Guideposts Solutions proposes 10-site security risk assessment for Hillsborough County libraries under RFP24-24865

Guideposts Solutions LLC presented its proposal to the Hillsborough County procurement committee on RFP24-24865, a request for proposal to conduct a security risk assessment of the county library system, outlining a team-based, four-lens methodology and a six-month delivery timeline for 10 selected buildings.

The presentation began with Sakina Ford, chief buyer for the project, stating: "This is the oral presentation by GEICO Solutions LLC for our request for proposal, RFP24-24865, security risk assessment for the library services department." Guideposts introduced a multi-disciplinary team and walked committee members through proposed site work, stakeholder engagement and final deliverables.

Why it matters: county libraries are public, open-access facilities that serve children, older adults and other vulnerable populations; a systemwide risk assessment could generate prioritized investments, training and operational changes affecting staff, patrons and county budgets.

Guideposts described a four-lens assessment approach that examines (1) physical elements (locks, glazing, doors, perimeter), (2) operational practices (security post orders, emergency action plans, de-escalation training), (3) security technology (video, access control, intrusion detection, mass notification) and (4) environmental/context factors (how spaces are used, adjacency, day/night conditions). The firm said it conducts daytime and nighttime site visits, produces foot‑candle lighting maps, photographs and correlates observations to floorplan locations so leaders can match recommendations to specific doors or spaces.

The firm named team members who would work on the project: Angela Osborne, vice president of risk and emergency management solutions; Morgan Hessler, senior consultant; Daniella Altista, professional research analyst; and additional assessors who would support threat, technical and physical penetration testing work. Guideposts said subject-matter experts in threat assessment and behavioral analysis would review documentation and training and, when appropriate, help retool staff training and threat-assessment processes.

On stakeholder engagement, Guideposts proposed: anonymous perception surveys (deployable in multiple languages, including Mandarin), one-on-one interviews with facilities and programming staff, and virtual or in-person meetings as the county prefers. The firm said surveys typically draw substantial hard-copy responses from patrons and yield actionable leads such as specific doors, cameras or parking areas to examine during site visits.

Scope, schedule and deliverables: Guideposts confirmed the county’s stated scope of evaluating 10 buildings and said it could complete the work within six months after award. Deliverables described include a current-conditions assessment, prioritized recommendations with rough order-of-magnitude cost estimates, a consolidated risk profile, and documentation to support implementation and procurement steps.

Methodology and tools: the firm said it performs crime-data analysis using an industry tool, conducts a night survey for lighting, documents door and locking-hardware issues with site-mapped photos, and reviews existing policies and incident history. It emphasized a community-risk approach that balances access with safety and stated, in the presentation, "we're not looking to make the libraries fortresses," an observation attributed to Morgan Hessler, senior consultant.

Committee members asked about perception survey rollout, patron participation and whether clinical experts would be used. Guideposts said the perception surveys are generally opened to patrons and staff, produce candid feedback that often corroborates site observations, and can be tailored per building or language needs. The firm confirmed behavioral-health subject-matter experts review training and threat-assessment documentation and can participate in briefings or follow-up training if the county requests.

The presenters described communication and scheduling options: a kickoff meeting to set a meeting cadence (weekly or biweekly as the county prefers), shared collaboration through Microsoft Teams or Smartsheet for tracking, and consolidated coordination through one primary Guideposts point of contact with a designated secondary contact.

No formal procurement decision was made during the presentation. At the close of the session the committee chair said members would reconvene to make a recommendation for award and that any recommendation would be posted through the county’s procurement system.

The presentation and committee Q&A covered the project’s practical details (site mapping, prioritized recommendations, perception surveys, a six-month schedule for 10 buildings and rough cost estimates), but did not include pricing or a final scope-change authorization. The county committee will later post the award recommendation and related procurement records to the public procurement portal.