HomeMy WebLinkAbout1985-04-23; City Council; 7621-3; AWARD OF CONTRACT FOR TELEPHONE SYSTEMI
TELEPYONE SYSTEM
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Accept the report from CRC as complete, and authorize them to proceed with Ph
111 - Full Implementation; and
Adopt Resolution No. p? -, accepting bids, appropriatinq funds, and awarding the contract o furnish, install, and maintain a telephone system to
AS1 Telesystems, Inc. in an amount not to exceed $214,819.
ITEM EXPLANATION:
On November 13, 1984, Council approved the specifications, and authorized sta
to advertise for bids for a telephone system.
December 17, 1984, as follows:
1. AS1 Telesystems, Xnc. $189,669
2. Executone 18 9,9 29
3. Compath National 214,766
4. Pacific Bell (Not a responsive bid - No equipment includc
The Consultant, Communication Resources Company, performed an analysis of the
bids and recommends the award of the contract to AS1 Telesystems, Inc. Their
report is on file in the City Clerk's Office. Award of the contract will
require the vendor to complete the installation and cut over to the new syster
within 120 days.
References of AS1 have been verified by the Central Services Director, and a site visit conducted to one of their installations.
statements of the firm have been reviewed by our Finance Director.
Comparative cost projections, shown on the following two charts, show curnulatj
costs over a 10 year period. Chart 81 shows cost projections, including line
Four bids were received on
Additionally, the financl
FISCAL IMPACT :
The total cost (based on direct purchase) to install a new telephone system is
estimated at $214,819, which includes costs for changes which have occurred in
B *
I ' f PAGE 2 OF AB # 7,& a/-3 -
It is clear that the Durchase of a system will save the City at least $453,0
the end of ten years. The only remaining issue is the financing method most advantageous. A recommendation regarding financing will be surrt>itted at a
subsequent meeting. To award the contract, however, funds must be appropria
and those funds are available in the General Capital Construction Fund.
An additional charge will be incurred for relocating the Police Department
system to the new facility. The vendor has guaranteed a price of $29,047.88
through July, 1986, for the relocation of the system, in accordance with the
specs. If the mve occurs after that date, a maximum increase of 10% has be
guaranteed by the bid.
EXHIBITS:
1. Chart #I - Cumulative Cost Comparisons
2. Chart Q2 - Cumulative Telephone Equipment Cost Comparisons.
3.
4. Report from Communication Resources Company, on file in the City Clerk's
5. Resolution No. "~~~~
Vemorandum from the Central Services Director dated April 23, 1985.
Office.
, accepting bids, appropriating funds, and awarl
the contract to furnish, install, and maintain a telephone system.
1 0
* I 1 I 1 I I I I I I
LLl
I I I I
-0
t- LIP Ulq
* $5
1%
-a Q v> z
0 c/) -03 1; ips at- by p
y?
$F
Wt:' I
C/JIEO I
t- = OQ 0 WI 1
0 CL E% OW n1
_I
-x
_I
3 2
3 0
0 0 0 c3 7 z2 '
kt- b
-> B
W mo 0
--W 0 x
cnv, ' t-
xv, ' C/)
-n
-CD
-m 6
a
U
-e I (
< If
+
4.
I
( A c
r -c\J -
a
L t I
(
-rsl
-c
-7 I
I I I I I I I I I I I I I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
I a
0
(1
,d <
t 0 a
* I I I I I I I I I I I I 1
W t- :2
c/) 35
0 15
t- z W 3
o_
3 0 W
0 a
-
*
W I-: ; z VQ
-!x I 0
n= I I
o_ a
W s _1 s w t-
W >
t-
Q 0 _I
3 gz a ax = uw !x+ : t- I3 !xu
E5 I
-
0
0
7
4- : v, VU ‘0 0
0 r I I I I 1 I I I I I I I
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 co a * N d-
7
N r- 7
* 0 0
,$ I
MEMORANDUM
April IO, 1985
TO: FSANK ALESHIRE, CITY MANAGER
FROM: Lee Rautenkranz, Central Services Director
TELEPHONE SYSTEM REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS
On November 13, 1984, Council approved specifications, and authorized staff to
advertise for bids for a telephone system. Bids have been received, and it is
now time to determine the future of the City's telephone system. To make that
determination, many factors must be considered. Therefore, this report will be
divided into four sections: (1) Analysis of Rid Responses; (2) Purchase of
System vs. Remaining with Centrex; (3) Optional Equipment Considerations; and
(4) Financinq Alternatives.
ANALYSIS OF BID RESPONSES
Four bids were received and opened on December 17, 1984. A list of those firms
and their bids are as follows:
1. AS1 Telesystems, Inc. $1 89,669
2. Executone 189,929
3. Compath National 214,766
4. Pacific Bell* (Not a responsive bid - No equipment included.)
* Pacific Bell submitted a bid on Centrex features only, no equpment
was included in this bid.
An analysis of the bids was performed by the City's Consultant, Communication
Resources Company (CRC). Clerk's Office. The following summarizes the highlights of the report.
The Consultant compared all proposals on the following factors:
1. Product: This included comparisons of the traffic carrying capability,
Their report and recommendation is on file in the Cit
length of time on the market, local installation, equipment room
requirements, and type of instrumentation. (Exhibit A)
2. Future Equipment and Optional Feature Costs: This included comparisons of
itemization costs of equipment and optional features for specific items of
equipment such as single line and multi-line telephones which may be
required in the future. (Exhibit B)
3. Service and Maintenance Costs: This included comparisons of service costs,
maintenance costs, response time intervals, service locations, and non-
performance penalties . (Exhibit C)
-1-
8 e e
,f (
4. ,System Essential Features: This comparison detailed the essential features
identified and the operational characteristics as quoted in the bids.
5. Financial Comparisons: This comparison addressed all of the system costs,
and development of IO-year cost projections including line charges from
Pacific Bell. In developing the IO-year cost projections, the following
assumptions were made by the Consultant predicated on known facts and
historical data:
A. All telephone company monthly rates and charges applicable in - all
comparisons were increased by 10% annually beginning in the second
year, based on historic data and rate tracking.
R. All vendor maintenance rates were increased annually based on
guaranteed maximum quoted in the bids.
The installed system will remain in-service under the mst conservativc
estimates of 10 years.
C.
The IO-year cost projections for each vendor (based on direct purchase of the
system) are shown in Exhibit D.
Based on the results of all the comparisons, and analysis of all bids, CRC
recommends that the City award the contract and purchase the telephone system
from AS1 Telesystems, Snc. In summary, CRC states that:
"ASS has proposed the NEC 2400 IMS. This is a new, state-of-the-art, system
which has been available for just over one year. This system has many new
feature capabilities, and AS1 has installed and maintained twenty (20)
systems in one year. AS1 is a California based corporation with a fine
reputation for quality installations. They have been established since 197
and have an excellent base of satisfied customers."
PURCHASE vs REMAINING WITH CENTREX
The determination of whether the City should purchase a telephone system or
remain with Centrex is essentially a financial decision. cost projections need to be compared. To make the comparisons as equitable as
possible, the following charges were included in cost projections:
To make that decision
1. Line Charges:
These are charges for the telephone lines which would be incurred
with any telephone system. Year one charges are $43,636, and increase are projected at 10% annually. These charges are identical in cost
projections for the existing and the new system even though there will
be a slight reduction in that charge with a new system.
2. Telco Installation Charges:
This is a charqe 'associated only with the purchase of a new telephone
system. The charqe would be from Pacific Bell, and is estimated at
$8,083. This would be a one-time charge, and is included in the cost
projection for the new system.
-2-
c 0 e <
I 1
3. Maintenance Charqes:
This is a charge included in cost projections for the new system. The
charges are also present in the existing system, but are included as
part of the equipment rental costs. The maintenance charge for the ne
system have been included in the cost projections heginning in the
second year at $4,968, and increased by 6% annually thereafter, in
accordance with their bid.
4. Equipment Charges :
This is the actual equipment charge. Charges for the new system are
based on the bid from ASI, and charges for the existing system are
based on rental costs paid for existing equipment.
The cumulative cost projections based on the above stated factors are shown in
Exhibit E. These costs projections for both systems do not include usage costs
(charges for long distance or local calls). Also, cost projections for both
systems are based on the equipment requirements remaining static. Though that
is an unrealistic assumption, it is the only way that comparable projections
could be made.
These 10-year cost projections show savings beginning in year five at $51,661. At the end of the ten years, the savings would be $452,988.
savings would continue to increase.
These projected savings are based on the direct purchase of a system. Savings
could be realized in year one with the proper financing vehicle, which will be
addressed later in this report. Rased on the projected savings, it is
recommended that the City award the contract to AS1 Telesystems, Inc., and
purchase their own equipment.
After year ten, th
OPTIONAL EQUIPMENT CONSIDERATIONS
During the analysis of the existing system, certain items were identified which
would be useful to some department operations, or to assist with management of
the system. Those items were included in the specifications, and vendors were
asked to bid on those items as optional equipment. The City, then, could
include, or delete those items from the contract based on the need versus cost.
Following is a description and explanation of some of the additional items whic
were considered for inclusion if the City purchases a telephone system.
Call Accounting:
The call accountinq equipment is essential for providing the information
necessary to manage the telephone system. It will provide on-site printouts
displaying the number of the station generating the call, time of call, number
called, duration of call, and cost of call. Exception reports will be provided
showing frequently called numbers, trunking information, and other pertinent
information to allow for management of the system. This information will allow
for analysis to determine whether additional foreign exchange lines or \VATS
lines would be cost effective based on volume of calls going to those areas.
Though telephone costs are inevitable, they should be managed
-3-
P e 0
,f I
The call accounting equipment should be included with both the City Hall system
and the Police Department system. The cost is $1 1,042 each. It is recommended
that only one be purchased while the Police are in the current facility. At
such time as they move, an additional one should be purchased for their locatio
and system.
UPS (Uninterruptible Power Supply) :
operate the system during power black-outs or brown-outs.
each, for a total of $5,444, including tax.
Consideration of whether to purchase a UPS is based on a worst case scenario:
What is the worst thing that could happen if we lose our power. Answer: We
lose our ability to receive or make telephone calls. However, the system could
be added to the standby generator. Then, within seven seconds, the standby
power generator kicks on, and electricity and phone service is restored. For a
short time, telephone service would be lost. The 911 emergency line is separat
from the remainder of the telephone system. Therefore, if the City purchases
their own system, the purchase of the UPS equipment would not be recommended fo
inclusion. If experience proves otherwise, it could be purchased and installed
in the future.
Maintenance Administration Terminal (MAT) :
terminal on-site which would allow City personnel to accomplish some of the
system changes rather than calling the vendor.
with training at an additional cost of $200 for each person.
Since the types of changes which could be accomplished with the console affect
features we don't have with Centrex, there is no information available on
whether we would, in fact, save money using the terminal. Therefore, if the
City purchases their own system, the purchase of the terminals would not be
recommended for inclusion. If experience should prove that the use of the
terminals would save more than they cost, they could be purchased and installed
at a later date.
Answering Machines: Whether the City purchases their own system or not,
answering machines would be beneficial in several locations in the City. The
devices would give a recorded message to the callers after hours and on
holidays. Additionally, an answering machine could be used on a line to answer
frequently asked questions (such as the hours the library is open) and give a
number to call if additional information is desired. The cost per machine is
$205, including tax.
This equipment provides backup power to
The cost is $2,722
This would consist of a computer
The consoles cost $5,684 each,
Machines could be used in the following locations:
1. Receptionist
2. Development Processing Division
3. Library
4. Branch Library
5. Water Billing
There may be additional locations, but the above are identified as highly
visible areas that receive numerous calls. An answering machine may
significantly aid public relations efforts, particularly on holidays that are
not recognized by other organizations. A minimum of five machines, totalling
$1,025, would be desireable.
-4-
t 0 a
,f I
Police Department Relocation: One additional item included under optional item
mentioned is the Police Department relocation.
the cost of relocating the Police Department system to the new facility.
price quoted by ASI, and guaranteed through July, 1986, is $29,047.88. If the
move occurs after that date, the maximum increase, per the bid, would be 10
percent, Though these funds will not be included in the initial contract, it
provides cost information for planning purposes.
relocation cost of all bidders.
OPTIONAL EQUIPMENT SUMMARY: Of the optional equipment, it is recommended that
one call accounting system and a minimum of five answering machines be purchase
at this time. The other items can be purchased in the future if the cost and/o
experience shows they are needed.
Vendors were asked to provide
The
AS1 also had the lowest
.
FINANCING ALTERNATIVES
The base price of the system is $189,669; cost of optional equipment desired is
$12,067; plus the estimated $8,083 to Pacific Bell for installation charges.
One additional factor needs to be considered in the final cost analysis. There
have been changes which have occurred in several departments since the original
sDecifications were prepared. Those changes have been either in the department
operation, location, or types and numbers of equipment. During implement ation,
it is necessary for those changes to be incorporated into the new system design
It is not anticipated that the changes would amount to more than $5,000. It is
necessary, however, for the Central Services Director to have authority to approve any such changes during implement ation. Theref ore, tot a1 expenditure
for direct purchase would not exceed $214,819.
There are alternatives to a direct purchase, and those are being explored. A lease purchase may be a cost effective way for the City to proceed if the
interest rate and the terms of the agreement are acceptable. If a lease- purchase agreement is utilized, savings will be realized at the end of the firs
year the City purchases the system. An example using 11.25 percent for
financing for seven years is also shown on Exhibit E.
Financial and other lending institutions are being contacted for lease purchase
proposals and rates. In addition, the California Cities Financing Corporation
has been contacted for information. A copy of an announcement from the
Corporation is attached. A final recommendation on financing will be Dresented
to Council at a subsequent meeting. Award of the contract, however, will
require a commitment of funds from the City.
COMCLUSION
It is recommended that AS1 Telesystems be awarded the contract for the purchase
and installation of a telephone system.
optional equipment cost is $12,067. Pacific Bell charges would be approximate1
$8,083.
changes which have occurred since preparation of the specs; for a total system
cost of $214,819.
aporoximately $453,000 at the end of the ten years by purchasing their own
telephone.
Cost of the new system is $189,669;
A maximum of $5,000 also needs to be included for incorporation of
Cost projections show the City would realize a savings of
-5-
t 0 e
,< 1
It is recommended that the City move forward with the purchase of their own
telephone system, and award the contract to AS1 Telesystems, Inc. The
recommended financing method will be presented in a future report. Award of th
contract, however, will require a commitment to funding the purchase of the
system should other financing not prove advantageous.
-6-
EXHIBIT A
PRODUCT COMPARISONS
AS1 COMPATH EXECUTONE
NEAX 2400 SL-1MS E-400 Eclipse Product
No. Tele. Harris Siemens Manufacturer NEC
Type Switching Digital Digital Digital Digital
Max. Trk. Cap. (2) (4) 72 72
H
ITEM
Max. Stn. Cap. (2) (4) 224 224
CCS Rating (3) 6.5 36 36
Data Trans. 56K BPS 19.2 KBPS 9600 BPS 9600 BP:
Time On Market 1 year 4 years 7 years 2 years
Installations 20 17 127 7
8'XS' 9' x12' x8' 8'x8' 8' x 8' Equip. Room
Temp. Range (1) (1) (1) (1)
Stn. Equip. ITT Comdial - Comdial Comdial
NOTES :
(1) Air Conditioning Required
(2! Ther-e are 23,000 universal ports xhich are mutually exclusive
for either trunks or stations
(3) Non-blocking
(4) There are 400 universal ports which are mutually exclusive for-
either trunks or stations
I1
EXHIBIT 3 a 0
a 4w
FUTURE EQUIPMENT ADDITION ti OPTIONAL EQUIPMENT COST COMPARISON
ITEM - AS I COMPATH EXECUTONE
Single Line $135 $183 $212 Five Line 335 430 346
10-btn. (Std.) 377 399 390
10-btn. (Elec. ) 435 357 461
20-btn. (Std. ) 622 800 779
20-btn. (Elec. ) 475 681 1121 Light Re 1 ay 41 N/A 45 6-Line Key Cab. 515 654 419 13-Line Key Cab. 900 663 789 Stn. Line Card (CHI 2700 2529 2323
Stn. Line Card (PD) 1769
Trk. Line Card (CHI 2100 1260 3258
Trk. Line Card (PD) 148%
OPTIONAL EQUIPMENT
Call Acctng. (System I) $11 , 042 $25 , 595 $5 , 874
Speed Call IDcluded $ 977 Included
Speed Dialer $ 305 239 $ 145
UPS (System I) 2,722 7,400 7,850
UPS (System 11) 2,722 7,400 7 , 850
Customer Adm. Console 5,684 Included 4,300 (CHI
1,500 (PD)
Comrn. Mgr. Training 200 (4) 280 (6) No Charge(2
Call Sequencer 6,200 3,li3 6,300
Last Number Redial Included( 3) 282 Incld. on I
Relocation of PD 29,048 (5) 70,275 (1) 38,518 (1)
Call Acctng. (System 11) 11,042 N/A 5,874
Answering Machines 205 547 $ 375
Not on I
NOTES:
(1) Not guaranteed
( 2) 2 week program
(3) Electronic sets only
(4) 2 day program
( 5 1 Guaranteed
(6) 8 hour program
EXHI3I-T C e a
, -I.".!
SERVICE AND MAINTENANCE COMPARISONS
- AS I COMPATH EXECUTON E ITEM
Monthly Maint. $414 $1,263 $630
Max. Escalation 6% 10% 7%
Hourly Rate $45 (2) $60 $72
Min. Billing $45 $60 $72
Billing Method On-Prem. On-Prem. On-Prem.
Routine Response 24 hours 24 hours 24 hours
Non-Perf. Penalty $50/hr. (1) $50/hr.
Emerg. Response 2 hours 2 hours 2 hours
Non-perf. Penalty $50/hr. (1) $50/hr.
Service Center San Diego/ San Diego San Diego
Costa Mesa
Number of Installers 50 9 37
N umb e r o f'aTec h s . 32 11 46
NOTES:
(1) Indicates less than minimum bid specification requirements
(2) Plus parts
P a EXHISIT D
i Page 1 of 4
e
CITY OF CARLSBAD
AS I
DIRECT PURCHASE
ANNUAL CUltlULAT IVE
YEAR ITEM COSTS COSTS
1 SYSTEM EQUIP. COST (4) 139,669
TELCO INSTALL (1) 8.083
TOTAL 241,338 241,388
TELCO LINE CHARGES (1) 43 , 636
2 TELCO LINE CHARGES (2) 43,000
MAINTENANCE ( 3 1 4.968
TOTAL 52 , 9m 294,356
3 T E L C 0 / f*l A I 1.1 T 58, 06e 352,421
4 TELC 0 / MA I N T 63, 662 416,083
5 TELCO / CIA INT 69,804 .x- 485,887 .
6 T E L C 0 / MA I N T 76,548 562,435
TELCO/MAINT 83,952 646,388 .-. /
8 TELCO /MA I NT 92.031 738 , 4.59
9 TELC 0 / Ir! A I NT lor, 008 8.39 , 477
10 TELC 0 / MA I NT 110.i310 950,286
NOTES:
(1) Includes all applicable Telco line, trunk, etc., monthl-/ rates arid
installation charqes.
(2) Appl icable Telco charqec, are included throuqh-out and increased k/
10.00% anrlual 1.1 based on histor.ic rate trackir~g.
(3) Maintenance service be3ins io t~~e secorld .yes,r, is inc~cided tt-~rciu~k-
and increased by 6.00% as bid.
(4; Eased or! the DISCOLINT option which provides CIT'r' i3F CfiPLSFAT!
wlth a net savinqs of B 8617 , irxcludir:3 the CPC iniplern~~~tat:.~t-i iee.
+ EXHIBIT D Page 2 of 4
0 a
<
CITY OF CARLSBAD
COMPATH NATIONAL
DIRECT PURCHASE
ANNUAL CUMULAT I VE
COSTS YEAR ITEM COSTS
SYSTEM EQUIP. COST (4) 214,766
TELCO LINE CHARGES (1) 43,636
TELCO INSTALL (1) 8.083
TOTAL 266,585 266,485
1
2 TELCO LINE CHARGES (2) 48, 000
15,156 MAINTENANCE (3)
TOTAL 63,156 . 329,641
3 TELCO/MAINT 69,471 390,112
4 TELCO/MAINT 76,418 475,530
5 TELCO / PIA INT 84,0& 559,590
6 TELCO/MAINT 92,466 c52: 056
7 TELCO / MA I t\lT 101 s 713 753,760
8 TELCO/MAINT 111.884 865,653
9 TELCG/MAINT 123,072 988,725
10 T E L C 0 / M A I N T 13S13B0 1,124,105
NOTES :
(1) Includes all applicable Telco 1 ine, t.t-.11nL;. etc.. month!:,’ rates 2nd
instal latiori charges.
(21 Appl icablc Telco charges are inclcided ttrroa~h-ot.it and :ncre.i_a.ced 5..,1
10.00% annually based on historic pate trackit-lq.
(3) Maintenance service be7ir-IS in t!-:e secor~d .vear. is included +-!-:r.o!~qt-l-
and increased by 1Cl.OU% as bid.
(4) Based on the DISCOUNT option b~t-iich ~rovldes CITY OF CAELSFGi)
with a net savings Gt 3 2.362 , ~t-lcIudir:q the CFC implemrntat-ior: fee.
k 0 a EXHIBIT D
< Page 3 of 4
CITY OF CARLSBAD
EXECUTONE
DIRECT PURCHASE
ANNUAL CUMULATIVE
COSTS YEAR ITEM COSTS
1 SYSTEM EQUIP. COST (4) 189,929
TELCO INSTALL (li 8,083
TOTAL 241,648 241,648
TELCO LINE CHARGES (11 43,63b
2 TELCO LINE CHARGES (2) 48,000
MA I NTENANCE (3) 7,560
TOTAL 55,560 277,208
3 TELCO/MAINT 60, sa9 358,096
4 TELCO/MAINT 66,735 424,831
5 TELCO/MAINT -77 f 3.149 497,080
6 TELCO / MA INT 80,186 578,166
P
7 TEL C 0 / MA I NT €37,907 666,073
a T ELC 0 / PIA I NT 96 , 380 762.453
9 TELCO ! MA I NT 105,677 868,130
10 TELCO/MAINT 115,881 984! 0 11
NOTES :
(1) Includes all applicable Telco line, trunk. etc., rnont-h1.y rates and
instal latian charqes.
(21 Appl icable Telco chat-?es are included throu~h-out and incr-eased b;..
10.00% annually based on historic rate tracl.inq.
(3) Maintenance service b~q:ns in the second \/ear, is included th!--ou.qh-
and increased by 57.00% as bid.
(4) Based on the DiSZOliNT option which provides CITY OF CARLSEAD
with a net savings of B 15707 , inciuding the CRC implementation fee
EXHIBIT D
?age /1- of 4
a 0
CUMULATIVE COST COMPARISON
z Eii4
DIRECT PURCHASE
EXEC U TON E YEAR - AS1 COMPATH
1 $241,388 S 266,485 $241,648
2 294,356 329,641 297,208
3 352,421 399,112 358,096
4 416,083 475,530 424 ,831
5 485,887 559 , 590 497,980
6 562 f 435 652,056 578,166
7 646,388 753,769 666,073
8 738 f 469 865,653 762,453
9 839,477 988,725 868 , 130
10 950,286 1 , 124 , 105 984,011
m
i
I
Exhibit E
CUHUl;fATIVE COST PRQ3ECTIOWS *
NEW SYSTEM
EX TSTI NG DIRECT LEASE
I_ YEAR SYSTEM PURCHASE PURCHASE
1 88,049 241,388 88,192
2 184,903 294,356 177,633
3 291,442 352,421 272,171
4 408,635 416,083 372,306
5 537,548 485,887 478,583
6 679,352 562,435 591,604
7 835,336 646,388 71 2,030
8 1,006,918 738,469 804,111
9 1,195,659 839,477 905,119
10 1,403,274 950,28 6 1,015,928
* Costs include line charges which have been increased 10 percent annually,
based on historic trends.
r- -
Cities Financing Together
OFFtCERS President Dorill B. Wright Mayor Port Hueneme
Vice President Lowell Mayor Smith
St. Helena
Financial Officer John S. Lindsay Finance Director Santa Rosa
DIRECTORS Robert S. Biery Finance Director Thousand Oaks
June V. Bulrnan Council Member Concord
Suzanne E. Foucault City Manager Oceanside
Gary C. lngraham Finance Director Stockton
Thomas A. Peterson City Manager Woodland
Joseph Tanner City Manager Erneryville
Executive Secretary Daniel B. Harrison
A nonprofit corporation offering financial services to cities.
1400 K Street, Suite 400 Sacramento, CA 95814 9 16-444-5790
Purpose The California Cities Financing Corporation (CCF
exists to facilitate credit pooling among cities needi
to finance relatively small projects. It was crea!
after a League of California Cities task force reco
mended this approach for the potential cost savings
the local agencies.
By pooling their financing needs, participating citi
counties or special districts will reduce costs by sh
ing fixed overhead such as bond counsel and printii
and by taking advantage of “big project” inter
rates in the competitive municipal securities mark
Equipment, infrastructure and real property projec
can be included in CCFC financings. Some agenc
may also find it advantageous to refinance an existi
debt at more favorable rates through CCFC. (Privs
purpose projects are not eligible.)
I
How it Works
Types of Projects
Credit Enhancement Each financing will include credit enhancemen
either insurance or bank letters of credit, to guaranl
that the corporation will never default on an oblig
tion and to assure the highest available credit ratir
which in turn will guarantee the lowest possible inti
est rate.
The first financing is in progress and should clo
approximately April 1. The deadline for applicatio
from cities interested in participating in the secoi
issue is March 29. Thereafter, CCFC will provide tk
service as an on-going program, completing a finan
ing as often as the needs of local agencies will requiI
Bond Counsel The firm of Jones Hall Hill and White has bel
Schedule
retained as bond counsel.
CCFC has appointed an underwriting team consistii
of Merrili Lynch Capital Markets and Stone ai
Youngberg.
Underwriters
Informa tion For more information contact Daniel B. Harris0
California Cities Financing Corporation, 1400
Street, Suite 400, Sacramento, California 958 1
9 16/444-5790.
Application An application for paticipation is printed on tl
reverse side of the Fact Sheet for your convenienc
)r \z
.b P
,
$2
E' %E* E +z-.s
.d 2 2 rM
z i;: .4 o aEhZ eE.83
0 -g g %&
OES 2 *B s 4
u 88 5
2 bs c1 0-2
.d 08 58
G c34 2 si
2g +t uw z 20 if Ck sg
MI 52 ZM g k0 k aF1 53 -
3 03 5 2 zi
04 s?
$
rn * * 0 m G !!.
c .- * QM * CI 83 = ZP E'f
oh M 2
0 .d E 5.E
a ..
E - -2EYF 2 y h.z*
25 .-
'0- ..-) 5"
- 00 z 4 HZ n
8 22 0% 03 a e
8 .5 \
cda $2
a '3
5 .5 L
0 w- 1
a4 x
a* .- u 2 *
+- 3 B e - cl?
2
C"
u 35 8 s 2
f
U .- .. wi
Es:
0 MU C '5 8 h 9 8 g.32
u
2 -Y .E 2El
3 5 Ego
C
O.2
0% * 5s g G2 8
a .fL 2 +.Y PC
h-0 +
.-
.~
Q) cd --
U L cd a
6
0 e 6
s-2
CLL .- .% so\ rl .g m v) LO *o & '3 z- 0 m
m.r!m c-3
M
vo
c 000
.9 0
Sags? - - EY p N *%Go t;'D
9 kgcd; h 00
U - cl0-mu %
22 E:
w
P 0 0
e, - + - i r- - Mo8m
- s* e, : *-
*- U ssa.z4cn G 234 22 MZ0 Q) - ew,dsm'O &T$pG2 58 z,jsccd&: Ymddg3: ;m cd=zg*~~~
E& ,,".GG+Z ~G~kp$ Li Q)$zE"= gg 2% WG+Z zm
c 2gs*p2+ Zsi"2'0k- Gcd coo*-* 010;3 $0 o2C- S~SSEV~)~~ OiSjjljjoGz
g g n 5
m
v)
.. c) h
0 cd
C c)
(3 v
A m m U
~L2.u0 eg gs g 7 g
A * .;~rc;+~ i3
IC
/I/
/I/
'000'€19$
30 aaueTeq pun& paqe;Jdoad&un UP fiu?~ea~ paAoo;rclde Aqaaaq SJ punj uoTqanqsuo3
TeqJk3 TeJaua3 aq3 WJ3 618'tllZ$ JO JaJsueJq aq? 'Pql '5
*qae~quoa pres
ainaaxa oq pazgoqqne AqaJaq am qJaT3 Kq~3 PUP JO&M aqq qeql e$
'618't/lZ$ JO 7SOa Wa[oJd TeW7 e JOJ
82
LZ
92
~2
vz
2~
22
12
saBnq3 UOT?PT-~?~SUJ pue quaudznba puoT?do JOJ qae~quoa aq7 UJ uo:snTau; JOJ 1 I
I pazpoqqne OSTF am o<l'sz$ JO qunow aqq UJ spunj -puorqrppe qeql *E
*paqdame
Aqa~aq ST saa~/was auoqdapq aqaTdtuoa JO aweuaquTeu pup uo~qe~pqsur aqq JOJ
qae;riuoa aqq JOJ *au~ 'suaqsAsaTai ISV Aq 699'68~$; 30 pTq aw wqi *I
qmuo~ pue anJq a;re suoiieq-paci ahoqe aqq qeql 1
:SMOTTOJ se 'eTuJojTTe3 'peqs1;rej
JO Lm 343 JO TW~W Aw avi Aq aimos3tl 11 38 '~~~OZMHI 'MON
fpunj uoiqanJisuo3 -pq~de3 TemJa3 aqq UJ alqeTpAe an spun3 'SV=J~~JH
Pup $618'tlLZ$ 30 2SO3
qaafoad pqoq e JOJ sa6~eqa uoyyq-pqsu; pue auaudrnba puoTqdo JOJ paqnbaJ
aq OsTe ITJM O<L'SZ$ 30 WnoW W7 U? spun13 l?UO?rlTPPp 'SV3t13HM
We !699'681$
qunolue aqq UT '3UI 'SwaqsAsaTal TSV Aq paqqJuqns SPM saa7AJas auoqda-yaq aqaTduoa
JO aaueuaquyu pup uoTqeT-pqsuT aqi JOJ paATaaaJ pJq MOT aqq 'smtl3~~
pue !saa;~as auoqdapq aqqdwa JO aaueuaquretu pue uoTqeT-pqsuj
JOJ peqsTn3 30 Kaj3 aq2 Aq paATacm uaaq aAeq spTq 'sgtl3~
'W31SAS 3NOHd3131 V A0 33NVN31NIVW (INV NOTlVllVlSNI
3Hl NO4 WVtllN03 3Hl A0 NOIln33X3 3Hl 3NIZTtlOHlnV
aNV ' SaNM 3NIlVItldOtlddV 'Sa19 3NIJ.d1)3V 'VINtlOJIlV3 'av~sww K) hi13 HI do imnm AIT~ HI 30 NoImiosm v
6661. 'ON NOIln-IOS3tl
0 0
02
6*
87:
,&T
9'1:
ST
77:
€-t
27:
TI
01
6
8
b
9
G
P
6
z
z
<
c.L
I
(1rnS)
IN3lnVtl *l VHl3lV
:lS311V
-/ '-
b -P-
auqq :1N3Sav
auoN :S#)N
:S3AV
:apt 02 'a3oA
fju?MoTToJ 347 Aq 5861 ' TTI- 30 AeP ~IEZ a42 UO PTaq TTauno3 h?3
auqqad p yag~ 'SF- 'I~T'SW s;rsqurap~ 1-p-m~
I
PeqsTJe3 W? 30 6uTWaw JPTnbJ e ?e ElldOW ab' a3AOtlddV 'a3SSSVd
e 0
82
LZ
93
92
PZ
$22
zz
12
102
6-c
87:
LT
91
GI
PI
€T
Z-t
SI
01
6
8
L(
9
G
P
6
Z
T:
0 e
*[ZG]
FINAL REF'ORT AND
SYSTEM R E C 0 h/l ME N DATI 0 N S
FOR
CITY OF CARLSBAD
1200 ELM AVENUE
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA
PRESENTED BY
COMMUNICATION RESOURCES COMPANY
17 155 NEWHOPE STREET
F 0 U N T A I N V A L L E 'r' , C A L I F 0 R N I A
FEBRUARY, 1985
w e *[&GI
CONTENTS
ear
BACKGROUND ................................................. 1
RIDDING .................................................... 2
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS ....................................... 4
PRODUCT COMPARISON ...................................... 5
FUTURE ADDITION COMPARISON .............................. 6
SERVICE AND MAINTENANCE COMPARISON...................... 7
SYSTEM FEATURE COMPARISON ............................... 8
FINANCIAL COMPARISONS ...................................... 10
SUMMARY - DIRECT PURCHASE ............................... 15
SUMMARY - SEVEN YEAR LEASE ............................... 19
BID RESPONSE ANALYSIS ...................................... 20
RID RESPONSE SUMMARY ....................................... 22
CONCLUSIONS ................................................ 24
RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................ 26
OCOMMUN I CATIOK KE SOU RCES COMPANY
1985
All Rights Reserved. Printed in the L'nited States of America. N
part of this document may be reproduced, stored in a retreival sys tern, or transmitted, in any form or by any ~e;3i>s, e?eCLFOIliC, IneC
hanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prio
written permission of
C 0 MMU N I CAT IO N
17155 Newhope Street, Suite i/,Y
KE S 0 U KC E S CO MPAN 'f
Fountain Valley, Califoriiia
927118
a 0
BACKGROUND
*% [Z]
In February, 1984, Communication Resources Company (CRC) was rf
tained by the City of Carlsbad to analyze telecommunicati<
services throughout the City's facilities and to determine ti
extent to which the City's overall telecommunication servicc
could be improved. A preliminary report on initial findings wi
presented in May, 1984, including system design recommendatior
and bid specifications for acquisition of a new telephone system.
Upon approval of the bid specifications, by City Administratic
and City Council, bids were solicited. Beginning on November 17
1984, bidding was advertised and the complete bid request packag
was provided to various telephone system suppliers. A bi
conference was conducted with all interested vendors on Novembe
26, 1984. Bid opening was December 17, 1984. The followin
report is an overall evaluation of all bid responses with CR(
findings and recommendations.
W w
BIDDING
fiG]
On November 24, 1984, bid specifications were provided to sever
telephone system suppliers. Bid close was December 17, 1981
Bids were received from four (4) firms with the following ba:
quotes; no optional items have been included in these costs.
AS1 -
Products: NEAX 2400 IMS
Full Purchase Price: $203,669
Seven Year Lease-Annually: 39,165
Discount Purchase Price: 189,669
Seven Year Lease-Annually: 36,473
Second Year Maintenance-Annually: 4,968
COMPATH NATIONAL
Products: Northern Telecom SL-1MS
Full Purchase Price: $223,866
Seven Year Lease-Anvuall-y: 47,22;’
Discount Purchase Price: 214,766
Seven Year Lease-Annually: 47,227
Second Year Maintenance-Annually: 15,156
EXECUTONE OF CENTRAL CALIFORNIA
Products : Executone LCiipSe & E41;G
Full Purchase Price: $211,032
Seven Year Lease-Annually: 43,348
Discount Purchase Price: 189,929
* w
1 fiiij
Seven Year Lease-Annually: 39,013
Second Year Maintenance-Annually: 7,560
PACIFIC BELL
Pacific Bell did not provide a complete bid response, or a bj
bond, for telephone service and has met none of the bid specj
fication terms and conditions. They have only provided a propose
to install a Centrex system without including complete costs c
any of the on premises telephone equipment.
With no bid bond provided and with no acceptance of the terms an
conditions Pacific Bell has necessarily been removed from consi
deration for award of bid. Reference to Pacific Bell is include
within this report for illustrative purposes only.
* w
COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS
* *[ii&]
The following pages contain a complete detailed analysis of eac
bid response.
The first comparison is of the Product proposed by each biddei
This comparison indicates the traffic carrying capability of eack
the length of time the product has been on the market, locz
system installations, equipment room requirements, and type c
instrumentation used.
The second comparison is an itemization of the Future Equipmen
and Optional Feature Costs for specific items of equipment such a
single line and multi-line telephones which may be required in th
future with each system. -r
The third cornparison includes Service and Maintenance Costs
response time intervals, service locations, and non-performancc
penalties.
The final comparison details each System's Essential Features anc
operational characteristics as quoted in the bid response.
The actual validity of each bid response to any specific item has
not necessarily been ver-ified by CRC in these compar~sons. The
information is as provided oy the bidder and verified only where
inconsistent with available information and manufacturer's
technical manuals.
1) 0
PRODUCT COMPARISONS
**[iGi]
ITEM AS I COMPATH EXECUTON E
Product NEAX 2400 SL-1MS E-400 Ec
Manufacturer NEC No. Tele. Harris Si
Type Switching Digital Digital Digital Di
Max. Trk. Cap. (2) (4) 72 72
Max. Stn. Cap. (2) (4) 224 22,
CCS Rating (3) 6.5 36 36
Data Trans. 56K BPS 19.2 KBPS 9600 BPS 96(
Time On Market 1 year 4 years 7 years 2;
Installations 20 17 127 7
Equip. Room 8'x5' 9' ~12~x8' 8'x8' 8'
Temp. Range (1) (1) (1) (1:
Stn. Equip. I TT Comdial -- Comdial Con
NOTES :
(1) Air Conditioning Required
(2) Thcnre are 23,COr' ci!lversal yortc, srhlch are mutually exclusiv
tor either trunks or stations
(3) Non-blocking
(4) There are 400 universal ports which are mutually exclusive fo
either trunks or stations
m (
S*[Z]
FUTURE EQUIPMENT ADDITION & OPTIONAL EQUIPMENT COST COMPARISON2
ITEM AS1 - COMPATH EXECUTONE
Single Line $135 $183 $212 Five Line 335 430 346 10-btn. (Std.) 377 399 390 10-btn. (Elec. ) 435 357 461 20-btn. (Std. ) 622 800 779 20-btn. (Elec. ) 475 681 1121
Light Relay 41 N/A 45 6-Line Key Cab. 515 654 419
13-Line Key Cab. 900 663 789
Stn. Line Card (CH) 2700 2529 2323
Stn. Line Card (PD) 1769
Trk. Line Card (CH) 2100 1260 3258
Trk. Line Card (PD) 1488
OPTIONAL EQUIPMENT
Call Acctng. (System I) $11,042 $25,595 $5 , 874
Call Acctng. (System 11) 11,042 N/A 5,874
Speed Call Included $ 977 Included Speed Dialer $ 305 239 $ 145
UPS (System I) 2,722 7,400 7 , 850
UPS (System 11) 2,722 7,400 7,850
Customer Adm. Console 5,684 Included 4,300 (CH)
1,500 (PD)
Comm. Mgr. Training 200 (4) 280 (6) No Charge( 2:
Caii Sequencer 6,200
Last Number Redial Included( 3) 282 Incld. on TI
Relocation of PD 29,048 (5) 70,275 (1) 38,518 (1)
Answering Machines 205 547 $ 375
3,li3 6,360
Not on I
NOTES:
(1) Not guaranteed
(2) 2 week program
(3) Electronic sets only
(4) 2 day program
(5) Guaranteed
(6) 8 hour program
m 0
SERVICE AND MAINTENANCE COMPARISONS
AS1 COMPATH EXECUTONE
**w
ITEM
Monthly Maint. $414 $1,263 $630
Max. Escalation 6% 10% 7%
Hourly Rate $45 (2) $60 $72
Min. Billing $45 $60 $72
Billing Method On-Prem. On-Prem. On-Prem.
Routine Response 24 hours 24 hours 24 hours
Non-Perf. Penalty $50/hr. (1) $50/hr.
Emerg. Response 2 hours 2 hours 2 hours
Non-perf. Penalty $50/hr. (1) $50/hr.
Service Center San Diego,’ San Diego San Diego
Costa Mesa
Number of Installers 50 9 37
Number of’;-Techs. 32 11 46
NOTES:
(1) Indicates less than minimum bid specification requirements
(2) P1b.1 parts
m a
ESSENTIAL FEATURES COMPARISON - CITY HALL *[G] ITEM AS :C COMPATH EXECUTON
Proc. Contrld. Digital Swtch. Yes Yes Yes
Complete DTMF Dialing Yes Yes Yes
Customer Adm. Capability Yes Yes Yes
DID (Direct Inward Dial) Yes Yes Yes
DOD (Direct Outward Dial) Yes Yes Yes
Least Cost Routing Yes Yes Yes
Music On Hold Yes Yes Yes
Remote System Maint./Diagn. Yes Yes Yes
Stn. Class-of-Service Yes Yes Yes
Trk. Grp. Class-of-Service Yes Yes Yes
Uniform Station Numbering Ye st Yes Yes
Senderized Tie Lines Yes Yes Yes
Power Surge Protection Yes Yes Yes
RS232 Call Acct. Output Yes Ye5 Yes
Least Cost Rtny. w/Auto Advance Yes Yes Yes
Add-on Conference Yes Yes Yes
Auto. Stn. Callback Yes Yes Yes
Call Forwarding Yes Yes Yes
Call Hold Yes Yes Yes
Call Pick-up Yes Yes Yes
Call Transfer Yes Yes Yes
Call Wait iny Yes Y e s Yes
Consultation old Yes Yes Yes
P?.cq rammab IC Route Advance Yes Yes Yes
Station-to-Station Camp-On Yes No Yes
Station Controlled Conference Yt'S No Yes
St at ion H un t i ny-C i r-c ul a r Yes No Yes
(IPS CsLjah i 1. i t:y y c c; N 0 'Y <+ .'i
Fir-e ilepar-tincnt. ~'ncji ny Yes N C) Yes
W w
ESSENTIAL FEATURES COMPARISON - POLICE DEPARTMENT
ITEM AS I COMPATH EXECUTON E
.,[Z]
Proc. Contrld. Digital Swtch. Yes Yes Yes
Complete DTMF Dialing Yes Yes Yes
Customer Adm. Capability Yes Yes Yes
DID (Direct Inward Dial) Yes Yes Yes
DOD (Direct Outward Dial) Yes Yes Yes
Eight Digit Toll Restriction Yes Yes Yes
Music On Hold Yes Yes Yes
Remote System Maint./Diagn. Yes Yes Yes
Stn. Class-of-Service Yes Yes Yes
Trk. Grp. Class-of-Service Yes Yes Yes
Senderized Tie Lines Yes Yes Yes
Power Surge Protection Yes Yes Yes
RS232 Call Acct. Output Yes Yes Yes
Add- on Con f e re n ce Yes Yes Yes
Auto. Stn. Callback Yes Yes Yes
Call Forwarding Yes Yes Yes
Call Hold YE2 Yes Yes
Call Pick-up Yes Yes Yes
Call Transfer Yes Yes Yes
Call Waiting Yes Yes Yes
Consultation Hold Yes Yes Yes
Programmable Route Advance Yes Yes Yes
Station-to-Station Camp-On Yes Pi0 Yes
Station Hunting-Circular Yes No Yes
OPS Capability Yes No Yes
3 Zone Paging Yes No Yes
m W lvm FINANCIAL COMPARISONS
The following pages detail the system costs of all bid proposa:
under consideration.
In developing the ten (10) year cost projections, certain assumk
tions have been made predicated on known facts and historicz
data. The assumptions included in these projections are:
- All telephone company monthly rates and charges appli
cable in all supplier comparisons have been increased b
10% annually beginning in the 2nd year, based on histori
data and rate tracking.
- All bidding supplier maintenance rates have been in.
creased by the applicable percentage annually based on th
guaranteed maximum increases as quoted.
-_ The inc.t.slled system will remain in-service unde- \-..kc ?os
conservative estimates - a minimum of ten (10) years.
The first comparison is based on a direct purchase of the tele-
phone system from each bidding supplier. The second comparison i:
based on a seven (7) year lease/purchase of the telephone syster
from each bicldlny stipplier. Telephone utility company month11
charges for lines, trunks, special circuits, etc. are included ir
all comparisons and would continue after the lease period at the
standard rates as projected. These charges are included in all
0 *[=I
comparisons. The seven (7) year lease period has been selected i
the most effective and economical lease term to consider fc
acquiring the required new telephone system through a lease
purchase program.
The terms used on the following pages are:
System: The guaranteed purchase or annual leas
price of the basic specified telephon
system.
Maintenance: The annualized maximum maintenance charg
which is quoted by each supplier.
Telco Charges: The ongoing outside trunk line and specia
circuit charges by Pacific Bell.
Telco Install: The one-time charge to install telephont
company lines and trunks.
Telco-Retermination: The one-time charge to reterminate existinc
telephone company lines and trunks.
m 0
CITY OF CARLSBAD
AS1
DIRECT PURCHASE
ANNUAL CUMULATIVE
YEAR ITEM COSTS COSTS
189,669
TELCO INSTALL (1) 3,083
TOTAL 241 , 388
1 SYSTEM EQUIP. COST (4)
TELCO LINE CHARGES (1) 43 , 636
241, 388
2 TELCO LINE CHARGES (2) 48 , 000
MAINTENANCE (3) 4.968
TOTAL 52,968 274 ~ 356
3 TELCO/MAINT 58,066 352,421
4 TELC 0 / MA I N T 63, 662 416,083
5 TELCO/MAINT 69, 804 485,887
6 TELCO/MAINT 76! 548 562,435
TELCO/MAINT S3 , 952 646 , 388
,.?.: . ,._ .,.
-.. /
3 TELCO/MAINT 92.081 738 3 4.59
9 TEL c 0 / h! A I r.1 f in1 $008 838,477
10 TELCO/MAINT ll0,ijlG 950,286
NOTES :
(1) includes all applicable Telco line, tr-unk, etc.! monthl;/ rates and
instal lation chat=~es.
Appl icable Telco charges are included throuqh-acit and
10.00% artnudl 1:/ based on histot-.ic ra.te trackinq.
Maintenance ser-%L;;ire besins ir: t.1~ second ':,'ear,
and increased by 6.00% as bid.
(2) increased Sy
(3) is inc!uded tt-!rc~.~.?G:-
(4) Based on
with a net savings of 3; 8617 ,
the DiSCOIIt\Ji optiors whlcti provides CIT'i' i3F CkPLSEAL!
iricludinq ttie CRC rmpIerr!~.~~tatiar: fee..
w 0
CITY OF CARLSBAD
COPlPATH NATIONAL
DIRECT PURCHASE
ANNUAL CUMULATIVE
COSTS COSTS d YEAP ITEM
1 SYSTEM EQUIP. COST (41 214,766
TELCO LINE CHARGES (1) 43, 636
TELCO INSTALL (1) a. OS3
TOTAL 266,485 266,485
2 TELCO LINE CHARGES (2) 48 5 000
MA I NTENANCE ( 3 1 15.156
TOTAL 63,156 329,641
390,112 3 TEL C O / MA I N T 69,471
4 76,418 475 , 530 TELCU / MA I NT
T E L C 0 / I.1 A I I\J T
6 TELCO / MA I NT
7 TELCO/MAINT
a TELCO/MAINT 111 , 38.1 865, 652
84,Owf 559 r 590
92,466 652 ~ 055
I01 , 713 753,760
5
9 TELCG / MA I NT 123 , c;72 988 ~ :,-25
10 TELC 0 / MF; I N T 135,380 1,124,105
NOTES:
(1) Includes all applicable Telco line, tr--unk, etc., rnor:ti-ti;,/ rates ar;d
instal lation charges.
Appi icable Telco charges are inc1Lided through-out and increscecl b-:,,
10.007" artnuai 1.y based or: histo~ic rate tracking.
Maintenance service begins 1 rl tl-:e secortd .%.,ear, i 5 i n c 1 12 d e d t !-: r' c3 1-1 7 t-t -- (
and increased b-y 10. 00% 3.s bid.
(2)
(3)
(4) Eased on the DISZOUI\JT optiort k~1-ti~t-t pr.ovides CITY OF CAELSEAD
with a net savinqs G+ % 2462 , ~:-tcludit-:q the CFC imp!emrrttation iee.
I
t a 0
CITY OF CARLSBAD
EXECUTONE
DIRECT PURCHASE
AN NU AL CUMULATIVE
YEAR I TEFl COSTS COSTS
1 SYSTEM EQUIP. COST (4) 139,929
TELCO INSTALL (lj 8.083
TOTAL 241,648 241,648
TELCO LINE CHARGES (11 43,636
2 TELCO LINE CHARGES (2) 48 , 000
PIA I NTENANCE ( 3 ) 7,560
TOTAL 55, 560 LIP7,20i3
3 TELCO/MAINT 60, 387 3553,096
4 TELCO/MAINT 66 , 735 424,831
5 TELCO/MAINT 73,149 497,980
6 TELCO/ MA1 NT so, 186 578,156
.h . c
7 T E LC O / MA I NT 87,907 666 9 073
8 TELC 0 i MA I N T 96, 380 762 , 453
9 TELCOJ?IAINT 105,577 868,130
10 T ELCO / MA I N T 115,881 984,011
NOTES :
(1) Includes all applicable Telco line, trunk,, etc., monthly rates and
installation charyes.
(2) Appl icable Telco chrirqes are inclluded tk~raugh-out and increased by
10.00% annually based on hi5tor.i~ rate tractring.
(3) Maintenance service begzns i:-: the secr3nd year. is included thr-aucgh-
arid increased by 7.00% as bid.
(4) Based on the DISCOllNT option which provides CITY OF CbRLSEAD
with a net savings of 3 is707 , including the CRC implementation fee.
J m 0
CUMULATIVE COST COMPARISON
@!!3
DIRECT PURCHASE
YEAR - AS1 COMPATH EXECUTONE
1 $241,388 $ 266,485 $241,648
2 294,356 329,641 297,208
3 352,421 399,112 358,096
4 416,083 475,530 424,831
5 485,887 559,590 497,980
6 562,435 652,056 578,166
7 646,388 753 , 769 666,073
8 738,469 865,653 762,453
9 839,477 988,725 868,130
10 950,286 1,124,105 984,011
I
’r 8 0
CITY OF CARLSEAD
AS1
7 YEAR LEASE
AM N U A L C U t.1 U L AT I VE
YEAR ITEM COST COST
1 EQUIP. LEASE COST (4) 36 , 473
TELCO LINE CHARGES (1) 43 , 63&
TELCO INSTALL (1) 8,083
TOTAL 88,192 88,192
-. 2 LEASE COST 36,473
TELCO LINE CHARGES (2) 48! 000
MAINTENANCE (3) 4,9&,8
TOTAL 89?44l 177 , 633
3 LEASE / TELC 0 / PlA I NT 94, 53? 272,171
4 LEASE/TELCO/MAINT 100,135 372 , 306
LEASE/TELCO/ MAINT 106,277 478 , 583
6 LEASE/ TELCO/MAINT 113,021 591 5 604
c J
7 LEASE / TELCO / FlA I t.lT 120 7 425 712,030
504,111
9 TELCO/MAINT lC? , 008 405,119
r-7 8 T EL C 0 / W A I N T f B 1.J Y -- 0 C T ( 9 1 9,:- 1 08 1
10 TELCO/ClAI t.IT 110.a10 1 I 0 15 . C28
NOTES:
(1) Includes all applicable Telco iine. trunk, etc.. month!;/ r.s.,tec, ar~d
instal lation charges.
(21 Applicable Telco ct-~ar?es are irlcluded through-out and ir:rrezased by
10.(30‘;/, a:-:nual ly based on hIstci-.ic :.a.i~. t:-?.r!:ir:2.
(3) Maintenance ser--vice Se7ins in the second vear, is inc1:iipd throu3h-c
and increased by 6.00% as bid.
(4) Based on the DISCOUbJT option wi-iich provides CITY OF CARLSBAE
with a net savings of 5 861? . includirig the CEC irnp!ements.t.ion fee.
(5) Acs;~.mes lease bu-,’-oiit 2.t tile ertd of t i-I e ;’ t !-I .,’ e ‘3. r i 0 r- 9 3 .
1
\ m 0
CITY OF CARLSEAD
COMPATH NATIONAL
7 YEAR LEASE
ANNUAL CUPlULAT I VE
YEAR ITEM COST COST
1 EQUIP. LEASE COST (4) 47,227
TELCO LINE CHARGES (1) 43,636
TELCO INSTALL (1) 8,083
TOTAL 98, 946 98, ?46
2 LEASE COST 47,227
TELCO LINE CHARGES (21 48 9 000
MAINTENANCE (3) 15,156
TOTAL 110,383 209,329
3 IEASE/TELCO/MAINT 116,698 326,027
4 LEASE/TELCO/MAINT 123,645 449, 672
5 LEASE/ TELCOIMAINT 131, 287 580 f ’950
6 LEASE/TELCO/MAINT 139,693 720,652
7 LEASE i TELCO / MA INT 148,940 869,592
a r E LC 0 / M4 I N T / B :;Y - CrU T ( 5 ) 11 1,884 95:. G7f?
9 :ELCO/MAINT 123,072 1,104,548
10 T ELCO / CIA I NT 135.380 1 3 2,79,978
NOTES:
(11 Includes all applicable Telco line, tr-iunk, etc.. monthly rates and
instal lation charges.
(2) Applicable Telco char-ges are iricluded throu?h-out and increased by
10.OOX ar~nual I?’ based on historic rate tracking.
(3) Maintenance service bcqins irl the second year. is inclu.ded throush-o
and increased by 10.00% a5 bid.
(4) Based on the DISCOUNT option which provide5 CITY OF CAHLSE(AD
with a net savirlgs of B 2462 , including the CRC implernentdtiafi +ee-
(5) Assu-rnes lease bu:;’-out at the end of the 7 th car fsr 81.
1
\ m e
i'
CITY OF CARLSBAD
EXECUTONE
7 YEAR LEASE
ANNUAL CUMULATIVE
YEAR I TEN CUST CUST
1 EQUIP. LEASE COST (41 39,013
TELCU LINE CHARGES (1) 43 9 636
TELCO INSTALL (1) 8 q 083
TOTAL 90,732 90,732
2 LEASE COST 39,013
TELCO LINE CHARGES (21 48 7 000
MAINTENANCE ( 3 1 7.560
TOTAL 94 7 573 185,305
3 LEASE /TELCO/MAINT 99,902 285 7 206
4 LEASE/TELC@/MAINT 105,748 390r 954
5 LEASE / T ELC 0 / MA I N T 112,162 503,116
6 LEASE / TELCU / PIA I NT 119,199 622,315
7 LEASE / TELCU / PlA INT 126,920 749? 235
8 TELC@/MAINT/BUV-OUT (5 1 96 ~ 380 %:L25 > 615
9 TEL C 0 / MA I N T 105,677 951: 292
10 T ELC 0 / MA I NT 115,881 1,067,173
NOTES:
(1) Includes all applicable Telco line, trunk, etc. I monthly tratE.5 acd
instal lation charges.
(2) eppl icable Telco charqe5 are included through-out a.nd increased b.:..
10.00% annual 1y based on historic rate tr.ac:iirr.-q 7-
(3) Maintenance service begin5 in the ~jecond year-. i5 included th~ough-
and increased b-y 7.00% as bid.
(4) Based on the DISZOUMT option ~~hich prcsvide5 CITY OF CARLSBAI)
with a net savin3s of B 15707 , including the CRC imp!ementation iee
(5) Assume5 lease t.u;.'-oi;t at. the er-16 01 +.I-:-? 7 tt-: :'ear far-- OC).
1 m e
CUMULATIVE COST COMPARISON
1*H
SEVEN YEAR LEASE
YEAR - AS1 COMPATH EXECU TON E
1 $ 88,192 $ 98,946 $ 90,732
2 177,633 209,329 185,305
3 272,171 326,027 285,206
4 372,306 449,672 390,954
5 478 , 583 580 , 959 503 , 116
6 591 , 604 7-20 , 652 622 I 315
7 712,030 869 , 592 7 4 9-,~23 5
8 804,111 981,476 845,615
9 905,119 1 , 104,548 951,292
10 1,015 , 928 1,239,928 1 , 067 , 1-73
0 - EEI BID RESPONSE ANALYSIS
Following is an analysis of each bid response as provided
detailing each bid exception taken by the bidder. All exceg
tions, regardless of magnitude, have been detailed. ~ll bidder
have been advised that only the City Council of the City o
Carlsbad may allow or disallow bid exceptions.
AS1
AS1 has presented an effective bid response to the City, and ha
taken no exceptions to the specifications.
COMPATH
Compath ha5 provided a good bid response, however the followin
exceptions were taken. .j_.. .-% . r.
- The guaranteed emergency response time was stated as tw
hours however, the $50 per hour penalty includes a $30(
maximum. No pena'1,ty would app2.y if the response tize of 21
hours for routine service was not met. Compath also state(
their business hours are 8:OO AM - 5:OO PM - Monday througl
Friday. Per the bid specifications, service time must bc
provided 24 hours per day, seven days a week.
- Compath has also included their "conditions and exclusions'
agreement which redefines the liquidated damages section of
the bid specifications. Compath has also included thei:
"indemnification" clause and "limited warranties" clause whick
e e *m
redefines the hold harmless section and warranty section o
the bid specifications. Compath will not warrant the “design
of the equipment, as they are not the manufacturer.
EXECUTONE
Executone has provided an eftective bid response to the City
They have taken no bid exceptions and are in compliance with a1
terms and conditions.
In addition to these three bidders, Pacific Bell also submitted
separate proposal, outside the bounds of the bid specifications
for a Centrex telephone system. This proposal, while a fin
product, includes only the telephone switching equipment and n
telephones, features or on-premises equipment. No bid bond wa
provided and no provision to accept any of the terms and condi
tions of the bid specifications was included. Further consider
ztion cf thy5 approacb to obtaining a new telephone system is i:o
recommended based on non-compliance with the bidding process
higher costs and the need to contract with two separate vendor
for installation of a single system. Additionally, the City woul
be required to repeat the competitive bidding process exclusive1
for the telephones and associated equipment.
-<
m a -I...1 BID RESPONSE SUMMARY
The following is a summarized overview of each Bid Response, sup
plier capabilities and the bid systems performance record. Eac
review includes CRC opinions and conclusions.
AS I
AS1 has proposed the NEC 2400 IMS. This is a new state-of-the
art, system which has been available for just over one year. Thi
system has many new feature capabilities, and AS1 has installee
and maintained twenty (20) systems in one year. AS1 is
California based corporation with a fine reputation for qualit
installations. They have been established since 1977 and have a
excellent base of satisfied customers.
-
ASI's price is the lowest for both direct purchase and seven yea
lease-purchase. AS1 also has the lowest price for the re-loca
tion of the Police Department's telephone system, which i
guaranteed through July, 1986,
COMPATH NATIONAL
Compath has proposed the SL-lMS, manufactured by Northern Telecom
which is a digital system designed fo: keeping pace with future
changes. The exceptions taken by Compath directly affect the
repair service to which the City would be entltied, tlAe ~dtnrc
costs for expansion, and the warranties ot the system.
w e L *H
Compath National is a well established California companq
Recently they experienced a considerable amount of growth due to
merger with Allied Telecommunication Systems.
Compath's bid is the highest for both a direct purchase and
lease purchase throughout the ten year projections.
EXECUTON E
Executone has bid the E-400 system which is manufactured b
Harris. The E-400 has been on the market for approximately seve
(7) years with 127 Executone installations.
Executone Corporation, with offices throughout the United States
is a division of Continental Telephone Company, the third larges
telephone utility company in the U.S., and enjoys a fine reputa
tion on their own for quality installations and reliable service.
Executone's bid is the second lowest throughout the ten (10) yea
cost projection for both direct purchase and lease-purchase.
m * -E!4 CONCLUSIONS
Since it is anticipated that the new system will remain in servic
for a minimum of ten (10) years, the overall costs have been prc
jected over this period of time. The ten (10) year period ha
been selected as a minimum projection period since each supplie
or manufacturer can provide guarantees for ongoing part
availability and system service for ten (10) years. Further, CR
equipment, trunking and station line future requirements wer
projected over this same period to establish ultimate syste
capacity requirements.
All three (3) considered bidders are to be commended on their re
sponses and effort put forth to gain the City of Carlsbad'
commun i ca t ion b us ine s s .
It is not possible to totally control cost increases associate1
with telecommunications equipment, systems and service. Accordin5
to the Federal Government Price Index statistics, the infl~~jor
rate for 1981 was 8.9% and 1982 and 1983 were 3.9% and 1:
currently at 3% to 4%. This, of course, affects everyone
including the communication industry.
In developing client specifications, CRC's objective in this areE
is to, as much as possible, protect the client from unforeseer- OL
drastic increases in costs associated with their telecommunicatior
services. This is accomplished in two ways; first, by "freezing"
as much of the equipment costs as possible, and second, by
m uH
"pegging", through contractual guarantees, the maximum allowabl
increases in maintenance and add-on equipment costs.
Cost tracking of private suppliers has shown basic increases i
costs to be in the 8%-10% range per year. Comparatively
according to the California Public Utilities Commissic
applications from Pacific Bell for general across-the-board rat
increases average more than 10% per year. It is only safe t
assume that this trend and current inflationary rates wil
continue for all telephone system suppliers. Since telephon
communications is an absolute necessity, the sound approach t
procurement is under the protection of the terms within the Cit
of Carlsbad bid specifications.
Compath has offered an attractive package however, they are ti-
highest bidder on both the direct purchase and lease purchase.
Executone submitted an effective bid for a proven state-of-the
art system with no exceptions. Executone's bid is the secor
lowest for both the direct purchase and the lease purchase.
AS1 has proposed a new, state-of-the-art system and was the lowe:
for both the direct purckase and cP,e lease-purchase.
L * e *A@H RECOMMENDATIONS
In reviewing the products bid, all are state-of-the-art and wil
meet or exceed the City's requirements. A recommendation for bi
award is based on the criteria of the lowest, responsive, respon
sible bidder. AS1 is the lowest for both the direct purchase an
lease-purchase. AS1 has provided a responsive bid and qualifie
as a responsible company.
It is recommended that the City of Carlsbad award the contract t
"Furnish, Install and Maintain Complete Telephone Services'' t
ASI, through action of the City Council.
Utilizing a lease-purchase, the immediate first year savings wil
be approximately $1,057 with a projected ten (10) year iota
savings of $406,469 as compared to existing telephone services.
At the time of this contract award by the City Council it is alsc
necessary ts either approve CRC' s Full Imnleflsntatj on PI ar:. 01
Implementation Supervision plan to be performed in conjunctior
with installation of the new telephone service. The Full
Implementation plan will assure the City of receiving a $14,000
discount from the system vendor 7-esulting in a net savings of
$8,617, which includes CRC implementation fees.
The following page shows a comparison of the present telephone
system costs versus the recommended syste:n utilizing the seven
year lease-purchase.
*: m 0
SYSTEM COSTS COMPARISONS
PRESENT VERSUS RECOMMENDED
dd
The following is a cumulative comparison of the present telephor
system costs (excluding usage costs) , as provided by Pacific Bel
and AT&T, to the recommended new services.
YEAR EXISTING SYSTEM RECOMMENDED NEW SERVICES
1 $ 89,249 $ 88,192
2 187 , 423 177 , 633
3 295,414 272,171
4 414 , 204 372 , 306
5 544,873 478,583
6 688 , 609 591,604
712,030 7
8 1,020 , 640 804 , 111
9 1 , 211,953 905 , 119
10 1,422,397 1,015,928
846,719 ..I
The above costs include installation charges from Pacific Bell o
$8,083 in the first year for the new system and assumes th
existing system would remain "as-is", without change for ten (10
full years. These are total system, equipment and line "bas
rate" costs only and do not include the time and personnel saving:
that will be realized through the new system cmce9t.