First Integrator Face Off Opened

Author: Ethan Ace, Published on Jul 29, 2015

IPVM is starting a new series.

A scenario will be presented and selected integrators can respond with their proposals / designs. Then those responses will be shared with the IPVM community, letting other members vote on what they like best and provide comments on the responses.

The goal is that everyone can learn about how to best design systems and the tradeoffs in quality, coverage and pricing of different solutions.

The First One - Parking Lot

The first face off will be for a large parking lot (see it mapped on the IPVM camera calculator).

This provides a challenging environment with multiple design options possible. Inside / below, we provide the full scenario for you to review.

Response Format

Integrators are to supply three items as part of their response:

I. Recommendations/Justification/Sales Pitch

First, each bidder should provide a narrative detailing their equipment selections, explaining their design and how it meets the objective. This may (and should) include technical factors as well as operational and positioning details.

II. Camera Calculations/Equipment Locations

Using the IPVM Camera Calculator, bidders should save all cameras as a project and submit a link and export of the entire design with their response. The site may be viewed using this link.

III. Material/Labor Breakdown

Bidders should include a detailed list of major items in their design and the labor to install them. This breakdown should be organized by each install location. Major items includes cameras, mounts, access points, servers, switches, etc., but not incidentals such as connectors, cabling, or other small items.

Labor may be shown as either total number of hours or broken out in more detail, whichever the bidder prefers. Pricing for labor is not required.

Integrators Participating

Each integrator selected will be paid $300 plus have their company featured on the response report including a link to their company's site.

IPVM will select 4 or 5 integrators to participate. We are looking for integrators to submit different manufacturers / approaches so the community can better learn and see the differences involved.

We will contact and confirm with the selected integrators by July 31st. All responses / proposals will need to be submitted by August 15th.

**** ** ******** * *** ******.

* ******** **** ** ********* *** ******** *********** *** ******* **** ***** proposals / *******. **** ***** ********* **** ** ****** **** the **** *********, ******* ***** ******* **** ** **** **** like **** *** ******* ******** ** *** *********.

*** **** ** **** ******** *** ***** ***** *** ** best ****** ******* *** *** ********* ** *******, ******** *** pricing ** ********* *********.

The ***** *** - ******* ***

*** ***** **** *** **** ** *** * ***** ******* lot (*** ** ****** ** *** **** ****** **********).

**** ******** * *********** *********** **** ******** ****** ******* ********. Inside / *****, ** ******* *** **** ******** *** *** to ******.

Response ******

*********** *** ** ****** ***** ***** ** **** ** ***** response:

*. ***************/*************/***** *****

*****, **** ****** ****** ******* * ********* ********* ***** ********* selections, ********** ***** ****** *** *** ** ***** *** *********. This *** (*** ******) ******* ********* ******* ** **** ** operational *** *********** *******.

**. ****** ************/********* *********

***** ******* ****** **********, ******* ****** **** *** ******* ** * ******* *** submit * **** *** ****** ** *** ****** ****** **** their ********. *** **** *** ** *********** **** ****.

***. ********/***** *********

******* ****** ******* * ******** **** ** ***** ***** ** their ****** *** *** ***** ** ******* ****. **** ********* ****** be ********* ** **** ******* ********. ***** ***** ******** *******, ******, access ******, *******, ********, ***., *** *** *********** **** ** connectors, *******, ** ***** ***** *****.

***** *** ** ***** ** ****** ***** ****** ** ***** or ****** *** ** **** ******, ********* *** ****** *******. Pricing *** ***** ** *** ********.

Integrators *************

**** ********** ******** **** ** **** $*** **** **** ***** company ******** ** *** ******** ****** ********* * **** ** their *******'* ****.

**** **** ****** * ** * *********** ** ***********. ** are ******* *** *********** ** ****** ********* ************* / ********** ** the ********* *** ****** ***** *** *** *** *********** ********.

** **** ******* *** ******* **** *** ******** *********** ** July ****. *** ********* / ********* **** **** ** ** submitted ** ****** ****.

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

The *******

* ***** ******'* ****** *** **** ************ ********* *** ***** in ***** ******* *** *** ***** **** ** ******* ******* to ******* *** ****. *** *** ** *****, ***** *,***' wide ** ***' ****, **** **** *********, ***** ** **** overhead ****:

Site **********

*** ****** ** **** ***** **** *** **** ** ********, and ** ********** *** **** *** **** ** *******, **** 8am ** ***. *** ******* *** ** ****** **** ***, about *-* *** ** *****.

***** *** ******** ***** ** *** ******* ***, ***** ** the **** *****. ***** ***** **** ******** *****, *** ** usable ********. *** ******** **** *** **** ** *** ****** cables ** ***** ******* ******* *****, *** ****** *** ******* lot. *******/********* ***** *** **** ****** ** *** **** *****:

Customer ************

******** **** *** **** ********** ** ** ********* *****, **** ******, resolution, ** ***** ****** *********. *******, **** *** **** ******* ******* proposals ********** ***** *************** *** **** ** ***** ******* ***** on *** ***********.

*** ******** *** **** * *** ************ ***** **** ** met ** *******' *********:

******** ***** ******* ****

******* **** **** *** ******** ************ ***** ****/****** *** ******** used, *.*. **** *****-*, ***** ***-*******. ******/******** **** ******* **** *** be ********.

*** ************

***** ** ** ******** *** ** ********(*). ******* ****** ******* (and *******) ***** *********** ********/********, ** ** ******* ** ******** network *******.

********* ************

*** ********'* ******** ********** ****** ********** ** ** ******** *** a ******* ** *** ***** (** ****) ** **** ********** *** frame **** (** **** ***** ** ***** ***** **** *** weeks *******).

******* *** *********** *** ********* ******** *******, ****** ******** ** network *****.

******* ************

***** **** ** ****** ** *** ***** *******, ******* ** the ******* **** ** *** ******** (**** *** ****** ****). Customer **** ******* ******* ** *** *******.

***** ***** ** * *********** ** ****-**** *********** *** **** time/temporary ****** ******. **** *** ******* *** ****** ********* ** time ** ***/*** ** *** ****.

** ****** ******* ** ********.

***********/**********

*** ******* ****** **** *** ********* *********** *** **********:

***** **** *********/***

** ******* ** ******, ***** ***** *** ** **** *** mounting *******, ****** ** ****** ** *********** ******* ** *******, only ******** (*** *****). ***** *** *" ******, ~**' ****, and *** ***** ** *** ********, ** ******* ** ******* permits. ********* ****** ****** ** **** ****, *** ******** ** poles ** *** *********.

*****

***** ** ***** ** ********. ***** **** ******* ****** ***** at **** ****** ******** ** ********, ****** **** **** **** additional **** ($*** *** ********) **** ** ******** **** ******** evaluation.

******** ****** ** ****** ** *** ************ ****** (****** *** both ******* ******* *** ****** ****), *** **** ** $*** for **** ******** ** ** ******. *** **** ** ****** these ******* **** ** ***** ** *** ***** *** ******.

*** ******* **** **** ** **** ** *****, *** ** bidder. 

****** ***** ** ******* ********* ** ******* ******* *** ******** ****.

******** ***********

** ***** ********, ******* *** **** *** *.* *** ********* which *** **** ******** ** *** *****'* ** **********. ***** takes ************** *** ********* ************.

******* ************

*********** *** ** ******* *** ******* *** ******/******** ********* ** required *** *** *********** ******. ******** **** ******* ******* ** and *******.

******** ******* ******* **** ** **** ** ******* *** ********* in ******* ******* ** ******** (* **** *****-**** *****). ****** power ** ********* ** ***** *****.

****** **** ***

** ******* ***** *** ** ** ****, * ******* **** be ********* **** *** ******** ** ************ ** ********* ******.

******* *** ** ******* *** ***** ** ***** ** ***** proposals.

******* *****

**** ****** ** ********* ****** ****** ******** *****, *** ** 6pm ****** ******* ********. ********* ****** *** *******/************* ** ********, but **** ** ********* ** *******.

******* ***** *** ** ******* ** ******* **** **** ***** located **** ** ***** **** ***** **** ** ***** ******** notice.

******* *** ********

*** ******** ******** *** **** ***** **** ****-******** ****** ******** installed **-**' ***** ******.

******** ***** ****** ***** **** ***** *-* ***.

*******

*********** *** *** *********** *** *** *******.

Comments (24)

Will any questions (and answers) regarding the specification, i.e. for clarification, be made public to all other combatants?

Or are the exchanges between IPVM and the integrators private, and only between them?

Questions that pertain to the site and the project will be made public, similar to an 'RFI' process. Our current plans are that Project questions will be asked and answered in this comments section.

These comments can and should be used to ask questions about the scenario / project so all can get feedback.

Power at poles is constant. Owner will provide 110VAC power at each camera location as required, though note that this additional cost ($150 per location) will be factored into proposal evaluation.

I don't get this statement. The owner will provide a 110VAC power take-off at the poles for $150, or the owner will put a 110VAC power drop at any proposed camera location that does not already have power for $150?

Clarification:

Anywhere 110VAC is needed by the surveillance system (except for both network closets and server room), the cost is $150 for each location it is needed. The cost of adding these outlets will be added to the total bid amount.

The install work will be done by owner, not by bidder.

Interesting scenario. I subscribe to IPVM because my company owns multiple shopping centers and commercial parking lots in which we are installing camera systems.

I discovered that I had to learn alot regarding networking and ip video systems in order that I could have a system implemented which was actually useful.

I am very interested in how your proposals compare with what I actually implemented.

This is an awesome exercise and I'm looking forward to the responses. I've played a few design options out in my head already (360 and 180 cameras, 16MP and higher cameras, bullets, domes, edge recording, etc.) and without actually putting the design together it is hard to determine the best approach.

I like how the specs are minimal as that allows for the creativity and professionalism of the integrator to shine through. The old "I don't know what I want...you're the professional...you tell me" scenario. Looks like a very fun exercise and the results should help us all build a better understanding of this popular yet challenging design challenge.

This is an interesting exercise, and it would be fun participating. However I am overwhelmed trying to get actual proposals out the door.

If using wireless, bidders may only use 5.8 GHz equipment which has been verified by the owner's IT department.

Is there a list of verified wireless equipment?

For this exercise:

5.8 GHz has been verified by owner as good.

Any wireless is acceptable provided it uses 5. GHz.

This excercise is exactly what's wrong with most sales departments, as the customer is in full control of the process. Where are the answers to these questions?

Tell us more about these thefts and acts of vandalism.
1. Are these occurring during or after market hours?
2. Is the entire parking lot dedicated to vendor booths?
3. Most parking lot markets have covering over booths - do these?
4. What type of thefts are occurring?
5. What's been damaged by vandalism?

Would you place an estimate on the financial costs of the past, and should nothing change, will these losses continue as is, or likely worsen?

Given the impact of the past and the future, can you share with us a Not to Exceed budget?

My first boss had a simple formula:

Take what-it's-worth-to-them and subtract what-it-will-cost-you, then take half of that and subtract it from what-it's-worth-to-them.

Compare that to: 2x what-it-will-cost-you. Use whichever is more.

So if it's worth $100 to them and costs you $20 then the bid is $60.

Add on Questions:

6. Can you describe the neighbours?

7. Is there an estimate of nr of people and cars that are passing by?

8.What is the future plan with this market? This could help design a solution that could provide added value to the customer.

9.What other usage of the camera sistem might the client want?

10. what is the security level on the recording side?

11. is there a privacy masking area that we should know about?

12. Why a full system and not just a few hidden cameras?

13. Is there a estimated ROI (return of investment)?

14. Will the client be interested in Maintenance? or do we have to kame a design that requires very little if no maintenance?

For this exercise:

6. The area immediately surrounding the site is a mix of residental, light commercial and medical facilities/hospital complex.

7. Traffic is generally intermittent and depends on events in surround areas. Parking lot is full on Weekends, and near capacity during those times.

8. n/a

9. Site Surveillance is the only goal of this system.

10. All closets are locked with a mechanical key that is tightly controlled. Access is very limited to trusted individuals only.

11. No

12. Site surveillance is goal of system, the design to do this is up to bidders.

13. No

14. Maintenance is excluded from the proposal.

Update: IPVM has sent project invites to the selected integrators. Thanks to all who showed interest.

We will publish the results in a few weeks!

Wish i had the time to have submitted for this, anyways next time. Will be interesting to see the proposals will allow me to see what i could have done different

Here is a site pic of anyone is intrested

1. What has been budgeted for the surveillance system?

2. For recorded video surveillance, is 100% coverage required within the parking lot as depicted; in addition, do you also require video surveillance at all entrances of the property; it is a little misleading as you have the entrances identified on the map.

3. Can you please elaborate on the expectation of "monitor" when describing the problem "A large farmer's market has been experiencing vandalism and
theft in their parking lot and would like to install cameras to 'monitor' the area." Using the items below, what is the expectation of 'monitor'

  • Identification: identification of an unknown individual or object
  • Recognition: recognition of a known individual or object
  • Observation: being able to interpret what is going on
  • Detection: detection of activity within a scene


4. What is the standard operating procedure of the surveillance system as a whole for the security staff; are they actively monitoring for criminal activity and will dispatch other guards in the area to the scene? If not, what is the average percentage of use of the system when actively monitoring the area for criminal activity?

1. Funding is available for whichever system is chosen.
2. Video at the four marked entrances is a must. 100% coverage within the lot is goal.
3. Detection or better is the goal.
4. No live monitoring is used, video surveillance is a forensic tool.

Bump. Whatever happened to the face-off?

Hello Simon:

We have not published the results yet, but they are yet in the queue. Thanks for asking. I'll update here when we release them.

Bump.

Was this closed down?

I'm really looking forward to seeing the results on this faceoff!

We haven't closed this down, just pushed publishing them with the onrush variety of other industry news hitting. Stay tuned!

Thanks for asking!

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

Cable Trenching for Surveillance on Jan 21, 2019
Trenching cable for surveillance is surprisingly complex. While using shovels, picks, and hoes is not advanced technology, the proper planning,...
Milestone Favorability Results 2019 on Jan 21, 2019
Milestone's favorability moderately strengthed, in new IPVM integrator statistics over their results from 2016. While the industry has been...
Mobile Surveillance Trailers Guide on Jan 17, 2019
Putting cameras in a place for temporary surveillance where power and communications are not readily available can be complicated and expensive....
Access Control Cabling Tutorial on Jan 15, 2019
Access Control is only as reliable as its cables. While this aspect lacks the sexiness of other components, it remains a vital part of every...
Avigilon Favorability Results 2019 on Jan 15, 2019
Since IPVM's 2017 Avigilon favorability results, the company was acquired by Motorola and has shifted from being an aggressive startup to a more...
Pelco Favorability Results 2019 on Jan 11, 2019
Pelco had a significant favorability problem amongst integrators in our previous study (see 2016 Pelco results). Now, in the first edition of our...
Bad: Dahua Villa Video Doorbell Tested on Jan 11, 2019
Doorbells are one of the hottest segments in the residential market but Dahua's Villa Video Doorbell is the worst we have tested.   We bought and...
Winter 2019 IP Networking Course on Jan 10, 2019
Today is the last day to register for the Winter 2019 IP Networking course. This is the only networking course designed specifically for video...
Managed Video Services UL 827B Examined on Jan 09, 2019
Historically, UL listings for central stations have been important, with UL 827 having widespread support. However, few central stations have...
H.265 / HEVC Codec Tutorial on Jan 08, 2019
H.265 support improved significantly in 2018, with H.265 camera/VMS compatibility increased compared to only a year ago, and most manufacturers...

Most Recent Industry Reports

Testing Bandwidth vs. Frame Rate on Jan 23, 2019
Selecting frame rate has a major impact on surveillance bandwidth and storage consumption. But with smart codecs now common and cameras more...
Camera Course January 2019 on Jan 23, 2019
This is the only independent surveillance camera course, based on in-depth product and technology testing. Lots of manufacturer training exists...
Bosch Favorability Results 2019 on Jan 23, 2019
Bosch's favorability moderately strengthed, in new IPVM integrator statistics over their results from 2017, with 2019 results showing strong net...
Intersec 2019 Show Report on Jan 23, 2019
The 2019 Intersec show, held annually in Dubai, is now complete. IPVM attended for 3 days, interviewing numerous Chinese and Western video...
2019 Camera Book Released on Jan 22, 2019
This is the best, most comprehensive security camera training in the world, based on our unprecedented testing. Now, all IPVM PRO Members can get...
Milesight Company Profile on Jan 22, 2019
Milesight Technology, a Chinese company building an International branded business, says they are slowly building their presence through a series...
Cable Trenching for Surveillance on Jan 21, 2019
Trenching cable for surveillance is surprisingly complex. While using shovels, picks, and hoes is not advanced technology, the proper planning,...
Milestone Favorability Results 2019 on Jan 21, 2019
Milestone's favorability moderately strengthed, in new IPVM integrator statistics over their results from 2016. While the industry has been...
The IP Camera Lock-In Trend: Meraki and Verkada on Jan 18, 2019
Open systems and interoperability have become core features of video surveillance systems, as virtually all professional IP cameras integrate with...
NYPD Refutes False SCMP Hikvision Story on Jan 18, 2019
The NYPD has refuted the SCMP Hikvision story, the Voice of America has reported. On January 11, 2018, the SCMP alleged that the NYPD was using...

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