Claims of Consultant Bias - Fact or Fantasy
Nick Tusa, August, 2011

When faced with the daunting task of procuring a new public safety radio system or the modernizing of an older analog network, city and county managers often consider utilization of radio consultants to augment their professional staff. Experienced radio consultants help level the technology imbalance between manufacturers and owners as well as help bring value-centric competition into the mix. Ideally, the selected consultant should be fully independent and have no bias toward any one of the various competing radio vendor firms. Yet, how does one know if a consultant under consideration is truly independent and is biased in only one way: toward the system owner?

The best way to evaluate consultants, beyond offered technical credentials, is to examine their past record of project award recommendations. If over a ten year period most award recommendations are found geared to one vendor, then there is reason for concern. Ideally, a consultant's past history should show spirited competition at all levels. And, due to the variability in how vendors respond to proposals, there should be a corresponding and reasonable variability in award recommendations.

So, how does one determine the best consultant candidate from a crowded field? One way is to network with peers via conferences, such as APCO and NENA, as others in comparable circumstances may have utilized consultants in the past. Often radio vendors will suggest possible consultants as well, but be wary and test the waters with more than one vendor. If the same names are suggested by more than one vendor, then that consultant should be strongly considered. If, however, a firm is mentioned only by one vendor and rarely by others, then cautiously explore for bias. It is not unheard of for radio vendors to want to "stack the procurement deck" and suggest only consultants that appear favoring that vendor's product basket. It is a competitive world after all!

Sometimes, in order to downplay the suitability of a solidly unbiased consulting candidate, a vendor may intentionally suggest that an unbiased consultant could be biased…in order to get that consultant taken out of consideration. Again, do some independent checking around and see if the "bias flag" has merit as the last thing you need is to have a vendor's adroitly-played hand of reverse psychology eliminate a strong consulting candidate from your team. Of course, if all of the vendors each say the same consultant is biased against them, you have been inadvertently steered to the most vendor-neutral, unbiased candidate of all!

TCS gets it fair share of grumbles from vendors who are not successful in any given proposal opportunity. They can't imagine why their proposal got graded down and that the "obviously-inferior" Vendor X secured an award recommendation. Must be some of that vendor bias going on at TCS…right? We don't agree and here are a few examples why not:

In a recent Floyd County, Georgia opportunity, when TCS reviewed Unsuccessful Vendor #1's site configuration design we determined two of the identified infrastructure sites were not constructible as proposed. Whenever a turnkey proposal includes obviously non-viable sites, that coverage submittal as well as any indicated proposed cost is meaningless. Any recommendation of obviously deficient designs exposes the owner to implementation delays as well as unbridled cost overruns.

In this case, Unsuccessful Vendor #1 called for the addition of three microwave antennas and two radio antennas within the top twenty feet of an existing tower. Worse, one of those microwave antennas was twelve-feet in diameter! Below is a picture of the tower, absent the five proposed new antennas. (Hint: the proposed antenna placements were to be affixed onto the small straight section at the top).

Unsuccessful Vendor #1's "5-antenna solution" was unrealistic

Unfortunately, it didn't end there for Unsuccessful Vendor #1. Also proposed was the construction of an antenna framework for two microwave antennas and radio antennae atop this lime tank:

Antennas site proposed on condemned lime tank

Sadly (at least for Unsuccessful Vendor #1), we determined within approximately forty minutes that the envisioned antennae construction on the lime tank was impossible since the operator had already condemned the tank and had plans to construct a building in its place. There were other factors that downgraded Unsuccessful Vendor #1's proposal evaluation results, such as an inadequate maintenance provider among others, which precipitated a significant scoring difference between the two responding vendors. Naturally, Unsuccessful Vendor #1 claimed TCS bias toward Successful Vendor #2.

In Tallahassee, Florida the same two vendors vied for a replacement 800MHz Project-25 simulcast project. Here, Vendor #1 was deemed successful since they proposed a coverage-compliant solution at a realistic turnkey price. And, to further their advantage, its tower site configuration was constructible as proposed. We found Vendor #2 to be technically non-complaint since they proposed the use of portable/mobile radios and base stations that had not been granted FCC type-acceptance approval. Vendor #2 claimed TCS was biased toward Vendor #1 for no apparent reason, if only to make noise. TCS has an unbreakably strong bias with respect to the FCC, regulatory compliance and keeping our clients out of hot water, so Vendor #2 got to wear the dunce cap.

Finally, we have the instance of a competitive procurement involving three responding vendors…two with great experience and grouped tightly together in the evaluation scoring process. The third vendor (Vendor #3) was a relative newcomer to the domestic radio scene and had virtually no experience deploying 800MHz simulcast radio technology within the United States. Upon examination, Vendor #3's proposed coverage design was horribly deficient and failed to remotely satisfy in-residence coverage needs. Vendor #3 seemed incapable of recognizing its failure to understand the specifications, although we tried numerous attempts to provide enlightenment. Far worse, Vendor #3's price was less than half that of the experienced vendors…suggesting a case of a proposer failing to comprehend the "unknown unknowns" of network construction, functionality and performance. Predictably, Vendor #3 scored dead-last when evaluated and their selection was not our recommendation.

The national economy being what it is, our client became unusually willing to take a sizable risk and requested TCS negotiate first with Vendor #3 in the hopes of bringing them into technical compliance and preserving a cost-attractive deal. We did and eventually were successful in negotiating Vendor #3's site configuration into one more resembling that of our initial conceptual solutions and similar to that offered by the more experienced Vendor #1. Vendor #3 came back from the ashes of last-place and went on to win the client's favor….a true-grit performance by the underdog, if there ever was one.

Predictably, Vendor #3 has been heard to claim TCS has a bias toward both Vendors #1 and #2, giving proof to the adage: "no good deed goes unpunished".

These three examples were selected to illustrate how even the best radio consultants can be targeted by vendors who claim their unsuccessful or inadequate proposal submissions have somehow been unjustly considered. TCS has been evaluating proposal responses in the same fair, consistent manner since 1992….in fact, we have published papers on exactly how proposals are reviewed and have gone the extra mile of coaching vendors on the art of good proposal writing. This, we believe is necessary to secure the best, most advantageous solutions possible through an open, competitive environment.

Our only "bias" is to ensure TCS clients receive the best solution value possible…..ALWAYS.