Answers to written questions from consultants
responding to the 2005
Tri-County Regional Flyover RFP will be posted
on this page. Any ammendments to the RFP will be posted here as well. The
2005 Tri-County Regional Flyover
RFP link
will reflect the current version of the RFP should any ammendments be made.
All technical inquiries concerning the project
should be directed in writing to Daniel Dillinger at
ddillinger@mitcrpc.org
All administrative inquiries concerning the
project should be directed in writing to Greg Hoffman at
ghoffman@mitcrpc.org
| Amended Item | Corrected Text (pdf file) | Description of Amendment |
| Appendix B | Appendix B correction | Corrected imagery type in column 5 (12" only) |
| Schedule on page 2 | Schedule ammendment | Updated dates on Schedule for proposal due, selection of top 3 vendors, and recommendation to TCRPC Executive Director. Dates updated are in red. Reference to proposal due deadline on page 1 has also been updated in the full document. |
The question submission period is over.
Questions had been accepted through October 12, 2004.
Answers to all questions will be posted by October 20th at noon EST.
Proposal deadline has been extended to October 27th at 5PM EST.
| DESCRIPTION | FILES | |
|
Q. 1 |
Would it be possible to get the .shp files that you utilized to create the County Project Area Maps? | |
| Yes. The project shapefiles are listed in the far right column of this table. There are three zipped files. The Project_Area file has the entire outline of the project area for this RFP. The Project_Counties file has the county boundaries. The SubCounty_UAs file has all the sub-county entities, the additional built-out areas, and the Federal Aid Urban Boundary that is used to determine the 6-inch pixel areas for Options C and D. | ||
|
Q. 2 |
What is the criterion used for determining the 6" pixel areas for options C and D? Your maps show several smaller towns that I cannot accurately see on my base maps for the Tri County region. | |
| The criterion used for determining the 6" pixel breakout areas for options C and D is loosely defined as the built-up or urbanized area. This area includes all legally recognized municipalities, urbanized townships, Federal Aid Urban Boundary (FAUB) area, and built-out areas specified by the county. The FAUB area typically extends the urbanized area outside of the municipal boundaries. However, some municipalities are not within the FAUB. UAComponents (html) lists the components of the pre-buffered area of the 6-inch pixel areas for options C and D. The buffer area extends out 1/4 mile beyond the combined boundary. |
UAComponents
(html) |
|
|
Q. 3 |
Is the statement correct that TCRPC is requiring ASPRS Class 1 Accuracy Standards be met for orthoimagery products (Page 10)? There could be problems meeting these accuracy requirements using the USGS 7.5 DEM as the elevation models. | |
| Yes. Concerns over meeting the accuracy requirements with the given DEM should be addressed within your proposal. Accuracy enhancement solutions could be proposed within your proposal as well. | ||
|
Q.4 |
On page 7, Item D (Ground Control Services), it states that "each county's accepted control must be preserved and not updated". What about monuments or existing control that we deem critical to the overall solution and that appear to have been "disturbed" in some manner? | |
| The consultant will be working with the counties to determine which control's are accepted. During this process, disturbances and errors can be rectified. Preservation comes after the evaluation of the points. | ||
|
Q.5 |
On page 7, Item D (Ground Control Services), can the TCRPC provide the locations of all existing control points that are available to be used for this project and information on their coordinate system and datums? | |
| There is not a consistent set of control points across the region. The control points are in disparate formats including coordinate system and datums. In general, controls have been captured at section corners. Because of the inconsistencies, the selected consultant will need to work with the counties to determine which control points are viable. Existing NGS Current Control Survey points may also be used. The conrtol points are not available electronically at this point. | ||
|
Q.6 |
On page 11, under the topic Data Delivery Format, it mentions the delivery of MrSID data in addition to the standard GeoTIFF format. Are the MrSID deliverables to be a seamless mosaic across each County, across the region, or MrSID's for each image tile? Also, does the group have a compression ratio in mind? | |
| Seamless mosaics at the regional, countywide, 9-township area, and individual governmental units are desired. Compression ratio for individual image tiles should be 20:1. | ||
|
Q.7 |
Is it the Committee's understanding that; using the USGS 7.5 DEM alone for the orthorectification will not provide the accuracy standards listed? | |
| Concerns over meeting the accuracy requirements with the given DEM should be addressed within your proposal. Accuracy enhancement solutions could be proposed within your proposal as well. | ||
|
Q.8 |
I may have missed something. but the cost sheet makes reference to Image Alternative 1, and Image Alternative 2, but I don't recall seeing any other reference to these alternatives in the RFP. Can you help me? | |
| THE ANSWER TO THIS QUESTION HAS BEEN UPDATED Alternative 1 and Alternative 2 in the Cost Breakdown Sheet (Appendix B) refer to optional image acquisition procedures or image types proposed by the consultant. It is not necessary to fill out the image alternative portions if your company is not proposing an alternative. From Section III-E, second paragraph (page 8): The consultant may choose to respond to additional imagery alternatives such as (but not limited to) LIDAR, infrared and oblique orthophotos. Such a response should be broken out separately from the above options and should further breakout capture cost from processing and production cost. Such alternatives are explicitly understood to be captured concurrently with the above options and as such may be tied to any or all options at the consultant’s specification. Furthermore, the capture and processing / production costs may be refined to specific coverage areas (e.g. sq. mile, township, county). |
||
|
Q.9 |
Do you have a control layout for each of the entities, in order that we can see if any points need to be add and were they are? | |
| There is not a consistent set of control points across the region. The control points are in disparate formats including coordinate system and datums. In general, controls have been captured at section corners. Because of the inconsistencies, the selected consultant will need to work with the counties to determine which control points are viable. Existing NGS Current Control Survey points may also be used. The conrtol points are not available electronically at this point. | ||
|
Q.10 |
Is there a maximum flight altitude/minimum photo scale restriction other than that which permits production of the 1"=100' and 1"=200' scale project orthophotography to the ASPRS Class 1 accuracy specifications? | |
| There is no specified maximum flight altitude or minimum photo scale restriction. Remember that photos will be quality checked for building lean and other distortions in the imagery. We would highly discourage any flying heights greater than 5000' above mean elevation for 1"=100' imagery and greater than 10,000' above mean elevation for the 1"=200' imagery. We would prefer flying heights of 3,750' and 7,500' respectively. Likewise we would highly discourage any film scale less than 1"=800' and 1"=1600' respectively and would prefer these to be 1"=625' and 1"=1250' respectively. | ||
| Q.11 | Do you happen to have the corrected Appendix B in Microsoft Word or Excel format? | |
| Yes. You may download and use Appendix B.doc. | Appendix B.doc | |
| Q.12 | The RFP says the project area is 1650 square miles. The census link on your website says the three counties total 1706 square miles. When 1000' is added to the perimeter the area becomes 1743 square miles. What should the fees be based on? | |
| The approximate square mileage should have read 1750 square miles. In the options chart, the 6' areas remain at approximately 450 sq. miles while the 12" areas should have read as 1300 sq. miles. The RFP will be ammended to reflect tehse changes. Thank you for the correction. | ||
| Q.13 | The the table on page 8 shows Options 1 thru 5 which seems to correspond to Digital Ortho-Imagery Options 1 thru 5 on Appendix B. What do Alternatives 1 & 2 refer to? | |
| Alternative 1 and Alternative
2 in the Cost Breakdown Sheet (Appendix B) refer to optional image acquisition
procedures or image types proposed by the consultant. It is not necessary
to fill out the image alternative portions if your company is not proposing
an alternative. From Section III-E, second paragraph (page 8): The consultant may choose to respond to additional imagery alternatives such as (but not limited to) LIDAR, infrared and oblique orthophotos. Such a response should be broken out separately from the above options and should further breakout capture cost from processing and production cost. Such alternatives are explicitly understood to be captured concurrently with the above options and as such may be tied to any or all options at the consultant’s specification. Furthermore, the capture and processing / production costs may be refined to specific coverage areas (e.g. sq. mile, township, county). |
||
| Q.14 | Are the persons names, estimated hours, and rates really nessesary as part of this proposal? | |
| This allows us to evaluate the reasonableness of the proposal and the qualifications of the personnel. As a consortium of public agencies the cost of acquiring the orthoimagery must withstand public scrutiny. | ||
| Q.15 | Will all counties be awarded? Will all be awarded to the same bidder? | |
| It is our intent that this be a regional acquisition process. Therefore our intent is that all counties will be awarded and that the acquisition process be consistent across the region (i.e. one primary consultant / vendor). However, there is no guarantee that all counties will be awarded nor all counties to one vendor. An allowable method of addressing concerns over the counties being split out would be to use the cost sheet to reflect the discounted regional total in the REGIONAL TOTAL row while using the county rows to show an undiscounted single county total. As long as the county totals are dealt with consistently, the proportion of the regional total can be determined and would show the cost savings by doing this project in a coordinated fashion. | ||
| Q.16 |
Who did the LIDAR aquisition of Ingham County? Why wouldn't the DTM/DEM be available by spring of 2005? |
|
| LIDAR data was acquired through a cost-sharing agreement between the Ingham County Drain Commissioner and the US Army Corps of Engineers. Full funding of the project has been on hold due to budgetary constraints. The LIDAR data has not been processed although the intent was to produce 2' contour intervals. Pages 8 through 19 of the pdf file to the right detail the scope of the initial project. | http://ingham.org/BC/FIN/030319.pdf |