22nd October 2006, 03:19 PM
To answer your question about tender docs: I can tell you from working extensively with tenders that the majority of briefs and specifications we receive to determine our scope of work use IFA guidelines as their base and require that the team consist of suitably qualified professionals.
About the students: while on an excavation it may save a contractor in the short term to rely on an excessive amount of 'cheap' student labour, usually this turns out to be a false economy; experienced archaeologists record accurately and quickly and keep the recording methodology consistent throughout the site which greatly facilitates the post excavation process. To attain this level of ability requires not only experience and ability, which many students and amateurs undoubtly have, but experience with the recording methods of the unit one is working for, which in turn requires an investment by the unit in its workers over some time.
This is more obvious with evaluations as a poorly executed evaluation results in a poor understanding of what archaeology may be on site which has great ramifications for everyone involved when the client then asks what the scope of the mitigation will be. This is why many large consultancies will insist on the use of professional archaeologists (as defined by the IFA) as a poor result will reflect badly on them as they will not be able to advise their client of the likely cost of excavation.
Also the use of students or similar is often inappropriate in certain types of sites such as linear schemes and urban excavations where there are many health and safety considerations. Moreover, many clients now require all workers on their sites, including archaeologists, to hold CSCS cards.
Sorry to ramble, but I suppose the point is that all the paperwork is often already there - the problem is that when costing a project you are often resourcing an extremely vague amount of work. This is compounded by poor practice: I often lose evaluation work, phone to hear that we were beaten by a VERY low cost, then a few months later am asked to tender for the excavation phase and read the report produced by this low price and have to tell the client that there just isn't enough information to give a firm estimate and am forced to give a hidiously large range to cover the risk! This is obviously bad for the client, who has paid to evaluate the site to see what is there and plan appropriately, and reflects very badly on us archaeologists!
This sort of behaviour is what damages the profession not, as you rightly point out, the use of the odd student on an appropriate project.
don't panic
About the students: while on an excavation it may save a contractor in the short term to rely on an excessive amount of 'cheap' student labour, usually this turns out to be a false economy; experienced archaeologists record accurately and quickly and keep the recording methodology consistent throughout the site which greatly facilitates the post excavation process. To attain this level of ability requires not only experience and ability, which many students and amateurs undoubtly have, but experience with the recording methods of the unit one is working for, which in turn requires an investment by the unit in its workers over some time.
This is more obvious with evaluations as a poorly executed evaluation results in a poor understanding of what archaeology may be on site which has great ramifications for everyone involved when the client then asks what the scope of the mitigation will be. This is why many large consultancies will insist on the use of professional archaeologists (as defined by the IFA) as a poor result will reflect badly on them as they will not be able to advise their client of the likely cost of excavation.
Also the use of students or similar is often inappropriate in certain types of sites such as linear schemes and urban excavations where there are many health and safety considerations. Moreover, many clients now require all workers on their sites, including archaeologists, to hold CSCS cards.
Sorry to ramble, but I suppose the point is that all the paperwork is often already there - the problem is that when costing a project you are often resourcing an extremely vague amount of work. This is compounded by poor practice: I often lose evaluation work, phone to hear that we were beaten by a VERY low cost, then a few months later am asked to tender for the excavation phase and read the report produced by this low price and have to tell the client that there just isn't enough information to give a firm estimate and am forced to give a hidiously large range to cover the risk! This is obviously bad for the client, who has paid to evaluate the site to see what is there and plan appropriately, and reflects very badly on us archaeologists!
This sort of behaviour is what damages the profession not, as you rightly point out, the use of the odd student on an appropriate project.
don't panic