Land Use/Cover RFP Questions & Answers

  • Page 17, 4.1 General. Paragraph 2 begins "Proposals shall be submitted only on forms furnished by the Medina County Engineer."
  • Is our response to be on a form supplied by the county, or does this apply only to the 4 forms in Appendix A (Required Forms)?

    Appendix A only.

  • Page 12, Digital Orthophoto Conversion paragraph 2 "The orthophoto map scale is 1"=100' with a resolution of 6" per raster.
  • The image tile size will be 1000' X 1750' and conform.." This indicates a plotted sheet size of 10" X 17" that would require 6,937 tiles for the entire county.
  • Are the map scale and sheet size correct and do they conform to the county's existing system.

    The sheet sizes do conform to the county's existing system in that:
    The existing system is a 1' pixel instead of 0.5' the intent is to keep the file size the same by quartering the tiles.
    This can be discussed upon award of the contract.

  • The camera specifications in the RFP are for a film based camera.
  • With the latest in large format digital camera technology, will the county accept a digital photo acquisition and automated processing in place of the film camera and associated film based products?

    Supporting samples and/or data will need supplied.

  • Is it possible to obtain a list of questions and answers that were asked by other firms?

    Yes this document.

  • Can we get a digital copy of the tile grid and the existing control?

    The grid has not yet been created but could if needed.
    The control is actually the Sanitary Engineers and can be accessed at the following link:

  • Can we get a sample of the existing DEM from the 2002 project?


  • What completion time is required or preferred for the project?

    We are expecting a two year max period - 1 for orthos & 1 for landuse.

  • Should footprints of structures which are not adjacent/connected to other impervious surfaces be collected?

    We are currently operating under the theory that any facility large enough to be counted as "impervious surface" will be attached to some sort of hard surface parking lot even if it is gravel.
    We will need to determine the minimum size of roof-area required to be captured otherwise.

  • Is softcopy aerotriangulation allowed in lieu of analytical aerotriangulation if the project accuracy can be maintained?


  • The report referred to in the RFP describes 11 major categories of land use/cover, but not the subcategories requested in the RFP.
  • Does the County have existing criteria for the classification distinctions, or will this be worked out with the contractor after award?

    The 10 major categories & corresponding sub-categories on page 13-14 of the RFP are the project goals.
    Any delineation process will need to be reported and discussed.

  • Specifically, can the County state the criteria for distinguishing forested vs. non-forested wetlands?
  • How about distinguishing grass from pasture from meadows?

    At this time the focus of forested is for areas containing enough tree cover that during leaf-on time the ground is obscurred.
    All other distinctions are incorporated into the Land Use layer only.

  • With respect to the distinction between commercial and industrial, is the County following the Anderson classification scheme?
  • If not, can the County define the scheme being used?

    That has yet to be determined.
    Most likely the county will adopt a "standard" classification scheme such as Anderson if a useable scheme exists.
    The importance being placed on documented proceedures for the classification for later use as supporting arguments if questions should arise.
    Because the Anderson Classification scheme does not directly fit the classifications sought by the county a discussion of applicability would be required.

  • What is the cutoff between high density residential and low density residential?

    The high density residential is aimed specifically towards apartment complexes.

  • Is there a minimum area (e.g., five acres) for the classification?

    The bounds for the project are:
    a) It must be of better resolution than what we already have - 3 meter (=~ 460 sq. ft.) landsat classifications.
    b) It must conform to 100 scale mapping.

  • It would be helpful to know the purpose of the subclassifications in order to properly respond to the RFP's request for a detailed description of the process we would use in making these delineations.

    Please see a copy of the needs assessment
    The current RFP is the Official Record for the submission of bids and at no time will any information obtained from the Initial Report be used which is in conflict with the RFP.
    The Initial Report is provided here for reference only and is not incorporated into the RFP.

  • Do you have a map of the county that can be emailed?

    The following link contains the 2003 edition of the county map:

  • Is the specification for color film (3.1.25) intended to mean Color-IR to aid in wetland delineation.

  • How will the impervious surface dataset be used?
  • For storm water billing or storm water analysis?
  • Other?
    Storm water analysis.

  • The county wishes to include all residential properties in the impervious surface dataset?

  • How many industrial/commercial properties are in Medina County?
    Estimate: 9,000.

  • Does the County have road edges digitized?
    Yes - as can be identified from the countours.

  • We have reviewed the "independent contractor Indemnification clause" and believe it is somewhat ambiguous and could be construed to enlarge < companies > 's statutory obligations as an employer under worker's compensation laws.
  • It is ambiguous enough to also be construed to be consistent with < companies > 's statutory obligations as an employer under worker's compensation laws.
  • We will sign the indemnification presuming the latter. We understand that we are responsible for our employee's safety and that our employee's should not be construed to be "your" employees simply because < companies > has a contract with the County.
  • However, we also believe that our narrow reading of the indemnification (upon which we condition our signing) does not make us liable or responsible for indemnification, losses or claims of any nature which may result from safety violations, complaints or issues simply because we happen to have a contract with the County.
  • Are we safe to assume that the indemnification clause is consistent with < companies > 's statutory obligations as an employer under worker's compensation laws?
    This can certainly be reviewed with the County Prosecutor's Office at
    However, we would stongly recommend against holding the bid package awaiting a response.