AnalysisoftheCostofProcuringandImplementinganOpticalScanVotingSysteminMaryland

Background:Chapter428,Lawsof2009requiresavotingsystemthatprovidesavoter‐verifiablepaperrecordofeachvotecast,beginningwiththe2010GubernatorialPrimaryElection.Thelaw,asamendedin2009,permitscontinueduseofalimitednumberofMaryland’sexistingtouch‐screenvotingmachinesuntilthestateapprovesequipmentthatenablesvoterswithdisabilitiestomarkpaperballots.

OnDecember17,2009,Maryland’sStateBoardofElections(SBE)approvedthefollowingprocurementproposalsforsubmissiontotheBoardofPublicWorks(BPW):

AnOpticalScanVotingSystemfromElectionSystemsandSoftware,Inc.(ES&S)withabasecontractpriceof$14million.(Capitallease:$2.5Mperyear.FY2011:$1.3Mleaseplussoftware&services)

• VotingSystemSupportServicesfromCirdanGroup,Inc.(Cirdan)withabasecontractpriceof$20.9millionfor3years.(FY2011cost:approx.$13M).BPWapprovedthiscontractonFebruary24,2010.

Ananalysisoftheavailabledataonbothoftheseproposalsindicatesthat:

1. TheCoststoImplementanOpticalScanVotingSystemareOverstated.

Theopticalscanequipmentpricesofferedareconsistentwiththoseofsimilarprocurementsinotherstates.Costscouldbefurtherreducedbyreevaluatingtheequipmentquantitiesrequiredtoreflectthereliabilityofscanningtechnology.

TheServicesRFPvastlyoverestimatestheamountofservicesneededtooperateanopticalscan/touch‐screen“hybrid”votingsystem.The80%reductioninvotingequipmentwiththissystemshouldbereflectedindecreasedcostsforprojectmanagementandsupportservices.SBEprojectsspendingnearly25timesasmuchasCuyahogaCounty,OHforsimilarsupportservices.

Additionalcostsavingscouldoccurifauxiliaryequipment,suchasvotingbooths,waspurchasedofftheshelforthroughlocalvendors.

2. TheCostsofContinuingtoUsetheCurrentTouch‐ScreenVotingSystemareUnderstated.Operatingcostsduringthe2006GubernatorialElectioncyclewere$13.3M.Earlyvotingincreasessupportcosts.

Thecostofbuying&operatinganewOp‐Scansystem=thecostofcontinuingtousetheTouch‐Screens.Comparativedatafromsimilarprocurementsinotherstatesindicatethatwellnegotiatedprocurementsofbothequipmentandsupportservicesshouldbringthecostsofbothpurchasingandimplementinganopticalscanvotingsystemtoaboutthesamecostascontinuingtodeploytheexistingtouch‐screenvotingsystem.

Recommendations

1. Thefundingallocatedforthesupportservicescontractshouldbereducedtoreflecttheactualneedsofanopticalscansystem.Lesssupportisneededforasystemthatuses80%lessequipment.Servicecontractsshouldbestructuredtoprovideflexibilityforcountiestoprocureservicesonaper‐dayoras‐neededcostbasisthatmaybetterfittheiractualneeds.

2. Implementationsuppliesshouldbemorecost‐effectivelyprocured.Privacyboothsandotherimplementationsuppliesshouldbemorecompetitivelyprocuredfromothervendors,andsimpler,moreeconomicalsolutions,suchastabletopprivacyscreens,shouldbeconsidered.

3. SBEshouldmaketheaboverevisionsandsubmittheopticalscancontracttoBPWimmediately.

2

1.THEHIGHCOSTOFTOUCH‐SCREENVOTINGThegreatestcostofoperatingMaryland’stouch‐screenvotingsystemhasbeenvendorstaffingandsupport.DuringMaryland’s2006GubernatorialElections,ourtouch‐screenvotingsystemcostmorethan$13milliontooperate,andthereisnoreasontoexpectittocostlessin2010.GubernatorialElectionsarealwaysthemostexpensiveyearsinMaryland’selectioncyclebecauseboththePrimaryandGeneralElectionsoccurwithinthesamefiscalyear.Buteversincethetouch‐screenvotingsystemwasfullydeployedstatewidein2006,Maryland’svotingsystemoperatingcostshaveaveraged$10.7millionperyear,notincludingthecostofrepayingthecapitalleaseusedtopurchasetheequipment.Exhibit2providesadetailedbreakdownofthetypesofservicesneededtooperateatouch‐screenvotingsystem.Thislevelofstaffingisessentialtosupportasystemthatusesroughly20,000votingmachinesandinwhichanelectionisunrecoverableifasingleerrorcausesvotestobelostorincorrectlyrecorded.Boththequantityandcomplexityofthetouch‐screenequipmentrequirefarmoreskilledtechniciansandlabor‐intensiveprocedurestomaintainandoperatethananopticalscansystem.DifferencesinTechnology=DifferencesinCost.Theessentialdifferencebetweenanopticalscansystemandatouch‐screensystemisthatopticalscannersareusedonlytocounttheballots,nottocastthevotes,sothesystemissimplerandrequiresfarlessequipment.Maryland’snearly20,000touch‐screenvotingmachineswillbereplacedbyapproximately2,000opticalscanners,plusabout4,000touch‐screenmachinesretainedtoprovideaccessforvoterswithdisabilities.Inthefuture,thesewillbereplacedbyapproximately2,000ballotmarkingdevicestoaidvoterswithdisabilitiesinmarkingpaperballots.

EXHIBIT1:COSTSOFMARYLAND’STOUCH‐SCREENVOTINGSYSTEM,FISCAL2003–2008Marylandbeganusingtouch‐screenelectronicvotingequipmentin2002withfour“pilot”counties:Montgomery,PrinceGeorge’s,Allegany,andDorchester.By2004,allcountieshadmovedtotouch‐screensexceptBaltimoreCity,whichswitchedin2006.Inthethreeyearsfollowingstatewideimplementationofthetouch‐screenvotingsystem,FY2006–FY2008,thecostsofmaintainingandoperatingtheequipmentaveraged$10.7millionperyear,notincludingthecapitalleasepaymentstopurchasetheequipment.SeeExhibit2foradetailedbreakdownofthesecosts.

3

EXHIBIT2:DETAILEDCOSTANALYSISOFMARYLAND’STOUCH‐SCREENVOTINGSYSTEM,FY2003–081

4

2.COSTSOFOPERATINGANOPTICAL‐SCANVOTINGSYSTEM

Havingnopriorexperiencewithadministeringastatewideprecinct‐basedoptical‐scanvotingsystem,theSBEanticipatesthatthesamelevelofstaffingisrequiredasthatcurrentlyneededtosupportthetouch‐screenvotingsystem,butdatafromotherjurisdictionsindicatethatopticalscannersrequirefarlesssupport.

CuyahogaCounty,OhioprovidesagoodcomparisonbecauseitrecentlycompletedasmoothtransitionfromaPremiertouch‐screenDREsystemverysimilartoMaryland’s(whichhadbeenpurchasedjust2yearsbefore)tothesamesystemofES&SopticalscannersMarylandhasselected.Thoughitspopulationismuchsmaller,withabout1.1millionvoterscomparedtoMaryland’s3.4million,Cuyahogahasabout80%asmanyprecinctsasMaryland(1437precinctscomparedtoMaryland’s1824).Thisisanimportantfactor,becauseeachprecinctrequiresoneopticalscannerandequipmenttoprovideaccessibilityforvoterswhoareunabletousepaperballots.CuyahogaCountyhas1,500opticalscanners,or75%oftheroughly2,000scannersMarylandneeds.TheSBEanticipatesspendingnearly25timesasmuchasCuyahogaCountydoesforsimilarsupportservices.Evenfactoringinthedifferenceintheamountofequipmentandthenumberofjurisdictionsinvolved,thisdisparityisdifficulttojustify.

SBE’sProjectedSupportStaffCostsforanOpticalScanSystem:$6.4millionperyear(onaverage)

KeyProjectPersonnel(Cirdan):$6millionfor7yearsOtherPersonnel(Cirdan):$14.2millionfor7yearsOpticalScanSystemVendorSupport(ES&S):$8.8millionfor7years

ElectionSupportPersonnel(Cirdan):$16millionfor7yearsTotalPersonnel:$45million(average$6.4millionperyear)

CuyahogaCounty’sActualSupportStaffCostsforanOpticalScanSystem:$264,000peryear(avg)

ProjectManagement:(average$154,500peryear)2008:110daysat$1,500perday=$165,000peryear(includesimplementationofanOpticalScansystemwithAutoMarkBallot‐MarkingDevicesfordisabledvoters)

2009:96daysat$1,500perday=$144,000peryear(includesreplacementofanoldermodelofrentedOpticalScannerswithnewDS200scannerswhentheyreceivedfederalcertification)

Training:2008:14daysat$1,500perday=$21,000peryear(includesimplementationofanOpticalScansystemwithAutoMarkBallot‐MarkingDevicesfordisabledvoters)

2009:2daysat$1,500perday=$3,000peryear(includesreplacementofanoldermodelofrentedOpticalScannerswithnewDS200scannerswhentheyreceivedfederalcertification)

ElectionSupport:(average$97,500peryear)2008:(4elections)82daysat$1,500perday=$123,000peryear

2009:(4elections)48daysat$1,500perday=$72,000peryearTotalPersonnel:(average$264,000peryear)

2008:206daysat$1,500perday=$309,000peryear2009:146daysat$1,500perday=$219,000peryear

5

SBEmakestheseassumptionsaboutsupportstaffingneededforanopticalscansystem(seeExhibit3):

ProjectManagement:

SBEsays: “Currently thevendorprovidesaprojectmanagerandsix regionalmanagers. This levelofstaffinghasbeen inplacesince2002whentheStatefirst implementedauniformvotingsystem,and

wewillcontinuetoneedthislevelofstaffsupportregardlessofthesystembeingused.”

Analysis:Ohio,withmorethantwiceasmanyregisteredvotersasMaryland,requiresonlyastatewideprojectmanagerfromthevendor;noregionalmanagersarenecessary.(SeeAppendix1atwww.saveourvotes.orgforadetailedlistingofeachtypeofserviceusedbyCuyahogaCounty,OH,initsfirsttwoyearsofconversiontoandoperationofanopticalscansystem.)Individualcountiescontractforprojectmanagementasneededonadaily‐ratebasis.WhileMaryland’spastlevelofstaffingmayhavebeenappropriatetooverseenearly20,000touch‐screenmachines,itisunnecessaryforanoptical‐scansystem.

Maintenance:

SBE says: “Most routine maintenance activities on the voting system are conducted by staff andthereforecostsarenotanticipatedtochange.However,non‐routinemaintenance,suchasinstallinga

newsoftwareversion isamajorprojectwhenperformedon18,000votingunits. Generally,SBEhashad to contractwithan independent trustedagent toperformsoftwareupgrades. The costof suchservice isapproximately$200,000. This isonearea inwhich lessequipmentwillclearlyreducecosts.

However, in the short term, no software upgrades are contemplated for the current system.Accordingly,whencomparing theFY11costsofusing thecurrent touch‐screensystemversusanewopticalscansystemmaintenancecostswerenotafactor.”

Analysis:Everyoperationthatneedstobeperformedoneachpieceofequipment,includingmaintenance,installingsoftwareupgrades,testing,repairs,batteryreplacement,oranyotherroutinetasks,requiresfarfewerhoursoflaborwithanopticalscansystem.Whetherperformedbyelectionsstafforahighlypaidcontractor,alllaborhasacost.Anopticalscansystem,with70%to80%lessequipmentthanourcurrentsystem,cansignificantlyreducelaborcostsonanongoingbasis,yearafteryear.IntheclaimfiledbytheAttorneyGeneral’sOfficeinNovember,2008,againstPremier,theSBEestimatedthatMarylandhasspentnearly$8.5millionincostsincurredduringFiscal2004‐2009toevaluateandmitigatesecurityflawsinherentinthecurrenttouch‐screenDREvotingsystem.Thesecosts,which“includeconsultingandtechnicalservices,personnelandlogistics,andmaterialsandsupplies,”2willcontinuetoaccrueaslongasMarylandcontinuestousethisinsecureequipment.Inaddition,aseriousflaw3inthetabulationsoftwareofallPremiervotingequipmentwasdiscoveredduringanauditofthe2008elections.Itallowsvotestobedeletedorchangedwithouttriggeringanentryinthe“auditlog”ofthetabulationsoftware,whichisaviolationoffederalcertificationrequirements.Premieracknowledgedthisproblemandquietlyfixeditintheupdatedversioncertifiedlastsummer.ItwouldberecklessforMarylandtoconductanotherstatewideelectiononthetouch‐screenmachineswithoutinstallingthissoftwareupgrade.Upgradingwouldrequireinstallationoneachofthetouch‐screenmachines,andeachmachinewouldneedtobetestedaftertheupgrade.AccordingtoSBE,thiswouldincreasethecostofcontinuingtodeploytheexistingtouch‐screenequipmentbyatleast$200,000,notincludingthecostofthesoftwareitself.

6

7

Electionsupport:

SBEsays:“Currentlythevendorprovidesacountytechnicalresourcetoprovideassistanceandsupporttothelocalelectionofficepriortoeachelection.Theyprovideassistancewithallaspectsofpreparingthe

voting system for election day and assisting with post‐election activities. Additionally, the vendorprovideselectiondaystaffsupporttobeinthefieldtohelptroubleshootproblemsandaddressanylastminuteneeds.Forasuccessfulelectionwewillneedtocontinuethissamelevelofelectionsupportwith

theopticalscansystem.”Analysis:Thetechnicalsupportstaffneededtoprepareanddeploy2,000opticalscannersand2,000to4,000touch‐screenDREsforelectiondayandtoperformpost‐electiontaskswillbesignificantlylessthanthatneededforasystemmorethan3timesaslarge.Mostjurisdictionsrequirefarfewerelectiondaytechnicalsupportfieldstafftosupporttherelativelytrouble‐freescanners.Forexample,CuyahogaCounty,OHrequiredjust16electionsupporttechniciansfor3dayseachduringitsNovember2008PresidentialElection,thoughithadabout80%asmanyprecinctsastheentirestateofMaryland.Also,itshouldbenotedthatMaryland’stwolargestcounties,MontgomeryandPrinceGeorge’s,havedeclinedtousethetechnicalsupportstaffprovidedbythevendorinpreviousyears,preferringtohiretheirownpersonneldirectlyeventhoughtheSBEcontinuestochargethemfortheseunwantedservices.ElectionsupportservicesareanareawheretheSBEshouldconsiderprovidingamastercontractandgivingcountiestheoptionofusingtheservicesatthepricesnegotiatedorhiringtheirownpersonnel.

3.COSTSOFOPTICAL‐SCANVOTINGEQUIPMENT

Theoptical‐scanvotingsystemproposalapprovedbytheSBEincludesthefollowingcomponents: 2,083DS200PrecinctTabulators(opticalscanners)@$7,313each:$15,232,979 34M650CentralTabulators(forabsentee/provisionalballots)@$42,144each:$1,432,896 ElectionManagementSystem:$2,771,000 TotalEquipmentplus6optionyears(aftervendordiscounts):$24,039,350 PersonnelService(including6optionyears):$8,765,120 TOTALPROPOSAL:$32,804,470

SBEhasalreadyrevisedthisproposaltoincludeonlythefollowingcomponentsinthebasecontract,accordingtoinformationsuppliedbyDeputyAdministratorRossGoldsteinviaemail(seeExhibit12):

DS200PrecinctTabulators(opticalscanners) M650CentralTabulatorswillbeprovidedatnochargeandonlyforthelargestcounties Softwareandsomeservices TOTALBASECONTRACT(includingfirstyearofservices):approx.$14million CAPITALLEASE:approx.$2.5millionperyear,splitbetweenstateandcounties

Only1paymentdueinFY2011ofapprox.$1.3,ofwhichstatewouldpayhalfPricingfromotherstatesindicatesthattheSBE’srevisedcostsareinlinewithES&Sofferingsinotherjurisdictions(seeExhibit4).TheSBEmightconsiderwhetheritneedssuchalargeinventoryofback‐upmachines(currentlycalculatedat10%),sincethescannerstendtobefarmorereliablethanthetouch‐screenunitshavebeen.Itisunlikelythatcountieswouldneedmorethan5%additionalback‐upunits,whichwouldmeanthatMarylandneedslessthan2,000opticalscannersstatewide.SeeExhibit5forananalysisofequipmentquantitiesneededpercountyforboththetouch‐screenunitsandanoptical‐scansystem.Also,SBEmightreconsiderwhetheritneedstocontinuepurchasingwarrantiesforthetouch‐screenequipmentwhentheabundanceofsparetouch‐screeninventorycouldbeusedinstead.

8

9

10

4.COSTSOFAUXILIARYEQUIMENTFORANOPTICAL‐SCANVOTINGSYSTEM

SBEhasbudgetedmorethan$6millionforcostsassociatedwithimplementinganopticalscanvotingsystem,butmanyoptionsareavailabletobringthiscostdownVotingbooths:

SBEsays:“Votingboothswillalsobeneededtoprovidevoterswithaprivateareatovotetheirballots.The State intends to procure a high quality re‐useable booth. SBE’s estimate for the cost of a high‐

qualityboothwas$100perbooth fora totalcostof$4million.However, theproposal submittedbyES&S includedabooth for$360 fora total costof$5.3million. Ithasbeensuggested that therearecheaperalternativesavailable–suchascardboardprivacyboothsthatsitontopofatable.However,

electionofficialsassertthatthisisimpracticalbecauseitwouldrequirethemtohavetoeitherpurchasetablesandchairsorensurethattheyareatthepollingplace.”SBE’sProjectedcost:14,725votingboothsat$360each;$5.3milliontotal

Actualcostinotherstates:$7eachforcardboardprivacyscreens;$210,000for30,000screens

Thechoiceofvotingboothsaffectsbothprocurementcostsaswellastheongoingcostoftransportingandstoringelectionequipment.Manyvotingboothsarecommerciallyavailableforfarlessthanthe$360quotedbyES&S,includingusedequipment.Otherjurisdictionsuseawiderangeofvotingbooths,includingfolding

cardboardorcorrugatedplasticprivacyscreensplacedonatabletopsuchasthoseMarylandcurrentlyusesforprovisionalvotersinthepollingplace.Manyvotersprefertositwhiletheyvoteandaremorelikelytomarktheirballotsthoughtfullyandreviewthemcarefullythanvoterswhofeelrushed.Tablesandchairsare

currentlyusedforcheck‐inandotherpolling‐placetasks,somostpollingplaces,suchasschoolcafeterias,publiclibraries,communitycenters,firehouses,andchurches,havethemreadilyavailable.Theymaybeeasilyrentedforpollingplacesthatdonothaveenough.

CarteretCounty,NCconverteditsdiscardedtouch‐screenDREsintovotingbooths,whichissomething

Marylandcouldconsider.TheDREshavecaseswithextendinglegsandprivacyflaps,socountyfacilitiesstaffretrofittedtheequipmentbyremovingthevotingmachinesandplacingawritingsurfaceintotheemptycaseinstead.Othercountieshaveconvertedtheiroldpunch‐cardvotingboothsinthesameway,including

CuyahogaCounty,OH,wherethecostwasabout$35perboothinlaborandmaterials.

EXHIBIT6:TABLETOPFOLDINGPRIVACYSCREENS

Privacyscreensareaninexpensivesolutionforprovidingprivatespacesforvoterstomarkpaperballots.Marylandcurrentlyusesscreensliketheseforprovisionalvoters.Theyarelightweightandcompactandareoftentransportedtothepollingplacebyelectionjudgesintheircarsalongwithpollingplacesignageandothersupplies.Theonesshownatleftarefromacatalog,butmightbeprocuredmoreeconomicallyfromalocalsuppliertokeepthosedollars—andjobs—inMaryland.FromElectionSourcecatalog,page5:www.votingbooths.org/issue2008

11

Inthisausterebudgetyear,thisisoneareawheretheStateofMarylandanditscash‐strappedcountiescan

saveseveralmilliondollars.Countiesshouldhaveinputintotheselectionofvotingboothsappropriatefortheirownneeds,andmastercontractsshouldbenegotiatedthatallowcountiestoselectfrompricelists.

Nomatterwhichtypeofvotingboothsisselected,eachprecinctshouldprovideplentyofballot‐markingspacestopreventlonglinesatpeakvotinghours.ThenumberofvotingboothstheSBEhasproposedisinsufficient.Eachprecinctshouldhaveatleastasmanyboothsasthenumberoftouch‐screenmachines

previouslysupplied,andpreferablyfarmore.Oneofthegreatestproblemscreatedbythetouch‐screenvotingsystemhasbeenlonglines,withwaittimesoftwohoursormoredocumentedacrossthestateduringthe2008GeneralElection.Attheveryleast,additionalfoldingprivacyscreensshouldbeprovidedthatcouldbesetupat

peakvotinghoursiflinesbegintoform.

EXHIBIT7:TAILENDOFVOTINGLINEINPRINCEGEORGE’SCOUNTY,NOVEMBER2008

ThislineextendedapproximatelythreetimesthisdistanceintheotherdirectionbeforeenteringHyattsvilleMiddleSchool’spollingplace.Waittimeslongerthantwohoursweredocumentedthroughoutthestateduringthe2008PresidentialGeneralElection.Longlinesarecausedbyinsufficientvotingequipmenttoaccommodatethehighvolumeofvotersatpeakvotinghours.

12

Supplycarts:

SBE says: “Supply cartswill beneeded to store and transport equipment to thepollingplaces. SBE’sestimatedcostforthesupplycartswas$1.8million.However,theproposalbyES&Sincludedcartsfor

$3 million. (The current carts used for the touch‐screen units would not be a suitable size orconfigurationtosecurelystoreandtransportthenewOSequipment.Staffhasreviewedthepossibilityofretrofittingthem,butnotesthatthetimeandcostwouldbesignificant.)”

SBE’sProjectedcost:$3million(roughly$1400each)Actualcostinotherstates:Thiscostcouldbeeliminatedbyusingexistingequipment.

TheES&SDS200opticalscanvotingunitsselectedbytheSBEareattachedtoaballotboxonwheels(seephotoatleft4)anddonotneedtobestoredortransportedoncarts,sothevotingboothsandtheequipmentusedfordisabledvotersarethemaincomponentsthatwouldrequiresometypeofequipmenttotransportthemtoandfromthepollingplace.Thesizeandquantityofvotingboothsselectedwilllargelydeterminethesuppliesorequipmentneededtotransportthem.Theexistingcartsprobablycouldbeused,butifthatisnotpossible,manythird‐partyoptionsexist.Foldingtable‐topprivacyscreensandsomeothertypesofvotingboothsareverycompact.Currently,electionjudgesinsomecountiestransportthefoldingprivacyscreensusedbyprovisionalvoterstothepollingplaceintheircars,inabagwithothersignsandequipment.Thiscostcouldbeeliminatedentirely,orgreatlyreducedthroughcompetitivebidding.ThisisanotherareawhereboththeStateofMarylandanditscountiescouldsavemoney.Countiesshouldhaveinputintotheselectionoftransportationsuppliesappropriatefortheirownneedssincesmallercountiesmayhavedifferentconsiderationsthanmorepopulousones.

5.COMPARINGTHECOSTOFIMPLEMENTINGANOPTICALSCANSYSTEMIN2010WITHTHECOSTOFCONTINUINGTOUSETHETOUCH‐SCREENEQUIPMENT

SBEhaspresentedprojectionscomparingtheestimatedcostsofprocuringandimplementinganopticalscanvotingsystemwiththecostsofcontinuingtousetheexistingtouch‐screensystem(seeExhibit9).SAVEourVoteshasadjustedtheseprojections,basedonthedatapresentedonpreviouspages,forthecostsofprocuringandoperatinganop‐scansystem(seeExhibit10)andthecostsofoperatingMaryland’stouch‐screenvotingsystem(seeExhibit11).Somecosts,especiallythoseincludedintheCirdanproposal,havenotbeenprovidedinenoughdetailtoassesstheiraccuracy,soamoredetailedaccountingofthesupportservicesincludedwouldimprovetheaccuracyoftheseestimates.Baseduponthebestinformationpubliclyavailable,thecostofimplementingandoperatinganopticalscansystemwouldbelessthanorequaltothecostofcontinuingtousethetouch‐screenmachinesin2010.

EXHIBIT8:ES&SDS200opticalscannershavewheelsanddonotneedtobetransportedoncarts.

13

EXHIBIT9:SBE’SPROJECTEDCOSTSFORIMPLEMENTINGOPTICALSCANVSUSINGTOUCH‐SCREENSYSTEM(presentedtoHouseWays&MeansCommitteeatJanuary27briefing)

14

EXHIBIT10:ADJUSTEDCOSTPROJECTIONSFORIMPLEMENTINGOPTICALSCAN

ITEMSBEprojected

FY2011 AdjustedFY2011 Comment

OPTICALSCANEQUIPMENTCOSTS

OpticalScanLeasePayment $1,790,811 $1,300,000 SBE'srevisedcost(seeExhibit12).

2 OSVendorSupport $342,000 $342,000 Detailsnotsupplied

5 OSCertificationAnalysis – –One‐timecost:$30,000includedinFY10

14 ImplementationTest&Deliver $190,000 $190,000

TOUCH‐SCREENEQUIPMENTCOSTS

8 Touch‐screenWarranty $120,000 –

Donotneedwarrantywithsomanyextraunitsinstorage

9 TSSoftwareLicense $24,960 $20,8004,000accessibleunits@$5.20each

10 TSVendorSupport $342,000 $342,000Supportfor4,000TSunits:$85.50each

11 ServerSoftwareLicense $272,000 $272,000 Samecostforeithersystem?

12 TSAccessories(smartcards) $5,000 $5,000 1000cards,500/perelection

OPTIONALEQUIPMENTCOSTS

4 VotingSystemServersLeasePaymt $45,374 $45,374

TotalCentralServercost:$300,000Ifnewserversarenecessary,theywouldbeneededforeithersystem

15EarlyvotingBallotonDemandPrintersLeasepaymt $189,662 $189,662

Totalcost:$1,276,000.Shouldreduceneedforpre‐printedballots

3 OSSupplies(carts,booths,etc) $6,132,900

Votingbooths $210,00030,000foldingtabletopprivacyscreens@$7ea.

Transportationcarts – Re‐useexistingDREcarts.

SERVICECOSTS

6

Services:includesallservicesrelatedtoimplementationandgeneralelectionoperations $2,030,371 $1,500,000

Detailsnotsupplied,butthisisprobablyprojectmanagement&electionsupportinCirdancontract;reducedtoreflectlesssupportneeded

7 VoterOutreach $30,000 $30,000 FY10projectionincludes$500,000

13 BallotPrintingandDelivery $3,135,805 $2,284,800

Couldpreprint80%andsupplementwithBallotonDemandprintersasneeded

17Deliveryofequipmentandsuppliestopollingplaces $929,500 $929,500

Equalsabout$255perprecinctperelection(2electionsinFY11).Cuyahogapays$121perdeliverylocation.

TOTALTOIMPLEMENTOP‐SCAN $15,580,383 $7,661,136

16 RemainingTSLeasePayments $5,325,469 $5,325,469Leasepaymentdueregardlessofsystem.

TOTALNEEDEDFY2011 $20,905,852 $12,986,605$7,919,247lessthanSBEprojections

15

EXHIBIT11:ADJUSTEDCOSTPROJECTIONSFORUSINGCURRENTSYSTEM

ITEMSBEprojected

FY2011 AdjustedFY2011 Comment

1

Services‐includesallservicesrelatedtogeneralelectionoperations $1,266,000 $5,040,750

Detailsnotsupplied,butthisisprobablyprojectmanagement&electionsupportinCirdancontract

2 Touchscreen(TS)warranty $470,250 $500,000 20,000unitsat$25each

3 TSSoftwareLicense $97,812 $104,000 20,000unitsat$5.20each

4 TSVendorSupport $‐ $1,710,000 20,000unitsat$85.50each

5 ServerSoftwareLicense $272,000 $272,000 Samecostforeithersystem?

6TSAccessories:TSbatteries

$300,000

$308,00070%ofPhaseII&IIIcountiesneedbatteriesreplaced:11,000@$28ea

TSsmartcards $25,000 SmartCards:5,000at$5ea.

7 BallotPrintingandDelivery $600,000 $600,000 Atperunitpriceof$.42+Delivery

9 VotingSystemServersLeasePaymt $45,374 $45,374

TotalCentralServercost:$300,000Ifnewserversarenecessary,theywouldbeneededforeithersystem

10 Deliverytopollingplaces $929,500 $929,500Samechargeformoreequipmentthanopscan?

AdditionalCosts

Votingunitsforregistrationincrease $245,000 2008GeneralElectionrentalcost

VoterOutreach $500,000RequiredforEarlyVoting,eithersystem

GEMSsoftwareupgrade $200,000

Upgrade&testingof20,000TSunitstocorrectseriousproblemintabulationsoftware

TOTALTOUSETOUCH‐SCREENS $3,980,936 $10,479,624

8 RemainingTSLeasePayments $5,325,469 $5,325,469Leasepaymentsaredueregardlessofsystemused

TOTALNEEDEDFY2011 $9,306,405 $15,805,093$6,498,688morethanSBEprojections

16

EXHIBIT12:EMAILFROMROSSGOLDSTEINCLARIFYINGOPTICALSCANPROPOSALFrom: Ross Goldstein <RGoldstein@elections.state.md.us> Subject: RE: Copy of Presentation To: rebecca@saveourvotes.org Date: Monday, February 1, 2010, 11:45 AM

Please see my answers below. From: Rebecca Wilson [mailto:rebecca@saveourvotes.org] Sent: Friday, January 29, 2010 6:13 PM To: Ross Goldstein Subject: Re: Copy of Presentation I have a few questions for you about the cost charts in your handout distributed at the [Ways & Means Committee] briefing: 1) At this point, what are you estimating will be the total price for the Optical Scan Voting System proposal? How does that break out by Fiscal Year? How much would be included in a capital lease?

Approximately $14 million for the initial purchase. The lease payments will be the primary cost and will be approximately $2.5M per year (although the first year will be around $1.3M). 2) Your memo to the Governor's Office quotes voting booths as $5.3M and carts as $3M, yet your cost chart shows $6.1M for "OS Supplies (carts, paper rolls, booths, etc.) How much are you currently projecting those supplies would cost?

Our original estimate was $200 per booth (for a total $4M)and $1,000 for carts (for a total of $1.8M). I think the estimate in the Governor’s memo was based on the ES&S proposal. I still think that our original estimate will prove to be more in line with what our actual costs will be. 3) Why would booths and carts not be included in the capital lease, since they are capital investments that would probably last at least for the life of the voting system itself? Who decides which components to include in the lease?

The State Treasurer manages the Master Equipment Lease-Purchasing Financing program. According to the State Treasurer’s office, items such as computer hardware are acceptable for the program. However, items, such as furniture, are not considered acceptable for the master lease program. It is my understanding that it has been determined that carts and booths are analogous to furniture and therefore not acceptable for the financing program. 4) How many central-count scanners do you plan to buy, and at what cost? I don't see that indicated on this chart. How/where would those be deployed?

Most of the smaller counties will use the same OS units as will be used in the polling places. For the larger counties, we will be obtaining a high speed central count scanner, the M650. Pursuant to our agreement, we will be getting the M650 units at no additional cost. 5) Central servers: These appear in the cost charts for both systems. How would these be procured if not as part of the new OS Voting System? Have funds been allocated for that procurement?

The servers would most likely be procured directly by SBE, not the vendor. They would be paid for through the Treasurer’s financing program. We do not think we will need new servers for the current voting system – only the new system. 6) Yesterday I believe you explained to Stan Boyd that the contract submitted to the BPW would not obligate the state to procure items designated as optional -- is that correct? Exactly which elements of the contract as presented would be designated as optional? What would be the total value of the base contract, and what is the total value including all the options? That is correct. The items definitely being procured are the DS200 Precinct Tabulators, the M650 Central Tabulators, software, and certain services. All of the other items remain as options.

17

6.RECOMMENDATIONS Procurementsinotherstatesshowthatskillfullynegotiatedpricesandcontracttermsmakeanopticalscanvotingsystemthemostcost‐effectivewaytoconductelections,whichiswhymorethan60%ofAmericansvotethisway.Thatnumberisincreasingasstatesandcountiesacrossthenationabandontheirelectronicvotingsystemsinthefaceofincreasingcostsanddecreasingconfidenceinelectionoutcomes.Wellnegotiatedprocurementsofbothequipmentandsupportservicesshouldbringthecostsofbothpurchasingandoperatinganopticalscanvotingsystemtothesamecost—orless—asoperatingourcurrenttouch‐screenequipment.SBEshouldreviseitsestimatestomoreaccuratelyreflectthecostsofprocuringandoperatingopticalscanvotingequipment.Fundsinvestedinanopticalscansystemwillreapsavingsovertime,insteadofbeingspentonconsumableservicesforasystemthathasalreadyreachedtheendofitslifespan.Thetouch‐screensystem’soriginalvendorisnolongerinbusinessandthefutureisuncertainforcontinuedsupportfromthenewvendorortheavailabilityofsoftwareupgradesandreplacementparts.Thelongerwedelayimplementinganopticalscanvotingsystem,themoreitwillcostourstateandcountiestocontinuetopatchtogetherouragingtouch‐screensystem.Anopticalscansystemwillreduceourdependenceuponexpensivevendorsupportandreturnourelectionadministrationtoalevelthatlocalelectionofficialscanmoreeasilymanage.CuyahogaCountyisagoodmodelforexcellentcontract5negotiation.Ohioelectionofficialsactivelysoughtinputfromtechnicalandlegalexpertsandelectionofficialsinotherjurisdictions,andtheirparticipationresultedinacarefullycraftedcontractwithexcellentpricing.SomeofthesamenationalexpertswhoassistedCuyahogaCountyhaveofferedtoprovidetheirlegal,technical,andpracticalexpertiseimmediatelyandonaprobonobasistoreviewMaryland’scontractproposalsifthestateisinterestedandifthetimeframeallows.AsMarylandhaslearnedfromitscurrentvotingsystem,thedecisionswemakenowmayhavelong‐termconsequences,bothfiscallyandinsecuringourmostfundamentalrightascitizensofademocracy:therighttochoosethosewhogovernus.Let’smoveforwardandputinplaceavotingsystemthatwillserveuswell,bothnowandinthefuture.

RebeccaWilsonCo‐Director,SAVEourVotes

Rebecca@saveourvotes.org202.716.3759(cell)

REFERENCES

1Annualcostsofthetouch‐screenvotingsystemarefromA Study of Vote Verification Technologies, Part I: Technical Study,page7:

http://www.umbc.edu/mipar/Documents/VoteVerificationStudyReport‐FINAL.pdf2LindaLamone,StateAdministratorofElections,“ResponsetoDepartmentofLegislativeServices’FY10BudgetAnalysis.”

http://www.dbm.maryland.gov/agencies/operbudget/Documents/2010Testimony/d38i01_sbe.pdf3Zetter,Kim.Wired.com:Diebold Quietly Patches Security Flaw in Vote Counting Software:http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/08/diebold‐audit‐logs

4ElectionSystems&Software,DS200brochure:http://www.essvote.com/HTML/products/DS200.html5Thecontractispostedat:http://www.boe.cuyahogacounty.us/en‐US/07102008‐contract‐resolution.aspx