GLOBAL TEL*LINK CORPORATION vs CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, et al.

Once the form is signed, it must be filed with the Clerk of Department 4. Pursuant to Government Code Section 69959, Court Reporters are not permitted through the use of remote technology, and any Court Reporter designated for the hearing shall be physically present in the Courtroom. If a litigant has been granted a fee waiver and requests a Court Reporter, the party must submit a Request for Court Reporter by a Party with a Fee Waiver (CV/E-211) and it must be filed with the Clerk of Department 4 at least 10 days prior to the hearing or at the time the proceeding is scheduled if less than 10 days away.

Once approved, the Clerk of Department 4 will forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official Court Reporter will be provided.

MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

Introduction

Through this action, Petitioner Global Tel*Link Corporation, d/b/a ViaPath Technologies (Petitioner) challenges a large technology contract awarded by Respondents Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (CDCR) and Department of Technology (DOT), collectively, “Respondents.” Petitioner alleges that Respondents erred in awarding the contract to Real Party in Interest Securus Technologies, LLC (“Securus”) and seeks a writ of mandate setting aside the contract award to Securus.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25WM000052: GLOBAL TEL*LINK CORPORATION vs CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, et al. 05/12/2025 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Injunction in Department 4

At issue in this motion is Petitioner’s request for a preliminary injunction staying the effect of the contract award to Securus pending adjudication of the merits of the Petition.

Petitioner’s briefing contains numerous citations to unpublished superior court and federal administrative decisions, which it appears to contend the Court should consider “persuasive authority.” (TRO Opening Mem. p. 15, fn. 1.) Petitioner is directed to refrain from such citation to unpublished authority. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.1115; Wood v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals (2023) 88 Cal.App.5th 742, 763, n.13 [“California state trial court decisions in other cases have no precedential value and cannot be cited”].) The Court did not, as it may not, consider the unpublished material cited. Securus’s objection to the unpublished authority is noted.

Securus objects to Petitioner’s Reply on the grounds that it does not comply with the page limits set forth in California Rule of Court 3.1113(d) and on the grounds that it improperly raises new arguments. Petitioner’s argument that the Reply complies with the pages limits for merits briefing set forth in Local Rule 2.26 is unpersuasive. The matter before the Court is a motion for preliminary injunction, not a hearing on the merits of the Petition. The Court exercises its discretion to consider the overlong brief, though Petitioner is admonished to comply with applicable page limits in the future. The Court declines to consider new arguments asserted in the Reply brief, as discussed further herein.

Respondents’ request for judicial notice of state court records is granted. (Evid. Code, § 452, subd. (d).)

Background

This action arises against the backdrop of an extended dispute regarding provision of technology services to incarcerated persons in CDCR’s facilities. In 2020, Respondents issued a request for proposals for a contract to provide state inmates with improved telecommunications. (Resp. RJN, Exh. A [Final Ruling re Petition for Writ of Mandate, Case No. 34-2021-80003594], p. 2.) Petitioner and Securus were among the responsive bidders for the 2020 request for proposals. (Ibid.) After Respondents awarded the 2020 contract to Petitioner, Securus filed a petition for writ of mandate in this Court challenging the contract award (Securus Technologies, LLC v.

California Department of Technology, et al. Sacramento Superior Court Case No. 34-2021- 80003594). (Ibid.) Judge Arguelles of this Court granted the petition and ordered Respondents to set aside the contract, but permitted Petitioner to continue to provide services “pursuant to one or more interim arrangements reached independently from

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25WM000052: GLOBAL TEL*LINK CORPORATION vs CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, et al. 05/12/2025 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Injunction in Department 4

the contract.” (Id. at p. 9.) The Court of Appeal affirmed the order in an unpublished decision. (Resp. RJN Exh. B.)

Thereafter, CDCR executed a Noncompetitively Bid contract with Petitioner allowing Petitioner to continue to provide technology services it had already begun implementing. (Declaration of Stephanie Jones [Jones Decl.], ¶ 5.) CDCR subsequently extended Petitioner’s noncompetitive contract, and the currently effective contract amendment expires on June 14, 2025. (Id. at ¶ 6; Pet. Exh. O [Amendment 1 to Existing Communications and Technology Solution contract], p. 1.)

In July of 2024, Respondents reinitiated the competitive bidding process for a contract “to provide CDCR with enhanced communications for incarcerated individuals.” (Jones Decl. ¶ 11.) Respondents issued Request for Proposal No. C5611826 (hereafter “the RFP”) on July 15, 2024, and subsequently posted several addenda and Q&A documents. (Pet. ¶ 18.) A final “BAFO [Best and Final Offer]” addendum was issued on December 17, 2024. (Pet. Exh. A.) The RFP sought proposals from qualified bidders to provide “a solution (collectively referred to as ‘I-Connect +” or (‘IC+’)) to enhance incarcerated people communications [sic], provide electronic access to new services, increase access to existing services for incarcerated people through advancements in technology, and provide increased rehabilitative opportunities.” (Pet.

Exh. A [RFP], § 1.1.) The RFP provided for an initial six-year contract term, with the option for the State to extend the contract for up to an additional four years at its discretion. (Id. at § 1.3.)

According to the RFP, CDCR currently utilizes “the Communications Technology Solution (CTS) that provides the incarcerated people enhanced communications and services like messaging, inbound photos, e-books, short video clips, music, games, movies, and other technology solutions via telephones, tablets, and kiosks.” (Pet. Exh. A [RFP], ¶ 1.4.) Additionally, the RFP indicates that the existing CTS project provides incarcerated people the ability to pay for printing approved messages and photos, as well as to purchase other entertainment services. (Ibid.) The CTS is administered by Petitioner under the existing noncompetitively bid contract. (Jones Decl., ¶¶ 6-10; Declaration of Matthew Caesar [Caesar Decl.], ¶ 6.)

The “I-Connect +” solution described in the RFP is to include services in the following areas: Communications Services; Information Services; CDCR and third-party applications; Management Tools and Support; Investigative Tools and Support; Network Infrastructure to Support IC+; Maintenance and support. (Pet. Exh. A [RFP] § 1.51.) For Communications Services, for example, the RFP instructs that the successful contractor under the new contract “must provide at least as many communication devices as are currently installed and provided and any supporting equipment[.]” (Id. at § 1.5.1.1.)

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25WM000052: GLOBAL TEL*LINK CORPORATION vs CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, et al. 05/12/2025 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Injunction in Department 4

The bidding period closed on October 28, 2024, at which time two offerors, Petitioner and Securus, had submitted timely final proposals. (Pet. ¶ 37.) Under the RFP, Respondents were to evaluate the final proposals and assign a score to each, according to the criteria outlined in Section 7 of the RFP. (Pet. Exh. A [RFP] § 7.2.) Thereafter, the RFP indicated that Respondents would conduct negotiations under Public Contract Code section 6611 (Section 6611), and that up to three of the highest scoring bidders could be determined eligible to participate in the negotiation process. (Id. at § 7.3.)

Respondents invited both Petitioner and Securus to participate in the negotiation process under Section 6611, both bidders accepted, and the negotiations took place over videoconferencing. (Pet. ¶ 39, Exh. B [Evaluation and Selection Report] p. 24.) According to Respondents’ Evaluation and Selection Report for the RFP, each bidder was given the opportunity to meet with the State’s Negotiation Team. (Ibid.) At the conclusion of the negotiations, Respondents requested “BAFO submissions from the two (2) Bidders to clarify and document understandings reached during negotiations.” (Ibid.)

Both Petitioner and Securus then submitted BAFOs, which were evaluated and given a final score. (Id. at p. 24-28.) Petitioner’s BAFO received a final score of 822.99, and Securus’ BAFO received a final score of 934.20. (Id. at p. 26.) Petitioner alleges that on February 21, 2025, Respondents notified Petitioner that they intended to award the contract to Securus. (Pet. ¶ 43.)

Petitioner filed this action on April 1, 2025.

Allegations in the Petition

The Petition asserts three causes of action: (1) Writ of Mandamus (Code of Civil Procedure section 1085); (2) Injunctive Relief; (3) Declaratory Relief.

Petitioner alleges that the contract award to Securus was improper for several reasons. First, Petitioner alleges that Securus is financially distressed and facing bankruptcy, and is therefore not a “responsible bidder” for purposes of the Public Contract Code and the RFP. (Pet. ¶¶44-49.) Petitioner further alleges that as a result of its financial condition, Securus was unable to provide an unconditional Letter of Bondability, which was one of the RFP’s mandatory requirements, and also failed to provide financial information requested by Respondents as part of the negotiation process. (Pet. ¶¶ 45-62.)

Second, Petitioner alleges that the tablet product Securus proposed to use to carry out the contract provisions, termed the “EVOTAB tablet,” did not meet the RFP’s requirement that only “proven technology products” would be accepted. (Pet. ¶ 63.) Petitioner alleges that the EVOTAB tablet “is still an experimental pilot program” and therefore does not satisfy the RFP’s Productive Use Requirements. (Pet. ¶¶ 64-67.) Third, Petitioner alleges that Respondents engaged in favoritism “by waiving certain RFP

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25WM000052: GLOBAL TEL*LINK CORPORATION vs CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, et al. 05/12/2025 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Injunction in Department 4

requirements for Securus while requiring [Petitioner] to adhere to all RFP requirements.” (Pet. ¶ 68.) Fourth, Petitioner alleges that Respondents failed to consider Securus’s ability to perform under the contract at the cost it promised, which Petitioner alleges is “unreasonably low.” (Pet. ¶¶ 70-73.) Finally, Petitioner alleges that Respondents’ scoring of Petitioner’s bid is arbitrary and capricious and unsupported by substantial evidence. (Pet. ¶¶ 74-78.)

Standard of Review

In deciding whether to enter a preliminary injunction, the court must evaluate two interrelated factors: (1) the likelihood that the applicant will prevail on the merits at trial, and (2) the interim harm that the applicant will likely suffer if preliminary relief is not granted, as compared to the likely harm that the opposing party will suffer if the preliminary injunction issues. (See, e.g., Langford v. Superior Court (Gates) (1987) 43 Cal.3d 21, 28.) One of these two factors may be accorded greater weight than the other depending on the applicant's showing. (See Common Cause v. Bd. of Supervisors (1989) 49 Cal.3d 432, 447.)

Discussion

Under Section 6611, the state may engage in a negotiation process for certain types of contracts. (Pub. Contract Code, § 6611.) Where this negotiation process is used, an unsuccessful bidder may challenge contract award by filing a petition for writ of mandate in this Court pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 1085. (Pub. Contract Code, § 6611, subd. (d).) The instant Petition is such a challenge.

Petitioner contends that a preliminary injunction should be entered staying the effect of the contract award to Securus during the pendency of this action because it is likely to prevail on the merits of its claims and the balance of harms favors imposition of the requested injunction.

Respondents and Securus each separately oppose the motion.

Scope of the record and evidentiary issues

The parties appear to dispute the scope of the Court’s review in considering a challenge to a public contract award. Respondents and Securus object to several pieces of evidence offered by Petitioner on the grounds that they were not before Respondents during the contract award proceedings and are therefore not properly part of the record before the Court here.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25WM000052: GLOBAL TEL*LINK CORPORATION vs CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, et al. 05/12/2025 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Injunction in Department 4

On a challenge to a public contract award under Code of Civil Procedure section 1085, the court’s review is limited “to an examination of the proceedings before the agency to determine whether its findings and actions are supported by substantial evidence.” MCM Const., Inc. v. City & Cnty. of San Francisco (1998) 66 Cal.App.4th 359, 368; see also Cypress Security, LLC v. City and County of San Francisco (2010) 184 Cal.App.4th 1003, 1010, accord.) Further, in considering such a challenge, the court “may not reweigh the evidence and must view it in the light most favorable to [Repondents’] actions, indulging all reasonable inferences in support of those actions” (Ghilotti Construction Co. v.

City of Richmond (1996) 45 Cal.App.4th 897, 903). This rule precludes the Court from considering evidence that the awarding agency was not afforded the opportunity to review during the contracting process.

Petitioner argues that the extra-record evidence, specifically, the Bloomberg news article regarding financial issues at Securus’s parent company (Pet. Exh. C) and the Securus press release regarding the EVOTAB pilot project (Pet. Exh. L) were publicly available to Respondents during the bidding process and that Respondents erred in not considering these issues as part of the decision to award the contract to Securus. Petitioner contends that these items are not inadmissible hearsay because they are either not offered for the truth of the matter but to establish the public information available to Respondent or constitute admissions by Securus.

Petitioner offers no authority that would expand the record of “proceedings before the agency” on a public contract award to include all information that is publicly available. (MCM Const., Inc. v. City & Ctny of San Francisco, supra, 66 Cal.App.4th at p. 368.) Rather, extra-record evidence is not permitted in a traditional mandate action except in very limited circumstances. (Western States Petroleum Assn. v. Superior Court (1995) 9 Cal.4th 559, 578 [“Extra-record evidence is admissible under this exception only in those rare instances in which (1) the evidence in questions existed before the agency made its decision, and (2) it was not possible in the exercise of reasonable diligence to present this evidence to the agency before the decision was made so that it could be considered and included in the administrative record”].)

Further, “extra-record evidence can never be admitted merely to contradict the evidence the administrative agency relied on in making a quasi-legislative decision or to raise a question regarding the wisdom of that decision.” (Ibid.)

Accordingly, the objections of Respondents and Securus to the extra-record evidence regarding Securus’s financial status and the EVOTAB pilot project (Respondents’ objections 1-4; Securus’s objections 1, 7-8) are sustained. Petitioner’s objections to portions of the Mathew Declaration are sustained for the same reason. (Petitioner’s objections to Mathew Declaration 1-3.) Securus’s objections to allegations in the Petition are overruled, as these are not evidence. Respondents’ remaining objections

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25WM000052: GLOBAL TEL*LINK CORPORATION vs CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, et al. 05/12/2025 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Injunction in Department 4

to the RFP scoring document on the grounds that Petitioner has not offered the complete document are overruled, as these objections go the weight of the evidence as opposed to its admissibility.

Petitioner’s objections to portions of the Jones and Snow declarations are overruled.

Likelihood of prevailing on the merits

1. Responsible Bidder

Petitioner first contends it is likely to prevail on the merits of its claims because Securus failed to meet the mandatory Letter of Bondability and financial responsibility requirements, and is therefore not a “responsible bidder” for purposes of the RFP. (TRO Opening Mem. 9:3-5.) Petitioner argues that the RFP requires bidders to submit a Letter of Bondability with its Final Proposal that meets the following requirements:

The Letter of Bondability shall be from a California admitted surety insurer which states the surety unconditionally offers to guarantee to the extent of $25,000,000 the bidder’s performance in all respects of the terms and conditions and provisions of the agreement, and that within 21 calendar days of contract award, the surety will execute the Performance Bond requirement. The Letter of Bondability shall be addressed to the Deputy Director of CDT OSTP and valid for a minimum of twelve (12) months from the date of issuance.

(Pet. Exh. A [RFP] § 3.18.)

Petitioner asserts that Securus’s Letter of Bondability does not meet these requirements because it is not unconditional. (TRO Opening Mem. 10:3-10.) Instead, the letter submitted by Securus dated October 23, 2024, indicates that the surety insurer is “considering” providing surety coverage: “We are pleased to inform you that Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company (‘Nationwide’) is considering surety capacity for [Securus], and we are providing this letter at their request. They have advised us that they are considering Communications and Technology Solution (IC+) with an estimated contract price of $25,000,000. We are considering providing the required Performance and Payment Bonds.” (Pet. Exh. H. [Securus Oct. 23, 2024 Exhibit 10: Letter of Bondability].)

Petitioner also argues that Respondents deviated from the RFP’s stated procedures by allowing Securus to submit a revised Letter of Bondability, which Petitioner contends still did not satisfy the requirement that it be unconditional. (Pet. Exh. E Securus Nov.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25WM000052: GLOBAL TEL*LINK CORPORATION vs CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, et al. 05/12/2025 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Injunction in Department 4

27, 2024 Exhibit 10: Letter of Bondability].) The November 27, 2024, Letter of Bondability states: “Nationwide agrees to provide a performance bond in the amount of $25 million within 21 days of the contract award to the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation related to RFP C5611826 using the annual renewable bond form accepted in RFP C5611826 Question and Answer (Q&A) Set # 2, subject to agreed upon underwriting conditions being met.” (Ibid.) Petitioner contends that although the second letter purportedly agrees to provide the performance bond, it still contains the same conditional language that the surety “is considering surety capacity” and is “currently considering providing the required Performance and Payment Bonds.” (Ibid.)

Further, Petitioner argues the caveat that the bond will be issued “subject to agreed upon underwriting conditions being met” renders the letter conditional.[1]

Respondents and Securus disagree that Securus’s Letter of Bondability failed to satisfy the requirements of the RFP. First, Respondents note that Petitioner’s initial Letter of Bondability was also deemed insufficient and, like Securus, Petitioner was permitted to submit a revised Letter of Bondability. (Declaration of Amy Snow [Snow Decl.], ¶¶ 9-10; Exh. A.) Second, Respondents contend that they determined that both letters were compliant with the RFP because “they included the primary criteria required in section 3.18 of the RFP: the surety’s guarantee of a bond of $25,000,000 to be executed within 21 days of contract award, and a Letter of Bondability valid for 12 months from the date of issuance.” (Snow Decl, ¶ 12.)

Securus further argues that the language regarding “agreed upon underwriting conditioners,” which Petitioner argues renders the letter conditional, is in fact a reference to a clarification provided by Respondents in a separate “Q&A” document. (Securus Opp. 13:12-23.) Securus presents evidence that during the bidding process, a bidder asked Respondents whether it would be acceptable to provide an annual renewable performance bond, as “[i]t is unlikely that a surety company will offer ‘unconditional’ agreement to a six-year bond ” (Declaration of Gabriel Colwell [Colwell Decl.]

Exh. 7, p. 15.) Respondents answered: “Annual renewals are acceptable provided the performance bond is in effect for the 6 year base term and any extension of the contract.” (Ibid.) Securus contends that the language in its Letter of Bondability stating it is “subject to agreed upon underwriting conditions” is a reference to the process for annual renewal, meaning that the contractor must fulfill the requirements for annual renewal, which Respondents deemed acceptable for purposes of the RFP. (Securus Opp. 13:24-14:5.)

Securus notes that Petitioner’s Letter of Bondability also indicates that the performance bond will be issued on an annually renewing basis, which was “accepted in RFP C5611826 Question and Answer (Q&A) Set # 2.” (Pet. Exh. F.) Finally, Securus presents evidence that it has since obtained and submitted the $25 million performance bond, consistent with its Letter of Bondability. (Declaration of Alex Dougherty [Dougherty Decl.] ¶ 7.)

Petitioner next argues that Securus failed to submit financial information requested by

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25WM000052: GLOBAL TEL*LINK CORPORATION vs CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, et al. 05/12/2025 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Injunction in Department 4

Respondents during the negotiation process. Petitioner asserts that on January 31, 2025, Respondents requested a draft copy of its 2024 financial statement, which “Securus stated that it could not provide[.]” (TRO Opening Mem. 11:6.) Petitioner also argues that on February 7, 2025, Respondents asked Securus to provide “the estimated cost of IC+ implementation and information or documentation confirming that Securus has the financial capacity to financially satisfy upfront implementation costs.” (TRO Opening Mem. 11:10-13.)

Petitioner contends that Securus estimated the implementation costs to be $53,979,3030, but argues, without citation to evidence, that Securus “was unable to demonstrate that it had the financial stability to absorb the implementation costs.” (TRO Opening Mem. 11:13-14.) Last, Petitioner argues that “public information demonstrates that Securus is not a responsible bidder in any event due to its financial troubles and impending bankruptcy.” (TRO Opening Mem. 12:1-3.) Petitioner cites a financial news article purportedly discussing Securus’s parent company, as to which the Court sustained Respondents’ and Securus’s evidentiary objection. (Pet.

Exh. C.)

Respondents and Securus dispute Petitioner’s characterization of these facts. Respondents present evidence that Securus responded to the request for its 2024 financial statement by “stating that it did not have a complete draft of the 2024 financial statement at the time of the request” and that “Securus did provide its most recent financial and annual statements[.].” (Snow Decl. ¶ 13; see also Jones Decl. ¶ 11.) Securus argues that its response was reasonable, as it could not be expected to provide nonexistent documents, and it also offered to have its Chief Financial Officer meet with Respondents. (Securus Opp. 4-9; Pet.

Exh. J.) Securus and Respondents contend that the evidence indicates Securus responded to each request for information during the bidding and negotiation process and that the information was deemed satisfactory by Respondents. (Pet. Exh. I, J, K; Snow Decl. ¶ 13; Jones Decl. ¶ 11.) Respondents present further evidence that in the past year CDCR has entered into another significant contract with Securus, in the course of which “CDT did not discover any information that would lead it to questions Securus’s ability to perform this contract or its status as a responsible bidder.” (Snow Decl., ¶¶ 14-15.)

As for the purported poor financial condition of Securus’s parent company, Securus contends that Respondents “knew in general there had been reports of a potential Aventiv bankruptcy” and “made reasonable inquiries on that topic.” (Securus Opp. 16:6-7; Declaration of Ligit Mathew [Mathew Decl.] Exh. 6 [Letter from Aventiv officers to Amy Snow, Jan. 21, 2025].) In addition to their objection to the news article as outside the scope of the record, which the Court sustained, Respondents argue that a news article indicating that Securus’s parent company was in debt and had encountered difficulties in conducting a sale does not require Respondents to conclude that Securus is not financially responsible. (Resp.

Opp. 11:14-16.) Further, Respondents contend that this information, even if true, does not establish that Securus would be unable to perform

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25WM000052: GLOBAL TEL*LINK CORPORATION vs CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, et al. 05/12/2025 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Injunction in Department 4

the contract or explain “why the financial difficulties of a parent or holding company would not make Securus a responsible bidder.” (Resp. Opp. 11:17-19.)

A “responsible bidder” is “a bidder who has demonstrated the attribute of trustworthiness, as well as quality, fitness, capacity, and experience to satisfactorily perform the public works contract.” (Pub. Contracts Code, § 1103.) In general, public agencies have the discretion to determine whether a bidder is “responsible.” (D.H. Williams Construction, Inc. v. Clovis Unified School Dist. (2007) 146 Cal.App.4th 757, 765.) As noted above, the court’s review of a public contract award is limited “to an examination of the proceedings before the agency to determine whether its findings and actions are supported by substantial evidence” (MCM Const., Inc. v.

City & Cnty. of San Francisco, supra, 66 Cal. App. 4th at p. 368), and the court considers the evidence in the record in the light most supportive of the agency’s actions. (Ghilotti Construction Co. v. City of Richmond, supra, 45 Cal.App.4th at p. 903.)

Petitioner’s argument that Securus is not a responsible bidder because it does not have the financial capacity to carry out the contract invites the Court to reweigh the evidence and find that Respondents should have come to a different conclusion regarding Securus’s ability to perform the requirements of the contract based on the information available. As noted above, the Court may not reweigh the evidence and must draw all reasonable inferences therefrom in favor of Respondents’ decision. The evidence indicates Securus responded to Respondents’ requests for financial information, including inquiries about the financial state of its parent company, and that Respondents found the information provided to be satisfactory.

Petitioner presents no evidence that Securus’s submissions were false, erroneous, or deemed insufficient by Respondents, or that they failed to comply with the requirements of the RFP.

As for Petitioner’s argument that Securus’s Letter of Bondability was noncompliant, the present record contains substantial evidence supporting Respondents’ conclusion that Securus satisfied the bonding requirements. Both Petitioner and Securus were allowed to submit updated Letters of Bondability after Respondent found fault with both bidders’ initial letters, both submitted letters stating that the respective sureties would provide the required performance bond on an annually renewing basis. Further, both letters contain language indicating that the surety would “consider” the annual bond requests. (See Pet Exh.

E [Securus Letter – “We are currently considering providing the required Performance and Payment Bonds”]; Pet. Exh. F [Petitioner Letter – “We will consider typical single bond requests in the amount of $25 million and with an aggregate backlog totaling $50 million”].) Further, Securus has provided the required bond. Drawing all inferences in favor of Respondents’ decision, as the Court must do, the evidence does not support a finding at this stage of the case that Petitioner is likely to prevail on the merits on its contention that Securus is not a responsible bidder.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25WM000052: GLOBAL TEL*LINK CORPORATION vs CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, et al. 05/12/2025 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Injunction in Department 4

2. Productive Use

Petitioner next contends that it is likely to prevail on its challenge to the contract award because Securus’s bid did not comply with the RFP’s “Productive Use Requirements.” (See Pet. Exh. A, [RFP] § 3.20 [“The productive use requirements protect the State from being an experimentalist for new equipment and software having no record of proven consistent performance. The State will only accept proven technology requirements”].)

The RFP requires certain equipment and software proposed for use to comply with the following requirements: 1. Must have been installed and in productive use, in substantially the conformation bid; 2. For a paying customer external to the Bidder’s organization; and 3. For at least the number of months shown in Table 3-3 below and prior to the Final Proposal submission.

(Id. at § 3.20.1.)

The RFP also permits the State to request a “Productive Use Customer List which indicates customers who presently have the bidder’s proposed hardware and/or software installed an operating.” (Id. at § 3.20.2.)

Petitioner presents evidence, in the form of a Securus press release, that contemporaneous with the submission of its bid in response to the RFP, Securus announced it was initiating a pilot program for the EVOTAB, which Securus intended to use under the contract contemplated in the RFP. (Pet. Exh. L.) Petitioner contends that this evidence establishes that the EVOTAB could not “have been in productive use in the market for four months at the time of the final proposal submission.” (TRO Opening Mem. 14:6-8.)

In opposition, Respondents and Securus object to the extra-record evidence about the purported pilot program, which objections the Court sustained. Respondents also contend that the RFP required each bidder to “self-certify” that it satisfied the productive use requirements, which both Securus and Petition did. (Snow Decl. ¶ 16; Pet. Exh. A [RFP] at p. 93 [Bidder Response to Administrative Requirements form].) Respondents contend that both bidders’ “yes” response to the product use requirement section of the response form was sufficient to satisfy the RFP. Respondents present evidence that the procurement officer did not “discover any information during the bidding process which indicated that the EVOTAB tablet offered by Securus was new and untested technology.” (Snow Decl. ¶ 16.)

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25WM000052: GLOBAL TEL*LINK CORPORATION vs CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, et al. 05/12/2025 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Injunction in Department 4

Securus also contends that it satisfied the RFP by complying with the self-certification requirement in Section 3.3, which required a bidder to “indicate its willingness and ability to satisfy these requirements.” (Pet. Exh. A [RFP] § 3.3; see also Mathew Decl., Exh. 1 [Securus Response to Administrative Requirements Form].) Securus argues that its response complied with the RFP, and had Respondents requested additional information to confirm that its technology satisfied the productive use requirements, it would have provided that information. (Securus Opp. 17:16-18.)

The Court sustained the parties’ objections to evidence that does not appear to have been before Respondents during the contract award process. As Petitioner’s argument that Securus failed to satisfy the Productive Use requirement is based entirely on extrarecord material, Petitioner has not met its burden to present evidence in support of this claim, which it must do in order to prevail on a motion for preliminary injunction. Rather, the evidence before the Court indicates that both bidders were required to comply with the same condition of the RFP – to self-certify that they met the productive use requirements.

Respondents were permitted, but not required, to request a Productive Use Customer list, but the record does not indicate any such list was requested of either bidder. Petitioner cites no authority, and the Court is aware of none, obliging a public entity to base a contract award decision on information in external sources not submitted as part of the RFP process.

Moreover, as discussed throughout, the evidence does not indicate that Petitioner was treated unfairly in the bid submission process. Both bidders were held to the same standard and allowed the same flexibility both in application of the Letter of Bondability requirement and the Productive Use requirement.

3. Scoring of the RFP submissions

Petitioner first argues that Respondents failed to consider Securus’s ability to perform the contract at what Petitioner claims are “the unreasonably law prices it proposed.” (TRO Opening Mem. 16:27-17:1.) Petitioner contends that allocated over 10 years, Securus’s bid proposed a cost of performance “which is $6 million and 25% less than the current incumbent contract despite the RFP requiring additional technological investments, developments and offerings.” (TRO Opening Mem. 16:16-17.)

Petitioner’s skepticism about the feasibility of Securus’s offer, simply because it is significantly lower than Petitioner’s, is not a basis for overturning the contract award. Petitioner presents no evidence that the information presented to Respondents in support of both bidders’ cost proposals was erroneous, deficient, or incomplete. In short, there is no evidence that Respondents “failed to consider” Petitioner’s ability to perform the contract at the cost proposed. Further, as Securus notes, Petitioner offers

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25WM000052: GLOBAL TEL*LINK CORPORATION vs CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, et al. 05/12/2025 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Injunction in Department 4

no explanation for why Securus would submit a cost proposal lower than its actual costs of performance. Nor does Petitioner explain why Respondents should favor a bid whose costs are significantly higher to the taxpayers.

Petitioner next contends that Respondents’ scoring of Petitioner’s bid was “unreasonably low, despite [Petitioner’s] thorough explanations in both its initial proposal and in response to clarification.” (TRO Opening Mem. 17:6-7.) Petitioner argues that Respondents did not sufficiently explain their score of Petitioner’s bid in certain areas. (TRO Opening Mem. 17:13-18.) For example, Petitioner contends that for Exhibit 18.3, qualifications for implementation manager, Petitioner provided all information requested but “was only awarded 5 out of the possible 15 points” without explanation. (TRO Opening Mem. 17:15-17, citing Exhibit S to the Petition, the summary score sheet.)

However, the Petition also attaches Exhibit Q, a detailed scoring breakdown, including for the implementation manager qualifications in Exhibit 18.3. This document indicates Respondents’ basis for assigning points for only one of the three qualifying projects submitted by Petitioner, for a total of 5 out of 15 points. (Pet. Exh. Q at PDF pp. 861-863.) Thus, the Court cannot agree that Respondent assigned the score “without any evidentiary support.” (TRO Opening Mem. 17:17-18.)

Petitioner’s remaining argument, that Respondents’ scoring sheet omitted entire categories of submissions, appears to be resolved by Respondents’ explanation that they inadvertently provided Petitioner with an incomplete document in response to Petitioner’s Public Records Act request. (Resp. Opp. 12:9-13.) Respondents purport to have lodged the complete document with the Court and provided it to Petitioner.

In sum, Petitioner has not demonstrated a likelihood of prevailing on the merits and thus the instant motion may be denied on this basis alone. However, the Court will consider the second prong in the preliminary injunction analysis, the balance of harms.

Balance of Harms

Petitioner argues that the balance of harms favors staying operation of the contract award until the conclusion of this action. Petitioner presents evidence that it is currently providing services to incarcerated people. Petitioner contends that if the contract is not enjoined, Securus will begin transitioning to its products and services. If Petitioner ultimately prevails in the action, it contends, and “the transition process begins before the unlawful contract award is set aside and the contract is ultimately awarded to [Petitioner], the disruption that will result from reversing course, or even pausing midstream, will cause [Petitioner], [Respondents], and the incarcerated people and their loved ones irreparable injury.” (TRO Opening Mem. 19:16-18.)

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25WM000052: GLOBAL TEL*LINK CORPORATION vs CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, et al. 05/12/2025 Hearing on Motion for Preliminary Injunction in Department 4

As Securus argues, however, even if Petitioner succeeds in obtaining an order setting aside the contract, such an order would not automatically award the contract to Petitioner. Rather, Respondents would have to reinitiate the public contracting process. (See Konica Business Machines U.S.A. Inc. v. Regents of University of California (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 449, 458.) Thus, Securus contends, maintaining continuation of the services Petitioner is currently providing on the assumption that Petitioner will receive the contract award at the conclusion of the case is not a basis for imposing a preliminary injunction.

Respondents also argue that enjoining the contract will interfere with its transition from the services currently provided by Petitioner to Securus. (Jones Decl. ¶ 12.) Respondents’ evidence indicates that this transition will include an extension of Petitioner’s current contract, which expires on June 14, 2025: “[A]s a practical matter, at least a six-month extension is imminent to avoid the interruption of existing communication services already provided to incarcerated individuals. Thus, [Petitioner] will still be providing services and receiving compensation for these services while the Court adjudicates the validity of [Petitioner’s] petition.” (Jones Decl. ¶ 16.) Respondents contend that no injunction is necessary because the existing transition plan already effectively maintains the status quo with regard to provision of technology services to incarcerated people.

Based on the evidence presented, the Court cannot conclude that the balance of harms favors imposition of the requested injunction.

Disposition

The motion for preliminary injunction is denied.

The minute order is effective immediately.

[1] On reply, Petitioner contends for the first time that Securus’s Letter of Bondability was

also insufficient because it was issued to Aventiv Technologies, LLC, not Securus. (Reply, 6:23-8:15.) The Court declines to consider the argument, as it was not raised in the opening papers.