Issuing Group
Cloud Computing Update
January 2012
Project by the Numbers

7 vendors invited to participate in the RFP process
(Cisco, Fujitsu, Google, IBM, Merit Network (Zimbra),
Mirapoint, Microsoft)

10 participating Universities - “The Issuing
Group”(Chicago, Columbia, Cornell, Duke, Georgetown,
Iowa, Penn State, Princeton, Stanford, and Virginia)

93 individual participants from The Issuing Group

131 conference calls

292 vendor documents
Timeline
_____________________________________
Actual Percent Timeline
Team Structure and Roles
5%
Draft & Finalize RFP/Model Contract
15%
Vendor Response and Q&A
15%
Vendor Finalist Selection
CIO and Vendor Calls
Contract Negotiations
15%
10%
40%
Contract
Overview
__________________________________
Google Contract Overview

Google has declined to share the “Issuing Group”
contract beyond the original 10 Universities.

Improvements were made to the current Google Edu
contract

Possibility of sharing the contract through a FOIA
(Freedom of Information Act) request if a public school
signs the “Issuing Group” contract.
Microsoft Contract Overview

Contract includes a BAA (Business Associate Agreement)
supporting compliance needs for ePHI

All data to be stored on servers located solely in the US

Negotiated against the Issuing Group Model Contract

Stronger privacy and security language

Updated flexibility on pricing – as of January 2012
Lessons
Learned
__________________________________
Lessons Learned








Process was a “first” for both vendors
Engage the legal and technical teams in reviewing FOIA
(Freedom of Information Act) requests prior to the issuing of
the RFP
Engage Information Security Offices prior to the RFP
Establish timelines and then double
Express willingness to have a longer than normal negotiation
period if the expectation is to make large impactful changes to
a contract
Identify Public vs. Private school requirements
Research how your potential vendor negotiates – e.g., group
vs. individual negotiations
Anticipate the media will find out about the project
Lessons Learned: Accessibility

The project was placed on hold for a period of time due
to Office of Civil Rights investigation at NYU and
Northwestern




Include all regulatory requirements in the RFP and model
contract - the team missed the accessibility requirements
Include University Accessibility team members in the process
Include specific questions in the RFP around web compliance
Request current VPAT and W3C compliance documentation as
part of the RFP
Lessons Learned: NDA

The Issuing Group never signed a vendor NDA, which
allowed the project team to collaborate freely between
team members and legal representatives
Lessons Learned: eRoom

The eRoom was a vital tool in coordinating 7 vendors
and 93 individual University participants

Afforded ability to post documents for both vendors and
University delegates to view

Vendors were able to post questions and receive
responses in one location instead of using email
(The process was not used with the legal teams)
 Accomplishments/Impact
__________________________________
Accomplishments/Impact

Google

Influential in improving two prior versions of Google’s Edu
contract

The Issuing Group contract has a number of improvements
over the current Google Edu contract. Schools outside of the
Issuing Group have already benefited from the new terms.

Additional improvements for the greater Edu community,
especially if a public school signs the contract and it can be
released under FIOA
Accomplishments/Impact

Microsoft

First ever multi – University contract for Microsoft

Partnered with Microsoft to create a solid Business Associate
Agreement (BAA); the BAA is now the company standard

Microsoft used the Issuing Group contract to negotiate from

The Microsoft agreement was shared with all CSG & RUCC
members

Aggressive pricing due to group purchase power
Results
Google
Microsoft
Single Contract
Multi Contract
Microsoft
Project On Hold
CSG/RUCC Interest
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
Questions?
__________________________________
Thank you

Tracy Futhey – Duke

Project Leaders



Donna Tatro – Princeton
Matthew Ricks – Stanford
Legal Leaders


Henry Cuthbert – Duke
Lauren Schoenthaler – Stanford
CIO Panel & Discussion

Tracy Futhey – Vice President for Information Technology
and Chief Information Officer at Duke University

Bill Clebsch - Associate Vice President of IT Services and
Chief Information Officer at Stanford University

James Hilton - Vice President and Chief Information
Officer at the University of Virginia