Request for Proposal

Consultation Services for Electronic Security Systems Evaluations, RFP-FS-2018-02-JP-Security-Systems-Evaluation

  • Status
    Archived
  • Archived
    2018
  • ID#
    RFP-FS-2018-02-JP-Security-Systems-Evaluation

Description

Update: June 27, 2018
Intent to Award - Note correction to list of awardees


Update: June 4, 2018
Short list of Proposers


Update: May 14, 2018
Questions and Answers


The Judicial Council of California (“Judicial Council”), chaired by the Chief Justice of California, is the primary policy making body of the California judicial system. The Security Operations unit, within the office of Facilities Services, provides certain security services to the Superior Courts of California, including services related to electronic security systems.

California courts occupy all 58 counties in the state. Most courthouses have some level of electronic security in place, including security video, access control, duress and intercom systems. The systems vary greatly in age and condition. In order to plan and budget for necessary system replacements or refreshment, the Judicial Council is seeking a qualified consultant to assist with the evaluation of the electronic security systems currently being used in the California courthouses. The primary focus of this project will be to evaluate approximately 200 security video systems throughout California, with the possibility of adding the other systems mentioned above to the process if time and budget allow. The goal of the project is to perform and complete the systems evaluations over a three-year period.

The Judicial Council, through this Request for Proposal (“RFP”) is soliciting Proposals from Firm(s) with expertise in complex electronic security systems consultation to provide consultation services necessary to evaluate the condition of and provide recommendations and options for refreshment or replacement of electronic security systems in court facilities throughout California. The responsible party shall be licensed to do business in California. All work shall be performed under and approved by an established, qualified and experienced representative firm. Firm team shall be comprised of staff familiar with electronic security systems including but not limited to: security video, electronic access control, intercom, and wireless duress systems. Firm shall be familiar with the integration of the security systems described above. The purpose of this RFP is to gather information, and will not result in any award(s) for design, installation or refreshing of the systems being evaluated.

Questions regarding the RFP should be submitted in writing to the Judicial Council of California via CapitalProgramSolicitations@jud.ca.gov on May 4, 2018, by end of business day.

Proposals must be received by no later than 2:00 p.m. (Pacific Time) on May 18, 2018.

Hard copies of proposals must be delivered to:
Judicial Council of California
Attn.: Lenore Fraga-Roberts
455 Golden Gate Avenue, 6th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94102

RFP

Attachment A – California County Map

Attachment B – Security Systems Evaluation Worksheet

Attachment C – Standard Agreement Sample

Attachment D – Administrative Rules Form

Attachment E – General Certifications Form

Attachment F – Proposers Acceptance

Attachment G – Questions and Answers Form

Attachment H – Payee Data Record

Attachment I – Internal Background Check Policy

Attachment J – DVBE Participation Form

Attachment K – Darfur Certification Form

Attachment L – Non-collusion Affidavit

Attachment M – Unruh Act Cert

Attachment N – CCTV LIST

Attachments

Disclaimer

The Judicial Council, as a public entity, prohibits direct contact with any Council personnel during the solicitation process in order to maintain fairness and equality to all proposers. Proposers are specifically directed NOT to contact any judicial branch entity personnel or consultants for meetings, conferences, or discussions that are related to the solicitation at any time between release of the solicitation and any award and execution of a contract. Unauthorized contact with any judicial branch entity personnel or consultants may be cause for rejection of the Proposer’s proposal.