On Call Security Systems Maintenance and Repair for NHPS

New Haven Public Schools (NHPS) is seeking proposals from qualified vendors to provide on-call security systems maintenance, inspection and repair services for the NHPS Security Division.

Project Details

• Reference ID: 2026-HYRFP-CNH-324
• Department: NHPS-Curriculum
• Department Head: Michael Trink (BOE Procurement Coordinator)

Important Dates

• Questions Due: 2026-04-07T15:00:00.000Z

Addenda

• Addendum #1 (released 2026-04-02T19:55:38.972Z) —

  Please use the See What Changed link to view all the changes made by this addendum.

  Pricing Sheet Revised

• Addendum #2 (released 2026-04-13T16:46:08.033Z) —

  Please use the See What Changed link to view all the changes made by this addendum.

   Section 7.3 (Original) has been removed as it was redundant; the requested cost proposal information is provided in full under Section 7.2.

Evaluation Criteria

• System Requirements (1 pts) —

  Completeness:

  Are all necessary requirements included? Does the set of requirements cover all aspects of the system's functionality, performance, and constraints? Are there any obvious omissions?

  Are all stakeholders' needs addressed? Have the requirements captured the essential needs and expectations of all relevant user groups and stakeholders?

  Are functional and non-functional requirements adequately represented? Does the documentation include both what the system should do and how well it should do it (e.g., performance, security, usability)?

  Clarity and Unambiguity:

  Are the requirements easy to understand? Is the language used clear, concise, and free from jargon or technical terms that stakeholders might not understand?

  Is each requirement stated unambiguously? Is there only one way to interpret each requirement? Are there any vague or subjective terms used?

  Are the requirements at the appropriate level of detail? Are they specific enough to guide design and development but not so detailed that they constrain implementation unnecessarily?

  Consistency:

  Are the requirements consistent with each other? Do any requirements contradict or conflict with other requirements?

  Are the requirements consistent with existing systems and standards? Do the requirements align with any relevant organizational standards, industry best practices, or existing systems the new system will interact with?

  Verifiability:

  Is it possible to determine if each requirement has been met? Can each requirement be tested, demonstrated, inspected, or analyzed to confirm its fulfillment?

  Are measurable criteria defined where appropriate? For non-functional requirements (like performance), are there specific metrics and target values defined?

  Traceability:

  Can each requirement be traced back to its source? Is it clear which stakeholder need or business goal each requirement addresses?

  Can each requirement be traced forward to design elements, code, and test cases? Will it be possible to follow the implementation and verification of each requirement throughout the development lifecycle?

  Feasibility:

  Are the requirements technically feasible to implement within the project constraints? Can the system be built with the available technology, resources, and timeline?

  Are the requirements economically feasible? Are the costs associated with implementing the requirements justifiable in terms of the benefits they provide?

  Modifiability:

  Is the requirements documentation structured in a way that allows for easy modification? Can changes be made to individual requirements without causing significant ripple effects on other requirements?

  Is there a clear process for managing changes to requirements?

  Testability:

  Are the requirements written in a way that facilitates the creation of test cases? Can testable conditions be derived directly from the requirements?

• Product Demonstration: (1 pts) —

  Clarity and Focus:

  Is the purpose of the demonstration clear? Is it evident what the demonstrator is trying to achieve (e.g., highlight key features, address a specific use case, show a new capability)?

  Is the demonstration focused and concise? Does it avoid unnecessary features or tangents, sticking to the most relevant aspects for the intended audience?

  Is the flow of the demonstration logical and easy to follow? Does it progress in a way that makes sense to the observer?

  Content and Relevance:

  Are the key features and benefits clearly showcased? Does the demonstration effectively highlight what the product does and the value it offers to the user?

  Is the demonstration relevant to the audience's needs and interests? Does it address their potential pain points or goals?

  Are realistic use cases or scenarios presented? Does the demonstration illustrate how the product would be used in a practical context?

  Is the level of technical detail appropriate for the audience? Does it avoid being overly technical or too simplistic?

  Delivery and Presentation:

  Is the demonstrator knowledgeable and confident? Do they exhibit a strong understanding of the product?

  Is the demonstrator engaging and enthusiastic? Do they capture and maintain the audience's interest?

  Is the pace of the demonstration appropriate? Is it not too rushed or too slow?

  Is the language clear, concise, and professional? Does the demonstrator avoid jargon or use it appropriately with explanation?

  Are visuals (if used) clear, effective, and well-integrated? Do slides, screen shares, or other visual aids enhance understanding?

  Is there effective use of the product itself? Is the product interface easy to see and understand during the demonstration?

  Are transitions between topics smooth? Does the demonstration flow naturally from one point to the next?

  Engagement and Interaction:

  Are opportunities for questions and interaction provided? Is the audience encouraged to participate?

  Are questions answered clearly and effectively? Does the demonstrator address audience queries in a helpful manner?

  Is there an understanding of the audience's reactions and adjustments made accordingly? Does the demonstrator adapt to the audience's cues?

  Overall Effectiveness:

  Does the demonstration effectively communicate the product's value proposition? Is it clear why someone would want to use the product?

  Does the demonstration leave a positive and lasting impression? Is the audience likely to remember the key takeaways?

  Does the demonstration achieve its intended purpose? (e.g., generate interest, explain a feature, secure a sale).

  Is the time allocated for the demonstration used efficiently?

• 1. Project Understanding and Approach (20 pts) —

  This section evaluates the vendor’s level of understanding of the project and how they will approach the project

  Understanding:

  Committee will review if the vendor sufficiently demonstrates their understanding of the RFP.

  • Does vendor understand the security systems and devices that will need to be serviced?
  • Does the vendor have an understanding of Work Order Response Systems?
  • Does vendor understand the requirements that are needed?

  Approach:

  Committee will review the vendor’s approach to the project for sufficiency and directness.

  Responses will be scored as follows:

  1. 15-20 points = Vendor has an exceptional understanding and approach to the project.
  2. 10-14 points = Vendor has a good understanding and approach to the project.
  3. 5-9 points = Vendor has a fair understanding and approach to the project.
  4. 0-4 points = Vendor has poor understanding and approach to the project.
• 2. Quality, clarity and responsiveness of vendor’s submission in terms of compliance with the RFP. (20 pts) —

  This section evaluates the quality, level of clarity and level of responsiveness contained in the submission.

  Quality

  Committee will review the level of quality in the vendor’s submission. This includes how the proposal is presented.

  Clarity

  Committee will review how clear the submission is.

  Responsiveness

  Committee will review the well the vendor responded to the requirements and specifications listed in the RFP.

  Responses will be scored as follows:

  1. 15-20 points = Highest level of quality, clarity and responsiveness.
  2. 10-14 points = Good level of quality, clarity and responsiveness.
  3. 5-9 points = Fair level of quality, clarity and responsiveness
  4. 0-4 points = Poor level of quality. clarity and responsiveness.
• Proposed Schedule (1 pts) —

  Objective: To evaluate the realism, comprehensiveness, and efficiency of the project timeline.

  Realism & Achievability:

  Feasibility: Is the proposed timeline realistic given the scope, resources, and known complexities of the project?

  Contingency: Does the schedule include reasonable buffers or contingency time for unforeseen delays or risks?

  Clarity & Detail:

  Milestones: Are clear, measurable, and logical milestones defined?

  Task Breakdown: Is the schedule broken down into sufficiently detailed tasks with estimated durations?

  Dependencies: Are critical path activities and dependencies clearly identified?

  Efficiency:

  Optimized Flow: Does the schedule demonstrate an efficient sequence of activities, minimizing idle time or unnecessary overlaps?

  Resource Allocation: Does the schedule align with the proposed resource allocation without creating bottlenecks?

  Alignment with Scope:

  Comprehensive Coverage: Does the schedule cover all aspects of the project scope of work?

  Deliverable Timelines: Are the timelines for key deliverables clearly stated and reasonable?

• 3. Previous Experience (15 pts) —

  This section evaluates the number of years the vendor has had in providing Security Systems Maintenance and Repair Services.

  Amount of Experience

  Committee will review the number of years’ experience vendor has in providing Security Systems Maintenance and Repair Services for public school districts, municipalities, colleges and universities at least the size of NHPS or greater.

  Responses will be scored as follows:

  1. 11-15 points = Five (5) or more years’ experience.
  2. 7-10 points = Four (4) years’ experience.
  3. 3-6 points = Three (3) years’ experience.
  4. 0-2 points = One (1) or more years’ experience.
• Work Plan Address Each Area of Scope of Work (1 pts) —

  Objective: To evaluate how thoroughly and effectively the proposed work plan addresses all components of the project's defined scope.

  Completeness:

  Full Coverage: Does the work plan explicitly address every single item and requirement outlined in the Scope of Work (SOW)?

  No Gaps: Are there any areas of the SOW that are not clearly covered or addressed in the work plan?

  Clarity & Specificity:

  Detailed Methodology: Does the plan describe a clear, logical, and detailed methodology for achieving each part of the SOW?

  Actionable Steps: Are the steps outlined actionable and understandable?

  Understanding of Requirements:

  Interpretation: Does the work plan demonstrate a clear and accurate understanding of the project's objectives and requirements as stated in the SOW?

  Implicit Needs: Does it also address any implicit needs or potential challenges related to the SOW?

  Deliverables & Outcomes:

  Defined Outputs: Does the work plan clearly link specific activities to the production of defined deliverables and desired outcomes for each SOW area?

  Quality Assurance: Does it describe how the quality of deliverables for each SOW area will be ensured?

  Risk Mitigation (per SOW area):

  Identified Risks: Does the plan identify potential risks specific to each area of the SOW?

  Mitigation Strategies: Are there clear and appropriate strategies proposed to mitigate these risks?

• 4. Reasonable Response Times for Standard and Emergency Service (25 pts) —

  This section evaluates the vendor’s ability to provide Reasonable Response Times for Standard and Emergency Service.

  Ability and Capability

  Committee will review how the vendor’s proposal demonstrates their ability as well as capability to provide Reasonable Response Times for Standard and Emergency Service.

  Responses will be scored as follows:

  1. 19-25 points = Proposal demonstrates exceptional level of providing Reasonable Response Times
  2. 12-18 points = Proposal demonstrates good level of providing Reasonable Response Times
  3. 5-11 points = Proposal demonstrates fair level of providing Reasonable Response Times
  4. 0-4 points = Proposal demonstrates poor level of providing Reasonable Response Times.
• 5. Pricing Proposal (20 pts) —

  This section evaluates the costs submitted in the pricing proposal.

  Pricing

  The pricing is a crucial component, but it’s important to note that the lowest price is not the sole determinant of the successful vendor. The submitted pricing must be fair, competitive and consistent with market rates. 

  Responses will be scored as follows:

  1. 13-20 points = Lowest overall cost
  2. 12-7 points = Middle range overall cost
  3. 0-6 points = Highest overall cost

Submission Requirements

• Technical Proposal (Without Cost) (required)
• Will you be using the On-line Notary feature or Public Notary for the Disclosure Form (required) —

  The City needs you to have the Disclosure Form  notarized. We are offering you a convenient  way to do this online through Notary Online (https://notarylive.com) . However, you don't have to use this online service. If you do choose to use it, it will cost you $25 each time you use it for a notarization. You can explore other ways to get your document notarized if you prefer not to pay this fee, click "No". 

• Disclosure Form for Online Notary (required) —

  An online third party notarization option will be provided for you when responding.

  Important: If you don't have the document notarized, your response will be disqualified.

  In essence, you must legally verify your identity and the authenticity of your signature on the document. 

• DISCLOSURE & CERTIFICATION AFFIDAVIT (required) —
  1. Download the Disclosure & Certification document: This is a digital document that you'll need to fill out.
  2. Complete the document: Fill in all the required information on the document.
  3. Notarize the document: 
     
     • Take the completed document to a public notary: A notary public can notarize your signature in person.

  Important: If you don't have the document notarized, your response will be disqualified.

  In essence, you must legally verify your identity and the authenticity of your signature on the document. 

• Proposal (without cost) (required)
• Cost Proposal (required)
• Current Workforce Demographic (required) —

  Please download the below documents, complete, and upload.

• Statement of Qualifications for City —

  Statement of Qualifications:

  Each solicitation response shall include a Statement of Qualifications in the format provided in this Solicitation upon stationary of the responding entity.

  All questions must be answered, and the data given must be clear and comprehensive. The respondent may submit any additional information he/she desires.

• Permanent Main Office Address (required)
• When Organized (required)
• Legal form of ownership. If a corporation, where incorporated. (required)
• How many years have you been engaged in services, under your present name? (required)
• Have you ever failed to complete any work awarded to you? If so, where and why? (required)
• Have you ever defaulted on a contract? If so, where, and why? (required)
• Describe any pending litigation or other factors, which could affect your organization and it's ability to perform this agreement. (required)
• Names, titles, reporting relationships, and background and experience of the principal members of your organization, including the officers. Indicate which individuals are authorized to bind the organization in negotiations with the City of New Haven. (required)
• Name, title, address, and telephone number of the individual to whom all inquiries about this Proposal should be addressed. (required)
• Will you, upon request, fill out a detailed financial statement and furnish any other information or sign a release that may be required by the City of New Haven? (required) —

  Upon the City of New Haven's request, the Business will be obligated to:*

  • Complete a detailed financial statement, providing a thorough overview of its financial position.
  • Furnish any additional information deemed necessary by the City to evaluate its financial stability. This may include, but is not limited to, bank records, tax documentation, and credit references.
  • Sign a release if required, authorizing the City to independently verify the provided financial information from relevant third parties.

  This comprehensive financial review is a necessary step for the City of New Haven to ensure the respondent possesses the financial capacity to successfully undertake and complete the proposed project. Your affirmative response confirms your understanding and willingness to comply with these requirements if requested.

• If you answers no , (required) —

  Briefly describe your reason for answering no.

• Tax Identification number(s) (required)
• UEI Identification Number is required for all federally funded project. Respondent is required to have an active UEI number when submitting a response. (required)
• By Providing the City with a UEI, please upload your current validation form (required) —

  Please download the below documents, complete, and upload.

• Are you able to receive Credit Card Payments for your services rendered? (required)
• Attached in section 3 "City Requirements" of this solicitation are Policy Agreements for Ban the Box, Certificate of non-arrearage, Equal Opportunity Agreement and the Non-Collusion Affidavit your review.. (required) —

  By submitting a response to this solicitation, you acknowledge and accept the terms and condition of each individual policy.

• Public Record Trade Secret or Proprietary Confidential Business Information Exemption Request (required) —

  As a bidder or proposer, any document you submit to the City of New Haven may be a public record and be open for personal inspection or copying by any person. In Connecticut ‘s public records” are defined as all documents, papers, letters, maps, books, tapes, photographs, films, sound recordings, data processing software, or other material, regardless of the physical form, characteristics, or means of transmission, made or received pursuant to law or ordinance or in connection with the transaction of official business by any agency. Section 1-210, CT. A document is subject to personal inspection and copying unless it falls under one of the public records exemptions created under Connecticut law.  Answer No if : No part of your proposal is exempt from disclosure under the Connecticut public record law.

• By answering Yes, you are agreeing to the following (required) —

  By claiming that all or part of the bid or proposal is exempt from the public records law, the undersigned bidder or proposer agrees to protect, defend, indemnify, and hold the City of New Haven, its officers, employees, and agents free and harmless from and against all claims arising out of a request to inspector copy the bid or proposal. The undersigned bidder or proposer agrees to investigate, handle, respond to, provide defense (including payment of attorney fees, court costs, and expert witness fees and expenses up to and including any appeal) for and defend any such claim at its sole cost and expense through counsel chosen by the City of New Haven and agrees to bear all other costs and expenses related thereto, even if they (claims, etc.) are groundless, false, or fraudulent.

• If you claimed yes, (i.e., you do claim an exemption), explain which part/s are exempt below (required) —

  The following parts of the bid or proposal submitted are exempt from disclosure under the Connecticut public records law because: (list exempt parts and legal justification - e.g., trade secret):

• The City of New Haven has provided the complete contract details for your thorough examination. While the standard contract terms allow for minor modifications with the City's written approval, it is critical to understand that you will be strictly required to adhere to every term and condition as presented in the attached documents unless such minor changes are formally approved by the City of New Haven (required) —

  By submitting a response to this solicitation, you acknowledge and accept this requirement as a condition of award." 

• References (required) —

  Please provide 3 reference contacts with your submission in the following format.

  Reference

  • Company/Client Name:

  • Contact Person & Title:

  • Phone Number:

  • Email Address:

  • Dates of Service:

  • Brief Description of Services Provided:

• Project Owner
• Enter Requesting Department Name. (required)
• Enter Project Manager's Name (required)
• Enter Munis Account Number for Ad (nnnnnnnn-nnnnn) (required)
• Funding
• How is this Procurement Funded (required)
• IF funding is City, then does local preference apply? (required)
• If funding is Federal, and project is construction related then federal wage rate required (required)
• If funding is State, and project is construction related; state wage required (required)
• If project is State Funded, does project need be posted on DAS Portal ? (required)
• If funding is a Grant and project is construction related (required)
• If project is ARPA and is construction related, wage rates applies as follows: (required)
• Please include the full name of the funding agency (not the program): (required) —

  For Example: Homeland Security

• If Grant funded-required information confirmation (required)
• Project Setup —

  Note: Project requiring Bid Bond-when setting up project within project builder enter the Project ID by right clicking the Bid Bond question.

• Is this a "Small Contractor Development" solicitation? (required) —

  The City of New Haven has a set-aside program for Small Business located with New Haven County.  This is a program for any non federally funded construction or service related solicitation up to $150,000. SCD shall have first preference. To seek waiver contact Lil Snyder in SCD.

• If you answered "Yes" to question 3.1 Are there SCD vendor available to perform statement of work. Check in Vendor section of OpenGov_"Vendor List" to determine. (required)
• Type of Wages Salaries Applicable (required) —

  Please select the applicable Wages and Salaries

  Livable Wage Rates = when project is City, ARPA funded and under $150,000.00 or HUD funded and under $150,000.00

  For Prevailing Wage (State),when project is City, ARPA or Grant funded and over $150,000.00. Please reach out to Purchasing to allow them to request the relevant wage rates from the State. It takes up to 14-21 days to receive them.

  For Davis Bacon (Federal),= when project is Federally funded and over $2,000.00.  Please go ahead and submit your entire draft for Purchasing to review. Purchasing will attach the relevant document upon their review. 

  N/A = when none of the above apply

  Please continue with your draft of the solicitation and send it to purchasing for review. They will attach the relevant wage rates to their review. 

• Does this procurement include any of the following (check what applies) (required)
• Has FLEET approved your specifications? (appear when vehicle ) (required)
• Yes, please request Purchasing to request state wage rate. Project Cannot be released without rates. Allow at least two weeks to receive rates prior to placing project live. Rate only valid for 30 day for a project not made live on the portal (required)
• Bid Bonds required for your project? (required) —

  If your project is Construction and over $100,000, a bid bond is required. 

• Is "MBE/WBE Sub-Contractor Utilization" applicable for this solicitation? (required) —

  Does project specification define what a good faith effort is acceptable for this statement of work.

• MBE/WBE Utilization Goal (required) —

  applies to all city construction contracts that are over one hundred fifty thousand dollars ($150,000.00)

• Is experience required to be eligible to compete on this solicitation? (required)
• Are there any License or Certification Requirement? (required) —

  This particular question is to be answered for the company (or their subcontractors) not their employees.

• License or Certification Type: (required) —

  Please enter the specific License or Certification required to be eligible to compete on this solicitation. For example, "CPA - Certified Public Accountant."

• Is this a License from the State of Connecticut Licensing Board? (required)
• Do you want the respondent to provide 3 reference contacts with their submission. (required) —

  The respondent will be required to provide the following:

  Reference

  • Company/Client Name:

  • Contact Person & Title:

  • Phone Number:

  • Email Address:

  • Dates of Service:

  • Brief Description of Services Provided:

• Pricing (required)
• Award Method (required) —

  General definitions and parameters of each approach.

  • Award to the Proposer: This is a traditional public procurement where the winning bid or proposal is selected based on the Lowest, Responsive and Responsible Bidder when using a Competitive Bid process; or the Highest Scored Proposal when using the Competitive Selection process.
  • Split Award: A “Split-Award” is designed to specify and distinguish separate Groups of awards based on separate specifications or Scopes of Work. A vendor can respond to any combination of the Groups provided they are responsive and responsible. Each Group is evaluated and awarded independently. Effectively, there could be a separate winner for each Group.
  • Back Up Vendor (RFPs Only): This method is intended to contract with a back up vendor in the event the winner is unable to fulfill the contract.
• Insurance Requirements —

  Instructions for Project Managers

  Based on the information you currently have, attempt to answer this question to the best of your capability. Ultimately, purchasing will review this carefully and edit and update as needed based on your solicitation requirements. 

  As a standard, all activities for Construction and Service require the following: 

  • General Liability
  • Workers’ Compensation & Employers’ Liability (EL) - Statutory Limits
  • Auto Liability
  • Excess/Umbrella Liability

  Any Professional Services type project (usually Request for Proposals) will require the following: 

  • General Liability
  • Workers’ Compensation & Employers’ Liability (EL) - Statutory Limits
  • Auto Liability
  • Excess/Umbrella Liability
  • Professional Liability

  For Commodity, General Liability is the minimum requirement. 

• Evaluation Criteria —

  Suggest criteria item are available in the Internal Attachment section of this project

• Select Evaluation Criteria to Include —

  Choose your evaluation factors. Below are example factors you can consider for your Evaluation Criteria. It is important that your actual evaluation of proposals is consistent with the factors and criteria you include in the RFP document. You will be able to add or edit any custom criteria along with the point values (using a 100-point-scale) while you are editing the Evaluation Section of this project.

• Contract Terms —

  The determination of whether a city contract is to be submitted to the board of alders for prior approval pursuant to section 2-376 is if one of the following conditions exist:

  a.

  If its initial term is longer than one year, exclusive of options/renewals that are less than two years.

  b.

  If options/renewals on the initial term exceed two years collectively and/or consecutively, or

  c.

  If any options/renewals materially alter the terms or conditions of a contract in the judgment of the city purchasing agent.

• Base Contract Duration:How many years will be included for the base contract? For any selection please attach BOA resolution in the internal attachment section of project (required) —

  The determination of whether a city contract is to be submitted to the board of alders for prior approval pursuant to section 2-376 is if one of the following conditions exist:

  a.

  If its initial term is longer than one year, exclusive of options/renewals that are less than two years.

  b.

  If options/renewals on the initial term exceed two years collectively and/or consecutively, or

  c.

  If any options/renewals materially alter the terms or conditions of a contract in the judgment of the city purchasing agent.

Questions & Answers