CARVER COUNTY
Request for Proposal
Data Switches, Installation Services and Ongoing Support
November 21, 2012
CLARIFICATIONS
Please make the following substitution or deletions.
1. Section 2.2 – Delete the word interconnect in parenthesis in the first paragraph.
2. Section 2.2 - Delete requirements m) and n). Interconnect switches are not part of this RFP
procurement.
3. Section 2.12 - Replace the word “Interconnect” with “Hub” in the third paragraph and in item d.
4. Table B - Replace the word “ Interconnect “with “Hub”
5. Table D – Assume a term of two years with one year extension for Ongoing Support cost.
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
1. Q: Will Carver County consider a proposal from Juniper equipment?
A: At this time the County is only interested in receiving bids for equipment from one of the four
manufacturers identified in our RFP.
2. Q: Would it be acceptable to submit a proposal using equipment from Enterasys Networks. Enterasys
meets all technical requirements of the RFP and is in use in many small and large local government
entities across the country?
A: At this time the County is only interested in receiving bids for equipment from one of the four
manufacturers identified in our RFP.
3. Q: Please clarify the interconnect switches on Table B of the pricing sheet. Are Interconnect switches
the same as hub switches. Thus, do Hub switches need to support BGP?
A: Please see Clarifications above. No – Hub switches do not need to support BGP.
4. Q: We would really like to show your County a savings in TCO and respond to this RFP with Dell
PowerConnect and Force 10 as an alternative. Can we please get an addendum added to include these?
A: At this time the County is only interested in receiving bids for equipment from one of the four
manufacturers identified in our RFP.
5. Q: Can you tell me if there is a past contract and if I am able to review it?
A: The Carver County Fiber Project is a new infrastructure project, and as such, has not currently
contracted for equipment in the past.
6. Q: Can the County clarify if the items listed below under Section 2.11 are due as part of the initial RFP
response or are the items listed due as child parts of “Subsection a- Upon Contract award?”
A: Yes, items in Section 2.11 are due as part of the RFP response.
7. Q: Is it possible to quote manufacturers other than those provided?
A: At this time the County is only interested in receiving bids for equipment from one of the four
manufacturers identified in our RFP.
8. Q: If alternates are allowed will there be any restrictions or requirements for qualification prior to bid?
A: Vendor qualifications are listed in Section 1.5 of the RFP.
9. Q: Carver County’s EEO and ADA Policy – is it different from state and federal requirements?
A: Carver County’s EEO and ADA Policy are consistent with all state and federal requirements.
10. Q: Regarding the statement - “It is also agreed that, upon request, Carver County will be furnished all
necessary information and reports to support compliance with such laws.” What information and
reports will be requested by Carver County and when and how often we would be expected to provide
the information?
A: We expect the contractor to comply with all state and federal regulations. The County will not
routinely request this information but the contractor must keep internal compliance data, to the extent
it is mandated by law, so that if requested it can be made available to the County.
11. Q: Can you please confirm that TAA compliant products quality for this proposal under the TA/FAR/Buy
American Act? It is my understanding that they do, however I would like confirmation before we
respond?
A: It is the vendor’s responsibility to verify that the equipment proposed is compliant with NTIA rules or
that it is exempted from the rules.
12. Q: Relating to Alternate B, is ongoing support also desired for the UPS systems?
A: Extended warranty has been requested for UPS. We do not expect UPS’s to require ongoing support.
13. Q: Relating to Alternate B, when referencing that all issues will first be handled by a first level support,
is this a team being alerted to issues by calls to a helpdesk or similar, and not a proactive monitoring
solution that detects issues before and end user reports it?
A: The County anticipates having calls come to it before it requests second level help. It is expected that
the County will have access to network management tool to determine the problem before calling the
vendor for support.
14. Q: Relating to Alternate B, our standard solution is to provide the second level of support, and to also
provide the proactive monitoring to determine issues before they are an end user issue. The customer
is entitled full access to our monitoring solution. We prefer to have our monitoring solution in place
(which can coincide with other customer deployed solutions without issue), since it is extensively
developed, and deeply integrated into our support processes. Does this [meet] an acceptable solution?
A: Table D allows for vendors to propose additional options for ongoing support. You are encouraged to
include the option suggested in Table D.
15. Q: Relating to Alternate B, our standard solution provides not only a second level of support, but also
performing all maintenance, management, and patching. For instance, ensuring regular switch
configuration backup, switch configuration change tracking, and semi-annual switch OS updates. Do you
want any of these activities excluded?
A: Feel free to include this as additional service (as Option 6 in Table D) and list the cost separately.
16. Q: Relating to Alternate B, how long would Carver County like the support agreement to be
included/priced for – 1, 3, 4, 5 year?
A: Please see the Clarification Section.
17. Q: Relating to the UPS requirements, what form factor would the UPS be – tower or rack model?
A: Rack mount.
18. Q: Relating to the UPS requirements, what power is available at the locations – 110 or 208 and what
type of power connector is required – L5, L6, etc?
A: Assume 110 and L5 connectors.
19. Q: Relating to the UPS requirements, have the SNMP/management ports been accounted for in the
switch port density?
A: Yes.
20. Q: Relating to Switch Configuration, there is a reference to an “Interconnect Switch” but there are only
“Access” and “Hub” switch requirements outlined. Can you please clarify what is meant by Interconnect
Switch?
A: Please see the Clarification Section.
21. Q: Relating to Switch Configuration, if Interconnect switches are to be included should they be listed in
the totals at the bottom of the section and what is their requirements – ports, speed, managed, POE,
etc?
A: There are no Interconnect switches – just Access and Hub.
22. Q: Do the Hub Switches require Power over Ethernet ports? The RFP states under Section 2.1.2 Hub
Switches, that the switches optionally support Power over Ethernet on the “Access ports”. Are the “Hub
Switches” considered Access Switches per the RFP?
A: Please see the Clarification Section. Hub switches are not Access switches.
23. Q: I would like some clarification on reference to Access, Hub and Interconnect switches. There are
multiple references to the “interconnect switches” and their capabilities within the RFP but no reference
to quantity for these switches. Are the hub switches different than the Interconnect switches or are
they one in the same? If Interconnect switches are separate from Hub switches is there a quantity that
should be included in the response??
A: Please see the Clarification Section. There are no Interconnect switches – just Access and Hub.
24. Q: Section 2.2 Data Switch Requirements" Section m & n- These sections refer to "Interconnection
Switches", are Interconnect Switches part of this RFP or are these a second name for the "Hub Switches
A: Please see the Clarification Section. There are no Interconnect switches – just Access and Hub.