federally mandated Help America Vote Act of 2002 (HAVA). All selected vendors are providing electronic voting devices. Diebold Elections Systems and ES&S also are offering precinct-count optical scan devices.
Sequoia Voting Systems was previously removed from the vendor evaluation process. The company filed suit in the Ohio Court of Claims and obtained a permanent injunction. Seeking to avoid delays of several months in appellate court, Blackwell negotiated and reached agreement with the vendor. The secretary of state will work in tandem with the attorney general and Sequoia to seek dismissal of the Court of Claims decision, and toward an amicable resolution of all outstanding legal issues.
"From the beginning of this process our goal was to offer Ohioans the most accurate and secure voting machinery available, with the best service, price and warranty available as well," Blackwell said. "Based on our market analysis, we are confident that the price, service and warranty we have negotiated is one of, if not, the best in the nation."
The total cost of ownership, which is the best state negotiated pricing in the nation for a single electronic voting system device and support is as follows: Diebold Elections Systems AccuVote-TS, $2,964.96; ES&S iVotronic, $2,896.68; Maximus/Hart Intercivic/DFM Associates eSlate 3000, $2,997.97; and Sequoia Voting Systems AVC Edge, $2,966.89. Precinct count optical scan cost of ownership, also best in the nation, is as follows: Diebold Elections Systems AccuVote-OS, $4,127 and ES&S Model 100, $5,499. The secretary of state estimates that at least three electronic voting devices or one precinct count optical scan device will be necessary at each of the state's 11,614 precincts.
necessary voting machines, software, full implementation support, extensive training of over 48,000 election officials and Election Day assistance.
In addition, full warranty on all equipment and software has been included for five years (with pricing also negotiated for years six through ten), which is the longest duration contract negotiated at the state level to
date. Accenture, LLP was hired to identify, collect and analyze key data related to the vendors, their products, pricing trends, economic factors and other industry data points. Their market data analysis assisted the secretary of state negotiating team in determining the true market value of systems and terms resulting in a savings of $33 million from initial bids to final negotiated costs.
The secretary of state's evaluation process was structured into four phases, with critical decisions made at the end of each phase. Phase one focused on mandatory requirements such as prior experience, capacity to satisfy delivery schedules and certification by national and state election systems accrediting organizations. A technical review of proposals was conducted in the second phase. Vendors performed product demonstrations during the third phase. The fourth phase focused on cost proposal evaluations. Vendors that were successful in all four phases entered into final negotiations, which addressed overall product value and contract terms.
Previously, Blackwell announced a phased-in election reform implementation process beginning with the March 2004 primary election. "The number of counties involved in a March election systems upgrade is entirely dependent on our security review and the resources available from the federal government," Blackwell said. "While vendor negotiations were ongoing, it was not possible to develop an implementation priority list without total cost figures. Now that we have concluded our negotiations, we can begin coordination with county boards of elections and develop a priority list."
The county board of elections selection and implementation schedules regarding electronic voting devices will not apply until all testing is completed. However, election officials should continue to evaluate voting
systems while testing is ongoing. Counties that prefer precinct count optical scan systems may request implementation immediately. All four vendors are qualified and worthy of serious consideration by county boards of elections. The secretary of state has no bias either positively or negatively in the counties' decisions on vendor selection. A document detailing the agency's evaluation process is available online at www.state.oh.us/sos/.
