NAEP ANNUAL MEETING“The Value Continuum”

April 2008, Austin, Texas

“Selection Of An Access Control SystemA Case Study For Standardization”

Presented by:John Stephen Klopp

The University of IowaPurchasing Department

The University of Iowa

• Founded: February 25, 1847—Iowa's first public institution of higher learning

• Long-standing commitment to teaching, research and community service

• First U.S. public university to admit men and women on an equal basis

• World's first university to accept creative work in theater, writing, music and art on an equal basis with academic research

• The University’s budgeted revenues and expenses for FY07 were $2.285 billion

• Purchasing Spend FY–2007: $457 Million

• Enrollment: 29,979

• Full-time Faculty and Staff: 14,548

• Size of Campus: 1,900 acres

• Number of Major Buildings: 125

• Number of Educational buildings: 266

• Ten Residence Halls

• Total Square Feet of Space: 16.8 million Sq. Ft.

Access Control Systems Currently In Use on Campus

Von Duprin – John Pappajohn Business BuildingSoftware House – University Capitol Centre

University Hospitals and Clinics (Separate from other UI Facilities)

Millennium – Art Building(Marlok) Adler Journalism Building

Oakdale Multi-Tennant FacilityPharmacy BuildingUniversity Services BuildingBurge Residence Hall

Access Control Systems In Use on U of I Campus

Millennium – Rienow Residence Hall (Marlok) Field House

Blank Honors CenterPomerantz CenterCarver Biomedical Research BuildingMedical LaboratoriesHawkeye Tennis & Recreation CenterSeamans CenterJessup Hall

What Does This Mean?

Different Manufacturers

Different Pricing Matrices

Separate Bid Processes to Acquire Products and Services

More Resources Needed – Dollars and Personnel

No Standardization

What’s the best approach to use for standardization?

RFI?

IBF?

RFQ?

RFP?

Phone Quotes?!?

The University of Iowa used a Two-Phased Approach

1. Selection of Manufacturers as Acceptable Alternates =

Request for Qualification Process

2 .Selection of Certified/Licensed Manufacturer’s Integrators =

Request for Proposal Process

PHASE I

Request for Qualification Process

Initial Discussions – August 2006

Initial Representative Participants:University Purchasing and Facilities

Cross-Functional Team Representation

• Purchasing• Facilities Management / Facilities Management - IT• Information Technology Services• Medical Laboratories• Residence Services• Public Safety / University Police• Engineering Technology Network• Outside Independent Consulting Firm – HMA Consulting,

Inc.

RFQ – Phase IObjective and Intent

Identify proven and reputable Manufacturers who have solutions for

Access Controls hardware and administrative software.

Responses Issued to and Submitted by: Manufacturer Only

Identify a limited number of Manufacturers for Oral Presentations

Determine “Acceptable Alternate” Manufacturers

Access Control Manufacturers Identified

AMAG Technology Matrix Systems Andover Millennium GroupAmerican Auto-Matrix Lenel Systems GE Security Sielox SystemsHoneywell Software House Johnson Controls

RFQ Minimum RequirementsTechnical Functionality – Controller Hardware/SoftwareFunctional Administrative SoftwareCompatibility With Open Architecture Field HardwareLimitationsUpgrades – When and How OftenRetrofittingServer/Database Requirements – CapacityAccess GroupsIntegration CapabilitiesReferencesFactory-trained/Licensed IntegratorsSingle Point of Contact

Let Firms know up front what the processes will be.

•RFQ determines Manufactures, •Responses determine short-list, •Oral presentations determine •“Acceptable Alternates” for RFP

RFQ Issued on November 17, 2006Nine Responses Received

AMAG Technology Johnson ControlsAndover Lenel SystemsGE Security Matrix

SystemsHoneywell Sielox Systems

Software House

(RFQ copy obtained from the NAEP National Office)

Initial Evaluations – December 2006 to January 2007

• Software / Technical Functionality Testing by FM IT and End Users

• Administrative Software Review• Compatibility with existing IT infrastructure• Upgrades• Retrofitting• Server / Data base• Capacity• Access Groups• Integration• References• Certified / Licensed Integrators identified by the Manufacturer

Phase I - Top Three Manufacturers Identified

Lenel Systems International

Software House

AMAG Technology

How did we identify these Manufacturers?

EXTENSIVE, DILIGENT,ANALYSIS

Through collaboration with Key Evaluation Team Members

9 Members Comprised our Team

Follow-On Analysis – February – April 2007

• Individual Four Hour Oral Presentation• Responding to Listing of 50 + Technical Questions• Demonstration of Technology Capabilities• Provided Copy of Access Control Software for• additional review/analysis by UI personnel to

include:– Functionality– Technical Capabilities– Compatibility with Current and Envision UI Systems – (Current system – marlock + microsoft sql server data

base)

Analysis of “Software Functionality” - April/May 2007

• Normal day-to-day functions • How easy/difficult to navigate• How easy/difficult to add/update and grant

access to doors or groups of doors• How easy/difficult to create door schedules• How easy/difficult to create time specifications• How easy/difficult to create one-time events• What reports are available and ease/difficulty of

use• How can “bulk” changes be implemented

Analysis of “Technical Functionality” - April/May 2007• Development Platform • Data Base• Segmentation of data• Integration with University’s Systems• Ability to lock down a building or campus

Both “Software Functionality” and “Technical Functionality” were

used as a baseline for comparing each Manufacturers’ products in

conjunction with their compatibility and integration with current UI

Microsoft SQL server database.

User Group Demonstrations – April/May 2007

• University end-users were provide a “hands-on” experience to work with each Manufacturers’ software application

• Coordinated by Facilities Management Information Technology

• Participants included:– RFQ Evaluation Team Members– Current Marlok Operators– Campus IT Leadership Members– Building Coordinators

User Group Evaluations Based On:

Software FunctionalitySoftware Ease of UseHardware Controllers

Software FeaturesIntegration with current University Systems

Overall Assessment From Findings – May/June 2007

The University’s direction of the electronic access control

business model is one based on a de-centralized implementation process.

A campus-wide Software House system would require door lock/unlock schedules to be “centrally administered” to provide the level of security

required, which Lenel and AMAG demonstrated they were

capable of handling otherwise.

Additionally, this would require a University administrative group a

“24 / 7 / 365” availability to make changes to the schedules. Could

have a serious impact on the level of service provided to University

Users.

Request for Qualification Recommendation

Solutions offered by AMAG and Lenel better fit with the University’s long term access control strategy and should be

pursuedthrough a Phase II Request for Proposal process as

“Acceptable Alternate” Manufacturers.

Phase II – July/August 2007Request for Proposal 12730

A refined Cross-Functional Evaluation Team Formed which included

Representation from:

• Purchasing• Facilities Management• Outside Independent Consulting Firm

– HMA Consulting, Inc., Houston, Texas

RFP Objective

Identify proven and reputable Integrator(s) that provide

products and services from either, AMAG Technology or

Lenel Systems International, as a standard Access Controls System for the University of Iowa.

The University will be providing/hosting a Storage Area

Network (SAN) for the selected Access Control System.

RFP Intent

Have a single qualified Manufacturer’s product

and related services selected with a single or

multiple licensed/certified Integrators who distribute and install that Manufacturer’s product.

Manufacturer’s Certified/Licensed Integrators

Both AMAG and Lenel identified in the Phase I RFQ response, seven licensed and certified Integrators for our area.

RFP was issued September 6, 2007

Of the seven RFP’s issued, five responses

Received September 27, 2007

RFP Evaluations – October 2007

Minimum Supplier Requirements/Specifications

• Must be licensed to conduct work in the State of Iowa

• Must adhere to all applicable rules, regulations and guidelines including, but not limited to, those from:– The Iowa Occupational Safety and Health

Administration (IOSH)– The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)– Occupational Safety and Health Administration

(OSHA)

• Must provide a single point managerial contact person assigned to the University’s account

• Must provide Manufacturer’s hardware / software catalogue with University’s pricing

• Must provide guaranteed hourly service fee structure for:– Program Managers– Field Technicians– Program Engineers

• Must provide replacement parts inventory availability

• Must provide software and firmware upgrades

• Must provide separate overall system price quotation for the Madison Street Services Building project per specifications outline in the RFP based on Consultant’s specifications. (Provided “apples-to-apples” analysis)

RFP Evaluation Criteria• Compliance with RFP Requirements• Response to Section 3 – Minimum Requirements –

Signed Confirmation• Response to Section 4 – Scope of Work Responses• References• Qualifications of Personnel Assigned to UI

Account• Reporting and Communications• Value-added Services• Overall Fee Structure

Award Recommendations

Submitted to UI Administration

November 2007

Manufacturer and Integrator

AMAG Technology&

Security Equipment, Inc.Des Moines, Iowa

“Value Continuum”

“The impact that procurement makes on every project through innovation and best practices expertise, helping to align each project in the context of their institution’s strategic goals.”

What’s your Value Continuum?

Related RFQ and RFP Documents

Copies can be obtained throughNAEP National Office

Project Timeline

August to November 2006 – Discussions with Purchasing;

Facilities Management and Selected Cross-functional

Team; RFQ document generated; modified and issued to

Manufacturers.December 2006 – RFQ responses receivedDecember 2006 – January 2007 - Evaluations

conducted; short-listed Manufacturers identified

Project Timeline (con’t)

February to April 2007 – Selected Manufacturers notified;

generation of follow-on questions for oral presentations;

four hour oral presentations by each Manufacturer, including copy of most current software application

April to May 2007 – UI testing of each Manufacturer’s

software application

Project Timeline (con’t)

May to June 2007 – Follow-on questions to each

Manufacturer; additional testing completed; recommendations of “Acceptable Alternate” Manufacturers

July 2007 – Approval to proceed with RFP process

Project Timeline (con’t)

July to August 2007 – Refined cross-functional Team established; RFP document generated and modified

September 2007 – RFP issued to Manufacturer-identified

Integrators; responses received.

November 2007 – RFP award issued and contract established – Total time: 16 + Months.