5-Kaysville City AV RFP Addendum No 2.docx

REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL

Kaysville City Council Chambers & Police Department Emergency Operations Center Audiovisual System Replacement

ADDENDUM NO. 2

RFP CLARIFICATIONS FOLLOWING PRE-PROPOSAL SITE WALK

RFP Issue Date: August 17, 2026 Addendum Issue Date: September 8, 2026 Proposal Due Date: September 30, 2026, at 5:00 p.m. Mountain Time This Addendum No. 2 provides clarifications arising from the September 8, 2026 pre-proposal site walk related to the Request for Proposal. It is incorporated into and made part of the RFP. Except as expressly modified or clarified below, all requirements, terms, conditions, and deadlines remain unchanged.

1. Questions and Answers Question 1: Is the City expecting all existing AV equipment to be replaced?

Answer: No. The City is not directing proposers to either retain or replace existing equipment solely based on its age or current functionality.

The City is seeking the most fiscally responsible solution based on overall lifecycle value. Proposers should use their professional judgment in determining whether existing equipment should be retained or replaced, considering initial cost, remaining useful life, reliability, compatibility, future replacement cost, labor and integration requirements, and the City's ten-year design-life objective.

Where replacement of existing equipment provides better long-term value or contributes meaningfully to the reliability and supportability of the completed system, the City expects proposers to recommend replacement. Where existing equipment can reasonably be retained without compromising those objectives, reuse is acceptable.

Question 2: Does the City expect the existing Council Chambers displays and projector to be replaced?

Answer: Not necessarily. Proposers should determine whether retaining or replacing the existing displays and projector provides the best overall lifecycle value to the City, consistent with the considerations identified in Question 1.

The City recognizes that displays and similar endpoint equipment may be easier to replace in the future than core AV processing, control, switching, audio, and other integrated infrastructure. Future replacement should therefore be considered when evaluating whether an existing component should be retained.

However, if replacement as part of this project provides better long-term value, improves reliability or compatibility, or avoids reasonably anticipated future costs, proposers should include replacement in their proposed solution.

Question 3: What is the City's expectation regarding the useful life of the replacement system?

Answer: The RFP identifies a ten-year design-life objective. The City expects the overall system architecture and core AV infrastructure to be designed with long-term reliability, serviceability, and supportability in mind.

The City recognizes that individual components may have different practical service lives and that some components may reasonably require replacement during the life of the system. The proposed design should allow such components to be replaced, where practical, without substantial redesign, reprogramming, or replacement of otherwise serviceable portions of the system.

Proposers should consider both initial cost and total lifecycle value when selecting equipment and designing the system.

Question 4: How does the City currently support its AV systems, and what level of supportability and remote management is expected from the replacement systems?

Answer: City IT currently performs routine system operation and basic troubleshooting. The City relies on an AV integrator or other qualified vendor for specialized maintenance and repairs, programming, configuration changes, firmware updates, programming updates, and other work requiring AV-specific expertise. The City expects this general division of responsibilities to continue with the replacement systems.

Kaysville City AV Replacement RFP | Addendum No. 2 - Page 10 of 10

In the Council Chambers, City IT also routinely operates meetings remotely from staff workstations. Authorized IT staff are able to securely connect to the City network and remotely access the AV control system, view the live meeting, and operate the same meeting functions available through the room control system. This remote operation is an important part of the City's normal Council meeting workflow and shall be maintained in the replacement system.

The replacement Council Chambers system shall provide authorized City IT staff with a software-based, web-based, or equivalent remote control interface providing the same operational control functionality available through the primary room control interface. This includes, as applicable, microphone and mute control, camera selection and presets, presentation source selection, display control, streaming and recording functions, and selection of program layouts such as camera, presentation, and picture-in-picture views.

City IT shall also be able to remotely view the live program or other appropriate confidence/preview feed necessary to operate the meeting effectively from a remote workstation.

Remote access shall operate securely through the City's network environment, including through the City's existing secure remote-access/VPN environment. The City does not require AV management interfaces or equipment to be directly accessible from the public Internet.

The replacement systems should also provide useful diagnostic and system-health information to assist City IT with basic troubleshooting. The City currently uses Zabbix for internal infrastructure monitoring. Where supported by the proposed equipment, making useful device and system-health information available to the City's internal monitoring environment is desirable; Zabbix integration is not required.

The City is not requiring continuous third-party remote monitoring or an ongoing managed-service agreement as part of the base proposal. Specialized AV maintenance, repairs, programming, configuration changes, firmware updates, and system modifications are expected to continue to be performed by a qualified integrator or vendor.

Question 5: Are streaming and web-conferencing capabilities required when the Council Chambers is used in its alternate roundtable/horseshoe configuration?

Answer: Yes. Both capabilities are required.

The City must be able to stream meetings from the alternate roundtable/horseshoe configuration and must also be able to conduct interactive web-conferencing meetings using platforms such as Zoom, GoTo, or similar services.

The City would like the replacement system to maintain these capabilities while providing flexibility in the alternate room configuration. A laptop or other appropriate device should be able to participate in a web conference while utilizing the room's cameras, microphones, speakers, and presentation system.

The Police EOC's existing ClickShare configuration was discussed during the site walk as an example of the type of flexible conferencing functionality the City finds useful.

Question 6: What level of adjustment does the City want for the Council meeting timer?

Answer: The existing timer primarily allows adjustment in one-minute increments. The City would prefer greater flexibility, including shorter increments such as 15 or 30 seconds, provided this does not add unnecessary operational complexity.

Question 7: Should the existing Council Chambers lighting integration with the AV control system be retained?

Answer: Yes. Lighting integration should be retained or improved. Appropriate lighting controls should remain accessible during normal system operation rather than being available only during system startup or shutdown.

Question 8: What is the primary day-to-day use of the Police EOC?

Answer: Training represents approximately 90 percent of normal room use. The room is also used for meetings and other events and must remain capable of immediate activation as an Emergency Operations Center.

Reliability during an emergency is the City's highest priority for this space.

Question 9: Does the City require dedicated computers installed in the EOC AV rack?

Answer: No. The City primarily uses laptops and is not requesting dedicated rack-mounted computers as part of the AV system.

Question 10: Does the City want to retain the ability to route individual EOC floor-box sources to different displays?

Answer: Yes. The system should continue to support flexible routing of individual sources to different displays. For example, separate laptops connected at different floor boxes may need to be displayed on different screens while other displays show Comcast or another available source.

Question 11: Should the existing cabling serving the EOC floor boxes be replaced?

Answer: Not necessarily. The EOC floor boxes experienced condensation in the past. The City has recently replaced the cabling serving these boxes and added ventilation to address the condensation issue. Based on current conditions, the City does not consider condensation to be an ongoing issue.

Proposers should evaluate and reuse the existing floor-box cabling where technically appropriate and compatible with the proposed solution. The City is not requiring replacement of the recently installed Cat 6A cabling simply because the overall AV system is being replaced.

Question 12: Does the City require Barco ClickShare for wireless presentation and conferencing in the Police EOC?

Answer: No. The City currently uses ClickShare and has found its functionality useful, but the City is open to ClickShare or an equivalent or better solution that provides the required functionality and is appropriate for the proposed system.

The City wants users to be able to connect a laptop or other supported device for both wireless presentation and web conferencing. For web conferencing, the connected device should be able to use the EOC's room cameras, microphone system, and room audio system as conferencing resources rather than relying on the laptop's built-in camera, microphone, and speakers.

The solution should also allow users to present content from the connected device through the EOC AV system while participating in a web conference and should maintain the flexible source-routing and display capabilities required elsewhere in the RFP.

The City values the ability for guests and other users to connect and present without requiring their devices to be joined to the City's internal network. Proposers may recommend ClickShare or another solution that provides equivalent or improved functionality, usability, reliability, and supportability.

Question 13: Does the City require an individual microphone for each EOC floor-box/workstation location?

Answer: No. The City does not require a dedicated microphone at each floor-box or workstation location. The City requires two wireless microphones in the EOC for flexible use within the room.

Question 14: Does the City want a permanently wired microphone installed at the EOC podium?

Answer: No. The podium is moved frequently. The City intends to use one of the wireless microphones at the podium rather than a permanently wired podium microphone.

Question 15: Should Bluetooth audio capability remain available in the EOC?

Answer: Yes. The existing Bluetooth capability has been useful, and the City wants to retain this functionality.

Question 16: Does the City need to record all four EOC displays simultaneously?

Answer: No. Recording is important, particularly for Police Department training. The City needs the ability to select the appropriate presentation/video source and camera for recording along with room audio. Simultaneous recording of all four displays is not required.

Question 17: Does the City require the existing four-display EOC video-wall configuration to remain exactly as it is today?

Answer: No. The City is generally satisfied with the functionality provided by the existing four-display arrangement but is open to proposer recommendations.

Proposers should evaluate whether retaining the existing displays, replacing them, or proposing another configuration provides the best overall lifecycle value, reliability, usability, and long-term supportability consistent with the considerations identified in Question 1.

If a materially different configuration is recommended, it should be clearly identified and priced so the City can evaluate the proposed approach.

Question 18: Is a media/press feed required at the rear of the Police EOC?

Answer: Yes. The City would like a media/press feed located on the rear wall of the EOC. Proposers should evaluate available pathways and may reuse existing infrastructure where appropriate. An existing network location/pathway may be repurposed if necessary.

Question 19: Should the proposed AV systems reside on the City's network or on a separate vendor-managed network?

Answer: The AV systems are expected to operate as part of or in coordination with the City's network infrastructure. Final network architecture, VLAN configuration, addressing, security, and management requirements will be coordinated with City IT during design and implementation.

Any external vendor remote-access or remote-management capability must be reviewed and approved by City IT before implementation.

Question 20: Are Netgear network switches prohibited from the proposed AV systems? Answer: No. Netgear network switches are not prohibited.

Following additional consideration of the specialized networking requirements associated with professional AV systems, the City will allow Netgear or another appropriate switching platform where the proposer believes it is the best technical solution.

When specialized AV switching equipment or a platform different from the City's typical network standards is proposed, the proposal should explain the technical basis for the selection, including its benefits for AV performance, reliability, management, interoperability, and long-term supportability.

The City will evaluate the proposed network architecture as part of the overall solution rather than requiring a particular switch manufacturer.

Question 21: Will the City disclose the approved budget for this project?

Answer: No. The City is not providing a project budget amount as part of this RFP. Proposers should develop their proposed solutions and pricing based on the requirements of the RFP, issued addenda, existing conditions, and their professional assessment of the City's needs.

The City wants proposals to reflect the appropriate solution for the project rather than being designed around a predetermined budget figure. The City has attempted to define practical requirements and is not seeking unnecessary or extravagant features.

The City is seeking a fiscally responsible solution based on overall lifecycle value, not simply the lowest initial cost. Proposal pricing will be considered in relation to reliability, functionality, maintainability, expected service life, future replacement and support costs, and the overall value of the proposed solution.

The City's priority is receiving a reliable, functional, and supportable solution that appropriately addresses the identified needs and provides strong overall lifecycle value.

Question 22: May proposers include enhancements or alternative solutions beyond the base requirements?

Answer: Yes. The City welcomes recommendations where an alternative approach could meaningfully improve reliability, usability, functionality, serviceability, or long-term value.

Optional enhancements or materially different alternatives should be clearly identified and separately priced so the City can distinguish them from the base proposal and evaluate them independently.

Question 23: Does the existing HDMI connection at the EOC wall plate need to be replaced?

Answer: Yes. During the site walk, there was discussion regarding whether the existing HDMI wall-plate connection could be reused. The City has since confirmed that the HDMI cable serving this wall plate has been cut and is no longer functional.

The connection shall be repaired or replaced as part of the proposed system. Proposers should include the cabling, extension, conversion, or other equipment necessary to provide a fully functional HDMI input at this location and integrate it into the proposed AV system.

Existing Police EOC HDMI wall input – currently nonfunctional due to cut cabling.

Question 24: What is the manufacturer and model of the existing Council Chambers lighting control system that the AV system will need to integrate with?

Answer: The existing Council Chambers lighting control system is a Hubbell Control Solutions NX Distributed Intelligence system. The equipment identified from the existing installation includes an NX Area Controller, model NXAC-120-001, and a 24-relay lighting control panel, model NXP24-2-243L-S.

The proposed AV system shall integrate with the existing Hubbell NX lighting control system and provide the lighting-control functionality required by the RFP. Proposers are responsible for determining the appropriate method of integration with the existing system.

The following photographs are provided for reference and show the existing lighting control equipment observed by the City.

Existing Hubbell NX lighting control equipment - Photo 1

Existing Hubbell NX lighting control equipment - Photo 2

Existing Hubbell NX lighting control equipment - Photo 3

Existing Hubbell NX lighting control equipment - Photo 4

2. Council Chambers Pre-Function/Lobby Display Clarification The existing display in the Council Chambers pre-function/lobby area is currently not functioning as intended.

Historically, when the Council Chambers system was in use, the pre-function/lobby display could show the Council Chambers program video with accompanying audio. The system also provided control of the display and audio for that area.

Currently, the display does not provide program video. Audio from the Council Chambers remains available in the pre-function/lobby area, but the complete video and control functionality no longer works.

The replacement system shall restore this functionality. The pre-function/lobby area shall receive the appropriate Council Chambers program video and accompanying audio. The system shall also provide practical control to turn the feed on and off and adjust audio volume for the pre-function/lobby area.

The intent is for individuals in the pre-function/lobby area to be able to see and hear the Council Chambers meeting when desired while allowing City staff to control operation and volume of the feed.

Existing Council Chambers pre-function/lobby display. Approximate diagonal screen measurement shown for reference.

3. Site-Walk Clarifications and Additional Site Access The September 8, 2026, pre-proposal site walk was provided to allow proposers to review existing conditions, observe the operation and configuration of the existing systems, and discuss potential approaches to the project.

Comments or discussions during the site walk regarding specific manufacturers, technologies, equipment, or potential solutions do not modify the RFP unless specifically incorporated through a written addendum. If a written addendum differs from a verbal statement made during the site walk, the written addendum shall control.

Proposers may revisit the Council Chambers and Police Department Emergency Operations Center during normal City business hours to further evaluate existing conditions in preparation for their proposals and is subject to room availability and scheduled City use.

The Staff Conference Room is not generally open to the public. Any additional access to that space must be specifically coordinated in advance through the AVproject@kaysville.gov email address.

Proposers remain responsible for evaluating existing conditions and providing a complete solution consistent with the RFP and all issued addenda.

END OF ADDENDUM NO. 2

image5.jpeg image6.jpeg image7.jpeg image1.jpeg image2.jpeg image3.jpeg image4.jpeg