2007 ISPA-SCEA Joint Conference Renew Your Training Workshop and Panel

1. 2007 ISPA-SCEA Joint ConferenceRenew Your Training Workshop and Panel Florida Emergency Response System Angelina Zhou Josh Wilson PRICE Systems, L.L.C.

2. Team Composition • Cost Research Analysts • Angelina Zhou, PRICE Systems LLC • Josh Wilson, PRICE Systems LLC • Project Support • Bruce Fad, PRICE Systems LLC, VP Solutions Development • Arlene Minkiewicz, PRICE Systems LLC, Chief Scientist • Tools Used • PRICE TruePlanning 2007

3. Outline • Purpose of the Estimate • Project Description • Florida Emergency Response System ground rules and assumptions • Florida Emergency Response SystemEstimate • Conclusions and Suggested Actions

4. Purpose of the Estimate Support the State of Florida in deciding on the type of implementation to pursue for an expanded state and federal-linked system of emergency response command centers to natural disasters.

5. Project Description • Florida’s Division of Emergency Management is selecting between two optionsintended to support increased interconnectivity and information flow between Florida’s emergency response agencies • Option A – Modify the existing system to enable net-centricity • Use the federal government’s Global Information Grid (GIG) • Perform minimum maintenance on existing infrastructure • Option B – Perform a major upgrade on existing systems • Support increased information flow expected from future sources • Have higher rates of interconnectivity between all users and data providers

6. Project Description • Existing Emergency Response System Facilities • State of Florida Executive Branch • Florida Division of Emergency Management • Florida Fire Marshall • Florida County Emergency Response Agencies (67) • Federal FEMA Region IV Offices (3) • Existing Equipment throughout Facilities • Servers, Routers, Workstations, Communications Gear • Application licenses (Database, Security, Transaction Processing) • Network cabling for connectivity

7. Ground Rules and Assumptions • Distribution of equipment throughout facilities provided • Hardware described as either New, Modified, or As-Is

8. Ground Rules and Assumptions • Communications Gear • Assumed equal quantities Antennas, RF, Processors, and VSAT of industry standard weight needed to achieve the weight provided in the problem description • 750 Kg for upgrade of traditional system – Modified • 500 Kg for net-centric solution – As-Is • Assumed 20% modification required for traditional system upgrade • Both Structure and Electronics • Assumed 0% modification for “As-Is” gear in Net-centric solution

9. Ground Rules and Assumptions • IT Equipment • Workstations • Purchased new for Net-Centric solution • Existing workstations upgraded for traditional system • Servers and Routers • Purchased new for both Net-Centric and Traditional system • Network Cable • Leasing rate assumption based on rates used in Long Wavelength Array Project • Purchased network cable 10-year TCO assumed to be equivalent to leased prices • Price = $900/mile annually

10. Ground Rules and Assumptions • Non-GIG Software • Application Licensing costs (online research/GSA catalog) • Transaction Processing – Approx $200 per user • Database – Approx $150 per user • Security – Approx $70 per user • Additional $200 per workstation assumed for miscellaneous licenses (Office, etc.) • Florida’s Custom developed software • 500 KSLOC for Net-Centric solution • 1,000 KSLOC for Traditional System upgrade • Used “Communications” as Application Type • Determines software Functional Complexity • Used Organizational Productivity value of 1.4

11. Ground Rules and Assumptions • Global Information Grid Software • We were given very little information • Goal: Determine the cost of developing the 9 Core Enterprise Services • User Assistance • Application • Storage • Messaging • Information Assurance • Discovery • Collaboration • Mediation • Enterprise Service Management

12. Estimate • Used TruePlanning 2007 • True Systems • True S • True H • True IT • Modeled traditional system upgrade and net-centric solution separately • Subtracted Global Information Grid software development cost from net-centric solution because Florida is not developing the GIG • Costs associated with integration and test of the GIG interaction with Florida’s emergency response infrastructure were included in net-centric solution total

13. Estimate – Traditional System Upgrade • Modeled Traditional System Upgrade by location to capture system engineering and integration costs incurred at each agency branch

14. Estimate – Traditional System Upgrade • Risk Analysis Factors • Software Size • Software Functional Complexity • Project Phase assumed to be preliminary design • Technology assumed to be proven in prototype • Used FRISK methodology • Takes into account correlation between risk elements • Uses “method-of-moments” rather than Monte-Carlo based • Faster than Monte-Carlo but still accurate • Low, Likely, High triangular distribution for each risk factor

15. Estimate – Traditional System Upgrade • Risk Results • Point estimate $156,877,510 • 70% risk level $187,204,121 • 95% risk level $209,198,829 • Biggest risk impact • Custom developed software

16. Estimate – Net-Centric Solution • Modeled net-centric solution by location to capture system engineering and integration costs incurred at each agency branch • Included an additional (separate) component for Global Information Grid Core Enterprise Services • This was to isolate only integration and test costs • Florida is tapping into the GIG but not developing it

17. Estimate – Net-Centric Solution • How we sized the Global Information Grid Core Enterprise Services • Decomposed Core Enterprise Services using information found in the Network Centric Operations Warfare Reference Model • Used PRICE Knowledge Base to map Enterprise Service subcomponents sizes from a similar common operating environment system PRICE had estimated • About 70% similarity between the two systems

18. Integration Integration Estimate – Net-Centric Solution • (A) Total Cost including GIG development and integration with Florida • $253,229,976 • (B) Total GIG Core Enterprise Services development cost (not including integration with Florida) • $128,942,303 • Total Cost for Florida = (A) – (B) = $124,287,673 • Recall Traditional System Upgrade Cost was $156,877,510 GIG – = (A) (B)

19. Estimate – Net-Centric Solution • Risk Analysis Factors • Software Size • State of Florida • Global Information Grid • Software Functional Complexity • Project Phase assumed to be early concept • Earlier phase than traditional system upgrade – GIG is not as well understood • Technology assumed to be proven in prototype • Used FRISK methodology • Takes into account correlation between risk elements • Uses “method-of-moments” rather than Monte-Carlo based • Faster than Monte-Carlo but still accurate • Low, Likely, High triangular distribution for each risk factor

20. Estimate – Net-Centric Solution • Risk Results • Point Estimate $124,287,673 • 70% risk level $217,826,561 • 95% risk level $247,349,526 • Biggest Risk Impacts • Custom developed software • Florida’s GIG integration effort

21. Estimate – Summary • Traditional upgrade point estimate is higher • Net-centric solution is riskier • Much more software involved in integration due to GlG • GIG integration is less understood than a traditional upgrade path • Sanity Check • Michigan’s digital Motorola system cost $220 million • Mississippi network estimated to be $150-300 million (Source: http://www.usatoday.com/money/industries/technology/2005-12-28-radio-systems_x.htm)

22. Conclusions and Suggested Actions • The numbers are close, so what other differentiating factors exist between the two systems? • Upgrading the traditional system seems safer, but some potential hurdles exist that the upgraded system may not be able to overcome • Bandwidth – Los Angeles County would like to buy new radio systems in frequency bands used by neighboring agencies, yet there are few available channels • The bandwidth opened up by the GIG should eliminate any such constraints • Standards – without a national system, different states will need compatible systems to communicate between one another • It’s the same problem moved to the state rather than the local level • Technology Upgrades – how will states and national agencies handle the timing of technology upgrades • Without the GIG, states will have to coordinate upgrades to ensure communications • With the GIG, states could plug in and automatically receive the latest services

23. Conclusions and Suggested Actions • Another issue – how scalable is the upgraded system compared to the net-centric solution? • What if Florida wants to exchange emergency information with 100 additional agencies over the next ten years? Centers for Disease Control Food and Drug Administration Salvation Army US Postal Service Environmental Protection Agency National Weather Service Dept of Justice FBI National Transportation Safety Board US Coast Guard CIA Homeland Security Dept of Health & Human Services Nuclear Regulatory Commission PRICE Systems Neighboring States Federal Communications Commission Federal Aviation Administration American Red Cross US Army Corps of Engineers NASA US Navy

24. Conclusions and Suggested Actions • If bandwidth and scalability are concerns, the net-centric solution makes more sense • FYI – What is Florida really doing to solve this problem? • Participating in Homeland Security’s SAFECOM Program • Working with the emergency response community and Federal partners to develop solutions to address interoperable communication challenges • Includes more than 60,000 local and state emergency response organizations • SAFECOM long-term goal is to achieve system of systems environment supported by communication standards, tools, and best practices • SAFECOM goal is closer to the proposed net-centric GIG solution than to the traditional system upgrade

25. Cost Models Scalability from Component to System of Systems Estimates