[gpl_list] Reviewer team notes regarding framework project proposals

[DENOUDEN Bob * DAS]

GPL members,

The reviewer team met last week to recap the proposal presentations and compile our guidance for the FIT Leads and GPL to inform your recommendations to be discussed tomorrow. The reviewer team is made up of Cy, myself, Gail Ewart (representing PAC), Diana Walker (representing GPL), Phil McClellan (representing FIT Leads). Below is a summary of our notes and recommendations:

Proposal Name   Submitted by    Agency  Amount requested        matching funds claimed  Reviewer Team Concerns and Issues       Reviewer Team Recommendations
Customizations for ArcGIS and Geoportal to Support the Oregon GIS Metadata Standard     Eric Brandt     LCOG    $29,000 $0      * Note that match (in kind/cash) is not included in proposal (though a particular match is not a requirement of the framework funding program).
* Also note that this project assumes the funding of the OSDL Enhancements project proposed by INR/OSU
* Budget in proposal not sufficiently detailed to determine which staff are working on what elements    The reviewer team strongly supports this proposal as submitted
Oregon Framework Fish Habitat Distribution Data Development     Jon Bowers      ODFW    $87,100 $123,000        Clarify that the 27% ($18,517) overhead included in the proposed project budget is not already included in the rates used to calculate costs.   The reviewer team strongly supports this proposal.  If labor rates used in the budget are fully loaded rates, however, we would recommend that the 27% overhead be omitted from the award amount
The Oregon Historical Railroads Project Ed Kamholz, Emmor Nile  ODF, OPRD       $112,700        $171,000        Note that historical rail is not a current framework data element, though railroads are.  A historical rail data standard is currently in the framework 45 day review process and will receive its second presentation at the May 20th framework forum.
Other issues the reviewer team has with this proposal is the large amount of funding requested for the project relative to its priority.  A smaller project to fully develop historical rail data within a pilot area would likely get greater support  The reviewer team recommends that the process first strive to get a general railroad data standard endorsed (perhaps the FDGC rail standard) and then endeavor to add historic rail as an extension to that standard.  At that point, a smaller pilot project to take the historical rail scanning element of the project through the complete process to create a vector dataset meeting the rail standard for a smaller funding amount, is recommended
Integration of the Continually Updated Shoreline Product (CUSP) and the National Hydrography Dataset (NHD) for the Oregon Coast Tanya Haddad    DLCD    $50,000 40 hrs  * Clarify the in-kind match statement.  The proposal notes that 40 hours of in-kind match will be provided but notes earlier in the document that value of staff time provided will equal approximately 50% of the project amount ($50,000).    The reviewer team strongly supports this proposal with the match clarification noted
Online lidar data distribution system for Oregon Lidar Consortium       Rudie Watzig    DOGAMI  $37,599 $0      * Note that GEO already provides access to the derived lidar products, though DOGAMI has pointed out there are unresolved accuracy and corruption issues with the derived products on Imagery Explorer and the data there have not been actively updated/maintained.  It was also noted that LAS point cloud data is available elsewhere, particularly from USGS, but there are performance and user interface issues with this site.  Need more explanation of how this solution makes the most sense vs an alternate solution such as cloud storage of lidar data
* The reviewer team is very concerned with the proposal to develop a separate stand-alone portal for lidar data; better to have a one-stop portal through OSDL. The reviewer team notes that the proposal should address the issues noted and further discussion should occur before a funding decision on this project is made
Expansion and Consolidation of Lidar-Based Levee and Dike Inventory     Jed Roberts     DOGAMI  $67,546 $20,000 Levees and Dikes, while referenced in the flood hazard data standard are technically not yet a framework data element though the proposal notes that this element logically fits within the Hazards FIT The Hazards FIT should formally add levees and dikes as an element in order to affirm the priority of the development of this data element.
Oregon Watershed Emergency Response System (OWERS)      Jim Schriever   MB&G/EWEB/Salem $78,754 $60,000 The reviewer team has numerous issues with this proposal including the lack of specifics on what improvements/enhancements would be made to the framework data elements mentioned, how these data improvements would get integrated into the statewide framework data sets, and how future maintenance/stewardship of these data would be carried out. Most of the proposed data already exists.
* The team also does not adequately understand why this cannot be implemented as functionality within RAPTOR in order to avoid having to create and maintain a separate application.    In general, the reviewer team feels that, while this project has promise and serves an important need, the project details are not yet adequately worked out.  More involvement by state agencies such as OHA/DEQ/OEM in the design of the application would be beneficial.  Perhaps this project could be more fully developed and considered for funding at a later date, possibly in this same funding cycle?
Oregon Spatial Data Library Enhancements        Janine Salwasser        INR     $59,776 $0      The indirect rate quoted, 26%, is higher than the 10% rate that has been negotiated for previous partnership projects with OSU/INR.     There is strong support for this project, but a lower indirect rate should be pursued with the proposers
Radon Map of Oregon     Clark Niewendorp        DOGAMI  $86,252 $17,266 * Standards and Stewardship are described as a single document to be developed by the proposal.  These should be separate documents (and collaboration efforts) and the proposal should be edited to reflect this.
* The proposal notes that FGDC metadata will be provided, it should clarify whether this is full FGDC compliant metadata or metadata meeting the draft Oregon standard (subset of FGDC)
* Clarify that the 22.7% indirect amount is not in addition to loaded rates     If the labor rates quoted in the proposed budget are loaded rates, we recommend to remove the 22.7% indirect amount ($15,957) from the award total
Establishing an Integrated Statewide Database of Shoreline Access       Tanya Haddad    DLCD    $14,175 120 hrs Can the PSU 25% overhead rate ($2,835) be negotiated lower?     The reviewer team supports the proposal but the proposers should pursue a 10% PSU overhead rate
TOTAL                   $622,902


-Bob


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://omls.oregon.gov/pipermail/gpl_list/attachments/20150511/3d7c8732/attachment.html>