Termination for Cause, Convenience/Annual Appropriation of Funds: The Agreement may be terminated sooner than the contract term, for cause, upon the following conditions: District notifies Proposer in writing of the alleged defects/cause(s). Proposer shall have fourteen days from the date of the written notice to cure the defect/cause(s) and shall notify District of its proposed action (to be completed within another fourteen days) to cure. If the proposed cure is unacceptable or if the cure period is insufficient for the cure to be adequately completed, District may terminate this Agreement for cause. The Agreement may be terminated sooner than the contract term for the convenience of the District, provided the District first gives the Proposer two (2) months of notice, in writing, of the termination date. If the Agreement is terminated for convenience prior to the expiration of the contract term, such termination shall occur only after Proposer and District agree to a final equipment use of “lease” payment cost which will be determined using the pro rata “lease” value of the equipment as provided in the response to the RFP, based upon the ratio of days left in the Agreement term divided by the total term and paid prior to termination becoming effective.
The Agreement is subject to the annual appropriation of funds by the Board of Directors for the purposes stated in the Agreement. The Board of Directors shall consider budgeting and appropriation of funds necessary for the subsequent fiscal year in good faith, taking into account the overall budget and needs of the District, along with any reserve funds available to be appropriated therefor. If the Agreement is terminated for lack of available funds and appropriation by the Board of Directors, then the Agreement will terminate as of the first day of the fiscal year for which the appropriation was not made, without offset or additional payment required.
As we have received several questions related to the language used under the Termination section of the RFP, we are reaching out to our legal counsel to review the use of the District’s boiler-plate RFP language. Presently, we understand that it may read in a manner which could discourage some eligible vendors from participating in this process. Once we receive updated language that better represents the specific terms of this type of RFP, we will provide that language here. It is not a requirement of this RFP that an agreement include the “14 days out” terminology that is cited within the stock termination language found within the RFP.
The District’s “Cloud-Hosted (UCaaS) VOIP Phone System” RFP dates have been modified to accommodate a longer selection period to accommodate the number of proposals being received. Presently, the schedule appears within the RFP under the Administrative Information section of the document:
Proposals received from interested firms: March 8, 2019
Selection of firms to be interviewed: March 25, 2019
Firms interviewed: March 28-29, 2019
Firm appointed: April 5, 2019
The dates outlined in sections 2, 3 and 4 are being updated to the following dates:
Selection of firms to be interviewed: April 5, 2019
Firms interviewed: April 16-19, 2019
Firm appointed: April 25, 2019
This is the evaluation criteria as seen within the published RFP with some accompanying details to provide better clarification for the items that aren’t self-explanatory;
Responsiveness to this RFP and commitment to providing a solution to meet all the District’s requisite needs for this project – Timeliness of vendor response with an eligible proposal and level of consideration taken in presenting a proposal that accounts for stated needs and size of organization.
Features and services offered with the proposed solution
Ease of Implementation – Data migration services/database building accommodations included with initial setup scope of work. As we are not pursuing a fresh start in re-creating all of our current system database records manually, we are weighing the comprehensive proposed scope of work for implementation pretty heavily along with the dedicated resources that will made available to us to simplify this process from the initial agreement all throughout the Go Live process.
Cost of Proposal (including all relevant fees for full cutover) – Costs of full proposal are, of course, a consideration but also the more granular costs of implementation and testing, individual monthly charges per device, user licenses, add-on pricing for standard features such as auto attendants and call/hunt groups as well as any non-standard reoccurring fees such as overnight shipping fees for replacement devices.
Terms of Service, Support and Maintenance
Relevant Industry Experience and References from Current Clients
In the past couple of years' worth of researching viability, all solutions we've seen have utilized Port 443 as the VOIP communications port. This is also the same port used by all of our cloud based software solutions so we presently do not leverage a QoS configuration as it wouldn't filter very effectively. We leave this rather open ended within the requirements of the RFP as a number of vendors have their own unique approach to managing QoS from the border to the internet be it an EdgeMarc device or another type of border control device to handle end point QoS. That said, we can also provide those devices - if applicable - a designated port on our SD-WAN routers and configure those ports to have highest traffic priority should QoS become an issue. Given the speeds at each location and the very low device count for the non-fiber circuit sites, it's not likely that this will be a significant concern but we are prepared to address this item should it arise.
You listed the following features as potential needs and, yes, these are items that are all standard features based on any of the solutions we have seen in the past. The desktop integration component is included in any offerings where a mobile/companion app is included – a requirement of this RFP’s scope.
Voicemail to email
Emergency notification if 911 is dialed – This one isn’t really a priority for us, E911 is the major consideration for anything emergency related which is an assumed feature.
The standard phone model we are looking to deploy would have the same feature set as a Polycom VVX 411. We aren’t looking to deploy a large number of phones with extra features such as wireless handsets as most of our desktop phone needs are very straight forward. We have very little customization done per user/per phone apart from ring tones, quick dial buttons, conferencing features for some users and status assignments (Busy/Out of Office, etc…) most functions of the latter would be expected to be managed through the companion app, though.
Apex Park and Recreation District © 2019