HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 05012007 - D.2 ii
h
TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Contra
�
FROM: John Cullen, County Administrator
Costa
DATE: April 25 2007
II II 40
�.J 1--------- ---, C o u ty
SUBJECT: EAST BAY REGIONAL COMMUNICATIONS
SYSTEM (EBRCS) PROJECT
J
SPECIFIC REQUESTS)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)&BACKGROUND ANDJUSTIFICATION
ii
RECOMMENDATION
1) ACKNOWLEDGE receipt of the third Quarterly Progress Report on
the EBRCS, specifically updating on independent review and
Joint Powers Authority (JPA) formation.
V u
2) ACCEPT the Final Report from CTA Communications Consultants
(CTA) evaluating theiMotorola design and pricing for the
proposed East Bay Regional Communications System (EBRCS) .
u
i
3) APPROVE membership in the JPA that will oversee the financial,
technical and operational elements of the EBRCS; APPROVE Joint
Exercise of Powers Agreement for the EBRCS Authority; and
AUTHORIZE the BoardlChair to sign the Agreement and Letter-of-
Intent .
ii
4) DIRECT the County Administrator and Director of Information
Technology to collaborate with Alameda County and the two
county task force to identify �`options for retaining the
services of a qualified radiolengineering firm; develop a
process to competitively procure where appropriate a contract
for the remaining infrastructure; and develop a separate
contract to competitively procure subscriber equipment (radios)
that any agency in the proposed JPA can use .
1111 1 11
5) IDENTIFY any additional information required for the next
quarterly report . Jill
BACKGROUND
On July 25, 2006 the (Board of Supervisors endorsed in concept
County participation in the proposed EBRCS . On October 3rd the
Board authorized hiring an independent third party consultant to
review the EBRCS for any fatal flaws in the Motorola .Des•ign and
whether pricing was ;appropriate . Subsequently DOIT hired CTA
Communications Consulitants, a nationally recognized radio
engineering firm to complete the third party review. In addition,
the Board also authorized engagement of Tamalpais Advisors to
provide financial advice in development of th A.
CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X� YES SIGNATURE:
-----------------------------—-----------------,�-----------------=-------------------------------------------------- -----------------------------------------
�—M�4
RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATI N OF BOARD COMMITTE
APPROVE OTHER
it
SIGNATURE(S):
OF BOARD ON-- -- — ------------li-------------17 IfAPPROVI-- ----------------------------- --------------------------- ---— ------------ACTION'
EAS RECOMMENDED T OTHER
VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE
AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN
UNANIMOUS(ABSENT AND ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON THE
DATE
AYES: NOES: ii SHOWN.
ABSENT: l ABSTAIN:
ATTESTED
CONTACT: JOHN CULLEN,CLERI THE ARD OF
ii SUPERVISORSANDCO NTYADMINISTRATOR
Iu
,i BY ,D
o
� II •
o
least Bay Regional Communications System May 1, 2007
(EBRCS) Project
CTA FINAL REPORT
The CTA report very appropriately responds to the contracted scope of
work which required both a review of the Motorola Two County Design for
any fatal flaws and a determination as to whether. the projected pricing
is appropriate and reasonable . Further, the report addresses the
Board' s concern for the future cost control opportunities utilizing
competitive bidding for the ,'' county orilthe proposed JPA. Prior to
completing the Final Report; CTA drafted an Executive Summary that `was
widely circulated to interested parties in late March for written
comment . CTA has reviewed these comments and incorporated appropriate
modifications in the Final Report . Other comments not requiring
modifications, but which raised otherljquestions, are answered by CTA
and included in Appendix C of the Final Report . Overall, the CTA
report supports continued evolution of the EBRCS and provides several
ideas for making the system's even more service and cost efficient .
The primary findings and recommendations of CTA are :
11
• Commended EBRCS Task Force on their initiative to pursue new
system utilizing P25 open standards .
• Found no fatal flaws in the system design but identified areas
needing further analysis beyond �ithe scope of work contained in
their review.
• Expressed an opinion .that some of the price proposals appeared
higher than what they would estimate for a competitive
procurement .
0
ii
• Expressed an opinion that total,''' system price will likely be in the
$100 to $115 million range when recognizing that the proposed
pricing ($60, 151, 063); did not include the cost of physical
facilities ($5 - $20 million) o'r the probable cost of subscriber
radios ($36 million) J
G
• Recommended that a series of st1leps now be undertaken in moving
forward, including the hiring of an independent radio-engineer
consultant; developing a business plan, including a budget and
contingency for the project; exploring improvements to the
existing EBRCS design and contract provisions; and competitively
procuring not only subscriber equipment, but also remaining
infrastructure for Contra Costa County simulcast cells .
CTA representatives will be available to amplify on their findings and
answer questions at the May 1St Board meeting.
i
PROPOSED JPA
�I
Over the past few months (Alameda County has taken the lead on drafting
the JPA document utilizing the indepuendent legal counsel of Meyers/
Nave . The final version (.:4/25/07) has been reviewed, revised, and
approved to form by Contra Costa County Counsel . It is recommended
that the Board approve the Joint Exji ercise of Powers Agreement for the
EBRCS Authority (copy attached) .
i
The Alameda County Boardiof Supervisors is also scheduled to take
action on May 1, 2007 . The JPA document will be presented to other
11
member jurisdictions fori'consideration at future meetings .
i
As a step in becoming anEBRCS partner and eventual JPA member, cities
and counties are asked to sign a Letter-of-Intent (LOI) . To date 14
City Councils in Contra ,Costa County and 3 in Alameda County have
adopted a LOI to approve membership in JPA. Many more are scheduled to
adopt a LOI in May.
ii
2
it
it
iF
i
East Bay Regional Communications System May 1, 2007
(EBRCS) Project
FINANCIAL ISSUES
While CTA notes that it is unlikely that the federal government will
bear more than a fraction of the total system cost, it is important to
recognize and support the advocacy efforts of officials in both
Counties which have already resulted in several million of Department
of Homeland Security and Super Urban Area Security Initiative grants
for the project . The new federal Department of Commerce Grant in 2007
will offer a further opportunity to offset and reduce costs to system
partners/JPA. Since this grant will be very competitive the creation of
a regional communications plan and JPA will be helpful in maximizing
additional federal funding for the system.
Beyond federal grants, the JPA will be responsible for securing funding
from member agencies to finance the balance of the project . A specific
ibe developed by the JPA in consultation
cost sharing agreement will;
with financial advisors and: member agencies . Subscriber radio ratios
is the most often cited methodology to distribute costs.
ii
NEXT STEPS
Project meetings are beingscheduled ;with Alameda County General
Services and Contra Costa County Information Technology to pursue the
joint development of :
• A Request For Proposals (RPF) to hire a qualified radio engineer;
• A competitive procurement plan for the remaining infrastructure
and radios;
• Options for. future participation of radio communications staff of
11
both Alameda County and Contra Costa County upon creation of the
JPA;
• Strategy to maximize 'eligibility for the new Department of
Commerce Grant .
EBRCS project staff will continue to work with consortium members and
legal counsel to have the ;iJPA agreement approved by all participating
jurisdictions .
Contra Costa County will also continue discussions with the two county
governance task force and ,lAlameda County Administrator' s Office on
financing options for infrastructure, radios, and physical facilities
111
to be considered by member agencies ..
11
In conclusion, progress continues in developing a means to achieve a
regional interoperable radio system that will meet our emergency day-
to-day public safety and 'public service communication needs .
p
ii
ii
3
ii
ii
II II
II
I
II
IIADDENDUM TO D.2
May 1 2007
On this da the Board of Supervisors considered accepting a status report on the East
Y� P
Bay Regional Communications System.
John Cullen, County Administrator, said since the Board's last update on October 3, 2006
an independent third parry consultant was hired at the Board's request to review the East
Bay Regional Communications System Project (EBRCS) for any flaws in the Motorola
Design and to determine whether the pricing:,'was appropriate. Mr. Cullen introduced
CTA Communications Consultant Dr. Kenneth Ballard to present a review on the
EBRCS Project.
CTA Communications Vice President Kenneth Ballard presented a brief review of the
Motorola Design. He said in"his professional opinion the EBRCS design does not
contain any fatal flaws but identified areas that need further analysis. He expressed an
opinion that some price proposals appeared higher than CTA Communications estimate
for a competitive procurement, and the proposed price of$60million did not include
physical facilities at approximately $20million and cost of subscriber radios at
$36million.
Supervisor Gioia said recommendation number 4 on the Board Order:
...develop a process to competitively procure where appropriate a
If
contact for the remaining infrastructure; and develop a separate
contract to competitively procure subscriber equipment (radios) that
11
any agency in the proposed JPA can use"
is not clear, and directed staff to incorporate who would procure these services and that
no informal group make this decision.
Mr. Cullen suggested as part of the recommendation staff will report back to the Board of
Supervisors information on various competitive procurements. Based on the discussion
with the Board staff will define proper contracting infrastructure.
Supervisor Bonilla asked if the CTA Evaluation of the EBRCS Design was made
available to the 19 cities and their Offices'of Emergency Services.
Mr. Cullen said the draft form of the executive summary was made available.
Supervisor Bonilla asked if any changes were made to the Joint Powers Authority (JPA)
report.
Mr. Cullen responded the Ionly change on the governance question to do with adding the .
Board of Supervisors representatives and,asked project consultant and former Assistant
County Administrator Scott Tandy to comment further.
;I
u .
May 1, 2007
Addendum to D.2
Page 2 of 5
Mr. Tandy said the JPA would'!include 4 mayors and 2 city managers but the total
membership still stands at 23. 1 H said two city managers--one from each County--would
be replaced by an elected official, presumably a mayor.
Supervisor Bonilla asked for staff s input on the consultants' recommendation to hire an
independent consultant to guide this process. She said it would be helpful for all the
entities involved with the EBRC to understand what the ongoing costs would be over the
next 20 years, and requested this information;Ibe provided on the next report to enable all
the cities to understand these numbers.
Supervisor Uilkema said the Board does not wish to make technical decisions on a
sophisticated communications system and agreed it would benefit to have some expertise.
Mr. Cullen spoke in support of having expert input.
Supervisor Uilkema suggested the 9 recommendations made on the CTA Final EBRCS
Design Evaluation Report, page 40, be included with the recommendations on the Board
Order. Supervisor Uilkema said she will use those 9 recommendations as her guideline
for comparisons and said she;,would like to see responses as progress is made through the
9 recommendations and felt this was an encompassing list.
Mr. Cullen responded the 9 recommendations would be added to the recommendations
and used as a blueprint for steps to be undertaken but would be implemented as the
County and the JPA partners decide whether the 9 recommendations should be
implemented. He suggested including the following under Recommendation Number 5 of
the Board Order:
"additional information the Board would like for future reports"
Supervisor Uilkema referred to page 38 of lithe EBRCS report under"CONCLUSIONS
AND RECOMMENDATIONS, ". item 6, second paragraph, and said the issue of
operational performance and siting should be addressed in lay terms for the public to
understand.
Supervisor Gioia asked staff when the JPA will be established and put together.
David Schmidt, Deputy County Counsel, said no definite date is availabl but noted
Alameda County is approving the same JPA today and said the JPA will have to be
approved by the various city councils.
Supervisor Gioia expressed the need to hire an independent consultant soon.
Supervisor Piepho requested staff ensure iSpecial Districts and other agencies receive a
copy of the CTA Report,'and requested the report be posted on the website.
;I
ii
May 1, 2007
Addendum to D.2
Page 3 of 5
Mr. Whittington, Department of Information Technology, said he would make sure the
EBRCS Evaluation Report gets posted on the County website.
Supervisor Piepho expressed concern about a letter she received from the San Ramon
Valley Fire Department expressing concerns about the EBRCS system and asked staff
whether they had responded.
Mr. Whittington responded the independent consultant would make sure that these
concerns are addressed before going forward with the design.
Supervisor Piepho said the connection between the EBRCS and Other Post Employment
Benefit (OPEB) issues are one of the most important responsibilities placed before the
Board and said she is reluctant to surrender this to a JPA. She asked Sheriff Rupf for his
opinion.
Sheriff Warren Rupf said he is not an advocate of complicating things but he believes the
JPA language is dangerous and creates new government. He said he does not believe the
Ad-Hoc committees are making decisions and does not think they can either accept or
spend money except as it comes before this Board,but the moment the JPA is formed
that will not be the case.
Supervisor Gioia asked what the County's share/percent of the dollar amount would be.
Mr. Cullen answered the percent is based on allotting radios and would be between 9 to
15 percent.
Supervisor Uilkema said she would like to delay the JPA to get a more detailed
description of the County doing this on its own and said the Board would need a
consultant that will meet the needs of the County to explore this.
Supervisor Bonilla said shrinking the JPA Board's membership could send the wrong
message to cities, and spoke in support of_moving forward with the JPA. She said
working together is important to the success of this project and strongly recommended
the Board approve the JPAj.today.
Supervisor Piepho asked Sheriff Rupf if he had any further comments.
Sheriff Rupf-said the value is for all public safety agencies to participate. out of the 19
cities involved in the JPA, 7 of those get their radio communication from the County and
5 get their communication from City of Richmond. He said the dynamics are different in
ALCO and CoCo.
Supervisor Glover said he is not in favor of taking back the work that has already been
done and said one needs to be optimistic and move forward with the (JPA).
I�
FOR DISCUSSION ONLY CLEAN DRAFT, 4/25/07
JOINT EXERCISE OF POWERS AGREEMENT FORTHE
EAST BAY REGKWL COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM AUTHORITY
THIS JOINT EXERCISE OF POWERS AGREEMENT FOR THE EAST BAY REGIONAL COMMUNICATIONS
SYSTEM AUTHORITY(the"Agreement")is entered into as of the day of ,2007,by and
among the
(hereinafter collectively referred to as°Members"and individually as"Member").
RECITALS
A. WHEREAS,Chapter 5 of,Division 7 of Title j1 of the California Government Code authorizes the
Members to enter into an agreement for the joint exercise of any power common to them;and
B. WHEREAS,the Member's have the common powers,under their respective sovereign and
11
police powers,to acquire real,personal and-intangible property and to plan,design,finance,construct,
operate,and maintain public safety radio communication systems,facilities and related structures,and
appurtenances and incidental improvements thereto;and
C. WHEREAS,the Members have determined that the public interest will be served by the
joint exercise of these common powers through this Agreement and the creation of a joint powers
authority to acquire,plan,design,finance,construct,operate and maintain a P25 compliant or
equivalent(as defined herein)communications system serving Alameda and Contra Costa Counties
and individual political jurisdictions therein;and
D. WHEREAS,the'Members have further determined that such an East Bay Regional
Communications System Project(the"EBRCS Project),to which Members and non-members may
subscribe(the"Subscribers")subject to the provisions set forth herein,should be undertaken in order to
meet public safety communication needs of the Members,and that the EBRCS Project will have regional
consequences beyond the Members'geographical;,judsdictions,thus encouraging participation by other
governmental agencies including but not limited to the State and Federal govemment.
NOW THEREFORE,in consideration of the promises,terms,conditions,and covenants
contained herein,the Members"I agree as follows:
AGREEMENT
1. Authority and Purpose.This Agreement is made under the authority of and pursuant to the
Joint Exercise of Powers Act, Chapter 5 of Division 7 o Title 1 of the California Government Code
(commencing with Section 6500 et seq.)(the"Act),relative to the joint exercise of powers common to
the Members and as otherwise granted by the Act. The purpose of this Agreement is to provide for the
acquisition of real,personal and intangible property;and the planning,design,financing,regulation,
permitting,environmental evaluation,public outreach,construction,operation,and maintenance of the
EBRCS Project,or any identifiable portion of the EBRCS Project. Notwithstanding anything in this
Agreement to the contrary,each Member also reserves all of its rights and powers to proceed
u
�i
ISI .
u
u
separately within its jurisdictional boundaries on any compatible public safety communications projects
anticipated to become part of the EBRCS Project;provided, however,that the planning,design;and
construction of such projects should be consistent with the Functional Specifications for the EBRCS
Project dated (the"Functional Specifications")or as subsequently
amended by the Authority's BoardofDirectors and incorporated herein by this reference.
The general specifications and performance standards for the EBRCS Project are as follows:
The EBRCS Project is designed as a P25 digital trunking system operating in the BOOMhzl700Mhz
frequency spectrum. The system solution is a wide area,two county, IP-based architecture
communications system that is compliant with the ANSVEIA/TIA-102 suite of standards. The EBRCS
Project will utilize sites strategically located throughout,but not limited to, Member jurisdictions. The
EBRCS Project is also expected to meet typical public safety requirements of a Grade of Service of two
percent busies during the busy hour with an estimated 90 percent of busy calls queued within 2.5
seconds.
For purposes of this Agreement,P25 compliant or equivalent means a common set of standards for
first-responders that allows the highest level of interoperable communications in a digital mode.
2. Creation of Authority and Jurisdiction.Pursuant to the Act,the Members hereby create the
East Bay Regional Communications System Authority(the°Authority"}, a public entity separate and
distinct from each of the Members. The jurisdiction of the Authority shall be all territory within the
geographic boundaries of the Members,however the Authority may undertake any action outside such
geographic boundaries as is necessary and incidental to the accomplishment of its purpose and the
EBRCS Project.
3. Term and Termination.This Agreement shall be effective as of the date first above written.It
shall remain in effect until the purpose stated in Section 1 of this Agreement is fully accomplished,or
until terminated by the vote of a majority of the goveming bodies of the Members;provided,however,
that this Agreement may not be terminated,and no Member may withdraw its membership,until(a)all
bonds or other instruments of indebtedness issued by the Authority and the interest thereon,if any,have
been paid in full or provision haslbeen made for payment in full and (b)all outstanding obligations and
liabilities of the Authority have been.paid in full or provision has been made for payment in full,except
as set forth in Section 13.
4. Powers of the Authority.
a. Powers. The Authority shall have all powers necessary or reasonably convenient to
cavy out the purposes stated in Section 1 of this Agreement,including, but not limited
to,the following:
(1) To secure administrative office space and furnishings;
(2) To make and',;enter into contracts including other joint powers agreements and
Subscriber agreements;
(3) To contract for,or employ,administrative,technical,legal and support staff,and
consultants and contractors of any kind;
REVISED DRAFT,4125107
JPA Agreement for EBRCS Authority
Page 2 of 11
ii
u
(4) To acquire and maintain insurance of all types;
(5) To lease orsuble'ase real,personal,':and intangible property;
(6) To acquire, hold,or dispose of real,personal or intangible property by negotiation,
dedication or eminent domain provided, however,that the power of eminent
domain shall be+used to acquire real, personal or intangible property of a Member
only with the consent of the governing body of such Member;
(7) To own, lease,sublease, acquire;operate, maintain and dispose of materials,
supplies,and equipment of all types including,but not limited to intangible property
such as radio frequencies;
(S) To plan,and to conduct environmental evaluation and other analyses in
connection therewith,and design,buildings,facilities or communications
improvements of any kind;
(9) To construct,operate, and maintain buildings,facilities or communications
improvements of any kind, provided that(i)for new buildings,facilities or
communications improvements located on property owned by a public entity,the
Authority shall provide appropriate pbblic notice of proposed action, but shall be
exempt from all local land use and zoning regulations;and(ii)for new buildings,
facilities or communications improvements located on private property,the
Authority shallapply for and receive appropriate approvals under the applicable
local land use and zoning regulations;
�i
(10) To accept,hold, invest(pursuant to the Act, including,without limitation, Section
6509.5 thereof), manage,and expend monies;
(11) To obtain and,secure funding from any and all available public and private sources
including local;state,and federal government,including but not limited to,bond
issuances,lease purchase agreements,public grants,public and private contributions,
public and private loans,and other funds;
(12) To incur debts, liabilities or obligations,subject to the provisions of this Agreement,
provided that no debt, liability,of obligation shall constitute a debt,liability or
obligation of the Members,either jointly or severally.
(13) Subject to applicable legal authority,to impose, levy,collect,or cause to be
collected,or to receive and use;public safety communication impact or development
fees on new residential,commercial,and industrial development;
i�
(14) Subject to applicable legal authority, to form one or more special assessment
districts under any legal authority that exists now or in the future,including,without
limitation, the Improvement Act of 1911 (Streets&Highways Code Section 5000 et
seq.), the Municipal Improvement Act of 1913(Streets&Highways Code Section
REVISED DRAFT,4125/07
JPA Agreement for EBRCS Authority
Page 3 of 11
I
i
ii
10000 et seq.), the Improvement Bond Act of 1915(Streets &Highways Code
Section 8500 et seq.), and the Marks-Roos Local Bond Pooling Act of 1985
(Government Code Section 6584 et seq.);
(15) Subject to applicable legal authority,to form one or more special tax districts
under the Mel[o-Roos Community Facilities District Act of 1982(Government Code
Section 53311 et seq.)or any other authority that may exist now or in the future;
(16) To negotiate and enter into reimbursement agreements when monies to construct
project improvements are advanced;
(17) Subject to applicable legal authority,to cause taxes,assessments,fees or
charges to be levied in accordance with applicable State and Federal law,and in a
manner to accomplish the purposes of the Authority;
(18)To issue bonds;'and sell or lease'any facilities for purposes of debt financing;
(19) To carry on technical and other investigations.of all kinds necessary to further the
purposes of the Authority;
(20)To sue and be sued;
(21)To amend the Functional Specifications;and
(22)To exercise all,Powers incidental to the foregoing including, but not limited to,
contracting for services from Members, reimbursing Directors for expenses
incurred as permitted by law and adopting personnel rules and regulations.
b. Limitation of Imposition of Powers. The provisions of subsection a.notwithstanding,
the Board of Directors shall have no;power to impose taxes, assessments,fees or
charges within any Member's jurisdiction unless the Member's governing body adopts
a resolution approving the tax, assessment,fee or charge.
c. Additional Powers to be Exercised. In addition to those powers common to each of the
members,the Authority shall have those powers that may be conferred upon it by
subsequently enacted legislation.
d. Restriction on Exercise of Powers. Pursuant to Section 6509 of the Act,the County of
Alameda is designated as the Member for determination of the restrictions upon the
Members in exercising the powersset forth in this Agreement.
e. Debts, Liabilities and Obligations.The debts,liabilities,and obligations of the Authority shall
not constitute debts, liabilities,or obligations of the Members,either jointly or severally.
u
5. Duties. The Authority shall have the duty to do the following within the times specified or, if
no time is specified,within a"reasonable time:
REVISED DRAFT,4125107
JPA Agreement for EBRCS Authority
Y
Page 4 of 11
1'
v
ii
a. To retain legal counsel for all Authority;,business, including litigation;
i
b. To evaluate the need for,and acquire and maintain if necessary, liability,errors and.
omissions,or other insurance;
c. To conduct an annual audit as required by the provisions of Subsection 6.d(3); and
d. To use its best efforts to develop and 'adopt within six (6)months of execution of this
Agreement: (i)a Capital Plan specifying a means or formula for determining the timing
and sequencing of construction of the;�EBRCS Project consistent with the Functional
Specifications referenced in Section 1i;of this Agreement and (ii)a funding plan
specifying a means or formula for funding the Authority's operations and any EBRCS
Project phases that are the responsibility of the Authority(the"Funding Plan"),which
Funding Plan will include an allocation of costs among the Members, Subscribers to
the EBRCS Project and other funding sources.
e. To administer the EBRCS Project in accordance with the purposes set forth in Section
f. To establish within six(6)months of the execution of this Agreement ad hoc
operational and technical committees as necessary to consider and recommend to the
Board of Directors system implementation issues.
g. To encourage other governmental and quasi-govemmental agencies including but not
limited to the State'and Federal government, and special districts to participate as
Subscribers in the EBRCS Project. u
h. To establish system participation pricing including start-up costs, and ongoing
Subscriber/Member unit pricing to cover system operations,technical upgrades, and
system replacement reserves.
i. To establish policies and procedures for the voluntary transfer and/or lease of assets
from Member jurisdictions inciuding!ibut not limited to frequencies,transmitter sites and
associated equipment.
j. To enter into agreements with Members,or,in the event that a particular skill or
service is unavailable from Members,with outside vendors to perform maintenance of
the system.
k. To provide yearlyil performance review of the EBRCS Project and to report thereon as
directed by the Board of Directors.
6. Administration.
a. Governing Board-Membership.The Authority shall be administered by a Board of
Directors(the"Board")consisting of twenty-three(23)Directors and their respective
aftemates.Directors and alternates shall be appointed as follows and,at the time of such
REVISED DRAFT,4/25107
JPA Agreement for EBRCS Authodty
Page 5 of 11
Ili
II
appointment and for the duration of suchservice,shall be employees or officers of Member
agencies:
(1) Alameda County ,Board of Supervisors
(1) Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors
(1) Alameda County police Chiefs Association(to be selected by the Association)
(1) Contra Costa County Police Chiefs Association(to be selected by the Association)
(1) Alameda County Fire Chiefs Association(to be selected by the Association)
(1) .Contra Costa County Fire Chiefs Association(to be selected by the Association)
(1) Special District(to be selected by th'e Association)
(1) Alameda County;`County Administrator
(1) Contra Costa County,County Administrator
(1) Alameda CountySheriff
(1) Contra Costa County Sheriff
(3) Contra Costa County City Managers(to be selected by the Association)
(3) Alameda County City Managers(to be selected by the Association)
(3) Contra Costa County Elected Officials(to be selected by the Mayor's Conference)
(3) Alameda County Elected Officials(to be selected by the Mayor's Conference).
Alternates shall serve as Directors in the absence of their respective Directors and shall
exercise all rights avid privileges thereof. Each Director and each alternate for such
Director shall serve at the pleasure of the appointing entity and may be removed at any
time without notice.
b. Meetings.
(1) Regular Meetings.The Board shall by resolution establish the number of regular
meetings to be held each year and the date,hour and location at which such regular
meetings shall be held;provided,that the Board shall meet at least once every year.
(2) Special Meetings.Special meetings of the Board may be called in accordance with the
provisions of the Ralph M.Brown'Act(Government Code Section 54950 of seq.).
(3) Conduct of Meetings.All meeting's of the Board shall be held in accordance with the
Ralph M.Brown Act(Government Code Section 54950 of seq.).
(4) Minutes.The Secretary of the Authority shall cause minutes of all meetings of the
Board to be kept and shall,as soon as possible after each meeting,cause a copy of
the minutes to be forwarded to each Director,the Members,and other parties upon
request.
(5) Quorum. Twelve(12)Directors of the Board shall constitute a quorum for the
transaction of business.Except,';as provided in Section 7 below,actions of the Board
shall require the affirmative vote of a majority of the entire Board (i.e.,twelve (12)
affirmative votes).
c. Procedures.
REVISED DRAFT,4125107
JPA Agreement for EBRCS Aulhority „
Page 6 of 11
it
it
d
ii ,
(1) The Board shall elect annually a Chair from among its membership to preside at
meetings and shall select a Secretary who may,but need not,be a Director.The
Board may,from time to time,elect such other officers as the Board shall deem
necessary or convenient to conduct°the affairs of the Authority.
(2) The Board may adopt by resolution rules of procedure,not inconsistent with the
provisions of this Agreement,to govem the conduct of its meetings.Such rules of
procedure shall be in accordance with the Ralph M.Brown Act(Government Code
Section 54950 4seq.). ,
(3) Directors of the Board and designated officials and employees,if any,shall comply
with the Political Reform Act of 197;4,Title 9 of the California Government Code
(commencing with Section 81000 et sea.).
d. Fiscal Matters.
_(1) Treasurer and Auditor.
(A) Except as provided in Subsection(C),below,the treasurer and auditor of
County,respectively,are designated the Treasurer and Auditor of the
Authority with the powers,duties,and responsibilities specified in the Act,including,
without limitation,Sections 6505 and 6505.5 thereof.
(B) The Board shall designate a certified public accountant as the independent
auditor of the Authority with the powers,duties,and responsibilities specified in the
Act,including,without limitation,Sections 6505 and 6505.5.
(C) Notwithstanding Subsection (A)above,the Board may at any time appoint
one or more of the Authority's officers or employees to either or both of the positions of
Treasurer or Auditor as provided in the Act.
(2) Custodian of Property.The Treasurer and Auditor of the Authority+shall be the public
officers who have charge of, handle,and have access to,the Authority's property and shall
file with the Authority an official bond in the amount set by the Board.
(3) Accounts and Reports.The Board shall establish and maintain such funds and
accounts as may be required by generally accepted public accounting practice.The books
and records of the Authority shall beopen to inspection at all reasonable times to the
Members and their respective representatives.The accounts shall be prepared and
maintained by the Treasurer and Auditor of the Authority.The Authority shall,within one
hundred twenty(120)days after the close of each fiscal year,cause an independent audit
of all financial activities for such fiscal year to be prepared by the independent certified
public accountant;employed by the Authority in accordance with Government Code
Section 6505. The Authority shall promptly deliver copies of the audit report to each
member of the Board and the Members.
REVISED DRAFT,4125/07
JPA Agreement for EMUS Authority
Page 7 of 11
u
II
�I
a
(4) Budget.The Board shall adopt a budget no later than one hundred twenty(120)days
after the first meeting of the Board and no later than June 30th of each year thereafter.
(5) Contributions.Within 90 days of execution of this Agreement,the Board will establish
by two-thirds(2/3)vote of the Board the amount of start-up funds to be contributed to the
Authority by each Member.Additional contributions shall be specified in the Funding Plan
to be adopted by two-thirds(213)vote of the Board,in accordance with Section 5.d. and
Section 7.a.
(6) Fiscal Year. The'fiscal year of the Authority shall be the period from July 1st of each
year to and including the following June'30th.
7. Voting. Each member of the Board shall have one vote. The Board may take action by the
affirmative vote of the majority of the entire Board.However,the following actions may only be taken with
the affirmative vote of at least sixteen (16)Directors.
a. Establish start-up contributions from Members,as referenced in Section 6.d.(5)of this
Agreement and adopt a Funding Plan,as.referenced in Sections 6.d.(5)and 5.d.; .
b. Levy and collect,orcause to be collected,communication impact fees on new residential,
commercial,and industrial development,as authorized by local,state,and federal law;
c. Form a special assessment district under any legal authority that exists now or in the
future,including,without limitation,the Improvement Act of 1911 (Streets&Highways Code
Section 5000 et seq),the Municipal Improvement Act of 1913(Streets&Highways Code
Section 10000 et seg.),and the Improvement Bond Act of 1915(Streets&Highways Code
Section 8500 et seq),as authored by local,state,and federal law;
d. Form a special tax district under the Mello-Roos Community Facilities District Act of 1982
(Government Code Section 53311 et seq.)or any other authority that may exist now or in
the future;
e. Cause taxes,assessments,fees or charges to be levied as authorized by local,state,and
federal law,and in a manner to accomplish the purposes of the Authority;
f. Issue bonds or other forms of debt;and
g. Exercise the power of eminent domain.
8. Reserved.
9. Indemnification. The Authority shall acquire such insurance protection as is necessary to
protect the interest of the Authority and its Members. The Authority shall assume the defense of and
indemnify and save harmless the Members and their governing bodies,officers,agents,and
employees from all claims,losses,damages,costs, injury,and liability of every kind,nature,and
description directly or indirectly arising from the performance of any of the activities of the Authority or
the activities undertaken pursuant to this Agreement.
REVISED DRAFT,4/25107
JPA Agreement for EBRCS Authority
Page 8 of 11
ii
I,
II
10. Liability of Board, Officers and Employees.
ll
ii
a. The Directors,officers,and employees of the Authority shall use ordinary care and
reasonable diligence in the exercise of their powers, and in the performance of their
duties pursuant to this Agreement.They shall not be liable to the Members for any
mistake of judgmentqr other action made,taken,or omitted by them in good faith,nor for
11
any action made,taken,or omitted by any agent,employee,or independent contractor
selected with reasonable care,nor for loss incurred through the investment of the
Authority's funds,or failure to invest the same.
b. To the extent authorized by California law,no Director,officer,or employee of the Authority
shall be responsible for any action made,taken,or omitted,by any other member of the
Board,officer,or employee.No member of the Board,officer,or employee of the Authority
shall be required to give a bond or other security to guarantee the faithful performance of
his or her duties pursuant to this Agreement,except as provided in Subsection 6.d(2).
.I
c. The funds of the Authority shall be used to defend,indemnify,and hold harmless the
Authority and Director,officer,or employee of the Authority for actions taken in good faith
and within the scope of his or her authority.Nothing herein shall limit the right of the
Authority to purchase insurance to provide coverage for the foregoing indemnity.
11. Rules.The Board may adopt,from time toitime,such policies, procedures,bylaws,rules and
regulations for the conduct of the AuthoriVs affair;as the Board deems necessary and appropriate.
12. Disposition of Property upon Termination.11 In the event of termination of the Authority pursuant
to Section 3 herein and where there will be a successor public entity which will cant'on the functions of
the Authority and assume its assets and liabilities,the assets of the Authority shall be transferred to the
successor public entity.If upon termination pursuant to Section 3,there is no successor public entity
which will cavy on the functions;of the Authority and assume its assets,the assets shall be returned to
the Members as follows:(a)all real property and any improvements thereon shall be conveyed to the
Member which owned the property prior to the formation of the Authority,and(b)all other assets shall
be divided among the Members;in proportion to their respective contributions during the tetrn of this
Agreement. If upon termination'pursuant to Section 3,there is a successor public entity which will carry
on some of the functions of the Authority and assume some of the assets,the Authority's Board shall
allocate the assets between the successor public entity and the Members.
13. New Parties and Termination and Withdrawal of Existina Parties. The Board shall have
plenary authority to establish rules,standards and charges for the admission of new parties to this
Agreement and for the termination and withdrawal of existing parties to this Agreement,subject to the
provisions set forth in this Agreement. Admission of a new member shall not require amendment to this
Agreement New parties may become members'on any conditions prescribed by the Board including
payment of special fees and charges. The Board shall further have plenary authority to establish
conditions for non-member Subscribers to the EBRCS Project whether such non-member Subscribers
are or are not public entities. In the event that a ,Member seeks to withdraw from the from the Authority
prior to issuance of bonds or other instruments of indebtedness,the withdrawing Member shall be
charged an amount which shall represent a fair and equitable pro rata share of the costs,expenses and
REVISED DRAFT,4/25/07
JPA Agreement for EBRCS Authority
Page 9 of 11
l
,i
it ��
If
u
i
obligations incurred by the Authority at that time,as determined by the Board.
14. Successors:Assignment.;This Agreement shall be binding upon and shall inure to the benefit
of the successors of the Members?l No Member ma iassign any rights or obligations hereunder without
the unanimous consent of the governing bodies of the other Members;provided,further,that no such
assignment may be made if it would materially and adversely affect(a)the rating of bonds issued by the
Authority,or(b)bondholders holding such bonds.
15. Amendments.This Agreement may be amended only by the mutual agreement of all the
governing bodies of the Members!'So long as any bonds of the Authority are outstanding and unpaid,
or funds are not otherwise set aside for the paymentlor redemption thereof in accordance with the terms
of the bonds and the documentation relating thereto,"this Agreement shall not be amended,modified or
otherwise revised,changed or rescinded,if such action would(a)materially and adversely affect(1)the
rating of bonds issued by the Authority,or(2)bondholders holding such bonds,or(b)limit or reduce the
obligations of the Members to make,in the aggregate,the payments under the Funding Plan which are
for the benefit of the owners of the bonds.
16. Notices.An notices to M
first class, postage prepaid,addressed as follows: by this Agreement shall be delivered or mailed,U.S.
y embers required
Notices under this Agreement shall be deemed given and received at the earlier of actual receipt,or the
second business day following deposit in the United States mail,as required above.Any Member may
amend its address for notice by notifying the other Members pursuant to this Section.
If
17. Severabilily.Should any part,term,or provision of this Agreement be decided by the courts to
be illegal or in conflict with any flaw of the State ofrCalifomia,or otherwise be rendered unenforceable
or ineffectual,the validity of the remaining portion's or provisions shall not be affected thereby.
18. Liberal Construction. The provisions of this Agreement shall be liberally construed as
necessary or reasonably convenient to achieve the purposes of the Authority.
19. Headings.The headings used in this Agreement are for convenience only and have no effect
on the content,construction,or interpretation of the Agreement.
20. Counterparts.This Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts,and by
REVISED DRAFT,4125/07
JPA Agreement for EBRCS Authority
Page 10 of 11
III
p
different parties in separate counterparts,each of which,when executed and delivered,shall be deemed
11
to be an original and all of which counterparts taken together shall constitute but one and the same
instrument.
21. Agreement Complete. The foregoing constitutes the full and complete Agreement of the
parties. There are no oral understandings or agreements not set forth in writing above. Any such
agreements merge into this Agreement.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF,the Members have entered into this Agreement effective on the date first
above written.
[signature pages to follow]
942861 5,1191.002
I,
REVISED DRAFT,4/25107
JPA Agreement for EBRCS Authority
Page 11 of 11 P
ii
II
u
I
I
I
I
I
iT
i y
Lry-
r
� v
� k �
j e
y, N
`�� 7w,r fit% y .# `�t �� .ck�;E.Yx �+•¢�1,.{.�
IN , vM-2v„ Lar i d .N' 0 `•� Y
4• y
pa
� vp�aux 3' +i �s .�`�'► N �k-� �'�'
d
u
r
Contra Costa County,California
FINAL—EBRCS Design Evaluation Report April 19,2007
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVESUMMARY ............................................................................................................ 2
1.0 INTRODUCTION........:................................................................................................... 12
2.0 PROJECT BACKGROUND ............................................................................................ 13
3.0 EVALUATION PROCESS .............................................................................................. 17
4.0 TECHNICAL REVIEW,& COMMENTS........................................................................ 18
4.1 System Overview.......................................................................................................... 18
4.2 Technology Base........................................................................................................... 19
4.3 Proposed Topology.......................... ............................................................................ 20
4.4 System Capacity............................................................................................................ 22
4.5 Frequency Plan.............................................................................................................. 24
4.6 Radio Coverage............................................................................................................. 26
4.7 Reliability And Failure Modes...................................................................................... 30
5.0 COST ANALYSIS............................................................................................................ 32
5.1 Opinion Of Pricing S'ummary....................................................................................... 32
TABLE5-1 COST COMPARISON................................................................................. 33
5.2 Gap Analysis.................................................................................................................. 34
6.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................... 38
APPENDIX A COUNTY PROVIDED HISTORICAL DOCUMENTATION.......................42
APPENDIX B COMPARISON OF USER"SURVEYS...........................................................43
APPENDIX C CTA RESPONSE TO REVIEWER COMMENTS..........................................45
Table of Contents
Page 1 of 53
COMMUNCATIONS,INC. p
CTAS CtJMM[,[NICATIC��1
COMMUNICATIONS,
CONSLILTAI"�11TS
FINA
cq Iq ITA
j
B = C 9 n
�, _9 Report
.t � l _ 1L� � � , 1 X111 �
County of 1 Costa, California
April ' 2007
■
1
1
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Contra Costa County,California
FINAL—EBRCS Design Evaluation Report April 19,2007
1 TABLE OF CONTENTS
' EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..:................................................ ........ 2
. ..............................:......
1.0 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................ 12
2.0 PROJECT BACKGROUND ............................................................................................ 13
3.0 EVALUATION PROCESS.............................................................................................. 17
' 4.0 TECHNICAL REVIEW&COMMENTS........................................................................ 18
4.1 System Overview. 18
4.2 Technology Base........................................................................................................... 19
4.3 Proposed.Topology
4.4 System Capacity............................................................................................................ 22
4.5 Frequency Plan.............................................................................................................. 24
' ................................................................................26
4.6 Radio Coverage...............................
4.7 Reliability And Failure Modes.................................:.................................................... 30
' 5.0 COST ANALYSIS............................................................................................................ 32
5.1 Opinion Of Pricing Summary....................................................................................... 32
TABLE 5-1 COST COMPARISON................................................................................. 33
5.2 Gap Analysis........................................................................:........................................ 34
6.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .......:...............................I.... ...... 38
..........
' APPENDIX A COUNTY PROVIDED HISTORICAL DOCUMENTATION.......................42
APPENDIX B COMPARISON OF USER SURVEYS...........................................................43
,�
APPENDIX C CTA RESPONSE TO REVIEWER COMMENTS...........................................45
' Table of Contents
Page 1 of 53
' COMMUNICATIONS,INC.
II
' Contra Costa County,California
FINAL—EBRCS Design Evaluation Report April 19,2007
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Introduction
Public safety officials representinglaw enforcement and fire/rescue agencies in Alameda
' County and Contra Costa County have been working cooperatively over the past two or three
years to develop a plan for a regional communications system. One goal of this plan is to
' provide a common radio infrastructure where all public safety users in both counties can operate
on a common frequency band using a common protocol. This will facilitate joint operations,
' sharing of data and resources, as well as improving the efficiency and safety of the public safety
personnel who are performing their duties in,protecting the life.and property of local citizens.
The joint activities between the counties may also afford opportunities to save public funds
through the realization of economies of scale and the sharing of certaincritical components in
the infrastructure. By adopting the open, standards-based P25 architecture as the technology
' base for this plan, the local public'Safety officials have embraced the standards endorsed by the
federal government and by many national public safety organizations. This plan for a regional,
interoperable P25 network serving all of the public safety agencies in the two counties should
' meet the criteria set by the U. S. Department of Homeland Security, and place an application for
funding via a federal grant in a favorable position to gain approval. (It should be clearly
' understood that funding is contingent on a competitive evaluation process,and that even if the
County is successful in securing additional monies for the project, it is unlikely that the federal
government will bear more than a fraction of the total cost of the system.)
The public safety officials who have been developing these plans for a regional system deserve
' recognition and commendation for their wisdom','and foresight. The plan clearly parallels the
long-term.goals that Contra Costa County adopted in 2002 as part of its "master plan"to address
the need for a technology upgrade. This plan finally moves the discussion concerning the need
' for improvements in public safety communications in Contra Costa County from the study mode
to an action plan. The public safety officials involved in this process should also be commended
for working together on this plan—a partnership;among the local agencies will ultimately result
in a superior design, which in turn will provide safer working conditions for first responders.
' Alameda County Contract with Motorola
' Alameda County contracted with Motorola in October 2005 to supply certain critical
infrastructure as part of the roll-out of this P25 network for that County. One of the tasks in that
' contract was for Motorola to develop a conceptual design for a two-county P25 trunked radio
system,which has been named the East Bay Radio Communications System (EBRCS) On May
' Executive Summary
I� Page 2 of 53
COMMUNICATIONS,INC.
I`
I II
' Contra Costa County,California
FINAL—EBRCS Design Evaluation Report April 19,2007
12, 2006, Motorola delivered its design y for.the EBRCS to Alameda Count in a document that
f
included sample test plans, a scope of work, warranty and post-warranty maintenance plans, and
a price proposal for the system. This document has been shared with officials in Contra Costa
County, and has been the subject of some discussion.over the past few months.
Independent Third Party Review
' CTA Communications, a consulting firm based in Virginia with its practice focused on land
mobile radio technology,was.engaged by Contra Costa County to review the EBRCS
documentation. As an independent consultant with no connection to any manufacturer or
supplier of radio equipment or systems, CTA was'asked to render its opinion on the viability of
the proposed EBRCS design, the reasonableness and completeness of the pricing proposal, and
to make recommendations for actions designed to move the project forward.
' P25 Standard
The technical design described in the EBRCS document is a feasible architecture that appears to
' have been carefully planned to meet the needs of public safety users in Alameda and Contra
Costa counties. We agree with the selection of open-standards based P25 as the underlying
ttechnology. From our perspective, the land mobile radio industry in North America has fully
embraced P25, with nearly all manufacturers now ii shipping at least some products that are
compliant with the standard. Motorola and M/A-Com, the two major manufacturers of trunked
systems in the United States, are both shifting emphasis from proprietary technology to P25
compliant products. There is no other standard for digital or trunked mobile radio in North
America; in fact, P25 is the only conventional and trunked two-way radio standard currently
deployed throughout the world.
' The federalg overnment has decided to likewise embrace P25 —this is now the standard for all
U.S. government agencies that use land mobile radio. For example, the Integrated Wireless
Network(IWN), currently under e'onstruction,will be a nationwide network integrating all
federal law enforcement agencies on a common P25 infrastructure, although in a different
' frequency band from the EBRCS., Many states across the country are also building P25 networks
to integrate agencies in a common architecture. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security and
the U.S. Department of Justice have strongly encouraged the use of P25 in federal grant
applications involving radio communications funding at the state and local level. By choosing
the P25 technology for the EBRCS design, Contra Costa County will conform to one of the
' qualifying criteria for this funding. Approval of a funding application may result in the savings
Executive Summary
►� Page 3 of 53
COMMUNICATIONS,INC.
' Contra Costa County,California
FINAL—EBRCS Design Evaluation Report April 19,2007
of millions of dollars for the local citizens. Again, we commend the public safety officials
participating in the EBRCS development for their efforts on this front.
Design for Transmitter Placement
f h ntal design element and compared them to criteria
CTA has examined some o the fundame gn s co p
regularly used in our practice and in the industry at large. One factor we looked at was the
' placement and separation of sites for the radio coverage offered by the EBRCS design. Since the
design in Contra Costa County involves the use of simulcast technology, which is based on
extremely precise timing of transmissions from the towers, it is critical that the sites not be
placed too far apart. The design document has shown that the spacing of sites is appropriate, and
that reasonable countywide coverage should be obtainable with the selected sites..
Capacity for Radio Traffic
We have also studied the capacity requirements of the EBRCS, and generally agree with the
traffic analysis shown in the design document. The EBRCS document showed that 27 channels
would be required in Contra Costa County. CTA's independent analysis, using a different traffic
modeling tool, showed the need for 28 channels. We felt that the eastern simulcast cell in Contra
' Costa County would need 8 channels, not 7. The number of available channels, either already
licensed to the County or that could be licensed by the FCC, was not considered a factor in the
' CTA analysis. This may have been a realistic limitation that Motorola took into account in its
analysis, resulting in our arriving at slightly different results.
' Fault Tolerance and RedundarIc
' In addition to the fundamental design elements, we also note that the EBRCS design includes
redundancy in the critical network management elements,the incorporation of packet data using
IP standards for the inter-site transport of digital voice and control signals. This in turn allows
the use of routers, hubs and Ethernet in place of"back-room" equipment racks. Even the use of
trunking, which has become commonplace across America, will be a substantial leap forward for
' many in Contra Costa County. The quality of the products offered in the EBRCS document is
among the best in the world for commercially available equipment. If the network is constructed
to the R56 standards recommended by Motorola, the system will be highly reliable and robust,
' providing service to the users even in situations involving extreme.weather,power outages and
other natural or manmade disasters. The EBRCS is scalable, meaning that changes in
' configuration and expansion for future use are factored into the design concept.
' Executive Summary
Page 4 of 53
COMMUNICATIONS,INC.
' Contra Costa County,California
FINAL—EBRCS Design Evaluation Report April 19,2007
' Therefore, in our professional opinion, there'are no fatal flaws in the EBRCS design or in the
equipment proposed in the May 2066 document.
Findings and Recommendations—Coverage Maps
That beingsaid we do have some questions that were not full answered in the Motorola
q Y
document, and offer some revisions in the details of the design that might prove beneficial to the
County. The coverage maps supplied with the document show composite coverage for the two-
county regional system. Our experience with Motorola has shown that their coverage maps are
' conservative estimates, so we do not doubt that the composite coverage shown is in fact
achievable..However, there are no maps in the EBRCS document that show individual simulcast
cell performance. This is critical in assessing how Contra County users will actually perceive the
performance of the system. Equally important, the coverage of the individual cells will impact
the accuracy of the traffic loading analysis. If the'coverage of the individual simulcast cells does
' not correspond with the operational boundaries for the various agencies using the system, the
quantity of wide area calls (involving more than one cell) and wide area roaming will exceed the
percentages assumed in the analysis. This means that the capacity of the designed system may
' be inadequate. Without the individual maps this is impossible to evaluate.
Coverage Claims
' We did find that the analyses assumed that the user had a portable attached at hip level, which is
a conservative approach. .We concur with the coverage analysis being done in this manner.
However,we did not find the attenuation values used for"light, medium and heavy"building
' types. Without these parameters, it is impossible for CTA to either agree or disagree with the
coverage claims made in the EBRCS document for indoor portable use.
' CTA recommends that the coverage test plan contained in Appendix endix B of the EBRCS document
p
be modified to better protect the County, and to better ch aracterize.the performance of the
' completed system. We suggest that the.entire service area, as defined by the geopolitical
boundaries of the County,be subject to test—not limited to the "covered" areas indicated on the
' maps. The vendor's guarantee for coverage should be modified accordingly. The test as
proposed only considers the one-way performance(talk-out from base to mobile). Provisions
should be included in the planfor testing the talk-in(mobile to base) link. Likewise, we
' recommend that other items be added to the acceptance test plans—verification of simulcast
alignment, channel to channel balance, interference, system access, etc. We recommend that
' provisions for re-testing failed grid cells be carefully considered during negotiations before
including in the final acceptance test plan. ,
' Executive Summary
Page 5 of 53
COMMUNICATIONS,INC.
' Contra Costa County,California
FINAL—EBRCS Design Evaluation Report April 19,2007
Returning to the capacity analysis,we note that the EBRCS design included a 20% growth factor
uniformly distributed throughout Contra Costa County. It is not stated how this figure was
tderived. Normally, CTA designs alsystem for a 15 to 20 year life. So we use the growth in users
over that period of time. Often,population growth estimates are used as the basis for these
' predictions. If 20% is a reasonablel„growth projection for the County over the next.15 to 20
years, then the EBRCS analysis is valid. If there are certain areas of the County that will grow at
different rates, then this should be a factor.in the planning of the three simulcast cells.
Single Simulcast Cell
While we recognize the'constraintsi that the EBRCS design team was under, we suggest that there
may be other configurations that should be considiered before committing to the specific
' configuration described in the EBRCS document. One such alternative might be a single
simulcast cell that encompasses all of Contra Costa.County. This configuration would be more
' efficient and would be operationally simpler for the agencies to use. Fewer overall frequencies
(channels) would be needed in this design approach. It would eliminate our concerns with the
composite coverage maps because that is,in fact, how that system would operate. And
operationally, each agency can determine its district boundaries and procedures without regard to
the constraints of the radio system.
It appears that the EBRCS design was based on exclusive use of channels in the 800 MHz band;
this is a limiting factor since there is considerable congestion in the northern California area near
Contra Costa County. We believe that the use of 700 MHz frequencies would eliminate this
constraint. The problem with 700 MHz spectrum is that it will not be available in your area until
' 2009, which may or may not be a limiting factor. (P25 equipment is now available from the.
major manufacturers that will cover both the 700 and 800 MHz bands, so operations would.
appear seamless to the users. We' jecommend that participating agencies in the County and cities purchasing new equipment for use,on the EBRCSf carefully consider this factor before
committing their funds.)
P25 Phase 2 Considerations
' As proposed in the EBRCS design, the radio system will carry voice communications on
channels in the 800 MHz band using a P25 Phase',1 protocol. The major drawback in the 800
' MHz band is the limited availability of channels for the EBRCS,which limits your ability to
implement a single simulcast cell covering the entire County. Use of the 700 MHz band
alleviates the congestion of frequencies, and hence enables the consideration of a single
simulcast configuration. However, there is a catch—the FCC has mandated the further
' J Executive Summary
Page 6 of 53
COMMUNICATIONS,INC.
lel
' Contra Costa County,California
FINAL—EBRCS Design Evaluation Report April 19,2007
narrowbanding of the 700 MHz band (to one voice channel per 6.25 kHz)by January 1, 2017.
l
There is no corresponding mandatefor the 800 MHz band.
Industry's answer to this mandate is.a revision to the standard protocol for P25 that would result
' in the improved channel efficiency this extension to the standard is called"P25 Phase 2".
Under this approach,time division multiple access (TDMA)would be used to carry two
simultaneous calls on each 12.5 kHz channel-essentially doubling the voice capacity of the
network. The TLA/EIA-102 standards,committee is now close to agreement on the general
framework for Phase 2. We expect that the initial'documents codifying the basic tenants of P25
' Phase 2 modulation will be published later this year. However, committee members have
indicated that it may take another one to two years for all of the details in the protocol definition
to be worked out and agreed upon. Adding another 12 to 18 months for the initial development
cycle by the manufacturers, we estimate that,the first P25 products using TDMA Phase 2
standards will probably be not be available until very late in 2009 or 2010 at the very earliest,
' and more likely not until 2011.
' This issue is important to the County because if you opt to build a new system using 700 MHz
frequencies, which should be abundant after February 2009, you will need to plan for a mandated
upgrade in technology by 2017. Use of 800 MHz'frequencies in the design will avoid this forced
' upgrade,but the scalability of that band is limited in northern California due to channel
congestion. Although the use of P25 Phase 2 TDMA technology(or similar technology with
' equivalent efficiency) will not be mandatory in 80,0 MHz, its use there does offer the possibility
of modifying the EBRCS design to incorporate P25 Phase 2 protocol in the future. (The FCC,
rules are open to the use of P25 Phase protocol on 800 MHz frequencies.) This is an intriguing
' alternative that should be considered in the region's long-term plans. Even if the EBRCS doesn't
elect to use either 700 MHz channels or the Phase 2 TDMA technology in its implementation, it
' is highly likely that other jurisdictions in northern California will eventually choose these
options. A plan for interoperability with these agencies will be essential.
' CTA has recently learned of a county that negotiated a contract with a radio vendor that included
an upgrade to P25 Phase 2 at whatever point it becomes available in the market. This provision
' was placed in the basic contract and agreed upon by both parties. This might be another
approach Contra Costa County might want to consider as it studies options that could protect its
investment.
' Executive Summary
Page 7 of 53
' COMMUNICATIONS,INC.
' Contra Costa County,California
FINAL—EBRCS Design Evaluation Report April 19,2007
Pricing
CTA has also reviewed the price prop included in the EBRCS design document of May
2006. We used the technical data from the design,of the EBRCS as input to our own cost model,
which uses a database derived from similar projects around the country, and produced an
independent opinion of probable cost. We then compared our cost model results with the prices
quoted in the May 2006 document. Our findings c'an be generally broken into two categories:
first, the agreement of the prices for the equipment and services quoted with pricing norms that
we have observed on other projects; and secondly,l!I'the completeness of the"total system cost"
' shown for the EBRCS.
1. On the first point, CTA's analysis shows that the price quoted for the equipment and
services in the EBRCS is about $11,500,000 higher than what we would estimate for a
competitive procurement. When taken as a percentage of the competitive estimate, this is
' about 26.5%. If instead we consider the case of a negotiated(sole source)procurement,
the price quoted for the EBRCS is about$6;000,000 higher than the CTA model estimate,
which works out to about 12.5%. Remember that our price model is based on the final
negotiated price,and not the original starting price. We have found that in negotiations
where we have participated';price reductions of 10 to 18%can be obtained. Of course,
' this often involves some refinement, clarification or reduction of scope in the vendor's
proposal, as well as other factors:
i i
2. Upon examination of the pricing details i n th,.e EBRCS document,the equipment prices
are about what we normally see in other procurements, and in our opinion are fairly
' reasonable considering the non-competitive environment in which they were derived.
' 3. The cost for installation($8,237,760).appears high. This is approximately 23%of the
cost for the equipment. Normally, we would expect the cost for installation to be about
15% of the equipment cost!
4. The cost for all other vendor services (Project Management, Project Administration, etc.)
is $14,735,624,which.is 37% of the cost for equipment: These costs appear high.
Normally, we would expect the cost for these services to be about 18%of the equipment
cost.
5. We then performed a"gap" analysis, comparing our cost model and the elements of cost
to the EBRCS price for the'"total system" ($60,151,063). Two major elements of the
total cost for the project are missing from the quoted"total system price"for EBRCS. In
Executive Summary
Page 8 of 53
it
' COMMUNICATIONS,INC.
II
' Contra Costa County,California
FINAL—EBRCS Design Evaluation Report April 19,2007
the Statement of Work(section 5 of the EBRCS document), the vendor has placed
responsibility for the physical facilities on the owners (Contra Costa County and
Alameda County); the cost for"physical facilities"is not included in the price proposal.
Likewise, the vendor has quoted prices for individual radios, which will be very helpful
for agencies to use in their planning of purchases, but a total cost for the replacement of
all subscriber equipment is not included in the total price for the EBRCS..
6. Physical facilities include elements like towers, tower upgrades,structural analyses,
access roads (to radio sites);fencing and enclosures, equipment shelters (vaults),
' expansion or renovation of existing buildings or vaults, HVAC (heating, ventilation, air-
conditioning) units, smoke detection and fire suppression systems, emergency generators,
grounding, surge protection;,site acquisition or site leasing costs, etc. Between the two
counties, there are 31 radio sites, plus numerous locations where dispatch consoles will
be installed and PSAP E-911 centers may need expansion or renovation(or even
' replacement). None of the costs for any of this activity is included in the price for the
EBRCS. In our opinion, a minimum of$5 million will be needed—and this will be for
' very limited upgrades and renovation. The actual cost could, of course, run much higher
up to $20 million if there are towers or buildings (vaults) that need replacement, or if
there are substantial upgrades. (The cost for new dispatch centers is not considered here.)
7. Using the existing inventory of portable and mobile radios among the potential
' participating agencies in EBRCS (18,048 units in 2006), and using the prices quoted in
the design document, we have estimated that the probable cost for replacing the current
radios will runabout $36,400,000.
1 '
Opinion of Total Cost
' Adding a roughestimate for the physical facilities and the subscriber equipment to the"total
system price", CTA believes the total cost of the system,(before negotiations with the vendor)
will likely range between $100 and $115 million,with our best.estimate probably at about $110
million.
Contingency
Note that the total above does not include provisions for mobile data, automatic vehicle location,
fire alert systems,paging,.etc..CTA recommends that the County establish a``contingency fund"
(typically,about 10% of the infrastructure cost) for factors that may arise during the course of
implementation. This contingency fund can also be used to provide in-building systems should
' Executive Summary
Page 9 of 53
COMMUNICATIONS,INC.
Contra Costa County,California
FINAL—EBRCS Design Evaluation Report April 19,2007
the covers a testing reveal that some facilities are not adequately covered. This is more cost
g g q Y (
effective than requiring the vendor Ito guarantee coverage inside specific buildings.)
Cost Control Opportunities
reduce and control costs on the project. One is the approach
1. There are opportunities to ed p � pp
that the EBRCS task team has taken by separating the microwave connectivity network
and the physical facilities from the radio infrastructure. By eliminating overhead costs of
a system integrator, the County(or the JPA team) can realize substantial savings and also
obtain the best products by competing these subsystems or project elements. The EBRCS
team can also competitively procure the subscriber equipment from a variety of P25
manufacturers. By separating the project into elements, though, the owners must realize
' that they are taking on the responsibility for integrating the activity, establishing
interfaces, and managing the project. This will require that the counties provide strong
' project management and oversight,which will demand personnel with skills, experience
and knowledge specific to the mobile radio industry.
2. Enlisting the services of an independent consultant an individual or firm with extensive
experience and technical knowledge—would be a wise investment in a project of this
' magnitude. The expert advice and guidance they could provide may prove to be worth
many times their fee. Assistance with the development of functional specifications,
' advice during negotiations with the contractor(or contractors), as well as oversight and
project management during the implementation and acceptance test phases are all
activities where this independent expert can act as an advocate for the County(or JPA).
3. Taking it one step further,there is also the opportunity to competitively procure the radio
infrastructure for the Contra Costa County simulcast cells. While Alameda County hada
requirement for compatibility with existing equipment in their legacy SmartNet system,
Contra Costa County may have a different requirement. The cities participating with
Richmond have an EDACS system that is not compatible with the Motorola subscriber
equipment proposed in the EBRCS document. A cost effective solution may be for
' EDACS users to purchase MVA-Com subscriber equipment that is P25 compliant, and
therefore compatible with the EBRCS. With the recent introduction of the ISSI (inter-
subsystem interface)by the P25 standards committee, another cost-effective measure
might include the upgrade of the existing�EDACS system in Richmond to operate as a
P25 network—essentially!becoming the West County simulcast.cell envisioned in the
EBRCS design. In this way, the infrastructure that those cities have built and paid for
' l Executive Summary
p .�\ Page 10 of 53
COMMUNICATIONS,INC.
1
' Contra Costa County,California
FINAL—EBRCS Design Evaluation Report April 19,2007
will not be lost. Total savings on the EBRCS design may make this alternative worth
investigating.
Conclusion
Finally, we would again like to commend the EBRCS team in both Alameda County and Contra
Costa County for making substantial progress in developing a concept for a regional,
interoperable radio system. `CTA concurs with their findings and with the direction the project is
taking. The success of this project will benefit thei first responders and ultimately the citizens in
' the community for many years to come. We recommend that Contra Costa County provide its
approval of the plans and move forward with the Joint Powers Agreement(JPA) to keep the
implementation of the EBRCS on track. We also hope that our critical comments, alternatives
' and suggested modifications of the plan offered here be given consideration. They have been
suggested in order to improve the chances of success.for the project, and to assist the
' governments in realizing potential economic benefits through cost efficiencies.
Executive Summary
Page 11 of 53
COMMUNICATIONS,INC.
' Contra Costa County,California
FINAL-EBRCS Design Evaluation Report April 19,2007
1.0 INTRODUCTION
' This report provides Contra Costa County with an independent review of the Motorola
Design Document for the East Bay Radio Communications System (EBRCS). The
' EBRCS document, dated May 12, 2006, describes a two-county design developed as a
paid task under Alameda County contract. In this design concept,both Contra Costa
County and Alameda County will share an''open, standards-based P25 network operating
' in the 800 MHz band. This'design will move all public safety and local government
users'into'the same frequency band and onto a common architecture,which will in turn
' provide superior interoperability throughout the region. This architecture will also satisfy
the criteria for the Homeland Security grant funding that is being sought by both
counties. This is a significant step forward for public safety in the East Bay community,
tand we commend the team responsible for moving this long-needed communications
system from paper studies to action. ,
Section I-Introduction
Page 12 of 53
' COMMUNICATIONS,INC.,
Contra Costa County,California
FINAL—EBRCS Design Evaluation Report April 19,2007
2.0 PROJECT BACKGROUND
Contra Costa County conducted a needs assessment of their communications systems in
' 2002. Over the past four years the County has meticulously followed the Master Plan
developed in that study, especially as it applied to short- and medium-term strategies.
In 2005, Alameda County released a Request for Proposal (RFP) for a P25 trunked
' system as a replacement for their aging Motorola SmartNet system. In addition to some
P25 equipment, including a network manager and audio switch, the RFP included a task
for the contractor to develop a design that would provide coverage to encompass both
' Alameda and Contra Costa Counties. Motorola was the only responding vendor to this
RFP, and subsequently was awarded the contract with the approval of the Alameda
' County Board of Supervisors. It is our understanding that Contra Costa County has also
used this contract vehicle to purchase certain P25 equipment with federal funds obtained
through a grant from the U. S. Department of Homeland Security.
In May 2006 Motorola submitted to Alameda County its report entitled"East Bay
' Regional Communications ,System—Two County Design Document"in compliance with
its scope of work. This document,which has been commonly referred to as a"proposal",
contains,a description of a preliminary design concept for a multi-zone, trunked radio
system operating in the 700/800 MHz frequency band. The document contains an
Executive Summary, a fairly detailed System Description, including drawings, tables, and
' maps showing predicted radio coverage, and then some materials customarily found in.
proposals. This proposal material included a Statement.of Work(to implement the
' system), which was used as the basis for the Pricing Summary, as well as a project
schedule,warranty and post-warranty service plans,product literature, Motorola standard
contract terms & conditions, etc.
Contra Costa County was riot a party to the original 2005 contract with Motorola, and did
' not participate in the procurement process through which Motorola was selected.
Nevertheless, inasmuch as'the County has been included in the East Bay Regional
Communications System (EBRCS) design,.the Board of Supervisors have requested an
' independent review of the EBRCS design document,with an emphasis on the technical
design-its strengths and flaws, and appropriateness for Contra Costa County; and an
' analysis of the proposed system cost. The Board also asked for recommendations
concerning the proposed upgrade or replacement of the communications systems in
Contra Costa County.
Section 2—Project Background
I� J Page 13 of 53
COMMUNICATIONS,INC.
' Contra Costa County,California
FINAL—EBRCS Design Evaluation Report April 19,2007
' Alameda County upgraded their communications from a system using conventional
architecture to a trunked, simulcast network operating in the 800 MHz band in the early
' 1990s. The equipment in Alameda County uses Motorola's proprietary SmartNet
technology. Although this system has served Alameda well over the last 15 years, the
' equipment and technology is being phased out by Motorola. It is natural,therefore, for
Alameda County to be planning for an upgrade or replacement for their SmartNet system.
' Contra Costa County,meanwhile, still uses conventional systems in the VHF high band
(151-162 MHz) for public safety communications. The consortium of cities led by
' Richmond have purchased an EDACS (Enhanced Digitally Accessed Communications
System), which is proprietary technology belonging to M/A-Com (a division of Tyco
Electronics). Even though the EDACS system operated by the Richmond consortium is
' in the same 800 MHz band with the SmartNet system operated by Alameda County,
radios from the two.systems have mutually incompatible protocols (they cannot
' communicate directly on one another's infrastructure). (It is interesting to note that the
City of Oakland and the Bay Area Rapid Transit [BART] have likewise installed 800
' MHz, trunked networks employing EDACS technology.)
The inability to communicate between dissimilar trunking protocols has been a problem
within the public safety community for much of the past 20 years. The break-down of
communications in New York City on September 11, 2001, while not a result of
incompatible trunking protocols,nevertheless was to a great extent the result of
incompatible radio systems. The recent emphasis within the public safety community on
interoperability has focused much of its attention on these proprietary algorithms.
Beginning in the mid-1990s, the Association of Public Safety Communications Officials
(APCO) appointed a committee to explore the possibility of establishing an open,
standards-based protocol for advanced communications systems. This was the genesis of
Project 25, commonly referred to now as P25. The technical details of the standard were
delegated from APCO to the Telecommunications Industry Association(TIA) /
' Electronic Industries Alliance(EIA) Committee 102, usually abbreviated as TLA/EIA-
102. The committee is composed of representatives from a wide variety of land mobile
' radio manufacturers, as well as public safety users and experts that do not work for
equipment manufacturers.
TIA/EIA-102 has developed an open;standards-based architecture for both conventional
and trunked radio systems The technology is designed entirely around digital
' modulation schemes that emphasize spectral efficiency. Phase 1 P25 standards call for
' Section 2—Project Background
I� Page 14 of 53
COMMUNICATIONS,INC.
' Contra Costa County,California
FINAL—EBRCS Design Evaluation Report April 19,2007
' channels with 12.5 kHz bandwidth( Y currentl vs. 25 kHz channels in use both in Alameda
and Contra Costa Counties).'
1
Phase 2 of the standards, now in active development by TLA,/EIA-102, calls for an
' "effective"channel bandwidth of 6.25 kHz, which will likely be achieved through the use
of two-slot TDMA (time division multiple access) where two simultaneous calls can be
carried on a single 12.5 kHz channel.
The evolutionary concept in P25 technology is that with a standards-based protocol,
' equipment from any manufacturer that complies with the standard will be compatible
with P25 infrastructure. Proprietary protocols will be eliminated. This revolution in the
industry will foster competition,and should ultimately benefit the public safety/first
' responder community with better products priced via market conditions. Conventional
P25 products were being marketed in the late 1990s, and first production units were being
' shipped by about 2000. Trunked equipment,which is more advanced and complex, was
a few years later. To the best of our knowledge, Motorola produced the first P25 trunked
system, installing it in Mesa, Arizona in 2000-01. That system became fully operational
' by 2002. Since that time, M/A-Com has completed its development cycle and has
installed P25 trunked networks.—the first becoming operational in 2003 or 2004. E. F.
' Johnson has also produced P25 infrastructure—primarily conventional, though they do
have a P25 repeater for trunked applications. Tait Electronics has recently entered the
market of P25 conventional,systems.
Unlike the existing equipment used in Alameda County, Richmond, Oakland and BART,
' the P25 systems fielded by Motorola will host M/A-Com subscriber equipment, and
M/A-Com infrastructure will host Motorola subscriber equipment. As mentioned above,
' E. F. Johnson also manufactures trunked P25 subscriber equipment. Other manufacturers
of P25 equipment include Thales, Kenwood and Tait Electronics (and possibly others).
EADS, a major manufacturer of telecommunications equipment in Europe, is a member
' of the TLA,/EIA-102.standards committee, and has indicated that it too is interested in
entering the U.S. market with a P25 product line. Any of the above P25 subscriber
' equipment will work on any P25 land mobile radio.infrastructure in the same frequency
band and operating mode that is produced by E. F.Johnson, Motorola, M/A-Com, Tait
Electronics, or any other P25 infrastructure vendor.
Current activity in the TIA/EIA-102 standards committee focuses on not only the TDMA
' modulation scheme for Phase 2,but also the standard for the inter-subsystem interface
(ISSI),which will be,used to interconnect networks. In fact, the TLA/EIA-102 committee
' Section 2—Project Background
►� Page 15 of 53
COMMUNICATIONS,INC.
' Contra Costa County,California
FINAL—EBRCS Design Evaluation Report April 19,2007
' issued the initial document on ISSI in mid-2006, and there is hope that this standard will
be completed by,the end of this year(2007).
Having this interface defined in the industry will allow networks manufactured by
' various vendors to be connected and to pass communications between network managers.
Thus, a Motorola system could communicate directly with a M/A-Com system. We note,
however, that components of one system will not directly operate within the other—a
' Motorola system requires Motorola base stations, for example. Today we have direct
over-the-air compatibility between radios and infrastructure manufactured by a variety of
vendors. When the ISSI is completed(later this year), there is the potential of linking
networks of various manufacturers into regional, statewide or even national scope.
No longer are agencies or jurisdictions forced to decide which manufacturer to choose in
the procurement of a public.safety radio system based on interoperability needs. The P25
' technology already in place and available from several manufacturers allows an informed
buyer to choose equipment on a function, quality and cost basis..
It is against this background of not only the local community but also the recent
significant advancements in the land mobile radio industry that we have evaluated the.
' "proposal" from Motorola. We acknowledge and value the considerable efforts expended
on the development of an EBRCS design for the.counties of Alameda and Contra Costa.
We agree with the current efforts to develop and procure a system, or perhaps a
combination of interconnected systems based on the P25 standard:architecture. Such a
' system (or network of systems)would,by its very nature, address your growing needs for
effective radio communications and for interoperability between County agencies, city
' agencies and neighboring jurisdictions in the East Bay area.
' Section 2—Project Background
Page 16 of 53
COMMUNICATIONS,INC.
' Contra Costa County,California
FINAL—EBRCS Design Evaluation Report April 19,2007
3.0 EVALUATION PROCESS
In order to gain a clear picture of the current project status,we began by reviewing
Contra Costa County historical documentation,including the 2002 Needs Assessment
and Master Plan (developed with the assistance of Federal Engineering). APPENDIX A
' has a complete list of the documentation provided by Contra Costa County and reviewed
by CTA Communications during this evaluation. Next,we reviewed the historical
' documentation regarding the Alameda County purchasing process. Most of our.effort in
the review focused on the EBRCS Design Document, submitted to Alameda County on
May 12, 2006.
We have examined the technical details of the EBRCS design proposed by Motorola and
' compared them to CTA standards, to practices generally accepted within the industry,
and to regulatory standards. We have also looked at the technical content of the report
with an eye towards possible alternatives to.be considered, and to gaps in the design. The
EBRCS design document contains material beyond the design concept that will impact its
viability as the basis of a contract—the Statement of Work(where.responsibilities are
assigned) and Acceptance Test Procedures are two such areas that will be discussed here.
To a large extent, we will confine our comments to those aspects of the technical design
' that affect Contra Costa County.
The cost of the system is considered as a separate topic in this report. Our analysis will
' focus on two primary aspects of the cost proposal contained in the EBRCS document. As
in the technical review, we will look for gaps in the cost—areas that are either
' incomplete, or areas that haven't been considered at all. We will also look at the prices
quoted and render our opinion on whether these prices are in line with pricing that CTA
has observed for similar technology on projects with similar scope.
Section 3—Evaluation Process
Page 17 of 53
COMMUNICATIONS,INC.
II
Contra Costa County,California
FINAL—EBRCS Design Evaluation Report April 19,2007
' 4.0 TECHNICAL REVIEW& COMMENTS
' 4.1 System Overview
The preliminary design described in Motorola's document dated May.12, 2006 was
developed in response to a task requiring"a two-county design option"in their contract
with Alameda County,which was executed in October 2005. The request for proposal
' (RFP) that Alameda County issued prior to awarding the contract to Motorola lacked
specific guidelines or requirements for the design, and there did not appear to be a formal
needs assessment made prior to issuing the RFP. We are thus unable to evaluate the two-
county design in the.context of its adequacy in.meeting user-developed requirements or
attributes.
In the design document, Motorola has recommended a SmartZone 800 MHz P25
' architecture to provide radio coverage to both Contra Costa County and Alameda
County. This is a fully digital, P25 compliant trunked two-way radio system that would
serve most (if not all)public safety agencies in both counties and in all the incorporated
' cities. The design concept for the EBRCS(East Bay Regional Communications System)
is comprised of the following major system elements:
•, Five (5) Simulcast Cell's
' • One (1).Stand-alone Trunked Repeater Site
• Thirty-one (3 1) Dispatch Locations (centers)
• Twenty-nine(29) Fixed RF sites
Three of the simulcast cells are to be within Contra Costa County(abbreviated CCC)—
' CCC West, CCC Central and CCC East. The other two simulcast cells and the stand
'alone trunked repeater site are in Alameda County. The three cells in Contra Costa
County have the following characteristics:
1
• CCC West simulcast cell consists of 4 radio sites (with transmitters &receivers)
located at Nichol Knob (the"prime" site), 10900 San Pablo, Pearl Reservoir and
Turquoise. Ten(110) channels, or frequency pairs, in the 800 MHz band will be
located at each site. The set of frequencies at each site is identical—hence the
' term"simulcast". The "prime" site (Motorola terminology) is the location where
simulcast timing (for extremely precise control of the transmit signals) is
' performed. .The"prime" site also houses the comparators,Motorola term for the
' Section 4—Technical Review &Comments
Page 18 of 53
' COMMUNICATIONS,INC.
' Contra Costa County,California '
FINAL—EBRCS Design Evaluation Report April 19,2007
1
equipment used to select the optimum received signal from the sites in a
p �
simulcast cell.
• CCC Central simulcast cell contains five (5)radio sites located at 40 Glacier
Drive (the "prime" site), Bald Peak,'Rocky Ridge, Sidney Drive and Cummings
Peak. Ten(1 0) channels will be located at each site. This set of frequencies is
identical at all 5 sites in the CCC Central cell. The CCC Central set of
' frequencies are different from the CCC West cell and from the CCC East cell.
' • CCC East simulcast cell is also comprised of five(5)radio sites located at Kregor
(the"prime"site), Highland Peak, Shadybrook, Marsh Creek Detention Facility
and Old Fire Station 53. Seven(7) channels will be used at each of these sites.
' These 7 channels are unique frequencies, used only in this simulcast cell.
' In this design concept, there area total.of 1.4 radio sites to.be located in Contra Costa
County. These sites will utilize a total of 27 unique channels(frequency pairs) in the 800
' MHz band. Additional tower sites, simulcast cells and channels are required for .
Alameda County.
' 4.2 Technology Base.
' We fully endorse the selection of P25 as the basis of the design. Progress in the
development of this standards-based, open architecture by TIA/EIA-102 has been
substantial in the past five years. Furthermore, the entire land mobile radio industry in
' North America has apparently embraced P25,with nearly all manufacturers now
shipping products that are compliant with the standard. There is no other standard for
' digital or trunked two-way radio in North America. Motorola has announced that it is
discontinuing its proprietary line of products (like the SmartNet equipment owned by
Alameda.County), and will only be manufacturing P25 products for future digital and
' trunked applications. M/A-Com, the other major manufacturer of trunked systems in
North America, is also shifting its emphasis from proprietary systems to P25 compliant
' products.
The federal government has decided to likewise embrace P25 —this is now the standard
' for all U.S. government agencies that use land mobile radio. The Integrated Wireless
Network(IWN),' currently in the procure& implement phase,will be a nationwide
' network integrating all federal law enforcement agencies on a common P25
infrastructure, although in a different frequency band from the EBRCS. Many states
' Section 4—Technical Review&Comments
Page 19 of 53
COMMUNICATIONS,INC.
' Contra Costa County,California
FINAL—EBRCS Design Evaluation Report April 19,2007
across the country are also constructing P25 networks to integrate all agencies in a
common architecture.
The U.S.Department of Homeland Security and the U.S. Department of Justice have
' strongly encouraged the use:of P25 in grant applications involving radio communications
funding'at the state and local level.
' Thus, the choice of P25 as the base technology is correct. In the following sections we,
will examine some of the finer details in the EBRCS design.
4.3 Proposed Topology
The three-cell approach in Contra Costa County appears to be based on the County
Sheriff's current geographical operations, with patrol-related dispatching in their
' designated west, central, and east zones. These existing operational zones were likely
based on the radio coverage provided by single-site conventional repeaters in the VHF
' frequency band. However, the Sheriff's Department will not be the only agency in
Contra Costa County to use the EBRCS, and it's not clear that dividing the County into
three segments will present'the optimum operating scenario for all of these other
' agencies.
' In our experience,we have found that.a single simulcast cell covering the entire .
geographical area of a county is preferable to a segmented approach. A single simulcast
cell for Contra Costa County would simplify operations for most County agencies, and
' would be'far more efficient in.the use of channels. Using the standard CTA traffic model
with Contra Costa figures, we estimate that instead of 27 channels, a single simulcast cell
' covering the County could achieve the same grade of service (GOS)with only 17
channels. More importantly, the single cell approach would be much easier for all of the
participating agencies to create efficient operating procedures. (There are some
' negatives to this approach a single pointwhere simulcast control is made could make
this design more vulnerable to failure or attack. There will also be more repeaters
' installed at each site. We also understand that until 700 MHz frequencies are released in
northern California, it would be very difficult to employ a single simulcast cell design for
EBRCS in Contra Costa County with only the currently available 800 MHz channels.)
Section 4—Technical Review&Comments
Page 20 of 53
' COMMUNICATIONS,INC.
' Contra Costa County,California
FINAL—EBRCS Design Evaluation Report April 19,2007
The following is a list of potential problems or issues that the proposed EBRCS
configuration will present to the participating user agencies:
• County agencies have different operational boundaries, and a system designed
around any one agency will create inefficiencies for the other agencies.
• Calls straddling two or more simulcast cells will be the norm for all agencies with
' operational boundaries that differ.from the simulcast cell boundaries.
• The segmented configuration in the EBRCS design,will demand that the talk-
group structure and operational procedures implemented by each agency be
strictly controlled and tailored to restrict calls between cells. Countywide
' communications will have to be discouraged because such calls will consume 3 of
the 27 channels (vs. l channel in a single cell design).
• Risk of dropping calls, delays in placing calls, or not being joined in a call when
' a user is roaming from one area to an adjacent cell.
An example of this last point would be when a call is placed in the West cell to a user in
' the East(or a talk-group with users in both cells). If all of the channels in the East cell
are busy, you will have to decide whether to a)wait for a free channel in the East before
' initiating the call, orb)proceed with the call even though the users operating in the East
will either miss the call or enter the call late. Neither option is desirable.
' The single cell approach would avoid these problems. The number of sites proposed for
Contra Costa County(14) is not outside the bounds of a reasonable configuration for a
' single simulcast cell. This design approach would also afford a greater degree of
coverage overlap between sites—improving the overall reliability of the network. It
should be noted that we do not consider a singlecell for the two-county design, i.e. one
cell covering both Alameda County and Contra Costa County, to be feasible. However,
in our experience, the inter-county radio traffic will be much lighter than intra-county
' traffic. In the documentation we reviewed, it was noted that the County's workload was
not evenly balanced as currently configured, suggesting the traffic study and coverage
analysis needs to address this imbalance as part of the final design configuration.
Section 4—Technical Review&Comments
Page 21 of 53
' COMMUNICATIONS,INC.
' Contra Costa County,California
FINAL—EBRCS Design Evaluation Report April 19,2007
4.4 System Capacity
The capacity of a radio system to handle the volume of traffic is determined by the
number of talk-paths, the number of talk-groups, the number of active users, the
' characteristics of the calls (how frequently are calls made,what is the average length of
the call, etc.).
Also affecting the traffic are the nature of special calls made on the system—individual-
to-individual (private) calls, status updates,data calls, telephone calls, etc. In a multi-
zone system, such as the one described by the EBRCS design document, the amount of
' roaming between zones and the percentage,of calls that involve more than one zone will
also impact the capacity of the network. The relevant discussion in the design document
is section 2.8:
When we first reviewed this section, our instinct was that.the projected system usage
' statistics were too low,resulting in a design that would be inadequate to.handle the
expected traffic load. Then we read that Motorola used actual traffic statistics from the
' Alameda County system manager in their analysis. The CTA traffic model is different
from the Motorola model (we use Erlang C,whereas we believe that Motorola uses a
Monte Carlo model), and we admittedly use some conservative parameters (with
' justification for public safety clients). However, to provide some perspective, we
contacted a long-standing client of ours who has been using a similar Motorola
' SmartZone system with approximately 7,000 subscriber units in the inventory. The vast
majority of the calls on this system are in the analog mode,much like the traffic on the
Alameda County SmartNet system. When we examined the traffic data recorded in the
' period June 2006 through January 2007, it was surprising to find that the average length
of a call during the "busy"hour was 5.3 seconds, and that the frequency of calls was 0.7
' calls per hour per unit. These statistics are very close to the statistics Motorola used.of 5
seconds and 0.8 calls/hour per unit.
' In the CTA model,we recommend that the capacity of a public safety system be .
governed by a maximum acceptable delay of 1 second with a Grade of Service (GOS) for
' delayed calls of 1% or less,during the"busy"hour. (The busy hour is the single hour
during a month that experiences the maximum radio traffic. Crises or emergencies, like
9/11 or Hurricane Katrina, are excluded. Thus the busy.hour is the normally expected
' peak traffic. Emergencies are handled by adjusting priority, limiting or eliminating
certain categories of calls, etc.) Assuming the Motorola statistics for roaming and inter-
system calls (shown in Figure 18, EBRCS User Load Distribution), and a 20% growth
factor(per the design document),we calculated the number of channels required for each
' J Section 4—Technical Review &Comments
Page 22 of 53
' COMMUNICATIONS,INC.
' Contra Costa County,California
FINAL—EBRCS Design Evaluation Report April 19,2007
' of the three simulcast cells in Contra Costa County using the CTA traffic model. Our
results matched those given in the EBRCS document for the West and Central zones in
' Contra Costa County(10 channels each), but we estimated 8 channels for the East zone
(vs. 7 per the design document).
Despite this close agreement, we do have,a critique of some assumptions used in the
EBRCS design document: .
t
• 2.5 seconds was used as a figure of merit for the time a call would spend in the
' busy queue. In our experience, the maximum acceptable delay from push-to-talk
(PTT)to system access for public safety use is usually set to 1 second.
• In applying the statistics for'call characteristics observed in the Alameda County
SmartNet system to the EBRCS design,we need to recall the fact that we are
' moving from an analog message to digital operation. In our experience, we have
seen that the analog-to-digital conversion(at the originating radio)to the digital-
to-analog inversion (at the listening radio) consumes about 0.5 seconds. Unless
this additional call latency was included, we believe the average length of a
typical call on the EBRCS network will be 5.5 seconds and not 5 seconds.
' Although this,might The viewed as insignificant, it will actually add about 10%to
the loading experienced on the network.
1o
For future growth, 20%was applied to the quantity of radios. CTA generally uses
a 15 year lifespan for a new system. Assuming that the number of radios in the
' County inventory will be proportional to the population, 20% only represents
about a 10-year life for a system in a moderately growing community(1.5 to 2%
' per year). If Contra Costa County is a slow-growth area, then 20%may be
appropriate.
' • The assumptions for.roaming and inter-zone(wide area) calls given in Figure 18
seem off to us. From that figure, CCC West cell will receive a higher quantity of
' calls from Alameda County than from the other two cells in Contra Costa County
(319 Alameda calls/hour vs. 107 Contra Costa calls/hour). No calls from Contra
Costa East will be carried in CCC West. We would expect a significantly higher
ratio of calls within each county. The number of calls between counties would be
comparatively small.
' Section 4—Technical Review&Comments
Page 23 of 53
' COMMUNICATIONS,INC.
i .
' Contra Costa County,California
FINAL-EBRCS Design Evaluation Report April 19,2007
• From this same figure, it appears that the number of calls within a cell was
reduced by the percentage of calls that are going outside of the cell. The reality is
' that calls placed within a cell will be carried by that cell as well as by other cells
(zones) that have users logged into the participating sites. Instead of 90% of the
traffic on CCC West remaining on CCC West(as shown in the diagram), we
believe that the model should consider 100%of the traffic remaining on the home
cell.
The net result is that we believe that the EBRCS design is undersized for the intended
' traffic. This tight environment will force the participating agencies to restrict the use of
special features, and maybe even deny use of the system to agencies that would otherwise
have been invited to join. This design may also limit the useful life of the system in that
' you will reach the ceiling for capacity at an early date. The solution at that point will be
a significant upgrade or system replacement.
One solution to this issue would be to refine the traffic loading model with better
assumptions and target the design to 15 years (or more) in the future. This would
probably result in additional channels.in one or more of the simulcast cells. Another
solution would be to change the configuration from 3 simulcast cells to 2 cells or even
' one cell, as discussed above. Because a single cell approach is more efficient in its
traffic handling capability,we.estimate that the total number of licensed channels would
' actually be reduced significantly over the quantity required in the current EBRCS design.
Even using more conservative estimates for 15 years growth(33% increase in inventory)
and including a 5%inter-system traffic requirement with Alameda County, our model
shows that capacity can be met with only 19 channels (vs. the 27 in the EBRCS design)
in a single simulcast cell architecture for Contra Costa County.
' 4.5 Frequency Plan
q Y
The traffic loading analysis,yields the number of voice talk-paths required to meet the
system goals (e.g., 1%Delayed Call GOS with a maximum acceptable call delay of 1
' second during the"busy"hour). For a radio system designed on the basis of P25 Phase
1, which uses frequency division multiple access (FDMA) with 12.5 kHz channel
bandwidth, the number of talk-paths equals the number of channels required(plus one
' control channel).
' Section 4—Technical Review&Comments
►� Page 24 of 53
COMMUNICATIONS,INC.
I it
i
' Contra Costa County,California
FINAL—EBRCS Design Evaluation Report April 19,2007
We have examined the channel plan shown in section 2.8, and have the following
.comments:
• Seven of the 27 channels required by the EBRCS design for Contra Costa County
' are currently licensed to the City of Richmond. Obviously, the plan assumes that
Richmond will switch all operations from their current system to the EBRCS.
(Their existing equipment will be scrapped under this plan.)
• The cutover from the existing Richmond system to the new EBRCS will be a
' delicate operation=turning the existing system"off'while the new system is
installed is certainly not feasible. The design document does address any of these
issues, and a cutover or transition plan was not included in the materials we have
' seen. .
• We have also examined the Repacking Information contained in Appendix D of
the Design Document. This information basically reflects the data contained in
the National Plan Region 6 (Northern California) frequency allocation. In the
current plan, Contra Costa County is allocated 24 channels in the public safety
band(NPSPAC—National Public Safety Planning&Advisory Committee),
' which currently spans the 821-824/ 866-869 MHz range. Four(4) of these
channels are reserved for special functions—prison(3) and data(1), leaving 20
' channels for use in a trunked radio system. The information in the Appendix D of
the design document matches the data shown in Attachment G(Table of
Channels) of the Region 6 Plan, as revised November 2005. The City.of
Richmond is also listed with 8 channels. In the previous Region 6 Plan, dated
April 2001,we note that Contra Costa-County was allotted 32 channels, 8 more
' than in the latest"repacked"plan. (Richmond was shown in the 2001 plan with
its 8 licensed channels.)
' • Nowhere in the EBRCS Design Document did we find discussion concerning the
licensing and use of the International mutual aid channels.(one I-Call+4 I-Tac
' channels), CLEMARS (California Law Enforcement Mutual Aid Radio System)
or FIREMARS'(California Fire-EMS Mutual Aid). Unless another agency(State
of California) owns infrastructure that provides radio coverage to all of Contra
' Costa County,we feel that this is an oversight that should be corrected in the
implementation of the EBRCS. Having these channels available for mutual aid
' situations will be beneficial to the County, and well worth the incremental
investment.
' Section.4—Technical Review &Comments
Page 25 of 53
COMMUNICATIONS,INC.
' Contra Costa County,California
FINAL—EBRCS Design Evaluation Report April 19,2007
1 4.6 Radio Coverage
' The coverage maps for the EBRCS are shown in section 4 of the Design Document.
Unfortunately, these maps are not particularly useful in determining the predicted
performance of the system design. This is partly due to the configuration of the proposed
network in Alameda and Contra Costa counties. Remember that the EBRCS consists of
5.simulcast cells and one trunked site (Crane Ridge in Alameda County).
1
These cells and the single, isolated site will operate as independent zones. We presume
that many talk-groups, and perhaps'some users,will be restricted in their operation to
their"home" site. For example, Richmond Police "Main Dispatch" (a fictional talk-
group used here to illustrate the issue) may be restricted to CCC West. So if a RPD
' officer is monitoring this talk-group, he/she will have to remain within the coverage area
provided by the sites in CCC West simulcast cell. The maps in Section 4 do not show the
coverage provided by CCC',West. To be more correct, the maps in Section 4 do not show
the limits of coverage for the CCC West cell. Instead, the maps show a composite
coverage,which is not what most users will experience—especially as they reach the
' fringe of their coverage area.
' If Contra Costa County had a single simulcast cell overlaying the entire County, instead
of three separate cells, the composite map would be appropriate and representative of the
coverage that users should expect. With a three-cell approach, a user can be in area
' where he might expect coverage by looking at the map,but the stronger signal is actually
from Alameda County or a.different simulcast cell in Contra Costa County. In this case,
' since the user is logged onto the cell with weaker signal, he may in fact not receive calls.
' We note that the mobile coverage maps are displayed with separate talk-out and talk-
back predictions. This is appropriate since there is likely to be a difference due to the
higher system gain in the mobile-to-base direction. We assume that the system will be
balanced for portable use. This is achieved through the use of tower-top pre-amplifiers
on.all receive antennas at the radio sites. By properly adjusting the pre-amplifiers and
' the gain on the multi-coupler, the system gain on both the talk-in(mobile-to-base) and
the talk-out (base'-to-mobile'),paths should be approximately equal. This would mean
there would be no difference between talk-out and talk-in. Showing both maps for
' portable-on-the-street and portable in-building in section 4 of the EBRCS design
document is redundant. Instead,we would have preferred to see separate maps for each
' simulcast cell, and separate';maps for portable usage in light, medium and heavy
buildings.
' Section 4—Technical Review &Comments
U Page 26 of 53
COMMUNICATIONS,INC.
Contra Costa County,California
FINAL—EBRCS Design Evaluation Report April 19,2007
' While the system was designed for in-building coverage, the maps provided do not show
sufficient detail to establish',whether building construction types were taken into
' consideration for the various levels of construction in the County. What was the building
loss factor(i.e., signal attenuation)used in each situation? The maps appear to show a
' composite (i.e., best server)prediction for light.buildings.
Some geometrical polygons are shown on those maps where presumably medium and
heavy building coverage is needed. How were these polygons developed? Was this
derived from Contra Costa County user input; if so, from which agencies? We note that
' only 10 agencies in Contra Costa County were contacted in the needs assessment. In any
case, we would normally expect to see predictions of the coverage within each of these
' building categories as a separate map (for each simulcast cell). Thus, there would be a
minimum of 18'coverage maps needed to characterize the coverage of EBRCS inside
Contra Costa County=6 for mobile coverage and 3 each for portable-on-the-street, light
' building, medium building and heavy building.
In our opinion, the coverage acceptance test plan contained in the EBRCS document is
designed to be easily passed,but will not provide a comprehensive analysis of the
installed system performance. We note.that coverage testing will be performed only
' within the colored areas shown on the maps. See page 11 of Appendix B, "Acceptance
Test Procedures", where the first sentence in the third paragraph states: "No acceptance
' testing will be performed in locations on Motorola's coverage map(s)predicted to be
below the required reliability." What this means is that acceptance testing will only be
performed in areas where the contractor has determined that there is at least a 95%
probability of passing,the test. The fact that there are white areas on the coverage maps
does not remove them from the County's jurisdiction. We recommend that coverage
' acceptance testing be performed throughout the County's "service area", where the
servicearea is defined by the jurisdictional boundaries of the County and not some
arbitrary polygon from a vendor. No tiles within the County should be excluded from
' acceptance testing, as is the intention of the proposed EBRCS test plan.
' Secondly, the test plan described in Appendix B of the EBRCS design document states
'that the testing will be performed on the composite signal for a portable-on-the-street(see
page 8, second sentence under the heading"Equipment Configurations"). As was noted
' earlier,by allowing the test equipment to pick the strongest signal from any of the
surrounding cell's, the results of the test will not necessarily reflect a user's experience
' when operating with a'simulcast cell. Instead of this procedure, we recommend that an
independent test be performed on each simulcast cell within Contra Costa County.
' Section 4—Technical Review&Comments
I� Page 27 of 53
COMMUNICATIONS,INC.
I II
Contra Costa County,California
FINAL—EBRCS Design Evaluation Report April 19,2007
By restricting the test to the(simulcast cell, the results will give a better indication of
expected performance.
As noted in the preceding paragraph, the proposed test will only test performance for a
' portable on the street. This test will not�provide needed information on other
configurations,particularly inside buildings. We recommend that.independent tests also
be performed in,areas requiring in-building coverage: separate tests in light building,
' medium building and heavy building areas, If there are portions of the County that only
require mobile coverage, a test configured to test that area should also be conducted. .We
' typically find that a single coordinated test throughout the area can accommodate.all
design configurations. We are therefore not suggesting that tiles be tested multiple times
for the various configurations. For example, if a particular tile is in a medium building
area, it only needs to be tested for operation in a medium building. Testing for light
building or portable-on-the-street configurations is not necessary. In-building tests are
conducted in a moving vehicle.(as described in the test plan) with.appropriate attenuation
added to the test receiver antenna line to simulate the loss factor for the various building
' categories. We recommend 8 dB attenuation for light buildings, 12 dB for medium
buildings and 20 dB for heavy buildings. We do not recommend testing in actual
buildings as part of the vendor's guarantee, since the vendor cannot control the actual
' loss'of a specific building and the predictive capabilities of propagation models are
targeted at statistical results. Such a test .will unnecessarily add risk to the vendor's
' guarantee, which in turn will add cost to the County. This is an area where it makes
financial sense for.the County to assume some risk.
' Returning to the coverage test plan contained in Appendix,B of the design document,the
eighth bullet on page 12 states'"Any tile that fails the objective Voyagers^'BER test
' described above will be re-tested using as ubjective Delivered Audio Quality(DAQ)
test. Any tile that fails the objective test, but passes the subjective re-test.will be
declared passed." The next bullet goes on to state "Motorola reserves the right to
review any test tiles,thatfail both the objective BER and subjective DA tests, versus
the signal strength samples taken for the same test tiles." In our opinion, there are
' several problems with this approach: (1) The subjective DAQ test referenced is
sometimes termed the "shout and holler"test, which typically involves the vendor's
personnel as the test team. The test plan included in the EBRCS is mute on whether
' representatives from the County would be invited to participate. (2)Re-testing failed
tiles provides a much better chance of passing the test, although it does.not provide a
' commensurately better indication of whether the system will provide appropriate
' Section 4—Technical Review&Comments
p Page 28 of 53
COMMUNICATIONS,INC:
Contra Costa County,California
FINAL—EBRCS Design Evaluation Report April 19,2007
operation. Even if the test fails the BER and DAQ.test, Motorola stills holds out the
p
possibility that the tile.could pass if the signal strength is sufficient.
Note that these tests are only checking the"talk-out"path, and there are no tests
' conducted on the "talk-in"capability.' (3) Testing only in the"shaded area" on the map
does not provide proof that the system will provide coverage in 95% of the County's
operational area, only that it will provide coverage in 95% of the places that the vendor
already is confident that it will cover; Keeping in mind the fact that only those tiles that
the vendor has predicted will have a minimum probability of 95%will be tested as part of
' the System Acceptance process, that each tile has at least two kinds of tests that can
produce a"passing" score, and that the vendor will be.administering the test with its own
personnel, it is likely that the test will be passed even if there are coverage problems
' within the service area.
Ideally, the County should have an independent coverage test conducted. In addition to
measuring BER as a test criteria,we have used on various occasions received signal
strength and recorded voice calls. In the latter example, one can measure DAQ by
' comparing the recorded message to the original message using an objective mathematical
algorithm. The recommended test(by whatever method or methods) should include data
' collected for both the talk-out and talk-in directions.
At the least, the County should have its own personnel or representative to participate
and oversee the coverage test conducted by the vendor. The vendor should guarantee
coverage in both the talk-out and talk-in directions, and the test plan should be designed
' to verify the two-way operation of the radio system. An analysis of the system gain in
both talk-in and talk-out directions for both mobiles and portables will aid in determining
the reciprocity of the measurements.
Another routine that we often use is an "access"test, where the PTT is pressed once and
' only once in each tile visited during the coverage test. If the radio gains access with.a
single PTT (including automatic retries), then the grid passes the test in that tile. The
vendor is required to supply a guarantee for this access test over the owner's service area
with their proposal. This test requires two-way communications because the control
channel executes a hand-shake with the individual radio initiating a call.
1
We also recommend that the County conduct tests and obtain data that can confirm the
proper performance of the 'simulcast function.. The timing of signals arriving in
"overlap" areas (where the signal strength from two or more towers in the same simulcast
' Section 4-Technical Review &Comments
Page 29 of 53
COMMUNICATIONS,INC.
I.
' Contra Costa County,California
FINAL—EBRCS Design Evaluation Report April 19,2007
cell)must be carefully managed, else an effect called time delay interference will
result.
Even though there is a strong signal in these.overlap areas, if the simulcast controller is
not properly adjusted calls will not be completed. Nowhere in the Acceptance Test
Procedures did,we find any test designed to check for this important'factor. It is an area
that the vendor should demonstrate proper operation before the County approves final
system acceptance.
' 4.7 Reliability And Failure Modes
The balance of the material in Appendix B,(Acceptance Test Procedures) is an outline of
' the tests that would be included in the factory staging and in the field tests at acceptance
time. This list'of tests is typical of our experience with Motorola. Note that this is
' simply a list of test scripts that would be used. The details of the test procedures are
usually developed after the detailed design review (well after contract signing).
' Additional tests might be indicated following a review by County technical staff.
One area that should draw attention is the group of tests shown on pages 5 and 6 that deal
with reliability, redundancy, alarms, system monitoring and diagnostics. In our
professional opinion, any radio system of the size and scope of EBRCS can be, and
should be designed such that there are no single points of failure. The design of the
system should make this a central theme. We would expect that it will be reviewed
during and following ihe'detailed design review by competent technical personnel.
' Testing of the system should fully exercise all of the failure modes included in the
vendor's design to assure proper function. There are options in any vendor's,design that
' can improve the,overall reliability of the system.
We recommend that a thorough vulnerability analysis be performed on the design prior to
' granting approval for construction: This would include normally occurring factors like
climate and expected extremes in weather, as well as natural disasters (earthquakes),
' man-made disasters, and.intentional attacks or incursions by criminals or terrorists. Itis
not clear from the EBRCS design document that such a review has yet been performed.
The reader should understand that there is a difference between a design that is "fault
tolerant"and a design that is"redundant". Different vendors have different approaches
' in their design, and this is an important factor in evaluating alternatives.
' Section 4—Technical Review &Comments
p Page 30 of 53
1 COMMUNICATIONS,INC.
' Contra Costa County,California
FINAL—EBRCS Design Evaluation Report April 19,2007
Even after making a choice on the vendor and their technology, there are choices ces to be
made in the details of the.design.
This topic is closely related to the vulnerability analysis mentioned in the previous
' paragraph, and in fact fault tolerance and redundancy are two methods of mitigating the
identified risks. We recommend that the project team carefully consider these choices in
making decisions on the ultimate design.
1
Section 4—Technical Review &Comments
Page 31 of 53
COMMUNICATIONS,INC.
Contra Costa County,California
FINAL—EBRCS Design Evaluation Report April 19,2007
i5.0 COST ANALYSIS
5.1 Opinion Of Pricing Summary
In section 9 of the EBRCS Design Document, Motorola presented a"Pricing Summary"
' for the voice infrastructure and microwave;subsystem. The total price shown for the
"system"on page 3 (before''sales tax was added and work already contracted to Alameda
' County subtracted)was $60, 151,063. Also included in section 9 was a"Radio
Equipment Price Book"listing details on a'',wide variety of Motorola radio products,
optional features and accessories. Some"standard"package prices were given, as well as
the individual prices a la carte style. .
' CTA Communications has worked with clients on land mobile radio system projects
similar to the EBRCS all Veer the United States over the past 22 years. We have
' accumulated a substantial database of prices for systems, equipment and services
procured and contracted in a variety of situations—from highly competitive to sole
source selection, and from"turn key"to individual modules. This database includes
' prices from most of the vendors who manufacture communications related equipment in
North America. We use this database to assist our clients in developing budgets for
projects similar to EBRCS, and in anticipating the probable cost of the system prior to
embarking on the development of a Request for Proposal (RFP). We have used our
model'to independently develop our opinion of probable cost for the EBRCS as described
in the design document, using P25.technology and recent data(in the past 1-2 years).
In order to make the prices from the EBRCS document comparable to the.costs
developed with the CTA cost model, we have made the following adjustments to the
pricing material from Motorola. Since sales tax, and the items subject to that tax, varies
' from state to state, we have not included the sales tax shown in the EBRCS document,
nor is sales tax part of the cost estimated by.the CTA model. It is our understanding that
the microwave equipment fisted on page 1 of section 9 has been(or will be) the subject
of a separate procurement. (Therefore,we have subtracted$5,352,833 for the three lines
titled"ICTAP Microwave System", "Alameda County Microwave Spurs" and"Contra
' Costa County Microwave Spurs" from thesystem price. It could be argued that some of
the cost for Program Management, Field Engineering and System Installation should be
' reduced,but we do not have sufficient information to base any deductions in those areas.
Likewise,we have not attempted to estimate the'cost for Contra Costa County's
equipment since there are many areas of this design that are integrated-e.g., the P25
Master Site,Fault Management System, Spare&Test Equipment and all of the services.
' Section 5—Cost Analysis
Page 32 of 53
COMMUNICATIONS,INC.
i II
' Contra Costa County,California
FINAL-EBRCS Design Evaluation Report. . April 19,2007
In Table 5-1 below, we show at the summary level a comparison of the CTA cost model
estimate and the pricing given in section 9.1 in the EBRCS document. The totals shown
' 'for the EBRCS System are the "sub-total" shown on page 3 less $5,352,833 for the
microwave equipment(as described above). In our opinion, these figures are now
directly comparable to those produced by the CTA model.
TABLE 5-1 COST COMPARISON
SM
CTA COST BUDGETING
EBRCS
Negotiated
t List '
Radio
t Infrastructure
(Install and $48,446,400 .$41,381,400 06,844,700 $40,062,606
Staging)
' Vendor
Services $8,634,000 $7,338,900 $6,475;500 $14,735,624
Total $57,080,400 $48,720,300 $43,320,200 $54,798,230
The CTA model includes the cost of installation and factory staging with the equipment
cost, so we have combined those figures from the EBRCS price pages with the
' equipment price. Vendor Services include all of the items under"Integration Services"
in section 9.1 of the EBRCS document, except for installation and staging—i.e., Program
Management, Field Engineering, System Integration,Project Administration,
' Documentation and Training. "List Cost"is the CTA estimate of the vendor's
undiscounted catalog price I ,(Remember that the CTA estimate is based on industry
' prices and not confined to Motorola prices.) The "Negotiated Estimate"is based on our
experience with clients who dealt with a single vendor—either via a"sole source"
determination prior to issuance of an RFP,'or where a competitive RFP was issued but.
' only a single vendor responded with a proposal. The "Competitive Estimate" is based on
our experience with clients who conducted a competitive procurement, were proactive in
' assuring impartiality in the source selection criteria, and received two or more proposals.
In our opinion,the EBRCS pricing as it stands is similar to a"negotiated"procurement
' prior to the start of negotiations.
' J Section 5—Cost Analysis
Page 33 of 53
COMMUNICATIONS,INC..
i
' Contra Costa County,California
FINAL—EBRCS Design Evaluation Report, April 19,2007
With respect to the equipment prices shown on page 1 section 9.1 (except for microwave
equipment), CTA finds these to be reasonable and within the normal range for the
' industry.
' With respect to the price for,Installation Services ($8,237,760), we find these to be high.
Normally, installation costs''average about 15% of the equipment cost. In this case, the
vendor.has quoted a price that is 23%''of the equipment cost.
With respect to the price of all other Vendor Services ($14,735,624), we find these to be
' high. Normally, vendor services average about 18% of the infrastructure cost. In this
case,the vendor has quoted'a total.price that is 37% of the equipment cost.
Including the "soft"prices from services, we find the total price of$54,798,230 in the
EBRCS document to be high. We note that this price is about 12.5%higher than would
' be normally expected in a sole source environment, and about 26.5%higher than might
be obtained in a truly competitive procurement.
In our experience, we have often seen the vendor offer a"system discount"rather than
change individual prices within their,system proposal. No such discount was offered in
the EBRCS price proposal (section 9).
We recommend that Motorola justify their prices for installation and vendor services,
demonstrating that they are consistent with other competitively procured systems.
Furthermore, we recommend that a question on system discount be posed.
5.2 Gap Analysis
Before embarking on a program of this magnitude, it would seem prudent to understand
the total cost of the project,'including all of the likely acquisition costs, as well as the cost
' of operating and maintaining the system,including periodic upgrades and replacement of
equipment as it wears out. To this point, it,should be clear that the"total system"cost
' provided on page 3 of section 9.1 in the EBRCS document does not provide Alameda
County and Contra Costa County a complete cost of acquisition.
' Returning to the sub-total for the total system cost on page 3,we note that this value
($60,151,063) includes the cost of the microwave connectivity system at $5,352,833.
' J Section 5—Cost Analysis
Page 34 of 53
' COMMUNICATIONS,INC.
I
' Contra Costa County,California `
FINAL—EBRCS Design Evaluation Report April 19,2007
On the surface, this figure appears reasonable for budget planning purposes. We note,
however, that in procurements of this type where we have been involved, total costs
' usually include the following:
Included in EBRCS?
Fixed Radio equipment infrastructure Yes
Subscriber Equipment No
Installation Services Yes
Vendor Services Yes
' Maintenance Contract Yes
Connectivity Network Yes
Physical Facilities No
' Mobile Data No
Contingency No
The EBRCS pricing summary does not include costs for improvements or construction of
required physical facilities. These involve the.towers,buildings, generators, grounding
systems, access roads,parking areas, fencing, and a in of other items that will be
needed to house and operate the.EBRCS fixed equipment. Even if existing sites are used,
' our experience has shown that facilities are rarely adequate in every way to accommodate
the new equipment. Upgrades can sometimes approach the cost of new facilities,
' depending on the age and condition of the existing facilities. And if building permits are
required, the facility automatically becomes subject to the newest code. This could mean
that an existing tower may not meet code when new antennas and lines are added to the
structure.
' A careful read of the Statement of Work(Section 5'of the EBRCS document) will reveal
that the vendor has placed responsibility on the owners for nearly everything but the
fixed radio equipment, and this includes all of the physical facilities.. The cost could be
' as small as $5 or$6 million;but could easily rea&$10, $20 million or more. If either of
the counties or any of the cities are planning major renovation of emergency
communications centers,where radio dispatch consoles will be'installed, the cost could
climb dramatically. In any case,physical facilities will be a very significant cost item,
and a serious risk item.
The"total system cost quoted in section 9.1 does not include a single radio for either,
' county. Using the package.prices for subscriber equipment(mobiles and portables) and
assuming a distribution of 5%high tier, 10%mid tier, 70%basic tier and 15% agency
' Section 5—Cost Analysis
Page 35 of 53
COMMUNICATIONS,INC.
� II
' Contra Costa County,California
FINAL—EBRCS Design Evaluation Report April 19,2007
tier, we have estimated a total cost of$36,443,000 to replace the current(2006) inventory
of equipment. This amount(does not include encryption for any law enforcement
' officers. It does not include'intrinsically safe options for fire fighters. It does not include
spare batteries, spare antennas, spare radios, gang chargers, or other accessories. The
inventory number included in the EBRCS document (top of page 64 in section 2) did not
identify desktop control (base) stations. This cost figure does not include programming
or installation.
Pricing for mobile data equipment for vehicles is included in the price book in section 9.
' However, the cost of infrastructure is not included with the $60 million for the voice
system. We do not recommend the use of integrated voice& data(IV&D) in a public
'
safety radionetwork. The cost of a private,'mobile data system would be significantly
less than the cost of the voice system, and can be accommodated as an overlay.
However, the cost would still likely be several million dollars. Likewise, an automatic
' vehicle location(AVL) system.could'be added to the network. There is some discussion
of a mesh network at 4.9 GHz in pricing book(section 9),but it should be clear that the
mesh network is not included in the cost of the system. Other typical items found in new
systems, such as paging and,the mutual aid channels (discussed earlier), are not included
in the system cost.
Assuming that there was no i,intention to purchase any of these extras, we believe a more
' realistic cost for the voice system(including the subscriber equipment) is probably
between $100 and $115 million.
' CTA recommends that a contingency be included in the budget. Generally, this amount
would be 10%of the infrastructure cost(radio fixed equipment, microwave subsystem,
' physical facilities,etc:). The cost of an independent consulting firm to assist the EBRCS
team through system acceptance would also bean appropriate addition to the budget. In-
building bi-directional amplifier, systems may be needed in some government facilities.
However,we recommend that the owners not require these of the radio vendor, and
instead plan on using a portion of the contingency fund for these (if needed). Do not
procure these items until the project is complete and the specific buildings tested with the
new,system.
' Finally,the ongoing costs of the system must be considered. The post-warranty
maintenance costs are cited!'in section 8 of the EBRCS document. Note that these costs
' cover the radio equipment—' both fixed and non-fixed, and the software services
subscription,which will be('essential in the'new system. However, there will also be
' f Section 5—Cost Analysis
Page 36 of 53
COMMUNICATIONS,INC.
' Contra Costa County,California
FINAL—EBRCS Design Evaluation Report April 19,2007
ongoing costs for non-radio'e ui ment,' such as generators, air conditioning units,
buildings, towers, access roads, microwave equipment, etc. The cost for leasing tower
' space or building space is not included. The cost of power to the sites needs to be
considered, as does.the cost Hof support staff in the various jurisdictions,or in the employ
of the JPA.
1
' Section 5-Cost Analysis
Page 37 of 53
' COMMUNICATIONS,INC.
Contra Costa County,California
FINAL—EBRCS Design Evaluation Report April 19,2007
' 6.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
1 While we concur with the decision to implement a P25 trunked radio system using the
700/800 MHz band, there are many questions still concerning the details of the design
that should be answered. Likewise,while Motorola is a major manufacturer of high
quality land mobile radio products, indeed the company with the largest market share in
America, there is nothing in!the requirements for the EBRCS that would exclude
' participation by other vendors. Exploration of alternatives to the approach given in the
EBRCS design document may yield better solutions with significant savings in project
' cost.
We have indicated that one alternative that should be,considered(whether in a sole
' source arrangement with Motorola, or in a competitive solicitation) is a configuration
with a single simulcast zone covering Contra Costa County. On examination of the
' proposed sites,their distances one from another, and the potential coverage, it seems that
such an approach is technically feasible: In our opinion,it would offer a significant
improvement in operational'performance.
If the County decides to move forward with the EBRCS design and vendor,we
' recommend that contract negotiations with Motorola be focused on areas that would
benefit the owners. Items to consider include improvements to the technical design,
appropriate revisions to test'plans, contract terms &conditions, statement of work, and
treductions in pricing of installation and other services.
With respect to opportunities for competition, we concur with the decision to separate the
microwave elements from the radio infrastructure.. Likewise, it will be cost-effective for
the owners to perform the.upgrades and construction of physical facilities as a separate
' activity. Mobile data and AVL(when and if they become a requirement) should be
purchased through a competitive process. P25 subscriber equipment (portables and
' mobiles) can be purchased separately by the various participating entities, and multiple
vendors do provide compatible equipment.` Splitting the system into modules will have
an impact on the owners. There will be more responsibility in defining interfaces, in
making sure that schedules match, and in looking for gaps in the requirements. It will
take additional staff to manage the project.: Alternatively,the owners can contract for
tservices to assist in the management and.oversight of the project. This is generally a
cost-effect investment in that the total project cost should be reduced.
' Section 6—Conclusions and Recommendations
Page 38 of 53
COMMUNICATIONS,INC.
Iil
' Contra Costa County,California
FINAL—EBRCS Design Evaluation Report April 19,2007
' The radio infrastructure can be split between the counties—each with its own competitive
P P
procurement. This process can be pushed down to the cities, where each county has
multiple systems. With P25.I technology,this will not be a barrier to interoperability and
wide area calling,but it may become cumbersome, and in the end may not be as cost-
effective. We suggest that only major entities be separated—each county, for instance,
and perhaps the City of Oakland due to its size and complexity. And if a common
platform can be agreed upon by all participating agencies, such as that envisioned for the
' EBRCS, this would be optimum for future operations.
' Recalling our introductory remarks concerning the progress being made.with the P25
standards, and the way the radio industry has moved towards fully embracing this new.
standard, a competitive procurement could be beneficial to the owners. It should be.
' understood that this isnot necessarily a"winner take all contest in the manner we grew
used to in the 1980s and 1990s. In fact, Contra Costa County could procure a P25
' network from a different vendor than what Alameda County operates with.
Interoperability would not be affected. The two networks could, in fact, communicate
with each other and exchange data and connect wide area or regional calls. Contra Costa
County could have two networks manufactured by different vendors within its own
borders and not compromise interoperability, though this would not operate as smoothly
' as a single simulcast zone, which would have to be manufactured by the same vendor.
' It is standard practice for radio vendors to state that they can "upgrade"rather than
replace earlier versions of proprietary equipment and achieve the P25 standard. These
upgrades would presumably involve software and the replacement of modules in the
' equipment racks. The cost of this upgrade could,be significantly lower than a wholesale
replacement and overlay, although care should be taken to understanding exactly what is
' being provided and what operational guarantees will be included. It is worth considering
in the context of a life cycle that will extend for the next 15 years or more.
' And certainly the subscriber equipment can be purchased from a wide variety of P25
manufacturers. For example, M/A-Com offers portables and mobiles that will operate.on
' both the Richmond EDACS system and on the EBRCS P25 net. The counties may want
to consider having open, "indefinite quantity" contracts with multiple vendors so that
each agency can choose the equipment it wants to purchase according to functions,
' features and price.
' Section 6-Conclusions and Recommendations
Page 39 of 53
' COMMUNICATIONS,INC.
I�
' Contra Costa County,California
FINAL—EBRCS Design Evaluation Report April 19,2007
' We su est that the Count consider using,the services of an independent consultant with
gg. Y, g p
expertise in land mobile radio.- This consultant can provide guidance throughout the
' project—from determining the County's requirements and.assisting in the development
of a budget, to oversight of the final system acceptance testing. A good consultant will
' save the County several times his own fee in project costs.
The steps that need to be undertaken (in this order) are:
1. Determine the system requirements. Much of this can be gleaned from earlier
' work, and indeed by the EBRCS document. In particular, a definitive list of
participating agencies needs to be compiled. Growth rates should be calculated
and used to determine the required system capacity, and hence the channel needs.
Coverage requirements should likewise be solicited from the user community.
Feasibility and affordability should be part of this process.
2. Develop'a list of alternatives—one simulcast zone per county, or 3? One vendor
or possibly two or more vendors with the ISSI connectivity to link the networks?
' Competitive bids or sole source procurement. (The justification for sole source on
technical grounds will be extremely difficult considering the introduction of the
' open P25 standards.)
' 3. Develop a business plan, including a budget for the project(acquisition cost) and
life cycle costs. Include all facets the project plus contingencies.
Develop functional specifications for the system. The specifications should be
open so that the vendor can respond with creative designs,but have enough teeth
' so that all of the risk does not end up on the owner's side of the table. If it is to be
a competitive procurement, the RFP should be fair and open with objective
selection criteria clearly stated from the beginning.
1
5. Consider the use of a consultant during-contract_negotiat_ ions with the selected
' vendor. In our,experience, when clients have sought CTA's counsel during
negotiations, they have.been successful in not only tightening the technical
requirements but also in avoiding pitfalls in the terms &conditions, as well as
saving millions in the contract price.
' Section 6-Conclusions and Recommendations
U Page 40 of 53
COMMUNICATIONS,INC.
Contra Costa County,California
FINAL—EBRCS Design Evaluation Report April 19,2007
6. Use technically qualified people to oversee the design details after contract award.
There will be ongoing drawings,plans, design revisions, change requests, and a
' myriad. of technical"submittals.
7. Use technically qualified eo le to inspect the wor assist in the development of
_ Y q P P �P. __....mo P
test plans,participate in and witness the acceptance testing,review final record
drawings and documentation..
1
8. Even if an outside firm is used in the project, the County will also need to assign
—its-ovum personnel to oversee the project, and later to manage, operate and
--------------
maintain the new radio,system.
9. Oversight committees-will-needmto-be formed. We sometimes see an Executive
Committee, composed of representatives from the County and the cities, that is
primarily responsible for managing the system, setting the budget, allocating costs
to the participating agencies, etc. Technical Committees or User Committees,
also composed of user representatives from the participating agencies, will often
set operating procedures and policies, decide on system parameters, and make
recommendations to the Executive Committee on the expenditure of funds.
This is an important project for Contra Costa County,.one that will affect most of its
agencies and departments, as well as the citizens for many years to come., We cannot
over-emphasize.the importance of carefully planning the next steps. Only you can
determine the best path to take—whether to continue.with the EBRCS design as it
currently exists, or to explore other alternatives.
`J
Section 6—Conclusions and Recommendations
Page 41 of 53
COMMUNICATIONS,INC.
' Contra Costa County,California
Final—EBRCS Design Evaluation Report April 19,2007
APPENDIX A COUNTY PROVIDED HISTORICAL DOCUMENTATION
Binder 1 - Contra Costa County Historical Documents preceding the EBRCS
CSI, "White Paper"—.May 2. 2000
Alan Burton, "2001 Study of Communications'.'—June 1, 2001
Federal Engineering, "Needs.Assessment"—March 27, 2002
wFederal Engineering, "Master Plan Presentation"—June 6, 2002 (separate binder)
Federal Engineering, "Master Plan,.Final Report"—June 18, 2002 (separate binder)
BOS Item D1 Document—July 25, 2006
BOS Item D1 Transcript Document—July 25, 2006
Board Order SD.8 -October 3, 2006
tBoard Order SD.8 Addendum—October 3, 2006
' Broder 2A1ameda County Historical Documents preceding the EBRCS
Alameda County, RFI-June 30, 2005
' Alameda County, RFP—July 18, 2005
Alameda Advertising List—July,20, 2005
' Alameda Lawrence Livermore Lab Sign In—August 1; 2005
Alameda Bidder List—August 2, 2005
Alameda County,RFP Addendum, l —August 17, 2005
' Alameda Motorola Contract 1 of 2—June 6, 2006
Alameda Motorola Contract 2 of 2—June 6, 2006
' Stop Work Order-July 28, 2006
Alameda Response to Stop Work Order—August 17, 2006
' Doris Bryant e-mail'—August 22, 2006
Binder 3 -Motorola East Bay Regional Communications System, Two County Design
Document—May 12, 2006
'
'Appendix A—County Provided Historical Documentation
Page 42 of 53
' COMMUNICATIONS,INC.
' Contra Costa County,California
Final—EBRCS Design Evaluation Report April 19,2007
APPENDIX B COMPARISON OF USER SURVEYS
Master Plan,Agency Interviews Motorola Design Document
' Final Report dated June 18,2002 User Surveys (report dated May 12, 2006)
Contra Costa County
Contra Costa County Sheriff's Dept ,Contra Costa County Sheriff s Dept .
Building Inspection Dept.
Animal Services Dept
' General Services Dept
Public Works Dept
t Pinole, Rodeo, Hercules Fire
Pinole Police
Hercules Police Hercules Police
Richmond Fire Richmond Fire
El Cerrito Police
' West.County School
El Cerrito Fire
' Moraga/Orinda Fire Moraga/Orinda Fire
Walnut Creek Police Walnut Creek Police
Moraga Police Moraga Police
Danville Police
Orinda Police
tSan Ramon Police
San Ramon Valley Fire San Ramon Valley Fire
Lafayette Police
' Health Services County
Antioch Police
' Tri Delta Transport Transit
Brentwood School
' Oakley Police
Oakley Fire
Brentwood Police
' Oakley School
Martinez Police Martinez Police
' Concord Police
Concord Fire
' Appendix B—Comparison of User.Surveys
Page 43 of 53
COMMUNICATIONS,INC.
Contra Costa County,California
Final—EBRCS Design Evaluation Report April 19,2007
Clayton Police
Mt. Diablo School
' Martinez School
Pleasant Hill Police Pleasant Hill Police
' Pleasant Hill Fire
Contra Costa County Fire
' Richmond Police Richmond Police
Bethyl Island Fire
County District Attorney
' Pittsburg Police
Alameda County
' Alameda County Fire
ALCO Fire
ALCO Sheriff
City of Alameda Police
City of Alameda Public Work
' Alameda County Public Works
Newark Police, Fire, and Public Works
Emeryville Police
Fremont.Police, Fire, and Public.Works
Hayward Police, Fire, and Public Works
City of Newark Police, Fire, and Public Works
San Leandro
' Berkeley Police
Dublin Police
' Livermore Police
Piedmont Police and Fire
' Pleasanton Police
UC Berkeley Police
Union City Fire
' Alameda & Contra Costa Counties
BART Transit
East Bay Parks Police and Fire
' J Appendix B—Comparison of User Surveys
Page 44 of 53
' COMMUNICATIONS,INC:.
II
' Contra Costa County,California
Final—EBRCS Design Evaluation Report April 1%2007
APPENDIX C CTA RESPONSE TO.REVIEWER COMMENTS
' Following distribution of the draft version of this report, comments and suggested improvements
were received from the Contra Costa County Sheriff's Office, Contra Costa County Department
' of Information Technology, Contra Costa County Fire, and the General Services Agency in
Alameda County. We would like to express our thanks and appreciation to those individuals
who took the time to carefully read our draft report and make the thoughtful comments and
' suggestions. CTA has reviewed these comments and incorporated modifications in the original
text where we felt that improvements, clarifications or corrections were appropriate.
Other comments made in the reviews did not askfor modifications to our report,but did raise
questions that we felt should be addressed and answered. We will do that in the following pages
where we will quote the reviewers comment or question, and then append CIA's response in
italics. (It should be noted that we have not made an exhaustive response to all questions or
' comments, confining our attention primarily to technical issues and questions concerning our
evaluation of the EBRCS,design report:)
' 1. 'While we do not necessarily endorse the validity of the alternative recommended by CTA, we do
think that any further investments in the infrastructure should be based on an independent
' design."
CTA: We would like to clarify our discussion concerning the single simulcast cell
' design for Contra Costa County. CTA's scope of work did not include the development
and recommendation of an independent design configuration. We intended to include the
' discussion on a single simulcast cell as an example of an alternative that could be more
desirable than the.one proposed in the EBR CS document. Actually, we did include a
second alternative when we discussed the P25 Phase 2 TDMA.technology, which may or
may not include simulcast capabilities. There may be other legitimate alternatives that
should also be carefully considered before a final decision is reached. Planning
' flexibility into the design will likewise be useful so that the County is not locked into a
technology that has no way to upgrade or expand the system.
' 2. "Page 3 (P25 Standard)—P25.is a standard for digital radio systems regardless of them being
conventional or trunked. CTA states"There is no other standard for digital or trunked mobile
radio in North America". In fact there are other standards, Frequency Modulation (FM) is a
standard used in analogcommunications systems. APCO Project 16, which pre-dated P25 by
about 15 years, set the standard for analog trunked systems. A correct sentence would be
' "There is no other standard for digital trunked mobile radio systems in North America."'
Appendix C—CTA Response to Reviewer Comments
Page 45 of 53
' COMMUNICATIONS;INC.
' Contra Costa County,California
Final—EBRCS Design Evaluation Report April 19,2007
CTA: We agree that P25 is a standard for digital radio and that it covers both
conventional and trunked protocols. We likewise agree that FM is a de facto."Standard"
for analog conventional radio in that,there are no compatibility issues between
manufacturers of this technology. APCO Project 16 did set a standard for trunked
systems—but these "standards"only applied to functionality, and not to the details of
protocol that would make the systems compatible.. Manufacturers were left to their own
devices in developing the technology to implement the Project 16 functions. The result
was a Motorola SmartNet system and'a GE (later Ericsson, ComNet and M/A-Com)
EDACS system that both complied with Project 16 functions, but could not interoperate
' with one another. (E.F. Johnson had,its'LTR system, which likewise could not
communicate with either the Motorola or.M/A-Com.technology.) These were all
proprietary technologies and.not standards-based. P25 is the first, and to date the only
' open-architecture, standards-based technology for trunked radio in North America.
There are no standards-based analog trunked systems. P25 trunked systems can host
radios manufactured by any P25 vendor. P25 trunked systems will also be able to
interconnect subsystems built by different vendors via the ISSI(discussed in the report).
' (I am ignoring TETRA technology, which is also.a standards-based protocol for land
mobile,radio, but is primarily deployed in Europe and Asia, and has no products for, or
market in North America)
3. "Although P25 has become the accepted standard for.digital systems, it has not been mandated
yet by DHS or the FCC (exception in the interoperability.channels of the new 700 MHz. Band). In
fact, the Santa Clara county consortium is exploring a different technology and it remains to be
seen how they intend to make it compatible with P25 with EBRCS or the proposed West Bay
' Regional Communications System (San Francisco and San Mateo counties)."
CTA: We agree that P25 is not "Mandated"by DHS or.the FCC. Accordingly, we
' softened our statements in the final report. However, one should understand that all
departments in the federal government,have adopted P25 as the standard for radio
communications. Per our response above, P25 is the only open standards-based
' technology for trunked radio in North America (and digital conventional radio). Given
the need for interoperability.between public safety agencies, it seems to us that only P25
' technology makes sense. Arguing to spend funds on a new system that employs
proprietary technology is counterintuitive—the resulting system will be an island,
isolated from surrounding systems, or at best with convoluted and compromising
interfaces for `patching"calls.
' 4. "The latest research information, according to Dr.. David Boyd, Director of DHS's SAFECOM
Program, shows that P25 is great in a fixed environment(point-to-point)as it shows an overall.
' Appendix C—CTA Response to Reviewer Comments
Page 46 of 53
' COMMUNICATIONS,INC.
Contra Costa County,California
Final—EBRCS Design Evaluation Report. April 19,2007
iit
Increase In coverage above analog FM. However, In a mobile environment,dust the oppos e
occurs as coverage is decreased due to an increase in the bit error rate caused by the signal
fluctuation.
believe that P25 is an acceptable technology for a mobile radio system however; we must take
' into account the mobile nature of our system. When comparing coverage we are not only
expecting a decrease in coverage due to the use of the higher frequency bands, but using P25
may also decrease that coverage even more."
CTA:. The difference in coverage between FM analog signals and digital protocols has
' been in dispute for some time. While our early experiences seemed to agree with Dr.
Boyd's assessment, later results have shown an improvement in digital performance. It is
possible that recent improvements in forward-error correcting algorithms employed in
P25 have been responsible for the better coverage. CTA now considers P25 coverage to
be nearly equivalent to that obtained with FM analog technology. The narrowbanding
currently planned for the VHF and UHF&nds will have the opposite effect. FM analog
coverage with,channels confined to 12.5'kHz bandwidth will shrink, whereas P25
coverage will be unaffected(due to the modulation scheme). Thus, P25 will outperform
' FM analog as we move to a band structure with narrower channels. ,The issue on high
frequency bands vs. lower frequencies is not a simple answer. VHF will generally
outperform 800 MHz if you're interested in mobile coverage over hilly or wooded
terrain. However, this can be reversed if the VHF sites are in "noisy"areas. 800 MHz
systems can employ tower-top pre-amplifiers to fix the noise figure at the antenna port,
' making them virtually transparent to noise (which isn't much of a factor at high
frequencies, anyway). These devices are virtually useless at 150 MHz, where high noise
' can make a receiver nearly deaf. Furthermore, 800 MHz radio signals are much better
at penetrating buildings than 150 MHz.. This is due to the relationship between
wavelength and the dimensions of windows.
5. "Page 3 (Design for Transmitter Placement)—CTA states that"the spacing of sites is
appropriate, and that reasonable countywide coverage should be obtainable with the selected
sites." As I stated above, my issue is that we have a VHF system that is using most of the hilltop
sites contained in the Motorola proposal. We have areas in which our coverage has been.
' deemed to be unsatisfactory. We have added additional transmitter sites as well as voting
receivers in order to enhance.the coverage. We continue to thisday to determine additional
locations in which we could place transmitters or receivers to increase our coverage, especially in
' rural valley areas (Alhambra Valley near Martinez, Castle Rock Park area near Walnut Creek to
name a few). This is all based on a VHF 150 MHz. system and its lack of optimum coverage. If
we go to a 700/800 MHz. System, the number of sites must be increased due to the inherent
' propagation characteristics of the higher frequencies. My concern is that if we are having these
problems at VHF, our coverage fill-in needs will only increase."
Appendix C—CTA Response to Reviewer Comments
p J Page 47 of 53
COMMUNICATIONS,INC.
ii
Contra Costa County,California
Final—EBRCS Design Evaluation Report April 19,2007
CTA: If the County were reasonably level, the spacing of 8 miles between sites would be
optimum for simulcast coverage at 800 MHz. The hilltop sites could be a problem for
Motorola if they become "dominant"sites—overshooting other sites and interfering on
the far side in the overlap area (where signal strength is nearly equal from the two sites).
The bigger concern is extreme topography—steep mountains, deep ravines and the like.
Effects on 800 MHz and VHF will be'nearly equivalent if this is the case. (Our scope in
this report did not involve an assessment of the topography in Contra Costa, or
independent propagation studies, so we cannot comment.in detail on the specifics)
Receiver sites are a common practice in VHF to fill in coverage "holes". These are
unnecessary at 800 MHz—.theyare obsolete since tower-top amplifiers can provide a
more economical solution. So it is not clear that more sites would result with an 800
tMHz design. The number of sites Motorola proposed in their EBRCS design did not seem
low to us, given our experience elsewhere in the country.
6. In regards to simulcast technology, CTA states that"it is critical that the sites not be placed too
far apart." I believe that they meant just the opposite, more problems occur with simulcast if the
sites are overlapping than if they are too far apart."
CTA: No, we had it right. If you place the sites too far apart,you cannot control the
timing and phase of the signals with the precision required. Simulcast will absolutely
result in overlap of coverage, which is actually good. What is bad about overlap is a
situation where the overlap area is too large and you cannot control the timing of the
signals, and hence their relative phase, everywhere within the overlap zone. This is a
function of the signal rate—9.6 kbps for P25 and its relationship to the speed of light. It
turns out that when you get the sites too far apart, the resolution in launch time for the
transmit signals can approach one-half a wavelength, and at one-half wavelength you'll
get cancellation of the overlapping signals—two signals of nearly equal strength
(definition of overlap), but opposite phase will cancel one another. If the sites are placed
close enough to one another where you can control the phase in the overlap areas,you
can get the opposite effect—i.e., two overlapping signals that are in phase with one
another, so their signals add. The ideal simulcast scenario is where everywhere you go
is an overlap zone, but all the signals are exactly in phase with one another. You've just
saturated,the area with signal, and your coverage results should be superb!
' 7. "Munici al police officers typically have a need for in-building coverage more often than county
P P YP Y
sheriffs deputies. Likewise,fire's ability to talk-in and talk-out of large structures including
' commercial and multi-unit residential dwellings is essential. 'As an aside, I believe that fire will
' Appendix C—CTA Response to Reviewer Comments
Page 48 of 53
' COMMUNICATIONS,INC.
u
Contra Costa County,California
Final—EBRCS Design Evaluation Report April 19,2007
' certainl need todev develop multiple direct simlex channels for fire round communications as was
discussed in the Phoenix Fire Department study."
simplex channels that can be used or are
CTA: We absolutely agree that severalp f fround g
communications by the Fire agencies must be included in the plans, regardless of the
probable coverage of the trunked system from its fixed sites. In fact, these simplex
channels (or additional frequencies) can also be effectively used by law enforcement
' officers in a variety of situations. We agree that the Phoenix Fire Department study
clearly supports the use of simplex frequencies in conjunction with a trunked radio
system. This,is due to the fact that a trunked system with faxed sites can never achieve
100%coverage inside buildings. But in a fareground situation, this is what is needed—
and low power, simplex channels used at the scene can meet this requirement.
' 8. "CTA used technical data from their"proprietary cost model"to make statements regarding
system costs.Without knowing the details of this cost model,CTA's claims are impossible to
evaluate. The competitively bid systems used in their model are publicly bid systems and should
be made available."
CTA: Most of the cost data used in our model is from publicly bid systems, and can be
obtained directly from the source. -Over the past 22 years we have accumulated data
from over 100 clients and have observed trends and nuances in the methods that the
vendors use when bidding projects., We have also collected data from private sources, or
sources that do not have the same public disclosure requirements that your County has.
These data have also been factored into the model. The result is that we have many
clients that rely on our ability to assist them in the development of an accurate budget so
' that they can plan for the procurement of these complex systems. We would be pleased to
provide a list of references to.the County for this purpose.
' 9. "CTA also makes reference to negotiations in which they claim.price reductions of 10 to 18%with
refinement, clarification or reduction of scope. I would caution against any reduction in scope
without clear understanding of the consequences to coverage and reliability."
CTA: We agree that scope should not be reduced in areas that might affect coverage
and reliability. Our.experience in negotiations has been that an open and balanced
exchange of goals and.requirements on both sides can result in a fair settlement where
' all parties are satisfied with the outcome. Price is typically part of these discussions, and
a reduction is often obtained via cuts in unnecessary services or products,.or
clarifications of intangible items like risk.
t
Appendix C—CTA Response to Reviewer Comments
p Page 49 of 53
' COMMUNICATIONS,INC..
it
jContra Costa County,California
Final—EBRCS Design Evaluation Report April 19,2007
10. "Site separation would prevent Contra Costa County from implementing one large simulcast cell.
The system would interfere with itself due to the large distance between each of the sites. This
' contradicts CTA's earlier statement"it is critical that the sites not be too far apart"
CTA: See our response to item #6 above. Contra Costa County is not too large for a
single simulcast cell.- There are many counties as large as or larger than Contra Costa
around the country with this configuration. In fact, we have a client with an installed
' Motorola simulcast system in a County with over 2,500 square miles, with a population
in,excess of],000,000 people. The sites will not interfere with one another unless the
timing has not been properly set in the overlap zones. But overlap only occurs when the
arriving signals are nearly equal in strength, generally within about 6 dB. :When the
difference is more than this, the radio is considered to be. "captured"by the stronger site.
So despite the presence of other signals from distant sites, it is only a problem when the
signals are nearly equal in.magnitude, but opposite in phase.
11. CTA states a single cell system "would be operationally simpler to use". Given that a subscriber
unit.can stay on the same talk group assignment with seamless roaming throughout the County,
' describe"operationally simpler"."
' CTA: An example from section 4.3 of the report shows that for the EBRCS as designed,
a call may be placed in the West cell to a.user in the East (or a talk-group with users in
both cells). If all of the channels in the East cell are busy,you will have to decide
whether to a) wait for a free channel in.the East before initiating the call, or b)proceed
with the call even though.the users operating in the East will either miss the call or enter
the call late. Neither option is desirable. In a single simulcast cell, this scenario would
not occur. The call would be.placed immediately between the two users regardless of
their location.
12. "CTA states, "single cell design would require fewer. channels''. Need elaboration as to why CTA
' thinks this is so and how many channels CTA thinks the system would need."
' CTA: Traffic loading analyses using the Erlang C model have shown this to be the case.
This is the reason that the FCC has encouraged the use of simulcast in a myriad of
situations—because it is an efficient use of spectrum. In section 4.4 of the report (System
' Capacity) we state that we estimate that 19 channels would be required in this
configuration (single simulcast cell). This compares to the 27 channels in the EBRCS
design.
J Appendix C—CTA Response to Reviewer Comments
p .�\ Page 50 of 53
' COMMUNICATIONS,INC.
Contra Costa County,California
Final—EBRCS Design Evaluation Report April 19,2007
' 13. "Implementing all channels at each site would require a much larger footprint at each site. Space
is already a premium at each of the sites with the proposed number of channels. Implementing
all channels at each site would require additional shelters." .
CTA: We agree that more equipment would be located at each site, resulting in larger
footprints in the shelters. This may result in new shelters at some locations. It is part of
the trade-off that would have to be done in,a detailed analysis.
14. `.`Implementing all the channels at all sites would impact the traffic analysis. In most cases it
' would be significantly more than is required."
CTA: Actually, a single simulcast cell will reduce the.overall traffic—that is why it is
more spectrally efficient. An example is a single call from the West cell to the East cell.
In the EBRCS design.(with 3 simulcast cells), there are 3 control channels (one in each
' cell) that are transmitting continuously. Plus a voice channel in the West cell is assigned
and another voice channel in the East cell is assigned. So for the EBRCS system, a single
call between two cells will result in a total of 5.channels on the air. In a single simulcast
' cell design, there would only be one control channel, and only one voice channel would
be assigned-it's the same channel everywhere. So in this second scenario, only two
channels would be transmitting during the call.
15. "P25 Standard, page 3: In the first paragraph CTA refers to"...some products that are compliant
' with the (P25)standard." I would like to see the report define the distinction between a
"compliant"and "compatible"device. In the radio world, as in the computer world you will find
equipment that states it is compliant or compatible with some standard. Under these conditions,
not all advertised equipment features will work. There have been several documents released by
the.P25 Steering Committee specifically addressing ongoing concerns with the
compliant/comparable issue. At the Western Regional Association of Public Communications
Officers (APCO)conference in March 2007„there was a restatement of this very concern and
mention of certain vendors being less than cooperative in resolving the outstanding P25
' standards issues."
CTA: In response to comment #2 above, we talked about Project 16 functional
' requirements. There is an instance in which two products could be compliant with the
standard, but totally incompatible with one another. At present there is no governing
' body that tests for "compliance"to the P25 standard. There has been some discussion
lately concerning the possible use of U. S. Government labs to do the independent testing
and certification.. But it's just.talk now. All vendors do their own testing, and state
' whether there products "comply"with the standard. (Surprisingly, they all comply.) In
Appendix C—CTA Response to Reviewer Comments
I� Page 51 of 53
COMMUNICATIONS,INC.
Contra Costa County,California
Final—EBRCS Design Evaluation Report. April 19,2007
our opinion, i the products in a system are compatible and er orm all o the required
P � .f P Y P P .f f q
functions, then "compliance"may be an unnecessary concern.
16. "CTA states, "The design document has shown that the spacing of sites is appropriate, and that
reasonable countywide coverage should be obtainable with the selected sites.". While the
spacing of radio sites may be deemed appropriate this is not correct. The Motorola document on
page 44-45 lists radio sites in the"CCC East Simulcast System"with incorrect latitude and
' longitude. These errors have been pointed out to Motorola. Their response has been that it
would be resolved at a later date which isnot an acceptable response since we are basing
decisions of accepting the Motorola design on bad data. The incorrect placement of these sites
' will lead to inaccurate coverage maps. CTA covers this later in their document. Further,
Motorola has suggested microwave radio paths to radio sites (Old Station 53)that are not
possible. This has never been satisfactorily addressed by Motorola and must be addressed
' before the County accepts the Motorola document:"
CTA: We were not aware of errors in the EBRCS document. Statements and
conclusions made in our report were based on the data presented to us. It was not in our
scope of effort to.independently determine the accuracy of the data contained in
' Motorola's design report.
17. "I would like CTA comments regarding Contra Costa County radio traffic study per the Motorola
report. Based on my readingof the Motorola report, this is barely touched upon.. How can Contra
Costa County be guaranteed user channel capacity without a valid radio traffic study?"
CTA: As we stated in section 4.4 of the,report, we felt that results from Motorola's
' traffic analysis were similar to those from the CTA model. The question is how good
were the assumptions concerning growth rates in Contra Costa County, and where are
thosegrowths likely to occur? Assumptions concerning roaming and inter-cell traffic are
also questionable—not that we think they're wrong, we just don't know. Actually, our
experience is that the traffic analysis is something that we (as.the consultant) usually do
before a contractor(like Motorola).gets involved. The vendor then does a check by
running the same set of initial conditions and assumptions on future patterns and growth
through their model. If our results compare well, then we move on.
18. "1 would like to see the CTA study provide an overview of what fault tolerance and redundancy is,
and how it affects this project."
CTA: Generally speaking,fault tolerance is a design where failures can occur, but the
' system suffers no "down-time". From the user's perspective, there was no failure,
because there,was no interruption to service. Redundancy is where there is a second
Appendix C-CTA Response to Reviewer Comments
Page 52 of 53
COMMUNICATIONS,INC.,
i
Contra Costa County,California
Final—EBRCS Design Evaluation Report April 19,2007
component or system element that can replace a failed component or element. It is a
"back up". Failures can cause "down time" in a redundant system, and users may
experience interruptions to'their service (or even no service). Time to bring the
redundant element on-line can range from.less than a second to hours or even days. .
Most designs we review have both elements of fault tolerance and redundancy involved.
' 19. "The CTA reports, "...there are no fatal flaws in the EBRCS design or in the equipment proposed
in the May 2006 document." In the strongest language possible, I disagree with CIA's position. I
would like CTA to review what I have written and specifically respond to my concerns on Motorola
' and the P25 standard, transmitter placement, channel capacity for radio traffic and coverage
claims. I believe their"no fatal flaws" is a premature pronouncement and needs to be withdrawn
from the report until a more thorough analysis is conducted."
CTA: To us, no fatal flaws"means that the design is not beyond fixing, or that the
equipment cannot be used for its intended purpose. Our experience over many years of
working with Motorola on numerous projects is that they are capable of resolving
problems with their customers, and that they build high quality products. The design for
' the EBRCS involves the latest technology at Motorola, configured in an appropriate
manner.(especially given the constraints they had to work with). While it may not be the
ideal system design, it was probably the optimum design considering the external
limitations placed on'the design team. And given the scalability of their.products,
upgrades in the future could probably reconstitute the configuration into one that we
' might all consider "ideal". A system that can be upgradedinto an "ideal"design should
not be labeled as fatally flawed.
' II e 6—This is an interesting 20. Single Simulcast Cell, page g idea but notapplicable to the 800 MHz
band. Contra Costa County is in the middle of the San Francisco Bay Area and the Sacramento
' —San Joaquin Valley where,radio channels are reused. 800 MHz radio channels that can be,
used in West County cannot be used in East County since they are already in use by
Sacramento. This is a problem Motorola has struggled with in their design and I am impressed
' with their 3 cell approach for Contra Costa County. When 700 MHz becomes available in 2009,
we should be able to implement the suggestion of a single simulcast cell for all of Contra Costa
County for all of the reasons mentioned by CTA." .
CTA: We agree. Motorola did a superb job in developing the 3 cell approach using the
' limited 800 MHz channels available to'Contra Costa and Alameda counties. The
restrictions on the use.of these frequencies in Contra.Costa County made their task
particularly difficult.
M:\FILES\20124A Contra Costa,CA\word-rpt\Final EBRCS Design Evaluation Report.doc
J Appendix C—CTA Response to Reviewer Comments
Page 53 of 53
' COMMUNICATIONS,INC.