This note is about two developments
in the mapping world that should
be of interest to professionals in the
geospatial industry. One took place in the
United States where a group of surveying professionals have asked the courts for
a ruling on who may be able to tender
for public contracts to draw ‘maps’. This
development should raise the concern of
most geospatial professionals. The second
took place at the opposite end of the
world in Australia where the Copyright
Agency representing surveyors has sought
a ruling on the ownership of intellectual
property rights of surveyor’s maps. While
these two cases are interesting such
developments are indicative both of the
maturing of the geographic information
(GI) profession and the willingness of
professionals to assert their ‘rights’.
The MAPPS case
In February 2007 in the US the
Management Association for Private
Photogrammetric Surveyors (MAPPS),
American Society of Civil Engineers
(ASCE), National Society of Professional
Engineers (NSPE), and Council on
Federal Procurement of Architectural
and Engineering Services (COFPAES)
brought a case against the government in
the Federal Court. The litigation sought
to change how the Brooks Architect-
Engineers Act (1972) (see 40 U.S.C. §§
1101-1104). – a law concerning how
federal contractors are selected in the
procurement process – is implemented
with regard to ‘mapping services’.
The Brooks Act is a framework for
contracting architecture and engineeringrelated
work for the federal government.
The award of contracts for such work isbased on ‘qualification-based selection’
(QBS) rather than on price. QBS is
predicated on professional qualifications
and experience, followed by negotiation
with the most qualified firm of a price that
is fair and reasonable to the government.
With amendments, surveying and
mapping has been added to QBS.
The Federal Acquisition Regulation
(FAR) Council, made up of several
government agency executives,
implements statutory laws, like the
Brooks Act for awarding contracts.
The MAPPS litigation is how the FAR
Council has implemented the Brooks
Act and related legislation (see Francica
& Schutzberg 2007 and Respini-Irwin
2007a). The sticking point is that mapping
services do not fall under the QBS
part of the Brooks Act and thus may
be contracted in the traditional pricebased
competition. The interpretation
of the Brooks Act has been variable and
implemented in different ways by different
agencies when contracting for mapping.
The MAPPS litigation sought to ensure
the FAR Council properly implement the
Brooks Act (see statements by MAPPS
2007a). If successful, mapping would
be added to the list and government
contracts would only be awarded to
qualified professionals such as surveyors,
geodesists and photogrammetrists. The
implication is that all federal contract
mapping would fall under the QBS
provision of the Brooks Act and need to
be procured through licensed architects,
engineers, surveyors and cartographers.
Under such a scheme, mapping would
become more expensive, complex
and exclusive. It also may mean that
the broader mapping community andmuch of the GIS industry would be
shut out of federal mapping contracts.
The unintended consequences could
cripple the GIS industry, damage
geographic science in the US in terms of
research capacity and competitiveness
and shackle government agencies to
only those mapping services provided
by the MAPPS membership.
Several groups have prepared amicus
(‘friend of the court’) briefs. The Urban
and Regional Information Systems
Association (URISA) released a statement
in February 2007 opposing the plaintiffs’
case because of the potential harm to
the professions and the industry and
details a list of problems including
expanding “the scope of architecturalengineering
surveying and mapping far
beyond the scope of any professional
expertise certified by registration or
licensing as a surveyor, engineer, or
architect” (see Respini-Irwin 2007a).
The Association of American
Geographers, the GIS Certification
Institute, the Geospatial Information
& Technology Association and the
University Consortium for Geographic
Information Science as well as the
National States Geographic Information
Council have joined URISA in filing
the amicus brief. The brief states that
“amici [filers of the brief] would suffer
injury if the MAPPS plaintiffs were
to win this lawsuit … [as it] would
not only insulate all federal mapping
contracts from price competition, but
also exclude everyone else – that is,
anyone and everyone other than licensed
engineers and surveyors – from even
being eligible to receive a federal
mapping contract” (see Francica &
Schutzberg 2007b and Schutzberg 2007).
.gif)
