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

Paxton Hosted Access - Disruptive Low Dealer Pricing on Jan 19, 2017
Paxton is entering the hosted access game, with BLU, at a cost that is a fraction of key competitors. The different approach could be very...
Canon 250MP Prototype Targeted At Surveillance on Jan 17, 2017
At one point Axis declared the megapixel race was over, but now parent company Canon is showing an imager that would be a rocket ship in a...
Cut in Half, Everfocus Shifts Strategies on Jan 17, 2017
The race to the bottom impact continues. Now, Everfocus, who used to be one of the larger budget providers, is shifting strategies after years of...
Genetec Favorability Results on Jan 16, 2017
In the race to the bottom and flight to 'solutions', Genetec has taken a contrary path. The company remains independent, focusing up market,...
Free VMS Software Directory on Jan 13, 2017
Many Video Management Software (VMS) providers offer free versions, either open source, for a limited number of cameras or for a limited amount of...
Milestone Essential Subscription Removed on Jan 12, 2017
Subscriptions may be the future for Milestone and VMSes but not right now. Responding to negative feedback, Milestone has removed subscriptions...
IP Networking Course January 2017 on Jan 12, 2017
This is the only networking course designed specifically for video surveillance professionals plus it includes live training, personal help and...
ONVIF Favorability Results on Jan 11, 2017
ONVIF has been one of the most debated aspects of the video surveillance industry. On the one hand, its aim to increase interoperability has been...
HD Analog Usage Rising But Barriers Growing on Jan 09, 2017
The good news for HD analog is that its usage is rising, fairly significantly since our 2015 HD analog usage statistics. The bad news for HD...
How Axis Can Beat Hikvision on Jan 09, 2017
Hikvision has rocked the industry globally, bullying former video surveillance revenue leader Axis even in the Western world. What can Axis...

Most Recent Industry Reports

Vivotek Favorability Results on Jan 20, 2017
Financially, Vivotek is doing relatively well. The company did ~$130 million in 2015 revenue and 2016 revenue (through Q3 reported) was up more...
PR Firm Pleads Don't Scrap PR Spending on Jan 20, 2017
PR is not dying, warns pleads PR firm. Take 40+ year old industry PR firm LRG, who recently lamented the 'misconceptions' that: Traditional PR...
Getting Started With Your IPVM Membership on Jan 20, 2017
Here's how to get started and get the most out of your IPVM membership. Books for Members All members can download the 3 member-only books below...
Jim Cramer Sucks Up To Knightscope on Jan 19, 2017
Credit must be given to Knightscope. They are raising money right now and despite their $80 million pre-money valuation against a lowly sub $1...
ADT Launches Canopy - Professional Monitoring For DIY Devices on Jan 19, 2017
The intrusion industry has criticized DIY security systems for years, claiming systems like Canary or Scout cannot match professionally installed...
Dahua UnFavorability Results on Jan 19, 2017
Dahua, the mega-Chinese surveillance manufacturer not primarily owned by the Chinese government has been trying to break out of the shadow of...
Paxton Hosted Access - Disruptive Low Dealer Pricing on Jan 19, 2017
Paxton is entering the hosted access game, with BLU, at a cost that is a fraction of key competitors. The different approach could be very...
Geovision Launches Direct Cloud Offering on Jan 18, 2017
Add cloud, subtract integrator. Geovision has launched myGVcloud, an offering that allows consumers to buy cameras and cloud services directly...
Anixter / Bosch Sells Direct to Amazon on Jan 18, 2017
Anixter regularly says they do not sell direct to end users or that they do not do it anymore. However, over the past year, Anixter has sold Bosch...
Smart Power Tools For Security Installs on Jan 18, 2017
Installing a smart camera? Perhaps you should use a 'smart' drill. The intelligent appliance / IoT trend has hit power tools. In this note, we...

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