Security and fire alarm systems

Dear FOI Officer, 

I am writing to request information under the Freedom of Information Act 2000. 

I would like to request the following details relating to procurement activities conducted by your force between January 2023 and September 2025: 

All tenders issued for security systems and fire alarm systems, including installation, maintenance, and monitoring services. 

The details we require are:   

a. Hardware Brand: The primary hardware brand of the organisation’s

b. Digital/Smart Buildings Platform  

c. Fire Alarms  

d. Fire Suppression  

e. Access Control  

f. Intruder Alarms  

g. CCTV  

h. Affray Alarms 

​I. Cell Call/ Care Comms  

The names of suppliers who submitted bids for these tenders. 

Existing Supplier: If there is more than one supplier, please split each contract up individually.  

Expected scope and value of the contracts. 

Contract Type: What is included in the current contracts with these suppliers? 

Comprehensive, Semi Comprehensive including call outs, Basic Service Only. 

Contract duration, end date and review date of the current contracts with these suppliers.  

Contact Detail: Of the person from the organisation responsible for each contract with details including full name, job title, direct contact number and direct email address. 

If the contract is managed by an outside Facility Management Company, please can you provide all the relevant details including the contact details of the responsible person from the FM (Facilities Management) Company.  If available, please provide the information in electronic format (PDF, Excel, or Word). If any part of this request requires clarification, I would be happy to assist. 

I understand that under the Act, I am entitled to a response within 20 working days. If any of the requested information is exempt from disclosure, please specify the relevant exemption and provide reasoning. 

Thank you for your time and assistance.  

States of Jersey Police decline to disclose details of the hardware brands and suppliers used to protect its assets. Articles 38 and 42(a)&(b) of the Freedom of Information (Jersey) Law 2011 have been applied, and a response is declined.  

States of Jersey Police decline to disclose the expected scope and value of the contracts. Article 33(b) of the Freedom of Information (Jersey) Law 2011 has been applied, and a response is declined.   

States of Jersey Police can confirm that the current contracts with these suppliers include provisions for planned preventative maintenance, scheduled servicing, reactive repairs, and call-out support. 

States of Jersey Police confirm that single-source suppliers are currently engaged for the provision and maintenance of the following systems: Digital/Smart Buildings Platform, Access Control, Intruder Alarms, CCTV, Affray Alarms, and Cell Call/Care Communications. Contracts for Fire Alarms and Fire Suppression systems are renewed annually, with the next renewal scheduled for January 2026. 

States of Jersey Police can confirm that the Site Manager is responsible for each contract. States of Jersey Police are unable to disclose the requested information, as it pertains to identifiable individuals. However, we are able to provide the group email address for the site manager, which is as follows hello@jersey.police.je .As such, Article 25 of the Freedom of Information (Jersey) Law 2011 has been applied. 

States of Jersey Police can confirm that the contract is not managed by an external company.   

(1) Information is absolutely exempt information if it constitutes personal data of which the applicant is the data subject as defined in the Data Protection (Jersey) Law 2005. 

(2) Information is absolutely exempt information if – 

(a)     it constitutes personal data of which the applicant is not the data subject as defined in the Data Protection (Jersey) Law 2018; and  

(b)      its supply to a member of the public would contravene any of the data protection principles, as defined in that Law   

Information is qualified exempt information if –  

(a)     it constitutes a trade secret; or 

(b)     its disclosure would, or would be likely to, prejudice the commercial interests of a person (including the scheduled public authority holding the information). 

Article 33 is a qualified exemption; there is a requirement to undertake a public interest test.  

It is in the public interest to know how public funds are spent and whether value for that money is being obtained. The public need to be reassured that the States of Jersey Police are operating efficiently, ethically, and in a manner that delivers value for money. Revealing contract values helps demonstrate that procurement decisions are made responsibly and competitively, ensuring public money is spent efficiently.  

Factors against disclosure   

When negotiating new contracts, it is essential that we maintain the trust and confidence of our suppliers. This trusted relationship enables us to engage in open and constructive dialogue, which in turn supports our ability to secure favourable terms and achieve best value for the public. Suppliers and partners may lose confidence in the SoJPs ability to protect sensitive commercial information, potentially affecting ongoing and future relationships. 

On balance, it is believed those factors against disclosure outweigh those for.  

​Information is qualified exempt information if its disclosure would, or would be likely to – 

(a) endanger the safety of an individual; or 

(b) endanger the physical or mental health of an individual. 

Article 38 is a qualified exemption; there is a requirement to undertake a public interest test.  

Public interest test  

Disclosure of certain information may contribute to public understanding of policing practices, decision-making, resource allocation, and allows the public to scrutinize procurement decisions, ensuring that public funds are spent responsibly and ethically. 

Releasing such information may compromise the security of the buildings and therefore the safety of personnel, enable hostile actors to identify weak points in building security (increasing the likelihood of physical attacks on staff), and facilitate interference with critical equipment, delaying upgrades or repairs that protect staff and buildings.    

On balance, it is believed those factors against disclosure outweigh those for.  

Information is qualified exempt information if its disclosure would, or would be likely to, prejudice – 

(a) the prevention, detection or investigation of crime, whether in Jersey or elsewhere; 

(b) the apprehension or prosecution of offenders, whether in respect of offences committed in Jersey or elsewhere; 

(c) the administration of justice, whether in Jersey or elsewhere; 

(d) the assessment or collection of a tax or duty or of an imposition of a similar nature; 

(e) the operation of immigration controls, whether in Jersey or elsewhere; 

(f) the maintenance of security and good order in prisons or in other institutions where persons are lawfully detained; 

(g) the proper supervision or regulation of financial services; or 

(h) the exercise, by the Jersey Financial Services Commission, of any function imposed on it by any enactment. 

Article 42 is a qualified exemption; there is a requirement to undertake a public interest test.  

Promoting transparency and accountability in public procurement. Enabling public scrutiny of SoJP spending and fostering trust in public authorities by revealing the nature of commercial relationships. Disclosure of supplier and brand information may also help ensure fair competition and prevent anti-competitive practices. 

Factors against disclosure  

Contracts for security and hardware systems often contain details that, if disclosed, could compromise the integrity of critical infrastructure.  Revealing hardware specifications or supplier details could enable hostile actors to target or sabotage systems essential to emergency response (e.g. communications, surveillance, access control). It could also lead to hostile actors targeting or sabotaging systems essential to emergency response (e.g. communications, surveillance, access control). Any degradation in emergency service capability due to compromised infrastructure could result in delayed response times, increased harm to the public, and erosion of trust in law enforcement. 

On balance, it is believed those factors against disclosure outweigh those for.