PHOTOGRAMMETRIC ENGINEERING & REMOTE SENSING
July 2014
587
project owner, client or professional from participating in any
selection competition of their choosing, within the limits and
regulations of existing and applicable laws.
QBS is widely accepted for procurement of architecture, en-
gineering and related professional services, commonly referred
to as A/E services. Federal law, as prescribed in 40 U.S.C.
1101, commonly referred to as the Brooks Act, and state laws
in more than 40 states, require QBS procurement methods for
architecture, engineering and related surveying and mapping
services.
The QBS process, as outlined by the Brooks Act and similar
state laws, requires that an agency or private party first select
a professional services provider based solely on an evaluation
of that proposer’s qualifications and capability to complete the
work. Cost and price are not a factor in the initial ranking of
proposers. Under the QBS process, costs are negotiated with
one proposer at a time, starting with the most highly qualified
proposer. If a fair and reasonable cost cannot be negotiated
with the highest ranked proposer, cost and price are then ne-
gotiated with the next most highly qualified proposer.
QBS is endorsed for procurement of professional services by
many other professional organizations including the Amer-
ican Institute of Architects (AIA), American Society of Civil
Engineers (ASCE), National Society of Professional Engineers
(NSPE), American Public Works Association (APWA), Ameri-
can Council of Engineering Companies (ACEC), Design Pro-
fessionals Coalition, (DPC), American Water Works Associa-
tion (AWWA), American Bar Association (ABA), Management
Association for Private Photogrammetric Surveyors (MAPPS),
American Congress on Surveying and Mapping (ACSM) now
known as the National Society of Professional Surveyors
(NSPS), and Council on Federal Procurement of Architectur-
al and Engineering Services (COFPAES), as well as agencies
such as the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. These organizations
all endorse QBS as the best means of promoting competition
for professional services. Competition among professionals is
healthy and desirable and ensures that project dollars are well
spent. QBS provides a level playing field that promotes fair
and open competition, guaranteeing that only skilled, experi-
enced, and able professionals are selected before price is nego-
tiated and determined. As a result, clients acquire the services
of the most qualified proposer possible while obtaining a price
that is fair and reasonable.
It is also significant that the American Bar Association Mod-
el Procurement Code for State and Local Government endorses
QBS for surveying and mapping services. When the Nation’s
leading attorneys in government acquisition evaluated all
available methods, they recommended QBS for geospatial ser-
vices. It is also noteworthy that Congress specifically defined
QBS as a competitive procedure in the landmark Competition
in Contracting Act in 1983, and has retained that law ever
since.
Many professional photogrammetric mapping and related
remote sensing services are directly related to architecture
and engineering or are otherwise relied upon to determine the
authoritative geospatial location of features or topography.
These applications of photogrammetric mapping and related
remote sensing technologies to determine location and topog-
raphy similar in nature to the type of information provided by
field surveyors would be considered surveying by most defini-
tions. In recent years, many other professional level geospatial
applications of photogrammetric and remote sensing mapping
technologies have developed that may not be directly related to
architecture, engineering or the authoritative location of fea-
tures typically associated with professional surveying. Exam-
ples include thematic mapping for land cover, photogrammet-
ric mapping for GIS centerline coverages, disaster recovery as-
sessment, and similar work. Since many laws and regulations
have not kept up with these advancements in the marketplace,
these
Guidelines
are intended to help clarify procurement pro-
cesses as they apply to current practice.
While some applications of current photogrammetric map-
ping technologies may not have a direct tie to architecture
or engineering, they share a very similar level of reliance on
the professional practitioner to employ sound judgment, pro-
fessional expertise and professional ethics in order to develop
contracted mapping deliverables that can be relied upon to
make decisions that impact life, health, safety, property and/
or the public welfare. While these tasks may not require the
same level of accuracy required for architecture, engineering
and surveying applications, there remains an expectation of
a level of quality and standard of performance that requires a
professional level service.
Regarding regulatory standard(s), States typically use the
test of actual potential for harm to life, health, safety, property
and/or the public welfare to determine the minimum level of
activities that should require a license. However, from a pro-
curement guidelines perspective, the bar should not be placed
at the minimum level. Rather, procurement guidelines should
set the standard to achieve what is in the best interest of the
public, and what is most likely to ensure a successful project.
Procuring photogrammetric services is vastly different
from procuring products, basic supplies or even construction
services. Often, the photogrammetric mapping professional
is the only professional involved in the process that fully un-
derstands the specifications, accuracies, methodologies and
approach that will support project objectives and the intend-
ed end use of the agreed to project deliverables. As such, a
photogrammetric mapping professional who is familiar with
all aspects of the project should play an instrumental role in
determining the project specifications.
Determining what to include in a comprehensive request for
proposal (RFP) for geospatial mapping services is a complicat-
ed task. As a result, RFPs are often vague and missing key in-
formation. When an RFP lacks sufficient detail, each proposer
competing for the work will most likely interpret it different-
ly. Consequently, proposals vary widely in scope and detail,
creating an “apples and oranges” disparity in project details.
When price is one of the key selection criteria, proposers often
use the lowest-cost approach, which often means discounting
