2007 NAIP Request for Information USDA Planning & Coordination Meeting John Mootz USDA-FSA-APFO December 7, 2006

NAIP RFI  RFI – “…document serves to request information from the public in order to address or learn about a particular issue.”  Released on 19 Oct  Responses were due on 20 Nov  19 Questions

Respondents  12 “Flying” vendors  1 “Other” vendor [NAME REMOVED]  None from public or Government agencies [NAMES REMOVED]

1 - IDIQ Contract Length  While balancing both the Contractor and Government risks and investments, what is the best contract length (5 years maximum) for the upcoming contract? What impact, if any, would rapid technological change and the relative fast migration from film to digital capture and “lights out” automated production have on the contract length?  The majority of the responses recommended a 5-year contract. In summation, the reason for a long-term contract is that it encourages the contractor’s to make capital investments, and invest in research and development.

2 - Imagery For The Nation  How would aligning NAIP standards toward the proposed Imagery for the Nation (IFTN) requirements impact the aerial photography and orthoimagery industry? IFTN is a proposed 1-meter, complete coverage national imagery program that, if fully funded, would enhance FSA’s requirements for both orthophoto and compliance imagery.  Overall, the responses were there are no significant impacts moving NAIP to full national 1-Meter coverage. Many thought it would be smart move from the taxpayer’s viewpoint. The exceptions were: [NAME REMOVED] comment, that due to the short flying season, it would be difficult to acquire coast-to-coast imagery, and [NAME REMOVED] comment, that NAIP goals may suffer from the standardization of the acquisition.

3 - New horizontal accuracy specifications  Currently, NAIP accuracy specifications are based on matching new imagery to the older “first generation” orthophotos (i.e. relational control). The Government is proposing a change to an absolute accuracy specification with a 1-meter product accuracy requirement of +/- 6- meters (95% of tested points). What is the impact of moving to an absolute control specification? What impact would this change have on processes and risks if this change is phased in over a 3 to 5 year period?  All responders concur. Moving to absolute control would provide a more accurate product and could increase program interest and attain more partners. As most of the responders stated, the biggest component of the accuracy error is caused by outdated DEMs that need to be updated, especially in mountainous areas, to meet the +/-6m accuracy specification. continues

3 - New horizontal accuracy specifications (con’t)  All but [NAME REMOVED] stated there would be no cost increase to the NAIP program if the Government provided the ground control. Several noted the Government would have to establish a database to manage the furnished control points and this would add risk/effort to the Government’s involvement. [NAME REMOVED] makes a point, by stating control point quantities and locations may not be known until the ortho process is ready to begin (i.e., during or after acquisition) and this could cause delays to image production/delivery. However, [NAME REMOVED] opposes this statement, by indicating control points may not be required if the production process uses direct georeferencing (i.e., ABGPS/IMU).

4 - Increase product warranty period  In an effort to reduce Government inspection time and thus decrease the final contract payment timeframe, the Government is considering extending the length of the product warranty. What is a reasonable warranty length for imagery products?  The responses are divided into two main categories: no desire to extend past the current 12-month warranty and extending the warranty in exchange for not having a final 10% withholding. [NAME REMOVED] states having a warranty longer than the expected useful life span is imprudent (i.e. establishing a 2-year warranty on a 2-m image that is normally only used for the current season). [NAME REMOVED] states an extended warranty is possible but having to archive the data (error corrections) adds cost and risk to each vendor.

5 - Small Business Set-Asides  In an effort to meet the FSA’s small business set-aside goals, future NAIP contracts will have mandatory small business set-aside goals as part of the required Small Business Subcontracting Plan for all subcontracts issued by prime contractors that are certified as other than small. What minimum mandatory goal is considered reasonable? What is the program risk if the goal is above 50%?  Again, the responses are divided into two main categories: one recommending 10-20% and the other a 20-30% set- aside goal ([NAME REMOVED] was an exception suggesting 40% as a set-aside goal). The core reason for the proposed set-aside goals was the industry’s lack of qualified small businesses and their lack of capital to be qualified. All responders felt setting the set-aside goal to high would jeopardize the program by adding too much cost and risk.

6 - Eliminate award and payment for duplicate DOQQs:  The government’s acquisition strategy for NAIP is based on buying and accepting DOQQ imagery at the state level. The Government is considering reducing or eliminating, during final negotiations, the quantities of duplicate DOQQs that span state boundaries and are flown by the same contractor, assuming similar conditions (i.e. flying season and film type). What are the impacts or risks to contractors if this is implemented?  All responders agreed the elimination of duplicate DOQQs would save the Government cost and possibly reduce the program risks concerning quality issues, though very minimally. [NAME REMOVED] did point out, the majority of the cost is image acquisition and eliminating DOQQ duplicates will not eliminate this cost. [NAME REMOVED] estimates the proposed savings to be only the production cost, approximately 20-30% of the eliminated DOQQ.

7 - Incentive or Penalty payment for acquisition  One of the primary uses of NAIP is for FSA crop compliance. This requires that the imagery be acquired and produced in a relatively short timeframe – weeks instead of months. What impact in terms of cost and risk would an incentive and/or penalty payment have on contractors? What potential impact would there be on the program? How should it be implemented?  Most responders indicated the Government’s use of incentives would have a “positive impact” in assisting contractor’s to meet USDA needs. However, the problem for incentive payments is the Government must fully fund the incentive at contract award, as [NAME REMOVED] mentioned. Also, the responders discourage the use of financial penalties, claiming (due to the added risk) they would incorporate the additional cost into their offered prices. [NAME REMOVED] reiterated this point indicating NAIP is already a firm fixed price contract with all the risk passed to the vendor.

8 - Change to performance-based payment schedule  The current NAIP contract allows for the following performance-based payment schedule: 60% upon imagery acquisition completion; 30% upon delivery of all required products; and the final 10% payment after the Government’s acceptance of project. What is a fair and equitable payment schedule, which better reflects contractor expenditures, while balancing both the contractor and Government risks?  The previous NAIP vendors that responded claim the actual cost of acquisition is greater than the 60% payment currently paid after image acquisition is completed and are requesting a larger payment. Several requested a small payment at contract award, and others are requesting the acquisition payment be made on a monthly basis instead of as a lump sum.

9 - Provide a DOQQ list instead of photo-center files  The Government has been providing a photo-center file that contains a list of required exposure stations, based on traditional film-based cameras. However, in 2006, the major portion of NAIP was acquired with digital sensors which have different footprints than film-based cameras. The Government is considering providing a list of DOQQ deliverables instead of a photo-center file. What are the potential impacts?  The responders are divided by their focus of digital versus film-based acquisition. The digital group, [NAME REMOVED] being the exception, prefers the “new” DOQQ list (or a shapefile equivalent). However, the film-based vendors prefer to keep the current system of photo-center files provided the “NAPP” specifications are maintained; otherwise a DOQQ list is their preference.

10 - Provide standard DEM source  In an effort to reduce contractor’s cost and improve “repeatable” quality, the Government is considering providing digital elevation models for the orthophoto production process rather than asking for “best available”. What are the advantages, disadvantages, or risks in providing the DEM as Government-furnished material?  No one specifically responded to overall program advantages of providing the DEM as Government-furnished material. Some stated the cost of purchasing the NED is minor, but having the data provided could offer consistency. However nearly all responders stated the Government would be assuming the risks associated with the DEM data provided, ie: accuracy issues.

11 - Elimination of NAPP flight requirements (film-based acquisition)  The current NAIP contract requires film-based acquisition to meet very tight specifications (i.e., 1:40,000 scale, pre- determined exposure stations, north-south flight lines) similar to the prior USGS NAPP program. The Government is considering removing flight planning restrictions to allow film- based acquisition more flexibility, while keeping the main focus on the orthophoto end product. How would this change impact the program and/or industry? Would there be a potential cost savings? What risk is involved?  Several responders stated lifting the restrictions would improve efficiencies and therefore reduce program risk. Only two quantified the potential cost savings (5-10% for film- based acquisitions only). [COMMENT REMOVED]

12 - Past Performance  To emphasize the importance of meeting FSA’s compliance needs, the Government is considering requiring contractors to provide written proof of poor weather conditions before granting a season extension. Any unverifiable “acts of God” will be considered an inexcusable delay and will have considerable impact on a contractor’s past performance. What is the minimum data required to support an excusable delay?  Most responders stated weather data (METARs and TAFs) can be collected from the NOAA’s website. No one addressed the question of what the “minimum data” (such as visibility levels) should be to justify a season extension.

13 - Elimination of 2-meter GSD product  Because of the decreasing price gap between 1 and 2- meter imagery FSA is examining potential impacts of having all of NAIP acquired at a 1-meter GSD. How would this “simplification” and any potential additional processing affect cost/risk?  The responders are divided. The responders utilizing film and digital frame-based systems see minor, if any, impact to cost and schedule. However, the responders utilizing the ADS-40 camera believe there would be an impact, since they are able to fly higher with less flight lines for the 2- meter acquisition.

14 - Mosaic compression format  The current NAIP contract requires the compressed county mosaic be delivered in LizardTech’s MrSID format. What are the costs/risks, advantages/disadvantages of moving to a different compression format?  Generally, the responders recommended the JPEG2000 format. One or two stated there was no difference between formats because the licensing cost is amortized over a large amount of imagery. The technical merit or issues using JPEG2000 was not addressed.

15 - Raw image deliverable  There has been interest from NAIP partners to have access to a more “raw” product in order to further enable digital image enhancement and to preserve image information that can be lost during processing for the compressed county mosaic and quarter quad deliverables. What would be the best footprint and file format for the raw product? What minimum level should the raw product be processed to (i.e. geo-referenced, orthorectifed, etc.)? What raw product from film-based acquisition would be available (i.e. 12-bit scans)? What would be the cost and schedule impacts of providing a deliverable in “raw” format? continues

15 - Raw image deliverable (con’t)  The general recommendation was for the raw image to be a geo-referenced TIFF to be delivered after the primary NAIP deliverables with the footprint dependent on the camera type. Film-based systems could provide the initial scan, frame-based digital systems could provide a native captured footprint, and ADS-40 camera system product could be provided in some predefined rectified footprint (Level 1 output). A few of the responders indicated the size of the raw image data could be enormous. [NAME REMOVED] stated a single file could potentially be 4 or 5 times larger than a 1-Meter DOQQ tile.

band deliverable (digital capture only)  The Government has had user interest in a 4-band product (RGB and near infrared). If this becomes a requirement for states acquired with digital sensors, what would be the preferred product format (i.e. a single 4-band or two 3-band product) and why? What are the cost and risk impacts for requiring a 4-band deliverable? If a single 4-band product is delivered, what would the impacts be regarding quality when deriving separate natural color and color infrared products from the 4-band product post delivery?  There is no consensus on which is the better product deliverable, a single 4-band image versus two 3-band images. Some responders recommend a single 4-band deliverable for the file size reduction and for a “better” co-registration between all four bands. Others recommend the two 3-band images as a deliverable, since it is impossible to radiometric balance both images (RGB and NIR) at once. Two responses stated that the cost for two 3-band images could increase contract costs by 5- 10%.

17 - Faster image delivery for FSA crop compliance  The current NAIP contract is structured to have the compressed county mosaic delivered 30 days after the end of the flying season. Given that flying seasons can typically be 6-8 weeks long, is there a way to deliver imagery faster (web-service, ftp, etc.) for compliance use only (i.e. requiring a “semi processed” image be delivered within several days after acquisition via electronic transfer)? What would be the additional costs of this deliverable or service?  There was no consensus on how to achieve a quicker product delivery or its additional costs. Larger vendors stated they have or could have an established infrastructure to send the large amounts of data via wire, but the smaller vendors recommend overnight shipments of hard drives. Nearly half of the responders could provide a non-radiometric balanced ‘interim’ image that could be delivered within days of acquisition.

18 - DEM correction deliverable  The Government-furnished elevation model (item #10) should prove suitable for producing orthoimagery to the new accuracy specifications (item #3), but even without these changes, the Government is considering having contractors provide, as a contract deliverable, any corrections made to the DEM. What is the best method for reporting the corrections and what format? What are the cost impacts for requiring this deliverable?  The majority of the responders indicated it would be impossible to estimate the cost of editing DEMs due to the variety of the effort involved in fixing the data set. A few responders recommend a secondary contract be established to fix erroneous DEMs only after the delivery of the NAIP products. This would minimize the risk to the NAIP schedule and allow negotiation of a DEM contract after the level of effort has been identified.

19 - Metadata  The current NAIP contract requires the contractor to create FGDC complete metadata from a Government provided template. Is there additional information that is currently not on the template that should be included in the metadata (i.e. DEM source)? Should any of the metadata also be embedded into the imagery?  Most of the responders recommend the DEM source be included in the metadata. [NAME REMOVED], as the exception stated there would be some “logistics problems” documenting DEMs the vendor may have corrected. Additional items recommended for inclusion to the metadata are control points information, camera lens serial numbers, digital frame, data recorded in the PCDF files designation, and sensor type.  Several responders recommend not to include metadata with in the TIFF header. Also [NAME REMOVED] recommendation is to use a watermark technology to link the image to a metadata source