Dallas County approves new e‑poll book contract amid cost and certification questions

Dallas County Commissioners Court approved a contract Feb. 11 to purchase electronic poll books and related services from the vendor identified in the meeting record as No, Inc., committing to a two‑year agreement with three one‑year renewal options.

The decision follows several hours of discussion about price differences with the county's incumbent supplier and other bidders, state reimbursement for hardware, training needs, delivery timing and data‑integration approaches. County staff said the final award would require an initial hardware outlay that the state will reimburse in part and that annual maintenance costs under the recommended contract will be higher than the county's current licensing outlay.

County and elections staff told the court the recommended contract would cover 4,500 devices and associated support, with the vendor proposing delivery of most units by mid‑March and some units deferred to October so invoicing would fall in a later fiscal year. Mario Garcia, speaking for elections staff, said the county used 3,152 e‑poll units in the November election and that the vendor's price for those units on the recommended contract was about $4.34 million, a number the county expects to submit for state reimbursement. “We used 3152 units in November,” Garcia said.

Staff estimated the five‑year net difference between continuing with the county's prior vendor and adopting the recommended contract at roughly $1.8 million before counting state reimbursements. Staff and commissioners discussed two cost frames: raw five‑year contract comparisons and the county's expected out‑of‑pocket after state reimbursements and use of an existing local fund (identified in the meeting as Chapter 19) to cover matching costs. Under staff's projection, the county's net cash impact in the first year after reimbursements was described as roughly $200,000–$400,000 and an ongoing annual delta of several hundred thousand dollars compared with the current yearly license cost.

Commissioners also pressed staff on operational risks. Commissioners asked whether the recommended vendor would be able to integrate with the county's incumbent voter registration system (VOTEC) and how voter history would be posted after check‑ins. Staff described two architectures: a direct real‑time link (used by one vendor) and a cloud‑export/import workflow (used by the recommended vendor). The county IT and elections staff noted the cloud approach requires daily export/import steps but keeps the voter registration system air‑gapped from an external cloud service, which IT staff characterized as a security trade‑off.

Other operational issues discussed included on‑site support and training. Staff said the contract includes virtual technical support, a block of on‑site support days around implementation and a pool of additional on‑site days that can be scheduled later. Commissioners and staff emphasized that countywide poll worker retraining must begin in March to be ready for the May elections. Staff told the court the vendor committed to deliver most devices by about March 18 and to supply an initial set of units for training before March.

Cost comparisons with the other main bidder were discussed but not comprehensively quantified; staff said the other offer was in the same ballpark. The court also discussed certification risk: one vendor previously used by the county had been decertified by the state, and staff said waiting for a previously considered vendor to regain certification could leave the county without a certified option before training and election deadlines.

After discussion the court moved and seconded approval of the recommended contract; following a motion to reconsider and a second, the final vote to approve the contract was 4 in favor and 1 opposed. The court directed elections staff to proceed with contract award and to move forward with training and implementation planning.

The court record includes conditions staff said are in the recommended contract: vendor commitments to on‑site technical support during implementation, maintenance and security obligations, an enforceable return/unlock clause if the contract ends, and contractual remedies for noncompliance. Staff said they also requested the vendor to separate invoicing so state‑reimbursable units and county‑paid units could be billed to different fiscal years.

Implementation steps identified on the record include securing the state reimbursement for eligible hardware, starting poll worker training in March, and establishing an on‑site support schedule through election day. Staff said they would return to the court with any further changes required by legal or purchasing review.

Notes: The vendor name in the transcript appears as several variants ("No, Inc.", "Know Inc."); the county record should be used to confirm the vendor's legal name and contract identifiers before any external citation.