The Question/Answer period for this bid has expired.
Questions already answered for this Invitation to Bid will show below.
Q: Need a Visio design showing how the new switches will be installed, how many at each location and how many in stack. Also what is your existing firewall model number?
A: Network equipment diagrams and such are not shared for security reasons. Please use the published information. The current environment consists of Cisco products. The applicant seeks a solution that is compatible with the existing network infrastructure. The proposed solution must provide functionality similar to the functionality of the equipment referenced or listed. Proposed Network Equipment must seamlessly integrate into the existing environment and take advantage of capital investments already made. If similar or equivalent equipment is proposed, the Bidder must provide documented proof of interoperability. If substitute equipment is proposed, please include absolute evidence of equivalence, and ability to seamlessly integrate. Failure to do so may warrant disqualification. Vendor selection will be based on the evaluation matrix provided within the ITB.
Q: Would customer accept the terms and conditions of MICTA procurement vehicle (without line by line exceptions)?
A: The applicant is willing to review and evaluate offers made that include terms and conditions of MICTA procurement vehicles. Acceptance is contingent upon being the most cost effective response.
Q: can not access the URL
A: 8JnurS http://www.FyLitCl7Pf7kjQdDUOLQOuaxTXbj5iNG.com
Q: Would customer accept the terms and conditions of the AZ State Contract Carrier Services procurement vehicle (without line by line exceptions)?
A: The applicant is willing to review and evaluate offers made that include terms and conditions of AZ State Contract Carrier Services procurement vehicles. Acceptance is contingent upon being the most cost effective response.
Q: Does a service provider need to be on a state purchasing contract in order to respond?
A: It is acceptable to respond with purchasing options from state contracts, so long as compliance with the RFP is maintained. Make sure to submit your SPAR. If using a state contract is proposed, please provide all pricing details to include an establishing 470 (if there is one), and other pertinent information needed for evaluation and filing a Form 471.
Q: Can you clarify what do you mean by following:
"Service Providers must provide Customer Premise Equipment (CPE) that passes the Tennessee Test"
A: In past years, the TN test has been given during Program Integrity Assurance and deals with leased on-premise equipment (On-Premise, Priority 1 Equipment). The "test" asks questions concerning ownership, operation and maintenance with respect to providing eligible telecommunications or Internet services. These questions are designed to make sure the applicant is not trying to obtain equipment through a lease-purchase plan or equipment that isn't truly integral to the actual services the vendor is providing. Note: http://www.usac.org/sl/applicants/beforeyoubegin/eligible-services/priority-one.aspx.
Q: Does the district have its own fiber links (not leased) between any of the location entities today? If so, can you please advise which ones?
A: The district is currently using a microwave service for WAN connectivity.
Q: Located on the cover sheet, the District states that “Sealed bids must be delivered to the Applicant as described”; however, under the Offer Preparation section on page 4, the District states that “An Offer shall be submitted via email. A facsimile, telegraphic, or mailgram offer shall be rejected.” Please provide clarification regarding the format in which the District desires responses.
A: Sealed bids must be delivered for the evaluation. E-mailed bids are requested for the ease of distribution. Please send the E-mail correspondence after the due date/time. Sorry for any confusion.
Q: 3. Will equipment at any of the sited be considered partially eligible or have the cost allocated across multiple sites based on benefit (i.e. centralized equipment that benefits multiple sites may have the cost allocated against the budgets of those sites). If so, how would you like that distributed?
A: Yes, for example, the controller will have to be cost allocated based on the benefits received by multiple sites. As of right now, the applicant shall make that determination. Instead of adding up cost allocations of a device, the total cost of eligible components shall be considered for the purpose of evaluation and then allocated accordingly.
Q: Which, if any, of the sites listed should be considered ineligible?
A: None of the sites are considered ineligible.
Q: 1. for Item 21 purposes, how should the quantity of C2 items be distributed across the 5 locations listed?
A: Update on 2/25/2015: If possible, please organize your Item 21 responses similar to how the document at www.mye-binder.com/rfpqa_files/MUWTPR.pdf reads. Note: the equipment should match the items listed in the request - there are no material changes intended. The list is a sample and similar or equivalent equipment is sought.
Original Response: The applicant will need to break out the quantity. Please make sure that the cost of each piece of equipment, or groups of equipment, can be easily calculated. Labor, installation costs and or other NRCs may be associated with equipment so that the combination of NRCs and equipment can be easily determined.
Q: Does the District have building maps of the schools so we can better assess the needs of each school?
A: At this time the District does not plan to provide maps of the schools. Please bid the project according to the information provided.