State Law Enforcement Radio System (SLERS) … Business Case Interview List ... Establish best value...

State Law Enforcement Radio System (SLERS) Business Case Study

For Department of Management Services

January 28, 2015

SLERS Services Business Case Page | 2

Contents

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................................6

1.1 Purpose .......................................................................................................................................................6

1.2 Detailed Description of Services .................................................................................................................6

1.3 Current Service Performance .....................................................................................................................7

1.4 Goals for Proposed Outsourcing ................................................................................................................8

1.5 Outsourcing Authority ................................................................................................................................8

1.6 Descriptions of Available Options ..............................................................................................................9

Competitive Procurement .............................................................................................................9 1.6.1

Business Case Evaluation ..............................................................................................................9 1.6.2

1.7 Recommendation .................................................................................................................................... 10

Fiscal Summary .......................................................................................................................... 10 1.7.1

Policy Summary .......................................................................................................................... 11 1.7.2

Timeline Summary ..................................................................................................................... 11 1.7.3

Technology Summary ................................................................................................................. 11 1.7.4

2.0 BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................................................. 12

2.1 History of SLERS ....................................................................................................................................... 12

2.2 Current SLERS Services ............................................................................................................................ 13

2.3 Current Challenges with SLERS ................................................................................................................ 14

EDACS-EA Support Lifecycle ....................................................................................................... 14 2.3.1

Coverage Performance............................................................................................................... 15 2.3.2

Capacity ...................................................................................................................................... 15 2.3.3

Interoperability .......................................................................................................................... 15 2.3.4

SLERS Performance Metrics ....................................................................................................... 16 2.3.5

2.4 SLERS Governance ................................................................................................................................... 16

3.0 TECHNOLOGY ANALYSIS & RECOMMENDATION ............................................................................................ 17

3.1 Land Mobile Radio Technology Options .................................................................................................. 18

3.2 Relevant Technology Factors for LMR ..................................................................................................... 19

Available Radio Spectrum .......................................................................................................... 19 3.2.1

Frequency Efficiency .................................................................................................................. 19 3.2.2


Radio Coverage .......................................................................................................................... 20 3.2.3

Scalability ................................................................................................................................... 20 3.2.4

Interoperability .......................................................................................................................... 21 3.2.5

Voice and Data Services ............................................................................................................. 22 3.2.6

Security Services......................................................................................................................... 23 3.2.7

Real-Time Access – System Dashboard ...................................................................................... 24 3.2.8

Competitive Marketplace........................................................................................................... 25 3.2.9

Maturity of Technology .............................................................................................................. 25 3.2.10

3.3 Land Mobile Radio Technology Options .................................................................................................. 25

Option 1 – P25 Digital Two-way Radio ....................................................................................... 25 3.3.1

Option 2 – Terrestrial Trunked Radio (TETRA) ........................................................................... 33 3.3.2

Option 3 – FirstNet ..................................................................................................................... 34 3.3.3

3.4 Recommended Communication Services Technology ............................................................................ 36

4.0 OPTIONS & COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS ............................................................................................................... 38

4.1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................................. 38

4.2 Business Models for LMR Services .......................................................................................................... 39

Insourcing ................................................................................................................................... 39 4.2.1

Outsourcing ................................................................................................................................ 40 4.2.2

Insource/Outsource (Hybrid) ..................................................................................................... 40 4.2.3

4.3 Market Conditions and Trends ................................................................................................................ 40

Technology Considerations ........................................................................................................ 40 4.3.1

Performance Trends ................................................................................................................... 41 4.3.2

Cost Trends................................................................................................................................. 42 4.3.3

Model Comparisons ................................................................................................................... 43 4.3.4

4.4 Evaluation of the Options ........................................................................................................................ 52

Descriptions of Available Options .............................................................................................. 52 4.4.1

Analysis Methodology ................................................................................................................ 53 4.4.2

Potential Improvements/Service Features ................................................................................ 54 4.4.3

Option 1 – Insource .................................................................................................................... 55 4.4.4

Option 2 – Outsource ................................................................................................................. 67 4.4.5

5.0 RECOMMENDED OPTION & DETAILED DISCUSSION ....................................................................................... 85


5.1 Summary of the Two Options Considered .............................................................................................. 86

Option 1 – Insource .................................................................................................................... 86 5.1.1


5.2 Implementation Options ......................................................................................................................... 87

Option 1 – Insource .................................................................................................................... 87 5.2.1


5.3 Financial Option Comparison .................................................................................................................. 88

5.4 Recommendation .................................................................................................................................... 91

5.5 Recommended Solicitation Components ................................................................................................ 91

5.6 Recommendations Summary .................................................................................................................. 91

Technology ................................................................................................................................. 91 5.6.1

Policy .......................................................................................................................................... 92 5.6.2

Solicitation .................................................................................................................................. 93 5.6.3

6.0 STATE BUSINESS PROCESS & POLICIES ............................................................................................................ 96

6.1 SLERS Governance ................................................................................................................................... 96

6.2 Recommended Governance Changes ..................................................................................................... 97

6.3 Revenue Options for the Next Generation of SLERS ............................................................................... 98

6.4 Continuation of SLERS Trust Fund and Revenue Sources........................................................................ 99

6.5 Implementing User Fees for State Agencies ........................................................................................... 99

6.6 Implementing Radio Fees for State Agencies ........................................................................................ 100

6.7 Transition Cost Funding ......................................................................................................................... 100

7.0 PERFORMANCE METRICS REVIEW ................................................................................................................. 100

7.1 Recommended Performance Metrics for the P25 Network ................................................................. 100

7.2 Real-Time Network Dashboard ............................................................................................................. 101

7.3 Service Performance Metrics ................................................................................................................ 102

8.0 PROJECTED TIMEFRAME ................................................................................................................................ 103

8.1 DMS Staffing Requirements .................................................................................................................. 103

8.2 Procurement Timeline ........................................................................................................................... 105

8.3 Competitive Solicitation Period ............................................................................................................. 105

8.4 Transition Period ................................................................................................................................... 106

8.5 Operational Contract Period ................................................................................................................. 107


9.0 PUBLIC RECORDS COMPLIANCE .................................................................................................................... 107

10.0 CONTINGENCY PLAN...................................................................................................................................... 107

10.1 Contingency Plan ................................................................................................................................... 107

Implementation Schedule ........................................................................................................ 108 10.1.1

Acceptance Criteria .................................................................................................................. 108 10.1.2

Support ..................................................................................................................................... 109 10.1.3

11.0 TRANSITION PLAN.......................................................................................................................................... 109

11.1 Transition Plan ....................................................................................................................................... 110

11.2 Resource Allocation ............................................................................................................................... 110

11.3 Transition Project Management Planning ............................................................................................. 110

Communications Plan .............................................................................................................. 110 11.3.1

Transition Project Management Plan ...................................................................................... 111 11.3.2

Engineering Plan ....................................................................................................................... 112 11.3.3

Implementation Plan ................................................................................................................ 113 11.3.4

Cutover Plan ............................................................................................................................. 113 11.3.5

11.4 Network Support ................................................................................................................................... 114

Network Operations Center (NOC) .......................................................................................... 114 11.4.1

Support Services ....................................................................................................................... 114 11.4.2

11.5 Contract Management .......................................................................................................................... 115

12.0 AMERICAN WITH DISABILITIES ACT OF 1990, AS AMENDED ......................................................................... 116

13.0 APPENDIX....................................................................................................................................................... 116

13.1 Glossary of Terms .................................................................................................................................. 116

13.2 Business Case Interview List .................................................................................................................. 119

13.3 Florida Statue 282.709 .......................................................................................................................... 121

13.4 State and Regional System Examples .................................................................................................... 125

Insource Example: Miami-Dade County, Florida ..................................................................... 125 13.4.1

Outsource Example: Palmetto 800 – State of South Carolina ................................................. 126 13.4.2

Outsource Example: STARCOM21 – State of Illinois ................................................................ 127 13.4.3

Hybrid Example: Louisiana Wireless Information Network (LWIN) ........................................ 130 13.4.4

Hybrid Example: State of Ohio, Multi-Agency Radio Communications System (MARCS) ....... 131 13.4.5


1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1.1 Purpose The Department of Management Services (DMS) is considering a competitive solicitation for a next generation Statewide Law Enforcement Radio System (SLERS) Land Mobile Radio (LMR) telecommunications infrastructure service and support contract. This evolution of SLERS would encompass new service technologies and coverage capabilities statewide, replacing technology in place today that will become obsolete over the remainder of the current contract. The SLERS procurement would be intended to establish a multiyear strategic contract with a prospective LMR vendor.

Carr, Riggs and Ingram, Inc. (CRI) was contracted to develop this business case in accordance with Section 287.0571, Florida Statutes (F.S.), which stipulates contracting with private sector vendors whenever vendors can more effectively and efficiently provide services and reduce the cost of government. The statute further requires a business case be conducted to evaluate feasibility, cost-effectiveness, and efficiency before the state agency proceeds with any outsourcing of services.

This document focuses specifically on services that would be replaced or impacted by the next generation of SLERS, and thus are directly related to establishing a recommendation path for the best and most appropriate SLERS delivery model to replace the current statewide LMR telecommunication framework. These services will be used by State of Florida agencies and may be used by additional entities described in Sections 282.704-282.706, F.S.

In summary, this document provides substantive information that can be utilized to make informed decisions for the future procurement of the next generation SLERS.

1.2 Detailed Description of Services Section 287.0571(4)(a), F.S. - A detailed description of the service or activity for which the outsourcing is proposed. DMS is proposing a new competitive solicitation for services and activities that are currently outsourced to Harris, Inc. as follows:

SLERS is a statewide LMR system providing mission critical communications to state and local public safety agencies. The next generation of SLERS is based on Project 25 (P25), a digital two-way radio standard for public safety in North America, for voice, data and security services. P25 is fully defined by the Telecommunications Industry Association (TIA) standards known as TIA-102. These user-driven standards promote compatibility and competition among different P25 vendors. The P25 core network supports shared services for all users across the entire geography of the state using mobile/in-vehicle and portable/handheld radio devices. The P25 network will be constructed on tower sites located throughout the state to deliver 98% mobile/in-vehicle and 95% portable/handheld radio coverage, using a combination of MyFloridaNet (MFN) and private microwave backhaul services.


P25 SLERS will be a highly available (HA) and highly reliable (HR) statewide communications network made up of layers of service and support that provide LMR capabilities, infrastructure and services through the implementation of:

Standards-based Interoperability Time Division Multiple Access (TDMA) Frequency Division Multiple Access (FDMA) Public Safety P25 Radio Attributes (emergency alerting) High Availability Call Processing P25 Encrypted Voice P25 Encrypted Data Link Layer Authentication Performance Metrics/Network Dashboard Seamless User Roaming Across Sites Network Operations Center

1.3 Current Service Performance Section 287.0571(4)(b), F.S., A description and analysis of the state agency’s current performance, based on existing performance metrics if the state agency is currently performing the service or activity. SLERS provides wide-area voice services allowing authorized users to roam across the network while still maintaining radio communications with other users and regional dispatch centers. State users have the ability to roam across all Enhanced Digital Access Communication System with extended addressing (EDACS-EA) sites in their region. In some instances, local government partners may only have access to SLERS sites within their county or within their region.

State law enforcement agencies use voice encryption for their daily radio communications. Encrypted voice calls, like clear voice calls, are supported across all SLERS sites in the network.

The current SLERS technology operates primarily using spectrum from the 800 MHz radio band. SLERS also has ten P25 Phase I FDMA communications sites using spectrum from the 700 MHz radio band. These ten sites are designed for aerial coverage and strictly for use by law enforcement aircraft. EDACS-EA is not capable of using 700 MHz radio band. The 700 MHz and 800 MHz radio bands are compatible for simultaneous use when implementing P25 technologies. The current SLERS network provides towers throughout the state to deliver 98% mobile/in-vehicle and 86% portable/handheld radio coverage.

In an LMR network, downtime typically refers to unavailability of a channel, a site, backhaul or any sub-system of the network that prevents a user from gaining access to the network. Downtime results in the interruption of mission critical communications, which is a lifeline for public safety personnel. Service levels defined in the current SLERS contract are very general and define minimum levels of system uptime at just 99.0% reliability. This level of uptime translates to approximately 3.65 days of total downtime per year across the network. LMR industry standards for system uptime is five 9’s (99.999%) availability, which translates to approximately 5 minutes of downtime per year.


1.4 Goals for Proposed Outsourcing Section 287.0571(4)(c), F.S., The goals desired to be achieved through the proposed outsourcing and the rationale for such goals. Meeting DMS’ primary goals requires identification, evaluation and consideration of options to determine the course that provides the best long-term value to the state and ensures adaptability for future network growth, customer needs, processes and law changes. The state also has an objective to meet the needs of the enterprise with a best in class, statewide LMR services solution that provides the highest levels of availability, reliability, technological expansion, ease of implementation and continued evolution.

Performance objectives for SLERS are stated by the following guiding principles:

Improved, more effective public safety communications; Greater operational resilience and coverage with highly-available and highly-reliable topology; Excellent customer service; Comprehensive management and monitoring capabilities; Improved customer service offerings to potential partners throughout the state; Establish best-in-class statewide land mobile radio (LMR) solution; Establish an LMR solution that is flexible in support of evolving technological capabilities; Establish best value to the state through negotiation, strategic sourcing, standardization, and process

improvement; and Manage administrative costs through improved efficiencies of organization responsibilities;

The SLERS procurement should address the following:

LMR services including P25 Phase II TDMA network capabilities, radio acquisition and maintenance, real-time system monitoring via Network Operations Center functions, and contract management;

Managing the ending/transition of the current SLERS service contract to ensure no public safety impacting events take place;

Providing improved service features based on evolving technological needs; Increasing visibility of performance of the network through dashboard reporting; and Ensuring network performance to SLA level.

1.5 Outsourcing Authority Section 287.0571(4)(d), F.S., A citation to the existing or proposed legal authority for outsourcing the service or activity. Section 282.709 F.S., authorizes DMS to establish an LMR solution. Specifically, this section states: “The department may acquire and administer a statewide radio communications system to serve law enforcement units of state agencies and to serve local law enforcement agencies through mutual aid channels.” Based upon this authorization, DMS previously procured LMR telecommunications service through a competitive bid process. DMS is seeking to continue services to state agencies through a competitive solicitation of SLERS based on the recommendation of this business case.


1.6 Descriptions of Available Options Section 287.0571(4)(e), F.S., A description of available options for achieving the goals. If State employees are currently performing the service or activity, at least one option involving maintaining state provision of the service or activity shall be included. This business case examines three options specifically for the scope of continued support, integration, and installation of SLERS and ancillary features/capabilities in support of transition to the expiration of the current service contract in 2021. After analysis of the options, the business case evaluated an insourced or outsourced competitive solicitation with transition periods to ensure public safety services are maintained effectively upon existing contract termination.

These options were evaluated and included in this business case because they are within the scope for outsourcing as required by Section 287.0571, F.S. and they represent common procurement options utilized by the state for similar needs.

Forms of procurement reviewed in this business case:

Competitive Procurement 1.6.1Section 287.057, F.S., and Department of Management Services (DMS) Rule 60A-1, F.A.C., provide for three competitive procurement methods:

Invitation to Negotiate (ITN) – Used when the agency knows the desired end result, but is not sure how to get there; or, there are many ways to get to the end result; or, the qualifications of the provider and quality is more important than price. This option works best when highly technical and/or complex services are being acquired. The price structure for services is negotiated.

Invitation to Bid (ITB) – Used when the agency knows exactly what it wants. Price is the determining factor in the award.

Request for Proposal (RFP) – Used when the agency has a general idea of what it wants. Services and price are evaluated.

Business Case Evaluation 1.6.2Insource - Is an organization’s termination of the contracting for a business function and the commencement of performing it internally. Insourcing is a business decision that is often made to maintain control of critical functions or competencies that are essential to the organization’s mission. Insourcing is widely used to reduce costs across the organization’s fiscal structures. Within the context of this business case, this represents the opportunity to bring essential services inside DMS that were traditionally performed by an outsourced vendor.

Outsource - Is the contracting out of business processes and services to a third party. Within the context of this business case, this represents establishing a portfolio of processes and services by a third-party vendor in support of needs that are beyond the capability of the DMS resources.


1.7 Recommendation This business case examines options for the future path of moving SLERS to a new technology foundation that enables scalability and a vendor neutral framework that can evolve with emerging unified multi-media public safety technologies. The business case takes into consideration the statutory requirements and evaluates whether to continue to outsource these services, or pursue providing a prescribed level of services using a combination of state agency resources and outsourced services.

It is recommended that DMS issue a competitive solicitation as an Invitation to Negotiate (ITN) for a newly structured Land Mobile Radio (LMR) support contract as outlined by Option 2. This solicitation should identify and incorporate P25 Phase II (TDMA) delivery methodology with integration to MFN for emerging data connection evolutions with microwave ring topology where appropriate throughout the state. The timeframe required to procure a new contract and transition to a new system is expected to last six years. To replace the current system that will be obsolete in 2021, the development of a competitive procurement should begin as soon as possible.

Consideration should be given to the recommended procurement components to support the best interest of the state.

The business case examines all aspects of the fiscal components, qualitative/quantitative benefits and advantages, risks, disadvantages, pros and cons, assumptions, constraints, projected schedule, and sequence of key activities or events.

Fiscal Summary 1.7.1The recommended option encompasses both fiscal and technical aspects of moving forward with the next generation SLERS. A key factor in migrating to this new technology centers on successful funding of the project. Today, the primary funding for SLERS is provided by vehicle and vessel registration fees and moving violation citation fees. Current fee revenue is not sufficient to fund the next generation of SLERS. Therefore, the recommended option proposes a supplement to existing funding in the form of user fees. It is estimated that an additional $23 million in annual supplemental funding is needed for continued maintenance and operation of the new system. The recommendation includes possible new user fees as a way to provide the funding.

To move forward with a P25 system upgrade, all existing EDACS-EA radios will need to be replaced with P25 radios to operate on the new system. Today, there is no dedicated funding source for the purchase and maintenance of radios. It is estimated that an additional $13 million in annual supplemental funding is needed for the initial purchase of radios, the cost of a radio lifecycle refresh program, and the cost of annual repair and preventative maintenance. The recommendation includes possible new radio fees as a way to provide the funding.


The model depicted in this business case utilizes an approach using the current trust fund source and establishing new user fees from SLERS user agencies as well as partners. This model proposes the following funding assumptions:

$1 fee for every vehicle and vessel registration in the state each year will continue;

$3 fee for each non-violent, moving vehicle traffic citation will expire as planned in 2021;

$631 Radio Fee (Per Subscriber Unit) Annual will be paid by user agencies; and

$1056 User Fee (Per Subscriber Unit) Annual will be paid by user agencies.

See Section 4.0 Cost Benefit Analysis for further details.

Policy Summary 1.7.2In the context of the next generation SLERS portfolio of services, there are two specific areas of policy-making that should be considered by the state. The intended service delivery provides an expansion of the quality of LMR services to all customers. Sharing the cost of these expanded services needs to be addressed in two areas. First, the governance for SLERS should evolve to a more inclusive model. This will encourage more third party partners to participate and increase the total SLERS user population. Second, the implementation of user fees, in combination with other revenue sources, offers a fair method of sharing costs of operating the network. See Section 6.0 State Business Process & Policies for further details.

Timeline Summary 1.7.3The SLERS procurement contract timeline is a suggested duration of 19 years, with a technology refresh evaluation at year seven after transition is complete. During the technology refresh evaluation, new negotiations for service features and reduced pricing may take place. This contract should be put in place at least 4 years prior to the expiration of existing LMR service contract to allow sufficient time for building the new network and migration of users to the new SLERS. It is estimated that once the competitive solicitation responses are received, DMS will need an estimated eight to twelve months for completion of the solicitation documents, response evaluation, negotiations, and contract execution. See Section 8.0 Projected Timeline for further details.

Technology Summary 1.7.4The current SLERS is built on a proprietary Harris technology known as EDACS-EA. Harris has stated they will continue to provide support for the system through the end of the contract period, June 30, 2021. However, Harris has made a business decision to retire EDACS, so SLERS will not operate on EDACS after that time. The state will need to consider alternate LMR technologies for the next generation of SLERS.

Included in this business case is analysis of several LMR technology available in the North American market today and pending future technology solutions that could support LMR services in a private statewide enterprise for public safety operations. P25 Phase II TDMA offers the highest degree of interoperability between state agencies and local governments. P25 offers the greatest potential to provide cost savings to the state by encouraging existing P25 systems to join into the state network. P25 is the most stable and mature LMR technology solution available today that could be deployed and operational within the state’s


critical timeline. The competitive marketplace for P25 technology will offer the state the most value in future network and radio procurements. See Section 3.0 Technology Analysis & Recommendation for further details.

Throughout the document, there are numerous key findings, recommendations and discussion points for consideration. These statements have been summarized in Section 5.0 Recommended Option.

2.0 BACKGROUND The objective of the Statewide Law Enforcement Radio System (SLERS) is to promote the safety of the public through improved radio communications for law enforcement and other public safety agencies. Prior to the implementation of SLERS, the radio communication system used by state law enforcement agencies in Florida was comprised of regional and disparate core radio systems with limited interoperability. The implementation of SLERS provided the state with a unified radio communications platform for all state law enforcement agencies.

This section provides background on the history of SLERS, its governance model today, and the unique challenges associated with SLERS that must be addressed in this business case.

2.1 History of SLERS In September 2000, DMS entered into a contract, through a competitive procurement, with Com-Net Ericsson Critical Radio Systems, Inc. (Com-Net) to establish SLERS. Under the resulting 20-year contract, using the “shared risk, shared reward” concept, Com-Net agreed to take the risk and responsibility for building, operating and maintaining SLERS. The state in turn provides recurring funding from sections 320.0802 and 328.72, F.S., which impose a $1 annual surcharge on initial and renewal registrations required for motor vehicles and vessels. The state also provides recurring funding from subsection 318.18(17), F.S., which imposes a $3 traffic and criminal traffic violation surcharge to pay for the SLERS enhancements and to pay the Department’s staff salaries and benefits for the operation, technical support and contract management of SLERS.

Through a succession of corporate acquisitions, Harris Corporation (Harris) is now the contracted SLERS provider. Harris is contracted to provide all aspects of SLERS including, but not limited to, all infrastructure, software, hardware, security protocols, licensing, development, maintenance, as well as software upgrades, updates and patches. The contract with Harris expires June 30, 2021.

Today, SLERS is a network of 219 radio communications sites that provide statewide radio coverage to more than 4,000 state law enforcement personnel. SLERS provides mission critical voice radio services that are vital to the daily mission of state agency law enforcement and other public safety users. SLERS provides 98 percent coverage for mobile/in-vehicle radios. Coverage is also provided for portable/handheld radios in selected areas, approximately 86 percent coverage, and coverage is provided for vessel/mobile radios up to 25 miles offshore. The system allows law enforcement personnel to roam across state agency regional boundaries without loss of radio communications to dispatch centers or to other law enforcement personnel. SLERS provides both


statewide intra-agency radio communications and mutual aid radio communications available to all SLERS radios.

SLERS is the radio communications system for 22 state agencies with nearly 20,000 radios in patrol cars, boats, all-terrain vehicles, motorcycles and aircraft throughout the state. Of these radios, 80 percent belong to four state agencies: the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles, the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, the Department of Corrections, and the Department of Law Enforcement. Although SLERS was designed primarily to serve the 22 state agencies, another 41 local government jurisdictions have selected to participate as SLERS Partner Subscribers (SLERS Partners).

SLERS is built on the proprietary Harris technology named Enhanced Digital Access Communication System with extended addressing (EDACS-EA). Harris will continue to provide support for the system through June 30, 2021, the end of the contract period. However, Harris has made a business decision to retire EDACS, and so SLERS will not be operable on EDACS after that time.

The industry digital radio standard is now Project 25 (P25), a non-proprietary technology with an “open architecture” that promotes interoperability between user agencies and vendor-to-vendor compatibility for radio communication equipment. The critical need for interoperable radio communications, driven by the public safety community and the development of P25 by the Association of Public Safety Communications Officials, has pushed the radio manufacturers in this direction. An enhancement to P25, known as P25 Phase II TDMA, was developed to improve spectrum utilization in all public safety bands (VHF High Band, UHF, 700 and 800 MHz) by doubling the number of talk paths for each frequency and using enhanced voice compression technology.

In its advisory role, within the 2014 SLERS Strategic Planning Report, the Joint Task Force on State Agency Law Enforcement Communications (JTF) has recommended the following:

“That the Department immediately begins the creation of a P25 Phase II system for use by SLERS state agencies and additional subscribers by advancing a new procurement. The new procurement process will begin with the Department contracting with an external entity for a comprehensive study of all present and emerging technological solutions and operational structures available and the development of a business case report as required by Section 287.0571, F.S. The business case report will look at issues, including other states practices, system ownership structures, coverage expansions, new system transitions, equipment interoperability, and performance measures. The business case will incorporate input from user representatives of SLERS state agencies and additional subscribers who will be integrally and directly involved in the formulation of specifications and features that will be part of the new procurement. Due to the magnitude of the project, the board requests that this process begin as soon as funds can be made available to support this study. The P25 Phase II system should be in place, fully operational, and all SLERS users migrated thereto before the present contract expires on June 30, 2021.”

2.2 Current SLERS Services SLERS provides wide-area voice services allowing users to roam across the network while still maintaining radio communications with other users and regional dispatch centers. State users have the ability to roam across all


EDACS-EA sites in the state. In some instances, local government partners may only have access to SLERS sites within their county or within their region.

SLERS users operate with two primary radio configurations, mobile/in-vehicle radio or a portable/handheld radio. Some users have both configurations depending on their responsibilities and needs. The mobile/in-vehicle radio is installed in a vehicle with the radio control head mounted on the dashboard or in a front console between seats. This allows the radio user to have easy access to the controls while operating the vehicle. The main radio circuitry is typically mounted in the trunk of a sedan-style vehicle or under/behind the seat if installed in a truck. Mobile/in-vehicle radios also require an external antenna mounted on the roof of the vehicle. The portable/handheld radio is typically worn by the user on the hip with a belt clip or a special holster designed to hold the radio. The user then pulls the radio from the hip to talk, or some users operate with an accessory microphone that connects to the radio. The microphone can then be worn on the uniform lapel for easy access to talk and listen without having to remove the radio from the hip.

State law enforcement agencies use voice encryption for their daily radio communications. Encrypted voice calls, like clear voice calls, are supported across all SLERS sites in the network.

SLERS also has 700 MHz sites that support P25 Phase I FDMA operation. EDACS-EA is not supported on the 700 MHz channels. These sites are strictly for use by law enforcement aircraft. The 700 MHz P25 sites support both clear and encrypted voice services.

SLERS operates with a unique security feature/service known as EDACS Electronic Security Key (ESK). ESK provides protection against unauthorized users on the system. ESK provides a unique security code for the radio that must match the security code for the site equipment. Each radio and all sites utilize the ESK security function. No radio can be added to SLERS without ESK. This limits access to SLERS to only those authorized.

2.3 Current Challenges with SLERS SLERS has proven to be a reliable communications solution for law enforcement agencies in the state, withstanding numerous hurricanes since the entire network became operational in 2006. Since the contract was finalized in 2000, LMR technology has made important advances that address several challenges for SLERS. The EDACS-EA technology is nearing end of life, so a new LMR technology must be selected for the next generation of SLERS. The proprietary nature of the EDACS-EA limits interoperability between current SLERS users and local governments that have implemented standards-based P25 networks. SLERS falls short of meeting the portable/handheld outdoor coverage needs of the current user population and potential partners. The service level agreements (SLAs) in the current contract are not defined at a level that provides sufficient added value to the end users of SLERS. Comprehensive, effective performance metrics and SLAs are needed. Each of these challenges are discussed in more detail below.

EDACS-EA Support Lifecycle 2.3.1Although Harris has committed to support the EDACS-EA architecture through the end of 2021 as per the SLERS contract, they have notified other Harris EDACS owners of the following end of support dates on critical Harris EDACS components. The original EDACS platform and the EDACS-EA platform both share the


same hardware components for simulcast and multi-cast call processing, MASTR III base/repeater stations and Maestro dispatch consoles. Regardless of the requirements of the existing contract, there still exists a high degree of risk to the state for reliable service and support through the end of the current SLERS contract. The end of support dates for Harris EDACS are listed in the table below.

Component Last Ship Date End of Support Date

Harris MASTR III Base/Repeater Station 12/31/2010 12/31/2017 Harris Integrated Multi-Site Controller (IMC) 3/31/2009 3/31/2014 Harris EDACS Simulcast Control Point equipment 12/31/2010 12/31/2017 Harris C3 Maestro Consoles 3/31/2010 3/31/2015

Figure 1 - EDACS End of Support Dates

Coverage Performance 2.3.2Coverage for SLERS today is maintained at 98 percent reliability for mobile/in-vehicle radios, while the coverage for portable/handheld coverage is far less. The reliability for portable/handheld outdoor coverage has been estimated to be approximately 86 percent. Many state law enforcement officers today operate in an outdoor environment and have to depend on their portable/handheld radio to communicate to other field based personnel and to dispatch centers. 86 percent reliability leaves many areas of the state with insufficient portable/handheld coverage. In-building coverage for portable/handheld radios is even less than portable/handheld outdoor coverage. There is no available estimate of in-building coverage across the state. In some areas of the state, users may experience satisfactory in-building coverage simply due to proximity of SLERS towers. For example, a SLERS tower located on Department of Corrections’ property will likely provide some level of in-building coverage for the co-located DOC facility.

Coverage performance for SLERS needs to be at a minimum of 95 percent reliability for portable/handheld radios operating in an outdoor environment. During the SLERS stakeholder interviews conducted for this business case, there was overwhelming support expressed for improvements in outdoor portable/handheld coverage.

Capacity 2.3.3SLERS operates today with sufficient voice capacity for the existing user population. While queueing does occur from time to time on the system, SLERS does not currently have a chronic queueing problem. Capacity at a radio site is constant, but the number of available channels at the site will vary with every second depending on the amount of active radio traffic. Having too few channels and too many users at a site results in call queuing or site busies. Queueing causes delays to users needing to access the system. However, there is concern from current users that bringing more users onto SLERS will create queueing at sites where new users will operate. The availability of 800 MHz spectrum to the state is not sufficient to add more channels, unless new partners have licensed 800 MHz spectrum that can be added to SLERS. The current SLERS technology cannot use 700 MHz channels.

Interoperability 2.3.4SLERS is built on proprietary EDACS-EA technology that only supports radio access for EDACS-EA radios. Other vendor proprietary radios and P25 standards-based radios will not operate on SLERS. Interoperability


today is driven by open standards, like P25, that create compatibility between vendor networks and radios. A very small number of state user radios have P25 functionality. Most SLERS users are not able to operate on local government P25 systems and no local government users may operate on SLERS with their existing radios unless they have the EDACS-EA software.

State agencies today leverage interoperability solutions like the Florida Interoperability Network (FIN) and the mutual aid channels to communicate with local government users. FIN is an IP-based interoperability solution that connects users on disparate technologies through an audio “patch”. FIN does not allow a user to roam from one system to another, or out of their coverage area, to talk to users on another system. FIN also requires manual intervention from a dispatcher to establish the audio patch. The mutual aid channels provide a common technology platform for different agencies to access with any vendor radio, but they are limited in coverage and capacity. Mutual aid channels do not provide a suitable solution for a large-scale response to a major event requiring interoperability across multiple agencies and geographic boundaries.

SLERS Performance Metrics 2.3.5In an LMR network, downtime typically refers to unavailability of a channel, a site, backhaul or any sub-system of the network that prevents a user from gaining access to the network. Service levels defined in the current SLERS contract are very general and define minimum levels of uptime for sub-system components at 99.0% reliability. This level of uptime translates to more than 3.5 days of downtime per year across the network. In the current contract, downtime incurred during scheduled maintenance or upgrades does not penalize the vendor, even though the impact to the user is the same. The state could experience more than 3.65 days of downtime per year due to maintenance or upgrades and have no recourse with the vendor under the current contract.

Recommendations for performance metrics for the next generation of SLERS are provided in Section 7 – Performance Metrics Review.

2.4 SLERS Governance The JTF advises DMS about its member agencies’ needs relating to the planning, designing, and establishment of the statewide communication system1. Further, DMS, in conjunction with the Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE) and the Division of Emergency Management, has established policies, procedures, and standards incorporated into a comprehensive management plan for the use and operation of SLERS. DMS has the overall responsibility for the design, engineering, acquisition, and implementation of the statewide radio communications system, and for ensuring the proper operation and maintenance of all common system equipment.

The JTF was created under the same legislation that created SLERS, s.282.709, F.S. This statute also defines the JTF Board composition:

1 Per s. 282.709, F.S.


(2)(a) The Joint Task Force on State Agency Law Enforcement Communications shall consist of the following members:

1. A representative of the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco of the Department of Business and Professional Regulation who shall be appointed by the secretary of the department.

2. A representative of the Division of Florida Highway Patrol of the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles who shall be appointed by the executive director of the department.

3. A representative of the Department of Law Enforcement who shall be appointed by the executive director of the department.

4. A representative of the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission who shall be appointed by the executive director of the commission.

5. A representative of the Department of Corrections who shall be appointed by the secretary of the department.

6. A representative of the Division of State Fire Marshal of the Department of Financial Services who shall be appointed by the State Fire Marshal.

7. A representative of the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services who shall be appointed by the Commissioner of Agriculture.

SLERS welcomes partners to the network. Chapter 60FF-4, Florida Administrative Code2 (F.A.C.), makes special provisions for how partner agencies may join SLERS. Partners may join as:

Local first responder Other public safety user (non-first responder) Interoperability user State government user Federal government user Affiliate agency

3.0 TECHNOLOGY ANALYSIS & RECOMMENDATION The current SLERS is built on a proprietary Harris technology known as Enhanced Digital Access Communication System with extended addressing (EDACS-EA). Harris has stated they will continue to provide support for the system through the end of the contract period, June 30, 2021. However, Harris has made a business decision to retire EDACS, so SLERS will not operate on EDACS after that time. The state will need to consider alternate land mobile radio (LMR) technologies for the next generation of SLERS.

This section provides a description and analysis of the LMR technology choices available in the North American market today and any future pending technology solutions that could support LMR services in a private statewide enterprise for public safety operations.

2 http://www.dms.myflorida.com/content/download/108036/608443/60FF-4.pdf

http://www.dms.myflorida.com/content/download/108036/608443/60FF-4.pdf


3.1 Land Mobile Radio Technology Options LMR usage began in the 1930s with the first police car radios and one-way dispatch capability from dispatcher to car only. Over the decades, LMR progressed from single site conventional systems to repeater systems designed for handheld radios and later in the 1980s to wide area proprietary networks designed to serve the needs of public safety. The proprietary nature of the networks created many challenges, the most obvious being a lack of interoperable communications across agencies and disparate networks.

In an effort to standardize technologies and create economies of scale, public safety agencies and associations sought to create standards bodies for the next generation of LMR technologies, which would be driven by user requirements. In 1989, the Association of Public Safety Communications Officers (APCO) began work to establish Project 25 (P25) as a digital two-way radio standard for public safety in North America. P25’s initial suite of standards termed Phase I were not completed, however, until 2002. APCO also sought to create a frequency-efficient technology through the P25 standards. The P25 Phase II standards, completed in November 2011, use Time Division Multiple Access (TDMA) to provide two voice talk-paths for each radio channel.

In 1990, the European Telecommunications Standards Institute began development of its Terrestrial Trunked Radio (TETRA) digital radio standards, which were geared to the operational needs, and spectrum availability of European nations.

Recognizing the need for greater economies of scale in the commercial cellular markets, the Third Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) arose from a collaborative forum of carriers and manufacturers in the late 1990s that evolved into a global standards body for commercial cellular technologies and drove the development of fourth generation (4G) technology. When the Public Safety Broadband Network known as FirstNet is finally implemented, it will be built on the latest generation of cellular technology.

These are the three radio communication technologies that will be considered in the technology analysis of this business case for a modernized Florida Statewide Law Enforcement Radio System (SLERS):

1. Project 25 – the prevailing digital LMR standard for public safety agencies in North America with a high rate of adoption across state and local governments;

2. TETRA – the prevailing digital LMR standard for public safety and business operations in Europe and Asia, now available in the United states; and

3. FirstNet – a nationwide Public Safety Broadband Network based on Forth Generation Long Term Evolution (4G LTE) technology, yet to be designed or built, but intended to offer mission critical services to public safety in the future.

There are other LMR technologies in the North America market, such as Digital Mobile Radio (DMR), NEXEDGE©, Logic Trunked Radio (LTR), and analog conventional radio. However, each of these technologies are designed to support commercial markets and fall far short in regards to the functional needs, reliability, security and operational requirements typical for public safety agencies. None of these commercial technologies provides a national public safety interoperability platform that would support a shared network approach at the level of a statewide enterprise.


3.2 Relevant Technology Factors for LMR For the technology analysis, this business case has established a set of relevant technology factors by which to evaluate the available LMR technologies. These factors are considered “relevant” because they are either unique to public safety operations, or to the LMR market as a whole. In some cases, a specific technology may prove to be unfeasible due to only one or two of these critical factors.

At a minimum, an appropriate public safety LMR technology should successfully address the following challenges and requirements:

Available Radio Spectrum 3.2.1Public safety agencies in the US may license spectrum in VHF, UHF, 700 MHz and 800 MHz frequency bands. The state should use its spectrum resources in the 700 and 800 MHz public safety frequency bands for the next generation of SLERS. These two frequency bands contain enough spectrum to meet the operational needs of public safety users in the state. Frequencies in the 700 and 800 MHz bands are easily compatible at the same site. The two frequency bands are structured and licensed to be free from harmful interference. While there is also spectrum available in VHF and UHF bands, the amount of spectrum available to the state is significantly less than what is available in 700 and 800 MHz bands. The VHF and UHF spectrum bands are also susceptible to radio interference.

Frequency Efficiency 3.2.2Capacity at a radio site is constant, but the number of available channels at the site will vary with every second depending on the amount of active radio traffic. Having too few channels and too many users at a site results in call queuing or site busies. Queueing causes delays to users needing to access the system. While non-public safety radio users can tolerate call queuing to some extent, every public safety radio call has the potential to be a life-safety call. Therefore, sufficient site capacity should be provided to ensure all calls go through with only a very low probability of delay.

The next generation of SLERS should accommodate enough user capacity to prevent any future problems with queuing as more users are encouraged to join the system. The network should address this in two ways. First, the system should be able to operate on both the current 800 MHz channels licensed for today’s operation and operate on the newer block of 700 MHz channels allocated to the state of Florida. This would more than double the amount of capacity the state has available today. Second, the technology chosen for the system should be more frequency efficient than the current SLERS configuration. Digital technologies such as Time Division Multiple Access (TDMA) are available today in many LMR technologies like DMR, TETRA and P25. TDMA provides multiple voice talk paths on the same frequency pair, effectively doubling the voice user capacity of each radio channel.

Having more voice capacity would allow the state to attract more users to SLERS without affecting the availability of voice services for existing state users. By leveraging a technology that uses existing spectrum more efficiently, the state would also be able to implement narrowband data services without affecting voice services on the network.


Radio Coverage 3.2.3The recommended LMR technology should be capable of maintaining the current mobile/in vehicle radio coverage and expanded outdoor coverage to portable/handheld radio users statewide. The recommended LMR technology should also allow integration of local government users and networks to make the system more attractive to potential SLERS partners. Expansion of portable/handheld coverage is the first goal stated in the Joint Task Force Strategic Planning Report.3 A statewide radio network should provide reliable coverage for all participating agencies. A statewide radio network should support multiple agencies each with unique missions and different work settings, allowing interoperable communication capabilities across organizational boundaries.

The next generation of SLERS should be capable of expansion to support the coverage needs of all participating agencies. Radio tower sites should be deployed in the obvious high-density user areas in major cities, but communication facilities are also needed in rural areas of the state and all points in between. Public safety users depend on radio coverage to be clear and reliable in their most challenging operational scenarios. As mentioned in the Background section of the business case, current SLERS coverage is very good with respect to mobile/in vehicle coverage, but over the years since the system was originally implemented, the need for greater portable/handheld radio coverage has grown. More radio tower sites will be necessary to enhance portable/handheld radio coverage.

The next generation of SLERS should be designed and built to increase on-street portable/handheld coverage for the participating agencies. Providing enhanced portable/handheld coverage will also make the network more attractive to non-participating agencies and bring more users to share the cost of the network. In addition, the next generation of SLERS should support integration of existing county and municipal radio systems by connecting their sites and consoles directly to the state’s core network. Not only will these local government systems enhance the coverage of SLERS, but this approach would also provide the state additional cost savings by not having to build out additional sites for portable/handheld coverage in these counties.

Scalability 3.2.4For LMR, enterprise scalability means the network should provide the ability to deploy additional sites and channels to provide increased radio coverage and capacity necessary across the entire geography of the state in step with future growth of the network. These sites should all connect to a group of network cores that support wide area call processing services and user-radio roaming without loss of critical features-sets at sites. For example, GPS location service should be available system-wide and not restricted by site, county or region.

In addition, scalability in LMR means a system’s owner should have the flexibility to add sites, channels, dispatch consoles, radio users and other network elements without having to replace existing components within the system’s infrastructure. Future network expansions should only require the addition of the

3 Page 3, “2014 Strategic Planning Report, statewide Law Enforcement Radio System (SLERS)”, Joint Task Force on state Law Enforcement Communications, May 29, 2014.


equipment necessary for the expansion components themselves, including the hardware, software and associated services.

These same scalability requirements should apply when integrating local government radio systems into the state network. In some instances, local governments may join simply by adding radios to the network, so the network should scale to support additional users. In other cases, a local government may decide to add infrastructure to SLERS such as radio tower sites and microwave connectivity to the network. In these instances, the state should be able to accommodate the integration of other systems into the next generation of SLERS without having to replace previously installed elements or add considerable hardware components at the core(s) to bring new agency sites online within the network.

Interoperability 3.2.5In response to the events of September 11, 2001, the United States Office of Management and Budget created the SAFECOM program to highlight challenges with first responder interoperability and develop guidelines to address these issues. With the assistance of stakeholder input, SAFECOM created the Interoperability Continuum “to assist emergency response agencies and policy makers to plan and implement interoperability solutions for data and voice communications”.4 The SAFECOM Interoperability Continuum demonstrates the importance of agencies working within a statewide framework on a common technology platform. A diagram of the SAFECOM Interoperability Continuum is provided below.

Figure 2 - SAFECOM Interoperability Continuum

4 “Interoperability Continuum, A tool for improving emergency response communications and interoperability”, http://www.safecomprogram.gov/oec/interoperability_continuum_brochure_2.pdf

http://www.safecomprogram.gov/oec/interoperability_continuum_brochure_2.pdf


Interoperability in Florida today should address the disparate technologies that exist at the state and local government level. The Florida Interoperability Network (FIN) and the mutual aid channels deployed across the state do not address all interoperability needs. These technologies are necessary and serve a useful purpose, but do not represent the ideal interoperability solution for either the state of Florida or national interoperability objectives. Interoperability among multiple agencies and jurisdictions is not achieved simply by deploying a new technology platform, but it does improve the “ease of interoperability” when that technology enables first responders to communicate directly with each other on a common network sharing the same resources and services. First responders operating on a shared LMR network can move to a common mutual aid or tactical talk-group that supports operations across multiple sites within a geographic region or even statewide. This is as simple as the radio user changing the channel selector knob on the radio and does not require intervention from a third party such as a dispatcher.

One of the stated goals of the SLERS 2014 Strategic Planning Report is improved interoperability5. Due to its proprietary platform technology, the currents SLERS configuration is not directly interoperable with the other standards-based radio networks now deployed within the state at either the local government level or those in operation at Federal government facilities within the state. Interoperability between SLERS users today and their interoperability partners at the local government level consists primarily of patches established through FIN (requiring manual intervention to establish the patch) or users agreeing to “meet” each other on a local mutual aid channel. The next generation of SLERS should support interoperability with any and all of these agencies via open standard, multi-source technology. At a minimum, state and local agencies should be able to use their own radios to operate directly on each other’s radio systems. Ideally, the technology should accommodate local government agencies putting their own radios on SLERS or allow them to connect their sites and radio dispatch centers directly into the next generation of SLERS.

Voice and Data Services 3.2.6Wide area voice service is the most critical capability in an LMR system designed to support public safety operation. Users should be able to operate within common work groups on the network and communicate across multiple sites within a region or even across the state depending on the nature of the agency’s operations. Voice operations should be seamless to the end user without the need for manual intervention by the user to roam from site to site. As stated in the discussion on scalability, the technology platform for the next generation of SLERS should support expanded portable/handheld coverage in more locations so that public safety personnel may access the network when they are operating outside of their vehicle.

Audio clarity is also of paramount importance in public safety operations. Public safety operations depend on brief, one-to-many dispatch calls that include critical information for responding to a call for service. Garbled communications and missing syllables or words require repetition of messages or delays in

5 “2014 Strategic Planning Report, Statewide Law Enforcement Radio System (SLERS)”, Joint Task Force on State Law Enforcement Communications, May 29, 2014, page 7.


response when response times are critical. The LMR system should deliver voice calls to the end users without compromising the integrity of the audio.

Even if SLERS coverage is expanded in the future, it is inevitable that some areas will have poor or non-existent coverage. The new system should offer the ability for users to go “off network” to a talk-around mode or Unit-to-Unit operation with their radios. This provides a fallback method of communications for users in close proximity. In specific user cases, a portable/handheld radio user could benefit from the use of Vehicular Repeater Systems (VRS) that provide a coverage extension around the vehicle for portable/handheld use when the user leaves his or her vehicle. For example, when a patrol officer leaves his or her vehicle during a traffic stop, the officer can no longer access the mobile/in vehicle radio directly. If the portable/handheld radio cannot access the network directly due to poor coverage in the area, a VRS would improve the officer’s chance of getting a strong connection from the portable/handheld back to the radio infrastructure. Range for the portable/handheld back to the vehicle will vary based on the environment in which the user is operating. It is also important to note that a VRS is not a solution for all portable coverage challenges and should only be implemented for agencies with a specific need and the proper training on how to use the VRS effectively.

In addition to mission critical voice, supplemental data services are also necessary for public safety operations. While LMR technologies do not provide the bandwidth necessary for multi-media content like video or even file transfer capability, they do provide some mission critical data services that enhance public safety operations. These features typically include GPS location, text messaging, over the air programming of radios and over the air rekeying of encryption keys. The data services in LMR may also support other applications that only require text based content such as a database query.

Security Services 3.2.7The next generation LMR technology should provide security elements that support a comprehensive approach to security and should meet the security policies and procedures established under the Florida Administrative Code6. All wireless technologies available today, including LMR, are built on Internet Protocol (IP) networks. While IP networks offer many advantages including scalable platforms and the use of “off the shelf” components that help create cost efficiencies, they are also subject to the vulnerabilities of IP technology. The recommended LMR solution should incorporate industry-standard security services that address network availability, data integrity and authorized access. LMR also has some unique security challenges in a statewide enterprise that should be addressed. These include:

Protecting the network from “rogue” radios; Managing voice encryption keys; Accessibility to radio programming templates; and Compromised radios that must be removed from network operation

6 ss.282.318(3), F.S.: “The Agency for State Technology is responsible for establishing standards and processes consistent with generally accepted best practices for information technology security and adopting rules that safeguard an agency’s data, information and information technology resources to ensure availability, confidentiality and integrity.”


Rogue radios have plagued even proprietary technologies over the years. A rogue radio is defined as a radio that accesses the network by illegally “cloning” the programming information of an existing authorized radio into an unauthorized radio. This activity adds unwanted and unauthorized users to the system who use limited voice capacity resources on the network and can create queueing (busies) at radio sites, blocking critical voice traffic for the authorized users. The next generation of SLERS for the state should provide services that prevent access of rogue radios on the network. Note that the existing EDACS-EA technology in place today uses an electronic serial number in the EDACS radio that is effective in uniquely identifying each user attempting to access the network and has been effective in preventing rogue radios from compromising SLERS.

The ability to manage voice encryption keys on LMR systems has always been a challenge for state and local governments. Many agencies now use advanced encryption techniques to support sensitive communications. However, very few agencies using encryption are able to manage their encryption keys effectively. Security protocols should require agencies to change encryption traffic keys on a regular basis, at a minimum each month. However, this means an agency should have facilities and services in place to manage changing the keys on regular intervals. If those services were not in place, an agency would make these changes manually by pulling users from their duties to a central facility to have the key changed by a field technician or a network administrator. This creates logistical challenges as users with encrypted radios need to change their keys within a very short time window, otherwise users would have to revert to non-encrypted voice service until all users in a group or department have been “re-keyed”. Therefore, it is desirable to be able to change the keys remotely using available LMR services.

The availability of centralized security services should also create efficiencies in managing security of radios and authorizing access to the network. Centralizing all security services will simplify the logistics of managing encryption keys for radio users and other managing all other security services on the network.

Real-Time Access – System Dashboard 3.2.8As described in the Background section of the business case, the ability for state agencies to access real-time information about the performance of the network is critical to public safety operation, contract management and strategic planning. For public safety users, especially command personnel, access to this information real-time gives pre-emptive information that may assist them in their operational decisions. From an administrative perspective, the Department of Management Services personnel could monitor vital system performance metrics to determine vendor compliance and use the solution as independent means of verification and validation of performance. Information available through the dashboard toolsets can also assist DMS and the Joint Task Force in prioritizing future system enhancements based on the analysis of user behavior and operational patterns.

Day-to-day events and even routine, planned maintenance functions have an impact on radio system coverage and capacity. A network dashboard should provide access to real-time information about the health of the network, performance metrics, department usage and usage patterns within specific geographies, which allows agencies to adapt their operation when conditions in the network change.


Agencies should have role-based access to this information through industry standard web portal tools available in the market today.

Competitive Marketplace 3.2.9The State of Florida is in the fourteenth year of a twenty-year contract for a radio system that is built on a proprietary radio technology platform. At the time of the original SLERS procurement, all public safety network technologies were proprietary. SLERS users today do not have choices with respect to radio manufacturers. SLERS users may only purchase radios from the current provider. The next generation SLERS solution should be based on a technology platform that is open-standards based and promotes a competitive marketplace for the infrastructure equipment and subscriber radios for the life of the system. The open architecture of the next generation technology for SLERS should also enable non-state agencies and current SLERS partners to procure their own radios through a competitive marketplace at any point during the lifecycle of the next generation system. Technologies that offer a competitive marketplace give the state and its partner users more choices in radio performance, feature sets, price and physical attributes.

Maturity of Technology 3.2.10A mature technology offers stability in its operation as well as stability in the marketplace. The recommended technology should offer diverse solutions for coverage and capacity challenges. Newer technologies, or technologies that may one day emulate LMR services, are not yet fully developed and tested. Early versions of newer technologies typically are released without a full complement of legacy public safety features and services. The technology should be field proven in multiple state venues, supporting public safety reliability, feature sets and multi-jurisdictional interoperability. The technology should also be able to support the fielded radio system for its expected operational life of ten to fifteen years beyond 2021.

3.3 Land Mobile Radio Technology Options

Option 1 – P25 Digital Two-way Radio 3.3.1Simply stated, P25 is the public safety operability and interoperability standard for two-way radio in the United States today. More than half the Nation’s states have built out statewide P25 systems for their public safety agencies. The graphic provided in Figure 3 shows the statewide systems now utilizing open-standard P25 radio networks.


Figure 3 - States Operating P25 Radio Systems

As can be seen by the number of states adopting P25 technology, the solution scales very easily from small states like Rhode Island and Delaware to some of the largest systems including Minnesota, Colorado and Michigan. The state of Minnesota today is the largest statewide P25 system with 313 tower sites on the air. States that are shaded grey in Figure 2 are not currently operating statewide P25 systems. Either the state operates a statewide proprietary LMR network, or the state has no enterprise statewide LMR system.

Within Florida, more than 25 local government agencies have migrated their legacy radio networks to P25 operation and another dozen are in planning and/or procurement stages to move to P25 operation within the next two years. Figure 3 provides a graphical view of the counties in Florida that have already implemented P25 and shows the local governments that are currently actively engaged in the procurement of a P25 system.


Figure 4 - Local Government P25 Networks in Florida: Operational Networks and Agencies Engaged in Active Procurements

The local governments that have already adopted P25 for their public safety agencies could become immediate interoperability partners and future potential stakeholders with the State of Florida should the state move SLERS to P25 technology. If SLERS were to migrate to P25, it would be more attractive to some of the agencies who have already invested in P25. By integrating their sites into the state network, these agencies would benefit from extended coverage, roaming and more direct interoperability partners. The state would benefit from the portable/handheld coverage available within these county and municipal P25 systems.

In addition to the local governments already operating on P25, several of the Federal government facilities in Florida, specifically Department of Defense military installations and NASA operate P25 radio systems.

If the State of Florida moved to a P25 radio network and all local government agencies either participated directly as a subscriber, or connected their P25 systems to SLERS or had P25 radio access to the statewide network, the need for other interoperability solutions such as the Florida Interoperability Network would no longer exist. The state could eliminate the yearly operational costs of these networks by decommissioning them after a full migration to P25.

P25 Frequency Bands of Operation 3.3.1.1P25 is available in all public safety frequency bands including VHF High Band, UHF, 700 and 800 MHz. As stated earlier in Section 3.2.1 of the Technology Analysis, VHF High Band and UHF spectrum bands are not suitable to meet the needs for the next generation of SLERS. P25 operation in the 700 and 800 MHz spectrum bands is very common in the US. Many P25 radios available in the market today operate in


both the 700 and 800 MHz spectrum bands. In fact, any radio manufacturer that desires to produce and sell a radio in the 700 MHz band must include a P25 interoperability mode in the radio. The FCC will not grant type acceptance to a radio without this mode of operation. For the state of Florida, if the next generation of SLERS uses P25 technology, the network could leverage all of its existing 800 MHz channels and the state’s allotment of 700 MHz spectrum as well. This would more than double the amount of spectrum available to the state today with the current SLERS.

P25 and Frequency Efficiency 3.3.1.2The original P25 common air interface standard uses Frequency Division Multiple Access (FDMA) that provides for one voice talk path for each frequency pair or channel available on the network. This initial P25 technology is termed P25 Phase I. An enhancement to the P25 standard, known as Time Division Multiple Access (TDMA) and termed P25 Phase II was accepted in November 2010 and published as a standard in 20117. P25 Phase II TDMA offers two talk paths for each frequency pair or channel available on a given radio system. TDMA effectively doubles the number of talk paths, and therefore user capacity, over FDMA operation.

P25 Phase II TDMA can benefit the state of Florida in two ways. First, having two voice paths for each base/repeater station at a site would allow the state to deploy fewer base/repeater stations and ancillary equipment to achieve the same number of voice resources at a site. For example, if the state determined a need for six voice resources at a particular tower site, with Phase I FDMA, this would require seven base/repeater stations. One base/repeater would operate as the active P25 control channel at the site. The other six base/repeater stations would operate as the necessary voice channels at the site.

With P25 Phase II TDMA, however, the state would only need four base/repeater stations at the site. One base/repeater would operate as the active P25 control channel at the site, while only three base/repeater stations are required to provide the necessary six voice channels (talk paths) at the site. Each base/repeater station operating in TDMA mode can support two separate voice conversations at the site.

P25 Phase II TDMA could also afford the state the option to implement P25 sites without having simulcast sites in frequency-limited areas. Having more spectrum (700 and 800 MHz) available to use and a frequency efficient technology platform that offers two voice paths for each channel gives the state more flexibility in ways to deploy sites and channels in the next generation of SLERS. Reducing the number of simulcast cells in the system while still maintaining voice capacity and coverage could reduce the overall system cost.

7 Core Definition Documents TIA-102.BBAC Phase 2 TDMA Physical Layer and TIA-102.BBAB Phase 2 TDMA MAC Layer were published in 2010 and 2009 respectively. Control Channel Updates, Encryption Updates and the Half-Rate Vocoder Annex were also published in 2009. The TDMA test documents for conformance, transceiver measurement methods and interoperability testing were published by TIA in 2011.


P25 Radio Coverage Performance 3.3.1.3P25 technology is available to operate in spectrum that allows for extended coverage and higher transmission power than other LMR or cellular technologies. This means the state would use high tower sites to maximize coverage from each site and minimize the number of sites needed across the state compared to these other technologies. As stated in the JTF 2014 Strategic Planning Report, the typical mobile/in-vehicle radio has a coverage range of about 18 miles from the site8. While this range is based on average user experience and environmental variables, it is valid for the coverage discussion here.

TETRA and cellular technologies, including LTE, on the other hand, use lower tower heights due to limitations on power output from the site and from the user devices. This means both TETRA and FirstNet would require significantly more sites than P25 to provide the same level of coverage across the state.

P25 and Scalability 3.3.1.4P25 was developed to provide standards that would support small single site networks up to very large regional and statewide networks. P25 vendors leverage “off-the-shelf” network components and Internet Protocol standards to build their networks. P25 network owners have the flexibility to expand sites, channels, dispatch consoles and users simply by adding the hardware and software necessary for each new site, channel, and dispatch console or user radio. Expanding P25 networks does not require “forklift” upgrades of core processing equipment when expanding the coverage or capacity of the network.

P25 Interoperability 3.3.1.5The ideal interoperability solution for the State of Florida is to implement a shared P25 system approach with a governance model that encourages local governments and other potential partners to join the network. Partners may join as a subscriber to the network, or they may bring additional assets such as P25 infrastructure, towers, shelters and site connectivity onto the network. For any local governments with P25 systems that choose not to participate directly on SLERS, the minimum level of interoperability has at least now been elevated to standards-based compatibility between P25 networks and P25 radios. During interoperability events, this means that SLERS users could operate directly on non-participating local government P25 systems and non-participating local government P25 users could operate directly on SLERS. In terms of “ease of interoperability”, this is a much simpler way to support multi-jurisdictional radio communications than using solutions like the Florida Interoperability Network that requires manual intervention from a third party to connect disparate radio technologies.

P25 also offers radio compatibility and interoperability between different radio vendor offerings. A P25 network could support multiple P25 radio brands with common standards-based services and features. State agencies and local governments could select the P25 radio(s) that offer the most value in terms of individual needs and still ensure direct interoperability with each other.

8 “2014 Strategic Planning Report, Statewide Law Enforcement Radio System (SLERS)”, page 7.


P25 Voice and Data Services 3.3.1.6P25 networks offer both voice and data services on the same network. These are shared services available through the core to any user on the network. The P25 standards define the air protocol (tower to radio, radio to tower) for both the voice service and the data service. A P25 network can support P25 Phase I FDMA voice calls, P25 Phase II TDMA voice calls and P25 Phase I data transactions. Any site in the P25 network can be configured to support all three. Channels in a P25 network can be configured to dynamically support FDMA voice calls, TDMA voice calls or data transactions depending on the current user demands at the site.

The voice services on a P25 network can support both encrypted and unencrypted voice calls in either FDMA or TDMA mode. Encrypted voice calls will be discussed in more detail in the P25 Security Services section that follows.

The data services on the P25 network allow the state to provision other useful services such as GPS location, text messaging and over the air programming of radios.

GPS Location – a service available to GPS-equipped mobile/in vehicle radios and GPS-equipped portable/hand-held radios on P25 networks. GPS location tracks and reports the latitude and longitude of the radio to a 3rd party mapping application for display in a dispatch center. Many vendor radio solutions offer the GPS location feature combined with emergency alerting on the radio, so if a first responder presses the emergency button on the radio, it initiates an alert at dispatch, while also transmitting the current location information for the individual radio.

Text Messaging – this service allows a dispatcher to send text based content to radio users when sensitive communications may be required or the information is needed for a pending response (e.g. address location). Text messaging service may also be used to send group alerts when information needs be delivered to more than just one person, e.g., broadcast information about a child abduction incident).

Over-the-Air-Programming (OTAP) – OTAP eliminates the need for a radio user to travel to a central location to have a change made in the programming information of his or her radio. OTAP enables a network administrator to send new radio programming information over the radio network directly to the radio. This service keeps field personnel on the job and eliminates wasted fuel expense.

P25 Over-the-Air-Rekeying (OTAR) - changing encryption keys in radios on a regular basis is simply a good security practice. P25 offers centralized key management facilities coupled with the ability to manage encryption keys over the air using a P25 data service on the network. P25 OTAR eliminates the need for manual rekeying of radios, which usually means that users would have to drive to a location where key management facilities exist. In the past, changing encryption keys on radio networks could take days or even weeks because of the logistics challenge of gaining access to all department radios With P25 OTAR a network security administrator can quickly rekey a batch of radios for an entire department within minutes.


There are also security features and services that may be provisioned via the P25 data service. These will also be discussed in the next section.

P25 Security Services 3.3.1.7P25 offers a suite of security services developed specifically to address the security challenges associated with P25 networks.

P25 Encrypted Voice – encrypted voice communications is very common on P25 networks, especially for use by law enforcement agencies. Encrypted voice may be used by anyone who needs secure communications to protect sensitive information. Encryption and decryption of voice communications takes place in the end user radio and in the dispatch center, so any voice channel in the network can support an encrypted voice call.

P25 Encrypted Data – data transactions may also be encrypted on the P25 network. Information sent over the P25 network, such as GPS location or text messages can also be sensitive in nature.

P25 Link-Layer Authentication - P25 link layer authentication protects the network from illegal radios operating on the network. Every P25 vendor’s radios have different programming attributes, including how system access information is programmed into the radio. To avoid vendors developing their own proprietary methods of protecting the network, the P25 standards body developed the link-layer authentication service. This centralized service allows a P25 network administrator to enforce a standards-based authentication process to eliminate rogue radios (illegal radios) from accessing and degrading voice services on the network.

P25 Radio Inhibit - Radio inhibit is a centralized process of disabling a lost or stolen radio to prevent unwanted eavesdropping on sensitive communications and operations. Once the radio is recovered, it can be re-enabled to join the network.

Real-Time Access to System Activity Metrics and Dashboard 3.3.1.8Since today’s P25 networks are native IP, there are numerous data points available to collect from every device on the network. Dashboards on a P25 network can provide real-time access to system statistics, network component health and even radio user behavioral patterns. Information collected can be provided in a customized format via web portal access. Authorized personnel would be able to access this information from any computer connected to the internet.

Competitive Marketplace and P25 3.3.1.9The real benefit of a competitive marketplace is the ability of the state to achieve cost efficiencies and economies of scale. P25 offers the greatest opportunity to realize these goals. At least five P25 network vendors could compete for the state’s business. Each of these vendors has an organizational structure built to support implementation and operation of these systems here in the United States.

These vendors are (in alphabetical order):

AIRBUS DS Communications EF Johnson Technologies


Harris Corporation Motorola Solutions Tait Communications

Currently five P25 Phase II TDMA radio vendors could compete for the state’s mobile/in vehicle and portable/handheld radio business. These vendors are (in alphabetical order):

EF Johnson Technologies Harris Corporation Motorola Solutions Relm Wireless Tait Communications

Please note that there are more P25 radio manufacturers in the market today than those listed here, but these are the only manufacturers that provide P25 Phase II TDMA radios operating in the 700 MHz and 800 MHz spectrum bands. There could be more entries in this market in the coming years.

Being able to competitively source radios from multiple vendors will bring more choices and value to agencies in Florida. However, variety in P25 radios also means not all radios carry the same features. To protect agencies desiring to move to P25, the Department of Homeland Security Office for Interoperability and Compatibility created the P25 Compliance Assessment Program (P25 CAP), a program that tests vendor products for P25 standards compliance. P25 CAP provides an easily accessible medium for agencies to determine what vendor radios provide certain features and that each feature is compliant with the specific standards developed for that feature.

Some examples of features tested in this process include Group Call, Encrypted Group Call, Emergency Alarm and Emergency Call. Vendors provide their compliance statements to the industry via a document called the Supplemental Declaration of Compliance (SDoC). Vendors publish their SDoCs for each P25 product (base/repeater station, mobile/in vehicle radio, portable/handheld radio) on the Responder Knowledge Base (RKB). The RKB is located under the Lessons Learned Information Sharing page on the Department of Homeland Security website.9

The state should consider that every vendor in the P25 market tries to differentiate themselves from their competitors. The P25 radios that vendors provide to the market should comply with the requisite features and operational characteristics required by the P25 CAP process. However, this process tends to commoditize P25 radios. Vendors develop unique features and services for their radios hoping to combat this trend. An example might be a proprietary service offered by a vendor that is only supported on that vendor’s network and radios. A vendor’s network may support other P25 radios with P25 compliant features and services, but the vendor offers a unique service that is only available to that vendor’s radios on the network. During the procurement process, the state should be diligent in

9 https://www.llis.dhs.gov/knowledgebase/certifications-declarations-list

https://www.llis.dhs.gov/knowledgebase/certifications-declarations-list


identifying these features and if a proprietary feature proves valuable for some public safety agencies, it should only be accommodated on a future generation of SLERS as long as it does not pre-empt future competitive procurements or interfere with other standards based features and services on the network.

Maturity of P25 Technology 3.3.1.10The Association of Public Safety Communications Officers (APCO) began developing the P25 standards in 1989. Some of the first P25 conventional systems were implemented in the mid-1990s and the first P25 FDMA trunked system, the Michigan Public Safety Communications System (MPSCS), became operational in 2001.

While P25 Phase II TDMA is relatively new to the market (introduced in 2011), both the state of Mississippi and the state of Maryland operate networks using P25 Phase II TDMA technology today. In addition, there are two local governments in Florida already operating with P25 Phase II TDMA, the City of Apopka and the City of Lakeland. Across the United States there are more than fifty agencies either operational or under contract to deploy P25 Phase II TDMA networks.

It is important to note that P25 Phase II TDMA is an enhancement to the P25 suite of standards. P25 Phase II TDMA is not a replacement for Phase I FDMA nor does it make Phase I FDMA obsolete. Phase I FDMA and Phase II TDMA systems and users will co-exist for as long as P25 systems are still the primary technology used for public safety radio communications.

From a lifecycle perspective, P25 should remain a fully supported technology platform in the industry for the next 20 years or longer. Some vendors have already contracted with customers to guarantee support for their P25 solutions through 2035 and beyond.

Option 2 – Terrestrial Trunked Radio (TETRA) 3.3.2Terrestrial Trunked Radio (TETRA) is a digital trunked mobile radio standard developed by the European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI). TETRA supports professional mobile radio services for a number of industries including transportation, utilities, petrochemical, government and public safety. TETRA providers have recently entered the North American market. TETRA technology type accepted10 by the FCC for operation in 450 MHz and 800 MHz bands of operation in the US. A handful of TETRA systems have been sold and implemented for non-public safety agencies in the United States. While TETRA has been available in other parts of the world for several years, it has only recently been introduced to the North America marketplace.

10 The Federal Communications Commission requires all manufacturers to submit radio transmitter products used in licensed applications (e.g. two-way radio) to an equipment authorization procedure known as “type acceptance”. Under the program, devices may not be imported and/or marketed until they have shown compliance with the technical standards established by the FCC for the classification of service. Additional information on this program can be found in “The FCC Equipment Authorization Program for Radio Frequency Devices”, FCC Office of Engineering Technology Bulletin No. 61, October 1992.


There are three main challenges to implement TETRA as a statewide public safety solution for the state of Florida:

1. TETRA is not FCC type accepted for operation in the 700 MHz public safety band, therefore TETRA products could not operate on the state’s allotment of 700 MHz spectrum. TETRA would only operate in the state’s 800 MHz spectrum that allows for full deviation in a 25 kHz channel. This limits the amount of spectrum available to the state that could be used for deploying this technology.

2. While TETRA is a public safety standard in many parts of the world for digital two-way radio, it is not the adopted digital standard for public safety and federal agencies in the United States. Implementing a TETRA solution for state agencies would create a technology “island” within the surrounding states and the embedded local agencies, of which twenty-five have already implemented P25 networks. While there would be “gateway” interoperability solutions to connect TETRA networks to P25 networks, the local P25 agencies would not have direct access to a statewide TETRA network, which mirrors a major disadvantage of the current SLERS.

3. Any potential for cost savings with a TETRA solution is negated by the increased number of sites required to meet the state’s coverage needs. Typically, a TETRA solution requires approximately 40 to 50 percent more sites than other LMR technologies (e.g. P25) to cover the same geography at the same reliability. To provide the same level of coverage, a TETRA solution would require more towers, more shelters and more backhaul to connect the sites back to the network core. The need for more sites is accompanied by the need for more radio channels. This compounds the first challenge of limited spectrum.

Option 3 – FirstNet 3.3.3The Middle-Class Tax Relief Act of 2012 created the First Responder Network Authority (FRNA), an independent authority under the National Telecommunications and Information Administration. FRNA, more commonly known as FirstNet, is tasked with developing requirements for the build-out and operation of a nationwide Public Safety Broadband Network to support Federal, state, tribal and local government public safety agencies.

FirstNet, once realized, will offer nationwide mobile broadband access to these public safety agencies in a dedicated block of spectrum in the 700 MHz band. It is envisioned to be established over a network topology that provides assurances for prioritization of LMR service delivery. These services will utilize 4G LTE or the latest generation of wireless broadband technology as the foundation for LMR service delivery. One of the goals of FirstNet is to create an LMR experience for public safety. By making the user experience as close to LMR as possible, this will make the transition from LMR to 4G LTE as seamless as possible for the public safety user community.

There are many challenges to overcome in planning and building FirstNet. One of the biggest challenges will be integrating public safety grade services necessary to support daily mission critical operations on FirstNet. Today, FirstNet is still in an information gathering and planning phase of operation. In September 2014,


FirstNet released a Request for Information seeking additional insight from the industry on how best to draft a future Request for Proposal.

Funding – The original legislation that created FirstNet allocated just $7 billion, with only $2 billion available initially to fund FirstNet administrative functions. The legislation allocated an additional $135 million to provide grants to states for developing their own requirements for FirstNet services. Now that the full $7 billion has been raised through auction, there still remains the industry consensus is that it will take close to $30 billion to build out a nationwide public safety broadband network11.

Mission Critical Voice – 4G LTE standards are driven by the commercial interest of the 3GPP standards body and the industry this organization serves. The development of standards for mission critical voice operations will come from entities such as the Public Safety Communications Research (PSCR) under the Office of Law Enforcement Standards and other non-commercial entities in North America. As of the date of this business case, there is no standard for mission critical voice service on FirstNet. While there are many “off the shelf” voice over IP applications that are available in the consumer marketplace and even some developed specifically for government operations, none of these come close to the requirements of public safety mission critical voice operations. Those that do exist are also proprietary solutions developed by vendors, not by a standards body. It is not clear when this standard will be available to the industry to start building and testing for suitability in public safety operations.

Cost to public safety – 4G LTE technology is built on a global standard with many of the world’s major carriers already operating on 4G LTE or in process of migration to 4G LTE. Verizon, AT&T, Sprint and T-Mobile all operate with 4G LTE in the majority of their service areas. However, these networks also serve the consumer market space in the United States that totals over 300 million potential subscribers to their services. These carriers achieve very strong economies of scale in their ability to deliver service to a market of this size. Consequently, the device manufacturers also leverage economies of scale in their manufacturing and distribution of their devices to this very large consumer market. The same economies of scale do not exist for the public safety market in the United States. While FirstNet may decide to identify and allow access to other “secondary users” for the network, the potential subscriber pool for FirstNet is very small compared to the commercial networks market and any potential for economies of scale diminish greatly when you consider the unique capabilities required for the Public Safety Broadband Network and mission critical grade devices.

11 AT&T spokesperson Mark Siegel said the company invested $11.8 billion into its wireless and wireline network in the first six months of 2014. He said the carrier confirmed in July that it expects to spend a total of around $21 billion this year on its network. "We can't provide any detail around our third-quarter investment ahead of earnings next week, but this expectation is driven in part by the fact that we've completed our VIP 4G LTE build target to cover more than 300 million people," AT&T’s LTE footprint covers 42% of the geographic land mass of the US. – Fierce Wireless, October 13, 2014


In summary, FirstNet when fully realized, will be a robust solution for public safety and will be the technology that removes the need to discuss interoperability challenges in the United States. FirstNet is not a viable solution for the State of Florida because of its unknown timeline for implementation and the services it will provide.

3.4 Recommended Communication Services Technology The following recommendation is provided for the technology path for SLERS:

It is recommended that DMS procure a solution that implements a statewide LMR with Project 25 Phase II TDMA capabilities. This solution should be mindful of future evolutions of technology, expansion and extensibility concerning interoperability with emerging FirstNet capabilities.

The chart below provides a summary of the three technologies discussed in this business case and the degree to which each meets the relevant technology factors defined in Section 3.2.

Meets Technology Factor TETRA FirstNet P25 Phase II TDMA Available Radio Spectrum No No Yes Frequency Efficiency Yes Yes Yes Radio Coverage No No Yes Scalability Yes Yes Yes Interoperability No No Yes Voice and Data Services Yes Yes Yes Security Services Yes Yes Yes Real-Time Access/System Dashboard Yes Unknown Yes Competitive Marketplace (United States) No Unknown Yes Maturity of Technology Yes No Yes

Figure 5 - Technology Factor Comparison

Considering key evaluation factors, P25 Phase II TDMA offers the State of Florida the highest grade of performance and value with the lowest risk. Three factors in particular – maturity of technology, interoperability and competitive marketplace – stand out the most in this recommendation.

1. Maturity of Technology – P25 is the only technology that can be considered a mature solution for public safety in the North American marketplace. P25 systems began deploying in the US in the mid to late 1990s and 33 states now operate on P25 systems. While TETRA is a mature technology it is not widely deployed in the North American market. FirstNet offers great promise, but also offers many unknowns concerning timeline for deployment and mission critical feature availability.

2. Interoperability – In order to deliver the highest level of interoperability to Florida public safety agencies, P25 is the only technology available today that can support a public safety standards-based shared network approach. Given the investment made in P25 technology by local government agencies in Florida, no other solution can offer this level of interoperability.

3. Competitive Marketplace – The real benefit of a competitive marketplace is the ability of the state to achieve cost efficiencies and economies of scale. P25 offers the greatest opportunity to realize these goals. There are at least five P25 infrastructure vendors capable of competing for the state’s business


and each of them have an organizational structure built to support implementation and operation of systems here in the United States. Currently five and potentially ten P25 radio manufacturers could compete for the state’s mobile/in-vehicle radio and portable/handheld radio replacements.

A review of the technology recommendation of the Joint Task Force that is stated in the 2014 Strategic Planning Report was found to be appropriate for the next iteration of SLERS. The Florida Department of Management Services should begin a competitive procurement for a new statewide P25 Phase II TDMA system for use by state agencies and partners.12 Further, the factors considered for this recommendation by the JTF as stated in the report should be considered in the procurement.

The JTF makes these recommendations based upon the following factors:

1. P25 will resolve many of the current challenges. 2. P25 is the most appropriate technology to bridge the gap between a proprietary core system and the

future of mission critical voice over LTE. 3. P25 will enable a greater level of radio communications interoperability than is provided by SLERS today. 4. P25 will make SLERS more attractive to local agency subscribers, in turn bringing more revenue to the

system which will augment the cost of coverage expansion.”13

In summary, P25 Phase II TDMA offers the highest degree of interoperability between state agencies and local governments. P25 offers the greatest potential to provide cost savings to the state by encouraging existing P25 systems to join into the state network. P25 is the most stable and mature LMR technology solution available today that could be deployed and operational within the state’s critical timeline. The competitive marketplace for P25 technology will offer the state the most value in future network and radio procurements.

12 2014 Strategic Planning Report, statewide Law Enforcement Radio System (SLERS), page 10. 13 2014 Strategic Planning Report, statewide Law Enforcement Radio System (SLERS), page 11.


4.0 OPTIONS & COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS Section 287.0571(4)(h), F.S., A cost-benefit analysis documenting the direct and indirect specific baseline costs, savings, and qualitative and quantitative benefits involved in or resulting from the implementation of the recommended option or options. Such analysis must specify the schedule that, at a minimum, must be adhered to in order to achieve the estimated savings. All elements of cost must be clearly identified in the cost-benefit analysis, described in the business case, and supported by applicable records and reports. The state agency head shall attest that, based on the data and information underlying the business case, to the best of his or her knowledge, all projected costs, savings, and benefits are valid and achievable. As used in this section, the term “cost” means the reasonable, relevant, and verifiable cost, which may include, but is not limited to, elements such as personnel, materials and supplies, services, equipment, capital depreciation, rent, maintenance and repairs, utilities, insurance, personnel travel, overhead, and interim and final payments. The appropriate elements shall depend on the nature of the specific initiative. As used in this paragraph, the term “savings” means the difference between the direct and indirect actual annual baseline costs compared to the projected annual cost for the contracted functions or responsibilities in any succeeding state fiscal year during the term of the contract. Consideration of options for procurement of SLERS was performed after careful review of LMR telecommunications markets and trends, from both a state of Florida perspective and nationally. Based on this understanding of markets and trends, further analysis reviewed a variety of factors, for example: budgets, resources, stability, reliability, cost, risks, time to implement, and simplification opportunities. A cost/benefit analysis was completed for the options under consideration, to provide DMS and the state of Florida with a financial quantification to permit an informed choice in the SLERS procurement.

4.1 Introduction This analysis is intended to meet the statutory requirement of section 287.0571(4)(g) of the Florida Statutes, which requires “a description of the current market for the contractual services that are under consideration for outsourcing.”

Information used for this analysis was gained through a number of methods and sources including:

Interviews and discussions with JTF and JTF Technical committee; Information and perspectives provided by SLERS stakeholders and partners from meetings and through

interviews; Interviews and discussions with DMS staff and management; Review of data and information provided by DMS staff and management regarding SLERS operations14; Review of current SLERS contract including prior amendments; Focused research on evolving LMR service offerings of size and scope similar to SLERS; Review of capabilities for large LMR providers regarding technology and service direction;

14 The Department of Management Services provided detailed data for SLERS topology, cost structures, and operations, which was very helpful to assess utilization and trends, and to create the financial projections.


Focused review of research firm studies regarding technology direction; Review and consideration of regulatory actions and direction regarding the telecommunications

industry; and, CRI’s team experience and research.

4.2 Business Models for LMR Services

Insourcing 4.2.1The business case is required for outsourcing procurements of an amount greater than $10 million and should evaluate whether “insourcing” is a less costly option to the state than outsourcing. Insourcing would require the state to devote the corresponding resources to develop, operate and support a large private LMR network for use by state agencies and SLERS partners. In essence, the state would operate as a wireless/radio carrier, but for private use of state and local government public safety agencies. Therefore, as described below the costs associated with insourcing to provide P25 LMR services to state agency radio users throughout the state as well as other SLERS partner agencies would be extensive. The LMR network would be required to be able to deliver end to end LMR voice communication services to potentially every state and local government first responder. Thus, the following requirements would be:

Contract management staffing to manage all services that fall outside of the resource capabilities of the state, e.g., commercial tower leases and private tower lease agreements;

Contract management for procurement of P25 capable radio units; Maintenance staffing to inspect site conditions and tower structure integrity on a continual basis as

well as in the aftermath of major weather events; Maintenance staffing to deliver on-site response to tower outages, dispatch center equipment

repairs and external network interfaces; Maintenance staffing to support radio equipment repairs, provisioning and programming, software

updates, radio profiles and security issues; Security personnel staffing to support implementation of security services and security policy

enforcement such as monitoring proper use of voice and data encryption services; State-owned facilities that house regional service centers for bench technicians, field service

personnel, vehicle service bays, parts and spare board inventory storage, field service equipment and radio programming equipment;

Customer service staffing to deliver customer outreach and marketing of SLERS to current and potential SLERS partners;

Other professional staffing for management functions not present today at DMS including spectrum management, regulatory compliance matters and the like;

Operations staffing for a statewide network including billing, provisioning, maintenance and repair, and the Network Operations Center (NOC).

Establishment of the NOC itself; and Related investments and operations beyond these high-level items would also be required.


Outsourcing 4.2.2This model assumes similar requirements as described above for “insourcing” for the state in terms of contract management. Procurement would take place whereby the state would seek services, radio units and LMR system capabilities through competitive solicitation at the best interest of the state. The outsource option would require technical specifications and service level agreement (SLA) to set the boundaries and expectations for implementation and service support as defined in the solicitation. The option and related assumptions are described in more detail below, in Section 4.4

Insource/Outsource (Hybrid) 4.2.3This model assumes a majority of the requirements as described above for “insourcing” for service processes currently being performed by incumbent vendor. A migration of these services to the state DMS using resources that are state employees full-time equivalent (FTE) positions; and outsourcing elements of operations that fall outside of the physical or technical capabilities of DMS, such as procurement of site towers, operational maintenance of tower sites, microwave maintenance, long-haul fiber transport, local loop access transport, etc.

4.3 Market Conditions and Trends Section 287.0571(4)(g), F.S., A description of the current market for the contractual services that are under consideration for outsourcing. This section is intended to meet the statutory requirement of section 287.0571(4)(g) of the Florida Statutes, which requires “a description of the current market for the contractual services that are under consideration for outsourcing.”

Technology Considerations 4.3.1P25 is the dominant communications technology in the market today. Public safety agencies still look to P25 for their mission critical voice operations over all other LMR and other wireless technologies. There is still a significant percentage of the public safety market operating on legacy proprietary LMR systems facing end of support challenges. Many of these agencies are in some planning phase of moving to P25. In Florida, there are still fourteen counties and nearly a dozen municipalities operating proprietary networks. Nearly all of these local governments are considering the move to P25 to address their long-term radio needs. Current vendor contractual commitments will ensure support for P25 systems through 2035 and beyond.

Communications technology for public safety tends to lag behind the rest of the telecommunications industry. Partly this is due to risk aversion from public safety; public safety agencies rarely adopt unproven technology. Usually, public safety agencies require a more customized and reliable version of what is available in the commercial market. These customized attributes delay the availability of a public safety version of the technology because of the additional development required. Additionally, the customization of technology for specific markets will usually drive up the cost of technology compared to what is commercially available.

FirstNet is a prime example of public safety technology lagging behind consumer or commercial technology. 4G LTE service has been available in the US cellular market for several years now through the major carriers.


Public safety agencies can use 4G LTE today, but may experience commercial grade service delays, dropped calls and degradation in quality of service. Public safety agencies would only use the commercial service for mobile data access today, not for their primary voice service. FirstNet may one day provide both data and voice services to public safety agencies with mission critical reliability. However, public safety would probably not adopt FirstNet as its primary voice service until it becomes a mature solution in the market.

With FirstNet still in the planning phase, public safety agencies will have to rely on their LMR networks to support their mission critical voice needs for many years to come. The adoption rate of P25 networks in the US is still very high for the public safety community, compared to other LMR technologies available in the market.

Performance Trends 4.3.2Today nearly all statewide radio systems are designed and built to support some level of mobile/in-vehicle radio coverage statewide. For most states, this falls in the 95 – 98 percent range. While this is an acceptable level of reliability for mobile/in-vehicle radio coverage, for portable/handheld radio coverage, most states fall well below this level. Officer safety issues are driving more state and local government public safety agencies to require minimum levels of portable/handheld radio coverage on their networks. Most states see portable/handheld coverage in the 70 – 80 percent range. Due to the limited transmit power of portable/handheld radios, 3-watt portable/handheld vs. 35-watt mobile/in-vehicle, comparable portable/handheld coverage requires more sites or alternative technologies to fill the coverage gap for portable/handheld radios.

The need for portable/handheld coverage varies by public safety agency and by an individual’s role within their respective department. State highway patrol officers typically need coverage in the immediate vicinity of the vehicle as they exit the car during a traffic stop. Fish and wildlife officers leave and may move far away from their vehicle as they move through remote non-populated areas to enforce state wildlife regulations. Firefighters require portable/handheld coverage inside of building structures as they move throughout structure. Wildfire firefighters require portable/handheld coverage outside and over a large geography as they disperse to different areas to contain the wildfire. While many of those in public safety need better portable/handheld coverage in an outdoor environment, most of them need coverage inside buildings also. Most urban and suburban counties today are requiring radio networks with a minimum level of in-building coverage for portable/handhelds. State governments have too much geography to cover to implement extensive in-building coverage. The need for more in-building coverage for state users makes collaborating with local governments more important than ever.

System availability is another performance criterion trending towards higher performance levels. For LMR systems, system availability is measured in percentage of uptime. Industry expectations for system level services (e.g. wide area call processing) and site connectivity are a minimum of “five 9’s” or 99.999 percent availability. Five 9’s translates to less than three minutes downtime per year. Since most P25 LMR offerings today are built on Internet Protocol (IP) technology, vendors are able to design multiple levels of redundancy into their core processing, even offering geographic redundancy where a split core or fully duplicated core are implemented with full processing capability in two separate locations.


Another important performance trend for networks is the availability of system “dashboards” that provide real-time information on numerous data points from the network. Dashboards can display information on system usage statistics, component health and even user behavioral patterns. Most importantly for the state to consider, these dashboards can assist in monitoring vendor/supplier performance to contracted service levels and metrics. Dashboards are highly customizable and can provide varying levels of detailed information based on the role of individuals authorized to access the dashboard.

Cost Trends 4.3.3Many state enterprises today look to outsourcing as an effective way to leverage commercial economies of scale to drive costs down for their Information Technology (IT) services. Cloud-based services and Software as a Service (SaaS) have had significant impact to state and local government spending within the last decade, reducing capital and operational expenditures. LMR, however, is difficult to fit into many of these current IT models for cost efficiencies. LMR is not a service used by all members of the enterprise so the ability to achieve economies of scale across the entire enterprise diminishes with fewer participants. LMR also cannot be offered as a cloud based or software service today. One of the largest cost drivers in LMR is tower sites. Tower sites must be placed and fixed in the proximity of the users. In more remote areas, tower sites may only be accessed by a few users per hour or even per day. A tower site in an urban area, however, may be accessed by thousands of users per day.

The key to cost savings for the state is through sharing cost with more users on the system. As stated in the Technology Analysis section of the business case, Florida has more than twenty-five local government P25 systems and even more will be procured in the next 18 to 24 months. The current footprint of P25 systems in Florida covers half the geography of the state. In every one of the counties with P25 systems, there is duplication of public safety radio sites with SLERS sites. As an example, a county has an 8-site system that provides 95% portable/handheld in building coverage countywide. SLERS may operate two sites in the same County, but only achieves reliable mobile/in-vehicle radio coverage in the same geography. If the county joined SLERS with its eight sites, the state would not need to locate any towers in that county. As part of a potential governance agreement for sharing of the sites by both state and local governments, the state would need to add channel capacity to the existing sites to accommodate state users. Adding channel capacity to existing sites would cost 10-20 percent of what it would cost to build two tower sites and far less than what it would cost to replicate the eight sites the County has today. This also reduces the total number of sites necessary for the state to build to have statewide portable/handheld coverage. More details on the number of ways local government participation can help avoid costs associated with new tower construction or commercial tower leases are discussed in Section 4.4.3.

A shared services approach would give local government users and administrators access to any of the services supported by the state core(s). This provides the opportunity to avoid the cost of owning the core elements of a P25 system, and benefits from the shared services available to each user that joins the system. The state benefits from the enhanced portable/handheld coverage provided from the towers owned by the County and could avoid the cost of building additional sites in the county.


Model Comparisons 4.3.4

Insourced 4.3.4.1In the right context, insourcing of enterprise technology solutions can bring cost savings and increases in customer satisfaction. When the enterprise can leverage existing core competencies or bring and maintain core competencies in-house, they control all daily decision making in the best interest of the enterprise. Note that there are many complexities and challenges to insourcing a statewide LMR network. Owning and operating an LMR network requires extensive staff with unique technical knowledge and skillsets.

Insourced Infrastructure 4.3.4.1.1In an insourced model, the government enterprise owns network assets and facilities necessary to support the delivery of LMR services. These include towers, equipment shelters, emergency power systems and radio specific infrastructure such as base/repeater stations and antenna networks. The enterprise would also implement wide area backhaul to transport radio traffic between sites and dispatch centers. This backhaul today is typically implemented using public or private fiber-based circuits, private licensed microwave, or a combination of the two. The entire radio infrastructure is controlled by a central call-processing core composed of servers, routers, switches and the call processing applications.

A detailed list of all P25 LMR infrastructure components includes:

Network core: servers, routers, switches, applications Towers, lighting, ground systems Equipment shelters Emergency Power: Uninterruptable Power Supplies, Generators Base/Repeater Stations Antenna networks, transmit combiners, receiver multi-couplers Frequency standards Microwave radio(s) or fiber transmission equipment Site alarms Dispatch Centers: dispatch consoles, network switches; logging recorders Network management terminals and applications Network dashboard

In addition to the LMR infrastructure necessary to provide SLERS radio services, the state will need facilities for regional service centers to house bench technical services, storage of spares and parts and service bays to service radios in vehicles.

Insourced Maintenance & Service 4.3.4.1.2With insourcing, the enterprise is responsible for providing all network maintenance and services required to operate the network. The enterprise employs a staff of full-time employees responsible


for full network maintenance, radio repair and programming, network management and all administrative duties associated with operating the network.

Self-maintenance also requires service facilities with technician repair benches, service bays for vehicles, spare parts inventories and storage, equipment staging and training facilities.

The enterprise must establish a Network Operations Center (NOC) to monitor the network and provide call center support for trouble ticketing and other customer service requests.

Insourced Best Practices 4.3.4.1.3Best practices in the industry for insourcing include:

The state project team will need to develop a comprehensive Method of Procedure (MOP) to cover every step required to transition from the old technology to the new technology. The MOP should also address transition elements in moving from the current outsourced model to an insourced model, which will require discussion on how to transition network responsibilities from the vendor to state full-time employees;

The network should be fully tested for all performance measurements and functional elements prior to cutover of the users. This is critical for this model since the enterprise becomes self-maintained after the vendor finishes their implementation responsibilities;

Move any non-public safety personnel over to the new network first to operate with live users during a sustained “burn in” period;

Providing competitive salaries and benefits to maintenance and administrative personnel will be necessary to avoid high turnover; and

Outreach, education and training should touch every SLERS user directly. Do not depend on one person in a department to keep all other users up to date on the transition plan or its progress.

Insourced Lessons Learned 4.3.4.1.4Understanding and managing user expectations is critical for a transition to be handled in-house. Acceptance of the system during and after the transition process is impacted by pre-conceived expectations of the users. Education of the users/stakeholders must go far beyond training on the use of the new technology, and must reach each end user directly. Do not assume that departmental leadership or key stakeholder in governance will set and manage user expectations down to every user.

The educational process should start early and include:

Predicted coverage and coverage acceptance criteria; changes in coverage and enhancements in coverage

Capacity of the network Audio quality performance New features/attributes/services to be added


Legacy features that will not be available after the transition Operational changes Operational enhancements User responsibilities Policy changes Changes in user experience with new radios Radio programming changes Contractual changes Service level agreements (internal) Governance changes

Successful knowledge transfer is critical to the success of the transition. Within any enterprise there are tenured personnel with extensive knowledge of the current legacy network, its strengths and weakness, how it performs operationally, and details about the challenges encountered during the transition to the current legacy network. These personnel will have knowledge of past decisions made regarding the network that may not be documented. Due to the unique operational attributes of each government entity, the knowledge these people possess will be important factors to consider in each successive LMR migration (e.g. P25, FirstNet); and

Governance should be inclusive and not show favoritism to one organization over another. All participants and partners should have a voice in decisions made about the system. An organization should not be made to feel like a “second-class citizen”.

All participants should bring value to the network either in terms of physical assets that benefit others, or revenue to help share the cost of maintaining the network, or both.

Insourced Recommendations for Contractual Terms and Conditions 4.3.4.1.5The recommended terms for contractual structure will be limited in an insourced model as the enterprise is responsible for maintenance and operations after the acceptance of the new system. However, there are recommended terms and conditions that apply to the vendor during the implementation process:

Any enterprise embarking on the transition from legacy technology to new P25 Phase II TDMA technology should develop a detailed method of procedure (MOP). That MOP should provide a systematic procedure for how to transition every component, service, feature and user from the old to the new system. The MOP helps the enterprise identify potential weaknesses in the transition, critical path elements, identify previously unknown obstacles and can build confidence in the success of the transition by documenting it in written text. An MOP should also be required as a submittal during the procurement response. The final MOP should be negotiated with the selected vendor during contract negotiations. Leaving any details of the MOP incomplete during the negotiations can create uncertainty later


during the implementation. Details of the MOP should become elements of the contractual performance metrics to avoid implementation delays;

Since daily maintenance and operations of the network is the responsibility of the state in an insourced model, some level of disaster recovery services and pricing should be negotiated into the contract. This will avoid any unnecessary delays in vendor response and support should a catastrophic system event occur;

The state should incorporate performance metrics into the contract for milestones during the implementation and for design integrity and performance beyond acceptance. Even though the state will maintain the network after final system acceptance is granted, the state needs to protect itself in the event of design or performance failures in the network;

Comprehensive user and administrative training should be delivered to all state users at a minimum. In addition, the selected vendor should be required to provide online training modules to the state that can be referenced throughout the lifecycle of the network;

The contract should include a comprehensive functional acceptance test plan, driven by user operational requirements and desired performance metrics. The functional elements of the test plan should be incorporated into procurement specifications with prospective vendors required to respond with the methodology of how each will demonstrate functional compliance. The specifics of the functional test plan should also help to further define performance metrics that will be monitored throughout the duration of the contract; and

The coverage acceptance test plan (CATP) is the most critical performance test required in the contract. The CATP should be structured during procurement language development and designed to reflect actual public safety operations on SLERS. This plan is identified in Section 7 of this business case. The test should be conducted with a radio configuration that incorporates the operational procedures of the SLERS stakeholders. Testing should be conducted with the inclusion of actual state and local public safety personnel using the radios they are issued for operation on the network, not a test radio configuration with radios supplied by the vendor. These public safety personnel should conduct each audio quality and coverage test themselves, with the vendor and state employees in attendance to monitor and record the outcome of each test. This provides a “real-world” test of the system by actual users and helps build confidence in the performance and reliability of the network for the user community.

Outsourced 4.3.4.2Outsourcing is the business practice of contracting for needed enterprise processes and/or services to an external provider. Outsourcing allows a state enterprise to streamline its operations and focus in the areas of its core competencies. Outsourcing is typically provided by a commercial provider that specializes in certain information technology services and can offer economies of scale in the delivery of the required services.


Outsourced Infrastructure 4.3.4.2.1One of the goals of an outsourced business model is to eliminate the need for the enterprise to own assets and facilities needed to provide the desired services. The enterprise leverages the economies of scale of the vendor’s service capabilities to drive down cost of the services. For LMR services, the selected vendor would provide all the same infrastructure components required for the insource model that are described under Section 4.3.4.1.

From the support perspective, an outsourced solution brings the ability to handle not only the SLA layers of the contract, but also allows the state to leverage the vendor’s ability to provide resources beyond the norm in a time of critical need. This is achievable because vendors maintain a resource pool of staffing and equipment to service other customers beyond existing contract requirements. Therefore, in a time of critical need, a vendor has the ability to realign its resources to meet the requests of the state. This flexibility is difficult to achieve at the state level due to limitations of FTE allocations and budgetary constraints.

Outsourced Maintenance & Service 4.3.4.2.2Outsourcing relieves a statewide enterprise of the many burdens associated with owning and managing technology. In an outsourced business model, the enterprise does not purchase or own the assets that may be required to provision the required services. This relieves the state of the responsibility of asset management. The outsource provider is responsible for maintenance of the technology assets and refreshing the technology components as necessary throughout the lifecycle of the outsourced solution. This relieves the state from hiring and training staff to maintain technology for LMR services.

Outsourced Best Practices 4.3.4.2.3Best practices in the industry for outsourcing include:

The relationship between the vendor(s), the government enterprise and any other 3rd parties should be a true partnership, not just a system sale for the vendor. The contract should define a business agreement where the vendor “puts skin in the game” or “becomes a significant partner”; makes an investment with an opportunity to grow that business and that growth brings a favorable return back to the state in terms of reduced costs;

Establishing clearly defined performance metrics and enforceable penalties will help drive higher customer satisfaction with an outsourced network. Performance metrics will influence how vendors design their network in response to the future procurement. Performance metrics should be fully defined by the time the procurement specifications are finalized and published;

The transition from one outsource vendor to another, or staying with the same vendor, will still require a comprehensive MOP with the vendor regarding how the transition from the old technology to the new technology will occur. The MOP should also address transition elements associated with the new performance metrics;


Prior to the transition to the first phase of a phased approach, the selected vendor should be required to demonstrate proof of their P25 technology, its stability in operations, and all feature and attributes. This is best accomplished with a small pilot system and each element of the MOP should be tested for a sample group of users to fully evaluate the MOP and transition plan;

Several states are now requiring vendor LMR solutions to address future FirstNet technology integration. The state should require all future vendors wishing to pursue LMR business opportunities to explain how their LMR platform accommodates migration, integration and interoperability with FirstNet services. Radio vendors should also be able to articulate their plans for device convergence to include traditional LMR services and FirstNet/commercial cellular services;


Outreach, education and training should touch every SLERS user directly. Do not depend on one person in a department to keep all other users up to date on the transition plan or its progress; and

Appropriate contract management and oversight of vendors. This requires adequately trained staff in support of this function for SLA, Quality Assurance (QA) / Quality Control (QC), contract and project management for the life of the outsourcing.

Outsourced Lessons Learned 4.3.4.2.4Outsourcing allows the government enterprise to leverage the vendor’s relationship with potential partners, but more importantly, the vendor should be positioned as a neutral host for providing a shared, interoperable network. Any hesitancy to collaborate with the state for fear of loss of local control can be mitigated by a vendor that provides the same services to all user agencies on the network and removes geo-political differences from the agreement. The vendor would work closely with DMS and the JTF to identify and gain approval for all potential partnerships to extend access to the LMR network.

An inclusive governance model that fosters outreach to all public safety entities works best when coupled with an outsourced model. The network becomes a neutral “playing field” where all agencies can participate and focus on their mission and not have distractions from the day-to-day operational and administrative challenges of owning an LMR network. A truly effective governance model should eliminate the need to discuss interoperability and allow agencies to focus on operability.

Outsourced Recommendations for Contractual Terms and Conditions 4.3.4.2.5Recommended terms and conditions that apply in the outsourced model are:

Any enterprise embarking on the transition from legacy technology to new P25 Phase II TDMA technology should develop a detailed method of procedure (MOP). That MOP should provide a systematic procedure for how to transition every component, service, feature and


user from the old to the new system. The MOP helps the enterprise identify potential weaknesses in the transition, critical path elements, identify previously unknown obstacles and can build confidence in the success of the transition by documenting it in written text. An MOP should also be required as a submittal during the procurement response. The final MOP should be negotiated with the selected vendor during contract negotiations. Leaving any details of the MOP incomplete during the negotiations can create uncertainty later during the implementation. Details of the MOP should become elements of the contractual performance metrics to avoid implementation delays;

Comprehensive user and administrative training should be required and provided to all state users at a minimum. In addition, the selected vendor should be required to provide online training modules to the state that can be referenced throughout the lifecycle of the network;

The contract should include a comprehensive functional acceptance test plan, driven by user operational requirements and desired performance metrics. The functional elements of the test plan should be incorporated into the procurement specifications with the vendors required to respond with the methodology of how each will demonstrate functional compliance. The specifics of the functional test plan should also help to further define performance metrics that will be monitored throughout the duration of the contract; and


Insource/Outsource (Hybrid) 4.3.4.3In the LMR industry, a combination of insource and outsource, a hybrid approach, is the most common approach in statewide LMR system implementations. In this model, the state enterprise procures and owns the P25 network infrastructure, but outsources many of the other elements including network maintenance and NOC monitoring and response. Radio maintenance responsibilities may vary across departments with some having internal technical support and services, while others outsource their radio maintenance.


Insource/Outsource Infrastructure 4.3.4.3.1In a hybrid model, the government enterprise owns network assets and facilities necessary to support the delivery of LMR services. These include towers, equipment shelters, emergency power systems and radio specific infrastructure such as base/repeater stations and antenna networks. The enterprise may also implement wide area backhaul to transport radio traffic between sites and dispatch centers.

A detailed list of all P25 LMR infrastructure components the state may own includes:

Network core: servers, routers, switches, applications Towers, lighting, ground systems Equipment shelters Emergency Power: Uninterruptable Power Supplies, Generators Base/Repeater Stations Antenna networks, transmit combiners, receiver multi-couplers Frequency standards Microwave radio(s) or fiber transmission equipment Site alarms Dispatch Centers: dispatch consoles, network switches; logging recorders Network management terminals and applications Network dashboard

Insource/Outsource Maintenance & Service 4.3.4.3.2In a hybrid model, the state typically outsources the maintenance of the technology assets and refreshes the technology components as necessary throughout the lifecycle of the outsourced solution. This relieves the state from hiring and training staff to maintain the LMR network infrastructure. NOC services are outsourced as well, although some state agencies will keep access to network management functions to view fault management applications that show the current operational status of all components in the network.

Insource/Outsource Best Practices 4.3.4.3.3Best practices in the industry for hybrid business models include:

Several states are now requiring vendor LMR solutions to address future FirstNet technology integration. The state should require all future vendors wishing to pursue LMR business opportunities to explain how their LMR platform accommodates migration, integration and interoperability with FirstNet services. Radio vendors should also be able to articulate their plans for device convergence to include traditional LMR services and FirstNet/commercial cellular services;

The state project team will need to develop a comprehensive Method of Procedure (MOP) to cover every step required to transition from the old technology to the new technology. The MOP should also address transition elements in moving from the current outsourced


model to an insourced model, which will require discussion on how to transition network responsibilities from the vendor to state full-time employees;


Establishing clearly defined performance metrics and enforceable penalties will help drive higher customer satisfaction with a hybrid network. Performance metrics will influence how vendors design their network in response to a future procurement. Performance metrics should be fully defined by the time the procurement specifications are finalized and published; and

Outreach, education and training should touch every SLERS user directly. Do not depend on one person in a department to keep all other users up to date on the transition plan or its progress.

Insource/Outsource Lessons Learned 4.3.4.3.4 Successful knowledge transfer is critical to the success of the transition. Within any

enterprise there are tenured personnel with extensive knowledge of the current legacy network, its strengths and weakness, how it performs operationally, and details about the challenges encountered during the transition to the current legacy network. These personnel will have knowledge of past decisions made regarding the network that may not be documented. Due to the unique operational attributes of each government entity, the knowledge these people possess will be important factors to consider in each successive LMR migration (e.g. P25, FirstNet); and

Governance should be inclusive and not show favoritism to one agency over another. All participants and partners should have a voice in decisions made about the system. No agency should be made to feel like a “second-class citizen”. Similarly, all participants should bring value to the network either in terms of physical assets that benefit others, or revenue to help share the cost of maintaining the network, or both.

Insource/Outsource Recommendations for Contractual Terms and Conditions 4.3.4.3.5Recommended terms and conditions that apply for a hybrid model are:

Any enterprise embarking on the transition from legacy technology to new P25 Phase II TDMA technology should develop a detailed method of procedure (MOP). That MOP should provide a systematic procedure for how to transition every component, service, feature and user from the old to the new system. The MOP helps the enterprise identify potential weaknesses in the transition, critical path elements, identify previously unknown obstacles and can build confidence in the success of the transition by documenting it in written text. An MOP should also be required as a submittal during a procurement response. The final MOP should be negotiated with the selected vendor during contract negotiations. Leaving any details of the MOP incomplete during the negotiations gives an advantage to the


selected vendor later during the implementation. Details of the MOP should become elements of the contractual performance metrics to avoid implementation delays;

Comprehensive user and administrative training should be delivered to all state users at a minimum. In addition, the selected vendor should be required to provide online training modules to the state that can be referenced throughout the lifecycle of the network;

The contract should include a comprehensive functional acceptance test plan, driven by user operational requirements and desired performance metrics. The functional elements of the test plan should be incorporated into the procurement specifications with the vendors required to respond with the methodology of how each will demonstrate functional compliance. The specifics of the functional test plan should also help to further define performance metrics that will be monitored throughout the duration of the contract; and


4.4 Evaluation of the Options These options were evaluated and included in this business case because they are within the scope for outsourcing as required by Chapter 287.0571, F.S., and they represent common procurement options utilized by the state for similar needs.

The following is the evaluation of options available to the state for services similar to LMR service delivery:

Descriptions of Available Options 4.4.1Section 287.0571 (4)(e), F.S. - A description of available options for achieving the goals. If state employees are currently performing the service or activity, at least one option involving maintaining state provision of the service or activity shall be included. This business case examines two options specifically for the scope of continued support, integration, and installation of LMR telecommunication services and ancillary features/capabilities following the expiration of the current contract. The current incumbent LMR service provided is:

Harris Corporation operates an outsourced business model that provides a 219-site Enhanced Digital Access Communications System – Extended Addressing (EDACS-EA) known as SLERS. The system primarily supports state and local government law enforcement agencies, although there are a few other public safety agencies on


the network today. Harris provides maintenance and administration of the network and support of a Network Operations Center for trouble-ticketing, system monitoring and customer service requests. Some state agencies provide their own in-house radio maintenance, while some others contract directly with Harris or another provider for radio maintenance.

The options for procurement of SLERS capability that are evaluated in this Business Case are:

Option 1 – Insourcing: DMS manages the majority of LMR telecommunications functions.

Option 2 – Outsourcing

Option Progressions

1. Establish radio unit service fee that supports a single unit refresh over the life of the contract period; 2. Achieve steady state service levels based on outsourcing the LMR network with coverage

performance comparable to what SLERS provides today supporting a P25 architecture; 3. Achieve increased coverage areas through outsourcing with incremental expansion of system to

provide enhanced portable/handheld coverage across the state; and 4. Optionally seek interoperability and partnerships with local government participation and the

opportunity for cost avoidance in any of the options.

Note: The hybrid insource/outsource option was not evaluated beyond conceptual discussion as this option was determined to yield the same complexity, management oversight issues, contract outsource needs, and cost constraints to the insource option. With this in mind, it was deemed duplicative to evaluate this option further.

Analysis Methodology 4.4.2Total Economic Impact (TEI) methodology is utilized in all phases of the analysis and business case definition. This methodology is designed to capture and properly communicate the value of telecommunications initiatives in a common business language. In so doing, TEI considers four elements of any initiative:

Benefits Costs (sometimes referred to as total cost of ownership, or TCO) Flexibility Risk

Figure 6 below shows the TEI methodology conceptually. Benefits, flexibility, and costs are considered, through the filter of risk assessment, in determining an expected return on investment for any given initiative.


Figure 6 - The Total Economic Impact Methodology15

Using this methodology, the approach to providing this business case will provide risk adjusted scenario analysis for options under consideration. This will serve as a broad scope of information of the ideal or optimal implementation scenario comparison. Development of a risk adjusted business case analysis provides the most likely scenario incorporating environmental constraints, discrete risks, and uncertainty. The risk-adjusted scenario takes into consideration quantifiable variables that provide insight into risks, assumptions, and expectations with respect to the business case definition process. The risk-adjusted scenario will expand and expose all issues for a procurement and implementation of the scale and complexity of SLERS.

Potential Improvements/Service Features 4.4.3Potential improvements and Service Features to be addressed in the new SLERS procurement, include:

Open architecture offering an enterprise-wide LMR solution working seamlessly with leading LMR service providers and hardware vendors;

Platform flexibility, scalability, and support for P25 industry standards, enabling a seamless interoperability with other P25 local governments in the state;

A migration plan to transition customers to improved coverage and system interoperability at the state, county and municipality levels;

Delivery of LMR services over combined network topologies using MFN and traditional microwave technologies;

15 Source: Forrester Research, Inc.


Service Level Agreements for DMS and its customers that maximizes system availability and performance, supported by a customized tool set for monitoring service levels;

Additional security services to protect the integrity of the network; User safety services such as GPS location service and over-the-air rekeying for encrypted radios; Elimination of duplicating LMR services at the state and county level where local governments will

now participate with SLERS as a partner; and Technology platform enabling future convergence, migration and interoperability to FirstNet.

Option 1 – Insource 4.4.4With a fully insourced model, the state would competitively procure a P25 radio network and radios via the procurement process. The successful vendor would be responsible for implementation of the P25 radio site equipment pursuant to the state’s criteria. This P25 site equipment would be maintained and operated by state full-time employees including field technical engineers, Network Operations Center personnel and network administrators. If the network experienced a failure, the state would be responsible for restoring normal system operation. One other function of the state’s administrative personnel would include providing customer services support to the agencies, including outreach and marketing activities to potential SLERS partners.

The state would be responsible for acquiring leases for commercial tower use to support the network. In areas where commercial towers are not available, the state would build and own towers to provide necessary radio coverage. The state would manage its own towers and would manage any lease contracts for commercial sites.

For site connectivity, the state would use a portion of MyFloridaNet (MFN) fiber-based service between the radio tower sites, dispatch centers and the network’s core infrastructure. For towers located in remote areas where MyFloridaNet connectivity does not exist or would prove cost prohibitive to reach, the state would implement private licensed microwave backhaul to provide site connectivity.

In a fully insourced model, the state agencies would also need to procure new radios capable of P25 Phase II TDMA operation and compatible with the new network. The state would also institute a radio replacement program, which would require the state to procure replacement radios at the end of the useful life of the units or at such an interval as deemed appropriate. As a potential cost saving measure, the state could procure radios as a volume-procurement with the infrastructure to replace all radios for the P25 transition. At the same time, the state could seek proposals for P25 radio only offerings and then compare the value of the different offerings. This would offer the state several different options for radio purchases. Neither of the approaches locks the state into a single vendor radio solution, as the open architecture of the P25 network will support any P25 compliant radio offering. Radios could also be sourced from multiple vendors as long as minimum performance and interoperability criteria are met. The state and/or individual agencies would maintain the radios themselves including preventative maintenance, radio repairs and software updates.


In this business model, the state would also procure regular lifecycle updates and services (technology refresh) from the infrastructure vendor. These would address the vendor’s own radio specific equipment (base/repeater stations, voting comparators, site controllers, etc.), third party network equipment (routers, switches, servers) and software updates (operating systems, anti-virus definitions, etc.). The vendor would implement these refreshes.

Local Government Partnerships 4.4.4.1There exists an opportunity for cost sharing with the state through local government partnerships. Many local governments have their own municipal or countywide LMR network. Some of these are already P25 networks. If the state and the selected outsource vendor for the P25 network can establish a partnership with a county for shared LMR services, then the state, the vendor and the local government benefit from this agreement. The state benefits by having access to the local government towers and infrastructure. This eliminates the need for the state to have its own towers or tower leases in that area. The state may also benefit from an increase in number of users on the system, which may translate to cost sharing opportunities for the state and all partner agencies. The local government benefits from reduced infrastructure cost and direct interoperability with state agencies. The selected vendor benefits by gaining more revenue through more users on the network. Finally, the local taxpayers benefit from not having to pay for duplication of LMR infrastructure in their area for both state and local government users. The challenges with establishing partnerships of this nature tend to be tied to timing. That being a partnership may not become effectively integrated into the state system until years after initial implementation. Therefore, there is not predictable forecast as to when a partnership might be established.

There is no one single model for how a local government would participate on the next generation of SLERS. There are, in fact, many options for local government participation and partnership. As stated in the lessons learned section of the business model descriptions, the state must be flexible in any potential agreement and the agreement should benefit all parties. Some examples of ways for local governments to participate on SLERS and share costs are:

The local government entity buys radios and pays a fee per user to access the network. The local government uses existing coverage from SLERS sites in the area. Increasing the total number of SLERS users may provide the opportunity for cost sharing for the services layer of the network;

The local government entity subscribes to a radio outsource service and pays a fee per radio device that covers the cost of the radio. The local government uses existing coverage from SLERS sites in the area;

The local government entity may need to add channels to the existing SLERS sites to ensure capacity is available for both local government users and state users on these sites. The local government uses existing coverage from SLERS sites in the area;

The selected vendor may add channels to the existing SLERS sites to ensure adequate capacity, but adjusts the local government entity’s user fee accordingly to pay for the implementation of new channels;


The local government entity has an existing P25 network today and connects its sites directly to the SLERS core(s). No SLERS sites need to be built or leased in the local government as coverage meets or exceeds minimum SLERS coverage requirements;

The local government entity has an existing P25 network today from the same vendor selected by the state. The local government desires to keep its own network core, but connects its core to the SLERS core(s). No SLERS sites need to be built or leased in the area;

The local government entity has an existing P25 network today from a different vendor than selected by the state. The local government may connect its P25 core network to the SLERS core(s) via P25 ISSI16. SLERS sites may still be needed in this scenario. The P25 ISSI may not support all of the features implemented by the selected SLERS vendor. SLERS users may only need or want to access this local government network for interoperability events and not as their primary radio service in the local government;

The local government entity procures additional P25 sites from the selected vendor to place in the local government to enhance coverage from the SLERS sites already there;

The local government entity has a proprietary network today and executes a procurement agreement with the state’s selected vendor to upgrade the proprietary network to P25 service and connect directly to SLERS; and

The local government entity has a P25 network today and agrees to provide use of its existing tower topology to the state under a private lease through the selected outsource vendor. The selected vendor can implement SLERS P25 network infrastructure at these sites and replicate the same coverage the local government users experience in the area.

Any opportunity to leverage local government infrastructure or bring more local government users onto SLERS is a potential opportunity to reduce the cost per user to the state. Other states like Ohio, Michigan, Louisiana and Illinois have had noticeable success with local government participation on their networks. While Illinois is the only outsource model in this list, it is the inclusive governance and the renewable technology investment by these agencies that have led to success in bringing on more local governments and sharing costs for the networks.

This progression is not evaluated further within the remaining sections of the business case unless quantifiable information can be applied to a given topic area due to the unknown nature of how a proposed local government partnership might transpire. Each opportunity will be faced with numerous variances in size, scope, cost, complexity, interoperability, and implementation timeframes.

Assumptions for Insource Option 4.4.4.2Assumptions used for the insourcing option are as follows:

16 P25 Inter-subsystem Interface; a suite of standards that defines the wireline connection between two or more P25 networks, enabling a network of networks approach to regional or statewide interoperability.


July 1, 2017: SLERS contract executed, 19-year term. 4-year transition begins generally per DMS Key Milestones. 4-year transition to provide adequate cushion for agencies to transition without impact;

July 1, 2017: Transition of SLERS begins; July 1, 2019: Radio unit fees would start based upon individual agencies migration plan; July 1, 2021: New SLERS fully operational; June 30, 2036: End of SLERS contract; The state continues to make payments for use of current SLERS through the end of the contract

on June 30, 2021; The state will determine the appropriate high availability backhaul service necessary to meet

99.999% reliability for site connectivity; The state will execute all commercial and private tower leases necessary; The state will build-out towers in areas where commercial tower leases are not available to

provide the necessary coverage; The state will provide staff to operate and maintain the next generation of SLERS; The state will provide customer service and support to all state radio user agencies and partner

agencies; The state will operate a Network Operations Center for monitoring the next generation SLERS;

and Governance for SLERS becomes a more inclusive model that will encourage participation and

outreach to all first responders in the state. The composition of the Joint Task Force will change to reflect representation of the entire public safety community at the state and local level. New legislation will be required to establish a new SLERS governance structure. Details on recommended governance changes are provided in the Recommended Option and Detailed Discussion section and in the Recommended Changes in Processes and Policies section of the business case.


Advantages, Disadvantages, and Risks 4.4.4.3Section 287.0571 (4)(f) - An analysis of the advantages and disadvantages of each option, including, at a minimum, potential performance improvements and risks. Advantages and disadvantages for the insource option as compared to continued LMR service contracting, and to each other, are as follows:

Advantages 4.4.4.3.1 The state has full autonomy in making decisions on the daily operation of the network based

on the availability of state resources, budget and its own timeline; Bringing decision making and service delivery within the state ensures a higher probability

of executing a policy or procedural change in regards to SLERS operation since vendor influence is not present;

The state may be able to leverage existing contracts and pricing for some network and site components that would be necessary in an LMR infrastructure; and

The state is free to determine the appropriate mix of MFN network vs licensed microwave for data transport.

Disadvantages or Potential Concerns 4.4.4.3.2 Requires hiring full-time employees (FTEs) for maintaining and operating the network; Requires hiring FTEs for radio repair and maintenance; Requires hiring FTEs for managing security policies and procedures for the network; Requires hiring FTEs for Network Operations Center (NOC) support; Requires hiring FTEs for tower management of state-owned towers and facilities; Requires hiring FTEs for administrative oversight of the network; Requires hiring FTEs for spectrum management and analysis and responding to regulatory

matters; Potential for high turnover of full-time employees; Potential for implementation and transition risks moving from existing outsource service

delivery to insource service delivery.

Risks 4.4.4.3.3 Gaps in service response due to potential turnover of personnel and subsequent drop in

SLERS customer satisfaction; Inability to provide in-house response to a catastrophic loss of service; Potential for interruption of service during transition from outsourced model back to

insource model.

Scalability, Customer Satisfaction, Ease of Implementation, and Stability 4.4.4.4Moving to a comprehensive insource business model represents the most significant change in operation from the current outsource model. Key criteria for the insourced model evaluation are discussed below:


Scalability 4.4.4.4.1In an insourced model, the state is responsible for all aspects of the LMR system. If only state agencies participate on the network, the state could meet the demands of daily operation with the staff identified for this option. If the state is successful in attracting local agency partners to participate the state will be challenged to meet the service demands as the total subscriber population grows. While the shared services supported on the network (e.g. wide area call processing) would easily scale to support additional users, the services provided by the staff would not scale to support the work required to support large partners joining the system. The need for additional DMS full-time employees will escalate as local agency partners are added to the system.

Customer Satisfaction 4.4.4.4.2If the state can fund competitive salaries for an internal staff of technical and administrative personnel with the capacity to reliably service the needs of all state and local agencies, overall customer satisfaction can be very high with this model. However, the state would need to locate technical personnel in several areas of the state. Normally, customer satisfaction for an insourced business model can be very high, but with the likelihood of high turnover and the time required to provide adequate training to technical personnel, customer satisfaction may suffer as the quality of customer service diminishes.

Ease of Implementation 4.4.4.4.3Transition from the current outsourced model to a fully insourced model has the highest probability of experiencing disruption of service among the options considered. The state can minimize disruptions by developing a comprehensive method of procedure for the implementation of the insourced business model approach.

Stability 4.4.4.4.4After the transition to the new SLERS is complete and the state moves into the operations and maintenance period, the state becomes responsible for maintaining the performance of the network. If staffed appropriately, stability of the services could be very high in an insourced model. However, if the state experiences a high rate of turnover of technical personnel, the quality of maintenance services could suffer due to shortage of properly trained service personnel.

Qualitative and Quantitative Benefits 4.4.4.5A description of the qualitative and quantitative benefits (cost considerations) for the insource option is provided below.

Direct & Indirect Costs 4.4.4.5.1Under the insourcing option, DMS would negotiate the procurement of a new P25 Phase II TDMA network providing coverage at 98% reliability for mobile/in vehicle and 95% portable/handheld. To avoid a large capital expenditure for the entire network paid at completion of milestones during the implementation phase, it is suggested the state would pay for the network via vendor financing over a 19-year period, beginning in 2017 and payments terminating in 2036.


The radio units are suggested to be financed over the same 19-year period as a service fee that would include a single unit refresh during the life of the contract. This fee would be paid by agencies as they migrate onto the next generation of SLERS.

DMS would use existing MFN connections at approximately 30 percent of these sites to transport SLERS voice and data services content. As SLERS transitions to the new model with P25, new direct costs (increased capacity) may be incurred from the use of MFN connections to these SLERS tower sites.

DMS should anticipate direct cost increase across internal operations that are required to manage the insource environment. DMS should strive to streamline many internal operational functions, including general contract management, billing, provisioning, engineering and customer service. These cost increases should be expected across the following cost categories:

Direct Cost Categories

1. P25 Infrastructure, Implementation, and maintenance 2. P25 Radios 3. MFN Service 4. Tower Leases 5. Network Operations Center 6. Salary & Benefits Including Staff Augmentation & Operations 7. Non-Salary Overhead (Including Non-Rent Expense, OCO and Data Processing) 8. Contractual Services (Including Equipment Maintenance, Background Checks, Etc.)

Indirect Cost Categories

1. Common Costs, Including Charges Assessed for Admin Services, Insurance, HR & Rent 2. General Business Support 3. Research & Development 4. Special Projects 5. DMS Device Support

Potential Savings/Cost Avoidance 4.4.4.5.2The only significant opportunity for cost avoidance for insourcing considers the use of MFN instead of licensed microwave for site connectivity. The state can avoid additional cost by implementing more MFN services for site connectivity instead of implementing traditional licensed microwave connectivity to each of the sites. For each site that employs MFN connectivity instead of microwave, the state can avoid costs of approximately $381,000 per site over the life of the contract. Note that this number is an average across all sites as the microwave equipment content required per site may vary.


Figure 7- MFN vs. Microwave Cost per Site; as percentage of MFN use increases, the per site cost reduces

Transition Costs 4.4.4.5.3Transport Consideration In the transition to the next generation of SLERS, the model supports leveraging MFN transport as a more economical, yet highly reliable alternative to traditional licensed microwave connectivity. For many years, copper and fiber-based circuits have been deemed unreliable for mission critical site links, but newer technologies and changes in design philosophy have increased the reliability of many of these commercial services.

Approximately eighty of the existing SLERS sites today have MFN connectivity to support equipment for both the Florida Interoperability Network and the mutual aid channels located at these sites. Sites that use MFN service on a protected loop could use MFN as their primary backhaul service without the need for licensed microwave connectivity. Option 1 Insourcing uses MFN as the site connectivity service at 30 percent of the sites. The remainder of the sites for Option 1 will use licensed microwave. The percentage of MFN utilization is factored into the cost analysis for the insource model. Ultimately, it will be to the state’s discretion to determine the proper mix of MFN and licensed microwave across all the sites and dispatch centers in the new SLERS.

Personnel Considerations Option 1 will require hiring 76 new full-time employees to support the insource model for providing statewide LMR services. These positions include field technicians, field technician supervisors, NOC technicians, a NOC supervisor and others to provide administrative support. Total salaries and


benefits for these 76 FTEs come to approximately $103.5 million over the 19-year period. These costs have been included in analysis for the insourcing option.

With the insource model, the state assumes a greater responsibility in terms of responsiveness to failures within the network topology across the state. This presents a challenge in comparison to how a vendor would handle an event outside of normal operations where by a vendor could bring in additional support personnel more easily from outside resources to meet a demand. The state would not be able to respond as quickly, which presents a risk to the service operations.

Project Funding Sources and Options 4.4.4.5.4Today, the primary funding for SLERS is provided by vehicle and vessel registration fees and moving violation citation fees. Current fee revenue is not sufficient to fund Option 1. Therefore, Option 1 proposes a supplement to existing funding in the form of user fees.

To move forward with a P25 system upgrade, all existing EDACS-EA radios will need to be replaced with P25 radios to operate on the new system. Today, there is no dedicated funding source for the purchase, maintenance, and replacement of radios. Option1 includes possible new radio fees as a way to provide the funding, estimated at $13 million, annually.

Option 1 proposes the following funding assumptions:

$1 fee for every vehicle and vessel registration in the state each year will continue; $3 fee for each non-violent, moving vehicle traffic citation will expire as planned in 2021; $631 Radio Fee (Per Subscriber Unit) Annual will be paid by user agencies; and $1128 User Fee (Per Subscriber Unit) Annual will be paid by user agencies.

Total Estimated Costs 4.4.4.5.5Under DMS’s existing SLERS contract, the agency is expected to spend $68.3 million/$17 million annually on LMR services from July 2017 through the end of the contract on June 30, 2021. These payments would continue to be made via the current SLERS trust fund. During the build-out of the next generation SLERS, it is anticipated that the state will need to begin making payments for the new system.

Overall cost for insourcing is estimated to be $980.5 million over the 19-year period from execution of the SLERS Contract in June 2017 through the end of contract in June 2036. This includes cost of the remainder of the existing SLERS contract during the transition period.

During the transition period, the current revenue deposits into the trust fund are not sufficient to cover an estimated shortfall of $29.6 million. A revenue source should be identified to cover the shortfall, while existing trust funds maintain the existing system.

The following chart represents the estimated costs breakdown for insource. The “Enhanced Coverage” represents the estimated cost to achieve 98% (Mobile)/95% (Portable/Handheld) coverage capabilities for P25.


Chart Breakdown: Total Cost – Next Generation SLERS – Enhanced Coverage – represents the total estimated cost

to establish the new P25 LMR, operate and maintain support, and acquire the radio devices; Vehicle and Vessel Registration (Per Registration) – represents the current surcharge assessed

for each registration into the SLERS trust fund to support operations and maintenance of the system. Currently, this surcharge generates a portion of the $17 million annually that is part of the $68.3 million spend on current SLERS;

Citation Fee (Per Citation) – represents the current surcharge assessed for each citation throughout the state into the SLERS trust fund to provide additional funding to support operations and maintenance of the system. Currently, this surcharge generates a portion of the $17 million annual spending that is part of the $68.3 million total spending on current SLERS. This surcharge is due to expire in July 1, 2021;

Radio Fee (Per Subscriber Unit) Annual – represents the estimated annual fee per subscriber unit/radio device. This fee is intended to be established as a service charge spread across the life of the contract in this model.

User Fee (Per Subscriber Unit) Annual - represents the estimated annual fee per subscriber unit/radio device in support of the necessary funds that are not fully covered by existing trust fund sources. This fee is intended to be established as a service charge spread across the life of the contract in this model.

Enhanced Coverage Option 1 - Insource Total Cost - Next Generation SLERS - Enhanced Coverage $ 980,531,636

Funding Sources from Trust Fund and Agency Fees Vehicle and Vessel Registration (Per Registration) $ 1.00 Citation Fee (Per Citation) $ 3.00 Radio Fee (Per Subscriber Unit) Annual $ 631.00 User Fee (Per Subscriber Unit) Annual $ 1,128.41

Figure 8 - Insource - Enhanced Coverage Estimated Cost

Risk Analysis 4.4.4.6In an insourced model, the state would employ a team of field technical engineers and other technical staff to operate and maintain the network. LMR engineers and technicians possess unique skill sets in the market and demand for these skillsets has consistently exceeded supply in the industry. If the state could not provide competitive salaries and benefits for technical staff, the state could experience high turnover of qualified field technical personnel. In addition, certain parts of the state have higher costs of living. The state will need to place field technical personnel in strategic locations throughout the state, including areas with high costs of living like Orlando and South Florida. Current state salary levels for field technician grades are not high enough to support the costs of living in these areas.

With insourcing, there is also the potential of becoming “an island” in the LMR industry. A fully insourced enterprise technology solution becomes dependent on its own limited resources and


expertise to resolve problems. This can prove to be a cost-saving advantage to the enterprise until a major problem of catastrophic proportions occurs with the network. A statewide enterprise would staff appropriately for providing service during normal operations. The enterprise can scale its service capabilities as demand increases only to a point before the quality of service provided suffers. If catastrophic events such as a major system failure or multiple site failures occur, the state’s resources are pushed beyond their response capabilities and there are no other resources from which to draw support. During a major system outage, especially an event covering extensive geography, state technical resources would have to triage the failures. This means certain areas of the state and the user population would experience extensive delays in site or system restoration in their area until state resources could reach and begin responding to the outages. This is where the scalability of the service arm of a vendor has a distinct advantage over insourced service.

If the state designs coverage for the network, and makes error(s) in its coverage prediction, or in its definition of the required coverage acceptance criteria, coverage will not be satisfactory in geographic areas and/or for certain user populations. That means the state would have to purchase additional equipment for and implement additional sites to bring the coverage performance to a satisfactory level.

If the state fails to calculate voice capacity correctly at all sites, it would have to add more capacity at a cost to the state, or overbuild voice capacity in the design, which raises the cost of the insource implementation. In an outsource model with performance metrics associated with voice grade of service, a vendor would be responsible for achieving the proper voice capacity with no additional costs to the state.

Several state agencies have expressed a need for GPS location service via radio; throughput for GPS updates can be measured and there are challenges ensuring P25 data services are available to support the update cadence an agency may desire. If the state miscalculates data service throughput for GPS, they would have to add more data capacity to meet customer demand; outsource vendor would own this cost and have performance metrics associated to support this demand shift.

In the insource model, the state decides what service/technology to use for site connectivity/backhaul. Responsibility for restoration of unreliable site links rests with the limited resources of the state. An outsource vendor would compare the risk of not meeting performance metrics vs. the cost of site connectivity and design accordingly. If the vendor fails to meet the performance metrics, they will incur the cost of improving the site link reliability.

Mitigation Plan 4.4.4.7Mitigation of negative consequences of movement to an insourced LMR service is provided by the following factors:

Pay a competitive market based salary for full-time employees; the salaries used to develop the cost analysis for the insource model are based on current state salary structures provided during the analysis;


Develop an employee succession plan specific to LMR competencies including identifying labor sources with LMR specific skillsets;

Develop an internal disaster recovery services plan that identifies what technical staff can do and cannot do;

Acquire a disaster recovery services plan tailored specifically to the requirements of SLERS with the network vendor for the radio infrastructure equipment;

Establish contract service rates for outsourced tech support with radio infrastructure vendor so that the service is available in an emergency.

Implementation Timeline 4.4.4.8 July 1, 2015 through August 31, 2015 – Conduct candidate search and interview process for 3 to 4

LMR industry subject matter experts for new SLERS project team; September 1, 2015 – October 31, 2015 - Hire new SLERS project team November 1, 2015 through March 31, 2016 - Develop a procurement strategy and all necessary

documents for the competitive solicitation. Conduct stakeholder interviews, needs assessments and host vendor forums;

January 1, 2016 through March 31, 2016 - Develop the evaluation criteria for the competitive solicitation;

April 1, 2016 – Release competitive solicitation document(s) April 1, 2016 through December 31, 2016 – Respond to vendor questions regarding technical

specifications, issue addenda as required during vendor response period; January 1, 2017 through March 31, 2017 - Evaluate vendor responses and conduct vendor oral

interviews; April 1, 2017 through June 30, 2017 - Recommend vendor for award. Prepare and execute final

contract17; July 1, 2017: SLERS contract executed, 19-year term. 4-year transition begins generally per DMS

Key Milestones. 4-year transition to provide adequate cushion for agencies to transition without impact;

July 1, 2017: Transition of SLERS begins; o Project team provides oversight during project implementation; monitors compliance to

contract requirements including functionality and performance acceptance testing o The transition of SLERS to P25 Phase II TDMA will be technically complex. Due to the size

of SLERS and the number of users operating on the system, a regional transition of SLERS presents the least risk of disruption of service. The site-specific transition details are too complicated and varied to present within the context of this business case. The SLERS project team should define minimum transition requirements such as amount of acceptable downtime per site during the transition, equipment cutover times, radio transition procedures for programming and provisioning, etc. The selected vendor

17 A protest will delay the transition and could put full network transition by June 30, 2021 at risk.


should be responsible for using these requirements and developing a detailed Method of Procedure (MOP) that would require review and approval by DMS and the SLERS project team. More details regarding the transition of SLERS will be provided in the Transition Plan section of the business case.

December 31, 2020: Transition of SLERS completed and cutover; o The projected cutover of the last phase of the transition would need to occur at least six

months prior to the end of the current contract. This gives DMS and the successful vendor(s) additional time for correcting performance issues, user equipment problems, training issues and resolving punch list items.

July 1, 2021: New SLERS fully operational; June 30, 2036: End of SLERS contract.

The timeline is anticipated that enhanced coverage capabilities will be established within the same timeframe as the migration to P25. In some cases, additional time to provide coverage capabilities may extend beyond 2021, but those exceptions are not determinable at this time. Factors that may affect the vendor’s timeline are:

Tower lease availability; Tower augmentation limitations; Establishing new tower sites; and Integration of potential partnerships with other local governments.

Option 2 – Outsource 4.4.5This option is comprised of two logical progressions that are fully evaluated and a general discussion of how potential local government partnerships could be exercised through a procurement process. Common core analysis topics that fit each of the progressions will be discussed holistically. Where differences occur within the progressions, those topics are discretely discussed. The outsource model could also be implemented with varying levels of coverage enhancements for next generation SLERS. The cost analysis depicts options for coverage. The following outlines how these progressions could be established:

Steady State P25 4.4.5.1The “steady-state” model means the existing system is replaced with P25 Phase II TDMA technology and coverage is comparable to what the state experiences today with 98 percent mobile/in-vehicle coverage throughout the state. With an outsourced model, the state would select a vendor to build, own and operate the P25 radio infrastructure through a competitive procurement process. At the end of the outsourcing contract, the state may have the option to purchase some or all of the system components for a nominal fee. The successful vendor would be responsible for implementation of the P25 radio infrastructure per the state’s criteria. This P25 infrastructure would be maintained and operated by the vendor’s staff of field technical engineers, Network Operations Center and administrative personnel, with administrative oversight and contract management provided by the state. The vendor would be required to meet or exceed contractual service level agreements. The vendor would also provide


customer services support to the state and its agencies, including outreach and marketing activities to potential new SLERS partners.

The selected vendor in an outsourced model would acquire all necessary tower lease agreements and manage the tower lease agreements. In areas where existing commercial towers do not exist, the vendor would build, own and manage towers on either state properties or leased properties that are sufficient to provide the necessary coverage for SLERS radio users.

The successful vendor would provide suitable and reliable site connectivity via a mix of MyFloridaNet (MFN) fiber-based services and private licensed microwave connectivity. While the current SLERS configuration depends almost exclusively on licensed microwave for backhaul services, the fiber-based services available from MFN could offer substantial cost savings. Since the selected vendor would be responsible for meeting SLAs for system availability and site connectivity, it should be the choice of each responding vendor to consider what they should provide for reliable site connectivity with respect to utilization of MFN resources.

The deployment of the radio units in support of the P25 transition as suggested in this business case models an initial device upon migration from EDACS-EA. A second device would be provided at a normal replacement interval midway through the life of the contract period. The business case depicts this deployment to be achieved through a radio service fee per unit on a monthly basis over the life of the contract. Numerous options may provide a different service/procurement option for the radio device provided by the vendor community. These options should be evaluated to support the best interest of the state.

In the outsource model, the vendor would be responsible for providing and implementing regular lifecycle updates and services (technology refresh) for the network. These updates would address the vendor’s own radio specific equipment (base/repeater stations, voting comparators, site controllers, etc.), third party network equipment (routers, switches, servers) and software updates (operating systems, anti-virus definitions, etc.).

Portable/Handheld Coverage Enhancement 4.4.5.2This progression would increase the coverage performance of the new SLERS to provide portable/handheld radio coverage to 95% reliability across the geography of the state. Since the procurement process should be used for each responding vendor to determine the correct number of sites to provide this level of coverage, a full portable/handheld coverage study has not been conducted for this business case. Since additional radio tower sites are a key cost driver, the cost analysis for this option will show the different yearly costs to the state for an incremental quantity of sites.

Local Government Partnerships 4.4.5.3There exists an opportunity for cost sharing with the state through local government partnerships. Many local governments have their own municipal or countywide LMR network. Some of these are already P25 networks. If the state and the selected outsource vendor for the P25 network can establish a partnership with a county for shared LMR services, then the state, the vendor and the local


government benefit from this agreement. The state benefits by having access to the local government towers and infrastructure. This eliminates the need for the state to have its own towers or tower leases in that area. The state may also benefits from an increase in number of users on the system, which may translate to cost sharing opportunities for the state and all partner agencies. The local government benefits from reduced infrastructure cost and direct interoperability with state agencies. The selected vendor benefits by gaining more revenue through more users on the network. Finally, the local taxpayers benefit from not having to pay for duplication of LMR infrastructure in their area for both state and local government users. The challenges with establishing partnerships of this nature tend to be tied to timing. That being a partnership may not become effectively integrated into the state system until years after initial implementation. Therefore, there is not predictable forecast as to when a partnership might be established.

There is no one single model for how a local government would participate on the new SLERS. There are, in fact, many options for local government participation and partnership. As stated in the lessons learned section of the business model descriptions, the state must be flexible in any potential agreement and the agreement should benefit all parties. Some examples of ways for local governments to participate on SLERS and share costs are:

The local government entity buys radios and pays a fee per user to access the network. The local government uses existing coverage from SLERS sites in the area. Increasing the total number of SLERS users may provide the opportunity for cost sharing for the services layer of the network. The state should be mindful of negotiations for tiered levels of radio device commitments to achieve reduced user fees as more users come on the system ;

The local government entity subscribes to a radio outsource service and pays a fee per radio device that covers the cost of the radio. The local government uses existing coverage from SLERS sites in the area;

The local government entity may need to add channels to the existing SLERS sites to ensure capacity is available for both local government users and state users on these sites. The local government uses existing coverage from SLERS sites in the area;

The selected vendor may add channels to the existing SLERS sites to ensure adequate capacity, but adjusts the local government entity’s user fee accordingly to pay for the implementation of new channels;

The local government entity has an existing P25 network today and connects its sites directly to the SLERS core(s). No SLERS sites need to be built or leased in the local government as coverage meets or exceeds minimum SLERS coverage requirements;

The local government entity has an existing P25 network today from the same vendor selected by the state. The local government desires to keep its own network core, but connects its core to the SLERS core(s). No SLERS sites need to be built or leased in the area;


The local government entity has an existing P25 network today from a different vendor than selected by the state. The local government may connect its P25 core network to the SLERS core(s) via P25 ISSI18. SLERS sites may still be needed in this scenario. The P25 ISSI may not support all of the features implemented by the selected SLERS vendor. SLERS users may only need or want to access this local government network for interoperability events and not as their primary radio service in the local government;

The local government entity procures additional P25 sites from the selected vendor to place in the local government to enhance coverage from the SLERS sites already there;

The local government entity has a proprietary network today and executes a procurement agreement with the state’s selected vendor to upgrade the proprietary network to P25 service and connect directly to SLERS; and

The local government entity has a P25 network today and agrees to provide use of its existing tower topology to the state under a private lease through the selected outsource vendor. The selected vendor can implement SLERS P25 network infrastructure at these sites and replicate the same coverage the local government users experience in the area.

Any opportunity to leverage local government infrastructure or bring more local government users onto SLERS is a potential opportunity to reduce the cost per user to the state. Other states like Ohio, Michigan, Louisiana and Illinois have had noticeable success with local government participation on their networks. While Illinois is the only outsource model in this list, it is the inclusive governance and the renewable technology investment by these agencies that have led to success in bringing on more local governments and sharing costs for the networks.

This progression is not evaluated further within the remaining sections of the business case unless quantifiable information can be applied to a given topic area due to the unknown nature of how a proposed local government partnership might transpire. Each opportunity will be faced with numerous variances in size, scope, cost, complexity, interoperability, and implementation timeframes.

Assumptions 4.4.5.4This section assumes and builds upon the previous sections assumptions as the variant progression is advanced starting with “Steady State P25”.

Steady State P25 4.4.5.4.1 July 1, 2017: SLERS contract executed, 15-year term. 4-year transition begins generally per

DMS Key Milestones. 4-year transition to provide adequate cushion for agencies to transition without impact;

July 1, 2017: Transition of SLERS begins;

18 P25 Inter-subsystem Interface; a suite of standards that defines the wireline connection between two or more P25 networks, enabling a network of networks approach to regional or statewide interoperability.


July 1, 2019: Radio unit fees would start based upon individual agencies migration plan; July 1, 2021: New SLERS fully operational; June 30, 2036: End of SLERS contract; Radio coverage performance remains at its current level. There is no build-out of additional

sites except in areas where additional partners and their assets may be added to SLERS; State continues to make payments for use of current SLERS while the next generation of

SLERS is being constructed; The selected vendor will determine the appropriate high availability backhaul service

necessary to meet 99.999% reliability for site connectivity; The selected vendor will execute all commercial and private tower leases necessary; The selected vendor will build-out towers in areas where commercial tower leases are not

available; The selected vendor will provide staff to operate and maintain the next generation of SLERS; The selected vendor will provide customer service and support to the state and partner

agencies; The selected vendor will operate a Network Operations Center for monitoring the next

generation of SLERS; and Governance for SLERS becomes a more inclusive model that will encourage participation

and outreach to all first responders in the state. The composition of the Joint Task Force will change to reflect representation of the entire public safety community at the state and local level. New legislation will be required to establish a new SLERS governance structure. Details on recommended governance changes are provided in the Recommended Option and Detailed Discussion section and in the Recommended Changes in Processes and Policies section of the business case.

Portable/Handheld Outdoor Coverage Enhancement 4.4.5.4.2Radio coverage performance would be improved through additional tower leases or build-out of additional sites by the selected vendor during each phase of the transition; and

The selected vendor would be successful in acquiring the sites identified and necessary to deliver the contracted level of portable/handheld radio coverage.

Local Government Partnerships 4.4.5.4.3Evaluation and implementation options for potential partnerships would be negotiated by the service provider with acceptance of proposed interoperability and expansion of the system approved by DMS.

Advantages, Disadvantages, and Risks 4.4.5.5Section 287.0571 (4)(f) - An analysis of the advantages and disadvantages of each option, including, at a minimum, potential performance improvements and risks.


This section assumes the previous sections advantages, disadvantages, and risks as the variant progression is advanced starting with “Steady State P25”.

Steady State P25 4.4.5.5.1Advantages

Provides the least disruptive environment for current SLERS customers; Continues current operating mode, practices, and service provisioning and alternatives; Minimizes additional capital expenditures by DMS and SLERS customers; Facilitates evolution of technologies through procurement purchasing power; Provides greater assurance of achieving required SLA through unified procurement managed

by selected vendor; Facilitates negotiation with single party for re-pricing at various points over time; Relies upon the existing MFN network for data transport and microwave service

provisioning; Removes politics as a barrier to first responder interoperability by employing a neutral

service provider to serve all agencies; The selected vendor is responsible for providing technology refreshes throughout the

lifecycle of the network and the radios; Mitigates the need to hire additional full-time employees to maintain the network; The sales arm of an LMR vendor is better suited to market the network to potential new

SLERS partners; and The successful vendor will have scalable service support to meet the demands for customer

support as participation in SLERS grows;

Disadvantages or Potential Concerns

There is no planned coverage enhancement with this option to improve performance for portable/handheld radios on the network;

Maintains an environment where a single vendor controls all SLERS services; and Potential for implementation and transition risks for new provider selected via

procurement.

Risks

Maintains the current state of portable/handheld radio coverage at far less than 95% percent reliability, well below national public safety standards; and

Outsourcing LMR services through a single vendor limits the flexibility of the state to incorporate future technology innovations that may be available from other vendors.

Portable/Handheld Outdoor Coverage Enhancement 4.4.5.5.2Advantages


Provides portable/handheld coverage enhancement at an acceptable public safety level of 95% reliability for SLERS customers; and

Disadvantages or Potential Concerns

Ensuring new coverage areas are thoroughly tested and accepted; and Increased cost based on requested coverage enhancement.

Risks

Ability to implement timely; and Establishing a framework of cost that is acceptable for expansion as approved by DMS.

Scalability, Customer Satisfaction, Ease of Implementation, and Stability 4.4.5.6This section assumes and builds upon the previous sections scalability, customer satisfaction, ease of implementation, and stability as the variant progression is advanced starting with “Steady State P25”.

Steady State P25 4.4.5.6.1“Staying the course” with an outsourced model would offer the state the least disruptive transition and continuity of current operations and staff. Key criteria for the outsourced model evaluation are discussed below:

Scalability

LMR vendors are better equipped to move resources from one customer to another customer as customer demands change, while at the same time maintaining minimum performance levels. The service levels in an outsourced model would be more scalable than what the state could support in a fully insourced business model.

Customer Satisfaction

Vendors press for utilization of common service levels or performance metrics to avoid risk, as opposed to more customized performance metrics. Given the unique requirements of the users, customized performance metrics are necessary to deliver satisfactory performance levels.

Ease of Implementation

A mature LMR vendor will have established processes for transitioning customers to their service model. Field proven processes usually enable a successful and even shorter timeline for implementation.


Stability

In the LMR industry, each vendor develops its P25 solution as a “designed network” using in house expertise to address every level of network performance. In the event of a catastrophic failure of the P25 network, the vendor will possess the most knowledge on how to restore the network back to normal operation.

Portable/Handheld outdoor Coverage Enhancement:

This variant mirrors the first variant in terms of service delivery. The only difference is in regards to the number of sites implemented to impact portable/handheld coverage. This factor may impact the ease of implementation as described below

Scalability

With the implementation of potentially dozens more sites, scalability of the selected vendor’s service support structure becomes even more significant to a successful implementation.

Customer Satisfaction

Customer satisfaction should improve with a higher level of portable/handheld coverage reliability.

Ease of Implementation

The addition of many more sites may complicate the implementation process, especially where new site acquisition is required.

Stability

The addition of more sites in this option will not affect stability. As the network grows with more tower sites, the selected vendor’s service support structure becomes even more important in maintaining normal operations under any condition.

Potential Improvements/Service Features 4.4.5.7Potential improvements and Service Features to be addressed in a new SLERS procurement for all variant progressions might include:

Platform flexibility, scalability, and support for industry standards, enabling a seamless integration of third-party technologies and applications.

Open architecture offering an enterprise solution working seamlessly with leading LMR service providers and hardware vendors.

Feature rich, low cost options providing a comprehensive suite of enhanced communications capabilities without the operational and maintenance expense.


A migration plan to transition customers to improved coverage and system interoperability at the state, county and municipality levels.

Delivery of LMR services over combined network topologies using MFN and traditional microwave technologies.

Service Level Agreements for DMS and its customers, supported by a tool set for monitoring service levels.

Qualitative and Quantitative Benefits 4.4.5.8

Direct & Indirect Costs 4.4.5.8.1Under the outsourcing option, DMS would negotiate the procurement of a new P25 Phase II TDMA network providing coverage at 98% reliability for mobile/in vehicle and 95% portable/handheld. To avoid a large capital expenditure for the entire network paid at completion of milestones during the implementation phase, it is suggested the state would pay for the network via vendor financing over a 19-year period, beginning in 2017 and payments terminating in 2036.

The radio units are suggested to be financed over the same 19-year period as a service fee that would include a single unit refresh during the life of the contract. This fee would be paid by agencies as they migrate onto the next generation of SLERS.

Direct Cost Categories

DMS contract management and support personnel; Quarterly or annual payments to selected vendor for all outsourced P25 LMR services.

Indirect Cost Categories

Common Costs, Including Charges Assessed for Admin Services, Insurance, HR & Rent General Business Support Research & Development Special Projects DMS Device Support

Potential Savings/Cost Avoidance 4.4.5.8.2There is an opportunity for cost avoidance with Steady State P25 by implementing more use of MFN instead of licensed microwave for site connectivity. The state can avoid additional cost by implementing more MFN services for site connectivity instead of implementing traditional licensed microwave connectivity to each of the sites. For each site that employs MFN connectivity instead of microwave, the state can avoid an average estimated cost of $381,000 per site over the life of the contract. Note that this number is an average across all sites as the microwave equipment content required per site may vary.


Another potential opportunity for cost saving involves cost avoidance by collaborating with local governments to leverage their existing tower assets in the local government instead of using commercial tower leases in the area. Section 4.4.5.3 provides more details on opportunities to reduce costs to the state through partnerships with local governments.


Transition Costs 4.4.5.8.3Transport Consideration In the transition to the next generation of SLERS, the model supports leveraging MFN transport as a more economical, yet highly reliable alternative to traditional licensed microwave connectivity. For many years, copper and fiber-based circuits have been deemed unreliable for mission critical site links, but newer technologies and changes in design philosophy have increased the reliability of many of these commercial services.

Approximately eighty of the existing SLERS sites today have MFN connectivity to support equipment for both the Florida Interoperability Network and the mutual aid channels located at these sites. Sites that use MFN service on a protected loop could use MFN as their primary backhaul service without the need for licensed microwave connectivity. The option to move to P25 and maintain current coverage performance uses MFN as the site connectivity service at 30 percent of the sites. The remainder of the sites for this option will use licensed microwave. The percentage of MFN utilization is factored into the cost analysis for this model. Ultimately, it will be the vendor’s decision to determine the appropriate mix of MFN and licensed microwave across all the sites and dispatch centers in the new SLERS. See Figure 7 - MFN vs. Microwave Cost per Site for examples of the use of MFN to reduce cost.

In the transition to the next generation of SLERS, additional portable/handheld coverage will be directly dependent upon the desire of the state SLERS user community. The geographic regions of the state have unique challenges to provide high levels of coverage for this type of capability. The costs associated with establishing more coverage will be exponential based upon the need to establish new tower locations. It is recommended that a thorough review of the customer coverage needs be completed prior to a final network system engineering design being approved. This assumes the overall budget for the project has scope definition for each coverage build-out plan and is directly correlated with the SLERS customer needs.

Site Transition Cost Considerations A substantial challenge in the transition will be how to implement the new system using current SLERS sites. In either a phased migration or a total system migration, the transition must accommodate operation of both the old and new system in the selected geography. Using the same sites will require additional antennas and cable to be mounted on the tower to support the operation of both networks. It is not known today, which of the currently used towers can support additional antennas. If existing SLERS towers are utilized in a proposed design, the towers may require structural improvements to support the additional antenna loading. In addition, the tower lease rate will increase with the installation of more antennas during the transition period. While it is possible that some low-density sites may accommodate the transition with the existing antennas, many of the sites will likely require the use of 700 MHz spectrum to support operation of both the old and new networks at the same site(s). This will definitely require additional antennas. Given the complexity of the challenge and the number of unknowns about existing towers and structural


capacity, it is not possible to project the transition costs associated with using additional antennas at the sites.

Project Funding Sources and Options 4.4.5.8.4Today, the primary funding for SLERS is provided by vehicle and vessel registration fees and moving violation citation fees. Current fee revenue is not sufficient to fund Option 2. Therefore, Option 2 proposes a supplement to existing funding in the form of user fees.

To move forward with a P25 system upgrade, all existing EDACS-EA radios will need to be replaced with P25 radios to operate on the new system. Today, there is no dedicated funding source for the purchase, maintenance, and replacement of radios. Option 2 includes possible new radio fees as a way to provide the funding, estimated at $13 million, annually.

Option 2 proposes the following funding assumptions:

$1 fee for every vehicle and vessel registration in the state each year will continue; $3 fee for each non-violent, moving vehicle traffic citation will expire as planned in 2021; $631 Radio Fee (Per Subscriber Unit) Annual will be paid by user agencies; and $1056 User Fee (Per Subscriber Unit) Annual will be paid by user agencies.

Total Estimated Costs for Steady State P25 and Portable/Handheld 4.4.5.8.5Enhancement

Under DMS’s existing SLERS contract, the agency is expected to spend $68.3 million/$17 million annually on LMR services from July 2017 through the end of the contract on June 30, 2021. These payments would continue to be made via the current SLERS trust fund. During the build-out of the next generation SLERS, it is anticipated that the state will need to begin making payments for the new system.

Overall cost for outsourcing is estimated to be $941.4 million over the 19-year period from execution of the SLERS Contract in June 2017 through the end of contract in June 2036. This includes cost of the remainder of the existing SLERS contract during the transition period.

Traditionally, the system and operations costs are paid through the radio system trust fund, which is funded by the $1 registration fee and $3 moving violation fee. The radio components have been acquired and maintained through user agency funding sources. To move forward with P25, all existing EDACS-EA radios must be replaced to operate on the new SLERS system.

During the transition period, there is an estimated shortfall of $18.3 million that is not supported by trust fund sources. A revenue source should be identified to cover the shortfall, while existing trust funds maintain the existing system.

The following chart represents the estimated costs breakdown for outsource. The “Steady State” is estimated cost to achieve the current SLERS coverage capabilities statewide for P25. The “Enhanced


Coverage” represents the estimated cost to achieve 98% (Mobile)/95% (Portable/Handheld) coverage capabilities for P25.

Chart Breakdown: Total Cost – Next Generation SLERS – Enhanced Coverage – represents the total estimated cost

to establish the new P25 LMR, operate and maintain support, and acquire the radio devices; Vehicle and Vessel Registration (Per Registration) – represents the current surcharge assessed

for each registration into the SLERS trust fund to support operations and maintenance of the system. Currently, this surcharge generates a portion of the $17 million annually that is part of the $68.3 million spend on current SLERS;

Citation Fee (Per Citation) – represents the current surcharge assessed for each citation throughout the state into the SLERS trust fund to provide additional funding to support operations and maintenance of the system. Currently, this surcharge generates a portion of the $17 million annual spending that is part of the $68.3 million total spending on current SLERS. This surcharge is due to expire in July 1, 2021;



Steady State Option 2 - Outsource Total Cost - Next Generation SLERS - Steady State $ 840,845,859

Funding Sources from Trust Fund and Agency Fees Vehicle and Vessel Registration (Per Registration) $ 1.00 Citation Fee (Per Citation) $ 3.00 Radio Fee (Per Subscriber Unit) Annual $ 631.00 User Fee (Per Subscriber Unit) Annual $ 748.61

Enhanced Coverage Option 2 -Outsource Total Cost - Next Generation SLERS - Enhanced Coverage $ 941,476,857

Funding Sources from Trust Fund and Agency Fees Vehicle and Vessel Registration (Per Registration) $ 1.00 Citation Fee (Per Citation) $ 3.00 Radio Fee (Per Subscriber Unit) Annual $ 631.00 User Fee (Per Subscriber Unit) Annual $ 1,055.94

Figure 9 - Outsource Estimated Cost and Funding


Risk Analysis 4.4.5.9LMR networks designed for public safety operations should provide mission critical services with industry best performance metrics. When a critical system feature is unavailable, or sites are out of service, first responder lives may be jeopardy. Having customized performance metrics, specific to the operational and performance requirements of the users, is critical to ensuring this minimum performance. In an outsourced model, vendors press for utilization of common service levels or performance metrics, as opposed to more customized performance metrics. To protect the safety of all SLERS users, the state needs to be able to define measure and monitor the vendor’s performance to contractually agreed service levels and/or performance metrics. If these customized performance metrics are not clearly defined in the contract for all services and feature sets, users will experience dissatisfaction with the expected performance of the system.

Transition by the state from the current contract with the incumbent vendor to a new contract for P25 Phase II TDMA services with the same vendor will require using the same sites, shelters and power systems to support both technologies during the transition. This assumes the incumbent vendor would continue to use the same sites during the transition. There are elements of risk associated with a transition that uses the same sites to support the network infrastructure for both the current SLERS and the new P25 Phase II TDMA network. Potentially, the state could experience problems with queueing during the transition, or a loss of coverage.

The transition of an EDACS-EA site to P25 Phase II TDMA requires either conversion on a channel-by-channel basis of the existing 800 MHz channels, or addition of 700 MHz channels to the site to begin implementation of Phase II TDMA channels. The vendor would then come back later to convert the 800 MHz channels. The former approach splits the 800 MHz channels in half severely reducing site capacity on the EDACS-EA side of the network. If a phased transition takes several months operating with split channels at the site, this greatly increases the likelihood of queuing to the users.

Using 700 MHz spectrum to overlay a P25 Phase II TDMA network at existing SLERS sites is another consideration. Many of the sites in the current SLERS configuration are four channel sites with one transmit antenna and one receive antenna network. Many of the four channel sites probably have space for a 700 MHz transmit and a 700 MHz receive antenna. However, a full site audit would be necessary to determine exactly what is located on each tower today. Some sites may not have additional space on the tower, or may not support the structural load capacity for additional antennas without structural enhancements. Another factor concerns coverage performance at 700 MHz compared to 800 MHz. If an existing site has the 800 MHz antennas located at the top of the tower, there may not be room at the top to locate the 700 MHz antennas. The 700 MHz antennas may have to be located further down the tower, which will provide less coverage for the 700 MHz network for the duration of the transition period. Again, without a full site audit of all sites, it is not possible to know with certainty whether tower space or loading will become a transition issue.

Transition by the state from the current contract to a new contract for P25 Phase II TDMA services with a different vendor presents unique risk challenges to the state. There are unknowns concerning how


the new P25 network would provide interoperability with the EDACS-EA system. The vendor/network transition will also require users to possess knowledge of the operational characteristics of both systems (this is likely to the case even if the incumbent is selected to provide the P25 network).

As stated in Section 2 – Background, the EDACS-EA technology is a proprietary LMR service. While the recommended P25 Phase II TDMA solution is standards-based, there is no standard for providing interoperable links between a P25 network and a proprietary LMR network. There are three possible ways to provide interoperability between the current SLERS and another vendor’s P25 Phase II TDMA network:

1. Console patches – this option uses console positions and radio control stations to establish audio patches between SLERS and the new P25 network. Existing consoles on SLERS could support this patch functionality or consoles on the new P25 network could support this as well.

2. IP Gateway – this option uses a software enabled IP gateway to establish audio patches between SLERS and the new P25 network. The Florida Interoperability Network would support this functionality today.

3. P25 ISSI – this option uses the P25 Inter-Subsystem Interface to connect the new P25 network to the existing network core that supports P25 for aircraft operations. This approach could support voice services between a new P25 network and the existing EDACS-EA network. It is not known what, if any, modifications to the P25 network core would be necessary to support this.

None of the three options described above offer an ideal interoperability solution for the transition period. Each of these options are limited to supporting only the transmission of clear, unencrypted audio between the two networks. Each of the three scenarios requires bringing the audio all the way down to analog form.

Each of the options will be limited in the number of talk paths that can be supported between the two systems and will not support critical public safety feature sets:

Scan between the EDACS-EA network and the P25 network with the same radio Unit-ID transmission across the two networks End-to-end encryption across the two networks

The expansion of coverage capabilities is critical to improve the levels of public safety throughout the state. The risks are tied to how well a geographic region of the state can be adequately covered at this level of capability. Numerous factors influence portable/handheld coverage ranging from environmental constraints, geography, physical buildings, and physical topology.

To identify risk, it is recommended that the state develop a needs analysis from the SLERS customers with prioritization of coverage areas that require enhanced portable/handheld support. The state should also consider in-building coverage requirements in specific areas as this could potentially increase the need for more towers.


Mitigation Plan 4.4.5.10Mitigation of negative consequences of an outsourced LMR service is provided by the following factors:

1. The state should first identify shortcomings with the current SLERS performance metrics 2. Establish list of performance factors that impact radio user satisfaction 3. Identify industry best practices in LMR service levels (including those collected during interviews

of other states for this business case) 4. Consider performance metrics in other state contracts for LMR services or other IT services 5. At a minimum, the state should implement performance metrics that tie vendor performance to

measurable facets of the new SLERS performance. Details on recommended performance metrics are provided in Section 7. These include, but are not limited to:

a. All shared services available through the network core(s) b. Site uptime performance (all services) c. Vendor service response times d. Dispatch center connectivity reliability e. Subscriber feature performance f. Radio flash code and programming failures g. Radio provisioning failures h. Recurring training i. Network Dashboard access j. Spares inventory availability

A single radio solution presents the least inconvenience to users, but it will not address the challenges listed above. A radio capable of operation on the current SLERS will be able to scan on the current SLERS. A P25 radio would be able to scan on the new P25 network. The user equipped with each of these radios would not miss critical talk group calls from either system with this approach. Each radio would also be able to transmit and receive unit-ID information on each respective network. Users would still be able to identify each other on field radios and at dispatch consoles. Users would still maintain end-to-end encryption within either of the two systems during the transition. This provides the most efficient solution to maintain all current user features on both systems and the least user impact during the transition.

Transition to P25 could be accomplished by converting a percentage of the 800 MHz channels at each site to P25 Phase II TDMA. This would require existing SLERS users to operate with diminished capacity for the duration of the network transition in their region. It is not recommended to reduce EDACS-EA channel capacity at any site during the transition. There will always be a requirement during the transition to have a contingency to fall back to EDACS-EA if users encounter untenable performance problems with the new SLERS. The recommended way to construct a new P25 network and execute functionality and coverage acceptance testing prior to cutover is by using new spectrum at 700 MHz. The least risk is presented by using 700 MHz spectrum at the same sites. To mitigate risk to the state of any sites that may not support 700 MHz antennas at the same height as the 800 MHz antennas, the state should require the vendor to conduct a preliminary coverage test prior to


transition to 700 MHz P25 Phase II TDMA operation to verify acceptable performance. The vendor would then be required to go back and relocate the 700 MHz antennas to the higher location on the tower as the EDACS-EA 800 MHz equipment is decommissioned. Once this is completed at all sites, and antennas are now in their final location, a second coverage acceptance test would be conducted to verify final proof of coverage performance. There is also the possibility that new 700/800 MHz antenna technologies may be developed over the next few years that would minimize the number of antennas needed, simplify the transition and completely mitigate this risk. There are wideband antennas that could support the receive side frequencies to both 700 MHz and 800 MHz antennas, but it will be up to the vendor to determine their suitability based on actual frequencies in use at the site.

After the state completes a needs analysis for the regions of the state requiring enhanced coverage, a complete mitigation plan should be evolved to include the following:

1. Alternative methods of communication in the event enhanced coverage is not available; 2. Communication to all SLERS field users as to the areas of limitation to manage expectations;

and 3. Continue to evaluate the ability to enhance coverage as new tower capabilities are

established, and/or new technologies within the LMR framework become available.

Implementation Timeline 4.4.5.11 July 1, 2015 through August 31, 2015 – Conduct candidate search and interview process for 3 to

4 LMR industry subject matter experts for new SLERS project team; September 1, 2015 – October 31, 2015 - Hire new SLERS project team November 1, 2015 through March 31, 2016 - Develop a procurement strategy and all necessary






contract19; July 1, 2017: SLERS contract executed, 19-year term. 4-year transition begins generally per DMS

Key Milestones. 4-year transition to provide adequate cushion for agencies to transition without impact;



July 1, 2017: Transition of SLERS begins; o Project team provides oversight during project implementation; monitors compliance to

contract requirements including functionality and performance acceptance testing o The transition of SLERS to P25 Phase II TDMA will be technically complex. Due to the size of

SLERS and the number of users operating on the system, a regional transition of SLERS presents the least risk of disruption of service. The site-specific transition details are too complicated and varied to present within the context of this business case. The SLERS project team should define minimum transition requirements such as amount of acceptable downtime per site during the transition, equipment cutover times, radio transition procedures for programming and provisioning, etc. The selected vendor should be responsible for using these requirements and developing a detailed Method of Procedure (MOP) that would require review and approval by DMS and the SLERS project team. More details regarding the transition of SLERS will be provided in the Transition Plan section of the business case.

December 31, 2020: Transition of SLERS completed and cutover; o The projected cutover of the last phase of the transition would need to occur at least six

months prior to the end of the current contract. This gives DMS and the successful vendor(s) additional time for correcting performance issues, user equipment problems, training issues and resolving punch list items.

July 1, 2021: New SLERS fully operational; June 30, 2036: End of SLERS contract.

The timeline is anticipated that enhanced coverage capabilities will be established within the same timeframe as the migration to P25. In some cases, additional time to provide coverage capabilities may extend beyond 2021, but those exceptions are not determinable at this time. Factors that may affect the vendor’s timeline are:

Tower lease availability; Tower augmentation limitations; Establishing new tower sites; and Integration of potential partnerships with other local governments.


5.0 RECOMMENDED OPTION & DETAILED DISCUSSION The recommended option of this business case is in accordance with Section 287.0571(4), F.S., which outlines the requirements for contracting with private sector vendors wherever they can effectively and efficiently provide services and reduce the cost of government. This statute requires analysis of feasibility, cost-effectiveness, and efficiency before proceeding with outsourcing of services.

A detailed analysis for this decision provides the following key findings:

1. P25 is the adopted LMR technology solution for public safety in the US today. 2. An analysis of the LMR radio market concluded that Project 25 Phase II TDMA provides the state with a

mature technology solution that will also offer an extended lifecycle and a migration path to FirstNet; 3. Other technology options that support LMR services fall short of meeting all the critical technology

factors considered in this business 4. Due to its proprietary platform technology, the currents SLERS configuration is not directly interoperable

with the other standards-based radio networks now deployed within the state at either the local government level or those in operation at Federal government facilities within the state;

5. MyFloridaNet is a high availability, high reliability network that could provide a cost-effective site connectivity solution for future SLERS configurations;

6. More than half of the states in the US have established statewide P25 systems for their public safety agencies;

7. All of the other states interviewed for this business case have implemented “inclusive” governance structures that invite participation by all public safety agencies.

8. Each of the other states interviewed welcome participation from non-law enforcement users. 9. Within Florida, more than 25 local government agencies have migrated their legacy radio networks to

P25 operation and another dozen are in planning and/or procurement stages to move to P25 operation within the next two years. This creates the opportunity for SLERS to become a more attractive solution for local government organizations;

10. If the State of Florida moved to a P25 radio network and all local government agencies either participated directly as a subscriber, or connected their P25 systems to SLERS or had P25 radio access to the statewide network, the need for other interoperability solutions such as the Florida Interoperability Network would no longer exist;

11. If the next generation of SLERS uses P25 technology, the network could leverage the state’s existing 800 MHz spectrum and the state’s allotment of 700 MHz spectrum, more than doubling the amount of spectrum available to state users;

12. There are a minimum of five P25 network vendors that can compete for the state’s business and each has an organizational structure built to support implementation and operation of these systems in the United States;

13. There are a minimum of five P25 Phase II TDMA radio vendors providing services nationwide solidifying the future of P25 technology through 2035 and beyond. These vendors can compete for mobile/in vehicle radio and portable/handheld radio needs offering a competitive marketplace opportunity that


gives the state and its partners more choices in radio performance, feature sets, price and physical attributes;

14. Throughout the United States there are more than fifty agencies either operational or under contract to deploy P25 Phase II TDMA networks;

15. P25 is the most appropriate technology to bridge the gap between the current proprietary core system and the future of mission critical voice over LTE;

16. An inclusive governance model that encourages participation by local governments will spread the cost of the network across more agencies and drive the cost per user down.

5.1 Summary of the Two Options Considered The two options considered in the business case represent analysis to progress the capabilities of the existing SLERS services to P25 open standards based technology. Analysis is provided using a migration from existing SLERS technology and coverage to P25 Phase II TDMA at 98% mobile coverage and “Portable/handheld Coverage Enhancement”, which is the augmentation of existing service capabilities to achieve a 95% portable/handheld coverage.

None of the options considered in this business case contemplate that any services or activities currently being performed by DMS resources will be outsourced to an outside vendor.

Both of the options have been evaluated with regard to the following attributes as supported by Section 4 - Options and Cost Benefit Analysis:

Estimated or measured direct and indirect costs for labor, hardware, and software; Qualitative and quantitative benefits and advantages; Risks, disadvantages, pros and cons; Assumptions and constraints; and The schedule and sequence of key activities or events.

The two options are:

Option 1 – Insource 5.1.1Insourcing requires the assets, construction of new LMR towers, maintenance, and staff to operate a statewide P25 Land Mobile Radio network supporting enhanced coverage capabilities statewide. With a fully insourced model, the state would still be required to competitively procure a P25 radio network capabilities and radios. This P25 site equipment would be maintained and operated by state full-time employees including field technical engineers, Network Operations Center (NOC) personnel and network administrators. If the network experienced a failure, the state would be responsible for restoring normal system operation. One other function of the state’s administrative personnel would include providing customer services support to the agencies, including outreach and marketing activities to potential SLERS partners.


This option places the state in a higher risk position to maintain the capabilities of support both at the staffing and physical system topology levels from the point of initiation. This assumes a continued responsibility for both technological and support evolutions over time.

Option 2 – Outsource 5.1.2Comprised of outsource services to provide the ability for the state to establish P25 Phase II TDMA supporting enhanced coverage capabilities statewide. These capabilities would transition over a period from the legacy system to the next generation of SLERS. The outsource model could be implemented with varying levels of coverage enhancements depending on an engineering review and budgetary constraints. The transition period is estimated to take four years starting in FY2017-18. This enables the state to establish the next generation SLERS to be in place by the end of the current SLERS contract period.

5.2 Implementation Options The implementation of the choice between the two options cannot begin until the proposed solution has been approved and the required funds have been authorized in an appropriation for the relevant fiscal year(s).

Option 1 – Insource 5.2.1DMS would request the establishment and funding for state full-time equivalent (FTE) positions and physical assets to support P25 Land Mobile Radio operations as appropriate. Upon approval, DMS would establish an internal engineering and field technical support services organization composed of full-time state employees. These positions would be incorporated into DMS’ Legislative Budget Request (LBR) for funding each fiscal year. The engineering team would develop requirements for all facets of a statewide P25 Phase II TDMA network including all performance and functional requirements. Facets of this option would require outsourcing due to the nature of specific requirements that fall outside of the state’s ability to perform. The levels of outsourcing would be determined by what services are deemed attainable through the states resources.

Option 2 – Outsource 5.2.2For this option, DMS would release a competitive solicitation using the Invitation to Negotiate (ITN) procurement model to qualified vendors. The negotiated solution for P25 Land Mobile Radio services would be based upon specifications and requirements set forth by DMS with consideration for emerging technology/capabilities. This option is predicated on coverage performance of 98 %reliability for mobile/in-vehicle and 95% reliability for portable/handheld radios. A portion of this coverage is anticipated to include in-building enhancements where possible and prudent based on user community requested areas of focus.

Support for legacy EDACS radio service must be maintained for current SLERS customers until an adequate migration or transition to P25 Phase II TDMA operation can be accommodated.


5.3 Financial Option Comparison The following charts provide option comparison for cost, funding sources, and key findings.

SLERS Options

Estimated Cost Total/Annually Findings

Option 1 – Insource

Estimated total cost is $980.5 million Total cost is projected over 19 years

starting in FY 2017-18 Annual costs are segmented into the

following: Vendor Costs o Infrastructure o Implementation o Operation/Maintenance o Leases Agency Costs o Radio Subscriber Fee o System User Fee

Assumed 30% MFN usage

Highest Cost, highest risk Opportunity to leverage MFN to reduce

transport costs Requires higher levels of

FTE staffing and cost equivalency for support operations

Directly addresses interoperability requirements noted by JTF and SLERS stakeholders

Provides open-standards based technology platform that is more attractive to potential partners

Creates opportunities for shared system approach with existing P25 local government systems

Inherent limitations in terms of scalability due to fiscal constraints


Use of MFN presents options to reduce the cost of service delivery

Figure 10 – Insource Options Summary


SLERS Options

Estimated Cost Total/Annually Findings

Option 2- Outsource

Estimated total cost is $941.4 million Total cost is projected over 19 years

starting in FY 2017-18 Annual costs are segmented into the

following: Vendor Costs o Infrastructure o Implementation o Operation/Maintenance o Leases Agency Costs o Radio Subscriber Fee o System User Fee Assumed 30% MFN usage

Lowest Cost, lowest risk, best solution to address all stakeholder requirements.

Provides significant improvement in portable/handheld radio coverage to current and future SLERS users.

Opportunity to leverage MFN to reduce transport costs.

Directly addresses interoperability requirements noted by JTF and SLERS stakeholders

Provides open-standards based technology platform that is more attractive to potential partners


Use of MFN presents options to reduce the cost of service delivery

Figure 11 - Outsource Option Summary

Under DMS’s existing SLERS contract, the agency is expected to spend $68.3 million/17 million annually on LMR services from July 2017 through the end of the contract on June 30, 2021. These payments would continue to be made via the current SLERS trust fund. During the build-out of the next generation SLERS, the state will need to begin making payments for the new system.

During the transition period, there is an estimated shortfall of $18.3 million that is not supported by trust fund sources. A revenue source must be identified to cover the shortfall, while existing trust funds maintain the existing system.

The following chart represents the estimated costs breakdown for insource and outsource. The “Enhanced Coverage” represents the estimated cost to achieve 98% (Mobile)/95% (Portable/Handheld) coverage capabilities for P25.

Chart Breakdown:

Total Cost – Next Generation SLERS – Enhanced Coverage – represents the total estimated cost to establish the new P25 LMR, operate and maintain support, and acquire the radio devices;

Vehicle and Vessel Registration (Per Registration) – represents the current surcharge assessed for each registration into the SLERS trust fund to support operations and maintenance of the system. Currently,


this surcharge generates a portion of the $17 million annually that is part of the $68.3 million spend on current SLERS;

Citation Fee – represents the current surcharge assessed for each citation throughout the state into the SLERS trust fund to provide additional funding to support operations and maintenance of the system. Currently, this surcharge generates a portion of the $17 million annual spending that is part of the $68.3 million total spending on current SLERS. This surcharge is due to expire in July 1, 2021;



The following chart represents the estimated annual cost comparison for both insource and outsource options, for the first 8 years of the contract period.

Enhanced Coverage Option 1 - Insource Option 2 - Outsource Total Cost - Next Generation SLERS - Enhanced Coverage $ 980,531,636 $ 941,476,857

Funding Sources from Trust Fund and Agency Fees Vehicle and Vessel Registration (Per Registration) $ 1.00 $ 1.00 Citation Fee (Per Citation) $ 3.00 $ 3.00 Radio Fee (Per Subscriber Unit) Annual $ 631.00 $ 631.00 User Fee (Per Subscriber Unit) Annual $ 1,128.41 $ 1,055.94

Figure 12 – Insource and Outsource Cost and Funding Sources

The following chart represents estimated cost structures comparisons for both Option 1 – Insource and Option 2 – Outsource covering the transition period through first four years of operations under the next generation SLERS.

Figure 13 - Insource / Outsource Comparison Chart


5.4 Recommendation

It is recommended that DMS issue a competitive solicitation as an Invitation to Negotiate (ITN) for a newly structured Land Mobile Radio (LMR) support contract as outlined by Option 2. This solicitation should identify and incorporate P25 Phase II TDMA delivery methodology with integration to MFN for emerging data connection evolutions, with microwave ring topology where appropriate throughout the state. Consideration should be given to the procurement components to be evaluated in such a fashion to support the best interest of the state.

Option 2 – Outsourcing with both Steady State and Portable/Handheld Coverage Enhancement provides the most comprehensive solution to the state while allowing competitive market forces to deliver the best option to the public safety community of users for the LMR system.

Savings and cost reductions in Option 2 will be driven by DMS’ negotiations in the ITN with the selected prime vendor.

5.5 Recommended Solicitation Components The following are the recommended solicitation components that should be considered for inclusion in the ITN. These broad categories provide opportunity for the vendor community to propose creative solutions to achieve the requirements set forth by the state.

Infrastructure – comprised of the network elements to support LMR functions at a 98%/95% Mobile/Portable Handheld coverage statewide respectively.

Operations and Maintenance – comprised of all services in support of the infrastructure to maintain the system in good working order to the levels specified within the service level agreement of the contract.

Radio Subscription – comprised of the delivery of radio devices over the life of the contract that provides the features and capabilities laid out in the technical specifications of the contract.

5.6 Recommendations Summary The following section is provided as a single summary of all recommendations from throughout the business case. They represent key recommendations that should be reviewed and considered as DMS moves forward with its chosen path for the next generation of SLERS. Recommendations have been categorized as follows:

Technology 5.6.11. The next generation of SLERS should support interoperability with all agencies via the open

standard, multi-source technology P25 Phase II TDMA; 2. The next generation of SLERS for the state should provision security services that protect the

integrity of the network;


3. The LMR service should offer role-based access to real-time network and user information through industry standard web portal tools available in the market today;

4. The state should procure P25 Phase II TDMA data services with the next generation of SLERS to provide GPS location, Over-the-Air-Programming, Over-the-Air-Rekeying and text messaging services to users. These services have a direct impact on first responder safety and efficiency of operations;

Policy 5.6.21. SLERS should be available as a primary LMR service to all first responders in Florida including law

enforcement, fire service and emergency medical services; 2. SLERS should be available as a primary LMR service to all secondary responders in Florida including

public services and public administration; 3. SLERS should be available as a primary LMR service to all state agencies under the enterprise that

could benefit from statewide LMR services; 4. Availability of services should be distributed equitably while still prioritizing communications for first

responder operations. No SLERS user agency or partner that uses SLERS as its primary LMR service should be denied service under any operational scenario;

5. SLERS governance should be structured to emulate the governance structure for FloridaNet as much as possible. It is assumed that FloridaNet will work closely with FirstNet to allow for an inclusive governance structure that provide high levels of interoperability, transparency, and support for integration across both FloridaNet and FirstNet initiatives;

6. The governance model for SLERS needs to evolve to include representation from all user group types:

a. Law enforcement; b. Fire services; c. Emergency medical services and; d. Non-first responder groups.

In order to accomplish this, legislation will be required to modify the composition of the JTF; 7. It is recommended that a new name be chosen for SLERS that references inclusion of all public

safety services, not just law enforcement; 8. It is recommended that the next generation SLERS should be established with a service fee model as

described in this business case whereby all users of the system pay a service and radio fee; 9. It is recommended that the state evaluate the existing funding sources for SLERS today to determine

the best path to both continue existing services and provide the additional funds necessary to establish the new P25 Phase II TDMA capability statewide;

10. The state should identify an alternative funding source either through the creation of new legislation or amendments to existing legislation (e.g. temporary surcharge increases vehicle/vessel registrations) to support the transition period for moving from EDAC-EA to P25 system capabilities.

11. The next generation of SLERS should be designed and built to enhance portable/handheld coverage in an outdoor environment for the participating agencies. Providing enhanced portable/handheld coverage will also make SLERS more attractive to current non-participating agencies and bring more users to share the cost of the network.


12. The state should ensure the next generation of SLERS provides the capability for interoperability for local government agencies to connect their sites and radio dispatch centers directly into the statewide system;

13. For agencies that have mobile and portable handheld coverage extension requirements, the state should consider the use of Vehicular Repeater Systems (VRS) or other portable/handheld enhancement coverage solutions for areas where portable/handheld outdoor coverage enhancements from the network may not be achievable. Given this solution today increases cost significantly, all options and current technology should be evaluated with the implementation provided for unique cases. This is not the recommended solution for general portable/handheld coverage challenges;

14. State agencies on SLERS and SLERS partners should ensure that a supply of replacement EDACS-EA radio devices are available to replace any failed radio units until the new P25 system becomes completely operational and new P25 Phase II TDMA radio devices are available to the users;

15. Upon approval of this business case, the state should develop an education plan to inform users of the goals of the next generation of SLERS, services, features, capabilities, projected timeline and requirements that agencies should prepare for in the event the competitive solicitation is approved.

Solicitation 5.6.31. The state should seek partnerships with all local government P25 systems as a more cost effective

way to provide portable/handheld radio coverage in the more populated areas of the state. Not only will this enhance outdoor coverage for portable/handheld radios, but it will also give state users access to the in-building coverage in those areas;

2. The state should require the selected outsource vendor to provide a plan that identifies the progression of technological evolution that will come over the life of this contract. This progression should take into consideration the evolution of the radio device, software layers, and integration into emerging network transport capabilities;

3. Consideration should be given to how a potential vendor would propose support for technology and interoperability capabilities that evolve within the LMR community during the life of the contract;

4. The state will need to consider the impact of additional user training and functionality testing on the transition timeline. To ensure a smooth transition, a comprehensive communications plan should be developed that covers all levels of the user community from executives to field staff. This is a critical component to successful transition;

5. The state should require a radio refresh as part of the suggested “Radio Service Fee” program with a minimum seven-year radio replacement cycle to avoid lifecycle support issues with radios. This will ensure the user radio devices remain compatible with any new P25 features or services that may be added during the course of the contract;

6. The state should replace its existing radio fleet as a competitive solicitation for the next generation of SLERS. This will allow the state to ensure that all necessary functionality and performance factors can be incorporated into specifications for the radios. This also will ensure the state is receiving the benefit of competitive market pressure on radio pricing;


7. The state should tie all P25 features and services on the new SLERS to a contract performance metric (specific performance metrics are identified in Section 7 – Performance Metrics Review);

8. The state should make allowance for potential bidding vendors to access all current SLERS towers and shelters in use today ahead of the release of a future competitive solicitation to perform analysis of the current SLERS physical and logical network capabilities;

9. The state should consider language within the terms and conditions of the new SLERS contract that enforces monetary penalties to be paid to the current incumbent vendor in the event delays in service migration to the new P25 system require the legacy system to remain operational beyond the negotiated transition period;

10. DMS should include provisions in the new contract for financial consequences in the event the service provider does not meet established and measured performance expectations;

11. The provisions should provide incentive for a Contractor to cure any problems with performance before an event of default occurs;

12. Any delays should be clearly documented with the demonstrated impact of schedule and milestones being met. The vendor and DMS must be willing to provide any resources necessary to maintain the schedule, provide acceptance and complete cutover before the current SLERS contract expires;

13. Penalties to the vendor for delays affecting final acceptance and cutover should be the continual support of the current SLERS beyond the contract end date of June 30, 2021. Negotiation of that cost for continual support would have to be negotiated with the incumbent vendor;

14. A system acceptance criterion is based on the design specifications and the vendor’s ability to meet those specifications. Testing is performed to prove compliance of each subsystem and the complete network before public safety users are cutover. In the event that any acceptance testing fails, the vendor must rectify the issue and retest to prove compliance;

15. Upon acceptance of any phase and ultimately final system acceptance, negotiated service level agreements for support should be in place to ensure the network is maintained to public safety grade. All SLA’s should be established and negotiated during the ITN process;

16. Response and restoration times to outages or any issues that disrupt services to the public safety user should be at the highest industry standards and provided in the dashboard. All spare parts should be identified and provided as real time inventory as part of performance metrics to ensure DMS that support is being provided at optimum levels by the vendor;

17. Another key issue of support is software quality. Defective software at the network or subscriber level can affect operation to the end public safety user. Any software upgrades which require recall of radios should incur a penalty based on the downtime of the public safety user to be removed from the field to remedy the defective software;

18. Financial consequences language including amounts should be included in the ITN and awarded contract. This language should be developed in consultation with DMS legal counsel and DMS Purchasing staff;

19. Proper DMS staffing throughout the lifecycle of this project is key for planning, providing clear communication to key stakeholders and agencies, prompt decision making, and contract management of the recommended option;


20. A requirement of the ITN should make the vendor provide a detailed project management plan, from the known goals of DMS and the projected goals of a vendor to meet the transition schedule objective, that includes typical project management steps to meet those goals and provide a successful transition.

21. The development of the engineering plan and network design is a key activity for which the next generation SLERS should include task activities for management, implementation, testing, and on-going support;

22. The implementation plan should combine the project management plan and the engineering plan to create an orchestrated and detailed schedule of events in meeting the service level objectives defined by DMS and documented as requirements in an ITN;

23. Consideration must be given to an entire completed network (entire state completed before cutover) versus a phased network (one defined area of the state completed before that area cutover) completion. Should the state decide on a phased transition of users and geography, final acceptance of coverage testing should consider the entire state geography when determining overall coverage reliability for mobile/in-vehicle (98 percent) and portable/handheld outdoor (95 percent) coverage.

24. DMS should be planning for support of the next generation SLERS by establishing service-level performance measures with metrics that are very clearly defined in the ITN, with associated penalties if the metrics are not met or maintained.

25. As staff are hired to support the implementation of next generation SLERS, these same staff should be transitioned to the support roles after initial services are established.

26. DMS should strive to retain qualified trained staff from initial contract and thru the contracted life of the network to maintain a clear understanding the next generation SLERS and provide contract management oversight accountability to the vendor.

27. The term for the next generation SLERS contract is suggested to be 19 years, with a 4-year transition and a mid-term technology refresh evaluation during the 15 years after transition;

28. This contract should be put in place prior to expiration of the existing LMR service contact, which will allow for transition of services to the next generation of SLERS; and

29. DMS will need to augment its current FTE staff with Project Management, Contract Management, and four LMR industry subject matter experts. This staff will provide end-to-end project support for the next generation of SLERS.


6.0 STATE BUSINESS PROCESS & POLICIES Section 287.0571(4)(i), F.S., A description of differences among current state agency policies and processes and, as appropriate, a discussion of options for or a plan to standardize, consolidate, or revise current policies and processes, if any, to reduce the customization of any proposed solution that would otherwise be required. In the context of the next generation SLERS portfolio of services, there are two specific areas of policy-making that should be considered by the state. The intended service delivery provides an expansion of the quality of LMR services to all customers. Sharing the cost of these expanded services needs to be addressed in two areas. First, the governance for SLERS should evolve to a more inclusive model. This will encourage more third party partners to participate and increase the total SLERS user population. Second, the implementation of user fees, in combination with other revenue sources, offers a fair method of sharing costs of operating the network. These cost-sharing considerations are discussed in more detail below.

6.1 SLERS Governance The current Statewide Law Enforcement Radio System, as implied by its name, is heavily focused on supporting the daily operational activities of state law enforcement agencies. While there are other public safety agencies represented on SLERS today, their percentage of the current total user population is small. Other states interviewed for this business case have built statewide LMR networks that provide for inter-agency interoperability and operability for all public safety user agencies including law enforcement, fire service and emergency medical services. These other states have implemented an inclusive public safety governance model to enable statewide and inter-agency interoperability. Section 2.4 discusses the current governance structure for SLERS, membership of the JTF20, and the administrative rules governing partners joining the system.

Other states and regions that have adopted an inclusive public safety governance model include Ohio, Louisiana, Michigan, Illinois, South Carolina, Arkansas, Missouri and the Metropolitan Area Regional Radio System (Metro Kansas City, MO). Ohio, for example, strives to be inclusive to all public safety agencies and non-public safety agencies. Ohio’s success can be attributed to continuous outreach, tiered participation solutions for partner agencies and a governance structure that allows for participation from each level of government and each public safety service. These states share some common best practices in achieving inclusive governance models.

A summary of best practices in statewide and regional radio system governance includes:

Ensure that there is representation from each public safety function (law enforcement, fire service and emergency medical service) and non-public safety partners. All participants and partners should have a voice in decisions made about the system;

Governance should not show favoritism to one agency over another; Maintain continuous outreach by the governance leadership to address evolving user needs and any

potential barriers to participation; Remain flexible to any potential solution for cost sharing among participating agencies;

20 Section 13.3 Florida Statute 282.709 in the Appendixs282.709 F.S


Treat all user agencies equally in providing access to services, but still provide priority to services for public safety operations; and

All participants should bring value to the network either in terms of physical assets that benefit others, or revenue to help share the cost of maintaining the network, or both.

These states have realized true benefits that affect cost sharing, system performance and user interoperability. The benefits to implementing a more inclusive governance structure are:

More partners enable additional cost sharing of the statewide/regional LMR system; Partner agencies that bring infrastructure assets (towers, shelters, etc.) can reduce new infrastructure

that has to be built, helping the state avoid cost of infrastructure implementation in that partner’s geography, but only if agreement is reached by time of construction for that area.

Partner agency infrastructure may enhance the performance of the LMR system by providing more in-building coverage with the partner’s sites. The enhancement may occur initially during construction or at a point in time during the operational period of the contract;

Each partner agency that joins enables direct interoperability between the state and that partner agency, removing the need for intermediate interoperability solutions with that partner;

Inclusive governance models create a sustainable model that is more likely to attract and keep partners on the system, therefore continuing the opportunities for cost sharing and ease of interoperability throughout the lifecycle of the LMR system.

6.2 Recommended Governance Changes The SLERS governance should be structured to attract more user types, and therefore, a larger population of users. Increasing the number of SLERS users allows the costs to be shared across more users. Therefore, the current governance model should evolve to encourage more participation both at the state and partner levels.

Composition of the Joint Task Force should be modified to include representation from other state agencies and from SLERS partners;

Composition of the Joint Task Force should be modified to include representation from each of the three first responder classifications of service (law enforcement, fire service and emergency medical service);

SLERS should be renamed to reflect a public safety user community; SLERS should be available as a primary LMR service to all first responders in Florida including law

enforcement, fire service and emergency medical services; SLERS should be available as a primary LMR service to all secondary responders in Florida including

public services and public administration; SLERS should be available as a primary LMR service to all state agencies under the enterprise that could

benefit from statewide LMR services; Availability of services should be distributed equitably while still prioritizing communications for first

responder operations. No SLERS user agency or partner that uses SLERS as its primary LMR service should be denied service under any operational scenario.


6.3 Revenue Options for the Next Generation of SLERS SLERS is funded today through surcharges levied under Florida Statutes, which are placed in the SLERS trust fund, administered by DMS. This amounts to approximately $17 million annually paid to the current SLERS vendor, Harris, Inc. Under DMS’s existing SLERS contract, DMS is expected to spend $68.3 million on LMR services from July 2017 through the end of the contract on June 30, 2021. These payments would continue to be made via the current SLERS trust fund. During the build-out of the next generation SLERS, it is anticipated that the state will need to begin making payments for the new system.

Overall cost for outsourcing is estimated to be $941.4 million over the 19-year period from execution of the SLERS Contract in June 2017 through the end of contract in June 2036 . This includes cost of the remainder of the existing SLERS contract during the transition period. During the transition period, there is an estimated shortfall of $18.3 million that is not supported by trust fund sources. A revenue source must be identified to cover the shortfall, while existing trust funds maintain the existing system.

Current SLERS partners pay $9 user fee per user. These partner fees amount to approximately $537,670 annually paid to Harris, Inc. State agencies pay nothing in user fees.

The funding model for SLERS has been described as a “public-private partnership” between Harris and the state in that the state has set aside dedicated funding sources which generate revenue paid to Harris, regardless of the amount actually generated. That is, if vehicle and vessel registrations doubled in the next year, Harris would receive double the revenue from this source as received this year. In this way, Harris compensation is less tied to user fees, and more tied to completely un-related funding mechanisms.

The next generation of SLERS is projected to require more funding than is currently generated for the SLERS trust fund and partner user fees. If current funding of the SLERS trust fund is continued, there will need to be a decision on how this shortfall will be made up.

One policy consideration to make the network more attractive to potential partners is by establishing a user fee basis that allows possible economies of scale. As the network grows, the investment through capacity expansion will drive cost structures to be potentially lower. Encouraging more partners to join the network will reduce dependence on interoperability and mutual aid, and concentrate resources into one, as opposed to multiple, radio networks.

How the system is funded is the absolute prerogative of the Florida Legislature, but for illustrative purposes, the options below provide information regarding existing and potential revenue sources to pay for the next generation of SLERS. These options are:

Option 1 – change the surcharge collected on all vehicle and vessel registrations under sections 320.0802 and 328.72, F.S. Additional revenues generated from the surcharge increase may be placed in the SLERS trust fund and used to pay for new SLERS services.

Option 2 – reinstate and change the citation surcharge for all criminal offenses (s.318.17, F.S.) and all non-criminal moving traffic violations under chapter 316, F.S. The legislation imposing this surcharge


will expire on July 1, 2021. If this surcharge is reinstated for the duration of the new SLERS contract, the revenues generated may be placed in the SLERS trust fund and used to pay for the new SLERS services.

Option 3 – From general revenue, authorize and fund SLERS users to pay for access to the network in a set amount. Revenues generated from the user fees would help pay for the operational costs of the new SLERS.

Option 4 –From general revenue, authorize and fund a set amount for a radio fee (see Section 6.6, below) that would pay for a radio, any necessary accessories, repairs, preventative maintenance, programming, provisioning, upgrades and a subscriber replacement midway through the operational period of the new SLERS contract.

However the funding is determined, this decision will be necessary prior to execution of the next SLERS contract, slated for July 2017.

6.4 Continuation of SLERS Trust Fund and Revenue Sources The state receives recurring funding for SLERS from sections 320.0802 and 328.72, F.S., which imposes a $1 annual surcharge on initial and renewal registrations required for motor vehicles and vessels. This fee has not changed since inception. The state also provides recurring funding from subsection 318.18(17), F.S., which imposes a $3 traffic and non-criminal traffic violation surcharge to pay for the SLERS enhancements and to pay the Department’s staff salaries and benefits for the operation, technical support and contract management of SLERS.

These revenue sources will not be sufficient to fund the next generation of SLERS. The cost analysis under Section 4 clearly shows that additional funding sources will be necessary to pay for the daily operation of SLERS and for the new P25 radios that will be provided to state users.

Additional revenues may be generated for the SLERS trust fund either by increasing the surcharges from sections 320.0802 and 328.72, F.S., or increasing the citation fee from 318.18(17), F.S.

It is recommended that the state evaluate the existing funding sources for SLERS today to determine the best path to both continue existing services and provide the additional funds necessary to establish the new P25 Phase II TDMA capability statewide.

6.5 Implementing User Fees for State Agencies While it is the state legislature’s discretion to determine the funding sources for a new SLERS, user fees paid by state agencies is an option that should be considered. State agencies do not pay user fees for SLERS today, but SLERS partner agencies do pay user fees. This approach might eliminate the need to increase the surcharges under sections 320.0802, 328.72, and 318.17 F.S., or this approach may decrease the amount of surcharge increase. If the legislature desired to maintain these surcharges at their current levels, user fees should be considered as an alternate way to fund the operation of the network.

Under a user fee structure for state agencies, each participating SLERS agency would be required to budget the cost of the radio subscription (LMR network access) fee for each full-time employee that requires the SLERS


radio service. User fees could be collected and placed in the trust fund for disbursement to the selected vendor, or the agencies could pay user fees directly to the network provider.

It is recommended that the state evaluate the ability to establish a service based user fee payment schedule as a funding source to support the next generation SLERS system over the life of the contract.

6.6 Implementing Radio Fees for State Agencies The radio fee would pay for a radio, any necessary accessories, repairs, preventative maintenance, programming, provisioning, upgrades and a subscriber replacement radio midway through the operational period of the new SLERS contract. This service would provide a new radio for each state SLERS user without the need for a capital expenditure up-front. Payments for the Radio-as-a-Service are deferred. This also eliminates the need to use any trust fund dollars to pay for agency radios.

6.7 Transition Cost Funding During the four-year time period when the next generation of SLERS will be constructed, July 1, 2017 through June 30, 2021, the state will continue making payments under the existing contract to the incumbent service provider for current SLERS services. Once SLERS users begin the transition to the new network, the state, depending on the terms of the contract for the new SLERS, may have to start making payments for the new network. The current SLERS trust fund sources do not generate enough revenue to pay for operation of the current SLERS and these potential transition costs. The state needs to identify an alternative funding source either through the creation of new legislation or amendments to existing legislation (e.g. temporary surcharge increases vehicle/vessel registrations) to support the transition period for moving from EDACS-EA to P25 system capabilities.

7.0 PERFORMANCE METRICS REVIEW Section 287.0571 (4) (j), F.S. A description of the specific performance standards that must, at a minimum, be met to ensure adequate performance. The purpose of performance metrics should be to define a measurable level of performance that can be sustained and monitored during normal operations and during emergency scenarios, when demand for services escalates beyond normal operating conditions. The National Public Safety Telecommunications Council (NPSTC) has recently published a report on public safety grade communications that offers best practices in defining service level agreements and minimum levels of performance for LMR systems. The phrase “public safety grade” refers to a design philosophy that considers network hardening and sustainability.

For clarity, this section will first discuss the recommended measurable performance metrics for the P25 network, followed by a discussion on using the network dashboard to monitor and measure compliance to the performance metrics. Additional performance metrics for consideration are provided at the end of this section.

7.1 Recommended Performance Metrics for the P25 Network The following minimum network performance metrics should be considered for the next generation of SLERS:


1. All core processing components and shared services should be designed and implemented for high availability and high reliability (99.999%).

2. Shared services on the network that should be monitored for compliance to performance metrics are: a. P25 voice call-processing (99.999%); b. P25 data services including GPS location, messaging, over-the-air-programming and over-the-

air-rekeying (99.999%); c. Security services including P25 link-layer authentication, security monitoring, active directory,

event logging and anti-virus update service (99.999%); d. Fault management reporting (99.999%); and e. Configuration management applications (99.999%).

3. Site links designed using either licensed microwave ring or fiber-based ring topologies for maximum availability (99.999% for ring configurations).

4. Site links that are not incorporated into a ring should still be designed for high availability (99.999%). 5. For the competitive solicitation, each responding vendor should be responsible for designing the voice

grade of service21 at each site to minimize queueing for LMR voice services. No site in the network should perform at less than 2% grade of service (two percent probability of blocked call) under normal operating conditions. The state should consider a higher grade of service for sites in higher radio traffic areas (less than 2%). The selected vendor should be contractually responsible for adding capacity to any sites that fail to meet the designated grade of service22.

6. Other P25 network elements that should be monitored for performance metric compliance are: a. Security appliance availability including firewalls and intrusion detection sensors (99.999%); and b. External network interface availability including third party interfaces, reporting interfaces and

service provider diagnostic portals (99.999%).

7.2 Real-Time Network Dashboard The network dashboard should be the primary tool available to state contract management to monitor compliance to the network performance metrics. The discussion below addresses how the dashboard should be implemented and specific performance elements that could be monitored.

1. Access to the network dashboard should be role-based with performance metrics available to contract management personnel and other state administrative personnel deemed necessary by the state.

2. Access to the network dashboard should be implemented following all security policies and procedures established the Agency for State Technology.

3. Network dashboards are offered in the market today with a high degree of customization for simplifying real-time views of performance metrics and component availability. The network dashboard should provide a customized view of the following network elements:

21 Grade of service is a telecommunications industry measurement of the probability that a circuit will be unavailable, resulting in a call being blocked or delayed. For LMR services, grade of service refers to the probability that a channel will not be available at the site. 22 Queuing performance metric under the current contract is .5 seconds or less.


a. Shared services availability b. Core processing component redundancy and availability c. Back-up/restoration service hardware component availability d. Site availability e. Site sub-system availability (site controller, base/repeater station, antennas, power systems) f. Dispatch position availability g. Site connectivity availability h. Grade of service (queueing)

4. There should be a performance metric for availability of the system dashboard itself (web portal active). The dashboard should provide a log of its own availability, providing a historical report of any amount of the time the service has not been available. Since the dashboard is a service available on the network, it should be designed and implemented for high availability (99.999%).

5. The network dashboard should provide a history of all network performance metrics beginning with initial operation of the first phase of the new SLERS all the way through end of the contract in 2036. Historical events should be searchable based on network component, site, region, time-period, etc. The dashboard should be able to display performance trends, cycles of outages and correlation of performance metric data with other data available to the system dashboard.

6. The status of open trouble-tickets and request for service should be available to monitor through the network dashboard. This simplifies the process for contract management personnel to view compliance to service response metrics.

7.3 Service Performance Metrics Extended outages of a site, groups of sites or critical services on the network place public safety radio users in danger. Outages and request for service require prompt response and resolution to lessen the potential impact to the users on the network. The list below describes service performance metrics the state should consider for contract SLAs to improve customer satisfaction.

1. Service response time metrics should be implemented for: a. Site outage b. Site sub-system outage (channels, antenna, power system, etc.) c. Loss of shared services d. Loss of core processing, routing and switching hardware e. Loss of site connectivity f. Loss of back-up/restoration service g. Dispatch consoles h. Network dashboard

Service response times should measure time to dispatch personnel and on-site response arrival times.

2. The state should implement performance metrics for mobile/in-vehicle radio installations; a. Request for install to schedule (scheduled within time specified by contract) b. Scheduling compliance (performs install at scheduled time; no delay to customer)


c. Duration of installation (completed within schedule time; no delay to customer) d. Quality of installation (workmanship, electrical installation integrity, accurate

programming); measured as non-compliant to performance metric if quality of installation requires any work to be repeated and additional delays to customer.

3. The state should implement performance metrics for portable/handheld radio provisioning; a. Request for radio provisioning b. Scheduling compliance (performs provisioning of the radio within time specified by contract) c. Quality (accurate programming)

4. The state should include service performance metrics for all network upgrades and refreshes. The loss of services experienced by an LMR network user is the same whether caused by maintenance interruptions or force majeure. Service metrics should be defined such that vendors responding to a competitive solicitation for the new SLERS incorporate appropriate redundancy in the network to meet the minimum availability requirements.

8.0 PROJECTED TIMEFRAME Section 287.0571(4)(k), F.S., The projected timeframe for key events from the beginning of the procurement process through the expiration of a contract. The SLERS procurement contract timeline is a suggested duration of 19 years, with a technology refresh evaluation at year seven after transition is complete. During the technology refresh evaluation, new negotiations for service features and reduced pricing may take place. This contract should be put in place prior to the expiration of existing LMR service contact to allow for migration of services to the new SLERS.

Having this contract in place would allow sufficient time to transition existing subscribers while supporting legacy service layers as appropriate. It is estimated that once the competitive solicitation responses are received, DMS will need an estimated eight to twelve months for completion of the solicitation documents, response evaluation, negotiations, and contract execution.

8.1 DMS Staffing Requirements DMS will need to augment its staff through fiscal year 2021-22 with Project Management, Contract Management, and LMR industry subject matter experts. This staff will provide project support for the next generation of SLERS. Specific responsibilities of the new SLERS project team include:

Develop project management o Work breakdown structures o Task oversight/execution o Risk analysis/mitigation o Staff coordination

Change management o Meeting facilitation o Contract management


o Best practice contract management language development o Contract oversight o Vendor contract liaison o SLA management o Contract risk mitigation

Develop needs assessment interview forms Conduct needs assessment interviews Review and summarize interview data for key findings Conduct SLERS research (history, performance, operations, contract) Define minimum performance levels and metrics Define network design criteria Develop preliminary coverage analysis and budgetary numbers Develop procurement documents including detailed technical specifications and system acceptance

criteria Develop evaluation criteria Review and evaluate procurement responses Review and respond to all vendor questions generated during competitive solicitation Develop necessary technical specifications addenda during the competitive solicitation Document evaluations and create final report Make recommendation to DMS for award Assist DMS with contract negotiations Make recommendations for contract language Provide end-to-end project implementation oversight Participate in post-contract technical design review (see timeline for details) Review all vendor change order requests and advise DMS accordingly Review and evaluate vendor final transition plan including detailed Method of Procedure (MOP) Participate and witness all vendor staging events Review all system “as-built” documentation generated from staging; Review all vendor civil drawings and documentation; Review all vendor site connectivity bandwidth plan; Review all vendor system and sub-system drawings and documentation; Conduct on-site inspections at all SLERS radio towers, dispatch centers and network core facilities to

evaluate vendor quality of workmanship; Review all vendor(s) radio programming templates; Review and witness all functionality acceptance testing plans and process; Review and witness coverage testing plans and process; Review and manage vendor punch list through to full resolution; Review compliance to performance metrics in collaboration with contract management team; Review and evaluate all performance to contract conflicts and make recommendations to DMS;


Conduct periodic site visits to test vendor functionality and compliance to performance metrics. Should be conducted quarterly to a pre-determined number of sites unbeknownst to the vendor for the duration of the contract;

Review and evaluate vendor NOC performance during contract including all metrics associated with service response times;

Review and evaluate all vendor radio refresh models supplied for the contract; assess and make recommendations on training requirements, radio model suitability for refresh;

Evaluate and make recommendations on the usability and configuration of the system dashboard; Assist DMS with resolution and understanding of technical performance complaints from users for the

duration of the contract; Research and evaluate impact of any potential regulatory events that may occur during the operational

period of the contract; Review, evaluate and advise DMS on any new services or attributes that vendor(s) may offer during the

operational period of the contract. Determine suitability and value to DMS and SLERS users.

8.2 Procurement Timeline As defined by Florida Statutes, the procurement process extends from the beginning of the procurement through the end of the contract for the desired services. Key dates for the procurement process are as follows:

8.3 Competitive Solicitation Period July 1, 2015 through August 31, 2015 – Conduct candidate search and interview process for LMR

industry subject matter experts for new SLERS project team; September 1, 2015 – October 31, 2015 - Hire new SLERS project team November 1, 2015 through March 31, 2016 - Develop a procurement strategy and all necessary






contract23; and June 30, 2017 - Final contract in place



8.4 Transition Period July 15, 2017 – Project kick-off meeting; August 1, 2017 – Post-contract Technical Design Review with selected vendor to include:

o Review and approve services/attributes provided; o Review and approve network design and redundancy; o Review and approve performance metrics/SLAs; o Review and approve transition plan – Method of Procedure (MOP); o Review and approve transition plan – per transition period composition (sites, dispatch centers,

agencies, etc.); o Review and approve site acquisition and construction; o Review and approve Network Operations Center (NOC) procedures and processes; o Review and approve administrative and user training plan;

SLERS transition timeline24. o August 1, 2017 – Transition Period 1-5 site acquisition o October 1, 2017 – Transition Period 1-3 new site construction o February 1, 2018 – Transition Period 1-3 factory staging event o August 1, 2018 – Transition Period 1 coverage and functional acceptance testing o October 1, 2018 – Transition Period 1 radio tower site and dispatch center cutover o October 1, 2018 – Transition Period 4-5 new site construction o January 1, 2019 – Transition Period 2 coverage and functional acceptance testing o February 1, 2019 – Transition Period 4-5 factory staging o March 1, 2019 – Transition Period 2 radio tower site and dispatch center cutover o August 1, 2019 – Transition Period 3 coverage and functional acceptance testing o October 1, 2019 – Transition Period 3 radio tower site and dispatch center cutover o January 1, 2020 – Transition Period 4 coverage and functional acceptance testing o March 1, 2020 – Transition Period 4 radio tower site and dispatch center cutover o August 1, 2020 – Transition Period 5 coverage and functional acceptance testing o October 1, 2020 – Transition Period 5 radio tower site and dispatch center cutover o March 1, 2021 – Final acceptance testing

January 1, 2021 through June 30, 2021 – negotiate continued use of current SLERS services if transition delays prevent new service(s) from being available in all areas;

July 1, 2021 through December 31, 2021 - Decommission Current SLERS.

24 An LMR vendor or integrator will typically employ a site construction team that focuses specifically on site acquisition, building sites and completing all necessary civil work. Given the risks associated with acquiring and building sites, it is not possible to say that all sites will be completed within the timeline of a given transition period or even within the timeline of the full network transition. A very small number of site delays may not stop the network transition, but it may delay final testing and acceptance.


8.5 Operational Contract Period July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2036 – after all SLERS state users and partners have transitioned to the

new SLERS, the selected vendor would provide the contracted services for a period of 15 years; October 1, 2027 through December 31, 2028 – selected radio vendor(s) submit radio refresh models to

staff for review and approval; January 1, 2028 through March 31, 2028 – selected radio vendor(s) submit radio configuration

information, training plan and provisioning plan to staff for review and approval. April 1, 2028 through June 30, 2028 – selected radio vendor(s) deliver user training programs for

provisioning of radio refresh; acceptance testing of features/attributes for all vendor/models, programming of radios completed;

July 1, 2028 through September 30, 2028 – selected vendor(s) provision radio refreshes to SLERS users June 30, 2036 – End of contract

9.0 PUBLIC RECORDS COMPLIANCE Section 287.0571(4) (l), F.S., A plan to ensure compliance with the public records law. The procurement and a subsequent awarded contract should state that all records produced are subject to Ch. 119, Florida Statutes. The service provider shall allow DMS access to all documents, papers, letters, or other material subject to Ch. 119, Florida Statutes for which public record requests are made or received by the department.

10.0 CONTINGENCY PLAN Section 287.0571 (4) (m), F.S. A specific and feasible contingency plan addressing contractor nonperformance and a description of the tasks involved in and costs required for its implementation. The procurement of the next generation SLERS should include language drafted in consultation with DMS legal counsel and DMS procurement staff. The contract should outline a plan, subject to negotiation process, to address contractor non-performance for specific deliverables in the design, implementation, and support.

The procurement should maintain provisions to address the termination for cause in the event of non-performance by the Contractor and remedies for non-performance consistent with those available in rule 60A-1.006, F.A.C.

10.1 Contingency Plan DMS should include provisions in the new contract for financial consequences in the event the service provider does not meet established and measured performance expectations. The provisions should provide incentive for a Contractor to cure any problems with performance before an event of default occurs.

Specific items of consideration for the next generation SLERS should include:

Implementation Schedule o Key Milestones to Demonstrate Progress


o Final Completion and Cutover Acceptance Criteria

o Functional o Coverage o Reliability (90 days)

Support o Performance Metrics o Quality

Implementation Schedule 10.1.1Key milestones should be established in the ITN and final contract to set out clear expectations for implementation. The vendor must be willing to provide any resources necessary to maintain the schedule provide acceptance and complete cutover before the current SLERS contract expires.

Damages from vendor delays affecting final acceptance and cutover should include the continual support of the current SLERS beyond the contract end date of June 30, 2021. Negotiation with the incumbent vendor would need to take place for that continued support.

Acceptance Criteria 10.1.2A system acceptance criterion is based on the design specifications and the vendor’s ability to meet those specifications. Testing is performed to prove compliance of each subsystem and the complete network before public safety users are cutover. In the event that any acceptance testing fails, the vendor must rectify the issue and retest to prove compliance.

Functional Acceptance 10.1.2.1A detailed functional acceptance test plan (FATP) for each subsystem of the network must be created by the vendor and approved by DMS. The functional acceptance test plan should be created from the published specifications and features and the established operational requirements created during the ITN and implementation process. These subsystems must also demonstrate, at a complete network level, that all components are working together to provide a public safety communications network supporting the operation of public safety agencies. Any test(s) that fail during the functional testing should be rectified and retested to prove compliance.

Coverage Acceptance 10.1.2.2Coverage criteria should be established in the ITN process and the vendors must propose the required number of sites to meet the coverage objectives. A coverage acceptance test plan (CATP) should be created from the published specification and tested at a minimum of county level to ensure compliance. If the coverage testing fails to meet the specification, the vendor would be required to build and maintain additional sites at no cost to the state to pass this coverage criterion.

Reliability (90 days) 10.1.2.3After completion of the FATP and CATP, a 90-day burn-in test should be required to prove the reliability of the new network before any level of substantial cutover is completed. This ensures that all


performance specifications are being monitored and the system is performing to a level of public safety grade quality.

Each phase of the network should go thru FATP, CATP, & 90-day reliability before final system acceptance is granted. All phases should be completed within the contracted schedule timelines or penalties assessed based on the negotiated contract.

Support 10.1.3Upon acceptance of any phase and ultimately final system acceptance, negotiated service level agreements for support should be in place to ensure the network is maintained to public safety grade. All SLA’s should be established and negotiated during the ITN process.

Response and restoration times to outages or any issues that disrupts services to the public safety user should be at the highest industry standards and provided in the dashboard. All spare parts should be identified and provided as real time inventory as part of performance metrics to ensure DMS that support is being provided at optimum levels by the vendor.

Another key issue of support is software quality. Defective software at the network or subscriber level can affect operation to the end public safety user. Any software upgrades which require recall of radios should incur a penalty based on the downtime of the public safety user to be removed from the field to remedy the defective software.

Financial Consequences Suggestion:

Financial consequences language including amounts should be included in the ITN and awarded contract. This language should be developed in consultation with DMS legal counsel and DMS Purchasing staff.

Specific areas to address:

Schedule – 4-year implementation cycle with final acceptance and cutover by June 30, 2021 Network Build-out – Performance Bond Network Support – Performance Bond and System Outage penalty Subscriber Software Quality – public safety user downtime penalty

11.0 TRANSITION PLAN Section 287.0571(4)(n), F.S., A state agency’s transition plan for addressing changes in the number of agency personnel, affected business processes, employee transition issues, and communication with affected stakeholders, such as agency clients and the public. The transition plan must contain a reemployment and retraining assistance plan for employees who are not retained by the state agency or employed by the contractor. A successful transition plan should start with the goal to properly transition from the current SLERS to the next generation of SLERS with minimal impact to daily operation.


11.1 Transition Plan The Transition Plan suggestions below outline activities that should be completed with DMS and the selected vendor for the next generation of SLERS. Proper resource planning, starting upon approval of this business plan is the key for DMS to begin preparing for the implementation and ultimately the transition from SLERS to the next generation of SLERS for the state and partners. To ensure the proper ramp up for negotiating a successful contract and the transition to the next generation of SLERS, key activities should include:

Resource Allocation Transition Project Management Planning

o Communication Plan o Project Management o Engineering o Implementation o Cutover

Network Support o Network Operation Center o Support Services

Contract Management

11.2 Resource Allocation Resource allocation is the most important key activity throughout the planning, implementation, support, and contract management of the next generation SLERS. DMS should start staffing contract resources upon approval of new positions for staff augmentation to prepare for the development of an ITN, vendor selection, implementation, and ultimately the on-going support and contract management. Proper DMS staffing throughout the lifecycle of this project is key for planning, providing clear communication to key stakeholders and agencies, prompt decision-making, and contract management of the recommended option.

Upon completion of negotiations, DMS should work with the selected vendor to establish a detailed project management plan, identifying dedicated resources to plan, implement, cutover, implement, and support the next generation of SLERS for the contracted lifecycle.

11.3 Transition Project Management Planning Upon contract award, the selected vendor should be responsible for a detailed project management plan in conjunction with the goals set by DMS to provide the necessary components for a successful transition to the next generation SLERS.

Communications Plan 11.3.1DMS should consider creating and implementing a communications plan immediately upon hiring contract resource staff for the ITN. This plan should include the goals of the Joint Task Force, SLERS Partners, and key stakeholders, for the life cycle of the next generation SLERS contract. This plan could also be used to promote the next generation SLERS with the goal of adding more SLERS Partners.


This communications plan should be part of the foundation upon which the development of the ITN is based. The communications plan should be expanded upon by the vendors responding to the ITN showing how to support the goals with a successful plan that ultimately transitions the identified SLERS users with the least impact across the state. The successful vendor should expect the communications plan to part of the contract for the next generation of SLERS.

Some key actions for DMS and the successful vendor in developing and implementing a communications plan are:

Identify Key Stakeholders Method of Communications Identify, Document, and Communicate Project Goals Timely and Updated Communications to current and future next Generation SLERS Users Shared Responsibility of DMS and Vendor Upon Contract Award

These actions are intended to provide a clear and concise understanding of the project, its timeline, and expectations for implementation.

Transition Project Management Plan 11.3.2A requirement of the ITN should make the vendor provide a detailed project management plan, from the known goals of DMS and the projected goals of a vendor to meet the transition schedule objective, that includes typical project management steps to meet those goals and provide a successful transition. All stages of the next generation SLERS project management planning, including the DMS project management plan, should be coordinated, reviewed, and agreed upon by the vendor and DMS before proceeding. Standard Project Management practices with DMS oversight and approval should include:

Dedicated and Supporting Resources o Vendor o DMS o State Agencies o Partner Agencies

Communications Plan o Vendor o DMS o Vendor/DMS Partnership

Work Breakdown Structure o Schedule o Design o Implementation o Support o Key Phase build-out Milestones

Quality Assurance Plan


Safety Plan Security Plan Change Management Plan Impact and Risk Analysis Plan Training Plan

o Vendor o DMS o Agencies

Cutover Plan

Engineering Plan 11.3.3The engineering plan or network design is another key activity to which the next generation SLERS will be managed, implemented, tested, and supported. Key elements of the design will involve the primary vendor coordinating and managing multiple subcontractors, such as the backhaul provider(s), backup power provider(s), and other engineering related tasks that will include designing, implementing, and testing key components of the next generation SLERS. All of these engineering tasks will ultimately be required to meet the service level agreement required and defined in an ITN. Key engineering tasks with DMS oversight and approval would include:

Network Design o Coverage o Network o Backhaul o Backup Power o Dispatch Centers o NOC

Civil Architect & Engineering (A&E) o Tower Sites o Construction

Technology Component Build o LMR o Microwave Backhaul o Network o Backup Power o NOC

Staging Technology Installation and Optimization

o Sites o Backhaul o Dispatch Centers o NOC


Acceptance Testing o Coverage o Functional

Subscribers (mobile/in vehicle and portable/handheld) o Configurations o Programming o Installation o Training

NOC o Dashboard Metrics

Implementation Plan 11.3.4The implementation plan will combine the project management plan and the engineering plan to create an orchestrated and detailed schedule of events in meeting the service level objectives defined by DMS and documented as requirements in an ITN. All steps of the implementation plan should meet the goals for transitioning and cutting over to the next generation SLERS with minimal impact to the public safety user.

Cutover Plan 11.3.5The cutover plan is a detailed document that takes into consideration the goals of the public safety agency users to create minimal impact in transition from current generation SLERS to the next generation SLERS. Consideration must be given to an entire completed network (entire state completed before cutover) versus a phased network completion (one defined area of the state completed before that area cutover).

Current SLERS agency users have stated that a phased network approach versus the entire network completed approach creates operational complexity by requiring a state public safety user to operate in various areas of the state, in which they have responsibility and authority, potentially on two different technologies. They must be able to operate in areas that are on current SLERS and next generation SLERS as duty or assignments call for operating in different areas of the state.

Regardless of the chosen vendor, the complexity of the statewide next generation SLERS will most likely require a phased approach with considerable planning towards providing minimal public safety impact during the transition. With a phased approach, it may be unavoidable that some users will need to have the capability to operate on both the current and next generation of SLERS, however, with good planning this may be kept to only a select few and not be required of all users.

Detailed training and communication should occur at the user level, dispatch level, and support level for the transition period and how the cutover will occur. Training information should include:

Interoperability Dispatch Operations Subscriber Operations (are mobile/in vehicle and portable/handheld) Policy and Procedures


Failure Scenarios

The cutover plan should clearly identify all issues from any vendor and receive thorough review, understanding, and approval by DMS, state agencies, and partners long before any cutover takes place.

11.4 Network Support DMS should be planning for support of the next generation SLERS by establishing service-level performance measures with metrics that are very clearly defined in the ITN, with associated penalties if the metrics are not met or maintained. Lessons learned from the current SLERS should assist in further definition of service level performance beyond the implementation period.

The vendor must provide a detailed support plan that illustrates how each defined SLA metric will be followed and reported, with escalation procedures for notifications and penalties as needed to maintain a public safety grade communications network.

On-going support of the next generation of SLERS and all of the network components are critical. The reporting of network failures or issues impacting public safety users should be established in a joint DMS/Vendor communications plan that allows for immediate notification to the users if a problem exists and allows the users to report or receive customer assistance if they are experiencing network or subscriber operational difficulties.

The established metrics should also account for and allow periodic monthly and quarterly reports to the state’s contract management and agency management on the operation, health of the network and resolution of issues.

Network Operations Center (NOC) 11.4.1The Network Operation Center (NOC) should be designed and implemented as part of the next generation of SLERS. No public safety users should transition without the NOC being accepted with full monitoring capabilities, policies and procedures, call priority and escalation, and full customer support functions.

The vendor should not only support the NOC with the proper personnel but also be able to provide real time dashboard monitoring to DMS that provides alerts to negotiated service level agreement metrics. The state should know in real time when failures occur or service levels are not being met.

Support Services 11.4.2Network support services are necessary to maintain the next generation SLERS at the level of performance that the network was designed to achieve. These services will likely also contain multiple levels of support from various subcontractors for the supporting components such as backhaul and backup power. All components must be serviced and supported in the effort to maintain the next generation SLERS to a public safety grade level of service. These types of services include:

Staffing o Vendor o DMS


Contract Management Plan o Vendor o DMS

System Support Plan o Outage Notification o Failure Scenario Support

Customer Support Plan o Vendor o DMS o Agency

Security o Sites o Network o Subscriber Programming

Service Level Agreements Lifecycle Upgrades

o Method of Procedure to minimize public safety outages o Training

Administrative Reporting Asset Management

o Network Level o Subscriber Level

All of these tasks are critical to supporting and providing services to maintain the contracted network to a public safety grade of service.

11.5 Contract Management As DMS hires staff to manage the procurement and implementation from July 1, 2016 to June 30, 2022, thought should be given early to how the next generation SLERS should be managed from the beginning and through the life of the network.

DMS should strive to retain qualified trained staff from initial contract and thru the contracted life of the network to maintain a clear understanding the next generation SLERS and provide contract management oversight accountability to the vendor.


12.0 AMERICAN WITH DISABILITIES ACT OF 1990, AS AMENDED Section 287.0571(4)(o)F. S., A plan for ensuring access by persons with disabilities in compliance with applicable state and federal law. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) prohibits discrimination based on disability in employment, state and local government, public accommodations, commercial facilities, transportation, and telecommunications. To ensure that the service provider is compliant with state and Federal ADA laws, the procurement should request that the service provider outline a plan to identify and address any ADA concerns.

13.0 APPENDIX

13.1 Glossary of Terms Association of Public Safety Communications Officers (APCO) – global organization of public safety communications professionals. APCO provides technical and operational expertise, professional development and outreach to communications practitioners worldwide. APCO has and continues to be an industry thought leader and principal driver in communications standards like Project 25.

Backhaul – industry term for intermediate links used to connect radio tower sites and public safety dispatch centers to the network core(s).

Digital Mobile Radio (DMR) – an open digital radio standard for commercial radio services specified by the European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI) Standard TS 102-361.

Encryption – the process of encoding a message or information so that only properly authorized parties may access the message or information. In P25, the Advance Encryption Standard (AES) is the preferred encryption algorithm.

Enhanced Digital Access Communications System (EDACS) – a proprietary land mobile radio technology originally developed by the former mobile radio division of General Electric; now part of Harris Corporation; SLERS is built on EDACS technology.

Extended Addressing (EA) – an enhancement to EDACS that provides an expanded ID addressing scheme needed for EDACS to scale to the needs of the State of Florida.

Federal Communications Commission (FCC) – the primary regulatory authority for communications law, regulation and technological innovation. For LMR, the FCC is responsible for overseeing the integrity of the use of the spectrum allocated to LMR users.

FirstNet – an independent authority within NTIA, created by the Middle Class Tax Relief Act of 2012 to provide a high-speed public safety broadband network for use by the nation’s first responders.


Florida Interoperability Network (FIN) – an IP-based interoperability solution that connects disparate radio technologies and a system of mutual aid channels across the State of Florida. FIN today is supported by MOTOBRIDGE, a gateway interoperability solution provided by Motorola.

FloridaNet – a multi-year program designed to provide a framework for Florida first responders to work with FirstNet in the design efforts for the nation’s first Public Safety Broadband Network. The goal of this program is to work with FirstNet to create a network design that can meet the requirements of the public safety mission in Florida.

Frequency Division Multiple Access (FDMA) – a wireless technology access method that allocates one voice talk path per each individual allocation of bandwidth. In P25, an FDMA technology provides one voice talk path for each 12.5 kHz radio channel.

Global Positioning System (GPS) – a satellite based system that provides location and time information anywhere on Earth. GPS is often used by mobile devices to transmit location of personnel, vehicles and critical assets.

Infrastructure – the fixed assets of an LMR infrastructure that support the services necessary for wide-area mobile/in-vehicle and portable/handheld radio communications. Includes components such as towers, equipment shelters, back-up power systems, microwave, fiber, base/repeater stations and antenna systems.

Internet Protocol (IP) – primary communications protocols used for relaying information across networks. Data travels across an IP network in form of packets.

Joint Task Force (JTF) – the governing board for the Statewide Law Enforcement Radio System.

Land Mobile Radio (LMR) – a classification of FCC radio communications used by private business, state and local governments and others for coordination of resources and improving efficiency of response in emergency scenarios.

Long Term Evolution (LTE) – a global standard for high-speed wireless services for mobile devices (SmartPhones, tablets, “air” cards) developed by the 3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP); often referred to as 4G LTE.

Megahertz (MHz) – a hertz is a unit measure of frequency, defined as one cycle per second. Megahertz or MHz is equivalent to one million Hertz.

Microwave – the wireless transmission of digitized information from one point to another point (point-to-point) over a specific classification of radio spectrum. Microwave technologies today support high-bandwidth capacity.

Mobile/In-vehicle Radio – a two-way radio device physically installed/mounted in a vehicle; usually equipped with a rooftop antenna and a handheld microphone.

Multi-cast – a two-way radio site topology that uses different channels at each site to avoid the potential for interference between sites with overlapping coverage.


MyFloridaNet (MFN) – an enterprise communications infrastructure dedicated for the exclusive use of State of Florida customers. The enterprise infrastructure is based on a Multi-Protocol Label Switching (MPLS) technology providing improved security and robust connectivity resulting in a highly available (HA) and highly reliable (HR) statewide communication network.

Nationwide Public Safety Broadband Network (NPSBN) – provisioned by the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012, the Nationwide Public Safety Broadband Network will provide a secure, reliable and dedicated interoperable network for emergency responders to communicate during an emergency.

Network Operations Center (NOC) – a centralized service used to support trouble ticketing, to dispatch service response personnel and to monitor the network for service interruptions.

Over-the-Air-Programming (OTAP) – a service used to change the configuration parameters of a mobile/in-vehicle radio or a portable/handheld radio over a radio channel. OTAP negates the need to bring radios to a regional service center for manual configuration changes.

Over-the-Air-Rekeying (OTAR) – a P25 standard service used to change the encryption key of a mobile/in-vehicle radio or a portable/handheld radio over a radio channel. OTAR negates the need to bring radios to a regional service center for manual key changes.

Portable/Handheld Radio – a two-way radio device typically worn in a radio case (holster) on the hip of the user or the radio may be carried by hand. Portable/handheld radios typically transmit at a lower power (3 watts) than their mobile/in-vehicle (15 or 35 watts) counter-parts.

Project 25 (P25) – a suite of digital two-way radio standards that define over-the-air and network interfaces to enable interoperability between users and computability among P25 equipment providers.

P25 Compliance Assessment Program (P25 CAP) – a voluntary program that allows P25 vendors to demonstrate their radio product compliance with a specific set of requirements within the P25 standards.

P25 Link Layer Authentication – the P25 network authentication service defined by TIA-102.AACE, used to prevent unauthorized radios from accessing a P25 network.

P25 Phase I FDMA – the original P25 radio access methodology offering one voice talk path for each 12.5 kHz of bandwidth.

P25 Phase II TDMA – the latest P25 radio access methodology offering two voice talk paths for each 12.5 kHz of bandwidth.

P25 Radio Inhibit – a P25 standard that defines the method for disabling a P25 radio, often used as a security feature to prevent a compromised, lost or stolen radio from operating on the network.

SAFECOM – an emergency communications program under the US Department of Homeland Security that defines interoperability guidelines for federal, state and local governments.


Simulcast – a two-way radio site topology that transmits the same signal from two or more sites; used to achieve stronger in-building radio coverage or when spectrum availability is limited.

Spectrum – in the context of LMR, this refers to a grouping of radio frequencies designated for a specific use such as VHF high band spectrum or 800 MHz spectrum. Different parts of the radio spectrum have different performance characteristics.

Statewide Law Enforcement Radio System (SLERS) – the current LMR service used by State of Florida law enforcement agencies and partners in Florida.

Subscriber – in the context of LMR, a subscriber is an individual who uses a mobile/in-vehicle radio or portable/handheld radio to access services on the network.

Terrestrial Trunked Radio (TETRA) – a professional mobile radio standard developed by the European Telecommunications Standards Institute.

Time Division Multiple Access (TDMA) – a wireless technology access method that allocates two voice talk paths per each individual allocation of bandwidth. In P25, a TDMA technology provides two voice talk paths for each 12.5 kHz radio channel.

Vehicular Repeater System (VRS) – used to extend LMR system coverage from the mobile/in-vehicle radio to the portable/handheld radio when signal is inadequate for the portable/handheld radio to access the LMR system directly. The VRS is typically mounted in the trunk of a sedan vehicle, or in fire applications, on the fire apparatus.

13.2 Business Case Interview List State Agencies Interviewed

Name: Agency: Email Address:

Major Mark Trammell Florida Department of Financial Services [email protected]

Lt. Colonel Greg Gibson Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission [email protected]

Lt. Michael Fraher Florida Department of Business and Professional Regulation

[email protected]

Sheriff David Shoar Florida Sheriff’s Association [email protected]

Steve Casey [email protected]

Major Ralph Sullenberger

Florida National Guard [email protected]

Robert Little Florida Department of Emergency [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]








Name: Agency: Email Address:

Management

Jason Allison Agency for State Technology, State of Florida

[email protected]

Daniel Dunlap Okaloosa County, Florida [email protected]

Major Joseph Preston Walton County, Florida [email protected]

Frank Kitzerow Florida Police Chief’s Association [email protected]

Major Noel Stephen Okeechobee County [email protected]

Bobbie Brown Seminole Tribes of Florida [email protected]

S.A.C. Mark Perez Florida Department of Law Enforcement [email protected]

Nick Simoncini [email protected]

Colonel David Brierton Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles

[email protected]

Vic Thomas [email protected]

Lt. Russ Bass [email protected]

Major Ryan Burchnell [email protected]

Larry Gowen [email protected]

Major Steve Williams [email protected]

Colonel Jerry Bryan Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services

[email protected]

John Woodard Florida Department of Corrections [email protected]

Wes Kirkland [email protected]

Randy Pierce Florida Department of Transportation [email protected]

Greg Holcomb Lake County, Florida [email protected]

Other Organizations Interviewed





















Name: Organization: Email Address:

Ms. Penny Rubow, Director

Arkansas Wireless Network, State of Arkansas [email protected]

Mr. Keith Faddis, Public Safety Program Director

Metropolitan Area Regional Radio System (metro Kansas City, MO region) [email protected]

Ms. Cindy Cast Miami-Dade County IT Department [email protected]

Mr. Steve Weiland Public Service Admin.

Central Management Services, State of Illinois [email protected]

Mr. Darryl Anderson

Program Director Ohio Multi-Agency Radio Communications System [email protected]

Mr. Jeya Selvaratnam Louisiana Wireless Information Network [email protected]

Mr. George Crouch South Carolina, Division of Technology Operations [email protected]

Mr. Brian Courtney

Director Missouri Statewide Interoperability Center [email protected]

Mr. Tom Sorley

Deputy Director Radio Communications Services, City of Houston, Texas [email protected]

13.3 Florida Statue 282.709 282.709 State agency law enforcement radio system and interoperability network.— (1) The department may acquire and administer a statewide radio communications system to serve law enforcement units of state agencies, and to serve local law enforcement agencies through mutual aid channels. (a) The department shall, in conjunction with the Department of Law Enforcement and the Division of Emergency Management, establish policies, procedures, and standards to be incorporated into a comprehensive management plan for the use and operation of the statewide radio communications system. (b) The department shall bear the overall responsibility for the design, engineering, acquisition, and implementation of the statewide radio communications system and for ensuring the proper operation and maintenance of all common system equipment. (c) 1. The department may rent or lease space on any tower under its control and refuse to lease space on any tower at any site. 2. The department may rent, lease, or sublease ground space as necessary to locate equipment to support antennae on the towers. The costs for the use of such space shall be established by the department for each site if it is determined to be practicable and feasible to make space available.


3. The department may rent, lease, or sublease ground space on lands acquired by the department for the construction of privately owned or publicly owned towers. The department may, as a part of such rental, lease, or sublease agreement, require space on such towers for antennae as necessary for the construction and operation of the state agency law enforcement radio system or any other state need. 4. All moneys collected by the department for rents, leases, and subleases under this subsection shall be deposited directly into the State Agency Law Enforcement Radio System Trust Fund established in subsection (3) and may be used by the department to construct, maintain, or support the system. 5. The positions necessary for the department to accomplish its duties under this subsection shall be established in the General Appropriations Act and funded by the Law Enforcement Radio Operating Trust Fund or other revenue sources. (d) The department shall exercise its powers and duties under this part to plan, manage, and administer the mutual aid channels in the statewide radio communication system. 1. In implementing such powers and duties, the department shall consult and act in conjunction with the Department of Law Enforcement and the Division of Emergency Management, and shall manage and administer the mutual aid channels in a manner that reasonably addresses the needs and concerns of the involved law enforcement agencies and emergency response agencies and entities. 2. The department may make the mutual aid channels available to federal agencies, state agencies, and agencies of the political subdivisions of the state for the purpose of public safety and domestic security. (e) The department may allow other state agencies to use the statewide radio communications system under terms and conditions established by the department. (2) The Joint Task Force on State Agency Law Enforcement Communications is created adjunct to the department to advise the department of member-agency needs relating to the planning, designing, and establishment of the statewide communication system. 1 (a) The Joint Task Force on State Agency Law Enforcement Communications shall consist of the following members: 1. A representative of the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco of the Department of Business and Professional Regulation who shall be appointed by the secretary of the department. 2. A representative of the Division of Florida Highway Patrol of the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles who shall be appointed by the executive director of the department. 3. A representative of the Department of Law Enforcement who shall be appointed by the executive director of the department. 4. A representative of the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission who shall be appointed by the executive director of the commission. 5. A representative of the Department of Corrections who shall be appointed by the secretary of the department. 6. A representative of the Division of State Fire Marshal of the Department of Financial Services who shall be appointed by the State Fire Marshal. 7. A representative of the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services who shall be appointed by the Commissioner of Agriculture.


(b) Each appointed member of the joint task force shall serve at the pleasure of the appointing official. Any vacancy on the joint task force shall be filled in the same manner as the original appointment. A joint task force member may, upon notification to the chair before the beginning of any scheduled meeting, appoint an alternative to represent the member on the task force and vote on task force business in his or her absence. (c) The joint task force shall elect a chair from among its members to serve a 1-year term. A vacancy in the chair of the joint task force must be filled for the remainder of the unexpired term by an election of the joint task force members. (d) The joint task force shall meet as necessary, but at least quarterly, at the call of the chair and at the time and place designated by him or her. (e) The per diem and travel expenses incurred by a member of the joint task force in attending its meetings and in attending to its affairs shall be paid pursuant to s. 112.061, from funds budgeted to the state agency that the member represents. (f) The department shall provide technical support to the joint task force. (3) The State Agency Law Enforcement Radio System Trust Fund is established in the department and funded from surcharges collected under ss. 318.18, 320.0802, and 328.72. Upon appropriation, moneys in the trust fund may be used by the department to acquire by competitive procurement the equipment, software, and engineering, administrative, and maintenance services it needs to construct, operate, and maintain the statewide radio system. Moneys in the trust fund from surcharges shall be used to help fund the costs of the system. Upon completion of the system, moneys in the trust fund may also be used by the department for payment of the recurring maintenance costs of the system. (4) The department may create and administer an interoperability network to enable interoperability between various radio communications technologies and to serve federal agencies, state agencies, and agencies of political subdivisions of the state for the purpose of public safety and domestic security. (a) The department shall, in conjunction with the Department of Law Enforcement and the Division of Emergency Management, exercise its powers and duties pursuant to this chapter to plan, manage, and administer the interoperability network. The office may: 1. Enter into mutual aid agreements among federal agencies, state agencies, and political subdivisions of the state for the use of the interoperability network. 2. Establish the cost of maintenance and operation of the interoperability network and charge subscribing federal and local law enforcement agencies for access and use of the network. The department may not charge state law enforcement agencies identified in paragraph (2)(a) to use the network. 3. In consultation with the Department of Law Enforcement and the Division of Emergency Management, amend and enhance the statewide radio communications system as necessary to implement the interoperability network. (b) The department, in consultation with the Joint Task Force on State Agency Law Enforcement Communications, and in conjunction with the Department of Law Enforcement and the Division of Emergency Management, shall establish policies, procedures, and standards to incorporate into a comprehensive management plan for the use and operation of the interoperability network. History.—s. 1, ch. 88-144; s. 1, ch. 92-72; s. 224, ch. 92-279; s. 55, ch. 92-326; s. 30, ch. 94-218; s. 111, ch. 94-356; s. 860, ch. 95-148; s. 5, ch. 95-283; s. 1, ch. 96-312; s. 5, ch. 96-357; s. 10, ch. 96-388; s. 14, ch. 96-390; s. 6,


ch. 98-251; s. 69, ch. 98-279; s. 81, ch. 99-245; s. 3, ch. 99-289; s. 37, ch. 99-399; s. 11, ch. 2000-164; s. 16, ch. 2001-261; s. 2, ch. 2003-153; s. 308, ch. 2003-261; s. 24, ch. 2009-80; s. 24, ch. 2011-47; s. 125, ch. 2011-142; s. 10, ch. 2012-88; s. 21, ch. 2012-119; s. 5, ch. 2014-18; ss. 29, 30, 66, ch. 2014-53; s. 4, ch. 2014-150. 1Note.— A. Section 29, ch. 2014-53, amended paragraph (2)(a) “[i]n order to implement Specific Appropriations 2896 through 2907 of the 2014-2015 General Appropriations Act.” B. As amended by s. 29, ch. 2014-53. Section 30, ch. 2014-53, provides that “[t]he amendment made by this act to s. 282.709, Florida Statutes, expires July 1, 2015, and the text of that section shall revert to that in existence on June 30, 2014, except that any amendments to such text enacted other than by this act shall be preserved and continue to operate to the extent that such amendments are not dependent upon the portions of text that expire pursuant to this section.” C. Section 66, ch. 2014-53, provides that “[i]f any other act passed during the 2014 Regular Session contains a provision that is substantively the same as a provision in this act, but that removes or is otherwise not subject to the future repeal applied to such provision by this act, the Legislature intends that the provision in the other act takes precedence and continues to operate, notwithstanding the future repeal provided by this act.” Section 4, ch. 2014-150, amended paragraph (2)(a), effective July 1, 2014, to read: (a) The Joint Task Force on State Agency Law Enforcement Communications shall consist of the following members: 1. A representative of the Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco of the Department of Business and Professional Regulation who shall be appointed by the secretary of the department. 2. A representative of the Division of Florida Highway Patrol of the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles who shall be appointed by the executive director of the department. 3. A representative of the Department of Law Enforcement who shall be appointed by the executive director of the department. 4. A representative of the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission who shall be appointed by the executive director of the commission. 5. A representative of the Department of Corrections who shall be appointed by the secretary of the department. 6. A representative of the Division of State Fire Marshal of the Department of Financial Services who shall be appointed by the State Fire Marshal. 7. A representative of the Department of Transportation who shall be appointed by the secretary of the department. 8. A representative of the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services who shall be appointed by the Commissioner of Agriculture. Note.—Former s. 282.1095.


13.4 State and Regional System Examples

Insource Example: Miami-Dade County, Florida 13.4.1A representative example of a fully insourced radio solution is Miami-Dade County, Florida. Miami-Dade County Information Technology Department’s Radio Communications Division supports 911 emergency and non-emergency communications Countywide. Over 90 agencies encompassing over 30,000 radio users take part in the County’s Radio System to include local government agencies, police agencies, Federal, state and Military Agencies averaging over 7.5 million calls a month.

Miami-Dade’s radio infrastructure consists of two 800 MHz simulcast trunked radio systems sharing 11 tower sites. These two systems are integrated with a stand-alone tower site, so users operate with the roaming capability as that supported by the current generation of SLERS. Miami-Dade County is midway through its transition from a legacy EDACS proprietary analog technology to a P25 open-standards radio technology.

The design and implementation of both the original and the new radio systems were procured to be operated under an insourced business model. Miami-Dade personnel designed the system, developed the sites, designed and installed the microwave backhaul subsystem, developed the frequency plan for its sites and created the talk-group structures and radio programming templates for its 90 user agencies. Miami-Dade County has contracted with its radio system supplier to furnish and install base station equipment and to assist County resources with the programming and final installation of 24,000 user radios.

Maintenance of the radio site facilities and user agency equipment is provided by a centrally located County maintenance shop equipped for component-level servicing of infrastructure and user equipment radios. Miami-Dade has embraced an insourced model since the 1970s and has invested in full-time employees, personnel training, test equipment and field service vehicles in stages that have followed growth in the system and its users.

The recent P25 improvements to the radio system had mostly been funded by a negotiated $185 million settlement with Sprint because of FCC-required 800 MHz re-banding of public safety radio spectrum. The County has since added $25 million to this project to encompass other system and user needs bringing the total cost of the system’s transition to $210M. The County’s transition planning started in 2010 and is scheduled to be fully completed by 2016.

The radio systems total annual cost for operations is $6M. This cost of operation is prorated across the full user base. Individual municipalities (34 currently) that operate on the radio system transfer their share of moving violation fees (i.e., $12.50 per violation) to Miami-Dade County for infrastructure maintenance. County agency users are charged $22.50 per each active radio for infrastructure maintenance. The County Radio Shop provides radio repair services for a flat rate of $5.40 per month. The infrastructure fees charged by Miami-Dade County pay for regular maintenance as well as emergency maintenance created by major events such as hurricanes, flooding, etc. If there is a surplus in funds collected, those monies are rolled back into infrastructure improvements beyond normal maintenance.


Miami-Dade County concludes it would be fiscally impossible for a radio operator of its size to transition from an outsourced model to the insourced model it now employs for two main reasons. First, the construction of the Miami-Dade County repair facility evolved over many years where the costs for facilities, test equipment and spare parts were spread over many funding cycles. Full-time employees within the organization have been trained and gradually promoted over time, which allowed its personnel to gain a full understanding of the radio system’s mission and the needs of its user community. This is a human resource aspect that is impossible to secure quickly and if undertaken would suffer production inefficiencies until real-world experience was gained.

There is no shared governance structure used in Miami-Dade. The County provides, operates and maintains the radio system and user agencies, in essence, consume airtime and push-to-talk transmission. This is possible since the Radio Shop maintains very close coordination and interaction with the user base because of its non-profit radio repair actions. The County has instituted rigorous quality standards and outreach initiatives within its operation and, by so doing, have gained the trust of its user community.

Outsource Example: Palmetto 800 – State of South Carolina 13.4.2The Palmetto 800 radio system is a public/private partnership between the State of South Carolina, local governments in the state, private utilities and Motorola Solutions Incorporated (MSI). The network originally began operation in 1992 under the ownership of SCANA Corporation, with the State of South Carolina as an “anchor” tenant on the system. MSI later purchased the infrastructure from SCANA and now provides radio service to the state and local governments through a contract with the South Carolina Division of Technology. Palmetto 800 employs a proprietary technology today, but the state is engaged in planning for a migration to P25 operation in the future.

Palmetto 800 has two primary goals through outsourcing of LMR services:

1. Reduce costs to state and local government through the outsourcing of a shared statewide system and services.

2. Improve interoperability across state and local government agencies by participating on a shared network.

Governance for Palmetto 800 employs an Advisory Board with diverse representation on the Board. There is also a User Advisory Committee. The Advisory Board conducts outreach to agencies on a regular basis to discuss success stories with the system and participate in regional exercises on the system.

Operational costs of the system are paid strictly by user fees. The South Carolina legislature has paid for a varying percentage of user fees in the past for some state agencies that participate on Palmetto 800. Local governments are encouraged to join the network and may participate simply by adding radios to the network or they may contract to add more sites in their area if they desire more coverage than what is currently available.

Palmetto 800 charges user fees based on the number of sites an agency needs to access in its area, including statewide roaming. The user fee structure is provided in the table below:


Sites Fee 1 $14.00 2 $19.00 3 $26.50 4 $36.00 5 $41.75 6 $47.50 7 $52.25 8 $57.00 9 $61.75 10 $62.50 System-wide $62.50

Figure 14 - Palmetto 800 Fees

Palmetto 800 also offers discounts for larger user groups.

In some cases, a local government will purchase additional sites to add to the network to enhance coverage and capacity in their area, where the Palmetto 800 network may not provide the level of coverage desired.

For example, Anderson County, South Carolina joined the Palmetto 800 network in 2009. Since the current Palmetto 800 coverage was not sufficient, the County enhanced the coverage by procuring their own sites and connecting them to the Palmetto 800 network core (the core provides all system call processing). The County pays a yearly fee to connect to the Palmetto 800 network core. By doing this, the County does not have to pay the capital expenses of owning their own core, but the yearly connection fee helps pay for the operational expenses of the Palmetto 800 core.

Outsource Example: STARCOM21 – State of Illinois 13.4.3STARCOM21 is an outsourced P25 network that provides statewide radio communications to State of Illinois agencies and local governments within the state. STARCOM21 provides 95 percent mobile/in-vehicle coverage across the state and in-building coverage for portable/handheld radios in the Chicago metro area and twelve major cities across the state. STARCOM21 has more than 280 sites today and supports more than 43,000 users on the network.

STARCOM21 was developed with the intent to achieve the following goals:

1. Reduce the total spend of state and local agencies by eliminating duplication of radio service at the state and local level

2. Provide a high quality service through guaranteed service levels 3. Leverage industry expertise where the state does not have core competencies 4. Enable seamless interoperability across all levels of government

STARCOM21 has successfully collaborated with several large county and municipal governments to eliminate duplication of state and local government radio systems in Cook County, Dupage County, the City of Springfield and other local governments. Today the system provides in-building coverage for


portable/handheld radios in 12 major cities in Illinois. This level of coverage and the delivery of high system availability allow users on the STARCOM21 network to experience high levels of LMR service quality. The State of Illinois measures performance metrics on site queuing at critical sites in the network. STARCOM21 provides the highest level of interoperability to all federal, state and local government agencies on the network. STARCOM21 even offers reduced rate interoperability access fees to agencies that do not use the network as their primary LMR service.

STARCOM21 supports an inclusive governance model with participation from state, local and Federal agencies. Participants and partners include law enforcement, fire, emergency medical service, health, human services, public transportation, and public and private utilities.

Lessons learned from STARCOM21:

Illinois has to contend with flooding on a regular basis. Flooding has and continues to compromise site connectivity in some areas. The state now has a performance metric in the current contract that requires the use of 3G cellular site links as back-up connectivity for certain critical sites. The latency of the 3G service is low enough and manageable to support reliable voice operations at any site configured with this back-up solution that loses landline connectivity. Some dispatch centers have also deployed this solution;

While Illinois’ vendor for STARCOM21 provides a yearly technology refresh program, the state choose to implement their upgrade every two years because it requires a hardware change out in some cycles, so moving to a two-year upgrade cycle limits the amount of potential downtime during the upgrades;

Using the P25 ISSI service to connect to neighboring states has helped draw some of the state border counties onto STARCOM21. This eliminates another potential duplication of service that a local government would have had to procure if implementing their own P25 network; and

Bringing on a large non-public safety agency, Illinois Department of Transportation, helped push the state’s total user volume to a level that made significant reductions in the user fees charged to the state radio users. Incorporating an inclusive model of governance had a highly positive impact to all participating state agencies.

STARCOM21 uses a variable rate user fee that offers discounts for different levels of user loading from the participating agencies. Figure 13 provides details on the user fee structure for STARCOM21. User fee categories are defined for statewide roaming users, local county only users, local municipality only users, limited use (interoperability scenario) and specialty uses (emergency scenario).


Figure 15 - STARCOM21 Variable User Fee Structure


Hybrid Example: Louisiana Wireless Information Network (LWIN) 13.4.4The State of Louisiana operates a 125-site 700 MHz P25 radio system known as the Louisiana Wireless Information Network (LWIN). LWIN began in 2005 because of replacement planning for the then obsolete and proprietary 800 MHz analog statewide radio system. The destructive effects of Hurricane Katrina later in 2005 accelerated the replacement of that system. The first phase of the new system deployment started in the Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI) region that encompasses New Orleans, St. Bernard, Plaquemines and Jefferson Parishes, as well as the cities of Baton Rouge, Geismar and Laplace, and Terrebone Parish and Lafourche Parish. These areas were the some of the hardest hit by Hurricane Katrina.

Since then, with the assistance of additional federal and state funding, LWIN has been built out to the 125 sites operational today. The state has plans to continue to add sites to improve coverage in rural areas where radio coverages falls below the desired reliability. LWIN has also been successful in developing partnerships with other local parish governments to improve hand-held portable radio operations through cooperative efforts.

Prior to the transition from the proprietary 800 MHz system to the 700 MHz P25 system, the state already employed field technician personnel to provide maintenance support for the network. The original staff was insufficient to administer and maintain the new 700 MHz radio system since it had a more expansive scope. The state was able to secure additional funding from the Louisiana legislature and expand their technical support staff from five to ten positions.

The state is responsible for all aspects of the 700 MHz P25 radio system except the actual maintenance of the radio system base/repeater equipment and the core network switches. The LWIN technical staff maintains nearly all of the other site equipment. Louisiana pays approximately $3.5 million for radio infrastructure maintenance, which includes having vendor personnel assigned to and located at the state’s radio maintenance facility in Baton Rouge. The total annual budget for operational expenses associated with the radio system is $11M. This includes outsourced maintenance, leased site connectivity, tower leases, spare parts, and state personnel salaries and benefits.

During the construction phase, the state secured leases for most of the additional radio tower sites needed to build out the network. Today nearly all sites in the LWIN network are leased sites, although some sites are donated by user agencies. Typically, the most the state pays for a leased site is $1500 per month. As a cost saving measure, the state elected to lease sites from smaller private owners instead of the larger commercial tower leasing companies such as Crown Castle or American tower whenever it is feasible.

The current 700 MHz P25 radio system supports more than 76,000 radio users. The state does not charge user fees for local governments to access LWIN. Maintenance for the entire system is funded through the legislative budget process. The user agencies are responsible for the purchase of their radios as well as their own radio maintenance. These costs are not reimbursed by the state.

Below is a list of reasons why LWIN has been so successful in attracting members:


LWIN is not a law enforcement only system. LWIN is a shared P25 system available to all public safety agencies throughout Louisiana.

LWIN has created an inclusive governance structure that offers representation for all participating agencies. LWIN leaders also engage in continuous outreach to bring on new members.

The state of Louisiana charges no user fees for agencies to join LWIN. Each agency buys its own radios, dispatch consoles, and provides their own maintenance.

Local government participation on the network is so high there is little duplication of radio infrastructure between the state and the local governments. The high participation rate means lower overall operational costs per user.

LWIN is currently operating with five different P25 radio providers on the network. The state maintains its own radio certification process for P25 radios.

Regular LWIN governance meetings are held throughout the state, not just in Baton Rouge. This offers more agencies to participate actively in the governance of the network.

Louisiana’s model is unique among hybrid business models for statewide LMR networks. Louisiana is one of the few states that have been successful in creating a truly shared network for all agencies and eliminating the tax burden created by duplication of overlapping networks at the state and local government levels.

Hybrid Example: State of Ohio, Multi-Agency Radio Communications System (MARCS) 13.4.5The State of Ohio has operated on a proprietary statewide 800 MHz network since 2002. Ohio plans to initiate its cutover to a new 203-site P25 network in March 2015. The Ohio network referred to as MARCS (Multi-Agency Radio Communications System) currently hosts over 700 state and local government agencies. Forty-seven county sheriff’s offices use MARCS as their primary radio system.

The MARCS Steering Committee focuses on achieving three goals:

1. Saving significant taxpayer dollars – MARCS offers several tiered governance models, with each model designed to prevent duplication of state and local infrastructure in a county or municipality. By implementing a single shared network, the burden on the taxpayer is reduced.

2. Maximizing interoperability - moving public safety agencies to a shared standards-based radio network ensures compatibility regardless of the location of the emergency response.

3. Saving lives of both first responders and the citizens they serve – building a network that is highly reliable for the end user and strengthening the network further through assets added from local government participation.

The State of Ohio outsources all of the maintenance for the MARCS system to its P25 infrastructure vendor. Individual state agencies and local governments pay for their own user radio and dispatch console maintenance. The state pays approximately $3.5 million per year to maintain and operate the MARCS system. MARCS is self-funded and receives all funding for operational expenses from user fees. Users on the MARCS system pay a flat user fee of $20 per radio per month. The state issued bonds to pay for the recent upgrade of the MARCS infrastructure. The user fees received are also being used to pay off the bond debt. MARCS has a goal to get to 60,000 users on the system in the next couple of years.


While the governance model in Ohio strives to be inclusive to all public safety agencies, there is significant outreach to non-public safety entities and secondary responder agencies. Every hospital in the state of Ohio is on the MARCS system. The Ohio Department of Transportation uses MARCS for its primary radio system. There is an initiative under way now to bring all schools onto MARCS by placing a P25 radio in every school in the state to give them direct access to public safety in times of emergency.

MARCS’ success in attracting local government participation can be attributed to:

1. Continuous outreach by the MARCS steering committee 2. Offering a tiered approach to local government participation, but remaining flexible. None of the

current agreements with local governments are the same. 3. Working with partner agencies directly to define requirements for operation on the network before

transition. 4. Building a fully “inclusive” model of governance; members of the MARCS Steering Committee are

appointed by the state governor; anyone can participate in MARCS through the Local User Sub-Committee.

State Law Enforcement Radio System (SLERS) … Business Case Interview List ... Establish best value...

Documents

Transcript of State Law Enforcement Radio System (SLERS) … Business Case Interview List ... Establish best value...