The 2012 Comparative Review of Municipal Maintenance and Infrastructure Asset Management Systems

The Water Finance Research Foundation conducted an industry-wide comparative analysis of core maintenance management and infrastructure asset management functions was completed for the following 14 software systems in alphabetic order: Accela, Agile Assets, Azteca System’s Cityworks, Cartegraph, Cityview, Energov, IBM’s Maximo, Infor/Hansen, Lucity/GBA, Maintenance Connection, Novotx’s Elements, Oracle, Pubworks and Vueworks. A pdf of the analysis can be found here.  “We are pleased to be acknowledged by WaterFinanceRF.org as one of the leading Municipal Maintenance and Asset Management Systems.  Cityworks is the original and foremost Esri® GIS-centric Asset Management System.  It is gratifying for us to be recognized for the excellent value Cityworks provides our municipal and utility customers,” said Brian L. Haslam, President – CEO, Azteca Systems, Inc.

SUMMARY: The United States and Canada face tremendous capital outlays to repair and replace aging municipal and utility infrastructure. Technology is required to better manage the complex decision making process for maintenance, operational and capital investments and resource allocation. This study conducted in 2012 comprises a comparative review of the major computerized maintenance management and infrastructure asset management systems used by municipal governments and water and wastewater utilities in the United States and Canada. The objective of this study is to provide municipal elected officials, public works directors, infrastructure asset managers, maintenance managers, information technology managers, finance directors and procurement staff an overview of municipal maintenance management and infrastructure asset management software in a comparative format in preparation for a request for qualifications or proposals. The comparative criteria includes software costs, vendor services, support, specialization, work orders, inventory control, licensing and permitting, condition assessment, risk management, asset inventory, GIS mapping, Esri GIS integration, 311 systems, mobile devices, Esri GIS ROI and future industry trends. The comparative analysis of core maintenance management and infrastructure asset management functions was completed for the following 14 software systems in alphabetic order: Accela, Agile Assets, Azteca System’s Cityworks, Cartegraph, Cityview, Energov, IBM’s Maximo, Infor/Hansen, Lucity/GBA, Maintenance Connection, Novotx’s Elements, Oracle, Pubworks and Vueworks. Also included in this study, but not in a comparative format is a discussion on Esri GIS as the recommended platform for municipal mapping applications; and Innovyze software offerings for an advanced wet infrastructure/underground network hydraulic modeling decision analytics approach.

1. SUMMARY RESULTS
The summary results of the 2012 comprehensive comparative review and study ranks Azteca System’s Cityworks maintenance management and infrastructure asset management system as the top selection for municipal and utility use. Cityworks has demonstrated strength and longevity in the municipal and utility market place for the last 15 years with a highly developed work order management system, and can fully leverage an organization’s (ROI) investment in the Esri GIS and the ArcGIS geodatabase as the asset repository reducing implementation and long-term maintenance cost of ownership issues. Cityworks maintains some of the most advanced LGT (Local Government Templates) with over 630 work order templates, 150 service requests with detailed condition assessment inspections. The licensing and permitting functionality is further enhanced by the Esri GIS Centric approach in developing connectivity of all public assets, infrastructure and activities.

Software
Functional Score
Price Score*
Cityworks 99 91
Oracle 94 79
Maximo 93 78
Accela 92 82
Infor/Hansen 89 79
Energov 88 82
Cartegraph 87 81
Lucity (GBA) 82 78
Pubworks 65 68
Maintenance 61 61
Vueworks 61 61
Agile Assets 52 58
Elements 50 56
Cityview 33 42

2. INTRODUCTION
In recent years municipalities and water and wastewater systems have struggled significantly in managing the complex and diverse assets that are within their jurisdictions for which they are accountable. Great strides have been made to develop programs and systems to improve cost efficiencies but core work order management software system functionality by itself did not address the growing needs of infrastructure asset management practices. During the most recent five years since the worldwide economic decline, which in part continues today, municipalities and utilities at all levels have faced severe revenue short falls. The actions taken to maintain baseline services involved delaying hundreds of millions of dollars a year in needed maintenance activities and deferring critical capital projects. Efforts made at the state, regional, county, and local levels to better manage assets and allocate limited resources to high profile failing assets were met with a high degree of frustration due to inconsistent and outdated practices, neglected data tracking and storing, and a lack of data integration abilities with silo/stranded data throughout many departments.

Asset Management
Infrastructure asset management programs, offered by different consulting firms, should still be focused on managing assets in a way in which the investment for each asset can be optimized producing a reduction in capital budgets and operating expenditures, an efficient and cost effective maintenance program based on risk and an overall reduction in the cost of capital. One common problem has been when engineering drives the capital agenda and the needs of operations and maintenance are overlooked. Likewise, when the financial tracking and planning functions are also neglected, true enterprise asset management decision making cannot occur. A multidisciplinary approach at a corporate level is highly recommended to create a consistent management-wide effort to guide investments and resource allocation.

Comprehensive asset management professionals understand these concepts and have a global perspective and the ability to customize solutions to each municipality. These professionals possess the expertise in and understanding of the International Infrastructure Management Manual (IIMM), which is essentially the bible of asset management. This training is critical in establishing the foundational knowledge of the comprehensive process of modern asset management. The basic foundation as well as the expectations should be that asset management as a philosophy is a process of continuous improvement and change.

In the United States and Canada, the definition of asset management will continue to be defined by the software tools each organization selects as a means to improve asset performance and manage costs. A reduction of cost can be defined as either a short-term gain or a long-term gain or both. The logic entails that if an asset is not maintained correctly it can fail prematurely. Likewise, an asset replaced prematurely wastes a useful asset and as a result improved performance and investment decision making does not occur. Informed decision making can reduce the overall cost of the asset and function to the benefit of the taxpayers. This process is data intensive and requires the necessary policies, leadership, and structure to meet sustainable infrastructure objectives. The goal to achieve a sense of sustainable infrastructure requires an overall plan including asset management planning, which in turn also requires a financial plan, a technology plan, a service delivery plan, and integration with community planning efforts.

Public Asset Management
The concept of public asset management strives to combine all infrastructure assets and land-based assets and functions to effectively manage the social and environmental goals of the community while offering an improved management decision making process with public review, approval and justification. The current trend is that municipal utilities as capital-intensive enterprise funds will initiate asset management programs during the economic decline and will lead their general city management counterparts of public works, streets, facilities, fleet, parks, signage, bridges, cemeteries, ports and marinas, into an era of sustainability and infrastructure asset management. The expansive nature of the process places a high level of importance on the technology which needs to be applied in a way to gain the greatest benefit overall.

Computerized Maintenance Management Systems (CMMS) and Infrastructure Asset Management Software implementation trends for municipalities demonstrate initial progress in business enterprise funds like water, wastewater, and storm drains migrating efficiencies and practices to other municipal departments. This system functionality migration trend will continue and can be more readily managed with a GIS centered strategy.

3. METHODOLOGY
The comparative analysis of core maintenance management and infrastructure asset management functions was completed for the following 14 software systems in alphabetic order: Accela, Agile Assets, Azteca System’s Cityworks, Cartegraph, Cityview, Energov, IBM’s Maximo, Infor/Hansen, Lucity/GBA, Maintenance Connection, Novotx’s Elements, Oracle, Pubworks and Vueworks.
The comparative criteria includes software costs, vendor services, support, specialization, work orders, inventory, licensing and permitting, condition assessment, risk management, asset inventory, GIS mapping, Esri GIS integration, 311 systems, mobile devices and Esri GIS ROI taking into consideration future industry trends. The four major functional categories include 1) Company/Service, 2) Work Management, 3) Asset Management, and 4) GIS.
Each major component is ranked 1-5 with a 5 as the highest score. A zero represents a function not contained in the software. The Overall Functional Score assumes an even weighting of the four major functional areas.

COMPANY SERVICES
ASSET MANAGEMENT
SERVICES/IMPLEMENTATION CONDITION ASSESSMENT
SUPPORT/TRAINING RISK MANAGEMENT
SPECIALIZATION ASSET INVENTORY/HIERARCHY
WORK ORDERS GIS
WORK ORDERS AND WORK FLOW GIS MAPPING
INVENTORY Esri GIS INTEGRATION
LICENSING AND PERMITS 311 SYSTEMS
MOBILE DEVICES
Esri GIS ROI

4. REVIEW OF SERVICES
The functionality of the core components of a software application is very important, however, the actual success and level of benefit gained is a direct result of the work and support around the planning, implementation, testing and training. The ability for the software vendor to provide enhanced support and training to ensure the successful implementation is critical. In the area of asset management, data conversion and a specialization in specific infrastructure types can ensure a higher degree of utilization of software capabilities.

Company/Services
The Company/Service functional category includes Vendor Services and Implementation, Support and Training Services and Company Strength and Specialization. A ranking score ranging from 1-5 was assigned to software for each of the 3 areas. A “5” score represents the highest functionality, while a low score represents a marginal level of functionality. If software did not have functionality in a given area then a zero was assigned and calculated into the overall scoring.

Services
 
Support
 
Specialization
 
Cityworks 5 Cityworks 5 Cityworks 5
Cartegraph 5 Cartegraph 5 Cartegraph 5
Maximo 5 Maximo 5 Maximo 5
Oracle 5 Infor/Hansen 5 Oracle 5
Accela 4 Lucity (GBA) 5 Accela 4
Energov 4 Oracle 5 Energov 4
Infor/Hansen 4 Accela 4 Infor/Hansen 4
Lucity (GBA) 4 Energov 4 Lucity (GBA) 4
Elements 3 Maintenance 4 Maintenance 4
Maintenance 3 Agile Assets 3 Agile Assets 3
Vueworks 3 Cityview 3 Cityview 3
Agile Assets 2 Elements 3 Elements 3
Cityview 2 Pubworks 3 Pubworks 3
Pubworks 2 Vueworks 3 Vueworks 3

5. REVIEW OF WORK MANAGEMENT
A robust Computerized Maintenance Management System (CMMS) with work orders providing the ability to separate planned or unplanned maintenance costs, builds life cycle cost history, records actual direct costs of the activity, documents the procedures followed, notes the failure mode and primary cause of failure with comments on indirect costs and impacts to customers and possible unproductive time. A basic CMMS alone is not an asset management system. All of this data enables additional possibilities of failure, causal, consequence and efficiency analysis.

Work Management
The Work Management functional category consisted of Work Orders and Work Flow, Inventory Control, and Licensing and Permitting. A ranking score ranging from 1-5 was assigned to software for each of the 3 areas. A “5” score represents the highest functionality, while a low score represents a marginal level of functionality. If software did not have functionality in a given area then a zero was assigned and calculated into the overall scoring.

Work Orders
 
Inventory
 
License/Permits
 
Cityworks 5 Cityworks 5 Cityworks 5
Accela 5 Accela 5 Accela 5
Energov 4 Maximo 5 Cityview 5
Infor/Hansen 4 Lucity (GBA) 5 Energov 5
Maintenance 4 Pubworks 5 Cartegraph 4
Maximo 4 Infor/Hansen 5 Lucity (GBA) 4
Lucity (GBA) 4 Oracle 5 Maximo 4
Cartegraph 4 Cartegraph 5 Infor/Hansen 4
Elements 4 Elements 5 Oracle 4
Oracle 4 Energov 4 Elements 3
Pubworks 4 Maintenance 4 Pubworks 0
Vueworks 4 Vueworks 4 Maintenance 0
Agile Assets 3 Agile Assets 3 Vueworks 0
Cityview 0 Cityview 0 Agile Assets 0

6. REVIEW OF ASSET MANAGEMENT
Condition assessment can be defined as a method that establishes the current condition of assets as a means of prioritizing and forecasting maintenance and rehabilitation efforts. Condition assessment can help managers understand the level of asset deterioration and the risk management impact on the probability and consequence of failure. The Asset Inventory or Registry is central to any asset management program or strategy. An asset register is a systematic recording of all assets an organization owns or for which it has responsibility.

Asset Management
Asset Management functional category includes Condition Assessment capabilities, Risk Management, and Asset Inventory and Hierarchy. A ranking score ranging from 1-5 was assigned to software for each of the 3 areas. A “5” score represents the highest functionality, while a low score represents a marginal level of functionality. If software did not have functionality in a given area then a zero was assigned and calculated into the overall scoring.

Condition Assessment
 
Risk Management
 
Asset Inventory
 
Cityworks 5 Cityworks 5 Cityworks 5
Cityview 0 Cityview 0 Cityview 0
Elements 0 Elements 0 Accela 5
Accela 5 Accela 5 Cartegraph 4
Cartegraph 4 Cartegraph 4 Energov 5
Energov 5 Energov 5 Maximo 5
Maximo 5 Maximo 5 Oracle 5
Infor 5 Infor 5 Infor 4
Oracle 5 Oracle 5 Lucity (GBA) 4
Lucity (GBA) 4 Lucity (GBA) 4 Pubworks 4
Maintenance 4 Maintenance 4 Agile Assets 3
Pubworks 4 Pubworks 4 Elements 3
Agile Assets 3 Vueworks 4 Maintenance 3
Vueworks 3 Agile Assets 3 Vueworks 3

7. REVIEW OF GIS
Investing in a complete GIS system with full functionality produces an overall reduction in operating and maintenance costs and can become the foundation of a lower cost asset management system. Technology has increased the operating efficiencies of municipalities and utilities by converting manual office process from paper to an intelligent automation system. GIS is a unique system of hardware, software and data used to create, store, edit, organize, manipulate and analyze information within a geographic area. GIS offers the ability to visualize models of the physical infrastructure and related activities in a map view.

GIS
The GIS (Geographical Information System) functional category consists of GIS Mapping features, Esri GIS integration, 311 System Abilities, Mobile Devices Enhancements, and Esri GIS ROI (Return on Investment) considerations. A “5” score represents the highest functionality, while a low score represents a marginal level of functionality. If software did not have functionality in a given area then a zero was assigned and calculated into the overall scoring.

GIS Mapping
 
Esri Integration
 
311 System
 
Mobile Devices
 
Cityworks 5 Cityworks 5 Accela 5 Accela 5
Accela 5 Accela 4 Cartegraph 5 Maximo 5
Cartegraph 5 Cartegraph 4 Energov 5 Infor/Hansen 5
Elements 5 Energov 4 Infor/Hansen 5 Oracle 5
Energov 5 Maximo 4 Oracle 5 Cityworks 4
Maximo 5 Infor/Hansen 4 Pubworks 5 Agile Assets 4
Infor/Hansen 5 Lucity (GBA) 4 Cityworks 4 Energov 4
Lucity (GBA) 5 Oracle 4 Maximo 4 Cartegraph 3
Oracle 5 Agile Assets 3 Lucity (GBA) 4 Cityview 3
Vueworks 5 Elements 3 Vueworks 4 Lucity (GBA) 3
Agile Assets 4 Maintenance 3 Cityview 3 Maintenance 3
Cityview 4 Pubworks 3 Agile Assets 2 Pubworks 3
Pubworks 4 Vueworks 3 Elements 0 Vueworks 2
Maintenance 3 Cityview 0 Maintenance 0 Elements 0

GIS has been able to meet the increased demand for mobility and information sharing. Many applications for asset maintenance and management purposes have been developed by software companies in order to improve the transactional cost of public accountability. Some of these features can also be accessed through 3rd party vendors. Municipalities and utilities have benefited from 311 citizen information, request and tracking systems as well as mobile remote business functionality via handheld mobile devices. 311 capabilities and mobile device initiatives are continually improving for top vendors.
Esri GIS ROI
GIS offers a return on investment (ROI) and these operational savings will continue almost indefinitely. Municipalities and utilities in the United States and Canada rely on the industry leader Esri (Economic and Social Research Institute) GIS for their GIS software. Local governments and utilities benefit overall with standardization and common open standards for consistency which helps achieves lower-costs with the economies of scale. Under this GIS Centric approach, the Esri GIS ArcGIS geodatabase is the feature database for storing the all asset attributes. Additionally, there is no redundancy for data storage (no reliance on views, data mapping, database triggers, or “transparent” links). All feature (asset) data is fully user-definable and customizable without vendor support. This would include common standardization absent expensive non-proprietary feature data model format, including data names, fields, tables, relationships, and other data design elements.

Esri GIS ROI
 
Esri PARTNER LEVEL
Cityworks 5 Platinum
Accela 3 Gold
Cartegraph 3 Silver
Energov 3 Gold
Maximo 3 -
Infor/Hansen 3 -
Lucity (GBA) 3 Gold
Oracle 3 -
Elements 2 -
Maintenance 2 -
Pubworks 2 -
Vueworks 2 -
Agile Assets 1 -
Cityview 1 -

8. REVIEW OF COST FACTORS
Overall Scores and Rankings normally are based on the functional categories scores and averages. Under this review, the four major functional categories were weighted evenly. The element of cost adds additional complexity to the analysis. Most municipalities and utilities will normally focus on the core functionality of the software in order to meet all current and future business needs before reviewing bids or prices. The price component can be challenging considering there are the basic user licenses, software and maintenance costs and agreements combined with phased implementations, modular selections, data clean up, data conversion, systems integrations, testing and training. This study focuses on the common costs; however, it is very important to note that if various modules are selected and integrated, the costs of implementation are normally significant higher.

Cost Factors
 
(5 is a high cost)
Agile Assets 2 Low
Cityview 2 Low
Elements 2 Low
Pubworks 2 Low
Cityworks 3 Average
Cartegraph 3 Average
Energov 3 Average
Lucity (GBA) 3 Average
Maintenance 3 Average
Vueworks 3 Average
Accela 4 High
Infor/Hansen 4 High
Maximo 5 High
Oracle 5 High

Cost Factors
Likewise, when system integration and conversion is required for many different systems and several modules, the initial implementation and long-term system synchronization and maintenance of redundant databases can raise the total cost of ownership significantly. This is very true in the area of licensing and permitting. Every municipality and utility has a degree of data clean up due to neglect or inconsistent policies and practices concerning work order histories and inspection recording and asset data collection. One specific area of concern has been the development of the asset inventory and the connectivity and integration with GIS software.
9. Esri GIS ArcGIS: Geodatabase management
ArcGIS for Desktop includes comprehensive professional GIS applications that support a number of GIS tasks, including mapping, data compilation, analysis, geodata and image management, and geographic information sharing. ArcGIS for Desktop is the platform that GIS professionals use to manage their GIS workflows and projects and to build data, maps, models, and applications. It is also the starting point and the foundation for deploying GIS across organizations and onto the web. It is used to publish and share geographic information with others.
ArcGIS for Server includes capabilities for managing multiuser geodatabases in a number of DBMSs. When you need a large multiuser geodatabase that can be edited and used simultaneously by many users or that can be synchronized across many copies (replicas) of the database, the geodatabase provides a good solution.
ArcGIS for Server adds the ability to manage shared, multiuser geodatabases as well as support for a number of critical multiuser database workflows. The ability to leverage your organization’s enterprise relational database is a key advantage. Multiuser, transactional geodatabases work with a variety of DBMS storage models (for example, IBM DB2, Informix, Oracle, PostgreSQL, and SQL Server). Geodatabases take full advantage of underlying DBMS architectures to support the following:
• Extremely large, continuous GIS databases
• Many simultaneous users
• Long transactions and versioned workflows
• Relational database support for GIS data management (providing the benefits of a relational database for scalability, reliability, security, backup, integrity, and so forth)
• SQL types for spatial in all supported DBMSs (Oracle, SQL Server, PostgreSQL, Informix, and DB2)
• High performance that can scale to a very large number of users
DBMSs are efficient at retrieving and working with records containing the type of large geometry elements required for GIS data. In addition, GIS database sizes can be much larger, and the number of supported users greater, than with file-based GIS datasets.

10. PROFILE: Azteca Systems CITYWORKS

10. PROFILE: ACCELA

10. PROFILE: AGILE ASSETS

10. PROFILE: CARTEGRAPH

10. PROFILE: ELEMENTS

10. PROFILE: ENERGOV

10. PROFILE: INFOR/HANSEN
10. PROFILE: LUCITY (GBR)

10. PROFILE: MAINTENANCE CONNECTION

10. PROFILE: IBM MAXIMO

10. PROFILE: ORACLE

10. PROFILE: PUBWORKS

10. PROFILE: VUEWORKS

10. PROFILE: CITYVIEW

11. WATER UTILITIES: INNOVYZE
Innovyze is a leading global provider of wet infrastructure business analytics software solutions designed to meet the technological needs of water and wastewater utilities, government industries, and engineering organizations worldwide.
Underground infrastructure is rapidly deteriorating and many utilities struggle with developing a rehabilitation and replacement program that addresses the most critical pipes in the system. Many capital improvement programs spend millions of dollars annually, but often do little to lower total system risk. CapPlan Water offers utilities the tools in one off-the-shelf software package to build or refine the capital improvement plans to provide maximum benefit for the lowest cost. Determining the likelihood of failure for a pressurized underground water pipe is a critical task. CapPlan Water combines infrastructure, hydraulic, spatial, and historical data from numerous sources to estimate for likelihood of failure. Understanding the consequences of a pipe failing is critical to determining its replacement priority. CapPlan Water has powerful tools to assess the hydraulic, geographic, spatial, and public relations criticality of each pipe in the system—including automatically taking each pipe out of service and determining the hydraulic and water quality consequences. A Risk Factor is determined for each pipe based on the Likelihood and Consequence of Failure. CapPlan Water has a wide range of budgeting options available to evaluate the highest priority pipes within existing budgets and to determine necessary budgets over the long-term to mitigate high risk levels.

12. REFERENCES
The Water Research Foundation would like to acknowledge and thank the researchers and contributors to this study.

• American Public Works Association (APWA) members www.apwa.net
• California Society of Municipal Finance Officers (CSMFO) members www.csmfo.org
• Government Finance Officers Associations (GFOA) members www.gfoa.org
• Interviews of software marketing and technical staff at industry conferences.
• http://resources.arcgis.com
• http://www.fhwa.dot.gov
• http://www.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/eng/index.html
• www.accela.com
• www.agileassets.com
• www.cartegraph.com
• www.cityworks.com
• www.elementsxs.com
• www.energov.com
• www.esri.com
• www.infor.com
• www.infotivity.com
• www.innovyze.com
• www.lucity.com
• www.maintenanceconnection.com
• www.msgovern.com
• www.oracle.com
• www.oracle.com
• www.plantservices.com
• www.pubworks.com
• www.reliabilityweb.com
• www.vueworks.com
• www-01.ibm.com

WFRF
The Water Finance Research Foundation (www.Water FinanceRF.org) is a non-profit organization dedicated to finding solutions which help local governments and utilities address the challenges of aging infrastructure, funding and a declining workforce. The WFRF supports and provides research, surveys, analysis, publications and training concerning best practices for municipal and utility management.

The WFRF promotes municipal infrastructure asset management practices for state, county and local governments which increase efficiencies while reducing long-term operations, maintenance, and capital costs. A special focus is on wet infrastructure which includes water, wastewater, storm drain and reuse. A core program also includes creating opportunities for the next generation to gain knowledge and experience through research and publication opportunities. The WFRF also strives to help municipalities and utilities explore financing and funding solutions which includes rate and fee increases, debt refinancing, private-public partnerships, grants and other innovative programs.
The Water Finance Research Foundation is proud to sponsor and promote in 2013, The American Public Infrastructure Asset Management Association (API-AMA). API-AMA focuses on traditional municipal infrastructure asset management combined with public asset management (the connectivity of assets with business activities and citizens). The evolution and power of GIS and other technologies has increased our ability to translate data into intelligence for improved resource investment decision making.
The American Public Infrastructure Asset Management Association API-AMAA represents:
 Public Works Managers
 Municipal and Utility Asset Managers
 GIS Professionals
 CMMS (Computerized Maintenance Management Systems) Personnel
 Asset Management and Work Order Maintenance Management Software Managers
 Risk Management Managers
 Infrastructure and Design Engineers
 Capital Funding and Budget Approval Professionals
 Economic Development and Growth Planning Managers

LEGAL NOTICE
Please be advised, this study and survey was completed based on numerous sources including third parties and has not been independently verified. Software is continually updated and revised and the information and functionality assessment is evaluated at a point in time and does not represent future enhancements. WFRF assumes no legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, nor does the WFRF represent that its use would not infringe on any privately owned rights. This study may include facts, views, opinions and recommendations of individuals and organizations deemed of interest and assume the reader is sophisticated in this industry and will make their own independent decisions. Users waive any rights it might have in respect of this study under any doctrine of third-party beneficiary, including the contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999. The use of this study is at the users’ sole risk and no reliance should be placed upon any other oral or written agreement, representation or warranty relating to the information herein.
THIS STUDY IS PROVIDED ON AN “AS-IS” BASIS, WFRF DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE OR NON-INFRINGEMENT. WFRF, NOT ITS MEMBERS, AFFILIATES, SERVICE PROVIDERS, OFFICERS, DIRECTORS, OR EMPLOYEES SHALL BE LIABLE FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, SPECIAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES ARISING OUT OF OR RELATING TO THIS REPORT OR RESULTING FROM THE USE OF THIS REPORT, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF PROFITS, FUTURE PROFITS, USE, DATA OR OTHER TANGIBLE DAMAGES, EVEN IF SUCH PARTY HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES. THE CONTENT OF THIS STUDY SHOULD NOT BE USED FOR ANY UNLAWFUL OR UNINTENDED PURPOSE.