ADDENDUM #2 TO REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL (RFP) #2252 Institutional Network Service, Data Center Co-location Service, and High-Speed Internet Service

Transcription

1 CITY OF CONCORD, CALIFORNIA March 13, 2013 ADDENDUM #2 TO REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL (RFP) #2252 Institutional Network Service, Data Center Co-location Service, and High-Speed Internet Service NOTICE TO PROPOSERS THIS ADDENDUM TO THE ABOVE RFP HAS BEEN ELECTRONICALLY ISSUED TO POTENTIAL PROPOSERS VIA E- MAIL. IF YOU HAVE REGISTERED WITH US, PLEASE ENSURE THAT AN ACCURATE ADDRESS IS NOTED AND KEPT UPDATED IN OUR VENDOR DATABASE. ALL RFP STATUS AND UPDATES INCLUDING ADDENDUM WILL ALSO BE POSTED ON THE CITY OF CONCORD WEBSITE LOCATED AT IT IS THE PROPOSER S RESPONSIBILITY TO BE INFORMED OF ANY CHANGES, REVISIONS, OR UPDATES BY CONTACTING THE PURCHASING AGENT OR BY GOING TO THE CITY S WEBSITE NOTED ABOVE. The aforementioned bid solicitation document is hereby revised/clarified as provided below: Questions were submitted prior to the deadline for questions (3/5/13) as well as at the Pre-Proposal Conference and the responses are as follows: (All responses are from the City of Concord unless otherwise noted as a response by the City of Walnut Creek. If there is not a response by the specified city, it may not be applicable.) 1) Can you please define the starting bandwidth requirements on a site by site location. Your address sheet indicates a relative utilization rate with Low, Medium and High. What is the bandwidth today and what are your short term starting requirements, mainly for the Low and Medium Utilization sites. Response 1(City of Concord): The minimum specified in the RFP of 1 GBPS is the minimum acceptable for Concord. All Concord I-net sites have 1 GBPS today. Response 1 (City of Walnut Creek): We could utilize a lower bandwidth at the following sites: Minimum 10MBps (these sites have 1 to 2 users): Clay Arts/Ceramics Shed, Borges Ranch, Sugarloaf, Howe Homestead Minimum 50MBps: Larkey Swim Center We would like to leave the rest at 1 GBPS and see how the numbers turn out. Please also refer to Attachments 1, 2, and 3 of this Addendum #2. 2) Do you have CoS requirements for applications such as voice, video or other applications. If so please define requirements. Response 2(City of Concord): The current I-Net supports voice, video, and data any proposal should include any COS / QOS necessary to provide carrier quality voice service, broadcast quality video service and maintain sub-second response times for mission critical business applications accessed by clients anywhere on the I-Net. All services are IP based. The City s telephone system is a CISCO VoIP system and includes telephone, voic , and Unified Communications services. Response 2(Walnut Creek): With our current bandwidth, it has not been necessary to establish CoS Addendum #2 RFP#2252 Page 1 of 4

2 requirements. 3) While the vast majority falls right in line with what we do on a day to day basis, there are a few requirements that we don t fall right in line with, but do have solutions for. Are the requirements set in stone, so to speak, or is there some flexibility? Response 3(Both Cities): The requirements express the desired service levels the specifics of HOW any particular bidder achieves the desired service level are at the bidder s discretion. 4) On Pages (Data Center Co-Location space): a. Item 1b. Please confirm that SAS-70 compliance is a requirement vs. a preference. Response 4a: Minimally SAS-70 compliance / certification will be required by time of contract execution. State Department of Justice and Financial Industry security regulations obligate the City to this. b. Item 1b. - If not SAS-70 compliant, will bids be accepted via the Exception form (Exhibit E)? Response 4b: Compensating control(s) must be defined and must address the same requirements as the SAS-70 standard. Using the Exception form is acceptable. The City retains sole discretion to determine appropriateness of compensating control(s). c. Is a separate caged area required/desired? Response 4c: Required at time of occupation of space. d. Item 3 Are you requesting Three Phase electrical circuits delivered to the Co-Location racks or at the site? Response 4d: To the racks. Note that single phase is acceptable but 3-Phase is preferred see page 29 in the RFP document e. Item 3c Is the 14 days a requirement or a preference? Should non-compliance bids use Exhibit E? Response 4e: Minimum acceptable REQUIREMENT is 5 days, 14 days is preferred. Use Exhibit E to define bidder s capabilities if unable to meet the 14 days specified in the RFP. 5) On Pages (Network Fiber): a. The RFP states Propose 1 of these three options. Will the Cities of Walnut Creek & Concord accept 2 bids, e.g. both a Dark Fiber and Managed Ethernet Solution bid from the same vendor? Response 5a (Both Cities): Yes b. Does the City of Walnut Creek have a preference for either a Dark Fiber or a Managed Ethernet solution? Response 5b: City of Walnut Creek has not established a preference. c. Does the City of Concord have a preference for either a Dark Fiber or Managed Ethernet solution? Response 5c: Dark Fiber d. Can you describe the Network architecture for the City of Walnut Creek? E.g. Is this a hub & spoke arrangement? If so, which site will be the hub? Response 5d (City of Walnut Creek): Currently the network is a star (hub & spoke) topology. The Data Center is the hub. The City of Walnut Creek Data center is located on the 3 rd floor of Walnut Creek City Hall (1666 N Main St, Walnut Creek). e. Can you describe the Network architecture for the City of Concord? E.g. Is this a hub & spoke arrangement? If so, which site will be the hub? Addendum #2 RFP#2252 Page 2 of 4

3 Response 5e: The current network is a Star (hub & spoke) topology. The Data Center is the hub. f. Which sites will require 24 strands for the City of Walnut Creek? Response 5f: This may be dependent on the design submitted. Assuming a star (hub & spoke) topology, the City Hall data center would need sufficient fiber to support connections to each associated site. The smaller sites require 8 strands. g. Which sites will require 24 strands for the City of Concord? Response 5g: Police Department HQ, City Hall, Corporation Yard, Data Center 6) Are there any interconnection between the 2 networks? Response 6: Yes, interconnection is desired between the Concord data center and Walnut Creek City Hall (data center) 7) Will there be a single contract for all 3 pieces or 1 contract for all? Response 7: We may not necessarily have 1 contract. We will determine the number of contracts based on what will make sense for the City. 8) Is every single item in the RFP required? Response 8: Submit your best proposal and we will review accordingly. 9) Do we care what city the co-location is in? Response 9: Currently, the data center is in the City of Concord. We would like it to be in this City but it is not required. Under no circumstance can City data leave California this is a State Department of Justice requirement. 10) Can you clarify regarding bid out at 50 gigs, will it burst to 1 gig or 10 gigs as base rate? Response 10: Burst to 1 gig is good enough for now. You can provide us the 10 gig option. 11) Does the City have a Class C IP V4 block? Response 11: The City of Concord has an IP V6 block. We would love to have Class C, but at the moment, the vendors will need to provide that. 12) Are we looking for quality of service and management of end point switching and related equipment Response 12 (Both Cities): The City anticipates maintaining the edge switches and routers, but would consider other options. 13) Does the City currently have fiber connectivity? Response 13: Yes. (Unfortunately, fiber connectivity is going away which is why we need to have it built again.) 14) When do we plan on awarding a contract? Response 14: We anticipate on awarding a contract around September of ) Are the locations owned by the City and will there be problems if equipment is put on the roof or any issues with roof rights? Response 15 (City of Concord): City of Concord already own rights to all of our locations. Equipment placement, including, but not limited to rooftop placements, must comply with applicable Planning and Design Review standards. Response 15 (City of Walnut Creek): City of Walnut Creek has rights to our locations. Equipment placement, including, but not limited to rooftop placements, must comply with applicable Planning and Design Review standards. 16) Where would you like the internet service to be delivered? Response 16: For the City of Concord, it would be at the co-location facility, where ever that will be. Addendum #2 RFP#2252 Page 3 of 4

4 17) On Page 10, Section N.2., please provide clarification. Response 17 (Both Cities): On Page 10, Section N.2 reads as follows, The City may, at its sole option, terminate any contract that may be awarded as a result of this RFP at the end of any City fiscal year (i.e. each July 1 st through each June 30 th ), for reason of non-appropriation of funds. In such event, the City will give Contractor adequate notice that such function will not be funded for the next fiscal period. In such event, the City will return any associated equipment to the Contractor in good working order, reasonable wear and tear excepted. State law requires a non-appropriation clause. In essence, if the City Council is unable to appropriate funding for the contract during the annual budget process, the City can terminate the contract. Both cities will use good faith efforts to ensure funds are appropriated and avoid termination. Neither city has terminated any past agreement for non-appropriation. 18) Since bandwidth can be expensive as it gets higher, if we bid high due to this, can we provide options for lower bandwidth for lower cost options? Response 18: Yes. 19) Does the City know what our operations load will be? Response 19 (City of Concord): Co-location space will require 24 X 7 X 365 access and all equipment will be fully operational 24 X 7 X 365. Response 19 (Both Cities): The Cities of Concord and Walnut Creek require the network to be operational and utilized 24 x 7 x 365 and require advance notice of any scheduled service interruptions or maintenance windows. The load may vary during the course of the day, but typically law enforcement utilizes bandwidth outside traditional office hours, so expect traffic all hours. The RFP asks vendors to provide information regarding service level commitments and escalation capabilities. This should include after-hours emergency support. 20) How does the City define a local vendor? Response 20: A local vendor is defined as a business with a physical location within the boundaries of the City of Concord and who maintains a current City of Concord business license. (Also explained in Exhibit C-Local Vendor Preference in the RFP) 21) Does the 5% local vendor preference apply to each item or the total of the bid? Response 21 (Both Cities): The 5% local vendor preference shall be applied to a maximum of $100,000 for the total bid, inclusive of all items. (Also described in Exhibit C-Local Vendor Preference in the RFP) 22) If we wanted to negotiate or revise some of the terms and conditions outlined, how do we do that? Response 22: Please refer to Exhibit E of the RFP and information regarding Terms of the Offer on Page 11 in Section II.P. Exhibit E is where you would list requests for clarifications, exceptions and amendments, if any, to the RFP and its exhibits, and submit with your proposal response. Please note that the City is under no obligation to accept any exceptions and such exceptions may be a basis for proposal disqualification. Addendum No. 2 is hereby acknowledged and made part of the solicitation and any agreement documents. By: COMPANY NAME: ADDRESS (Not a P.O. Box): CITY: STATE, ZIP CODE: PHONE NO.: YOUR NAME & TITLE: YOUR SIGNATURE: DATE: Addendum #2 RFP#2252 Page 4 of 4

5 100 BordgesRanch_BandwidthUtilization_1GbLinkToCore BordgesRanch_BandwidthUtilization 50 0 Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2012 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct 2013

6 100 CeramicShop_BandwidthUtilization_1GbLinkToCore CeramicShop_BandwidthUtilization 50 0 Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2012 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun 2013

7 ClarkPool_BandwidthUtilization ClarkPool_BandwidthUtilization_ 1GbLinkTo Sep Oct Nov Dec 2012 Jan Feb Mar Apr 2013