Questions from Vendors and Texans Can Academies Answers RFP Code: TC-C2-IC-WAPs-Y2016/17 1. Are you open to a competitor to Cisco/Meraki 2. XXXXXXXX is a Cloud managed solution as well, have you heard about us? 3. Do you have time for a webinar demo to see how XXXXXXXX is a perfect fit for your School? As stated on our Form 470 and in our RPF, we are looking for Meraki or equivalent. "Equivalent" would need to be managed by the Cisco/Meraki cloud interface. Unless your product fits those parameters, the answer to question 1 is No. If that is the case, questions 2 and 3 are moot. I ve downloaded your Form 470 Application Number: 160004181 and would like to get the actual RFP documents associated with your Category 2 requirements. These were not attached to the Form 470. Please check with USAC for the proper procedures for downloading the RFP attachments. They are available on the website to be downloaded. I wanted to confirm three things. Will you be holding a pre-bid conference or a walkthrough of sites? Do you have an RFP published in relation to this Erate bid opportunity? Also, do you know if installation and running cables will be required responses as part of the scope? We do not plan to have a vendor conference or walk-throughs. All of our RFPs are posted on USAC's website, as required beginning this year. Installation is required on some of our RFPs. Since you did not specify which of our needs you are referencing, we cannot be more specific regarding installation. Most of the detailed information on our requirements can be located on Attachment A (Scope of Service) within each RFP. If you have additional questions after examining the RFP(s) and Attachment A form(s), we would be glad to address any questions you send to erate@texanscan.org. I have been told that Texas Can has an RFP out for IP services. Can you tell me how I can obtain a copy? I ve been to your web-site as well as that of Cilpex and I cannot find the RFP on either web-site. Can you assist? We are interested in reviewing to possibly provide a bid for the requested IP services. Beginning this year, USAC is requiring that all RFPs for e-rate bidding be placed on their website. You can find our RFPs by using their new Form 470 search tool. Select School District, the State of Texas and Zip Code 75208 to locate our RFPs. If you have questions about using their search tool or downloading the RFPs, please address them to USAC.
Both 1. Your RFP states: "Caching devices must be able to support 1500 concurrent web users (quantity 1) or 300 concurrent web users (quantity 10)" Question: XXXXXXX can provide a proposal for both a distributed deployment (where caches are deployed at each school site - quantity 10) or a core deployment (where a cache is deployed at you network gateway). Would you prefer to receive a proposal for a core, or distributed cache deployment? 2. In the case of a core cache deployment: what is the total number of student and teacher devices that are connected to the internet concurrently on average, and at peak times? 900 and 1500 3. In the case of a distributed cache deployment: what is the total number of student and teacher devices that are connected to the internet concurrently on average, and at peak times, at each school site? 90-150 4. What is the size of the Internet connection out of the district core? 100mbps currently. Have requested 500mbps via Erate 5. In the case of distributed deployment: What connection speeds do individual schools have? Are they all connected with Gigabit fibre or do some have slow links eg over DSL? If so, what is the range of speeds they have (Mbps)? Each school currently has a 100mbps fiber circuit connecting it to the central datacenter. 6. What plans do you have, if any, to upgrade either of these outlying connections or the core connection, to how much and over what timeframe? We have requested an increase to 200mbps via Erate of 7/1/16. Note: We may at a later time deploy 100mbps Internet circuits at each school and not route them to a central datacenter for Internet. A distributed solution must be able to accommodate this possibility. As per your posted 470 applications. We would like to bid on your Wireless RFP and your Caching RFP, is a site walk through is possible so we may gather all the needed details to provide you with an accurate bid? We have five campuses in the Dallas area, two in Ft. Worth, two in Houston, one in San Antonio and one in Austin. We don't feel a site walk through is feasible. Our website at http://www.texanscan.org/erate/ contains some additional information, including a link to the address of all 11 schools in case that is needed to prepare installation costs for WAPs, switches, or caching servers. You did not mention which RFP concerning wireless has peaked your interest. We are seeking 113 additional Meraki or equivalent access points to accompany the 306 we currently have. In addition, we are considering contracting with someone to manage the existing and new WAPs, using the cloud interface specified in the RFP. We would also be open to a hybrid solution that does not involve our purchasing more WAPs, should that option be offered to us.
I have a few questions in regards to the Proposal TC-C2-IC-SWITCHES-Y2016/17. Vendor SPIN XXXXXXXXX Will solutions with recertified equipment be accepted? Will the district install or vendor? Are vendors allowed to make partial submissions (e.g. if install is required, will submission for products only be accepted)? Since equipment purchased with E-rate funding must be retained and tracked for 5 years, we prefer new equipment. We also need the vendor to provide installation. I am following up with you regarding your E-Rate From 470 filing indicating a need for Wireless Solutions. XXXXXX Wireless offers world class WLAN Solutions that just work. Our patented XXXXXXXX Technology typically allows us to cover a larger area with a fewer number of Access Points while still providing exceptional coverage. I did see that you have yet to file a form 471, understandably, this can be for many reasons but if you are interested in learning more and seeing a Demo of our solutions, please feel free to reach out. Please read the RFP for any of our needs for which you wish to be considered. You can then address to us any specific questions you may have that are not clarified in the RFP. Attachment A in each RFP contains the Scope of Service. You will note from the RFP that all communications should be addressed to erate@texanscan.org rather than an individual. 1. Will you be requiring SFP or SFP+ modules for the switches? a. If Yes, would you provide me with approximate distance running from new switching to termination point? We will not be needing SFPs or SFP+ modules for this request. The switches would be connected to existing switch stacks which are already connected via fiber to a router at each school. The additional switches should be connected via a dedicated stacking cable (short) to the existing switch stack. 2. Will you need full layer 3 (OSPF,BGP, ) services on these switches or will static routes be sufficient? We are running Layer 2 at the switch level. Regarding your erate application for category 2 internal connections. Just some quick questions regarding your current Wireless LAN infrastructure: 1. What are you currently using for wireless and is it working for you? 2. Is this project addressing guest access, BYOD or a 1:1 initiative? 3. Is there a mandatory walk-thru/response date? Can I schedule a webinar demo to showcase how XXXXXXX is a perfect fit for your School? Please contact me to schedule this time.
As you will note by reading our RFPs, we are currently using Meraki WAPs. We have 306 WAPs and are seeking 113 additional WAPs for current campuses, and 30 additional WAPs each for two new campuses. Any WAPs we purchase must be compatible with Meraki Cloud Management. We also posted an RFP for Managed Broadband, which specified that the vendor utilize our current Meraki equipment or provide a hybrid solution using our equipment and vendor-provided equipment. Currently, wireless access is for the company-owned laptops, tablets and cell phones used on premises. There is some limited guest access that does require login. The response date is posted on our website, http://www.texanscan.org/erate. All RFPs have currently been extended to January 3, 2016. There will be no walkthrough. Demonstration can be available for vendors who submit a response to our RFP which meets our needs and merits further examination of the product/services In response to general questions about Hosted VoIP: Let me start with telling you that this RFP was revised. The revision was posted under a new 470 (160007276) and the RFP doc on USAC's website is entitled "RFP TS- Revised Managed VoIP." We are in our third year of hosted VoIP under a contracted E-Rate vendor. This contract expires 6/30/16, so it must be rebid for the start of the 2016/17 year. With the current vendor, they installed T1 lines that are used for the VoIP and all equipment is owned by that vendor. We also lease all phones from them under a separate contract, since phones are not E-Rate eligible. We have experienced periods of phone outage and multiple instances of poor auditory quality and dropped calls. We have 11 current campuses located across the state of Texas, and have two proposed new campuses that we hope will materialize by next school year. A list of those campuses and their addresses is on our website. Each campus has (or will have) a 48-key console for the receptionist, except the Oak Cliff campus which uses two 48-key consoles because our Corporate office is also at that location. There are no courtesy users. We currently have 440 Basic Users and 60 Premium Users, with the premium users providing conference call capability. You will note in the new RFP that we are asking for bids for 500, 550 and 600, with the potential addition of one or two campuses. We currently have 500 DIDs and 1 Toll free number. Campus paging/intercom are handled by other products. Faxes, elevators and alarm systems use POTS lines. As far as long-term plans considering E-Rate reduction for phone services, we still need phone access whether E-Rate pays or not. Because of the high cost of VOIP phones, we are looking for solutions that might make phone purchase optional or at least minimal, ie, for personnel who don't have a smartphone or for conference rooms. I wanted to confirm if the district provide a bit more information to answer the following question: On page 11 of all the RFPs, the district has requested in Table 5.0 detailed project implementation for each project including timeline in accordance with the district timeline. Can you please confirm the district timeline for each of those projects under Form 740 160007884, 160007276 and 160004181 so that we can develop our detailed responses in accordance to that. I assume you are referring to Item #8, Implementation. Note that "if applicable" is included in for that item. Not all RFPs will be implemented as projects.
We will expect all Category 1 RFPs to be implemented by the first day of the 2016/17 E-Rate year or as soon thereafter as possible. For 160004181 and 160007276, we will wait for implementation of Category 2 until funding has been approved. When funding has been approved, we will work with the successful vendor to set up a timeline. For 160007884, we will want for the campus or campuses which definitely will open next year to have implementation of all Category 2 RFPs beginning on the first day of the 2016/17 E-Rate year since those items will be necessary for the school startup, with or without E-Rate funding,. We will work with successful vendor(s) to set up specific timelines as the network infrastructure at each campus is developed. I am sure that some items, such as the Managed VoIP, might be phased in campus by campus. Other items may require after-hours installation to avoid interruption of the educational process during the day. If you wish to address a specific RFP, we can provide a more specific answer. Be sure to include the RFP Code so that we may ensure we are correctly addressing your questions. (re: Managed VoIP) We may present 2 options, reusing existing Mitel instruments and/or with new. Do most or all employees carry school issued cell or mobile devices? I want to make sure you understand that we don't own any of the equipment with our current service provider, either the VoIP infrastructure or handsets. Based on that, I doubt that using existing Mitel equipment would be an option unless the vendor decides to sell the current equipment to us rather than remove it should they not win the upcoming bid. The current contract is our first experience with managed VoIP, so if there is an industry standard for equipment already on premises after a contract ends, we are not familiar with it. Most of the Corporate employees have cell phones. At the campus level, I believe there are a number of employees who don't have cell phones provided by the company. According to our RFP for cell phones, we are requesting service for 9 regular cell phones and 185 smartphones. That is considerably less than the 500 DIDs on the current VoIP contract. I think we're only actually using about 425 of the DIDs, though. That still a difference of more than 200 users. Any options you can offer us that don't involve purchasing handsets will be helpful. 1. Can you indicate how much throughput in Mbps is generated by your students & teachers at each of your 11 school locations? -- Not sure. We are targeting 1Mbps per user as our target per user bandwidth for Internet access. Avg. of 475 users per school 2. Do you expect an increase in the number of devices at any of your schools in the next 2-3 years? If so, by how much? -- (Minimal increase -- 10% or less) 3. At each school location, do you have equipment (Firewall/router/switch) that is capable of redirecting port 80 HTTP traffic? Yes We would appreciate an inventory of current Mitel instruments as well as the leasing company and lease terms. Thank you We currently lease the phones from our hosted VoIP provider, IPro Media. We do not have a purchase clause in our agreement with them; rather, at the end of the contracted period we must return the equipment to them or be billed current list price. We are billed by campus, so I don't have easy access to an inventory. I can tell you that most of our phones are 5320's with the balance of them 5330's.
Since that is the case, I suggest you prepare your submission for the E-Rate eligible services, i.e., the actual hosted VoIP. You can include options for purchase/lease of phones, or we can discuss the phones later since they are not eligible for E-Rate. Could you please help us by answering these questions: - What phone systems do you currently use? Please be aware that we posted an additional 470 with a revised RFP for Hosted VoIP, asking for separate bids for 500, 550, and 600 users. This was because of two potential new campuses. Please submit your bid/proposal for the revised Hosted VoIP RFP rather than the original RFP. We are currently using a hosted VoIP system from IProMedia. They use Mitel equipment and they provide T-1 lines for the service. - How many handsets are you looking to place on your network? We currently have more than 400 handsets that we lease from IProMedia. There would be increased numbers if the Houston and Garland campuses open by next fall. - Of those phones, how many of them are projected to be classroom handsets and how many of them are projected to be administrative handsets? No handsets are in classrooms; all are used by administrative personnel, either corporate or school. - What type of switching infrastructure does the district have? Our switching infrastructure for existing campuses is Enterasys/Extreme Networks. We did not specify manufacturer for switches for the new campuses under construction, which are being solicited under E-Rate for the upcoming year. - Does your switching infrastructure provide POE? All of our switches provide POE. - We provide several different failover options. Does the district prefer to failover existing analog lines (fax/alarm) or to a secondary internet connection? All alarm/fax/elevator phones use POTS lines (or will by 6-30-15), so no failover is needed. We have shared Internet at two locations, so one could be used as failover if our internet is used. - Are you looking for the awarded service provider to provide a dedicated connection for this service? We would definitely consider another dedicated service. - Does the district have an aggregated Wide Area Network? If so, what are the bandwidth of your WAN connections. We do have a WAN. The Data Center is at our Pleasant Grove (PG) campus, and the Corporate Office is at the Oak Cliff (OC) campus. Between those campuses, we have a 1Gbps circuit. All other campuses have a 100 Mbps connection to the Data Center. We are currently seeking under e-rate new circuits for nine of those campuses at 200 Mbps. We have two potential new campuses, and we are seeking 200 Mbps connections for those campuses. We currently have 100 Mbps DIA at both the campus with the Data Center at PG and the campus with the corporate offices at OC. We are seeking DIA at PG at 500 Mbps beginning July 1, 2016. [RE: caching applicances] We still need further details can you please provide the best you can the information below? In order to size an appliance for each of your school locations we need to have a feel for how much traffic in Mbps is generated by students and teachers at each location (in Mbps). Your projected target for bandwidth capacity is useful,
but without an idea of the amount of traffic consumed at each site, it will be difficult to accurately size a scalable caching appliance for each location. Most schools can provide this information by looking at the amount of traffic processed in Mbps by a local switch, router or firewall at each individual school site. Can you please provide the following breakdown: Oak Cliff (OC) Campus Pleasant Grove (PG) Campus Carrollton-Farmers Branch (CFB) Campus Houston Hobby (HH) Campus Ross Avenue (RA) Campus Campus Drive (CD) Campus Austin (AU) Campus Lancaster (LA) Campus San Antonio (SA) Campus Grant East (GE) Campus Houston North (HN) Campus Throughput average (Mbps): I am sorry that we are unable to provide the specific information that you requested. Much of our infrastructure support is contracted out. We currently have two Internet Connections, one at the campus with the Data Center, Pleasant Grove (PG), and one at the campus with the Corporate offices, Oak Cliff (OC), that provide Internet Access for all locations. Much of the internet traffic is from the virtualized environment through the Data Center at PG. We have provided two reports of
traffic at the the PG Firewall for the busiest day since November 1, which was November 18, 2015. The reports show the data by hour and by quarter hour through the firewall at PG on that day. The caching appliance at PG and OC would each need to accommodate the maximum amount of all traffic for the short-term, since those two campuses have the Internet Access for the entire school. We are also seeking DIA at 9 of the 11 campuses (plus the two potential new campuses). If we are able to get these new campus DIAs, then we will phase them in one at a time, with a caching appliance at each campus that would accommodate approximately 10% of the total traffic now handled by the two existing DIA. You might note that we filed a separate 470 for the two potential new campuses, in Houston and Garland, and are requesting caching appliances for those two locations also. I hope this information is helpful.