I dug through the 19 page decision (pdf) and offer up these key points in Q & A fasion. (I am not a lawyer but did my best to decipher the language.)

Did the amicus briefs help?
Yes. The judge writes on page 4: "It is also worth noting that the record unambiguously reflects that the provision of "mapping" services in the modern marketplace includes a much broader scope of work than the traditional mapping work of land surveyors. See Affidavit of Douglas Richardson, filed as Exhibit A to Brief Amicus Curiae of Association of American Geographers et al."

Which plaintiffs were not granted standing?
Council on Federal Procurement of Architectural and Engineering Services, National Society of Professional Engineers, and American Society of Civil Engineers.

Why?
They didn't show they were injured. MAPPS had the possibility of standing (ultimately it was denied standing, too) because it provided affidavits that tried to detail damages.

How did the judge understand the damages cited by MAPPS?
First off, MAPPS has only organizational members and so provided affidavits (three, two of which used the identical wording, according to official documents) from staffers of member companies of situations where ideally they were restricted from bidding and thus were "damaged."

The judge examined the two contracts in question. One was with EPA. The contracted required a national firm so small firms were basically not qualified. The job went to Lockheed Martin one of the three nationwide firms to bid. Said the judge: "It is apparent from the record that the individual surveyors, and their small to mid-sized firms, were not plausible candidates for the EPA contract given the large scope of that contract."

The other contract was NAIP (National Agricultural Imagery Program) for USDA. In that situation the representative of the firm basically could not show injury. Wrote the judge: "It [MAPPS in its documents from individual surveyors who are staffers of member firms] has not provided authoritative constructions of the pertinent state laws establishing that the services solicited by the USDA need not be performed by a licensed person. Nor has it made any showing at all that Oklahoma would discipline Blackwell or his firm for bidding on the USDA contract."

So, did they settle anything?
Not really, the heart of the case, "the merits" were not addressed. Summary judgment was made simply on the fact that none of the four plaintiffs could be granted standing. That's apparently what the law says about standing: if there's no standing you can't get to exploring the merits of the case.