First Integrator Face Off Results

I'm closest to bullet, I don't like using a lot of wireless. However I would have used all 4MP cameras and installed two additional cameras one on each corner looking at those two exits with appropriate lens and eliminated the PTZ in the middle of the parking lot.

Its a farmers market. I think Bullet would have won this one 10-10 times in a real scenario. I would have them change the entry cameras to 5MP and delete the PTZ.

If it was, lets say a small industrial site that required the same type of coverage (somehow) - I would have chosen Artelisys with about $5-7K in change orders needed.

Really cool exercise guys and congrats to the integrator reps who took part!

The request miss to demand what is the minimun pixel density on specif places so the end customer can look for people and/or plates identification.

Being said that all the approach are not comparable.

Someone can brings even a lower cost solution and stills argue is covering all asked areas.

Next exercise could be better!

I look at this from the perspective of being a consumer (although I cannot just dismiss my experience). With all due respect to Bullet, the Artelisys proposal gets the job done at a reasonable cost, (I am always a little suspicious of the lowest bidder when the cost differential is that much). This is a Farmers Market and we just don't have 50-130k to spend on video surveillance with so many other needs. Also, because we are a Farmer's Market, we generally close at or before sundown. The bulk of our traffic is during the daytime and IR is not all that important to me. I would use their design and ask them to increase all entrance cameras to 50PPF minimum.

I think if I used the Bullet proposal and made some adjustments on PPF, the cost would be near equal to Artelisys.

But that is why Baskin and Robbins has 64 flavors.

As a general comment about the variation in designs:

1) The project details were specifically written to avoid bias. IPVM did not have a 'winning solution' in mind while writing this scenario. The goal was to see variations in designs the problem would return.

2) The statement "Each participate lacked knowing the clients budget, acceptable video quality testing, and more from the customer" is incorrect.

Respondents were encouraged to ask any questions they had, for clarity or elaboration. All of those questions were asked and answered in the comments thread here. Everyone had the equal, open opportunity to ask and see these questions answered.

I think these characteristics are common practice in real-world solicitations as well.

What was proposed was purely the prerogative of the responding party. They all did a great job.

The inclusion of a PTZ device in Bullets submission is an absolutely correct choice in my opinion. This tips the utility of the system more towards the 'surveillance' aspect and less towards the 'evidence gathering' aspect. The requirements brief clearly stated that there would be a live monitoring capability and likelihood. In my experience with a similar scenario the ability to spot and/or follow known perpetrators is the best way to stop them BEFORE they've exited the property. Back in the bad old CCTV days - before the not so inconsequential latency issue arrived - the use of a good PTZ camera in skilled operator hands often produced the only clear evidence that a crime was in fact taking place and the subsequent recordings usually met the required resolution - pixel density sorry - that law enforcement could use as evidence in prosecuting the suspect that you had detained for them. Very enjoyable read all around - congrats to the participants.

I really appreciate each respondents time and effort into putting together a proposal for this exercise. While the price differences can come off as shocking from the low to high, I think it accurately reflects what all of us face every day when trying to sell a video solution to someone. Customers will get these differences in proposals, and than (if we are lucky) call back the high bidders and tell them they "were way to high, so we went with someone else". This exercise just reminds me what a tough industry we are in.

Most customers, not all, don't understand the technology enough to see why one solution might by 8x more expensive than another. Yes, we try to educate them but they are also being told by the other bidders this will meet their need. In the end, cost plays a huge role in the decision process unless they have been burned in the past.

Is it possible to include access control as well in future cases?
I think it would be very interesting.