Key takeaways
- RFP No. 328 was issued by the Supreme Court of Ohio on August 17, 2026; responses are due September 21, 2026, at 12:00 p.m. EDT.
- The solicitation covers an upgrade path as well as quarterly preventive maintenance, approved repairs and 24/7 emergency-service availability.
- The court’s present environment includes a Lenel access-control system, Milestone 2023 R2 Corporate VMS and LobbyWorks visitor-management software.
- Bidders are asked to assess compatibility, present a migration strategy and seek to retain a majority of existing equipment where practical.
- Experience and references carry 45% of the evaluation weight, compared with 35% for price and 20% for employee information.
Court opens a combined modernization and service procurement
The Supreme Court of Ohio has issued RFP No. 328 for upgrades, preventive maintenance and repair services covering security access control, video management and visitor management at the Thomas J. Moyer Ohio Judicial Center in Columbus. The Office of Building Services, Security Section issued the request on August 17, 2026. The court’s procurement page lists September 21, 2026, at 12:00 p.m. EDT as the deadline for emailed proposals.
The procurement is notable because it does not treat a platform refresh as a stand-alone construction or product purchase. Instead, the court is seeking one contractor to propose an upgrade path while taking responsibility for planned maintenance and repair support across the existing physical-security environment. That structure requires prospective providers to combine engineering, integration, field-service and lifecycle-cost capabilities in a single response.
Existing estate spans access, video and visitor workflows
The RFP identifies a Lenel access-control deployment, version 8.1.639.195, with 49 alarm panels, eight intelligent system controllers and 134 card readers. The video side is listed as Milestone 2023 R2 Corporate, operating with 66 cameras from Sony, Axis and Avigilon, plus two recording servers with 6 TB of storage each. The visitor-management system is identified as LobbyWorks version 10.6.8561.
The maintenance remit reaches well beyond servers and application licenses. The scope names card readers, network video recorders, intercoms, motion detectors, duress buttons, panel batteries, power supplies, badge and event printers, turnstiles, door contacts, locking mechanisms and cameras. Exterior preventive maintenance includes cameras, card readers, PIN pads, speakers and vehicle readers, with camera cleaning specifically included.
Upgrade proposals must account for migration and reuse
Rather than prescribing a single replacement manufacturer, the court invites respondents to submit an upgrade path to a unified security platform. Its examples include Genetec, Acre, Milestone and Avigilon, while allowing other platforms that can demonstrate improved security and productivity and retain a majority of the existing equipment.
Respondents are expected to evaluate installed hardware, network architecture and third-party systems for compatibility. They must also provide a phased migration approach, resource and timeline assumptions, risk-mitigation measures, licensing and recurring-cost details, training provisions, support arrangements and integration capabilities with access control, alarm monitoring and other security technologies. For integrators, the request places interoperability and transition planning alongside the core platform selection.
Service levels emphasize continuous building protection
The selected contractor would perform preventive maintenance quarterly and handle other repairs as needed, subject to the court’s prior written approval for non-contract repair work. Regular service calls must receive a response within 24 hours. For emergency calls considered critical to building security, the required response window is eight hours.
The RFP also calls for 24-hour emergency-call coverage throughout the year. Service work, including labor and materials, must carry a one-year warranty. Replacement components used outside the preventive-maintenance scope will be invoiced on a cost-plus-pre-determined-markup basis; bidders must disclose that markup and hourly rates for repair and emergency services. The court estimates that preventive maintenance will require no more than 200 service hours annually and asks for a fixed quarterly PM billing rate.
Evaluation favors proven local service capability
The court assigns 45% of proposal evaluation to experience and references, 35% to the price proposal and 20% to employee information. Respondents must provide at least three current references for comparable work performed within the past five years, identify intended subcontractors, and describe local-branch proximity and relevant staffing. Those requirements make demonstrable service capacity as important as a competitive technology and price package.
The published schedule places the final addendum, if needed, on September 10; evaluation is expected in early October, with a contract award targeted for mid-October and services scheduled to begin January 1, 2027. The RFP says the anticipated agreement runs from January 1, 2027 through December 31, 2029 and may be extended for up to two additional one-year terms. It also describes that initial period as two years, an apparent internal date-versus-duration inconsistency that bidders should raise through the formal written-question process before the September 2 deadline.
Implications for security suppliers and integrators
This opportunity illustrates how institutional buyers can approach physical-security modernization as a lifecycle program rather than a rip-and-replace project. A viable response must address installed-device compatibility, operational continuity, cybersecurity-conscious software and hardware upgrades, documented maintenance procedures, and rapid escalation for outages affecting doors, video or visitor processing.
For distributors, installers and system integrators, the practical lesson is that public-sector refresh work may center on sustaining a mixed installed base while building a defensible route to a more unified platform. Project teams should be prepared to substantiate service coverage, technician capacity, OEM or platform competency, migration controls and transparent recurring-cost assumptions—not simply propose replacement equipment.