Elevation Mapping RFI.doc

Request for Information (RFI) Subject Area

31.0 OBJECTIVE & SCOPE

31.1 INTRODUCTION

31.2 BACKGROUND

31.3 CURRENT STATE OF OPERATIONS

41.4 FUTURE STATE OF OPERATIONS

1.5 FLOOD RISK DECILES MAP …………………………………………………………….6

72.0 RESPONSE GUIDELINES AND REQUIRED FORMAT

72.1 RESPONSE GUIDELINES

72.2 RESPONSE FORMAT

82.3 RESPONSE REVIEW

93.0 RESPONSE DEADLINE AND POINT OF CONTACT INFORMATION

93.1 RESPONSE DEADLINE

93.2 POINTS OF CONTACT

1.0 OBJECTIVE & SCOPE

1.1 INTRODUCTION

The Mitigation Directorate of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is responsible for the administration of the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). A key component of the NFIP is the identification and mapping of flood prone areas in the United States.

Accurate data on ground elevations is critical to the analysis of flood hazards and assessment of flood risk. As FEMA implements the Risk MAP Program, we anticipate that we will have significant needs for the acquisition of new ground elevation data to support flood map updates.

1.2 BACKGROUND

During FY09 FEMA began to transition from the Flood Map Modernization Program to the Risk MAP program. Flood Map Modernization began in 2004 focused on migrating the National inventory of flood maps from traditional cartographic techniques and paper products to digital geospatial technologies for production and digital product distribution. With funding through FY08 and production through FY11, FEMA will achieve the Flood Map Modernization goals of modernized flood maps for 92% of the U.S. population.

Under Risk MAP, FEMA will continue to focus on quality flood hazard data. Building on the digital flood risk data platform created during Map Modernization, this will mean a focus on updating the engineering analysis underlying the flood maps. A key component of updating and improving the engineering analyses will be updating the ground elevation data on which the engineering analyses are based.

1.3 CURRENT STATE OF OPERATIONS

Historically, FEMA has generally relied on the best available elevation data and only collected new ground elevation data under limited circumstances. FEMA’s existing specifications for elevation data are published as Appendix A of the FEMA Guidelines and Specifications for Flood Hazard Mapping Partners. The specifications allow for two data accuracies based on the average slope of the area to be mapped – 37 cm NSSDA Vertical Accuracy in the flattest terrain and 74 cm NSSDA Vertical Accuracy in rolling to hilly terrain.

Recently most new elevation data have been procured through our primary production contracts. Under Flood Map Modernization FEMA had a set of IDIQ production contracts in each FEMA Regional Office under which this work was performed. In FY09 FEMA awarded 3 national Production and Technical Services contracts that replaced the regional IDIQ production contracts. These contracts include a broad range of engineering and related services to support identification and mapping of flood prone areas and have the capacity to acquire elevation data as required.

1.4 FUTURE STATE OF OPERATIONS

Under Risk MAP FEMA plans to obtain new elevation data whenever the available elevation data for a flood map update project does not meet specific criteria. FEMA’s modernized flood map inventory (including map updates currently in production) covers approximately 65% of CONUS. Flood map engineering updates under Risk MAP will be concentrated in these areas. FEMA estimates that elevation data appropriate to support these updates is available for approximately 20% of CONUS and that acquisition of new elevation data of up to 50% of the land area of CONUS might be necessary under the Risk MAP program.

FEMA anticipates the vast majority of this data will be produced using lidar technologies based on the current cost and accuracy advantages for large area elevation data acquisition. However, use of lidar is not a requirement. FEMA’s requirement for flood hazard mapping is bare earth elevations in the floodplain and the immediate vicinity. The elevation mapping technology used must be able to effectively remove effects of vegetation and capture rapid slope changes in the floodplain. Additionally, FEMA will not be able to guarantee that data for adjacent parcels will be acquired consecutively and is concerned that the data acquired for adjacent parcels over a period of several years overlap seamlessly.

Because a substantial portion of the cost of finished lidar derived elevation products is in the processing and editing of the data, FEMA plans to use a strategy that separates the collection and compilation of the point cloud lidar from the bare earth processing and hydrologic treatment of the finished products for flood hazard analysis. FEMA expects that the most cost effective approach for acquisition will be to collect large contiguous blocks of point cloud data covering the areas needing flood data updates.

However, FEMA plans to only perform bare earth processing and hydrologic treatment of the data in the immediate vicinity of the floodplains. This will likely result in 10% or less of the overall point cloud data being processed to finished product and significantly reduce the processing costs for the project. FEMA believes this approach may also result in a better alignment of the elevation data production work to the flood map update process. Typically a general purpose topographic data product needs additional specialized processing to support flood hazard modeling such as adding information like the geometry of the underwater portion of the channels and the geometry of hydraulic structures passing flood flows that is not visible from above. By aligning the post-processing of the lidar point cloud with the hydraulic analysis component of the flood hazard analysis it will allow the engineer responsible for the hydraulics to determine what processing is necessary and the appropriate way to perform it depending on the flood risk and specific characteristics of the flooding source being modeled.

FEMA expects to require quality assurance of the point cloud data to verify the fundamental accuracy of the product in open areas. Accuracy testing in other land cover types may not be practical prior to bare earth processing, but additional evaluation criteria for the point cloud product may be necessary to ensure the product will support the additional processing planned such as an assessment to determine if sufficient penetration of vegetation has been achieved.

One of the fundamental strategies that underlies the FEMA flood mapping program is that the complexity and precision of the flood hazard analysis should be proportional to flood risk in the area. The existing FEMA elevation specifications do not account for flood risk in the requirements, only the typical slope. Under Risk MAP, FEMA expects to define several tiers of elevation data precision based on both risk and slope to achieve cost savings where the highest precision is not necessary. Below is an initial strawman for these specifications.

· Highest risk, flat areas

· Data collected at 1m density with a 40cm NSSDA.

· Areas primarily in the top 20% of risk with relatively flat terrain.

· High risk areas, rolling to hilly areas and low risk flat areas

· Data collected at 3m resolution with 75cm NSSDA

· Areas primarily in the top 50% or risk with rolling or hilly terrain.

· Areas primarily lower than the top 20% of risk with relatively flat terrain

· Moderate risk areas with DFIRMs

· Areas with rolling to hilly terrain in the top 80% of risk

· Data collected at 5m density with a 150cm NSSDA.

· Lowest risk areas with DFIRMs

· Data collected at 10m density with a 250cm NSSDA FEMA also expects there may be some elevation requirements with a small footprint that a geographically isolated in areas that largely have little flood risk, but may have population clusters with significant risks. This is common in the Central U.S. and the Mountain West. These areas can be expensive to collect using lidar due to the mobilization cost. FEMA is interested in the feasibility of using traditional manual photogrammetric methods on previously collected imagery to produce updated reliable elevations cost effectively for flood prone areas in these circumstances. FEMA would also be interested in strategies for clustering a number of projects like this into a coordinated collection that results in lower overall costs or other strategies to cost effectively obtain reliable elevations in these areas.

The following page shows a map of the United States with estimated flood risk by watershed. This map may be used as a basis for developing an elevation strategy in response to this RFI. However, FEMA continues to refine this information.

1.5 Flood Risk Deciles Map

2.0 RESPONSE GUIDELINES AND REQUIRED FORMAT

2.1 RESPONSE GUIDELINES

FEMA is seeking industry recommendations to achieve the following goals:

1. Cost effective acquisition of elevation data to support flood hazard analyses with varying levels of precision in proportion to risk.

2. Quality assured lidar point cloud data with a verified fundamental accuracy, ready for additional processing for bare earth, hydrologicaly corrected products in the floodplains. The goal is a quality assessment targeted towards suitability for flood hazard analysis resulting in few, if any, disagreements or problems with quality with subsequent users of the data.

3. An elevation data acquisition plan that accounts for FEMA flood map update priorities, optimal seasonal collection windows, mission / project planning economies of scale, coordination of data acquisition boundaries with previous studies, seamless integration of data with previous studies, variation of product specifications by flood risk and average slope and minimizes delays in the overall Risk MAP production program related to elevation data acquisition.

4. A strategy for efficiently and cost effectively performing just the post processing necessary for floodplain mapping in the absence of data collection partnerships.

5. An approach that avoids new data collection where existing elevation meetings FEMA’s requirements exists and encourages maximum partnerships to extend the elevation data coverage and the data processing beyond the minimum requirements for floodplain mapping to produce an updated elevation product that meets a wide variety of end user needs.

6. An efficient process for tracking and coordinating project status and schedule between FEMA project managers, and FEMA production and technical service contractors that integrates well with FEMA’s existing production monitoring systems (the Mapping Information Platform).

7. Maximum small business participation.

8. Performance metrics that balance cost, quality and schedule.

2.2 RESPONSE FORMAT

Responses to this RFI shall use the format outlined below. All responses shall be unclassified. The document format shall be Microsoft Word [.doc], Adobe Acrobat [.pdf] formats, or Microsoft Excel [.xls] for cost guidance only.

In order to better assist in the evaluation of submittals to this RFI, respondents are encouraged to prepare a technical capabilities statement which closely adheres to the following format.

i. Respondent(s) Background/Experience (Not to exceed 2 pages) Respondents should briefly describe their company’s background and experience in elevation data collection

ii. Overview of Proposed Solution(s) (Not to exceed 3 pages) Respondents should describe proposed solutions to the acquisition and processing of elevation data that include approaches to logistics, recommendations for aircraft and sensor systems, processing routines, and quality control strategies.

iii. Technical (Not to exceed 10 pages) Respondents should describe in detail the proposed strategy and benefits of their solution(s). Responses should outline specific features of the proposed solution to meet the goals outlined above.

Respondents should also identify any concerns with the proposed approach that they believe may be unachievable or contrary to FEMA’s goals. Respondents should identify alternative approaches that they believe will better meet the government’s goals.

Respondents should provide estimated costs for acquisition of point cloud lidar data for each of the specification levels provided above. If respondents recommend alternative specifications, please provide estimated costs for those too. Also provide an estimate for performing the post processing necessary for flood hazard analysis.

Respondents should provide strategies for meeting each of the specific goals listed above.

Respondents should also identify potential innovative ideas for public-private partnerships that could meet FEMA’s needs in the most cost effective way.

iv. Cost and Schedule Respondents should outline a notional schedule that would produce updated elevation data where required to update FEMA’s digital flood maps over a 5 year period with an estimate for the collection costs each year and the processing costs each year. Please provide an estimate of the amount of data collected at each specification level used and estimated unit cost for each specification level as requested above.

2.3 RESPONSE REVIEW

The respondent agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the Government, its agents, and employees from every claim or liability, including attorneys fees, court costs, and expenses, arising out of, or in any way related to, the misuse or unauthorized modification, reproduction, release, display, or disclosure of any information provided by the respondent to the Government which includes the white paper submittal. By submittal of a response, the responder agrees to these terms and conditions.

3.0 RESPONSE DEADLINE AND POINT OF CONTACT INFORMATION

3.1 RESPONSE DEADLINE

Technical Capabilities Statements, Cost Models, and all supporting documentation are due via e-mail to the Contract Specialist by 10:00 am EDT April 29, 2010. The cutoff date for receipt of all questions regarding this RFI is April, 07, 2010. Questions shall be submitted to the Contract Specialist Barry Taylor, at barry.taylor1@dhs.gov, via e-mail no later than 2:00 pm, EDT. The government will make its best efforts to respond to all questions by April 14, 2010 Close of Business (COB).

3.2 POINTS OF CONTACT

The point of contact for responses and questions is Barry Taylor, Contract Specialist, phone no: 202-646-3023. Please submit all questions and responses to barry.taylor1@dhs.gov. Note: No question will be answer by phone.

Respondents should note that this RFI is being issued solely for information and planning purposes and does not constitute an Invitation for Bids (IFB), a request for Proposals (RFP), a Request for Quotations (RFQ)or an indication that the Government will contract for any items and/or services contained in this notice. All information received in response to this notice that is marked ‘Proprietary’ will be handled accordingly. Responses to this notice will not be returned. In submitting a response, you are solely responsible and accountable for all of the expenses associated with your response. The following provision(s) is applicable to this notice and is hereby incorporated by reference: FAR 52.215-3 Request for Information or Solicitation for Planning Purposes (Oct 1997) The full text of this clause is available at: http://www.aqcuisition.gov/far/index.html