Guideposts Solutions details 10-site security risk assessment bid for Hillsborough County libraries

Guideposts Solutions presented its proposal to Hillsborough County committee members for RFP24-24865, a security risk assessment of library facilities, outlining a six-month program covering 10 library buildings and offering prioritized recommendations and rough cost estimates.

The firm said its assessment would examine four lenses—physical, operational, technical and environmental—using on-site inspections, night light surveys, crime-data analysis, stakeholder interviews and an anonymous perception survey open to staff and patrons. A Guideposts presenter said, "We are vendor agnostic, so we do not sell any security products." Committee chair Sakina Ford confirmed the session was recorded and said the committee will follow up with another meeting to make a recommendation for award that will be posted online.

Why it matters: the assessment would inform short- and long-term security work across a portfolio of libraries and provide material (prioritized recommendations, photos and mapped observations tied to floor plans, and cost estimates) to help library leadership budget and plan changes. Guideposts described the work as aiming to balance security with the libraries' role as open, public-serving spaces.

Guideposts described core project elements and deliverables. The team said it would: - Conduct a threat and vulnerability analysis for each selected site, using a crime-analysis tool (referred to in the presentation as "scribe cast") and other public-safety data; perform nighttime measurements (footcandle mapping) to assess lighting; and record photographs and floor-plan coordinate references for each observation. - Run an anonymous perception survey for staff and patrons in multiple languages to capture how users and employees feel about safety at each site. - Review written materials—security post orders, emergency action plans, training curricula and incident history—and interview building engineers, facilities staff, event coordinators, security staff and other stakeholders in one-on-one sessions (virtual or in person). - Include behavioral-health expertise in threat-assessment work: the firm said it consults with psychologists and psychiatrists to advise on threat-assessment documentation, training, and de-escalation protocols. - Provide a prioritized set of recommendations, implementation guidance and rough order-of-magnitude cost estimates, and remain available to consult during policy drafting or implementation.

The firm proposed a five-person core project team supported by subject-matter colleagues for technical and emergency-management topics. Morgan Hessler was introduced as a senior consultant and former county law-enforcement official; Angela Osborne identified herself as vice president of risk and emergency management solutions and described the team's use of ASIS standards in its methodology. Guideposts said it has worked on library and public-facility assessments nationally and emphasized multi-disciplinary work that includes operations, design and security-technology review.

During questions, committee members pressed on specifics the county can expect: whether the perception survey should be open to patrons (Guideposts said yes, and that hard-copy responses often produce useful detail), how behavioral-health specialists are used (answers focused on review of training and policy materials and on producing practical de-escalation recommendations rather than clinical diagnosis), and how the county would stay informed during the project (Guideposts proposed a kickoff to set a communication cadence, regular virtual updates, and shared document spaces using Microsoft Teams or a Smartsheet dashboard). The presenters said they would immediately notify county representatives if they discovered a high-priority hazard during onsite work (for example a blocked emergency exit) rather than wait for the final report.

Scope, schedule and costs: Guideposts confirmed the county-supplied scope called for assessments at 10 buildings and said it considered a six-month timeline after award to be reasonable. The firm said it would provide rough cost estimates as part of its final deliverable; no dollar figures were presented at the meeting.

Administrative notes from the presentation: the formal point of contact for the county remained Sakina Ford as chief buyer; Guideposts said it would assign a primary and secondary point of contact for the project and noted flexibility to set the meeting cadence to match county staff availability.

The committee chair closed by saying the committee will meet again to finalize recommendations and that the award recommendation will be posted through the county's system. No formal vote or contract award occurred during the presentation.