HomeMy WebLinkAboutCRPS-05-096 - Request for Proposal - Election Tabulation Equipment
~
Report To:
Date of Meeting:
Submitted By:
Prepared By:
Ward(s) Involved:
Date of Report:
Report No.:
Subject:
Councillor B. Vrbanovic, Chair, and Members of the Finance
and Corporate Services Committee
June 13, 2005
G. Sosnoski, General Manager of Corporate Services & City
Clerk
G. Sosnoski
N/A
May 24, 2005
CRPS-05-096
REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL - ELECTION TABULATION
EQUIPMENT
RECOMMENDATION:
None at this time - for information / comment only.
BACKGROUND:
The City currently operates three Optech IV-C optical tabulation units purchased from Election
Systems & Software (ES & S) in 1997. These units have been in operation for the past three
municipal elections as well as two by-elections. At the time of purchase the estimated payback
on the capital cost was calculated at three elections, and on this basis, the cost of the units was
recouped with the 2003 election.
ES & S has put its customers on notice that it will no longer support the Optech IV-C equipment
after 2006. Cambridge and Waterloo are also in the process of acquiring new tabulation
equipment for the 2006 election. An opportunity arose to prepare a joint Request for Proposal
and to work collaboratively in purchasing equipment to obtain the best possible PRICE and
realize other advantages outlined below. This direction is consistent with the September 2004
recommendation of the Shared Services Advisory Committee.
REPORT:
In addition to the vendor announcement of withdrawal of support for the Optech IV-Cs, a
number of other circumstances point to the need to replace the equipment; including:
· Difficulty in obtaining replacement parts
· Age of the hardware and the increasing frequency of breakdown
· Reduced reliability with age
· Outmoded software which is currently DOS based
It is proposed to purchase or rent equipment jointly with Cambridge and Waterloo for use in the
2006 Municipal Election. The advantages of this approach are as follows:
· Obtaining the best price through volume discount
· The acquisition of identical equipment allows each municipality to back the other up in
the event of a system failure on Election Day
· Common voting system for all electors in the urban municipalities within the Region
· Acquisition from a single vendor would allow the three municipalities to share technical
support on Election Day
· Promotes cooperation and information sharing among municipalities where it is
beneficial to do so
· Reduces duplication in letting similar RFPs within the same time frame and makes it
more cost effective for vendors to bid in aggregate
The RFP will request quotes for both purchase and rental options involving bids on centralized
tabulators similar to those currently used in Kitchener and Cambridge, and decentralized (poll
level) tabulators similar to those currently used in Waterloo. It will also request quotes on ballot
production.
It is proposed to let the RFP in June / July 2005 and to make a decision by the Fall of this year
to ensure system availability, training and other logistical requirements can be met for the 2006
Municipal Election.
FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS:
At present there are no funds budgeted by Kitchener for either rental or replacement of the
tabulators, and in the past this type of equipment was not included with the Capital Forecast.
Election related operating expenses are set aside in an Election Reserve Fund through three
annual contributions in each of the three years leading up to an election. The funds currently in
the Reserve are only sufficient to cover operating expenses to conduct the election and to
maintain the existing equipment. There are no other funds to purchase or rent equipment. The
cost to ourchase a system similar to the current tabulators is expected to be in the area of
$200,000. and with associated training, taxes, maintenance agreements, shipping, etc. would
total around $300,000. If we were to rent a system costs are expected to be around $50,000.
per election.
Should Council give the go ahead following receipt of the bids, pre-budget approval may be
required in the event a financial commitment is necessary prior to the 2006 Budget process.
CONCLUSION:
Staff feel that proceeding with the issuing of a joint RFP at this time is appropriate in order to
obtain the best possible pricing and vendor commitment, in addition to demonstrating inter-
municipal co-operation.
G. Sosnoski
General Manager of Corporate Services
& City Clerk
c: R. Gosse
S. Rudak
M. Lah n