This web site was copied prior to January 20, 2005. It is now a Federal record managed by the National Archives and Records Administration. External links, forms, and search boxes may not function within this collection. Learn more.   [hide]
The National Geodetic Survey (NGS) Outsourcing Workshop

Session Results Logo


September 28, 2000

NGS Outsourcing Workshop

Summary of Results

The National Geodetic Survey, (NGS), NOS/NOAA, conducted a Request for Information Workshop on September 28, 2000. The workshop objectives were to allow interested parties to express and record their interest and receive pertinent information on future contracting with NGS. The workshop format consisted of NGS program specific briefings in the morning and collecting feedback and perspectives from participants in the afternoon. Approximately 80 different companies attended the workshop. A list of attendees is available on the NGS web site.

Morning Session

Captain Ted I. Lillestolen, Deputy Assistant Administrator of NOS, welcomed participants and stressed the NOS commitment to contracting. He discussed recent contracting for hydrographic surveys, the shrinking number of NGS employees, new emphasis on contracting, systematic approach to contracting and emphasized that quality data was essential to help ensure the safety of air, land and marine transportation. Charles Challstrom, Director of NGS, also welcomed participants and presented an overview of NGS' strategic direction and trends for personnel and projected outsourcing activities. A clear decline in government staffing levels will drive the need for NGS to be committed to partnering with the private sector on a range of technical and support activities. Mr. Challstrom highlighted the anticipated budgets for each of the program areas where outsourcing is planned. His slides, as well as all of the program specific presentations, are also on this web site. The three briefings were included:  Aeronautical Surveying Program, Shoreline Mapping Program and Height Modernization Program.

Commander Jon Bailey conducted the briefings on the Aeronautical Survey Program and the Shoreline Mapping Program. Essentially, the outsourcing activities for each of these programs will be in the areas of:  geodetic control, airport aerial photography, shoreline aerial photography and shoreline compilation.

Mr. Edward Carlson conducted the briefing on the Height Modernization Program and outlined anticipated outsourcing in the areas of reconnaissance survey plans, GPS positioning, vector processing and adjustment and various reporting requirements. The specific technical requirements for each program may be found on the web site. Additional information on the Height Modernization Program may be found in the NOAA Technical Memo. NOS NGS 58.

Afternoon Session

The afternoon activity focused on NGS collecting feedback from the participants on available industry capabilities and desirable contracting practices. Contractors participated in a structured brainstorming activity at tables of 8 persons supported by an NGS facilitator. Each table was asked to brainstorm responses to the following 4 questions

    1.  What are the kinds of capabilities the industry might provide to NOAA in each of the program areas:  Aeronautical surveys, Shoreline            mapping and Height Modernization?
    2. What discriminators or criteria would you suggest that NOAA utilize in its outsourcing selection process?
    3. How might NOAA facilitate your competitiveness in the larger market-place?
    4. Are there any other general comments or inputs for NGS?

Highlights of the recurring themes offered for each question are outlined below. The specific categorization and frequency of responses for each question are included below.

Question #1: Capabilities Available in each Program Area

In the area of Shoreline Mapping, the most frequently mentioned capabilities offered by the participants included remote sensing technologies and applications, general business support products and services, data related support, modeling, surveying, mapping and equipment. In the area of aeronautical surveys, the most frequently mentioned capabilities were a range of technologies and applications, effective business support functions and practices, software design and development, modeling, surveying, and geodesy. Finally, in the area of Height Modernization, the most frequently mentioned items offered to support NGS were region/local specific knowledge and experience, staff augmentation and private sector business practices, standards and specifications, data management, models and technology.

The two most significant overarching themes on available capabilities that cut across all three program areas were the availability of sophisticated technologies and their applications as well as the access to efficient private sector business practices to support NGS’ critical mission work.

Question #2: Desirable Criteria for Selection Process

The attendees provided an array of suggestions for application to the selection process. The most frequently mentioned categories included:  overall knowledge, experience, expertise; availability of private sector business practices; past performance; knowledge of and experience with NOAA/NGS; company's capacity to deliver (including resources, technology, equipment); knowledge of the geographic area; size and type of business; and compliance with the Brooks Act.

Question #3: Facilitation of Contractors’ Competitiveness

The participants offered several messages regarding NGS supporting their competitiveness in the larger marketplace. The most frequently mentioned items included:  desirable NOAA contracting practices; technology advocacy; providing workshops and training events; multiple messages related to standards and specifications; desirable government wide coordination activities; effective information dissemination; partnerships; data related activities; and relaxing restrictive requirements.

Question #4 General Comments

Each table had an opportunity to offer final remarks and general comments or messages to NGS. Many of the inputs reinforced messages offered from the previous questions. However, the most significant final comments included an urgency to increase the outsourcing budget and to commit to leveraging the private sector for efficient business practices to support important NGS mission work.

Session Evaluations

NGS received 60 evaluations at the close of the workshop. The specific summary is also attached. Overall, the participants seemed satisfied to highly satisfied with the morning briefings, although many felt the information could have been disseminated without the briefings. The feedback session also received satisfactory to highly satisfactory ratings. Participants seemed to like hearing what others had to say and having the opportunity to provide a lot of information. Again, some felt the comments could have been provided electronically rather than face to face. The highlights for folks were the opportunity to hear about NGS' plans and the ability to network with others. The most significant disappointments were learning of the anticipated outsourcing funding levels and not conducting the one-on-one sessions at the workshop.

Question #1: What are the kinds of capabilities the industry might provide to NOAA in this program area?

(The participant's comments below are taken directly from the notes recorded on the flip charts during the afternoon session)

Shoreline Mapping

Remote Sensing Technology and Application


2. SHOALS technology

3. Digital imagery

4. DTM/DEM generation
        a. LIDAR
        b. SAR
        c. Photogrammetry
        d. Combination

5. New technology
        a. LIDAR
        b. ABGPS (Airborne GPS)

6. New technologies (LIDAR, IFSAR)

7. Automated feature extraction

8. LIDAR services

9. IFSAR processing and procedures


11. Bathymetric LIDAR

12. Ground control/airborne GPS

13. Technology - development, transfer, flexibility, staffing, responsiveness and selection expertise

14. Benefits of integrated technologies

15. Scanning LASAR/LIDAR

16. Horizontal and vertical control – GPS

17. Digital ortho-photos

18. Photogrammetric techniques
        a. Analytical
        b. Digital

19. Experience in image interpretation of shorelines

20. Color vs. black and white

21. Satellite imagery

22. Photogrammetry

23. Digital imaging

24. Aerial photography – analog and digital

25. Satellite imagery – high and low resolution
        a. Hyper-spectral
        b. Multi-spectral
        c. Panchromatic

26. Direct geo positioning (imagery)

27. Aerial photography

28. Photogrammetry
        a. Computer generated models
        b. Digital compilation

29. Multi-spectral

30. Hyper-spectral

31. Aerial photography

32. GIS services


33. Experience in nautical charting

34. New methodologies – help develop standards

35. Development of production specifications

36. Streamline production

37. Weather independent

38. Tedious tasks/production work

39. Capital investments

40. Value-added services/processing

41. Meet requirements

42. Meet present needs

43. Have the platform

44. New knowledge of new sensors accuracy and applications (limitations)

45. Faster, better, cheaper

46. Conforms to IHO standards

47. Monumentation

48. Leverage limited government budgets

Data Related

49. Pre-packaged data (off the shelf)

50. Digital coastal mapping data

51. Knowledge of tidal data

52. Analysis software/development

53. Intelligent database

54. GIS database


55. Accurate DTM – Geoid modeling and visualization generated by IFSAR, LIDAR, photogrammetry and combinations

56. Computer generated physical models

57. Digital Terrain Modeling (DTM) and Digital Elevation Modeling (DEM)


58. Hydrographic surveys

59. Surveying – land and hydrographic

60. Hydrographic survey


61. Update mapping – change detection

62. Mapping

63. Cartography products

64. Analytical areotriangulation

65. Digital mapping (vector) AutoCAD, micro station arc information

Web-Based Technology and Applications

66. Web-based applications

67. Web-enabled solutions


68. Advancements in technology

69. Knowledge of chart user requirements


70. Equipment
        a. Analytical plotters
        b. GPS with RTK
        c. Soft copy
        d. Boats
        e. Side scan sonar
        f. PUG
        g. Multi/single beam echo sounder

Aeronautical Services

Technology and Applications

1. Understand/experience new technologies

2. LIDAR for obstruction charting (accuracy reg)

3. COTS – already available solution

4. Application of the LIDAR technology

5. Use of digital multi-spectral imagery

6. Ortho-imagery

7. System integration of new and existing technologies

8. State-of-the-art remote sensing – full spectrum (both products and services) LIDAR, SAR, IR, space based, air breather, photogrammetric, digital camera

9. GIS capabilities/tools

10. GPS (horizontal and vertical)

11. Automated tools to build the products, which are asked for

12. Combined technology
        a. Surveying
        b. Mapping
        c. GIS
        d. CADD


14. Tier 1 capability – precision instruments, expect methodology and management technique for PTM compilation and data collection

Business Approach

15. Integrated team concept for end-to-end solution

16. Flexibility and adaptability

17. Quick response to needs

18. Alternative methodology to achieve acceptable results

19. Program management office

20. Experience with product development and budget management

21. Scalable production

22. Ability for contractor to resell data to the benefit of all

23. Lobbying/partnering

24. Project management

25. QC/QA – more efficient

Data Related – Design/Software Development

26. Capability of understanding NGS software

27. Database design and software development

28. Multi-use of collected data (airport, state, natural resources, etc.)

29. Blue booking/data processing

30. Ability to develop software for obstruction determination


31. Traditional geodetic knowledge

32. Terrain modeling/photogrammetry

33. Virtual modeling

34. Math model for aeronautical surfaces that NGS lacks

35. Virtual modeling

36. Virtual GIS Modeling


37. Survey capabilities, which match those of NGS CONUS and OCONUS

38. Conventional surveying (triangulation, etc.) for areas, which can't be done with LIDAR or GPS - can't physically occupy


39. GPS/geodetic observations

40. Traditional geodetic knowledge

41. Local geoid development

42. Geodesy


43. Local knowledge and familiarity with area

44. Connections – business relationships, previous jobs

45. Regional knowledge

46. Expertise – specific

47. Manpower

48. Manpower/licensed professional/QC


49. R&D into meeting existing specifications

50. I wrote the book

Height Modernization


1. Familiarity with local area – BM’s. Which ones destroyed/ recovered, etc.

2. Experience in other areas that supplement specific knowledge

3. Various sources of experience

4. Local knowledge and partnerships

5. Geographical area of the contractor in relation to proximity of project is important

6. Local knowledge of heights and elevation in the area

Data Management

7. Data collection

8. Compare results from commercial software to PAGE NT so NGS could evaluate the capability of commercial software

9. Backlog of experience of new technology and software

Staff Augmentation and Business Practices

10. Provide additional resources in personnel and equipment quality assurance/peer review

11. Additional Manpower

12. More physical resources

13. Greater flexibility

14. Improved turn around – quicker


15. Geoid model will be improved by above – more observations

16. Local surveyor should have input into the next geoid model


17. Private surveyors can help NGS develop standards for ortho height determination using both static and kinematic GPS methods

18. Private surveyors could use their data to demonstrate alternate methodology that could be incorporated into NGS specs

19. Standards and specifications for trig leveling


20. New technologies

21. NGS should utilize the private sector advanced technology

22. Research – latest technologies


23. Least squares adjustment

24. More BM’s will be occupied/established. More observations to improve network

25. Public sector could advise NGS on NGS’ Strategic Plan to set priority

Question #2: What discriminators or criteria would you suggest that NOAA utilize in its outsourcing selection process?


1. Key personnel clauses

2. Key personnel required to participate in oral presentations

3. Existing technological capability

4. Qualifications

5. Well rounded team

6. Expertise

7. Experience

8. Current and future capabilities

9. Capabilities of firm

10. Experience of subcontractors

11. Personnel experience

Private Sector Business Practices

12. Contractors quality assurance procedures

13. Licensing/registration

14. Teaming for virtual production environment

15. Strong project management

16. Project tracking

17. Fast delivery

18. Timely delivery

19. Logistical support

20. Project Plan

21. Return in NOAA investments

22. Responsiveness

23. Capability of effective teaming

24. Workload

25. Ability to mobilize (deployability)

26. Experience of the Contract Review Office

27. Project manager

28. Mobilization time

29. Turnaround/delivery time

30. Give more credit to private sector work experience

31. Have team members that worked together in the past

32. Team performance

33. Team building capabilities

34. Partnering – sub contracting

35. Involve out of country companies under NAFTA regulations for A/E

Past Performance

36. Past performance/work history
        a. Government agencies
        b. Similar projects

37. Performance history with other agencies

38. Experience – track record

39. Evidence of performance

40. Past performance

41. Past record of meeting schedules

42. Past record in leading teams

43. Past record on government contracts

44. Require documented track record of potential contractor

45. Past performance (performance rating on similar projects)

46. Past experience in project area

Knowledge of Customer/NGS Requirements (NOAA)

47. Knowledge of NOAA specifications – auto correlation for DEM generation

48. Detailed understanding of project requirements

49. Knowledge of coastal environment includes tides

50. Knowledge of charting requirements

51. Product understanding

52. Team understanding of NGS’ mission - NGS to define full scope of services for teaming

53. Quality of team and familiarity with similar projects

54. Investigate available data sets (NOAA/NASA)

55. Specific NOAA experience

56. Ensure that experience is relevant for project

57. Qualifications need to be identified – experience in blue booking or similar structured project delivery

58. Demonstrated success in higher order control

59. Experience with GPS

60. NGS experience

Workforce/Capacity to Deliver

61. Production capacity – resources and equipment

62. Demonstrated understanding of project requirements

63. Increased scale of economy (large capacity)

64. Domestic vs. foreign production

65. Available capacity

66. Personnel qualifications

67. Capacity/availability

68. Overall capacity

69. Currency of experience (need to keep up with current technology) both for firm and staff

70. Key people

71. Time frame of the project

72. Use of domestic vs. foreign labor

Geographic Knowledge/Location

73. Geographic proximity

74. Geographic proximity to project area

75. Package projects geographically

76. Geographic location

77. Geographic location (relative to project site)

78. Geographic location of business

79. Geographical proximity to projects

Size/Type of Business

80. Small business

81. Small business vs. large

82. Minority owned WBE/MBE

83. Small vs. large firm. If small business utilization is a requirement, then potential contractor must be able to mentor small business

84. Size of job

85. Size of firm


86. Equipment resources

87. Equipment resources

88. Equipment capability and resource

89. Successful commercial off the shelf software

90. Equipment inventory (owned)

91. Equipment per NGS specs

92. Number of GPS receivers

Compliance with Brooks Act

93. A-E QBS (Brooks)

94. Brooks Act/IPT
        a. Specialized experience
        b. Past performance
        c. Professional qualifications
        d. Capacity
            - Personnel
            - Equipment
        e. Small business participation
        f. Geographic location
        g. E&F used to break a tie

95. Adhere to Brooks Bill – capacity

96 QBS/Brooks Act

97. Demonstrated expertise and quality (all the stuff in the Brooks Act)

Quality Control Plan

98. Documented quality control procedures

99. QA/QC processes

100. QA/QC plan

101. QA of metadata

Price/"Bottom Line"

102. Fair price

103. Best value for government

104. Past performance on similar projects in regards to quality and budget

105. More "bang for buck" (e.g., different sensor provide more usable information)

Specialized Products/Services

106. Value-added products

107. Specialized experience

108. Specialized experience

109. Professional license required, where applicable.

110. Specialized experience

111. Image processing – automated feature extraction

112. Demonstrations of production capabilities

113. Qualifications

Technology and Application

114. Scanner less LIDAR

115. Proven track record in technology development

116. Software development

117. Ability to do technology transfer

118. Utilization of new technology

119. Technology insertion program

120. Experience with new technology

121. Add new technologies to the specifications (see FEMA example)


122. Certification process

123. Quality of team and familiarity with similar projects

124. Licensing/certification

125. Comply with all Federal guidelines – workmen's compensation, taxes paid, etc.)

126. Use Indefinite Delivery Contract (IDC)

127. Number of GPS receivers


128. Define standards

129. FAR


130. Technical approach

Selection Process

131. Financial stability

132. Review Board should include a private industry consultant

133. Allocation of points

134. Go beyond SF 254/255 to allow more descriptive information. DBE should meet same qualifications/requirements as prime

135. Don't advertise unless you've got a funded project


136. Relaxation of DBE requirements

137. Short list of three qualified firms with interview for each contract

138. Technology representative on Selection Committee

139. Set the bar high enough to weed out those who can't do the work

140. Evaluation criteria proportional to accuracy

141. RFI prerequisite (avoid similar cases of overwhelming response)

142. On next announcement, state the amount of money available

143. Request more money from Congress ($20M)

144. Letters of reference

145. Sample of work

146. Familiarity with qualified partners, especially to cover different geographical areas

147. Show that safety programs/training are in place (OSHA, workmen's compensation compliance)

148. References of firm

149. Duplicate what the Mobile District and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has been doing to contract their work for the last six years

150. Help local company develop expertise

Question #3: How might NOAA facilitate your competitiveness in the larger marketplace?

Desirable NOAA Contracting Practices

1. NOAA act as a major consumer for production and consulting service

2. Adequate lead time for NOAA contracts

3. Specify deliverable, not process

4. Have contract indicate how much money is budgeted for the contract (how much the government thinks it is worth)

5. Scoring based on performance

6. Reference point of contact

7. Establish evaluation criteria and dissemination

8. Deliverable specificity

9. Hold individual follow-up meeting with participants (one-on-one)

10. Allow for a feedback mechanism for RFPs

11. Finding similar work and using existing contract mechanism

12. Long-term project plan

13. QBS selection – follow the rules

14. Open European markets to American Firm participation (print it in English)

15. Level playing field (not talking about M/WBE programs)

16. Regional contracts

17. 100% contracting

18. Scheduling (expedite contract execution)

19. Expedite contract process
        a. Selection
        b. Notice to proceed
        c. Negotiations

20. Multiple contracts (8-10) to maximize contracts

21. Use of pilot projects

Technology Advocacy

22. Support alternative technologies/methodologies

23. Technology transfer

24. Be open to new technology criteria

25. Be open to new approaches/technologies

26. Continued research on new technologies in theoretical/science

27. Fund, evaluate, bless and promote new technology pilot projects (i.e., LIDAR, digital cameras)

28. Support and promote use of GIS and GIS technologies

29. Write new technologies into the bid process

30. Promote new spatial analysis technology world-wide

31. Validate/certify new technologies provided by contractor

Provide Workshops and Training

32. Training

33. Employee exchange program

34. Local workshops

35. NOAA to provide training

36. Training

37. Describe final product instead of how to do it

38. Provide regional training in NGS procedures/software

39. Sponsor workshops/planning seminars

40. Team builds

Standards and Specifications

41. Formulation and dissemination of standards and specifications

42. Define technology standards and procedures

43. Focus on standards, specifications and guidelines

44. Strict enforcement of NOAA surveying rules and practices

45. NOAA, DOD, NIMA standards should be the same

46. Define standards and specifications

47. Develop a set of standards that would promote consistency with state and local projects

48. NGS should be the leader in setting world standards

49. Work with private sector in developing these standards

Government Wide Coordination

50. Inter-agency agreements (between government agencies – federal, state and local) to use contract vehicle

51. Looking for participation from other groups or agencies

52. Government agencies working together to increase funding. Go to the Hill together. Work with airlines and NIMA

53. Provide liaison among government groups

54. Facilitate cooperative work – FEMA, FAA, Corps. of Engineers, State, USGS

55. Encourage other agencies to provide data online

56. Outreach to the local government to educate them on appropriate standards

57. Increase awareness of geodetic data from Congress downward

58. Educate Congress to mandate American firm participation in World Bank Third World projects

Effective Information Dissemination

59. Disseminate information on opportunities (clearinghouse)

60. Keep web site up-to-date

61. Publish results of contract work in NGS papers, proceedings, pamphlets, etc

62. Publish information on new technologies

63. Dissemination of information

64. Assist industry in web site with constituent outreach activities

Desirable Partnership Activities

65. More partnerships in R&D

66. CRADA funding (partnership funding)

67. Increase your budget via partnership with other agencies

68. Encourage partnering with state, local and other federal agencies

69. Solicit partnering opportunities

70. Public/private partnerships where private sectors work along with NGS

Increase Funding

71. Obtain and maintain adequate funding levels

72. Maximize contract amount/stability

73. Increase funding by going outside. If contractors do this, NGS must be supportive

74. Add more money to ensure more competition

Desirable Data Related Activities

75. Reliable past performance database

76. Use of NOAA/NGS data holdings to address other opportunities

77. Data re-sale

78. Refine the data submittal process to NGS

79. Facilitate cooperative work – FEMA, FAA, Corps. of Engineers, State, USGS


80. More work outsourcing

81. Outsourcing

Relax Restrictive Requirements

82. Government should avoid trying to control intellectual property

83. Don't tell contractor how to do the job. Tell them what the requirements are for the final product

84. Limitation of response

85. Contract per project

86. No "wining and dining"

87. Make NGS software easier to use/evaluate commercial software more

88. Scheduling (expedite contract execution)

89. Eliminate requirements for state license to do GPS work (allow reciprocity)

State Advisors

90. Expand advisor program

91. Have NGS State Advisors be more in-tune with private sector.


92. Applied research – prototypes

93. Continue control survey lead attributions of contractor – credit and recognition of services (i.e., web site)

94. CORS collection rate at one sec

95. Process to validate final product

96. Government should brace itself for end of fiscal year "crisis"

97. Small business goal

98. NGS could act as clearinghouse, furnishing qualifications to state/local governments, other Federal agencies, etc

99. Share data

100. Provide opportunities to market their firms

Question #4: Any other general comments or input you have for NGS?

Increase Budget/Funding

1. Spend more money

2. Innovative funding partnerships
        a. USGS IPs
        b. FEMA

3. Increase funding

4. Research additional funding

5. NGS needs to market themselves to the public and in Congressional arenas the value of their services

6. Disappointment with funding level for NGS to meet its goals


7. Explore new technology

8. Near future technology advancements which private sector can provide

9. Industry can provide applied research ideas

10. Committed to new technology and contracting is good

11. NGS must invest in tools

Effective Business Practices

12. Efficient in-house (NOAA) QC procedures to allow timely payment of invoices

13. Flexible and fair invoice schedules
        a. Invoice upfront
        b. Mobilization fees

14. Multi-year contracts

15. Solid, long-term commitment to the program

16. Do not like the CRADA model
        a. Room for improvement
        b. Better sharing of costs

17. Automated billing

18. Realistic timelines

19. Blue booking – comprehensive windows-based programs with documentation

20. Insurance requirements (professional liability)

21. Change management for technology, data tracking, geo-spatial data management and analysis system (don't lose data)

22. Remain open to new ideas

Desirable Contracting Process

23. NGS should define geographic regions of interest

24. Let people know as soon as possible

25. Shouldn't lock out contractors from different regions

26. Thorough understanding by customers and vendors of SOW. Clearly define SOW – technically and current

27. Give me a contract

28. Don't underestimate Quality Based Selection (QBS)

29. NGS needs to fully define scope of work across the life of the effort

NGS Programs – Technical Areas

30. Have NGS articulate its vision – past, present and future

31. Consolidate aero survey standards and procedures (NOAA, NIMA, International, etc.)

32. Use SBIR for R&D

33. Potential outsourcing of State Advisors

34. Expand roles of State Advisors

35. Reasonability of specifications

36. Maintain long-term standards and specifications (software)

37. Calibration sites/procedures

38. Expansion of CORS

39. Greater frequency update rates

40. NGS needs to keep R&D in-house and grow functions

41. NGS needs to clarify the standards for Shoreline Mapping (accuracy)

Across Governments

42. NGS should learn from others (e.g., learn from NIMA)

43. Look at standardization with NIMA and ICAO
        a. Look at differences. If differences exist, they must be rationalized
        b. Don't accept politically-driven specs if there is no practical application
        c. Look at why certain accuracies are required or if they are required

44. Get NGS to have contracts with state DOTs to have their monumentation system blue booked (bluebook more projects)

45. Too much duplication on the Federal level between different surveying agencies


46. This meeting should give professional credits to maintain state competency requirements (PEDs)

47. Hope that NGS will see the commitment of the private sector to see NGS move forward





Outsourcing Workshop

September 28, 2000

(This summary reflects exactly the input of the individual evaluation forms submitted at the workshop)

No. of Submissions: (60)

1. Briefings

My overall satisfaction of morning briefings is:                         1         2 (4)         3 (16)    3.5 (2)     4 (29)         5 (9)

                    Highly                                                                     Highly
                Dissatisfied                                                            Satisfied

Why? Comments:

1. Informative
2. Very informative
3. Lack of funding for agency initiatives
4. Could have read the briefings just as well
5. A lot of content presented in a concise manner – stuck to schedule.
6. Most information provided is already sitting on NOAA’s web site. Near future forecasting would have helped.
7. NGS has clearly defined what the project areas are. Details will need to be defined.
8. Good input about the program.
9. Good overview of programs. Disappointing amount of funding.
10. The amount of funding was a surprise and a disappointment ($95,000 of mapping vs. $1.5M).
11. Provided a lot of information on NGS plans – positive and negative.
12. Well organized presentations, including complete handouts.
13. Informative for overall view – specifics later.
14. Good overview and provided pertinent.
15. Broad treatment. Candid programmatic remarks. Invitation to partner information of standards and contracting techniques.
16. Whereas getting to know private sector is great, it could be combined with other agencies to expand the scope.
17. Most information was available without attending the workshop.
18. CBD should have been clearer about resources we would be talking about.
19. Why 80% outsource? Why not 100%?
20. Still uncertain about NOAA’s commitment to contracting out and the amount of money for this purpose.
21. Many unanswered questions remain relative to NOAA’s long term contracting out plan.
22. It is good to hear of the plans for contracting out, however, the volume of work anticipated is disappointing and the potential for successful winning a contract is limited.
23. Good overview of progress and status of NGS as to budget, personnel and contracting.
24. Let participants know in advance the anticipated levels of funding for programs.
25. Learned some new technology terms that were covered by NGS personnel during breaks.
26. Informative, but disappointing with regards to potential work.
27-60. No comments.

  2. Input Session My overall satisfaction of afternoon's input session is:                             1         2 (4)         3 (15)     3.5 (2)     4 (32)         5 (6)

                        Highly                                                                    Highly
                    Dissatisfied                                                            Satisfied

Why? Comments:

1. Good feedback.
2. Good ideas and expressions from everyone.
3. Failed to give one-on-one session.
4. It appeared that NGS listened to contractor concerns.
5. Good way to share most important points from everyone.
6. Fact that private industry had a chance to provide real input.
7. It was good to hear the viewpoints of the consultants.
8. Great ideas.
9. Good input for NGS and reasonable insight about other company's concerns.
10. Enjoyed networking with others in similar fields and sharing ideas and concerns.
11. Good format for gathering input.
12. Good way to get an idea of what the rest of the world is thinking. Ways to widen specs to include new technology.
13. Teams did not listen to assignment, many repeated points.
14. Many good ideas. Hopefully, those will be in the process (e.g., maximize contracts available).
15. Even handed approach to fielding inputs.
16. We could have e-mailed our comments rather than a town hall meeting.
17. Good idea only if NGS can follow through with its goals.
18. All we are doing is consulting with NGS for free.
19. Would like to meet one-on-one.
20. It was a good exchange of ideas and opportunity for NOAA to hear from private sector collectively. Look forward to partnering with NOAA in the long term.
21. NOAA should know that the private sector is willing to partner with them for long term benefits.
22. As a first time event it was well worth the time and cost to participate. It is worth the brain dump to have the potential of contracts with NGS/NOAA. We will gladly donate the free consulting.
23. I think it will be good information for NGS.
24. Good interplay between tablemates. Report out is too long and lacks structure.
25. Heard what fellow companies are providing and wanting to provide as a private sector as well as what problems we see within NGS.
26. It was a little long.
27. Shared viewpoints, common goals and problems – team building.
28-60. No comments.

  3. The highlight of the work session for me was:


1. Networking with others.
2. Providing information on what I feel is important in providing services/technology.
3. The grit shown by NGS by letting the fox into the chicken coop.
4. Paid holiday.
5. Afternoon session.
6. Initiative for outsourcing.
7. Meeting other contractors.
8. Morning and late afternoon questions/answers.
9. Discussing teaming opportunities with other contractors for non-NGS work.
10. NGS is willing to accept the fact that work needs to be outsourced.
11. Learning of the plans of NGS.
12. The attempt to define the scope of each project and associated budgets.
13. Hearing industry consensus.
14. See everyone on same page.
15. Verbal interaction with other members of the profession.
16. Afternoon discussion.
17. Good ideas in the afternoon.
18. Well run session. Covered all topics in time allotted and kept the discussions moving.
19. Sharing of knowledge and expertise.
20. Better understanding of programs.
21. Learning more about an industry that interests me.
22. The variety of ideas brought up from a broad range of disciplines.
23. The interplay of the groups and the direct interface with the NGS personnel.
24. Question sessions.
25. Ability to contribute when normally would not in a large group. Commendable effort by NOAA/NGS to hear from the private sector.
26. Generally informative.
27. Networking with other firms.
28. Learning of what type of work will be outsourced.
29. Height modernization and its future.
30. The height modernization explanation was interesting. The workshop produced some interesting issues.
31. Networking with NGS and other firms.
32. Brainstorming, reinforcing and/or hearing different views on subjects.
33. Seeing old friends and colleagues.
34. Networking
35. Interaction with AE and NOAA staff.
36. Group discussions and brainstorm session.
37. The afternoon session.
38. Afternoon session.
39. The afternoon session to brain dump.
40. Consensus seemed to cover about everything for planned contracting.
41. NGS being open to outsourcing and committing to make outsourcing a reality. Willingness to come to the local level.
42. Interaction with fellow professionals.
43. Cookies
44. Listening to all of the well spoken, seasoned professionals speak about the business side of this subject. Also, the cookies were really good.
45. NOAA listens and it's appreciated.
46. Meeting with other companies and discussing past projects and expectations for future opportunities.
47. Meeting NGS personnel, that until now I had only spoken to on the phone.
48. The description of the overall plan for coastal, airport and height modernization.
49. Given a chance to participate and hear views from other members of the survey profession.
50. Total interest from private industry.
51. Meeting other firms/GPS professionals. The morning presenters were very good.
52. Networking
53-60. No comments.


4. The biggest disappointment of the work session for me was:


1. Funding
2. Finding out that money was not in place.
3. Lack of funding.
4. Learning about amount of funding available.
5. Amount of planned funding.
6. Funding
7. Small size of breakout groups.
8. The reality of spreading so few dollars across so many qualified firms.
9. Appears to be a very small amount of work for the effort involved.
10. The apparent depth of budget amounts.
11. No availability of one-on-one meetings.
12. Not fully hearing what NGS’ vision for the future is.
13. Funding
14. No clear picture on outsourcing. However, this is a good start.
15. Funding and lack of direct NGS discussions.
16. Funding
17. Funding level.
18. Finding out about the limited resources available.
19. Total funding.
20. Time between sessions (e.g., lunch was a bit excessive).
21. Low level funding for shoreline mapping.
22. Fear of a limited number of contracts available vs. large number of interested parties.
23. Not being able to have the one-on-one this trip.
24. Lack of funding.
25. Number of resources available.
26. Lack of understanding of funding mechanisms and its consequences of the audience. NGS/NOAA does not escape budget cuts.
27. Finding a place to park. I think items should be repeated from each group to show common items and consistency.
28. NGS’ level of funding and projected funding.
29. No set decisions or news of actual funding.
30. Amount of budget and the afternoon session.
31. Your budget.
32. Will NOAA/NGS talk the talk and walk the walk regarding contracting out?
33. Room temperature (too hot).
34. Not being able to have a one-on-one meeting with NOAA representatives.
35. Elimination of one-on-one meetings.
36. The budget and the change in the agenda that left out the one-on-one meetings.
37. NOAA does not have enough funding for their mission. Be specific on amount of funding that a bidder could consider when deciding to bid or not bid.
38. Budget
39. To learn that the funding was so low.
40. Understanding the limited amount of available funding for the work.
41. Amount of funding available for contracted work.
42. The funding level.
43. The lack of funding. Surely, even $10M per year is not enough – is it? The program description is surely very ambitious.
44. The discussion of how little the Brooks Act is actually being used.
45. The afternoon session could have been shortened.
46. Proposed amount of funding.
47-60. No comments.

  5. Other Comments:

1. More of this is needed until it all comes together.
2. Let's do this again real soon!
3. Your efforts are appreciated. Please continue your QBS efforts.
4. Might consider Internet "MShow" technology to avoid long travel by some for future interactive information sessions.
5. Overall, a good experience.
6. The private industry is looking for NGS to provide specifications and support in future technology development. NGS’ future is in contract management and leadership.
7. NOAA is trying to educate themselves and the contractors. Keep it up!
8. Great job!
9. Overall, a very good session. Good to see NGS listening.
10. Hopefully, input will be used to rewrite specs to broaden possibilities.
11. Use other Federal agencies (Corps of Engineers) for gaining knowledge on QBS process (do not reinvent the wheel).
12. Well done!
13. Good sandwiches and great forum!
14. Keep on working.
15. Could have been shorter.
16. Look forward to opt to contract at NOAA.
17. Good job!
18. Wish you the best as you move forward in this contracting out endeavor, such as USGS and NIMA is doing.
19. Good luck. We will be watching to see where you go or don't go with your contracting out issue.
20. Do this yearly to promote NOAA and private sector understanding of NOAA/NGS mission.
21. If NGS is really serious about outsourcing, you will find that the private sector can be a good partner in developing technology and getting support for the budget. NGS needs to build better partnerships with other agencies.
22. Good idea. NOAA should continue outreach to private sector.
23. NGS should hire Ken Burns to provide a documentary film that depicts the history of NGS beginning with Thomas Jefferson in 1807 on through the building and exploration of the nation to the present day using GPS, etc. and all the new technology and initiatives today and look to the future. This will help educate the public to the extreme importance of the contribution and role that NGS plays in the world. When they know the importance, they are more apt to approve spending for all these needed surveying programs. People are influenced by what they see on television. A documentary would be very effective.
24. Good information.
25. Outsourcing is to be encouraged.
26. An excellent presentation. Very well organized. Please repeat as the information and knowledge develops.
27. It was very well organized and informative. I was impressed and I think you should hold an "update" session in 6 months. Also, what about setting up a "listserv" or discussion list of participants through your web site.
28. Encourage project teaming with one prime in change. This provides cost effective product with regional knowledge (i.e., Louisiana firm doing work in New York is not cost effective).
29. By requiring past performance instead of current capabilities, you restrict any new companies from entering the market regardless of capabilities.
30-60. No comments.