discovered during the initial survey of the project area. All or
a portion of the project lands may have been surveyed
previously. Whatever the circumstances, all previous
investigations on the property should be summarized in. the
RFP, and the resulting reports must be made readily available
to offerors for preparation of their proposals, particularly if
the new work is based directly upon earlier

investigations. Whenever possible,

relevant reports should be included in the

RFP as exhibits. If this is not practical, the

information should be provided by other

means. If reports of earlier investigations

have been distributed widely to libraries, a

bibliographic citation may be sufficient.

Copies of relevant reports can be made

available for inspection at the contracting

agency and other offices. Caution should

be exercised, however, in not unduly

restricting competition by limiting access

to information. Quality competitive

proposals are the goal of the procurement,

and information made available to the widest possible
audience is essential to this goal.

The Research Design

Following presentation of the archeological and historical
background of a project, an RFP must address research
design. Work oriented toward expressly stated research goals
is exactly what must be done in order to provide Federal
agencies with the information they need to discharge cultural
resource compliance responsibilities. An RFP should include
every requirement necessary to place an agency in full
compliance and describe how these requirements are to be
satisfied (McGimsey and Davis 1977:72-73; Mayer-Oakes
1978:72-93; Butler 1979:27-34).

The topic of "Research Design” also has
direct bearing on the problems surrounding
the misunderstanding of the meaning of
significance and NRHP eligibility
evaluations. In order to effect NRHP
eligibility evaluations, a SOW must require
that a project be conducted within the
framework of a relevant, professionally
acceptable research design. A SOW may
suggest or require specific research topics
to be addressed by a project. However,
offerors should be required to provide
additional research topics relevant to past
and ongoing research in the area that are
realistic in terms of the type and scope of
that project, including those topics that
accurately reflect the potential of archeological information
and material to be recovered. This provides an agency an
opportunity to judge how well offerors have familiarized
themselves with relevant background and research informa-
tion and their abilities to develop appropriate research topics
from the existing data base.

Notwithstanding the above discussion, archeologists and

cultural resource specialists should be careful to avoid placing

undue restrictions on research design and field methods.

Allowance should be made for the necessity to change or

evolve the research design or field methods in response to

new data and conditions. To this end, a contractor should be
afforded as much flexibility as possible
within the practical limits of project goals
and objectives,

It is strongly recommended that the
proposed research design and work plan be
submitted in draft to the appropriate SHPO
for review and concurrence:

The role of the SHPO is to consult with
and assist the Agency Official when
identifying historic properties, assessing
effects upon them, and considering
alternatives to avoid or reduce those
effects (emphasis added) (36CFR Part
00.1.fe}{1]{ii]).

While SHPOs do not enter into agency cost estimating or cost
discussions, their comments on the adequacy of proposed
investigations nay reveal deficiencies or omissions in research
strategies or methods. A fully informed and cooperating
SHPO can provide constructive crit icism, aid in the iden-
tification of local and regional issues or concerns, and
administrative and political support for a project that can head
off or prevent misunderstandings.

Public Education Activities

It is recommended that each RFP require public education
activities as part of the work plan. Such activities might
include public displays, lectures, brochures, tours, school
Programs, and/or volunteer opportunities as part of the
archeological investigation.

Cost Estimates

Following the SHPO’s concurrence with a
Proposed project research design and
SOW, the agency archeologist can take
direct steps to eliminate another of the
common criticisms concerning federally
sponsored archeological projects and
reports: the estimation of project costs.

Estimated costs should be an accurate
reflection of the required levels of labor,
equipment, per diem, and travel necessary
to provide sufficient information and
Products to meet the goals of a project.
This would include not only the cost of
conducting the on-the-ground survey, but also the costs of
materials analyses, data recovery, and curation of collections.
Estimated costs must also include elements of work associ-
ated with comparison and syntheses of the investigation
results, as well as report preparation.



-10-

Contracting Officer may want to discuss special safety
measures, especially if a military base is involved. For the
agency archeologist, this meeting presents an excellent
opportunity to impress upon the contractor the importance of
research and its relationship to the evaluation of sites
according to NRHP criteria.

After work has been started, contractor performance must be
monitored to insure conformity with the terms and conditions
of the contract and to insure that sufficient progress is being
made toward completion of the project (Butler 1979:31;
IAS-Denver 1979:26). Preparers of RFPs should insure that
Provisions for monitoring are included in Section C or
Section H.

Field and laboratory monitoring provides yet another
opportunity to insure the professional acceptability of a report
of investigations. If an RFP is prepared properly and the
successful proposal addresses all requirements, the foundation
has been laid for a successful contract. However, to

guarantee successful completion periodic monitoring must be
conducted throughout the life of the contract. Visits to the
field are necessary to determine if work is quantitatively and
qualitatively adequate. Similarly, laboratory monitoring will
assure that all required analyses and procedures are being
performed and that all data and information essential to
execution of the research design and preparation of a report
are assembled. Proper monitoring should reveal any
deficiencies or other problems that can be corrected before
they become threats to the achievement of project goals.

Monitoring during the report preparation phase may or may
not be as critical. If there were problems during preceding
Project stages, the agency archeologist may elect to review
various sections of the draft report as they are prepared,
particularly those pertaining to the research and resource
management aspects of the project. Any omissions,
deficiencies or other shortcomings can be corrected before
they impact the project schedule.

a4
—-
“ 7 tae ey

Figure 6. By the early 1970s, archeological preservation projects were extraordinarily complex, not only in terms of research objectives but also
with regard to social impacts, At Fort Stanwix National Monument, historical archeology was conducted in an urban setting. The Urban
Renewal Agency of Rome, NY, completed archeological survey work, the City of Rome and the National Park Service developed a Master Plan,
and the reconstruction project goal required integration of architectural, documentary, and archeological information.



Figure 4. By the early 1900s, Federal managers, particularly in the General Land Office,

NRHP Recommendations

Although a well written SOW will require a relevant,
professionally acceptable research design, one cannot assume
that all offerors will relate this requirement to site evaluation
procedures, NRHP eligibility recommendations, and the
"ability" of a site to contribute or not contribute to
knowledge. Therefore, the SOW also must state clearly and
simply how recommendations about NRHP eligibility are to
be developed and justified in terms of research potential such
that those recommendations may be judged against an
offeror’s research design. It is suggested that SOWs cite
Butler's (1987) definition of significance and its application
to NRHP eligibility criteria and require any recommendations
to concur with that definition. It also is recommended that
reference to and use be made of the evaluation criteria and
cultural contexts that have been developed and stated in
relevant State Historic Preservation Plans or other state-
sanctioned documents that contain up-to-date regional
research designs.

were pressing for authority to apply scientific
management of archeological preserves as with other kinds of resources within their jurisdictions. The enormous mound excavations during the
1930s, such as those at Oemulgee National Monument, had economic aspects as well as scientific goals. Between 1962 and 1984, at least 12
more projects were conducted to analyze these earlier data. Some of this work was completed under contract to regional universities.

The determination of which sites may meet the criteria for
eligibility to the NRHP requires the analysis of all material
and data accumulated during a project, including comparative
analysis and the synthesizing of findings based upon previous
investigations in the region. Without these professionally
acceptable procedures, it may not be possible to determine the
tesearch values of a site, and the report, the contract product,
may not meet professional standards. Consequently, the final
report on the project will be of little use or value to the
Federal manager, the SHPO, and the professional community.
Limited research dollars will have been wasted, and the
timely reporting of results will have been hampered.

Curation Standards

Section C should also contain instructions on the curation of
artifacts and materials and should reference the curation
standards outlined in 36 CFR Part 79 and other agency
specific curation guidelines.



Requirements and Standards for Survey
and Identification

A properly directed survey will identify all the archeological
resources in the project area and determine which may require
additional investigation to evaluate NRHP eligibility. When
possible, this kind of identification should be completed
during the survey phase of a project. Evaluative testing
beyond the survey phase should establish the significance
(i.e., NRHP eligibility), or lack of significance, for all sites
not previously evaluated during the course of the survey or
during subsequent investigations.

It is essential that the Section C Scope of Work be written to
insure that the survey phase of a project provides all
information required by managers and planners in making
decisions that could affect significant resources. Guidance on.

=
Pd time at
Figure 3. The spectacular cliff dwellings at Wetherill Mesa in Mesa
Verde National Park, CO, were internationally known discoveries
by 1893. By the time the Antiquities Act was passed in 1906 a force
of Federal forest supervisors, rangers, and special agents, Indian
school superintendents and teachers, Indian agents, farmers, police,
and Indian themselves had been mobilized to protect important
Southwest archeological sites. By 1910 several of these sites were
added to the inventory of national cultural preserves, including
Mesa Verde, El Morro, Chaco Canyon, and Tumacocori.

the standard elements of effective preservation planning is
contained in the Secretary of the Interior's Standards and
Guidelines for Archeology and Historic Preservation
(Department of the Interior 1983:44716-44720). Managers’
and planners’ decisions should be based upon information
that contributes to understanding the historic contexts of
significant archeological resources; to achieving the
systematically defined priorities for identification, evaluation,
and treatment; and to integration of results into the agency’s
broader planning processes. Structuring appropriate levels of
survey to effectively collect this information is the goal of
properly designed identification activities (Department of the
Interior 1983:44720-44723),

Site Evaluation Standards and Procedures

Site evaluation can and should be initiated during the survey
phase of a project. In the course of on-the-ground survey
work, some sites can be evaluated as significant and some can
be evaluated as not significant as these discovered properties
are recorded. The record of properties discovered becomes an
inventory for evaluation as site boundaries are defined and the
range of property types and variety of archeological features
are established (Department — of the Interior
1983:44723-44726). Recording is accomplished through
mapping, shovel testing, augering, excavation of one or more
50-centimeter to 1-meter square, or larger, test units, or a
combination of these or similar sampling procedures.

Survey procedures may produce sufficient information to
evaluate the recorded resources, particularly those that readily
appear to lack NRHP qualities. Conversely, where shovel
tests or other sampling procedures have established clear-cut
evidence or supporting data for meeting NRHP criteria, sites
can be evaluated as eligible properties.

The remainder, those sites or properties not evaluated during
the survey recording phase, will require evaluative testing.
For larger projects, and in cases where high site densities are
discovered, often the most economical way to accomplish this
is through a separate procurement following site discovery
and recording.

In either case, with site survey and recording or evaluative
testing, clearly stated recommendations about NRHP
eligibility are required. These recommendations must be
supported by evidence that demonstrates why a site can or
cannot contribute to the theoretical and substantive knowl-
edge of archeology (NRHP Criterion d) (Butler 1987). The
SOW for any survey or site testing project must clearly state
these evaluation requirements and limitations to the offeror so
that there will be no misunderstanding as to what work is
needed and how it is to be presented.

Recommendations for further investigations beyond a site
evaluation program, such as impact assessment, must be fully
justified, otherwise they are inappropriate. In these cases, a
phased program of deliverables, tied to specific contractual
milestones and a phased payment system, is a good approach
that allows for progress monitoring and quality control.



Figure 5. Public interpretation of

ongoing archeological excavations was part of the research program at Jamestown (part of Colonial National

Historie Park) during the 1930s, Here, it was shown how close collaboration between historical and archeological studies provided new

understandings about the past.

required topics should include a discussion and an accom-
Panying assessment of the proposed research design and field
methods. This reiteration of the research requirement should
emphasize the importance of this aspect of a Project.

If not covered in Section C, Section F should contain
instructions on minimum content of the technical proposal,
including an annotated outline of required or suggested
headings, such as Cover Page, Table of Contents, General
Plan of Work, Management/Personnel, Performance and
Delivery Schedules, or other headings deemed appropriate for
the project.

Section H: Special Contract Requirements

Section H contains publication limitations and standards,
what information is available within the Federal government
for use by the contractor, and any special requirements of a
contract.

Section L: Instructions, Conditions, and
Notices to Offerors

This section of the RFP is important because it contains
specific instructions to offerors for the preparation of
Proposals. It should contain general information and
Buidelines on the agency’s method for evaluating or rating of
Proposals, including technical requirements and pricing. In
order to emphasize their importance, specific reference should
be made in Section L to the technical evaluation criteria listed
in Section M, as discussed above.

Contract Award and Monitoring

After a contract is awarded, a meeting with the contractor is
highly recommended in order to facilitate a mutual under-
standing of contract requirements and conditions. At this
meeting, the services to be performed should be reviewed and
any remaining questions and clarifications resolved. Among
other things, the Contracting Officer may discuss contract
conditions, security, and other administrative matters, The



4

\ = ARCHEOLOGICAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
/ Technical Brief No. 7, August 1990

FEDERAL ARCHEOLOGICAL CONTRACTIN
Utilizing the Competitive Procurement Process

By John H. Jameson, Jr., John E. Ehrenhard, and Wilfred M. Husted
Interagency Archeological Services Division, Southeast Regional Office, National Park Service

This technical brief outlines the Federal procurement process
in archeology by emphasizing the utility and importance of
the Request for Proposal (RFP) type of competitive procure-
ment.’ White centering attention on Section C, the Scope of
Work (SOW), important considerations in Sections F, H, L,
and M are discussed also. Since one of the principal current
issues in archeological contracting involves identifying and
evaluating archeological properties according to criteria for
eligibility to the National Register of Historic Places, it is
important to determine what is "significant" in prehistory and
history. It is shown that the RFP type of competitive
Procurement process can assist efforts to resolve the
“significance” issue by providing or facilitating better and
more innovative archeological investigations and reports.
The proposal evaluation process is shown to be fundamental,
requiring qualified evaluators and careful development and
weighting of proposal evaluation criteria. The technical brief
concludes with a brief statement on the importance of the key
aspects of archeological contracting following contract
award, including monitoring and peer review.

Introduction

This technical brief presents the Federal competitive
Procurement process as a guide for archeological contracting
and (1) provides information on what needs to be in a
competitive Request for Proposal (RFP) for archeological
services; (2) describes what roles the various players have;
and (3) outlines how contracts should be procured, evaluated,
and administered so that the resultant product is understand-
able and useful. The overall objective for such guidance in
contracting is to improve public benefit from governmental
archeological activities, as stated in the Secretary of the
Interior’s report on the National Historic Preservation Act
(Department of the Interior 1986). It has been Tecognized
that benefits from improvements in archeological contracting
will include any of the following: the long-term preservation
of significant data or properties through listing on the
National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) and other
State-level registers; the interpretation of results through
Publications and public education activities during projects;
the synthesis of project results with previous knowledge about
the cultural past; and the provision of opportunities for public
Participation, enrichment, and education (Irwin-Williams and
Fowler 1986:7-10, 29, 41-43, 51, 56, 61-64, 73-75, 88-91,

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
eZ’ NATIONAL PARK SERVICE

105-107). The following discussions can be viewed as a
complement to, and to a limited extent, an update of the
apropros presentations on the RFP contracting process
contained in two U.S. Heritage Conservation and Recreation
Service (HCRS) publications of the late 1970s: Scholars as
Managers and Scholars as Contractors; and, in particular, the
discussions in Butler (1979), IAS-Denver (1979), and
Mayer-Oakes (1978; 1979).

Although these guidelines are directly applicable to the
normal workloads, job elements, and concerns of agency staff
archeologists responsible for archeological work as part of
construction or development projects, they should also be
useful to non-archeologists whose duties encompass, or
commonly include, archeological or historical resource
management, compliance, and contracting.

It is important to remember that additional and altemative
Procurement procedures such as Invitation for Bid (IFB) and
Request for Quotes (RFQ) result in simple purchase orders
and are also available to Federal agencies for cultural
resource management work (Butler 1978; 1979). These
alternative procedures have particular advantages and
disadvantages, depending on agency’s situational needs and
time constraints. However, there are certain benefits and
advantages inherent in the Request for Proposal (RFP)
competitive proposal process, which will be highlighted
throughout this technical brief.

The Problem

Section 110 of the National Historic Preservation Act of
1966, as amended (16 USC 470 et seq.), requires Federal
agency heads to locate all sites, buildings, districts, objects,
and properties under their jurisdictions and to nominate to the
National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) all those
appearing to meet the criteria for listing. Section 106 of the
National Historic Preservation Act (16 USC 470f) requires
Federal agencies to take into account the effects of their
undertakings on properties listed, or eligible for listing, on the
NRHP. The regulations that define the criteria for eligibility
for listing in the NRHP are found in 36 CFR Part 60.4,

In the attempt to follow these legal mandates, many Federal
agencies rely on the contracting/procurement process to



-12-

Irwin-Williams, Cynthia and Don D. Fowler
1986 Regional Conferences, Summary Report. Society for American Archaeology Special Publication, Washington, D.C.

Mayer-Oakes, William J.

1978 Research Design -- Theoretical Uniformity, Clarification or Stagnation? In, Scholars as Managers, Alice W. Portnoy,
editor. Interagency Archeological Services, National Park Service, Washington, D.C.

Mayer-Oakes, William J, and Alice W. Portnoy, editors
1979 Scholars as Contractors. Interagency Archeological Services, National Park Service, Washington, D.C.

McGimsey, Charles R. II and Hester A. Davis, editors

1977 The Management of Archeological Resources, The Airlie House Report. Special publication of the Society for
American Archaeology for the Interagency Archeological Services Division, National Park Service, Washington, D.C.

Technical Briefs are designed and produced by the Departmental Consulting Archeologist and the Archeological Assistance
Division of the National Park Service. The series’ editors are Francis P. McManamon and Richard C. Waldbauer. The
graphic designer is Juliette G. Tahar. Submit comments, topics for future briefs, and requests for coples to: U.S. Depart-

ment of the Intertor, National Park Service, Archeological Assistance Division, P.O. Box 37127, Washington, D.C.
20013-7127.



“Ue

Report Review and Acceptance

Review of the draft report of investigations is a final
Opportunity to remedy any remaining deficiencies, which
should be minor if individual sections have been previously
reviewed. The draft report should be submitted for peer
review and provided to the SHPO for review and comment.
Communication with the SHPO is necessary to insure State
concurrence with project findings, conclusions, and recom-
mendations concerning legal and regulatory requirements.

Archeologists may argue the finer points of interpretation, but
unless the legal aspects of a report fulfill the needs of those
who are required to make management decisions, dire
consequences can result, not the least of which may be the
delay of critically needed facilities and the loss of valuable
time and money. Agency archeologists must be careful,
however, not to allow professional, i.e., interpretive,
disagreements to adversely affect contract performance and
the ultimate success of the project.

Conclusion

This technical brief has been a discussion, with certain
observations and criticisms, on the Federal competitive
Procurement process as a model that can be used in
archeological contracting. It has emphasized Project-oriented
archeological work and the development and utilization of
relevant criteria for the National Register of Historic Places,

especially with regard to the determination of what is
important and therefore “significant” in prehistory and
history. Improved use of the RFP competitive Procurement
Process is a valuable way to provide better and more
innovative archeological investigations, evaluations, and
Teports. Competitive proposals provide an Opportunity to
evaluate differing ideas, plans, and approaches for conducting
an archeological investigation rather than merely responding
to a rigid work description or Scope of Work with a bottom
line cost.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank all colleagues who supplied
review comments and constructive suggestions on earlier
drafts of this paper. In this regard, we are particularly
grateful to Ted Birkedal, Lloyd Chapman, and especially Bill
Butler. We also express our sincere thanks to Susan.
Cleveland and Fay Evans of the Contracting and Property
Management Branch, Southeast Regional Office, National
Park Service, who provided comments and suggestions on the
draft and final manuscripts.

Editor’s Note

Some program-oriented activities and scenarios may involve
inventory contracts where formal NRHP evaluations are not
immediately required. Alternative strategies for contracting
10 meet these situations are topics for future discussion.

References Cited

Anderson, David G., L. Janice Campbell, James E. Cobb, John B.
1989 Historic Preservation Planning on Military Bases:
Publication Number 3, Interagency Archeological Serv

Butler, William B.

Ehrenhard, and Prentice M. Thomas, Jr.
an Example from Fort Polk, Louisiana. Interaction, Special
ices Division, National Park Service, Atlanta, GA.

1978 Some Comments on Contracting within the Federal Government: Types of Contracts. American Antiquity

43(4):741-746.

1979 TAS Contracting and the Contract Archeology Process. In, Scholars as Contractors, William J. Mayer-Oakes and
Alice W. Portnoy, editors. Interagency Archeological Services Division, National Park Service, Washington, D.C.

1987 Significance and Other Frustrations in the CRM Process, American Antiquity 52(4):820-829.

Department of the Interior

1983 The Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guideli

48(190):44716-44740.

ines for Archeology and Historic Preservation. Federal Register

1986 The Secretary of the Interior's 20th Anniversary Report on the National Historic Preservation Act. Report produced
Pursuant to requirements in Section 504 of the Act, Washington, D.C.

IAS-Denver

1979 Interagency Archeological Services Proposal Response Guidelines. In, Scholars as Contractors, William J. Mayer-
Oakes and Alice W. Portnoy, editors. Interagency Archeological Services Division, National Park Service,

Washington, D.C.



Section M and the Proposal Evaluation Process

Section M is a critical element of the RFP because it contains
the detailed descriptions of the criteria that have been
developed and will be used to evaluate the submitted
Proposals. As a major participant in the development and
application of the proposal evaluation criteria, the agency
archeologist has yet another opportunity or mechanism to
insure that a project will satisfy legal and regulatory
requirements and meet professional standards.

Proposal evaluation is an important process that requires
qualified evaluators who must exercise strict impartiality in
the review and scoring of proposals. Complete objectivity is
an absolute necessity in proposal evaluation, and each
proposal must be judged on its own merits, with no considera-
tion of outside influences, such as evaluator preferences or
Prejudices. To do otherwise defeats the
goals of competitive proposal procurement
and may result in protests against an
award,

Careful development of proposal evalua-
tion criteria is important because the
preparer must very thoughtfully select and
weight those aspects of a project that are
critical to its successful completion. The
criteria selected must be based strictly on
the requirements and conditions presented
in the RFP, as revealed primarily in the
Section C Scope of Work. Offerors should
not be penalized for deficiencies in the

solicitation. 4

‘The evaluation factors selected and listed &
in Section M and the weights applied will
depend principally on the type of project to
be conducted, the results desired, and the
nature of the pool of potential offerors.
For some projects, field and laboratory
aspects of a project are most important and
are assigned a greater weight and require a stronger emphasis
‘on personnel qualifications, Depending on the nature of the
Project, greater attention or weight can be placed on the
evaluation criteria for research design, site evaluations, or
comparative analyses of material and data. In these cases,
offerors should be advised of the relative weight assigned to
each evaluation criterion because this enables each offeror to
concentrate energy toward the main objective(s) sought by the
agency.

Cost is usually not as important as technical factors when
procuring archeological services, but it is a factor that must be
evaluated and may be the determining factor in selecting the
successful offeror. Cost will normally not be the determining
factor unless proposals are essentially equal (Butler 1979:32).
This does not mean that the proposals in question must have
the same technical score, but rather that each proposal would
fulfill the agency's minimum needs. Each case must be
judged on its own merits. A higher cost must be justified by a

product offering sufficient additional value to the agency to
warrant its additional cost.

Evaluation of a project proposal is accomplished by a
Technical Evaluation Panel or TEP (formerly termed
Technical Proposal Evaluation Committee or TPEC). The
TEP members and the Panel Chair are formally appointed by
the Contracting Officer based on their particular knowledge
and skills (IAS-Denver 1979:24-25; Butler 1979:30-32).
Prior to proposal evaluation, the TEP members meet to
review the Scope of Work and proposal evaluation criteria.
At this time, the Panel Chair must inform the TEP of any
other requirements and impress on the members the absolute
necessity of comparing in detail the contents of proposals
with the Section C Scope of Work and providing comments
or questions for all points of concer.

Each TEP member must submit to the Contracting Officer,
, through the Panel Chair, a signed
non-disclosure agreement affirming that he
or she has no conflicts of interest regarding
any offeror, and that he or she will not
divulge data or information within any

F offeror’s proposal to any other offeror or to
BA any unauthorized person.

‘The Panel Chair must prepare a memoran-
dum of negotiations prior to contract
award, and to do so he or she must have
sufficient information concerning proposal
evaluations. Thus, it is essential that each
TEP member complete each proposal
evaluation in detail, providing a written
narrative that addresses each evaluation
factor or element. Positive as well as
negative information must be supplied. It
is not sufficient for reviewers to leave
questions blank or filled with "yes" or “no”
answers. To do so is a failure of the
evaluator to provide the required informa-
tion. This could necessitate the reevalua-
tion of proposals, which could delay award
of the contract and cause serious repercussions.

Other Important Sections of the RFP
Section F: Deliverables

Section F of the RFP, "Deliveries or Performance,” provides
an opportunity to reinforce, but not repeat, the requirements
presented in Section C. Among other things, Section F
enumerates the items to be delivered to the Contracting
Officer, including progress reports, archeological site forms,
maps, and the draft and final reports of investigations.

Unless already specified in Section C, solicitations should
include in the list of deliverables a minimum content outline
for the draft final report. Offerors should be instructed to
address all topics listed in the outline in the draft report, along
with any additional topics the offeror wishes to propose. The



Figure 2. 1920s Aerial view of Casa Grande National Monument, AZ. The importance, in the public interest, of long-term preservation for
significant archeological sites was recognized more than 100 years ago when Casa Grande Ruin became the first national archeological
preserve. The demand for both interpretation and protection resulted in Federal laws and programs to systematized access for research purposes
4s well as prevent looting and vandalism. This rare 1920s aerial view of Casa Grande shows the principal village site and visitors’ autos. (All
photos are from the NPS collection at the Graphics Research Branch , Harper's Ferry Center.)

source of funding, informing prospective offerors of the
administrative structure of the project.

Section C also should contain detailed directional information
to guide offerors to the project area. The boundaries of the
project area should be specified, especially if the project is
located within a larger organizational unit such as a military
installation. The directional information presented should be
sufficient to inform offerors of any unusual circumstances or
difficulties in reaching and/or conducting a project. The
directional information in Section C is supplemental to the
directional information provided by a location map in Section
J (Figure 1). For example, access to the project area may
require unusual amounts of travel by various modes to
isolated areas, which will consume large amounts of time.
Unless such situations are presented clearly with sufficient
detail, offerors will be unable to calculate time and travel
costs accurately. A disceming offeror may, in fact, object to
an insufficiently detailed RFP, which can result in issuance of
a new or revised solicitation with consequent delays in

implementing the project. At worst, protests could result,
with consequent increases in project costs and innumerable
time delays,

Section C should contain a summary of the principal goals of
@ project. For example, the main objectives of a survey
usually would be to discover all cultural resources in a project
area, evaluate the discovered sites and properties for NRHP
eligibility, and provide recommendations for evaluative
testing of selected sites should additional information be
needed. These goals would be expressed in greater detail in
other sections of the RFP, but their early introduction "sets
the stage" for a project and reinforces any introductory
statements on legal authorities and project purposes and
requirements.

Frequently, the project area addressed in an RFP will have
been the subject of one or more previous cultural resource
investigations involving previous procurements. The new
Project might be the evaluative testing of archeological sites



In the following discussion, it is shown how procurements are
conducted on the basis of competitive proposals within the
purview of the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR),
“Contracting by Negotiation" (48 CFR Part 1). The
solicitation for this type of contracting is the RFP. All phases
of competitive contracting are important to the successful
completion of a project, including the post-contract award
monitoring of the field, laboratory, and report preparation
phases. However, it is the procurement process itself, and
preparation of the RFP in particular, that is critical to the
eventual receipt of a final report of investigations that
satisfies all legal requirements and is acceptable to the
professional archeological community.

The FAR (48 CFR Part 1) requires the use of a uniform
contract format for the solicitation or RFP in contracting by
negotiation. An RFP is composed of 13 sections, A through
M, in four parts (Figure 1). Many of the sections consist
mainly of standard contract clauses, certifications, and
instructions. Information may be added to these sections,
some of which are mainly administrative and instructional in
nature. However, five sections (C, F, H, L, and M) are very
important. Section C, the "Description/specifications/work
statement” or Scope of Work (SOW),
stands out as the most crucial part of the
RFP.

Section C: the Scope of Work

In almost every RFP, the descriptions
presented in Section C are most critical for
the successful completion of a project.
Because Section C detalls the SOW, it is
the "heart and soul" of the solicitation
document. The careful and detailed
Preparation of the SOW is the best om
guarantee that a cultural resource project mabe
will satisfy legal requirements and meet professional
standards. Development of this section places a great amount
of responsibility on the agency archeologist or cultural
resource specialist because the SOW will:

+ define the project;

+ specify what is required; and

* state the conditions under which the project will be
conducted,

Although the uniform contract format (Figure 1) must be
followed in assembling the RFP, there is no required
arrangement for Section C. The precise nature of the project,
its complexity, and any unusual circumstances surrounding
the undertaking, should guide selection of the format used.

With time and the accumulated experience of agency
archeologists and contracting officers, an agency’s SOW can
exhibit continual improvement, taking advantage of lessons
learned from previous procurements. For instance, newly
written RFP scopes of work should reflect recent advances in
archeological method and theory, up-to-date archeological
knowledge of the region, and current professional standards,

The following discussion presents recommendations and
suggestions for topics to be addressed in Section C of the
RFP.

Background Descriptions

An agency cannot expect to receive what it does not ask for,
and neither can it expect to receive what it does not pay for.
The agency archeologist or cultural resource specialist who
Prepares an RFP must have a thorough knowledge of that
Project's area and what is required to fulfill legal and
tegulatory responsibilities. ‘Thus, the agency archeologist
must conduct a background search that involves:

(1) consulting existing planning documents (including
State Historic Preservation Plans, Federal agency plans,
and historic contexts documents developed for managerial
Purposes by States, counties, municipalities, transporta-
tion departments, private utility companies, and certified
local governments) (for an example, see Anderson, et al
1989);

(2) determining if the area has been
subjected to survey in the past, and
whether the previous work meets current
professional standards; and

(3) identifying the locations of any
archeological sites or historic properties
previously recorded.

Unless the agency archeologist is
thoroughly familiar with the project area,
an on-the-ground inspection will be
necessary. This inspection will serve to
reveal any areas that may not require
intensive survey, such as disturbed and developed locations
(e.g., airport runways and ramps, roads, and buildings). If
Previously unrecorded sites are discovered during inspection
of the project area, the archeologist should, if possible, record
and evaluate these sites. In any event, the archeologist must
obtain sufficient information to determine:

(1) the minimum amount of investi
required to satisfy legal respons
professional standards;

ion that will be
ities and meet

(2) a project strategy sufficient to accomplish the work;
and

(3) how much it will cost.

Section C of the RFP should present introductory material
including which legal and regulatory authorities the project is
designed to satisfy. It should alert offerors to the nature of
the investigation and the kinds of information that the agency
must have to address the pertinent laws and regulations. The
“Introduction” or "Background Statement” should briefly
summarize the major goals of the investigation and cite the



Provide the information needed for project planning and
decision making. However, for the most part, they continue
to struggle for an effective recipe for success in the arena of
archeological contracting and procurement,

One of the principal problems in archeological contracting
involves the generation of information necessary to determine
which archeological sites appear to meet NRHP criteria.
Criterion (d) in 36 CFR Part 60.4 recognizes ites...that
have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important
in prehistory or history,” and must be addressed in evaluating
archeological properties. It is the lead Federal agency's
responsibility to obtain and manage this information.
However, the task of actually acquiring and utilizing this
information is often assigned to an archeologist or cultural
resource specialist who may or may not be a part of the
agency's planning or project review network.

Too many archeological reports do not provide cultural
resource managers and officials with the kinds of information
they require to fulfill compliance responsibilities. Central to
this point is many archeologists do not understand the
criteria of elt lity for the NRHP. Criterion (d), as it often
has been applied, becomes so broad as to be all encompass-
ing; and there are archeologists who want to protect and
Preserve everything without consideration of relative value or
significance. These misunderstandings too often result in
archeological reports and recommendations that are of little or
No use to an agency trying to determine whether or not it has
Properties eligible for the NRHP to manage. Given these
situations, it is perhaps not surprising that the misunderstand-
ing of what is important and therefore “significant” in
prehistory and history has been cited as one of the prime
sources of problems for Federal agencies and State Historic
Preservation Officers (SHPOs) in planning cultural resource
work (Butler 1987).

Site significance and how it relates to the managemen/
compliance process can be understood as a function of the
NRHP criteria. "The key word in Criterion (d) is *important.’
Importance is based on the theoretical and substantive
knowledge of the discipline--nothing more, nothing less; i.e.,
what we know and what we do not know" (Butler 1987:
820-821). In the application of Criterion (d) for a site to be
recommended as eligible for the NRHP, it must be able to
contribute to the theoretical and substantive knowledge of
archeology. A justification for a recommendation of NRHP
eligibility should state precisely what research issues can be
addressed by investigation of the site, especially through
reference to existing historic context documents; and it should
outline the most pertinent and potentially fruitful avenues for
analysis, comparison, synthesis, and contextual discussion of
archeological materials. This should be a central concern or
focus of the RFP in archeological contracting.

The Competitive Proposal Process
With some exceptions, procurements based on competitive

Proposals are essential in order to provide the Federal
government with the best assurances of obtaining legally and

Professionally acceptable reports of archeological investiga-
tions. Proposals provide the Federal archeologist with an
opportunity to ascertain whether an offeror (1) understands
the project and its purposes, (2) is able to plan and organize a
Program to meet these purposes, and (3) can integrate the
program with a realistic research design that is based on a
thorough knowledge of relevant research.

The competitive proposal is a fertile ground for innovation
and creativity in all facets of a project, particularly the
tesearch aspects. In public archeology it is necessary to find
more efficient, practical, and economical ways to conduct
surveys, evaluations, and data recoveries. | Competitive
Proposals provide an opportunity to evaluate differing ideas,
plans, and approaches for conducting an archeological
investigation, rather than merely responding to a rigid work
description or statement of work with a bottom line cost.
With competitive procurement, there are greater opportunities
for better and more innovative field techniques, strategies,
and approaches.

PART !- THE SCHEDULE

H
i

Solicitation/contract form
‘Supplies or services and prices/costs
Description/specification:

Packaging and marking
Inspection and acceptance

Contract administration data
‘Special contract requirements

ZTarwmIQaPy

PART fl - CONTRACT CLAUSES.
t Contract Clauses

PART li - LIST OF DOCUMENTS, EXHIBITS,
and OTHER ATTACHMENTS

a List of attachments

PART IV - REPRESENTATIONS
and INSTRUCTIONS

K Representations, certifications, and
other statements of offerors or quoters

t Instructions, conditions, and notices
to offerors or quoters

uM Evaluation factors for award

Figure 1. Uniform Contract Format (Federal Acquisition
Reguation; see 48 CFR Part 1)