Dallas City/County P25

Status
Not open for further replies.

BenScan

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
May 12, 2001
Messages
885
Location
D/FW
Since the link didn't seem to work, here's a copy of what is there.

DATE: 12/5/2017
SUBMITTING DEPARTMENT: Consolidated Services
THROUGH:
SUBJECT: City of Dallas / Dallas County P25 Digital Radio Project
BACKGROUND:
On March 19, 2013, Commissioners Court approved an engagement with the City of Dallas
(City) to develop and solicit a request for a competitive sealed bid (RFCSP) for a digital trunked
two-way radio system for use by both the City and Dallas County (County). Two responses to
the City’s RFCSP have been received, analyzed and scored and a potential vendor has been
chosen. The purpose of this briefing is to discuss the City’s contract award, outline the County’s
project costs going forward and provide the Court with a recommendation.
OPERATIONAL IMPACT:
Partnership with the City of Dallas
The County and the City currently rely on the same radio communication infrastructure which
needs to be replaced due to its age, outdated technology and other factors (e.g. lack of signal
coverage, capacity, expandability and interoperability, etc.).
Accordingly, a partnership to develop and release an RFCSP to acquire a new digital radio
system to address the needs of both the City and County was previously recommended and
approved by the Court (Court Order 2013-0498). This project is based on 75/25 participation
and the County’s cost was initially estimated to be $50M. There are no State or Federal
deadlines associated with agencies converting to digital radio.
Two competitive responses to the City’s solicitation were received and based on pricing
submitted by the highest rated lowest cost vendor (and other anticipated project expenses) the
County’s actual cost going forward has now been determined to be $24.09M. It should be noted
that this amount includes a $9.176M incentive on certain County items if the vendor obtains a
signed contract (by the City) by mid-December 2017. A detail of the County’s project costs and
a strategy for the City and County to take advantage of vendor incentives will be provided in
later paragraphs.
System Discussion
The proposed new City/County shared digital radio system design is based on the federal
governments Project 25 (P25) digital radio standard which promotes interoperability and levels
the playing field in terms of proprietary equipment and protocols.
The new P25 system will provide users with enhanced signal coverage within the county
(including inside buildings) while providing increased user features, capacity and interoperability
with our neighbors. It is anticipated that additional agencies within the County will also
potentially want to join the new system sometime in the future.
The new system will align the City and County with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security
SAFECOM Program and the Texas Statewide Communications Interoperability Plan (SCIP)
which requires that all new digital radio systems must be built using the Project 25 (P25) suite of
standards to achieve federal and statewide interoperability goals. Mobile and portable radios
purchased for County field users will have the most interoperability functionality currently
available.
Proposed Vendor
The lowest cost and highest rated proposer, Motorola Solutions, is highly experienced in
providing digital radio solutions and based on proposal content, scoring and pricing has been
determined to be the best vendor for this project. Motorola will also be utilizing a variety of subcontractors
as well.
RFCSP Development and Selection
All County radio user departments were interviewed by the project consultant early on and
represented in the proposal development process by representatives from the Sheriff,
Constables, Fire Marshal and Consolidated Services. County representatives were also
involved in the scoring and best and final offer process as well.
Tower Siting and Sharing Opportunities
The City of Dallas currently owns most of the towers required to achieve the desired radio signal
coverage for the new radio system within the County, however, there are specific areas where
new towers or the sharing of existing towers will need to be developed. The following will
discuss:
Dallas County Wilmer Property – The City of Dallas does not presently own a tower to provide
signal coverage in and around Wilmer. Accordingly, it is anticipated that a 250 foot tower would
be constructed on County property located at 200 Greene Road at the Wilmer Treatment
Facility. Costs to construct a tower and small equipment building at this location have been
included in the project and it is anticipated that it would be placed on the Southeast corner of the
property in the event the County should desire to expand its buildings that exist there now.
DeSoto/Glenn Heights – The City does not presently own a tower to provide signal coverage in
DeSoto especially in the low area around I-35 and Belt Line Road. Accordingly, a location for a
tower in the southern DeSoto/Glenn Heights area will need to be identified (there are no existing
towers in DeSoto presently). The cost for a tower (and equipment building) in this area have
been included in the project however a piece of land to build on may be needed. A strategy to
place a tower on City of DeSoto property around the police station or adjacent to their water
tower was previously discussed with the City of DeSoto in 2015; however, it was met with
resistance due to zoning and fall zone requirements. Glenn Heights may be less restrictive.
Funds for land to place a tower would potentially come from the project contingency if other
acquisition means cannot be identified.
Seagoville – The same condition described above applies to the Seagoville area; however, in
talks with the City of Seagoville there may be an opportunity to place a tower (and building) on
land that the City currently owns. Costs to build a tower with an equipment building in
Seagoville have also been included in the project.
Cedar Hill – Dallas County currently leases a tower in Cedar Hill for part of its existing radio
system. It is anticipated that a new lease with the tower owner will need to be developed to
accommodate equipment associated with the new system. It is anticipated that Dallas County
would pay 25% of a new lease.
Sharing existing towers with Irving, Sachse and Mesquite – similarly the City of Dallas does not
own towers in Irving, Sachse and Mesquite. Since each of these cities currently own towers in
areas where Dallas and the County will require signal coverage opportunities to share existing
towers will need to be developed. Costs for sharing towers in these cities have been included in
the project and at least one so far (Irving) has expressed that they would be willing to share
resources to keep from duplicating tower siting efforts in their City. It is generally felt that
Sachse and Mesquite will be open to sharing resources if details can be worked out (Sachse’s
tower is owned by the City of Garland).
The County’s participation for new and shared towers discussed above would be 25%. It is
anticipated that the City of Dallas will take the lead to develop arrangements for new tower sites
and relationships to share existing towers (including any associated inter-local agreements).
The County will also be involved in this process and will provide assistance as needed.
Encryption
It is anticipated that certain talk groups on the new system will be encrypted to prevent those
with scanners and smart phones from listening to sensitive communications (e.g. law
enforcement, tactical and health related communication).
Secure Storage of Equipment
As part of the RFCSP specification, the awarded contractor must store newly purchased
equipment while it is being programmed, staged and/or being installed. Any additional storage
requirements for the project will utilize the warehouse that the County recently leased as part of
the Records Building renovation project (for artifact storage).
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
Dallas County’s Project Cost and Funding Strategy
The following portrays the County’s project participation costs going forward:
Infrastructure (25%) $11,210,573
Subscriber units (radios) $14,785,374
Jail site repeaters 1,200,000
In-building BDA (signal) equipment 2,280,792
$29,476,739
Incentive for signed contract in December -9,175,870
$20,300,869
Console equipment 824,889
Power installation – FCCB roof 250,000
Project consultant (25%) 523,632
Project contingency (10%) 2,189,939
Dallas County’s Project Cost $24,089,329
Since the City and County do not presently have funding set aside for this project, City obtained
financing for both the City and County infrastructure piece will be utilized to fund an award.
The County’s infrastructure cost detailed above (with the appropriate portion of the vendor
incentive applied) will be financed by funds obtained by the City (along with the City’s overall
portion of the project) for 10 years. This strategy is being utilized as it will allow the City to sign
a contract with the vendor by the end of December 2017 and positions the City and County to
take advantage of substantial vendor incentives for the infrastructure purchase now (and other
related items as they are needed later on).
The County’s remaining costs (for radios, jail repeaters, in-building equipment and other
expenses) are anticipated to be paid with cash, which will be discussed in a later paragraph.
The County will be responsible for ordering subscriber and all other related equipment directly
from the vendor after award which will require the County to execute a Master Purchasing
Agreement with the City if one does not already exist.
The City will obtain financing for their project costs plus our infrastructure cost only and will be
responsible for making payments to their financial institution. The County will reimburse the City
for our financed portion according to an annual payment schedule outlined in Section 4.0 of the
attached inter-local agreement. The County’s initial infrastructure payment to the City would be
due after October 1, 2018 which will allow it and future payments to be included in upcoming
and future budget processes. The City’s payments with the lender are being structured the
same way to allow them to take advantage of their future budget processes as well.
The County’s remaining costs for all other anticipated project expenditures will be funded by
existing funds allocated in Fund 196.
Ongoing Maintenance and Equipment Trade-in Discussion
Ongoing infrastructure maintenance cost – once implemented, the new digital radio system is
expected to last 15 years. The County’s cost to maintain the new system over 15 years (after a
one-year warranty) is anticipated to be $2.625M ($187,489 per year for 14 years). User radios
are anticipated to last at least 10 years.
It should be noted that first year maintenance costs for the new infrastructure after the warranty
period will be offset by $78,000 when costs to support the existing infrastructure being leased
from the City are eliminated ($187,489 -$78,000 = $109,489). Maintenance for the new
infrastructure will be provided by a combined effort of the City and the proposed vendor
(Motorola).
Ongoing subscriber maintenance cost - The County has an existing inter-local agreement with
the City of Carrollton for radio maintenance. It is anticipated that this arrangement will continued
to be utilized with subscriber units (and certain new fixed pieces) purchased with the new
system as Carrollton is already familiar with the County, our personnel and facilities.
Funding for annual infrastructure maintenance and subscriber maintenance is budgeted each
year in the Consolidated Services operational budget.
Equipment trade in-part of the vendor’s incentive includes trade-in of the County’s existing
mobile and portable radios and some fixed equipment pieces. The County’s trade-in equipment
will be documented and the Purchasing Department and the Auditor’s Office will be involved to
insure assets are properly dispositioned.
LEGAL IMPACT:
An inter-local agreement with the City that outlines the County’s participation in the project,
including the County’s costs and payments has been developed and approved by the District
Attorney’s Office, Civil Division (attached). The District Attorney’s Office, Civil Division has also
reviewed the contract between the City and the proposed vendor (although the County has no
signature responsibility). Because the City’s main contractor and sub-contractors will be working
at County facilities and on County vehicles, the County will be included on all insurance policies
related to the project.
PROJECT SCHEDULE:
Upon award, the specified time frame for system implementation is 30 months. It is anticipated
that the new system will be rolled out first to departments that operate out in the field since they
presently have the greatest need (e.g. Sheriff, Constables, Fire Marshal, Fire Department, etc.).
The remaining departments will begin utilization after the initial roll out is successful and after inbuilding
signal equipment and repeaters have been installed and are operational.
M/WBE PARTICIPATION:
Vendor selection is based on the City’s solicitation; however, contractor and sub-contractor
inclusion documents are attached for review.
ADMINISTRATIVE PLAN COMPLIANCE:
Dallas County’s Administrative Plan recommends that the County be safe, secure and prepared.
With approval to implement a P25 radio system with the City of Dallas, it will result in our staff
having the technology and equipment needed to keep Dallas County safe, secure and prepared.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve the County’s continued participation in this project and the award strategy as briefed,
and authorizes the County Judge to sign the attached inter-local agreement between the City of
Dallas and Dallas County.
 

Russell

Texas DB Admin
Database Admin
Joined
Dec 18, 2002
Messages
1,791
Location
Dallas Texas
Great find Ben. Here's something pretty interesting;

"ISSI with Automatic Roaming for Fort Worth and Dallas Cores with 40 talk paths."

Looking like a real regional system.

Russell
 

hiegtx

Mentor
Premium Subscriber
Joined
May 8, 2004
Messages
11,185
Location
Dallas, TX
I also noticed that encryption was specifically mentioned for 'law enforcement, tactical, and ems'.
 

TexScan780D

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Feb 20, 2003
Messages
1,162
"Encryption
It is anticipated that certain talk groups on the new system will be encrypted to prevent those
with scanners and smart phones from listening to sensitive communications (e.g. law
enforcement, tactical and health related communication)."

Does not sound good. How much of Law Enforcement will be encrypted.
 

twjr80

Member
Feed Provider
Joined
Dec 19, 2002
Messages
217
Location
Farmersville, Texas
"Encryption
It is anticipated that certain talk groups on the new system will be encrypted to prevent those
with scanners and smart phones from listening to sensitive communications (e.g. law
enforcement, tactical and health related communication)."

Does not sound good. How much of Law Enforcement will be encrypted.

Hopefully just the channels such as NCIC, Narc, Tac, SWAT, K9, and those EMS to hospital channels.
 

Motoballa

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Dec 15, 2015
Messages
403
Just a thought.. It says "law enforcement, tactical and health related communications"

I would feel much better if it said "law enforcement tactical" without the coma between the law enforcement and tactical..
 

hiegtx

Mentor
Premium Subscriber
Joined
May 8, 2004
Messages
11,185
Location
Dallas, TX
Just a thought.. It says "law enforcement, tactical and health related communications"

I would feel much better if it said "law enforcement tactical" without the coma between the law enforcement and tactical..
I would agree with that.

Certain communications may be better off if encrypted. Investigative, tactical, and surveillance may fall in that category. But everyday dispatch traffic does not need to be hidden from public view. An agency that professes to be 'open and transparent' in dealing with the public it serves, but shrouds all communications from public access, is neither open nor transparent.
 

Motoballa

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Dec 15, 2015
Messages
403
"Then, July 6, 2016, happened. Officers in Downtown Dallas were ambushed. Four Dallas police officer and one DART officer were killed. Unless DPD was with sheriff’s deputies or a deputy with police, one agency did not know what the other was doing or needed."

My friend who is a DPD Officer showed me her APX7000 and it was on UHF and VHF, so I asked her why they aren't able to communicate with DCSO, she said it was because of a software issue.. What "software issue" could possibly prevent the programming of DCSO channels? Doesn't quite make sense to me.

Even so, could they not temporarily patch them together or setup a command center in the event of DPD and DCSO working together on an event?
 

Motoballa

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Dec 15, 2015
Messages
403
Certain communications may be better off if encrypted. Investigative, tactical, and surveillance may fall in that category. But everyday dispatch traffic does not need to be hidden from public view. An agency that professes to be 'open and transparent' in dealing with the public it serves, but shrouds all communications from public access, is neither open nor transparent.

100% agree, there is a time and place for encryption. I would appreciate at least having Dispatch talkgroups open, but lets be honest.. I could see this system taking forever to get setup. Dallas is huge and we all know how slow this process will be.
 

IAmSixNine

Member
Feed Provider
Joined
Dec 19, 2002
Messages
2,444
Location
Dallas, TX
"Then, July 6, 2016, happened. Officers in Downtown Dallas were ambushed. Four Dallas police officer and one DART officer were killed. Unless DPD was with sheriff’s deputies or a deputy with police, one agency did not know what the other was doing or needed."

My friend who is a DPD Officer showed me her APX7000 and it was on UHF and VHF, so I asked her why they aren't able to communicate with DCSO, she said it was because of a software issue.. What "software issue" could possibly prevent the programming of DCSO channels? Doesn't quite make sense to me.

Even so, could they not temporarily patch them together or setup a command center in the event of DPD and DCSO working together on an event?

You sure about that?
I have never seen a DPD APX that had VHF. The ones i have seen are all UHF / 700-800.
UHF for DPD/DFR and 700/800 for their own city Type 2 old trunking system and the P25 Phase 1 system.
Ill go a step furhter and say this officer was at my office a few years ago and he let me read his radio. So im 100% sure it was UHF / 700-800

I also helped out a few other officers who bought GPS antennas from someone claiming they would help improve reception. These are specifically designed to be used as GPS only when a public safety remote spk mic is used. GPS antenna on radio and normal antenna on spk mic. Unfortunately they were using them as regular antennas and it didnt work well for them. They were NOT the stubby 700/800. And those radios too were UHF / 700-800
 

hiegtx

Mentor
Premium Subscriber
Joined
May 8, 2004
Messages
11,185
Location
Dallas, TX
100% agree, there is a time and place for encryption. I would appreciate at least having Dispatch talkgroups open, but lets be honest.. I could see this system taking forever to get setup. Dallas is huge and we all know how slow this process will be.
Several days ago, I was listening to Dallas Air One, contacting 531 (Dallas PD Dispatch). Air One was stating that they were headed to Grand Prairie to assist them on a chase, but could not contact GP on their channels, and would have to use one of the Interop talkgroups. Air One does, I think, have a 700/800MHz capable radio. Probably, the inability to communicate with Grand Prairie on their dispatch TGID's was because the GP ID's are encrypted, and Air One's radio does not have the key for that.

Heard much the same a couple months back. DPS copter 101 was working with a couple of other agencies, including a three-letter one. But again, for the lack of the correct key, the operation had to be conducted in the clear, which hampered the usefulness.

The incident mentioned in the GMRS thread, where Dallas' Hazmat Team could not communicate, directly, with Mesquite FD, may well have been from lack of the encryption key, rather than lack of a 700/800MHz capable radio among the Hazmat team vehicles.
 

Motoballa

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Dec 15, 2015
Messages
403
She is a Lieutenant, I don't think that would effect what radio type she gets? I've listened to their Deployment channels on their trunked system before, haven't heard much on those, then again I don't listen to that a whole lot.
 

hiegtx

Mentor
Premium Subscriber
Joined
May 8, 2004
Messages
11,185
Location
Dallas, TX

Jimbnks

Member
Premium Subscriber
Joined
Sep 20, 2014
Messages
246
Location
Central, KS
I'm glad to see Dallas finally upgrading there system.

What would be interesting to see if down the road after the Dallas system is up and running with all the typical bugs worked out, is if all of the D/FW metro department will not do something like they did in the KCK, KMCO area with the Metropolitan Area Regional Radio System (MARRS) for interop purpose.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top