mesa-az

TO All Bidders Receiving Request for Proposals (RFP) #2012194 Private Jailing Services

FROM Darryl Woodson, Senior Buyer

DATE September 24, 2012

SUBJECT Addendum #2 - Questions and Answers and Change in Point of Contact

All bidders are hereby notified that the Addendum #2 for Request for Proposals for Private Jailing Services has
been issued to provide answers to questions that have been submitted Also, the Point of Contact for any
Technical Questions has changed as shown below

Questions concerning this solicitation should be directed, IN WRITING, to the following project contact

Technical Questions:
Darryl Woodson
Senior Buyer
Purchasing
(480) 644-2655 Fax
darryl woodson@mesaaz gov

Listed below are responses to vendor questions

1. Please provide the locations of each of the Cities' booking stations as well as the municipal
court locations to which the contractor may be expected to transport.
Mesa Response Mesa books prisoners at 130 N Robson which is also the location for their
city court arraignment This would also be the pick-up location for any
potential transport purposes
Scottsdale Response 3700 N 75,h St is the only current location for booking and court
Chandler Response Chandler municipal court address 200 E Chicago Chandler AZ 85225
Police Department address is 250 E Chicago Chandler AZ 85225
Tempe Response The Police Department's Jail (where our only booking station is) happens to
be in the same building as our City Court The address is 120/140 E 5th
St, Tempe AZ 85281
Gilbert Response Gilbert PD has two locations with detention cells, not holding facilities I
have provided the locations but believe our DTO's would transport to the
contract location Central - 75 E CIVIC Center Drive, San Tan - 2332 E East
Queen Creek, Gilbert Municipal Court- 50 E CIVIC Center
2. For any City that does not have a booking station, where will the contractor pick-up the
offender if the contractor is providing the initial transportation?
Mesa Response Mesa has a booking station at 130 N Robson, so this question is not
applicable
Scottsdale Response N/A
Chandler Response N/A
Tempe Response N/A
Gilbert Response N/A
1
RFP 2012194
Addendum 2

3. How many inmates can be held at each City's booking station at a time?
Mesa Response 27 beds, maximum of 60 person capacity if all holding cells are utilized
Scottsdale Response No more than 26
Chandler Response 10'
Tempe Response Tempe's jail is a full service holding facility and we have never established a
maximum capacity if we were to only utilize it as a booking station
However, we can hold approximately 40 prisoners in our housing cells,
which do not include our holding cell, transfer cell, or our 3 safety cells
Gilbert Response Our Central facility can hold approximately 30 persons San Tan will only
accommodate 6 persons

4. Please describe the booking/intake procedures for each location that will continue to be done
by each city? What booking/intake processes are expected to occur at the vendor's facility?
Mesa Response Mesa will continue to run its own holding facility and arraignment process at
130 N Robson They will book each inmate at the Mesa Police Facility as is
the current practice The vendor must have their own intake process when
each inmate is brought to their location from the various east valley
agencies
Scottsdale Response We currently provide fingerprinting, mug-photo and all documentation that
relates to our records, ID or courts I cannot answer that question until I
have more information from them I don't yet know what their involvement
may be with our court, records or ID unit
Chandler Response Assuming we will have access to the vendors booking system the only thing
that would need to be done is medical screening All booking paper work will
be done at our station
Tempe Response This depends upon the alternatives presented in the proposal presented and
its cost effectiveness
Gilbert Response Currently our Officers finger print, photograph, and pre-book inmates into
MCSO's system Once they are processed the inmates are transferred to
MCSO's Fourth Ave Jail Inmates are then medically screened, processed,
searched and held Inmates are fed during their detention at MSCO's
facility The vendor would be expected to provide similar services

5. Please confirm that the offender will not be moved to the contract facility until initial
arraignment or first appearance is completed.
Mesa Response That is accurate for the City of Mesa
Scottsdale Response (No response received from agency)
Chandler Response We transport all arrestees to a facility prior to their initial appearance to be
held then transported back for court the following day, we cannot house
arrestees m our facility due we are a holding facility and can only hold up to
eight hours
Tempe Response This also depends upon the final proposal One of the possibilities
discussed previously was the utilization of video arraignment in which case
the arrestee could be moved prior to an initial appearance Again, the
ultimate answer will depend upon the final proposal

2
RFP 2012194
Addendum 2

Gilbert Response GPD's detention facilities are not currently manned 24 hours a day or
authorized to hold inmates for any length of time As of date, we still require
a holding facility prior to IA We are in the process of evaluating our
detention facility to determine the feasibility of making it a holding facility so,
this may change in the future

6. Excluding the initial arraignment or first appearance, what is the current frequency for special
transports for courts? Will the contractor be expected to provide guard services during court
appearances and then transport the inmate back to the contractor's facility?
Mesa Response This is very low frequency Mesa does not require any private guard
services during court appearances
Scottsdale Response (No response received from agency)
Chandler Response We transport approximately 5 handicap arrestees in a month We will need
transportation services only
Tempe Response We bring prisoners over for other court appearances twice a week
(Tuesdays and Thursdays), averaging 1 per week We will also pick up
prisoners for Detectives during our normal run, approximately 5 times per
month
Gilbert Response Our Detention Transport Officers pickup court transports daily and provide
guard services through the court procedure The inmates are then
transported back to the jail facility Our DTO's would most likely continue
this procedure so a contractor would not be needed

7. Please provide the following information for each of the Cities concerning the transportation
from local holding facilities to the Contractor facility as well as to and from various municipal
courts as mentioned on page 22 of the RFP:
What is the maximum number of inmates to be transported during a single trip?
Mesa Response 34 (17 in each jail transport van)
' Scottsdale Response (No response received from agency)
Chandler Response 32 inmates
Tempe Response Depending upon the vehicle we drive, we can transport either 16 or 22
prisoners on a single trip
Gilbert Response 20 inmates
At what frequency do regular transports occur (# of trips per day)?
Mesa Response 4 to 5
Scottsdale Response (No response received from agency)
Chandler Response 5 to 10
Tempe Response, 4 regularly scheduled trips, plus trips as necessary to deal with
unusual situation
Gilbert Response On average our DO's for five (5) transports per day
How many transport miles are expected to be logged in a week?
Mesa Response 1,148 - 1, 435
Scottsdale Response (No response received from agency)
Chandler Response Currently we are doing approximately 700 plus miles in a week
Tempe Response 1700-2000 miles/month (approx 450-500/week)
Gilbert Response 900 miles weekly per van and we have two (2) vans
RFP 2012194
Addendum 2

Are male and female prisoners currently transported on a single vehicle (with
separation)?
Mesa Response Yes
Scottsdale Response (No response received from agency)
Chandler Response Yes
Tempe Response Yes
Gilbert Response Yes
Are routine (non-medical) transports to be conducted at any time 24 hours a day / 7 days
a week, or will they be restricted to Monday-Friday business hours?
Mesa Response 24/7 - The transports are done on a scheduled pattern 7 days a week
Scottsdale Response (No response received from agency)
Chandler Response 24 hours 7 days a week
Tempe Response We currently transport 24/7 Whether that would continue will depend
upon the final proposal
Gilbert Response 24 hours a day / 7 days a week
Is any pickup or drop off facilities limited on availability for transactions (ex: 8:00 AM- to
2:00 PM, Monday-Friday)?
Mesa Response No
Scottsdale Response (No response received from agency)
Chandler Response I just want to make sure its clear we do not house arrestees, they are
booked directly in county and picked up in the morning for their IA
Tempe Response No - Please keep in mind that the County Jail will not allow private
contractors into their facility, so any transport to/from the County Jail
will have to be performed by police employees
Gilbert Response No limitations / 24 hours a day availability

8. Has the City identified the piece of land yet and would you like us to propose a location?
Initial Response No location has been specified as that determination is up to the respondent The
facility should be located in an area that serves the needs of the East Valley Agencies involved
Additional Clarification The City is not identifying any land or location for this facility, instead the
vendor is asked to address location as part of their proposal

9. Based on the RFP requirements for expansion we should be projecting our costs for more
than 500 beds considering a 90% occupancy.
Response The facility must be able to house up to 500 prisoners a day and have the ability to
expand to meet growing needs of the area

10. In the Terms and Conditions, section S.37 provides that the contract will be administered by
one or more authorized representatives of the participating agencies. Will each participating
city have its own contract monitor? Will one contract .monitor have authority to make
decisions that affect all participating agencies?

Response There will be a representative from each city on the oversight board with a Chair (likely
from Mesa) who heads the Board Each city may negotiate slightly different services (transportation)
so each city would want to monitor the contract as it relates to their specific negotiations The
vendor would answer to the Chair of the oversight board (contract monitor) The Chair of the
oversight board would work with the vendor and each board member to ensure contract compliance

4
RFP 2012194
Addendum 2

11. Section II.A.4. of the Technical Specifications. Please confirm that the requirement to fill all
staffing positions refers to all positions designated as basic and critical on the staffing
pattern.
Response The vendor needs to hire the agreed basic staffing level From this basic staffing level, it
is anticipated there will be staffing absences due to training, sick, vacation, etc The vendor will not
operate below critical staffing levels (the minimum amount of agreed upon staffing required to safely
operate the facility)

12. Section II.E.5. of the Technical Specifications. Please confirm that the decisions by the
Contract Monitor referenced in this section pertain to waiver requests only.
Response Confirmed

13 Page 28 Confidential/Proprietary Submittals refers to Standard Terms and Conditions, section

S.26. Section S.26 is regarding Warranty. Please clarify whether this is the correct section or
if another section should be referenced regarding confidentiality/proprietary submittals.
Response Page 28 is the correct section to address confidential and proprietary information in your
submittals

14. In the Terms and Conditions, section S.2, Subcontracting provides that the Contractor shall
not subcontract without the express written permission of the City. If a proposal offers to
house inmates in a facility that is currently operational with subcontracts already in place,
requiring approval of such subcontracts where services are being provided could adversely
impact service delivery if vendors are not approved. Please confirm that the City's approval
of such subcontracts will not be required. Will the City also limit its approval of future
subcontracts to major subcontracts to provide entire service areas such as food service,
medical or maintenance and exclude smaller subcontracts like pest control or copier
services?

Response: Unless an item is specified in the RFP as being a part of the work to be performed by the
vendor, the City will not need to approve the subcontracting (i e copier maintenance and pest
control)

15. In the Terms and Conditions, section S.23, Termination provides that if the City terminates
the contract the Contractor will have no further right or ability to provide services to any
other East Valley City through the terminated contract. This section also provides however
that if any other East Valley City becomes a user of the Contractor's services and such other
East Valley City cancels the contract the Contractor's duties will continue for the remaining
East Valley Cities. Please explain the process by which other East Valley Cities will become
parties to the Agreement.
Response As the sponsoring agency of the solicitation and contract, if the City of Mesa
terminates the agreement, there is no contract for the other Cities to reference, thereby cancelling all
agreements If one of the other Cities cancels their agreement, the contract remains in place and
other agency can continue utilize the service

16. Section II.E.1 of the Technical Specifications requires the Contractor to comply with changes
to federal and state constitutional requirements, laws and court orders. Please confirm that
the City will agree to negotiate a per diem adjustment to compensate Contractor for any costs
associated with changes in these requirements.

Response The City shall not negotiate any terms during the bidding process

5
RFP 2012194
Addendum 2

17. In the Terms and Conditions, section S.37 indicates that supplements may be written to the
contract for addition or deletion of services. Please confirm that the supplements are the
same as the amendments that are addressed in section S.7 and that any "supplements" will
be mutually negotiated, in writing and signed by both parties.

Response Confirmed

18. Under Response Elements under Tab 2 of the Proposal Format section, the RFP indicates
that Senior and technical staff identified in the RFP may not be substituted without the
permission of the City. We understand the Department's interest in approving any
replacement Warden candidate. However, if a proposal offers to house inmates in a facility
that houses inmates from another jurisdiction, the Contractor would need to retain the
authority to make final hiring decisions concerning other facility staff. The interest of
maintaining safe and efficient facility operations would potentially be compromised if the
Contractor is required to coordinate among various partner agencies before making such
employment decisions. Would the Department agree to revise this section to require the
Contractor to provide notice to the City when there are substitutions of the senior and
technical staff identified in the RFP?
Response This specification can be changed to be approved by the contract monitor If
the contract monitor is designated as the chair of the oversight committee, then the board members
who represent the other East Valley Cities would weigh in on senior and technical staff

19. Regarding Addendum #1, Questions #12. Response indicates that "Mesa will continue ...
book each inmate at the Mesa Police Facility as is the current practice." However, the Jail
Billing data for 2008 - 2010, RFP page 32 - 34, includes billings for Booking Fees for over
4,000 bookings per year. Did Mesa city change their practice and begin performing their own
bookings in 2011 or does Mesa book inmates themselves and use another booking contractor
as well? If so, then who is the other booking contractor?
Response Mesa has always booked their own prisoners into their Holding Facility This practice will
not change The Mesa Holding Facility only holds misdemeanants until they are arraigned by the
Mesa City Court in the in-custody court Those misdemeanants held on bond will be transported to
the contract facility who typically charges a Booking Fee for the first day the misdemeanant is held,
followed by Housing Fees for every day thereafter The same fee structure applies to
misdemeanants reporting to the contract facility to serve misdemeanor sentences after conviction at
the Mesa City Court Currently the Maricopa County Sheriffs Office is responsible to hold pre/post
sentenced Mesa misdemeanants

20. Addendum 1, Question #12, Response indicates that "Mesa will continue ... book each inmate
at the Mesa Police Facility as is the current practice." However, the Jail Billing data for 2008 -
2010, RFP page 32 - 34, includes billings for Booking Fees for over 4,000 bookings per year.
Do the other cities have booking facilities as well or should the contractor anticipate having
to book inmates into the criminal justice system at the proposed facility, or just receive and
screen them after they have been booked at another facility.
Response Other cities do have booking facilities It is anticipated that each city will continue to
process their prisoners at their own booking facility prior to transport to the contractor although some
cities my want to explore booking direct to the contract facility While not required by the RFP, the
contractor may want to negotiate with those cities who desire direct booking

6
RFP 2012194
Addendum 2

21. Does Mesa, or all the criminal justice agencies in Arizona, utilize or require a standard
booking software to book an inmate into the criminal justice system and if so, what is the
name of that software?
Response Each city uses different data collecting systems for their bookings Additionally all cities
also use the MCSO booking database

22. Regarding the bond: the $250k bid bond: we would be only acting as consultant/operator and
not as builder, therefore should we have our builder submit the bid security bond for $50k?

Response The firm submitting the proposal is responsible for providing the bid security

23. What options to provide a performance bond after the facility has been designed and prior to
construction as opposed to bonding a project in which there is no design?

Response The firm awarded this contract is required to provide the performance bond prior to the
start of any construction

24. Can we exclude the bond and/or land until award at which time we will have 90 days to secure
both?

Response You may exclude the performance bond, you should identify the parcel and must provide
the bid bond at the time of submission

25. Can we obtain a bidders list?

Response The most current bid list and solicitations down loaded by contractors for this bid,
provided on September 20, 2012, is available on our website under the description of the proposal

26. Are we supposed to obtain the land and identify a suitable parcel and does this parcel need
to be tied up when submitting our bid.

Response " Site location and building modifications must be submitted with the proposal "

Bidders are reminded that proposals are due October 3, 2012 no later than 3:00 PM local time All other
terms and conditions remain unchanged

Please contact darryl woodson@mesaaz gov or Clayton campbell@mesaaz gov with any questions that you
may have regarding this addendum

c Andy Nesbit
Michael Dvorak
Jacqueline Jeffrey

7
Pat Pels

From: Jacqueline Jeffery

Sent: Monday, September 24, 2012 10 43 AM
To: Pat Pels
Cc: Kelly Gregan
Subject: RE. Private Jail Addendum #2

Pat,

This appears to be consistent with the responses from PD and purchasing, and from Kelly Gregan, that I have seen. This
should be sent to PD to confirm as they have provided the information.

Jacqueline

From: Pat Pels

Sent: Monday, September 24, 2012 9:41 AM
To: Jacqueline Jeffery
Subject: Private Jail Addendum #2

Jacqueline-
v

Attached is the final draft of Addendum #2. Would you please review and respond no later than 11:00 tomorrow. If we
do not get this published tomorrow, we will need to extend the due date which would be another revision of this
addendum

Please copy Darryl Woodson on your response Thank you for your assistance.

Pat Pels
Buyer Aide
City of Mesa Purchasing Division
480-644-2545 direct
480-644-2655 fax
pat.fels@inesaaz.gov
Mon-Thurs 6:30 am to 5:00 pm

i
 "'t
'r-

Pat Pels

From: Darryl Woodson

Sent: Monday, September 24, 2012 11:42 AM
To: Pat Pels
Subject: FW. Addendum 2

From: Michael Dvorak

Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2012 8:05 AM
To: Darryl Woodson
Cc: Andrew Nesbit; Nancy Sorensen
Subject: RE: Addendum 2

I did review Addendum #2 and am fine with the responses presented in the draft document

Aiicfiaet tDuwafi
Deputy, Qhief, - Aleaa Police Qepmtment
Jlletw 6pe>iaUotu> Pfivwion
Office - 48C-6M-2571

From: Michael Dvorak

Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2012 4:02 PM
To: Nancy Sorensen
Subject: RE: Addendum 2

I wrote the responses for all the questions except my request for legal/purchasing input on questions 13-18 I
have reviewed the items and am fine with the responses
J licAael P>omak
iDeputy. GAief, - Aieaa Police Ptepcvdment
Atetve (Pp&uUwin tD'utioUui
Cffice - 480-644-2571

From: Nancy Sorensen

Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2012 3:43 PM
To: Michael Dvorak
Subject: FW: Addendum 2

From: Darryl Woodson

Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2012 2:11 PM
To: Nancy Sorensen
Subject: FW: Addendum 2

Here are the responses to questions for Addendum#2.1 also included the solicitation and Addendum #1.

l
^
From: Pat Pels
Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2012 2:05 PM
To: Darryl Woodson
Subject: Addendum 2

Pat Pels
Buyer Aide
City of Mesa Purchasing Division
480-644-2545 direct
480-644-2655 fax
pat.fels@mesaaz.gov
Mon-Thurs 6:30 am to 5:00 pm

2
Pat Fels

From: Darryl Woodson

Sent: Thursday, September 20, 2012 4 05 PM
To: Pat Pels
Subject: Jail proposal questions

Pat,
Can you add the questions and responses to addendum #2 below.

From: chris@industrylocal.com [mailto:chris@industrylocal.com]

Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2012 4:31 PM
To: Darryl Woodson
Subject: Jail proposal questions

Darryl,

Here are the questions I was referring to in regards to the upcoming jail facility bid

1) bond the $250K bid bond, EHS2 is only acting as consultant/operator and not as builder, therefore should we have our
builder submit the bid security bond for $250K'? The firm submitting the proposal is responsible for providing the bid
security
2) what options to provide a performance bond after the facility has been designed and prior to construction as opposed to
bonding a project in which there is no design The firm submitting the proposal is responsible for all phases of the project
including providing the performance bond
3) are we supposed to obtain the land and identify a suitable parcel and does this parcel need to be tied up when
submitting our bid " .Site location and building modifications must be submitted with the proposal "
4) can we exclude the bond and/or land until award at which time we will have 90 days to secure both You may exclude
the performance bond, you should identify the parcel and must provide the bid bond at the time of submission.
5) can we obtain a bidders list? The most current bid list and solicitation down loaded by contractors for this bid is
available on our web site under bids and proposals

Respectfully,
Chris Seebert, MBA
Industry Local, President
7201 E Camelback Rd , Suite 375
Scottsdale, Az 85251

l
 m

^ ^an^h/Voodson

From: Michael Dvorak

Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2012 8 18 AM
To: Darryl Woodson
Cc: Andrew Nesbit, Nancy Sorensen, William Peters
Subject: FW Jail proposal questions

I have included some comments in red for the questions below Sorry, but the questions are not operational in
nature so I will have to refer them to other subject matter experts since the questions relate mostly to bonds
and a bidders list If there is anything additional I can assist you with please let me know.

Mirivcuet Qwniah
Sfeputy, Cfiief. - Meaa tPatice S)epmtment
Metm Opemtuuu Suasion
Office - 4-80-644-2571

From: Nancy Sorensen

Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2012 6:25 PM
To: Michael Dvorak
Subject: Fwd: Jail proposal questions

DC, can you answer the below questions.

Sent from my iPad

Begin forwarded message:

From: Darryl Woodson <Darryl.Woodson@mesaaz.gov>

Date: September 18, 2012 5:03:32 PM MST
To: Nancy Sorensen <Nancv.Sorensen@,mesaaz.gov>
Subject: FW: Jail proposal questions

Here are some additional questions that I'd like your opinion on.

From: chris@industwlocal.com [mailto:chris@industrylocal.com]

Sent: Tuesday, September 18, 2012 4:31 PM
To: Darryl Woodson
Subject: Jail proposal questions

Darryl,

Here are the questions I was referring to in regards to the upcoming jail facility bid

1) bond the $250K bid bond, EHS2 is only acting as consultant/operator and not as builder,
therefore should we have our builder submit the bid security bond for $250^
Response: This is not an operational question, thus I am probably not
the best person to answer and would recommend a response from City
Purchasing

l
 to construction as opposed to bonding a project in which there is no design
Response: This is not an operational question thus, I am probably not
the best person to answer and would recommend a response from City
Purchasing

are we supposed to obtain the land and identify a suitable parcel and does this parcel
need to be tied up when submitting our bid
Response: Don't know the best answer, but would believe they should
have identified possible properties for this project when submitting the
bid. Would refer to City Purchasing for guidance on the official
response.

4) can we exclude the bond and/or land until award at which time we will have 90 days to
secure both
Response: This is not an operational question thus, I am
probably not the best person to answer and would recommend a
response from City Purchasing.

5) can we obtain a bidders list?

Response: This is not an operational question, thus I am probably not
the best person to answer and would recommend a response from City
Purchasing

Respectfully,
Chris Seebert, MBA
Industry Local, President
7201 E Camelback Rd , Suite 375
Scottsdale, Az 85251

2
From: Pat Pels
To: Pat Pels
Bcc: "aroman9435@aeoarouD com", "bdavisffllctiareen com". "bidwatch@centerdiaitalaov com".
"Christina hoki(5)mtctrains com". "clavOemeraldcompanies com". "cDavne@emaraldcompanies com".
"daskenazi@municapital com", "drivastaemeraldcomuaniescom". "dtalkinatonfflslettenmc com".
"eric cohentahale-mills com". "eric(5lbidocean com", "encoiaregisdev com". "ethanmvron(a)amail com".
"gbs@bidnet com". "alenn(5)emeraldcompanies com". "harperdamon@vmail com". "ibrandtmccarthv com"
"ltalbot@ctiqreen com", "mattbuebbuilders com", "michelle barker@cca com", "mike binioncca com",
"pdunn@wpss cgm", "proposalscca com", "rachel bickarpcecmtl com", "sourcemqmtponvia net",
"ssmithpawarch com", "torn read(5)mtctrains com", "waiter clark@usa q4s com", "wos1hotmail com"
Subject: Addendum #2 City of Mesa RFP #2012194 Private Jailing Services
Date: Monday, September 24, 2012 12 16 00 PM
Attachments: 2012194 Addentii'm 2 pdf

All bidders are hereby notified that Addendum #2 for City of Mesa RFP #2012194, Private
Jailing Services, has been issued and is attached This addendum provides responses to
questions that have been submitted and changes the point of contact If you, have
problems opening this attachment, it will be available later today on our website
http //www mesaaz gov/purchasmg

Pat Pels
Buyer Aide
City of Mesa Purchasing Division
480-644-2545 direct
480-644-2655 fax
pat,fels@mesaaz.gQv
Mon-Thurs 6 30 am to 5 00 pm