COUNTY OF SAN MATEO

Inter-Departmental Correspondence

Assessor-County Clerk-Recorder

 

DATE:

July 31, 2006

BOARD MEETING DATE:

August 15, 2006

SPECIAL NOTICE/HEARING:

None

VOTE REQUIRED:

Majority

 

TO:

Honorable Board of Supervisors

FROM:

Warren Slocum, Assessor-County Clerk-Recorder

SUBJECT:

Purchase Agreement for New Voting System and Signature Authority to Administer Related Grant Funding

 

RECOMMENDATION:

Adopt a resolution:

(1)

Authorizing the execution of an agreement with Hart InterCivic, Inc. for new voting system hardware, software, and support services and for an election management system in an amount not to exceed $10,453,516; and

(2)

Authorizing County’s Chief Elections Officer or his designee to execute (A) all necessary applications, agreements, and claims to secure grant funding up to $4,569,941.98 under Proposition 41, and (B) subsequent amendments to make minor changes in the Hart agreement in an aggregate sum not to exceed $25,000.

 

VISION ALIGNMENT:

Commitments: Realize the potential of our diverse population; and responsive, effective and collaborative government.

Goals 2 and 20: Civic engagement through uniformly high voting among diverse populations; and government decisions based on careful consideration of future impact, rather than temporary relief or immediate gain.

 

State and federal grant funds and limited County funds will acquire a new voting system and one year of support services that will enable excellent elections.

 

Performance Measure(s):

Measure

FY 2005-06 Actual

FY 2006-07 Projected

% of Actual Voters in Last November Election

55.12%

55%

Number of Polling Locations

472

472

(450 in FY 2007-08)

 

BACKGROUND:

In 1992, we replaced lever-type Shoup voting machines with our current Optech Eagle optical scan system made by Election Systems & Software, Inc. The Eagle system has been very successful. But 2002 federal and state voting laws have rendered our Eagle system obsolete and we must replace it. Fortunately, the 2002 legislation also provided grant funding programs to meet the new standards.

 

DISCUSSION:

Thorough market research, including successful use in Orange County and other states, has led us to the Hart InterCivic “eSlate” electronic voting device. It is certified, meets all accessibility requirements, and has a voter-verifiable paper trail.

 

For the November 2006 election, the eSlate will be in every polling place. This plan will greatly simplify election administration, help prevent election errors, and be easier for poll workers. This big change for our voters and for us will be eased by a plan that guarantees the best possible implementation and extends our excellent history.

 

The cost of the voting system and support services (2100 eSlates to serve more than 500 precincts) is $10,186,930, and $266,586 for Hart’s election management system (the voter registration, absentee and back-office component). Operational costs, which we pass on to local agencies, will be cut by $1.2 million over four years

 

Grant funds reserved for us pursuant to our Prop 41 application must now be secured by filing a detailed project plan and other documents which require a Board-authorized signature. We seek that signature authority, as well as authority to make minor amendments to the Hart contract. (Reso. 065494, 8/20/02)

 

Hart has assured compliance with the County's Contractor Employee Jury Service Ordinance, as well as all other contract provisions that are required by County ordinance and administrative memoranda, including but not limited to insurance, hold harmless, non-discrimination and equal benefits. The agreements have been reviewed and approved by County Counsel and by Information Services.

 

FISCAL IMPACT:

Total acquisition cost is $10,453,516, offset by grants up to $9,139,884 ($4,569,942 each from Help America Vote Act (Reso. 06972, 5/9/06) and Proposition 41). The Department will contribute $1,313,632 as provided in the approved FY06-07 budget.

 

Exhibit A

Request for Proposal Matrix

1.

General Description of RFP

Voting System and Voter/Election Management System with Support & Maintenance

2.

List key evaluation criteria

(1) certification by federal and state authorities

(2) system security and auditing/reporting functions

(3) vendor’s proven competence, experience, dependability, and responsiveness

(4) potential for integration with EDMS strategy (4) appropriate implementation project plan

(4) cost and cost allocation

3.

Where advertised

We directly contacted the short list of qualified vendors.

4.

In addition to any advertisement, list others to whom RFP was sent

None

5.

RFPs sent to prospective proposers

4

6.

Proposals received

4

7.

Who evaluated the proposals

Dept. Head, Elections Division Manager, Clerk-Recorder Division Manager, Technology Systems Consultant

8.

In alphabetical order, names of proposers (or finalists, if applicable) and location

(1) Election Systems & Software, Inc., Omaha, NE

(2) Hart InterCivic, Inc., Austin, TX

(3) Sequoia Voting Systems, Inc., Oakland, CA

(4) SouthTech Systems, Inc. (now Global 360)