2009 Security Electronic Contractor Report

An Emlen Publication
www.correctionalnews.com
SECURITY
ELECTRONICS
State of the Market
This report is published by Correctional News, the information source for the correctional construction market. Address correspondence
to: 1241 Andersen Drive, Suite N, San Rafael, CA 94901, 415-460-6185, fax: 415-460-6288, www.correctionalnews.com
2009 ANNUAL SECURITY ELECTRONICS
CONTRACTOR LIST
Company Name
Contact number
Location
Area of Expertise
Geographic
Areas Covered
Annual
Revenue
Largest Contract
Awarded
Current
Projects
Value of
Current Projects
Number of
Employees
MCS Detention
(210) 495-5245
San Antonio, TX
Integrated control systems, touch
screens PDAs
International
$40 million
$7.5 million
98
$61 million
195
South Western
Communications Inc.
(256) 351-2445
Decatur, AL
Correctional and justice systems,
integration of touch screens, graphic
panels, intercom and CCTV. Specializing
in new construction and retrofits.
United States
$37.8 million
$2.4 million
47
$24 million
48
Com-Tec Security LLC
(920) 882-8856
Appleton, WI
Custom-designed integrated security
systems.
International
$20 million
$9.6 million
30
$21.2 million
43
Sierra Detention Systems
(303) 278-6879
Golden, CO
Detention electronics, hardware, hollow
metal and installation.
United States
$19.8 million
$8.5 million
24
$14 million
65
EO Integrated Systems Inc.
(586) 752-3200
Washington, MI
Integrated electronic security systems
for new and existing detention facilities.
United States
$18.5 million
$3.5 million
72
$30.9 million
52
Norment Security GroupTrentech
(334) 281-8440
Montgomery, AL
Door controls, video visitation,
electronics integration.
International
$18 million
$10 million
40
$22 million
54
Accurate Controls Inc.
(920) 748-6603
Ripon, WI
Engineering, software development,
assembly and installation of security
automation systems using only nonproprietary systems and software.
United States
$16 million
$3.5 million
50
$22 million
57
ESI Companies Inc.
(901) 386-7340
Memphis, TN
Manufacturer and installer of CCTV
and security electronics, and
electronic systems integrator.
United States
$15 million
$20 million
40
$9 million
65
Southern Folger Detention
Equipment Co.
(210) 531-4117
San Antonio, TX
Designer, manufacturer and installer
of security systems.
International
$15 million
$2.6 million
51
$15 million
25
Engineered Control Systems (509) 483-5102
Spokane, WA
Correctional systems integrator
Western U.S.
$12 Million
$8.1 Million
32
$14 million
32
Secure Control Systems LLC (210) 530-5245
San Antonio, TX
CCTV, intercom, access control, PLC
systems and retrofits.
United States
$10 million
$6 million
8
$14 million
30
Simpson Security
Systems Inc.
(318) 443-3391
Alexandria, LA
Supplier and integrator of CCTV,
PLCs, fire safety and control systems.
Southeastern and
South Central U.S.
$10 million
$6 million
42
$9 million
65
Black Creek Integrated
Systems Corp.
(205) 949-9900
Irondale, AL
Touch screen security control systems.
United States
$8 million
$3 million
N/A
N/A
45
Status Automation,
Division of Status Electrical
Corp.
(877) 859-1892
Seattle, WA
Security Electronics integrator and
Installer
Pacific Northwest,
California, Arizona,
Nevada and Texas
$5 million
$2.5 million
7
$4 million
20
Professional Systems
Engineering LLC
(800) 839-5060
Lansdale, PA
Integration, design and commissioning
of security and detention control
hardware and systems for courts, jails
and corrections.
United States
$2 million+
$19 million
25
$50 million
20
Easter-Owens
(303) 431-0111
Arvada, CO
Security Electronics
North America and
Puerto Rico
$1.2 million
$393,919
3
$421,434
55
SafetyTech Inc.
(765) 534-4309
Lapel, IN
Fire alarms, fire suppression and
fire extinguishers.
Midwest U.S.
$500,000
$300,000
4
$800,000
20
LARGEST SEC EMPLOYERS
COMPANY NAME:
# OF EMPLOYEES
1. MCS Detention . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .195
2. Sierra Detention Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .65
3. ESI Companies Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .65
4. Simpson Security Systems Inc.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .65
5. Accurate Controls Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .57
6. Easter Owens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .55
7. Norment Security Group-Trentech . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .54
8. EO Integrated Systems Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .52
9. South Western Communications Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .48
10. Black Creek Integrated Systems Corp. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .45
page 2
On the Fence
Baruch Koren Discusses Security Electronics Solutions and Trends
By Roibín Ó hÉochaidh
Baruch Koren has been involved in the
design and installation of more than 100
perimeter security and intrusion detection
systems at correctional facilities while serving as vice president at DeTekion Security
Systems Inc. He is a former member of the
Israeli Defense Forces and served seven
years with the security division of the Israeli
Foreign Office.
Koren spoke with Correctional News
via telephone about the perimeter security
market, trends and technology and issues
in the corrections market.
Q: How has the perimeter security
market changed in the past 10 to 15 years?
A: From the perspective of operational design, we’ve seen a major move
away from watchtowers, which are manpower intensive, to more flexible and less
staff-intensive electronic solutions. New
prisons and jails are far more likely to be
built with perimeter intrusion detention
systems than a string of watchtowers.
Today, when watchtowers are incorporated, they tend to be located at the
main entrance or sally port, where staff
can directly monitor facility access and
inmate movement during the day.
Staffing levels can be reduced at night
when inmates return to housing units.
The watchtower functions as a central
control station from which staff monitor and manage a perimeter security
system that combines PIDS, integrated
sur veillance and lighting systems, and
mobile patrols and response teams.
With approximately five staff, at say
$50,000 per officer per year, required to
man each tower, moving from a watchtower-based system to one that relies on
electronic solutions can generate significant annual operational savings through
lower staffing costs.
Q: How has the technology for perimeter
security changed?
A: As a result of progress on the technology side and in increased processing
power, we’ve seen the systems become
more reliable with a significant reduction
in false and nuisance alarm rates.
In the 1970s, technology was an alien
concept and most staff were reluctant to
rely on it to guarantee facility safety and
security. Today, security operations and
SEC WITH THE MOST CONTRACTS
MCS Detention
98
EO Integrated Systems Inc.
72
Southern Folger Detention Equipment Co. 51
Accurate Controls Inc.
50
South Western Communications Inc.
Simpson Security Systems Inc.
47
42
Norment Security Group-Trentech 40
ESI Companies Inc.
40
Com-Tec Security LLC
30
Professional Systems Engineering LLC
0
25
25
50
75
100
page 4
Koren
maintenance staff are more knowledgeable and comfortable with using technology. There was a definite trend toward
integrating as much technology as possible and systems got very complex. Not
every technology is the right fit for every
facility or project. In my opinion, the simplest approach is always best.
Q: What about equipment changes on
the technology side?
A: One more recent change has been
a trend toward the integration of electronic intrusion detection systems on
both the inner and outer perimeters to
enhance the detection and delay functions of the system.
Most facilities integrate a PIDS on the
primary or inner fence with the secondar y outer perimeter consisting of a
barbed or razor wire fence without any
electronic component. The inner fence
detects a breach and activates the alarm
and the outer fence acts to delay the
escape attempt.
However, the secondary perimeter
can be breached and the delay function
defeated from the outside without activating the primary perimeter’s detection and
alarm functions. Integrating electronic
intrusion detection measures on the
outer fence or between the primary and
secondary perimeters creates built-in system redundancy and inward and outward
oriented detection and delay capacity that
increases system effectiveness.
Employing different types of intrusion detection measures on the inner and
outer perimeter also reduces the probability of a breach successfully circum-
venting both perimeters without detection and delay.
Q: What’s the secret to creating the best
perimeter security system?
A: There isn’t one universal solution
for every problem. The key to creating
the best perimeter security system is
evaluating facility requirements and constraints and defining the right combination of manpower and electronics to meet
those needs.
It is imperative to assess each facility in
terms of needs and constraints. Evaluate
potential solutions and deploy a system
that is right for the facility, one that will do
what the owner wants and expects.
Q: What should a facility owner consider
when evaluating perimeter security systems?
A: Systems should fulfill the five
essential functions of perimeter security:
deterrence, detection, delay, assessment
and response. Owners need to ensure
that systems perform in each of these
areas because security staff will not have
confidence in a system that fails to deliver consistently in any of these areas. A
system that does not inspire the confidence of your staff is worthless.
Q: What other factors are important to
consider in evaluating a system?
A: The system needs to be matched
to the type of facility, the surrounding
environment, its proximity to population
centers and the general public, and the
type and security level of inmates.
Different solutions and systems are bet-
ter suited to different facility types and
security levels.
Owners also need to take account of
system compatibility, flexibility and scalability. Look out for proprietary issues and
factor the projected life cycle and maintenance and operational costs into the evaluation and decision-making process. It is
important to clearly understand and define
facility needs, evaluating the consequences
of a breach and developing a precise specification for the system, from the outset.
A clear, well-defined, detailed specification will get an owner what he wants,
but a loose specification will never meet
facility requirements.
Q: What should facility owners look at
when considering different technologies?
A: System performance is also affected by environmental conditions —
topography, grading flow of water, lines
of sight, prevailing climatic conditions
and seasonal weather patterns. Different
sensors are more or less suited to different environmental conditions.
In terms of system performance and
sensitivity, the probability of detection
and false alarm and nuisance alarm
rates pull in opposite directions. Each
sensor has its particular strengths and
weaknesses, advantages and disadvantages. From this perspective, it is
imperative that owners take the time to
do research.
Vendors often discuss system performance in terms of specified rates of
detection and false and nuisance alarms,
but such statements are founded on a
Five Essential Sensor
Technology Factors:
Topography/Occlusions: Line-ofsight microwave sensors function
best in terrain that is flat and clear
of obstacles. A terrain-following
sensor is designed to work in
uneven terrain.
Volumetric/Line Mode: Sensors in
volumetric mode detect intruders in
a defined volume of space or zone
above or below ground. The zone
of detection for sensors in line mode
is confined to a defined line or
plane, such as a fence or wall.
Active/Passive: Active sensors
transmit energy and detect a
change in received energy entering
a field or perimeter space. Passive
sensors detect the vibration, pressure and heat of an intruder’s presence and movement.
Overt/Covert: Sensors can be
installed above or below ground,
fence- or wall-mounted, or free
standing. Readily accessible, visible
sensors act as a deterrent and are
easy to install and maintain, but are
more susceptible to tampering and
defeat. Difficult to detect and defeat,
hidden or embedded sensors are
more difficult to install and maintain.
True-False Alarm Rate: The rate of
nuisance and false alarms generally
pulls in the opposite direction to the
probability of detection. This inversely proportional relationship between
rates of true-positive and false-positive alarms should inform the facility
needs assessment and perimeter
security evaluation as part of a costbenefit analysis.
TOP 10 SECURITY EQUIPMENT CONTRACTORS
COMPANY NAME:
ANNUAL REVENUE
1. MCS Detention . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$40 million
2. South Western Communications Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . .$37.8 million
3. Com-Tec Security LLC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$20 million
4. Sierra Detention Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$19.8 million
5. EO Integrated Systems Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$18.5 million
6. Norment Security Group-Trentech. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$18 million
7. Accurate Controls Inc . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$16 million
8. ESI Companies Inc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$15 million
9. Southern Folger Detention Equipment Company. . . . . . .$15 million
10. Engineered Control Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$12 million
page 5
ceteris paribus scenario, where many factors are held to be constant. Attending
tradeshows and talking to vendors, manufacturers, industry professionals and
other owners is a great way to get valuable information about particular systems and technologies.
Facility owners need to consider
what kind of facility they have, where it is
located and what they want the system to
do. Ideally, owners should test the system in the field before full deployment in
their facility.
Q: What trends are you seeing in
perimeter security?
A: As with all aspects of design, con-
struction and operations, the bottom
line and financial considerations are
ever present. Many departments and
jurisdictions have begun to use inmates
to install their perimeter security systems in order to reduce costs.
The project tends to take a little
longer to complete but can generate significant cost savings depending on the
technology — the more labor- intensive
the system and installation, the greater
the cost savings. Some jurisdictions now
have dedicated inmate installation and
maintenance crews that have developed
a great deal of experience, which speeds
project completion times.
From a security standpoint, all the
programming and installation work tasks
for field termination points, head-end
components and system control functions are performed by facility staff or private contractors, rather than inmates.
The issues and concerns are generally
outweighed by the economics and the
benefit for the inmates.
Q: How is the technology changing?
A: Some of the newer systems coming on line now achieve a greater integration across facility systems, such as with
sur veillance cameras and lighting.
Incorporating more advanced neural
technologies and logarithms, systems
offer increasing refinement and display
resolution capabilities with regard to the
point of alarm and classification or
method of breach.
Systems are increasingly able to differentiate between events, such as a sawing action and a wind gust, which increases system accuracy and performance and
minimizes nuisance alarms.
Q: Are there innovations in the application of existing technologies?
A: Existing technology is also being
refined in terms of configuration with a
marked trend toward the deployment of
hybrid systems that combine two different technologies — where one technology is better at detecting one kind of
breach, such as climbing, and the other
technology is better at detecting a different kind of breach, such as cutting — on
one perimeter fence.
For example, microphonic sensor
cables and taut wire systems can both
detect cutting and climbing, but we can calibrate the taught wire component to detect
only climbing and deploy it only on the
upper portion of the perimeter fence and
outrigger. At the same time, we can calibrate the microphonic sensor component
to detect only cutting and deploy it only on
the lower portion of the perimeter.
Q: What is the benefit of such a
hybrid system compared to single-technology systems?
A: Taut wire systems have a low nuisance alarm rate and high detection probability but are very costly. Microphonic
sensor systems are relatively inexpensive
but have a higher nuisance alarm rate
due to wind susceptibility.
Combining the two technologies creates a system that is less expensive than
a full taught wire system but offers a
higher probability of detection and lower
nuisance alarm rate than a system that
relies solely on microphonic sensors.
Q: What other trends are impacting
the industry, systems and performance?
A: Current trends in the market
include the redesign of systems to
locate as much of the electronics as
possible inside and to isolate system
power requirements from other electronic components.
Systems are also being designed to
provide uninterruptible power supply for
the control room or watch tower and system power components are being located
FIVE HIGHEST CONTRACT AWARDS
1. ESI Companies Inc . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$20 million
2. Professional Systems Engineering LLC . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$19 million
3. Norment Security Group-Trentech . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$10 million
Mission-Critical Functions
of Perimeter Security
Deterrence: A perimeter security
system should establish, secure and
discourage breaches of a welldefined protected area.
Detection: Solutions should integrate intrusion detection capabilities
to provide real-time detection, location and notification of unauthorized
breaches of perimeter security.
Delay: System architecture should
incorporate measures that delay intruders or escapees and allow security personnel to reach the detected breach.
Assessment: Systems should have the
capacity to reliably and consistently
assess and confirm the validity, source
and type of perimeter breach to deliver a high degree of true-positive and
low degree of false-positive detection.
Response: A perimeter security system should facilitate an immediate,
efficient, directed response from
security personnel by providing the
location and vector of validated
perimeter breaches.
in facility equipment or building systems
spaces.
Fiberoptics are increasingly replacing
traditional copper wiring, which is susceptible to power surge damage from
lightning strikes, to transmit alarm and
sensor data back to the control room.
Q: Are there any new technologies on
the horizon?
A: Our industr y is constantly striving to refine existing technology and
systems to further reduce nuisance
alarm rates and to increase accuracy in
pinpointing the location and type of
breach event.
System processors are key in this
regard and overall system performance
and reliability will continue to improve
as processing power and capacity develops. In terms of future trends, there is a
new sensor system in development that
uses solid-state electronics with no
moving parts and technology similar to
an automobile airbag, which should
provide more robust performance in
the field.
4. Com-Tec Security LLC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$9.6 million
5. Sierra Detention Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$8.5 million
DeTekion Security Systems Inc.
page 6
www.detekion.com
What Keeps Me Up at Night
How Intelligent Is My Video Surveillance System?
By Gregory J. Offner
At AECOM Design, I work with a
group of industr y experts who are
immersed in the world of security electronics. They rigorously evaluate the
performance of new products and technologies before making project specification recommendations to clients on mission-critical facility systems.
The video surveillance market is
worth about $1 billion worldwide. The
intelligent video and Internet protocol
network sectors represent a small, but
growing, percentage of the overall surveillance market.
The shift to networked digital surveillance has generated criticism from
some corners of the industry. However,
market indicators and product performance metrics suggests intelligent video
systems are performing well and are
winning a larger share of the market
from CCTV surveillance equipment and
systems manufacturers.
Information technology companies,
such as Cisco and EMC, are accelerating
product innovations and enhancements,
while video surveillance systems competitors like Axis Communications,
Indigo Vision, IVI and others are benefiting from the growth of the IP networked
surveillance market.
Shifting Technology
The current generation of intelligent
video and IP-based cameras and systems
are able to satisfy the high-performance
needs of the security industry, and the
market dominance of CCTV/DVR technology is slowing as understanding and
utilization of NVR hardware and software gathers momentum.
Intelligent video and IP-based systems
offer capabilities that the CCTV/DVR systems cannot provide, including objectbased video capabilities and the use of
metadata to analyze object movement.
One key component that allows IPnetworked systems to offer additional
features and capabilities beyond the
conventional CCTV cameras is the use
of IP cameras. Similar to analog cameras, IP cameras include a day/night
mode that provides bright images
when monitoring objects at dusk and in
dimly lit environments.
IP cameras offer slower shutter
modes for enhanced image brightness
and variable settings that help capture
high-contrast images with better resolution. The IP units include PTZ functions
and also provide bi-directional audio
options. Voice and motion alert functions
for pre-recorded audio files allow users
to conser ve bandwidth by viewing
images at lower resolutions.
Intelligent video has gone beyond
simple motion detection, object and person tracking, and tamper notification by
adding security-enhancing applications,
such as automatic license plate and facial
recognition capabilities and life safety
functions.
Technology can be integrated into
fire detection systems to search video
streams for visual heat-source indicators
of a fire and provide facility staff with an
early warning.
Conventional fire detection systems
are activated when smoke from a fire
reaches a smoke detector. Intelligent
video systems can be calibrated to trigger an alarm when the light of a flame is
detected in the camera’s specific coverage zone, which is typically limited by
the camera’s field, depth of view and line
of sight.
However, fire codes in certain jurisdictions do not permit the use of video
identification as the sole fire detection
system, which has limited widespread
adoption of the technology for such life
safety functions.
Facility Must Haves
At the top of my must-have list is
license plate recognition capability,
which can enhance security at high-risk
locations, such as courthouses and cor-
page 7
Offner
rectional facilities.
License plate recognition technology
can be used as a protective measure to
verify the identity of individuals and
their vehicles and to monitor and control
facility access. Parking lots can become
an additional layer of security screening
to augment conventional measures, such
as photo identification checks for staff
and visitors, and enhance perimeter and
interior security.
Cameras, which can automatically
track vehicles entering a parking lot for
length of stay, can be used to screen
vehicle license plates and run a rapid
background check against law enforcement databases for a full or partial match
of suspect or flagged vehicles.
A facial recognition system is another must-have on my list. Facial recognition is similar to license plate scanning
technology and linking to the data pool
is often the biggest challenge in deploying the system.
The system scans and compares the
face of a target individual against a photographic database of faces, such as
booking or driver’s license images.
Security staff in correctional and court
facilities can also use facial recognition
technology to enhance access control
and security, monitoring visitor traffic
for flagged individuals or convicted
offenders entering the facility.
Is Big Brother watching?
Intelligent video surveillance systems have the capacity to enhance facility safety and security. However, the technology has drawn criticism on account of
the perceived threat to privacy posed by
potential applications.
Facility managers can use a staff
tracking capability to ensure scheduled
patrols and checks are executed or that
deployment of a fixed-point security
detail is in place as required.
Some agency or jurisdictional regulations or management-union work agreements/contracts may preclude or
restrict audio-video surveillance of staff
or staff areas. Before designing and
installing an intelligent video system,
systems integrators should find out if
such restrictions are in place.
In my experience, performing a regular, verifiable purge of audio-video data
files provides relatively simple means of
allaying any staff privacy concerns.
Optimized Deployment
Whether you host intelligent video
on a single on-site server across network
endpoints or via remote access depends
on the equipment and the demands of
the operational environment. Beyond
this decision, there are several technical
considerations that can improve the performance and accuracy of your facial
recognition application.
No intelligent video surveillance system is infallible, so when you decide to
deploy this technology, you need to
have realistic expectations. For
instance, deploying a system that yields
a 90 percent accuracy rate is relatively
expensive in comparison to a conventional CCTV system.
Deploying a system with an accuracy rate greater than 90 percent in a realworld criminal justice setting will generally prove extremely challenging and
cost-prohibitive.
Technology Shift
Like other security electronics market segments, video surveillance will
continue to grow and the integration of
intelligent video and IP cameras has the
potential to change the way we monitor,
control and protect the safety and security of criminal justice facilities and
their occupants.
IP-networked video sur veillance
cameras and object-based video surveillance systems experienced a banner
year in 2008. A logical conclusion is to
assume the dramatic growth in market
penetration and system installations for
intelligent video signals the decline and
potential death-knell of CCTV-based
video surveillance equipment and conventional video surveillance.
However, leading CCTV manufacturers insist that analog systems are
still very much in demand in the criminal justice market. Like all new technologies, IP video has a ways to go
before it supercedes analog-based systems as the tried-and-true mainstream
technology of choice.
Taking the macro view of the arc of
technological innovation, development
and life cycle, video analytics is in its
infancy. For now, both analog and IP
cameras are being used with intelligent
video technology.
All things being equal, the future of
object-based intelligent video as the next
transformational catalyst in the development of prison, jail and courthouse security appears assured. I just hope this tectonic shift doesn’t keep me from getting
a good night’s sleep.
Gregory J. Offner is vice president of
AECOM Design in Arlington, Va. He
is a member of the Correctional News
Editorial Advisory Board.
Emlen Publications does not warrant or make any representations regarding the use or the results of
the use of the materials in this publication in terms of their correctness, accuracy, timeliness, reliability,
or otherwise. The user understands that no claims, implicit or explicit, are made for the statistics,
rankings, and other information contained herein and that any conclusions or inferences drawn from the
data are wholly the responsibility of the reader. Given inherent error margins associated with any single
survey result, it may be inappropriate to use the results from this survey for precise rankings in any
particular circumstance. The user understands that, while every effort has been made to harmonize
findings, some differences and errors may persist due to differences in the way questions were posed or
answers were recorded.
page 7