NAEP ANNUAL MEETING “The Value Continuum” April 2008, Austin, Texas

1. NAEP ANNUAL MEETING “The Value Continuum” April 2008, Austin, Texas “Selection Of An Access Control SystemA Case Study For Standardization” Presented by: John Stephen Klopp The University of Iowa Purchasing Department

2. The University of Iowa • Founded: February 25, 1847—Iowa's first public institution of higher learning • Long-standing commitment to teaching, research and community service • First U.S. public university to admit men and women on an equal basis • World's first university to accept creative work in theater, writing, music and art on an equal basis with academic research • The University’s budgeted revenues and expenses for FY07 were $2.285 billion • Purchasing Spend FY–2007: $457 Million

3. Enrollment: 29,979 • Full-time Faculty and Staff: 14,548 • Size of Campus: 1,900 acres • Number of Major Buildings: 125 • Number of Educational buildings: 266 • Ten Residence Halls • Total Square Feet of Space: 16.8 million Sq. Ft.

4. Access Control Systems Currently In Use on Campus Von Duprin – John Pappajohn Business Building Software House – University Capitol Centre University Hospitals and Clinics (Separate from other UI Facilities) Millennium – Art Building (Marlok) Adler Journalism Building Oakdale Multi-Tennant Facility Pharmacy Building University Services Building Burge Residence Hall

5. Access Control Systems In Use on U of I Campus Millennium – Rienow Residence Hall (Marlok) Field House Blank Honors Center Pomerantz Center Carver Biomedical Research Building Medical Laboratories Hawkeye Tennis & Recreation Center Seamans Center Jessup Hall

6. What Does This Mean?

7. Different Manufacturers Different Pricing Matrices Separate Bid Processes to Acquire Products and Services More Resources Needed – Dollars and Personnel No Standardization

8. What’s the best approach to use for standardization?

9. RFI?

10. IBF?

11. RFQ?

12. RFP?

13. Phone Quotes?!?

14. The University of Iowa used a Two-Phased Approach • Selection of Manufacturers as Acceptable Alternates = Request for Qualification Process 2 .Selection of Certified/Licensed Manufacturer’s Integrators = Request for Proposal Process

15. PHASE I Request for Qualification Process Initial Discussions – August 2006 Initial Representative Participants: University Purchasing and Facilities

16. Cross-Functional Team Representation • Purchasing • Facilities Management / Facilities Management - IT • Information Technology Services • Medical Laboratories • Residence Services • Public Safety / University Police • Engineering Technology Network • Outside Independent Consulting Firm – HMA Consulting, Inc.

17. RFQ – Phase I Objective and Intent Identify proven and reputable Manufacturers who have solutions for Access Controls hardware and administrative software. Responses Issued to and Submitted by: Manufacturer Only Identify a limited number of Manufacturers for Oral Presentations Determine “Acceptable Alternate” Manufacturers

18. Access Control Manufacturers Identified AMAG Technology Matrix Systems Andover Millennium Group American Auto-Matrix Lenel Systems GE Security Sielox Systems Honeywell Software House Johnson Controls

19. RFQ Minimum Requirements Technical Functionality – Controller Hardware/Software Functional Administrative Software Compatibility With Open Architecture Field Hardware Limitations Upgrades – When and How Often Retrofitting Server/Database Requirements – Capacity Access Groups Integration Capabilities References Factory-trained/Licensed Integrators Single Point of Contact

20. Let Firms know up front what the processes will be. • RFQ determines Manufactures, • Responses determine short-list, • Oral presentations determine • “Acceptable Alternates” for RFP

21. RFQ Issued on November 17, 2006 Nine Responses Received AMAG Technology Johnson Controls Andover Lenel Systems GE Security Matrix Systems Honeywell Sielox Systems Software House (RFQ copy obtained from the NAEP National Office)

22. Initial Evaluations – December 2006 to January 2007 • Software / Technical Functionality Testing by FM IT and End Users • Administrative Software Review • Compatibility with existing IT infrastructure • Upgrades • Retrofitting • Server / Data base • Capacity • Access Groups • Integration • References • Certified / Licensed Integrators identified by the Manufacturer

23. Phase I - Top Three Manufacturers Identified Lenel Systems International Software House AMAG Technology How did we identify these Manufacturers?

24. EXTENSIVE, DILIGENT, ANALYSIS Through collaboration with Key Evaluation Team Members 9 Members Comprised our Team

25. Follow-On Analysis – February – April 2007 • Individual Four Hour Oral Presentation • Responding to Listing of 50 + Technical Questions • Demonstration of Technology Capabilities • Provided Copy of Access Control Software for • additional review/analysis by UI personnel to include: • Functionality • Technical Capabilities • Compatibility with Current and Envision UI Systems • (Current system – marlock + microsoft sql server data base)

26. Analysis of “Software Functionality” - April/May 2007 • Normal day-to-day functions • How easy/difficult to navigate • How easy/difficult to add/update and grant access to doors or groups of doors • How easy/difficult to create door schedules • How easy/difficult to create time specifications • How easy/difficult to create one-time events • What reports are available and ease/difficulty of use • How can “bulk” changes be implemented

27. Analysis of “Technical Functionality” - April/May 2007 • Development Platform • Data Base • Segmentation of data • Integration with University’s Systems • Ability to lock down a building or campus Both “Software Functionality” and “Technical Functionality” were used as a baseline for comparing each Manufacturers’ products in conjunction with their compatibility and integration with current UI Microsoft SQL server database.

28. User Group Demonstrations – April/May 2007 • University end-users were provide a “hands-on” experience to work with each Manufacturers’ software application • Coordinated by Facilities Management Information Technology • Participants included: • RFQ Evaluation Team Members • Current Marlok Operators • Campus IT Leadership Members • Building Coordinators

29. User Group Evaluations Based On: Software Functionality Software Ease of Use Hardware Controllers Software Features Integration with current University Systems

30. Overall Assessment From Findings – May/June 2007 The University’s direction of the electronic access control business model is one based on a de-centralized implementation process. A campus-wide Software House system would require door lock/unlock schedules to be “centrally administered” to provide the level of security required, which Lenel and AMAG demonstrated they were capable of handling otherwise.

31. Additionally, this would require a University administrative group a “24 / 7 / 365” availability to make changes to the schedules. Could have a serious impact on the level of service provided to University Users. Request for Qualification Recommendation Solutions offered by AMAG and Lenel better fit with the University’s long term access control strategy and should be pursued through a Phase II Request for Proposal process as “Acceptable Alternate” Manufacturers.

32. Phase II – July/August 2007 Request for Proposal 12730 A refined Cross-Functional Evaluation Team Formed which included Representation from: • Purchasing • Facilities Management • Outside Independent Consulting Firm • HMA Consulting, Inc., Houston, Texas

33. RFP Objective Identify proven and reputable Integrator(s) that provide products and services from either, AMAG Technology or Lenel Systems International, as a standard Access Controls System for the University of Iowa. The University will be providing/hosting a Storage Area Network (SAN) for the selected Access Control System.

34. RFP Intent Have a single qualified Manufacturer’s product and related services selected with a single or multiple licensed/certified Integrators who distribute and install that Manufacturer’s product.

35. Manufacturer’s Certified/Licensed Integrators Both AMAG and Lenel identified in the Phase I RFQ response, seven licensed and certified Integrators for our area.

36. RFP was issued September 6, 2007 Of the seven RFP’s issued, five responses Received September 27, 2007 RFP Evaluations – October 2007

37. Minimum Supplier Requirements/Specifications • Must be licensed to conduct work in the State of Iowa • Must adhere to all applicable rules, regulations and guidelines including, but not limited to, those from: • The Iowa Occupational Safety and Health Administration (IOSH) • The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) • Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)

38. Must provide a single point managerial contact person assigned to the University’s account • Must provide Manufacturer’s hardware / software catalogue with University’s pricing • Must provide guaranteed hourly service fee structure for: • Program Managers • Field Technicians • Program Engineers

39. Must provide replacement parts inventory availability • Must provide software and firmware upgrades • Must provide separate overall system price quotation for the Madison Street Services Building project per specifications outline in the RFP based on Consultant’s specifications. (Provided “apples-to-apples” analysis)

40. RFP Evaluation Criteria • Compliance with RFP Requirements • Response to Section 3 – Minimum Requirements – Signed Confirmation • Response to Section 4 – Scope of Work Responses • References • Qualifications of Personnel Assigned to UI Account • Reporting and Communications • Value-added Services • Overall Fee Structure

41. Award Recommendations Submitted to UI Administration November 2007

42. Manufacturer and Integrator AMAG Technology & Security Equipment, Inc. Des Moines, Iowa

43. “Value Continuum” “The impact that procurement makes on every project through innovation and best practices expertise, helping to align each project in the context of their institution’s strategic goals.” What’s your Value Continuum?

44. Related RFQ and RFP Documents Copies can be obtained through NAEP National Office

45. Project Timeline August to November 2006 – Discussions with Purchasing; Facilities Management and Selected Cross-functional Team; RFQ document generated; modified and issued to Manufacturers. December 2006 – RFQ responses received December 2006 – January 2007 - Evaluations conducted; short-listed Manufacturers identified

46. Project Timeline (con’t) February to April 2007 – Selected Manufacturers notified; generation of follow-on questions for oral presentations; four hour oral presentations by each Manufacturer, including copy of most current software application April to May 2007 – UI testing of each Manufacturer’s software application

47. Project Timeline (con’t) May to June 2007 – Follow-on questions to each Manufacturer; additional testing completed; recommendations of “Acceptable Alternate” Manufacturers July 2007 – Approval to proceed with RFP process

48. Project Timeline (con’t) July to August 2007 – Refined cross-functional Team established; RFP document generated and modified September 2007 – RFP issued to Manufacturer-identified Integrators; responses received. November 2007 – RFP award issued and contract established – Total time: 16 + Months.