All of this legal stuff is touch to make heads or tales of and the bill isn't even that lengthy. The AAG is concerned that the GDA of 2017 will block out GIS professionals who are not architects or engineers (A&E) from being used by the government to provide geospatial data services. See their article here. Other professional orgs. such as URISA and SCAUG are concerned as well. I am sure that most of us do not see the logic in this bill as we are understanding it, considering that GIS is distinct from A&E and requires specific education, training, and experience that A&E would not have as a core of their education. At the end of the bill, it looks like it seeks to revise the definition of A&E to include GIS professionals under that definition. This is the current definition from here:
“Architect-engineer services,” as defined in 40 U.S.C. 1102, means—
(1) Professional services of an architectural or engineering nature, as defined by State law, if applicable, that are required to be performed or approved by a person licensed, registered, or certified to provide those services;
(2) Professional services of an architectural or engineering nature performed by contract that are associated with research, planning, development, design, construction, alteration, or repair of real property; and
(3) Those other professional services of an architectural or engineering nature, or incidental services, that members of the architectural and engineering professions (and individuals in their employ) may logically or justifiably perform, including studies, investigations, surveying and mapping, tests, evaluations, consultations, comprehensive planning, program management, conceptual designs, plans and specifications, value engineering, construction phase services, soils engineering, drawing reviews, preparation of operating and maintenance manuals, and other related services.
Of course, including GIS under the current A&E definition may end up excluding us if A&E means private entities who are specifically certified/educated in A&E. Most GIS professionals are not likely to to be professional engineers. We are more likely to be GISPs who were certified or passed a rigorous exam to earn the title granted by the GISCI.
The point is, being a GIS professional is much more broad than being an architect or engineer and includes everything from cartographers to data analysts to IS/IT professionals. Our content specialties are even wider and encompass everything from population and demographics to emergency services/homeland security to environmental studies. Limiting who can provide GIS services to the federal government to only A&E severely reduces the pool of supremely qualified GIS talent and places the country and local governments in economic and environmental danger.
At least that's the line that I put in the letter to my Senators and U.S. Representative.
I hope that everyone who has a stake in or opinion regarding this potential new law will take the time to urge their federal representatives to consider the bill's language carefully and look to the GIS community for knowledgeable guidance regarding this.
- John
.png "KathleenWallis"){kind=avatar}
It is good to be aware, but the probability of this bill passing, just like similar bills in the past, is so low that I don't think it merits spending much time discussing. The issues are known, the players well established, it is just politics as usual.