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.
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.
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.
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)
Remote Sensing Technology and Application
2. SHOALS technology
3. Digital imagery
4. DTM/DEM generation
5. New technology
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
19. Experience in image interpretation of shorelines
20. Color vs. black and white
21. Satellite imagery
23. Digital imaging
24. Aerial photography – analog and digital
25. Satellite imagery – high and low
26. Direct geo positioning (imagery)
27. Aerial photography
a. Computer generated models
b. Digital compilation
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
48. Leverage limited government budgets
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
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
a. Analytical plotters
b. GPS with RTK
c. Soft copy
e. Side scan sonar
g. Multi/single beam echo sounder
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
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
14. Tier 1 capability – precision instruments, expect methodology and management technique for PTM compilation and data collection
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
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
43. Local knowledge and familiarity with area
44. Connections – business relationships, previous jobs
45. Regional knowledge
46. Expertise – specific
48. Manpower/licensed professional/QC
49. R&D into meeting existing specifications
50. I wrote the book
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
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
1. Key personnel clauses
2. Key personnel required to participate in oral presentations
3. Existing technological capability
5. Well rounded team
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
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
23. Capability of effective teaming
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
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
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
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
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
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)
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
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
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
130. Technical approach
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
b. Notice to proceed
20. Multiple contracts (8-10) to maximize contracts
21. Use of pilot projects
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
33. Employee exchange program
34. Local workshops
35. NOAA to provide 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
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
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)
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
Question #4: Any other general comments or input you have for NGS?
1. Spend more money
2. Innovative funding partnerships
a. USGS IPs
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)
42. NGS should learn from others (e.g., learn from NIMA)
43. Look at standardization with NIMA
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
September 28, 2000
(This summary reflects exactly the input of the individual evaluation forms submitted at the workshop)
No. of Submissions: (60)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
53-60. No comments.
4. The biggest disappointment of the work session for me was:
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.
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.
14. No clear picture on outsourcing. However, this is a good start.
15. Funding and lack of direct NGS discussions.
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.
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.
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.