Sergeant at Arms, please remove the disruptive individual from the chambers.
He will not be testifying in committee
today.Ladies
and gentlemen, thank you for your patience. The meeting will be called to order.
For purposes of roll call, we do not have a Rule 59 request
at this time.
Oh, yeah. I'm sorry. Alderwoman Silverstein has a Rule 59 request.
Vice Chairman Yancy,
Alderman Chico?
He is here.
Alderwoman Gutierrez,
Alderman Lopez, Alderman Curtis, Alderwoman Tabares,
Alderman Sancho Lopez,
Alderwoman Fuentes, Alderman Tellefsen,
Alderman Sposato,
Alderman Vasquez,
Alderman Knudson, Alderman Gardner,
Alderman Martin,
President Pro Tem Nugent.
Okay.
Do we need a motion for that? Okay.
All right, so ordered. Alderwoman Hoppenworth, Alderwoman
Hadden,
Alderwoman Silverstein. We'll entertain a motion on her for a Rule
59.
Moved by
Alderwoman Gutierrez.
All those in favor, aye.
Alderman Chico, for purposes of roll, we do have a quorum.
We have a Rule 45 report. Alderman
Chico moves approval. Hearing no objections, so ordered.
Public testimony.
First witness is Malcolm Weems.
Good morning. My name is Malcolm Weems.
I am the founder of a company called Techquity Partners.
We're a local IT solutions firm. We are also a local partner
of the city's record management system provider.
I'm here. Again, I came and said some words last week
about this issue of the city not fully utilizing the
records management system that they have.
And the real issues revolve around the cost.
The city pays about $4 million a year for oversight
related to not being compliant with the consent decree.
And also, in terms of avoiding overtime, which
was the issue last week about the budget, approximately $30
million can be saved by reducing the time it takes for police
officers to do police reports in about seven different systems
that currently are being used. We are currently already providing service
to CPIC, the Crime Prevention Information Center, for the
Chicago Police Department. But we also
know that-In smaller
sworn officer
groups, we've saved over $20 million with folks only
having 2,200 officers. So you can imagine if you're able to save $20
million in overtime for those entities that small,
imagine what you can do for 13,000 officers.
So I'm just here, again, to remind the city that they have
a vendor, they're choosing not to use it, and it's costing us, as
taxpayers, $30 to $35 million a year
for inaction. They've been trying to
find a different solution for the last five years or so.
And so if you start thinking about $35 million times five,
that's the avoidance that could've been had over the last five years, that would've
helped with the budget. And so we just want to make sure
that we're getting a fair look because we're constantly reading about the issues
in the paper related to the budget, related to us not being
compliant with the consent decree, and we have the tools already, right now, to do
both. So thank you very much.
The next speaker is Holton Hawkins.
Good morning, and thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak today.
My name is Holton Hawkins, and I work for the company that Malcolm Williams was
just talking about. We are business partners, a company called Mart43.
We are the records management system for CPIC today.
We are in negotiations with the Chicago Parks District,
and we have also been given a verbal with Chicago Aviation.
Malcolm just
mentioned another customer saving $20 million a year.
So the New York-New Jersey Port Authority, who has
2,200
officers,
one of their executives told one of our executives in December, they saved
$20 million in overtime last year by using
Mart43. And obviously, that would be a huge
opportunity for the City of Chicago and the Chicago Police Department to expand the
current records management system out to
all 11,000 approximate officers across the Chicago Police
Department. Additionally, from a consent decree standpoint,
Seattle Police Department brought in Mart43 Records Management
to specifically drive their consent decree.
Albuquerque, New Mexico brought in Mart43 to specifically drive their consent
decree. New Orleans PD has brought in Mart43 not
to drive out of their consent decree, but to continue down the path of their
negotiation
as they exited their consent decree.
And last but not least, Louisville, which avoided the consent decree but
agreed to a community
change in the way that they work with the community, brought in Mart43 to address
the consent decree. So we check a lot of boxes for
Chicago and for the Chicago Police Department.
We'd love an opportunity to expand out. Right?
The Ernst & Young study said to expand contracts, not go and do new
ones when you already have technology that's working.
We've been in CPIC for six to seven years now and want to continue to
help Chicago, given the opportunity. Thank you very much.
Thank you. Please add Vice Chair Yancy,
Alderman Curtis, Alderman Vasquez, Alderman Martin to the quorum
roll call.
And for purposes of attendance, Alderman
Quinn, Cruz,
Chair Dowell, and joining us remotely, Alderwoman
Lee.
Oh, I'm sorry, Alderman Knutson to the quorum roll call. Thank you.
Next speaker is Tiwon Sims.
Good morning, committee. Good morning.
My name is Tiwon Sims, spelled T-I-W-O-N
S-I-M-S.
And this morning I'm here in regards to an issue that I brought to the
chairman of Public Safety. But maybe you were too
busy trying to villainize young teens and calling them
criminal or violent gang takeover, whatever.
But that's neither here nor there.
Sir, I brought to your office upstairs a packet
which spoke about
25-120869201 when
I was wrongfully arrested downstairs on June 3rd.
Officer Garza was able to generate in this
police report a court date
of 6/20/2005.
I wonder how that's
because
shortly after the case was dropped on the 4th because it was an illegal
arrest, an unlawful arrest, a supposed arrest saying that I violated a
pretrial condition which was not held to me anymore.
I further, as I advocated for myself, went through, what is it,
BIA, COPA, tried to go through the OMC.
I was given this when I went down to the county.
And it says that I filed a motion on
6/20/2025 to reinstate a criminal
charge against myself,
and I would like to understand how.
Right now, as I stand in this box, I was under one year
of enforcement illegally
out of this room
for advocating for myself.
For what reason? So that's a violation of my First Amendment constitutional liberty
for coming up here speaking, what, about foundational Black Americans.
Maybe Demarian Johnson, Public Safety, maybe if we
would've been allowed to further speak, Demarian Johnson, the young man who was
just murdered in an Uber as he rode along, alongside what,
the 40-year-old driver?Or maybe
67-year-old Jerry Lewis, the prominent contractor who
was murdered, assassinated by Hall and Mason.
Maybe they would be--
But we can't speak to our issues or what's hindering our
communities.
Hopkins, you have been sitting in this seat for how long now?
I don't think you have a grasp on what public safety is.
When you allow for officers to commit crimes and cover it up,
because sir, everything comes through the chair.
So what I've been going through came through you.
You have not acknowledged my calls nor my emails.
You're not paying attention, sir.
But you are trying to blame these children for your inadequacy or your
incompetence in this role.
Public safety is a vital role in the city of Chicago, and sir, you cannot hold
that role. You have proven that with what took place in this unit
of officers, 121,
here in 121 North LaSalle.
This was allowed. A criminal act.
The next speaker is Jessica Jackson.
So to echo a little bit of what Sam's just said, the
reality is you need to be removed from that seat as
Chairman of Public Safety. There's no other way around it.
The mere fact that you refuse to deal with the issue of crime.
You refuse to do it. Now, excuse me, what do I mean by that?
We've been coming here for three years telling you about the crime that's taking
place in Cook County with corrupt judges and corrupt public
administrators that's stealing Black people's property.
And you see how you're looking down at your paperwork right now because you don't
give a doggone, just like your assistant, Desmond
Yancey. He don't care, because he's too busy dragging
senior citizens to fake
meetings about fake protests against
Walgreens. When he has senior
citizens in his ward that he told me, him and
Alderman Hall told me out of their own mouths, that it's
seniors and constituents in their wards that the
city and the county has to illegally mess with their
property and trying to force them out.
And he has no concern for that. But he's going to drag
some elderly people into a fake protest.
That's elder abuse. They're going to charge a crime for you, Hopkins.
Go across the street to those crooked, corrupt judges.
Judge Terrence McGuire, Judge Daniel B.
Malone, Judge Carolyn Gallaga, Judge Fowler.
Go find them judges and arrest them, because we all know that
white-collar crime manufactures street crime.
Stop acting like you're trying to do something about crime because you're not,
because you won't lock up your colleagues that are right across the street
committing the crimes. And that goes for you and all of you that's
listening that know you all know the truth.
That's the reason why that federal judge just made that ruling yesterday about
those people, that's going to get paid.
Because the Cook County property tax sales were found to be
unconstitutional. Oh, get ready, Pat Dowell.
Get ready, girl.
Get ready, because y'all getting ready to pay all the people that probate division,
and that the city knew about, took their property too, with the public
administrators. Y'all keep on covering up for that old crooked, no good
for nothing, sorry, J.B. Prister, that's sitting here acting
as kingpin, letting y'all steal real estate all over
this city, and y'all know it. Oh, get ready. Get ready.
Get ready, all you Hispanic aldermen, all of y'all who done sat here
and stole this money for illegal immigrants.
Get ready for the big old audit that's going to lock every
last one of y'all thieves up. Every last one of
you. There go your public safety.
The next
witness is Zoe Lee.
Man.
Woo.
Big RICO.
It's RICO time.
All because
y'all couldn't
have a press conference with me and Ms.
Jessica Jackson
on our properties that we've been coming down here for, because y'all
are stealing property.
Everybody know a realtor, everybody know a broker,
everybody know this. Everybody, you can know Carrie Steele.
Everybody. Carrie Steele over the biggest
budget.
Water.
And our basement's still flooded.
FEMA money just be disappearing.
Y'all wild as hell
And I'm going to tell you about this man right here, Hopkins, Brian
Hopkins. Brian Hopkins is a racist.
Brian Hopkins is a racist, y'all. So everything that y'all
say that President Trump is, or any other white person
who's a Republican or a capitalist, because that's what it is.
Y'all are jealous because white man-- Because y'all, I'm going
to keep it 100, because I'm coming with the truth, right?
So when y'all let the minorities, Black America,
take affirmative action, right?
Y'all let them just take it, right?
The white man had to figure it out themselves, and they
did.
So they got their money.
So now y'all trying to take their money because y'all been stealing
all the government money. Y'all the real welfare recipients.
What?
Because of racism.
Now, he's just a real racist. That's a real ra-- He don't
care.
He
would've owned all the slaves back in the day.
Him right here? Yeah.
So he really is a public safety
threat
to this city, but he was under a Daley.
Dalleys are racist, all of them. From the
daddy,
to the son,
to the other brother over here,
to the commissioner. I mean, come on, man.
The Daley Plaza,
everything.
Man, y'all are going to jail. Operation Gray Lord 2.0, it's RICO
time. Spin that.
Next speaker is Sandy Norman.
Well, first I want to honor God,
and I honor everyone in here because I feel that that's the
honorable thing to do.
As I come to this public safety meeting, and of course, my name is
Dr. Sandy Norman. I am the founder of Life
Beyond Limit, Inc.
I do CVI here in the city of Chicago.
I do want to say, Chairman Hopkins, I have
to ask you a question,
and I know that you're the alderman of Lincoln Park and the
Gold Coast. And shout out to all the people that live in Lincoln Park and the
Gold Coast, because when I come in those areas, they look very
beautiful, I must say that. And so I have no problem with people
taking care of their properties and doing what they need to do.
But when you're a person, and you've been appointed over a seat as a
chairman over public safety, that is not just Lincoln
Park, or the Gold Coast, or your ward.
That's the city of Chicago. So that includes the South
Side, that includes the West Side.
I saw an interview that you did with a young lady, I believe her name is
Olivia Reingold. Shout out to her for coming to do the
investigation on CVI here in the city of Chicago.
You made time to sit down with her. She does not live in
Chicago. She is not a resident. She is not doing
CVI like I do, risking my life on the streets of Chicago to
help prevent crime. I call your office.
I ask for a simple meeting with you.
I was one of the first people when we had that first teen takeover.
It was two CVI persons there, me being one,
helping the police department get those children off the street.
Just on that alone, me being proactive in responding,
when you had nobody from the city of Chicago except for two
CVI workers to respond to a teen takeover, I think that that should have
merit you wanting to at least talk to me.
Your office told me you do not have constituent
nights to meet with people. You have no appointments.
I said, "Well, he is an alderman. We have 12 months in a year.
You mean to tell me he doesn't have one appointment?" I've been at,
listen,
we just had police officers, one killed, okay?
I'm at the police memorials. I'm at the mass shooting.
Alderman Garden came out and marched around us.
East Garfield with us after march. Mass shootings.
Every time I turn on the TV, it's a shooting, it's a killing, somebody is
dying. I'm over here in Bronzeville and all of these communities,
but yet there's never a response, never anything being
done. And I just don't know how. How are you a
chairman over public safety and you have no time to talk to the people that
actually do the work, or you have no time to meet with the people?
How are you making decisions if you don't respect the
people? How do we have someone that can come and do an interview and you
talk about CVI, but me, I'm here doing the
work, and I can't get an appointment or have a conversation with-
This concludes our public speakers.
I will remind
everyone, pursuant to Rule 49 of the City Council
Rules of Order and Procedure, the sergeant-at-arms sets forth the following
rules for conduct of members of the public.
These rules are in effect at all times that a viewing
gallery or a room is open for a meeting of the City
Council or any of its committees. At all times that the room is
open, not just before or after the gavel.
The rules are in effect at all times, and disruptions will not
be tolerated.
The first item on the agenda
is item number
24866.
Please, no
disruptions from the gallery. Our public speakers are
concludedOkay.
Thank you, Sergeant at Arms. Alderman Taliaferro.
Where is he?
Okay, we have Curtis Anderson here from 2FM. Mr.
Anderson, can you present the item?
Curtis Anderson, Director of Maintenance Operations from Fleet and Facility
Management.
There's a proposed ordinance that authorizes the Commissioner of Fleet and Facility
Management to donate three obsolete pickup trucks,
as they become available,
to the Voices of Youth Ensemble or its
designated representatives. The vehicles
identified for donation have been determined to be
obsolete and to no longer operationally be beneficial to the
City of Chicago.
The donation will be made free and clear of any liens or
encumbrances,
or transferred strictly in as-is condition.
The city expressively disclaims all warranties, whether expressed or
implied, including warranties of merchantability
for fitness or a particular purpose.
Additionally, Section 2 authorizes the Commissioner of Fleet
and Facility Management to execute any supporting
agreements or documentation necessary to complete and
finalize the donation process. Section 3 establishes
that the ordinance shall become effective immediately upon passage
and publication by the City Council.
This action supports responsible fleet asset disposition
practices while allowing obsolete municipal equipment to provide
potential community benefit through reuse by a
nonprofit organization.
Questions for 2FM from the members?
Hearing none, can we get a motion to approve the donation of surplus vehicles to
Voices of Youth Ensembles? Moved by Alderman Sposato.
Any further discussion? Hearing no objections, so ordered. Thank you, Mr. Anderson.
The donation will be arranged.
Next is ordinance number 24866,
assignment of community benefit funds to the Mag Mile
Association as the service provider for public safety
improvements in the area surrounding the temporary Bally's
casino.
From the Department of Planning and Development, we have Madison Ward. Ms. Ward?
Good morning, Chairman Hopkins and members of the committee.
For the record, my name is Madison Ward, a coordinator of economic development in
the Department of Planning and Development.
Thank you.
The ordinance we bring before the committee today is for the authorization to
reimburse the Magnificent Mile Association in the amount of
$31,172.14
for the purchase and installation of the remaining 22 bollards at four
intersections along North Michigan Avenue between Chestnut,
832 North, and Oak, 1000 North. This
project is in the 2nd and 42nd wards and is strongly supported by
Chairman Hopkins and Alderman Riley.
This second phase completes the installation of a total of 63
bollards installed along Michigan Avenue by the Magnificent Mile
Association in coordination with the Chicago Department of
Transportation. These public safety improvements were recommended
after input from the 18th District Chicago Police Department, safety
experts, community organizations, and local alders, and
are funded by the Bally's Host Community Agreement.
This enhancement now has bollards placed at every intersection along North
Michigan Avenue from Illinois to Oak Streets. Next slide, please.
These bollards have already proven their worth by stopping a car that drove onto
the sidewalk at the intersection of Michigan and Ohio in March.
The new bollards stopped the car from injuring a pedestrian or driving into a
building. Next slide.
The Department of Planning and Development has an existing agreement with the
Magnificent Mile Association and will amend it to reimburse for the
installation of these additional bollards, pending City Council approval.
We ask for your favorable recommendation of this agreement and are available if
you have any questions. Thank you.
Thank you, Ms. Ward. Questions for our witness?
Chairwoman Dahl.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm not-
We'll yield to your rank.
Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
You are a representative of CDOT?
The Department of Planning and
Development.
Planning and Development. Do you know how much these bollards are?
What the cost of the bollards are for
one?
I do not have that information with me, but we are happy to provide it through the
chair.
All right. And is this-
Yeah, I can actually address that from previous bollard projects.
TheThe cost of the bollards individually is around
$2,000, and that's for the decorative,
attractive ones that are at the higher end of the price
structure. You can get them for as low as 300 or 400.
The real cost is the installation.
Is the installation and if it's-
It exceeds acquiring the bollards themselves.
The installations can be very complicated.
If there's existing utilities, water and sewer lines, vaulted
sidewalks, all of that adds to the difficulty and the cost of
installing them.
All right. And the department that a
request would be made through is through DPD or
CDOT? DPD.
Thank you.
Further questions, Alderman Menahappenwerke, did you have a question?
I thought I saw your hand up. No?
Seeing no further questions, can we get a motion to approve the acquisition
and reimbursement request for the bollards? Moved by Alderman Tabaras.
Hearing no further discussion, so ordered. Thank you.
That'll be a do pass recommendation. Thank you, Ms. Ward.
Thank you.
The next item on the agenda is a resolution that was
adopted in city council, resolution
24955, calling for a subject matter hearing
on the status of a RFP
and potential procurement for a new acoustic gunshot technology system,
along with discussion of a new records management system for the
Chicago Police.
Multiple agencies are involved in this, OEMC, Office of Public Safety,
and of course, the Department of Police.
With us via Zoom, we have Commissioner Sharla Roberts from the
Department of Procurement.
We have Courtney Del Gaidis, Managing Deputy
Director for Procurement. And we also have Kevin
Pater, Deputy Director from the Office of Public Safety.
So we will allow them to make presentations. I think we have a slide deck as well.
And then we'll get to questions from the committee.
Make sure we have Ms. Roberts on Zoom. Is she on yet?
Thank you, Chairman, for the introduction.
I will be providing an opening statement.
Good morning, everyone,
and good morning, Chair Hopskin,
Vice Chair Yancey, and members of the committee.
I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you
today alongside the Office of Public Safety to
discuss two critical city procurements.
One for a new record management system, RMS,
and the second for gun violence detection technology.
For RMS, proposals were due in December 2024,
at which time DPS received responses
from the following five vendors:
Central Square Technology,
Axon Enterprise,
Motorola Solution,
Tequity Partners, and Clarity
Partners.
For the gun violence detection technology, proposals were
due in April 2025,
at which DPS received responses from the
following nine vendors:
Blue Hammer Technology,
Lion's View Manufacture and Supply, Sound Thinking,
Inc., Jailware Inc., Civil Star
Protection Group, Tequity Partners LLC,
Motorola Solution,
Crime Gun Intelligence Technologies, and Strategic
Communication LLC.
Before discussing those particular procurements, I want to provide an
overview of the procurement process utilized for both
projects. A request for proposal,
RFP, was used for both RMS and gun violence
detection technology, and is a multiple-step
procurement vehicle utilized when factors
beyond price must be considered to ensure the vendor
best equipped to deliver the desired services
is selected. The process begins when the user
department identifies a need and submits a requisition
to the
Department of Procurement Services.
DPS then collaborates
closely with the requesting department to develop
a comprehensive scope of services, along
with detailed submittals and evaluation
requirements tailored to the department's needs.
DPS further
collaborates with the Department of Law to ensure all
legal requirements are met before the solicitation is
advertised.
Upon advertisement, the solicitation becomes an active
procurement until a final contract is
ultimately executed between two parties.
For complex procurement, solicitations are often active procurements
for approximately two years or more.
This allows for additional phase of review, including but not limited
to detailed vendor vetting, oral presentations,
product demonstrations, site visits, and
complex negotiations. This structured
multi-step process is designed to ensure
each vendor is evaluated thoroughly and fairly,
in that the city ultimately selects the
vendor best positioned to
deliver the required goods and services.
In addition to these steps described, both the
RMS and gun violence detection technology
procurements are highly technical and have involved
additional layers of complexityThroughout the procurement
process, updates regarding the current stage of the
solicitations are available under the Bid Tracker
tab on the Department of Procurement Service contract website.
In closing, DPS remains committed to ensuring a
fair, transparent,
and efficient process remains in place for all procurements.
We recognize the importance of the procurements that are
subject
of this hearing today, and will continue to work in locksteps with OPSA,
the Department of Law,
to move forward as expeditiously as possible to complete the
contract awards. Both
of these procurements are active procurements.
To protect the integrity of the process, today we will be
limited to providing information that is publicly
available regarding the procurements.
All individuals participating in the evaluation and selection
process are required to sign non-disclosure
agreements, and are prohibited from sharing confidential procurement
information outside of the authorized individuals and
authorized process.
These confidentiality safeguards are essential to ensuring
a fair,
competitive, and legal compliant procurement process,
protecting vendor propriety information,
preventing undue influence, and maintaining
public trust in the city's contracting process.
However, I'm happy to answer any questions possible
today. Thank you.
Thank you, Ms. Roberts. Does Ms. Togaidis have anything to add
to that, or just potentially respond to questions?
Okay. All right, thank you.
And then Kevin Pater, before we get to questions
from the Department of Public Safety, and then we'll open it up to questions.
Did you have a point of order, Chair Dowell?
I just wanted to know if is it possible for the
procurement, the
director to
email a copy of her
statement to the committee
so that we can get a copy shared in here, because
it's very difficult to take down in writing all of
the information that she's given in terms of the
contractors, the timing.
I would prefer to have it in writing.
Yeah, sure. We'll be glad to do that.
Director Roberts, I assume that's not an issue.
You were reading from a written statement.
If you have that available, if you could just email that to my office and I'll
distribute it to the committee.
Yes, we can provide that through the chair. Thank you, Chairman.
Thank you.
Okay, Mr. Pater?
I'm open to any questions you may have also.
Okay. With that, we'll open it up to questions.
Alderman Chico.
Thank you, Chair. And as the sponsor of the resolution,
I want to talk about the purpose of this-
Sure
... meeting today.
I asked to convene in this committee for a subject matter hearing to
provide transparency into stalled procurement processes in order to
examine whether the administration is meeting its legal obligations,
and establish a clear timeline for contract award, implementation,
and deployment of both systems.
Public safety tools should not be subject to delays or uncertainty.
Residents deserve to know when shots are fired.
The city has systems in place to respond quickly and
effectively. Right now, there are too many unanswered
questions. You know, Chair, when I go to
beat meetings, have public safety town halls, one of the main
questions I get asked is about gunshot technology.
Where are we at in the process? Why is it taking so long?
Lives are being in danger. So I kind of want
to dig through the process over the last 19 months to kind of see
what's going on, where we're at, and what could be
done.
So over 19 months ago,
gunshot detection was removed from the neighborhoods it was in,
and currently we have nothing in place.
To the Commissioner,
the first step was an RFI, a request for
information.
Can you answer why a RFI was utilized
right away instead of a RFP?
Commissioner Roberts.
Thank you for the
question, Alderman.
The Department of Procurement Service used the RFI
process to obtain
information on the latest technologies from
a gun violence detection standpoint to ensure that
we
collected information that could help us compile an RFP,
to get the desired outcome for the best solution for the City of
Chicago.
And how many companies responded to the RFI?
I believe there were, and Courtney, if you could provide
information, the information is posted on the Department of Procurement
Service website.
I believe there were 15 firms.
15.
Hi, Courtney Deljudice, Managing Deputy Procurement
Officer. There were 15 respondents to the RFI.
Okay. And what was OPSA's involvement in the RFI
process?
Within the RFI process, they
obtain information from the RFI process to take
out
pertinent data that they feel will provide
information to the vendors on the type of solution that the City of
Chicago is looking for. So theyHave the
information for their edification to assist them with
drafting an RFP.
So the RFI process lasted from September 2024
through February 2025, roughly five or six
months. What was the ultimate outcome of the RFI process?
A procurement was drafted and a procurement was
let
for the
gun violence detection,
I believe in April.
Okay.
Let me check on that date. Hold on.
Okay. So, we'll move on to the RFP process.
In February 2025, there was a RFP for gun violence
technology.
I'm sorry, go ahead.
How many companies
responded to the RFP?
In my opening statement, there were...
Let me get that for you.
Nine vendors that responded to the RFP in April of 2025.
It has been reported that there were eight.
Is there one floating around, or?
From the information that was provided and that's outlined
on the Department of Procurement Services data tracker website, we
have nine firms that responded to the RFI.
Okay.
Now, the RFP-
And I can provide you that information through the chair.
Thank you for that. The RFP called for the establishment of an evaluation
committee. What was the evaluation committee's role?
The evaluation committee role is to review the
technical requirements or the requirements outlined in the RFP.
And who decided who was going to be on the
evaluation committee?
As I stated in my
opening statement, to protect the integrity of the process,
there are limitations on information that I can provide,
and that's a question that I cannot
respond on at this time.
So, can you say if there are any law enforcement members in the committee, or are
you just-
I cannot provide that information at this time.
Okay.
To protect the integrity of the process.
Got you.
It's an open procurement.
Got you.
It's active.
Got you. So under the RFP, the evaluation committee
completes its assessment and it's supposed to submit the results and
evaluation to you. Is that correct?
That's a fair statement.
Okay.
And they submitted a shortlist to you, correct?
As I stated earlier,
this is an active procurement, and
to protect the integrity of the process, I have a fiduciary duty to ensure that
we follow the process outlined. And the question
that you're asking, I have limitations on information that can be
shared.
Okay.
After the evaluation committee met
and submitted
their thoughts, what happened after that?
Alderman, again, this is an active
procurement,
and there's limited information because it's open and active, and we want to ensure
that we have a fair process for all the parties involved.
The question that you're asking, I cannot share information
on.
Okay.
Alderman Quinn, on a point of information.
Can we get a legal opinion on process?
Is
that unreasonable to ask?
Yeah. I-
What the gentleman from the 10th Ward-
I see your point. I mean-
... talked about were process questions.
Wait, right. Without getting into the specifics-
Can't advise on the specifics of process
... of this particular recommendation, I think you are
free, Commissioner, to outline the process, right?
So what happens generally in a process after an
evaluation committee has issued a recommendation.
So I'm sure there's some generalizations that you could
share that would apply to this and all
procurements that follow a similar trajectory.
So without compromising any of the confidential information
associated specifically with this recommendation, can you
answer in general terms as best as you can?
Thank you, Alderman. I couldn't figure out who was speaking, but yes,
in a standard procurement process, an RFP is let,
a solicitation is let, and a due date is
provided on our DPS
website when responses are due. Once DPS
receive those responses,
we do an internal administrative process, and then those
responses are provided to the evaluation committee.
The committee goes through their process,
which could include various
steps
of the technical presentation, oral presentation,
site visits,
and demonstrations.
Then DPS does due diligence.
Contract negotiation
can go on for an extended amount of time
to receive a final executed contract between two
parties.So
the entire procurement process starts when a procurement is
let.
It goes through a rigorous evaluation process.
There could be demonstrations,
as well as presentation and site visits, as I
stated.
And the process
ends with the fully executed contract between the parties.
Alderman Chico, you still have the floor.
Would you yield to President Pro Tem Nugent on a question?
Sure.
Thank you, Chair. I
think Alderman Chico was asking, if I heard it correctly,
not who was on the committee, but who has the authority to
determine who is on the committee, and I
believe that either the CPO or counsel in the box should be able to answer
that portion.
Thank you, Chair.
Yeah. Again, in general terms, if you need to avoid the specifics of
naming members of this particular evaluation committee, who has the
authority to appoint members of an evaluation
committee?
Thank you for the question, Alder.
The evaluation committee can be appointed
by the
party departments that are involved, and also the chief procurement
officer. The department's commissioner and the chief procurement
officer.
Okay. Thank you.
Commissioner, I'm going to read you a
statement that was heard in the budget hearing from OPSA on
November 6th, 2025.
"We've already vetted those requests for proposals.
We've already tested the technology capabilities of those finalists.
We've already submitted our proposal in terms of those
recommendations to the chief procurement officer."
So am I correct in
saying that the award of this technology is in the hands of
you, Commissioner?
The procurement is an open procurement, as I stated earlier,
and at the time those statements were made that you're reading, were
purely an estimate
of what the process looked like.
And
the Department of Procurement Service, we're conducting due diligence in the
process.
And the steps that the Department Procurement Services,
and the stages of the
RP that we're referencing, all that information,
as with any procurement, the steps that we
are in are reflected on our DPS website.
Okay.
As I mentioned before, when I go to the beat meetings, the public
safety town halls, the community wants
answers. What could I take back to the residents I represent,
the 10th Ward and the City of Chicago, on how much longer this is going to
take? Because they recognize that this is something
that needs to be moved on. What could I take back?
Thank you, Alderman, for your question.
As the CPO, I have a fiduciary duty to ensure that
a process is followed to ensure that it's fair and
the outcome is just.
I could assure you that the Department of Procurement Services, we are
working diligently on both procurements to ensure that we
are conducting due diligence to ensure that
all the steps that are outlined within the solicitation have
been followed.
It is our desire to
continue to follow the process until we get
a signed and
negotiated contract between two parties.
As I stated earlier, this type of
procurement is complex in nature,
and we are working diligently to get to the end of
this process.
Understood it may be complex in nature, but let's also understand that
lives are at risk. Just in the 10th Ward alone, I have had
multiple victims lying in the alley for hours
and hours. Number one, it is inhumane
to have a body laying out in the alley when rain,
animals are all over it.
We are going on 20 months.
The residents of this city want something in place.
I understand the complications, but this deserves the utmost
attention.
Moving on to records management,
that's also part of this resolution.
Oftentimes, officers,
in their official capacity,
conduct traffic stops,
point a firearm at an individual, engage in a foot pursuit, a use of force,
make an arrest. This all requires documentation.
This all requires reports to be done.
Do we know how many reports Chicago Police Department
have to do to effect an arrest, or when they get involved in
a foot pursuit? How many different reports need to be done when
carrying out their duties on a day-to-day basis?
Yeah. Would that be a question best directed to Kevin Poeter?
We can get you that. Thank you for the question, Alderman.
We can get you that information through the chair. I don't have that with me.
And the reason I bring that up is because it's time lost.
When an officer makes an arrest,
does a traffic stop,
or all the above, they are completing several
different reports, taking them off the street,
leaving a beat to not be manned.
Leaving a beat not to have police resources
available. And I think, once again, this needs to be paid
attention to. It needs our utmost attention.
When we are taking an officer off the street because we can't get
records management in place and systems in place
where it's more efficient for them to make an arrest and get back on the street,
we are not doing right by the people we represent.
I don't know if this is
available, but could we get the average time officers
spend off the street filling out reports, whatever report it
is? How much time they are down, whether it be an arrest
report or just a report
documenting a traffic stop, how much time that takes.
Thank you for the question, Alderman.
Kevin Pater, Deputy Director of Public Safety Contracts.
I do not have any of the statistics here with me, but I can get you that
information if it's available through the chair.
Okay.
I'm going to wrap up, Chair, but what I want to just leave with is this.
We have two RFPs out there that can make the lives of
Chicago Police Department and our citizens just a little bit easier.
And it is our duty that we pay attention to that, that we
listen to the residents we represent, and that we hurry on this.
Lives are at risk.
Officers, once again, I always say it, we are down thousands of
police officers, and to have them off the street for a given amount of
time because our records is inefficient, our records management is
inefficient, is unacceptable. Thank you.
Yeah. Thank you, Alderman Chico. We'll open it up for any additional questions from
other members. I would just ask, in stating your question, please make
it clear whether your question is directed towards the record management
system or the gunshot acoustic detection system.
They're obviously two completely separate issues, although they have something in
common, which is that they're in various stages of the procurement process
and seem to have stalled. So just for purposes of clarity,
let us know the focus of your question. Alderman Vasquez.
Thank you very much, Chairman. I appreciate the conversation, as well as the intent
in trying to provide some level of transparency.
I think regardless of where people might stand,
knowing what the process is is important, and I think we haven't had a lot of that
information. I think,
to my colleague's point,
Alderman Chico mentioned the levels of reporting an officer needs to do when
certain things are occurring. I would argue so does procurement.
The level of reporting that would help us understand things better is
necessary.
I have questions related, and it's generally to all
involved. As we've seen now
under the current federal administration, there's a very clear concern about access
to any cameras or any surveillance technology or anything we're
doing. Whether we have any level of control or
not, it is important for us to think about that when we kind of bring on new
systems in place. And so my question for anybody involved is, have those
things been discussed related to any technology we're looking at?
How has that been discussed? Has that changed the look, the
view on what we're trying to do? And that's open to anybody, because I think it has
completely changed the landscape of how we think about this technology, and I want
to make sure that if we're thinking about any level we're taking forward, that
we're being intentional about protecting that information as well.
So just kind of curious as to how that was brought up through any of the RFI,
RFP, where we're at now. How is that being discussed or thought about by
anyone?
Okay, so your question gets to data ownership and
access to that data from outside third parties?
Yeah, and protection, like closed loop.
Did we even talk about that related to who we're going to bring on?
What was put out in the RFP? What we're looking for related to anybody who might
be entering a competitive bid process.
Okay. Director Roberts, can you address that?
Thank you, Alderman. In response to his question from a data
ownership, that DPS work in lockstep with the
Department of Innovation and Technology, so more the
technology
response I would defer to our
CIO, and we can get that information through the chair.
In drafting this RFP, we look at all the
laws and all applicable laws, and that's one of the
reason why we did the RFI, so we could obtain information on
technology to ensure the City of Chicago is moving in the right
direction as it relates to the services that are
needed in this space.
Okay. Yeah, I think my follow-up on that is,
when we were first discussing it, the RFI,
the ShotSpotter, everything, we weren't in the current climate where the federal
government, we found out, can actively access LPR
video. That they're actively using some of this stuff.
So I would've imagined that changes the conversation somewhat from when it
was first thought about to right now.
And I think part of where I might share a little bit of frustration with
Alderman Chico is because we have no window into the conversation, no
understanding of the process, no understanding of the body that does it.
We're left in the dark up until the point that somebody says, "Here's what we
decided on," without knowing any level of what got discussed as far as the
protection of people who very much need it as we're heading into what feels like
more and more of a surveillance state.
So was there any discussion once we saw that the federal government's actively
accessing this information?
Was there any intentional conversation about that with any of the parties involved
in decision-making?
I'm going to divert that part of the need to
OPSA, Kevin Poeter.
Thank you for the question, Alderman.
Our role
for the procurements today,
we act as liaison and administrative partner between the public safety departments
and the Department of Procurement Services.
Our role is to help ensure operational needs are communicated appropriately while
supporting a fair and compliant procurement process.
That being said, all the contracts have built-in boilerplate
language that is approved by the Department of Law.
That is when contract negotiations begin, all of
that is worked out with the vendor, and those templates are updated.
They would be updated priority order based on current laws and current
policies and things along those lines.
Is that boilerplate language able to be shared through the chair?
If you look on the procurement website, there is a
draft of, I don't know if it's the most current draft, but there is a draft of the
professional services contracts.
Okay, thank you. Because like I said-
And the boilerplate, however, you also have to remember that is
updated by the Department of Law, and Courtney can probably
speak on that a little bit more. It is updated frequently.
But there is a draft of our professional boilerplate language on the procurement
website.
Okay, so just to the level you can answer, have there been
modifications since we know the federal government's accessing some of this
information that is reflected in changes into the
boilerplate language?
That I cannot answer because it is an ongoing procurement.
But, Commissioner, you are-
Yeah, or if it's DOL, like whoever.
I just wanted to provide that
in context of protections, Alderman.
DPS can provide information through the chair on data protections.
Okay, yeah. If you could send
not only what it looks like this year, but what it looked like last year and the
year before to see if there's been any changes in any of it, I think that'd be
important. And I'll just say, and that's really all the questions I had, but
I think
I generally want
and really work towards government being as transparent, accessible,
and accountable as possible. In that interest, we've led to quarterly hearings for
CTA. We've gotten to quarterly hearings for CPS.
And I am more inclined, the way we don't get really answers here,
to think they have the same kind of quarterly reporting related to procurement
because every member I've talked to when procurement comes up has concerns, and I
think we end up a little bit in the dark and more reactive rather than identifying
what can be improved quarter over quarter.
But that's all I have to say, and thank you very much, Chairman.
Yeah. Alderman Vasquez, I will get an answer to your question.
It's a relevant question, and it is certainly more relevant today than it was two
years ago when we first started having this conversation. I agree with you there.
But it has also transcended. It goes beyond just the record
management system, whether we're going to keep the existing one, upgrade it,
throw it out, replace it. This goes beyond the system
itself. This is a policy and a legal matter, and I know the Department of Law
has been involved in it, so I will approach them initially to lay
out the parameters of what access to information we can get.
And then we'll go through the using agencies, and I will get you that
policy-related answer.
Yeah.
It may take a few days, but we'll get it for you.
I appreciate that, and I think if your diligence as it related to
COVID when we went through it is any example, I have a lot of faith in your ability
to dig into all the details and be able to share that with us in a way that leads
to better outcomes, so thank you very much.
Yeah. Thank you, Alderman. Additional questions?
President Pro Tem?
Thank you, Chair, and thanks for having this
critical hearing today.
I want to thank the CPO for being here today and a representative from
OPSA. I do think it's important to mention, though, that in addition to the two
folks in the box and the one on Zoom,
we did call for this hearing over a month ago.
The chief information officer was invited.
I don't see a CIO here or a representative.
The police department was invited. Nobody from the police department is here.
The executive director of the Office of Emergency Management was
invited. I see no one from OEMC here.
The executive director of OPSA, but we have a rep from OPSA.
The deputy mayor for community safety,
don't see anybody. The chief strategy officer/counsel to the mayor.
Chair, I'm just curious,
are people sick? Is everybody okay?
Yes. They were all given well advanced
notice of the date and time of this hearing.
Their presence was requested numerous times via email, phone
calls,
other methods of contacting.
It's been a moving target as far as confirmation of who may or may not appear.
As late as yesterday, we were unclear on who was available and who
wasn't. Certainly, illness was cited as a reason for
at least one or two-
Sure
... individuals and other conflicts, and various
excuses were offered. But the bottom line is we're here
today.
Sure.
We're conducting this meeting as per our resolution that was
publicly filed with this body. And we do
have some participation, which by the way, I'm grateful for.
I want to thank our witnesses who did attend, and I
wish I could shed additional light-
That's okay
... on the decisions that were made as to who should be here and who should
not. I agree that we are missing some key
voices that I would like to have here to answer
questions, but-
Well, I have questions
... be that as it may, we'll get as much information as we can from the individuals
that are here, and in fact, are authorized to speak on the record, which they're
doing.
Thank you. With that, I have some questions.
For OPSA,
did the evaluation committee for the gunshot detection system
come to a consensus? And if yes, when did they come to a consensus?
So thank you for the question, Alderman.
This is still considered an open procurement and this is part of the open
procurement, so I cannot answer that question at this time.
How about counsel for procurement?
Did
the evaluation committee come to a consensus on gunshot detection?
Unfortunately,
because this is an active procurement,
I'm not able to share that information at this time.
However, when the procurement is closed, we're happy to provide any information
possible.
So can you point to the procurement code where it says we can't
discuss whether or not we've convened an evaluation committee and whether there's
been consensus if we're not
actually
giving up any anonymity? I just don't quite
understand. We're hiding behind a procurement code that, to the best of my
knowledge, doesn't say we can't
share whether or not we've had meetings, whether we've had evaluations.
Can you point me there?
So for this, the code doesn't get into all of the individual
steps that are in the RFP process. It's that it's the open
procurement, so there are limitations on what we can provide.
Again, just to protect the integrity of the process.
In terms of high level, what occurs, we're happy to answer
anything about general process and anything we can about...
Our online bid tracker does have eight stages listed.
We can speak to which stage we're in there.
But-
I guess I'm not understanding why an evaluation committee meeting
would violate any premise of the open procurement code.
And I think for that, what you had asked is whether there is
consensus from the evaluation committee, which gets to the
votes that were given.
Can we confirm there is an evaluation committee?
Yes, there is an evaluation committee.
That is outlined in both RFPs.
Can you tell us how many members are on the evaluation committee?
Unfortunately, the number of members is not something we can share at
this time.
So earlier in testimony,
CPO Roberts had said that when we asked who has the authority to
determine who can be on the committee, it would be the department commissioners and
CPO. In this instance, is it multiple commissioners and the
CPO or a commissioner? I
think it's fair if we're trying to talk about something
that the public is very interested in, and we've been holding
on to an RFI and an RFP for several
years now, to at least
stop speaking in code and talk about where we are and what we're doing.
And who's a part of it.
CPO?
Great question, Alderman.
The
evaluation committee is comprised of
individuals from the department as well as individuals-
What department?
The department that has the need. So it was OPSA.
Is there any police representation?
Pardon me. Could you repeat that again? I'm sorry.
Sure. So OPSA,
and then who else? Pardon me.
The Department of Procurement Services.
So OPSA and Procurement Services.
Is there any representation from the police department?
As stated earlier, it's an active procurement, and we cannot
provide any information on the
evaluators
and consensus at this time.
Interesting.
I think that procurement is taking a subjective view,
versus an objective view here, and I think I respectfully disagree.
I thought it was interesting earlier when you had discussed that
we did an RFI on the gunshot detection before an
RFP. Do we always do that?
Great question. I think because
it's
a typical process in the procurement process to conduct RFIs,
especially when you want to obtain new information on a
goods or services where a department has a need.
It's essential to me as a
CPO to use the RFI process to
gather that type of information.
The gunshot detection had been in place over 10 years,
and it is a standard process when you want to gain
information from vendors on what
the new technology is in the marketplace.
So it's a
vehicle that as the CPO that I will leverage, and
is leveraging.
Sure. What exactly from the RFI did we glean that
influenced and we put in the RFP? What did we get from it?
I'm going to defer that to Kevin Pater.
Sorry. Can you repeat the question, please?
Kevin, thank you for taking the question.
Per the CPO, we did an RFI so we can glean new knowledge on
gunshot detection. So I'm asking, what new knowledge
did we glean from the RFI that influenced our RFP?
Thank you for the question, Alderman.
So the issue that we have responding to that is that a lot of that
information that was collected is part of the RFP
and current negotiation process, so we cannot discuss that.
Of course. Of course, we can't discuss it.
Or an RFI just could've taken up September
to February and wasted several months, too, of course.
Okay. Thank you.
For the CPO, I know we said that we had nine
folks responded to the gunshot detection and five to the records
management.Did the nine for the gunshot detection
and the five for the records management all meet the minimum requirements
in the RFP?
Great question, Alderman. Let me verify that for you, and I can provide
that information through the chair so I can be precise.
Okay.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm going to yield my time for right now.
Further questions from committee members?
Alderwoman Tabaras.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to be on the record
and say that this gunshot
detection system saves lives.
A man was shot and killed
in my ward on Thanksgiving night in Garfield Ridge neighborhood.
His body laid in the street for 10
minutes because no one called 911 about the
gunfire.
The gunshot technology system
served my ward, served this neighborhood.
According to police,
on Thanksgiving night,
no one called 911.
CPD
said that officers arrived at the scene to find an
unresponsive 27-year-old man on the ground with multiple gunshot wounds,
and he was later taken to the hospital when he was pronounced dead.
Gunshot detection technology, the
system, it saves lives.
How much longer do residents in this
city have to wait for the implementation of a new
system?
That's my question.
What accounts for this long delay in the final award of this
contract?
Commissioner, give it a try.
I wasn't for sure if she was finished with her statement.
This procurement
is highly technical and complex in nature,
and the Department of Procurement Services is working
diligently to ensure all processes are
followed
and all applicable laws are followed.
We're working diligently
to meet the city's needs.
An RFP
of this size, complexity, and nature
takes 18 to 24 months, and
sometimes longer, to award, where you have a fully
executed contract.
Deactivating this gunshot technology system was reckless.
We've been without a technology like this for almost two years now, since September
of 2024 when it was deactivated.
What are we doing to expedite this and to get
a selected vendor for this?
What are we doing? What steps are we taking to select a vendor?
And what does the timeline look like after a
vendor is selected for the implementation of a new system?
Thank you, Alderman. After there
is a fully executed contract in place,
then OPSA will start the implementation
process.
And I will turn it over to Kevin Pater so he could
provide what the implementation process
will look like for OPSA.
Thank you for the question, Alderman.
Kevin Pater, Deputy Director of Public Safety Contracts.
So, it all depends on what contractor gets
chosen, right? And what their solution is.
We don't really have a timeline on the implementation process.
It all depends on which vendor is
chosen.
Where's the urgency? We need to expedite this.
We need a system functioning today in this city.
Like I said,
a man was shot and killed in my neighborhood, in my ward,
on Thanksgiving night.
This technology not only keeps us safe, not only does it help
police, but it saves lives.
It saves lives because no one is calling 911, and this
technology is detecting gunshots.
I urge
everyone who is here
testifying to expedite and get a
new detection technology implemented.
My other questions that I have here are for the
police department,
but they're not here today,
so
I will leave it at that. Thank you.
Thank you, Alderman.
Alderwoman Arena Hopkenworth?
Thank you, Chair.
My question is,
there's
a mixed body of evidence of research about
acoustic gunshot technologyAnd,
I think about it like it's
diagnosing a situation right away, like one does
in a hospital, like a doctor does for a patient.
And I think about the false positives that could
happen if the analysis is not correct.
And so we are really, truly thinking about lives and
how we can
best use technology to save lives.
I'm wondering, in this process, can you say more
about how you do
evaluate
each of the technologies presented to you
in a way that is objective,
that
does not necessarily come from the vendor itself?
I'm thinking about doctors who are inundated with
pharmaceutical companies.
Can you describe or suggest how
the committee is going about
evaluating the effectiveness of each of these
technologies?
Thank you for the question, Alderman.
The evaluation criteria
is set forth in the solicitation document
that was let in February,
and it outlines the objectives
where the evaluators will be looking to score
the respondents, and primarily
on technical
as well as their demonstration and their orals.
And then pricing is also a factor
from a standard procurement process in the RFPs.
Every procurement is
drafted on the basis of the needs of the
department
and the criterias and
qualifications. All
that requirements are
defined in the RFP solicitation.
And
the evaluators have that information, and they use that as a
guideline
to score the evaluators.
So with the
RFI,
do you use that process to distinguish each of the vendors?
I am also thinking about what is the difference
between the RFI and the RFP.
Were you able to
figure out which
vendors rise to the top because they meet the criteria better?
Is that the reason for the RFI?
For clarification, the RFI, the request for
information, is a tool that is used to assist
the City of Chicago with compiling information on new data and
technology that's in the marketplace.
So we use the proposals when we may
say we're looking for firms to provide the City of Chicago
of new technology and solutions to assist us,
with
procuring services as it relates to gun violence detection.
So we review those proposals to see what information is
pertinent to the City of Chicago,
and we take the information that we deem pertinent and
draft an RFP, the request for proposal.
The request for proposal is where we are
requesting for services and firms that
are interested in providing those services.
They will respond to the RFP,
indicating their solution to the City of Chicago
and based upon the RFP process in meeting our
needs. So one is requesting information,
and one is you're responding to a
RFP to provide your solution.
Got it.
Thank you. That's all I have, Chair.
I'll let the attendance record reflect Alderman Villegas, non-committee member,
has joined us.
Alderman Quinn.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
If it's okay
with you, sir, I'd like to hear maybe some
anecdotal comments from Alderman Chico,
who was a Chicago police officer that actually utilized this technology,
if that's okay. Just like to hear his input.
Yeah, certainly, if he's willing to share some personal accounts. Alderman Chico.
Thank you, Chair, for letting me share my experiences.
I think number one, we have to think about when somebody calls
911 and they say they heard gunshots.
Now, calling 911 is the easy part, but directing the
resources and the police department becomes increasingly difficult.
We could all go out there outside of City Hall and
hear a gunshot, and probably we're going to have three or four different
answers to where that gunshot came from.
This is what gunshot detection does.
Directs the police and the resources to a specific spot
and able to react better,
and it be able to render care more efficiently
and more quickly. Also,
in terms of compiling data
and looking at
evidence to where gunshots might be going off at.
If there is a problematic house on the blockThat gunshot
detection will give the data and information
to that specific address,
what time of day gunshots are going off, how many times
a week they're going off, and with that data compiled, the
district commander, a deputy chief,
can use that in directing police resources to that
area. Once again, we are down Chicago police officers in
the city of Chicago. We need all the help we can get, and the
technology that makes it more efficient for our
supervisors to get our resources to respond
more quickly is something that cannot be lost on us.
It is about efficiency
while we're looking at a deficiency in police officers on the street,
and that's what it comes down to.
Quick scenario.
December, 20 below out, in an industrial area like the 10th
Ward, a shot goes off, or two go off.
How are the police ever going to respond at 3:00 in the morning knowing an
industrial area where that shot is or where that person is?
This will help direct, once again, the resources to the proper area.
In industrial wards like mine, where it's just open land, open
space, and it's difficult in the middle of the night when it's
dark out to get to that body to render aid.
So those are some of the things I've seen in my 10 plus years in the police
department on why this technology is needed.
Yeah. Thank you, Alderman Chico, for sharing that.
And I would also point out that during the
tenure of SoundThinking's system while it was operative
from 2018 to roughly 2024,
71% of all verified gunshot
incidents that the system detected did not have a
corresponding 911 call.
71%.
That is an overwhelming majority.
So it's safe to say that in the covered areas, if it wasn't for
the acoustical detection system, we would not have known
about many of the incidents. Some minor incidents, certainly,
some major resulting in multiple loss of life.
But 71% of all documented gunshot incidents
did not have a matching 911 call. And that's the reason we're
here, and that's the reason we're having this discussion today.
Alderman Gutierrez?
Thank you, Chairman. I also would like to echo what my
colleagues have been mentioning.
As we all know, the 14th Ward has the 8th District, which is one of the longest
districts in the whole city of Chicago.
The amount of time an officer will be able to respond to a call
sometimes takes 30 to 45 minutes for them to arrive.
So it's really crucial for us in the 8th District to have back the
detection gun system.
I just wanted to ask, if
this system was going to be deactivated, why didn't
an RFI or RFP was
made before
them taking it off?
I think we need to learn from this in moving forward for any other systems that
will be disconnected. We need to be
proactive on doing all of these processes right before
they're gone. Because again, then it triggers a
longer time for us to wait to have a new system working for
us. So we really need-- That's a question.
So moving forward, what's going to be the process if something else in the city of
Chicago needs to be removed or another company needs to come
forward? How are we going to be proactive on starting this process
right before it's gone? Because if not, it triggers to a longer wait time.
Yeah. Commissioner, can you address that generally,
initiating an RFI prior to the expiration of an
existing contract that it would replace?
Thank you for the question, Chairman.
The request for information law enforcement response
technology, specification number
1307565,
we
started working in collaboration with OPSA on
a RFI in September. So we did
take heed before the contract expired to compile
information
for an RFI that was let on November
11th, 2024,
for law enforcement. That
RFI was advertised.
So we were working in advance
before the contract was expired, I believe at the end of the year.
Courtney, do you want to confirm that information?
Courtney Del Judas, Managing Deputy Procurement Officer.
All of that information was accurate.
As soon as we received the request for
this procurement, we did begin working on it immediately and quickly issued the
RFI working closely with OPSA and got the RFP out
shortly after reviewing all the responses to be sure that could be
incorporated into the RFP we put out so that
when this system is ultimately awarded, it will be an up-to-date piece of
technology that hopefully meets all of the city's needs.
Okay.
Chair Dowell, and then back to President Pro Tem Dujon.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I wanted to say to
my colleague, Alderman Chico, it's not just industrial areas
that need this technology.
I have first-hand knowledge of howGun detection
technology has worked, at least in my ward.
I had a man who was shot at 47th and
State Street in the middle of early morning hours.
And if you know that area, you know that there are no residences
around. There's no houses. There's a
former school, a
meat factory, a church, and some vacant land.
No one called 911, and that young man laid in the street.
And but for the gun
detection technology system
that was already operating in the ward,
the police were able to find him,
deliver medical service, and get him to a hospital, and that young
man survived. So I know that's just one example of probably
many across the city. So I know that gun
technology detection works.
It is just
another tool
that the police department needs and could
use to save lives and to
improve public safety in many of the communities across the city of
Chicago.
I wanted to ask the commissioner
a question about,
since the RFP,
has the estimated cost of restoring gunshot
technology
changed since the issuance of the
RFP?
That is a great question,
Chairman Dow,
that I do not have the answer to at this time.
However, we have an estimated fiscal impact of
what this technology may cost, but I
would rather do a little research and provide some information through
the Chair.
Well, you're going to be busy with all the through the Chair requests.
And I just wanted to know, you report directly to the
mayor, so do you know if the mayor's office is still committed to
restoring gunshot detection technology to
Chicago as an integral part of our crime
prevention and first response?
Yes, the mayor supports the efforts that the Office of Procurement
Services is doing as it relates to
obtaining a vendor through the RFP process.
And we're working diligently to
get this project to the finish line.
And this question might have been asked before, but can you
give us the timing on when you
will be able to come up with a recommendation of the nine
vendors that are under consideration?
Could you repeat that question so I could ensure that I provide...
Go ahead.
When will you have a contract in place? That's the bottom line.
Thank you for the question, Alderman.
As I stated earlier, this is an active procurement,
and to provide an estimated timeline would just be an
estimation, but we're working diligently to get
this RFP across the finish line. And a
procurement, I don't want to understate it, of this
size and complexity
takes a longer time in the procurement
process.
Well, I understand that, Commissioner.
It is
over a year.
So
I think the council is
looking for some direction on
when we can expect this to come to an end,
where we have a gun detection system that we can look
forward to seeing in our city. So I just want
to press you again. Are we talking
another six months,
three months,
a year and a half?
What?
It is our desire to work
diligently to get a fully executed contract.
And I understand your concerns. I'm listening and I'm hearing to you.
But-
If I had a dollar for the word "diligently"
...
please understand that.
I could go buy-
I want to be rich
... a nice lunch today.
Yeah.
I want to be rich.
All right.
Have any vendors voluntarily withdrawn from
consideration? You said that you had nine vendors.
Given that this has gone on now for over a year, has anybody dropped
out?
Courtney, could you respond to that question, please?
Good afternoon. Courtney Deljudice, Managing Deputy Procurement Officer.
During the active procurement, we don't discuss the status of those
vendors. But again, when this procurement
is closed, we are happy to provide any additional information about what was
occurring during these steps.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I don't have any further questions.
Thank you. Alderman Sposato, followed by President Pro Tem Nugent to
close.
Then more of a comment. This was a total waste of time, in my opinion.
So, thank you.
Okay.
President Pro Tem, can you hold?
Alderman Cincho Lopez has not yet asked a question, so we'll recognize him and then
go back to you. Alderman?
Thank you. Thank you, Chairman, and I appreciate this
hearing.
The question in terms of, I know a lot of conversation has been about process.
My question is, this is an unprecedented,
unusual,
or different way of approaching this?
Because I've heard many colleagues have talked about the timeline and all
that. So just if you can reemphasize, is this
unprecedented, or what is usually the
process in terms of
this particular technology? I know there are different departments involved, so I
want to see if this is unprecedented, or how is the
procurement department looking at this?
Thank you, Alderman Lopez.
This is a standard procurement process as it
relates to request for proposal,
especially of the complexity
and the nature of this RFP.
There were various different steps in the process,
which included,
but not limited to, orals,
demonstrations,
and further questions
and due diligence.
And
the RFP process is from the
letting of the RFP until you have a fully executed
contract.
To
undergo a hearing during an active procurement process,
in my professional career, I have not experienced that.
Thank you.
My other question is, I'm not sure if
someone in the box can refer
to the... Because I think it's important that we go back to some of the
studies, and I know that the Office of Inspector General have
also shared some concerns about this particular
technology, per se.
Can anybody in the box see if there was any reference to this study?
Is this as part of the-- Because I understand, as the procurement officer has
mentioned, the complexity with this kind of technology.
Is there anything that you can point about the concerns about these,
especially around the Inspector General report on this particular technology?
Thank you for the question, Alderman.
At this time, I do not have any information regarding that, and it
would be
possibly discussing the
active procurement. So, I do not have a response to that.
But as Courtney has been saying, once this is awarded, we'll be able to discuss
that further.
Yeah. Thank you.
Chairman, I think it'll be
good to have perhaps the Office of the Inspector General.
I know that there was, and I think you mentioned this analysis,
especially when it comes to the
data that has come from that analysis and effectiveness.
My particular concern is that if we continue to push
and bypassing the due process,
especially the harm that is done to communities like ours when there is
not the
type of analysis that is needed. So perhaps I would like to have
the Office of the Inspector General also maybe coming and
refreshing us about some of the findings that they had.
And I think that there has to be a real conversation about how do we
invest for true policies that are keeping our
community safe. I think that this is a conversation that we have had, so I would
like to see maybe the Inspector General to share some of the data, maybe other
experts as well. I think it's important before we rush into decisions.
Thank you so much, Chairman.
Yeah. Thank you, Alderman. I would just remind you that the Inspector General's
report was specific to Sound Thinking's system, and it
wouldn't necessarily apply to any of the eight other vendors that
have completely different tools and technology platforms.
But we can contact them and update them on where we're at with this.
President Pro Tem?
Thank you, Chair.
I've been thinking about the response to a
question earlier about an evaluation committee on gunshot
detection and talking about irrelevant commissioners and
CPO. And
what's been shared with us is OPSA
and procurement are dealing with gunshot detection.
To the best of my knowledge, and I'll let OPSA answer, but you
are an administrative public safety entity, is that
correct?
That is correct.
Okay. But
the gunshot detection technology would be utilized
by the police department, which is operational.
And whilst I know the CPO and her team cannot share the members of the
evaluation committee, confirm its identity,
I just want to be on record saying I do hope that the police department
is a member of this evaluation committee.
They are the operational
folks that would have to use this.
That's a great comment, Alderman.
So when OPSA was created, we took over the IT
portion of the public safety departments.
So that all falls under OPSA.
Sure, but where's the IT office located?
35th and Michigan.
Sure. And when shots are fired in the 10th district at 3:00 a.m.
on Saturday, who responds to that?
You're correct, CPD, but we work-
Okay
... OPSA does work closely with CPD.
And I get that, but I worked in public safety,
and there is a big difference between us sitting behind a desk and
implementing a policy, and then being out in the field and having to
execute it operationally. And I think it's really important that
we bring that up, andI hope when the time comes and you share the
evaluation committee that
we will all be delighted to see that CPD was part of it.
Chair, if I may, I just wanted to go back to records management for a second.
To whoever could answer this,
what legacy data systems will be replaced if and when we finally
implement this new records management system?
That's a great question, Alderman.
Kevin Pater, Deputy Director of Public Safety Contracts.
It's a comprehensive
RFP. I do not have all the legacy systems that we replaced.
I can try to provide you that through the chair, though.
Okay. I
would be grateful if you could tell us what legacy systems would be replaced and
what the timeline would look like for replacement.
We had a hearing,
I believe on the 5th of May, with the
police department and a representative from PSA,
and I believe the consensus was that
our overtime numbers would go down if we implemented a records management
system.
And so I'd like to see what this would look like and what type of technology
consolidation or what legacy we could retire.
And if you could have, possibly through the chair, provide
what we think that would do with reports,
consolidation of reports,
reporting time,
I'd be very grateful for that.
Thank you, Chair.
Okay.
Seeing no further hands, let me just briefly say
that I generally agree with the notion that
it is unwise for this body to immerse itself
in an open procurement process.
There are exceptions, and
this is a legitimate exception today, which is why we're here.
It is an open procurement process, but we're not talking about
office furniture or printer cartridges.
This is a major policy
initiative with literal life and death consequences,
as Alderman Chico has graphically pointed out.
It rises to the level of oversight and involvement by
this legislative body. That's why we're here today.
In addition to that, clearly
from the outside, there appears to be some
delays at minimum.
The process is not working as efficiently as we would expect it to
be. And it is our role to inquire about the
nature of those delays and to try to get more information,
which is what we set out to do today.
I think I share the frustration of all of you that I don't necessarily feel I
know any more now than I did at the outset of this meeting.
However, I do want to thank Ms. Stulgaitis and Mr.
Pater and Commissioner Roberts.
I know you're here doing your job under the
restrictions that you feel you're
present.
But you did your best under very difficult conditions.
And many of the questions that were unanswered, we do
have pending commitments to provide
additional follow-up information through the chair.
So we will be following up in the coming days, and we will be
working, say it with me, Chairman Dull, we will be working
diligently to get those answers to the members of this
committee. And in light of that, I'm not going to
adjourn this meeting. I'm going to recess this
meeting to June 3rd at 12:30
PM, at which time we will reconvene to go over the
answers that are going to be provided in writing,
and to possibly get representatives of the Chicago Police Department
to attend and shed further light on this, if possible.
So, that's the status that we're going to leave it.
I thank you for your patience. Again, I thank our witnesses for doing the
best you could under these difficult
circumstances. And with that, this committee will stand in recess
to June 3rd.