Agenda Item
f. RFP 22-475 Contract Renewal for Physical Security Services – Access Control, Intrusion Detection, and Video Surveillance with Convergint (Not to exceed $500,000)
Summary: Presented by: Dr. Kermit Belcher, Chief Information Officer, Division of Information & Instructional Technology
Request: It is requested that the Board of Education approve year five of five contract renewal for RFP 22-475 Physical Security Services - Access Control, Intrusion Detection and Video Surveillance to Convergint Technologies, LLC in an amount not to exceed $500,000.
Why: This contract renewal is essential to continue supporting the district’s efforts to maintain and monitor physical security systems across all facilities. The services provided by Convergint Technologies are critical to ensuring the safety of students and staff and to supporting the ongoing transition from legacy infrastructure to advanced, integrated security technologies.
Details: RFP 22-475 represents a five-year contract that requires annual approval by the Board of Education. This agenda item reflects year five of the agreement. The purpose of the contract is to allow the DeKalb County School District (DCSD) to partner with a single qualified vendor to manage and enhance physical security systems throughout the district. The scope of work includes repairs to legacy systems and installation of updated physical security components such as access readers, video surveillance cameras, and intrusion detection systems. Additionally, the contract covers monitoring services, system maintenance, and ongoing support.
To ensure continued service and avoid any gaps during the transition between systems or vendors, this request allows the district to maintain uninterrupted physical security services. Over the past four years, Convergint Technologies has responded to and resolved more than 1,200 break/fix tickets, demonstrating its reliability and critical role in supporting the district’s aging infrastructure. As DCSD continues transitioning to a modern access control and video surveillance system, maintaining this vendor partnership remains vital to providing a safe and secure educational environment.
Financial impact: $500,000, General Funds, 100.2800.530000.00011.7600.9990.0308.070.0000
Contact: Dr. Kermit Belcher, Chief Information Officer, Division of Information & Instructional Technology, 678-676-1274
Effective: December 2025
Status: Approved by the Office of Legal Affairs
RFP 22-475: Physical Security Services – Access Control, Intrusion
Detection and Video Surveillance
Executive Summary
Purpose
The purpose of solicitation, RFP 22-475 was to procure a qualified company to provide physical
security services – access control, intrusion detection and video surveillance. DeKalb County
School District’s Division of Information and Instructional Technology (DIIT) is seeking to assess
and replace where necessary the Security Camera Infrastructure, Intrusion Detection Alarm
System, and Access Control System throughout DCSD. The proposed solution must integrate all
three (3) systems: security camera infrastructure, intrusion detection alarm system and access
control system.
Background and Process
The team was made up of seven staff members across three divisions. The representing staff are
as follows:
Division of Information and Instructional Technology (5) Public Safety (1)
Infrastructure and Operations Division of Operations (1)
Physical Security
Network Services
Project Management
Business Services
The solicitation was developed by the Division of Information and Instructional Technology with
guidance and input from the DCSD Division of Operations and Public Safety Department.
Requirements were based on various user feedback, district-wide support data, and initial site
assessments. Gartner reviewed final RFP requirements to ensure alignment with best practices
and industry standards as it pertains to physical security infrastructure. The RFP was then
published for two weeks in August and September 2021, evaluated in November 2021, and
scheduled to present to the Board of Education for approval in December 2021.
Evaluation
The evaluation process consisted of two parts, evaluation of the solicitation (85%) and the
presentation/interview (15%). After the solicitation was evaluated the top three contenders were
invited for a presentation/interview. The criteria used to evaluate the options were (in order of
importance):
Compliance with Technical Specifications (35%)
Ability to Execute (30%)
Cost - Table F: DCSD Consolidated Spreadsheet (20%)
Interview Presentation/Demonstration (15%)
1
See page 5 for a breakdown of each criterion mentioned above.
Part I: Evaluation Results before the Interview/Presentation Sessions
Based on a careful evaluation of how well each of the 8 possible choices could meet the 3 major
criteria considered, AdapToSolve, Convergint and Integrated Security Technologies were the top-
three choices. The eight (8) choices considered were (in order of highest to lowest scores):
AdapToSolve
Convergint
Integrated Security Technologies
Net Planner Systems
ADT Commercial LLC
scDataComm
Honeywell
Risk Response Team, Inc.
The question of "RFP 22-475: Physical Security Services" was evaluated by means of a decision
table.
Compliance with Technical Specifications (35)
Ability to Execute (30)
Cost - Table F: DCSD Consolidated Spreadsheet (20)
Interview Presentation/Demonstration (15)
Summary
AdapToSolve 35.00 25.00 245915 0.00 9.38
Convergint 35.00 30.00 6678275 0.00 9.07
Integrated Security Technologies 35.00 28.00 8723855 0.00 8.54
Net Planner Systems 33.00 27.00 8460862 0.00 8.23
ADT Commercial LLC 35.00 22.00 6063889 0.00 8.21
scDataComm 35.00 24.00 16826650 0.00 6.94
Honeywell 35.00 19.00 16826650 0.00 6.35
Risk Response Team, Inc 31.00 16.00 16826650 0.00 5.53
Decision Table 1 for RFP 22-475: Physical Security Services
Legend
Excellent
Good
Fair
Poor
Information Not ** DecideRight automatically places the cost of the company that has the lowest rating for a
Provided** particular criterion in the missing cell for companies that did not provide information.
2
Comparison Table among Choices
Comparison Explanation
AdapToSolve versus Convergint AdapToSolve was considered to be a better choice than
Convergint in 1 of the 4 criteria considered. However, the
margin between them was narrow enough that each of the
following criteria was considered to be critical in
determining which choice has the advantage:
Cost - Table F: DCSD Consolidated Spreadsheet (20%)
Convergint versus Integrated Convergint was considered to be a better choice than
Security Technologies Integrated Security Technologies in 2 of the 4 criteria
considered. Of these, the critical factor was:
Cost - Table F: DCSD Consolidated Spreadsheet (20%)
Integrated Security Technologies Integrated Security Technologies was considered to be a
versus Net Planner Systems better choice than Net Planner Systems in 2 of the 4
criteria considered. Of these, the critical factor was:
Compliance with Technical Specifications(35%)
Net Planner Systems versus ADT Net Planner Systems was considered to be a better
Commercial LLC choice than ADT Commercial LLC in 1 of the 4 criteria
considered. However, the margin between them was
narrow enough that each of the following criteria was
considered to be critical in determining which choice has
the advantage:
Ability to Execute (30%)
Comparisons among Choices (Visual)
Relative strengths of the various choices in each of the factors is illustrated in the
following graph:
AdapToSolve
Convergint
Integrated Security Technologies
Net Planner Systems
ADT Commercial LLC
Honeywell
scDataComm
Risk Response Team, Inc
Compliance with Technical Specifications (35)
Ability to Execute (30)
Cost - Table F: DCSD Consolidated Spreadsheet (20)
Interview Presentation/Demonstration (15)
Relative Strengths
Top Three Choices
Through the decision-making process, the three top options were identified and invited to the
presentation/Interview sessions schedule on November 12, 2021. They were:
3
AdapToSolve
Convergint
Integrated Security Technologies
Part II: Evaluation Results after the Interview/Presentation Sessions
Based on a careful evaluation of how well each of the 3 possible choices could meet the 4 major
criteria considered, Convergint appears to be the best choice.
The 3 choices considered were:
Convergint
AdapToSolve
Integrated Security Technologies
The criteria used to evaluate the three choices were (in order of importance):
Compliance with Technical Specifications (35%)
Ability to Execute (30%)
Cost - Table F: DCSD Consolidated Spreadsheet (20%)
Interview Presentation/Demonstration (15%)
The question of "RFP 22-475: Physical Security Services" was evaluated by means of a decision
table.
Compliance with Technical Specifications (35)
Ability to Execute (30)
Cost - Table F: DCSD Consolidated Spreadsheet (20)
Interview Presentation/Demonstration (15)
Summary
Convergint 35.00 30.00 6678275 15.00 9.21
AdapToSolve 35.00 25.00 245915 11.00 9.07
Integrated Security Technologies 35.00 28.00 8723855 9.00 8.16
Decision Table for RFP 22-475: Physical Security Services
Comparison Table among Choices
Comparison Explanation
Convergint versus AdapToSolve Convergint was considered to be a better choice than
AdapToSolve in 2 of the 4 criteria considered. However,
the margin between them was narrow enough that each of
the following criteria was considered to be critical in
determining which choice has the advantage:
Ability to Execute (30%)
Interview Presentation/Demonstration (15%)
AdapToSolve versus Integrated AdapToSolve was considered to be a better choice than
Security Technologies Integrated Security Technologies in 2 of the 4 criteria
considered. Of these, the critical factor was:
Cost - Table F: DCSD Consolidated Spreadsheet (20%)
4
Comparisons among Choices (Visual)
Relative strengths of the various choices in each of the factors is illustrated in the
following graph:
Convergint
AdapToSolve
Integrated Security Technologies
Compliance with Technical Specifications (35)
Ability to Execute (30)
Cost - Table F: DCSD Consolidated Spreadsheet (20)
Interview Presentation/Demonstration (15)
Relative Strengths
5
RFP 22-475: Physical Security Services - Access Control, Intrusion Detection and Video Surveillance
Integrated Security Risk Response Team,
Eval AdapToSolve ADT Commercial LLC Convergint Honeywell Technologies Net Planner Systems Inc scDataComm
Compliance with Technical Specifications 35
Ability to integrate with AD 7 7 7 7 7 7 5 7 7
Ability to integrate with other security systems
and devices across the district 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7
Ability to support up to 25000 Cardholders 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7
Ability to support 2500 readers across 142
buildings 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7
Training: Technical staff and end-user 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 3 7
Subtotal: 35 35 35 35 35 35 33 31 35
Ability to Execute 30
Clear project plan (i.e., scope, timeline,
deliverables) 6 3 2 6 5 6 5 0 6
Credential of Personnel (Technical and Project
management) 7 7 3 7 0 7 7 2 7
3 References 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6
Services provided to a company or K12
institution comparable in size to DCSD 6 4 6 6 4 4 4 6 2
Response and repair time (Meet the SLAs:
Response Time = 1 day and Resolution Time = 2
business days) 5 5 5 5 4 5 5 2 3
Subtotal: 30 25 22 30 19 28 27 16 24
Cost - Table F: DCSD Consolidated Spreadsheet
(20%)
20 $ 245,915.24 $ 6,063,889.37 $ 6,678,275.00 No $ 8,723,855.63 $ 8,460,862.53 $ 16,826,650.71 No
Subtotal: $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
Interview Presentation/Demonstration 15
Past experiences and successes (i.e, customer
base, awards, skills of staff, etc.) 5 4 5 3
Metric of the effectiveness of their services or
product (i.e., dashboard(s), the way they deliver
their services - how they are quantified) 4 1 4 1
Addresses what we requested (i.e., DCSD's
requirements) 4 4 4 4
Clear plan and scope and methodology for
implementation 2 2 2 1
Subtotal: 15 11 0 15 0 9 0 0 0
TOTAL 80 71 57 80
6 54 72 60 47 59