Board rejects immediate Verkada purchase, orders countywide RFP after buy-local debate

The Humboldt County Board of Supervisors on Jan. 28 declined to approve staff's plan to buy and implement a unified Verkada door-access and camera system through a state cooperative purchase. The board then voted to direct county staff to prepare a request for proposals so local firms can compete to provide security equipment and services.

The decision follows more than two hours of discussion about procurement rules, local vendor participation and long-running service problems with the county's existing security vendor. Supporters said a unified system would reduce administrative and support costs; critics said the county should prioritize local installers and give local companies a chance to compete.

IT staff and the county's proposed reseller, DGI, told the board Verkada provides a single integrated platform that lets departments manage day-to-day access while IT maintains enterprise policies. Ulf Inger, IT assistant supervisor, said the county currently manages separate door, camera and alarm systems and has experienced repeated service and workmanship problems from its existing vendor. Tony, a DGI representative, and Jason Ravez, DGI Northern California account manager, said Verkada offers 24/7 manufacturer support and a 10-year product warranty and that local installers can do on-site hardware work after installation.

Supervisors pressed staff on whether the county had followed a competitive process and whether local businesses would benefit. Staff said the purchase was being made through the California Multiple Award Schedule (CMAS) cooperative purchasing agreement, a method allowed under county policy that does not require a local bid. Several supervisors and public commenters urged a competitive RFP instead.

Board action came in two steps. Supervisor Madrone moved to approve staff's recommendation to purchase through the cooperative agreement; that motion failed on a 3'to'2 vote (Madrone, Royal and Wilson yes; Bone and Bushnell no). The board then voted 4'to'1 to direct staff to issue an RFP for security services and bring back options (Wilson was the lone dissent on the RFP motion). The board also asked staff to confirm whether equipment could be drop-shipped to Humboldt (so sales tax revenue would be collected locally) and to examine options that would keep installation and ongoing service work local where feasible.

Staff emphasized several budget and operational points: licensing for the first five years was quoted at just over $89,000 (roughly $17,800 per year); staff identified a roughly 3.5'to'4 percent price advantage if the county accepted year-end pricing before a near-term deadline; and departments would be charged via internal service fund arrangements over five years rather than as a direct immediate hit to the general fund. County staff also told the board the current approach has required the county to pay for vendor'to'vendor coordination and recurring on-the-job training costs.

Next steps requested by the board included: (1) staff to issue a competitive RFP or request-for-proposals for security services that allows local installers to bid; (2) clarification on whether sales tax can be retained locally via drop-ship or warehousing; (3) documentation of total project cost and fund sources, including any supplemental budget or 4/5ths actions required; and (4) a timeline and options for five-year financing or internal service fund charge-outs for departments.

The board's votes leave the county able to pursue an integrated security solution but via a competitive process the board said should prioritize local participation where possible. Staff said they would return with RFP language and answers to the board's questions.