Independent QGIS Desktop Plugin and RFC 7946 GeoJSON Evaluator - Paid Fixed-Price Pilot
Budget: $30 – $250 USD
We need one paid independent GIS evaluator for a focused technical pilot involving a QGIS Desktop plugin, a matching preliminary PDF report, and GIS-ready GeoJSON files.
This is not unpaid product testing, implementation work, code remediation, or a promotional endorsement. We need reproducible technical evidence from a GIS practitioner, not another general report-readability review.
The evaluator will assess:
QGIS plugin installation and first use.
Plugin, PDF, GeoJSON, and prior-workflow consistency.
Strict RFC 7946 GeoJSON conformance and GIS behavior.
Metadata, provenance, geometry, null-value, and jurisdiction disclosures.
Professional Boundary
The supplied materials are preliminary Phase 0 screening and due-diligence aids. GeoJSON is an interoperable input used alongside authoritative cadastral, jurisdictional, project-controlled, and field-validated layers. It is not a replacement for those layers.
This work is not engineering, geotechnical, surveying, legal-parcel, septic-approval, permitting, regulatory, lending, or construction-readiness work. Installation success, QGIS loading, or a validator result does not establish blanket approval, professional readiness, or universal interoperability.
Controlled Test Package
The awarded milestone will identify the exact plugin build and hash, installation instructions, approved QGIS version and operating system, configuration guidance, controlled site or authorized location, matching PDF and GeoJSON files, available file/report IDs and hashes, acceptance criteria, fixed price, and due date.
Do not request or transmit credentials or other secrets in a proposal, screenshot, log, or deliverable.
Scope of Work
1. Baseline and Plugin Installation
Briefly describe your comparable GIS workflow, including software and versions, authoritative layers or data sources, parcel/point/AOI geometry source, normal preprocessing and validation, outputs, and friction points.
Then document:
operating system and QGIS version;
plugin filename, version, hash, and installation route;
package integrity, dependencies, permissions, and configuration;
plugin discoverability in QGIS;
steps to first attempted and first successful result;
warnings, errors, blockers, and recovery steps; and
screenshots or logs sufficient to reproduce material findings.
A timing estimate is optional. If provided, state the method and identify it as evaluator-specific.
Report installation success, successful execution, usable output, workflow fit, and strict format conformance as separate findings.
2. QGIS Behavior and Output Comparison
Evaluate:
input clarity and created layer names;
feature and geometry roles;
CRS assignment, transformation, and export;
attribute readability and field types;
Point-versus-Polygon behavior;
approximate or non-cadastral geometry disclosure;
raw values versus derived indicators, scores, and recommendations;
null, unknown, not-assessed, and not-applicable behavior; and
relevant GeoPackage or Shapefile export, persistence, refresh, or repeatability.
Compare the plugin, PDF, GeoJSON, and prior workflow. Use Present, Partial, Absent, Pass, or Fail as appropriate. Cover site classification; hydrology, drainage, or flood evidence; raw indicators versus scores; confidence or quality disclosure; source and provenance; geometry source and coverage; jurisdiction limitations; output consistency; client usefulness; and workflow friction.
For each discrepancy, identify the affected plugin build, file/report ID, field, layer, geometry, and test environment. Test only the cases authorized in the milestone.
3. Strict RFC 7946 GeoJSON Review
A file that opens in QGIS is not automatically RFC 7946 conformant.
Use a documented validator or programmatic method and retain the actual output. Assess at least:
top-level FeatureCollection structure;
valid Features and valid or intentionally null geometries;
valid geometry types and coordinate nesting;
WGS 84 longitude/latitude coordinates, ranges, and order;
absence of a legacy top-level crs member;
polygon closure and appropriate ring winding;
stable field types and mixed-geometry implications;
explicit geometry roles and provenance; and
identity of the inspected file by filename and hash.
Submit the validator command, script, tool settings, or equivalent method and its output. A pass applies only to the exact identified file.
4. Metadata, Consistency, and Findings
Check whether key attributes have a readable label, data type, unit or unitless status, provenance, applicable range or allowed values, interpretation and limitations, null meaning, jurisdiction applicability, and classification as raw, normalized, derived, estimated, scored, or deprecated.
Also check for:
PDF-populated values that are null or missing in GeoJSON;
inconsistent PDF and GeoJSON payloads;
unsupported or incorrect source labels;
unclear approximate-geometry disclosure; and
Point findings presented as Polygon or AOI conclusions.
For each defect or limitation, provide severity, affected asset and environment, reproducible steps, observed result, expected result or requirement, evidence pointer, professional workflow consequence, and recommended correction or clarification.
End with the single highest-priority improvement and explain why it matters.
Required Work Products
Submit all work and substantive communication through the platform.
Independent evaluation report covering the controlled package and environment, prior workflow, installation and first use, output comparison, RFC 7946 and schema findings, strengths, defects, limitations, unresolved items, and prioritized recommendation.
Reproducibility evidence bundle containing applicable screenshots, QGIS logs and errors, validator method and output, inspected or exported GIS files, file hashes, environment/version record, and a short evidence index. Never include credentials.
Defect and acceptance matrix marking each required test as Pass, Partial, Fail, Not Applicable, or Not Tested with a reason. Missing evidence must remain explicit.
Three pilot deliverables within the report:
one real-world use case;
one workflow integration note; and
one prioritized improvement recommendation.
Acceptance Criteria
The paid milestone is complete when the evaluator:
independently performs the agreed tests;
ties findings to the exact plugin build, files, QGIS version, OS, and environment;
documents installation and workflow behavior with reproducible evidence;
provides the strict GeoJSON method and actual validator output;
directly compares the plugin, PDF, GeoJSON, and prior workflow;
reports strengths and failures, including missing or conflicting evidence;
preserves professional and jurisdictional limitations; and
avoids unsupported claims of validation, accuracy, risk reduction, readiness, licensing clearance, or universal interoperability.
A negative finding can satisfy the milestone when it is specific, reproducible, and within scope.
Out of Scope
Without a separate paid milestone, do not:
modify code or fix defects;
deploy production changes or redesign the UI;
perform ongoing API debugging;
migrate schemas or databases;
build integrations or GIS layers;
procure or license datasets;
conduct additional site studies;
provide promotional copy or endorsement; or
perform post-remediation retesting.
No engineering, surveying, geotechnical, permitting, legal, or regulatory services are requested. Evaluation and implementation must remain separate.
Required Qualifications
Applicants should have demonstrable experience with:
QGIS Desktop 3.x and controlled plugin installation/testing;
RFC 7946 GeoJSON validation;
GDAL/OGR or another documented validation method;
CRS and coordinate transformation;
geometry validation and Point/Polygon behavior;
attribute schemas, units, and null semantics; and
reproducible GIS QA reporting.
Python, PostGIS, GeoPackage, Shapefile, parcel/environmental screening, or QGIS plugin QA experience is helpful. Development experience alone is insufficient; this assignment requires independent evaluation and evidence capture.
Proposal Questions
Answer each question in writing. Generic proposals may not be considered.
Which QGIS versions and operating systems can you test?
Describe a QGIS plugin you installed, tested, troubleshot, or reviewed. State whether it came from a ZIP package, repository, or source build.
Describe a GeoJSON conformance or data-quality review you performed and the validator, GDAL/OGR command, script, or schema checks used.
Explain the difference between "opens in QGIS" and "conforms to RFC 7946."
How will you preserve plugin/file hashes, environment details, logs, screenshots, and validator output?
Describe your parcel, site, environmental, land-use, or comparable GIS-screening workflow.
Can you provide a redacted technical validation report, defect log, or reproducible GIS QA sample you personally prepared?
Confirm that you will act as an independent evaluator without modifying code or implementing fixes under this milestone.
State your fixed price, completion time, earliest availability, and any non-secret information needed after award.
Written answers and the work sample will be reviewed before a call or award. A short clarification call may address written questions but will not replace written qualification.
Engagement Terms
Paid fixed-price technical evaluation
One professional; worldwide
Communication and delivery through the platform only
Future work only through separately defined and funded milestones
This is not unpaid product testing, implementation work, code remediation, or a promotional endorsement. We need reproducible technical evidence from a GIS practitioner, not another general report-readability review.
The evaluator will assess:
QGIS plugin installation and first use.
Plugin, PDF, GeoJSON, and prior-workflow consistency.
Strict RFC 7946 GeoJSON conformance and GIS behavior.
Metadata, provenance, geometry, null-value, and jurisdiction disclosures.
Professional Boundary
The supplied materials are preliminary Phase 0 screening and due-diligence aids. GeoJSON is an interoperable input used alongside authoritative cadastral, jurisdictional, project-controlled, and field-validated layers. It is not a replacement for those layers.
This work is not engineering, geotechnical, surveying, legal-parcel, septic-approval, permitting, regulatory, lending, or construction-readiness work. Installation success, QGIS loading, or a validator result does not establish blanket approval, professional readiness, or universal interoperability.
Controlled Test Package
The awarded milestone will identify the exact plugin build and hash, installation instructions, approved QGIS version and operating system, configuration guidance, controlled site or authorized location, matching PDF and GeoJSON files, available file/report IDs and hashes, acceptance criteria, fixed price, and due date.
Do not request or transmit credentials or other secrets in a proposal, screenshot, log, or deliverable.
Scope of Work
1. Baseline and Plugin Installation
Briefly describe your comparable GIS workflow, including software and versions, authoritative layers or data sources, parcel/point/AOI geometry source, normal preprocessing and validation, outputs, and friction points.
Then document:
operating system and QGIS version;
plugin filename, version, hash, and installation route;
package integrity, dependencies, permissions, and configuration;
plugin discoverability in QGIS;
steps to first attempted and first successful result;
warnings, errors, blockers, and recovery steps; and
screenshots or logs sufficient to reproduce material findings.
A timing estimate is optional. If provided, state the method and identify it as evaluator-specific.
Report installation success, successful execution, usable output, workflow fit, and strict format conformance as separate findings.
2. QGIS Behavior and Output Comparison
Evaluate:
input clarity and created layer names;
feature and geometry roles;
CRS assignment, transformation, and export;
attribute readability and field types;
Point-versus-Polygon behavior;
approximate or non-cadastral geometry disclosure;
raw values versus derived indicators, scores, and recommendations;
null, unknown, not-assessed, and not-applicable behavior; and
relevant GeoPackage or Shapefile export, persistence, refresh, or repeatability.
Compare the plugin, PDF, GeoJSON, and prior workflow. Use Present, Partial, Absent, Pass, or Fail as appropriate. Cover site classification; hydrology, drainage, or flood evidence; raw indicators versus scores; confidence or quality disclosure; source and provenance; geometry source and coverage; jurisdiction limitations; output consistency; client usefulness; and workflow friction.
For each discrepancy, identify the affected plugin build, file/report ID, field, layer, geometry, and test environment. Test only the cases authorized in the milestone.
3. Strict RFC 7946 GeoJSON Review
A file that opens in QGIS is not automatically RFC 7946 conformant.
Use a documented validator or programmatic method and retain the actual output. Assess at least:
top-level FeatureCollection structure;
valid Features and valid or intentionally null geometries;
valid geometry types and coordinate nesting;
WGS 84 longitude/latitude coordinates, ranges, and order;
absence of a legacy top-level crs member;
polygon closure and appropriate ring winding;
stable field types and mixed-geometry implications;
explicit geometry roles and provenance; and
identity of the inspected file by filename and hash.
Submit the validator command, script, tool settings, or equivalent method and its output. A pass applies only to the exact identified file.
4. Metadata, Consistency, and Findings
Check whether key attributes have a readable label, data type, unit or unitless status, provenance, applicable range or allowed values, interpretation and limitations, null meaning, jurisdiction applicability, and classification as raw, normalized, derived, estimated, scored, or deprecated.
Also check for:
PDF-populated values that are null or missing in GeoJSON;
inconsistent PDF and GeoJSON payloads;
unsupported or incorrect source labels;
unclear approximate-geometry disclosure; and
Point findings presented as Polygon or AOI conclusions.
For each defect or limitation, provide severity, affected asset and environment, reproducible steps, observed result, expected result or requirement, evidence pointer, professional workflow consequence, and recommended correction or clarification.
End with the single highest-priority improvement and explain why it matters.
Required Work Products
Submit all work and substantive communication through the platform.
Independent evaluation report covering the controlled package and environment, prior workflow, installation and first use, output comparison, RFC 7946 and schema findings, strengths, defects, limitations, unresolved items, and prioritized recommendation.
Reproducibility evidence bundle containing applicable screenshots, QGIS logs and errors, validator method and output, inspected or exported GIS files, file hashes, environment/version record, and a short evidence index. Never include credentials.
Defect and acceptance matrix marking each required test as Pass, Partial, Fail, Not Applicable, or Not Tested with a reason. Missing evidence must remain explicit.
Three pilot deliverables within the report:
one real-world use case;
one workflow integration note; and
one prioritized improvement recommendation.
Acceptance Criteria
The paid milestone is complete when the evaluator:
independently performs the agreed tests;
ties findings to the exact plugin build, files, QGIS version, OS, and environment;
documents installation and workflow behavior with reproducible evidence;
provides the strict GeoJSON method and actual validator output;
directly compares the plugin, PDF, GeoJSON, and prior workflow;
reports strengths and failures, including missing or conflicting evidence;
preserves professional and jurisdictional limitations; and
avoids unsupported claims of validation, accuracy, risk reduction, readiness, licensing clearance, or universal interoperability.
A negative finding can satisfy the milestone when it is specific, reproducible, and within scope.
Out of Scope
Without a separate paid milestone, do not:
modify code or fix defects;
deploy production changes or redesign the UI;
perform ongoing API debugging;
migrate schemas or databases;
build integrations or GIS layers;
procure or license datasets;
conduct additional site studies;
provide promotional copy or endorsement; or
perform post-remediation retesting.
No engineering, surveying, geotechnical, permitting, legal, or regulatory services are requested. Evaluation and implementation must remain separate.
Required Qualifications
Applicants should have demonstrable experience with:
QGIS Desktop 3.x and controlled plugin installation/testing;
RFC 7946 GeoJSON validation;
GDAL/OGR or another documented validation method;
CRS and coordinate transformation;
geometry validation and Point/Polygon behavior;
attribute schemas, units, and null semantics; and
reproducible GIS QA reporting.
Python, PostGIS, GeoPackage, Shapefile, parcel/environmental screening, or QGIS plugin QA experience is helpful. Development experience alone is insufficient; this assignment requires independent evaluation and evidence capture.
Proposal Questions
Answer each question in writing. Generic proposals may not be considered.
Which QGIS versions and operating systems can you test?
Describe a QGIS plugin you installed, tested, troubleshot, or reviewed. State whether it came from a ZIP package, repository, or source build.
Describe a GeoJSON conformance or data-quality review you performed and the validator, GDAL/OGR command, script, or schema checks used.
Explain the difference between "opens in QGIS" and "conforms to RFC 7946."
How will you preserve plugin/file hashes, environment details, logs, screenshots, and validator output?
Describe your parcel, site, environmental, land-use, or comparable GIS-screening workflow.
Can you provide a redacted technical validation report, defect log, or reproducible GIS QA sample you personally prepared?
Confirm that you will act as an independent evaluator without modifying code or implementing fixes under this milestone.
State your fixed price, completion time, earliest availability, and any non-secret information needed after award.
Written answers and the work sample will be reviewed before a call or award. A short clarification call may address written questions but will not replace written qualification.
Engagement Terms
Paid fixed-price technical evaluation
One professional; worldwide
Communication and delivery through the platform only
Future work only through separately defined and funded milestones