB2hCJOJQJaJmH sH h6eCJOJQJaJmH sH hLCJOJQJaJmH sH $hIhLCJOJQJaJmH sH h(CJOJQJaJmH sH h* CJOJQJaJmH sH hr_CJOJQJaJmH sH $h( kh 5LCJOJQJaJmH sH !h 5L5CJOJQJaJmH sH h 5LCJOJQJaJmH sH !h 5L6CJOJQJaJmH sH *h$:h 5L6CJH*OJQJaJmH sH  y\\\\`]]]]]]]]]^^^˻p]I:/hDhfJ$CJaJhDhfJ$CJOJQJaJ'hDhfJ$6CJOJQJaJmH sH $hDhfJ$CJOJQJaJmH sH $h( khfJ$CJOJQJaJmH sH !hfJ$5CJOJQJaJmH sH  h 5LhfJ$h 5LhfJ$CJOJQJaJ!hfJ$6CJOJQJaJmH sH hfJ$CJOJQJaJmH sH h*JCJOJQJaJmH sH hCJOJQJaJmH sH 'h*Jh5CJOJQJaJmH sH \\\M]N]]]]]^^^^X_Y_____6`7`````:a;aaaMbgdG^^)^s^^^^^___ _W_X_Y___༨sbOOb?.!h{6CJOJQJaJmH sH h{CJOJQJaJmH sH $h&0 hfJ$CJOJQJaJmH sH !hfJ$5CJOJQJaJmH sH 'h&0 hfJ$5CJOJQJaJmH sH !hfJ$6CJOJQJaJmH sH hfJ$CJOJQJaJmH sH 'hDhut5CJOJQJaJmH sH $huthutCJOJQJaJmH sH !hut6CJOJQJaJmH sH hutCJOJQJaJmH sH hM'hCJOJQJaJmH sH _________`/`5`6`J`k````````ijĠ|h]VijG<ijhhfJ$OJQJhhfJ$CJOJQJaJ hDhfJ$h%GhfJ$OJQJ'h%GhfJ$6CJOJQJaJmH sH $h%GhfJ$CJOJQJaJmH sH !hfJ$5CJOJQJaJmH sH $hAhfJ$CJOJQJaJmH sH !hfJ$6CJOJQJaJmH sH hfJ$CJOJQJaJmH sH !h{5CJOJQJaJmH sH h{h{CJOJQJaJh{CJOJQJaJ```$a6a8a9a:a;aaaaa;bKbLbMbNbubbbbbbbc5c6cdzؠǑ}Ǒ}jVj'hDhfJ$6CJOJQJaJmH sH $hDhfJ$CJOJQJaJmH sH 'h4V|hfJ$6CJOJQJaJmH sH hhfJ$CJOJQJaJ$h5hfJ$CJOJQJaJmH sH 'hhfJ$5CJOJQJaJmH sH !hfJ$6CJOJQJaJmH sH hfJ$CJOJQJaJmH sH !hfJ$5CJOJQJaJmH sH  hIChfJ$MbNbbb5c6ccccc'd(dydzdddFeGeee f fqfrfffFgGgHgdgdz+gdG6cUczcccccccccccd%d'd(d`dfdxdzdddd̻vccvO?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMOPQRSTUWXYZ\]^`ab(HbW\MbHgJg5=NV[_cJg68@0(  B S  ?14d 44TI 4d4g 4"44"4O 4Ԫ 4"4" 4V!4ԥ "4h #4t"$4"%4&44Z'4(4^ )4|"*4"+44,4H -4` .4"/4"04,I14: 24 34@4454$"64T74 84k94c:4+;4D/<4,*=4$x>4dx?4x@4AA4 BB4LBC4BD4BE4 C  -!-!33LLLNNNNNNRR&S&SWTkTkTTTT~V~VVVV W W,W7W\\]]'_;_;_L_      "!#$%&(')*+,-./0 4!4!33LMMNNNNNNRR-S-S]TtTtTT U UVVVVV+W6W=W=W$\$\]]-_D_D_L_  "!#$%&(')*+,-./0B1*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagscountry-region90*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsplace8*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttagsCity=!*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags PlaceName=#*urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags PlaceType 8 10010010010110#0!10!0##01010#0!0#!10!0##00110-3MMXN]NOOjOmOOOFRJRMRVRXR[RSSDSGSUUVVWW7X>XXXXXE[I[[[[[[[\\@]D]]]]]^^L_''v99IDVDFFGGMHTHKKdMgM?NENNNOYOPPSQYQQQpuA,}gI5Z $STq ? ^~ JD"#&#fJ$1x$& *8+z+[,.b.BX/%05072*V35(6/6\068?8C9`:3=J?4@}AbDODFZGhGIJ*JKTJL 5LPT6U[WtWfvZa]g][^ `}`6e hM'h1h`jjjy@l9osstv#qw66xlyry^z Aj4~+E(Dtu%0NyI@-AP ,wDG ,T[?"-utV{D\Y9{k_\ %DP}* BK[_'r_0VSk CkKwYxp\&gGMw2KGvUL_aflI4gM*<YQbALr3@LJ_@UnknownGz Times New Roman5Symbol3& z Arial=& Swis721 BT"Ah8Q08Q0$xx24d__2QHP)?Sk2\APPLICATION OF MEASURED CONTRACT PRACTICES TO ARCHAEOLOGICAL CONTRACTING: THE CLIENTS NEEDSuseruserOh+'0 (4D T`   `APPLICATION OF MEASURED CONTRACT PRACTICES TO ARCHAEOLOGICAL CONTRACTING: THE CLIENTS NEEDSuserNORMALuser2Microsoft Office Word@@3,@3,8Q՜.+,0D hp|  %0_ ]APPLICATION OF MEASURED CONTRACT PRACTICES TO ARCHAEOLOGICAL CONTRACTING: THE CLIENTS NEEDS Title  !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ[\]^_`abcdfghijklnopqrstuvwxyz{|}~Root Entry F ,,Data e1Tablemc2WordDocument*SummaryInformation(DocumentSummaryInformation8CompObjq  FMicrosoft Office Word Document MSWordDocWord.Document.89q