Acquiring

Election

Systems and

Equipment

Acquiring Election

Systems and

Equipment

Author:

Marie Garber

Consultant in Election Administration

10201 Grosvenor Place, #310

Rockville, Maryland 20852-4606

Managed and Edited by:

William C. Kimberling

Office of Election Administration

Published by:

Office of Election Administration

Federal Election Commission

Washington, D.C. 20463

September 1998
11
Introduction by the

Office of Election

Administration

This report is another in the series on Innovations in Election Administration being published by the FEC's Office of Election Administration.

The purpose of this series is to acquaint

State and local election officials with innovative election procedures and technologies that

have been successfully implemented by their

colleagues around the country.

Our reports on these innovations do

not necessarily constitute an endorsement by the Federal Election Commission

either of any specific procedures described or of any vendors, suppliers, or

products that might be identified in the

report. Moreover, the views and opinions

expressed in these reports are those of

the author and are not necessarily shared

by the Federal Election Commission or

any division thereof.

We welcome your comments on these reports

as well as any suggestions you may have for

future topics. You may mail these to us at:

The Office of Election Administration

Federal Election Commission

999 E. Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20463

or else contact us

Direct on:

Toll free on:

By FAX on:

e-mail on:

202/694-1095

800/424-9530 (opt. #4)

202/219-8500

bkimberling@fec.gov

in
Acknowledgements

This project would not have been possible without the participation of

scores of American election officials who were good enough to share their

experiences and expertise with me. I am sincerely grateful to them. They

filled out survey forms, responded to correspondence and phone calls, and -

most important - searched their files for documents illustrating the techniques they have used in arriving at decisions involving the acquisition of

election systems and equipment. Some of those documents appear as

appendices in this publication, and I suspect that they will be the most

valuable part of it for the reader.

My thanks also go to Penelope Bonsall and Bill Kimberling at the Office

of Election Administration who conceived the project and directed its development. One could not ask for wiser guidance.

— MG

IV
Introduction

Acquiring computer-dependent equipment

and systems is a major responsibility of election officials. Because these investments involve substantial sums of public money, and

because the consequences of the choice are

likely to last a decade or more, the acquisition

decision must be made wisely and carefully.

In recent decades and still, these acquisitions are most commonly voting systems. The

votes of well over half the American electorate

are cast on and counted by computer-based

systems. That fraction grows with every election, as the mechanical machines — which

have not been manufactured since the early

1970s — and paper ballots give way to their

electronic successors, and as earlier electronic

systems are substantially enhanced or replaced by newer technology.

Usually, the selection and funding for voting systems are a local obligation, although the

State authority sets standards, imposes constraints, and may provide support. However,

in a few instances — Oklahoma, Louisiana,

Delaware, Hawaii, Alaska, Rhode Island — the

State selects and pays for the system, maintains it, and directs its use.

This publication offers guidance for election

officials considering voting system acquisitions. Too often these important decisions are

made by persons unclear on their needs, unfamiliar with the options, and generally unprepared for the decision. As a result, they can

be and have been unduly swayed by aggressive sales representatives, by everyday hearsay, or by choices made by election officials in

other jurisdictions with different circumstances. Decisions based on such a superficial

analysis can be costly both to the election office and to the electorate.

A systematic approach to acquiring election

systems employs recognized planning and

management techniques and applies them to

the election environment. These steps include:

• Define the problem(s) with the current system and the options for solving the

problem(s). If acquiring a new system is

justified, establish the criteria for a replacement system. (This constitutes what is often called "needs analysis")

• Plan for acquiring a system (or enhancing

the one you have)

• Solicit bids or proposals from vendors

• Evaluate the offers

• Select the system or enhancement

• Contract for and Accept the system.
While this guidebook focuses primarily on

the procurement of voting systems, the same

principles and practices could be — and have

been — applied to the acquisition of other computerized systems used in election administration: voter registration and file maintenance;

candidacy and campaign finance; a comprehensive election management system in which a

number of election functions are integrated;

or substantial enhancements of existing systems.
Stepi: Problem

Definition and Needs

Analysis

Rational decision-making begins with defining the problem for which the acquisition of

new equipment is seen as a possible solution.

This step includes:

• Defining the problems you have with your

current system

• Developing a Statement of Need, and

• Developing the Specifications you want for

a new or enhanced system.

Defining the Problems

The problems most frequently cited as reasons for acquiring new systems will be familiar to experienced election officials. For each

problem, there are questions to be asked and

answered in order to fully define its nature and

dimension. Only then is it possible to demonstrate that acquiring a new voting system (or

enhancing the one you have) will solve the

problem, and to establish criteria for a replacement or modified system.

Problem 1. The population is growing and

more voting equipment will be required

to service the enlarged electorate.

If population growth is inevitable, it follows

that there will be growth in the voter registry

and in all the component systems of election

administration. There will be more voters,

more polling places, more voting devices, more

voting booths, more ballots to print.

The fact and dimension of population growth

have to be documented. State and local government planning departments can supply

population projections; from these, election

needs for the coming years can be accurately

estimated.

Should additional voting equipment of the

current type be acquired, or should the jurisdiction convert to a different system? Are we

satisfied with the performance of the current

system, and with the support services from the

vendor? Is it certified for use in the State? Is

it still marketed?

Problem 2. Doubts about the accuracy

and reliability of the current voting

system.

This complaint was reported by jurisdictions

that use mechanical lever machines or that

still manually count paper ballots. The doubts

are understandable. Some think of these systems as archaic. In manual tallying of paper

ballots it is hard to avoid error. The lever

machine produces no record of each voter's
ballot making it impossible to reconstruct and

audit the election, and replacement parts are

hard to obtain. Accordingly, many jurisdictions

have seen these problems as reason enough to

convert to a computer-based system.

However, in small communities a manual

count by a well-trained staff can be reliable,

and the mechanical machine, properly managed, still produces accurate results in many

localities, some of them large. Even so, some

communities may be willing to pay the price

for and have the benefits of a computer-based

system.

Problem 3. As now equipped, we cannot

comply with State or federal requirements.

Usually this means new laws, regulations,

directives, standards or a court decision. Compliance is obligatory, and it may involve purchase of a new voting system.

In the early 90's, a new Florida law required

that after 1992 any voting system purchased

and used in the State must be certified by the

Secretary of State. Orange County, large and

fast growing, was faced with the need to acquire additional voting equipment. Their current system, no longer on the market, had been

purchased before the State certified systems.

They decided to acquire a replacement voting

system which either was already certified or

which could pass muster for certification.

Other changes which could necessitate voting system changes are requirements for multilingual ballots, ballot rotation, cumulative voting, or a consolidation of elections which increases the length of the ballot.

To demonstrate the validity of the need for

new equipment, the election agency should

explain why compliance is impossible with

current resources.

Problem 4. Long waiting time for voting

at the polls. This problem can give rise to

widespread complaints from citizens, and

arguably discourages participation in

elections.

To validate the claim, obtain personal observation reports on waiting time in a sample

of the polling places during peak voting hours

in a high turnout election, preferably when the

ballot is long. This information will reflect the

worst possible scenario. If poll workers cannot produce these reports, enlist citizen volunteers.

What is the length of the wait? Where is

the bottleneck in traffic flow through the polling place? At the table where the voter checks

in and is qualified by the poll worker? Could

an additional check-in station be provided?

Could the process be simplified? Is the waiting line at the voting booth? If so, additional

voting stations may be the only solution. If

the voting booth in your system is the voting

machine itself, that will mean more machines

or conversion to a different system.

Problem 5. Delays in counting and reporting the vote.

Throughout the country, the pressure to

count and report the vote quickly is loud and

clear. It comes primarily from the news media responding to the public's eagerness to

know who won, but also from candidates wanting to know their fate. Computer-based voting systems that incorporate certain features

now make it possible to get results very soon

after the polls close, and to report the election

outcome on the late evening news.

The speed of counting and reporting varies

according to the following factors. If one or

more is identified, can it be eliminated or minimized?
• Is there a line of people still waiting to vote

at closing hour, who must be served before

the totals can be produced?

• Are votes tabulated and reported at the

precinct? Are these results on electronic

medium (memory pack, diskette, or other

data storage device)? Or must poll workers open machines, copy totals on a report

form, and add them manually?

• If the system is a central count, do the ballots leave the polls immediately after the

polls close? Have you considered a midday pick-up of ballots cast during the first

half of the day, transporting them to the

counting center where they can be tabulated and results held and added to when

ballots from afternoon voting come in for

tabulation after the polls close?

Problem 6. The current system cannot accommodate persons with special needs—

the frail and elderly, the disabled, and

those whose language skills are limited.

It's not possible to guarantee that that all

such persons can vote unassisted. However,

there are accommodations that can be made

to assure the greatest possible satisfaction of

their special needs.

Do you provide guidance for poll workers in

coping with these situations? If a substantial

fraction of the precinct's voters needs special

support, as could occur if there are large numbers of elderly in the neighborhood, can the

poll worker complement be augmented with a

person specifically designated and trained to

give this assistance? For voters in wheelchairs,

or others who cannot stand, can a voting station be set up on a table, or otherwise made

accessible for one who is seated?

Problem 7. The voting system used for absentee voters is different from that used

in the polling place.

When the voting device in the polling place

is a voting machine, lever or direct recording

electronic (DRE), some kind of document ballot must be used for mailing to absentee voters and for provisional or challenged ballots.

Jurisdictions that cite this problem complain

about the doubled administrative load and the

cost of printing two types of ballots. In addition, the merging of votes cast on the machines

with those cast on document ballots sometimes

delays production of final returns.

Mostly, this problem is reported by jurisdictions that use mechanical lever machines.

Conversion to a computer-based system which

uses a document ballot will solve the problem,

if State law permits and if your government

is willing to fund the change.

Problem 8. System components, replacement parts, and knowledgeable service

personnel for the current system are not

readily available.

This problem is cited by users of older systems, typically lever machines and punchcard

ballot systems which are no longer manufactured or marketed, and the vendor may even

be out of business. The time may not be long

when such deficiencies prove to be fatal flaws.

As of now, however, millions of citizens — 58%

of the American electorate — still cast their

votes on lever machines or punchcards. The

jurisdictions they live in are among the largest in the nation.

Can used machines be purchased from communities abandoning them, to serve as a source

of replacement parts? Can your local person-
nel be trained to service equipment? Have you

inquired of other users of the system about how

they meet these needs?

Some of the foregoing are significant and

compelling problems, and justify acquiring a

replacement system. Others are less significant and by no means compelling, and yet may

be deemed by some local government authorities as sufficient reason for converting to a different system.

Developing a Statement of Need

Having identified the problem or problems

that are best solved by converting to a new

voting system, continue the needs analysis by

specifying precisely what you want in the new

system — a Statement of Need.

Start by writing a complete description of

the current system. Describe all its features,

beginning with ballot design and layout and

continuing through the final printing of election results. Identify those features which you

like and wish to retain and those features

which should be improved upon. Identify also

features you never have had but want as part

of the new system. Finish the statement by

describing the reasons you wish to replace the

current system — drawn from the problem

definition.

Developing System Specifications

Complete the needs analysis by writing a

system specification — a description of what

you want in the new system.

Before enumerating the particular features

you want, you will have to address some general questions:

• Does State law contain requirements for

voting systems? What are they?

O Does the State require that a system be

certified for use? Which systems are certified or can be certified?

• Do you want to limit your search to systems which comply with the Federal Election Commission voting system standards

as confirmed by the approval of an independent testing authority?

• Do you want a system using a document

ballot for each voter at the polling place,

or a system on which the voter records his

vote directly on a voting machine, or would

you consider both?

• Do you want a precinct count or a central

count, or would you consider both?

• Do you want to purchase the system, or

lease it, or would you consider both?

• Would you also consider a "full service"

contract — under which the vendor supplies almost everything you need in your

voting system including hardware and

software; program coding; equipment

maintenance, storage, and delivery; ballot

production; voting booths; etc.? (The advantages of the full service arrangement,

which is increasingly popular, are that

your government does not have to make

the large up-front capital outlay for hardware and software; that you deal with only

one vendor for all your election needs; that

you do not have to worry about storage,

maintenance and hauling of equipment;

and that you are relieved of certain complex operational responsibilities — ballot

design and layout; program coding for votetallying and tabulation. The disadvantages are that the method is likely to be

more costly in the long run because ballot

production, a large and repetitive line item

in the operational budget, cannot be com-
petitively bid, and certain sensitive responsibilities of election administration are

performed by people who are not election

officials).

• The completed needs analysis will be the

basis for justifying acquisition of a new

system, and its findings and conclusions

will be incorporated into the solicitation

you issue to vendors.

Step 2: Planning for

Acquisition

Developing a plan for acquiring equipment

starts with defining the limits within which

you must work. This is also aptly called "constraints analysis". It is helpful in limiting the

scope of the project and eliminating any aspect of it that would be altogether unrealistic.

A successful constraints analysis considers the

legal requirements, equipment eligibility and

availability, funding and scheduling.

Legal Requirements

Legal requirements are in State laws and

regulations. As the first step in planning, a

comprehensive memorandum on the legal provisions governing the acquisition of voting systems which apply to your jurisdiction should

be prepared by the election agency's legal counsel, or an attorney from another agency in your

government.

There is great variation in the election codes

of the States relating to the acquisition of voting systems. Most require approval or certification by the State election authority (usually

grandfathering systems in use when the certification was instituted). In some instances

technical advisors participate in the approval

process. In recent years, many States have

amended their statutes to require that a system authorized for use must comply with the

Federal Election Commission's voting systems

standards, as attested to by an independent

testing authority accredited by the National

Association of State Election Directors. Again,

States often grandfather the systems already

in use before this became a requirement, but

new systems or significant changes to current

systems may be required to meet the FEC standards.

Commonly the State code also:

O includes general requirements for a voting system (e.g. ballot secrecy, overvote

protection, or (in some States, the ability to cast a straight party ballot)

O identifies the governmental authority

authorized to decide on and fund acquisition, and

O grants permission to issue bonds for the

purchase.

The election codes of New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Texas, Washington, and West Virginia all contain clear and comprehensive provisions for acquiring voting systems.

Some States are quite specific in their law.

Massachusetts requires that the vendor

of" ... marking units or tabulating units . . ."
of an electronic voting system acquired by a

local government must agree "... to keep such

units in working order for at least two

calendar years from the date of lease or purchase . . ." and must provide a bond to assure

that such maintenance will be performed; New

Hampshire law contains a similar provision.

In Illinois, public notice in the newspaper two

months prior to the first use of a new voting

system is a code requirement. Montana's election law requires that ".. . a guarantee to

provide training and assistance to election

officials is included in each contract for purchase ... " of voting equipment, and Washington bans the purchase or lease of a voting system unless it has been used in at least one

other State or jurisdiction. In a few States,

the decision to acquire a particular type of system must be approved in a referendum of the

affected electorate.

Regulations governing the acquisition of

voting systems by local election agencies are

rare. New York is one exception. Its regulations flesh out the corresponding code provisions. The State Board of Elections is given

broad authority to oversee all aspects of the

acquisition process by the county election

boards — including the review and approval

of contracts, and the periodic review and evaluation of equipment maintenance.

Equipment Eligibility

and Availability

Your choice of a voting system must be made

from those certified by your State election authority and currently on the market in your

area. Obtain the list of approved systems from

your State authority, and a list of voting systems vendors from the Federal Election

Commission's Office of Election Administration

(OEA).

If you haven't already started to do so, begin now to familiarize yourself with the approved systems for your State and with new

voting systems in general. The OEA can provide you with a number of reports relating to

voting systems, and can also refer you to studies published by other entities. When word

gets around that you are considering a new

system, vendors will contact you, and supply

you with promotional materials about their

wares. At meetings of election organizations,

State and national, vendors show and demonstrate their equipment. See all you can, and

ask questions.

Visit other communities where systems are

in use and get the benefit of their experience.

Ask to come on election day when you will see

actual performance rather than a demonstration or description. Also, come back to see these

users at a less pressured time when they can

candidly discuss with you their experience with

the system and the vendor, and help you identify and cost the major line items in the operational budget. Finally, ask what problems they

had in implementation and how they solved

them.

A publication of the Office of the Secretary

of State in Georgia, intended as an assistance

tool for the local officials in the State who are

selecting a new voting system, contains this

sage advice:

There are two ways to determine if any

of the available systems can meet your

needs: ask the vendors and ask your

neighbors. As soon as the vendors find

out that you are considering a procurement, they will begin to call on you. Be

open, but, of course, noncommittal. Tell

them what you are doing, show them your

list [of problems] and invite them to comment about how their systems would

10
solve your problems. However, the best

source of information about existing systems is your neighbors.

Make a list, on paper or mentally, of the

counties that are similar to your county

in size, population, growth rate, political

structure, etc. Call or visit these counties to find out what system they are using, how happy they are with the system,

and how well the vendor(s) support these

systems. Be sure to ask about support

vendors as well as the primary voting system vendor: who supplies their paper or

card stock, who does their ballot layout,

who prints their ballots, who provides

training, etc. They can also provide you

with some general price guidelines.

The better backgrounded you are, the better equipped you will be to make a wise selection.

Funding commitment

Your local government has to support the

acquisition of a voting system and agree to

fund it. Keep them informed from the beginning, and assure them that they will be kept

abreast of progress. Let them know that you

will need assistance from other agencies of

government — budget, procurement, legal,

information technology, public information.

The method of financing the acquisition probably will be decided by some other authority,

often by the governing body, from among the

options available — purchase, lease-purchase,

rent with full service, bonding.

Don't ignore the time factor. What is the

budget schedule? If a purchase is to be financed by bond issue, how long will that take?

Must the bond issue be approved by referendum? How long will it take to go through the

sequence of steps from analyzing needs and

soliciting offers to actual use in the first election?

The presentation to your local government

should include a succinct summary of your

needs analysis, with problems of the current

system identified and how they can be resolved

by system conversion, the constraints imposed

by State law and regulations, and your plan

for acquisition. This sets the stage for your

next request — funding.

You can't expect to gain approval for a

project of this importance and dimension without defining the fiscal impact. Even if State

law or some other factor compels a conversion,

your local government will have to pay the bill

and must know what it will cost. At this point

you should begin to construct a cost-benefit

analysis, which will be refined and completed

as you move close to selection.

You can't give a detailed comparative cost

analysis at this time; that will come when bids

or proposals are received and final selection is

made. But to support the request for an early

commitment, you should have a good grasp,

in detail, of what your current system costs

are and a general idea of what a replacement

system would cost. Consider certain basic factors that will affect cost: Voting machines are

expensive to purchase, store and to haul; on

the other hand, any of the systems that use a

document ballot (punchcard, optical scan) involve big ballot production costs. Are you committed to government ownership of the system, or would you consider a rental of the

system, or perhaps even a full service rental

arrangement?

11
Scheduling

With the framework of the project defined

and support assured, a schedule or workplan

for acquisition should be constructed, from this

point through solicitation, evaluation, selection, contracting and acceptance. All tasks to

be performed and steps to be taken should be

itemized, so that it is possible to comprehend

how the effort will proceed. Responsibility for

each task should be assigned so that those responsible can be held accountable. The plan

should establish frequent milestones so that

when there is slippage it will be apparent and

adjustments can be made to get the process

back on track.

The final step in planning is to assure that

you have assembled the requisite expertise to

make the judgments necessary for successful

acquisition.

Some jurisdictions create a selection committee. The chief election official chairs the

committee and other members may come from

other agencies of government, and also from

outside government. In truth, you will use a

selection committee whether or not you formalize the structure. You're not going to do this

job alone.

In Orange County, Florida, the Supervisor

of Elections asked the County Commission to

establish a Voting Equipment Review Committee. They did so, appointing the Supervisor, a

county judge, and one of the Commissioners.

The County Attorney and the Purchasing Department provided support throughout the

process, and negotiated the sole-source contract once the selection was made.

At the suggestion of the Election Commissioner of Sedgwick County, Kansas, the Board

of County Commissioners established a task

force to study the feasibility of new voting

equipment. Interests represented in the group

included County Commissioners; County Manager; election office staff; Department of Information Services; political parties; unions;

media; the university Department of Urban

Studies; disabled, elderly, and minority communities; elected officials; poll workers; League

of Women Voters.

In Clark County, Nevada, the County Manager formed the Election Equipment Selection

and Procurement Task Force ".. . to assess

the need for a new voting system and to make

a recommendation to the Board of County

Commissioners as to what direction the

County should take in selecting a voting system." Members of the Task Force included the

Registrar of Voters and representatives of

other county departments — Information Systems, Finance, General Services, Audit.

A selection committee, or advisory committee, contributes expertise in specific relevant

areas, and broadens the base for discussion

when you make the decisions that cumulatively will determine your final selection.

Members can also advocate your cause when

you present a contract to the funding authority for approval. Don't hesitate to identify and

exploit the talents you assemble.

Bring the committee into your project as

soon as it is formed. Members should be familiar with and briefed on the needs analysis

you performed, and involved in all steps of acquisition which follow, starting with system

specifications and the schedule. The chief election official will direct and manage the project

and election agency personnel will do most of

the work. Specialist members will participate

where their expertise is required. The full committee should be convened periodically for discussion and decision-making.

12
Selection committees in some communities

have held public hearings at appropriate junctures, thus keeping the media and general

public informed and assuring understanding

and acceptance of the new system when it is

introduced. Call on your government's public

information office for advice and assistance in

planning and setting up these sessions.

13
14
Step 3: Solicitation

The solicitation to vendors describes and

itemizes the goods and services and the voting system features you seek.

To produce a good solicitation, it is essential — before doing anything else — to involve

the procurement officials of your government

for assistance in developing the document and

in reviewing and approving the final draft.

They will advise you on your government's requirements and practices for an acquisition of

this type. They will also protect the public

interest and your interest.

Methods of Solicitation

There are several types of procurement requests with some overlap among them. In your

local government a particular method may be

called by a name other than the one used here.

Moreover, these descriptions are not meant to

be taken literally. Use them for guidance, and

depend on your procurement professionals to

advise you on the process to be used and on

the specifics of the solicitation document.

An Invitation to Bid (ITB) or Request for

Bid is the solicitation of bids for goods and services that meet specifications contained in the

invitation. The contract is awarded to the lowest responsible and responsive bidder, at the

price quoted in the submission.

An ITB requires detailed specifications,

which assure accurate offerings that fit the

purchaser's needs and also provide a common

basis for evaluating the bids submitted. This

method is used when you know exactly what

you want and that there are at least two

sources capable of meeting your requirements,

or at least your mandatory requirements.

The more common method of competitive

procurement is a negotiated procurement, or

Request for Proposal (RFP). In this process, you state your needs and invite vendors

to propose how they would meet them. Indicate what features you want in the system,

which are mandatory and which desirable.

The process allows discussion and negotiation

with those firms found to be in the competitive range. Initial prices may be modified during the negotiation phase.

Negotiated procurements have the same

objective as formal bidding — through competition, to get maximum satisfaction for the lowest possible price. The award is not limited to

price alone, but considers other critical factors

as well. If requirements are not precisely defined, there is latitude for the responder to give

options or suggestions. In writing such a proposal, the language used should not be unduly

restrictive.

15
Finally, there are times when Sole Source

procurement best serves the jurisdiction's interest. Perhaps it is because only one available system meets your needs; because only

one vendor can meet your delivery requirement; or because a particular system is compatible with other systems already in place.

In such instances, the particulars of the procurement are arrived at by negotiation. All

governments have rules applicable to sole

source procurement, and again your procurement specialists will guide you through the

process.

In these circumstances, to assure that the

election agency will obtain a system of high

quality, at a price no higher than justified, it

is important that the preparation work be as

diligent and carefully done as for competitive

acquisition. It will include the needs analysis, specifications, constraints analysis, and acquisition schedule. Moreover, the same specialized expertise will be required — procurement, legal, budget, information technology. A

selection committee involving these persons

and possibly also general public representatives should track the process from needs

analysis through contracting and acceptance.

Content of the Solicitation

In general, the solicitation must meet two

requirements: (1) It must comply with your

government's legal provisions relating to procurement, and (2) it must accurately present

your needs and what you seek. All else that

follows is but a means to achieve those purposes. The document you produce and address

to prospective vendors should state, explicitly

and completely, what you want and what are

the conditions for the acquisition. Unless you

accurately define your needs in your request,

you will be unlikely to receive responses that

satisfy you. Among the things that the solicitation should address are:

1. Provisions relating to acquisitions in

general.

Often called "boilerplate" , they reflect standards set in law and regulation, as well as the

practices of your government. The procurement specialists can supply these to you; they

often are detailed and voluminous

2. Provisions specific to this acquisition.

• Factual background information on your

community and its election system, both

current and for the estimated life of the system, including

• Demography of community.

• Population and number of registered

voters, current and expected.

• Number of polling places/precincts,

current and expected.

• Range of number of voters per precinct.

• Ballot length and complexity, for all

types of elections conducted.

• Include specimens of actual ballots of

maximum length and complexity; if

applicable, bilingual ballots; straight

party voting; cross endorsements; etc.

• Relevant provisions of law, including

such factors as ballot rotation, cumulative voting, cross endorsements,

straight party voting, etc., that affect

voting and vote tabulation.

• System Specifications, refined to be as

specific as possible. Indicate which are mandatory, which are desirable

16
• The Statement of Need which you prepared earlier mandatory, which desirable.

• Other goods/services sought.

• Documentation

• Installation

• Parts and accessories, including

voting booths

• Training — election office staff and

poll workers

• Maintenance and service

• Election day support

• Ballot design and production

• Program coding.

3. Vendor information to be submitted

D Description of company, background and

qualifications, and financial statement

• List of all States in which system is

certified for use

O List of election agencies using the system, including address and contact person

• Personnel to be assigned to implementing the system

4. Schedule for Acquisition. For each, list

date and, if appropriate, time and place.

• Issuance of solicitation

• Pre-bid or Pre-proposal conference

- This practice serves to answer questions from interested vendors, to

clarify and emphasize your needs, and

to explain any items in the solicitation

about which the attendees are unclear.

Mail notice of the conference with the

solicitation.

• Deadline for receipt of responses

• Personal presentation and/or demonstration by vendors

• Preliminary decision and test use in

actual election

• Decision and award of contract

D Delivery schedule

• Acceptance testing

• Direct questions to: name, telephone,

fax, e-mail.

• Address responses to: name, telephone,

fax, e-mail.

5. Pricing and method of payment

• Purchase

• Lease/purchase

• Rental/full service

Price should include purchase price and also

any continuing cost for such items as recommended maintenance, additional training not

included in purchase price, additional documentation and training manuals, election setup and ballot preparation, etc.

6. Evaluation Criteria

To enable you to conduct a successful analysis

of vendor submissions, criteria that identify

the necessary components of the system should

be developed from your Statement of Need and

System Specification. The vendor will then

know what you want, and you will be able to

judge how well a proposal will provide what

you want.

Indicate which criteria are mandatory; that

way you can eliminate on the first sweep those

proposals that don't meet the mandatory requirements. Let the vendor know if you plan

17
to consider the financial strength of the company a significant factor.

You may weight the desirable criteria, assigning to each a value which reflects its importance to you.

7. Format/Organization of Proposal

or Bid

• Executive Summary

• Information about vendor

• Detailed description of goods and

services to be supplied

• How the vendor proposes to maintain

and repair the system

• Content of training program(s); location.

• Delivery

D Pricing

Issuing the Solicitation

First, consult your procurement specialist.

Your government may have standards for advertising ITBs and RFPs.

Mail your solicitation to eligible vendors on

the list supplied by the Federal Election

Commission's Office of Election Administration, to any who have contacted you and asked

to be included, and to any others you believe

to be eligible.

You may also advertise the issuance of the

solicitation in trade journals or newspapers,

and send an announcement to the various organizations serving the election craft. Make

the ad sufficiently specific so that only serious

vendors request the solicitation.

Maintain a list of all vendors to whom the

solicitation was sent.

Hold the Pre-Bid or Pre-Proposal conference

for interested vendors. The procurement specialist and other technical personnel should be

present, along with the chief election official,

to respond to questions.

After you receive responses, proceed to the

next step, evaluating the proposals and deciding which is best for you.

18
Step 4: Evaluation

and Selection

There are many differences among jurisdictions as to how they evaluate bids and proposals. This description is a typical sequence

of steps. Consult with your own procurement

specialists to assure you are complying with

applicable laws, regulations and practices. If

you have a selection committee, involve them

in the evaluation process in order that they

can make informed judgments on the selection.

For bids, evaluation begins on the date set

as deadline for submissions. Usually, all bids

are then opened in a public meeting and read

aloud. Prior to the time of unsealing, bids

should remained unopened in secure storage,

and any information concerning the bids (such

as which vendors have responded) should be

made available only on a "need to know"

basis. Typically bids are submitted to an official in the procurement department of government and remain in their custody until after

opening.

For proposals, evaluation also begins on the

date set for submission, although there usually is no public opening.

First, eliminate all vendors that do not meet

every mandatory requirement in your request.

If you have few responses and this first sweep

results in the elimination of all proposals, you

can either revise your set of mandatory features and so notify the vendors, or you can

cancel the solicitation and start over. Consult

your procurement officials. More likely, you

will have just a few solicitations that meet the

mandatory criteria and you move on to full

evaluation based on the desirables. You may

want to have a presentation and demonstration by each of these vendors.

If at any point in the process it is clear that

only one vendor satisfies your requirements

and there is no inclination or reason to modify

those requirements, then you probably will

turn to negotiating a Sole Source contract.

For the proposals that meet your mandatory criteria, carefully review each to familiarize yourself with its contents. Than evaluate the package against the criteria previously

established, assigning for each factor a score

on a scale of 1 to 5 to represent the degree to

which the package satisfies that requirement.

Multiply the score by the weight assigned to

the criterion to determine weighted score, and

repeat the process for each of the criteria. Add

up the weighted scores for all the criteria to

arrive at a total score for each package. Rank

each package according to the total score

received, highest to lowest. Optimally, after

this process, one vendor's submission should

19
stand out as superior to the others in terms of

ability to satisfy user needs. If scores are very

close, reexamine the individual assessments

and revise if you think it appropriate to do so.

Discussion of the assessments by the Selection

Committee will sharpen understandings and

enable you to refine your judgments.

Even if you have full faith in the evaluation

process and your application of it, you need

not rush into selection. To verify your judgments, and claims about the system and the

vendor, contact other users of the system and

visit at least one site. Complete the cost analysis you started earlier, comparing the cost of

the current system with each of those still in

the running. By this time you should be able

to define the line items in the operating budget, and find out from nearby users what their

corresponding costs are. Remember that actual costs in other jurisdictions constitute a

more reliable predictor of what your costs

would be than do estimates provided by the

vendor.

Confer with the other users also about factors other than cost: reliability of the system;

comprehensibility and convenience to voters;

ease of management for poll workers; truthfulness of vendor claims; quality of vendor service and competence of personnel, particularly

during implementation and for election day

emergencies; training of election staff; completeness of documentation; public understanding and acceptance.

It may be possible, in your procurement system, to invite each of the finalist vendors, by

letter, to submit in writing a "best and final"

offer. Restrict the "best and final" to only a

proposed increase in system capability, a decreased cost, or both. That is, they can reduce

the cost of their proposal or, for the same cost,

add substantive features such as more software, hardware, training, etc. Do not be

swayed by cosmetic improvements.

Wind up your evaluation with a full discussion of the evaluation experience by the selection committee, including input from the procurement specialists. Review your judgments

in the context of the needs and standards you

defined in the beginning and refined as you

moved through the process. Then notify the

successful vendor of your decision, and move

on to the contract.

20
Step 5: Contracting

No matter how you arrived at a selection

decision, getting the system you want is not

assured until you negotiate and sign a contract.

Often the vendor presents a standard contract which is accepted by the purchaser with

little or no amendment — a course of action

which is almost sure to result in a contract that

heavily favors the vendor. Write your own

draft contract, and lean on your procurement specialists who will provide the support and protection you need. You can be

sure that the vendor has his own specialists

to assure that his interests are protected.

The contract should clearly describe the

products and services involved, and precisely

define all commitments and performance representations made by the vendor. It should

also define the terms of the procurement. The

Georgia Secretary of State offers valuable advice to county election officials as they approach contracting for voting systems:

During the marketing phase of a procurement, it is not unusual for the vendor's

representatives to verbally commit to almost anything that the customer suggests. These verbal commitments have

the potential to become basis for legal

disputes after the sale. The development

of the contract is a good opportunity for

both parties to the agreement to identify

and resolve any misunderstandings that

have evolved as a result of marketing

activities.

Keep in mind during the development of

the contract that none of the vendor's verbal commitments are binding unless they

are contained in the contract. If the vendor has made verbal commitments you

wish to become binding, then you must

write them down and append them to the

contract. Similarly, if the vendor has

made commitments in letters or memos

which you wish to become binding, then

you must append these letters and

memos to the contract.

Contract Organization and Content

Because an acquisition of this type is complex and the contract governing it is long, organize the material in it to facilitate everyone's

understanding:

Introductory. Include the date the agreement is entered into, and names and addresses

of all parties.

Description of goods and services. This

is a full description of the goods and services

to be provided by the contractor. The details

21
may be placed in the body of the contract or

included in an attached appendix or exhibit

which constitutes part of the contract. This

section should also indicate who holds title for

purchased and/or rental equipment. For all

equipment it should be stated whether it is to

be new, used, or refurbished.

Be specific. What do you want, how many,

what model? Draw on your RFP and the proposal submitted in response to it. If other jurisdictions in your State have acquired a system from the same vendor, confer with them

to find out what they included in their contract. This is particularly true for "full service" contracts where the definition of what is

included in "full service" can vary substantially

from one customer to another.

For example, a list of headings for which

detailed requirements should be specified

could include the following that apply in your

situation:

• Hardware

• Software

• Documentation

• Parts and accessories

• Maintenance and repair of equipment

• Custom programming and modifications

of software

• Ballot design and production

• Program coding

• Training and training materials, both polling place and office staff

• Technical support, during implementation

and election day; on-site or on-call; response

time.

• Delivery, including schedule

Pricing and payment terms. Here the

procurement, budget and legal specialists can

take the lead to get the best buy for the

jurisdiction's circumstances.

The vendor may offer a wide range in

method in method of payment — purchase,

lease purchase, rental, full service — each of

which will result in a different bottom line.

The choice of method may well be determined

by the availability of funding, whether payment must be spread over a number of fiscal

years, and whether acquisition will be funded

by bonds issuance of which may have to be

approved in referendum.

The schedule for payment should be specified. Often a portion of the payment is made

at each of several defined milestones in the

acquisition schedule, but in no case should

payment in full be made until all goods and

services have been delivered, examined, and

found to be satisfactory.

A contract may contain a condition that it

will not be binding unless the appropriate governmental authority endorses the contract

with a certification that sufficient funds are

available to make the payments required. It

may state that, if government approval is required, the contract shall not be binding to either party if that approval is not obtained, or

if funds are not appropriated, subsequent to

the award.

General contract provisions - obligations of the parties. These are examples of

provisions of this type appropriate for contracts

for computer-related goods and services:

• License Grant - granting of the right to use

software and related materials.

• Ownership Rights/Restrictions - sets out in

detail which party owns the various

22
deliverables; often used when there is a custom development of software.

• Warranties - specifies the terms and conditions of any warranties, or in the case of a

service contract, provides warranties.

• Remedies - provides for how breaches of the

contract will be dealt with; payment of damages, repair, replacement, etc.

• Limitation of Liability - limits the dollar

amount of liability and the type of liability

(actual damages, consequential damages,

punitive damages).

• Indemnification - usually included to ensure

one party that if it is brought into a lawsuit

with a third-party as a result of the subject

matter of the contract, due to no fault of its

own, that it will be indemnified for its attorneys fees, costs, and any damage incurred.

• Term and Termination - provides for how

long the obligations remain in effect.

General contract provisions

"boilerplate". Certain terms, for which standard wording has been established. Among

them are amendment, assignment, default by

reason of beyond control of the party, waiver,

notice between parties, severability, and governing law. Your legal and procurement specialists will be your source.

Finally, the contract should not be signed

without prior review by your procurement and

legal advisors.

Acc ptance

After the delivery of the items specified in

the contract and before full and final payment

is made, examine or test all of the deliverables.

Make sure you can account for everything

listed in the contract, that it is in good condition, and suitable for the use for which it is

intended.

For the voting system proper — equipment

set up and configured for the casting, tallying

and tabulation of votes — your State election

authority may monitor or participate in the

acceptance test.

The Federal Election Commission's Voting

System Standards presents a generic methodology for acceptance testing of marksense,

punchcard and direct recording electronic voting systems, and includes a typical scenario

with sequence of events.

In Georgia, the Secretary of State works

with the local election agency to confirm that

the system received is identical to the certified system, and that"... the installed equipment and/or software is fully functional and

capable of satisfying the administrative and

statutory requirements of the jurisdiction.

Typically, the acceptance test demonstrates the

system's ability to:

• Process simulated ballots for each precinct

or polling place in the jurisdiction.

• Accept valid votes in every ballot position

enabled by the ballot format.

• Reject overvotes and votes in invalid ballot

positions.

• Accumulate quantity of votes in every ballot position equal to or greater than the expected maximum number of voters per device per system.

• Process a total number of ballots equal to or

greater than the maximum number of voters expect to participate in an election.

• Produce an input to or generate a final report of the election and interim reports as

required.

23
Generate system status and error messages.

Generate system audit records.

Comply with and enable voter and operator

compliance with the procedures, regulations

and statutes of the jurisdiction."

24
State Support for

Acquisition

It could be said that the ultimate State support for voting system acquisition is in those

few States that select, purchase and maintain

the equipment used in all the local jurisdictions. However, that situation is not the norm;

in most instances, the acquisition is a local

matter.

It is appropriate that the State support

local election authorities acquiring voting systems. Elections are a State function, and only

with State participation can uniform compliance with law and consistency in performance

of equipment be achieved. Such support is

critically necessary for small jurisdictions

where local government doesn't have a

procurement agency to provide specialized expertise.

A review of the States reveals wide variance

in support, ranging from minimal to substantial.

Two developments of recent years suggest

that State election authorities are taking

greater interest in and responsibility for the

acquisition of voting systems by their local jurisdictions: certification and FEC standards.

Both developments came concurrent with the

increasing dependence on computers in votecasting and vote-counting.

Almost all States now require that a voting

system be certified, or approved, before it can

be used in elections. The process varies from

little more than "show and tell" to an exhaustive testing of capabilities. In some States, the

use of outside examiners in the certification

process adds a dimension of technical expertise that the State election authority does not

have in house. Typically, these advisors

include persons skilled in engineering, law,

information technology, accounting, public

administration, patent law, and election management. A number of States have comprehensive regulations governing the certification

process; among them are Illinois, Indiana,

Massachusetts, Michigan, New York, Ohio,

Texas, Washington and Virginia.

The Voting System Standards, developed

by the Federal Election Commission and published in 1990, and currently being updated,

makes it possible to apply the same demanding yardstick to all systems, resulting in technical scrutiny and assessment of both hardware and software that was impossible at the

individual State level. Fortunately, the

National Association of State Election Directors initiated a program to realize the potential of the standards. They designate qualified independent testing authorities which

25
assess systems and approve those that comply with the standards. Now a State can be

assured that a system with that approval need

only be subjected to functional testing within

the framework of a State's own election structure and law to justify approval for use.

Conducting a thorough certification and requiring compliance with FEC standards constitute the first and very significant level of

State support for local election agencies acquiring voting systems. With some States, support doesn't extend beyond that point. In others, it is only the beginning. These are examples of meaningful support provided:

• Summary of provisions of relevant law

and regulations.

• Written guidelines for vendors which

assure there will be understanding of their

obligations to the State and to the customers. In Ohio, the guidelines include the

provisions of law relating to voting systems, the calendar for certification, and a

detailed description of the examination

process and a rating system based on established criteria.

• Assistance in selection, if requested.

• The contract. Frequently, State review

and approval of the contract is required

before it can be signed. Occasionally, some

very specific contract provisions are mandated in law: a guarantee to provide training and assistance to election officials;

maintenance for five years without additional cost; performance bond; affidavit

disclaiming inappropriate influence in

awarding of contract. In Indiana, the Voting Systems Advisory Committee produced

a model contract for guidance of the county

election boards. State review of contracts

before they are finalized can assure that

all customers of one vendor get the same

break in price and in extra features.

• Escrow of proprietary software, recommended in the FEC standards as a protection for both users and vendors, is provided

by a number of States.

• Require and participate in acceptance

testing.

The support programs of two States — Georgia and New York — are exemplary.

In Georgia, the Secretary of State has produced the Voting Systems Manual: An

Assistance Tool for Election Superintendents. It begins with a review of the available systems that utilize computer technologies, suggests questions to be asked to establish the need for a new voting system, and explains the certification requirement. Then it

proceeds to guide the county election official

through the procurement steps. It is tailored

for use in Georgia, but includes many general

truths that would serve any election agency

well. Sections of the guidebook focus on the

types of voting systems available, their advantages and disadvantages; suggests two methods of procurement; reviews acceptance testing. Finally, it makes a most generous offer to

the election officials of the State:

. . . [We] recognize that there is no substitute for face-to-face assistance from a

person that is knowledgeable in all aspects of computers and computer-based

voting systems. The State Office of Elections will make every effort to make such

a consultant available to you. To receive

this assistance, you need only to call the

State Election Director.

Who could ask for more?

In New York, the process of acquisition is

thoroughly defined in law, in regulations and

26
in administrative directives. Only systems

that have been found to be in compliance with

the FEC standards are considered for acquisition. After a demanding certification regimen,

the State Board of Elections (SBOE) monitors

and participates in every step of the acquisition process, up through the acceptance testing and the evaluation of performance of the

system through periodical review of maintenance logs. For preparation of the contract

(which must be submitted to the SBOE for

approval) a packet of materials is provided,

including:

• Legal memorandum on general directives

for contracting; summary of statutory and

regulatory provisions, review of the certification report for the particular system; statistical data required in contract, and a

schedule of events and key dates for acquisition. Also, specifics of provisions for delivery and acceptance testing, training, warranty, and vendor support pre-election, election day, and post-election.

Memorandum from SBOE containing

sample contract provisions that accord with

specific provisions of code and regulation.

Sample list of appendices —Acceptance testing, procedures and dates; list of polling

places; training schedule; storage sites and

conditions; maintenance/repair/replacement

of equipment - schedules and description of

procedures; performance bond; service and

warranty; check list.

27
28
Appendices

The appendices which follow provide useful examples of the steps in the acquisition process

used by election authorities throughout the country. From many graciously supplied to this

study, these were selected to be as representative as possible — local and State; small and large

jurisdictions; various aspects of the process; various types of systems procured — and should be

valuable as background and guidance for an election agency approaching an acquisition.

For some documents too lengthy to permit publication of the full text, an outline or table of

contents is presented to indicate the coverage.

The source of each is indicated to make it possible for the interested reader to contact that

source for further information.

No. Subject

1. Acquisition process.

2. Acquisition process,

Voting System.

3. Needs Analysis,

Voter Registration

System.

Document(s)

Outline

Georgia's Voting Systems

and Equipment

Chapter III - Procuring a

New Voting System

Executive Summary &

Table of Contents

Board of Elections

Lorain County, Ohio

Marilyn A. Jacobcik, Director

Telephone: 440-329-5542

Fax: 440-323-8386

Election Division

Office of the Secretary of State

Telephone: 404-656-2871

E-mail: spsweb@sos.state.ga.us

Gary O. Bartlett, Exec. Director

North Carolina

State Board of Elections

Telephone: 919-733-7153

E-mail: gbartlett@sboe.state.nc.us

29
No. Subject Document(s) Source

4. Needs Analysis,

Voting System.

5. Request for Proposal,

Voting System.

6. Selection process,

Voting System.

7. Selection process,

Voting System,

DRE.

8. Selection process,

PC-based Election

Tabulation Network

System.

9. Selection process

in a small county.

Voting System,

Optical Scan.

10. Contract,

Voting System,

punchcard.

11. Contract,

Voting System.

Annotated outline

Detailed outline

Study of five systems, both

optical scan & punchcard.

Problem definition,

evaluation of features,

cost analysis.

Pilot project, 2 parts:

planning & evaluation

Sole source procurement:

Justification memo &

Contract

Needs Analysis memo &

Evaluation, including

comparative cost study

Model Contract

Legal memorandum &

Sample contract provisions

FEC/Clearinghouse

Ad Hoc working group

FEC/Clearinghouse

Ad Hoc working group

Ernest Hawkins, Registrar

Sacramento County, California

Telephone: 916-875-6451

Fax: 916-875-6516

Kathryn Ferguson, Registrar

Clark County, Nevada

Telephone: 702-386-4055

E-mail: kjf@co.clark.nv.us

David Leahy, Supervisor of Elections

Metro-Dade County, Florida

Telephone: 305-375-3150

E-mail (office):

tov@itd. metro-dade. com

Brenda Williams, Election Director

Queen Anne's County, Maryland

Telephone: 410-758-0832

Fax: 410-758-1119

Laurie Christie, Co-Director

Indiana State Election Commission

Telephone: 317-232-3939

E-mail: lchristie@iec.state.in.us

Thomas R. Wilkey, Exec. Director

New York State Board of Elections

Telephone: 518-474-8100

E-mail:

twilkey@elections.state.ny.us

30
No. Subject Document(s)

12. Contract, Table of Contents

Voting System,

DRE c/ punchcard

system for absentee.

13. Evaluation of system Memorandum

in use.

Kathryn Ferguson, Registrar

Clark County, Nevada

Telephone: 702-386-4055

E-mail: kjf@co.clark.nv.us

Kathryn Ferguson, Registrar

Clark County, Nevada

Telephone: 702-386-4055

E-mail: kjf@co.clark.nv.us

31

Appendix 1

Procedural Outline

Board of Elections

Lorain County, Ohio

Appendix 1«

ACQUIRING TECHNOLOGY:

PURCHASING A COMPUTER SYSTEM FOR THE BOARD OF ELECTIONS:

Marilyn A. Jacobcik, Director - Lorain County Board of Elections

DEFINE YOUR NEEDS:

Self Identification Process

Major Components: Registration, Ballot Tabulation, Office Automation

Assessment of Current Systems

Hardware & Software

Age of Equipment, Down Time, Cost of Repair

Storage Capacity

Integration of Applications

Personnel Assessment

Future Anticipated Needs

Motor Voter, Expected Legislation

Enhancing Applications - Forms, Reports, Etc.

Personnel

DECISION TO BUY

IDENTIFY THE PLAYERS

Board Members

Director and Deputy Director

Employees

Commissioners/Budget Department

Data Processing/Independent Consultants

Vendors

Secretary of State

ESTABLISH TIME FRAME

SELECTION PROCESS

Available Technology

Development of Bid Specifications

Legal Determinants

Approvals

Write the R.F.P.

Advertise and Accept Bids

Select and Award (Includes Funding)

EMPLOYEE PARTICIPATION

"Buy In" - Consensus Building

Begin Thinking in New Terms

Make You Objective

Your Best Source of Information

Hints: Start Yesterday! You're already running late.

Whatever is on your wish list will be obsolete by the time you get it.

Appendix 2

Georgia's Voting Systems

and Equipment

Chapter III - Procuring a

New Voting System

Election Division

Office of the Secretary of State

Georgia

Appendix 2 - a.

Georgia's Voting Systems and Equipment

III. PROCURING A NEW VOTING SYSTEM

3.1 Selecting a System

The following sections describe two approaches to procuring a new voting system. One

approach involves deciding how much resources, primarily money resources, you have

available and then procuring the best system that you can buy for that amount of

resources. This approach, described in Section 3.1.1, is called the Request for Quotation

Approach. The other approach involves conducting a 'Needs Analysis' to determine your

requirements and then procuring the system which best meets these requirements. This

approach, described in Section 3.1.2, is called the Request for Proposal Approach.

There is a certain amount of overlap between these two approaches. Furthermore, the

descriptions below are not meant to be taken literally. The chances are that your

procurement will not strictly follow either approach, but will be a combination of the

features from both approaches that best fit your particular needs and your particular

procurement requirements. It is recommended that you solicit the services of your county

attorney in the development of your specific procurement process.

During the procurement, you should keep in mind that a voting system, once installed,

usually continues in operation for a long time, typically over ten years. This means, of

course, that you will enjoy the benefits of your new system for over ten years.

Unfortunately, it also means that you will have to live with any deficiencies or oversights

for a very long time.

3.1.1 The Request for Quotation Approach

In this approach to procuring a new voting system, you decide which of the available

voting systems you are willing to accept. You then issue to the vendor(s) a Request for

Quotation (RFQ) for those systems that are acceptable. The selection is then based n

which of the vendors offer you the most 'bang for your bucks.'

3.1.1.1 Analysis of Resources and Requirements

This is the process of deciding whether or not you can afford a new voting system and,

if so, what are your most pressing problems that you want the new system to solve.

There are two distinct activities: one is to identify and prioritize the biggest problems you

are having with elections and the other is to see if there are any affordable voting

systems available that can solve these problems.

An easy and effective way to identify problems is to have someone write down what they

- 6 -
Appendix 2 - b.

think as th bigg st probl ms you have or will hav with I ctions. The list should

contain at least five but not more than ten items. Write th se on a large pi ce of poster

board and hang it on the wall. Ask people to comment on the list suggesting items to

add or delete and ranking them in order of importance. This process will usually quickly

develop a prioritized list of your major election problems.

There are two ways to determine if any of the available systems can meet your needs:

ask the vendors and ask your neighbors. As soon as the vendors find out that you are

considering a procurement, they will begin to call on you. Be open, but, of course, non

committal. Tell them what you are doing, show them your list, and invite them to

comment about how their systems would solve your problems. However, the best source

of information about existing systems is your neighbors.

Make a list, on paper or mentally, of the counties that are similar to your county in size,

population, growth rate, political structure, etc. Call or visit these counties to find out what

system they are using, how happy they are with the system, and how well the vendor(s)

support these systems. Be sure to ask about support vendors as well as the primary

voting system vendor who supplies their paper or card stock, who does their ballot

layout, who prints their ballots, who provides training, etc. They can also provide you

with some general price guidelines.

Using the information gained above, you should be able to decide which voting systems

you are willing to consider and which vendors can supply these systems. The final thing

to do in this activity is to verify that the systems you wish to consider have been certified

for use in the State. Appendix A is a list of voting systems that have been certified for

use in the State. A call to the Elections Office can determine the status of a voting

system that is not on this list.

3.1.1J2 The Request for Quotation

For each of the voting systems that you have selected for consideration, write a letter to

the vendor requesting a quotation. In your letter be as specific as possible. Some items

you might want quoted include:

start-up training for your staff at your location,

on-going training at your location,

on-going training at the vendor location,

location of maintenance support

- 7 -
Appendix 2 - c.

guaranteed problem response time.

guaranteed problem response time on election day.

guaranteed price caps on training, maintenance, supplies, etc.

Also, you may want to provide the vendor with the maximum amount of money you are

prepared to spend. Do not be shy about addressing problems which were identified by

your neighbors. For example, if your neighbors indicated that a certain vendor is slow

to respond to telephone inquiries, then put a minimum response time requirement for

telephone inquiries in your RFQ.

3.1.1.3 The Final Selection

The first step in the evaluation of the quotations from the vendors is to eliminate any

vendor whose quotation does not respond to all of the requirements listed in your RFQ.

These vendors can either be eliminated from consideration or given an opportunity of

revise their quotation. However, allowing a vendor to modify a quotation without

extending that option to the other vendors may have legal implications and should not be

done without consulting your county attorney.

Usually, by the time all of the quotations are in, one or two vendors will have emerged

as clearly superior to the others. You can improve your position by asking each of these

finalists to submit, in writing, a best and final offer. Restrict these best and final offers to

only a proposed increased product capability, a decreased cost, or both. That is, they

can reduce the cost of their proposal or, for the same cost, add features such as more

software, hardware, training, etc. Do not allow 'slight of hand1 improvements such as

more account representatives or additional site visits.

When making your final decision, keep in mind that you are trying to get the best voting

system, not necessarily the cheapest. Trust your instincts. The best indications you will

get are the advice of your neighbors and your gut feelings.

Having make your selection, you are now ready for Section 3.2, Writing the Contract

3.1.2 The Request for Proposal Approach

This approach is based on conducting an analysis of your needs and developing these

needs into a System Specification which describes the features that you want the new

voting system to posses. This System Specification is developed into a Request for

Proposals (RFP) which is issued to the prospective vendors. The selection is then based

- 8 -
Appendix 2 - d.

on how well the vendors respond to the requirements of the RFP.

3.1.2.1 Needs Analysis

The 'Needs Analysis' is the process of determining whether or not you should acquire a

new voting system and, if so, precisely what you expect the new system to do. These

decisions, of course, must be tempered by the resources you will have available, both

before and after the purchase of the system, to operate and manage the new system.

The following sections describe the various items that you will probably want to address

during this phase of your procurement process.

3.1.2.1.1 Statement of Need

Develop a complete description of your current election system. Describe all the features

of the system, beginning with ballot design and layout and continuing through the final

printing of the election results and audit trails. Identify those features of your current

system which you like and wish to retain and those features which you feel can or should

be improved upon by the new system. Include in this analysis your ballot printing system,

if any.

Finish the Statement of Need with a description of main reasons you wish to replace the

current system. Is it too slow? Too difficult to maintain? Too difficult to setup and

operate? Simply obsolete?

3.1.2.1.2 System Specification

Prepare a description (sometimes called a System Specification) of the features that you

want on the new system. As you describe each feature, decide whether that feature is

mandatory or desirable. A mandatory feature is one that you feel you cannot live without.

On the other hand, a desirable feature is one that is not absolutely necessary but would

be nice to have. Keep in mind as you prepare these lists of features that a vendor must

be able to provide ail of your mandatory features in order to submit a responsive bid.

Thus you must be careful that you do not inadvertently eliminate a vendor by requiring

a feature that the vendor cannot supply.

It will be much easier to evaluate the proposals if you can assign some system of weights

to the desirable features. One scheme for assigning these weights is to rate each

desirable feature as a percent of the total desirable features. For example, suppose you

have only three desirable features: on-site training, on-site election day support, and

twenty-four hour maintenance. If you consider on-site training and twenty-four hour

- 9 -
Appendix 2 - e.

maintenance to b about equal in importance, but on- ite election day support to be

twice as important; then you could assign weights to these features as follows:

on-site training 25

on-site election day support 50

twenty-four hour maintenance 25

Total Weights 100

Thus, when the proposals are evaluated, a vendor that bid about half as much on-site

training as you expected can be awarded one-half of the points for that feature. In this

manner, you can quantify the vendor's responses and greatly facilitate final selection.

The types of features that you can specify may include features for the system software

and hardware, the location of the vendor's support and training, the amount of free

training provided, the method by which the vendor will maintenance the system, the ability

of the system to interface with other systems that you presently own or intend to acquire,

etc.

3.1.2.2 The Request for Proposal

The Request for Proposal (RFP) can be as simple as a business letter or as complex as

you wish to make it. In any event, it should be written and it should be widely distributed.

It is far better to send the RFP to a vendor that cannot respond than to omit a vendor

with a viable product. Appendix A contains a list of the vendors that are certified to offer

voting systems in the State of Georgia at the time that this document was published. The

Office of the Secretary of State can provide you with an updated copy of this list.

You cannot use a system to count an election until that system has been certified for use

in Georgia by the Secretary of State. If you are considering a system that has not been

certified, keep in mind that certification in Georgia typically requires twelve to eighteen

months.

Your RFP should contain, as a minimum, the following sections:

Statement of Need: The Statement of Need that you prepared during the Needs

Analysis.

System Specification: The System Specification that you prepared during the

Needs Analysis.

-10 -
Appendix 2 - f.

Proposal Instructions: A description of the items that the vendor must address in

their proposal. This may include such items as an executive summary, information

about the company's background and qualifications, the company's technical

approach, how the vendor proposes to maintain and repair the system, the

availability and location of training, and finally the cost. Total cost, that is. Not just

the purchase price but also any continuing cost; including such items as the cost

of recommended maintenance, cost of additional training not included in the

purchase price, cost of additional documentation and training materials, cost of

election setup and ballot preparation, etc.

Evaluation Criteria: Present as definitively as possible the procedure that will be

used to select the successful vendor. If you plan to take the financial strength of

the company into consideration, say so. If you plan to make site visits to review

the company's training and maintenance capability, say so. If you plan to assign

weights to the desirable features in your System Specification, include the weights

in your proposal.

Schedule: Contain in your RFP a complete schedule of the procurement cycle

beginning with the date you intend to issue of the RFP and ending with the date

you expect to announce the system you have decided to buy. If there are any

specific performance dates that must be met, such as the conduct of an upcoming

election, these dates should also be included in the schedule.

As a final note, be sure to state in the RFP that the RFP itself and the vendor's proposal

are to be made a part of any contract that results form the procurement.

3.1.2.3 Evaluating Proposals

The first step in the evaluation of the proposals is to eliminate all vendors that do not

respond to every mandatory feature in the System Specification. Obviously, If this results

in the elimination of ail of the proposals, you can either revise your set of mandatory

features and so notify the vendors or you can cancel the RFP and start over.

The next step is to rank the remaining proposals in the order of their responses to the

desirable items. This is done by evaluating each vendors response to each desirable

feature and assigning the weights accordingly. This step will sometimes lead to a clear

winner; however, the usual result is the elimination of all but two or three vendors.

Invite each finalist, by letter, to submit in writing a 'best and final1 offer. Restrict the 'best

and final' offer to only a proposed increased product capability, a decreased cost, or both.

That is, they can reduce the cost of their proposal or, for the same cost, add features

- 1 1 -
Appendix 2 - g.

such as more software, hardware, training, etc. Do not allow 'slight of hand1

improvements such as more account representatives or additional site visits.

Writing the Contract

No matter what procedure you use to arrive at a procurement decision, you are eventually

going to be faced with the necessity to enter into a contract with the selected vendor(s).

Writing and executing a formal, written contract is often viewed as a routine matter or a

necessary chore. The usual scenario is for the purchaser to sign the vendors 'standard'

contract. This course of action is almost sure to result in a contract that heavily favors

the vendor in all possible situations.

During the marketing phase of a procurement, it is not unusual for the vendor's

representatives to verbally commit to almost anything that the customer suggests. These

verbal commitments have the potential to become basis for legal disputes after the sale.

The development of the contract is a good opportunity for both parties to the agreement

to identify and resolve any misunderstandings that have evolved as a result of marketing

activities.

Keep in mind during the development of the contract that none of the vendor's verbal

commitments are binding unless they are contained in the contract. If the vendor has

make verbal commitments which you wish to become binding, then you must write them

down and append them to the contract. Similarly, if the vendor has made commitments

in letters or memos which you wish to become binding, then you must append these

letters and memos to the contract.

In general terms, most contracts include basic operative terms that govern the obligations

of both parties:

a. License Grant - the granting of the right to use software and related

materials.

b. Performance Obligations - specifies what actions each party is obligated to

perform, such as development and/or modification of software, delivery and

installation of the voting system, on-site or on-location training, acceptance

testing of the system, etc.

c. Payment Terms - describes how and when payment will be made and often

includes conditions for payment.

d. Ownership Rights/Restrictions - sets out in detail which party owns the

-12 -
Appendix 2 - h.

various deliverables of a system; particularly used when there is custom

development of software.

e. Warranties - specifies the terms and conditions of any warranties , or in the

case of a service contract, provides warranties.

f. Remedies - provides for how breaches of the contract will be dealt with:

payment of damages, repair, replacement, etc.

g. Limitation of Liability - limits the dollar amount of liability and the type of

liability (actual damages, consequential damages, punitive damages).

h. Indemnification - usually included to ensure one party that if it is brought

into a lawsuit with a third-party as a result of the subject matter of the

contract, due to no fault of its own, that it will be indemnified for its

attorneys fees, costs, and any damage incurred.

i. Term and Termination - provides for how long the obligations remain in

effect.

Certain terms in contracts do not vary much from contract to contract, but are usually

included. Particular wording for these contract terms become "standard" as they pass the

test of courts and usage. Some of those standard (or "boilerplate") terms are as follows:

Amendment: No amendment to this Agreement shall be valid and binding

unless it has been signed by an authorized representative of both parties

hereto.

Assignment: This Agreement and all rights and obligations hereunder may

not be assigned in whole or in part by either party without the prior written

consent of the other party.

Force Majeure: Neither party shall be in default by reason of failure in

performance of this Agreement if such failure arises, directly or indirectly,

out of causes reasonably beyond the direct control of such party, including,

but not limited to, acts of god or of the public enemy, U.S. or foreign

governmental acts in either a sovereign or contractual capacity, fire, flood,

epidemic, strikes and/or freight embargoes.

Waiver: Any failure by either party to detect, protest, or remedy any breach

of this Agreement shall not constitute a waiver or impairment of any such

term or condition, or the right of such party at any time to avail itself of such

-13 -
Appendix 2 - i.

rem dies as it may nav for any breach or breaches of such term r

condition. A waiver may nly occur pursuant to the pri r written expr ss

permission of any authorized officer of the other party.

Notice: All communications between the parties which are required or

permitted to be in writing shall be sent by hand delivery, with receipt

obtained, or by prepaid, first class U.S. postal service mail, certified return

receipt requested, and sent to the addresses specified in the signature

blocks below. By written communication, either party may designate a

different address for purposes hereof.

Severablllty: If any provision of this Agreement is held invalid by a court of

competent jurisdiction, such invalidity shall not affect the enforceability of

any other provisions contained in this Agreement, and the remaining

portions of this Agreement shall continue in full force and effect.

Governing Law: This Agreement snail be governed by, interpreted and

construed in accordance with the substantive laws of the State of Georgia

Integration: This Agreement sets forth the entire agreement and

understanding between the parties as to the subject matter hereof and

supersedes any and ail previous understandings, agreements or

communications, oral or written, relating to the subject matter hereof.

3.3 Acceptance Testing

The final step in the procurement process is acceptance testing. The main purpose of

the acceptance test is to ensure that the system that was delivered to the jurisdiction is,

in fact, identical to the system that was originally certified for use in the State.

After the system has been delivered and unpacked and the vendor or your staff has setup

and tested the system, you should call the Elections Office and notify the Elections

Director that the system is available for testing. The Elections Director will then arrange

for and schedule the acceptance test at a time that is convenient for you. Although it is

not necessary, it is recommended that you invite the vendor to be present at the

acceptance test

-14 -

Appendix 3

Executive Summary and

Table of Contents of a

Needs Analysis for a

Voter Registration System

Executive Director

State Board of Elections

North Carolina

Appendi x 3 -

State ot North Carolina — State Hoard ot Elections

Needs Assessment and Requirements Analysis for Computerized Voter Registration

Request for Proposals

Executive Summary

The North Carolina General Assembly, in its 1994 Regular Session,

directed the State Board of Elections to use an outside consultant (vendor)

to conduct a needs assessment and requirements analysis for computerized

voter registration. The State Board of Elections desires to retain the

services of a well-qualified vendor to accomplish the goals set forth in the

governing legislation.

The National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA) mandates certain

changes in voter registration for federal elections. To comply with these

regulations only, voter registration procedures for federal elections would

have to be changed and would create a new, separate set of registration

records for federal elections. In its 1994 Regular Session, the North

Carolina General Assembly passed House Bill 1776, which makes the

provisions of the NVRA applicable to both federal and state voter

registration. Compliance with the NVRA and H.B. 1776 is the objective

of the Needs Assessment and Requirements Analysis for Computerized

Voter Registration project.

There is presently no statewide voter registration system in North

Carolina, the tenth largest state in both total population and voting-age

population. Voter registration is handled at the county level. Some

counties maintain modified office hours, where the elections employees

are less than full-time employees, while others operate with multiple fulltime personnel. The state gathers information in various forms from the

counties, and the State Board of Elections uses this data to create some

statistical reports, but there is no common structure and no central

repository for that information.

Each of the 100 counties in the state has its own individualized

management system for handling the voter registration process. While

elections procedures are legislatively mandated, the systems by which the

processes and records are handled vary widely in degree of

computerization. These systems range from a completely paper-based,

non-computerized system, to personal computer (PC) networks or

workstations running vended software, to utilization of the county's

mainframe.

The State Board of Elections envisions an integrated system and

methodology that will allow the counties to maintain their own records

and share that information within the county, with other counties, with the

State Board of Elections, and with other state and federal agencies. This

unified system should provide management for voter registration, election

processing, campaign reporting, and the reporting requirements of local

Executive Summary
Appendi x 3 - b .

State of North Carolina — State Board of Elections

Needs Assessment and Requirements Analysis for Computerized Voter Registration

Request for Proposals

boards, the State Board of Elections, and federal legislation. The system

should also provide a unifying information model that allows public

inquiry while protecting the privacy of the voter and the security of the

data.

The State Board of Elections has defined the following six major tasks

needed to assess successfully the current computerization of elections

management and enumerate the requirements necessary for meeting

present and future needs.

1. Assess the present situation at the county level.

2. Assess the present situation at the state level.

3. Review the experiences of other states with designing and

implementing a voter registration system.

4. Determine the major requirements of a system that addresses the

present and future needs of a statewide voter registration system.

5. Identify alternative means of achieving the goal of a statewide

computerized voter registration system.

6. Prepare a final report that incorporates this information.

To accomplish each of these tasks, the State Board of Elections believes

that county and state elections agencies and their respective computer

information management entities, if any, will have to collaborate with the

vendor to ensure the successful completion of this project.

This Request for Proposals (RFP) provides interested parties with the

information needed to prepare proposals that describe how the vendor

would execute this project. In general, vendors submitting proposals

should possess the following:

• Experience and expertise in information technology and

telecommunications, including knowledge of industry trends and future

directions based on the best information available.

• Experience and expertise in developing -solutions that span diverse

technical and organizational boundaries.

• Established record of successfully managing projects of comparable

size and complexity.

• Experience in conducting large-scale, complex projects using

appropriate quality assurance practices to ensure successful completion

of the project.

• Experience with automating government procedures or working with

governmental agency computer systems, and in automating voter

registration systems, if possible.

Executive Summary
Appendix 3 - c.

State ot North Carolina — State Board of blections

Needs Assessment and Requirements Analysis for Computerized Voter Registration

Request for Proposals

The North Carolina General Assembly stipulated in its appropriations

legislation for this project that the selected vendor will not be considered

for an award on subsequent hardware, software, software support, or

related procurements which are based on the recommendations of this

project. Although the legislation included a clause that allowed for the

waiver of this provision, the State Board of Elections does not intend to

exercise this option.

All parties who submit proposals for this project should therefore be

aware that, if selected, they will not be considered for any future contracts

that arise as a result of the specifications or recommendations offered in

this project.

The Needs Assessment and Requirements Analysis for Computerized

Voter Registration project is anticipated to begin on or about November

1,1994, with the final report to the State Board of Elections due on or

before March 17,1995.

The issuance of this RFP does not constitute a commitment by the State of

North Carolina to award a contract or to bear any costs incurred in the

preparation of any response to this RFP.

Executive Summary
Appendix 3-d .

North Carolina State Board of Elections

Request for Proposal

Needs Assessment and Requirements Analysis for Computerized Voter Registration

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. Information for Vendors

A. Background

Present Status of Voter Registration and Computerization

Discussion of Perceived Needs for Computerization

Summary

B. Project Description and Expected Results

Task 1: Assess Current Practices and Needs at the County Level

Task 2: Assess Current Practices and Needs at the State Level

Task 3. Review the Experiences of Other States with Designing and Implementing a

Computerized Voter Registration System

Task 4. Determine and Describe the Major Requirements for a Computerized Voter

Registration System

Task 5. Identify and Document Viable Alternatives for Achieving a Statewide

Computerized Voter Registration System

Task 6: Prepare a Report of Findings and Recommendations

C. Vendor Qualifications

D. Vendor Responsibilities

E. Expected Task Percentage Breakdown

F. Timeframe Considerations

II. Instructions for Vendors

A. RFP Response Requirements

B. Preproposal Conference

C. Reading Room

D. General Conditions for Submitting Proposals

Unsolicited proposal Changes

Letter of Intent to Bid

Costs for Proposal Preparation

Elaborate Proposals

Oral Explanations

Reference to Other Data

Proprietary or Other Confidential Information

Time for Acceptance

Exceptions

Advertising

Confidentiality of Proposals

Right to Submitted Material

Competitive Offer

Vendor's Representative

E. Proposal Format

Technical Proposal Content

Vendor Information

Project Understanding

Proposed Concept

Project Workplan

Project Team

References

Disclosure of Relationships

Sample Contract
Appendix 3 - e.

Cost Proposal Content

Personnel Costs and Other Expenses

Financial Position Statement

Bid Cost

Alternative Bids

F. Terms and Conditions of the Resulting Contract

Contract Period

Termination

Bankruptcy

Transfer or Assignment of Contract

Confidentiality of Data

Care of Data

Equal Opportunity Employment Statement

Insurance

Performance Bond

Payment

Eligibility for Future Requirements

III. Evaluation Process

A. Evaluation Process Explanation

Order of Evaluation

Clarifications

Opening of Cost proposals

Selection of Proposal

Right to Reject

B. Evaluation Criteria Schedule

Appendices

IV. Appendix A - Governing Legislation

V. Appendix B - Location of Preproposal Conference and Parking

VI. Appendix C - Reading Room Information

VII. Appendix D - State Board of Elections Personnel

VIII. Appendix E - IRM/SIPS Personnel

Appendix 4

Annotated Outline of a

Voting System

Needs Analysis

Office of Election Administration

Federal Election Commission

Appendix 4 - a

NEr.DS ANALYSIS - OUTLINE

I. INTRODUCE THE PROBLEM

If the Needs Analysis is to be presented to a chief administrative

officer, legislative oversight committee, or state or local elections

board, this section should be used to introduce the reader to the

problems you have experienced that resulted in production of this

document. This section should be a concise statement of the problem

and should be in general terms that may include reference to one or

more of the following:

- a disaster

- a near disaster

- increased workload

- a challenged ele-ction/an increase in the number

of challenges

- bad press

- complaints/an increase in the number of complaints

- back logs of work

- legislative changes

- delays in processing or reporting vote totals

- errors/an increase in the number of errors

- increased costs that are not inflationary or are not

a result of an explainable event

II. GATHER BACKGROUND DATE

A. General Demographic

To ensure that you finally obtain the voting system most suited

to your jurisdiction, it is important to understand its demography

as well as certain general information about your legal and

political environment. You will need to provide the following

information:

- The total population of the jurisdiction at the present

- The anticipated population in 5 years In 1G years

- Nature of anticipated growth/decline in population (i.e.,

uniformly in a certain direction, or in clusters throughout

the area)

- Whether the jurisdiction is largely rural or urban

- Whether the mix is likely to change and, if so, in what way.

- The number of registered voters at present

- The number expected in 5 years in 10 years

- Average number of registered voters per precinct

- Average turnout in statewide elections

- Maximum allowable number per precinct

- Determine whether the jurisdiction has a disproportionately

large number of voters who need special assistance to vote

(i.e., elderly, handicapped, members of minority language

groups, etc.)
Appendix 4 - b

Needs Analysis - Outline

Page 2

- What if any specific obligations you have toward certain classes

of voters

- Size of ballot at present

- Anticipated size in 5 years In 10 years

- Whether reapportionment is likely to have a significant impact

on election administration in your jurisdiction

- Legal constraints imposed on the purchase of voting systems in

your jurisdiction

- Constraints imposed by the political environment or by anticipated

public response to change

NOTE: Information in this section may be obtained from other

governmental offices (federal, state, local) and business planning

new residential communities. The key is future planning, using

all available resources, and asking for help.

B. Personnel Resources

This category of information focuses on the number of people you

presently employ and their expertise in certain areas. In addition

you should examine what other personnel resources could be made

available to you from other sources such as other governmental

agencies, private consultants, or universities or colleges in your

area.

1. Total numbers

- Number of persons employed directly by your elections office

- Number anticipated in 5 years In 10 years

- Number of persons employed by other offices engaged in

elections

- Office functions (e.g., data processing departments or other

elections offices that conduct your elections on a contractual

bas is)

- Anticipated number in 5 years In 10 years

2. Expertise

a. Planning-Management-Systems Analysis. Available expertise

to help you plan for the type of system that will best meet

present and future needs of your jurisdiction. Key considers

tions are: system compatibility, physical aspects, budgeting and planning, etc. What's needed here is a first-rate

systems analyst totally familiar with your jurisdiction.
Appendix 4 - c

Needs Analysis - Outline

Page 3

2. Legal expertise. Need contractual background, plus knowledge of all of your bidding, award, bond posting and other

procedures.

3. A.P.P. Programming, maintenance expertise is critical.

4. Printing-graphics. Ballot design, printing, formatting.

5. Training. Who will train central staff, precinct workers,

voters? System installation and ongoing training.

Administrative Procedures

1. General

One important consideration in this section is whether you

conduct your own elections or whether these are conducted for

you by other jurisdictions. If you, on the other hand, conduct

elections for others, remember to take this into account.

Along these lines, you will want to consider the following:

If other jurisdictions conduct your elections, are they doing

it to your satisfaction? Is this something you would like to

change?

If other jurisdictions conduct your elections, will they be in

a position to do so in 5 years? In 10 years?

If you conduct elections for other jurisdictions, are you

satisfied with the process?

Do you wish to continue to perform this service and, if so,

will you be able to for the next 5 years? The next 10 years?

If you conduct elections for other jurisdictions, do you

experience a lack of system compatibility or system capacity

at the present? Do you anticipate problems in this are?

Are your elections-related data processing services performed

in house? By another governmental agency? By an outside

agency or vendor?

What are the advantages or disadvantages of this in terms of:

Speed

Accuracy

range of service

cost effectiveness

2. Space Layout

3. Work Flows
Needs Analysis - Outline Appendix 4 - d

Page 4

D. Identify Hardware/Software used to automate existing procedures

1. Which systems are presently automated

- absentee ballot processing

- affidavit processing

- ballot layout

- campaign reporting

- candidate certification

- election calendars

- indexes of registered voters/voters

- inventories

- official canvass ^reports

- polling place recruitment

- poll worker recruitment

- precincting

- preparation of test materials

- recordkeeping

- reports of registration

- semi-official canvass

- signature verification

- statistical/data gathering functions

- vote counting

- word processing

- writing election programs

2. Determine what additions or changes need to be made to

automate the above systems or to improve/expand existing

automation.

3. For each of the above processes, consider the following

options:

- acquire new A.D.P. capabilities

- sell/scrap existing A.D.P. capability and add new

capability

- retrofit all or parts of existing system

At this point you will need to consider what options are

available to you. That is, is the automation you desire

technically feasible and compatible with existing systems

or equipment already in place. In addition, you may need

to rethink any arrangements you have with your data

processing department or outside vendor. Would your needs

be best served by using a mainframe, mini, or

micro-processor? The trade-off here is between concern

for growth and capacity and flexibility and affordability.

Finally, you will want to consider whether the hardware

you have is being used to its fullest possible capacity.

Perhaps additional software or management practices could

be implemented to improve the efficiency of existing

equipment.
Appendix 4 - e

Needs Analysis - Outline

Page 5

E. Identify the Problems - Both One-Time and Ongoing - with the

Present Systejn

1. Mechanical

Note any problems such as breakdowns, slowdowns, or

reliability, maintenance, durability or safety problems with:

computer mainframes Has advanced technology

card readers made these components

voting machines obsolete; is it difficult

other hardware components to find replacement parts?

2. Software/Systems

Are the problems you have experienced due to programming

errors, or general inadequacy of your software? Is your

data processing system difficult to alter or maintain

because of the lack of system documentation? Is it

susceptible to tampering? Does the system provide such

controls as audit trails, and system security?

3. Personnel

Are the difficulties you have experienced or anticipate

due to a lack of well-trained technical staff, lack of

staff acceptance of the equipment?

4. Administrative

Have your problems been due to:

- change in laws or procedures

- changes in regulations

- changes in election dates

- inability to meet administrative or statutory deadlines

- delays in reporting results on election night

- frequency of elections

- frequency of challenges

- frequency and accuracy of recounts

- staff shortages

- backlogs/delays

5. External

You may identify problems which are the result of:

- growth in population, registered voters, voters

- number of ballot issues or races

- consolidation of elections

- formation of new districts
Appendix 4 - f

Needs Analysis - Outline

Page 6

6. Public Relations

If your office has experienced difficulties reporting

election night results in a timely and accurate manner,

or have had problems with recounts, delays in counting

votes or processing voter registration records, you may

encounter the negative perceptions of:

- media

- legislature

- public (the public could easily lose confidence in you,

the voting system, or the elections process in general.

If this occurs, you may want to involve public panel of

some kind to observe your efforts to upgrade your

elections system and to offer suggestions)

7. Budgetary

This category is probably self-explanatory. If your

present system is costing more than in the past for the

same services, if you have experienced budget cuts, or

if you believe your projected budget will not meet the

needs produced by projected growth, you need to analyze

your system from the standpoint of costs.

A first step would be to analyze the procedures listed in

E. 1. above. Note what the equipment costs for each

function are, versus the personnel costs. Automation may

be helpful in reducing expensive, labor-intensive, tasks.

You should also determine what purchasing constraints you

are likely to encounter if this appears to be the course

of action you contemplate. For example, you may be limited

to a certain maximum dollar amount, or you may need to show

that costs of the new system will be offset by future

savings within a certain time period, i.e., you need to

demonstrate a 3-year payback period, for example. It is

important to gather information about such requirements or

constraints early in the process.
Appendix 5

Detailed Outline of a

Voting System

Request for Proposals

Office of Election Administration

Federal Election Commission

Appendix 5 - a.

SAMPLE OUTLINE FOR A REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL (RFP)

for a Voting System

1. Invitation to Submit Proposal

Background

Project environment

Overview of the goals of the voting system

Definitions

Organization of the RFP

2. General Instructions

Purpose of RFP

Schedule of procurement events

Bidder's conference (optional)

Inquiries regarding tie RFP

Bidder's responsibilities

Proposals incorporated into contract

Verification of the cost proposal

Additional charges

Acceptance of offer

Alternative proposals

Alterations of terms

Conditions of proposal submission

On-site inspection

Information from other sources

Letter of credit

Proposal deliverables

Independent testing authority

3. Statement of Work

Contractor's tasks

Deliverables

Hardware

Software

Maintenance

Training

Installation

Implementation schedule

4. Proposal Instructions

Format and organization

Proposal contents

Management proposal

Transmittal letter

Executive summary

Identifying information

Offeror qualifications

Offeror's capabilities

State of readiness

Hardware production

Software development

Offeror's strengths

Implementation plan

Election support

Hardware assembly

Software installation, including training and maintenance

Bidder personnel
Appendi

x 5 - b.

Implementation and installation

Ongoing election operations

Staffing plan

System acceptance

Quality Assurance

Local contractors and minority business enterprises

Technical proposal

Organization of the technical proposal

Major system components response

Computer system

Application software

Response to RFP requirements

Evaluation demonstration plan

Cost proposal

Detailed cost data

Cost item categories

Cost derivation and future adjustment

Third party services

Satisfactory conduct of elections

Proposal evaluation method

Proposal opening and verification

RFP requirements evaluation

Evaluation of other criteria

Bidder site visits

Evaluation demonstration

Demonstration sites

Evaluation demonstration procedures

Requirements to be demonstrated

Evaluation demonstration plan

Bidder's demonstration plan

Evaluation demonstration schedule

5. Functional and Performance Specifications

Applicable documents

System description - components, capabilities, usage

Security and control requirements

6. Maintenance Requirements

Warranty coverage

Extended maintenance provisions

Repair and coordination responsibilities

Response time for on-call service

Repair

Coordination of third-party vendor support

Spare parts

Parts availability

Parts substitution

Spare parts stock

Test and maintenance equipment

7. Training Requirements, Elections Staff

System operator and user

Maintenance technician

System administrator
Appendix 5 - c.

8. System Acceptance

Test responsibilities - vendor and purchaser

Test documentation - plans, specifications and procedures

Acceptance test requirements

9. General Terms and Conditions

Contractual

Patent protection

Escrow account

License and protection of confidential information

Letter of credit/securities deposit - satisfactory conduct of election

Premises accommodation (optional)

Storage and delivery

New equipment

Confidentiality

Payment for voting system components

Trade-in allowance

Purchaser's participation in system improvement and changes

Appendix 6

Study of Five Systems in a

Voting System

Selection Process

Registrar of Voters

Sacramento County

California

Appendix 6

(with its attachments)

COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

Inter-Department Correspondence

DATE: March 25, 1993

INFORMATION ONLY

TO: Members, Board of Supervisors

FROM: Ernest R. Hawkins

Registrar of Voters

SUBJECT: CONTINUED USE OF POLL STAR

On February 25, 1992, and again on July 14, 1992, your Board authorized

use of the Poll Star voting system in elections administered by

Sacramento County. Attachments 2 and 3 contain my reports and recommendations to your Board on those dates.

The Poll Star voting system has been used in four elections: the April

14, 1992 Special Election, the June 2, 1992 Primary Election, the

November 3, 1992 General Election, and the March 2, 1993 City of

Sacramento Special Municipal Election. In the June, 1992, election, I

surveyed voters and polling place officials for their opinions on Poll

Star. More than 81% of the respondents answered affirmatively when

asked if Poll Star was easy to use. Although Poll Star was favored by

a large majority of voters and polling place officials, I received

several complaints about the system. Many of the complaints addressed

internal procedures, such as the way races are printed in the Sample

Ballot, the number of Sample Ballots sent to polling places and the use

by voters of the incorrect Sample Ballot when voting. These procedures

have been corrected. Very few of the complaints I received following

the General Election addressed procedures. Nearly all were focused on

one intrinsic feature of Poll Star: the names of candidates and ballot

measures are not printed on the Poll Star voting device.

After the Primary, General and the City Special Municipal Elections,

the Sacramento Bee wrote negative editorials about Poll Star, recommending that the system be abandoned (see attachment 4) . Supervisor

Grantland Johnson also sent me a memorandum asking me to review the use

of Poll. Star.

As a result of these factors, I directed staff to evaluate voting

systems that have been certified for use in California by the Secretary

of State, a prerequisite for use. The evaluation process included a

review of accuracy, costs, savings, changes in internal and external

procedures and ease of use by voters. The Secretary of State has

certified three basic types of voting methods: paper ballots, punchcard systems and optically-read systems. Staff evaluated punchcard and

optically-read systems. They did not evaluate paper ballots. A copy

of the staff report is Attachment 1.
Page 2

March 25, 1993

The following chart summarizes the costs of each type of punchcard and

optically-read systems. Costs are based on a county-wide election,

using current registration:

PDNCHCARD SYSTEMS

Poll Star

Votomatic

Multiple card systems

OPTICALLY-READ SYSTEMS

Op-Tech III-P (purchase)

Op-Tech III-P (lease)

Op-Tech IV (purchase)

Op-Tech IV (lease)

AIS

$

$

$

1ST YEAR

COSTS

25,000*

7,000

151,600

ON-GOING

COSTS

$

$

$

50,411

155,737

284,604

$ 6,068,800

$ 68,800

$ 568,800

$ 68,800

$ 762,000

$ 423,485

$ 1,603,485

$ 418,985

$ 398,985

$ 284,604

1ST YEAR COST

PER REG. VOTER

$ 0.126

$ 0.271

$ 0-.727

$ 10.820

$ 2.787

$ 1.646

$ 0.780

$ 1.744

•Currently owe $75,000

The optically-read systems require a substantial investment in equipment, regardless if the equipment is purchased or leased. Vendors of

these systems indicated that the list price would be discounted for

Sacramento County. The Data Vote system requires that each voter be

issued several cards in order to vote the entire ballot. I believe

that the potential for error and confusion is considerably greater than

with any of the other systems. The Votomatic system, which was used by

Sacramento County voters for more than 20 years, is not an expandable

system. If the capacity of the ballot is exceeded, then either a

supplementary ballot card must be issued to voters or a second voting

system must be utilized. The attached findings and recommendations of

staff include advantages and disadvantages of each system.

Unless directed to do otherwise, because of the cost of other"available

systems and because of the savings realized by using Poll Star, I will

continue using the Poll Star system in elections administered by

Sacramento County.

If you have any questions about any of the systems, would like to see a

demonstration of any of the systems or wish to schedule this item for

Board review and action, please let me know.

Respectfully submitted,

Ernest R. Hawkins

Registrar of Voters

Attachments

c: BOB SMITH

Gary Cassady
COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

Inter-Department Correspondence

TO: Ernest R. Hawkins

FROM: Voting Systems Research Team

DATE: March 23, 1993

SUBJECT: VOTING SYSTEMS RECOMMENDATIONS FOR SACRAMENTO COUNTY

The Research Team was directed to investigate voting systems certified in the State of

California and recommend a system for use in Sacramento County.

We visited the following counties to obtain information on the voting system they use:

Amador County Optech (Optical) Voting System

San Joaquin County Mark Sense (Multiple Card) Voting System

Alameda County Votomatic Voting System

Addition information for this report was obtained from numerous phone calls to other

counties and on-site demonstrations from Business Records Company and American

Information Systems.

The research team recommends the continued use of the Poll Star Voting System, as the

most cost effective, efficient system for use in Sacramento County.

The Voting Systems Research Team consists of the following personnel:

Ida Bryans \L\ Computer Operations Specialist

GayleiV'Cra'ine

 J J Election Assistant

JilL'LaVine Election Assistant

Diana Mojonnie'r ~" Election Assistant

Mary Thompson r Election Assistant

Wanda Winschell Election Manaaer
ATTACHMENT 1 (Contv)

RECOMMENDATIONS Pag e 2 o f 2 0

March 23, 1993

VOTING SYSTEM: POLL STAR

Poll Star is the voting system this committee recommends for Sacramento

County. Poll Star is the most economical voting system available. This is

a generic system and will accommodate the minor party question. Present

punch positions on Poll Star are projected to accommodate the county in

the future. Poll Star is already in place in Sacramento County and would

require no changes. More voter awareness is needed and the media would

be a great help in this area. Poll Star is also compatible with the present

computer system. Poll Star maintains the high standards of accuracy

required by Sacramento County.

VOTING SYSTEM: VOTOMATIC

The Votomatic voting system would be the committee's second recommendation. Next to Poll Star this would be the least expensive system since we

have the equipment. This system is voter friendly with the names of

candidates and measures on the assembly pages. Minor parties can all be

on one assembly. This system is compatible with the present computer

system and maintains the high standards of accuracy required by

Sacramento County.

VOTING SYSTEM: OPTICALLY READ

The Optech Eagle system (BRC), to buy or lease is an expensive system,

but a good concept. We cannot recommend this system for Sacramento

County at this time with the expense involved and the disadvantages listed

on pages #4 to #6. This ballot counting system is not compatible with the

present computer system.
ATTACHMENT 1 (Cont.)

Page 3 of 20

VOTING SYSTEM: OPTICALLY READ

The American Information System (AIS) would be less expensive than the BRC

system and still allow for the candidates names and the measures to be printed

on the ballot. If selected, Sacramento County would be a Beta Site in California.

We do not, however, recommend this system because of the cost.

VOTING SYSTEM: MULTIPLE CARD

(Data Vote, Mark-A-Vote, Mark Sense)

The Multiple Card system is expensive and unsuitable for Sacramento

County. This system is a giant step backwards. This committee does not

recommend this system for Sacramento County because of the

disadvantages listed on pages #10 and #11. This system would not

maintain the high standards of accuracy Sacramento County requires.

A copy of the completed report is attached.

The Voting Systems Research Team consists of the following personnel.

f.c- A

Ida Bryans

)

//

Gayl'en Crane

UI LaVine

Diana Mojonnier

Mary Thompson '

Computer Operations Specialist

Election Assistant

Election Assistant

Election Assistant

Election Assistant

Wanda Winschell Election Manaaer
SACRAMENTO COUNTY ATTACHMENT 1 (Cont.)

VOTER REGISTRATION AND ELECTIONS Page 4 of 20

COMPARISON REPORT

VOTING AND BALLOT COUNTING SYSTEM

FOR SACRAMENTO COUNTY

BY

VOTING SYSTEMS RESEARCH TEAM

March 23, 1993

VOTING SYSTEMS

POLL STAR

VOTOMATIC

OPTECH Ill-P

IV-C

AMERICAN INFORMATION SYSTEM (AIS)

MULTIPLE CARD SYSTEMS

(Data Vote, Mark-A-Vote, Mark Sense)

PAGE

1-2

3

4-6

7-9

10-11

12-13

ERNEST R. HAWKINS

REGISTRAR OF VOTERS
SACRAMENTO COUNTY fflW (C°

nt')

VOTER REGISTRATION AND ELECTIONS

VOTING AND BALLOT COUNTING SYSTEMS

POLL STAR

Poll Star uses a punchcard that is placed in a housing unit by the

voter. The contests and numbers are printed on a separate sheet of

paper or in a booklet. Those numbers correspond to identical

numbers on strips of plastic, which are sealed with the Poll Star

housing unit. The voter inserts the ballot into the housing unit,

selects the number of his or her choices from the sheet of paper or

booklet and punches out those numbers on a punchcard ballot. Has

a ballot punch capacity of 312.

ADVANTAGES:

Saves money by not having to print, crimp, assemble, and proof the ballot assembly pages.

Have existing equipment for Poll Star voting system.

Upgrades and improvements requested by our department have been met.

Four (4) year contract now in effect, gives us free upgrades for length of contract.

Does not require separate booths for political parties in a Primary election.

Logic and Accuracy testing takes a matter of hours.

Precinct Officers are trained, no new learning curve.

All manuals and procedures are set.

Both Precinct Officers Training Tapes are filmed forthis system ($5000 savings).

Present storage space is adequate.

Inspectors pick up supplies at training classes.

Precinct officers do not have to proofread assemblies against sample ballot.

All write-in votes are in one area of the ballot.
pott star, cent. ATTACHMENT 1 (Cont- J

Page 6 of 20

DISADVANTAGES:

Names of candidates and measures are not on the ballot or assembly pages.

Requires significantly more sample ballots in precincts. Voter would need sample ballot to vote.

Poll Star units need improvement.

Poll workers must separate all write-in votes by hand.

COST See Attachment A

ESTIMATES:

INFORMATION FROM OTHER

COUNTIES:

San Bernardino County also uses Poll Star. They had very positive results and are continuing to

use Poll Star. Poll Star is under consideration in Santa Clara, San Diego and San Francisco

Counties.
ATTACHMENT A TM T <ContJ
VOTOMATfC ATTACHMENT 1 .(-Cont.,

Page 8 o f 20

Votomatic uses a punchcard that is placed in a housing unit by th

voter. Contests, candidate names and bailot measur s printed on

pages hinged in a housing unit (ballot assembly). This is the system

used in Sacramento County from 1969-1991. Has a ballot punch

capacity of 312.

ADVANTAGES:

Names of candidates and measures are on the assembly pages.

Requires three Sample Ballots to the Polling Place.

Have existing equipment for Votomatic/Ballot Assembly Pages.

One ballot assembly can include all minor parties.

Logic and Accuracy testing takes a matter of hours.

Present storage space is adequate.

Inspectors pick up supplies at training classes.

Sample Ballots are proofed against assembly pages.

Precinct officers are already trained.

Compatible with present computer system.

All write-in votes are in one area of the ballot.

DISADVANTAGES:

Will need to purchase more booths and votomatics.

Limited number of punch positions available. If exceeded a second ballot assembly would increase

the cost.

Present Precinct Officer Training Tapes will need to be edited.

Crimping and assembling pages required.

Poll workers must separate all write-in votes out by hand at the end of the night.

COST See Attachment B

ESTIMATES:

INFORMATION

FROM OTHER

COUNTIES:

Currently being used in the following county:

Santa Clara County currently uses the minor party pages in one ballot Assembly. Voter readily

accept this concept.
ATTACHMENT 1 (Cont.)

Page 9 of 20

OTO COST TO CONVERT

Equipment-Purchase

Rewrite Manuals

New Training Films

Voted Ballot Container

Redesign AV/Env/Forms

Rewrite InHouse Proced

Secrecy Envelopes

TOTAL OTO COST

ON GOING COSTS

Equipment-Lease

Warehouse/Storage

Print Votomatic

Second System Needed

Deliver Ballots

Labor Crimp/Proof

Total Ballot Cost

TOTAL ON GOING COST

Voter Registration & Elections

Comparison of

March, 1993

POLLSTAR

50,411

50, 411

ER POLLSTAR

Voting Systems

VOTOMAT1C

BALLOT

PAGES

2,000

5,000

7,000

12,000

54,926

38,400

50,411

155,737

0. 1S16

OPTECH

2,000

5,000

50,000

2,000

2,000

7,800

68,800

1,200,000

4, 500

22,000

38,400

338,585

1,603,485

2.6777

MULTI

CARD

89,600

2,000

5,000

50,000

2,000

2,000

1,000

151,600

4,500

22,000

38,400

219,704

284 , 604

0 . 4038
OPTECH Ill-P EAGLE ATTACHMENT 1 (Cent.)

Page 10 of 20

This is a portable unit that counts the ballots at each individual p King

place. The election results are put onto a memory pack that is

returned after the polls close election night to the receiving center,

and the results can be processed immediately. Has a ballot capacity

of 512. This system is sold by Business Records Corporation (BRC).

ADVANTAGES: Purchase

Names of candidates and measures are on the ballot card.

Could omit sending Sample Ballot with Absentee ballot package.

Good vendor support.

Flexible ballot size. Can print smaller ballot and save paper and printing costs.

Automatic voter assistance in case of overvote, mis-marked ballot or damaged ballot.

Machine automatically returns the ballot to the voter if there is a problem. This gives the

voter an opportunity to correct the problem.

Faster precinct result reporting on election night.

Accuracy-ballots can be read in any orientation.

Provisional ballots go into a separate bin within the Optech Ill-P Unit. Saves precinct

officer from hand sorting.

Wiil separate ballots containing write-ins. Saves Precinct Officer from hand sorting.

In case of a power outage, ballots drop into an auxiliary box for counting when the power

is restored.

Minimum amount of duplicating needed.

Demonstration of marking ballot at precinct easier.

Good audit trail from tape in memory pack on machine, up to the point of "Canvass of the Vote.'
Optech III P-Eagle. cont ATTACHMENT 1 ( COflt. )

Page 11 of 20

DISADVANTAGES: Purchase

Logic and accuracy testing is greatly increased. Testing will take a minimum of two weeks.

Insufficient space at our facility, would have to rent space.

BRC system and our present computer system will not communicate without a translation

program being developed, so it is possible County would be supporting two (2) systems.

Ballot size varies. More warehouse storage space would be necessary. In large elections

unvoted ballots would need three times as much storage space. Voted ballots would

require six times as much storage space, would need off site secured storage.

May have to deliver supplies to precincts due to weight of ballots, adding a minimum of

$24,000.

More space required for storage of unvoted and returned voted absentee ballots.

Security during canvass is greatly increased due to change in the size of ballots.

Faster results will require double mileage, increased number of precinct officers or number

of hours all personnel work election night.

Supplies would need to be modified, especially in absentee and precinct operations.

All manuals and procedures will need to be revised.

Both training tapes would need to be completely refilmed. This will cost approximately $5,000.
OPTECH Ill-P EAGLE ATTACHMENT 1 (Cont.)

Page 12 of 20

ADVANTAGES: Lease

Same as purchase with additional advantages listed below.

No additional space for long term storage.

Will assist with training.

Includes all maintenance costs.

Includes all delivery and pickup costs.

Have an on site project manager.

DISADVANTAGES: Lease

Logic and accuracy testing is greatly increased.

Cannot use present logic and accuracy board.

No space currently available for logic and accuracy testing at our facility. Logic and

accuracy must be done on site.

BRC system and our present computer system will not communicate without a translation

program being developed, so it is possible County would be supporting two (2) systems.

Ballot size varies. More warehouse storage space would be necessary. In large elections

unvoted ballots would need three times as much storage space. Voted ballots would

require six times as much storage space.

Concern over loss of quality control of precinct supplies including ballots.

Would need off site secured storage.

May have to deliver supplies to precincts due to weight of ballots, adding a minimum of

$24,000.

More space required for storage of unvoted and returned voted absentee ballots.

Vendor delivers, sets up and tests equipment before the election. This gives us less

control.

Security during canvass is greatly increased due to change in the size of ballots.

Faster results will require double mileage, increased number of precinct officers or number

of hours all personnel work election night.

Supplies would need to be modified, especially in absentee and precinct operations.

All manuals and procedures will need to be revised.

Both training tapes would need to be completely refilmed. This will cost approximately

$5,000.
. IW _ ATTACHMENT 1 (Cont.)

Optech IV-C Page 13 o f 20

This is a central card read r unit that tabulates the ballots and/or the

m mory pack from each polling place. The unit also tabulates Absentee

Ballots and Mail Ballots at the receiving center. Has a ballot capacity of 512.

This system is sold by Business Records Corporation (BRC).

ADVANTAGES: Purchase

Names of candidates and measures are on the ballot card.

Could omit sending Sample Ballot with Absentee ballot package.

Good vendor support.

Flexible ballot size. Can print smaller ballot and save paper and printing costs.

Accuracy-ballots can be read in any orientation.

Separates ballots containing write-ins and count the over votes.

Minimum amount of duplicating needed.

Good audit trail up to the point of the "Canvass of the Vote."

Can give us the option of remote counting sites on election night.

DISADVANTAGES: Purchase

Logic and accuracy testing will be slightly increased.

BRC system and our present computer system will not communicate wrthout a translation

program being developed, so it is possible County would be supporting two (2) systems.

Would need off site secured storage.

Ballot size varies. More warehouse storage space would be necessary. In large elections

unvoted ballots would need three times as much storage space. Voted ballots woald

require six times as much storage space.

More space required for storage of unvoted and returned voted absentee ballots.

May have to deliver supplies to precincts due to weight of ballots, adding a minimum of

$24,000.

Security during canvass is greatly increased due to change in the size of ballots.

Faster results will require double mileage, increased number of precinct officers or number

of hours all personnel work election night.

Supplies would need to be modified, especially in absentee and precinct operations.

All manuals and procedures will need to be revised.
OptechlV-C ATTACHMENT KCont.V

r

 Page 14 of 20

ADVANTAGES: Lease

Same as purchase with additional advantages listed below.

No additional space for long term storage.

Will assist with training.

Includes all maintenance costs.

Includes all delivery and pickup costs.

Have an on site project manager.

DISADVANTAGES: Lease

Logic and accuracy testing will be slightly increased.

BRC system and our present computer system will not communicate without a translation

program being developed, so it is possible County would be supporting two (2) systems.

Would need off site secured storage.

Ballot size varies. More warehouse storage space would be necessary. In large elections

unvoted ballots would need three times as much storage space. Voted ballots would

require six times as much storage space.

More space required for storage of unvoted and returned voted absentee ballots.

Concern over loss of quality control of precinct supplies including ballots.

Security during canvass is greatly increased due to change in the size of ballots.

Faster results will require double mileage, increased number of precinct officers or number

of hours all personnel work election night.

Supplies would need to be modified, especially in absentee and precinct operations.

All manuals and procedures will need to be revised.
Optech IV-C cont ATTACHMENT 1 (Cont.)

Page 15 of 20

COST

ESTIMATES:

See Attachment C

FROM: Steve Thayne - Vice President, Sales, BRC

LEASE:

Ball park figure-$1.2 million per year.

$7,400,000.00 worth of equipment for six years.

900 Optech Ill-P units for precincts.

4-Optech IV-C units for ballot counting.

Storage, maintenance, training.

Delivery, pickup, project manager software.

Optech Ill-P - Each unit

Optech IV-C - Each unit

LEASE

($1.2 Million

Annually )

PURCHASE

$7,500

$70,000

INFORMATION

FROM OTHER

COUNTIES:

Amador County - Cost Estimates June 2, 1992 Primary Election

Voting Precincts—28

Registration 17,600

ITEM

Official Ballots

Secrecy folder

Outgoing

Returned AV

Ballot seals

Pencils 60/1000

EACH

.45

.65

.13

.24

.77

.06

Ballot box and memory pack.

(Memory Pack needs reprogramming each election)

Sacramento County-June 2, 1992 Primary Election

Voting Precincts-—888

Registration 629,200

Ballot Types 75
The published list purchase price for the Optech units that you

asked about are:

optech III-P Eagle $ 7,500

Optech IV-C $70,000

The ballpark figure previously provided of $1,200,000 annually for

a six year agreement includes:

950 Optech III-P Eagle Units

4 Optech IV-C Units

Support

Installation

Delivery and Pick-up

Storage

Ma intenance

On-site support

Project Manager

Software Licenses

Supplies
AMERICAN INFORMATION SYSTEM (AIS) JTMg TM \Q

{C

°

nt

This is an optical scanning system using paper ballots 8 1/2 x 17 with

a 3" stub at th bottom of the ballot. The actual voting area of the

ballot is 8 1/2 x 14. This is a marking system. Each voting position

will have an oval to mark with a #2 pencil to select the voters choice.

Has a ballot punch capacity of 216.

ADVANTAGES:

Names of candidates and measures are on ballot card.

All booths are generic. The generic effect accommodates all parties in a primary election.

Logic & accuracy testing methods will meet state requirements.

Election night performance is guaranteed.

A five year warranty is provided, no monthly service charge, and continual automatic

upgrades.

AIS designers maintain the equipment.

Design of ballot card eliminates production of Header Cards.

Problem ballots can be run independently of previously counted ballots.

Write-in votes - the machine pauses and they are handled individually.

The AIS machine reads 15,000 ballots per hour (actually 9,000).

The vote counting results can be put onto a disk and transferred to a PC for reports and

scrolling for TV to display results.

Saves data entry time following the election for voter history.

Absentee ballots would not need to be separated before counting. As the absentee ballots

are run, the results will be shown per precinct.

Each machine has it's own power regulator.

There is an accumulation programming package that will fulfill the needs for the

"STATEMENT OF THE VOTE". This will be created on the PC.

The PC also does recaps.

We can rent more machines if needed for an election.

It is compatible with a PC network system.

Can give us the option of remote counting sites on election night.

Minimum amount of duplicating needed.

Could omit sending Sample Ballot with Absentee ballot package.

Demonstration of marking ballot at precinct easier.

10
American Information System (AIS), Cont AIIAUirlt.N I 1 V LOR I

Page 18 of 20

DISADVANTAGES:

System is not compatible with our present computer system.

Limited amount of voting positions available. If exceeded a second ballot would increase

the cost.

Supplies would need to be modified, especially in absentee and precinct operations.

All manuals and procedures will need to be revised and both training tapes would need

to be completely refilmed. This will cost approximately $5,000.

Will need secrecy sleeves. This would be an added expense.

Printers must be certified by the Secretary of State. At present there are no certified

printers in the State of California.

Ballots can only be read in one orientation.

Optical scan has limited capabilities.

If selected, Sacramento County would be a Beta Site in California.

The additional storage space required for AIS equipment is 1000 square feet. Unvoted

and voted ballots will require three (3) to six (6) times the warehouse space.

Would need off site secured storage.

Security during canvass is greatly increased due to change in size of ballots.

COST

ESTIMATES:

Cost per machine is $48,500 to purchase. A county of 350,000 voters uses eight

machines. Sacramento County has 650,000 voters and would require twelve machines.

It cost about $.25 per ballot for printing. Due to leeway given to reproduction, local printers

could be certified for ballot printing. At present there- are no certified printers in the State

of California.

Initial set up costs are $16,500.

Three, five, and seven year leases are available, with options.This is a one time expense.

11
MULT.PLE CARD SYSTEMS

A set of ballot cards is issued to each voter. All candidates and

measures are printed on the front and back of ballot cards. Several

cards are needed to suit all ballot races. Has a ballot capacity of 52

per card, 26 on each side.

ADVANTAGES:

Names of candidates and measures are on the ballot card.

Existing equipment could be used for this system.

Could omit sending Sample Ballots with Absentee ballot package.

This system will handle minor parties in primary elections.

Compatible with DFM and DIMS computer systems.

Card readers stop on a ballot with a write-in if the arrow is filled in.

An audit trail can be followed if a recount is called.

DISADVANTAGES:

Logic and Accuracy testing must be extended due to the large volume of ballot cards

required in the Multi Card System.

Requires additional card readers to accommodate additional volumes of ballot cards.

Counting the ballots election night will take longer because of the multiple cards used.

Quality and accuracy is diminished by repeated testing.

Additional storage space will be required for extra card readers. Unvoted and voted ballots

will require three to six times the warehouse space.

Due to the weight of the ballots, precinct delivery will require a hauling company. Based

on present costs, delivery would be approximately $24,000.

Each ballot type could have from seven (7) to ten (10) ballot cards issued per voter.

One spoiled ballot card in the set issued requires issuing a complete new set of ballots

must be issued to the voter.

If the election goes over six cards the price doubles because of set-up charges.

Extends the time for the "Canvass of the Vote" to do a manual count, all ballots in a

precinct need to be sorted by card "types" (A,B,C etc).

12
Mu.tipleca.system,cont ATTACHMENT 1 (Cont. )

Page 20 o f 20

Precinct officers would take additional time in a primary election to separate ballots by

party. We need to account for seven (7) parties, times the multiple of ballot cards issued.

Will need to send special #2 pencil out with absentee ballots.

Both Precinct Officer Training Tapes would need to be refilmed at a cost approximately

$5,000.

Supplies would need to be modified, especially in absentee and precinct operations.

All manuals and procedures will need to be revised.

COST

ESTIMATES: SEE BELOW

INFORMATION

FROM OTHER

COUNTIES:

San Joaquin County-Cost Estimation November 3, 1992

Voting Precincts 513

Registration 230,858

Ballot Types 95

ITEM QUANTITY UNIT PRICE PRICE

BALLOTS

1 a Set up charge per side of ballot 107 100.00 ea $10,700.00

1b Set up charge per side of ballot-remake 1 50.00 ea 50.00

2a Setup charge per ballot group-original Bts 95 100.00 ea 9,500.00

2b Setup charge per ballot group-F cards BT 1-8 8 100.00 ea 800.00

2c Setup charge per ballot group-add AV + prec 24 100.00 ea 2,400.00

2d setup charge per ballot group-f cards for addl 5 100.00 ea 500.00

AV + Prec

3 Running charges per 1000 cards 1,405.505 73.000/m 102,601.87

4 Test cards per ballot type 95" 25.00 ea 2,375.00

5 Merging A B C D E cards with F cards 162 10.00 prec+AV 1,620.00

TOTAL COST " ~ ~ $130,546.87

Sacramento County-November 3, 1992 General Election

Voting Precincts—884

Registration— -608,903

Ballot Types 211

13
ATTACHMENT 2

Page 1 of 2

COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

CALIFORNIA

For Agenda of: February 25, 1992

TO: Board of supervisors

FROM: Ernest R. Hawkins

Registrar of Voters

SUBJECT: USE OF POLL STAR VOTING SYSTEM

RECOMMENDATION

Approve the use of the Poll Star Voting System in Sacramento County.

DISCUSSION

This request is in conformance with the County Executive's directive to

seek ways to reduce costs.

On February 3, 1992, the Secretary of State certified Poll Star, a new

voting system, for use in California elections. I would like to use

Poll Star on a trial basis for the election scheduled on April 14,

1992, and for future elections if the initial use meets my

expectations. The vendor, Election Data Services, will provide Poll

Star at no cost to Sacramento County for the April 14, 1992, "election.

Since July, 1969, Sacramento County has been using the Votomatic voting

system, which requires the official ballot to be printed on pages

hinged in a housing unit. Attachment A illustrates the current

Votomatic system.

The Poll Star system also uses a punchcard and a housing unit. The

offices and questions and their corresponding numbers, instead of on

hinged pages, are printed on a separate sheet of paper or in a booklet.

Those numbers are repeated on strips of plastic, which are sealed with

the Poll Star housing unit. The voter inserts the ballot into the

housing unit, selects the number of his or her choices, and punches out

those numbers on the punchcard ballot.
ATTACHMENT 2 (Cont.)

Page 2 of 2

Board of Supervisors

Page 3

COSTS

The initial cost of converting to Poll Star is $100,000 (8,000 units at

$12.50 each), interest-free and payable in four equal payments over a

three year period. The vendor has agreed to take Votomatic materials,

supplies and equipment in trade. They will also provide a two year

warranty on the Poll Star equipment. If the Secretary of State

requires any modifications to the system during the warranty period,

the vendor will make those modifications without charge to Sacramento

County.

No additional appropriation will be necessary. I anticipate spending

approximately $4,300 less than is budgeted for 1991-92. If any of the

minor parties prevail in a lawsuit or if I exceed ballot capacity, I

would require between $379,000 and $1,500,000, in additional funding

for 1992-93, depending on the number of additional voting booths and

supplies purchased. These additional funds would not be needed using

the Poll Star system. In 1992-93 and subsequent years, a net reduction

of approximately $20,000 should be realized. Beginning in FY 1995-96,

net savings should be $45,000.

Respectfully submitted,

Ernest R. Hawkins

Registrar of Voters

Gary Cassady Bob Smith

Chief Deputy County Executive County Executive

Attachments
COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

CALIFORNIA

ATTACHMENT 3

Page 1 of 3

For Agenda of: July 14, 1992

10:15 a.m.

TO: Board of Supervisors

FROM: Ernest R. Hawkins

Registrar of Voters

SUBJECT: CONTINUED USE OF POLL STAR VOTING SYSTEM

RECOMMENDATION

Approve the continued use of the Poll Star Voting System in Sacramento

County by the Registrar of Voters.

BACKGROUND

On February 25, 1992, your Board approved, at my request, the

provisional use of the Poll Star Voting System in Sacramento County.

Poll Star has since been used in five elections: four separate special

elections on April 14, 1992 and the Presidential Primary Election on

June 2, 1992. This report summarizes its use in elections since your

approval.

The April 14th elections were successfully administered with Poll Star.

Most poll workers and voters responded favorably to it and encouraged

its continued use in future elections. Most voters feel that it is

easy to use, once its operation is understood. Poll workers recommended that voters be encouraged to mark their choices on the sample

ballot at home and then bring it to the polls on election day. A

summary of comments received from the April elections is behind Tab I.

Following the April elections, the Secretary of State recommended that

I generate more publicity on Poll Star before the Primary election in

an effort to educate voters on its use. The League of Women Voters

agreed to demonstrate Poll Star at various locations throughout the

county, in conjunction with their voter registration drive. I also

placed a demonstrator Poll Star unit in each library branch and issued

a news release encouraging voters to try using it.

As a.- result of the positive experience with the April elections, I

decided to use Poll Star in the June Primary election. Some of the

problems that occurred in this election were widely reported in the

media. Copies of news articles and "Letters to the Editor" are

included behind Tab II. I advised your Board of these problems in an

informational memorandum, dated June 3, 1992, a copy of which is

included behind Tab III.
ATTACHMENT 3 (Cont.)

Page 2 of 3

Board of Supervisors

Page 2

DISCUSSION

The success of Poll Star in our test was dependent on the use of the

sample ballot. Voters were strongly encouraged to bring their own

sample ballot with them to vote. In addition, polling places were

supplied with a sufficient number of sample ballots for use by voters

who did not bring theirs. The problems (and solutions) associated with

the use of sample ballots are as follows:

1. A few copies of incorrect sample ballots were erroneously

delivered to four polling places. Some voters in those precincts

voted using the incorrect sample ballot.

A review of internal procedures revealed that more than one

employee was responsible for controlling and distributing sample

ballots. I have revised the procedures and assigned one employee

with the responsibility for controlling sample ballots from the

time they are delivered to my warehouse until they are distributed

to polling places or to the absentee voting unit.

2. At one polling place, some voters were mailed the incorrect sample

ballot and took it to the polling place to vote. As indicated in

my earlier memorandum, I had a courier deliver their correct

sample ballot to them and they voted by absentee ballot. However,

some ballots were dropped into the ballot box where the voter used

the wrong sample ballot.

I contracted with a firm to print sample ballots, which subcontracted with a second firm to label and mail sample ballots. I

have had lengthy discussions with both firms on how to avoid this

and similar problems in the future. Both of these firms and my

staff are reviewing enhanced quality control procedures.

3. I received some complaints from voters who claimed to have been

given the incorrect sample ballot by a precinct official at their

polling place. I had the supplies for those precincts thoroughly

examined, but found no evidence that an incorrect sample ballot

had been delivered to these polling places. Possibly, an incorrect sample ballot had been brought into the polling place by a

voter and left there, where it was subsequently used by one or

more voters for voting.

These incidents were isolated, but still very unfortunate. In

future elections voters will be told that they do not need their

sample ballot to vote. I will instead use a listing with candidates and issues on it, which will be placed in every voting

booth. There will be a prominent notice in the sample ballot,

advising voters to compare the ballot type number on their sample

ballot with the ballot type number used in that polling place. If

there is a difference, voters will be asked not to vote but

instead to notify the polling place official. This will help

those who use their sample ballot to vote. See Tab IV for a draft

copy of the letter that will appear in the sample ballot regarding

this change.
ATTACHMENT 3 (Cont.)

Page 3 of 3

Board of Supervisors

Page 3

For the Primary election, poll workers were instructed to provide a

questionnaire on Poll Star to voters and to return their completed

questionnaires to me. A copy of the questionnaire is behind Tab V.

The results of the two most important questions are:

"Do you see any difference in this system compared with how you voted

in the past?"

Total responses 18,401

Yes 11,726 (63.7%)

No 6,675 (36.3%)

"Did you find Poll Star easy to use?"

Total responses 16,455

Yes 13,426 (81.6%)

No 3,029 (18.4%)

In addition to the questionnaire, I received thoughtful letters from

several voters with their views on Poll Star. I have included some of

these letters behind Tab VI.

I also received a letter from Senator Patrick Johnston, asking me to

investigate a complaint from a constituent couple who had a problem

with Poll Star. Senator Johnston's letter and my response to him are

included behind Tab VII.

CONCLUSION

Most of the problems associated with Poll Star resulted from procedural

errors, not from a failure of the system. If your Board authorizes

continued use of Poll Star, my procedures, as noted in this memo, will

be modified to help ensure that the problems I have identified will not

occur in future elections.

I believe Poll Star is a viable system that will save taxpayers money

in both the short and long terms, and will not compromise the integrity

of elections. I recommend that your Board authorize its continued use

in elections administered in Sacramento County.

Respectfully submitted,

Ernest R. Hawkins

Registrar of Voters

Gary Cassady BOB SMITH

Chief Deputy County Executive County Executive

Attachments
ATTACHMENT

Page 1 of 3
ATTACHMENT 4 (Cont.)

Page 2 of 3
SACRAMENTO BEE

SACRAMENTO UNION

DAILY RECORDER

OTHER

There was an election for the Sacramento

City Council in District Five this week. No. 6

won. That's who more voters picked than

anyone else. In Sacramento, we don't vote

for candidates by name anymore - only

numbers. The registrar of voters calls that

cost-cutting.

In District Five, for example, voters were

presented with a blank ballot with 26 numbered spaces on it. They had to pick one. But

only six of those numbers were actually

hooked up to candidates. And not the first

six, of course; that would make it too easy.

Instead, to have their votes recorded, people had to pick a number from 6 to 11. Except that No. 10 didn't count either because

the candidate associated with that blank

space on the ballot had already dropped out.

Think of it as the equivalent of rolling snake

eyes.

If you didn't have a number in mind when

you checked into the polling station, you

could always figure out whom you were voting for by bringing a note from home or by

borrowing a copy of the sample ballot from

election officials. Then all you had to do was

translate the names in the book into, numbers on the ballot, find the right space

among the blanks, and hope you hit the target just right with your stylus. But if your

hands shake, or your eyesight isn't too

sharp, or you don't speak English well

enough to follow all the instructions, or if

you're just easily intimidated by too much

bureaucratic bumfog, you could lose out.

There is an advantage to this system as

opposed to voting the way most of the rest of

America exercises the franchise. With all of

those extra spaces, you get lots of opportunities to vote for none of the above - or none of

the below, depending on which blank space

you pick. Unfortunately, the registrar

doesn't report how many people voted for

No. 23 in District Five. Also unknown is how

many people mistakenly voted for someone

they didn't mean to support, and how many

more were discouraged from voting at all by

a system that makes casting a ballot far

more difficult than it needs to be.
Appendix 7

Planning and Evaluation in

the Selection of a DRE

Voting System

Registrar

Clark County

Nevada

, „ , Appendix 7 - a.

Clark County, Nevada ' r

Plan for an Electronic Voting Machine

Pilot Program - 1994

Primary and General Elections

Issue Statement:

At its November 16, 1993, meeting, the Board of County Commissioners unanimously

approved a pilot program to introduce electronic voting machines for use on a limited basis

during the 1994 Primary and General Elections. As part of the motion approving this program,

the Board directed staff to invite the participation of representatives from the Republican,

Democratic and Libertarian parties, as well as the League of Women Voters, in formulating

a plan for the pilot program to be presented to the Board at its next meeting.

Summary:

As directed by the Board of County Commissioners, Election Department staff attempted to

contact representatives from the Republican, Democratic and Libertarian parties and the

League of Women Voters to invite their participation in a planning session for an electronic

voting system for Clark County. Certified letters of invitation were mailed and telephone calls

were made to those organizations.

The planning session was held on November 22. 1993, at 9:30 a.m., at the Election

Department. Representing the Clark County Democratic Party were Gary Gilgan and

Michael Jolls; representing the Republican party were George Harris and Stephanie Lagan.

Tamara Clark of the Libertarian Party did not attend, although she had agreed to participate

and in fact had called immediately prior to the meeting to indicate she was en route; however,

she never arrived. Representatives from the League of Women Voters also did not attend the

meeting. Registrar of Voters Kathryn Ferguson subsequently scheduled a meeting with

representatives of the League inasmuch as staff believed it was important to provide this

organization with a summary of the planning session and receive the League's input as well.

Ms. Ferguson also agreed to conduct a special meeting specifically for Tamara Clark to ensure

the Libertarian Party's input into the process.
Appendix 7 - b.

Page Two

Staff members present at the meeting were Dale Askew, Assistant County Manager;

Kathryn Ferguson, Registrar of Voters; Steve Chapin, Director of Information Systems;

Earl Hawkes, Director of General Services; Veronica Perez, Assistant Registrar of Voters;

Bernie Matsko, Information Systems Department Manager of Election Computer Applications;

Greg Bateman, Election Department Systems Coordinator; and Steve Wright, Management

Analyst II for the Election Department.

To begin the proceedings, Dale Askew provided a brief overview of the direction given to staff

by the Board of County Commissioners. Kathryn Ferguson followed with a brief comparison

of the various Direct Recording Entry electronic voting machines available on the market. Any

machine selected for the pilot program must be certified by the Secretary of State of Nevada

for use in all elections. Of the systems previously reviewed, Ms. Ferguson told the group that

vendor Unilect had applied for certification for its paging electronic voting machine but had

not yet been granted certification. She further explained that per the most recent

communication from the Secretary of State's office, the vendor Microvote had not yet applied

for certification of its paging electronic voting machine. The Sequoia Pacific AVC Advantage

voting machine is the only electronic voting machine certified in the State.

Steve Chapin and Kathryn Ferguson explained the six basic requirements established by the

Election Selection and Procurement Task Force and used in the identification of a suitable

vendor for Clark County. The AVC Advantage system was discussed, as was the fact that

this system met all six of the requirements. Other benefits of the AVC Advantage system

were outlined, including Sequoia's history of conducting punch card elections and its ability

to integrate both the punch card ballots and the electronic ballots from the pilot program.

This capability eliminates unnecessary duplication of efforts on the part of Election

Department and ISD staff members when the electronic voting pilot program is implemented

during the 1994 Primary and General Elections.

Republican Chairman George Harris expressed his support for the Sequoia Pacific AVC

Advantage voting machine recommended to the Board of County Commissioners for purchase.

He stated that he had met with the handful of citizens opposing the purchase and reviewed

their claims and concerns and found them to be fundamentally insupportable. Mr. Harris

further stated that he had sought and received input from knowledgeable officials in various

states and had reviewed numerous sources of documentation with regard to both the AVC

Advantage and other electronic voting machines. His stated opinion was that the AVC

Advantage is an excellent voting machine that will serve the needs of Clark County well.

Although Democratic Chairman Paul Yates was unable to attend the planning session, he had

previously expressed to staff his support of the AVC Advantage voting machine. Gary Gilgan

and Michael Jolts, of the Democratic Party, asked numerous technical and administrative

questions with regard to the voting machine. These questions were answered not only by the

staff members in attendance, but also through actual "hands on" experience of voting on the

machine, deselecting candidates, and printing and viewing reports.
Appendix 7 - c.

Page Three

Party representatives unanimously supported staff's selection of the Sequoia Pacific AVC

Advantage voting machine for use in the pilot program and it was decided that a performance

based contract should be utilized in purchasing the voting machines. Such an approach would

allow the County to return the machines to Sequoia Pacific for a complete refund if they failed

to meet specified performance criteria during the course of the pilot program. A general

discussion of the types of performance criteria that should be included followed, with the

specifics to be determined by the Registrar and Assistant Registrar of Voters and the ISD

Director and Elections Systems Manager. It was further agreed that all necessary software

and on-site technical support should be provided by Sequoia Pacific free of charge for the

duration of the pilot program.

A discussion of the public perception of the election system and in particular electronic voting

took place. It was the party representatives' strong belief that an aggressive public relations

campaign should be conducted to encourage community acceptance of electronic voting and

to maximize participation in the pilot program. The political parties recommended that the

County solicit the assistance of several local advertising agencies to perform pro bono work.

The agencies could inform the public about the benefits of electronic voting and work closely

with the Election Department to develop educational and instructional videos and polling

instruments. During an informational outreach phase, a voting machine could be taken to

various shopping malls, community centers, senior citizen centers and other public gathering

places, where it could be demonstrated and set up for voting. The ballot survey questions

could ask voters to rate their experience and impressions of actually voting on the machine,

as well as various features of the machine. The results of these surveys would be compiled

and included as part of the overall evaluation of the program.

Also, the political party representatives recommended that a focus group, composed of a

random sampling of some 450 prospective voters of the area targeted by the pilot program,

be selected and their responses to the voting experience be tracked throughout the process.

It was agreed that a positive public relations campaign to present the benefits of implementing

the new voting system would benefit the community, candidates and participating public

relations firms. Moreover, it would work to restore confidence in the overall election process.

The party representatives agreed to assist the County in these efforts.

The final issue to be addressed was that of selecting a particular assembly district in which

to conduct the pilot program during the 1994 Primary and General Elections.

Election Department staff had performed a preliminary analysis of Assembly District 6, due

to the great extent of voter fall-off occurring in the races toward the end of the ballot in this

district during the 1992 Elections. In addition, staff was seeking a statistically significant

cross-section of voters, as Commissioner Woodbury had indicated a preference for such a

sampling during his motion to the Board. The small number of required voting machines was

also a desirable characteristic of District 6. After discussion with the parties, however, it was

decided that this was not an optimal choice because voters in this district are not equitably

distributed among the various political parties.
Appendix 7 - d.

Page Four

The political party representatives agreed upon Assembly District 2 as their preferred choice

for the pilot program because it is a very balanced district with regard to political party

representation among registered voters. Staff subsequently worked up the required number

of machines for Assembly District 2. In addition, they worked up figures for Assembly

District 17, which is similar to District 2 with regard to party representation but would require

fewer machines for project implementation. It should be noted that limiting the pilot project

to use in a specific Assembly District results in an under-utilization of the capabilities of the

AVC. Therefore, these machine requirement numbers for individual Assembly Districts cannot

be extrapolated to render a total number of machines required to service the entire County

under normal election conditions.

This planning session was comprehensive, productive and positive. Representatives from

both major political parties offered their complete assistance in making the pilot program a

success. They expressed their support for the Election Department's efforts and direction,

as well as the Board's prudence in proceeding with a limited pilot program before moving to

purchase a Countywide system. Constructive feedback was provided to staff regarding the

selection process. Staff also informed the party representatives of their longstanding plans

to review and evaluate the punch card election procedures of larger jurisdictions and to update

current County procedures where appropriate. The meeting ended on a very positive note,

with participants looking forward to their continued participation in the implementation of this

pilot project in Clark County.
Appendix 7 - e,

AVC Electronic Voting Machine Performance

On November 16, 1993, the Clark County Board of Commissioners voted unanimously to

conduct a pilot program to introduce electronic voting to the County on a limited basis

during the 1994 Primary and General Elections in order to determine its suitability for

implementation Countywide. The resulting contract with Sequoia Pacific was performance

based, focusing on the areas of voter approval, ease of voting, ease of administration,

accuracy, and reliability. The AVC voting machines received a high approval rating by

participating voters and performed successfully in all areas.

The pilot project approved by the Board to introduce electronic voting to Clark County on a

limited basis during the 1994 Primary and General Elections was a success. The contract

was performance based, stipulating requirements in the areas of voter approval, ease of

voting, ease of administration, accuracy, and reliability. Although the contract pertained

only to the Primary Election, the machine performance and voter reaction was additionally

monitored during the General Election as well in order to provide more data in determining

the suitability of this product for use in Clark County. The evidence strongly supports the

conclusion to move forward to purchase the AVC's for use Countywide.

Voter satisfaction with the voting process on the electronic machines was one of the most

important pilot project evaluation criteria. The League of Women Voters and other

volunteers conducted a survey of Assembly District 22 voters who voted on the AVC

electronic machines during the Primary Election. Seven thousand two hundred and eightysix individuals voted of which eighty-two percent (5,981) participated in the survey. The

results indicate that 95% of the voters responded favorably, 3% responded neutrally, and

2% responded negatively. This survey yields a very high overall approval rating of the

AVC Advantage voting machines. The response of voters during the General Election was

similarly favorable. Surveys of poll workers' satisfaction and of ease of opening and

closing the polls in both elections yielded highly favorable results as well.

Voting machine trouble calls were placed to the machine hot line from the polls on Primary

Election day. All calls were addressed through repair, education, or procedure" All but one

repair was done within 10 minutes of the arrival of the repair technician. AH machines

were operating at 7:00 a.m. and all were operating at the close of polls at 7:00 p.m. It is

interesting to note that there were no problems with the closing oftHe machines" during

this first time usage. The call logs show that the only significant hardware concern was

overly sensitive operator control panels. After the Primary Election the manufacturer made

hardware adjustments to correct the control panel problem. This problem did not reoccur

in the General Election. Research with Sequoia Pacific's customer base indicates this is

standard operating procedure. In addition, customers have commented that with each

ensuing election the process goes more smoothly, as voters, election workers, contractors,

and administrators become better acquainted with the machine.

The only negative report during the General Election involved lines which formed at some

precincts on election day. This was mainly attributable to the length and complexity of the

ballot, which contained some 104 different races and up to 14 lengthy questions. An

additional complicating factor was the posting of the full explanations of alt questions

inside each voting booth. This tended to keep voters in the booth for longer periods of

time, especially in the total privacy environment of the AVC. The newness of the machine

to most voters was another factor that added extra minutes to the voting process. This

will diminish considerably with each successive election.
Appendix 7 - f.

Page 2

Comparing the polling place exception logs kept by poll workers for each precinct between

the Primary and General elections clearly demonstrates that education and familiarity made

a difference in any perceived problems with the machine. Considering that this was the

first time usage in a move from paper ballots to fully electronic voting, both voters and

pollworkers made the transition quite easily. With the limited resources directed to this

project, especially with regard to pollworker training, and considering that the primary

focus was on the punch card system, it is impressive that the first time implementation of

electronic voting was this successful. The machine proved so simple to program that

Election Department staff was able, after minimal exposure during the Primary election

cycle, to set up the General Election ballot on the AVC's without the benefit of formal

training or vendor assistance. Much was learned from this pilot project and, based on this

experience, staff will be developing an implementation plan for a smooth and very

successful 1996 election cycle.
Appendix 8

Sole Source Procurement

Justification memo and

Contract for a PC-based

Tabulation Network

System

Supervisor of Elections

Metro-Dade County

Florida

Appendix 8 - a.

Agenda No. 5(e)(2)

3-20-90

RESOLUTION NO. R-213-90

RESOLUTION APPROVING WAIVER OF FORMAL BID

PROCEDURES AND AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF A

PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH KENNETH P.

HAZLETT FOR THE DEVELOPMENT AND MAINTENANCE OF A

PERSONAL COMPUTER ELECTION TABULATION NETWORK

SYSTEM PROGRAM.

WHEREAS, this Board desires to accomplish the purposes

outlined in the accompanying memorandum, a copy of which is

incorporated herein by reference; and

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY

COMMISSIONERS OF DADE COUNTY, FLORIDA, that this Board finds it in

the best interest of the County to waive formal bid procedures and

to authorize the County Manager to enter into a Professional

Services Agreement with Kenneth P. Hazlett to develop and maintain

a personal computer election tabulation network system program in

the amount not to exceed $76,900, formal bidding being waived in

this instance pursuant to Section 4.03(D) of the Home Rule charter

by two-thirds (2/3) vote of the Board members present.

The foregoing resolution was offered by Commissioner

Jorge E. Vaides who voted its adoption.

The motion was seconded by Commissioner

and upon being put to a vote, the vote was as follows:

Barbara M. Carey

 aYe

Charles Dusseau

 aVe

Joseph M. Gersten absent

Larry Hawkins aye

Harvey Ruvin absent

Barry D. Schreiber aye

Jorge E. Valdes aye

Sherman S. Winn aye

Stephen P. Clark aye
Recommendation

It is recommended that the Board approve a waiver of formal bid

procedures and authorize the County Manager to enter into a

Professional Services Agreement with Kenneth P. Hazlett in the

amount not to exceed $76/900.00 to develop and maintain a personal

computer election tabulation network system program.

Background

The County's current tabulation equipment, purchased in 1977, is

becoming increasingly more difficult to keep operational due

to age. As a result, the goal of producing final results by

midnight is rarely achieved. In addition, our current tabulation

system is so complex that it is virtually impossible to explain it

to candidates, the news media, and the public in order to gain

their confidence that votes are counted accurately and without

outside manipulation. Coopers & Lybrand, in their audit report of

the 1988 General Election, stated that the County's tabulation

equipment is antiquated and recommended that a more modern

technology be investigated which would lessen or eliminate the

susceptibility to delays in processing caused by volume, ballot

handling, and weather conditions.

A committee, chaired by Assistant County Manager J. A. Ojeda, Jr.,

and composed of the directors of Elections, O.C.S.I.S., Management

and Budget, and Internal Auditing, has been studying the

feasibility of replacing the County's tabulation system since 1987.

It is the opinion of the committee, based on their review of the

tabulation systems currently in use throughout the country, that a

personal computer election tabulation network system would best

meet the needs of Dade County. Since there is no personal computer

tabulation system on the market which contains the enhancements

that have been made to the County's existing system, the committee

recommended that Mr. Kenneth P. Hazlett, who developed the

municipal personal computer system recently purchased by Dade

County, be contracted with to develop and maintain the countywide

system. Mr. Hazlett has been determined to be the only individual

with the knowledge and expertise required to expand the municipal

personal computer system into a networking system for use in

tabulating countywide elections. The ADP Policy Committee concurs

with this recommendation.
Appendix 8 - c.

Honorable Mayor and Members

Board of County Commissioners

Page 2

Mr. Kenneth Hazlett is a recognized expert in the field of ballot

tabulation systems. He has authored and produced numerous ballot

tabulation programs since 1964, many of which are still being

utilized throughout the country. Mr. Hazlett created the Ballot

Multiplexor System currently used by Dade County.

The equipment needed for the personal computer election tabulation

network system, at a cost of $94,000, will be purchased under

separate contract.

The personal computer election tabulation network system, when

completed, must be tested and certified by the State Division of

Elections before it can be used in an election.

This item was reviewed and approved by the Internal

Management/Tourism Committee at their meeting on February 27, 1990.
ferred to as the "COUNTY"), and Kenneth P. Hazlett (hereinafter

referred to as the "SERVICE PROVIDER").

WITNESSETH:

WHEREAS, the COUNTY is desirous of obtaining a new

personal computer based Election Tabulation Network System (ETNet),

and

WHEREAS, the SERVICE PROVIDER, is the only individual who

is both qualified and experienced in the development of the software that is necessary to complete the personal computer network

that will be used to tabulate election results.

NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the premises

and the mutual covenants herein contained, the parties hereto agree

as follows:

ARTICLE I

Responsibility of the SERVICE PROVIDER

The SERVICE PROVIDER shall:

1. Complete and deliver by April 1, 1990, Module 1, a Ballot

Definition Subsystem, which will include the following:

A. A capability to input election data, such as

registration information, ballot information, precinct

information, ballot position numbers, and control

data, in accordance with the recommendations of the

user department and the requirements of State Law.
Appendix 8 - e.

B. The ability to incorporate available precinct and

registration data from the Office of Computer Services

and Information Systems (OCSIS) host files.

A methodology to incorporate such data will be

mutually developed by the vendor and OCSIS.

C. An option for data creation through keyboard input, or

for direct input from ballot page program files, when

available.

D. Ballot definition specification reports, by style,

area, and page.

2. Complete and deliver Module 2, a Reader/Workstation

Subsystem by April 1, 19 90, that will include the

following:

A. A program that will permit identification of precincts

by header cards; comparison of registration counts

with ballots cast; and a precinct status message, if

appropriate, for precincts previously read.

B. The Reader/Workstation program will have both keyboard

and control card options for the cancellation or

acceptance of precinct counts. The Reader/Workstation

screens will also provide information on the status of

the reader.

C. The Reader/Workstation. . software will permit the

counting of ballot cards for the purpose of vote

identification at speed specifications of 1000 cards a

minute and have network connectivity.

3. Complete and deliver Module 3, a Tabulation Subsystem, by

April 15, 1990, which will include the following:
Appendix 8 - f.

A. Software that will tabulate votes in accordance with

the requirements and standards of State Law, and which

will be so certified.

B. Options such as a shadow file for program backup as

well as options for the management and reporting of

the tabulation process as the County and State Law

requires.

4. Complete and deliver Module 4, a Reconciliation Subsystem,

by April 15, 1990, which will include:

A. A system that will also permit the entry and

comparison of precinct accountability data, with the

notation of exceptions.

5. Complete and deliver Module 5, a Reporting Subsystem, by

April 30, 1990, which will include the following:

A. The capability to publish election results in print

and electronic formats.

B. A capacity to generate other reports such as Canvass,

Precinct by Precinct, Area, and Votes by Major voter

Groups.

6. The SERVICE PROVIDER shall provide both the County and the

State with documentation that will meet the requirements

of State Certification. This will include at a minimum a

user guide or training manual and system documentation.

7. The SERVICE PROVIDER shall provide the County and the

State Division of Elections with a copy of all source

codes.

8. The SERVICE PROVIDER agrees that the completed ETNet

system must operate in an IBM or compatible PC
Appendix 8 - g.

environment, utilizing MS-DOS and OS/2 operating systems,

and an IBM Token Ring network architecture.

9. The SERVICE PROVIDER agrees that a total payment for the

development of the ETNet system shall be $59,000.00, to be

paid in increments of $5,900 per completed module, up to

$29,500.00. The remaining $29,500.00 shall be paid upon

certification of the system by the State Division of

Elections. At such time the system becomes the property

of Dade County for its use and modification.

10. The certification of the system by the State Division of

Elections is the responsibility of the SERVICE PROVIDER,

as such, if certification is not obtained by the SERVICE

PROVIDER it is agreed that the final payment of $29,500.00

for system development will be withheld.

11. The SERVICE PROVIDER agrees that if certification by the

State Division of Elections is not obtained by

September 30, 1990, any other obligation by either party

will be null and void.

12. In the event that the system is not certified by the State

Division of Elections by September 30, 1990, the modules

that are received and paid for become the property of Dade

County for its use and/or modification.

13. The SERVICE PROVIDER agrees to continue maintenance of the

system software through September 30, 1990. Thereafter,

the SERVICE PROVIDER shall provide a maximum of 120 hours

of programming for the system @ $45 per hour, for a period

not to exceed 12 months.

14. Additionally, the SERVICE PROVIDER agrees to be available

to provide technical assistance as an Election's

Department standby technician upon the request of the

COUNTY, at a total cost not to exceed $12,500.00, the

first year, for not more than five elections.
Appendix 8 - h.

ARTICLE II

Responsibilities of the County

The COUNTY shall:

1. Assign an Assistant Supervisor of Elections as the

contract monitor, who shall:

A. Be the individual who is responsible for monitoring

and evaluating the SERVICE PROVIDER'S performance

under the Terms and Conditions of this AGREEEMENT.

B. Approve all payments to the SERVICE PROVIDER on the

basis of properly submitted invoices for services

rendered.

2. Acquire and supply all of the equipment that will be

required to establish and test the ETNet system.

This equipment will include, but is not necessarily

limited to five (5) PC's, four (4) controller boards, a

token ring connection and four (4) card readers.

3. Determine and test the communications specifications;

install the hardware and develop the software program that

will link the ETNet with the County's IBM 4 341

teleprocessing system and or host computer.

4. Develop a program that will include a capacity to download

precinct and registration information from the County's

mainframe registration files for the purposes of ballot

definition, according to the file specifications defined

by the SERVICE PROVIDER.

5. Establish a communications protocol to accept election's

results from the tabulation network for purposes of

teleprocessing and report publication. The network-to-host

communication will be established through mutually

acceptable software protocols.
Appendix 8 - i.

6. It is mutually agreed that this AGREEMENT excludes any

hardware requirements for the system, as well as those

items of software which are available under county

contract.

ARTICLE III

Terms of Payment by the County

The County shall pay the SERVICE PROVIDER up to

$76,900.00 for the provision of the services described herein.

This compensation shall be inclusive of all expenses and

costs.

A payment totaling $29,500.00 shall be made to the

SERVICE PROVIDER for the development of the software and shall

be made on the receipt of a status report and invoice for

services rendered. Invoices for payment will be submitted at

the completion of each of the separate modules defined in

Article I, Sections 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. in the amount of $5,900 per

module.

A final payment of $29,500.00 for the development of the

system will be withheld until such time as the State of

Florida, Division of Elections, certifies the ETNet system.

The SERVICE PROVIDER understands and agrees that the balance

will not be payable until such time as the State certifies

ETNet and recognizes that payment is not due if the State does

not certify the ETNet system, -{reference Article I, sections

8, 9).

Payment for maintenance programming not to exceed

$5,400.00 will be made upon receipt of invoice for programming

completed.

Payment for election standby technical assistance will be

made upon receipt of invoice at a rate of $2,500.00 per

election and shall not exceed $12,500.00 the first year.
Appendix 8 - j ,

ARTICLE IV

Proprietary Nature of Product

This AGREEMENT does not diminish the proprietary and

copyrights of the SERVICE PROVIDER to any aspect of the ETNet

system, with the exception of all customized references to the

COUNTY, and subject to the requirements of the Florida Public

Records Act.

The COUNTY shall have the right to modify and change the

completed system to suit its own specifications. The COUNTY

agrees that it will not reproduce the tabulation program for

resale.

ARTICLE V

Indemnification

The SERVICE PROVIDER shall indemnify and save the COUNTY

harmless from any all claims, liability, losses and causes of

action which may arise out of the fulfillment of the AGREEMENT

as a result of the SERVICE PROVIDER'S acts of negligence or

omission, or infringement of patents or copyrights. The

SERVICE PROVIDER shall pay all claims and losses of any nature

whatever in connection therewith, and shall defend all suits,

in the name of the County when applicable, and shall pay all

costs and judgements which may issue thereon.

ARTICLE VI

Professional Independence o-f- the SERVICE PROVIDER

The SERVICE PROVIDER is, and shall remain, an independent

professional with respect to all services performed under this

AGREEMENT; he is not an agent, employee or representative of

the COUNTY, nor does he have authority to act on behalf of the

COUNTY or any of its agencies. No partnership relationship

between the COUNTY and the SERVICE PROVIDER is created or

intended by this AGREEMENT. No associate or employee of the
Appendix 8 - k.

SERVICE PROVxDER shall be deemed to be an employee of the

COUNTY for any purpose whatsoever.

ARTICLE VII

Assignment

This is a contract for unique personal services and the

SERVICE PROVIDER'sS obligations hereunder are not assignable.

The SERVICE PROVIDER shall not assign, transfer, pledge,

hypothecate, surrender, or otherwise encumber or dispose of

any of his rights under this contract, or any interest in any

portion of same, without the prior written consent of the

COUNTY.

ARTICLE VIII

Cancellation or Termination

Either party shall have the right to terminate this

AGREEMENT, in whole or in part, upon 60 calendar days prior

written notice by registered mail. In the event of

cancellation of the contract by the COUNTY, the COUNTY agrees

to reimburse the SERVICE PROVIDER for work performed, at a

rate of $45.00 per hour, but not to exceed $5,900 for any

single module. In the event of cancellation of the contract

by the SERVICE PROVIDER, the conditions of Article I, Sections

10, 11, and 12 will apply.

ARTICLE IX

Conflict of Interest

The SERVICE PROVIDER agrees to abide and be governed by

Dade County ordinances which may have a bearing on the

services involved in this AGREEMENT, including, but not

necessarily limited to, Section 2-11.1 of the Dade County Code

(Conflict of Interest Ordinance), as amended. Copies of the

Ordinances will be furnished to the SERVICE PROVIDER upon

request.
Appendi x 8-1 .

ARTICL E X

Paragraph Headings

The paragraph headings appearing herein shall not be

deemed to govern, limit, modify or in any manner affect the

scope, meaning or intent of the provisions of this AGREEMENT.

No representations or warranties shall be binding upon either

party unless expressed in writing herein.

ARTICLE XI

Modifications

This AGREEMENT may not be altered, changed or modified

except by or with the written consent of the COUNTY and

approved by appropriate action of the Board of County

Commissioners.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this

AGREEMENT to be executed by their respective and duly authorized

officers the day and year first above written.

KENNETH P. HAZLETT
Appendix 9

Voting System

Needs Analysis

in a Small County

Election Director

Queen Anne's County

Maryland

Appendix 9 - a.

-THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF ELECTIONS

Fo r OjLieexx Arxcv& ' s CouxxtlY

. O . Box 2*74

Centreville

December, 1995

SHOUP MACHINES VS OPTICAL SCAN VOTING SYSTEM

presented to Queen Anne's County Commissioners

Michael F. Zi miner

Mark Belton

George M. O'Donnell

As you are well aware, Queen Anne's County is growing in

population. In the last ten years the increase has been about

35% or a rate of 3.5% a year. Increased population obviously

translates into a larger voting registration for our office to

service. In addition to the normal growth perspective, we are

confronted with the realization of the implementation of the

FEDERAL MOTOR VOTER ACT in 1995. Although we are not sure of all

the ramifications of this Act, we are sure the number of

registrations and subsequent voting numbers will be substantially

increased. This act eliminates the current policy of purging

voters from voter rolls if they have not voted within the past

five years.

Queen Anne's County is utilizing 40 year old technology to meet

the needs of the election process. The Shoup machines first

manufactured in 1953, are no longer being produced. To acquire

additional machines means that we have to purchase renovated

equipment. Companies available to provide service and parts are

becoming increasingly hard to find. Each election cycle, we seem

to be facing changes that impact not only an Increased number of

workers, advertising and printing costs, but the increased demand

for more voting machines.

As a prelude to the inevitable process of upgrading the system to

one that will be available and utilize computer technology, the

Election Board attended a demonstration of the Optech HIP Eagle

system provided by Business Records. Corporation and a

demonstration of Global's ACCU Vote" 2000 provided by Electee Inc.

These systems have been reviewed and are certified for use in the

State of Maryland. In fact there has been a major migration by

other Maryland subdivisions to the system offered by Business

Records Corp.; Anne Arundel, Baltimore County, Carroll, Cecil,

Charles, Frederick, Garrett, Harford, Howard, Kent, Talbot, St

Mary's, Washington, Wicomico and Worcester.

Please note, there are only three counties in the State that are

still using SHOUP voting machines: Caroline, Queen Anne's and

Somerset.
Appendix 9 - b.

page 2

We are providing a comparison of costs and problems associated

with continued us of the Shoup machines as contrasted with the

acquisition of an Optical Scan Voting system. Please be aware

since this was last proposed to the Commissioners there is

another Vendor available which could greatly enhance

our negotiating powers. Business Records' contract with Cecil

County included $500.00 in trade, for each of their Shoup

Machines.

"COMPARISONS"

I. SHOUP VOTING MACHINES

A. Past History

1. First machines purchased in 1954

2. Last new machines manufactured in late 1950's

3. Present machine count is 64

4. Average age of our machines is 40 years old

8. Current Facts

1. No new parts are being manufactured for Shoup

machines

2. To obtain replacement parts, one must either

cannibalize other machines or rely on our one

vender.

3. There is a need for at least four Custodians.

4. Maintenance/Repair cost should begin to increase

greatly. At the present time, all of the machines

need Micro switches.

5. The County must now provide storage space for the

Shoup machines.

6. More machines will be needed in the next seven

years because of the increase in registration.

7. The machines are extremely large and heavy, which

makes transporting difficult and costly.

8. Shoup machines are NOT handicap accessible
Appendix 9 - c.

page 3

II. Introduction to Optical Scan Equipment

A. OPTECH HI P EAGLE manufactured by Business Records

Corporation

1. Certified by the State of Maryland

2. System was leased by Carroll, Harford, Frederick,

Kent, Wicomico, and Washington Counties for use in

the 1994 Elections.

3. The system has already been used in Anne Arundel,

Howard and Worcester Counties for a number of

years.

4. The system has been leased by Baltimore County,

Cecil, Charles, Garrett, Talbot and St. Mary's

for use in the 1996 Elections.

B. Accu-Vote ES2000 manufactured by Global Election Systems

1. Certified by the State of Maryland

2. At the present time, the system is not being used

by any County in the State of Maryland.

C. Features of an Optical Scan System

1. Can handle multiple polling locations, enabling us

to handle up to four precincts on one machine.

2. Global System has a battery backup in case of

power failure.

3. Are handicap accessible

4. Provides a permanent record for a complete audit

trail.

D. Advantages to Converting to an Optical Scan System

1. Only 1 (one) machine would be required, per

polling place.

2. Each machine can accommodate up to 10,000 voters

(Please Note: Per State regulations, we must

furnish one Shoup machine for every 400

registered voters)

3. No Custodial personnel needed since the Vendor

would provide technical support. Eliminating four

or five people.
page 4 Appendix 9 - d.

4. Vendor Mould store the machines, thus fre ing the

storage area for County use.

5. The staff would be trained to program the actual

electronic systems.

6. Vendor would train all pollworkers

7. No transportation costs since delivery would be

handled by Vendor.

8. Global would provide printed Ballots for both the

Polls and Absentee and also furnish the printed AB

ballot envelopes for each election, thus reducing

the printing cost radically.

9. The expense of additional compensation for extra

help to count absentee ballot would be eliminated.

10. Decrease of Election Judges after the first year of

use.

11. Simplified and instant election returns. Modems

would be provided at each polling place and

transmit results to the Election Office shortly

after the polls closed. Provides for audit trail

reconciliation in the event of a recount.

12. Compact and portable

13. Voter friendly - allows voters to cast their vote

without learning how to operate a machine.

14. Certain supplies furnished by Vendor.
Appendix 9 - e.

page 5

III. COMPARISON COSTS - based n seven elections in the n xt

seven fiscal years

ELECTION SCHEDULE FOR NEXT 7 FISCAL YEARS

NOVEMBER PRES. GENERAL

NO ELECTIONS

LOCAL PRIMARY and GENERAL

NO ELECTIONS

PRES. PRIMARY and GENERAL

NO ELECTIONS

LOCAL PRIMARY and GENERAL

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

- 1

- 0

- 2

- 0

- 2

- 0

- 2

A. Shoup Voting Machines

1. Transporting machines $14,000

2. Custodians $30,000

3. Election Judges $140,000

4. Heat - storage building $9,000

5. Phone - storage building $3,200

6. Insurance for machines $6,600

7. Parts for machines $6,000

8. Printing $10,000

9. Supplies $3,500

10. Purchase of used Shoup machines $3,000

TOTAL $225,300

B. Comparison of Optech HIP Eagle and Global ACCU VOTE

Eagle based on Proposal submitted Oct. 1994

ACCU VOTE based on proposal submitted July, 1995

EAGLE ACCU VOTE

1. Seven year lease -

Full service rental plan $248,500 $221,928

2. Pollworkers - After first year

Est. reduction of workers 45X $ 77,000 77,000

3. Cost of Printing Ballots i .i S 34,125

4. Cost of Printing AB Envelopes S 5,000

TOTAL $364,500 $298,928
Appendix 9 - g.

page 2

Ill-P Eagle

11. Security of unit on ballot box?

The voting unit can not be locked into place on top of the ballot box.

The unit is fastened to the ballot box by the use of latches.

12. Printing of ballot material ?

It is very unlikely an outside Printer could be used since they would

have to be Certified with Business Records, use the blank ballot

shells and purchase equipment from them to test the printed ballots.

Fear not, Business Records just happens to own a printing

company, who would be more than happy to accommodate

everyone. The ballot layout is done by the printer and from this the

election office staff programs the election data on the software

provided by Vendor.

13. Cost of mailing absentee ballot envelopes?

$ .78 or more for mailing each ballot. The envelopes used for

absentee ballots are oversized, resulting in a higher postage cost.

The current AB envelopes could not be utilized.

14. Does the system provide complete privacy in the voting booth?

Apparently not. The number one criticism of voters was, their

secrecy\privacy was gone.

15. Complexity of operating the unit?

The voting unit was relatively easy to operate. The potentiality of

ballots jamming, requiring a technician, could present a real

problem.

16. What marking device can be used to cast votes?

Only a black felt tip carbon pen or a #2 pencil can be read by the

optical scanner.
Appendix 9 - h.

Criteria for Evaluation of New Voting System

Accu-Vote ES2000

1. Cost?

$30,518.00 per year for 7 years

2. Number of Units?

14 Units

3. Number of Booths?

118 voting booths

4. Is the printing of ballots included?

YES, The cost of printing the ballots is included.

5. Are printed Absentee Ballots envelopes supplied?

YES, printing on all the absentee ballot envelops is included.

6. Is there a power supply to provide uninterrupted voting?

YES, each unit is already equipped with a built-in power supply to

provide uninterrupted voting in case of power failure.

7. How are error messages displayed at the polls?

Unobstructed visibility of a LCD message screen which is located on

the front of the unit. The Zero Tape is confined in a lockable

compartment on top of the unit.

8. What is the weight of each unit?

The Accu-Vote ES2000 weighs 14 pounds.

9. Access to voted ballot in ballot box?

The voted ballots are easily retrieved from the unit by using the rear

door on the ballot box.

10. Does the machine accept non-ballot material?

No, the Accu-Vote does not accept non ballot material.

11. Security of unit on ballot box?

The voting unit is locked into place on top of the ballot box.
Appendix 9 - f.

Criteria for Evaluation of New Voting Sysiem

BRC • IMP Eagle

1. Cost?

$33,000 per year for 7 years

2. Number of Units?

12 units

3. Number of Booths?

102 voting booths

4. Is the printing of ballots included?

NO. Only the ballot shells are provided for in the cost. The election

Board is responsible for paying for the printing of the ballots.

5. Are printed Absentee Ballots envelopes supplied?

NO. Only the unprinted envelopes are provided, the election Board

must pay to have them imprinted.

6. Is there a power supply to provide uninterrupted voting?

NO, however, for an additional cost back-up batteries are

available, which would allow uninterrupted voting in the case of a

power failure.

7. How are error messages displayed?

Whenever the unit has a problem with reading a ballot or detects an

overvoted ballot, the message is recorded on a tape. The Election

JudgeWoter reads the message and follows the instructions given as

to the destination of the ballot.

8. What is the weight of each unit?

The HIP Eagle weighs 47 pounds.

9. Access to voted ballots in ballot box?

The ballots are very difficult to retrieve from this ballot box.

10. Does the machine accept non-ballot material?

Yes. The unit would accept non-ballot material, causing it to jam.
Appendix 9 - i.

page 2

Accu-Vote ES2000

12. Printing of ballot material ?

The printing of ballots is included in the cost. Ballot artwork is

generated on software provided by Vendor, in the election office by

the staff, and then sent to the printer on a PostScript floppy disk.

13. Cost of mailing absentee ballot envelopes?

The cost to mail an absentee ballot is $ .55 and the current AB

envelopes can be used for mailing.

14. Does the system provide complete privacy in the voting booth?

Yes, because the voting booths have a curtain surrounding them.

15. Complexity of operating the unit?

The voting unit was relatively easy to operate. Jams are effortless

to correct.

16. What marking device can be used to cast votes?

The optical scanner can read any marking device except red or

yellow.
COST FOR 7 YEAR FULL SERVICE

NUMBER OF UNITS

NEW APPLICATIONS

UNIT SIZE

WEIGHT OF UNIT

BALLOT BOX SIZE

MESSAGE DISPLAY SCREEN

UNDERWRITERS LAB. APPROVED

VOTIN G SYSTEM COMPARISON SUMMARY

B R C IIir> Ea^rle — ACCU — VOTE 2OOO VS SHOUE»

FOR USE IN THE POLLS AND ABSENTEE VOTING

< TO LEASE > TO OPERATE

EAGLE(BRC) ACCU-VOTE SHOUP

CERTIFIED IN THE STATE OF MARYLAND YES YES YES

* 33,000 YR.

12 MACHINES

LIMITED

$ 31,704 YR.

14 MACHINES

UPGRADABLE

$ 32.185 YR.

64 MACHINES

N/A

22.5"D X 19"W X 7.5"H 16"D X 14"W X 3"H 36"D X 54"W X 78"H

47 LBS. 14 LBS. 1000 (APPROX.)

40"D X 24"W X 30.5"H 24"D X 24"W X 38"H N/A

LED

(DISPLAYED ONLY CN TAPE)

NO

LCD N/A

(DISPLAYS OH FACE OF MACHINE)

13

D

a.

YES N/A

BALLOT FEED PATH 4.5' N/A
PAGE 2

UNINTERRUPTED POWER SUPPLY

INTERNAL MODEM CAPABILITY

STANDARD BALLOT SIZE

COLUMNS PER SIDE

MEMORY DEVICE

INTEGRATED AUTO FEEDER

BALLOT TRANSFER CASES

VOTING BOOTHS W/LIGHT

ABSENTEE BALLOT ENVELOPES (3)

BALLOT SHELLS AND PRINTING OF BALLOTS

SECRECY FOLDERS FOR VOTED BALLOTS
PAGE 3

TRAINING OF POLL WORKERS

ON SITE ELECTION DAY SUPPORT

STORAGE OF UNITS, BOXES & BOOTHS

MAINTENANCE OF UNITS

DELIVERY & PICKUP OF UNITS

METHOD USED TO MARK BALLOT

DEMONSTRATION BALLOTS

OPERATIONAL MANUAL FOR POLLWORKERS

BALLOT JAMS

HEAT FOR STORAGE BUILDING

PHONE FOR STORAGE BUILDING

INSURANCE FOR MACHINES
Appendix 10

Model Contract for a

Punchcard Voting System

State Election Commission

Indiana

Appendix 10 - a.

MODEL CONTRACT

Approved by Indiana Voting Systems Advisory,Committee

October 14, 1993

This agreement, entered into on the day of

199_, by and between the Board of

Commissioners of , County, State of Indiana,

(hereinafter "County Commissioners"), on behalf of ,

County, State of Indiana (hereinafter "County"), and

(hereinafter "Company"), is

executed due to consideration of the following mutual covenants,

terms, conditions and promises.

A. EQUIPMENT AND PRODUCTS

1. SALE OR LEASE TERMS

Company agrees to provide computer equipment, hardware, peripheral

equipment and other products (hereinafter "equipment and products")

as identified (with a price schedule per unit) in Addendum A of

this contract to County by , 199 .

County agrees to accept equipment and products identified in

Addendum A under the following terms (designated by an "X") :

(a) SALE OF EQUIPMENT. Company agrees to sell and the

County agrees to buy the equipment and products of

Company specified in Addendum A, for a total purchase

price of $ .

(b) INSTALLMENT SALE OF EQUIPMENT. Company agrees to sell

and the County agrees to buy the equipment and products

of Company specified in Addendum-A, for a total purchase

price of $ .

The County agrees to make purchase payments to the Company on

the following dates and in the following amounts:

At all times during the terms of this Agreement, the

installment provisions of this subsection (b) are subject to

adequate appropriation of funds by the County Council of the

County for payment of future installment sums and the

availability of funding for the obligations contained in this

Contract.
Appendix 10 - b.

Payments of interest and reduction of principal are to be

made beginning with the first payment on : ,

199_, and payments shall continue on those days specified

until , , when the

balance of the purchase price together with interest as

shown in this Contract shall be paid in full as the final

payment.

Interest shall be computed at a rate of %

per annum on balance outstanding on the date of each

payment as provided in this Contract.

Payments first apply to interest due and owing at the time of

payment. Any remaining amounts are applied to the reduction of

principal.

(c) SECURITY AGREEMENT. If this section is separately

executed by the parties below, the County grants to the

Company a security interest in the equipment and

products, and the proceeds thereof, to secure all sums

owing pursuant to this Agreement. The County authorizes

the Company to sign and file, without the County's

signature, a financing statement or statements on its

behalf in those public offices deemed necessary by the

Company to perfect its security interest granted herein.

In addition, the County agrees to do such other acts and

things and deliver or cause to be delivered such other

documents as the Company may reasonably deem necessary to

establish and maintain a valid security interest in the

equipment and products. The parties agree that upon

payment of all sums owing to the Company from the County

pursuant to this Agreement, the Company shall release

this security agreement and financing statements relating

to the equipment and products.

Dated:

(Company)

Dated:

(County)

(d) LEASE OF EQUIPMENT. Company agrees to lease to the

County and the County agrees to lease from the Company

the equipment and products specified in Addendum A for a

total lease price of $ per year. County

agrees to make lease payments to the Company on the

following dates and in the following amounts:
Appendix 10 - c.

B. SERVICE TERMS FOR SALE OR LEASE OF EQUIPMENT

AND PRODUCTS (OPTIONAL)

Company agrees to provide the following services for the equipment

and products listed in Addendum "A" for a term beginning on

and continuing until

The service agreement as set forth in Section 2 is not subject to

IC 36-1-9.

(a) MAINTENANCE AND INSPECTION. In exchange for a

maintenance fee of $ per year for the

entire term of this Agreement, which County shall pay to

Company no later than each year,

Company shall maintain the equipment and products in good

working order for use at elections.

The maintenance fee includes all time and labor necessary to

keep the equipment and products in good working condition

during the terms of this Agreement.

Company has the right to inspect any equipment and products at

any time before or during the term of this Agreement. Company

shall also inspect the equipment and products at the request

of County to ensure that the equipment and products are

maintained in good working order. Company shall complete all

inspections requested by the County within ten (10) working

days. The compensation for work performed by Company under

this Paragraph is included in the maintenance fee under the

first paragraph of this subsection (a).

In addition to the regular maintenance operations required by

this Agreement, the Company shall, not later than five (5) but

not earlier than forty (40) days before any election at which

the equipment is to be used, inspect and test the equipment to

ensure that the equipment is in good working order.
Appendix 10 - d.

Company shall supply all parts and labor necessary to maintain

the equipment and products in good working condition, free of

charge. All parts supplied by Company shall be either new

standard parts or parts of reasonable quality, and shall be

substituted and exchanged for the old parts, which become the

property of Company. The Company is responsible for the

installation of the parts described by this paragraph. The

Company must use any authorized repair person necessary to

retain any manufacturer's warranty in full force and effect.

[The Company shall train County personnel to properly install

the parts supplied by Company.]

(b) MANUALS. Company agrees to prepare and to furnish to

the County, at no additional cost, manuals describing the

design, operation and required maintenance of the

equipment and products. The manuals shall be written so

as to be understandable to a lay person. -

Company shall update the manuals and provide updated manuals

to the County, free of charge, after each and every

modification of the equipment and products by the Company for

a term of [xxxxx] years after this contract is executed.

(C) DELIVERY, DEMONSTRATION. On or before

Company shall deliver the equipment,

products and manuals to

at the

following location:

Company shall set up, test, correct problems and errors and

make operational the equipment and products, and shall on

(hereinafter "date of

demonstration"), demonstrate that the equipment and products

function and are in good working order for use at elections to

those persons selected by the County Election Board.

(d) STORAGE. After initial delivery, Company shall

provide storage for the equipment and products, when

requested by County, at a fee of $ per

month for the entire term of the" Agreement.

At the time requested, the Company shall re-deliver the

specific equipment consigned to it, without substitution.

Company shall not permit any use of the equipment in storage

for any purpose, without specific written permission of

County.
Appendix 10 - e.

(e) TRAINING OF ELECTION OFFICIALS. In exchange for a

training fee of $ per election year, to be

paid no later than of the

election year, for the entire term of this Agreement,

Company shall train those persons selected by the County

in the following areas:

This training is limited to instruction in the mechanics of

the functions listed in this section and shall not include any

legal or policy advice relating to the conduct of elections.

(f) SUPPORT SERVICES. In addition to the maintenance fee

paid by County to Company, Company shall render the

following support services for the entire term of this

Agreement, at each election, in exchange for the

following fees:

(1) Design the ballot booklet(s) for the election (s) to be

held , for a fee of

$ per election. The Company shall have the

ballot booklet design ready at least days before the

corresponding election.

(2) Print the ballot(s) and ballot booklet(s) for the

election (s) to be held , for a fee

of $ per election. The Company shall deliver the

printed ballot(s) or ballot booklets to

at least

days before the corresponding election.

(3) Prepare the ballot masks for the election (s) to be

held , for a fee of

$ per election. The Company shall have the

ballot masks prepared at least days before the

corresponding election.

(4) Crimp the page(s) for the election(s) to be held

for" a fee of $ per

election. Company shall have the ballot pages crimped at least

days before the corresponding election. The

Company shall crimp and deliver all ballot pages delivered to

it by the County [or the Secretary of State].
Appendix 10 - f.

(5) Assemble the marking units for the election(s) to be

held , for a fee of %.

per election. Company shall have the assembled marking units

ready at least days prior to the

corresponding election.

(6) Develop parameters for elected offices and public

questions, and program cartridges for the programming of the

equipment, for each election(s) to be held during the entire

term of this Agreement, for a fee of $ per

election. The Company shall have the parameters ready at least

days prior to the corresponding election.

(7) Assist the election officers in tabulating the vote, in

accordance with IC 3-12-1 and 15 IAC, at the election(s) to be

held for a fee of $ per

election.

(8) for the

election(s) to be held ,

for a fee of $ per election.

(9) for the election(s)

to be held for a fee of

$ per election.

[In the alternative, Company is required to assist a vendor

designated by County in designing, producing, and delivering the

printed products described under (f).]

g. SPECIAL ELECTION DAY SERVICES. For each election to be

held in which the products and or equipment are to be

utilized by County, Company agrees, in exchange for a

special services fee of $ per election, which

County shall pay to the Company not later than

( ) days before the corresponding

election, to have available on election day sufficient

staff, spare parts and replacement equipment to perform

any emergency repair or support services that County may

request within ( ) hours of the

request, including furnishing, installing, and making

operational any back-up equipment.
Appendix 10 - g.

C.SOFTWARE

1. TERMS

Company grants the County a non-transferrable and nonexclusive

license to do the following:

a. Use, load, execute or store the computer programs

listed in Addendum B (hereinafter "licensed programs")

and each copy, update or modification or any or all

licensed programs.

b. Use all "support documentation" designated as any

diagrams, manuals, instructions, and other similar

materials, and any copies of any of the foregoing,

related to the Licensed Programs and delivered to County

in accordance with this License.

c. Have one (1) back-up copy of the licensed programs,

supplied by Company to County.

In consideration of this License, County shall pay Company the

following:

1. An initial license fee of $ , (the "License

Fee"), which shall be invoiced on the date the Licensed

Programs are delivered to County and which is non-refundable

after the County accepts the Licensed Programs as provided in

subsection C.4.

2. Within thirty (30) days after each anniversary of the

delivery of the Licensed Programs until termination of this

License, a subscription fee of $ (the

"Subscription Fee") which extends the terms of this Agreement

for an additional twelve (12) months and which entitles the

County to receive updates as provided in subsection C.4.

However, Company may increase the subscription Fee by giving County

at least one (1) month written notrce before the due date for

payment of the fee. County then has the right to terminate this

Agreement and its obligation to pay the new subscription fee by

giving the Company ten (10) days written notice. The subscription

fee may not be increased by more than [xxx%] or to an amount that

exceeds [$xxxxx]
Appendix 10 - h.

2 . TITLE

County acknowledges that title to all intellectual property

rights, including patent, trademark, copyright and trade secret

rights, and title to all ownership rights in all copies of media

bearing the Licensed Programs and Support Documentation, is

retained by Company.

3. DELIVERY: MATERIALS, FORM, TIME

Subject to conditions beyond its reasonable control, Company

shall deliver two (2) copies of the Licensed Programs in machinereadable object code and related Support Documentation to County no

later than thirty (30) days after Company and County execute this

Agreement. Company bears the cost of such delivery.

4. RISK OF LOSS

Company relieves County of responsibility for all risk of loss

or damage to the Licensed Programs and Support Documentation

occurring during shipment.

If the Licensed Programs or Support Documentation are lost or

damaged after delivery to County, Company will replace the Licensed

Programs or Support Documentation at Company's then applicable

charges for the replacement.

5. INSTALLATION AND TRAINING

(a) Company shall assist County in installing the Licensed

Programs on designated machines and shall train County's employees

in the use of the Licensed Programs for the period and in the

following manner:

Additional training and installation will be provided by

Company if requested by County at Company's then applicable charges

for such training and installation.
Appendix 10 - i.

(b) County shall prepare the designated sites to permit proper

installation of the Licensed Programs, particularly with respect to

electric power and ambient conditions. County is responsible for

the compatibility of the designated machine supplied to Company by

County.

6. MODIFICATIONS AND UPDATES

(a) If Company makes updates or modifications to the Licensed

Programs during the term of this License, including those changes

which require recertification by the Indiana State Election Board,

Company agrees to provide these updates to County, along with

related Support Documentation, free of charge.

(b) If Company makes enhancements to the Licensed Programs

during the term of this License, Company agrees to offer the

enhancements to County if the offer would not violate any agreement

with any other customers of Company. Additional license fees for

each enhancement will be negotiated with County when the

enhancement is offered.

(c) County agrees to use the updated Licensed Programs

delivered to the County by the Company. If new copies of the

Licensed Programs with updates or enhancements are delivered to

County by Company, County shall return all old copies of the

Licensed Programs to the Company within ten (10) days of delivery.

7. RESTRICTIONS ON DISSEMINATION

(a) County acknowledges that the Licensed Programs and Support

Documentation are confidential information which is the property

and trade secret of Company. County will take all reasonable steps

to maintain the confidentiality of this information.

(b) County shall not, without Company's prior written

permission, disclose, provide, or make available any of the

Licensed Programs or Support Documentation, in any form, to any

person, except to employees or consultants of the County whose

access is necessary to enable the County to exercise its rights

under this Agreement.

(c) County shall require an employee or consultant having such

access to agree to maintain the confidentiality of the Licensed

Programs and Support Documentation.
Appendix 10 - j,

8. COPYRIGHT AND COPYING

(a) Except as authorized in advance by Company, County shall

not copy all or any part of the Licensed Programs and Support

Documentation.

(b) County shall not permit any other person or organization

to copy any of the Licensed Programs or Support Documentation.

(c) All authorized copies delivered to County must include the

following legend:

Copyright by "Company" as an unpublished work

created in 199 and first licensed in 199 .

THIS COMPUTER PROGRAM AND DOCUMENTATION IS

CONFIDENTIAL, PROPRIETARY INFORMATION AND A

TRADE SECRET WHICH IS THE PROPERTY OF

"COMPANY". ALL USE, DISCLOSURE, OR

REPRODUCTION NOT EXPRESSLY AUTHORIZED

BY

IS PROHIBITED. THIS COMPUTER PROGRAM AND

DOCUMENTATION MAY ALSO BE PROTECTED UNDER THE

COPYRIGHT AND TRADE SECRET LAWS OF NON-U.S.

COUNTRIES. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.

(d) County shall not remove this legend from any Licensed

Programs or Support Documentation.

(e) County shall maintain a log of the number and location of

all originals and copies of the Licensed Programs and Support

Documentation. All copies of the Licensed Programs and Support

Documentation shall be kept only at a specified site designate by

County, unless Company provides written approval, at Company's

discretion, to County to maintain the copies at a location OLher

than the designated site.

10
Appendix 10 - k.

D. TERMS AND CONDITIONS APPLICABLE UNDER

SECTIONS A, B, AND C

1. RESPONSIBILITIES OF COUNTY

(a) County shall provide Company full access to the equipment

and products to perform any maintenance services required during

the term of this Agreement.

(b) If maintenance is performed at County's facilities, County

shall provide Company with adequate working space including heat,

light, ventilation, electric current and outlets, and adequate

storage space, if required by Company, for spare parts for

equipment and products.

The working space and storage space shall be within a

reasonable distance from the equipment and products, and shall be

provided by County to Company at no charge.

(c) If Company requests, County shall record, in reasonable

detail, operating information for equipment and products. The

records must adequately show the operating history of equipment and

products, including any history of malfunctions.

2. CONTRACT SUBJECT TO CERTIFICATION

This Agreement, in its entirety, imposes continuing

obligations on the parties to the Agreement, subject to Company

retaining certification for all equipment, products, or software

previously certified by the Indiana State Election Board, pursuant

to IC 3-11-7 or IC 3-11-7.5 and 15 IAC 1. If the equipment,

products or software is "decertified" or is no longer recognized as

certified by the State Election Board, this Agreement is rendered

null and void and no longer enforceable by Company.

3. FORCE MAJEURE

The Company, the County, or both, are excused from performance

under this Agreement for any period the Company or the County is

prevented from performing their respective obligations under this

Agreement in whole or in part as a result of an act of God, war,

civil disturbance, court order, labor dispute or other cause beyond

its reasonable control. This nonperformance is not a ground for

termination or default.

11
Appendix 10-1 ,

4 . WAIVER

Any waiver by either party of any provision of this Agreement

must be in writing, and does not imply subsequent waiver of that or

any other provision.

5. ARBITRATION

With respect to all matters contained in this Agreement

between Company and County, both parties shall use best efforts to

communicate and resolve issues and disputes where agreement can be

reached.

If either party is not satisfied with the resolution of any

issue or dispute or the issue or dispute cannot be resolved by the

parties, then either party may request that the dispute be

submitted to arbitration in accordance with the Commercial

Arbitration Rules of the American Arbitration Association. Judgment

upon the award rendered by the arbitrator may be entered in any

court having jurisdiction thereof.

All costs and expenses of the arbitration, including actual

attorney's fees, shall be paid by the non-prevailing party. The

party whose position prevails in the arbitration is entitled to

reimbursement from the other party of all sums, including actual

attorney's fees expended in connection with the arbitration. The

arbitrator's award resulting from the arbitration may be confirmed

and entered as final judgment in any court of competent

jurisdiction and enforced accordingly.

The parties expressly agree that proceeding to arbitration and

obtaining an award under arbitration is a condition precedent to

the bringing or maintaining of any action in any court with respect

to the dispute, except for the institution of a civil action to

maintain the status quo while an arbitration proceeding is pending.

6. NOTICES

Except as otherwise noted in this Agreement, any notice,

demand, request or other communication required to be given by

either party to the other party pursuant to this Agreement must be

in writing and mailed by first class mail, or certified mail,

return receipt requested, or transmitted by hand delivery, telegram

or telex, to the appropriate addresses as follows:

12
Appendix 10 - m.

or to such other address as either party may substitute by written

notice given in the manner prescribed in this paragraph.

Notice is considered given three (3) days after mailed, or at

the time it is actually delivered to the addressee or the attempted

delivery is refused by the addressee.

7. ASSIGNMENT

Neither party may, without prior written consent of the other

party, assign or otherwise transfer this Agreement, or any of the

rights or obligations under this Agreement, to a third party.

8. GOVERNING LAW

This Agreement shall be construed and enforced in accordance

with the laws of the State of Indiana.

9. ATTORNEY'S FEES

If litigation is commenced between the parties to this

Agreement concerning the terms of this Agreement, the equipment,

products, services, software or obligations described in the

Agreement, the prevailing party in such litigation is entitled, in

addition to the other relief that may be granted, to a reasonable

sum for attorney's fees in the litigation, which shall be

determined by the Court in the underlying litigation or in a

separate action brought for that purpose.

10. INDEMNITY

Company shall indemnify and hold harmless County from any and

all damages, judgments, liens, penalties and cost arising from a

breach of the terms contained in this"Agreement or negligence on

the past of Company in fulfilling the terms in this Agreement.

13
Appendix 10 - n

11. PERFORMANCE BOND

Company agrees to execute and deliver to County within thirty

(30) days after executing this Agreement, a satisfactory

performance bond in the amount equal to percent

( %) of the contract price.

[If Company demonstrates to County that it is impossible for

Company to obtain a performance bond on software described by this

agreement, Company agrees instead to pay liquidated damages to

County in the amount of $ per day for each day that Company

is in breach of this contract.]

12. WARRANTIES

Company warrants that the equipment, products and software

shall be merchantable within the meaning of IC 26-1-2-314 on the

date of execution of this Agreement for a period of five (5) years

from the date of execution of this Agreement.

Company also warrants that the equipment products and software

are suitable and fit within the meaning of IC 26-1-2-315 for a

period of five (5) years from the date of execution of this

Agreement for the purpose of providing the means for County to

conduct lawful election procedures. Company acknowledges that

County is purchasing the equipment, products and software in

reliance on the skill and judgment of Company.

13. COMPLETE AGREEMENT

This Agreement, including the attached exhibits, embodies the

entire contractual agreement of the parties with respect to the

subject matter hereof. This Agreement cannot be modified except by

written agreement signed by all parties to the Agreement.

Dated:

(Company)

Dated:

(County)

14
Appendix 11

Legal Memorandum and

Sample Provisions for a

Voting System Contract

Executive Director

State Election Board

New York

Appendix 11 - a .

NEW YORK STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS

August 31, 1989

MEMORANDU M

TO: Purchasers of Computerized Voting Equipment

FR: Deputy Counsel for Election Law Enforcement

Director of Election Operations

CONTRACT ISSUES FOR PURCHASE OF DIRECT ELECTRONIC EQUIPMENT:

1) Jurisdictions should review all statutory and regulatory

provisions.

NOTE: Not all provisions apply since they relate to SBOE

Certification Process.

2) Jurisdictions should review SBOE Certification Report

since recommendations are made to jurisdictions

purchasing that particular system.

3) Jurisdictions should review statistical data needed

for inclusion in/or preparation of contract issues:

* number of units to be purchased

» number of polling sites

* number of demonstration models desired

o number of voters in e.d.'s affected

s number of employees to be trained

a number of inspectors to be trained

» statistical details for ballot coding i.e. - number of

ballot styles

4) Jurisdictions/county board (if not the same) should draw

up schedule of events and key dates of provisions they

may need in contract. These would include:

* dates of delivery

« dates of SBOE acceptance testing

« built in timetable for correction of problems

* training schedule, employees, warehouse

personnel, inspectors, community based training

* pre-election activities: ballot coding deadlines,

delivery schedules, support schedules

* election day support schedules/details

The above are to be incorporated into the various

appendices of your contract.
Appendix 11 - b.

Use the same review format for Absentee System Contracts

with the inclusion of other key information such as:

» deadlines for supplying election coding

* deadlines for providing ballot stock to local printer

or if vendor is to do printing the deadlines for

supplying ballot proofs and final printing to county

board

County Boards will also need to review provisions of new

regulations (6209.11) recently adopted by the State Board since

some such provision may be required to be included in the contract

language.

DELIVERY AND ACCEPTANCE TESTING:

The vendor should be on-site in advance of acceptance testing

and during unpacking and assembly. Vendor should also supply

details of unpacking and assembly and remain on-site throughout the

acceptance testing process to answer questions and correct minor

deficiencies. The company should specify the name and title of

employees to be on-site during this process.

TRAINING;

Vendor shall specify the names and titles of those employees

involved in the training process. Buyer should specify the number

of hours of training prior to unpacking of equipment and for

training of office, warehouse and inspector personnel. Vendor

shall deliver required manuals (operational and inspector training)

to county board prior to required training for review prior to

actual training.

The Buyer may want to propose additional demonstration/

training for community/political groups prior to using new

equipment in election. The training schedule may want to document

this.

The following topics be added to contract language: (all

apply to first year of operation)

WARRANTY

Pursuant to statute and regulations, all equipment and

components are to be warranted for five years by the seller. This

should be made clear in your contract clause specifying the

consideration (price to be paid) to the vendor for the equipment,

warranty, training, etc. You may wish to schedule out payments

because of the ongoing relationship, or to pay in one lump sum.

The particulars are within the discretion of the parties, so long

as maintenance and warranty clauses are included as a part of the

contract.
Appendix 11 - c.

PRE-ELECTION SUPPORT;

The vendor should be required to be on-site during the

following pre-election timetable during the first year of

operation:

a delivery of coded ballot cartridges

» installation of cartridges

» pre-election testing of ballot coding

» delivery of equipment to polling sites

« final check of equipment prior to election day

The vendor should be required to supply the number of

employees to be made available for this process, their names and

titles, and the number of hours on-site.

ELECTION DAY SUPPORT:

The vendor should be required to adhere to a mutually agreed

schedule of support for election day activities. The vendor should

be required to list names and titles of all personnel they will

make available on election day to the purchasing jurisdiction.

POST-ELECTION DAY SUPPORT:

The vendor should agree that if in the event of problems on

election day (if problems are determined by the county board or

SBOE) that all personnel will remain on-site until problems have

been resolved. The vendor should agree that in the event of any

problems on election day, a full and detailed report will be made

to the jurisdiction with an appropriate schedule for remedial

action.

These are some suggestions to help you in the preparation of

your contracts for the purchase of computerized voting equipment.

We have also prepared some standardized contract provisions to tak

care of clauses required to be in all purchase contracts. Finally,

the staff of the State Board of Elections is available to assist

you during the purchase process.
Appendix 11 - d,

MEMORANDUM

TO: Purchasers of Computerized Voting Equipment

FROM; New York State Board of Elections

RE; Contracts for Voting Equipment

DATE: August 31, 1989

Attached you will find sample contract provisions

prepared by the New York State Board of Elections for use in the

preparation of instruments .for the acquisition of electronic voting

equipment. We have also prepared a check list of issues you should

review before purchasing equipment.

These provisions were prepared in accordance with Parts

62 09.9 and 6209.10 of the Board's regulations regarding such

purchases. While you are not bound to include this exact language,

equivalent terminology must be contained in your contracts.

Paragraphs designated with a ** are not statutorily required but

strongly recommended for inclusion.

Finally> please remember that all contracts for the

purchase of voting machines must be submitted to the New York State

Board of Elections for approval subject to the terms of §7-2 04 of

the Election Law.

Should you have any questions regarding the preparation

of these contracts, contact Patricia Murray, Deputy Counsel for

Election Law Enforcement, at 518-474-6367.

NOTE: WHAT FOLLOWS ARE PROVISIONS FOR INCLUSION INTO

CONTRACTS FOR THE PURCHASE OF COMPUTERIZED VOTING EQUIPMENT

PREPARED BY THE STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS PURSUANT TO §7-204 OF THE

ELECTION LAW AND Part 6209 OF THE BOARD'S REGULATIONS. THESE

PROVISIONS DO NOT REPRESENT A COMPLETE CONTRACT FOR THE PURCHASE

OF EQUIPMENT. YOUR BOARD MAY WISH TO USE THESE CLAUSES AS

GUIDELINES FOR YOUR OWN CONTRACT PROVISIONS. IN ANY EVENT, YOUR

BOARD SHOULD REVIEW THESE PROVISIONS, THE STATUTE AND REGULATIONS

WITH THE COUNTY ATTORNEY OR OTHER APPROPRIATE AUTHORITY BEFORE

SUBMITTING A CONTRACT TO THE STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS FOR APPROVAL.
Appendix 11 - e.

STATUTORY COMPLIANCE

This contract has been drawn so as to comply with all

applicable provisions of the New York State Election Law, and

regulations promulgated thereto. Specifically, this contract has

been drawn and will be administered pursuant to §7-204 of the

Election Law and shall not be effective until at least ten days

after it shall have been submitted to the State Board of Elections.

If, during such ten-day period, the State Board of Elections

notifies Buyer that the contract does not meet the requirements of

the Election Law or the Regulations of the State Board, th

contract shall not be effective until such time as the contract is

amended to the satisfaction of the State Board.
Appendix 11 - f,

SAMPLE LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix A Acceptance testing, description of

procedures and dates

Appendix B List of polling places, also list of

polling places not meeting

environmental standards and

remediation, (if any)

Appendix C Training schedule

Appendix D Storage sites and conditions

Appendix E Maintenance/repair/replacement

of equipment schedules and

description of procedures
Appendix 11 - g.

DELIVERY & ACCEPTANCE TESTING

Seller shall deliver (describe voting equipment and ancillary

equipment) to buyer at such address as buyer shall designate upon

notification by seller that the said voting equipment and ancillary

equipment, hereinafter referred to collectively as "the subject

voting equipment", is ready for shipment. Buyer shall receive the

equipment on delivery to the address designated.

Buyer shall complete acceptance testing pursuant to § 6209.11

of Title 9 of the Official Compilation of Codes Rules and

Regulations of the State of New York.

Buyer and Seller hereby agree and accept appendix

 1

affixed here to as the method to be used for acceptance testing.

[Option to be used for purchase

of more than 10 units]

In no event shall Seller deliver the said voting equipment to

Buyer later than (Date - 3 months prior to 1st election use).

[Option to be used for purchase

of less than 10 units]

In no event shall Seller deliver the said voting equipment to

Buyer later than (Date - 1 month prior to 1st election use).

Any equipment delivered by Buyer to Seller which does not pass

acceptance testing provided for herein above (Appendix affixed

hereto) shall be replaced or repaired by Seller within 30 days of

delivery. Whenever possible, any replacement equipment must b

delivered or repairs must be completed not less than 14 days before

the election. Equipment replaced or repaired pursuant to this

articl shall be subject to acceptance testing (or re-testing) as

1 see attached memos for pointers on drafting appendices
Appendix 11 - h.

provided for herein above (Appendix affixed hereto).

Acceptance of the said equipment in accordance with the

procedures detailed in Appendix affixed here to shall be deemed

final.

Polling Site Survey

Seller and Buyer hereby certify and agree that appendix ,

affixed hereto, represents, .a true and complete compilation of a

mutually conducted study of all polling places within Buyer's

jurisdiction.

Seller and Buyer further agree that all polling places named

in Appendix affixed hereto meet environmental conditions

required for the proper operation of (subject voting equipment)

except the following polling places:

as described in Appendix . Seller and Buyer have included in

Appendix a complete description of remedial actions to be taken

by Buyer/Seller prior to delivery of (subject voting equipment)

which will bring the above specified polling places into complianc

with environmental conditions required for proper operation of the

said voting equipment.

Training

Seller agrees to provide training to Buyer's designated

employees at 1 ast (days/months) prior to delivery of

fthe subject voting equipment) as follows:
Appendix 11 - i.

1. Instruction in removal of packaging materials of the

said voting equipment;

2. Instruction as to the necessary assembly required to

make the said equipment functional;

3. Instruction as to the specific procedures for testing

of which the capability and readiness of the said

equipment pursuant to Part 6209.11 of Title 9 of the

Official Compilation of Codes, Rules

and Regulations of the State of New York.

Seller further agrees to provide training to Buyer's

designated employees upon delivery of (the subject voting

equipment) as follows:

1. Instruction as to the operation of auxiliary features,

programming, hardware, telecommunications systems and

central vote tabulating systems;

2. Instruction in all maintenance, storage and transportation

procedures to be utilized by Buyer's employees prior to

an election.

3. Instruction in all procedures to be used to accomplish

ballot face layout and ballot programming to be utilized

by Buyer's employees prior to an election.

In addition to the aforesaid training, Seller agrees to

provide Buyer with copies of a complete operations manual for

the said equipment describing all methods of operation and

procedures as set forth in the paragraphs herein above * * I n

no event shall the training provided for in this article be

provided for less than days prior to the first proposed use

of the said equipment in an election, and less than days

prior to delivery**

Buyer and Seller further agree that Appendix annexed

hereto represents a plan by which Seller's designated personnel

will be present at the sites of all elections during the first year

in which the said equipment is used for the purpose of providing
Appendix 11 - j

training, guidance and supervision in the use of the said equipment

by Buyer's employees.

**Seller shall submit to Buyer no later than days prior

to the scheduled date of any training provided pursuant to the

provisions of this article a complete listing of the qualifications

of all of Seller's employees designated to provide training. Buyer

reserves the right to reject any of Seller's employees designated

to provide training that it-may find to be unqualified.**

••COPYRIGHT & PATENT INFRINGEMENT**

Seller shall defend at its own expense any claim or action

against Buyer for actual or alleged infringement of any patent,

copyright or similar property right including, without limitation,

misappropriation of trade secrets based on the equipment or the use

thereof by the Buyer. Seller shall further indemnify and hold

harmless Buyer from any and all liabilities, losses, damages, cost

and expenses, including reasonable attorneys fees incurred by Buyer

with connection with any such claim or action. Buyer shall

promptly transmit to Seller any written threat, warning or notice

of any such claim or action received by Buyer, and copies of all

related papers served upon or received by Buyer; provided however,

that Buyer's failure to give such prompt written notice shall not

affect Seller's obligation under this section, except to the

extent, if any, which Buyer's failure to give such notice

materially impairs Buyer's ability to defend successfully against

such claimer action. Seller shall have the sole right to conduct

the defense, settlement, or compromise of any such claim or action

unless otherwise mutually agreed to in writing between Buyer and
Appendix 11 - k.

Seller. Seller shall give Buyer prompt written notices of any

threat, warning, or notice of which Seller is aware, regarding any

such claims or actions against Seller or any other user, supplier

or manufacturer of the equipment which could have a material

adverse impact upon Buyer's use of the equipment.

In the event the equipment is likely to, in Seller's opinion,

or does become a subject of a claim or action or infringement,

Seller may, and in the event the equipment is held to constitute

infringement and the use thereof is permanently enjoined, Seller

shall at its own expense and with Buyer's written consent, either:

a. Obtain for Buyer the right to continue using the

equipment;

or,

b. Cause the equipment to be modified so that it is noninfringing, provided that such modification does not

adversely affect Buyer's intended use of the equipment, and

such modification shall be approved by the State Board

of Elections in accordance with procedures for

acceptance of new equipment.

c. Replace the equipment with equally suitable, non-infringing

equipment on the same terms as provided herein, at no

charge to buyer. Seller shall not be liable for

infringement or claim thereof of any patent, copyright or

similar property right, including but not limited to

misappropriation of trade secrets, if such infringement is

caused by Buyer's use of equipment in combination with

other equipment not furnished to Buyer by Seller under the

Agreement. Replacement equipment shall be subject to

approval by the State Board of Elections in accordance with

procedures for acceptance of new equipment.
Appendix 11 - 1.

Performance Bond

Not later than (Date) Seller shall have

posted sufficient bond conditioned upon its performance of

warranty, service, training and support obligations set forth in

this contract, as follows:

(training and support requirements may vary according

to the particular equipment purchased. A detailed and

complete description-should be included)
Appendix 11 - m.

SERVICE & WARRANTY

(Seller) , hereby warrants in

return for the consideration specified hereinabove all of the

subject voting equipment and components thereof received by Buyer

pursuant to this contract as follows:

a. Seller warrants that the said voting equipment has

been certified by the New York State Board of Elections

pursuant to statute.

b. For five years from the date of acceptance, or from

the date of first use in an election, whichever is later.

c. Buyer agrees to keep the said voting equipment in good

working order, and to properly store same as detailed in

Appendix affixed hereto.

d. Seller's warranty shall be inapplicable where the said

voting equipment is damaged, rendered inoperable or

defective as a result of Buyer's negligence, improper use

or storage thereof, failure to adhere to proper

maintenance and/or storage procedures, alteration,

tampering, unauthorized repair, accident or act of God.

e. In the event any of the said voting equipment shall

malfunction during the warranty period, the Buyer shall

immediately notify Seller of the malfunction. Repair

and/or replacement of the malfunctioning unit shall be

made pursuant to Appendix affixed hereto.

Buyer and Seller hereby agree that Seller shall, in return for

the consideration detailed hereinabove, maintain all of th

equipment received by Buyer pursuant to this contract for a period

of five years from the date of acceptance or from the date of first

us in an election, whichever is later, in accordance with the

terms of Appendix , affixed hereto.
Appendix 11 - n.

County

ELECTRONIC VOTING EQUIPMENT

CHECK LIST

Delivery and Acceptance Testing

deliver to designated place

method for acceptance testing

compliance with §6209.11

Delivery (10 + units 3 months prior to use

(10 units 1 month prior to use

replace or repair within 30 days

replace or repair if possible 14 days before election

retesting of replacements/repairs

acceptance

Polling Site Survey

survey

remedial actions if required

Training

unpacking

setup

testing

operation

maintenance/storage/transportation

programming for election

operations manuals

** deadline for training

** qualifications of trainers
Appendix 11 - o.

**Copyright and Patent Infringement

protection

Service and Warranty

SBOE certified

5 years from acceptance or first use (whichever is later)

repair/replace

5-year maintenance provisions

Performance Bond

warranty, service, training, support

Statutory Compliance

§7-204 (CRR 6209)

10 days for approval

** Technical Details

number of units

number of polling sites

number of demo models

number of voters in election districts affected

number of employees to be trained

number of inspectors to be trained

number of ballot styles

dates of delivery

dates of SBOE acceptance testing

- correction of problems (timetable)

, training schedules

pre-election deadlines - ballot coding, delivery, support

election day support schedules
Appendix 11 - p.

Absente Systems

deadline for supplying coding

deadline for providing ballot stock to local printer

or ballot proofs to county board

vendor on site prior to test

post-election support

** Optional

Other comments:
Appendix 11 - q.

MAINTENANCE LOG FOR DIRECT ELECTRONIC VOTING MACHINES

COUNTY ELECTION DISTRICT #

TOWN MACHINE # _

DATE RECEIVED PROTECTIVE COUNTER #

Appendix 12

Table of Contents for a

DRE/Punchcard Absentee

Voting System

Registrar

Clark County

Nevada

Appendix 12

Clark County, Nevada

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Contract for Purchase of Voting System,

DRE machines, Teamwork punchcard for absentee voting.

Sections

1. Purchase and shipment.

2. Responsibilities of Seller.

3. Responsibilities of County.

4. Scope of work; detailed in Schedule A, attached.

5. Changes to scope of work.

6. Compensation and terms of payment.^

7. Subcontracts.

8. Time schedule.

9. Software licenses.

10. Warranties.

11. Miscellaneous: suspension, termination, insurance, etc.

Attachments

A. Detailed listing of hardware, software, and optional items. Sequoia DRE machines for

polling places; Sequoia Teamwork for absentee voting; interface to provide consolidated results.

Detail on various other provisions of contract including training, acceptance testing, voter

education. Costs itemized and detailed. Some trade-in on old vot-o-matic equipment. Total cost

$6,480,460 plus $10,000 annual maintenance.

B. Limited use license agreement, relating to software.

C. EDS election management software, license agreement. Annual agreements on software

maintenance, ballot design, ballot printing.

D. Acceptance testing, detailed procedures.

E. Maintenance.

This is a detailed, specific, comprehensive contract A similarly drawn, separate contract covered

the pilot program (See Appendix 7) which preceded decision to purchase the system.

Appendix 13

Memorandum Evaluation

of a System in Use

Registrar

Clark County

Nevada

Appendix 13

CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA

Evaluation of New Voting System in Use

Our system has solved the problems we identified in our previous system. It has met our performance

standards. Our main problem was that because of the pilot project route, we ended-up implementing

the new system during a Presidential election year when we had the longest ballot in State history:

up to 24 different Questions on our ballot, which was already full of offices/candidates. This led to

a bottleneck at the machines. We estimate that an additional 315 machines would have eliminated

the long lines that we experienced on the General election day. Of those additional machines needed,

147 were early voting machines that we could not reuse on election day, a requirement of which the

vendor had not informed us. The vendor is now making software changes to allow reuse of early

voting machines on election day. The balance of the machine shortage was a result of two factors.

(1) Our unusually high rate of growth—our rolls increased 20% between January and October; and

(2) The unprecedented length and complexity of our ballot and voters' unpreparedness upon entering

the voting booth.

Accuracy of the system is superlative. During the Primary Election, one machine had an integrity

error during the process of a voter casting his/her ballot. As it is programmed to do, it sounded an

alarm and displayed an error message. The pollworker had been trained to remove the voter from

the malfunctioning machine, list the error message on the Exception Log, staple the voter's receipt

(with the voting machine's serial number written on it) to the Exception Log, and call for a machine

technician to come to look at the voting machine. However, since this was the first election in which

this pollworker had used the new machines, he failed to catch the voter before he/she left the polling

place. The machine technicians found upon examination that the final voter's ballot selections had

not been added to the machine's voting totals because of the error. However, the voter's ballot

image of his individual selections had been captured and preserved. His/her vote selections were

added into the machine's vote totals and the ballot was not lost. This system is 100% accurate in

recording voter intent.

Because of the system's accuracy and integrity, there were no recounts or election contests in the

1996 elections. In this County, that is unheard of.

Voters surveyed exiting the polls overwhelmingly approved of the new system, most stating how easy

it was to use. Results of these surveys will be available next week.

One of our goals was to be able to conduct an extensive early voting program on the new system.

We were able to do this and more than 46,000 voters voted on the machines at shopping malls,

libraries, community centers, and university campuses throughout the community during the two

weeks before the elections.



Other titles in our Innovations series include:

• Voll: The Voting Authority Card

• Vol 2: Optical Scanning Technology for Purposes other than

Ballot Counting

• Vol 3: Election Signature Retrieval Systems

• Vol 4: Using NCOA Files for Verifying Voter Registration Lists

• Vol 5: Agency Voter Registration Programs

• Vol 6: Motor Voter Registration Programs

• Vol 7: Mail Registration Programs

• Vol 8: Election Document Retention in an Age of High Technology

• Vol 9: Early Voting

• Vol 10: Ballot Security and Accountability

• Vol 11: All-Mail-Ballot Elections

• Vol 12: The Electronic Transmission of Election Materials

• Vol 13: Simplifying Election Forms and Materials

• Vol 14: Recruiting Poll Workers

• Vol 15: Ensuring the Accessibility of the Election Process

• Vol 16: Using the Internet in Election Offices
For information about other

Innovations in Election Administration

contact

Office of Election Administration

Federal Election Commission

999 E. Street, N.W.

Washington, D.C. 20463

Toll Free 800/424-9530 (option #4)

Direct 202/649-1095

FAX 202/219-8500

e-mail bkimberling@fec.gov