Are there renewal clauses in the contract? 117 09/30/04 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 040655
We'll have to get you that. I don't have that information in front of me. Typically contracts obviously have a beginning and ending date. There is probably a clause that renews it. But I'll get you that information. I don't have that in front of me right now. Typically in public safety there is a clause that allows the customer to renew the contract.
The service contract was negotiated with a three-year pricing, and the pricing and the contract is good for 10 years. So we have a three-year maintenance contract price, which is fixed for three years. After that, it's up for renegotiation. The system was to be guaranteed that they can support it for 10 years.
Let's go back through that. You get a three-year 118 09/30/04 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 040655 contract --
Fixed price for three years. Tell me the 10-year part.
And the maintenance support is priced for years. We have a 9 10-year price for the maintenance support so 10 that we have a guarantee that they can support the system.
You have a guaranteed price for maintenance for 10 years?
So they can guarantee the system for 10 years, right. Then we have service, which is at a three-year price. And after three years, that's up for renegotiation.
Now, as a part of the overall system, was the three-year contract a part of the package in the approval 119 09/30/04 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 040655 process for this.
When the contract went through, the pricing was in the contract.
Okay. Could you forward to the Chair a copy of the 10-year guaranteed pricing schedule as well as the bill that authorized the three-year contract?
I would appreciate it. So you're in the second year of the three-year. Sometime next year the contract will expire?
And at that point, what length of term of contract do you 120 09/30/04 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 040655 anticipate trying to negotiate?
I don't have an answer for you. One of the issues that we have to talk about is where we are as far as this particular product that we have, what's Motorola forecasting as far as the product and service and whether or not it's something that is a biddable item or is something that we can continue under the current service contract. So I think what we have to do, to answer your question, is we have to look at, what are the services that we're procuring under that contract. Are there other means of providing those contracted services or is it something that we have to get directly from Motorola, and if so, what is the price that we are able to negotiate.
The response to technicians coming out to the site, fix and maintain the equipment, the repair on the radios, the service on the radios, that kind of fixed network equipment repair. 121 09/30/04 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 040655
And you're saying that there is the possibility that someone other than Motorola would provide that service?
Well, Motorola subs the work out through a certified support company here in the local marketplace. Now, whether or not there is only one person to do that or if there's more than one person do that is something that we have to discuss. So I think that all factors into what we can negotiate and what we can try to procure going forward.
Do you know when the three-year contract exactly expires?
Could I follow-up with Commissioner James. Commissioner, we've got a 122 09/30/04 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 040655 maintenance contract, and I heard something that may trouble me, but maybe I misunderstood. The issues that we're experiencing now, all the work that Motorola is doing, reprogramming, second timers, all 7 of this, did I understand that that's being 8 covered under the maintenance agreement? 9
Then my question. 12 Have we been billed for anything associated 13 with the operational problems that we're 14 discussing in these hearings? 15
No, we have not been 16 billed for any costs associated with 17 correcting the problems that we've been 18 discussing today and we don't expect to be 19 billed for any of the costs associated with 20 this.
We're going back to the commitment part. This is a commitment from Motorola to correct these issues without any cost incurred on the City? Because I think Motorola understands that we have spent 123 09/30/04 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 040655 a lot of money supporting that commitment in Police Department's time, your time, our time. Wait until they get the bill for this.
I think you have different charges than we do. This is all being done under the commitment from Motorola to correct the problems that have been identified.
Oh, I forgot one of the higher paid employees in the government, Commissioner Brennan back there. We have to laugh a little bit here. So we don't expect to pay for any of this support. Now, what do you anticipate if in fact we need to realign or do something differently to correct the issues that we're discussing here? Do we expect to pay for those or do we expect the warranty or something associated with the original engineering to cover anything to make it right?
I don't think we've had any discussion today with Motorola along any lines of any cost of the City to fix all of 124 09/30/04 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 040655 the problems that we've discussed and correcting those problems. Now, the one clarifier I do want to make is, we had a previous discussion earlier about coverage and filling gaps in coverage, that is not something that I think we can contribute to a Motorola problem if in fact the City decides that we want to get portable repeaters or we want to build an additional tower to improve coverage. I don't know if that's something we can actually hold Motorola's feet to the fire and say, they're the ones responsible for that.
I don't know whether Motorola did the design or we hired another company that actually designed it and said, 10 sites, you signed off, whoever. Was Motorola in any way involved in deciding where the various components to support the system were located?
We were all involved in those discussions about location of the towers and the number of towers in conversations in coordinating the design for the system. It 125 09/30/04 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 040655 was not the case where we told Motorola, go build us a system, and we sat back and just let them build it and we'll figure it out later on.
What I mean is, did we hand Motorola a plan, an engineering plan, and say, "This is where we want you to put this equipment"? Were they involved in actually the design aspects of the system?
So they then agreed that the system they were building would give us, hopefully, 100 percent coverage? But we know that that isn't realistic. Was there an agreement of coverage in writing? Was it 95 percent?
I think you will find in the documents that we've already given you that we were proposing a system with a 95 percent in-building coverage and whoever was the recipient of the award had to meet that requirement. So they were stepping up to and agreed to through the design and also through the testing. We validated the fact that we 126 09/30/04 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 040655 had the coverage that met their obligation in the bid.
And you believe that we are getting the 95 percent coverage?
I believe we are. Clearly, we spoke many times to a lot of people's expectations of what that meant. It did not mean, as Mr. McFadden said, that every basement in the City was going to work. Certainly elevators were not going to work. And a lot of the areas that people have spoke earlier about were areas where we never guaranteed they were going to work there.
Well, I can understand elevator shafts and lead-lined hallways, but I can't imagine that we aren't paying attention to the underground. To hear that we have police officers that have to carry a gun and two radios to be secure in the subways, one of the probably loneliest places that you can be if you're in trouble. Where are you with that? In other words, what kind 127 09/30/04 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 040655 of money do you need to get that accomplished? Is that on the radar?
Again, I want to reiterate. When we first put together the proposal, we got a bid back from Motorola to do the underground. It was over $20 million on top of what we were building on the voice side. And there was no way in the world we had 70, $80 million to build both an above-ground and an underground system. We just did not have the money and it was not in the forecast. But it wasn't something where we closed our eyes to it. It was something that we knew we were eventually going to have to address, but we'd have to do that in a way that made sense and allowed us some time to build up maybe some cash to be able to do that. What we've been doing is working with people who are already in the underground, and that's specifically SEPTA, to say, "Well, what are you doing? What your plans are? Maybe there's a way that we can piggyback what you're doing and be able to get away 128 09/30/04 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 040655 with not having to have two radios." From SEPTA's point of view, their police officers would like to be on our 800 megahertz system so that they can talk to the Philly P.D. Well, maybe there's a way we can marry our two efforts together and allow us to get the underground that we don't have and they can get the above-ground that they don't have.
That needs, in my opinion -- no disrespect, but a Philadelphia police officer that has to be dependent on an Authority's dispatch unit to, again, keep them in communication while they're under the ground, in my opinion, is not a very desirable situation. And whatever you need to do to get that ball rolling, I'd like to be part of it to get that add-on to our system. Mr. McFadden is over there smiling. He's waiting for that opportunity.
It's been an effort also on SEPTA's part to reach out to us. They have a consultant in place who's working with 129 09/30/04 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 040655 us. We have a meeting tomorrow. We're working on that specific issue.
I just can't imagine the Police Department not jumping up and down making a lot of noise about having to have their officers being supported by SEPTA police radio. Certainly it's better than not having any communication, but I think that we really need to start moving forward to have our police officers in touch with their command center.
I think that's everything. I think we're finished with this panel. I have one more person to speak with, and that's the Law Department, right, Councilwoman?
Yes. If we could please invite up Mr. Donald Marino, Chair of Litigation, City of Philadelphia Law Department, appearing on behalf of the Managing Director's Office, please. 130 09/30/04 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 040655 Allow me to ask a different question. Is there anyone here from the City Solicitor's Office appearing? Wonderful. Good afternoon. Please state your name for the record and your position with the City.
Donald C. Marino. I'm chair of the litigation group in the City Solicitor's Office. It's nice to be here.
Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Marino, for being here today. The purpose for having you here is to kind of complete the record. As you know, I asked for certain documents from the Police Department, the Department of Public Property and others. And, as a matter of fact, your appearance was just approved, I believe, yesterday. So there was a lack of -- I don't like using this word, but I'm going to use it -- cooperation in providing this Committee with information that 131 09/30/04 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 040655 we need. Am I correct that you were just authorized either yesterday or --
Well, we've been speaking with representatives of the Managing Director's Office and the Police Department.
Well, the City Solicitor yesterday said that it was fine for me to be here and the Managing Director's Office approved that also.
How long have I been asking for your participation in this hearing?
Well, actually asking, Councilman, I think within a few days, the last week, maybe.
Actually, I've corresponded with people in your office, but I was not asked to participate personally until about a week ago. But I think that your office was under the impression that I had 132 09/30/04 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 040655 reviewed documents and things of that nature, which I had not done. And when we made that plain, I think then we were all on the same wavelength.
Okay. Well, it's hard for me to believe that the City Solicitor would assign an attorney to discuss this issue here in Council or discuss the issue at all that hadn't reviewed any documents or had no 11 knowledge of the issue.
Our concern is this. As chair of the litigation group, my concern is to protect the City's interests down the line if there is any possibility of litigation. That was my concern. My concern was that there might be documents, there might be memoranda, there might be information involved which would impact in protecting the City's interest if that information were released prematurely. That was the only reason that I was involved. That really concerned me because the interests of the City should be paramount in that.
And the interest and 133 09/30/04 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 040655 the safety of our Philadelphia firefighters and our police officers and our municipal workers is also very important to me. And the information that I requested, the communications, the memos, I was very clear what I wanted. It just started to come in the last couple days to help support the investigation of this issue in this committee. I subpoenaed the City Solicitor, and you are today, the City Solicitor's representative. I want it to be on the record that we will be asking for certain documents that are in the subpoena if we need them. I'm not just going to ask for a lot of paper just to pile up paper. If we need them, I just want the record to reflect that we have a subpoena. We filed the subpoena, and there are certain documents that we're going to be asking for. I just cannot imagine that the Law Department would prohibit an elected official and a Committee of Council not to share in those e-mails, in those reports, the memos associated with this issue. 134 09/30/04 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 040655
Well, I think the City Solicitor does intend to formally answer your request. I assume that will be done shortly.
I just wanted the record to reflect that. Because when you hesitate to share information about some issue that is so important, it puts a red flag up. You can say it, but I don't want to particularly accept the fact that it's all about litigation.
I didn't do anything to send a red flag up. All I was asked to do is comment on the possibility of some material being privileged. Of course there is a possibility that some material would be privileged.
I can't imagine an e-mail between a police official and a Motorola company being something that could jeopardize litigation. They're out there. They're e-mails that both sides have. Again, I just want the record to reflect that we're going to push if we need the information to get it. If we have to go 135 09/30/04 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 040655 to the court to get it, we're going to do whatever it takes. So I would suggest that you tell the City Solicitor to try to cooperate, and the Police Department and the Fire Department and the Department of Public Property, because this is what we want.
Councilman, I'm sure the City Solicitor will cooperate consistent with his duties under the Charter.
It hasn't been there so far, sir. I just wanted you to be aware. Thank you. I appreciate it.
On behalf of the Chairs of the joint Committees on Public Safety and Technology and Information Services, Councilperson Donna Reed Miller and Councilman O'Neill, let me say thank you to all of the witnesses for coming here this afternoon. This is my personal editorial comment, of which I am entitled to. I want to personally thank the City Department of Public Property again for your very comprehensive explanation, and to Motorola 136 09/30/04 - PUBLIC SAFETY - RES. 040655 for your responsiveness in Councilman Rizzo's concerns. As we all can see, this is on the radar screen. He is being a laser beam on this issue, so you will be invited back. This Committee meeting is recessed at the call of the Chair. Thank you very much. (Council adjourned at 4:35 p.m.) - - - - 137 C E R T I F I C A T I O N I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing proceedings of the Council of the City of Philadelphia of Thursday, September 30, 2004, were reported fully and accurately by me, and that this is a correct transcript of the same. RE: JOINT COMMITTEES ON PUBLIC SAFETY and TECHNOLOGY AND INFORMATION _________________________ Lisa C. Bradley, RPR