|
s � �
<br />DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:
<br />Subsequent to Board action on May 7, 1996, at which all CAD
<br />proposals were rejected by the Board based on a staff
<br />recommendation, staff received authorization to issue a second RFP
<br />for a computer aided dispatch system (CAD) for the 9-1-1
<br />Communications Center. The initial mailing of the second Request
<br />For Proposals was sent to 105 potential vendors. Nineteen (19)
<br />requested a complete package and six (6) responses were received.
<br />The proposals received were from the following vendors:
<br />HITECH Systems, Inc.
<br />Los Angeles, CA
<br />PSI International
<br />Fairfax, VA
<br />Logistic Systems, Inc.
<br />Missoula, MT
<br />New World Systems
<br />Troy, MI
<br />Vision Software
<br />Wilmington, NC
<br />Institute of Police
<br />Technology & Management
<br />Jacksonville, FL
<br />After appointment of a Selection Committee by County Administrator
<br />Jim Chandler, which consisted of members of law enforcement, Fire,
<br />EMS, Emergency Management, 9-1-1 Data Base, and the Property
<br />Appraiser's Office, the vendors were short listed and formal
<br />presentation invitations were extended to Logistic Systems, PSI
<br />International, and HITECH Systems. After consideration of the
<br />vendors' proposals and presentations, contacts with references and
<br />non -references, the Committee's final ranking of the firms was as
<br />follows:
<br />1. Logistic Systems
<br />2. PSI International
<br />3. HITECH Systems
<br />It was the consensus of the Committee that possibly some vendors
<br />had not included all components associated with a CAD system and
<br />that once a contract was awarded, additional costs would be
<br />experienced by the County. It was felt the proposed price, as well
<br />as the recurring software licensing/maintenance fees and hardware
<br />maintenance fees, are all negotiable with the potential for
<br />reduction. Therefore, the system capabilities, vendor
<br />qualifications, references, geofile development experience,
<br />redundancy, past project history, and ability to deliver the system
<br />products were the main focus of the Committee.
<br />Authorization to negotiate with Logistic Systems is requested from
<br />the Board. However, staff submits that a substantial level of
<br />expertise, not available at staff level, is required to negotiate
<br />this complex systems contract to provide a fully integrated CAD
<br />system and geofile for use by public safety agencies.
<br />Since the City of Vero Beach is also in the initial stages of
<br />starting negotiations with Logistic Systems as the vendor to
<br />provide the City with a CAD system, staff is of the opinion that
<br />establishing two separate CAD systems is not the best approach to
<br />take due to cost and many other reasons. The City is planning to
<br />employ Barry Strock Consulting Associates to negotiate a systems
<br />contract with Logistic Systems inasmuch as they, like the County,
<br />do not have the expertise at the staff level to provide this
<br />service.
<br />Staff feels that there is the potential for savings to both the
<br />City and County if a common CAD system with certain features each
<br />entity requires, and possibly a single geofile/mapping component,
<br />can be negotiated and purchased with the potential for cost
<br />sharing. Therefore, staff is seeking Board approval of the
<br />attached Systems Consulting Contract with Barry Strock Consulting
<br />Associates, Inc., which is very similar to the City proposed
<br />contract. The estimated cost for these services including travel
<br />and other cost associated with carrying out the duties associated
<br />with the contract is $10,000. However, there is the potential for
<br />savings if the CAD Consultant could negotiate both contracts at the
<br />same time with Logistic Systems for a common CAD system, with
<br />features that both the City and County need, while sharing in the
<br />consulting expense and CAD system cost.
<br />DECEMBER 17, 1996 10 3 " ri,i9 � (� PA C II �I
<br />
|