BPM007009 Evaluation Report FINAL.pdf

Jenny Walker

Catharina Johnson

1. Method of Approach (500 Points Maximum) Rating: Points Rating: Points Rating: Points

371.25 282.50 188.75 Comments:

2. Experience and Expertise (300 Points Maximum) Rating: Points Rating: Points Rating: Points

250.00 218.75 100.00 Comments: STRENGTHS: The Offeror's response thoroughly addresses all sections within the Scope of Work and supplementing their compliance with additional detail that offers deeper insight into their experience and operational capability. Their submission reflects a strong understanding of the program’s requirements and is supported by relevant examples that demonstrate proven performance, strategic planning, and readiness to execute at scale. The Offeror's response provides a detailed operational plan accompanied by a county-specific analysis and a corresponding visual representation. This comprehensive approach clearly illustrates how they intend to service approximately 250 schools and fill 1,250 weekly shifts. The inclusion of localized data and visual mapping demonstrates thoughtful planning, logistical awareness, and a scalable strategy tailored to Arizona’s diverse regional needs. The Offeror's response fully addresses all requirements outlined in the solicitation, while also showcasing superior experience, an innovative approach, and a comprehensive, high-quality solution. Their response is distinguished by detailed operational planning, strategic partnerships, scalable infrastructure, and a clear understanding of program needs. The proposal reflects not only compliance but also a

WEAKNESS: The Offeror’s response was non-responsive and lacked the specificity necessary to adequately address the question. The Offeror’s plan was reasonably detailed; however, the accompanying visual representation (map) was significantly inaccurate, containing mislabeled counties and referencing a non-existent county ('Olia'), which undermines the credibility of the submission.

3. Cost (200 Points Maximum) Points Points Points

66.67 120.00 200.00

Total Max. Points 1000 Total Score 687.92 Total Score 621.25 Total Score 488.75

Approved by:

Unacceptable = Elements of the proposal that are unacceptable to the State. (0 - 25% points)

Meets Expectations = Proposal meets requirement(s) outlined in the RFP. (50 - 75% of points)

Rating Definitions for Criteria 1 and 2

WEAKNESS: The Offeror provided a basic and generalized response that lacked the specificity necessary to fully address the question. The Offeror’s response addressed elements of each subsection within Section 4.2; however, the level of detail provided was general and lacked the depth necessary to fully demonstrate understanding and capability. The Offeror provided minimal detail and did not fully address all elements of the question. Additionally, the following statement introduces ambiguity regarding potential costs: 'The use of this platform will come additional cost to the ADE…' It is unclear whether this implies an added expense. The Offeror failed to address all required subsections of Section 4.5, resulting in an incomplete response that did not meet the solicitation’s expectations. The Offeror provided a basic and generalized response that lacked the specificity required to adequately address Section

4.11.5 of the Scope of Work. The Offeror presented a plan indicating that officers will be paid weekly for services rendered; however, the response lacked sufficient detail to fully demonstrate how this process will be implemented and managed.

Green Knight Security

Exceeds Expectations = Proposal meets all requirement(s) outlined in the RFP but also provides innovative or exceptional responses. (75 - 100% of Points)

Below Expectation = Proposal doesn’t fully meet or doesn’t completely address requirement(s) of the RFP. (25 - 50% of points)

STRENGTHS: The Offeror's response presents a robust platform and mobile application that appears to meet, and potentially exceed, the solicitation’s expectations. The Offeror effectively addressed all components outlined in Section 4.2, demonstrating a clear understanding of the requirements. The Offeror's response provides in-depth detail on how training will be delivered to key program staff. Their approach includes a structured curriculum covering compliance, operational procedures, and technology use, delivered through a combination of in-person sessions, virtual training, and on-demand modules. This flexible, multi-modal delivery ensures consistent knowledge transfer, accessibility across regions, and readiness of personnel at all levels.

RollKall Technologies Offerors

Off Duty Management

STRENGTHS: The Offeror provided a thorough and well-organized response that addressed all elements outlined in the Scope of Work. They not only affirmed their capability but also demonstrated an “exceptional ability” through specific, relevant examples showing how they have successfully met each requirement in practice and intend to continue doing so. This proactive and evidence-based approach reflects a high level of preparedness and exceeds the expectations of the solicitation. he Offeror’s response provides both a detailed narrative and a corresponding visual representation that clearly illustrates their plan to service approximately 250 schools and fill 1,250 weekly shifts. Key differentiators include established direct partnerships with eight Arizona counties and the Department of Public Safety (DPS), as well as access to a verified pool of over 5,000 AZPOST-certified officers.

These elements collectively demonstrate a high level of preparedness, scalability, and strategic alignment with program needs. The Offeror’s proposal exceeds expectations by fully addressing all requirements outlined in the solicitation, while also demonstrating superior experience, an innovative approach, and a well-structured, exceptional solution. Their response is distinguished by clear evidence of past performance, strategic partnerships, scalable infrastructure, and thoughtful implementation plans that go beyond baseline compliance to deliver added value and operational excellence.

STRENGTHS: The Offeror’s response clearly explains their proposed solution and includes information about their contractual relationships with over 50 governmental entities, demonstrating both experience and established partnerships.

The Offeror's response presents a robust platform and mobile application that appears to meet, and potentially exceed, the solicitation’s expectations. The Offeror effectively addressed all components outlined in Section 4.2, demonstrating a clear understanding of the requirements. The Offeror’s response is highly detailed, highlighting existing agreements with eight counties and two additional agreements pending. They demonstrate a verified pool of over 5,000 AZPOST-certified officers available for job placement, emphasize cross-jurisdictional coordination, and note an established partnership with the Department of Public Safety (DPS), collectively indicating strong operational readiness and strategic alignment. The Offeror’s response not only meets the expectations outlined in Section 4.4, but also provides detailed information on county-based, site-specific, and officer-level reporting capabilities. Additionally, the inclusion of real-time monitoring demonstrates a robust and responsive data infrastructure. The Offeror’s response describes the established training requirements and provides comprehensive detail on how training will be delivered to key program staff. The Offeror’s response decribes the established job assignment requirements and provides detailed insight into how assignments can be tailored based on specific and unique criteria. This includes features such as automated job reminders, timestamp-based assignment allocation to ensure timely deployment, and exclusive agency relationships that support targeted and efficient staffing. The Offeror's response describes the established requirements for both job assignments and vehicle provisions. They provide detailed information on how assignments can be tailored using specific and unique criteria, such as automated job reminders, timestamp-based allocation to ensure timely and efficient deployment, and exclusive agency relationships that support targeted staffing and resource coordination. The Offeror’s response indicates full compliance with all requirements outlined in Section 4.15. They further break down each component—phone, email, and chat—and provide specific details on how each communication channel will be supported, ensuring accessibility, responsiveness, and alignment with service expectations. The Offeror’s response exceeds expectations by presenting a comprehensive plan that ensures officers are paid weekly for services rendered. Beyond meeting the basic requirement, the Offeror provides detailed information on accurate timekeeping and verification processes, demonstrates financial stability and capacity to sustain timely payments, and highlights a perfect payment record. Additionally, their emphasis on administrative efficiency reinforces their ability to manage payroll operations reliably and at scale.

Mike Kurtenbach

Evaluation Report Solicitation BPM007009: Off-Duty School Resource and School Safety Officers

Green Knight SecurityRollKall Technologies Offerors

Off Duty Management

1. Method of Approach (500 Points Maximum) Rating: Points Rating: Points Rating: Points

292.50 238.75 268.75 Comments:

2. Experience and Expertise (300 Points Maximum) Rating: Points Rating: Points Rating: Points

112.50 150.00 147.50 Comments: STRENGTHS: The Offeror's response provides a clear and well-structured plan, including both a detailed narrative and a comprehensive visual workflow, outlining how they intend to service approximately 250 schools and fulfill 1,250 weekly shifts. The materials were easy to follow and effectively demonstrated their operational capacity. However, a notable concern is their access to only 700 AZPOST-certified officers, which may be insufficient to meet the stated staffing requirements.

WEAKNESS: The offeror submitted a generic organizational chart that lacked the level of detail necessary to fully assess roles, responsibilities, and reporting structures. It did not provide the specificity required to evaluate their operational readiness or staffing alignment. The offeror’s response references Attachment XIV as containing details regarding their Firm’s Experience and Expertise. However, only 13 attachments were included in their submission, and Attachment XIV was not among them. As a result, the referenced information could not be reviewed, which is a significant omission in their application.

3. Cost (200 Points Maximum) Points Points Points

75.00 60.00 17.65

Total Max. Points 1000 Total Score 480.00 Total Score 448.75 Total Score 433.90

1. Method of Approach (500 Points Maximum) Rating: Points Rating: Points Rating: Points

193.75 216.25 183.75 Comments:

2. Experience and Expertise (300 Points Maximum) Rating: Points Rating: Points Rating: Points

91.25 110.00 110.00 Comments: WEAKNESS: The Offeror's response stated that they maintain 'a vetted pool of over 1,500 SROs and SSOs certified under ADE and AZPOST guidelines.' This claim appears implausible and lacks supporting evidence.

Additionally, the required visual representation component was not adequately addressed; the Offeror merely referenced the organizational chart required in the subsequent question, rather than providing a distinct visual as requested. The Offeror's organizational chart lacked the required level of specificity to effectively demonstrate roles, reporting structures, and operational alignment as outlined in the solicitation.

WEAKNESS: The Offeror provided a reasonable level of detail regarding their capacity to deliver the required service; however, they did not include the visual representation explicitly requested, instead referencing materials intended for a separate question. The Offeror listed key personnel but did not provide the required organizational chart, resulting in an incomplete response to the solicitation requirements.

3. Cost (200 Points Maximum) Points Points Points

85.71 26.67 30.00

Total Max. Points 1000 Total Score 370.71 Total Score 352.92 Total Score 323.75

WEAKNESS: The Offeror’s response includes a reasonable level of detail regarding their capacity to deliver the required service. However, it does not include the visual representation that was explicitly requested, which limits the ability to fully assess the proposed approach.

Subrosa Protection Group LLC

STRENGTHS: The Offeror's response presents a robust platform and mobile application that appears to meet, and potentially exceed, the solicitation’s expectations. The Offeror effectively addressed all components outlined in Section 4.2, demonstrating a clear understanding of the requirements. The Offeror’s response indicates management of operations across all 15 counties, supported by existing relationships; however, it lacks detail regarding the nature, scope, or strategic value of those relationships. Additionally, while the Offeror claims to have the capacity to deliver the required services, the response does not clarify the extent, resources, or infrastructure underlying that stated capacity. The Offeror’s response not only meets the expectations outlined in Section 4.4, but also provides additional detail regarding access to county-specific and officer-specific data, along with other filtered information. Furthermore, the Offeror demonstrates enhanced capabilities through the inclusion of real-time monitoring features.

WEAKNESS: The Offeror's response demonstrated general compliance with the requirements outlined in Section 4.15. Their response addressed all specified elements except for the chat function, which was notably absent. This omission impacts the completeness of their submission and limits their alignment with the full scope of the solicitation requirements.

STRENGTHS: The Offeror's response presents a robust platform and mobile application that appears to meet, and potentially exceed, the solicitation’s expectations.

WEAKNESS: The Offeror provided a basic and generalized response that lacked the specificity necessary to adequately address the question. The Offeror provided a basic and generalized response that lacked the specificity necessary to adequately address the question. The Offeror did not directly address the question, instead providing two case studies that only tangentially related to the requested information. As a result, the response lacked relevance and failed to meet the solicitation’s intent. The Offeror's response includes references to Type 1 and Type 2 details and uses the term 'city-wide basis' without providing sufficient explanation or context. Additionally, the mention of firefighters performing job duties is inappropriate and not aligned with the requirements of the solicitation. The Offeror’s response addressed technical support and service availability by phone only, without mentioning the availability of a chat function, as requested. This omission resulted in an incomplete response to the question.

WEAKNESS: The Offeror's response did not adequately address all required subsecgtions outlined in Section 4.5 including payrool, invoicing and collections, and relationships with county, local, and state entities. The Offeror's response was basic and generalized lacking the level of specificity required by the Scope of Work, particularly in reference to section 4.11.5. The Offeror's response was basic and generalized, lacking the specificity required by the Scope of Work, specifically Section 4.12.1

WEAKNESS: The Offeror's response was overly broad and lacked the necessary specificity required by the Scope of Work, limiting its effectiveness in addressing the question. The Offeror's response was basic and generalized, lacking the level of detail and specificity required by the Scope of Work. The Offeror failed to address all required subsections of Section 4.5, resulting in an incomplete response to the solicitation requirements. The Offeror provided a broad and generalized response that did not meet the level of specificity required by the Scope of Work. The Offeror provided a broad and generalized response that did not meet the level of specificity required by the Scope of Work. The Offeror provided a broad and generalized response that did not meet the level of specificity required by the Scope of Work.

WEAKNESS: The Offeror provided a visual representation of their plan; however, the response lacked a corresponding narrative explaining how they intend to service approximately 250 schools and fulfill 1,250 weekly shifts. This omission leaves critical operational details unaddressed. The Offeror submitted a generic organizational chart that lacked the level of specificity required to clearly convey roles, reporting structures, and operational alignment. The Offeror has experience managing extra-duty details in Florida and New Jersey; however, the agencies served and the scope of operations appear relatively limited. Moreover, the response does not demonstrate any experience placing officers in schools or operating within a school environment particularly not at the scale required by this solicitation.

Offerors Hart Halsey LLC Blue Enforcement Services LLC Cascadia Global Security Inc.

Offerors Law Enforcement Specialists Inc. Windom Security Strategies

Evaluation Report