# Presentation: 373891

## Governmental Perspectives:Contracting for Hydrographic Services

- Governmental Perspectives:Contracting for Hydrographic Services

- Glenn Boledovich
- Acting Chief, Policy, Planning and Analysis Division
- National Ocean Service
- Thursday, August 18, 2005

## Who Am I 

- Who Am I

- Acting Chief of Policy, Planning and Analysis; NOS Headquarters
- Program and Policy Analyst for Hydrographic Services since 1995
- Lawyer; Certificate in Ocean and Coastal Law
- Lived in the Nation’s largest fishing port, Unalaska (aka Dutch Harbor), Alaska, for 10 years
- Longshoreman: APL, SeaLand, Crowley
- Tankerman & Marine Fuel Supply
- Owner/Operator; Radiant Fuel Service
- Foreign Vessel Agent: Northstar Terminal; Alaska Maritime
- Unalaska City Council Member; 3-year elected term
- Cannery Rat

## Why I am Here

- Congress requested a strategy for expanding contracting for hydrographic services
- NOS hydrographic contracting policy has not been revised since 1996
- NOS informed Congress it would work through HSRP and update its hydrographic contracting policy by Spring 2006
- HSRP requested a presentation on governmental perspectives
- Opportunity to escape DC in August

## Timeline of Contracting for Hydrographic Services

## Factors and Events Leading to Contracting

- Erosion of NOAA hydrographic fleet
- Growing backlog of critical surveying requirements
- Expansion of maritime commerce; increased vessel size (especially draft)
- Technological advances
- Private sector lobbying

## History of Contracting for Hydrographic Surveys

- 1994 – NOAA awards first contract to SAIC
- 1996 – Congress dedicates funds to contracting
- 1998 – Congress creates “Address Survey Backlog” line item for contracts
- 1999 – President’s budget requests $8.5M for Address Survey Backlog line item; subsequent requests roughly match prior year appropriation
- 2005 – Annual request and appropriation about $20M/year. Total of about $137M invested in turnkey hydrographic survey contracts
- 2006 – President requests $30M for Address Survey Backlog line item

## Time Charter

- Chartering vessels would provide platforms for NOAA hydrographers if NOAA’s hydrographic vessels were retired and not replaced
- Viewed as a viable solution for maintaining in-house capability and expertise
- Private sector vessel operators expressed significant interest in a long-term vessel time charter
- In practice, much more complex than anticipated; also NOAA’s original objectives are moot because of reinvestment in NOAA fleet and equipment
- Turnkey contracts preferred
- contracts for data, not time
- More flexible; ability to add task orders to underlying contract

## Laws Governing Hydrographic Services

- Act of 1947 (Coast and Geodetic Survey Act)
- Allows for contracting at discretion of agency
- Hydrographic Services Improvement Act of 1998 (as amended)
- Contract “to greatest extent practicable and cost-effective”
- Procure vessels, equipment and technology necessary to maintain operational expertise
- “Hydrographic services” vs. “hydrographic data”
- No level for contracting is fixed in either statute

## Surveying and Mapping:Inherently Governmental or Commercial in Nature?

- Surveying and Mapping:*Inherently Governmental **or Commercial in Nature?*

- Terms come from OMB A-76; process for considering whether to contract or not
- Either/Or
- One size fits all
- Governmental Interest
- Funding the surveying and mapping activity
- Issue is not whether surveying/mapping is inherently governmental or commercial in nature
- The governmental interest lies in *the reason* the surveying/mapping is being conducted

## Level of Governmental Interest

- First Order Issue:  Does the agency have a surveying/mapping mission?
- i.e., is the agency a provider or just a user of geographic data
- Second Order Issue:  If the agency has a surveying/mapping mission, what is the nature of the governmental interest?

## Slide 11

|  |  | List of Governmental Interests 
For Federally-Funded Surveying and Mapping Activities |
| --- | --- | --- |
|  |  | A federal agency requires geospatial information to fulfill some other mission |
|  |  | A federal agency has no mandate to survey and map, but requires/desires maps of agency-owned land or of an area for which it has management or other responsibility |
|  |  | A federal agency has a mandate/responsibility to survey an area for some purpose, including mapping of agency-owned land or of an area for which it has management or other responsibility |
|  |  | A federal agency has surveying and mapping capability and is regularly called upon in support of emergency response |
|  |  | A federal agency has a mandate/responsibility to provide products/services to the public in support of a specific national need and/or in meeting international commitments/requirements |
|  |  | A federal agency serves as the national authority in its area of expertise and its mission includes research and development of surveying and cartographic techniques and technologies |
|  |  | A federal agency is recognized as the national authority in its area of expertise by the courts, especially in establishing and resolving disputes regarding boundaries |
|  |  | A federal agency has a mapping requirement in support of national defense or security missions |

## Competition

- NOAA does not bid or compete for work in the private sector
- NOAA contracts out much of its reimbursable work
- President’s “Competitive Sourcing” initiative is premised on public/private competition to get best value
- i.e., the mere existence of an operational government capability does not amount to unfair competition
- List of Governmental Interests suggests policy reasons exist for maintaining an operational capability and core competency

## The Brooks Act

- NOS is required under HSIA to use it for hydrographic data acquisition
- Process does not include cost in competition among contractors’ proposals
- Supported by hydrographic surveying contractors; MAPPS refers to use of Brooks Act as the “holy grail”
- Rationale for using it is similar to rationale for maintaining government core capability
- Cost is the primary policy concern
- NOS is satisfied with performance under Brooks Act contracts

## Concluding Remarks 

- Concluding Remarks

- The white paper and this presentation are not an agency policy statement; provided so you can better assist in development of policy
- Need to look beyond the activity, i.e., surveying and mapping, to the reason the government is funding the activity
- Those reasons help define the extent and nature of the governmental interest
- The level of governmental interest should guide decisions regarding
- The need to maintain an operational capability, expertise and core competency; and
- the optimal levels for contracting