City Housing Authority RFP Examined

By: John Honovich, Published on Nov 07, 2010

In this note, we examine a current video surveillance RFP for a housing authority covering more than a dozen sites. The RFP is specified in extreme details and, in may cases, too detailed or contradictory. For background, review the 154 page Housing Authority video surveillance RFP [link no longer available] document.

Key attributes of the system include:

  • 15 sites/complexes require surveillance
  • Video shall be monitored both locally at each site and at the Housing Authority's main office.
  • At each site, a recorder and a large monitor (50"+) will be deployed. Video will be recorded locally and made available over the Housing Authority's 10MP MPLS WAN connections (to the main office).
  • Cameras must meet various resolution requirements ranging from 20 pixels per foot (ppf) for detection at entrances and parking lots to 60 ppf for 'strong identification' at choke points
  • The VMS system must meet about 30 pages of extremely detailed specifications for numerous functionalities including specific 3rd party support, methods of enterprise management, video export, display, etc.
  • Camera technical specifications are quite detailed (see page 35 of the spec [link no longer available]): 4CIF to 2MP resolution, day/night cameras, minimum illumination: .18 lux, H.264, auto back focus, dual streaming, alarm inputs and outputs, etc. All fixed cameras are to be vandal proof domes. Additionally, bidder must determine and supply IR if needed.
  • Unlicensed 2.4, 4.9 or 5 GHz wireless links must be resistant to interference from tree / foilage growth.
  • At the main office, the Authority wants (9) 50" monitors in a 3 x 3 matrix for monitoring video. The monitoring station is not staffed 24/7.
  • No video analytics are specified.

Key observations:

  • Milestone Enterprise only VMS that matches: From the various low level specs included (Master/Slave setup, Digifort and Verint camera support, iPix compatibility, 'speedup' settings, etc.), this is almost certainly requires bidding Milestone Enterprise. This restricts competition by artificially introducing unnecessary requirements (e.g., does the system have to do enterprise management by the antiquated master/slave approach? are iPix settings really needed? etc.) We think the customer would be better served by issuing general performance specifications and let bidders offer multiple VMS choices. This is also a confusing and wasteful approach as 30 pages of specifications could have been replaced with a few lines to show their true intent (though this is a frequent tactic). Secondly, if the client really want Milestone, we think Milestone Corporate would be a significantly better choice than Enterprise. Corporate has superior enterprise management, alarm handling, video distribution, etc.
  • On-site recording: Recording the video at each site is not surprising. Even with a 10Mb/s WAN connection, insufficient bandwidth is available for moving numerous dozens of camera per site to a central location.
  • Pixel Per Foot specifications: We think specifying pixels per foot is helpful but a minimum horizontal Field of View (Fov) in feet should also be specified (e.g., 40 ppf at a 20 foot wide FoV). Without specifying the horizontal FoV width, bidders can not be sure what resolution camera to choose. For instance, if one bidder estimates the FoV to be 20 feet and another 30 feet, insufficient resolution will be provided for the narrower estimate. This is especially hard as, by definition, any camera can provide 60 (or 120) ppf if you accept a narrower enough FoV. Readers repeatedly expressed confusion on this point in our PPF study.
  • Vandal Domes: The choice of camera housings are not surprising. Indeed, the number of IP vandal domes has grown significantly over the last 2 years as domes begin to outnumber box cameras. For example, over 100 vandal domes are listed in our Camera Finder.
  • Minimum Illumination: A minimum illumination  of 0.18 lux is essentially meaningless as camera manufacturers have no standardized, comparable way of comparing low light performance. Setting a number only invites and rewards those manufacturers who fabricate or rig unrealistic numbers. It may sound crazy but given who manufacturers set their min illumination rating, the Authority would likely be better off just specifying a mechanical cut filter and leaving out minimum illumination altogether.
  • Auto Back Focus: The specification requires auto back focus but that one requirement limits options from about 26 cameras who meet the other requirements to less than 10 who also support auto back focus. While auto back focus is valuable, it does add about $100 average more cost and limits options.
  • IR Illuminators: The spec is vague on requiring IR illuminators: "Bidder to determine if IR is required to supplement existing lighting." The problem is that determining when IR is needed is subjective and also dependent on other settings used. Quality of image degrades gradually with less light so disagreement can arise as to when video becomes unusable. Also, a savvy or manipulative bidder can set longer exposure times 'providing' more light at the expense of motion blur. Specification would be improved by listing the longest exposure time allowed.
  • No video analytics: Given that these are large housing areas with on-site guards at some sites, real time alerting from video analytics would almost certainly be useful. Furthermore, given the amount spent on this project, it is likely they can afford the minimal extra cost. On the other hand, given the lack of confidence the community has in analytics, this is not surprising. When analytics truly goes mainstream, every project like this should include analytics (much like they are now including megapixel).
Comments : Members only. Login. or Join.

Related Reports

NetApp Presents Hybrid Cloud Video Archive on May 11, 2020
NetApp presented its hybrid S3 cloud video archive at the April 2020 IPVM New Products show. Inside this report: A 30-minute video from...
VSaaS 101 on Mar 25, 2020
Video Surveillance as a Service (VSaaS) is the common industry term for cloud video. But what does it mean? How does it all work? Inside this...
Surveillance Storage 101 on Mar 23, 2020
This guide teaches the fundamentals of video surveillance storage. Inside we cover: Surveillance Storage NVR / Recorder Storage Camera /...
Every VMS Will Become a VSaaS on Feb 21, 2020
VMS is ending. Soon every VMS will be a VSaaS. Competitive dynamics will be redrawn. What does this mean? VMS Historically...
Video Surveillance Architecture 101 on Feb 18, 2020
Video surveillance can be designed and deployed in a number of ways. This 101 examines the most common options and architectures used in...
Video Analytics Integration Guide on Aug 16, 2018
Video analytics is hot again (at least conceptually) but integrating video analytics with VMSes can be challenging. This is especially significant...
Hanwha Wisenet X Analytics and VMD Test on May 24, 2018
Continuing our updated testing of camera analytics, we tested Hanwha's Wisenet X analytics for over two weeks in multiple scenes, indoors and out,...
Installing Box Cameras Indoors Guide on May 22, 2018
This guide starts our physical installation for video surveillance series, starting with Box Cameras, one of the oldest and most basic types....
Network Racks For Surveillance Guide on Mar 21, 2018
In this guide, we look at network rack infrastructure, one of the fundamentals of IP video surveillance. Inside, we cover: What is a rack unit...
Remote Video Monitoring Providers Directory on May 21, 2017
Remote video monitoring can help integrators generate RMR plus end users lower their security costs and/or improve response to critical...

Most Recent Industry Reports

Hikvision Illicitly Uses Back To The Future In Marketing on Jul 03, 2020
NBCUniversal told IPVM that Hikvision UK's ongoing coronavirus marketing campaign using NBCUniversal's assets was not allowed. Hikvision mass...
Verkada: "IPVM Should Never Be Your Source of News" on Jul 02, 2020
Verkada was unhappy with IPVM's recent coverage declaring that reading IPVM is 'not a good look' and that 'IPVM should never be your source of...
Vintra Presents FulcrumAI Face Recognition on Jul 02, 2020
Vintra presented its FulcrumAI face recognition and mask detection offering at the May 2020 IPVM Startups show. Inside this report: A...
Uniview Wrist Temperature Reader Tested on Jul 02, 2020
Uniview is promoting measuring wrist temperatures whereas most others are just offering forehead or inner canthus measurements. But how well does...
Dahua USA Admits Thermal Solutions "Qualify As Medical Devices" on Jul 02, 2020
Dahua USA has issued a press release admitting a controversial point in the industry but an obvious one to the US FDA, that the thermal temperature...
Access Control Online Show - July 2020 - With 40+ Manufacturers - Register Now on Jul 01, 2020
IPVM is excited to announce our July 2020 Access Control Show. With 40+ companies presenting across 4 days, this is a unique opportunity to hear...
Hanwha Face Mask Detection Tested on Jul 01, 2020
Face mask detection or, more specifically lack-of-face-mask detection, is an expanding offering in the midst of coronavirus. Hanwha in partnership...
UK Government Says Fever Cameras "Unsuitable" on Jul 01, 2020
The UK government's medical device regulator, MHRA, told IPVM that fever-seeking thermal cameras are "unsuitable for this purpose" and recommends...
Camera Course Summer 2020 on Jun 30, 2020
This is the only independent surveillance camera course, based on in-depth product and technology testing. Lots of manufacturer training...
Worst Over But Integrators Still Dealing With Coronavirus Problems (June Statistics) on Jun 30, 2020
While numbers of integrators very impacted by Coronavirus continue to drop, most are still moderately dealing with the pandemic's problems, June...