Rep. Jo Ann Emerson Addresses USGS Director "in the strongest possible terms"

About Directions

Calendar

Syndicate This Blog

RSS 0.91 feed

RSS 1.0 feed

RSS 2.0 feed

Top Referers

www.heartevents.nl (60)
www.thegisforum.com (58)
atlas.ca.gov (45)
planetgs.com (29)
www.serpanalytics.com (27)

Special Announcement

Our Points

Thursday, May 10. 2007

Rep. Jo Ann Emerson Addresses USGS Director "in the strongest possible terms"

An article in the Rolla Daily News offers up the story, but the letter itself (pdf) makes it clear Representative Jo Ann Emerson of Missouri will not be standing by as the A-76 process to choose a Geospatial Technical Operations Center (NGTOC) continues. (Denver was selected, then the process found flawed, then an A-76 to pit Denver, Rolla and the private sector in competition began.)

The letter dated May 8 (Tuesday) to USGS Director Mark Myers makes two key points and requests a meeting as soon as possible. The two points:

(1) The cost criteria of the A-76 does not follow current law. Current law requires that cost be at least 1/2 the consideration. However, the scope of work states that "costs of facilities and equipment shall be considered equal for all bidders." Emerson urges Meyers in "the strongest possible terms" to either revamp the A-76 to take true costs into consideration (which would mean further delays) or simply drop the A-76 and put both Rolla and Denver back to work. She notes too that litigation around this issue could cost lots of tax dollars.

(2) Mr. Bob Doyle, a Meyers appontee will make the final decision on who "wins" the A-76. Doyle has already made clear his preference for Denver. Emerson states he's not really impartial. Those invovled in the previous decision were not be involved in the A-76; I'm not sure of Doyle's role, if any, in previous discussions about the NGTOC.

Posted by Adena Schutzberg in USGS at 10:13 | Comments (4) | Trackbacks (0)

Trackbacks

Trackback specific URI for this entry

No Trackbacks

Comments

Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)

Measure for measure, this is a comedy of errors, and in fact much ado about nothing. For many at The Survey this process has become love's labor's lost; regretfully, for most who are in the tempest it is a midsummer night's dream that all will end well.

#1 Archie Belaney on 2007-05-10 12:04 (Reply)

What Rep. Emerson needs to investigate is where is the USGS Federal mapping money being spent, and why does her President still insist on holding DOI to the A-76 Federal job competition.

Congress gives USGS $50 to 60 million a year for Federal mapping money (it was called CTM), but the A-76 solicitation calls for no more than $25 million a year to be spent on the NGTOC mapping center. So where is USGS spending the other $25 to $35 million?

Rep. Emerson makes a very good suggestion in her letter to Director Myers: to simply discontinue this flawed (study) process and maintain the excellent work accomplished by the two USGS centers in Denver and Rolla under the status quo, resuming full operations and staff levels at each site, Emerson says. The Rolla and Denver mapping centers could easily share the $25 million a year in the A-76 solicitation and have two fully functioning mapping centers.

A major reason this A-76 study continues is because her President (and OMB) have their stoplight scorecard they use to punish Federal Agencies by reducing budget dollars if a Federal Agency does not get green lights on the President's agenda items. Running A-76 studies is one agenda item and the DOI is on record since 2005 to study 400 FTE within USGS. So the DOI continues this A-76 study, pretending there are still 400 FTE (now 200 FTE), to get a green light on A-76 studies. The DOI cannot financially afford to stop this A-76 study. Rep. Emerson needs to go to her President to stop this A-76 study.

#2 Hidalgo Parral on 2007-05-10 14:39 (Reply)

For the people in Reston this has already become a nightmare. They were not allowed to compete in the A-76 competition with Denver and Rolla and have all been terminated via a Reduction in Force. Peoples careers have been destroyed and USGS management could care less.

#3 former mapper on 2007-05-10 15:27 (Reply)

This entire A76 process is the perfect example of how poorly the USGS has been managed for the past 20+ years. The entire process is totally unnecessary, and a complete waste of time and money. Given that the age of the average USGS employee (somewhere in the mid 50s), most would be eligible to retire shortly. The DOI is spending millions to axe a few hundred employees just a few years from retirement. This reduction in force could have been done painlessly through attrition rather than turning 400 or so families lives up side down. The downsizing of the USGS could have been accomplished in a methodical, organized, and sensible fashion over a reasonable time frame resulting in a fully functional agency rather than needlessly destroying the premier national civil mapping agency. The concept of using state and local sources to produce national geospatial data seems logical in theory. The technology is there but I question USGS management’s ability to bring hundreds of partners together within just a few years and be able to produce a continuously updated, nationally consistent, seamless national map (given that the post A76 agency will be a shadow of it’s former self). Bringing these partners together in short order might be possible in a perfect world where everyone works together in total and complete cooperation but USGS management cant even work in a cooperative fashion amongst themselves much less bringing hundred of partners together, each with their own agenda, over the course of a few years. What a shame. What a waste of tax dollars.

#4 Lindell Baker on 2007-05-24 12:07 (Reply)

Add Comment

Name
Email
Homepage
In reply to
Comment	Enclosing asterisks marks text as bold (word), underscore are made via _word_. Standard emoticons like :-) and ;-) are converted to images. E-Mail addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for E-Mail notifications To prevent automated Bots from commentspamming, please enter the string you see in the image below in the appropriate input box. Your comment will only be submitted if the strings match. Please ensure that your browser supports and accepts cookies, or your comment cannot be verified correctly. Enter the string from the spam-prevention image above:
	Remember Information? Subscribe to this entry

Advertisers

Polls

What's your preferred format for electronic publications?

	July '09
Mon	Tue	Wed	Thu	Fri	Sat	Sun
		1	2	3	4	5
6	7	8	9	10	11	12
13	14	15	16	17	18	19
20	21	22	23	24	25	26
27	28	29	30	31