Download the original attachment
MAPPS, et al. v. the United States of America

By Hilary Perkins, GISP, AICP (hperkins@edats.com)

In June 2006, the Management Association for Private Photogrammetric Surveyors (MAPPS) and three other associations filed suit in U.S. federal court to require that all U.S. federal agencies rewrite the definition of “surveying and mapping” currently used in all federal procurement regulations that fall into the category of “architectural and engineering services.” This definition is important because how the federal government treats procurements of this type of service will likely have an impact on similar procurements at the state level. History has shown that, under pressure from state licensing authorities, states are far more likely to take a more restrictive stance on what geospatial services must be provided under the supervision of a licensed surveyor, engineer, or architect. Should the lawsuit be decided in MAPPS’ favor, it has the potential to limit severely our abilities to practice our trade as geospatial professionals. Specifically, the plaintiffs ask the court to order the Federal Acquisition Regulation (FAR) Council to:

…define "surveying and mapping" in such a way as to include contracts and subcontracts for services for Federal agencies for collecting, storing, retrieving, or disseminating graphical or digital data depicting natural or man made physical features, phenomena and boundaries of the earth and any information related thereto, including but not limited to surveys, maps, charts, remote sensing data and images and aerial photographic services'.

This would include any kind of mapping - not what we think of as traditional "surveying" of real property.

At the center of the lawsuit is the correct interpretation of the Brooks Act of 1972. The Brooks Act directs the federal government to procure all architectural and engineering services through a qualifications-based selection (QBS) process. QBS is typically used when it is not possible to specify with significant detail what the final outcome of a project or process will be. Its intent is to help with choosing services based on qualifications and competence in relation to the work to be performed. The majority of spatial data procurements are made through a review of both price proposals and technical qualifications. The exception is surveying and mapping associated with real property, where the client is often not well versed on the rules and regulations governing the preparation of plats and other surveying products. Some states prohibit the procurement of surveying services through price competitions.

The concern is that other types of GIS professional services, such as the analysis of the location and characteristics of mapped features, or compiling of existing data into new visualizations of geographic information, or to recommend public policy as a result of such geographic analysis would also be considered in the generalized category of "mapping services" by federal procurement rules. These restrictions may also extend to the design and management of GIS technology itself. This is because MAPPS’ interpretation of The Brooks Act can be read so as to restrict the award of all federal contracts for "architectural and engineering" services to firms licensed to practice either architecture or engineering. MAPPS’ claims, if accepted, would expand the scope of architectural and engineering types of surveying and mapping to far beyond the scope of any professional expertise certified by registration or licensing as a surveyor, engineer, or architect.

MAPPS et al is trying to force the federal courts to tie spatial data compilation and its use to only the practice of architecture and engineering and, through its “incidental” involvement with projects of this type, to the practice of land surveying. If this claim prevails, it could affect not only GIS but also other mapping activities, potentially including GIS field data collection, internet mapping activities, geospatial data analysis, remote sensing, cartographic services, and map creation of almost any type. These non-survey services related to mapping and geographic information constitute an overwhelming majority of GIS professional services, and should not be subject to the narrow interpretation of the Brooks Act, as apparently advocated by MAPPS et al.

A MAPPS court victory could have far-reaching consequences. It could damage many industries, programs, and applications, ranging from federally funded, mapping-related, academic research programs to major electric utility companies using GIS-based management programs; from urban planning to agricultural production; from environmental studies to national defense; and from archeology to homeland security. At the individual level, it could affect the enormous number of GIS and mapping scientists and professionals within the computer science, information technology, planning, forestry, and geographical sciences communities. At the societal level, it could stunt the dynamism, creativity, and innovation that has characterized the U.S. computerized mapping and GIS industry up until now, and in turn undermine the country's economic and technological competitiveness in the global economy.

Regardless of the outcome of this case, these issues will continue to beleaguer our industry as it grows and matures. In the past, they were wrestled with at the state level, but codification into federal law will put considerable pressures on state governments to implement similar laws and regulations that mirror those of the federal government. The Urban and Regional Information Systems Association (URISA), the University Consortium for Geographic Information Science (UCGIS), the GIS Certification Institute (GISCI), and the Geospatial Information and Technology Association (GITA) joined an effort led by the Association of American Geographers (AAG) to file a friend of the court (amicus) brief supporting the present federal regulations governing the procurement of spatial data. Limited by their tax status to fully advocate on such matters, these other organizations supporting the amicus brief primarily focus their resources on educational activities (an amicus brief is, by definition, an educational filing in a judicial matter). Perhaps it is time to consider the creation of such an organization to represent the majority of geospatial professionals. A logical group of organizations from which to draw would be the signatories of the amicus brief. Spatial data is too important to too many people in professions not represented by lobbyists for us to end its active participation in this arena.

Thanks to Al Butler and Scott Grams for their help with clarifying the facts for this article!