Subscriber Discussion

Client Workstation Bid...Lazy Or Typical?

Avatar
Mike Dotson
Sep 22, 2017
Formerly of Seneca • IPVMU Certified

Folks,

Today I was shown a bid spec for a VMS that actually includes a reference to what they wanted in a Client Workstation that feeds a video wall controller.  However, the spec does not include an anticipated total stream count for the stations to handle.    This is a primary limitation beyond the physical monitor count.   I do a lot of lab work with a variety of Client apps and have a good idea what they need on the hardware side to achieve a maximum total stream count.

The spec has a specific workstation count but I wonder how THAT count was selected?  The 'answer' changes quite a bit between the combo of total streams + VMS itself + monitor count.

The 4th Gen Intel CPU is old since they have 6th and 7th GEN in place with 8th& 9th on the horizon.

My question is... is this typically what you folks see in these bids or was this written poorly?  

===============

Contractor shall provide three computer workstations to provide inputs from
the VMS Client to the video wall controller. Video Wall Workstations shall
meet the following specifications as a minimum:
a. Windows 7 SP1 Professional or later operating system. Contractor shall
verify compatibility with VMS prior to purchase and adjust Windows
operating system purchase as necessary
b. 64-bit Intel Core i7-4820K (10MB, 3.9 MHz) or greater
c. 2 x 500 GB hard drives in RAID-1 configuration
d. 16 GB of DDR3 SDRAM
e. 10/100/1000 Base-T network interface card
f. High performance PCI Express graphics card supporting DirectX 10.0
and dual independent monitors. Minimum 2 GB graphics RAM
g. Internal CD/DVD burner drive
h. Enterprise version of Anti-virus software and Anti-spyware software to
support all servers and workstations inclusive of all VMS workstations

UI
Undisclosed Integrator #1
Sep 22, 2017

90% of bid specs are lazy, boiler plate, copy & paste.  They are all vague so you either have to guess what is needed (and probably overprice yourself) or just do the bare minimum (and hope the customer understands you went off the spec and doesn't hate you).  

When i see something like this i just send it in to Marcy and ask her to do something similar with updated components. 

Edit- I have read 2 specs this summer that called for Intel Core 2 servers...

(4)
Avatar
Michael Silva
Sep 22, 2017
Silva Consultants

Poor specs are probably the rule rather than the exception. Writing a good performance based spec is hard work and takes a lot of time. If done properly, in addition to writing the spec for the item itself, you need to define the terms used within the spec, and then need to define the terms used to define the terms, etc.

All specs look good to the writer when written, but weaknesses become quickly apparent when someone else has to read and interpret them. Many people love to criticize someone else's spec, but when asked to write one themselves and have others critique it, realize just how difficult it is.

If I had to guess, I would say that the spec example that you provided was old - perhaps a cut and paste from someone else's spec, or copied directly from an older manufacturer's cut sheet. I have also seen cases where a client will get a vendor or consultant to write a spec, and then sit on it for a couple of years before putting it out for bid.

(3)
(4)
Avatar
Jared Beagley
Sep 22, 2017
Seagate Technology

If they really wanna test how good (or bad) their specs are, they should post them on Reddit and allow them to dissect it. We spend a lot of time looking over build specs there to see if we can provide information of value and sometimes it's funny, but often it is quite insightful. r/buildapc is a fun place. Might be entertaining/informative to go on there, post the spec using PC Part Picker, and see what happens.

(1)
Avatar
Mike Dotson
Sep 22, 2017
Formerly of Seneca • IPVMU Certified

 How unfortunate.

That explains why our customer care crew and/or sales folks get calls from the integrator even end user sometimes, complaining that machine X is not able to display all 64 camera streams across my 4 monitors....and the have a lower processor in the box because that is what the spec had as a min, and 'better' CPUs cost more so the bidder did not address "or better" because of that.

Avatar
Michael Silva
Sep 22, 2017
Silva Consultants

Viewing workstation performance is the single biggest complaint we get from client's on their VMS. Rather than write absolute specs on workstations, I often state that "workstations will comply with VMS manufacturer's recommendations for hardware based on specified numbers of cameras/monitors/viewing streams..."

(1)
(2)
U
Undisclosed #4
Sep 23, 2017
IPVMU Certified

Rather than write absolute specs on workstations, I often state that "workstations will comply with VMS manufacturer's recommendations for hardware based on specified numbers of cameras/monitors/viewing streams..."

What if the manufacturer is lowballing their hardware recommendation, (perhaps to give a best case impression), but then in the real-world, performance is borderline?

Avatar
Michael Silva
Sep 24, 2017
Silva Consultants

If we follow a manufacturer's recommendation for hardware, and the installer installs the system as per the manufacturer's guidelines, and the system performs poorly, I would hold the manufacturer accountable. 

(1)
Avatar
Mike Dotson
Sep 22, 2017
Formerly of Seneca • IPVMU Certified

A lot of those specs are MIN specs...yuk.

I spend a lot of time in the lab to determine what a VMS needs to perform well and then work with our marketing crew to create a client reference guide to help our sales folks and partners.

I also preach to them to 'ask' how much they want to view on a workstation.  Many times the customer has not even considered this and planned to do all the viewing on the server (ouch) or things like  "my laptop.....a PC I made from spare parts etc" and then we try to educate them of some reality ;-)

(1)
VM
Vitaliy Maksimov
Sep 22, 2017

I agree that writing a good project spec is hard.

In fact, the way I see it, developing the project spec is more than half the battle. If someone told us how many and what kind of cameras/NVRs we need to buy, we could have our general IT contractor install and configure the equipment.

In fact, we would happily pay good money to have someone who knows what they're doing help us develop the specs/plan for our camera project. Unfortunately, the security companies that we worked with seem rather clueless -- proposing archaic technologies and asking us what kind/how many cameras we want (as opposed to interviewing us about our needs, looking at the floorplan, etc and proposing a suitable solution).

https://ipvm.com/forums/video-surveillance/topics/looking-for-integrator-in-phoenix-az

JH
Jay Hobdy
Sep 23, 2017
IPVMU Certified

It seems a lot of people are claiming to be camera experts when they are not.

We are not local, but we have worked off plans before. Not a big deal. If you want to have a conversation offline and see how we may be able to help, let me know.

 

Thanks

 

UM
Undisclosed Manufacturer #2
Sep 23, 2017

I have never seen a specification as part of a Tender that did not make me smile, shake my head from side to side or simply made me sigh. Things like 'all cameras need to be of at least 3MP (1080P)' are just the smaller hiccups, often the conundrums are far worse. You would think that with most manufacturers providing A&E specifications of all their products it should be easy enough to get that part right. Cutting and pasting is probably the biggest problem here and a simple lack of knowledge by the person or persons writing the documents. I agree with the above that Workstations for example are often dismissed as 'overspecced' and substituted with what the SI calls a 'decent PC', but when 64 cameras need to be displayed over 4 Monitors and they are all 5MP or more the proverbial you know what will hit the fan and all hell breaks lose as who is to blame.

It does become difficult if the end user cannot properly determine what their actual requirements are at the time the spec is written. Design flaws or shortcomings often only come to light when the system is taken in use and operators start demanding a level of performance that wasn't part of the original specification. We are actually right in the middle of one of these scenario's where the operators are doing one thing, several persons in charge at the end user side are all looking for something different and the consultants original specification stated something completely different again. The SI hides behind the original spec etc. A scenario only a politician could solve lol

UI
Undisclosed Integrator #3
Sep 23, 2017

I would state the obvious that public versus private impacts this.  

On a private spec the consultant can gather all the data and verify all the compatibility, choosing each piece of hardware and software with specific compatibility guidance from the manufacturers.

On a public bid to be issued with general performance and working with an agency defining the needs by committee without the actual user involvement and having to allow "or equal" there are too many variables to provide detail.

One VMS uses multi-threading and GPU for decoding, another VMS uses the CPU almost entirely.  How do you write a client spec that isn't under powered or overpriced depending on the VMS selected?

As a dealer and a manufacturer I have assisted with specifications and that was difficult enough, let alone gather the info and write the clauses.

Neither justifies poor workmanship, cut and paste from old specs and such.

 

JE
Jim Elder
Sep 23, 2017
IPVMU Certified

I have noted folks who talk about poorly written specs but substantive suggestions are often not provided.  I once sent specs for markup to 10 integrator and 6 manufacturers asking challenging them to make to make any suggestions. I got 4  manufacturer responses and 2 integrator responses. Out of these responses, most all had indeed provided good  suggestions; however, I could not include every suggestions, because many were too proprietary or not workable.   

So a challenge to this illustrious audience:  rewrite the spec above the way you think it should be done. If you say "it depends"; make up the conditions you need to articulate your offering. 

Who will dare to try????

 

Avatar
Mike Dotson
Sep 25, 2017
Formerly of Seneca • IPVMU Certified

As a design and manufacturing entity, here are some of the important things I ask our sales folks to gather in order to provide a realistic answer.

In general, the spec will be 'performance oriented' vs min spec.

Knowing the VMS to be used is a tremendous help, as the performance of each one differs on the same hardware, thus the reason we have ways to build for a known VMS in production.

Since this is a Video Wall..... say what the monitor count the VWC will need to control.   Say what the total maximum stream count could be on the wall as well as on any one monitor

A VWC will take inputs from 'thick clients' running the VMS of choice.  These workstation machines are doing the heavy lifting.

Knowing the assorted cameras, resolutions and FPS that are accessible to the Client helps as an average can be devised and/or a worse case can be targeted.

Knowing the max Wall streams lets us drill down to how many workstations are estimated based on the VMS and maximum single monitor stream count.  

Note that most VMS clients have a 'monitor penalty' which is as reduction in total supported stream counts as more monitors are added to a single client machine.  For example, being able to do 64 total of 1080P-15FPS on a single monitor will drop to 54 total streams across TWO monitors.

My changes to the wording would be:

Contractor shall provide a minimum of three computer workstations to provide inputs from the VMS Client to the video wall controller. The VWC will be supporting a maximum stream count of XXX across a 4 by 2 wall.   The streams will be displayed at 10FPS from a (defined elsewhere) assortment of resolutions.

The rest mostly stays the same because they have the 'or greater/later'....

a. 64 bit, Windows 8 or later operating system. Contractor shall
verify compatibility with VMS prior to purchase and adjust Windows
operating system purchase as necessary <<< Win7 and 8 are EOL/Soon EOL unless you are using the 'Embedded Enterprise' versions  which are equivalent to the regular versions at a bit level but with a different license Win EOL dates>>>
b. 64-bit Intel Core i7-4820K (10MB, 3.9 MHz) or greater
c. 2 x 500 GB hard drives in RAID-1 configuration
d. 16 GB of DDR3 SDRAM
e. 10/100/1000 Base-T network interface card
f. High performance PCI Express graphics card supporting DirectX 10.0
and dual independent monitors. Minimum 2 GB graphics RAM
g. Internal CD/DVD burner drive
h. Enterprise version of Anti-virus software and Anti-spyware software to
support all servers and workstations inclusive of all VMS workstations

 

(1)
UE
Undisclosed End User #5
Sep 25, 2017

Yet yea who lives in glasses houses not cast the first stone.. 

First, Mike thank you for showing what you would do differntly.. I would challenge others to do the same, what would your specification look like if you were King for the day and wrote the RFP?

This is a sore subject, though the example above did not come from me I feel the pain. You are absolutely right, writing a good RFP in Scope of Work (SOW) format is hard writing a RFP in a Scope of Objectives (SOO) format (i.e. performance based) is even harder .  Not only from a technical standpoint but also from a contracting standpoint.  

The IPVM RFP guide  is a good reference and a starting place, but it is lacking one critical detail, a complete example.  I challenge you to write up a full RFP the way you would want to get it, hitting all the wickets of the IPVM RFP guide. Just do it for 10 cameras, unless you feel adventurism and want to take on 100 cameras. 

New discussion

Ask questions and get answers to your physical security questions from IPVM team members and fellow subscribers.

Newest discussions