800MHz Memo to Council - 7 19 12

download 800MHz Memo to Council - 7 19 12

of 1

Transcript of 800MHz Memo to Council - 7 19 12

  • 7/31/2019 800MHz Memo to Council - 7 19 12

    1/1

    700 POPLAR STREETP.O. BOX 247

    MACON, GEORGIA 31202(478) 751-7170

    CITY OF MACON

    ROBERT A. B. REICHERTMAYOR

    Memorandum

    TO: City CouncilFROM: Dale Walker, Interim Chief Administrative OfficerSUBJECT: Bid for 800 Mhz Radio SystemDATE

    July 19, 2012At your most recent City Council meeting, there were some concerns expressed during the public comment portion aboutthe City and Countys recommendation to work with Harris Communications for the purchase and installation of the 800MHz radio system. The full contract is available for your review in the City Clerks Office, but I wanted to provide youwith some summary information about how the Review Committee (listed and signed on the final page) unanimouslyselected Harris. That way, you will be able to answer any questions you may be asked; if there are still questions, pleasefeel free to contact me directly.

    Attached is a documentsigned by all members of the Review Committeeexplaining why Harris was selected, as wellas the financial impact. This is the information we provided to the SPLOST Advisory Committee at its most recentmeeting, and I hope it explains better why the Committee decided to make this recommendation. The Committee, after thereview and presentation, felt that Harris most suitably met our expressed needs. One of the most important points raised

    by the Committee was the automatic redundancy in the dual systems; should the primary system from Harris fail, itautomatically switches to the secondary system. The Motorola system requires a person to switch to the secondary systemIn an emergency, our responders do not need to wait to get a hold of someone to make that switch.

    There were several points raised in the letter you received from Jones Cork & Miller and Motorola, and Id like toaddress, what I believe are some of the larger ones. Again, please contact my office should you have any furtherquestions.

    1) Personnel concernsPrior to the RFP being issued, the Mayor and I met with Motorola regarding their concernswith our IT Director and what they saw as a potential for a biased selection. We removed the IT Director from theprocess. They informed us that Joseph Taylor would be suitable as the Citys representative as he is a recognizedexpert in his field. Mr. Taylor wrote the specifications and Gregory Cline, our Purchasing Agent, finalized the

    RFP. There was not assistance provided to Joe in writing the specifications. The IT Director was not at the bidreview meeting, nor for the oral presentations made by both companies.

    2) Current equipmentMotorola has been upgrading components of our system the past few years. This currentRFP was for a brand new system that all agencies could use. The current system will not be surplused; instead, itwill be used by public service (non-emergency) departments such as Public Works and Central Services. It willalso serve as a third redundancy for the emergency system should the first two fail.

    3) Coverage expansionOur radio system already covers the entire County, and that coverage would not changewith the new system. A study was conducted when the system was first installed.

    4) Reduced proposalHarris was not allowed to lower their proposal. The City removed items from their originalproposal that were not included in the RFP. This way, we could compare apples to apples, as well as to receivean accurate price for our identified needs as specified in the RFP.

    5) CostdifferenceThe final amounts were approximately $7.6 million for Harris and approximately $7.2 millionfor Motorola.

    We certainly recognize that Motorola has provided the City with many years of service and thank them for their expertiseand assistance in other areas. In this matter, however, Harris Communications was unanimously selected by the ReviewCommittee as best meeting the communication needs of our agencies to protect public safety, therefore making it the bestuse of taxpayer dollars. The end users, whose lives depend on this equipment and who use it to protect other peopleslives, were intimately involved in this decision.

    If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.