Download - Presentation of ES&S John Groh, Senior Vice President of Government Relations October 15, 2007
Presentation of ES&SJohn Groh, Senior Vice President of Government RelationsOctober 15, 2007
Topics
• Overview of important facts
• Our Company
• AutoMARK
• Federal qualification/state certification processes
• Timelines
• ATS and SysTest remarks
• Summary
• Conclusion
ES&S Position
• AutoMARK -- federally qualified and California certified
• Non-functional, de minimis hardware modifications were approved through federal process
• NASED considered hardware modifications part of existing qualified and certified system
• State was aware of modified hardware
• State certified modified hardware as part of San Francisco voting system
Our Company
Mission
• Maintaining voter confidence and enhancing voting experience
• Providing secure, accurate and reliable voting solutions
History
• Over three decades, ES&S has had successful track record of producing quality results
• Compliance with federal and state certification processes
• First company ever to receive certification of voting equipment under 1990 VVSS and end to end voting system under 2002 VVSS
• Help America Vote Act(HAVA)
• Ballot-marking deviceused by voters with disabilities and other special needs
• Well-received by voters and election officials
• Certified and installed in 29 states
The AutoMARK Voter Assist Terminal
Federal Qualification Process
• Overseen by NASED (National Association of State Election Directors)
• States accept and rely on NASED qualification
• Evaluation
• Testing
• Review
• Independent Testing Authorities (ITAs)
Independent Testing Authorities
Function of the Independent Testing Authorities (ITAs)• Approved and accredited by NASED
• Conduct extensive qualification testing
• Provide detailed reports to NASED Technical Committee as part of qualification process
• Consider and review hardware changes to already approved voting systems
• Review submission of engineering change requests (ECRs)
• Determine action required (if any)
• Modifications to hardware (on previously qualified systems)
• Do not involve modifications to software or firmware
• Reasons for ECRs
• Service and manufacturability
• COTS, end of life, equivalent hardware parts
Engineering Change Requests
Engineering Change Requests
If review finds changes are de minimis (not involving form, fit, or function)
• No new voting system is created
• No new NASED qualification number is assigned
• Previously qualified voting system viewed as unchanged and unaffected
• Historical practice of states, including CA, did not require notice of de minimis hardware changes
AutoMARK Phase 2 (A200)
• Reasons for non-functional modifications to previously CA certified AutoMARK hardware:
• Ease of preventative maintenance
• Manufacturability
• NASED/ITA approved de minimis hardware changes
• No new NASED qualification number was assigned
• Existing voting system was viewed as unaffected and unchanged for voters, poll workers and election officials
Federal Certification Timeline
3/27/06 through
7/27/06
AutoMARK Production
Hardware model A200=Phase2
6/1/05 through
3/27/06
AutoMARK Production
Hardware model A100=Phase 1
12/16/05
All Engineering Change Requests Evaluated and Approved
AutoMARK A200=Phase 2
1/10/06
Electromagnetic Compatibility Qualification Signoff and Review
on AutoMARK A200=Phase 2
AutoMARK NASED Qualified # N-1-16-22-001
Firmware version 1.0.168 (1.0)Hardware model A100=Phase 1
6/1/05
Federal Certification Timeline
3/27/06 through
7/27/06
AutoMARK Production
Hardware model A200=Phase2
6/1/05 through
3/27/06
AutoMARK Production
Hardware model A100=Phase 1
12/16/05
All Engineering Change Requests Evaluated and Approved
AutoMARK A200=Phase 2
1/10/06
Electromagnetic Compatibility Qualification Signoff and Review
on AutoMARK A200=Phase 2
AutoMARK NASED Qualified # N-1-16-22-001
Firmware version 1.0.168 (1.0)Hardware model A100=Phase 1
6/1/05
California Certification Timeline
CA SOS issues certification of
San Francisco Ranked Choice voting system
which includesPhase 2 AutoMARK
10/26/068/3/05
ES&S receives CA certification of
voting system involving Phase 1 AutoMARK
Firmware version 1.0.168 (1.0)
California Certification Timeline
CA SOS issues certification of
San Francisco Ranked Choice voting systemwhich includes
Phase 2 AutoMARK
10/26/068/3/05
ES&S receives CA certification of
voting system involving Phase 1 AutoMARK
Firmware version 1.0.168 (1.0)
AutoMARK A200/Phase 2 Notification and Awareness Timeline
ITA approves Phase 2 modifications
Feb 2006
July2006
ES&S submitsapplication to CA SOSinvolving Phase 2
Oct. 10, 2006
CA SOS testerexamines Phase 2 units as part of San Francisco RCV certification
CA SOS staff determines that Phase 2 units are “unchanged” from Aug. 3, 2005 California certification which involved Phase 1/A100 units
Oct. 11, 2006
CA SOS certifies San Francisco RCV voting system involving Phase 2/A200 units
Oct. 25, 2006
April2006
ITA delivers report to NASED referencing Phase 2
Aug.2006
NASED tech. comm. (including CA examiner) qualifies new voting system including both Phase 1 and Phase 2 units
AutoMARK A200/Phase 2 Notification and Awareness Timeline
ITA approves Phase 2 modifications
Feb 2006
July2006
ES&S submitsapplication to CA SOSinvolving Phase 2
Oct. 10, 2006
CA SOS testerexamines Phase 2 units as part of San Francisco RCV certification
CA SOS staff determines that Phase 2 units are “unchanged” from Aug. 3, 2005 California certification which involved Phase 1/A100 units
Oct. 11, 2006
CA SOS certifies San Francisco RCV voting system involving Phase 2/A200 units
Oct. 25, 2006
April2006
ITA delivers report to NASED referencing Phase 2
Aug.2006
NASED tech. comm. (including CA examiner) qualifies new voting system including both Phase 1 and Phase 2 units
SysTest Labs and ATS
• Brian Phillips, PresidentSysTest Labs Incorporated
• Gary Olivi, VP Technical Operations and COO, AutoMARK Technical Systems, LLC
Summary
• AutoMARK -- federally qualified and California certified
• Non-functional, de minimis hardware modifications were approved through federal process
• NASED considered hardware modifications part of existing qualified and certified system
• Historical practice was that states, including CA, did not require notice of same as they were not considered a “change” to a voting system
• State was aware of modified hardware
• State certified modified hardware as part of San Francisco voting system
Summary
Conclusion
• ES&S acted in good faith and has always complied with what we understood to be the practices and procedures relating to the certification process
• ES&S respectfully requests that the Secretary of State make a no cause determination