Cost ComparisonsPurchase Price
Tele Terminals 71,657
Data Management Design 72,352
Computoservice 75,070
NCR 75,135
CCSI /IBM 82,438
Alexander Grant 90,779
Creative Computer 97,810
5 Year Cost With Maintenance
NCR $101,785
Computoservice 113,398
Tele Terminals 117,257
CCSI /IBM 120,833
Data Management Design 121,362
Creative Computer 144,115
Alexander Grant 147,539
5 Year Cost With Updates
NCR 160,219
CCSI /IBM 168,031
Computoservice 176,375
Tele Terminals 176,989
Data Management Design 188,690
Alexander Grant 195,736
Creative Computer 196,000
COST COMPARISONS
Logis 162,990
(Informal Estimate)
Word processing, word quality printer, add one terminal, spread sheet,
fixed asset program, equipment maintenance.
Cost figures are a consensus estimate as all vendors did not venture
an estimate.
McGladrey Hendrickson Co
CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS Imernalionally DUN WOODY ROBSON McGLADREY PULL'. N
Mr. John Schedler, Finance Director
City of Hopkins
1010 First Street South
Hopkins, Minnnesota 55343
Dear Mr. Schedler:
This letter summarizes our analysis and recommendations regarding the
selection of computer equipment and related software for the City of Hopkins.
Our recommendations are based on an analysis of the vendor's proposals and
related documentation, discussions with vendor personnel, review of technical
literature, and our experience with the vendor equipment, software and related
services.
OBJECTIVES
The objectives of this project were to assist the City's personnel by:
1. Reviewing the City's Request for Proposal,
2. Assisting in the selection of potential vendors,
3. Assisting in the evaluaton of vendor responses,
4. Attending key vendor demonstrations with the City's staff, and
5. Documenting our final recommendation.
FINDINGS
We have evaluated the vendors' proposals, had discussions with several vendors
and their references, and selected those vendors who we believe to be most
capable of best meeting the City's information processing and support
requirements. Demonstrations of all of the vendor's who were selected were
attended. These vendors are listed as numbers one through three below. The
vendors eliminated by our preliminary evaluations are listed under number
four. Our findings are outlined below.
1. Computoservice, Inc. /Texas Instruments
We believe the most appropriate proposal was received from Computoservice,
Inc./Texas Instruments. Advantages of this proposal include:
o The system is installed in several Minnesota municipalities.
o The software is the best fit for the City's needs.
o The hardware is current state of the art equipment.
o The company has considerable experience working with municipalities.
o The software has a full one year warranty.
o The company has a good reputation for working with its clients and
providing them good support.
1900 Midwest Plaza East 800 Marquette Avenue, Minnecjolis, /Minnesota 55402, (612) 9924.900
op
Mr. John Schedler
City of Hopkins
Page 2
The major disadvantage of the proposal is that some software is still under
development; however, Computoservice, Inc. is under contract with other cities
to have this software completed before the proposed hardware and software
installation date for the City of Hopkins.
2. Teleterminals /Texas Instruments
We do not recommend this system for the following reasons:
o The utility billing software was incomplete and in need of considerable
modifications and development.
o The staff did not appear to be very knowledgeable in municipal accounting.
o The accounting software had some major shortcomings.
3. Alexander Grant/Ultimate
We do not recommend this system because it is not price competetive.
4. The less appropriate proposals are listed below. The major reasons for
not selecting the systems are stated below for each vendor.
A. CCSI /IBM
o The delivery date for the system is substantially longer than the
others.
o The technology used to back up the system is not as efficient as
others proposed.
B. NCR
o The proposed software is not as flexible as the software proposed by
other vendors.
o Several cities have received poor support from the vendor on the
proposed software.
C. Data Management Design, Inc./Wang
o This vendor has no installations in the state or the upper midwest.
This fact may result in hidden installaton and support costs.
o The proposed local support has no experience with municipal
government installations and applications.
o Hardware and software maintenance costs are not competitive.
D. Creative Computer Solutions, Inc./Microdata
o The proposed system is not competitively priced.
o The vendor has no Minnesota or upper midwest installations. This may
impose hidden installation and support costs.
f
0
Mr. John Schedler
City of Hopkins
Page 3
RECOMMENDATION
We recommend approval of the Computoservice, Inc. proposal subject to the
successful negotiation of a suitable purchase and support contract with the
company. Key contract concerns that must be addressed include:
1. Hardware and software acceptance criteria,
2. Penalty clauses for non performance,
3. A clearly defined implementation schedule with assigned responsibilities
to all parties,
4. Inclusion of the Request for Proposal and the vendor's response to the
Request for Proposal as a part of the contract,
5. Warranty definitions, and
6. Other related matters.
We express our sincere appreciation for the courtesy and cooperation extended
to us by all City personnel during the conduct of this project. We appreciate
the opportunity to be of service to the City of Hopkins and would be pleased
to assist with the contract negotiations and implementation of our
recommendations. We believe the implementation of the recommendations will
require careful planning, committment, management and follow through by all
parties involved.
Minneapolis, Minnesota
September 14, 1983
lit( t... dI zz a vy /4...ice-titek1C6