Print PDF

Guest commentary regarding BayWEB

While BayWEB was a dismal, convoluted, and quite smelly failure, I think it can be viewed as a success in certain aspects of how public safety should NOT purchase high-tech systems.

As the old saying goes:
“Everyone has a purpose in life – even if to be used as a bad example.” In this case, it is the BTOP grant process, not San Jose, to be held up as a bad example.

Two recent industry articles describe how silly the BTOP grant process can become.

http://www.rrmediagroup.com/newsArticle.cfm?news_id=7763

“Such a vote puts the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009 funds at risk, but we can all cite projects where free money from federal or state sources have led to exponentially higher downstream costs (emphasis added),” the report said. “San Jose staff does not come to this recommendation lightly. Staff has invested thousands of hours in the negotiations and related work to create the BayRICS Authority. This time has been well spent in ensuring that if the project goes forward, it will be governed by an organization created to operate transparently.”

San Jose should be congratulated in doing its homework and looking at other bad examples of good intentions run amok. BOOM-formats tend to allow for secrecy where the vendor can ‘hide the ball’ on system information or true costs, the vendor is not subject to FOIA, and the vendor has little transparency and scant public accountability.

In other coverage of this story, we see:

http://tinyurl.com/d7bmup4

Quotes and comments below:

“One of the key funding uncertainties for San Jose was associated with the cost to supply adequate backhaul for the proposed LTE network. Under the proposed deal, the JPA would have to supply backhaul from the LTE sites, and many jurisdictions are counting on a negotiated deal with the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) Authority to use the transit organization’s fiber network to address the backhaul issue for little or no cost.”

“However, the BART fiber network does not extend to San Jose, so the city would have to find another backhaul alternative to support the proposed network, according to Michelle McGurk, San Jose’s JPA representative.”

Comment: This is a GREAT take-away. In many cases, the backhaul is an after-thought. In Will County, we are trying to implement ubiquitous fiber FIRST – for all sorts of public-safety applications – including future wireless projects, NG911, and data. But, BTOP apparently wanted to support LTE/wireless/700MHz D-Block applicants, and although Will County passed several gates on the BTOP application process (with transparency, competition, and accountability for ongoing system support), our fiber-oriented application fell by the wayside. Some may view this as a ‘sour grapes’ comment, but I wanted to use our example of another, possibly better, use of a BTOP grant.

“Such fiscal uncertainty is particularly difficult during the current climate of tight budgets for a city like San Jose, which has made significant public-safety layoffs and salary cuts during the past year.”

“This is not a time to sign on to the possibility of significant costs that we might not be able to bear,” Reed said.

Comment: This is another GREAT take-away. How many contracts have we seen where a vendor comes in low to get the job, then floats the price up over time just to obtain basic services? In a nearby county, there is a case-in-point with a $7.055M P25 project that is now screaming skyward in excess of $30M with multiple scope-changing ‘change orders’. The project started in 2006 and is still not on the air. The BayRICS project appeared to be doomed as another example of just this….come in low and jack up costs over time. San Jose policy-makers should be congratulated on aborting a money-pit project sooner than later.

Comment: Lastly, this should be a cautionary tale for the NTIA to refuse to have a vendor be the BTOP grant applicant, the vendor listing its subcontractors as “participants” in a BTOP grant, and the NTIA/BTOP facilitating a sole-source-no-bid scheme which side-steps all competitive bidding in a market where competition is SUPPOSED to hold down costs.

Hello? FCC Chairman? NTIA administrators and BTOP grant issuers?  House Committee on Science and Technology?

CAN YOU HEAR US NOW on the issue of competition versus endorsement and support of sole-source-no-bid awards in a Federal grant environment?

Comments made are my own and may not be the opinion of my employer, or any organization for which I am an officer, member, or representative.

Executive Director Steve Rauter,
Western Will County Communications Center

(WESCOM)

14300 S. Coil Plus Drive
Plainfield, IL 60544
Email: SRauter@WESCOM-9-1-1.org
General: 815-267-8300

Print PDF

Questions regarding the State of Illinois’ ongoing contract with Motorola for digital trunked radio equipment and service continue to mount.  I received a copy of this open letter to the State’s Budget Director from the government official who wrote it.

The following supporting documentation was also received.

• Starcom21 – Statement by Illinois CMS Deputy COO Roger Nondorf – 01/13/2011
• Starcom 21 contract value estimate from Motorola proposal – 03/16/2010
• Starcom21 Motorola proposal Page 3
• Starcom21 – Letter of inquiry regarding sole source justification – 04/07/2011

- The Letter -

Mr. David Vaught

Illinois Budget Director

Dear Sir,

In September 2010, Illinois Central Management Services (CMS) announced a public hearing to justify a “new” sole-source contract with Motorola for “air time” services and subscriber radios to continue the use of the STARCOM21 state-wide Project 25 (with proprietary features) radio system. The very nature of Project 25 is to have an open standards that increases competition and lowers cost (http://project25.org/).

At that hearing, the proposal on the table was for a 10-year contract for $207,864,687 (or $207,864,682 depending on which paperwork you see). There were acrimonious letters of support from various entities around the state in support of the STARCOM21 system. Whether the system is “good” or “bad” was not the question. What was supposed to be discussed is if it is economically infeasible to do anything else but to stay with Motorola. No options or alternatives were sought, according to the public record.

With an exact amount being mentioned, you would think it would be a simple question:
“What goods and services will be received by the state if it gives Motorola $207+M over the next 10 years?”

But no, that question was not allowed to be asked or answered. After FOIA requests and reviews by the Illinois Attorney General’s Office of the Public Access Counselor, it was determined, initially, that all documents mentioning specific pricing were protected from public view since it was still in draft form, still under review, etc.

Later, there was an admission by Illinois Central Management Services that the September 2010 hearing documents were flawed and that a second hearing would be scheduled.

In the interim, a public meeting was held on January 13, 2011 by the Illinois Procurement Policy Board (IPPB), an oversight and advisory arm of the state. In that meeting, it was explained that CMS made some mistakes. The minutes of that meeting revealed documentation of a telecommunications expense for sole source purchasing for $207,864,687, after the “flawed” CMS hearing in September. It was also revealed that the Motorola sole-source contract would be split, meaning, the state would continue to have a sole-source relationship with Motorola for “air time” on the Motorola-owned statewide radio system, but would allow open and competitive bidding for Project 25 (the national standard for digital public-safety voice readio) subscriber radios. Instead of $207M, it was stated that the contract would be about $67M, but there was still discussion from the CMS representative, Mr. Nondorf, about sole-source acquisition of radios from Motorola. Once again, conflicted and confusing information from the state.

After yet another FOIA request to the IPPB, it was requested, once again to answer the simple question:  “What goods and services will be received by the state if it gives Motorola $207+M (or $67M) over the next 10 years?”

This FOIA request was delayed well beyond the 60-day guideline for the AG’s Public Access Counselor’s clearance guideline.

On April 20, 2011, CMS held the second hearing. This time, the issue was a sole-source agreement to continue to use the Motorola STARCOM21 system for another 10 years. There was no discussion allowed on the open-bidding nature of the Project 25 (non-proprietary) subscriber (radio) units. While there were once again letters of support, there were other letters against, and only one person speaking about the contract on either side of the issue.

Attached is a letter asking 10 specific questions, which thus far are unanswered by CMS. (STARCOM SOLE SOURCE APRIL 20 2011-2.pdf)

On April 21, 2011 (a day after the second hearing), the AG’s PAC office reversed itself and forced the release of the previous $207M proposal from Motorola (Page 1-2-4.pdf and Page 3.pdf attached).

One of the most disturbing issues relates to the duration of the contract as proposed:

* One of the excuses not to go to competitive bid is that it would take 1-2 years to develop an RFP, analyze, and award a contract. Well, why is this a 10-year contract then? Why not make it 3-5 years, and do the “due diligence” to make sure Illinois taxpayers are getting the best deal possible?

* Since the original contract was initiated in 2001 with a 10 year agreement, and the renewal-non-renewal-new contract starts September 2011 through the Fall of 2021, this would give Motorola a 2-decade lock on the system with little possibility for competition (or even a regional non-Motorola system connection to STARCOM21).

* Illinois law limits contracts to 10 years. Regardless of the bureaucratic wordsmithing, this is a renewal (or extension) by all definition, not a “new” contract. How is this justified?

In the meantime, Motorola has (and is) crafting agreements with county and local agencies with a wide berth of fees and options. Some are promised (from the vendor) several years of “free” monthly air time (like a December 2010 suburban county contract  - and I wonder what the current $53 or $30 per month users feel about that). Some local police agencies are offered (from the vendor) a guaranteed freeze of monthly rates – regardless of the forthcoming negotiation monthly fee.

The state did not competitively bid for multi-band, multi-mode radios, but has looked the other way to give cover to local governments to use “state purchasing” for the new APX-7000 and EX (ruggedized) radios. I’m sure Thales, Harris, and Datron would like to sell radios, but since county and local governments point to CMS to avoid competitive bidding for multi-band, multi-mode radios, the antics continue, and Motorola continues its market dominance. Maybe, just maybe, Motorola will have to put the APX and EX out there for competitive bid.

A suburban county ETSB board waived all bidding under their own Procurement Ordinance for subscriber radios “assuming” the APX is/was competitively bid at the state level, thus on “state purchasing” agreement. There is conflicting information about “state” discounts on the APX depending on what public documents your read, from NO discount to 20% discount – but still, the radio never listed as a result of competitive bidding at the state level. Questions to CMS have gone unanswered.

The current contract is a little frustrating, maybe by design. After searching Illinois government websites, I cannot find the STARCOM21 Master Contract TCVS-1500 – you can only get it via the vendor. I have that contract. It calls for the XTL and XTS series of radios. The last change to the STARCOM21 Master Contract was December 2008. The new Motorola APX-7000 radio (multi-band, multi-mode) was not released yet. When I asked CMS if the APX radio was on “state contract” I was referred to the vendor, Motorola.

So….let’s say GM sells gasoline-powered ½ ton pickups to the state and they beat Ford and Dodge when the state bid out the job in 2001. GM comes out with a diesel cement mixer in 2009 and both the state and local governments start buying GM cement mixers under the existing contract. GM tells its customers that it can now sell cement mixers to local governments under “state bid”, you know, CMS says “just see the vendor and they’ll give you a good deal”, because in the end, they are just trucks, right? I’m sure Mack and Freightliner would like to have known cement mixers are now in play!!! But, no, the state won’t go out for bid for cement mixers since they “have it covered”. Same for multi-band, multi-mode radios. Moto just starts selling them under “state contract” and Thales, Harris, and Datron are aced out of state purchasing.

So, we are staying tuned for the final run-up to the renewal-non-renewal-new-extension contract that might be for $207M, $114M, $67M, or $50M….spin the wheel and guess how high the monthly user fees will rise. Also, watch for the posturing (from the CMS bureaucrats and Motorola) to further suppress competition under the cover of open bidding for the subscriber units.

Motorola is being scrutinized for multiple sole-source, no-bid contracts through the US.

http://www.examiner.com/homeland-security-in-chicago/homeland-security-and-motorola-a-cocktail-for-scandal-chicago

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2011-01-26/news/ct-met-radio-contract-new-20110126_1_dupage-deal-radio-system-emergency-radio

http://blog.tcomeng.com/ (See “Appearance of Impropriety” series.)

The US House is especially looking at market dominance of Motorola for products that are not proprietary, but are “standards based” systems and equipment. The Project 25 digital voice standard was supposed to open up competition and drop prices. With dwindling public funds, competition should be used as a tool to reduce cost. In the case of STARCOM21, Illinois will be guaranteed 20 years – 2 decades – of NO competition. (See attached letter from the US House to FCC Chairman on this topic.)

If I can provide any further information, most of which is in the public record, please let me know.

Respectfully,

Executive Director Steve Rauter,
Western Will County Communications Center

Email: SRauter@WESCOM-9-1-1.org

==

Print PDF

Someone sent me two hilarious animated satirical videos about the fleecing of taxpayers related to police and fire radio system procurement.  The videos are presented below, for your entertainment.

Please note that I have no allegiance to any radio manufacturer or dealer.

Print PDF

I have the pleasure of working with Lt. Alan Normandy at the South San Francisco Police Department. Alan serves as a patrol division watch commander and I am responsible for telecommunications and information systems. Alan also serves as the firearms expert on the Discovery Channel’s MythBusters television program.

MythBusters is one of my favorite television programs and Alan recently arranged for a tour of the M5 Industries shop in San Francisco where most of the gadgets used on the show are constructed. It was a fascinating tour and I was surprised to learn that the M5 facility is very much like my own shop.

Alan also invited me to attend the first annual MythBuster’s fan club meeting at the Doubletree Hotel in Burlingame on October 6, 2007. Most of the cast and crew were present. About 80 fans from all over the United States attended.

One of the highlights of the evening was talking with Alice Dallow who is a producer for the show. Alice is from Australia and works for Beyond Productions. She is one of the most fascinating people I’ve met in a long time and I will remember her as my favorite MythBuster, even though she rarely appears on camera.

If you’re not familiar with the MythBusters, I highly recommend that you take the time to watch a few episodes. I hope you enjoy it as much as I do.

• Discovery Channel MythBusters Website
• MythBusters Fan Club

Print PDF

Broadcast radio is an extremely difficult business in which to survive and many of the potentially best broadcasters move on to other careers in search of stability and financial success. Some of these folks never get broadcasting out of their blood and a few have found a way to reignite their love for broadcasting after retirement.

KSAV is an Internet-only broadcast station operated by Dan White and the Share-A-Vision radio network. It features an eclectic mix of tunes from the 1940′s through the 1960′s presented in an old fashioned block programming format. Radio shows include “Perfectly Frank” featuring music by Frank Sinatra and a mix of oldies on the “Dusty Records” hour.

Susan McCray hosts “Getting to Know You” on KSAV where Susan interviews some of Hollywood’s biggest names. Susan is a well-known Hollywood casting professional and author with a seemingly endless list of interesting guests for her radio show on KSAV.

Dave White hosts “Talking Television” on KSAV. Dave bills his show as the best television on radio and I must agree. Dave’s guests are always diverse and interesting. Tune in if you’re interested in knowing the inside story about your favorite television programs of the past and present. Dave and his guests can be heard live on Tuesday evenings beginning at 7:30 PM Pacific.

KSAV programs can be heard live via the Internet and can be downloaded as Podcasts.