UCAASRFP

Updated termination language (revised 3/7/19)

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.

Termination Language

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.

Updates to RFP Schedule Criteria

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

Vendor Questions

  • The RFP indicates 140 seats, however there is no further breakdown as to user/seat type. I would imagine that there are a number of seats that would be for standard office personnel, front desk personnel, etc., and there would be a certain number of seats for basic functionality such as a lobby phone, common areas, break rooms, etc. Would be able to provide a bit of detail around this so that I can provide a more precise budgetary proposal?
  • As it relates to switches, I see on the RFP that there are 12 locations. We offer Cisco switches in port quantities of 10, 28, and 52. Would you be able to provide a breakdown of rough number of seats/phones per location so that I can most appropriately propose the proper switch sizes?
  • As it relates to QoS, we utilize Edgemarc Session Border Controllers. As a general rule of thumb, any location with 10 or more phones would be recommended to utilize one of these devices. Of course, the final solution would be subject to site surveys and technical discussions. So as to provide a budgetary response, could you share with me how many locations would have 10 or more phones?
  • Do want to see an option for purchasing the phones and installation costs or do you only want a rental option?
  • Do you want new POE switches or will you be using existing
  • How many DID’s do you want?
  • Do you want unlimited LD or if not, do want to pre purchase a certain amount of minutes?
  • Did you have a certain preference of phones and do all of them need to be the same model?
  • Are you interested in 4G back up solution?
  • Do you want any E faxes?
  • Any toll free numbers?
  • How many published numbers do you have?
  • What is the detailed the criteria by which the proposals will be evaluated ?
  • QoS is configured ?
  • Can you provide any detailed requirements on the 140 profiles and call routing requirements ?
  • Voicemail
  • Desktop integration
  • Voicemail to email
  • Call routing
  • Emergency notification if 911 is dialed
  • Phone type - (call appearance buttons ad options)

District Supplied Answers

  • In the interest of parity, I am treating all seats as full service seats. We have a number of seats now that are not fully licensed due to our last phone system implementation being designed as inexpensively as possible. We really want to allow many more of our users full functionality going forward so I want to see proposals as apples-to-apples, so to speak.
  • Our location sizing is actually pretty widely variable but I could provide numbers around that. However, we will be providing our own switches at every location – we are an HP shop across the board and I am no fan of Cisco on the managed switch side of the world – so that particular hardware would not be an expectation for a firm to provide within their scope of work.
  • We have 3 locations that utilize 10 or more phones. One of those 3 is our HQ location which has 48 phones. Every other location is typically 5 or fewer.
  • We are interested in the rental/lease option.
  • We will use existing PoE switches.
  • We will not be adding any more DIDs and we currently have 283.
  • Unlimited LD.
  • Polycom is my preferred manufacturer, for parity purposes the same model would be best for issuing a proposal.
  • No, we are not interested in a backup solution as part of this project.
  • No, we are a fax-free organization.
  • No, we don’t need any toll free numbers.
  • Let’s call it 30 as it is a difficult item for me to track down. It’s certainly no more than that across all of our locations.
  • Evaluation Criteria

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

  • QoS

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.

  • Specific Features

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

Desktop integration

Voicemail to email

Call routing

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.

  • Phone Type

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.

Updated 3.7.19 ApexPRD RFP - UCaaS