1. Guidelines for Procurement of Professional Aerial Imagery, Photogrammetry, Lidar and Related Remote Sensor Based Geospatial Mapping Services Developed by In Consultation With:

2. Background Existing document, “Guidelines for Procurement of Photogrammetric Services from Private Professional Sources” adopted in 1986, published in 1987 May 2006: ASPRS Board votes to update existing Guidelines Professional Practices Division (PPD) tasked with leading ad hoc work group October, 2006: Ad hoc committee formed to include federal/state government, MAPPS and ACSM

3. Procurement Guidelines Committee ASPRS Committee Members Chair (PPD Director): Doug Smith, David C. Smith & Associates, Inc. Co-chair (Past PPD Director): Dan Paulsen, Wilson & Company Federal government: George Lee, USGS State government: John Tull, Washington Dept. of Transportation MAPPS Representatives Marvin Miller, Aero-metrics, MAPPS President Mike Ritchie, Photo Science, Inc. ACSM Representatives John Matonich, ROWE Engineering, Inc. Curt Sumner, ACSM Executive Director

4. Charter Deliver an updated, revised document which: Includes updated technological references; Maintains consistency with references to “professional services” included in recent modifications to the NCEES Model Law and Model Rules; Addresses professional services vs. products; Includes guidance for organizations procuring mapping services to assist in determining when qualifications-based selection processes should be used

5. Work to Date Numerous meetings Initially focused on defining characteristics of “professional service” related to photogrammetry/remote sensing Submitted initial draft summary at ASPRS Tampa conference Introduced draft to Excom, Board and at “Hot Topic” session Feedback from conference received through early summer Re-initiated meetings in Fall ’07 to incorporate feedback and resolve key issues

6. DRAFT Current Status Revised Executive Summary to address key issues: Better address NCEES distinction between survey/not survey Include supporting matrices with a specific list of “professional” vs. “technical” services Address Best Value and other procurement methods that include qualifications as a primary selection criteria Seeking Feedback from this session Has not been reviewed by ASPRS Board

7. DRAFT Current Status

8. Schedule Full draft has been submitted to ASPRS Board for discussion at Friday’s Board Meeting Incorporate feedback from conference and submit final draft for Board approval Send out accepted/approved document for review by broader geospatial mapping community Target: Final submitted for Board approval at ASPRS Fall conference Publish in PE&RS and distribute to educate agencies and procurement personnel

9. Licensure/NCEES Considerations Initially considered issues related to Licensure State licensing laws vary too widely to serve as a guide National Council of Examiners for Engineering and Surveying (NCEES) Model Law and Model Rules National Multi-Organizational Task Force (MAPPS, ACSM, ASPRS, NSPS, URISA, others) “Authoritative Location” – Final word and basis on which all other determinations are made

10. Professional Services Determined “Professional Services” for procurement purposes is much broader in scope than for Licensed Services Licensing: Minimum level of competence Serious harm / Public health, safety and welfare Procurement Guidelines: Recommendations / guidelines, not law or policy Need to consider broader scope of public interest, not just serious harm Goal is to provide guidance to help organizations best meet project needs

11. Professional Services “Professional Services” require: Specialized knowledge/skill Independent judgment Expectation of overall ethical conduct and quality of performance to protect public or recipient’s best interests

12. Professional Services Includes all photogrammetry or remote sensing services that: Interpret, process or analyze remotely sensed imagery to determine geospatial positions or produce maps; and Have an expectation of accuracy that could influence decisions that affect public welfare/interests Focused primarily on measurement science, though recognize professional nature of other analytical remote sensing work “Professional services” does not include technical services or product sales

13. Matrix Attachments Matrix attachments compare Professional Services, Technical Services and Products Distinguishes between NCEES surveying/not surveying to address concerns and feedback from Tampa conference Vast majority of photogrammetry/remote sensing geospatial mapping services are listed here as “professional services” IMU/GPS and geo-referenced aerial photography/imagery Orthophotography Lidar, radar Feature extraction Digitizing or cadastral mapping if interpretation is required

14. Matrix Attachments Standardized / automated processes still considered professional Ultimately a professional is responsible for the reliability of the information Technical Services include: Conventional or resource photography that is not geo-referenced Image mosaics for display only purposes Direct digitizing / no interpretation Products include “off the shelf” and other products where provider offers a set of standard features and sets specifications Definition of Product derived Product vs. Services Matrix developed by MAPPS

15. Matrix Attachments Example: Orthophotography Rectification/processing imagery for representation as an orthophoto is a professional service Imagery rectified to existing USGS DEM, solely for referential/GIS overlay purposes and accompanied by an appropriate disclaimer is not surveying by NCEES definition Orthophotography produced to meet a specific stated or implied accuracy is surveying by NCEES definition

16. Matrix Attachments Example: Feature Extraction Always a professional service Features digitized or extracted to meet a specific accuracy statement are surveying by NCEES definition Inventory maps, GIS centerlines, resource management boundaries and similar features when used solely for referential purposes are not surveying by NCEES definition Example: Lidar, Radar and Terrain Modeling Always professional service Surveying if represented to meet a specific accuracy May be exceptions, but could not identify any reasonable examples where a stated / authoritative accuracy would not be required

17. QBS Procurement Qualifications, not cost, should always be the primary factor Recommends Brooks Act as best procurement model for qualifications based selection Brooks Act Process: Rank firms on qualifications alone; cost is not submitted or considered in initial ranking Negotiate final scope and fair and reasonable cost with top ranked firm Solicit cost and negotiate with next highest ranked firm, if an only if a fair and reasonable cost cannot be agreed on with top ranked firm

18. QBS Procurement ADVANTAGES OF BROOKS ACT PROCESS Carefully constructed process to ensure public is protected from sub-standard services influenced by cost based selection Public gets best services at a fair price through cost negotiation Encourages competition. Best qualified firms may not compete if low cost is a factor; some states prohibit licensed professionals from submitting cost Encourages innovation and fosters relationship of trust. With cost competition service providers may limit proposals to only what is asked for Widely accepted as the standard for survey related services Many “non-survey” geospatial mapping services are of similar professional nature and deserve similar treatment

19. QBS Procurement Current Guidelines Draft: Recognizes Brooks Act is not always required by law; many jurisdictions use other methods Emphasizes that Brooks Act is only appropriate method for services that meet definition of surveying Provides recommendations/alternative guidelines when internal rules/policy require cost to be used as a selection criteria

20. MINIMUM CRITERIA IF COST SUBMITTAL IS REQUIRED Qualifications should always be the primary selection factor. Qualifications rankings should not be influenced by cost. The scope of work must be well defined and have been developed by a professional who has extensive knowledge of the work to be performed and is qualified to ensure that the scope of work will best serve the client’s interests. Projects that have a significant element of design, and where the service provider's professional judgment is relied on to develop the scope of work, methodology or approach, should always use QBS and should not include cost as selection criteria. A registered, certified or otherwise qualified professional with specific knowledge or expertise with the services being procured (either on the client's staff or hired as a consultant) should have a significant role in the review of both the technical proposal and any cost proposals in order to ensure that the work best meets the end user and public interests. If cost data is to be considered in the selection process, it should be submitted separately and considered only after firms are ranked based on qualifications. QBS Procurement

21. Other Recommendations Research and comply with State licensing laws Research and comply with State mini-Brooks Act laws Consider NCEES Model Law/Model Rules as best definitive guideline for determining surveying vs. not surveying Apply general principals outlined for all future technologies Apply principals outlined to all mapping procurement, including “incidental” or subcontracted services

22. SUMMARY Professional services are not limited to licensed services. Includes vast majority of geospatial mapping services. Professional Services vs. Technical Services vs. Products (Matrix attachments) Low bid is never appropriate Brooks Act processes often required by state or federal law; Even when not required by law, Brooks Act is best model and is recommended/endorsed Alternative methods are not appropriate for “survey” services Alternative methods for non-survey services, when required by agency rules/policy, should include minimum guidelines to ensure cost is secondary Guidelines / QBS also apply to subcontracts

23. We Want Your Feedback! Web page http://www.asprs.org/society/divisions/ppd/guidelines/guidelines.htm Send comments to guidelines@asprs.org