|
GISCI, AAG, UCGIS, GITA, and URISA file
Friend of the Court Brief
in MAPPS et al., v. United States Suit
UPDATE (6/14/07)
Decision Announced in MAPPS et al., v United States Suit
The judge granted summary judgment for the United States Government based on his finding that neither MAPPS nor the other plaintiffs had established standing to sue. The plantiffs were not able to show the requisite "injury in fact." Because standing is a prerequisite to consideration of the merits of a case, he did not reach the merits.
It is...worth noting that the record unambiguously reflects that the provision of “mapping” services in the modern marketplace includes a much broader scope of work than the traditional mapping work of land surveyors.
For these reasons, the affidavits do not establish that an injury in fact was suffered by the
individual surveyors or their firms, and accordingly, no standing exists. Accordingly, summary
judgment must be granted in favor of the government.
T. S. Ellis, III
United States District Judge
June 14, 2007
Read the Judge's Decision in full.
Background
The Management Association for Private Photogrammetric Surveyors (MAPPS), Council on Federal Procurement of Architectural and Engineering Services, National Society of Professional Engineers, and American Society of Civil Engineers filed a joint suit against the Federal Acquisition Requirement (FAR) Commission (US Government) for failure to apply appropriate Qualification-based Selection (QBS) processes to the procurement of mapping services, including Remote Sensing and GIS (RS/GIS). It is our understanding that the Plaintiffs (MAPPS, et al), claim that all mapping services, including RS/GIS, should be procured through a licensed Architectural or Engineer (A&E) firm. The basis for this stance is the 1972 Brooks Architecture and Engineering Act that establishes specific procedures for the procurement of ‘architecture and engineering services’. The US Government argued that:
“…mapping services that are not connected to traditionally understood or accepted architectural and engineering activities, are not incidental to such architectural and engineering activities or have not in themselves traditionally been considered architectural and engineering services” are to be procured pursuant to price competition provisions of the FAR.’
The US Government requested that the suit be dismissed as the Plaintiffs cannot demonstrate injury and therefore have no legal standing.
Issue
It is our understanding that if the suit prevails and the Brooks Act is interpreted as applying to all mapping services including Remote Sensing and GIS, RS/GIS professionals not under the direct employ of a licensed A&E firm, will not be eligible to bid on federal RS/GIS projects. This would impede on our ability to practice our profession and be a disservice to those in need of quality RS/GIS services. This would have serious and possibly dire implications for GISPs.
Response
GISCI participated in the filing of an Amicus Curiae (Friend of the Court) brief in opposition to the Plaintiff's (MAPPS et al.) request for summary judgment. An Amicus Cuiae brief is a a brief presented by someone interested in influencing the outcome of a lawsuit but who is not a party to it.
-
The brief was filed on behalf of AAG, GISCI, GITA, UCGIS, and URISA.
-
It states at the outset our direct and vital interest in the federal procurement of mapping services and in the outcome of this case.
-
It then provides a long and detailed review of the legislative history of the Brooks Act, refuting MAPPS' version of the "intent" of Congress.
-
It the argues that MAPPS has not shown that it is harmed by the FAR Council's interpretation, so MAPPS has no grounds for bringing the case.
-
It also argues that the FAR Council's interpretation of the Brooks Act is consistent with the Act, and where there is no conflict the court must defer to the executive branch on such matters.
-
It concludes by asking that the judge dismiss the case, with prejudice.
The GISCI Board voted on January 19, 2007 to contribute financially to the filing of the Amicus Curiae brief. The voted passed 5-2. Board representatives for the National States Geographic Information Council (NSGIC) voted against the brief. NSGIC asked that GISCI make that clear.
References
|
