2012-2013 Madera County Grand Jury Report- Citizen Complaint Regarding the Security Guard Contract, Madera County...

There were no discrepancies between the RFP and the subsequent contract for security services.

The County Administrative Office (CAO) provided a letter of response to the complainant’s protest letter addressing each of the issues presented in the protest letter.

The CAO responded to the complainant’s protest letter in detail even though the protest was not submitted in a timely manner and was sent in six (6) days late.

The scope of work sent with the RFP specifically states “All patrol services shall be conducted on foot (no vehicle or bicycle patrols.) **This request for bids contemplates that Contractor will not utilize patrol vehicles or firearms due to the County’s desire to minimize costs associated with this service. However, if Contractor wishes to provide an enhanced level of service to include patrol vehicles and/or armed guards, it may do so at its own expense.”

The Board of Supervisors awarded the security contract to the lowest bidder.

The current provider of security was providing 24 hour service per the contract. The Grand Jury reviewed a report of guard activity covering several months. The activity report is electronically generated and shows the security entering the various areas that are covered in the contract over a 24-hour period. The complainant was not able to provide any evidence that security was servicing other accounts.

Invoicing is being submitted appropriately according to the contract. The Grand Jury reviewed security invoices covering several months. The contractor bills two (2) times monthly for 24 hour service for the 1st through the 15th and the 16th through the end of the month. Hours billed are equal to 24 hour services. Grand Jury did not find any evidence to support the claim of twelve (12) hour service and the complainant was unable to provide any evidence.