BROADBAND ADVISORY SERVICES RFP VENDOR Q&A DT RFP #

Transcription

1 Q: Do the advisory services sought in the RFP include legal services? A: No. The scope of work does not include legal services in connection with the Broadband for San Francisco Project Q: Has funding been secured for this project? If so, how much does the state anticipate spending? A: Yes, funding has been secured for this new project. The amount is to be determined by the outcome of this RFP As of 8/30/2016, an update to DT s original answer in an attempt to provide additional clarification. A: Funding has been secured for the three phases of the project identified in the RFP: (i) assisting the City to develop a business case for the project; (ii) assisting the City to develop and review the request for qualifications and proposals; and (iii) assisting the City to negotiate and execute contracts to implement the project. The City has not secured funding to deploy the project. Part of phase I of the project identified in the RFP is to assist the City in analyzing the costs to deploy broadband throughout the City and to identify possible funding sources. Q: Is this a new initiative or is there an incumbent contract for the broadband or broadband advisory services? A: Yes this is a new initiative for the City. There is no incumbent contract for the broadband advisory services Q: All three phases of the scope of work, especially phases 2 and 3, call for services suitable or required to be performed in part by legal counsel. Our experience with the City Attorney s Office, however, is that they reserve exclusive control over retention of outside legal counsel on city and county matters. Is it permissible for a proposer team responding to the RFP to include a law firm, whether as a co-participant or subcontractor? A: The RFP is intended to secure financial, economic and technical advisory services. The scope of the RFP does not include legal services; no legal services will be provided to the City under this RFP. A proposer responding to the RFP may include in its proposal whatever firms it chooses. Q: If it is not permissible, does DT anticipate a separate procurement for outside legal/transactional counsel to DT for the Broadband for San Francisco Project? A: DT will not issue any procurement for legal services. The City Attorney will determine what legal services if any are needed from outside firms. Q: If it is permissible for a proposer team to include a law firm, and if there will also be a separate procurement for outside legal/transactional work on the Broadband for San Francisco Project, would the participation of a law firm as part of the winning proposer on the Advisory Services Project preclude that firm from competing on the later, separate procurement for outside legal/transactional counsel to DT for the Broadband for San Francisco Project? 1

2 A: The answer would depend on specific facts that are not known now. It is possible that such a firm could be precluded from winning or bidding in a subsequent procurement for legal services. Q: We note that the scope of work appears to conclude with Phase 3 (Negotiation and execution of agreements and contracts). Would follow-on oversight of the vendor during the construction phase be considered within the scope of this project or would be considered an added value? A: No. Q: Section 4.7 and 4.8 of the Sample Terms and Conditions respectively include provisions for liquidated damages and performance bonding. Please clarify what daily amount of liquidated damages and performance bonding level the City typically requires for this type of consultancy assignment. Based on our experience in working on this type of projects, we typically do not see provisions for liquidated damages and performance bonding in consultancy assignments. Provisions for liquidated damages and performance bonding are in our view more commonly found in construction contracts. A: DT Will not require liquidated damages (Section 4.7) or performance bonding. (Section 4.8). Q: Does DT have a budget allocated or estimated for the scope of services requested in the RFP? If so, can it be disclosed? A: Funding has been secured for the three phases of the project identified in the RFP: (i) assisting the City to develop a business case for the project; (ii) assisting the City to develop and review the request for qualifications and proposals; and (iii) assisting the City to negotiate and execute contracts to implement the project. Q: Are firms under this advisory solicitation as a sub-consultants conflicted from working on a Master Developer team in the future RFQ/RFP stages? A: Yes, the sub-consultants that assist in drafting the RFQ and RFP cannot also respond to the RFQ and RFP. Q: Page 7, C. Phase 3. Can you clarify if the following statement is correct and related to Phase 3 work, Phase II could include a financial analysis.? In addition, what financial analysis does DT consider would be necessary or possible at this stage of the work? Please elaborate for fee estimation purposes. A: This is an error in the RFP and was meant to read value for money analysis. Q: Page 11, A. 5: The term Program Manager is capitalized but not defined in the RFP document. Can you define Program Manager given it s a pass/fail minimum qualification, please? Please clarify this is not a project manager requirement. A: The Program Manager refers to the proposer s lead assigned staff. 2

3 Q: Should we include in our team regulatory experts or will the advisory team have access to CPUC staff or others? A: The team should include the necessary expertise to perform the scope of work, including technical and financial impact of state regulation. The City Attorney will advise the City on legal issues related to state regulation. The City does not have access to California Public Utilities Commission staff. Q: We note the Phase 2 scope of work include the preparation of RFQ and RFP documents. In our experience the drafting is typically is led by a legal advisor (with technical/finance consultants providing key inputs). Can you please confirm the City would be separately retaining outside counsel or relying on the City Attorney s office to lead those efforts? A: The RFQ and RFP will be issued by the City with appropriate review and assistance by the City Attorney. The City may ask the Advisory Services consultant to prepare a draft, especially with respect to the scope of work. Q: Several studies and analyses have been previously undertaken by the City. Given the target 4- month duration for Phase 1, please confirm the extent to which the consultant team will be able to rely on cost, market penetration and revenue data available from the City. A: The Advisory Services consultants will be able to make use of cost, market penetration and revenue data available from the City. Q: Would the City be open to separately selecting a technical feasibility consultant (focused on design, cost and revenue aspects) and a financial consultant? A: The RFP is seeking a single proposal for both technical and financial feasibility. Q: Can you please clarify whether the comparison of the three options is expected to include a detailed quantitative analysis of each option, including anticipated construction costs, financing costs, long-term O&M, risk adjustments and public funding requirements? We note there is an optional Value for Money Study fee quote line in Appendix E, and therefore are under the impression that this level of quantitative analysis is not currently contemplated in Phase 1. A: The comparison of the three options should include a detailed quantitative analysis of the public and public-private options. The private option represents the non-action under which the industry would evolve along its projected trajectory without additional public investment or risk. A value of money study is not required for Phase 1, a value for money analysis may be required for Phase 3 at the City s discretion. The difference between the financial analysis in Phase 1 and the option value for money analysis in Phase 3 is the treatment of risk. Phase 1 requires two separate analyses of the Broadband for San Francisco Project (1) financial analysis of the cost and feasibility and (2) a risk matrix. In Phase 1, the Advisor will be expected to identify and recommend an appropriate allocation of risk. The optional Phase 3 value for money analysis would quantify the risks identified in the Phase 1 risk matrix and take this, as well as the financial feasibility analysis from Phase 3 into a comprehensive value for money analysis. 3

4 Q: Section 7 of the RFP (Fee Proposal) does not mention a one-time cost for the optional Value for Money Study. Please confirm if this one-time cost in E.3 is supposed to be incremental to the Phase 1 fee in E.1 of Appendix E. Further, given that this is optional, please clarify whether the description of our approach to this Value for Money study would be included in the 12 page limit of the Project Approach section. A: The one time cost in E.3 is intended to be a possible incremental addition to the Phase 1 fee that the City may elect at its discretion in Phase 3. This was inadvertently omitted from Section III.B.7 of the RFP. We do not anticipate requiring a Value for Money analysis, but wanted to keep the option open under this contract. Q: Assuming the base scope does not include a full Value for Money analysis, can you confirm the scope of the quantitative analysis that is required relative to the financial analysis that was performed in the BLA report? Further, to what extent is the vendor expected to leverage the BLA Report specifically, are you expecting the vendor to develop new, independent cost, revenue and funding requirement estimates? A: The vendor is expected to produce reliable financial analysis of the alternatives. After reviewing the information in the BLA Report they should recommend whether this analysis is sufficient, should be replaced or supplement as required based on that analysis. Q: Can you confirm that you are not anticipating external legal advisory services to be provided by the vendor team, and therefore the experience of team members offering legal services will be discounted for purposes of the evaluation? A: Yes. The vendor team will not be providing legal services. DT will evaluate responses to the RFP as set forth in Section IV of the RFP. Q: Further, can you confirm that City legal counsel will be responsible for drafting any project agreement or master developer agreement with input from the vendor? A: Yes. The City Attorney will work with responsible City agencies in preparing any project agreement, master developer agreement, or similar agreement to implement the project. Q: Are firms that assisted in developing the BLA report able to bid on this RFP or will this prior experience be treated as an unfair advantage? A: The firms that prepared reports or data that the BLA relied on may participate in this RFP. Q: Can you please clarify the intent of this task: Developing scope and schedule deliverables for the project team related to the procurement of services necessary to implement the Broadband for San Francisco Project, specifically the underlined portion? Is implement the project referring to implementing the procurement process for the transaction, or the actual implementation of the design/finance/construction of the project? A: This statement refers to procurement of services necessary for the actual implementation of the design, finance, and construction of the project. 4

5 Q: Please confirm that parties involved in the advisory services work will not be able to participate as a bidder for the project or be involved in the implementation of the project. A: Parties involved in the advisory service work will not be able to participate as a bidder for the project or in implementation of the work. Q: Can you clarify the scope of the effort required regarding the economic impact of the project? This analysis could be a substantial effort in itself depending on the scope and detail required. A: The analysis of economic impact is one of many elements of the Scope of Work for Phase 1. The estimate of the economic impact and job creation may rely on reasonable assumptions and preexisting analysis of other projects of a similar nature and scale. Q: Is the 1 GB/sec speed benchmark an absolute threshold for the totality of the Subscribers? Or is it an average for the City with some subscribers/facilities getting a lower connectivity speed still complying with the Equity Principle? A: The 1 GB/sec benchmark for the capacity available to each home and business. Q: Among the tasks of Phase 1 is Analyzing economic impact of the Project, especially direct employment. Could you expand on this? Is this direct hiring during construction/implementation? Or does it refer to a more intangible benefit that will result from residents, schools, libraries and commercial facilities obtaining high-speed internet access and an assessment of how that benefit will impact the labor market and the job creation? A: The analysis of economic impact is one of many elements of the Scope of Work for Phase 1. The estimate of the economic impact and job creation may rely on reasonable assumptions and pre-existing analysis of other projects of a similar nature and scale. The project should focus on immediate, tangible benefits, one of which could be job creation during construction/implementation of the project. Q: Does Phase 3 includes work leading up to and including Financial Close? If so, does this include providing financial advice to the City if the Project s financing has some recourse to the City? A: Yes, Phase 3 should proceed through financial close and should include financial advice to the City regarding all possible outcomes for the City. Q: Among the tasks of Phase 1 is Performing approval assessment to determine what local or state level entities...required approvals, does this entails a legal assessment of the City s applicable regulations, laws and procedures? A: No. The City Attorney will provide legal advice concerning any applicable state and City regulations, laws, and procedures. Q: Among the deliverables of Phase 1 is Analyzes public right of way (PROW) Processes, does this entails a legal assessment of the City s applicable regulations, laws and procedures? A: No. The City Attorney will provide legal advice concerning any applicable City regulations, laws, and procedures related to use of the public right-of-way. 5

6 Q: Among the deliverables of Phase 1 is An inventory of information:...including Relevant PROW management regulations and processes, does this entails a legal assessment of the City s applicable regulations, laws and procedures? A: No. The City Attorney will provide legal advice concerning any applicable City regulations, laws, and procedures related to use of the public right-of-way. Q: Concerning the task of determining the cost and feasibility of building out the network to streetlight poles, our understanding is that the majority of SF poles are owned by either SFPUC or PG&E. Are all streetlight poles (from all owners) considered viable options for the fiber network? A: All of the free-standing streetlight poles in San Francisco are owned by either PG&E or the City through the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission ( SFPUC ). The SFPUC s streetlight poles are not suitable for attaching aerial fiber cables. Some streetlights are installed on utility poles. Most of the utility poles in San Francisco are joint poles subject to the requirements of CPUC General Order 95 and the Northern California Joint Pole Association, which will in part determine whether particular poles are viable options. The reference to streetlight poles for Smart Cities applications in Section 2, A. is intended for the Advisor to consider the need to extend fiber to streetlight poles as an asset for mounting wireless radios. Q: Related to the above, are there any preliminary pole attachment agreements (PAAs) in place with energy utilities, telecommunication companies and/or other owners of streetlights and utility poles to which the fiber network can be attached? If no agreements are in place, have there been preliminary discussions on the likelihood of the Project obtaining the necessary agreements and right of way (ROW)? A: There are no preliminary pole attachment agreements in place for this Project. The City is authorized to use the joint utility poles in San Francisco. It is not clear at this time whether this authority would include the facilities needed for the Project. Q: Has there been any preliminary ROW studies conducted on potential network layouts (particularly for potential underground pathways) which can be leverage by the Advisor? A: No, there are no comprehensive studies of conduit (aka underground pathways ) that can be leveraged by the advisor. Q: Would the City serve as the liaison with the utilities, other government agencies, pole owners, and landowners (particularly public lands) on matters related to required agreements, ROW and permits and/or help the Advisor gather information as required? A: Yes. The City will serve as a liaison with utilities, other government agencies, pole owners and public landowners for the purposes of obtaining information and entering into any necessary agreements. Q: How many of the delivery models considered in the BLA Report will be carried forward for the Business Case assessment? A: The Business Case assessment should consider the public, private and public-private options. The Business Case should consider the so-called Utility Model, the Demand Driven model and hybrid 6

7 approaches. BROADBAND ADVISORY SERVICES RFP VENDOR Q&A Q: Related to the above, to what extend will the Advisor need to explore the Private Model? Is this definitely a model that will be carried forward and considered in detail for the Business Case assessment? A: The Private Model represents the no-action alternative. The Private alternative is necessary to compare the benefits and risks of the Public and Public-Private models. Q: Also related to the above, will there be an opportunity to conduct a high level quantitative/qualitative assessment on a variety of options/sub-options to select a small number of options for the Business Case assessment? If yes, how many should we assume will be reviewed in detail? A: Yes, the Business Case should conduct a high level assessments of a variety of options. The number of options should be part of the proposal. Q: What sources of information can SF provide (residential data, asset inventory, contact list, etc.) to aid the analysis of the build and operating cost of an FTTH network in SF? A: The City has a large collection of data available to the Advisory Services vendor. Available data can be found at Q: With respect to street lights, poles, etc., would the municipality be in a position to provide an accurate inventory of those assets (at least those owned or controlled by City or SPUC) with specific location and the associated latest inspection reports on their condition or are the Advisors expected to build inventory and go through a physical inspection process? A: The City will provide an inventory of City-owned poles, such as street light poles, traffic signals poles, and outdoor public warning poles. These poles are not suitable for attaching fiber. Q: Has there been any preliminary design work done in conjunction with the BLA Report or other previous studies on which the Advisor can build? A: The BLA and prior fiber-to-the-premises studies assumed network designs in sufficient detail to assess the feasibility and approximate cost of building a network. They are not intended to serve as designs for the deployment of a network. The Advisor may consult the proposed designs. Q: What level of design do you envision would be required for analyzing project design? 10%? 30%? A: The Advisor is not expected to create a design for the implementation of the network. Q: Who would be responsible for determining/approving and finalizing the network design/ architecture or the network specifications, depending on the selected delivery model? 7

8 A: The City is primarily interested in setting specifications for the performance of the network with respect to capacity, affordable service, ubiquitous service and other key factors. The City will evaluate proposed network designs and architecture in relation to these performance specifications. Q: Would there be inputs from the Department of Technology (DT) on network design/architecture or would the Advisor need to make those decisions (aerial vs. underground fiber deployment, make-ready work requirements, number of cabinets, aggregation points, etc.)? A: The Advisor is expected to make performance recommendations and alert DT to network considerations that would compromise performance objectives. This being said, some of the issues raised such as aerial and underground are not discretionary. Homes and business being served by underground utilities will continue to be served by underground utilities. Q: Will the Advisor have access to past cost models and/or detailed output from previous work? A: Yes. All of the output of past cost models will be available to the Advisor. Q: If not, would the new analysis need to be reconciled with any prior work conducted (e.g. CostQuest study)? A: NA. Q: Can you please explain a little more about the expectations regarding the scope, goals and extent of convening forums for industry and public? Specifically: Should the scope for the Advisory Services Project include presentations to local community groups, Board of Supervisors, general public, etc.? Do you anticipate dedicated meetings between the Advisor and key decision makers and those with approval authority? If yes to these questions, how many forums/meetings should we assume for Phases 1 and 2? A: The Advisor should anticipate between 4-6 public presentations to the Board of Supervisors, various City boards and commissions, and citywide public meetings. The Advisor should anticipate between meetings with decision makers. Q: Would you look to the Advisor to have a dedicated public relations (PR) professional working on more day-to-day outreach strategies? Or would the Advisor be expected to liaise with PR consultant hired separately by the City? OR would outreach beyond forums and meetings be beyond the Advisory Services Project Scope of Work? Collaboration with City and Other External Advisors A: No, we do not expect the Advisor to have a dedicated public relations profession to work on day-today outreach strategies. Q: How much access/collaboration can the Advisor expect to have with City staff particularly the City Attorney s office, Capital Planning, Office of Public Finance? A: The City Attorney s office will be available to provide necessary legal advice to the City project team 8

9 in coordination with the Advisor. The Capital Planning and Office of Public Finance staff will be available to provide guidance to the Advisor. Q: Would the Advisor have access to Public Works or other relevant City staff members to work through ROW requirements? A: Public Works staff will be available to explain ROW requirements. Q: Do you expect the Advisor to have legal counsel on the team, assisting the City with contractual and commercial matters? Would the City be contracting counsel to complement the Advisor s services? A: No, the advisor is not expected to have legal counsel on the team. Legal advice will be provided by the City Attorney. The City Attorney will determine what legal services if any are needed from outside counsel. Q: What are the resources that the City could dedicate to this effort to ease and speed up data collection, communication with public or industry parties? What technical information will DT make available to the Advisor to develop cost and schedule proposals? For example, will the City make utility pole data available along with relevant pole attachment data (ownership, fees, approval process, make ready process etc) A: The City will make information available to the extent that it exists and is available. The City is currently developing data, on poles, conduit and other assets of potential use to the Advisor. The City has an active open data program which makes public which includes a wide array of information relevant to this project: With respect to utility poles, the City will share information on ownership, fees, approval process and make ready process administered by the Northern California Joint Pole Association. Q: How accurate and comprehensive is the City's asset inventory / GIS mapping database showing city owned fiber, conduit, poles, facilities and other available assets? If this data is not accurate, should the Advisor perform additional field inventory work as part of Phase I. A: The accuracy and comprehensiveness of the City s asset inventory depends on the asset type. For example, the City has accurate GIS mapping of the City s fiber optic cables, splice and patch locations, but not conduit. (Although there is an ongoing effort to gather this information.) Field inventory will definitely be necessary in any circumstance because City assets are not sufficient to provide service to all homes and businesses. For example, in neighborhoods where all utility facilities are undergrounded, the City does not have an inventory of conduit owned by private electric or communications providers. The Advisor would be expected to conduct field inventory or other research to determine if these assets would be available to the Broadband for San Francisco Project. Q: To what extent will the Advisor be expected to support a public relations campaign if the delivery model requires voter approval? 9

10 A: The Advisor is not expected to support a public relations campaign if the delivery model requires voter approval. Q: Is the City seeking a statistically valid survey during Phase I to determine public perception of the different business models available to deliver the network or better estimate adoption rates. A: The City is not seeking a survey to determine public perception of models. Proposers may suggest a survey to determine adoption rates if they believe this is the best approach. Q: Does the City own all the street light poles? A: The City, through the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission ( SFPUC ) generally owns the streetlight poles in areas where utilities have been undergrounded. In some cases, the SFPUC has attached streetlight to trolley support poles own by San Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency ( SFMTA ) and are jointly administered by the SFPUC and SFMTA. Where utilities are aboveground, the street lights are generally affixed to joint utility poles or PG&E-owned poles. Q: Is the evaluation of the public-private model intended to cover the concessionaire approach only or both the concessionaire and dark fiber solution as defined in the March 2016 BLA report. A: The evaluation of the public-private model is intended to cover both the concessionaire approach and the dark fiber approach. Q: What is the City's expectations on how many forums should be convened during Phase 1? What are the categories of stakeholders the City views as key to this scope and what does the City view as the key objectives for these forums? A: The Advisor should anticipate between 4-6 public presentations to the Board of Supervisors, City boards and commissions, and citywide public meetings. The Advisor should anticipate between meetings with decision makers. Q: Is DT considering project-specific permitting processes to minimize permitting approval timelines? A: No determination has been made at this time about specific permitting process changes. Q: Will DT consolidate the inventory of information for Advisor to identify potential gap areas, or will it be Advisor's responsibility to compile all information required for bidders? A: It will be the Advisor s responsibility to compile any information that would be beneficial for bidders. Q: Does the scope of work "performing approval assessment" include determining if the fiber build out will be a qualifying "project" under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)? A: No. The City Attorney will provide legal advice on any CEQA issues related to the project. Q: Does DT intend to engage separate legal counsel to draft RFQ/RFP documents, and if so is the Advisor expected to manage such counsel? 10

11 A: DT will not engage separate legal services. The City Attorney will determine what legal services if any are needed from outside counsel. The City Attorney will manage legal services provided by such outside counsel. Q: Has DT considered the timeline between completion of Phase I and the go / no-go decision to proceed into Phase II? A: Yes. Q: Please confirm if the City will be seeking binding, fixed price bids from respondents to the RFP, or if contracts will be negotiated more fully in Phase III? A: This is yet-to-be determined. DT expects the Advisor to recommend the cost approach for implementing the Broadband for San Francisco Project. Q: To what extent will the Advisor be expected to support a public relations campaign if the delivery model requires voter approval? A: The Advisor will not be expected to support a public relations campaign if the delivery model requires voter approval. Q: What type of written assurance is anticipated regarding key individuals not being substituted or reassigned without prior consent? Is the intention that this is a key man provision? A: Yes, the intention is that this is a key man provision. If and when substitution of key personnel becomes necessary during the term of the contract, Advisor firm shall replace the key personnel with a person of equivalent qualification. Q: Is DT seeking up to four reference projects per firm? If these projects are up to 1 page each, will they be excluded from the page limit for the section? A: Yes, DT is seeking up to four reference projects per firm that is materially contributing to satisfying the minimum qualifications or performing the scope of work. If the number of firms included in the proposal and the number of references exceed the page limit, they will be excluded from the page limit. Q: Is the Appendix D worksheet excluded from the page limit for the section? A: Yes. Q: Should pending investigation, enforcement, or disciplinary actions of the firm be limited to similar types of engagements? The respondent is a global firm that may be subject to certain of such events in the ordinary course of business. A: It may be limited to all engagements in North America or similar types globally. Q: Is the City open to fixed fee proposals for Phase III in lieu of hourly rates? If so is the City able to provide more detail on the proposed scope of Phase III. A: No, we are not open to a fixed fee proposal. Q: Please confirm that all forms will only need to be included in the proposal and not submitted 11

12 directly to separate agencies A: Yes, all forms will need to be included as part of the proposal and returned electronically to DT. Q: The RFP indicates that the Agreement for Professional Services must be substantially in the form attached to the RFP. Will there be an opportunity for the parties to negotiate this agreement? If so, when does the DT anticipate such negotiations to occur? A: The City s form Agreement for Professional Services contains many provisions that are required by City law, so the final agreement must be substantially in that form. For that reason, DT anticipates only limited negotiations with the highest-ranking proposer. If DT cannot reach an agreement on these terms with the highest-ranking proposer, DT may begin negotiations with the next highest-ranking proposer. We expect these negotiations to occur in the Fall. Q: Please confirm 4.7 of the Standard Terms & Conditions (Liquidated Damages) will not apply to the Advisor A: Section 4.7 will not apply to the Advisor. Q: Please confirm 4.8 of the Standard Terms & Conditions (Bonding Requirements) will not apply to the Advisor. A: Section 4.8 will not apply to the Advisor. Q: May Respondents refer to specific individuals and projects in Appendix D or is the City's preference for the table to be completed as provided? A: Respondents may refer to specific individuals and projects. Q: What is the scope of the optional Value for Money study considered by the City? During which phase of the process would the City anticipate this study occurring? A: The detailed scope of the Value for Money study will be considered in the event we determine there is a need for such a study. We included this in the scope of work in order to keep the study as an option if needed to support the decision making process. 12