Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Full Body Scanner Procurement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Vendor outlines full-body scanner for Haskell County jail; price, training and funding options discussed
Summary
An OD Security representative described technical features, radiation safety, training and financing options for a full-body scanner the company proposes to sell to the county jail. Commissioners and sheriff’s staff asked about contract bidding, warranty, recurring support costs and available grant money.
Bethany, a sales and clinical representative for OD Security North America, presented a proposal for a full-body body-scanning system to the Haskell County Commissioners during the county meeting. She described the vendor as family owned, said the company has installed systems in other counties and stressed the product’s medical-engineering origins and operator safeguards.
The vendor emphasized two safety points: the company’s scanner uses a linear detector design the presenter said is different from competitors’ rotating detectors, and the machine produces a low radiation dose per scan. Bethany said the vendor’s system delivers about 1.5 microsieverts per scan and described software controls the number of actual radiation scans for staff or frequent entrants by using “dummy scans” so operators do not inadvertently exceed national dose recommendations. She also described fingerprint login, remote support and a tablet monitor station that replicates the operator display for reporting or court use.
Why it matters: commissioners and jail leadership discussed the purchase as a staff- and inmate-safety measure and as a potential liability-reduction tool, citing several out-of-state incidents the vendor said were prevented or mitigated by scanners.
Details and vendor claims - Vendor and training: Bethany said OD Security installs the machine, performs two days of training (installation day and a second day with two training sessions for day and night shifts) and provides training materials the county can reuse to train new hires. - Image and detection claims: the presenter said the system’s image resolution and 46 AWG sensitivity allow it to detect small items, including thin fentanyl patches, and that the scanner’s lead-lined design reduces operator scatter exposure compared with some competitors. - Radiation: Bethany compared the scanner dose to everyday exposures (for example, describing a 1.5-microsievert scan as small relative to medical X-rays) and said the unit’s operating mode and dummy-scan feature allow frequent entrants to avoid cumulative radiation doses that would otherwise count toward annual limits. - Software/AI option: the presenter described an optional AI package that highlights areas on the image for the operator’s follow-up. She stated the AI add-on as an annual subscription and estimated its cost at about $12,500 per year (vendor estimate). - Warranty and support: the written proposal provided at the meeting, the presenter said, includes a two-year warranty covering software upgrades and hardware support; the presenter said vendor service response aims to keep downtime under 24 hours and that the vendor provides remote troubleshooting.
Price and financing - Vendor proposal and meeting discussion: the presenter provided a written proposal to commissioners at the meeting and stated a purchase price during the presentation. The transcript’s numeric transcription of that figure is inconsistent; the vendor also gave commissioners a written proposal to review. Bethany said Government Capital (a financing partner) can place equipment and provide payment timing/flexibility for counties that prefer financing rather than an immediate capital payment. - Grants and local funds discussed: the presenter said some counties have used opioid-related grant funds or similar community-safety grant sources to help pay for scanners. During Q&A a county official read a CARES Act line item of $115,864.33 in county accounts and a remaining balance figure that the presenter and a county representative discussed as a possible funding source; the presenter said that, combined with local sheriff’s grant funds, a county could reduce or eliminate financing.
Questions from commissioners and staff Commissioners and staff asked whether the product is on a state contract or national buying contract (the presenter said the product is available on a national government buy-board contract), about whether the county could add AI later (yes, the vendor said), about service and renewal fees after the two-year warranty (the vendor provided an annual maintenance estimate in the meeting packet), and whether the scanner reduces insurance liability (the vendor suggested counties consult insurers and said some jurisdictions received premium or grant support, but she did not provide a universal answer). The vendor also cited examples from other Oklahoma counties and neighboring states where installations identified contraband that hospital imaging initially missed.
No formal procurement action was taken at the meeting. Commissioners asked the presenter to provide the proposal and follow-up details for budgeting, grant research and any required procurement steps.
Ending: The presenter left a copy of the written proposal with the county; commissioners and sheriff’s staff indicated they would follow up on funding sources and procurement steps before any purchase decision.
