Department of Financial Management 411 West Ocean Boulevard, 6th Floor

Long Beach, CA 90802

(562) 570-6425

September 18, 2025

NOTICE TO PROPOSERS

ADDENDUM NO. 1: Q&A

RFP No. ED-25-653 Corridor Safety Solutions

This addendum changes and supersedes the language in the original RFP. Please acknowledge receipt of this addendum by signing and submitting with your proposal. Any proposer who fails to submit this addendum may be disqualified.

The City would like to remind Proposers that pursuant to Section 5.2.25 of the RFP, the City will not be responsible for or bound by any oral communication or any other information or contact that occurs outside the official communication process specified herein, unless confirmed in writing by the City Contact.

The City would like to provide the following updates:

• Optional pre-proposal meeting slide deck attached.

The questions and answers are as follows:

1. Q: Can we submit multiple concepts or one integrated bundle under a single proposal?

A: Proposers may submit either a single integrated solution or multiple concepts bundled under one proposal. Each approach must clearly describe scope, costs, and implementation details.

2. Q: Does the Anaheim corridor currently have panic button infrastructure in place?

A: No. The Anaheim corridor does not currently have panic button infrastructure.

3. Q: For panic/assistance alerts: who is the designated responder after hours (BID/ambassadors/security/PD) and what are their operating hours?

A: The City has not established a designated responder for after-hours alerts.

Proposers should outline a feasible process, including recommended responder roles, operating hours, and coordination requirements with City departments, the Anaheim PBID, or LBPD.

Addendum No. 1 RFP DV-25-653

4. Q: What is the desired escalation path and target response times for daytime vs.

nighttime?

A: The City has not set a standard escalation path or response time. Proposers are expected to recommend an approach, including daytime and nighttime escalation procedures, target response times, and any interagency coordination necessary to ensure effective implementation.

5. Q: The RFP notes that community feedback was shared in a July 2025 LB Co-Lab Workshop. Is there any recording, presentation, or meeting summary from that workshop available?

A: Yes. A summary of key community feedback is available in section 2.3 of the

RFP.

6. Q: Can you share any images or examples of lighting from an aesthetic and approved infrastructure and fixtures?

A: The City maintains standards for corridor and pedestrian lighting some. Lighting standards can be found in the Public Works website https://www.longbeach.gov/pw/resources/standard-plans/. Final fixture selection and placement would require coordination with Public Works. Proposers should anticipate working with the City to ensure compliance, and reference examples may be provided upon request.

7. Q: Do you have any historical data on footfall analysis, people counts, and business economic data?

A: The City does not have comprehensive footfall counts for the Anaheim corridor.

Limited business economic data are available through the City’s Economic Development Department and can be provided upon request.

8. Q: Is there a specific pilot site for 2026 within Long Beach’s Anaheim business corridor? Any particular blocks or intersections?

A: Yes. The pilot is anticipated to focus on the Anaheim Street between Cherry Avenue and Long Beach Blvd, subject to final site confirmation.

9. Q: Do traffic signal infrastructure and street light poles have 24/7 power, or are they metered? Can we source power from these types of infrastructure?

A: This infrastructure is metered and has 24/7 power. Vendors can source power from these types of infrastructure, and this must be clearly noted in vendors’ proposals.

10. Q: Where can additional lighting be installed? Where would you add additional lighting?

A: Additional lighting may be considered along pedestrian pathways, crosswalks, and key commercial frontages, subject to Public Works review and permitting.

11. Q: Existing Infrastructure: Please confirm what infrastructure (e.g., fiber backhaul, streetlight poles, power availability, existing City-owned cameras or WiFi access points) currently exists along the corridor that may be leveraged as part of this project.

A: The City has some infrastructure in place along the Anaheim corridor, including streetlight poles and limited technology assets. However, confirmation of availability, capacity, and compatibility will require coordination with Public Works and other departments. Proposers should outline assumptions, identify infrastructure needs, and recommend a feasible process for integration in collaboration with the City.

12. Q: System Integration: Will the proposed camera systems need to integrate with existing City systems (such as Long Beach Police Department platforms, the Go Long Beach App, or GIS mapping tools), or should vendors design a stand-alone deployment?

A: Proposals should describe both stand-alone and potential integration options.

The City will evaluate feasibility and cost of integration with existing platforms.

13. Q: Video Storage & Access: What are the City’s requirements for video storage (retention period, storage method—cloud vs. on-premises), and which parties (e.g., LBPD, City staff, BID staff) will be authorized to access the video data?

A: The City’s video application is Genetec, and we standardize on Hanwha, and Axis cameras. Regarding storage, the City uses Dell rugged units in the field and server on premises. The minimum requirement is 30-day retention but some locations have different retention periods. The Technology and Innovation Department (TID) is the owner of the Genetec system, and TID supports all the cameras systems and storage. Various City Departments are authorized to use the systems depending on the location.

14. Q: Privacy Compliance: Please clarify the City’s expectations regarding compliance with the Long Beach Data Privacy Policy for data that may capture device information. Specifically, are anonymization, opt-in consent, or data retention limits required for resident and visitor data?

A: Proposers must comply with the City’s Data Privacy Policy. Device or personal data collection must include anonymization and retention limits. Opt-in consent is required if identifiable information is captured.

15. Q: Ownership & Maintenance: Following installation, who will be responsible for ongoing maintenance, monitoring, and upgrades of the infrastructure—the selected contractor, the City, or the local BID?

A: The selected contractor will be responsible during the pilot period. Long-term ownership and maintenance options should be outlined as part of the proposal.

16. Q: Service Level Agreements: In the event of system outages or equipment failure, what response times and service levels does the City expect the selected vendor to meet?

A: The City does not have established response times or service levels. Vendors are expected to propose service levels, including response to outages and repair or replacement, subject to final agreement in contract negotiations.

17. Q: Funding & Scalability: The RFP specifies $75,000 for the pilot program. Please clarify whether there are anticipated funding sources or plans for additional investment should the City elect to scale the solution beyond the initial pilot, and whether vendors should design with scalability in mind.

A: Future funding is subject to Council approval and external grant availability.

Proposers are encouraged to design scalable solutions.

PREPARED BY: Tommy Ryan, Administrative Analyst III

ACKNOWLEDGED BY: ________________________________________________

Company Name

Print Name Title

Signature Date