Q&A for Vendors
|
|
|
| NSHEC ATM Network Q&A for Vendors |
Q. There are twenty-eight sites. Is one more important than another?
A. We are not going to distinguish that one institution is more important than another institution. However, within an institution there may be a site priority.
Q. Which institution goes first?
A. There will be a minimum of five or six sites that get installed in Phase I.
Q. Who is the contract entity?
A. NSHEC is a buying cooperative that pools everything and divides the expenses equally. NSHEC collectively makes the judgement and recommendations regarding contracts, but the formal body that approves contracts and acts as the fiscal agent is the College of Lake County.
Q. Is there any mention of project management?
A. Refer to page 4, section 1.2, paragraph 2 and page 12, section 3.9.
Q. How firm is the requirement for a DS-3 minimum pipe?
A. For the core institutions in the early phases DS-3 (maybe OC-3) can be taken as a consideration, but smaller institutions in later phases may opt for remaining at T-1s.
Q. Which applications need to be considered a priority?
A. The two must-have applications are: Video Conferencing and Internet Services.
However, the proposal must also take into account possible future applications within an individual institution such as virtual LANs and voice applications. The network design should also allow for different applications at different institutions.
Q. Can vendors who are not present at the Q&A conference participate in the project?
A. They cannot serve as a primary vendor, but they may participate on a team as a secondary vendor or subcontractor. On the other hand, vendors attended the Q&A conference may choose to serve as a secondary vendor instead of taking the responsibility of a primary vendor.
Q. How should individual institutional requirements be addressed?
A. Requirements that are above and beyond the needs of NSHEC are not part of the RFP.
However, a particular service or application that is attractive but previously overlooked may be incorporated into the RFP if there is institutional agreement on its desirability.
Q. How should demarcation be addressed?
A. The network manager should have visibility and understanding of how the different nodes function and are configured. Additional equipment that meets specific needs of the institution are under institutional control, not NSHEC’s.
Q. Which should be the sites selected for Phase I?
A. The sites have not yet been selected. Their selection depends on the information discovered by the vendors and the recommendations the vendors make in their proposals.
Q. Are multiple responses acceptable?
A. Any vendor can participate on more than one team and multiple responses from a primary vendor are allowed.
Q. What is the length of contract?
A. We don’t have a firm answer now. We realize that the length of contract affects the cost of the proposal. An annual contract would be too expensive, but a long-term (10-year) contract would be uncomfortable due to the governance dynamics at individual institutions. A three to five year contract seems to make the most sense, but the decision isn’t final.
Q. Is survivability/reliability defined?
A. Yes, refer to page nine, sections 3.4 and 3.5. The percentage availability can be taken as a monthly measurement. If a site goes down, such an event will be defined as the network going down from the perspective of NSHEC.
Q. Have budget issues and commitments been worked out?
A. Yes and no. Institutions have agreed to participate in the process and to proceed with the RFP. Any further decisions will depend on the features, benefits and costs of the proposals. The desire to make this a reality is strong. Readjustments may be necessary to address price issues.
Q. Is there a minimum bandwidth that is required for Internet services?
A. The pipe to the institution is the bandwidth, however, we realize that the presence of non-internet traffic will cut into the bandwidth available for Internet services. The size of the pipe must be selected to allow desired performance in a wide range of traffic scenarios.
Q. How will the voice issue be addressed? Could a list of PBXs be provided?
A. The voice issue is separate from this RFP and it will be up to the individual institutions to pursue that option on their own. The proposal must meet immediate, common needs, but must take into account the future possibilities of various applications.
Q. Are vendors expected to visit each site within the next 30 days?
A. Yes. We expect that vendors will meet with the contacts at each institution to discuss the expectations of each institutions. Contacts will be provided.
Q. Does the decision have to be made by the end of the month?
A. Yes.
Q. Who currently handles the switching for the scheduling equipment?
A. The switching hub is located at the Northwestern Hub downtown. The T-1 lines from each institution connect to the hub (telabs DACS). The control of scheduling is limited to a few key people. Tandberg U.S.A. is capable of conducting remote diagnostics on our sites as well as the current telabs DACS.
Q. Do you see circuits replacing the Tandberg set-up?
A. We would like to replace the T-1 lines with a large pipe and carve off sections of it for video service. How the video sites are connected through this new service is one of the tasks that is before the vendors today. The current video scheduling software may or may not be part of the solution. The current codecs will stay part of the solution and the video conferencing room configuration will stay the same.
Q. Are you currently doing multi-point?
A. Yes, off of the DACS there is a BT-MCU and it is a matter of cross connecting ports connecting to the MCU. That is how the multi-points then occur.
The MCU is staying in place. The DACS may or may not be part of the end solution. The vendor has room for creativity.
Q. How large is the BT-MCU?
A. Video server is an eight port and there is additional capacity (16 ports) on there as well.
Q. Regarding Desktop Video Conferencing, do you want to see any conversion at this point to the 320 or 323?
A. That is not part of this proposal. That is more in the application domain. Once in place there may be continued discussion to move in that direction.
Q. Are you looking at IP based video conferencing?
A. It is too early to determine at this point. Possibilities exist for the future, though.
Q. How will we reach the campuses? Will we be able to utilize what is already available in the campus or will we have to recreate/redrill our own?
A. Each institution is different. That will be determined through site visits.
Q. Can we assume that the demarcation will be in the building or that if the institution is a tenant that they will be responsible to bring it up so that it is accessible?
A. Each institution is different we can’t assume that demarcations will be consistent.
Q. Will e-mail hw/sw need to be addressed?
A. All the institutions already have their own systems.
Q. How will ISP v. NSP be addressed?
A. We prefer to go NSP.
Q. How should the maintenance agreement be handled?
A. We want the philosophy of single point of contact to remain the same, regardless of the number of participants. We are flexible regarding the phone number being changed. The hours of operation will need to be expanded to meet the service growth and expansion. Each institution will have a designated contact in order to avoid miscommunications. Proposals must indicate the demarcation of service responsibility that the team is willing to support. Tests on the video network occur twice a year (beginning of each semester). The proposed network would require that the testing approach be altered in order to address the characteristics of the new design. Equipment maintenance policies may cause confusion due to demarcation issues.
Q. Are there any requirements on Tandberg as to who they partner with?
A. Tandberg will be flexible and open with a partnership.
Q. Is the motivation for maintaining the Tandberg arrangement have to do with keeping contracts in place? ;
A. No. Vendors have the option not to include Tandberg in their proposals, though the likelihood of Tandberg not playing a part in this, due to the fact that they have a working model already set in place, seems rather difficult. But we are not excluding that option.
Q. By looking at the Maintenance Agreement between NSHEC and Tandberg, are there any requirements on the type of charge arrangement?
A. NSHEC has had a good working relationship with Tandberg and the extra fees noted in the Maintenance Agreement were never charged to NSHEC.
Q. In your WAN proposal, are you assuming that there will be a single help desk for core network and video conferences? So if a vendor accepts a call and determines that it is a videoconferencing issue, they in turn can turn it back over to Tandberg.
A. Tandberg could act as a subcontractor of a primary vendor.
Q. Could you describe the group that will evaluate the proposal?
A. The NSHEC Technical Subcommittee will review the categories, and make recommendations to the NSHEC Steering Committee. The final decision will come from the Steering Committee.
Q. Where should we e-mail questions on the RFP?
A. Please submit questions Dr. Patricia Widmayer at the following address: