All bid deadlines are 11:59pm Pacific Time the date of the bid deadline listed unless otherwise noted.

school Ferguson-Florissant Sch Dist
IFCB Posted : Dec 9, 2014
Bid Deadline : Friday, Jan 9, 2015

Questions Due By : Tuesday, Dec 30, 2014
Applicant Address : Florissant, MO 63033
IFCB ID : 226460001267270

IFCB Requirements :

·        All Questions and Bids must be submitted using the on-line IFCB system. If for some reason the system is down before the respective deadline, please email your bid to info@crwconsulting.com or fax it to 918.445.0049. Bids or questions submitted in this fashion will be disqualified if the on-line system is active at the time of submission.

 

·        Bidder must agree to participate in USF Program (AKA “E-rate”) for the corresponding funding year.

 

·        Please include the correct Service Provider Identification Number (SPIN) on your bid.

 

·        By submitting a bid, bidder certifies that the bidder does have a valid (non-red light status) SPIN for the E-rate program at the time of submission. Should the Applicant discover that the bidder is on red light status, or if the FCC classifies the bidder as on red-light status before work is performed and invoices are paid, the contract will be null and void and the applicant will have no payment obligations to the bidder.

 

·        Bidder is expected to provide the lowest corresponding price per E-rate rules.  See http://www.usac.org/sl/service-providers/step02/lowest-corresponding-price.aspx for details.

 

·        Contracts must not prohibit SPIN changes.

 

·        Bidder must agree to provide the Applicant the choice of discount methods (SPI or BEAR).

 

·        Bidder will be automatically disqualified if the District determines that the bidding company has offered any employee of the District any individual gift of more than $20 or gifts totaling more than $50 within a 12 month period.

 

·        All contracts awarded will be contingent upon E-rate funding and final board approval.  The applicant may choose to do all or part of the project upon funding notification.

 

·        All contracts awarded under this IFCB bidding process may be voluntarily renewed by the applicant, upon written notice to the provider, for five consecutive one year terms.

 

·        CATEGORY 2 DISQUALIFICATION FACTOR: Vendors must use the Year 18 Required IC AND BMIC TemplateS when submitting a bid. Vendors that submit bids that do not use thEsE templateS will have their bids disqualified. 

 

·        If bidding Category 2: E-rate rules require Category Two budgets to be calculated by each individual school. In order to accurately track those budgets, please break up your bid by each school.


Services and Equipment Requested :

UPDATE 1/6/15: THE BID DEADLINE HAS BEEN EXTENDED TO 1/9/15.

UPDATE: 12/11/14: THE ADDRESS FOR SITE #30 WAS LISTED INCORRECTLY. WE HAVE REVISED THE WAN AND SWITCH RFP TO REFLECT THE CORRECT ADDRESS.

Cellular phone service – Approx. 160 lines. See attached Cellular RFP for additional information.

WAN Connections – Approx. 30 x 2 GB bandwidth. See attached WAN RFP for additional information.

 

Category 2: E-rate rules require Category Two budgets to be calculated by each individual school. In order to accurately track those budgets, please break up your bid by each school.

 

Project A – Wireless access points – Approx. 500. See attached AP RFP for additional information. This is for equipment only, no installation needed. This project includes hardware and maintenance of the hardware.

DISQUALIFICATION FACTOR: Because USAC now requires data-entry of every line item on a contract, vendors bidding on the Category Two Internal Connections request are REQUIRED to submit bids using the “Year 18 Required IC Template” and “Year 18 Required BMIC Template.”   Vendors that submit bids that do not use these templates will have their bids disqualified. Please be aware that this is a new requirement of CRW Consulting. Please see the instructions tab on the document for more detail.

Project B – Switches – See attached Switch RFP for additional information and quantities. This is for equipment only, no installation needed. This project includes hardware and maintenance of the hardware.

DISQUALIFICATION FACTOR: Because USAC now requires data-entry of every line item on a contract, vendors bidding on the Category Two Internal Connections request are REQUIRED to submit bids using the “Year 18 Required IC Template” and “Year 18 Required BMIC Template.”   Vendors that submit bids that do not use these templates will have their bids disqualified. Please be aware that this is a new requirement of CRW Consulting. Please see the instructions tab on the document for more detail.


There is an additional document associated with this IFCB. Please click the buttons to download the document.

CellularRFP.pdf
APRFP.pdf
Year18RequiredICTemplate81.xlsx
Year18RequiredBMICTemplate88.xlsx
WANRFPRevised.pdf
SwitchesRFPRevised.pdf

Questions Received with Applicant Answers   ( Ask Questions? )




On the WAN RFP, Site 29 Challenger (MSB) and Site 30 Annex (FM) both have the same address listed. Is this correct? If so, does this location require 2 unique 2 Gig Connections.

Answer:
 Site 30 address is incorrect.  It should be: 

655 January Avenue, Ferguson, MO 63135     

I am attaching replacements for the two RFPs affected.

On the wireless RFP it state like equivalents are acceptable for the devices but specifies Cisco Smartnet for technical support with no "like equivalent" provision. Cisco will not provide SmartNet on non-Cisco gear. Can a like equivalent be provided other than Cisco SmartNet?

Answer:
 Yes – if you are not bidding Cisco equipment we would like a maintenance plan that approximates the Cisco Smart Net services

The RFP is asking for Cisco and did not state or equivalent. Is this an expansion of a project or a new install? If a new install are they open to "Equivalent"?

Answer:
 The RFP does state that the district will accept bids for “functionally equivalent equipment” and we will accept bids for that type of equipment.

 

Please provide details on the District owned switching gear at each site listed in the WAN RFP. Manufacturer, model and available SFP ports with capacity? As an example; Walnut Grove Elementary; Cisco 2960 - (2) - 1.0 Gbps SFP ports available.

Answer:
 We have in place at our sites the following switch models, all of which should have one spare port for an SFP module (GLC-SX-MM 1 Gbe SFP): 

Cisco Catalyst 3560 and 3750 models = in place now. 

Also notable: Cisco Catalyst 3650 (what we are out on bid for on the switches RFP) and we have a few of the 3850 (PoE, we have five of these in stock). 

Basically Catalyst 3000 series switches with one SFP port available.

Does the District require network monitoring of the WAN connections?

Answer:
 We have two existing wireless LAN controllers, and we monitor those as well as the network through Cisco appliances and SolarWinds.

We do not need additional monitoring.

Would you accept company refurbished or manufacturer recertified wireless access points for Project A?

Answer:
 We specified new on all our requests

Please provide the contact name and phone number to schedule walk-throughs for designated WAN locations.

Answer:
 The district declines to conduct site visits.

The ICFB mentions an attached switch RFP for Project B, but I do not see the attachment listed.

Answer:
 It's there - please let us know if you are having any technical difficulties. 

Hello, are we required to use the excel spreadsheet to provide the information regarding the cellular plans? or can we use our own excel spreadsheet to provide the price plans?

Answer:
 The spreadsheet is only for the C2 project. You do not have to use the template if you are bidding cellular services.

 

Hello, can we include an attachment of the quote in addition to the response? or would you prefer that we just include all the cellular plans we have available into the response itself?

Answer:
 As long as you are responding to the requested information it is fine if you include other pricing.

1. Would a Limited Lifetime warranty from our company be a satisfactory alternative to the standard Cisco Limited Lifetime warranty received on new product from Authorized channel partner? We are not an Authorized Cisco partner – our company sells a lot of refurbished IT hardware, so we need to attach our own Zero Dollar Cost of Ownership Lifetime warranty with a higher Service Life Agreement to all our recertified/refurbished Cisco products. All units would still be eligible for Smartnet service, of course. Is this a satisfactory alternative to the OEM warranty?

Answer:
 We want new equipment with factory warranty.