Responses - Archaeological Consultant for MHT BPM055691.pdf

BPM055691 - Archaeological Consultant for MHT Responses to Offeror Questions

1. On Page 3 of the RFP, it is stated that a minimum of ten (10) 1-x-1 m test units will be excavated "between the two sites." Can MHT confirm if this means that 10 test units will be excavated at each site or 10 test units will be excavated in total, regardless of their site location?

A: 10 test units will be excavated in total, regardless of location. Test unit locations will be determined in consultation with MHT based on geophysical survey results previously conducted.

2. Is there a possibility of encountering unexploded ordnance (UXOs) at either site? If so, does MHT have safety guidelines for contractors to follow in the event that a UXO is encountered during fieldwork?

A: This work will be looking to identify encampment sites, not battlefields. MHT does not anticipate significant risk of UXO at either site, but cannot entirely rule out the possibility of unexploded ordnance at both sites. MHT does not have set safety guidelines but will work with the consultant on a UXO safety plan. Consultants should note in their proposal if they have previous experience working on sites with UXO plans.

3. Will MHT volunteers receive per diem and/or lodging for the duration of fieldwork? If so, will these expenses be the responsibility of MHT or the contractor to cover?

A: No, MHT volunteers will not receive per diem or lodging.

4. Will MHT volunteers be expected to follow the safety guidelines of the contractor or will MHT provide its own set of safety guidelines for the volunteers to follow?

A: MHT will provide its own set of safety guidelines for volunteers to follow. If the contractor prefers additional safety guidelines, this may be discussed in consultation with MHT.

5. Will MHT provide volunteers with appropriate PPE or are contractors expected to provide PPE to volunteers?

A: PPE is not anticipated to be necessary, since both locations are open grass/field and there are minimal risks. We do not provide PPE for volunteers; they are responsible for bringing any gloves, hats, sunscreen, etc. that they would like to use.

Contractors will not be expected to provide PPE to volunteers.

6. Will the MHT volunteer coordinator be present and on site for the duration of fieldwork?

A: Yes. The volunteer coordinator will provide safety talks for new volunteers each day, collect liability forms, and monitor volunteers as they work, likely assisting with fieldwork.

7. On Page 4 of the RFP, it is stated that contractors should expect to conduct one (1) public program with stakeholders to discuss survey results. Can MHT provide more details on what contractors should expect to prepare and how long the program is anticipated to last?

A: This would preferably be an in-person public program at a location near/in one of the counties to inform local stakeholders of the results. This can be discussed in consultation with MHT, but will likely be a presentation of no more than 1 hour with time for questions.

MHT will also be on site to assist as needed. A remote presentation may be acceptable under certain circumstances, and can be determined in consultation with MHT.

8. Will project meetings with MHT staff be held remotely or in person? How many project meetings are expected?

A: Project meetings may be held remotely/virtually. There will be at minimum three meetings with MHT – a kick-off meeting, a fieldwork meeting, and a post-fieldwork meeting.

Further meetings can be arranged at the request of the consultant, and MHT archaeologists will be available to the consultant as needed.

9. To prepare an accurate financial proposal, what is the maximum number of artifacts contractors anticipate for cataloging and curation?

A: Final sites have not been determined at this time, so we cannot anticipate the number of artifacts to be recovered. Per the RFP, excavation will be limited to confirming the presence of cultural features anticipated by geophysical remote sensing finds and assessing their age and integrity. These features will not be fully excavated. MHT will consult with the contractor regarding retention policy before fieldwork is conducted. The consultant’s proposal may include an estimate based on work conducted at similar sites (military encampment sites, ground-truthing excavations) and a range of fees based on theoretical maximum number of artifacts (500 artifacts, 1000 artifacts, etc.). Per the RFP, the fee for long-term curation at the MAC Lab will be waived.

10. Have the 2026 Standards and Guidelines for Archaeological Survey and Excavation in Maryland been finalized? Are the draft guidelines acceptable to use for scoping these services?

A: The draft 2026 Standards & Guidelines that were released in October 2025 (posted to eMMA with these questions) are acceptable for scoping these services. The final guidelines will be available by the time this work is conducted.

11. Is there a deadline of the completion of fieldwork/analysis to coordinate a public program with stakeholders?

A: The deadline for the public programming will align with the project completion date under the American Battlefield Protection Program grant – 9/30/2027.

12. Section II.1.a states a work expectation of ‘a minimum of ten (10) 1 meter x 1 meter test units’. Is there a maximum expectation as well?

A: For the purposes of the scope of service and budget, 10 excavation units is the number of units expected. If there is room in the budget and consultants are amenable, MHT may request that excavation units be expanded in the field to follow a feature.

13. Can you provide some clarification on Section II.1.b? Specifically, the section on anomaly excavations being ‘not fully excavated’? Can a sampling strategy/methodology be provided for those anomaly excavations?

A: Each unit is expected to be excavated through the plowzone/top soil layer to reveal the tops of features. Bisection, coring, or sampling are possible strategies for testing. The goal is to confirm the presence of cultural features and assess their age and integrity, with preservation of the majority of the feature a priority.

14. In “Project Deliverables” in Section II, the RFP states: “Final technical report to include previous geophysical survey conducted by MHT and the Phase I excavations.

Geophysical survey data will be provided by MHT.” Will MHT be providing any interpretations and/or text to describe their geophysical survey?

A: Yes, MHT will provide interpretative results for the surveys conducted by them.

15. The RFP states that volunteers are expected to comprise at least 25% of the field technician labor pool. Will the volunteers be selected by MHT?

A: There is no selection process. Anyone from the community has the opportunity to participate. MHT will host all the announcements, arrange the paperwork, and give the consultant a final list prior to fieldwork. Due to the nature of this project, we will provide this list well in advance based on the consultant’s need to plan.

16. Will the volunteers have prior field experience and/or involvement with these projects?

A: Some of them may, as many of our volunteers are in the Archeological Society of Maryland. However, this is a public opportunity and some may not have experience.

17. Should Offerors assume that volunteer participation will be consistent across both sites, or may volunteer availability vary by project location and/or day-to-day?

A: Volunteers will likely vary by location and day-to-day. Some of the volunteers who have come out to this project thus far have expressed interest in excavation, but their participation on any given day cannot be guaranteed.

18. Generally, how many volunteers should we expect?

A; MHT can usually pull an average of 10 volunteers per day depending on the project. MHT may put a cap on the number of volunteers per day at the request of the consultant.

19. Have these sites already been subjected to a systematic shovel test survey or surface collection, or how were the sites previously identified?

A: Because the sites have not been confirmed, we cannot fully answer this question. These sites were identified by georectifying historic maps, consulting documentation and community members, and through geophysical survey by MHT. One of the potential sites has had shovel test pit surveys completed in the immediate vicinity of the anomalies, and the other sites have not. No artifacts relating to the Revolutionary War encampment sites have been identified.

20. Are any of the anomalies thought to be grave shafts or contain human remains?

A: No.

21. The RFP notes that geophysical survey data will be provided by MHT. Can MHT clarify the type(s) of geophysical methods used (e.g., magnetometry, GPR, resistivity), and whether final interpretive results or only raw/processed datasets will be provided?

A: The sites that will potentially be surveyed under this agreement have had magnetic susceptibility survey, gradiometer, and ground penetrating radar survey. The interpretive results will be available to the consultant, though the raw data may be provided if requested.

22. Have specific geophysical anomalies or potential cultural features already been identified by MHT as priority areas for ground-truthing, or is the consultant expected to independently interpret the geophysical data and define excavation targets? If the anomalies for further investigations have already been selected, can MHT provide the number of anomalies selected at each site, their anticipated depth below ground surface, and preliminary interpretations?

A: MHT has determined which anomalies will likely be ground-truthed, but we have yet to confirm landowner permission for excavation so we cannot definitively say which ones will be tested. For the purposes of the budget/proposal, offerers can use the following information but should understand that this is subject to change.

All of the anomalies begin just under the plowzone (at approximately 35-40 cm). Anomalies at the proposed Cecil County site are rectangular, approximately 1 meter wide and 50 cm deep, arranged in a semi-circle approximately 15 meters in diameter. Not all anomalies will be ground-truthed.

Anomalies at the proposed Harford County site are trench-like features, approximately two meters long and one meter deep that starts just under the plowzone. These may be indicative of a “sink”, or latrine for the camps, which excavation will hopefully confirm. Not all anomalies will be tested. Another anomaly at this site to be tested is likely the location of an 18th century iron furnace.

23. Regarding the required public program, does MHT anticipate an in-person event, a virtual event, or a hybrid format? Is the consultant expected to identify stakeholders and develop/lead the public program, or will they be supporting MHT with ongoing public programming related to the sites?

A: This would preferably be an in-person public program at a location near/in one of the counties to inform local stakeholders of the results. This can be discussed in consultation with MHT, but will likely be a presentation of no more than 1 hour with time for questions lead by the consultant. MHT will also be on site to assist as needed. A remote presentation may be acceptable under certain circumstances, and can be determined in consultation with MHT. Stakeholders have been and continue to be identified by MHT, and as such, MHT will promote the program and send invitations.

24. Can MHT provide the project locations and/or site numbers and survey boundaries to allow the Offeror to review project size, previous studies/results, historic and current land use, and anticipated soil profiles during proposal development?

A: MHT has determined which anomalies will likely be ground-truthed, but we have yet to confirm landowner permission for excavation so we cannot definitively say which ones will be tested. For the purposes of the budget/proposal, offerers can use the following information but should understand that this is subject to change.

The proposed Cecil County site is currently a county-owned property. It has previously been an agricultural farm but is now kept as a historic property/venue. Currently the land to be tested is grass yard. An STP survey at the site previously has shown an average soil profile of Layer 1 (0-25 cm) 10 YR 3/6 clay loam overlaying subsoil (25 -35 cm) 10 YR 5/8 clay.

The proposed Harford County site is currently a privately-owned agricultural field, and has historically been used as such. Previous testing on site has shown an average soil profile of Stratum A (0-40 cm) 10 YR 6/2 silty loam overlaying Stratum B (40-53 cm) 10 YR 5/6 silty clay.

Both of these locations have access to parking and are not secluded. Both parcels have been subject to previous archaeological study to varying degrees, but the locations of the anomalies do not appear to have been studied.