Contracts Under Storm

Two years later, Hurricane Katrina continues to swirl in controversy. Under fire are the hoards of dollars of federal procurement contracts that were allocated for response and recovery efforts in the Gulf region. Many those contracts were awarded without having to go through a competitive bidding process, some have been tied to powerful lobbying groups or influential political connections in Washington and others under accusations of fraud and mismanagement.

According to a report recently released by Representative Henry Waxman, the problem of wasteful and fraudulent federal procurement contracting extends well beyond the case of Katrina. The dollars awarded without competitive bidding has more than tripled during the Bush Adminstration. What’s more alarming is that just last year, 187 contracts summing to approximately 1 trillion dollars were flagged by auditors as being fraudulent or mismanaged.

On the Other Hand

There is another side of federal procurement that some believe cannot be overlooked. Government contracting pumps money into local economies; in some cases, contributing quite significantly to the growth trajectory of a region. Federal procurement has been identified as a major impetus for economic growth in the National Capital Region and a driving force behind its emergent technology corridor, as one example.

Tracking Katrina Dollars

So, where did all of the Katrina money go and which communities benefited? To explore this question, all of the Katrina contracts in the Federal Procurement Data System were geocoded to the city level and mapped. There are 18,174 contracts in the database, totalling about 16.5 billion dollars. The first map below shows where the contracts were awarded by city of vendor. It highlights that many of the contracts landed in the hands of firms and organizations in the Gulf Coast region, although other parts of the country, particularly in cities along the east coast and in the south east, were also recipients of multiple awards.

Contracts Awarded for Katrina by Vendor City

What’s more illuminating perhaps, is where the actual dollars went; not just the number of contracts. The map below shows where Katrina awards are concentrated by dollars obligated. What’s clear is that when viewed in this light, the geographic distribution of money is quite localized and limited to a few metro areas around the country. Some of the communities that show up prominently included Nappanee, Indiana, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Detroit, and Dallas(Pan around the map to see these hotspots). This raises some probing questions concerning the regional economic impact of federal procurement and which communities are most favorable to recieve such awards — particularly, following a natural disaster like Katrina.

Dollars Obligated for Hurricane Katrina by City

And the largest contract in the database in terms of dollars obligated? The award went to Circle B Enterprises Inc., a company based in Ocilla, Georgia, to produce housing structures for the victims of Katrina. The firm is currently under investigation for fraud and operating without a license to build manufactured homes in certain states.

Popularity: 6% [?]

There were two great articles that popped up in the last week or so that I’ve been trying to carve out some time to blog about. The first was an insightful overview of the GeoWeb from The Economist called “The World on Your Desktop“. One of the major points in The Economist article is the convergence of the GeoWeb and GIS, “when the analytical insights and data quality of GIS are combined with the geoweb’s visualisation (ease of use) and networking prowess, startling efficiencies emerge.” I must admit I am biased since the article mentions us as one of the companies blurring the line between GIS and the GeoWeb, although sometimes to GIS professional’s chagrin. The second article was a blog post by Nick Black of OpenStreetMaps. Nick does a great job of better defining neogeography. The conclusion being neogeography is about pragmatic solutions to geographic problems that cut through the tendency of traditional GIS to build “complexity to ensure exclusivity”. My take away from the two articles and several recent conversations; the market is moving towards convergence faster than expected and the democratization of GIS will be here sooner than we think.

In many ways the spreadsheet analogy works well. I use about 20% of the functionality in my spreadsheet program and that 20% of functionality is accessible to me with little or no training. That 20% of functionality is what about 80% of spreadsheet users utilize on a regular basis. This in turns allows a very large population of users to create data in a spreadsheet format and share it with other people. I do not need a four year degree in statistics to use the spreadsheet, although if I did there would be a larger percentage of functionality I could tap into and create more results to share.

In the world of traditional GIS there is no 20% that is open to 80% of users. Either you are a GIS wonk or you are not a GIS wonk, and the number of GIS wonks is quite low because of the training and barriers of entry to becoming one. The end result is a complex technology that ensures an exclusive user base. Why can’t or why is there not a GIS technology that is ubiquitous as spreadsheets. Google Earth and Microsoft Virtual Earth have surely demonstrated the public’s appetite for an “easy to use” technology. Can the leap be made which create “easy to use” web based technologies that bring the relevant 20% of GIS analytic/exploration functionality to the 80% of the market hungry for it?

Popularity: 12% [?]

Health care has been an important issue in recent elections, and as the 2008 vote approaches, it’s gaining even more steam. With health care premiums doubling over the last six years, and 45 million Americans uninsured, voters are calling for actual change. They are tired of Republican and Democratic administrations and Congresses failing to act.

Candidates are offering a variety of solutions to the health care crisis. Some Republicans, such as Mike Huckabee, want to take it to a consumer–based system. Hillary Clinton is pushing her universal health care plan. And Mitt Romney is suggesting a “federalist” approach, where the federal government would offer incentives to states to bring down the cost of health insurance.

We’ll see who the voters choose come November next year. In the meantime, some cities are taking matters into their own hands. San Francisco announced a new initiative, called Healthy San Francisco, which will offer care for all uninsured city residents. The city is hoping that it can offer sensible care for the roughly the same cost as current uninsured treatment, which often occurs in the emergency rooms. There are obstacles to overcome and problems to work out, but a two month trial in Chinatown went well.

If it is successful, other cities might be tempted to follow suit. But it may be difficult to replicate the system because, as the NY Times put it, “In addition to its unique political culture, San Francisco, with a population of about 750,000, has the advantages of compact geography, a unified city-county government, an extensive network of public and community clinics and a relatively small number of uninsured adults. Virtually all the city’s children are covered by private insurance or government plans.”

So although San Francisco should be praised for being proactive, perhaps its solution won’t work for the areas in the direst need of help, those with large numbers of uninsured. Here is a map taken from GeoCommons, showing the percentage of the population which is uninsured by county. Based on the hot spots, the Southern states will probably be paying closest attention to the candidates’ plans for fixing the health care dilemma.

Popularity: 5% [?]

An interesting press release floated across GISuser yesterday on ESRI striking a strategic partnership with Jane’s to make their data available through ESRI tools. What I found intriguing was a service like Jane’s, which targets a non-technical audience, using ESRI, which has a largely technical user base, as channel to disseminate their data. The question it raises is ESRI working on something new to seriously expand their user base beyond GIS professionals, or is there enough demand by the US government (and others) for Jane’s data to be available to its GIS users to drive the deal.

The press release gives a few clues:

“For Jane’s electronic data, subscribers to its Web and desktop services can fuse and share the geospatial information in a common operating picture via ESRI’s software….For users new to the power of GIS, this easy-to-use capability will add considerable value to Jane’s products.”

So, is this a new “easy to use capability” or are they referring to ArcGIS 9.2 and ArcIMS?

Looking at the quote from Jane’s side is sounds as if the target is to make the data available to GIS professionals, “this partnership opens up a wealth of opportunity for Jane’s customers to view information in a GIS environment.” I think this brings up the compelling question of when does GIS include everyone, or when does web mapping (aka Google, Microsoft) encompass GIS. The line is definitely getting more blurry every day.

Popularity: 7% [?]