Writing Successful GIS RFPs (2010)
•Download as PPS, PDF•
1 like•617 views
Presented at WVAGP meeting 7 Dec 2010 by Rob Rickard, Woolpert.
![Overview ,[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object],[object Object]]()
Recommended
More Related Content
Similar to Writing Successful GIS RFPs (2010)
Similar to Writing Successful GIS RFPs (2010) (20)
More from WV Assocation of Geospatial Professionals
More from WV Assocation of Geospatial Professionals (20)
Writing Successful GIS RFPs (2010)
- 1. Presentation to the WVAGP Writing a Successful GIS RFP Robert A. Rickard – Geospatial PM
Editor's Notes
- Introduction Thanks to Kurt and the WVAGP committee for allowing us to present Brief background on me
- These consultants should know their work so don’t tell them how to do it. Clarity in describing what is desired while leaving enough room for alternative approaches You aren’t putting out an RFQ to stimulate the economy but for an overall need. Make sure this need is well-defined.
- RFQ is driven by state law and CCNA and QBS It is to limit the influence of price/cost, upfront, on the selection committee RFQ doesn’t mean the highest price/cost will be paid for services. Means best qualified and best respondent. Selection committee should rank the respondents. Negotiate with #1, if #1 is too high, go with #2
- If a RFP is put together well, then there shouldn’t be huge differences in the costs A Checklist can assist when reviewing responses to see if consultants answered everything and meet your requirements Questions and Answers can assist with clarification for all parties but be cognizant of overall goals. Don’t open doors to others. Ex: Question was asked by a consultant on whether the agency would relax the vertical tolerance requirements for MMS LiDAR acquisition. Agency responded yes that they would relax the tolerances from 0.10’ to 0.30’. This would allow the precision that the agency was originally looking for not to be met, allowed for another method of collection (airborne/helix) to be possibly used, and may confuse the other respondents, who had the tools available to meet the requirements, to rework their responses and cost estimates to meet the new requirements.
- CEs can be separately sealed from the RFP so that the committee that reviews the RFPs are not jaded by the costs and can evaluate the proposals on QUALIFICATIONS first. Try to limit the respondents amount of paper submitted but keep allow them enough room to adequately describe the methods that they will do your project. Some can on and on and on about qualifications Resources should be made available to a project for the given schedule but keep in mind that delays can hinder the availability of resources (planes, cameras, etc). A consultant can’t allow their equipment and personnel to stay idle and wait while decisions are being made by you or County Commissioners. Idle time costs the consultant lots of money.
- Refer to Brooks Act and WV statutes
- Thinking and asking different departments may turn up other funding sources and may eliminate redundant services within your organization Is this data going into a more robust GIS system (ArcSDE, Oracle Spatial, or other central repositories) or will the data be used by one or two persons
- You can phase this data depending on the amount of change in your county/area, the specific needs of the county Web based tools are available for the immediate QA/QC of data. Woolpert is developing web-based tools for client being able to redline the orthos.
- What happens when the responses come in and it is higher than you anticipated? Where will you try to access more money to get what you want or are you going to cut services? What happens when the responses come in and they are lower than you anticipated? Do you have to return the grant money? Why are they lower? Did the respondents not understand the requirements?
- The flying altitudes are average altitudes and differentiate with the terrain.
- NSSDA sort of replaced NMAS because of digital boom
- Advantages are
- Advantages are
- You can review the images so that they meet expectations (no atmospheric interferences)
- Digital Surface Models (DSM's) DSM's measure the height values of the first surface on the ground. This includes terrain features, buildings, vegetaion and power lines etc. They therefore provides a topographic model of the earth's surface . Used for 3d flythru, support location-based systems, viewsheds, and simulated environments Digital Terrain Models (DTM's) DTM's provide a topographic model of the bare earth / underlying terrain of the earth's surface. They are usually derived from DSM's by digitally removing the cultural (man-made) and vegetation features described above. As a result of these processes, the stated accuracy of a DTM will usually be slightly lower than that of the DSM from which it is derived, paricularly in area of continuous and dense building and tree coverage.
- What are the classifications? Buildings, Roads, High Veg, Low Veg, Bushes, Bare Earth Colorized Height Aerial LiDAR image
- Costs for WV will be slightly different than costs for Indiana because of terrain Ohio statewide (OGRIP) costs in 2006 were $4.3m, 1’=200’ LiDAR + Orthos, 2m post-spacing Lidar, Buyup for Counties were $175/tile using accurate LiDAR DEM for image orthrectifications Ohio 43,000 sq miles and 88 counties With newer hardware and software, the Ohio project overall project costs could be lower if priced today. WV is appx. 24,000 sq miles and 55 counties $135/sq mile for Orthos + LiDAR for 1 foot (1”=200’) and 1.5 meter LiDAR posting hydro (USGS)