1. Contract Security Guard Services
Presented to the
Board of County Commissioners
March 8, 2011
As a result of some information obtained by Commissioner Edwards and Commissioner Brummer, regarding a State contract for Security Guard Services, we took a look at our current contract with G4S Secure Solutions USA (formerly Wackenhut Security) to see if we could obtain some savings in our security budget based on the State’s contract rates.

2. Security Guard Services
Outline
Historical perspective
Current contract review
State Contract
Negotiations with G4S
Recommendations
Here is the outline of my presentation.

3. Security Guard Services
Outline
Historical perspective
Current contract review
State Contract
Negotiations with G4S
Recommendations

4. Security Guard Services
Guard Services since 1985
Services instituted following Courthouse shootings
Original services for Courthouse sites only
Contract has grown with County needs
Security guard services were instituted in 1985 following the deadly shootings at the Orange County Courthouse in 1984.
Originally these services were for our courthouses only. But after the attacks of 9/11, the contract grew to provide increased protection for other facilities such as this building, our utility plants, the Juvenile Assessment Center, and others.

5. Security Guard Services
Prior Contract Providers
Wells Fargo / 1990
Securex / 1994
Argenbright / 2002
G4S Secure Solutions USA* – 2002 / Present
* Formerly Wackenhut
We have had several providers over the years as shown here.

6. Security Guard Services
Reasons for change
Lack of consistency/reliability
Low wages
High turnover rate
Serious management issues
Unsettling to Courthouse occupants
The reasons we changed providers in the past was because we couldn’t get consistency and reliability of service. At courthouse screening stations it was nearly impossible to know who would be showing up for work that day. With the low wages that were being paid, security guards would leave with little or no notice to take a job with Disney or some other local employer who was paying above minimum wage. This created some serious issues for us and the Sheriff’s office and was very unsettling to the judiciary and other occupants of the courthouse.

7. Security Guard Services
Major Contract Revision in 2002
Require minimum guard pay levels
Improve retention and quality of guard
Enhance Training for screening
Improve security at Courthouses & other sites in response to 9/11
Improve Supervisory requirements
So, in 2002, we made some major contract revisions. We instituted minimum guard pay levels to improve retention and the quality of the guards.
In response to 9/11, we required enhanced training to improve the security at the courthouses and other sites.
And we made sure that the requirements for the Supervisory personnel were improved.

8. Security Guard Services
Public/Private Joint Effort at Courthouses
Contractor provides building security and performs scanning role
Sheriff’s Office oversees Court security measures
When we talk about security at the courthouses, I want to make it clear that this is a joint effort between our contracted security provider and the Sheriff’s office.
Our contractor provides the building security and performs the scanning function. They work hand in hand with the Sheriff’s Office and have provided high quality people to perform these functions. The security in the courtrooms is handled completely by the Sheriff’s Court Deputies.
(185 Court Deputy positions – 16 now vacant) 45 Judges in main Courthouse

9. Security Guard Services
Outline
Historical perspective
Current contract review
State Contract
Negotiations with G4S
Recommendations

10. Security Guard Services
Contract with G4S
In 2002 G4S was selected through RFP
In 2007 G4S was again selected through an RFP
3-Year contract started March 1, 2007
2 One Year Renewals
Began Year 5 on March 1, 2011
Negotiations for final year began in Dec. 2010
Contract expires February 28, 2012
Current Annual Usage: $5.5 Million
In 2002, G4S was selected through an RFP to provide security guard services to Orange County. They performed extremely well and in 2007 were again selected through the RFP process based on past performance and competitive pricing. The current contract with G4S started on March 1, It was a 3 year contract with 2 one year renewals. We are now in the last year of the contract which expires on February 28, In order to assure the continuity of service, we begin the renewal process at least 90 days prior to the expiration date of a contract to assure that we have enough time to issue an RFP should the contract not be renewed.
Under the current terms of the contract the annual usage is approximately $5.5 Million.

11. Security Guard Services
FY 2011 Reduction in Manning Hours/Costs - $956,000 Annually
Courts – 5,096 Hours/$117,309
County Admin – 10,634 Hours/$184,500
Utilities – 17,472 Hours/$254,916
Public Works – 12,922 Hours/$188,532
Fire Rescue – 8,736 Hours/$127,458
Other – 5,772 Hours/$84,324
The $5.5 million that is in this years budget is a reduction over last years budget by nearly $1,000,000.
As you can see on this slide we reduced security guard services throughout Orange County in all areas – from the courts to our office buildings without jeopardizing our employees or citizens safety.

12. Security Guard Services
Offices
13%
Courthouses 41%
Utilities
14%
Currently our security guard services are divided as show here with
41% in the courthouses
32% in our Corrections and Juvenile Assessment Center
14% serving our Utilities Department
13% securing our other facilities
Corrections/Juvenile Assessment 32 %

13. Security Guard Services
Courthouses - 41%
Orange County Courthouse
Juvenile Justice Center
Winter Park Civil Court
Apopka/Ocoee Civil Court
The 41% for courthouses includes the main Courthouse on Orange Avenue, the Juvenile Justice Center, the Winter Park Traffic Court, and the courts at the Ocoee and Apopka Service Centers

14. Security Guard Services
Corrections & Juvenile Assessment - 32%
Corrections Administration
Booking and Release Center
Perimeter Posts
Video Visitation
Juvenile Assessment Center
The 32% for Corrections includes the Administration Building, the Booking and Release Center where the courtrooms are located, various perimeter posts, Video Visitation, and the Juvenile Assessment Center.

15. Security Guard Services
Utilities Sites - 14%
Administration
Landfill
Presidents Drive
Water Reclamation
Regional Water Supply
Utilities, which manages their own portion of the contract, has security guard services at their Administration Center, the Landfill, their Presidents Drive facility, the water reclamation sites and the regional water supply sites as well as roving patrols at the various water tower facilities they have.

16. Security Guard Services
Offices - 13%
Administration Center
IOC I
Regional History Center
Barnett Park
Medical Clinic
13% of the security guard contract is for services at this building, IOC I (where Human Resources is located), the Regional History Center, Barnett Park, the Mabel Butler Building, and the Medical Clinic.

17. Security Guard Services
Topics
Historical perspective
Current contract review
State Contract
Negotiations with G4S
Recommendations

18. Security Guard Services
State Contract for Security Guard Services
Basic Security Services
Minimal qualifications contained in RFP
Three Vendors
Allegiance
Allied Barton
G4S Secure Solutions USA
The State of Florida put out an RFP for Security Guard Services. That RFP and the subsequent contract contains minimal specifications in several areas – which I will elaborate on in just a moment.
The three vendors selected – with varying price levels – were:
Allegiance
Allied Barton
G4S Secure Solutions USA (our vendor)

19. Security Guard Services
State Contract Concerns
Minimal Specifications
Inconsistent or unidentified guard levels between vendors
No training requirements
No site specific training identified
No screening training
No Minimum pay levels set
Necessary to improve retention and consistent performance
We have numerous concerns with the State contract as it relates to the qualifications of the various levels of security guards. For example, what constitutes a level 3 guard in one vendor’s proposal may be different than in another vendor’s proposal in terms of experience, training, education, etc.
There is no requirement for screening training in the State contract. There is in ours.
Back in 2002 the Board decided we needed minimum pay levels to provide for improved retention and consistency of the workforce. The State’s contract does not provide for minimum pay standards and we believe, based on our experience, that this leads to high turnover and inconsistent performance.

20. Security Guard Services
Use of the State Contract
Specifications do not support County Operational requirements
State does not manage Courthouses
Contract does not address screening requirements
Just to recap:
The State contract does not support our operational requirements.
The State does not manage courthouses.
The State contract does not address the screening requirements that we have throughout the County not only in our courthouses, but also in our Correctional facilities, and Administration Center.

21. Security Guard Services
Topics
Historical perspective
Current contract review
State Contract
Negotiations with G4S
Recommendations

22. Security Guard Services
Negotiate reduction in Hourly rates with G4S
For last year of contract
Use State Contract Pricing as basis
Different requirements
Negotiated an Estimated Savings of $496,276 for last year of contract
Once we were made aware of the State contract, we contacted G4S and began a negotiation with them for reduced rates.
While we used the State contract as a basis for the negotiations, we clearly understood that the differences in the requirements of the two contracts, which I just explained to you, would make it extremely difficult for them to match the price they gave the State.
We were able to negotiate a $496,000 or a 9% reduction from the current pricing.

23. Security Guard Services
Anticipated Usage
Net Savings
Current Contract
$5,528,296
$0.00
State Contract (G4S)
$4,902,783
$625,513
Proposed Rate Reduction
$5,032,020
$496,276
If we compare the State rates to the negotiated rates you will see that if we went strictly by the State rates we would realize a $625,000 annual saving or approximately $129,000 more than the negotiated rates.
However, as I just said, the State rates are not based on the same criteria that we used for our contract and consequently we will pay more to assure that we are getting the higher quality services we feel are necessary to adequately address our needs.

24. Security Guard Services
Outline
Historical perspective
Current contract review
State Contract
Negotiations with G4S
Recommendations

25. Security Guard Services
Recommendations for RFP Refinements
Security Guard Services divided into 4 Lots
#1 – Courthouses & Admin Center
#2 – Corrections & Juvenile Assessment Center
#3 – Utilities
#4 – Other Buildings
Allows for award to multiple vendors
Tailors guard requirements to building requirements
Maximize potential savings while maintaining the appropriate level of security
We have some recommendations when we do go out for a new contract:
4 lots
Allows for multiple vendors
Tailors guard requirements to building requirements.
Maximizes the potential savings while maintaining the appropriate level of security.

26. Security Guard Services
Recommendations
Accept negotiated hourly rates with G4S
Modify Requirement in the RFP
Issue RFP in October 2011
Select firm in December 2011
Transition in February 2012
Recommendations: READ
Why not do this now?
As I indicated earlier, low turnover and consistent performance are key to providing good security services. We learned this the hard way back in the late 1990’s. We believe that keeping the schedule shown on your screen is the best way to maintain that consistency and reduce turnover while still saving the county approximately $500,000 over our current contract and allowing us to transition in a systematic manner.

27. Contract Security Guard Services
Presented to the
Board of County Commissioners
March 8, 2011

28. Security Guard Services
State Contract
Minimal Specifications
Inconsistent guard levels
No screening training
No Minimum pay levels
County Contract
Detailed Specifications
Three guard levels
Screening training & Site Specific training
Minimum pay levels