January 5, 1999 - Boston, MA
"CONTRACTING FOR GIS SERVICES: Part I - What you ask for."
The following sections provide brief summaries, in outline form, of the main points presented by the listed speakers at the January 5, 1999 meeting of the Massachusetts Geographic Information Council (MGIC).
Moderator - Richard Cohane, Boston Edison Company
Overview
This meeting was the first of a two-part MGIC series on Contracting for GIS Services. This session covered Part I - What you ask for. The February meeting covers Part II - What you get. During this month's session we heard from the private sector regarding GIS contractual services. Our speakers discussed developing contract specification, talked about common pitfalls and areas of miscommunication which can cause problems between clients and vendors, and presented some tips for working successfully with GIS contractors. The February meeting presents the client's perspective and discusses issues such as quality control/quality assurance and how to assure you get what you've asked for.
Presentation by Julio
Olimpio, Regional Manager, Environmental Systems Research Institute.
"GIS Software Requirements
– The Vendor Perspective"
Opening remarks:
"I want to talk to you about some
of the things vendors see in Request for Proposals (RFPs). Because
I represent a GIS software company, I’ll be speaking from the perspective
of a software vendor. There are pros and cons to the RFP process.
RFPs can be a good learning experience for vendors and they foster competition
which leads to the improvement of products. The RFP process is supposed
to be a win-win situation: the client’s needs are met and the vendor forms
a new relationship. Unfortunately, the process doesn’t always work
this way. There are some pitfalls we commonly see in RFPs which prevent
the process from resulting in a win-win situation. I’d like to review
some of these pitfalls from real RFPs which have crossed my desk."
Pitfall #1: The Never Ending RFP
It is very common to see boiler plate language in RFPs, language which usually has little or nothing to do with the client’s needs. Such language tends to pull both the client and the vendors out of focus. In having to deal with a document that has everything including the kitchen sink, the process of the RFP takes over. The ideal result of the process should be that the vendor works with the customer, then truly conveys their needs and wants in the proposal. In The Never Ending RFP the vendor has to spend weeks or months filling out all the required specs, even if they don’t matter, and doesn’t have enough time or freedom to propose the best solution for the client. From the client’s perspective, the proposals resulting from such RFPs are distracting. They take the attention away from the need at hand and focus attention on evaluating all the specs called for in the RFP. You must be sure you know what you want and then simply ask for what you want.
Pitfall #2: The Scoring Process
The scoring process in RFPs can also distract both vendors and clients from the task at hand. For example, many RFPs require a vendor to commit to submitting all deliverables by a specified date, otherwise their proposal receives an unacceptable score. In fact, it is very difficult for a vendor to legally commit to such a request. Vendors tend to respond by stating their assumptions about the things they do not know, then base their answers upon these assumptions. Some scoring systems require a Ph.D. to understand. Others simply ask dumb questions – “Is the bidder is responsive to the requests listed in this RFP?” If the bidder is not responsive, they wouldn’t be bidding! Usually only about one-third of the scoring system relates to the functionality of the software, yet this is the crux of the issue.
Pitfall #3: Benchmarks That Don’t Test The Right Things
What you want from a RFP is to have the vendor prove succinctly and clearly that their technology can do what you need it to do. Benchmarks are often used in RFPs to address this question, but instead of getting at whether or not the technology will meet your needs, the benchmarks are designed to test the technology on a million specific functions – functions not necessarily important to the mission at hand. For example, when benchmarks focus only on the timeliness of the system, the evaluation of the technology becomes purely a speed issue while the functionality of the system is not addressed. The best way to avoid this pitfall is to ask for solutions, not just specific functions.
Pitfall #4: Price-Based Selection
Selecting the lowest bidder or favoring proposals based on price is not a good way to select a vendor. Vendors look at business in lots of different ways and have a lot of leeway with their pricing. They will go so far as to give their product away if they see it as beneficial to get a particular client. Price does not indicate whether a vendor will be able to meet your needs.
Pitfall #5: RFPs That Don’t Adequately Describe The Client’s Situation
To get the best responses to your
RFP, it is important to describe your situation in clear detail.
Succinctly state your goals. Put your needs into context – describe
not just the functionality you want but the reasons why you need this functionality.
Be very detailed about your data if you’ve got data or will be getting
data to work with. Describe any standards you’ve got in place for
operating systems, databases, hardware, etc. Picture diagrams can
be very helpful in describing systems. Let us know what software,
hardware, and operating systems you are using even if you don’t have standards
developed.
Contact Information:
| Julio Olimpio
Environmental Systems Research Institute 100 Conifer Hill Drive, Suite 305 Danvers, MA 01923-1168 Phone: (978) 777-4543 Website: http://www.esri.com |
 |
Presentation by Brent
A. Jones, PE, PLS, Vice President, AM/FM/GIS Services, James W. Sewall
Company
"Landbase Mapping Issues"
Executive Summary
Established in 1880 & located
in Old Town, Maine, James W. Sewall Company offers comprehensive AM/FM/GIS
solutions to the Geographic Information Systems Industry, including quality
digital and conventional aerial photography, orthophotography, surveying,
GPS, photogrammetric mapping and quality scanning, cadastral mapping, engineering,
forestry, and facilities conversion, from data preparation and data conversion
to data maintenance and software development. With broad capabilities,
advanced technology, and over 130 personnel inhouse, Sewall is uniquely
equipped to meet the needs of a diverse clientele.
Integrated Services
- AM/FM/GIS
- Data Conversion Services
- Aerial Survey
- Surveying & GPS
- Photogrammetry
- Cadastral Mapping
- Engineering
- Forestry & Natural Resources
- All these items help to identify what to ask for in the RFP:
- Selection Process (QBS, Low Bid, Mix)
- Project Intent or Needs (What do you want?)
- Products Desired (not process)
- Project Timeframe
- Project Budget
- On-Shore or Off-Shore Requirements
- Doing Your Homework will Reduce Project Costs
- Project Team and Players
- Production Facilities Location
- Experience in Field
- References
- Financial Information
- Bondability
- Equipment Ownership (Project Control)
- Current and Passing USGS Calibration Certificate
- State Purpose of Photography (Mapping, Orthos, Scanning)
- Proposed Project Scheduling (Your Needs and Budgeting)
- Flying Season (Dictated by Project Timeframe and Products)
- Scale Determination
- Mapping Scales and Accuracies
- Equipment Ownership and Operation
- Ancillary Services and Equipment
- Proposed Flight Plan
- Degree of Accuracy Based on Mapping Specs
- Monumentation ?
- Control Report (with Swingties)
- Leave Procedures to Vendor
- GPS vs. Traverse
- Airborne GPS or No Airborne GPS
- Use of Existing Control
- Specify Datums
- Specify Deliverables
- Triangulation Report (Subcontracted?)
- Equipment and Personnel
- Planimetric Specs and Procedures (Capture Rates)
- Topographic Specs and Procedures (DTM for Orthos)
- Imaging Specs and Procedures
- Specific Data Delivery Software Formats (Topology?)
- Database Schema
- Hardcopy and Digital Deliveries
- Request QA/QC Procedures for Each Phase
- Propose Pilot Project Phase
- Redefine Database Schema
- Redefine Schedule
- Redefine Deliverables
- Define Overall Project Specs as Detailed as Possible
- Invite Educational Presentations
- Define Project Goals as Detailed as Possible
- Leave Proposed Procedures to Vendor
- Research Firms (Prime/ Subcontractors/ Equipment)
- Take a Tour!
- Review Experience
- Request Samples with Proposal
- Request Presentations
- Call References
- Qualifications Based Selection
Contact Information:
| Brent A. Jones, PE, PLS
Vice President, AM/FM/GIS Services James W. Sewall Company 147 Center Street Old Town, Maine 04468 Phone: (207) 827-4456 Website: http://www.jws.com |
||||
 |
Presentation by Richard
Cohane, GIS Services Manager, Boston Edison
"Facility Data Issues"
“If you don’t know where you’re going you probably won’t get there.”
Boston Edison
- Provides electric and natural gas energy services
- 1.3 million customers
- one of the largest utilities in New England
- 1998 recipient of the GITA - AM/FM International Project Excellence Award
- Successful
- it works
- it’s operational
- it’s never ending
- Recognized as a key component to providing energy services safely, reliability and efficiently
- Key elements to project success
- Planning
- Communications
- Clear requirements
- Balanced expectations
- Thorough understanding of source materials
- Realistic appraisal of project size
- Realistic scheduling
- Continuity of dedicated staff
- Adequate financial planning
- Strategic planning
Contracting for Services
- Why
- lack of expertise
- lack of adequate, or trained, staff
- schedule
- too expensive to be accomplished in-house
- other
- Detailed Information
- Organization information
- Project background information
- Project objectives
- Description of work
- Statistics
- Project Schedule
- Vendor Questions
- General business
- Company background
- Location
- Size
- Ownership
- Organization structure
- Revenues
- Technical questions
- Litigation
- References
- Project team
- Summary of approach
- Options/alternatives
- Upcoming innovations
- Security
- Quality control
- Deliverables
- Map Products
- Source documents
- Digital products
- Software products
- Database products
- Documentation
- Details
- Project start-up
- Kickoff meeting
- Specification review/finalization
- Deliverable finalization
- Schedule refinement
- Define database structure
- Design/modify software
- Develop control/management
- Data preparation/scrub
- Digitizing (feature/parcel)
- quantity (18,000)
- unit (each)
- unit price ($$$)
- total ($$$$)
- Post-digitizing (totals)
- text entry
- quality assurance/control
- procedures manuals/documentation
- check plots
- final plots
- And Detailed Pricing Worksheets
Contact Information:
| Richard Cohane
Boston Edison Company Phone: (617) 541-7750 Website: http://www.bedison.com/ |
 |
Last Updated 4/19/2000
EOEA Disclaimer | Privacy Policy