Airport PSIM / VMS RFP Examined

Author: John Honovich, Published on Nov 23, 2010

Airports security and surveillance systems are some of the most complex and expensive projects anywhere.

In this report, we examine a recently released RFP for the San Francisco Airport. The Airport seeks to deploy a PSIM system to integrate their various subsystems as well as a new VMS and megapixel cameras to expand the Airport's coverage. 

This is a fascinating example showcasing the challenges in building and integrating a system with this level of complexity. With numerous proprietary systems and some bankrupt suppliers, making this all work together as 'one' is an extremely difficult task. We find it ironic that privacy advocates worry about big brother when the more practical problem is simply making all this work together.

That noted, we think the SFO RFP is a relatively high quality document. The issue is less in the design than the fundamental issues that systems of this complexity face. 

Inside we dig into the details of the RFP, providing analysis and guidance on key issues and design choices.

More RFPs Reviewed

This is part of our ongoing series of RFP reviews. For more, read our RFP Reviews Volume 1 and our City Wide Surveillance RFP review.

******** ******** *** ************ ******* *** **** ** *** **** complex *** ********* ******** ********.

** **** ******, ** ******* * ******** ******** *** *** the *** ********* *******. *** ******* ***** ** ****** * PSIM ****** ** ********* ***** ******* ********** ** **** ** a *** *** *** ********* ******* ** ****** *** *******'* coverage. 

**** ** * *********** ******* ********** *** ********** ** ******** and *********** * ****** **** **** ***** ** **********. **** numerous *********** ******* *** **** ******** *********, ****** **** *** work ******** ** '***' ** ** ********* ********* ****. ** find ** ****** **** ******* ********* ***** ***** *** ******* when *** **** ********* ******* ** ****** ****** *** **** work ********.

**** *****, ** ***** *** *** *** ** * ********** high ******* ********. *** ***** ** **** ** *** ****** than *** *********** ****** **** ******* ** **** ********** ****. 

****** ** *** **** *** ******* ** *** ***, ********* analysis *** ******** ** *** ****** *** ****** *******.

More **** ********

**** ** **** ** *** ******* ****** ** *** *******. For ****, **** ****** ******* ****** **** ******* **** ************ *** ******.

[***************]

********

*** ****** ****** ***** ** **** ******* ** $*.* ******* with * ****** ** ******** *** ****.

***** *** **** **** (*** **********) ** *** *******, *** criteria ** ***** ******* ** ********* **** ***** (*** ***** $100,000) *****. ** **** *****, ****** $*** ** ** ********** device ** ********** *************. *** **** ********* ****** **** ** (1) *** *** ****** ****** ********* *** ***** ******* *** make ** **** **** *** (*) *** ********* ** *** new ****** ** ********* ************.

Key *******

***'* ****** *** *** ******* ****** ** ******* *** *******:

  • **** ******* ******** *********** ** ******** **** *******, ******** ****** control *******, ******** ***** ******** *******, * *** ******, * perimeter ******, ** ***, ***.
  • *** ******* **** *** ******* *** **** *********** ******* ** requesting **** ** ****
  • *** ******* ***** ** *** * *** ******* ** * 3D ******* *** ******* ****** / ****
  • *** ****/******* *** ******* ****** (****** ** ***** ******* ** the *******) ***** ** **************,************** *******; *** ****** ***** ******* * "***% ********** *** ******* 3-D *** ** *** ****** *** ******"
  • *** *** ***** ** *************,************* ******* (********** ******** ******** ********* **** *** ************ **** ** ******** -**** ******* ** $*** *** *** *** *********)
  • *** *** *******, "***** ******** ******** *** *** **** ******** allowed ******* *** *******'* ******** ******** *** ***** *****."
  • *** ***** ******* ********: "********* ** *** ********** ******* *** subsystems ***** ** ******** *** ******* **** **** *** *********** lag **** ********** ** ******** ** ******** *** *** *******"
  • *** *********** ***** *******/**********, "****** **** ******* ******** *****-**-****** ************ to ******* ******* *********** *** ******** ** **********..."
  • *********** ***** **** ** ********: ***** ** *********** ******* *** statement ** *********** ************** *** *** ******* ** ** ********** including *****, ***, ******* ******, **********, *******, ***** **** ****** and ***** ******,
  • ******** ***** ****** ****** ** ** ****. ** ********, ******** or ******** *** ** ***** ** *********.
  • ***** ******* *** *********: "***** ****** *** ********* **** ******* are *** *** ****** ** ******. ******* ***** **** ***** shall ** ********* *** ******** ** *** *** *** ******** prior ** ******."
  • *** ******* **** ** *********** ** ********* *** **** *** pixels *** **** ** *** ******** ******: "********* **** ******* will ** ******** **** *.* (***) ** * ********* (***) and ********* ***** ** ********** ** ***** ** ****** ******* as ********* ** *** ***."
  • "*.*** **** ** *** ********* ******** ********"
  • ********** ********** *** ******* *** **** ** ******** - ******* must ****** * ***** ** *** ****, *********** *** ******** reasons *** *** ******* ** **********.
  • "*** ******** **** ****** ********* *** ******* ** *** ** users **** *** ********* ***** * ***** ****** ****** ******. The *** *** **** **** ** ***** *** ******** ****** users *** *** ******** *** ************ ** ******** *** ****** switch **** *** ****-***** ** ***** *** ********** ******* ** each (***) *** *******." 
  • *** **** **** **** ** ********* **** ********** ** * very *** ***** ********* ******** ******** *************** *** **************.
  • ********* ********: ******** ** ** ****** (** ******* ******** ********* and * *** *********) *** * **** ****. ************ ******** of * ********** ********** ********* *** * **** *****.
  • * **** ******** *** *** ******** ********* * ***** ** free ********

********

***'* ** ***** ** *****:

  • Key **** - ****** ***********: With so many different systems that need to be integrated (from Pelco to MDI to Intergraph to Vidient, etc., it's unlikely that anyone can completely meet the airport's needs with their COTS offering. Securing commitments (and pricing) from both the PSIM vendor and the security system vendor is essential to ensure integration on systems not supported 'out of the box'.
  • Bankrupt *********: The RFP states that access control provider ***** ********. ***** ** ****** ******* **** *************, ** ****** MDI's **** ***** ****** *** ** *** ************. ************, ***** the *** **** *** ***** ****, ** **** **** *** of ***** ***** *********,******* ** *** ** ********. ******** ** ***, **** *** **** *********** **** **** difficult, ********** ** ** ******** *** *** *********** ** *** part ** *** ******** *******.
  • Burden ** *** ****** ** *********: The airport has made it clear that the burden on integrating these system is firmly on the bidder and that no help will be provided. We think this is prudent precaution for the airport as a bidder could try to 'escape' by arguing that some integrations are just not possible (especially because of bankrupt subsystem suppliers). On the other hand, the more the airport demands all the systems to be integrated, the more bidders will have to increase/pad their bids to deal with the uncertainly involved.
  • 3D ****: The whole airport 3D map requirement is interesting. We question how valuable it ultimately is especially relative to the cost of producing such a map. While the 2D element can be relatively easily obtained via publicly available resources, 3D maps generally require a dedicated, manual process of capturing imagery and building of the map. This could cost hundreds of thousands alone.
  • PSIM *********: Two of the most aggressive marketers are notably absent - ************. ** *** ***** ****, *** ***** ************ ** **** project ** ****** ****** ***** ********** ************ (****** *** ***** marketing ******). ** *** ********* ***** ******, * *** ***** companies (****** *** ****** *******, ******** ** **** ********) *** the ***** ** * ***** ******* ****** ***** **** **** 50 ***** **** (********). ** ***** ******** ** * ***** option. ***** **** *** ** ***** *** *** **** ** such * ******** ********* ** ***** ********, **** ******* ** Proximex **** ******** (**** ***** ****** ******* ** ********* ********) or **** ******** *** **** ******* (**** **********)? (******* ******** will ** **** ** ****** *********** *********** ********** *********** *******).
  • PSIM ** **********: One of the most bizarre elements of the project is that they want to integrate Intergraph with their new PSIM system. It's potentially extremely redundant as Integraph is designed to operate as command and control system for such applications. As we examined in October 2010, ************ ********* ($***,*** *******) *** ** ***'* ** ***** ** deploy * ***** *** **** ******.
  • Low ***** **** ***********: The RFP requires a number of lower level integrations between the PSIM and the various subsystems. We think this is going to be difficult and/or costly to deliver. Most security systems only expose basic/core functionalities via API. For instance, VMS systems may expose live and recorded video but rarely do they make system configuration available.
  • VSM *********: The VMS shortlist makes a lot of sense to us with Genetec and DvTel offering similar overall solutions and Visual Defense providing the advantage of tight integration with its own PSIM offering. For a project with this many requirements, only a handful of VMSes are even realistic options.
  • Matrix ****** ***********: In high end projects, matrix switch and keyboard integration are common 'must haves.' This RFP is no exception. The problem for VMS selection is that only a fraction of VMS systems integrate with these devices, eliminating most products.
  • Moving **** **** ******: It's interesting that the airport is moving away from Endura, a product that is certainly still in its 'prime of life'. We do not know why though the airport is requiring the use of off the shelf computers/servers. This would be one element that would disqualify Endura.
  • Forcing *********** **** ******: Not surprisingly, the airport wants to keep using Endura for cameras already in use and add new cameras to the new VMS. From both a financial and political standpoint, switching out Endura would be very problematic as the equipment almost certainly has many years of usable life remaining.
  • Cisco ********** ******** ********: While IP networks are based on open standards, the airport's requirement for all Cisco networking equipment is not surprising. Using a single vendor can sometimes reduce interoperability issues (especially if the network uses more advanced features). Cisco was not able to leverage its networking power into the security specification but the all Cisco network requirement is another good reminder of Cisco's wide reach in general IT.
  • Sub ***** ***********: The airport is requiring end to end latency of under 300ms for the system. This is likely most important for PTZ controls (or two way audio if used). However, keeping latency under 500ms is generally done to make a system truly 'real-time.' On the other hand, we are skeptical how they are going to measure this (we do not see how the measurement process is defined). Depending on how you measure, you can make the latency appear to be much shorter or longer. Secondly, we are not sure what the value is of enforcing such a tight latency requirement. For instance, a fixed camera with a 1000ms (or 1s) delay is not a security risk (and may not be noticeable) even in responding to a real time incident.
  • Standardizing ** *********: We think standardizing new cameras on megapixel makes good sense and is a important 'sign of the times.' Airports cover large, usually open areas (SFO is **** * ******* ****** ****). ** **** *****, ********* ** ******* ******** ** ********* cost-effective ***** ********. ** ** *******, ***** ************ ** **** costly *** ******* ** **********/*******, ***** * ***** ****** ** more '********' ******* ** ****** *********.
  • Pixels ** ****** *************: While pixels on targets is a useful metric, it appears that the RFP will allow bidders to make the decision about how many pixels on target are provided. We think greater clarity on this element is needed both in terms of total pixel on target and where the target will be. Otherwise, visual detail will likely not match operator's needs/expectations. Secondly, when specifying pixels on target, the RFP should factor in any direct sunlight facing cameras (that will increase the need for WDR or more pixels) or any areas that might become dark during certain times of the day (though less likely in an airport).
  • Pelco ******* ** '******': We do not understand why Pelco is the cameras of 'choice.' In the old system, with Endura as the recording platform, it made some sense because of the tighter integration provided by the all Pelco system. However, integrated with Genetec, DvTel, etc. Pelco does not provide clear advantages over numerous other large IP camera manufacturers. Additionally, in the required H.264 mode, Pelco Sarix frame rate is generally low plus the cameras max out at 3MP (while the specification calls for up to 5MP cameras).
  • Specifying ****** *******: In general, the camera specification is minimal (beyond the Pelco and the 1 to 5Mp requirements). Do they require interchangeable lenses, mechanical cut filters, WDR capabilities, audio, alarm inputs, multi-streaming, SNMP, etc, etc.? These elements should be clearly spelled out in a bid this large to ensure that important functionalities are not missed because their need was not communicated up front.
  • Equivalent / ************ *******: The Airport has a good substitution process where the bidder provides essentially a white paper on why an alternative product is superior. Rather than artificially force the bidder to meet arbitrary requirements, the RFP does a good job of laying out key questions to check if the alternative is capable of meeting the fundamental needs.
  • 5 **** ********/******** ********: We think their software warranty and upgrade requirement is a prudent approach. While it increases up front cost, this eliminates the risk and complexity of allocating new funds in the future. Additionally, it may reduce the cost as manufacturers often offer discounts for up front long term contracts.
Login to read this IPVM report.
Why do I need to log in?
IPVM conducts unique testing and research funded by member's payments enabling us to offer the most independent, accurate and in-depth information.

Related Reports

VMS UI - Light vs Dark Preferences on Jun 16, 2017
Several VMS manufacturers have the ability to choose a user interface with either a light or dark color theme. 150+ integrators told us which they...
Bluebeam Revu Security Floorplan Estimation App Test on Jun 15, 2017
Bluebeam Revu is a construction design markup tool that claims it is "used by 94% of top US contractors", but what role does it have for physical...
Axis 20MP Q1659 Camera Tested on Jun 13, 2017
Axis has joined the super high resolution camera trend with their Q1659, a 20MP model equipped with Canon's APS-C sensor. We tested the Q1659...
Access Control Course Winter 2018 on Jun 11, 2017
The Winter 2018 IPVM Access Control Course is now open; save $50 on early registration. IPVM offers the most comprehensive access control course...
RMR Integrator Importance Statistics on Jun 08, 2017
How do integrators feel about offering RMR / recurring revenue services? For many, their business revolves around RMR, while others see no...
Milestone New "+" Claims To "Conquer The Mid-Market" on Jun 07, 2017
Milestone has declared they are going to "Conquer The Mid-Market" with new "+" releases. Will they? In this report, we examine Milestone's "+"...
HID Edge EVO Tested on Jun 07, 2017
HID Edge controllers have been one of most common offerings in IP door controllers for years. The new generation is called Edge EVO. We tested...
Manufacturer Revenue Directory on Jun 05, 2017
This report contains data on the revenue of 32 security manufacturers, trend analysis of whether they are gaining or losing ground and commentary...
Most Disrespected Manufacturer Competitors on Jun 01, 2017
Manufacturers told IPVM what competitor they most disrespected. There was one overwhelming selection that manufacturers felt was harming the...
Access Control AHJ Nightmares on Jun 01, 2017
For access control jobs, a single person can be the difference between finishing a job, costing thousands in extra dollars, and being profitable...

Most Recent Industry Reports

Importance of Sales To Integrators - Statistics on Jun 23, 2017
One of the top trends in the industry over the past few years has been the rise of across-the-board sales (e.g.: Hikvision Sales, Dahua Sale,...
Deep Learning Surveillance Startups Deep Problem on Jun 23, 2017
The undeniably good news for the video surveillance market is that we are seeing the rise of more startups than in many years. The cause of this...
Avigilon Announces RADAR-Based Presence Detector on Jun 22, 2017
RADAR is gaining momentum within physical security. Two months after Axis announced a network radar detector, Avigilon has announced a RADAR-Based...
Covert Cloud Camera Service Launching (KJB) on Jun 22, 2017
Cloud IP cameras, for consumers, has become increasingly commonplace. However, covert cameras, lag there, with few options. Now, North America's...
Manufacturers Shipping Unlicensed H.265 Products on Jun 22, 2017
While H.265 support in video surveillance is growing, IPVM's research shows that most surveillance manufacturers are shipping H.265 products with...
Uniview Low-Cost Bullet PTZ Tested on Jun 21, 2017
Uniview is offering a HD zoom bullet camera, the IPC742SR9-PZ30-32G, with an integrated pan / tilt positioner, for the price of a low-cost...
QSR Video Surveillance Best Practices on Jun 21, 2017
Fast food restaurants or QSRs (quick service restaurants), are frequent victims of crime and fraud. Because they are open late, deal with cash, and...
45 Drives 'Lowest Cost' Enterprise Storage Company Profile on Jun 21, 2017
45 Drives claims the "lowest cost per Hard Drive Slot in the industry." But who or what is '45 Drives'? What started as a product design to...
No Hack, Still Liable, Court Finds ADT on Jun 20, 2017
Recently, ADT has been in the news for a $16 million settlement for a cyber security vulnerability class action suit. One of the most important...
Resolver / PPM 2000 Incident Management Platform Profile on Jun 20, 2017
You might have seen the company whose employees wear hockey jerseys at trade shows and wondered "what do they do?" PPM 2000 has been active in...

The world's leading video surveillance information source, IPVM provides the best reporting, testing and training for 10,000+ members globally. Dedicated to independent and objective information, we uniquely refuse any and all advertisements, sponsorship and consulting from manufacturers.

About | FAQ | Contact