Acquisition of a new computer system can be one of the more trying tasks which law enforcement agencies occasionally undertake. The challenge of planning for current (and future) hardware needs, coupled with the difficulty of developing or acquiring a software package which will support all of a department’s needs, can be daunting. This is particularly true if the agency head, or the designated acquisition personnel, have little background in such computer systems. While more and more individuals own personal computers, and some are quite familiar with computer issues, the problems of planning, locating, installing and operating an agencywide computer system require specialized talents which most casual computer users will not possess.

Many agency chief executives will have a tendency to get deeply involved in the technical aspects of system acquisition. Some will feel that they have to study all the alternatives and learn everything they can regarding hardware and software systems in order to successfully implement a new system at their department. This is not the best way to go about the process. Chiefs and sheriffs are generally too busy with day-to-day operations to allow themselves the time and energy required to gain the requisite knowledge. They should seek the assistance and advice of a third party, allowing themselves to remain in a decision-making role.

This advisor might come from within the agency or may be hired as an outside consultant. There are plusses and minuses with either arrangement.

Agency insiders usually have a thorough understanding of agency needs and desires. Additionally, they can usually be assigned the task at minimal, or no, cost (other than man-hours). On the other hand, just because they own a computer, or are a hobbyist, does not mean that they understand the intricacies of agency operations and system needs to the extent necessary to successfully advise those in charge.

Outside consultants will usually have greater understanding of systems theory and up-to-date technology issues, as well as an understanding of integration and implementation issues which will enable them to more succinctly apply their skills in determining and fulfilling agency needs. However, a consultant is an unknown entity and care will have to be taken in selecting the right one to fulfill the agency’s needs. Additionally, they represent an external cost which, although it will be well worth it in the long run, many agencies might have difficulty bearing.

Governmental agencies being as they are, it is common to accept the lowest price for goods and services. The selection of a computer consultant frequently falls within this approach. However, it is critical that the selection be based on competency, as determined by references and experience, rather than on price. In many ways, this is truly a case of “You get what you pay for.” Although it is important to request references and to check them carefully; generally, consultants who command a higher fee can do so because of the success of their previous efforts.

Locating the right consultant can be challenging. One of the best methods might be to canvass other agencies which have implemented automation systems. Look for agencies which have had their system in place for some time, so that they have determined the extent of their satisfaction with the system. Find out who their consultant was, and then contact him (or her) and ask for other references.

Another approach might be to do an Internet search for professional organizations. Associations of telecommunication professionals or organizations of computer manufacturers should have lists of professional consultants which the agency can access.

The idea of canvassing other agencies bears more scrutiny. Although it is common for agencies to believe that their particular set of problems and conditions is unique, once other departments are examined, one usually finds more commonalities than differences. Taking the opportunity to interview the agency heads, as well as some of the involved employees at another agency, might yield significant benefits. Perhaps, they already have a system in place which would meet the inquiring agencies’ needs.

Once a decision regarding a computer advisor is made, the next step will be to prepare a set of written specifications. These specifications should include the three critical elements of an automation system: the hardware, the system software, and the applications software.

Part of the specification preparation process should be a thorough examination of departmental needs in order to determine how the new system can best be configured. One important aspect of this process should be employee input. The members of the department already know where the difficulties of the current system manifest themselves and they have a pretty good idea of what is needed to get their jobs done more efficiently and effectively. Ask them for their input.

Specifications can come from many sources. One method might be to collect sample specs from other departments or from professional associations. The International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) has several sets of sample specifications available. Some vendors have sets of sample specs available, or the contracted consultant might have specs from previous jobs on file and might use one of those as a model.

In any case, the importance of detailed specifications, properly customized to fit the agency’s particular needs, cannot be overstated. This is your chance to state, in writing, exactly what you want and how you want it delivered. These specifications are the blueprint which various vendors will use in developing responses to your bid notice. Carefully drawn specifications also enable you to comprehensively compare the different vendor responses so that you can make a reasonable determination of which vendor offers you the most for your money.

There are three primary methods for communicating with potential vendors: the Request for Quotation (RFQ), the Request for Proposal (RFP), and the Request for Information (RFI).

• Request for Quotation - The RFQ is used when the contracted consultant has already researched your department’s problems and developed a set of solutions to address them. Since the basic framework is in place, all the department is looking for are prices. This is the simplest type of request for vendors to respond to since they can clearly see what you are asking for.

• Request for Proposal - An RFP is issued when you have not identified your problems and solutions ahead of time. The problem solving component is a part of the RFP response. This type of response requires the vendor to visit your site and to develop a fairly involved engineering approach to your set of issues. In effect, they are identifying your needs for you, then designing and presenting a systematic solution to your problems. This can be very expensive for the vendor to do, and generally is the most time-consuming of the three “requests.”

• Request for Information - The RFI is issued when the agency has no idea what it wants. It is generally a request for basic information as to what vendors are available, what equipment they offer, and what costs are likely to be. An RFI is exploratory in nature and is used to develop the specification for your project.

In issuing these requests for project information, remember that they can result in significant effort on the part of the individual vendor. Some responses can be very expensive to respond to and can require many man-hours of work. While the department benefits from basically free engineering and design expertise provided by the vendors, some appreciation for the efforts involved in the undertaking is appropriate.

The contracted consultant’s role goes beyond mere system design. Along with the basic design should be a general estimate of cost. Once bid responses are received, the consultant should assist in the review. The consultant then needs to be on hand to monitor the work, interpret the technical specifications, and test the system.

Some agencies will specify custom developed software. This is an extremely expensive way to go and there is often little additional benefit beyond that which can be gained with off-the-shelf applications. This is a common mistake when agencies try to save money by not utilizing the services of a contracted consultant.

In reality, there are already software solutions out there, provided by major vendors. Often, these standardized software packages can be customized to fit a particular agency’s needs. While the speed of operation and level of sophistication vary, depending on the software package selected, there is one universal truth: A contracted consultant who is fully abreast of the marketplace will have a much easier time in advising which system should be purchased than an in-house “expert” with just a general idea of what is required.

Many vendors have put significant effort into the development of standardized response packages. This keeps their cost down and assures a fair and evenhanded development of cost projections. Some agencies specify a very restricted format for vendor responses and this can make the vendor reformulate its entire response procedure. While it is true that the requesting agency will often find itself with several different responses to evaluate, each in a different format, this is preferable to the alternative, when tight restrictions cause vendors either to not respond, or respond in such a way that a true picture of their proposal is not presented. A certain amount of flexibility on the part of the requesting agency is desirable.

Many agencies do not allow enough time for a vendor response, especially when requesting full-blown proposals. The larger the project, the more involved the response will be from an engineering standpoint. A minimum of 60 to 90 days should be allowed.

Some agencies still believe that an RFP response should be condensed to one or two sheets of paper and returned to the agency on a specific date. This is not a logical belief. Typically, RFP responses will fill from one to several three-ring binders. A great deal of information is included - for the protection of the vendor, as well as the requesting agency. That way, expectations are clear and solutions plainly stated.

These common mistakes on the part of the requesting agency are one of the major reasons why it is so advisable to hire a consultant. Sifting through differing responses and drawing comparisons of response documents is what that the consultant gets paid for. Leave this “drudge” work to them and spend your valuable time on assessing the results to facilitate eventual decision-making.

The whole point of the RFQ/RFP/RFI process is to assure a proper fit with agency needs at the most reasonable price. Many agencies are making the process significantly more difficult than it needs to be, for both themselves and vendors. Consider these few simple guidelines for streamlining the process and to assure the maximum benefit from the process for you and your agency:

• Contract with a consultant. Choose one carefully, focusing on their public safety experience;

• Choose the proper mechanism for information acquisition. Ask for what you need, be it a Request for Proposal, Request for Quotation, or Request for Information. Make it as easy as you can for the vendors to give you what you want;

• Allow a minimum of 60 to 90 days for bid responses; and

• Accept bids in the vendor’s format.

By following these few rules, an agency can implement a system acquisition plan which will best serve its needs in both the short- and long-term.n