"Grave disservice"

[12dbsinad]

I've never been one to suffer unsavory sales people well. They tend to bring out the worst in me. I'll have to say that I give you much credit for ending with nothing but a bad taste in your mouth.

I hear you. Well if it's any consellation, we no longer sell, repair, or otherwise suggest /\/\. We have moved on to other radio manufacturers and never looked back.

I will emphasize what was said about their products however, they do make good stuff. It's the other half that kills them.

 

[12dbsinad]

One more thing after the comments I made. I don't want this to turn into another bashing thread as already warned, so I'll digress.

 

[bharvey2]

One more thing after the comments I made. I don't want this to turn into another bashing thread as already warned, so I'll digress.

I wasn't taking your response as a general "bashing" comment. Hopefully others view it the same. I've used M branded radios and most of them have been great. Having never dealt with their sales staff (only my local radio supplier) I have no insight in to that part of the company. However, I suspect like all companies some of the sales people are okay, some are not.

 

[KB2GOM]

I have gone to great lengths on how (taxpayer) money could be saved by not buying some totally unnecessary technology only to be told "we want the best". It is FUD factor at its worst.

Or buying "cutting edge" stuff to be "obsolescence-proof."

One of my clients once remarked about early-adopters: "You know what happens with pioneers? They're the ones that take the arrows."

 

[KB2GOM]

I can envision a scenario in which a sole-source contract would be appropriate, and wouldn't involve anything nefarious:

1. Your existing system is in the act of dying.

2. One vendor has everything you need -- right now. All that is required to configure and install.

3. There is a history with that vendor of keeping promises and providing good service.

On the other hand, it could be all baksheesh, palm greasing, bribes and kickbacks, but not necessarily so.

Still, not very classy to issue "grave disservice" press releases.

 

[mmckenna]

I can envision a scenario in which a sole-source contract would be appropriate, and wouldn't involve anything nefarious:

1. Your existing system is in the act of dying.

2. One vendor has everything you need -- right now. All that is required to configure and install.

3. There is a history with that vendor of keeping promises and providing good service.

That's logical from a user standpoint. But from a purchasing/legal standpoint, it usually doesn't turn out that way.

 

[xmo]

Upgrades are the key.

Before P25, every radio company had their own incompatible trunking system. When public safety said: "we want a standards based system", one company said: 'this is stupid, we will win in the market with our better technology'

M said: 'this is stupid, but we won't fight it, we will DRIVE it'

So, M stopped selling Smartzone and other companies said: 'stupid Motorola customers, now you have to do a forklift upgrade, WE support our system with add-ons and WE still sell it.

That was persuasive, but M developed the answer. A protocol converter that let a P25 core control Smartzone sites and a gateway that let you keep your Centracom consoles.

So M's customers started buying P25 cores. Purchasing said: 'this is a lot of money, we need to do an RFP' and the radio guys said: 'no one else can do this unless you want to replace everything'

So - sole source.

A couple years later it's time for new consoles. Another sole-source upgrade.

Now comes time to replace the base stations and upgrade the user radios.

Purchasing: 'OMG, this is a LOT of money, we need to do an RFP'
Radio guys: 'can't unless you replace everything'
Purchasing: 'we will hire a consultant'
Consultant: 'the radio guys are right'

And that, boys and girls, is how M came to own the public safety market.

 

[mmckenna]

Upgrades are the key.
…..
And that, boys and girls, is how M came to own the public safety market.

Well said.

Agencies willing to cut ties and not buy into the proprietary stuff are out there.

While purchasing can be really hard nosed about this stuff, there are some that will let the questionable stuff slide if they get blinded by the B.S. In a way, over analyzing purchases is a good thing, but damn it's annoying.

Purchasing: 'OMG, this is a LOT of money, we need to do an RFP'
Radio guys: 'can't unless you replace everything'
Purchasing: 'we will hire a consultant'
Consultant: 'the radio guys are right'

I have a consultant engaged on a large project right now. Specifically went looking for one that wasn't tied to a brand name. Finding consultants that understand the entire industry and not just the offerings of one manufacturer can be done. It's just not always easy.

And fortunately I'm moving them from an analog conventional system, so no proprietary crap to get in the way.

 

[xmo]

Shopping for a consultant can be a bigger task than picking a vendor. You can write what you think is a clear RFP explaining what you want and the responses will be all over the map with a huge range of costs.

Pick the wrong one and you have just picked your system vendor at the same time.

Proprietary is unavoidable. APCO wanted open standards, COTS infrastructure, and multiple suppliers.

You can put user radios from multiple vendors on these systems - at least at the basic talk & listen level but advanced features like OTAR, OTAP, and radio management are still pretty vendor specific.

COTS didn't help much either. Sure, now the core is comprised of HP servers instead of proprietary controllers, but COTS has the half life of a banana so you are committed to regular upgrades. And you can't just go get them from CDW. The software and support have to come from your vendor - nobody is going to run a wide area, mission critical, public safety system without vendor support.

 

[Reelfishguy]

I am often curious why these large systems are purchased through an RFP rather than an IFB (Invitation for Bid). The RFP is something like we want coverage here, here, and here, and the IFB would be we want a 300 foot tower here built like xxx, etc. The RFPs give the vendor points for various categories, but price is not the total deciding factor. The IFB would be awarded to the vendor that meets all of the specifications with the lowest price. I understand just because you are low bid does not mean you meet all of the specifications. The agencies hire a consultant to write the RFPs so why not change it to an IFB. I know that would require a lot more writing in the specifications, but it would be more specific where the RFP has a lot of wiggle room for the vendor to negotiate items out of their proposal.

 

[BoxAlarm187]

I am often curious why these large systems are purchased through an RFP rather than an IFB (Invitation for Bid).

The problem with the IFB is that the purchaser (and/or consultant) may not have the technical expertise nor the background with each of the various vendors to know exactly what will work best. If the customer calls for a 300' tower when a 400' is needed, then the vendor has to convince the customer that their specs are insufficient for the project. It can get into a LOT of headaches, even when a consultant has been retained by the purchaser.

 

[fourgres]

Motorola owned by China

 

[LateNightGaming]

Hypocrisy so thick you can cut it with a Saber:

I see what you did there

 

[dcr_inc]

You can buy better, but you'll NEVER pay more...Motorola Sales Moto

 

[tweiss3]

I am often curious why these large systems are purchased through an RFP rather than an IFB (Invitation for Bid). The RFP is something like we want coverage here, here, and here, and the IFB would be we want a 300 foot tower here built like xxx, etc. The RFPs give the vendor points for various categories, but price is not the total deciding factor. The IFB would be awarded to the vendor that meets all of the specifications with the lowest price. I understand just because you are low bid does not mean you meet all of the specifications. The agencies hire a consultant to write the RFPs so why not change it to an IFB. I know that would require a lot more writing in the specifications, but it would be more specific where the RFP has a lot of wiggle room for the vendor to negotiate items out of their proposal.

Multiple reasons:
Design - bid - build involves a significant upfront investment and technical studies.
Most people behind the drive of the update don't understand enough to know better.
Design-bid-build lacks a sense of "performance requirements" and leaves the door open to an unsatisfactory result when the specified height/power/system doesn't perform as expected by the owner.
The performance specifications are easier to understand by the owner/end user.

It's the same reason that may States have transitioned to Construction Manager at Risk for capital improvement projects. The mayor can say "I want Main Street re-constructed" and the CMaR provides a price.

 

[RFI-EMI-GUY]

Multiple reasons:
Design - bid - build involves a significant upfront investment and technical studies.
Most people behind the drive of the update don't understand enough to know better.
Design-bid-build lacks a sense of "performance requirements" and leaves the door open to an unsatisfactory result when the specified height/power/system doesn't perform as expected by the owner.
The performance specifications are easier to understand by the owner/end user.

It's the same reason that may States have transitioned to Construction Manager at Risk for capital improvement projects. The mayor can say "I want Main Street re-constructed" and the CMaR provides a price.

Won't that simply raise the cost to tax payers without any assurance the project will not be full of cost saving short cuts by the prime? I am thinking of rebar left out of foundations sort of short cuts.

 

[mmckenna]

There's good arguments both ways.

It really comes down to a lot of variables based off what is needed, what resources the agency has, and what their purchasing department wants.

I could have certainly done an request for proposal, but I'd be totally reliant on the vendor to actually put the effort into designing the system. Past experience tells me that they'll often low ball the bid to get in the door, then change order the bejebus out of us.

On the other hand, I pay up front for a consultant. We work together to figure out the needs, figure out how to meet those needs, and then design the system ourselves. The consultant knows the industry and the technology. They have the propagation analysis tools. I know the local agencies I can get tower space from. I know the infrastructure we'll need to backhaul. Since this is a large enough project, the towers/sites that will be built will be mine, not someone else's and absolutely not the property of the vendor where I'm having to lease them back.
I'm also not tied to any one vendor. I'm not tied to the 'installer du jour' chosen by the vendor.

And, if the consultant and I screw something up, we fix it. If the vendor screws it up, then legal gets involved and 5 years after I retire we might actually get a functional radio system.

I guess it comes down to how much trust you want to put in the vendor. I've been burned, don't want to get burned again. Remember, those guys are looking at shareholder profits, not providing the best system possible.

 

[tweiss3]

Won't that simply raise the cost to tax payers without any assurance the project will not be full of cost saving short cuts by the prime? I am thinking of rebar left out of foundations sort of short cuts.

Without going off on a rant and getting too far into it, that is the exact reason I very much dislike the model. The CMaR bids based on the "design" drawings, then beat up the design engineers and their own contractors to meet budget and save as much as possible. In an ideal world, it would result in money back to the owner, but almost always it just lines the CMaR's pockets and leaves the owner with a product that would not have been as polished as the basis of design.

The ONLY upside is it is single prime to the owner, so instead of the owner fighting the finger pointing between two primes where both are wrong, the just tell the CMaR, "I don't give a darn, give me a working product, figure it out yourselves."

There's good arguments both ways.

It really comes down to a lot of variables based off what is needed, what resources the agency has, and what their purchasing department wants.

I could have certainly done an request for proposal, but I'd be totally reliant on the vendor to actually put the effort into designing the system. Past experience tells me that they'll often low ball the bid to get in the door, then change order the bejebus out of us.

On the other hand, I pay up front for a consultant. We work together to figure out the needs, figure out how to meet those needs, and then design the system ourselves. The consultant knows the industry and the technology. They have the propagation analysis tools. I know the local agencies I can get tower space from. I know the infrastructure we'll need to backhaul. Since this is a large enough project, the towers/sites that will be built will be mine, not someone else's and absolutely not the property of the vendor where I'm having to lease them back.
I'm also not tied to any one vendor. I'm not tied to the 'installer du jour' chosen by the vendor.

And, if the consultant and I screw something up, we fix it. If the vendor screws it up, then legal gets involved and 5 years after I retire we might actually get a functional radio system.

I guess it comes down to how much trust you want to put in the vendor. I've been burned, don't want to get burned again. Remember, those guys are looking at shareholder profits, not providing the best system possible.

And you are the 1% of people that realize you can spend a few bucks up front and save millions on the back end, instead of the other way around. I have had a total of 1 client (under the pressure of the State) that did CMaR on a major project and severely disliked the overall outcome and their lack of control. They have vowed never again to use that development model. But that is 1 client out of the past 10 years this model has been used.

 

[mmckenna]

And you are the 1% of people that realize you can spend a few bucks up front and save millions on the back end, instead of the other way around. I have had a total of 1 client (under the pressure of the State) that did CMaR on a major project and severely disliked the overall outcome and their lack of control. They have vowed never again to use that development model. But that is 1 client out of the past 10 years this model has been used.

Yeah, we tend to work that way. But it's been a long process. I've been trying to replace the system for years. Luckily I can keep the old Quantars and MTR2000's running for a while longer. That'll at least let me build the new system along side the old one. Not to mention new dispatch consoles and new portable/mobile radios.
Nice thing is I have a pretty accurate estimate of how much it's all going to cost and am confident that we've designed well. Now I just have to keep the vendor from trying to mess it up.
But if I get this system installed and running by the end of 2022, I'll be surprised.

On a positive note, that means that if we get the expected 10+ years out of the new system, I'll be retired when it's time to do this all over again.

 

[mmckenna]

And most importantly, it'll keep purchasing somewhat appeased.

I think one of the worst things an agency (or anyone) can do is pick the manufacturer first, then start looking at making it work. Far too many agencies just pick your Motorola or Cisco and leave it up to them to drain the bank account and hopefully you end up with a finished product.