TSSW_BPM000388_FinalProposalRevisions_2.pdf

FINAL PROPOSAL REVISIONS

TerraSystems Southwest, Inc. (hereinafter, “TSSW”) is pleased to submit our Final Proposal Revisions, pursuant to the letter dated February 25, 2019. The requested highlighted areas where additional information and/or revisions were requested are listed below.

Solicitation Part Two (2) Special Instructions to Offerors, Section Five (5), Proposal Requirements, subsections:

1. 5.3.3. Method of Approach:

1.1. 5.3.3.3 Court and Legal Fees:

1.1.1. Statement on defending methodology in court and assume legal fees.

1.2. 5.3.3.3 Data Accuracy:

1.2.1. Confirm the mapping methodology the Company will use to achieve 100% data accuracy;

2. 5.3.5 Cost:

2.1. Provide your best and final cost per line item in the APP Items tab of the new Round.

3. Attachments:

3.1. Attachment C. Designation of Confidential, Trade Secret & Proprietary Information:

3.1.1. Clarify if response contains trade secret.

3.1.2. Delete duplicated address and information

3.2. Attachment D. Participation of Boycott of Israel:

3.2.1. Clarify if the Company participates in Boycott of Israel.

3.2.2. Delete duplicated address and information.

1. 5.3.3 METHOD OF APPROACH

1.1. 5.3.3.3 Court and Legal Fees:

1.1.1. Statement on defending methodology in court and assume legal fees.

Our proposed TSSW methodology is based on recognized State of Arizona GIS and industry standards. TSSW has decades of experience and expertise garnered not only through our previous ADHS work, but nationally recognized submissions for innovative approaches and attention to detail to the National Address Database Program (NAD), as well as address related work and associated locator creation completed for the State of Arizona 9-1-1 Program office. These efforts require close collaboration with all 15 Arizona counties for address related data submission (address points, Assessor parcel information), as well as street networks. As a result of the need for accurate location/address mapping by various State and local organizations, TSSW was a leader in the development of the Arizona Address Ecosystem, discussed in detail in our full proposal. Through this ecosystem, TSSW facilitated and continues to improve local address data in all 15 Arizona counties, from which we create specialized Address Locators used for AZDHS mapping.

TSSW has developed workflows to obtain the best available GIS address points, road networks, and parcel databases from local data providers, which are updated on a regular basis. Since the address locators TSSW creates are based on current and accurate information directly from local sources, the defensibility in any court proceeding would be easily substantiated. In addition, TSSW uses highly regarded national sources such as Esri geolocators and Google Maps, for additional cross-referencing resources, to further ensure the most accurate mapping of address locations.

TSSW firmly stands behind its methodology for accurately mapping AZDHS addresses and performing various GIS analyses. Our developed Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs)/methodology has redundant addressing information sources, providing the most accurate mapping of any provided address location. From our previous experience with AZDHS provided information, we have also developed specialized approaches for dealing with addresses with inaccurate, misleading, or incomplete data.

TSSW is an industry respected expert in this area and feel strongly that our well documented workflows and associated methodology would provide a strong defensible approach in any court proceedings. Mr. Ward has over 30 years’ experience in this very specific and complex realm of spatial analysis and address locator creation. His knowledge as well as reputation as a leading GIS industry expert, would bode well as an expert witness in any court proceedings.

LEGAL FEES/ERRORS AND OMISSIONS INSURANCE

TSSW carries Errors and Omissions insurance through Lloyds of London, a highly respected A-rated insurance carrier. Beyond the maintained insurance minimums specified by AZDHS for General Business Liability and Errors and Omissions insurance, our policy also includes an additional $1 million Additional Claims Expense Limit – Professional Liability above the required $2 million to cover our legal fees related to errors and omissions. The resulting $3 million Professional Liability coverage provides TSSW with the security knowing we are well insured if litigation is pursued, and we will assume all legal defense costs in the event it is needed.

TSSW is prepared both technically and financially to appear in court to explain and defend our mapping and analysis methodology and results and to support all AZDHS efforts in defending work completed for the Marijuana Mapping Project and/or any work completed for the agency in any other capacity.

1.2. 5.3.3.3 Data Accuracy:

1.2.1. Confirm the mapping methodology the Company will use to achieve

100% data accuracy;

TSSW confirms that we will achieve 100% data accuracy and will defend this methodology in court as defined in the following section.

TSSW will always use the most current and accurate reference data available. However, in any given area, the method by which the GIS reference data were created will greatly affect the spatial accuracy. These variables include the scale, currency and accuracy of source data; the quality and density of geodetic control points used to register the GIS data; and the scale at which the data was digitized into the GIS. In addition, each provider of GIS information across the state have different levels of GIS support, time and expertise which can influence the timeliness and spatial quality of the GIS data. Short of a survey-grade field mapping check of each applicant’s address (for which there are not resources or time), there is no way to guarantee that the x,y coordinate we use to map a location from any available Arizona-wide GIS reference source such as address points would be the same coordinate one would get if using a highly accurate GPS receiver standing on the property.

Following are descriptions of our practical approach to performing high quality, reliable mapping in a timely fashion using the most current and spatially accurate GIS source data possible.

Daily, Dispensary and Hearing Map Methodology

For daily mapping, dispensary mapping and any hearing maps, which are generally low volume, we utilize 911-sourced data (address points and roads), Assessor parcel information, other information available on various Assessors’ sites including subdivision or lot info, applicant name match; or latitude-longitude coordinates given by applicant. We also use Google Maps and StreetView, as well as Esri geolocators for cross-reference.

For the daily applications we only map an address if it is provided with sufficient address information. If there is a lack of information, an application is sent back to AZDHS with a request for more information. Our most coarse locating methods, which only occur on tribal lands, are Public Land Survey System (PLSS) section centroids, milepost markers, or a manually mapped location utilizing, for example, a given distance from a chapter house.

Regardless of the mapping reference source used, the location decision is validated by checking all other given address info against other reference sources, including imagery.

For example:

• A location mapped using applicant lat/long coordinates is checked to see if the coordinates provide land in the city, zip, county or other information provided on the application. If the cross-referenced information corroborates the location, we place the point. If it does not, we return to AZDHS for additional information.

• When we zoom to the parcel listed in an application, we may see a structure in the aerial imagery but it is straddling two Assessor parcels. By looking at fence lines or other signs of property boundaries typically visible in the imagery, we note that the parcels seem to be shifted some distance to the west. If the parcels were properly lined up with the spatial clues in the imagery, we note that the address would fall in an Assessor parcel with a matching situs address. We also know that the imagery source we use has a reasonable spatial accuracy (e.g. NAIP imagery reports 95% of well-defined points will fall within 6 meters of true ground). This cross-reference approach allows us to feel confident in placing the point on the structure in the imagery.

As-Needed Mapping Methodology

For mapping of large numbers of addresses, such as the hundreds of thousands of Qualified Patients, needed to perform an analysis of QP’s within each Dispensary area, we use a hierarchy of GIS reference sources to ensure 100% of the AZDHS-provided addresses are mapped to the spatially best location available. These GIS reference sources include address points, parcel boundaries, applicant-provided GPS coordinates, road networks (with address ranges), milepost markers, township/range/section centroids, Incorporated city/town centroids, Census designated place centroids, or County boundary centroids. These reference data sets come to us from a variety of local, state and federal sources. We run a process that attempts to match a given address/location to the best available source and if it cannot be mapped using the first reference source, the next best available source is tried. This hierarchy continues until each application record is mapped.

As a final thought on spatial accuracy, it is important to note that, over time, updated GIS reference data sets may change/improve spatially, and the exact same address mapped to the exact same feature in that newly provided GIS reference data set may show a change in coordinate compared to the previous mapping. To manage this issue, every mapped address is documented as to the reference source used to do the mapping along with any notes needed to document the rationale for mapping address to the location. If called to explain shifts in coordinates, we can trace the reason for the shift using this documentation.

2. 5.3.5 COST:

2.1. Provide your best and final cost per line item in the APP Items tab of the new Round.

Following are our best and final costs. These represent a significant reduction from the rates offered on previous ADHS contracts and represents our best current contract rates.

Our hourly rates are as follows:

GIS Manager $105

GIS Senior Analyst $80

GIS Analyst $65

GIS Technician $45

Note: we attempted to change these rates in the APP system, but due to technical difficulties acknowledged by the Help Desk, we were unable to update our rates. We were told the Help Desk person would advise Bariah Steiner of the issue and we were issued an incident number.

3. ATTACHMENTS:

Attachment C and D have been uploaded to the APP system, fixing the duplicate address and clarification of trade secrets and boycott of Israel sections.