SOLICITATION NOTICE
T -- T-Photographic, mapping, printing, & publication services
- Notice Date
- 10/19/2006
- Notice Type
- Solicitation Notice
- NAICS
- 541922
— Commercial Photography
- Contracting Office
- Department of Agriculture, Farm Service Agency, Aerial Photography Field Office, 2222 West 2300 South, Salt Lake City, UT, 84119-2020
- ZIP Code
- 84119-2020
- Solicitation Number
- (RFI)USDA-RFI-NAIP-2007
- Response Due
- 11/20/2006
- Archive Date
- 12/5/2006
- Description
- REQUEST FOR INFORMATION (RFI) Document Number: USDA-RFI-NAIP-2007 A. NATIONAL AGRICULTURE IMAGERY PROGRAM (NAIP) The U.S. Department of Agriculture, Farm Service Agency (FSA), Aerial Photography Field Office (APFO) plans to establish a multi-year contract for the National Agriculture Imagery Program (NAIP). The Government anticipates awarding multiple performance-based contracts to support the production of approximately 2.8 million square miles of digital orthorectified imagery annually. These planned contracts will be issued under FAR Part 15 as full and open competition procurements which will include the provisions Buy American Act (FAR 52.225-2) and Small Business Subcontracting Plan (FAR 52.219-9). B. BACKGROUND The FSA is responsible for administering USDA farm programs including crop commodity price support, disaster relief, and assistance for conservation practices. FSA administers farm programs in part by digitizing and maintaining agricultural field boundaries, or common land units (CLU) from digital orthoimagery acquired from the NAIP. CLU boundaries consist of fence lines, roads, waterways, and other cultural features, which form the interface between agricultural vegetative cover and non crop vegetative cover on the surface. Another key aspect of farm program administration is to verify that agricultural practices are in accordance with USDA program parameters. FSA has performed this verification by using NAIP imagery which is acquired during peak agricultural growing seasons on an annual basis. The aerial imagery, along with existing program parameters, is viewed in a geographic information system (GIS) at county based USDA Service Centers to show crops and agricultural practices. CLU boundaries are displayed to assist with identification of farm parcels and acreages. The use of NAIP imagery has been successful in providing FSA current orthoimagery for maintaining CLU boundaries and performing farm program administration. It has also provided participating government agencies with current, accurate orthoimagery for their GIS programs. For reference purposes, the Indefinite Delivery, Indefinite Quantity (IDIQ) contract and 2006 Task Order for the final year of the current 3 year contract can be downloaded at http://www.fsa.usda.gov/Internet/FSA_File/naip-3-04-mod-5.pdf and http://www.fsa.usda.gov/Internet/FSA_File/rfp-naip-3-04.pdf, respectfully. Questions regarding the current contract can be submitted to john.mootz@slc.usda.gov or faxed to (801) 975-3512 to the attention of Mr. John Mootz. C. REQUEST FOR INFORMATION The Government is soliciting responses from industry addressing the questions and issues stated below. Please address all questions and include feedback on all related topics, including impacts to cost, schedules, and risks. If you do not have input on a question or statement, please indicate with ?not applicable? or ?no response?. In addition, please feel free to provide other recommendations or suggestions on NAIP related subjects or issues. CONTRACT STRATEGY 1. IDIQ Contract Length: While balancing both the Contractor and Government risks and investments, what is the best contract length (5 years maximum) for the upcoming contract? What impact, if any, would rapid technological change and the relative fast migration from film to digital capture and ?lights out? automated production have on the contract length? 2. Imagery For The Nation: How would aligning NAIP standards toward the proposed Imagery for the Nation (IFTN) requirements impact the aerial photography and orthoimagery industry? Part of IFTN is a proposed 1-meter, complete coverage national imagery program that, if fully funded, would enhance FSA?s requirements for both orthophoto and compliance imagery. 3. New horizontal accuracy specifications: Currently, NAIP accuracy specifications are based on matching new imagery to the older ?first generation? orthophotos (i.e. relational control). The Government is proposing a change to an absolute accuracy specification with a 1-meter product accuracy requirement of +/- 6-meters (95% of tested points). What is the impact of moving to an absolute control specification? What impact would this change have on processes and risks if this change is phased in over a 3 to 5 year period? 4. Increase product warranty period: In an effort to reduce Government inspection time and thus decrease the final contract payment timeframe, the Government is considering extending the length of the product warranty. What is a reasonable warranty length for imagery products? 5. Small Business Set-Asides: In an effort to meet the FSA?s small business set-aside goals, future NAIP contracts will have mandatory small business set-aside goals as part of the required Small Business Subcontracting Plan for all subcontracts issued by prime contractors that are certified as other than small. What minimum mandatory goal is considered reasonable? What is the program risk if the goal is above 50%? CONTRACTOR PAYMENTS 6. Eliminate duplicate DOQQs: The government?s acquisition strategy for NAIP is based on buying and accepting DOQQ imagery at the state level. The Government is considering reducing or eliminating, during final negotiations, the quantities of duplicate DOQQs that span state boundaries and are flown by the same contractor, assuming similar conditions (i.e. flying season and film type). What are the impacts or risks to contractors if this is implemented? 7. Incentive or Penalty payment for acquisition: One of the primary uses of NAIP is for FSA crop compliance. This requires that the imagery be acquired and produced in a relatively short timeframe ? weeks instead of months. What impact in terms of cost and risk would an incentive and/or penalty payment have on contractors? What potential impact would there be on the program? How should it be implemented? 8. Change to performance-based payment schedule: The current NAIP contract allows for the following performance-based payment schedule: 60% upon imagery acquisition completion; 30% upon delivery of all required products; and the final 10% payment after the Government?s acceptance of project. What is a fair and equitable payment schedule, which better reflects contractor expenditures, while balancing both the contractor and Government risks? GOVERNMENT FURNISHED MATERIAL 9. Provide a DOQQ list instead of photo-center files: The Government has been providing a photo-center file that contains a list of required exposure stations, based on traditional film-based cameras. However, in 2006, the major portion of NAIP was acquired with digital sensors which have different footprints than film-based cameras. The Government is considering providing a list of DOQQ deliverables instead of a photo-center file. What are the potential impacts? 10. Provide standard DEM source: In an effort to reduce contractor?s cost and improve ?repeatable? quality, the Government is considering providing digital elevation models for the orthophoto production process rather than asking for ?best available?. What are the advantages, disadvantages, or risks in providing the DEM as Government-furnished material? ACQUISITION REQUIREMENTS 11. Elimination of NAPP flight requirements (film-based acquisition): The current NAIP contract requires film-based acquisition to meet very tight specifications (i.e., 1:40,000 scale, pre-determined exposure stations, north-south flight lines) similar to the prior USGS NAPP program. The Government is considering removing flight planning restrictions to allow film-based acquisition more flexibility, while keeping the main focus on the orthophoto end product. How would this change impact the program and/or industry? Would there be a potential cost savings? What risk is involved? 12. Past Performance: To emphasize the importance of meeting FSA?s compliance needs, the Government is considering requiring contractors to provide written proof of poor weather conditions before granting a season extension. Any unverifiable ?acts of God? will be considered an inexcusable delay and will have considerable impact on a contractor?s past performance. What is the minimum data required to support an excusable delay? PRODUCTION/PRODUCTS 13. Elimination of 2-meter GSD product: Because of the decreasing price gap between 1 and 2-meter imagery FSA is examining potential impacts of having all of NAIP acquired at a 1-meter GSD. How would this ?simplification? and any potential additional processing affect cost/risk? 14. Mosaic compression format: The current NAIP contract requires the compressed county mosaic be delivered in LizardTech?s MrSID format. What are the costs/risks, advantages/disadvantages of moving to a different compression format? 15. Raw image deliverable: There has been interest from NAIP partners to have access to a more ?raw? product in order to further enable digital image enhancement and to preserve image information that can be lost during processing for the compressed county mosaic and quarter quad deliverables. What would be the best footprint and file format for the raw product? What minimum level should the raw product be processed to (i.e. geo-referenced, orthorectifed, etc.)? What raw product from film-based acquisition would be available (i.e. 12-bit scans)? What would be the cost and schedule impacts of providing a deliverable in ?raw? format? 16. 4-band deliverable (digital capture only): The Government has had user interest in a 4-band product (RGB and near infrared). If this becomes a requirement for states acquired with digital sensors, what would be the preferred product format (i.e. a single 4-band or two 3-band product) and why? What are the cost and risk impacts for requiring a 4-band deliverable? If a single 4-band product is delivered, what would the impacts be regarding quality when deriving separate natural color and color infrared products from the 4-band product post delivery? 17. Faster image delivery for FSA crop compliance: The current NAIP contract is structured to have the compressed county mosaic delivered 30 days after the end of the flying season. Given that flying seasons can typically be 6-8 weeks long, is there a way to deliver imagery faster (web-service, ftp, etc.) for compliance use only (i.e. requiring a ?semi processed? image be delivered within several days after acquisition via electronic transfer)? What would be the additional costs of this deliverable or service? 18. DEM correction deliverable: The Government-furnished elevation model (item #10) should prove suitable for producing orthoimagery to the new accuracy specifications (item #3), but even without these changes, the Government is considering having contractors provide, as a contract deliverable, any corrections made to the DEM. What is the best method for reporting the corrections and what format? What are the cost impacts for requiring this deliverable? 19. Metadata: The current NAIP contract requires the contractor to create FGDC complete metadata from a Government provided template. Is there additional information that is currently not on the template that should be included in the metadata (i.e. DEM source)? Should any of the metadata also be embedded into the imagery? D. INSTRUCTIONS TO REPSONDENTS Responses to this RFI are due no later than 4:30 P.M. (Mountain Time) on November 20, 2006. Responses may be mailed to Contracting Officer, Mr. Geoffrey Gabbott at 2222 West 2300 South, Salt Lake City, UT 84119, faxed to (801) 975-3512 to the attention of Mr. Geoffrey Gabbott, or submitted electronically to apfo.contracts@slc.usda.gov. The electronic copy of your responses must be in an Adobe Systems PDF (Portable Document Format) format and readable by the Adobe Acrobat Reader. Any proprietary data that is included in the response must be marked appropriately at the paragraph level (page level is acceptable for full page table, graphs, etc). Any response marked proprietary at the document level will not be considered. E. CONTACT INFORMATION Clarifications or questions regarding this RFI must be submitted in writing to john.mootz@slc.usda.gov or faxed to (801) 975-3512 to the attention of Mr. John Mootz. All clarifications or questions must reference this RFI. NOTE: This RFI is being issued solely for information and planning purposes and does not constitute an Invitation for Bids (IFB), a Request for Proposals (RFP), a Request for Quotations (RFQ) or an indication that the Government will contract for any of the items and/or services contained in this notice. All information received in response to this notice that is marked Proprietary will be handled accordingly. Responses to this notice will not be returned. In submitting a response, you are solely responsible and accountable for all of the expenses associated with your response. The following provision is applicable to this notice and is hereby incorporated by reference: FAR 52.215-3 Request for Information or Solicitation for Planning Purposes (Oct 1997). The full text of this clause is available at: http://www.acquisition.gov/far/index.html.
- Record
- SN01167788-W 20061021/061019220305 (fbodaily.com)
- Source
-
FedBizOpps Link to This Notice
(may not be valid after Archive Date)
| FSG Index | This Issue's Index | Today's FBO Daily Index Page |