If you haven't read enough about this summer's lawsuit which pitted MAPPS vs. the United States in a suit related to implementation of the Brooks Act, The American Surveyor offers Curt Sumner's personal take. Sumner is excutive director of the American Congress on Surveying and Mapping, a group that was not involved the amicus brief submitted by AAG and others. Recall that the judge didn't rule on the case instead declaring that MAPPS did not have standing to bring the suit.

Sumner points out something that's pretty important: that the sides didn't interpret the purpose of suit in the same way. That "difference of opinion" let to a lot confusion. Sumner writes:

So, it seems that the purpose of the lawsuit is being interpreted differently by the plaintiffs and their detractors. The plaintiffs contend that they are simply trying to have the FAR be required to comply with the intent of Congress by including among the definition of services to be procured using QBS those mapping services of a professional nature requiring specialized training and subject matter expertise. The detractors apparently believe that the lawsuit is intended to insure that only those who are professionally licensed by the respective states as engineers or surveyors have a monopoly over all federal mapping contracts.