NYPD Vigilant Solutions procurement documents

Shawn Musgrave filed this request with the New York City Police Department of New York City, NY.
Tracking # 2015-PL-3680
Status
Rejected

Communications

From: Shawn Musgrave

To Whom It May Concern:

Pursuant to the New York State Freedom of Information Law (1977 N.Y. Laws ch. 933), I hereby request the following records:

-The contract signed with Vigilant Solutions for the provision of a License Plate Recognition (LPR) system subscription in the Law Enforcement Archival & Reporting Network (LEARN). Per the calendar for Public Hearings on Contract Awards, 19 February 2015 (see https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1678995-calendar-for-february-19-2015.html):

"No. 30 R – 0045
PUBLIC HEARING in the matter of a proposed contract between the Police Department of the City of New York and Vigilant Solutions, located at 2021 Las Positas Court, Livermore, California 94551, for the provision of a License Plate Recognition (LPR) system subscription in the Law Enforcement Archival & Reporting Network (LEARN). The contract amount shall be $442,500 over the term of this Contract. The contract term shall be for three years from July 1, 2014 through June 30, 2017, with two one-year renewal options.
PIN #: 056150000978, E-PIN #: 05615S0005001.

The proposed contractor has been selected by means of the Sole Source method, pursuant to Section 3-05 of the Procurement Policy Board Rules."

-The presolicitation review report that determined that sole source procurement was the appropriate method for the above contract. If this contract falls within a "Categorical Review," please provide this review along with documentation indicating that it has been reviewed within the past two years, per PPB rules (see Section 2-02, https://www1.nyc.gov/html/mocs/ppb/downloads/pdf/PPB_Final_Updated_5_12_14%20(3).pdf).

-The Special Circumstance Determination for the above contract, per PPB rules for selecting sole source procurement (see Section 3-01).

-The determination that there is only one source for the service obtained via the above contract, per PPB rules (see Section 3-05).

-Documentation of the approval of the above sole source by the Agency Head or the ACCO or other designated senior official, per PPB rules (see Section 3-05).

The requested documents will be made available to the general public free of charge as part of the public information service at MuckRock.com, and is not being made for commercial usage.

In the event that fees cannot be waived, I would be grateful if you would inform me of the total charges in advance of fulfilling my request. I would prefer the request filled electronically, by e-mail attachment if available or CD-ROM if not.

Thank you in advance for your anticipated cooperation in this matter. I look forward to receiving your response to this request within 5 business days, as the statute requires.

Sincerely,

Shawn Musgrave

From: New York City Police Department

An acknowledgement letter, stating the request is being processed.

From: MuckRock.com

To Whom It May Concern:

I wanted to follow up on the following Freedom of Information request, copied below, and originally submitted on April 7, 2015. Please let me know when I can expect to receive a response, or if further clarification is needed.

Thank you for your help.

From: MuckRock.com

To Whom It May Concern:

I wanted to follow up on the following Freedom of Information request, copied below, and originally submitted on April 7, 2015. Please let me know when I can expect to receive a response, or if further clarification is needed. You had assigned it reference number #2015-PL-3680.

Thank you for your help.

From: MuckRock.com

To Whom It May Concern:

I wanted to follow up on the following Freedom of Information request, copied below, and originally submitted on April 7, 2015. Please let me know when I can expect to receive a response, or if further clarification is needed. You had assigned it reference number #2015-PL-3680.

Thank you for your help.

From: New York City Police Department

The request has been rejected, with the agency stating that the information or document(s) requested are exempt from disclosure.

From: Shawn Musgrave

Hello -

Please clarify whether FOIL request 2015-PL-3680 pertains to Vigilant Solutions procurement documents, or to correspondence between NYPD and Vigilant Solutions/DRN.

Thank you,
Shawn Musgrave
Investigative reporter, MuckRock

From: Shawn Musgrave

Jonathan David, Records Access Appeals Officer
New York City Police Department
One Police Plaza, Room 1406
New York, NY 10038

To Whom It May Concern:

This is an appeal of the rejection in whole of request 2015-PL-3680. In the attached letter, Lt. Richard Mantellino once again invokes an exemption without explaining how the given exemption applies particularly to the requested documents.

The documents requested pertain to the procurement of a Vigilant Solutions License Plate Recognition system subscription. Some documents pertaining to this procurement may be exempt under the exemption that protects inter-agency and intra-agency materials. But it defies common sense that all such documents must be considered "not final agency policy or determinations," the procurement has been approved since February.

Per the calendar for Public Hearings on Contract Awards, 19 February 2015 (see https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1678995-calendar-for-february-19-2015.html):

"No. 30 R – 0045: PUBLIC HEARING in the matter of a proposed contract between the Police Department of the City of New York and Vigilant Solutions, located at 2021 Las Positas Court, Livermore, California 94551, for the provision of a License Plate Recognition (LPR) system subscription in the Law Enforcement Archival & Reporting Network (LEARN). The contract amount shall be $442,500 over the term of this Contract. The contract term shall be for three years from July 1, 2014 through June 30, 2017, with two one-year renewal options.

PIN #: 056150000978, E-PIN #: 05615S0005001.

The proposed contractor has been selected by means of the Sole Source method, pursuant to Section 3-05 of the Procurement Policy Board Rules."

As this contract has been publicly proposed, there are absolutely documents surrounding the procurement process that constitute "final agency determinations." As such, Lt. Mantellino's blanket invocation of exemption (g)(iii) is untenable.

I respectfully request that you remand this request back to the NYPD FOIL unit for good faith provision of releasable documents.

Thank you,
Shawn Musgrave
Reporter, MuckRock

From: New York City Police Department

A letter stating that the request appeal has been rejected.

Files

pages

Close