аЯрЁБс>ўџ ?Aўџџџ>џџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџьЅС` №Пt%bjbjъъ *6э€э€tџџџџџџЄАААААААФŒ Œ Œ Œ ,И Фѕєи и и и и Г Г Г tvvvvvv$щhQ:šА  Г Г     šААи и лЏммм  Аи Аи tм  tммААми Ь PзŽ{НЦŒ Њ мtХ0ѕм‹Д ‹м‹Ам˜Г "е мэ  ŸГ Г Г ššв Г Г Г ѕ        ФФФD „ФФФ ФФФААААААџџџџ Costing the earth…and the finds and the soil samples: alternatives to the ‘fixed price’. Michael Heaton The intellectual nature and unpredictability inherent to archaeological investigation make the pricing strategies of the construction industry inapplicable to archaeology. This is a myth, born of ignorance and professional immaturity. It prevents us generating the levels of profit necessary for satisfactory archaeological research and the technical and professional development enjoyed by the other disciplines we work with. It is creating a vicious spiral of ignorance, under-achievement and – relative – poverty. Currently, most Excavation projects are based on ‘Fixed Price’ quotes (for the purposes of this article I am excluding Evaluations, Watching Briefs and other forms of work). Some of the larger infrastructure projects have used other forms of contract, but the majority are based on a single ‘Lump Sum’ tendered on the basis of minimal information and without any mechanisms for valuing, or indeed justifying, variations. The archaeological contractor carries all the risk and invariably has to ‘cut his cloth’ during the project to meet the budget. This is stressful and removes much of the enjoyment from what should be an intellectually rewarding undertaking. No civil engineering contractor or building contractor would ever undertake a project on this basis: Indeed, there is no such thing as a ‘Fixed Price’, as we understand it, in the construction industry. Leaving aside the benefits they enjoy by virtue of mutually agreed conditions of contract such as the ICE CoC for Archaeological Investigations, Site Investigation and Groundworks contractors are normally remunerated on the basis of a ‘measured’ comparison between what they have done and what they were told they were going to do in a ‘Bill of Quantities’ or a ‘Schedule of rates’ against which they tendered. This method has been used for hundreds of years (cf. Salzmann, 1952). Groundworks, and indeed all ‘measured’ construction work, are normally measured using the Standard Method of Measurement, now in its 7th edition – hence SMM7. To allow for the inherent unpredictability of subsoils, geology, groundwater and obstacles such as old foundations and therefore the difficulty of predicting exactly what shape, depth and length a footing or drain excavation will have, SMM7 classifies excavation by method, profile and dimension: i.e. it provides a number of categories to which the QS and contractor will mutually agree the closest fit. Those categories are known at tender stage, so the contractor prices the work on the basis of those categories and the given dimensions of the design. Samples, processing and report preparation in Site Investigation contracts are all priced as itemised costs, the latter being based on a given number of boreholes, trial pits, samples etc. The tendered price and the final ‘out turn’ price are rarely the same, but the relationship between the two is transparently based on the method of measurement, the specification and the conditions of contract. Invariably, the profit margin is explicit in the Bills, as a percentage of the Costs: It is the difference between Cost and Price. Both parties expect the contractor to make a reasonable profit. It requires methodological exactitude and scrupulous record keeping. There is absolutely no reason why this cannot be applied to Excavations. Clients routinely do not ask for it because their advisors – usually QSs, Architects or Surveyors – are unaware that we create and archive detailed metric and qualitative records. They ask for ‘Fixed Prices’ simply because archaeological processes are, to them, completely opaque. I refuse to tender on that basis. Nonetheless, every one of us, when asked to tender for an Excavation, intuitively estimates the quantities and forms of archaeological deposit, artifacts and environmental materials that will be encountered. Our ‘Fixed Price’ tenders are based on a nominal ‘Bill of Quantities’, albeit one of our own making. It would be easier if we were all given the same Bill of Quantities against which to tender. Creation of an archaeological Bill of Quantities requires two slight changes to the way most of us operate now and creates a more demanding role for Consultants. First and most importantly, Evaluation has to designed and reported far more rigorously. Currently, evaluations are designed to meet the needs of Curators: Is there anything there? how important is it?. These are important questions, but we also need to know ‘How much’? This will require volumetric analysis of deposits, artifacts and environmental materials. Secondly, we have to acknowledge and formalise our intuitive classification of archaeological quantities and develop our own SMM. Anyone of us with enough experience of a geographical area and archaeological period or culture, equipped with a good evaluation report, could quickly arrive at a rough classification of, for instance, the types, profiles and dimensions of linear features likely to exist within a given site. For instance, a later prehistoric settlement in my neck of the woods will probably have ‘U’ and ‘V’ shaped ditches/gulleys falling into three broad size categories that could be grouped by profile-area, width or depth. It would be unlikely to have broad flat bottomed ditches, as these are a characteristic of funerary monuments. It will also have postholes, pits of two or three types, several cubic metres of buried soils, hearths and huge quantities of animal bone and worked flint. All these entities can be measured to acceptable degrees of accuracy. Finds Processing and Sample Processing are easily costed on this basis, either by volume, weight or number depending on the nature of the material. Assessment and Analysis are slightly different issues, as they are wholly intellectual tasks that cannot be measured. Nonetheless, we already make intuitive estimates, so why not formalise it. I suggest that Assessment and Analysis be costed as percentages of the core Site Operations costs, i.e. the costs arising directly from the quantities of deposits, finds etc., not the ‘Preliminaries’ costs arising from site huts, toilets, publicity etc. As such, increases in actual quantities would automatically lead to an increase in Assessment and Analysis budgets. This might seem onerous: It is childs’ play compared to what the construction professionals and contractors have to do in order to manage construction costs, and that is why they are properly remunerated. In my role of Consultant, I have unilaterally developed and implemented this approach on several projects. It has been a very steep learning curve in which I have made mistakes, to my financial cost, but the contractors on these projects have commenced knowing that as long as they worked efficiently, they could not loose money. Why should they loose money?. The most recent has been an unqualified success: the work has been done well, the contractor has been remunerated for what was actually encountered and the client understands fully the link between results and costs and is therefore happy with it. Anyone interested in making a profit? (Michael Heaton is an MIFA and a Student Member of the RICS, studying Building Surveying and Construction Management part time at the University of the West of England whilst practicing as an archaeological contractor and consultant) YZ[jo‡Ън   ! % T Y ` a  B F J U o q r s И  И М Ь ѓ § q r Ђ япгУгЗгЋгŸгŸг“Ÿ“‡“{ЗŸЗ{“Ћ{Ћ{ЋoЋo‡o{oŸohіGъOJQJmH sH hКs+OJQJmH sH hёRЙOJQJmH sH h>OёOJQJmH sH h|LЈOJQJmH sH hoвOJQJmH sH hŽOOJQJmH sH hіGъhОя6OJQJmH sH hОяOJQJmH sH hОяhJD"5OJQJmH sH hОяhОя5OJQJmH sH &Z[jkr s '(BC;<!!8$9$_$`$a$b$M%N%O%P%§јјјјѓјјјющщщффффщјпппппппgdАLgdЏoЫgds{ўgd­RУgdКs+gdОяt%ўЂ Ѓ Є Й ж =fghimn€pqИ?AXjƒ‡˜šЅЫэ\]єшмшмЬПмГЇГЇГЇ›ЇєЇ‹ЇoєГєГєcWhёRЙOJQJmH sH hs{ўOJQJmH sH h…ah…a>*OJQJmH sH h…aOJQJmH sH hЏ!šhЏ!šH*OJQJmH sH hFnEOJQJmH sH hЏ!šOJQJmH sH h|LЈOJQJmH sH hКs+6OJQJmH sH hКs+hКs+6OJQJmH sH hКs+OJQJmH sH hіGъOJQJmH sH h­RУOJQJmH sH ]a}ƒГДИЙouLPl™кџ!&'(p%Š­ЎЛФ}~AБяузуЫуЫуПуГПЇП›ПГГуƒwƒуГЫЫЇkk_hёRЙOJQJmH sH hFnEOJQJmH sH hіGъOJQJmH sH h­RУOJQJmH sH hР~ OJQJmH sH hЏoЫOJQJmH sH hоgќOJQJmH sH hКcіOJQJmH sH hк4ЂOJQJmH sH h|LЈOJQJmH sH hАLOJQJmH sH hs{ўOJQJmH sH hАLhёRЙ>*OJQJmH sH "Бух™šЛХюєѕO[frЙв4=гуг|ЂСбпр&'-2789:;!єшмамФмамИЌ ” Ф ” ” ˆ”ˆ|ˆ|”ˆ Имpdpd”hs{ўOJQJmH sH hКcіOJQJmH sH hpoЗOJQJmH sH hл'’OJQJmH sH hЏoЫOJQJmH sH hŽOOJQJmH sH hКKДOJQJmH sH hОIАOJQJmH sH hАLOJQJmH sH hоgќOJQJmH sH hG0ѓOJQJmH sH hёRЙOJQJmH sH hЪg7OJQJmH sH $!!б!J#i#5$8$9$^$_$a$з$с$ % %%J%N%Q%V%c%g%s%t%єшєшємашФшДЄД”Є”ДшФˆ|pahОяhОяOJQJmH sH hОяOJQJmH sH h>OёOJQJmH sH hoвOJQJmH sH h|LЈhђ^6OJQJmH sH h|LЈhоgќ6OJQJmH sH h|LЈhАL6OJQJmH sH hіGъOJQJmH sH hs{ўOJQJmH sH hЏoЫOJQJmH sH hАLOJQJmH sH hњ3еOJQJmH sH P%Q%R%S%T%U%Y%Z%[%\%]%^%_%`%a%k%l%m%n%o%p%q%r%s%t%њѕѕѕѕѕѕѕѕѕѕѕѕѕѕѕѕѕѕѕѕѕѕѕgdОяgdАL(А‚. АЦA!А"А# $ %ААаАа а†œH@ёџH Normal5$7$8$9DH$_HmH sH tH DAђџЁD Default Paragraph FontViѓџГV  Table Normal :V і4ж4ж laі (kєџС(No List t6џџџџZ[jkrs  ' ( BC;<89_`abMNOPQRSTUYZ[\]^_`aklmnopqrsv˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€˜0€€Z[jkrs  ' klvйŠ00шйŠ00€йŠ00€лŠ00€лŠ00€йŠ00€лŠ00€йŠ00€лŠ00€лŠ00€йŠ00€йŠ00‰Ђ ]Б!t%P%t%t%№8№@ёџџџ€€€ї№’№№0№( № №№B №S №ПЫџ ?№џџЯ5сd+а5сЄNv  vB*€urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags€country-region€9*€urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags€place€ яžvv !TYFJqrhimn€˜šЅЫГ Д И Й L P Š­ЎЛФ™šЛХюєЙвЁЁб9Psvv хђ^АLР~ …aJD"f&Кs+Ъg7FnEŽO‚Weяsл'’Џ!šк4ЂЩ"Ї|LЈОIАКKДpoЗёRЙ­RУЏoЫoвњ3еіGъОя>OёG0ѓКcіоgќs{ўџ@€DD(x33DDt@@џџUnknownџџџџџџџџџџџџG‡z €џTimes New Roman5€Symbol3& ‡z €џArial=& ‡Swis721 BT"СˆаhjКœІ$ЛœІ­eƒ5e5$ЅРxx€r4dee2ƒQџпHP(№џ?фџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџОя2џџuseruserўџр…ŸђљOhЋ‘+'Гй0TˆœЈИФд ф№   (4<DLфuserNORMALuser17Microsoft Office Word@Nі*@Є"ЅЦ@8мmНЦeўџеЭеœ.“—+,љЎ0ш hp|„Œ” œЄЌД М Щф5e  Title ўџџџ !"#ўџџџ%&'()*+,-ўџџџ/012345ўџџџ789:;<=ўџџџ§џџџ@ўџџџўџџџўџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџRoot Entryџџџџџџџџ РFYС{НЦB€Data џџџџџџџџџџџџ1Tableџџџџ$‹WordDocumentџџџџ*6SummaryInformation(џџџџџџџџџџџџ.DocumentSummaryInformation8џџџџџџџџ6CompObjџџџџџџџџџџџџqџџџџџџџџџџџџўџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџџўџ џџџџ РFMicrosoft Office Word Document MSWordDocWord.Document.8є9Вq