The owner came to us with a quote from another firm that specified a full intrusion panel replacement. That quote was roughly double what the job needed to cost, and the reason was straightforward: replacing a panel is easier to sell than integrating with one. The panel in question was old but healthy, fully functional, and the tenants already knew how to use it.
Our position was that the panel could stay. What it needed was a bridge to the new access control system so arming and disarming followed door events instead of being a separate ritual staff had to remember. That's a day of work and a $180 interface module — not a fourteen-thousand-dollar replacement.
What went in
Coverage was driven by sightlines rather than camera count. Three of the positions in the competing quote were pointed at walls.
The complication
The west riser was at capacity. We found this on day two, which is later than we should have. The choice was trenching new conduit through a parking area the owner leases, or routing everything around the east side of the building.
We routed east. It added four days of labour and about ninety metres of cable, and it avoided a conduit job that would have cost more than the cameras while shutting down eleven parking spaces for a week. The owner made that call once we laid out both options with numbers attached.
Riser capacity should have been confirmed during the survey, not discovered at install. It's now a standing item on our survey sheet — we pull ceiling tiles and photograph every riser before quoting. Four days of surprise labour is the kind of thing that should never reach a client's invoice as a surprise.
Result
Six months in service
- Each tenant carries one credential; the landlord retains override on common doors
- Arming follows the last-out door event rather than a manual keypad routine
- Original intrusion panel retained, still under the owner's existing monitoring contract
- Thirty days of retention at 4MP across fourteen positions
- Final cost came in 46% under the competing quote, entirely by not replacing working equipment
One service call since handover — a firmware update on a single camera that had drifted out of its support window. Handled remotely in under an hour.