Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Procurement Data Backup topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Taylor County awards $627,106 data‑backup contract to Safari Micro

Taylor County Commissioners Court · November 5, 2024
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Taylor County Commissioners voted 5-0 to award RFP 2025‑504 for a countywide data backup and storage solution to Safari Micro under the recommended five‑year support option for $627,106.96; staff said longer support will reduce renewal risk and overall lifecycle cost.

Taylor County Commissioners Court voted unanimously to award RFP 2025‑504, a countywide data backup and storage contract, to Safari Micro for the five‑year support option at $627,106.96.

County purchasing staff told the court two vendors submitted proposals and that evaluations favored Safari Micro. Staff reported Safari Micro scored highest on the county’s evaluation matrix and presented both three‑year and five‑year support options. Purchasing recommended awarding the five‑year option as the best long‑term value.

Miss Edson, representing IT, said the longer contract reduces year‑to‑year renewal risk and can save money over time as subscription and support prices rise; she stated, “We would prefer to go with the 5 year option.” The county’s spreadsheet presented to commissioners showed a three‑year option priced at roughly $477,032.80 and the five‑year option at $627,106.96.

Commissioners asked about prior work with the vendor and product lineage; staff said the county has worked with Safari Micro on multiple projects and that the proposed equipment (Pure Storage brand) represented a change from legacy Nimble storage. After brief discussion, Commissioner Kendrick moved to award the five‑year contract and Commissioner Bertram seconded; the motion passed 5‑0.

The award was made under the county’s purchasing process; staff indicated the project had a budget in the range of $500,000 but that savings on other projects left additional funds available to cover the contract. The court did not record any conditions or amendments to the award. The county will return to the court when contract execution is complete if required by policy.