The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About11/06/2001, C19 - PUBLIC SAFETY SYSTEM FILE SERVER REPLACEMENT council Wa6,Deu acEnaa REpoRt W. j C I T Y OF SAN L U I S O B I S P O FROM: Bill Statler, Director of Finance James M. Gardiner, Chief of Police Prepared By: Teri Maa, Information Systems Manager SUBJECT: PUBLIC SAFETY SYSTEM FILE SERVER REPLACEMENT CAO RECOMMENDATION Approve supplemental funding for a replacement public safety system file server in the amount of$22,200 by: 1. Accelerating contract maintenance funding of $13,000 from the 2002-03 Police operating budget that will no longer be needed due to savings from the proposed replacement and transferring it to this project. 2. Transferring $9,200 in available funding from the 1016 Walnut police station improvement project. DISCUSSION Overview As discussed in greater detail below, we recommend increasing the current project budget for the replacement of the public safety system file server by $22,200, from $38,000 to $60,200. While replacing this mission-critical server will be more expensive than we originally estimated, it is still more cost effective over its life cycle than the next best option (an upgrade); and it can be fully funded within the existing two-year resources already allocated in the 2001-03 Financial Plan. Under the proposed funding strategy, there is no net impact on the ending General Fund balance for 2001-03. The added$22,200 in funding will be provided by: 1. Using the maintenance contract funds budgeted in 2002-03 that will no longer be needed with the proposed purchase and transferring them to this project($13,000). 2. Transferring available balances from the. 1016 Walnut police station improvement project ($9,200). Background In 1997, the City installed a new public safety system serving both Police and Fire for computer aided dispatch (CAD) and records management (RMS). Using application software purchased from Spillman, it operates on a Hewlett Packard (HP) file server. Although this server has performed exceptionally well since its purchase four years ago, it is currently operating at G 19-I Council Agenda Report—Public Safety System File Server Replacement Page 2 maximum capacity to handle day-to-day processing demands, with data storage utilization levels at 90%. Because of this, the 2000-01 Budget included funding for upgrading the server for these mission-critical applications in the amount of$25,000. However, before purchasing the upgrade components, we researched the potential costs and benefits of purchasing a new server instead. The key factor favoring replacement over an upgrade is the potential for significant maintenance cost savings. Currently, we spend $13,000 annually for contract maintenance. Since a new server would include a three-year warranty, our initial analysis showed that the life-cycle cost of a new server might be less expensive than an upgrade, with the advantage of better performance and reliability. For this reason, the CAO authorized issuance of a Request for Proposals (RFP) for a new public safety system file server in June 2001 based on an estimated project cost that was within 2001-02 resources of$38,000. File Server Acquisition While we standardized on an HP server for compatibility with the application software, this server can be purchased from several vendors. In responding to the RFP, all vendors were requested to submit two proposals for a single (1) central processing unit (CPU) server and for a two (2) CPU server. (While a 1-CPU unit would meet our minimum performance standards, Spillman recommends the dual-processor for faster performance at the user level, which is a critical consideration in emergency dispatching operations.) We received four proposals as summarized below: Data Systems Worldwide $ 44,669 $ 47,725 Dasher Technologies No proposal 49,918 MicroSolutions 46,602 51,162 -Systems Technology Associates STA 46,758 51,449 Because of differences in the substance of their proposals, it is not possible to make direct "apples-to-apples" comparisons between the proposals based on price alone. Based on their proposed configuration, services and competitive pricing, Systems Technology Associates (STA) was selected as having the best overall proposal. As allowed under the RFP, we subsequently negotiated with STA to provide the second CPU (with a slightly smaller uninterruptible power supply that will meet our needs) for the same price as their initial"1-CPU"proposal: $46,758. Follow-up Discussions with Spillman Before awarding the contract, we contacted Spillman to discuss the final HP server configuration to ensure maximum cost-effectiveness and performance in running their software. They concurred with the "2-CPU" approach and recommended that we increase the memory from 0.5 to 4.0 gigabytes. They also noted that a new file server with the latest version of the operating system software (HP-Unix) requires converting to a higher version of their application software. �J9-a Council Agenda Report—Public Safety System File Server Replacement Page 3 Memory Upgrade. Upgrading to the needed memory using HP-brand chips would be prohibitively expensive, but STA suggested that we purchase "generic"memory directly from the vendor that HP buys it from. While much less than HP, this adds $3,000 to the overall cost. Application Software Upgrade. Included with the cost of the new server is the latest version of the operating system software. However, for system compatibility, this will require converting to a higher version of Spillman's application software.. Their proposal for licensing and installing the compatible version of their software is $10,360. Summary Replacing this mission-critical file server makes more sense than an upgrade for four key reasons: 1. It will result in a better performing server, more memory and up-to-date versions of both the operating system and application software. 2. In turn, these system enhancements will result in increased productivity and improved reliability compared with an upgrade. 3. It is consistent with the overall Information Technology Strategic Plan goal of staying current with changes in technology. 4. On a life-cycle basis, it is more cost-effective to replace this server than it is to upgrade it. FISCAL IMPACT The total cost of replacing this file server is $60,200: $46,800 for the HP file server from STA; $3,000 for additional memory; and $10,400 for the application software conversion from Spillman. There is already $38,000 available for this replacement based on the $25,000 previously budgeted for the upgrade and $13,000 for annual maintenance in the 2001-02 budget. To fund the replacement, we recommend accelerating the $13,000 in maintenance funding from the Police 2002-03 operating budget that will no longer be needed after this purchase and transferring it to this project; and transferring $9,200 of the remaining balance from the 1016 Walnut improvement project. This will result in no net change in the Life CYCle Costs ending General Fund balance over Upgrade 2001-03. Moreover, this approach will Server Upgrade 25,000 save $3,800 over the next three years Maintenance Costs $13,000 Annually39,000 Total Upgrade 64,000 compared with an upgrade as Replacement summarized in the sidebar chart. Server Replacement 46,800 Third-Party Memory Upgrade 3,000 In summary, while replacing this A ]ication Software Upgrade- 10,400 server will be more expensive than we Total Replacement 60,200 originally estimated, it is still more Net Life Cycle Savings $ 3,800 CI9_3 Council Agenda Report—Public Safety System File Server Replacement Page 4 cost effective than an upgrade; and it can be fully funded within the existing two-year resources already allocated in the 2001-03 Financial Plan. ALTERNATIVES 1. Upgrade Rather than Replace the File Server. This is not a cost-effective option. As noted above, an upgrade is actually a more expensive option over the next three years than a replacement—with less of an end-result. 2. Wait Until Mid-Year for a Supplemental Appropriation. While there are advantages from simply a workload perspective in waiting to do this, the simple fact is that we should replace this server as soon as possible. Given the problems with the current server, waiting until March 2002 is a greater business and technology risk than we should take with this mission-critical system. And from a budgetary perspective, there is no reason to wait until the mid-year budget review to consider this, since an additional appropriation is not required. G:Information Systems/HP Replacement Server/Council Agenda Report C19-�