Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2005
Quote:quote:SMS is also more difficlt to cost from a contractors point of view - going in with a capped sum hardly puts us (the profession) in a position to ensure that the job is going to be done properly.
Very true, but I have been involved in at least one project where the fixed sum was agreed after the site was stripped under archaeological supervision. One doubts whether this could have been put out to tender, with the delays that involves, or whether the developer had to accept our price regardless.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
Was going to reply more to this thread but work got in the way (how inconsiderate of developers to want site meetings and costings).
In all of the SMA (SMS) projects that I have been involved in the initial strip has been treated and costed like an evaluation. Basically we produce a TST plan and do limited digging to characterise the archaeology (like a trenching eval) then a quick plan and a c.1 page 'report', a site meeting with client and monitor, agree NEW costings and aims etc (pos a new WSI) and into Excavation. As I said previousley this does work well but you have to be on the ball and so far has taken out the majority of the risk when costing the excavation up. The client has the advantage of a greater turn around and in cases blank areas freed up to start work on. I dont see that this is in any way counter to PPG 16 as the site is still evaluated - just with 1 big trench. The preservation in situ issue is a tricky one which fortunately we havent had to deal with yet but on rural sites (where SMA is best used) occurs that rarely that to my mind it is a good balance of risk.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2005
Oxo,
Sounds like bad practice and without thought and planning. Agree with Mole. Look at what you have by planning it, and rationalise it by investigating the areas that will give you the most information. Cost and information effective.
Back to the hangover.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2005
Very interesting Mole. I had not realized that they were used so widely in some areas, and thought the ones I've done were unusual, and the result of changes in direction by the curators.
I certainly hope we get more of this type of project because it is harder to manipulate the unknowns, as some parts of the industry like to do, when the archaeology is staring you in the face. Likewise, with preservation in-situ removed as an option, it seems that the only option for the developer is to deal properly with the archaeology. It's harder to claim that an area will be unaffected by development and then run machinery over it for months once the archs have left. Or to say that an area is only going to be piled through then to scour the pile positions or whole site to natural to remove "obstructions" to piling.
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
Wouldnt say that they are widely used cos they are obviousley not suitable for all types of project. But on areas where all the topsoil is going to be stripped anyway it seems to make sense and these are coming in as initial briefs rather than afterthoughts. Although initially their is a lot more work I think that the developers like these better because they can actually see what they are being asked to pay for rather that 'if, buts and maybey' that trenching seems to throw up. Also as you say, merc, it makes it easier to say something a bit more concrete about the sites (although some may not like this).
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jan 2006
Mole said
'But on areas where all the topsoil is going to be stripped anyway it seems to make sense and these are coming in as initial briefs rather than afterthoughts.'
This may well be the case and there are plenty of sites where complete topsoil stripping is likely to be required as part of the development.
One word of caution however - if the topsoil stripping is done as part of the archaeological works, then the developer is able to include the costs as part of the archaeology costs, i.e going to the LPa and moaning along the lines of 'I've already spent £50K on archaeology, now they want another £50k for more excavation and reporting - I really can't afford this', whereas the truth is that £50K has been spent on stripping and moving topsoil but that would have need to be done anyway and should have been in the groundworks budget, not the archaeology budget.
Just a thought (based on experience).
Beamo
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2004
Beamo
Fortunately this problem has never arrisen for me - however, you have managed to put some doubt into my mind!! I think that I will go and have a look at some old briefs and contract docs to see if we were lucky to dodge this.
I still think that SMA is a good option but mabey we need to explore whiter it creates extra loopholes or causes more problems. It may be a case of dammed if you do - dammed if you dont
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Mar 2005
This is a very interesting topic. The crux of the problem is liability. In short, unless a DC archaeologist is extremely confident about the potential nature of the sub-surface archaeology (and this method really refers to big rural sites e.g quarries)then they are not going to advocate a Strip and Map strategy without a large trenching evaluation (e.g. 5%). I had a conversation about this with our DC archaeologist recently about a site that I felt was ripe for no trench eval and a SMA (we had done the DBA and some targeted trenching on cropmarks and had excavated a very similarly preserved site 1km away). My point was that an eval that costs 30K and still doesnt give us a handle on the archaeology (low density of features and lots of discrete pits) was a waste of money and we should go to a SMA. He argued that that was too much of a risk and that even though the eval might waste 30K it still informs the client better on potential costs of an area excavation.
At this present we are locked in a catch 22 situation. Areas to excavate would be determined by the trench eval but I felt that looking with less resoulution at the whole with A SMA would better characterise the site by giving us the opportunity to look at isolated features and unexpected settlement foci. Im not doing a crappy consultancy thing of less is more but I genuinley think that we would better understand the site by a SMA.
So, the main problem is the risk to the developer: if you go straight to SMA then they could be hit with big costs if loads stuff is found (that an eval could have informed about) but in some case going SMA will give a better result and also be significantly. cheaper... The age old problem of quantifying the unquantifiable.
I therefore really like the method flagged up in one of these posts about an initial topsoil strip, a quick TST plan and quantification and then negotiation with the client over finances/resources needed, but do wonder how best the circle of risk can be squared in the current system?
I also take the point about presevation in situ: i.e. if you have already stripped the site then its already a bit 'after the lord mayors show'. A change in legislation required perhaps?
Oh and Oxbeast dont be worried about the county mounty not looking at you: he is, its just that you're working in Lincolnshire...
G
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: Jul 2005
I have a lot of experience of SMA (or whatever you call it - it has several names), and I reckon it is a good method in certain circumstances, but could be disastrous in some others.
Essentially, it can be very good if you are dealing with low-density remains, with poorly-defined limits, over a large area that is going to be completely stripped anyway. I would not apply SMA in smaller or otherwise more constrained sites, or where I have reason to think that higher-density remains are present, or where there is the potential for a decision to preserve in situ.
Such remains are difficult to evaluate effectively by trenching, even with prior geophysical survey. You can easily get a 'false negative', leading to a decision that no excavation is necessary (or much less than is really needed).
What you do need to do is structure the brief very carefully and in a staged manner that allows for decision-making at key stages on the basis of archaeological issues rather than cost. What I tend to do is specify methods for the stages, with rates per stage.
Pricing is the difficult bit. Generally I ask for a price for the initial strip and plan, because here the quantity is known. We don't know in advance what the quantity is for detailed investigation, so I ask for a rate per square metre. To allow calculation of a tender price, I include a provisional quantity (e.g. 40% of the stripped are to be subject to detailed excavation). The beauty of a provisional quantity in a bill of quantities is that you know it is notional - you will get paid for the amount actually excavated, whether that is 10%, 40% or 80%. Clients understand this.
1man1desk
to let, fully furnished
Posts: 0
Threads: 0
Joined: May 2005
Sounds sensible. Could not the provisional quantity of archaeology be used in tendering for urban or more intensively occupied sites, so as to avoid contractors going bankrupt due to enexpected discoveries? Or do developers prefer the fixed fee jjobs with no unknowns or risks for themselves?
