URISA Offers Strongly Worded Feedback on ASPRS Draft Procurement Guidelines

URISA posted its comments to ASPRS’ draft Guidelines for Procurement of Professional Aerial Imagery, Photogrammetry, Lidar, and Related Remote Sensor-based Geospatial Mapping Services on its website. Comments are due today, Jan 15.

URISA makes five points in its comments, highlighting areas of disagreement with the draft.

1. Qualifications-Based Selection (QBS) or a similar method should not be offered as a best” preferred procurement method.

“The URISA Board strongly urges the committee to describe all of these procurement methods in the next draft of the Guidelines, to offer unbiased guidance on the advantages and limits of each, and to recommend none as “best” but to encourage clients to select the method that best suits the conditions and purposes of their procurements.”

2. Mapping services are not related to architecture and engineering.

“Some of the entities represented on the drafting committee have sought to classify mapping services, regardless of how they are delivered or by whom, as the licensed practice of surveying. ... The URISA Board takes strong exception to this conclusion, which is in direct opposition to the stated scope of Subpart 36.6.  General mapping is in no way part of the licensed practice of architecture and engineering, nor are related spatial data products that may be delivered by licensed surveyors or photogrammetrists within the scope of Subpart 36.6. “

3. Geospatial professionals create products as well as services.

“As geospatial data and technology have become more ubiquitous, products have become increasingly standardized [and available on the Internet, in consumer products, etc.]. ...The guidelines should acknowledge this trend, to preclude the misimpression that all geospatial products are or should be provided by professionals as services.”

4. Failure to address “pre-submission” homework

“One of the primary omissions of the Guidelines is what a consumer of spatial data can do to improve the
quality of proposals before the solicitation is issued. “

5. Include main users of the document, local governments and utilities, in its development

“It is possible that many of the shortcomings identified above are the result of inadequate representation on the drafting committee of the primary consumers of spatial data; i.e., local governments and utilities. “

I applaud URISA for doing the hard work of reading and reacting to this draft on behalf its members and the geospatial community. URISA offered a call for participation to the membership via its newsletter, and received input from its Policy Committee. Ultimately the URISA Board endorsed the final response.