Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 09162003 - SD.2 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS . Contra * FROM: INTERNAL OPERATIONS COMMITTEE ai �6 u,w ° r� of DATE: SEPTEMBER 3, 2003 -e'Mill o u my SUBJECT: CONTRACT TO PROVIDE EMERGENCY TELEPHONE NOTIFICATION (RINGDOWN) SYSTEM SERVICES SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)&BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS: 1. ACKNOWLEDGE that in 1999, when the Burd of Supervisors decided to continue its contract with the Community Alert Network for provision of emergency telephone notification system Services, it also approved the notion of reviewing the contract again in three years, after other system providers gained experience in the industry. 2. ACKNOWLEDGE that with the transfer of responsibility for the emergency telephone notification system from the Health Services Department to the Sheriff, the Board requested the Sheriff to evaluate other System providers and report back to the Internal Operations Committee. 3. ACCEPT the recommendation of the Project Team convened by the Sheriff to evaluate proposals submitted by providers of emergency telephone notification systems, and ACKNOWLEDGE RECEIPT of reports and information, attached, considered by the Internal Operations Committee in formulating its recommendations. 4. AWARD and AUTHORIZE the Sheriff-Coroner to execute a contract with Dialogic Communications, Inc., in the amount of$195,100 to provide an emergency telephone notification (ringdown) System plus two-years system maintenance for the period September 15, 2003 through September 14, 2006. 5. STIPULATE that the contract Shall include performance incentives and penalties. FISCAL IMPACT: The cost of this contract is funded completely through Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA) fees. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: YES SIGNATURE . --- -----------_------ -------------- _ w------------ ---- - ----­----------------- --------- ------------------------------------------ €2ECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMME - A ION OF BOARD COMMITTEE APPROVE OTHER Pt SIGNATURE(S): ,STT c 1 P - _;,�GAYLE-S. UiLKEMA FEDERAL D. GL©VER --------___ __-------------- --- --- - -__----______�_____ ACTION OF BOARD ONSUIRCM46,. APPROVE AS ECOMMENDED v _ OTHER X SEE AMCM ADDRM. VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN _ ,_ UNANIMOUS(ABSENTN O-X- ) AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE AYES: NOES: SHOWN. ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATIEM' TL2M3 CONTACT: JUNE ENEA(925)335-10777 JOHN SWEETEN,CLERK OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR CC: INTERNAL OPERATIONS COMMITTEE STAFF SHERIFF-EMERGENCY SERVICES DIVISION COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR i° HEALTH SERVICES-HAZARDOUS MATERIALS PROGRAM Al BY C.r /i ,DEPUTY Contract for Emergency Telephone (Ringdown) System September 3, 2003 Internal Operations Committee Page 2 BACKGROUND. On October 1, 2002, the Internal Operations Committee recommended to the Board of Supervisors, and the Board approved, retaining the Community Alert Network as the provider of an emergency telephone notification (ringdown) system to alert the public to hazardous materials releases or other emergencies. In addition, the Board requested the Sheriff, which recently assumed responsibility for the system, to evaluate the current system and report back to the Board through the Internal Operations Committee in six months. The Board also directed the Hazardous Materials Program Director to work with the Sheriff to explore with other vendors their willingness to enter an agreement to provide services, in the event of a cancellation with current vendor, and to return to the Board of Supervisors within 30 days with information. On March 3, 2003, the IOC received a status report, attached, from the Community Warning System Manager on the Request for Information and Request for Proposals issued by the Sheriff's Department in anticipation of the December 31 expiration of the County's contact with the Community Alert Network. Thirteen vendors were sent the RFI documents and eight responded on March 20, 2003. Five vendors were short-listed (selected)from this group based on their experience, ability to meet standards, competitive comparisons, and industry performance. The RFP was issued by the General Services Department on March 31, 2003 and presentations were made on April 11. Proposals were evaluated by a Community Warning System Technical Advisory Committee (CTAC) Project Team comprising a cross section of the County, including: Community Representative Purchasing — GSD County CAER Director Sheriff Dispatcher County OES Sr. Planner Search & Rescue Mgr. San Ramon Fire Chief County CWS Manager Volunteer Services Mgr. Industry— Shell CWS Asst. Proj Manager Sheriff Technical Services Community College — DVC City OES — Berkeley Health Services — HazMat City OES — San Ramon The Project Team requested Scenario Demonstrations to further evaluate three vendors. Scenario testing was conducted on April 23 and included a hazardous materials plume, a grid, and a English/Spanish translation. As a result of the testing, the Project Team selected Dialogic Communications Corporation. On May 5, the IOC received the attached report from the Office of the Sheriff transmitting the Project Team's recommendation to select Dialogic Communications Corporation as the provider of the County's emergency telephone notification (ringdown) system. The IOC approved this recommendation and proffered it to the Board of Supervisors on August 5, 2003, after the terms of a contract had been developed and could be recommended to the Board. On August 5, 2003, the Board decided to continue consideration of the IOC recommendation until September 9, 2003, and requested that all of the information considered by the IOC in developing its recommendations be transmitted to the Board of Supervisors. The requested information is attached. Also attached are responses prepared by the Office of the Sheriff to specific questions submitted by Intrado, one of the system vendors that had qualified for the short list. These questions are very valid in this type of critical system selection. The Sheriffs responses demonstrate that the solution proposed by the recommended vendor, Dialogic Communications Corporation, in combination with the County's existing staff and infrastructure, meets the County's technical requirements and the technical tests submitted by Intrado. ADDENDUM D.2 September 16, 2003 On this day, the Board considered approving and authorizing the Sheriff-Coroner to execute a contract with Dialogic Communications, Inc., in the amount of$195,10 to provide an emergency telephone notification(ringdown) system for the period September 15, 2003 through September 14, 2006 and stipulate that the contract shall include performance incentives and penalties, as recommended by the Internal Operations Committee. The Board called for public comment. The following person presented a card but did not speak. Cathie M. Matson, 1214 Mariposa Street,Rodeo in favor of this item. After further discussion,the Board took the following action: • CONSIDERED approving and authorizing the Sheriff-Coroner to execute a contract with Dialogic Communications,Inc., in the amount of$195,100 to provide an emergency telephone notification(ringdown) system for the period September 15,2003 through September 14, 2006; • STIPULATED that the contract shall include performance incentives and penalties, as recommended by the Internal Operations Committee; • REFERRED to an Ad-Hoc Committee for a full Board meeting; • and DIRECTED Internal Operations Committee to provide all information regarding this matter. TO: ..BOARD OF SUPERVISORS contra FROM: INTERNAL OPERATIONS COMMITTEEQk2 Costa DATE: SEPTEMBER 24, 2002 County SUBJECT: RECOMMENDATION TO RETAIN COMMUNITY ALERT NETWORK AS THE COUNTY'S EMERGENCY TELEPHONE NOTIFICATION (RINGDOWN) SYSTEM PROVIDER SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION($)&BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATION: 1. RETAIN the Community Alert Network as the County's emergency telephone notification (ringdown) system provider. 2. REFER to the Sheriff/Office of Emergency Services this matter and request that the next contract for such services include performance level incentives and penalties. BACKGROUND: A request for information (RFI) was made in October 1999 to evaluate the status of the County's system and to determine the state of the art for emergency telephone notification systems. As a result of the RFI, the evaluation team ranked the CAN system first, and the Board of Supervisors decided to continue the CAN contract. However, the Board also , approved the notion of reviewing the contract again in two to three years,,after other system �0 providers gained experience in the industry. On November 6, 2001, the Board of Supervisors referred to the Internal Operations Committee (IOC) the development of a request for proposals (RFP) for anew emergency telephone notification (ringdown) system similar to the current Community Alert Network (CAN) system. Similarly, the Grand Jury, in a June 14, 2002 report, recommended that the Board direct the appropriate county department to research, select, and implement a more effective system of informing the county population of the occurrence of an emergency alert. At its March 4, 2002 meeting, the IOC directed Lewis Pasca€li, Hazardous Materials Program Director, to develop an RFI along the lines of the 1999 RFI, but with the addition of incentives and penalties based on expected performance. On April 15, the IOC approved the RF1 prepared by Mr. Pascalli and directed that it be sent out with a response deadline of May 31, 2002. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT; NO SIGNATURE: COMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR w RECOMMEND N OF BOARD COMMITTEE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S); MARK DeSAULNIER,CHAIR GAYLE B.UILgJAk ACTION OF BOARD ONCI BE t .. .A. PROVE AS RECOMMENDED X, OTHER , SEE ADDEN" ATIACM. I hereby certify that this Is a true and correct copy of an action talon and entered on the VOTE OF SUPEMSORS minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. AYES: I3ES: ATTESTED i JOHN SWEETEN, Clerk of4he Board ABSENT: AB's: of Su ervisors and Co inty A minlstrator c�- �t D cI�T: .J (925) 335- 077 Ey ih► cc: LEWIS PASCALLI, SF IL.TH CES DEPA�r ,JIM s'TAr�'k' o IO /0MCE or DMaM SMIcEs COM AMMSMATOR AnDENDUM SD.2 October 1, 2002 On this date, the Board CONSIDERED the recommendation to retain the Community Alert Network as the County's Emergency telephone notification (ringdown) system provider. The Board took the following action, and • APPROVED the recommendation to retain the Community Alert Network as the County's Emergency telephone notification(ringdown) system provider; • REFERRED this matter to the Sheriff/Office of Emergency Services and the Internal Operations Committee, to return to the Board with an update report within 5 months; • REQUESTED that the future contracts for such services include performance level incentives and penalties; • and DIRECTED Hazardous Materials Program Director to work with the Emergency Services Office to explore with other vendors their willingness to enter an agreement to provide services, in the event of a cancellation with current vendor,to return to the Board of Supervisors within 30 days with information. IOC Packet 9/16/02 9:40 a.m. Item 2002 INTERNAL OPERATIONS COMMITTEE' REQUEST FOR PROPOSALWIN FORMATION FOR A NEW EMERGENCY TELEPHONE NOTIFICATION SYSTEM On November 6, 2001, the Board of Supervisors referred to the internal Operations Committee the development of a request for proposals (RFP) for a new emergency telephone notification (ringdown) system similar to the current Community Alert Network (CAN) system. A request for information (RFI) was made in October 1999 to evaluate the status of the County's system and to determine the state of the art for emergency telephone notification systems. As a result of the RFI, the evaluation team ranked the CAN system first, and the Board of Supervisors decided to continue the CAN contract. However, the Board also approved the notion of reviewing the contract again in two to three years, after other system providers gained experience in the industry. At its March 4, 2002 meeting, the IOC directed Lewis Pascalli, Hazardous Materials Program Director, to develop an RFI along the lines of the 1999 RFI, but with the addition of incentives and penalties based on expected performance. On April 15, the IOC approved the RFI prepared by Mr. Pascalli and directed that it be sent out with a response deadline of May 31, 2002. On July 15, 2002, the Committee reviewed the RFI results. Of the five responses received, the screening committee eliminated two and was unable to rank the top three based only on the written proposals. On July 2 , the IOC reported out to the Board of Supervisors and recommended that the screening committee schedule presentations with the top three vendors, and return to the IOC in September with a ranked list of vendors. Se ember 16 2002 Attached is a follow-up report from Mr. Pascalli recommending that the County retain the Community Alert Network as the County's emergency telephone notification (ringdown) system. The report explains that the Evaluation Panel was equally divide4 on two vendors that were seen to have comparable strengths. In the absence of consensus, Mr. Pascalli is recommending CAN for reasons specified in the report. Y k 1 Recommendation on Emergency Telephone Ringdown System September 24, 2002 Page 2 On July 15, 2002, the 100 reviewed the RFI results. Of the five responses received, the screening committee eliminated two and was unable to rank the top three based only on the written proposals. On July 23, the 100 reported out to the Board ofSupervisors and recommended that the screening committee schedule presentations with the top three vendors, and return to the IOC in September with a ranked list of vendors. On September 16, 2002, the IOC received the attached follow-up report from Mr. Pascalli recommending that the County retain the Community Alert Network as the County's emergency telephone notification (ringdown) system. The report explains that the Evaluation Panel was equally divided on two vendors that were seen to have comparable strengths. In the absence of consensus, Mr. Pascalli recommended that the CAN system be retained for reasons specified in the report. The IOC concurs with Mr. Pascalli's recommendation, and also recommends that this matter be referred to the Sheriff when he assumes responsibility for the system under the Office of Emergency Services, and that the next contract for such services include performance level incentives and penalties. CONTRA COSTA COUNTY HEALTH SERVICES DEPARTMENT HAZARDOUS MATERIALS PROGRAMS 16 SEPJ02 TO ; Contra Costa Board of Supervisors Internal Operations Committee (IOC) FROM : Lewis G. Pa Galli, Jr., Director, Hazardo Programs SUBJ : FINAL REPORT TO THE INTERNAL IONS COMMITTEE 16 SEP 02-EMERGENCY TELEPHONE RING DOWN SYSTEM(ETRDS)—EVALUATION RESULTS Reference is made to the Board referral of 6 NOV 01 regarding the review of vendors providing ETRDS services. On direction from the Internal Operations Committee (IOC), Health Services developed a process to handle the development of a vendor list and protocol to receive, evaluate and recommend back to the IOC a vendor that would provide ETRDS services that meet the needs of the County. This report summarizes the evaluation. ACTION REQUESTED: Accept this Progress Report and direct the Health Services Department to inform the three (3) finalists who made personal presentations to the Evaluation Panel (EP), that the final decision is to retain �ythe `Community Alert Network as the County's ETRDS. BACKV BACKGROUND: On direction from your Committee, the Health Services Department developed'a list of eight (8) vendors comprised by referral and Internet search that could meet the requirements of our Request for Information(RFI). A letter with the RFI was sent on 18 APR...02 to the eight(8) vendors with a hard return date on close of work FRI , 31 MAY 02. We received five (5) RFI's. A panel of five(5) (see Attach I)reviewed the RFI's and completed their evaluation of the RFI'. In a meeting, the EP discussed the RFIs,the impressions the RFI's made on each member, and after much deliberation ranked the RFI's.No consensus was reached but three (3)ranked closely with each other. The EP agreed to offer to the three (3) companies an opportunity to make a personal presentation to the EP. Can the scheduled date, one member of the EP had a personal emergency and could not attend the presentations. After the presentations on 14 AUG 02,the four(4)members of the EC rated and ranked the presenters. There was a tie in the ranking of the EP between two (2) of the presenters. The third presenter was clearly not in contention. Page 1of2 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY HEALTH SERVICES DEPARTMENT HAZARDOUS MATERIALS PROGRAMS The EP discussed the rankings for a period of time and could not reach a consensus on one.No evaluator was able to change his mind but all felt that the two(2)vendors had comparable strengths. Each saw differences between the two(2) from their own prospective. SUMMARY: Since there was no clear, distinguishing aspects between the two (2)top presenters, which the EP could reach agreement on,I am recommending that the Community Alert Network continue to be the ETRDS vendor. I discussed my recommendation with the EP, including the member who was not available, and there appeared to be no concern with this determination. The bases for this recommendation are: 1. The Community Alert Network(CAN)has been the vendor for Contra Costa County for over 10 Years,the other vendor has been in operation for five(5) years; 2. CAN has been working closely with our Laotian language emergency notification project, while the other vendor did not have a'the multi- language contract on call service available; 3. CAN is part of our CWS and has worked closely with us in aligning the systems; 4. Both vendors have a GIS system capability to use computer mapping activation; 5. Personal training is available from CAN at no cost; and 6. The Sheriff s Office will be assuming administration of the CWS and would prefer that no significant changes be made before they can evaluate the total CWS. I have invited members of the EC to attend the 10 Committee Meeting and be available for discussion. Page 2of2 , CONTRA COSTA EMERGENCY TELEPHONE MING DOWN SYSTEM RFT REVIEW PANEL HEALTH SERVICES DEPARTMENT Lewis G. Pascalli,Jr. 4333 Pacheco Blvd. Martinez, CA 94553 INDUSTRY Ric Bonner Ultramar Diamond Shamrock 150 Solano Ave. Martinez, CA 94553 ric bonnerL,r,�'udscorp.com COMMUNITY REPRESENTATIVE Ralph Sattler 1204 Ulfinian Way Martinez, CA 94553 rjsattler@aol.com COUNTY OFFICE OF EMERGENCY SERVICES Steven Rathbone, Sr., Emergency Planner 50 Glacier Dr. Martinez, CA 94.553 stath@so,co,contra-costaxa.us ca.us ELECTED CITY OFFICIAL Marls Ross, "Vice Mayor City of Martinez 928 Main Street Martinez, CA 94553 votefmdly@aol.com ATMC VA OFFICE OF THE SHERIFF warren E Rupf Contra Costa County SHERIFF-CORONER Emergency Services Division Ronald Jarrell 50 Glacier Drive UNDERSHERIFF Martinez,California 94553 {925}646-4461 Date: July 18,2003 To: Julie Enea,Senior.Deputy County Administration From: Scott Parsons,Captain,:Emergency Services Division By. Elizabeth Klute,Manager, Community Warning System Subject: Follow-up to request for information on telephone emergency notification system (TENS)selection The Office of the Sherr' is happy to respond to your request for information on the technical merits of the proposed county telephone emergency notification system vendor. This request is based on information received from one of the participants, Intrado Inc. This project was completed by the Community Warning System Technical Advisory Committee (CTAC), Ringdown Selection Sub Croup(RSSG). The CTAC RSSG Project Team is comprised of a crass section of the County and included a: 1- Community 6- Health Services— 11-City OES—Berkeley Representative HazMat 12-City 4ES—San Ramon 2- Sheriff Dispatcher 7- Purchasing—GSD 13-County CAER Director 3- San Ramon Fire B Chief 8- County CIES Sr. Planner 14-Search& Rescue Mgr. 4- Industry— Shell 9- County CWS Manager 15-Volunteer Services 5- Community College-- 10-CWS Asst Proj Mgr. DVC Manager 16-Sheriff Tech Services Very specific technical specifications were employed as a part of the selection criteria. Venders who did not meet the minimum technical criteria were not asked to continue in the RFP process. Unfortunately Intrado did not demonstrate they met the technical or documentation requirements in their request for proposal, (RFP)response and the selection team chose to remove them from further consideration. For instance, they did notsupport the import of hazardous materials plumes, a requirement of the system. They were the g&vendor that chose not to demonstrate their product and not to respond. to the required technical functional requirements matrix. What follows is the vote to select the top three vendors. Thirteen of the sixteen team members were involved in the RFP voting. Table 1 —Final voting Phase 2, RFP for Telephone Emergency Notification System ows x f �CRKLLEY POLLM is OES 71 1 is HlY2MikT CtkEFi i °'. wau�x�sx PUR4HASfN i fm E S4RAMON • iST ..2ND ?Ra 37ISRUISLIf CED 8y P681 The questions provided by Intrado to Supervisor Ulkima are very valid in this type of critical system selection, Several other vendors also provided guidance to the County to help us in this process. We value the professional and technical knowledge of all of the vendors who responded to our request for information and proposal. Intrado provided similar, more extensive questions to the County in April 2003 as guidance to help in the selection process. The selection team utilized these questions in the final interviews of the three remaining vendors as we wish to assure the County implements a robust and sound telephone emergency notification system. We thought it was important to provide responses to the questions raised in Intrado's memo. Questions to Consider I. Can the system place thousands of calls in minutes without choking your telephone network or having calls blocked? Yes, The capacity of calls that telephone emergency notification systems support depends on the capacity of the local telephone switch. In our case we have four SBC telephone switches that can handle the capacity proposed in the selected vendor solution. Yes, The selected vendor has a software function in their solution that allows them to bypass call blocking. 2. Does the provider offer 24x7x365 technical and operational support from public safety trained pro,f�essionals? Yes, The County model for emergency response to CWS incidents is based on coordination and cooperation between Heath Services, COMM1, andlConFire Dispatch for activation of any component of the CWS. Staffs are all public safety professionals. The vender selected has 240065 technical support as a part of the system. 3. Is the data used to create the outbound calling database kept accurate by an organization with significant public safety database experience? Yes,The county's SBC 911 database is maintained on a daily basis by SBC using Intrado tools. SBC is responsible for the 911 databases they provide to their customers and choose not to contract this work out to a commercial vendor. 4. .goes the systema offer geographic and operational redundancy? Yes, In three locations;the County, Primary Center in Franklin, TN, Backup in Tuson, AZ. The phone lines also have three levels of redundancy from the TN and AZ locations. S. Is the system's infrastructure solely dedicated to emergency notification- applications? Yes 6. Can the systems support launching emergency notifications with just a phone call? Yes,An RFP requirement. 7. Is the systems providerfinancially stable and does the local phone company(SBC support the solution? Yes, Financials will be provided on request, however the company has $17.1 Million in sales last year and counts the White House,the Pentagon, and California State OES as sample clients. Yes, SBC is supporting the system as the provider of the switches,utility sub carrier, and the 911 data for the system. The Office of the Sheriff and the Community Warning System Technical Advisory Committee, including Health Services and CAER, are comfortable that they have not selected a sub-standard emergency telephone notification system. What follows is an overview of the selection process. Should the Board or 10 Committee request, the Office of the Sheriff will provide additional documentation associated to this selection process. )�- Thirteen (13)vendors responded to the RFI process on March 20, 2003. );o, Five (5) vendors were short-listed (selected) from this group based on their experience, ability to meet standards, competitive comparisons and industry performance. A copy of the Professional/Personal Services Outreach Program was provided to the vendors to encourage SBE Outreach. ➢ The RFP was sent out by GSD March 31, 2003 with vendor live presentations on April 11, 2003. Intrado and SurfSimple were removed from the process by a unanimous vote of the team. A Selection team requested Scenario Testing to further evaluate three(3) vendors. ➢ Scenario Testing of CAN, DCC, and A"V'T'EX was held April 28, 2003. After a very exhaustive selection process,the CTAC Telephone Ringdown Team selected DCC (Dialogic) as the preferred vendor for a County Telephone Ringdown System and recommends the Office of the Sheriff upon approval of the Board of Supervisors, enter into a contractual relationship with the chosen vendor. This contract will include performance level incentives and penalties. Vire sincerely hope we have provided the information you need. If you have additional questions or need clarification, please feel free to contact the CWS Manager, Lis Klute, at 925-646-4461. Questions to Consider 1. Can the system place thousands of calls in minutes without choking your telephone network or having calls blocked? 2. Does the provider offer 24x7x365 technical and operational support from public safety trained professionals? 3. Is the data used to create the outbound calling database kept accurate by an organization with significant public safety database experience? . 4. Does the system offer geographic and operational redundancy? 5. Is the system's infrastructure solely dedicated to emergency notification applications? 6. Can the system support launching emergency notifications with just a phone call? 7. Is the system's provider financially stable and does the local phone company (SBC) support the solution? If Contra Costa's selected provider answers with anything other than a simple "yes" to any of the above then unfortunately the lives and safety of Contra Costa's citizens and your constituents may be compromised due to the reliance on a sub-standard emergency telephone notification system. IOC Packet 5/5/03 9:40 Item 2003 INTERNAL OPERATIONS COMMITTEE STATUS OF THE SHERIFF'S REVIEW OF THE EMERGENCY TELEPHONE RINGDOWN SYSTEM AND THE JOINT REVIEW WITH THE HAZARDOUS MATERIALS PROGRAM OF A BACK-UP VENDOR FOR THE SYSTEM On October 1, 2002, the Internal Operations Committee recommended to the Board of Supervisors, and the Board approved, retaining the Community Alert Network as the provider of an emergency telephone notification (ringdown) system to alert the public to hazardous materials releases or other emergencies. In addition, the Board requested the Sheriff, which recently assumed responsibility for the system, to evaluate the current system and report back to the Board through the Internal Operations Committee in six months. The Board also directed the Hazardous Materials Program Director to work with the Sheriff to explore with other vendors their willingness to enter an agreement to provide services, in the event of a cancellation with current vendor, and to return to the Board of Supervisors within 30 days with information. On March 3, 2003, the IOC received a status report from the Community Warning System Manager on the Request for Information and Request for Proposals issued by the Sheriffs Department in anticipation of the contract expiration with the Community Alert Network. The IOC accepted the report and requested the CWS Manager and Hazardous Materials Director to return to the IOC with recommendations for the emergency telephone ringdown system. Mgy 5, 2003 Attached is a report from the Sheriff with a recommendation that upon contract expiration on December 31, 2003, the Sheriff, on behalf of the County, contract with DCC (Dialogic) for a County Telephone Ringdown System. Sherif and Hazardous Materials Program staff will be present to discuss the selection process and criteria with the IOC. OFFICE OF THE SHERIFF �„RY,pP Warren E Rapt' Contra Costa County ` SHERIFF-CORONER Emergency services Division Ronald Jarrell Sa Glacier Drive u UNDERSHERIFF Martinez,California 91553 (925)646-4461 Date: April 29,2003 To: Julie Enea,Senior Deputy County Administration From: Scott Parsons, Captain,Emergency Services Division By: Elizabeth Klute, Manager, Community Warning System Subject: Office of the Sheriff,Telephone Ring-Drown System Recommendation The Community Alert Network service contract expires Dec. 31, 2003. At the Board of Supervisors request, a recommendation for the County Telephone Ring-down System has been developed by the Office of the Sheriff, CWS Technical Advisory Committee (CTAC). A comprehensive Request for information (RFI), Request for proposal (RFP) and Scenario Testing Demonstrations were completed in anticipation',of the deadline for expiration of service. The follow is a brief overview of this project: The CTAC Telephone Ringdown Selection Sub Project Team was comprised of a cross section of the County and included a: 1- Community Representative 7- Purchasing—GSD 13-County CAER Director 2- Sheriff Dispatcher 8- County UES Sr. Planner 14-Search &Rescue Mgr. 3- San Ramon Fire B. Chief 9- County CWS Manager 15-Volunteer Services Mgr. 4- Industry—Shell 10-CWS Asst Prof Manager 16-Sheriff Tech Services 5- Community College—DVC 11-City UES—Berkeley 6- Health Services e HazMat 12-City UES—San Ramon ➢ Thirteen (13)vendors were sent the RFI documents,eight(8)responded on March 20, 2003 ➢ Five (5) vendors were short-listed (selected) from this groin based on their experience, ability to meet standards, competitive comparisons and industry performance. A copy of the Professional/Personal Services Outreach Program was provided to the vendors to encourage SBE Outreach. ➢ The RFP was sent out by GSD March 31, 2003 with presentations on April 11, 2003. __ _ i ffra d o° Public Safety Informed Response' intelliCast l3E#+1El=iTS Target on > Cost effective mass '' ` notification :The ry—,,ost cr;st � e` c, sr _ ,aSs nDtifi-C�2 tOR t001 f0r > Accurate event targeting apjd�l dis r b-zitip?g' crida-11 irf1"r ado in a crisis. > Law total Cost of ownership t $}i sr irk rx� o Emergency Notification s fig } x i y' Communities nationwide are reallZln > Minimal training and no ` t they need to add emergency notification to additional headcount their public safety tool kit. With virtually 1 every person in the nation reachable via wire h «y, IN line telephone, there is no more > available virtually f comprehensive means available to rapidly wherever and Whenever ; distribute critical information in a crisis. needed € � ` m As the nation's trusted source for 5-1-1 > Backed by lntrado--the database management and call routing leader in public safety y there is no org'ani'zation better able to help database management and " you do emergency telephone nodfeatron emergency call routing well than lntrado. Critical requirements for effective emergency notification THE FOLLOWING ORGANIZATIONS ARE At minimum, elected officials and public safety personnel need to ask the following questions of any emergency notification provider they are considering: PROUD PARTNERS OF#NTRADO: 1. Is the service's infrastructure primarily dedicated to emergency notification? 2. Is the vendor financially stable and willing to share financial statements? 3. Does the provider offer 24 x 7 technical and operational support from public safety trained staff? ® 4. Does the service offer full operational and geographical redundancy? 5. Does the vendor have a demonstrated ability to accurately manage public safety data, integrated with precise mapping information? 6. Does the vendor have a proven ability to place thousands of calls in minutes, with safeguards in place to minimize network congestion? 7. Is the service available and accessible from any place, at any time, and will 5 it be unaffected by a local crisis? AL 8. Can call out events be initiated in minutes? CENT�RFOR 9. Is the vendor willing to share actual statistics from recent call out events as MSSM0 & proof of their abilities? 1 L D R E N' If the answers to the above are anything other than a simple "yes"then we encourage you to give us a call, before someone in your organization decides to purchase an inadequate system. Most accurate data available IntelliCast Target Notification uses extracts of the 9-1-1 database, the only source that contains all unlisted and unpublished numbers, because in some areas unlisted numbers alone can account for more than one out of every two records Plus, we manage and update these records regularly for you for maximum accuracy,gust as we do for most of the nation's E9-1-1 data. Most efficient calling capacity available IntelliCast Target Notification can place thousands of calls in minutes so you can quickly reach as few or as many individuals as you need, n" `t ' Most precise event targeting available IntelliCast Target Notification eoeodes each telephone number to a specific " °as Intrado Ync,,i.nngmont,Colorado,USA--X11 g g pW reserved trade intrada and€ago,Intrado physical address, not just zones, block or zip codes. You have the flexibility to tilangleeui,design,tnfotrned Response,. dnteii3 asy,and Int uCast in Ingo art trademarks reach precisely those you need to, whether a single address, an entire anata eme'a marks.of hmr Inc'.in the Untied neighborhood, or an entire community. And because our data source is the 9-1-1 states other countries,or,both, database, you know your telephone notification will be as thorough, accurate and up-to-date as possible. Lour total cost of ownership With Intrado, you only need to select your target area and prepare the notification message.Intrado will take it from there. IntelliCast Target Notification is a service, with no equipment to buy, install, house, maintain, test, or upgrade. And there is no additional staff to hire, support or train. Our staff of experienced, emergency professionals are available 24 hours a day, seven days a week, to help you set up a call or launch an event. Your team is free of the time commitment, cost, and responsibility of maintaining an in-house notification system so everyone in your organization can concentrate on doing what they do best, protecting the public. We built our business on public safety database management When it comes to the management of inbound 9-1-1 data, public safety officials throughout the nation rely on Intrado products and services —with proven results. We invite you to put your trust in Intrado's expertise to manage your outbound emergency database as well. 'l rads€nr-, Contact us today: 1.877.856.7504 or online at www.intrado.com Ill ��y Cfeek Drlti� Call Intrado today to discover the unique advantages of IntelliCast Target I npinsat9 plzdn� y est ZSW Notification, and you'll soon be enjoying the benefits that the best telephone flaxtf. is notification service available can bring to your organization. ►.intadi.�mm ........._........................................................................... - ...... ................ __.................... . _ .......... ................ __ inVrad ' Informed Response." intiff-111 Cast Target Notification Frequently Asked Questions We have compiled the following list ref frequently asked questions to provide you with a quick reference guide on IntelliCast Target Notification. Have a question about an area we didn't cover? Call an IntelliCast Account Manager at 1.800. 643.7252. 1. What is Target Notification? Intrado's IntelliCast Target Notification is an integrated outbound telephone notification service designed,developed, and maintained by Intrado—the nations largest provider of E9- .r 1-1 services.This service allows users to quickly identify, }h notify,and provide instructions to a designated population within minutes. 2. How doss it work? Intrado creates a database that matches telephone numbers and corresponding street addresses typically accurate to within 10-meters.The customer,over the phone or through a secure Internet interface,identifies a targeted population and records the desired message.The service then launches up to 1,152 calls simultaneously,enough to contact thousands of people in minutes while not overloading most networks. 3. Haw are outbound calls made? With proper passwords and I.D.'s,customers initiate events either via their own Internet connection or by phone with the assistance of Intrado's Emergency Call Relay Center(ECRC)24 hours a day,seven days a week..The ECRC will not launch an event without the proper password and user ID provided at the time of event initiation. 4. Now does the service know where to deliver the calls? Customers define the event boundaries for each event.Using Target Notification customers can create pre- planned event boundaries,dynamic("on-the-fly")boundaries,and call lists.Further,they can define pre-planned F$ and dynamic event boundaries by a specific point (e.g.,address or intersection)and a specific radius(in feet or miles)around that point.The system will then determine which addresses are located within that area and will k call each associated telephone number. r< 5. How is the voice message created? Customers create pre-planned(and pre-recorded)or real-time voice messages by calling the Voice Message Center's(VMC)toll-free number and following the automatic voice prompts. Access to the VMC is controlled by customer-defined PIN and other security. r~ 6. Now fast can the message be delivered? Once a customer defines the target area,records the desired message,and initiates the event's launch,Intrado delivers 1,152 simultaneous calls. With a 30 second message that means that up to 2,304 calls are delivered every minute. a 7. How do 1 know that the outbound calling was successful? A customer can monitor an event's progress live via his/her Internet connection with Intrado's secure server. Intrado also provides a summary report within 15 minutes of the event's conclusion that outlines its success. Finally,Intrado delivers a highly detailed report of the event listing each phone number and whether the call was completed,if a person or an answering machine picked up the phone,if the line was busy,or if there was no answer. . :. „ 8. What are the advantages of Intrado's IntelliCast Target Notification over Emergency Notification methods? InteliiCast Target Notification is the fastest,most accurate notification service available. ➢ Extracted from the most accurate data source available,the E9-1-1 database ➢ Massive calling capacity,enough to call thousands of individuals in minutes > Targets a geographic area more precisely than any other system or service available ➢ Service representing a low total cost of ownership as there is no equipment to purchase,install, maintain,or upgrade A Minimal training and no additional headcount Backed by Intrado's expertise in public safety database management 9. What about training? As a service,InteliiCast Target Notification requires minimal training. If launching via the phone,all you need to do is call our Emergency Call Relay Center(ECRC)and relay your instructions. If launching via the Internet, minimal knowledge of operating a windows based application is all it takes. Plus,our emergency-dispatch trained staff is there to support you 24x7x365.And finally,all users have unlimited access to a training server so you can run through as many scenarios as you like,whenever you want. 10. How many customers do you have and who is your largest? Currently we work with numerous counties and cities throughout the Qwest region. We manage over 3 million records daily and expect that figure to more than double within the next 12-months. Our largest customer is the city and county of Denver and we are currently in negotiations with several other large urban metropolitan areas both inside and outside of the Qwest region. 11. How des you ensure our central office(CO)switch won't get overloaded? In practice the events we have launched have typically included from 1,000 to 2,000 TNs and the actual impact on COs has proven to be minimal. In fact we have not once overloaded a network.Also we are able to stripe our outbound calling so that our maximum capacity of 1,152 lines will not hit a specific switch at exactly the same time. 12. is your service redundant and secure? Out service has complete physical and geographical redundancy. If for some catastrophic reason one of our systems goes down,we maintain a complete duplicate system in a separate location. We update the duplicate system concurrently with the master system to ensure up-to-date data accuracy and availability.Regarding security,our company's core business is managing the highly confidential E9-1-1 database,which we have successfully safeguarded for years. We employ firewalls and other security measures to do so. In fact, we even employ an outside agency to try and hack into our system as an additional safeguard. We know better than any other vendor what it takes to keep highly confidential information highly confidential. About Intrado Intrado(NASDAQ:TRDO)is the largest provider of 9-1-1 data management services to incumbent local exchange carriers(ILECS),competitive local exchange carriers(CLECS),integrated communications providers (ICPs)and wireless carriers in the United States. Intrado manages the data that allows routing of 9-1-1 calls to the appropriate answering point and delivers accurate information about the caller's location and potential first responders with the call.Intrado provides E9-1-1 services in 47 of the 48 continental United States. The company also develops innovative,value-added information technology systems and software products for the public safety industry. For more information call us at 1.800.643.7252 or visit us online at www.intrado.com. ➢ Selection team requested Scenario Demonstrations to further evaluate three (3) vendors. Scenarios included a Hazmat plume, a grid, and 'a English/Spanish Translation. ➢ Scenario Testing of CAN,DCC, and AVTEX was held April 28, 2003. ➢ Final voting on selection:DCC-nine(9, , CACI--three(3),Avtex—0 The DCC Solution includes an on-site system and an off site system for local and large- scale activation. After a very exhaustive selection process, the CTAC Telephone Ringdown Team selected DCC (Dialogic) as the preferred vendor for a County Telephone Ringdown System. We recommend the Office of the Sheriff enter into a contractual relationship with the chosen vendor. This contract will include performance level incentives and penalties. Vendor RFI Shortlist R" Shortlist, Scenario Selected Response t sporss Response ASCI X Avtex X X X X X Centerpost CAN X X X X X DCC X X X X X X DCS First Call Intrado X X X Relay Systems Reverse9ll X SurfSimple X X X Teleminder X VRISK For additional information or clarification please contact Elizabeth Klute, Community Warning System Manager at(925) 646-4461. Cc: P. Clancy, Commander, SO S. Parsons, Captain, SO S. Sutter, Fiscal Officer, SO L. Pascalli, Director, HS E. Klute, Manager, SO IOC Packet 313103 9:35 Item 2003 INTERNAL OPERATIONS COMMITTEE STATUS OF THE SHERIFF'S REVIEW OF THE COMMUNITY WARNING SYSTEM AND THE JOINT REVIEW WITH THE HAZARDOUS MATERIALS PROGRAM OF A BACK-UP VENDOR FOR THE EMERGENCY TELEPHONE RINGDOWN SYSTEM On October 1, 2002, the Internal Operations Committee recommended to the Board of Supervisors, and the Board approved, retaining the Community Alert Network as the provider of an emergency telephone notification (ringdown) system to alert the public to hazardous materials releases or other emergencies. In addition, the Board requested the Sheriff/Office of Emergency Services (OES), which recently assumed responsibility for the system, to evaluate the current system and report back to the Board through the Internal Operations Committee in six months. The Board also directed the Hazardous Materials Program Director to work with the OES to explore with other vendors their willingness to enter an agreement to provide services, in the event of a cancellation with current vendor, to return to the Board of Supervisors within 30 days with information. March 3. 2003 Attached is a status report from the Office of Emergency Services on the process and timeline for evaluating the current system, and on progress to date. Liz Klute from OES and Lewis Pascalli Jr., the Hazardous Materials Program Manager will be present to discuss the CIES report and the matter of a backup vendor for the current system vendor. OFFICE OF THE SHERIFF , Warmn E Rapf Contra Costa County _ SHERIFF CORONER Emergency Services Division Ronald Jarrel 50 Glacier Drive UNDERSHERIFF Martinez,California 44553 (325}646-4461 Date: 27 February, 2003 To. Julie Enea, Senior Deputy County Administration From: Iris Flute,Manager,Community Warning System ,/ By: Debbie Vanek, Sr. Emergency planning Coordinator`'' Subject: Ring-Down System RFI/RFP Status Report The Community Alert Network service contract expires Dec. 31, 2003.. At the Board of Supervisors request, a Request for Information(RFI) and Request for proposal(RFP)are being conducted in anticipation of the deadline for expiration of service. The follow is a status of this project: ➢ RFI vendors were chosen for this specialized field on their experience, ability to meet standards, competitive comparisons and industry performance. A copy of the Professional/Personal Services Outreach Program is included in the package at Appendix E. ➢ A draft RFI has been sent to GCC General Services,Purchasing Dept. for approval and is anticipated to be approved Monday,March 03,2003. ➢ Response to this RFI due by 5:00prn Friday March 14,2003. ➢ Short-listing notification will go out Monday March 17, 2003. ➢ Presentation will be scheduled the week of March 31, 2003. > Vendor selection anticipated for April, 2003 03 CTI m to ci = 0 � CL r a rr m 3 Cr 0) A) CLs ° em -8 � N 000 @ 3 3 � 00 = to ::r 09 "t3 't3 CD CA sn to cn - y ;? r t3y y cc c�. C> CA u' w� n m ins 0 ' o m a o �' m m c x '" m 0 ch 0 mai Cl)o - CL O < i5, C sj i7 tl� a C . ' to 0 ® 0 z z > - > 0 fir CD tts W 00 N -4 o rn (A c W0 I C) C) W W W cb CA) wtso _.� rr 00 N tv d cy0 cn o co .zk. al0 W 'c1 X ' 00 W co N ct► t33 d co " C7 0) 00 C) C) L -4WWo tDODNto000 " co -4000 - Wp� � -4 W -4 a tC} CL d y (3) W W to -s {�fi 0 CX) OD N 00 wC to OL 0 C 3 W - � ► 000 -I NN NCft NWi (A i00 0000 Q W x X s t s s s s' s s Ury r� W 00 0) Cil m a 0 ow W � 33 m iE � 0 0 cr 3Cr ro W ' r ' 0 CD � { m to t 0 0 C]. ' m { 0 CA c o